Trump

South Africa has criticised the US amid reports it could receive white Afrikaners as refugees as early as next week.

A document seen by the BBC’s US partner, CBS, describes the potential resettlement as a “priority” for President Donald Trump’s government, however the timing has not been publicly confirmed by the White House.

In a statement published on Friday, South Africa’s foreign ministry described the purported move as “politically motivated” and designed to undermine South Africa’s “constitutional democracy”.

In February President Trump described Afrikaners as victims of “racial discrimination” in an executive order, opening up the prospect for them to resettle in the US.

The South African authorities said they would not block the departures of those chosen for resettlement, but that the government had sought assurances from its American counterpart that those selected had been fully vetted and did not have pending criminal charges.

South Africa reiterated that allegations of discrimination against the country’s white minority are unfounded, adding that crime statistics do not indicate that any racial group has been targeted in violent crimes on farms.

Some groups representing the rights of white farmers have said they are being deliberately killed because of their race.

A spokesperson for the US state department told the BBC they were interviewing individuals interested in resettling in the US, and prioritising “Afrikaners in South Africa who are victims of unjust racial discrimination”, but would not confirm when the resettlement would begin.

The Trump administration has also accused South Africa of seizing land from white farmers without compensation, something Pretoria has repeatedly denied.

WASHINGTON — President Trump abruptly fired Librarian of Congress Carla Hayden as the White House continues to purge the federal government of those perceived to oppose the president and his agenda.

Hayden was notified in an email late Thursday from the White House’s Presidential Personnel Office, according to an email obtained by the Associated Press. Confirmed by the Senate to the job in 2016, Hayden was the first woman and the first African American to be librarian of Congress.

“Carla,” the email began. “On behalf of President Donald J. Trump, I am writing to inform you that your position as the Librarian of Congress is terminated effective immediately. Thank you for your service.” A spokesperson for the Library of Congress confirmed that the White House told Hayden she was dismissed.

Hayden, whose 10-year term was set to expire next year, had come under backlash from a conservative advocacy group that had vowed to root out those standing in the way of Trump’s agenda. The group, American Accountability Foundation, accused her and other library leaders of promoting children’s books with “radical” content and literary material authored by Trump opponents.

“The current #LibrarianOfCongress Carla Hayden is woke, anti-Trump, and promotes trans-ing kids,” AAF said on its X account earlier Thursday, just hours before the firing was made public. “It’s time to get her OUT and hire a new guy for the job!”

All around the government, Trump has been weeding out officials who he believes don’t align with his agenda, from the Justice Department to the Pentagon and beyond. At times, the firings come after conservative voices single out officials for criticism.

Earlier Thursday, the acting administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency was pushed out one day after he had testified that he did not agree with proposals to dismantle the organization. Trump has suggested that individual states, not FEMA, should take the lead on responding to hurricanes, tornadoes and other crises.

At the Pentagon, more than a half-dozen top general officers have been fired since January, including the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. CQ Brown Jr. The only two women serving as four-star officers, as well as a disproportionate number of other senior female officers, have also been fired.

The unexpected move Thursday against Hayden infuriated congressional Democrats, who initially disclosed the firing.

“Enough is enough,” said Senate Democratic Leader Charles E. Schumer of New York, who called Hayden “a “trailblazer, a scholar, and a public servant of the highest order.”

Connecticut Rep. Rosa DeLauro, the top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, said Hayden was “callously fired” by Trump and demanded an explanation from the administration as to why she was dismissed.

“Hayden has spent her entire career serving people — from helping kids learn to read to protecting some of our nation’s most precious treasures,” said Rep. Joseph Morelle of New York, the top Democrat on the House Administration Committee that oversees the Library.

“She is an American hero,” he said.

The Library of Congress, with its stately buildings across from the U.S. Capitol, holds a vast collection of the nation’s books and history, which it makes available to the public and lawmakers. It houses the papers of nearly two dozen presidents and more than three dozen Supreme Court justices.

It also has collections of rare books, prints and photographs, as well as troves of music and valuable artifacts — like a flute owned by President James Madison, which the singer and rapper Lizzo played in a 2022 performance arranged by Hayden.

The Democratic leaders praised Hayden, who had been the longtime leader of Baltimore’s library system, for a tenure that helped modernize the Library and make it more accessible with initiatives into rural communities and online. She is a graduate of Roosevelt University and the University of Chicago.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) applauded Hayden as “an accomplished, principled and distinguished Librarian of Congress.”

“Donald Trump’s unjust decision to fire Dr. Hayden in an email sent by a random political hack is a disgrace and the latest in his ongoing effort to ban books, whitewash American history and turn back the clock,” Jeffries said.

“The Library of Congress is the People’s Library. There will be accountability for this unprecedented assault on the American way of life sooner rather than later,” he said.

New Mexico Sen. Martin Heinrich, the top Democrat on the Senate panel that oversees funding for the library, said the firing, which he said came at 6:56 p.m., was “taking his assault on America’s libraries to a new level.”

“Dr. Hayden has devoted her career to making reading and the pursuit of knowledge available to everyone,” he said.

Robert Newlen, the principal deputy librarian, said he would serve as acting librarian of Congress “until further instruction” in a separate email seen by the AP.

“I promise to keep everyone informed,” he wrote to colleagues.

Hayden spoke recently of how libraries changed her own life, and opened her to the world.

“Libraries are the great equalizer,” she posted on X during National Library Week last month.

“And when you have a free public library in particular,” she said, it’s an “opportunity center for people all walks of life, and you are giving them the opportunity to make choices on which information, entertainment and inspiration means the most to them.”

Kim, Mascaro and Miller write for the Associated Press.

Whether Project 2025 was President Trump’s plan for his second presidency was a big point of contention during the presidential campaign.

His opponents in the race — first President Biden and then Vice President Kamala Harris — aggressively tried to tie him to the Heritage Foundation’s unpopular conservative playbook, which was unveiled in 2023. Trump vociferously denied it was his plan, and the White House still does.

Now, several months into Trump’s second term, what is clear is that he is working with incredible speed to implement an array of policies that align with those espoused by Project 2025’s conservative authors and contributors, some of whom Trump has appointed to prominent administration posts.

A tracking project claims Trump has already implemented more than 40% of Project 2025’s recommendations.

Here are five areas where the alignment is evident:

Federal bureaucracy

In a Project 2025 chapter on the powers of the executive, Russell Vought — who served as director of the Office of Management and Budget during Trump’s first term — envisioned Trump moving quickly to “break the bureaucracy to the presidential will” by firing huge numbers of career federal employees, installing loyalists in positions of power and taking control of the federal purse strings from Congress.

Vought argued career federal employees with liberal leanings had taken too much power, and the next conservative president should seize that power back.

When Trump was elected, he appointed Vought to again head OMB, and Vought, along with the Elon Musk-led Department of Government Efficiency, swiftly got to work attacking the federal bureaucracy.

The OMB froze trillions of dollars in federal funding allocated by Congress. Vought prompted mass government layoffs by ordering federal agencies to “focus on the maximum elimination of functions that are not statutorily mandated.”

The courts are now hearing multiple challenges to firings, funding cuts and other Trump administration efforts to downsize the federal government.

Immigration

Trump appointed multiple immigration hard-liners with ties to Project 2025 to prominent roles in his administration, including Stephen Miller as his deputy chief of staff for policy and Tom Homan as his “border czar.” They have pushed various policies also espoused by the playbook.

Project 2025 said prioritizing “border security and immigration enforcement, including detention and deportation,” was crucial, called for many more detention beds to be created, and said U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement should rescind policies that barred agents from staging immigration enforcement raids in “sensitive places” such as schools, hospitals and churches.

The Trump administration has ordered the biggest mass deportation program in U.S. history, called for billions to be invested in massive new immigration detention facilities, and promptly did away with ICE policies barring raids in sensitive places. It has also claimed sweeping executive powers to target immigrants in the country illegally, as Project 2025 recommended.

Transgender issues

Project 2025 proposed that all federal regulations that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity be rescinded, that transgender service members be ousted from the military and that gender-affirming care be strictly limited.

It also called for bans on federal funding for gender-affirming care and for “gender ideology” to be removed from all school curricula, suggested transgender athletes were endangering girls’ sports, and called for the total erasure of transgender identities in federal regulations, policies and materials.

Trump has begun implementing all of those policies. His administration announced plans to remove transgender service members, ordered the removal of LGBTQ+ references in agency materials, threatened local schools that allow transgender athletes to compete, threatened hospitals that provide gender-affirming care, and began clawing back federal funding from LGBTQ+ healthcare providers.

Trade

In his chapter on trade, economist Peter Navarro argued the U.S. must expand domestic manufacturing and called on the next president to take a particularly hard line on trade with China.

Promptly after being elected, Trump appointed Navarro as his senior counselor for trade and manufacturing. Within months, he announced sweeping new “reciprocal tariffs” against nations around the globe and even stiffer tariffs on China, suggesting those moves would return manufacturing jobs to the U.S.

The episode sent shock waves through the global economy and has produced rare examples of pushback against Trump’s agenda from Republicans in Congress.

Education

Project 2025 called for dismantling the Department of Education.

The Trump administration has ordered massive layoffs there, which Education Secretary Linda McMahon called the “first step” toward eliminating the agency. It has also sought to rescind hundreds of millions of dollars in education funding and ordered schools nationwide to end “diversity, equity and inclusion,” or DEI, initiatives and support for transgender students.

Project 2025 also called for ending federal funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, accusing both the Public Broadcasting Service and National Public Radio — and even “Sesame Street” — of harboring anti-conservative bias and having little educational value. Trump signed an executive order to cut the funding.

In his Project 2025 chapter on trade, economist Peter Navarro called on the next U.S. president to bring about a domestic manufacturing “renaissance” by adopting reciprocal tariffs against trading partners and taking a particularly hard line on China.

Promptly after being elected, President Trump appointed Navarro as his senior counselor for trade and manufacturing. Within months, he announced sweeping new tariffs largely in line with Navarro’s suggestions.

When the stock market plunged and economists warned of increasing inflation and a potential recession, several of Trump’s other advisors rushed to step in, drive space between him and Navarro and prod the president into hitting pause on much of the plan.

The episode, which sent shock waves through the global economy, illustrated a broader pattern in which the president has rushed to implement unconventional or extreme policies also outlined in Project 2025.

He has done so despite having insisted throughout his 2024 presidential campaign that he wanted nothing to do with the unpopular, ultraconservative playbook, and despite warnings from experts and other liberal critics that such policies were unwise, if not illegal.

During the campaign, Trump said he hadn’t read Project 2025, which was released by the conservative Heritage Foundation in 2023, and didn’t intend to. He also said that some of its recommendations were “absolutely ridiculous and abysmal,” and two of his top campaign advisors — including his current chief of staff, Susie Wiles — said that “Project 2025’s demise would be greatly welcomed.”

Yet just as Project 2025 envisioned, Trump as president has pursued aggressive immigration enforcement, ordered a dramatic downsizing of the federal workforce in favor of loyalists, started dismantling the Department of Education, ordered new restrictions on voting, attempted to seize the power of the federal purse from Congress, set out to defund public media institutions and targeted transgender people with an array of threats, regulations and restrictions.

One prominent community tracking project says Trump has already implemented more than 40% of Project 2025’s recommendations. To help usher in those changes, he has appointed a cadre of Project 2025 contributors to powerful positions in his administration.

Asked about the broad alignment, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt — who once appeared in a Project 2025 training video — suggested it wasn’t worth talking about.

“This is a stupid story to write and nobody cares,” Leavitt said in a statement to The Times. “President Trump makes policy decisions based on the best interests of the American people, period.”

Policy experts and liberal critics of the president disagreed.

They said Trump’s implementation of so many Project 2025 policies has hurt the economy and pushed the world’s most powerful democracy ever closer to an authoritarian, Christian nationalist regime, which is what Project 2025 called for, what made it unpopular and what its critics — and some of its supporters — warned would happen if Trump won.

Maya Wiley, president and chief executive of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, a coalition of hundreds of civil rights organizations, said that Leavitt would suggest that “nobody cares” about Trump’s alignment with Project 2025 precisely because she knows they do care — and that an honest discussion about the overlap could alarm them and harm him politically.

It “matters that there is a plan, that it is an intentional plan, and that it is what Trumpism represents,” Wiley said.

Close policy alignment

In a recent report on Trump’s first 100 days in office, Michael Sozan and Ben Olinsky of the liberal Center for American Progress wrote that Trump has “waged a forceful and well-oiled effort with lightning speed to achieve — and even surpass — the ‘Second American Revolution’ envisioned by the authors of Project 2025.”

Paul Dans led Project 2025 at the Heritage Foundation until he left in July.

(George Walker IV / Associated Press)

Their assessment wasn’t far removed from that of Paul Dans, who led Project 2025 at the Heritage Foundation until his departure in July, when the plan was polling poorly and Trump wanted to distance himself from it.

In an interview with The Times, Dans said that he was “thrilled with the direction President Trump’s gone in the first 100 days,” and that he could not “find fault in anything that’s happened” under the new administration.

Dans said that the question of overlap between Trump’s agenda and Project 2025 was “irrelevant,” and that Trump was “delivering on the promises that he made to the American people.” But he also acknowledged substantial overlap existed, saying the “central tenet” of Project 2025 was “to deconstruct the administrative state,” and “the fact that [Trump] set out in earnest to do precisely that is very reassuring.”

“He’s coming out with a fierce urgency I don’t think we’ve seen in decades of governing,” Dans said.

Jon D. Michaels, a constitutional law professor at UCLA and co-author of a new book on right-wing authoritarianism under Trump, said the influence of Project 2025 and the conservative coordination that went into producing it is clear, especially in “the speed and effectiveness with which the second Trump administration is acting compared to the first.”

“It was very clear there was going to be an infrastructure in place to move from Day One, and that’s playing out,” Michaels said. “Everything is sort of hard-charging.”

One of the most prominent themes of Project 2025 is that the power of the federal government has for too long been held by a “sprawling federal bureaucracy” of liberal underlings and should be seized by the next conservative president. That was most forcefully articulated by the playbook’s principal author, Russell Vought, who served as director of the Office of Management and Budget during Trump’s first term.

Vought envisioned Trump moving quickly to “break the bureaucracy to the presidential will” by firing huge numbers of career federal employees, installing loyalists in positions of power and taking control of the federal purse strings from Congress.

When Trump was elected, he appointed Vought to again head OMB, and Vought, along with the Elon Musk-led Department of Government Efficiency, swiftly got to work. Within days of Trump’s inauguration, the OMB froze trillions of dollars in federal funding allocated by Congress. A month later, Vought prompted mass government layoffs by ordering federal agencies to “focus on the maximum elimination of functions that are not statutorily mandated.”

Immigration is another area where the Trump administration is heavily aligned with Project 2025.

The playbook said prioritizing “border security and immigration enforcement, including detention and deportation,” was crucial; called for many more detention beds to be created; and said U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement should rescind policies that precluded agents from conducting immigration enforcement in “sensitive places” such as schools, hospitals and churches.

The Trump administration has ordered the biggest mass deportation program in U.S. history, called for billions to be invested in massive new immigration detention facilities, and promptly did away with ICE policies barring raids at sensitive places.

In another area of alignment, Project 2025 called for an across-the-board attack on transgender people’s rights, proposing that all federal regulations that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity be rescinded, that transgender service members be ousted from the military and that gender-affirming care be strictly limited.

It called for new bans on federal funding being used for gender-affirming care and for “gender ideology” to be removed from all school curricula, suggested transgender athletes were endangering girls’ sports, and called for the total erasure of transgender people in federal regulations, policies and materials.

Trump set about implementing those policies as soon as he took office.

His administration announced a ban on transgender service members, erased LGBTQ+-related materials across government, threatened local schools that allow transgender athletes to compete, threatened hospitals that provide gender-affirming care, and announced it was clawing back funding from organizations that provide healthcare to the LGBTQ+ community.

Russell Vought heads President Trump’s Office of Management and Budget after serving as the principal author of Project 2025.

(Mark Schiefelbein / Associated Press)

Similarities can also be found in an array of other areas.

Project 2025 called for dismantling the Department of Education; scaling back the U.S. Agency for International Development, which provides aid to impoverished nations around the world; shifting Justice Department resources toward prosecuting voter fraud, despite experts saying it is rare; dismantling “diversity, equity and inclusion” initiatives across government; and stripping federal funding from public media such as the Public Broadcasting Service and National Public Radio.

The Trump administration has set all of those policies in motion.

Momentum and resistance

With Trump in office, Project 2025 is well on its way to being implemented. That has prompted pushback and, in some cases, defeat.

Litigation by California and other states, private individuals and liberal advocacy groups has stopped some of Trump’s Project 2025-aligned policies while the courts consider their legality, and could permanently block them. In multiple cases, judges have found such policies or Trump’s unilateral implementation of them to be unconstitutional or illegal.

Congress, under the control of Republicans loyal to Trump, has shown little appetite to counter the president’s agenda, despite having substantial power to do so. However, their lockstep allegiance has shown some signs of fraying.

Edward Alden, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations who studies trade, said Trump has long been bullish on tariffs and in Navarro found the “one advisor who consistently supports what Trump believes on this stuff.” However, their ideas have been a “disaster” economically, Alden said, and could push more Republicans to challenge the president if the resulting market volatility persists.

“They’re not worried about his authoritarian tendencies. They’re cool with that stuff. But trade, not so much,” he said.

Dans said that most conservatives “are delighted to see the path” Trump is on, and that “RINOs” in Congress — an insult meaning “Republicans in Name Only” — had best get out of his way or risk being voted out by the MAGA base.

The president’s actions so far have been “a knockdown blow to the deep state, but not a knockout blow,” Dans said. “They’re going to get their breath back, and the question is going to be, can these reforms actually take root?”

Meanwhile, liberal activists say they are increasingly working together to resist Trump’s policies. Street protests have been ratcheting up, and civil rights groups are forming new alliances with other institutions under attack from the administration, including universities and law firms.

Wiley, of the Leadership Conference, said maintaining a unified and “very public” front will be essential in holding the line against Trump and Project 2025 into the future — both because “courage is contagious,” and because Project 2025 as a political framework will outlive Trump.

“Is it the president’s plan now? Yes. Was it the president’s plan [during the campaign], even though the president tried to distance himself? Yes. Will this end with Donald Trump’s presidency? No,” Wiley said.

Jenny Pizer, chief legal officer at LGBTQ+ legal advocacy group Lambda Legal, which is suing the administration over its transgender policies, agreed.

Pizer said those policies are the product of years of work by anti-LGBTQ+ and religious groups to convince everyday Americans that queer people represent a threat to their conservative values.

“This is the worldview that they want to impose on all of us, and it’s not new,” she said. “Project 2025 brings together multiple different reactionary themes into one enormous document that, to many of us, is a terrifying picture of a world that we do not want to live in.”

In recent days, Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents raided at least nine restaurants in the nation’s capital, requesting proof that the establishments are not employing people illegally. Washington, D.C., long presented itself as a “sanctuary city,” so the mere fact ICE agents targeted a few businesses there is hardly surprising.

What is perhaps more newsworthy is the boldface names associated with those restaurants: Geoff Tracy, the husband of CBS News anchor and former vice presidential debate co-moderator Norah O’Donnell; former Biden White House Chief of Staff Jeff Zients; and the activist restaurateur José Andrés.

Following the raids, a predictable debate has unfolded: Did the Trump administration politicize law enforcement by siccing ICE agents on the White House’s critics and foes?

Maybe; maybe not. Regardless, and with all due respect: I simply do not care. And I highly suspect tens of millions of other Americans don’t care either. After years of politicized law enforcement, many of us are now sufficiently jaded so as to be well past the point of shock at new examples.

Did the people who are aghast at these ICE raids express similar dismay when, in 2013, Obama-era IRS director Lois Lerner admitted to targeting conservative groups in an attempt to improperly strip them of their tax-exempt status? Did they care when the nuns of the Little Sisters of the Poor sued the Obama administration over contraception coverage?

Did the pearl-clutchers care when the Biden administration sued antiabortion activists for praying outside abortion clinics? Did they care when the same administration threw the book at too many Jan. 6 defendants — whether an organizer or a tourist? Did they care when that administration imprisoned Trump allies Steve Bannon and Peter Navarro for rejecting subpoenas of the made-for-TV Jan. 6 House committee? Above all, did they care when that administration crossed the ultimate Rubicon by prosecuting its preeminent political opponent, the then-former president and leading presidential hopeful?

The answer to all these rhetorical questions is simple: No. Of course they didn’t care. So, you’ll have to spare me for not viewing it as a particularly big deal that a few Washington restaurants had the feds show up to request immigration papers.

In fact, it would be a good thing if the Trump administration sent a message by targeting political enemies.

Not because two wrongs make a right, but because unilateral disarmament in the face of an insatiable foe is a proven strategic failure. People on the right had their turn being targeted under Presidents Biden and Obama, and it would be folly for conservatives to take a high road now that they are in power.

True, a prior generation of Republicans would have been content to morally preen, to rest on their laurels in “principled loserdom.” But those days are over.

Indeed, those days must be over — not merely for the good of the right, but for the good of the country. American law enforcement has become much more politicized in recent decades. That trend began with the Obama administration, and it accelerated under Biden.

Patriotic Americans who care about the rule of law and our constitutional order ought to lament this sordid state of affairs — not just the latest twist in the long-running saga, but the whole sad story. The key question, then, is how to undo the damage and restore left-right prosecutorial and law enforcement relations to the pre-Obama status quo ante.

The only way out is through. Both sides of America’s political divide must come to accept a Cold War-era paradigm of mutually assured destruction. This mindset saved the planet from nuclear holocaust once, and now it can help us return our domestic politics to something resembling normalcy.

But for the left to accept that the current approach ensures mutually assured destruction, they’re going to have to first see the other side bare its fangs a bit. Some noses must be (proverbially) bloodied. And frankly, given the unprecedented magnitude of the past few years’ lawfare campaign against President Trump, sending ICE agents into a few restaurants barely even registers.

I want an end to the “politicized law enforcement” wars. So should you. It is ironic that we need a short-term escalation in order to have a chance of reaching a long-term stasis. But it’s the cold, hard truth.

Josh Hammer’s latest book is “Israel and Civilization: The Fate of the Jewish Nation and the Destiny of the West.” This article was produced in collaboration with Creators Syndicate. @josh_hammer

May 9 (UPI) — President Donald Trump has fired the librarian of Congress, Carla Hayden, attracting swift and staunch condemnation from Democrats.

The Trump administration informed Hayden that she was fired in a two-sentence email on Thursday, a copy of which was obtained by Sen. Martin Heinrich, D-N.M.

“On behalf of President Donald J. Trump, I am writing to inform you that your position as the Librarian of Congress is terminated effective immediately,” Deputy Director of Presidential Personnel Trent Morse wrote in the email.

“Thank you for your service.”

No cause for dismissal was given.

Hayden is the first woman and first Black person to serve as the librarian of Congress, a position she has held since 2016. She was nominated by President Barack Obama and was confirmed by the Senate.

Her surprise dismissal prompted swift condemnation from Democrats who framed it as a continuation of Trump’s attack on the independence of U.S. institutions and reversal of progress the country has achieved over decades.

“Donald Trump’s unjust decision to fire Dr. Hayden in an email sent by a random political hack is a disgrace and the latest in his ongoing effort to ban books, whitewash American history and turn back the clock,” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., said in a statement.

“The Library of Congress is the People’s Library. There will be accountability for this unprecedented assault on the American way of life sooner rather than later.”

Heinrich, ranking member of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on the Legislative Branch, praised Hayden for bringing the Library of Congress to the people through initiatives that reached out to rural communities.

“While President Trump wants to ban books and tell Americans what to read — or not to read at all — Dr. Hayden has devoted her career to making reading and the pursuit of knowledge available to everyone,” he said in a statement.

“Be like Dr. Hayden.”

During his roughly 100 days in office, Trump has used executive powers to take greater control of independent and cultural institutions as well as to attack those that have promoted beliefs that his administration has worked to erase, such as inclusion, diversity and other so-called progressive ideas.

In March, Trump signed an executive order directing the Smithsonian to eliminate “divisive” and anti-American ideology” from its museums, pointing to exhibits that “promoted narratives that portray American and Western values as inherently harmful and oppressive.”

He also named himself chairman of the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, seemingly in opposition to its having hosted performances he disagreed with for promoting so-called woke ideology. The move prompted many performances and performers to cancel shows.

“[Hayden’s] dismissal is not just an affront to her historic service but a direct attack on the independence of one of our most revered institutions,” Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., said in a statement.

“This is yet another example in the disturbing pattern of the President removing dedicated public servants without cause — likely to fill the position with one of his ‘friends’ who is not qualified and does not care about protecting America’s legacy.

“This move undermines the foundational principles of our democracy and erodes public trust in our institutions,” she continued, calling on the Trump administration to provide a transparent explanation for her firing.

May 9 (UPI) — President Donald Trump has appointed former Fox News host and ex-prosecutor Jeanine Pirro as interim U.S. attorney for Washington, D.C.

Trump made the announcement on his social media platform, Truth Social, on Thursday, after withdrawing his original pick for the job due to a lack of congressional support for confirmation.

Pirro continues the trend of Trump, a former TV personality himself, selecting people for his cabinet and other positions from among Fox News personalities and those who pushed his false claims of election fraud.

“Jeanine is incredibly well qualified for this position, and is considered one of the Top District Attorneys in the History of the State of New York,” Trump said in the post, without providing proof.

“She is in a class by herself.”

Trump picked Pirro after abandoning Ed Martin, as it became clear this week he would not have the votes for Senate confirmation.

Martin was a controversial pick for the position, as the only prosecutorial experience he had gained came after Trump named him interim U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia on Jan. 20.

A far-right activist, Martin supported the president’s false claims of voter fraud in the 2020 election who has aligned himself with Jan. 6 defendants, reasons why Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., said he could not support his nomination.

On Friday night, Trump said in a statement that Martin will be named the new director of the Justice Department’s Weaponization Working Group.

“In these highly important roles, Ed will make sure we finally investigate the Weaponization of our Government under the Biden Regime,” Trump said, “and provide much needed Justice for its victims.”

Like Martin, Pirro has been accused of supporting Trump’s claims of election fraud following his 2020 loss to Joe Biden, and was among Fox News hosts named in a lawsuit brought against the broadcaster by Dominion Voting Systems for spreading Trump’s false election denial claims. Fox News and Dominion settled the lawsuit in April 2023, with Fox agreeing to pay the election company $787.5 million.

“Grand slam, home run, hat trick pick,” Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said in a statement Friday.

“She is exactly the right person at the right time to take on this responsibility,” he continued, adding that “This is exactly what is needed to clean up DC.”

Pirro was elected a Westchester County Court judge in 1990 and became the county’s district attorney three years later. In the 2000s, she became a right-wing TV personality, hosting Justice w/ Judge Jeanine from 2011-2021 and The Five from 2021-2022, according to her IMDb page.

“Jeanine Pirro is yet another unqualified TV personality with a history of putting Trump and violent insurrectionists above the rule of law,” the Democratic National Committee said Friday in a statement.

“She’ll be a disaster for public safety and an embarrassment to law enforcement — just like Trump’s last failed pick for the same job.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Both US stock markets and the US dollar rose to their highest levels in a month as risk appetite continued to recover ahead of US–China trade negotiations.

US and Chinese officials are scheduled to meet in Switzerland over the weekend, aiming to de-escalate tensions that may lead to mutual trade embargoes. The Trump administration imposed tariffs of up to 145% on imports from China, while China retaliated with 125% tariffs.

President Trump told reporters that tariffs on China may come down, expressing optimism about progress in the upcoming trade talks. “I think it’s going to be substantive,” Trump said at the White House while announcing a trade agreement with the UK. “I think it’s a very friendly meeting. They look forward to doing it in an elegant way.” When asked whether he would lower tariffs on China, he responded, “It could be. We are going to see. Right now you can’t get any higher. It’s at 145%, so we know it’s coming down. I think we’re going to have a very good relationship.”

US stock markets and the dollar had experienced sharp sell-offs throughout much of April amid growing recession fears. Late last month, however, the US president shifted his stance on China, signalling that tariffs would be reduced “substantially.” Since then, Wall Street and the dollar have reversed course, with investors appearing to reload US assets amid signs of easing trade tensions.

“This country will hit a point that you better go out and buy stock,” Trump said on Thursday, referring to the trade deal with the UK and a recently signed tax bill as potential catalysts for the markets. “This country will hit a point that you better go out and buy stock now.”

Trump’s comments and growing optimism over trade talks have sparked a broad-based risk-on rally in financial markets, particularly in US assets. Equities climbed, the dollar strengthened, oil prices rebounded, Bitcoin surged, while gold retreated.

Stocks rally abroad

US stock markets rose for a second consecutive session on Thursday, with the Dow up 0.62%, the S&P 500 rising 0.58%, and the Nasdaq Composite gaining 1.07%. European equities continued to outperform their US counterparts, with the DAX nearing a record high, up 1.02%, and the Euro Stoxx 600 advancing 1.1%. Meanwhile, futures are pointing to a higher open on both sides of the Atlantic markets.

Asian markets were mixed in Friday’s session as investors remained cautious ahead of the trade talks. As of 5:00 a.m. CEST, Japan’s Nikkei 225 rose 1.32%, the ASX 200 gained 0.41%, while South Korea’s Kospi slipped 0.1% and Hong Kong’s Hang Seng Index declined by 0.15%.

US dollar rebounds sharply

In currency markets, the US dollar index surged by over 1% to above 100 for the first time since 11 April. The dollar’s rebound weighed on other major currencies in the G10 group, particularly the euro. The EUR/USD pair fell to just above 1.12 during Friday’s Asian session, its lowest level in nearly a month, down from a multi-year high above 1.15 in late April. The euro had been seen as a haven asset, having gained around 1,000 points (100 points = 1 US cent) against the dollar since February.

Gold retreats while oil surges

Gold prices declined for a second consecutive day, as easing safe-haven demand pressured the precious metal. Gold futures on COMEX dropped 2.5% on Thursday, with a slight rebound to $3,318 per ounce as of 5:00 a.m. CEST. Spot gold fell 3.6% over the past two sessions to $3,313 per ounce.

In contrast, crude oil prices surged to their highest level in a month. West Texas Intermediate (WTI) futures rose above $60 per barrel by 5:10 a.m. CEST, marking a 3.5% increase since Thursday’s open. Brent futures similarly rallied, climbing above $63 per barrel.

Bitcoin reaches three-month high

Bitcoin jumped as much as 6.3% to trade above $103,000 (€91,770), the highest level since 31 January. Cryptocurrencies, often considered high-risk assets, have demonstrated a strong positive correlation with US technology stocks. Trump’s pro-crypto stance previously lifted Bitcoin reach an all-time high of over $109,000 on 20 January.

President Trump surprised California with a pair of announcements over the weekend to impose tariffs on films produced abroad and to reopen Alcatraz, a San Francisco landmark, as a working prison, all without consultation with state officials.

The White House would not offer details on either plan, perplexing industry executives and local lawmakers who see both as highly impractical, and prompting a series of basic questions that administration officials pressed by The Times were unprepared to answer.

How does Trump’s team plan to collect import duties on a product that amounts to intellectual property? Does the president’s team understand that most Hollywood productions are at least partially filmed overseas? And why is the federal government going to shut down a national historic landmark, reconverting it into a prison in the heart of a city after closing it 60 years ago due to skyrocketing costs?

Yet Trump’s focus on Hollywood, in particular, has gained him praise for drawing national attention to a growing crisis for Los Angeles, which is losing its prized industry at a concerning speed. Film executives aren’t asking whether the president’s intentions are in the right place. They are asking whether his solutions make any sense — or might backfire.

Trump’s move to protect ‘America’s cultural dominance’

Trump’s announcement on film tariffs came after one of his three named ambassadors to Hollywood, Jon Voight, flew to Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida over the weekend to present ideas on how to reverse an exodus of production from Los Angeles — a list that proposed tariffs in only “certain limited circumstances,” according to a statement from Voight’s manager.

A White House official told The Times that “while President Trump regularly corresponds with his Hollywood ambassadors, including Jon Voight, to restore America’s cultural dominance, it was President Trump himself who formulated the idea of using tariffs to Make Hollywood Great Again.”

But the White House could not provide additional details on the plan, which could ultimately hurt the very production companies that Trump and Voight seek to protect.

Actor Jon Voight, shown at President Trump’s Jan. 19 victory rally in Washington, visited the president’s Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida over the weekend.

(Scott Olson / Getty Images)

Hollywood is facing a real crisis over its historic entertainment industry, with production work moving not only overseas but also to competing domestic hubs. Hollywood executives and California leadership, including its Democratic governor, Gavin Newsom, have welcomed presidential attention to the matter, extending offers to collaborate on a solution.

“California built the film industry — and we’re ready to bring even more jobs home,” Newsom wrote on social media this week, proposing a federal tax credit for Hollywood filmmakers to the White House and telling Trump, “Let’s get it done.”

But a Times investigation last month found that Voight and Trump’s other two ambassadors, Mel Gibson and Sylvester Stallone, had barely engaged with industry stakeholders on a working plan before the president made his plans public. The White House has also been limited in its outreach. At least one of the special Hollywood envoys learned of their appointment by tweet, sources said.

Another front in California’s tariff battle

Trump said the film tariffs would be implemented to combat foreign nations attempting to siphon industry dollars from the United States, a practice he characterized as a “national security threat.” But the announcement comes as California is leading a lawsuit against the U.S. administration over the legality of Trump’s use of tariffs in the first place — particularly its national security rationale.

“The president of the United States simply does not have the legal authority, under the Emergency Economic Powers Act, to impose tariffs. Period, full stop,” Newsom said last week.

Even if Trump were to proceed with the plan, his team probably would have to come up with another legal vehicle: A 1988 amendment to the Emergency Economic Powers Act explicitly exempts films, publications and artwork, among other items, from foreign duties.

Meanwhile, all other tariffs currently in place against foreign nations — particularly against China — are beginning to affect American families, including those in California.

Furniture and fast fashion retailers have begun urging customers to make purchases now before imminent increases take effect, raising prices 30% or more.

And prices increased overnight for parents of young children this week. Mattel, the maker of Barbie dolls, expects prices to increase, while the signature stroller from UPPAbaby, listed at $899 on Sunday, cost $1,199 as of Monday.

“All costs are down,” Trump said aboard Air Force One on Sunday evening. “Everything is down, other than the thing you carry the babies around in.”

‘Law and order’ at Alcatraz

Trump’s announcement on Alcatraz came just hours after the 1979 Clint Eastwood film “Escape from Alcatraz” aired on South Florida public television, prompting questions to the president this week about how he came up with the idea.

“Well, I guess I was supposed to be a moviemaker. We’re talking — we started with the moviemaking, it will end,” Trump told reporters on Monday. “I mean, it represents something very strong, very powerful, in terms of law and order. Our country needs law and order. Alcatraz is, I would say, the ultimate, right? Alcatraz — Sing Sing and Alcatraz, the movies.”

“But uh, it’s right now a museum,” he continued. “Believe it or not. Lotta people go there. It housed the most violent criminals in the world, and nobody ever escaped. One person almost got there, but they, as you know the story, they found his clothing rather badly ripped up, and uh, it was a lot of shark bites, lot of problems. Nobody’s ever escaped from Alcatraz, and just represented something strong having to do with law and order. We need law and order in this country. And so we’re going to look at it.”

Trump’s proposal was quickly dismissed by local lawmakers, and drew confusion among tourists at Alcatraz. In order to revoke the site’s status as a national historic landmark, the National Park Service probably would have to conduct an extensive review before the Interior secretary, Doug Burgum, makes a decision on how to proceed.

“Alcatraz closed as a federal penitentiary more than sixty years ago. It is now a very popular national park and major tourist attraction,” Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco), a former speaker of the House, said on X in response to the idea. “The President’s proposal is not a serious one.”

Trump’s plan to revive Alcatraz as a “symbol of law and order” comes as Californians are increasingly losing faith in his adherence to the rule of law.

A new UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies poll co-sponsored by The Times found that 65% of registered voters across the state believe that Trump’s actions have “gone beyond his constitutional authority as president,” including 24% of Republicans and 63% of independents.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: Trump’s call to reopen Alcatraz falls flat with tourists, who ask: Why?
The deep dive: Newsom wants a federal tax credit to save Hollywood. Why that’s a long shot
The L.A. Times Special: Trump’s popularity in a slump in California amid abuse-of-power concerns

More to come,
Michael Wilner

—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

That there’s a spasm of dislike for Trump’s chaotic presidency is not news — new polls show Americans unhappier with this president at 100 days than any of his predecessors. Much of the attention has focused on his rapidly falling numbers with young voters (“Is Gen Z abandoning Trump?” Newsweek asked last week), but we’re seeing signs — in the data and on the streets — of something that may be an even bigger problem for the MAGA world. Older Americans are increasingly repelled by this guy.

Numbers first: If you look at the internals of, say, the most recent Marist poll, he does worst among members of the oldest age cohort: Only 37% of the greatest/silent generation — people in their 80s and 90s — approve of the president’s performance. Baby boomers — those, like us, in our 60s and 70s — aren’t far behind, with only 41% giving him the nod, compared to very nearly half of Gen X.

Meanwhile, anyone who’s taken part in protests against the administration around the nation can testify to the amount of gray hair in the crowd. We’ve marched in New York, New England and California in recent weeks, and large swaths of the crowd definitely qualify for senior discounts at the movies. Mark Engler, co-author of “This Is an Uprising,” about the rise of modern protest movements, wrote to us last week: “Here in Philly, the crowd made me feel like I was on the younger side, an increasingly rare experience now that I’m about to turn 50.”

All of this goes against the common wisdom: You’re supposed to get more conservative as you age, and isn’t Trump supposed to be taking people our age back to our happy youth by making America great again? But we aren’t surprised: We’ve spent the last three years organizing liberal and progressive Americans over the age of 60. They make it clear what’s going on.

Some issues are obvious: As Elon Musk and his minions mess with the Social Security Administration and the White House plans big Medicaid cuts, people of a certain age feel a rare combination of fear and anger. Two-thirds of older Americans rely on Social Security for more than half their income — we spent our entire working lives paying in, on the explicit promise that it would be there for us when we retire. Even those who have savings and investments are watching them tank amid Trump’s tariff chaos: If your 401k drops 10% when you’re 30, you may have a chance to make it back. But if you’re 75?

And it goes deeper than dollars. Older voters watching Musk and Trump’s Cabinet dismantle the federal government understand why those agencies were built in the first place. If you’re 40, the Clean Air Act may seem a little abstract, but that’s because it’s worked so well. If you’re 70 or 80 you remember smog-choked cities and rivers that caught fire, and you have no idea why anyone would want them back.

That sentiment goes for all kinds of things. Lani Ritter-Hall, a board member of our organization, wrote recently of her memories of being a “Polio pioneer” in 1954, lining up for the shots that changed childhood for the better. “I have that special memory of participating in a grand scientific experiment to benefit humanity.” How do you think she feels watching RFK Jr. blather on about vaccines? (We’re old enough to remember Kennedy’s father, by the way, and to mourn how far the apple fell from the tree).

We know from experience why the country had DEI programs, because we remember Jim Crow and its vestiges in segregated schools and neighborhoods. When the government removes lessons about the Tuskegee Airmen from air force training, or purges Jackie Robinson from a Department of Defense website, these are not figures of the impossibly distant past to us; the visceral anger of those whose lives paralleled these people are why the government had to backtrack.

Sometimes even the smallest things seem especially galling. President Trump’s celebration of the idea that henceforth kids would only have two dolls instead of 30 under the Christmas tree may be ridiculous (did anyone ever get 30 dolls for Christmas?) — but you know who really really likes spending their remaining money on toys? Grandparents.

One way of saying this is that the older you are, the longer your past, and so Trump’s assault on normalcy is especially egregious to us — we know he’s behaving in a way that no former president even imagined behaving.

Happily, we vote in higher numbers than any other age group, and we’ve got a longer future as activists than the president and his allies might imagine. If you turn 60 this year, chances are you’ll live another quarter century. Oh, and women — who dislike the president in larger numbers than men — will live longer still.

So expect another couple of decades of us causing good trouble, with all the skills and connections we’ve built over a lifetime. Trump is turning out to be our nightmare, and we’re more than willing to be his.

Akaya Windwood is a senior advisor at Third Act, which organizes older Americans for climate action and democracy protection. Bill McKibben is a founder of the group.

How the first American pope will interact with the president of his homeland remains to be seen, but a few posts on social media might provide a clue.

Cardinal Robert Prevost, now Pope Leo XIV, is also known on the social media site X as @drprevost, where he has occasionally weighed in with reposts on issues of faith and politics — including Trump administration comments or actions.

In February he shared articles that took issue with a comment by Vice President JD Vance, who converted to Catholicism as an adult and met on Easter Sunday with Pope Francis, who died the next day.

Vance’s visit came after the pope had written a letter to U.S. bishops in February, detailing his concerns over the Trump administration’s plans for mass deportations.

The pope underscored his support for “migrant and refugee brothers and sisters” in the letter: “Christians know very well that it is only by affirming the infinite dignity of all that our own identity as persons and as communities reaches its maturity. Christian love is not a concentric expansion of interests that little by little extend to other persons and groups.”

On Feb. 12, Prevost reposted an article from the Catholic publication America magazine saying the pope’s letter served as a rebuke of Vance’s comments in a Jan. 29 Fox News interview “that you love your family and then you love your neighbor, and then you love your community, and then you love your fellow citizens, and then after that, prioritize the rest of the world.”

Prevost reposted an article in a similar vein on Feb. 3 from the National Catholic Reporter headlined “JD Vance is wrong: Jesus doesn’t ask us to rank our love for others.”

Reposts on social media do not necessarily signal an endorsement of their viewpoints.

In April, the new pope reposted of a comment from writer Rocco Palmo, who questioned Trump and El Salvador President Nayib Bukele’s meeting in the Oval Office. The presidents met days after the U.S. wrongly deported a Salvadoran man residing in Maryland, Kilmar Abrego Garcia, and declined to bring him back, despite an order from the Supreme Court that the U.S. facilitate his return.

Palmo’s post quoted an article written by Washington, D.C., Auxiliary Bishop Evelio Menjivar: “Do you not see the suffering? Is your conscience not disturbed? How can you stay quiet?”

In 2018, when news of immigrant children being separated from their parents at the border reached a fever pitch during Trump’s first term, Prevost retweeted a post from the archbishop of Chicago that said: “There is nothing remotely Christian, American, or morally defensible about a policy that takes children away from their parents and warehouses them in cages. This is being carried out in our name and the shame is on us all.”

Trump on Thursday praised the news about Prevost. “Congratulations to Cardinal Robert Francis Prevost, who was just named Pope. It is such an honor to realize that he is the first American Pope,” the president wrote on X. “What excitement, and what a Great Honor for our Country. I look forward to meeting Pope Leo XIV. It will be a very meaningful moment!”

The liberal advocacy group Occupy Democrats, in a statement on X, suggested Trump’s praise would be fleeting: “Once [President] Trump gets a better sense of Pope Leo XIV’s beliefs — namely that Christians are called to love and care for all of the people of the world, not just white conservatives — the president will likely be singing a very different tune. If and when that attack comes, we will proudly stand with Pope Leo’s love and kindness against Trump’s hatred and cruelty.”

The announcement of Prevost as the first American to be named pope comes at a tense time for European-American relations, as the Trump administration is moving to isolate the United States and, in some cases, antagonize its traditional allies.

European nations are still navigating choppy economic waters after Trump issued sweeping tariffs last month against all countries. The papal decision Thursday coincided with the White House’s announcement of its first trade agreement struck with a European nation, the United Kingdom. Several other European nations are still waiting their turn to negotiate with Trump over lowering the tariffs.

While adjusting to rapid economic changes, European leaders are also still reeling from when Vance gave them a stern rebuke at the Munich security conference in February, when he warned against overregulation and advocated listening to all corners of the political spectrum — including Germany’s far-right party.

The papal announcement came days after the White House posted on its social media an AI-generated photo of Trump as pope.

May 8 (UPI) — The Trump administration on Thursday asked the Supreme Court to rule on whether or not it can end temporary protected status for more than 500,000 people from Haiti, Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela.

The Biden administration granted temporary protected status for 532,000 people from those nations, which gives them the ability to work and live in the United States while they have protected status, NBC News reported.

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem wants to end their temporary protected status, which lasts for up to two years, but a lower court ruling blocked that effort.

U.S. District of Massachusetts Judge Indira Talwani ruled the Trump administration can’t arbitrarily remove the protected status and instead must address each individual’s respective case before ending TPS and undertaking deportations.

Solicitor General John Sauer said Talwani “nullified one of the administration’s most consequential immigration policy decisions” and wants the Supreme Court to resolve the matter.

The Supreme Court has already received eight emergency requests filed by the Trump administration through March 28.

Many more cases are headed to the Supreme Court, which could swamp it with legal filings.

Federal district court judges have blocked Trump administration policies at least 17 times during President Donald Trump‘s first 100 days in office.

Many of those rulings have been overturned by appellate and Supreme Court rulings, but some also have been upheld.

Shortly after being sworn in as president on Jan. 20, Trump signed several executive orders, including ending TPS status for many.

President Joe Biden, days before leaving office, extended TPS protections for many people from Venezuela, Haiti, Venezuela, and other nations.

Trump ordered an end to their TPS status to undertake mass deportations of those who do not self-deport.

President Trump’s 2026 “skinny budget” is out, and at first glance it gives small-government advocates reason to cheer. It proposes deep cuts to domestic agencies, calls for eliminating redundant programs and gestures toward reviving federalism by shifting power and responsibility back to the states. It promises to slash overreaching “woke” initiatives, end international handouts and abolish bureaucracies that have outlived their usefulness.

But this budget is more rhetorical than revolutionary. As impressive as Trump’s envisioned cuts are — $163 billion worth — they lose luster because the version of the budget being considered in Congress also calls for increases to defense and border security spending, as well as the extension of the 2017 tax cuts. And for all its fiery declarations, the budget fails to truly confront the drivers of our fiscal crisis.

The budget does, thankfully, enshrine the Department of Government Efficiency’s acknowledgment that federal sprawl has become unmanageable. It proposes defunding environmental-justice programs, trimming National Institute of Health and National Science Foundation budgets, slashing the Department of Education and eliminating corporate welfare masquerading as climate policy.

It also rightly calls for cutting the National Endowments for the Arts and the Humanities — two anachronisms with no constitutional justification. Art and education don’t need federal management; they need freedom.

The budget retreats from Washington’s micromanagement of local affairs. Education grants, housing subsidies and green-energy projects are best cut and handled by state governments or the private sector. One-size-fits-all federal fixes for everything from school lunches to water systems have failed. Devolving authority isn’t just constitutional; it’s practical.

But these trims are wrapped in a document that nevertheless sustains a bloated government. Even with the reductions, 2026 discretionary spending would remain essentially unchanged at $1.6 trillion. In some respects, the budget enshrines Biden-era spending.

Then there’s defense. For all the “America First” rhetoric about maintaining a domestic focus, Trump’s budget does nothing to rein in the Pentagon’s fiscal free-for-all aimed at projecting power around the world. Quite the opposite: It proposes a 13% increase, pushing base defense spending past $1 trillion, including $892.6 billion in discretionary spending supplemented by $119.3 billion in mandatory spending and an additional $150 billion to be passed through Congress’ reconciliation process.

The Pentagon remains the largest federal bureaucracy and among the least accountable. It hasn’t passed a full audit since 2018, yet it gets a raise. If “peace through strength” means blank checks for defense contractors and redundant weapons systems, we need to rethink our definition of strength.

Consider the new F-47 fighter jet included in this budget. As Jack Nicastro notes in Reason magazine, this aircraft — billed as the most advanced ever built — is being developed to replace the F-35, which has been a taxpayer-funded boondoggle. So far, the F-35 has cost taxpayers more than $400 billion, far beyond the initial projected cost, and is expected to total $2 trillion over its lifespan. It’s suffered from technical failures (including at some point having problems flying in the rain) and some doubt it will ever be fully functional.

Considering the government incentives that gave us the F-35 mess still exist and given that aerial combat is shifting toward automated or remotely piloted systems, why would we believe our money will be better spent on the F-47?

Trump’s budget also boosts Homeland Security spending, propping up another sprawling bureaucracy. The president’s high-profile and problematic approach to deportation, while politically popular with his constituency, costs a lot of money. As the Cato Institute’s David Bier notes, indiscriminate deportations risk shrinking the workforce, reducing tax revenue and undercutting economic growth — all while ignoring the merit-based immigration reforms Trump claims to support.

Finally, there’s the ever-present elephant in the room: entitlements. Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid make up nearly 60% of spending and are the main drivers of our debt. Yet they are mostly untouched in the current fiscal sketch. The administration promises a more complete plan later to show where the savings would be found, but we’ve heard that before — and House Speaker Mike Johnson said on Tuesday that Republicans would block some of the most effective approaches to cutting Medicaid. But the math is straightforward. Without serious entitlement reform, no discretionary spending cuts can avert a debt crisis.

The bipartisan failure to govern responsibly isn’t just a policy lapse; it’s a moral one. Deficit spending and the burden of debt repayment crowds out private investment, fuels inflation and burdens future generations with obligations they have no say over. The U.S. is on track to exceed its World War II-era debt record by 2029. If this budget is truly the plan to reverse course, we’re in trouble.

Yes, the new Trump budget has bright spots, but those gains are neutralized by massive defense spending, costly immigration priorities and persistent gimmicks. At best, it maintains a flawed status quo. We don’t need more of the same; we need evidence of a serious turnaround. Until that happens, we have little choice but to assume that Trump’s budget is another big-government blueprint in small-government clothing.

Veronique de Rugy is a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. This article was produced in collaboration with Creators Syndicate.

Student protest leader Mohsen Mahdawi has appeared at the Vermont state house to help launch a legal defence fund to help immigrants like himself who are facing deportation hearings.

His appearance on Thursday comes nearly a week after Mahdawi himself was released from immigration detention, after spending nearly 16 days in custody for his pro-Palestinian advocacy.

The administration of President Donald Trump has sought to deport Mahdawi and other student activists for their demonstrations, citing a Cold War-era law that allows the removal of foreign nationals deemed to have adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States.

Though released on bail, Mahdawi continues to face deportation proceedings. He reflected on his time behind bars at a news conference where he and state officials announced the Vermont Immigration Legal Defense Fund.

“ I was unjustly kidnapped or detained, if you want to go by the legal term,” Mahdawi said with a wry smile.

“And without the support and the love that I received from the people of Vermont – Vermonters and the representatives of the people in Vermont – I may not have been here today among you.”

Mahdawi entered the national spotlight as a leader in the student protests at Columbia University, an Ivy League school in New York City that has been at the forefront of pro-Palestinian advocacy.

A legal permanent resident of the US, Mahdawi himself is Palestinian and grew up in the Far’a refugee camp in the occupied West Bank. He has publicly described the oppression he said he experienced there, including the deaths of family members and friends at the hands of the Israeli military.

Since Israel launched its war in Gaza on October 7, 2023, Mahdawi has been outspoken in his opposition to the military campaign.

As an undergraduate at Columbia, he helped found student groups like Dar: The Palestinian Student Society and Columbia University Apartheid Divest. The latter has taken a lead role in protesting ties between the school and organisations involved with Israel and its military activities.

But President Trump has described such protests as “illegal” and pledged to crack down on non-citizen participants.

On March 8, Mahdawi’s colleague at Dar, Mahmoud Khalil, was the first student protester to be taken into custody for his role in the nationwide student protest movement. Others have since been detained, including Tufts University doctoral student Rumeysa Ozturk, who supporters say did little more than write an op-ed about the war in Gaza.

Just over a month later, on April 14, Mahdawi arrived at an appointment in Colchester, Vermont, ostensibly for his US citizenship application. Immigration officers, however, were waiting on site to arrest him, and he was led away in handcuffs.

Mahdawi was accused of no crime. The Trump administration, however, has accused him of harassing Jewish students and leading “pro-Hamas protests”, though it has not offered evidence to support those allegations.

“His rhetoric on the war in Israel proves his terrorist sympathies,” a recent document from the Department of Homeland Security said.

Mahdawi’s detention galvanised Vermont politicians on both sides of the political spectrum. Governor Phil Scott, a Republican, called on the federal government to release any evidence it had that Mahdawi was a threat to national security and denounced the surreptitious manner of his arrest.

“What cannot be justified is how this action was undertaken. Law enforcement officers in this country should not operate in the shadows or hide behind masks,” Scott wrote in a press release.

“The power of the executive branch of the federal government is immense, but it is not infinite, and it is not absolute.”

Meanwhile, Senator Peter Welch, a Democrat, visited Mahdawi behind bars at Vermont’s Northwest State Correctional Facility in an effort to raise awareness about his case.

Ultimately, on April 30, a federal district court deemed that Mahdawi was no flight risk and released him on bail, warning that the government’s actions could be interpreted as an attempt to “shut down debate”.

In his public appearance on Thursday, Mahdawi thanked his fellow Vermonters for showing him support and called on the state to act as an example to others.

“Home is where you feel safe and loved. And those who surround you, they are your people, and you are my people,” he told the crowd.

“This is a message of hope and light that our humanity is much larger than what divide us. Our humanity is much larger than unjust laws. Our humanity is much larger than being Democrat or Republican, Black or white, in a city or in rural area.”

Mahdawi also described how, when he was in detention, he saw an undocumented farm worker praying on his knees each night before going to sleep.

“ I think his prayers have been answered today by this initiative,” Mahdawi said of the legal defence fund.

The fund’s organisers said they hope to raise $1m to “build a lasting safety net” for immigrant families in Vermont. That sum, they said, would fund training and hiring legal staff to respond to what they described as an immigration “crisis”.

“Vermont is going to take action to ensure no one faces deportation, detention or family separation alone and unrepresented,” said State Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale. “This will be embedded in our civic infrastructure in a way we have not achieved before and we hope will have long-term benefits beyond this immediate crisis.”

Vermont State Treasurer Mike Pieciak added that the fund would ensure justice is not solely reserved for those who can afford it.

“This effort is not about politics. This effort is about principle,” he said. “The fundamental right to due process means very little if somebody cannot access legal representation, especially when they’re navigating a system as complex and as high stakes as the US immigration law.”

I have just one thing to say about President Trump’s proposal to reopen Alcatraz as a prison for ruthless offenders.

What took you so long?

The “Rock,” as it has sometime been referred to, sits uselessly in the middle of the San Francisco Bay, criminally underutilized as a tourist destination. I’ve been there, and the beauty of the location is that back when cons tried to go over the wall, sharks were on duty 24/7, working as unpaid prison guards.

Steve Lopez

Steve Lopez is a California native who has been a Los Angeles Times columnist since 2001. He has won more than a dozen national journalism awards and is a four-time Pulitzer finalist.

As Trump said, one guy tried to escape many years ago, and “they found his clothing, rather badly ripped up. It was a lot of shark bites, lot of problems.”

Speaking of problems, critics who think this is a nutty idea say it would cost a fortune to rebuild the run-down property, which once housed the likes of Al Capone and George “Machine Gun” Kelly but has been shuttered since 1963. A former Alcatraz tour guide said there’s no running water, no sanitation and no heat.

Yes, but it’s a prison, not a spa. A “symbol of law and order,” in the words of Trump, who should know. After all, he’s a convicted felon.

Although I think Trump is onto something here, my one quibble is that he’s not thinking grandly enough. California has a lot of underutilized resources, so let’s open our minds to the possibilities.

What if the Great America theme park was recast as Make America Great Again? Kids would love the RFK Jr. Fluoride-Free Water Slide.

(Summer Lin / Los Angeles Times)

Less than an hour south of Alcatraz, in Santa Clara, an amusement park called Great America has been tanking for decades, and the property was just sold to a developer in what could be the beginning of the end for the once-thriving attraction.

But hold everything. I have an idea.

How about changing the name from Great America to Make America Great Again?

Kids will love the RFK Jr. Fluoride-Free Water Slide. Step right up to the Gavin Newsom dunk tank, and climb aboard the high-speed ICE Train to Deportation Station.

I also have an idea for the nearby Oakland Coliseum, which has been rudely abandoned by both the football Raiders and the baseball A’s.

I grew up in that stadium and can tell you that Raider fans, in particular, were not a timid lot. The word “rabid” may be a stretch, but let’s just say they expressed themselves with little or no inhibition, much like the crew that invaded and ransacked the U.S. Capitol while a joint session of Congress had the audacity to begin formalizing the victory of Joe Biden

That gang of patriots has been pardoned by President Trump, but I don’t know if they’ve found work yet.

So here’s the pitch:

What self-respecting, MAGA-hat-wearing Trump fanatic wouldn’t pay good money to watch live performances by antler-wearing, U.S. flag-waving, pardoned revolutionaries at the rebranded January 6 Coliseum: Where Medieval Times Meets Modern Politics?

They could go full gladiator to the cheers of the crowd. Give them ropes and muskets, dress them in skins and watch them scale a replica of the Capitol, smash windows, hunt cowering politicians and attack security forces like the heroes we know them to be.

Perhaps Hearst Castle could become the Western White House.

(Gemma Calilong)

Some of these proposals could be difficult to execute, I’ll admit, but not if another California landmark is put to better use:

Let’s turn Hearst Castle into the Western White House.

The onetime lair of newspaper tycoon William Randolph Hearst is currently a Central Coast state park, but, if you recall, Trump wrote a little book called “The Art of the Deal.” All he has to do is call Gov. Newsom and say hey, buddy, how badly would you like to have more wildfire relief funds for Altadena and Pacific Palisades?

Trump sons Eric and Donald Jr. have been gallivanting around the world, pitching a billion-dollar hotel deal in Dubai, a residential tower in Saudi Arabia and a golf course and villa in Qatar, to which I say, “Well done, boys.” But after so many years of public service, don’t you deserve to live in a castle?

Once they’re ensconced in San Simeon’s 115-room Casa Grande, the Trump brothers could make Dad proud by dismantling the state’s pesky coastal commission, expanding offshore drilling and bringing a touch of the Atlantic City experience to the West Coast.

Big Sur is OK, but I can’t think of a single hotel there with either a casino or a prime rib buffet.

Imagine a Mar-a-Lago Monterey in California’s near future.

And how about a 60-story Trump Tower Torrance, with a rooftop driving range and golden beach umbrellas.

The Western White House could also run interference for SpaceX founder Elon Musk, whose attempts to shoot off more rockets at Vandenberg Space Force Base have been stymied by regulators at the aforementioned coastal commission.

I say the more moonshots the better, and I’m talking about one-way trips. Load up those rockets with political enemies, lying news media, the bad hombres and lunatic judges. You can add biomedical researchers and climate scientists to the manifest too, because they’re going to be out of work anyway.

I’m just spitballing here, but I think the Queen Mary could easily be repurposed as a floating prison, to handle overflow from Alcatraz.

L.A.’s Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels can be a Vatican satellite when Trump becomes pope.

With his crypto wealth growing by billions in recent months, Trump could take over Crypto.com Arena in downtown Los Angeles and turn it into a personal piggy bank.

Rather than hosting a royal Sunday brunch, perhaps the Queen Mary could be repurposed as a floating prison — handling overflow from Alcatraz.

(Jay L. Clendenin / Los Angeles Times)

And thanks to tariffs, there could be enough room in all of the empty cargo containers at the ports of L.A. and Long Beach to eliminate homelessness overnight.

All that can stand in the way of making America great again is a lack of imagination, so feel free to send me your own ideas about how to make better use of existing resources. But first, let me share one more of mine.

From the banks of Alcatraz, you can almost toss a frisbee to nearby Angel Island, which is also vastly underutilized. I’ve been there, and it’s a perfectly lovely state park with stunning 360-degree views. But do you know what it used to be used for?

In the first half of the last century, hundreds of thousands of immigrants were processed, interrogated and detained on the island. And the barracks are still there.

What are we waiting for?

[email protected]

BRUSSELS — The European Union published on Thursday a list of U.S. imports that it would target with retaliatory duties if no solution is found to end President Trump’s tariff war, which could include aircraft maker Boeing.

At the same time, the EU’s executive branch, the European Commission, said that it would begin legal action at the World Trade Organization over the “reciprocal tariffs” that Trump imposed on countries around the world a month ago.

“The EU remains fully committed to finding negotiated outcomes with the U.S.,” commission President Ursula von der Leyen said. “At the same time, we continue preparing for all possibilities.”

The commission manages trade deals and disputes on behalf of the 27 EU countries.

In early April, Trump imposed a 20% levy on goods from the EU as part of his tariff onslaught against global trading partners. A week later he paused them for 90 days to give countries a chance to negotiate solutions to U.S. trade concerns.

A blanket 10% tariff still applies to EU imports.

The commission drew up countermeasures to target 20.9 billion euros ($23.6 billion) of U.S. goods, roughly the equivalent of what Trump would be hitting in Europe. But it also paused them for 90 days to give negotiations a chance.

The bloc’s top trade official has shuttled between Brussels and Washington trying to find a solution, but with little to show, the commission has made public a list of American imports for possible targeting worth 95 billion euros ($107 billion).

The list is broken down into sectors and broad categories of products rather than brand names. It contains 10.5 billion euros ($11.9 billion) worth of aircraft, 10.3 billion euros ($11.6 billion) in vehicle parts and 2 billion euros ($2.3 billion) in vehicles.

Around 1.3 billion euros ($1.5 billion) in imports of U.S. wine, beer and spirits could also be hit. European wine producers have been deeply concerned that Trump’s tariffs would deal a severe blow to their sector, which relies on the U.S. as its top market.

Interested companies and parties are being given until June 10 to provide feedback, before the commission decides on the next steps. “Boeing is very welcome to make comments on this list,” a commission official said, briefing reporters on the list and the rationale for the EU’s approach.

In parallel, the commission said that it would be taking legal action at world trade’s governing body, and would soon request consultations with the United States to try to resolve the issue, which must take place within two months.

It said that this action would focus on Trump’s “universal” reciprocal tariffs, and duties on cars and car parts. “It is the unequivocal view of the EU that these tariffs blatantly violate fundamental WTO rules,” a statement said.

The commission estimates that 379 billion euros ($428 billion) of EU exports to the U.S. have been hit by new tariffs, including those on pause until mid-July, since Trump took office. It said they are already “raising costs for business, stifling growth, fueling inflation and heightening economic uncertainty.”

Cook writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — A trade deal with the United Kingdom announced by the White House on Thursday marked the first of its kind since President Trump launched sweeping global tariffs last month, offering a glimpse into the Trump administration’s negotiating strategy as it seeks to reset terms with trading partners around the world.

The agreement, hailed by Trump and U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer as “historic,” kept the U.S. baseline tariff rate on U.K. imports at 10%, while eliminating duties on British aluminum and steel and significantly lowering tariffs on a limited number of U.K. car exports.

In exchange, the White House said that London had agreed to lower barriers on U.S. farmers and ranchers seeking access to the U.K. market for exports like ethanol and beef, and to increase access for U.S. aerospace companies to critical British-made components.

While the White House called the agreement a “milestone” in its trade policy, U.S. officials also described the deal as merely the “end of the beginning” of talks to come over their trade relationship.

Starmer, describing the announcement as the “basis” of a deal, said he intended to continue negotiating with the administration to bring down its 10% baseline rate. “We would like to go further,” he said from a manufacturing plant in the West Midlands.

“But please do not underestimate the significance of the tariff reductions today, because these are measured in thousands of good-paying jobs across the country,” Starmer said.

Asked by a reporter whether Britain was better off in its trade relationship with America than it was a year ago, Starmer replied, “The question you should be asking is, is it better than where we were yesterday?”

The Dow Jones Industrial Average jumped 500 points on news of the deal, as Wall Street investors look for signs of progress in trade negotiations over five weeks out since Trump announced tariff increases on global trading partners, “friend and foe alike.”

Of the 10 largest U.S. trading partners, only the United Kingdom has a trade deficit with the United States. But the agreement will mean more to the British economy than it will to U.S. households. While the U.K. ranks eighth overall among U.S. trading partners, the United States is Britain’s largest, followed by the European Union.

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, in an English car factory, holds a call with President Trump to announce a trade deal.

(Alberto Pezzali / WPA Pool / Getty Images)

Americans buy exponentially more goods from the United States’ three biggest trading partners — in Canada, Mexico and China — than from Britain, and there are few signs that U.S. talks with those three countries are closing in on trade deals.

And with goods from China still facing tariffs of 145%, U.S. importers and retailers are warning that price increases for American consumers will become visible within a matter of days.

From the White House, where he phoned Starmer to announce the deal to the press, Trump described the U.S.-U.K. agreement as “a great deal for both parties.”

“It opens up a tremendous market for us, and it works out very well. Very well,” Trump said. “The deal includes billions of dollars of increased market access for American exports, especially in agriculture, dramatically increasing access for American beef, ethanol, and virtually all of the products produced by our great farmers.”

“It’s very conclusive, and it’s a great deal, and it’s a very big deal, actually,” he added.

Trump underscored the potential for the export of up to $250 million in U.S. agricultural products to a market that had long been restricted to U.S. goods. But Starmer said that the U.K. government had drawn “red lines on standards” with regard to agricultural imports, raising questions over what exact products would be eligible.

Starmer said he hoped that the Trump administration would lower barriers on British pharmaceutical products in future talks, and also said the two governments were already discussing Trump’s proposed tariffs on foreign film production.

“There aren’t any tariffs in place on film at the moment,” Starmer said of the potential film tariffs, “and of course, we’re discussing it with the president’s team.”

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration is invoking the “state secrets privilege ” in an apparent attempt to avoid answering a judge’s questions about its mistaken deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia to El Salvador.

U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis disclosed the government’s position in a two-page order on Wednesday. She set a Monday deadline for attorneys to file briefs on the issue and how it could affect Abrego Garcia’s case. Xinis also scheduled a May 16 hearing in Greenbelt, Md., to address the matter.

The Republican administration previously invoked the same legal authority to cut off a judge’s inquiry into whether it defied an order to turn around planes deporting Venezuelan migrants to El Salvador.

Abrego Garcia, 29, has been imprisoned in his native El Salvador for nearly two months. His mistaken deportation has become a flash point for President Trump’s immigration policies and his increasing friction with the U.S. courts.

Trump has said he could call El Salvador’s president and have Abrego Garcia, who was living in Maryland, returned to the United States. Instead, Trump has doubled down on his claims that Abrego Garcia is a member of the MS-13 gang.

Police in Maryland had identified Abrego Garcia as an MS-13 gang member in 2019 based off his tattoos, Chicago Bulls hoodie and the word of a criminal informant. But Abrego Garcia was never charged. His lawyers say the informant claimed Abrego Garcia was in an MS-13 chapter in New York, where Abrego Garcia has never lived.

The administration has balked at telling Xinis what, if anything, it has done to facilitate Abrego Garcia’s return to the U.S. The judge ruled that his lawyers can question several Trump administration officials under oath about the government’s response to her orders.

In a court filing Wednesday, his lawyers said they already have conducted depositions of three officials and are “still in the dark” about the government’s efforts to free Abrego Garcia. They are asking for permission to depose more officials, possibly including one from the White House.

WASHINGTON — The Republican-led House passed a bill Thursday that would rename the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America and direct federal agencies to update their documents and maps to incorporate the new name.

President Trump already signed an executive order during his first day in office to rename the Gulf. House Republicans are looking to show their support, though it is unclear whether he Senate will go along. The bill passed by a vote of 211-206.

The body of water has shared borders between the United States and Mexico. Trump’s order carries authority only within the U.S. Mexico, as well as other countries and international bodies, do not have to recognize the name change.

Democrats said the vote demonstrated that Republicans are not focusing on the priorities of most Americans. New York Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, the House’s top Democrat, asked Democrats to vote against this “silly, small-minded and sycophantic piece of legislation.”

“It’s easy to mock this legislation because it’s so inane and embarrassing — and we have,” said Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon, (D-Pa.). “But it’s very existence and the fact that House Republicans have chosen to waste time and taxpayer dollars to bring it up for a vote, is worth considering.”

Republicans said the nomenclature of the Gulf extended back to a time before the U.S. existed and when Spanish influence over Central American and the Caribbean was at its zenith. But now, it is the U.S. that dominates economic activity in the Gulf.

“In short, this legislation recognizes the strategic influence America has over this geography, not to mention the existing economic, cultural, and commercial might that we passively exert on the Gulf,” said Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.).

The bill was sponsored by Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), a Trump ally and an influential voice in the Republican conference who wore a red “Make America Great Again” hat during last year’s State of the Union address.

“The Gulf of America is one of the most important things we can do this Congress,” Greene said, adding that it promotes pride in the country.

The Gulf of Mexico has carried that name for more than 400 years. The Associated Press refers to it by its original name while acknowledging the new name Trump has chosen. The White House moved in February to block the AP from being among the small group of journalists to cover Trump in the Oval Office or aboard Air Force One, with sporadic ability to cover him at events in the East Room.

The AP sued three Trump administration officials over access to presidential events, citing freedom of speech in asking a federal judge to stop the blocking of its journalists.

A federal judge ordered the White House last month to restore the AP’s full access to cover presidential events, affirming on 1st Amendment grounds that the government cannot punish the news organization for the content of its speech.

The GOP leadership in the House promoted the legislation during a news conference earlier in the week.

“The American people are footing the bill to protect and secure the Gulf of America. It’s only right that it’s named appropriately,” said House Republican Conference Chair Lisa McClain of Michigan.

Several Democrats spoke out against the bill on the House floor.

Rep. George Latimer (D-N.Y.) said that “instead of mind-bending tariffs, giveaways to billionaires, and renaming bodies of water, we should be voting on bills that lower costs for the average family.”

“No one is clamoring for a newly named body of water,” Latimer said. “They want lower grocery bills.”

Freking writes for the Associated Press.

United States President Donald Trump plans to tout trillions of dollars of Arab investments in the US as a major achievement, but other issues are at stake, says University of Maryland professor Shibley Telhami.

Israel is threatening to further destroy the Gaza Strip unless progress is made in its ceasefire talks with Hamas. Meanwhile, Israel has refused to allow any food to enter Gaza – home to more than 2 million Palestinians – for more than two months.

And despite Israeli objections, Trump may soon be able to reach a deal with Iran on its nuclear program.