Trump

DONALD Trump has signed a sweeping new travel ban blocking people from a dozen countries from entering the US — with restrictions set to kick in within days.

The bombshell move, announced late Wednesday, resurrects the explosive “Muslim ban” policy from his first term and will take effect at 12.01am Monday.

4

4

4

4

The countries hit with a full ban include Afghanistan, Burma, Chad, Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen.

In addition to the outright ban, heightened restrictions will be slapped on visitors from Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan and Venezuela.

“I must act to protect the national security and national interest of the United States and its people,” Trump said in a proclamation.

The sweeping list stems from a January 20 executive order, in which Trump tasked the State Department, Homeland Security, and the Director of National Intelligence with flagging “hostile attitudes” and countries that pose a national security risk.

The crackdown mirrors Trump’s highly controversial 2017 executive order, which initially barred citizens from seven majority-Muslim nations — Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia and Yemen — triggering chaos at airports and global backlash.

Dubbed the “Muslim ban”, it sparked scenes of confusion as travellers, including students and tourists, were blocked from boarding planes or detained after landing in the US.

After legal challenges, the policy was retooled and upheld by the Supreme Court in 2018, with a version targeting Iran, Somalia, Yemen, Syria and Libya, alongside North Korea and Venezuelan officials.

Trump has consistently defended the bans as vital to national security, despite critics accusing him of religious discrimination.

The latest move ramps up his hardline immigration stance as the Republican firebrand gears up for a second term — once again placing border control and national safety at the heart of his presidency.

Earlier on Wednesday, Trump held an hour-long call with Vladimir Putin, revealing the Kremlin tyrant “will have to respond” to Ukraine’s devastating drone blitz on Russian airfields.

“It was a good conversation, but not a conversation that will lead to immediate Peace,” Trump wrote on Truth Social.

“President Putin did say, and very strongly, that he will have to respond to the recent attack on the airfields.”

The warning came after Operation Spiderweb — a daring Ukrainian drone assault that wiped out 41 Russian warplanes across four strategic air bases, including nuclear-capable bombers.

The pair also discussed Iran’s nuclear programme, with Trump writing: “I stated to President Putin that Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon and, on this, I believe that we were in agreement.”

He added: “President Putin suggested that he will participate in the discussions with Iran and that he could, perhaps, be helpful in getting this brought to a rapid conclusion.”

More to follow… For the latest news on this story, keep checking back at The U.S. Sun, your go-to destination for the best celebrity news, sports news, real-life stories, jaw-dropping pictures, and must-see videos.

Like us on Facebook at TheSunUS and follow us on X at @TheUSSun

Trump signed a proclamation which also restricts the travel of people from an additional seven countries.

United States President Donald Trump has signed a proclamation imposing a full travel ban on people from 12 countries and restricting the citizens of seven other countries, The Associated Press news agency reports.

The banned countries include Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen.

In addition to the ban, which takes effect on Monday, there will be heightened restrictions on people from Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan and Venezuela.

“I must act to protect the national security and national interest of the United States and its people,” Trump said in his proclamation.

During his first term in 2017, Trump issued an executive order banning travel to the US by citizens of seven predominantly Muslim countries: Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia and Yemen.

People from the named countries were either barred from getting on their flights to the US or detained at US airports after they landed. Those affected included tourists, people visiting friends and family, as well as students and faculty in the US and businesspeople.

The order, often referred to as the “Muslim ban” or the “travel ban”, was reworked amid legal challenges, until a version was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2018 which banned categories of travellers and immigrants from Iran, Somalia, Yemen, Syria and Libya, plus North Korean and some Venezuelan government officials and their families.

Trump defended his initial travel ban on national security grounds, arguing it was aimed at protecting the US and claimed it was not anti-Muslim. However, Trump had called for a travel ban on Muslims during his first campaign for the White House.

This is a breaking news story. More to follow shortly.

Ruling says those deported from US under 1798 law have right to challenge their removal and that Trump administration must help.

A federal judge in the United States has ruled that Venezuelan immigrants deported to El Salvador under an obscure 1798 law must be given the chance to challenge their removals and detention. 

The ruling on Wednesday by Judge James Boasberg is the latest setback to President Donald Trump’s efforts to use the Alien Enemies Act to quickly expel alleged gang members from the US without due process.

Trump initially invoked the wartime law in March, arguing that the presence of the Tren de Aragua gang in the US represented an invasion.

Trump’s use of the law to fast-track deportations was quickly blocked by Boasberg, but not before two planes carrying 238 deportees had already departed the US for El Salvador. The Trump administration refused the judge’s order to turn the plane around.

Boasberg has since said he has found probable cause to believe the administration committed contempt of court.

Upon landing in El Salvador, the deportees were locked up in El Salvador’s Terrorism Confinement Centre, known as the CECOT prison, as part of a deal with the Trump administration.

In Wednesday’s order, Boasberg wrote that there was “significant evidence” indicating that many of the individuals imprisoned in El Salvador are not connected to Tren de Aragua.

They “thus languish in a foreign prison on flimsy, even frivolous, accusations”, Boasberg said.

Court documents previously indicated that some of the men may have been deported based only on their tattoos or clothing.

Boasberg wrote that the administration “plainly deprived” the immigrants of a chance to challenge their removals before they were put on flights.

He ruled that their cases must now be given the right to be heard before a court, as they “would have been if the Government had not provided constitutionally inadequate process”.

“That process – which was improperly withheld – must now be afforded to them,” Boasberg wrote. “Absent this relief, the government could snatch anyone off the street, turn him over to a foreign country, and then effectively foreclose any corrective course of action.”

The ruling did not expressly order the Trump administration to return the deported people to the US.

The US Supreme Court previously ruled that people deported under the Alien Enemies Act must be given a chance to challenge their removal, and it paused certain planned deportations that would have been conducted using the law.

A case currently being heard by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals is expected to eventually make its way to the top court for a final decision.

Until then, various challenges have played out in lower courts, with three federal judges in New York, Texas and Colorado having so far ruled that Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act is illegal. A fourth federal judge, in Pennsylvania, has ruled that Trump was within his powers to invoke the law.

Trump campaigned on a pledge to conduct a mass deportation of “criminal” non-citizens living in the US, but his efforts have been hampered by legal challenges and backlogged immigration courts.

Immigration advocates say that has led the administration to seek various means of fast-tracking deportations, including by circumventing due process.

In a news statement this week, the White House cherry-picked personal income tax-related elements in the “big, beautiful bill”, the wide-ranging tax and spending bill being pushed by United States President Donald Trump, and claimed that, in opposing the legislation as a whole, the Democratic Party was opposed to every individual item contained within it.

Such a tactic is misleading, particularly since the White House cited measures in the bill that have been championed by Democrats to improve the lives of Americans and are not the reasons the Democrats have given for opposing the “big beautiful bill”.

Here’s a fact-check of what the White House claims Democrats oppose:

“They’re opposing the largest tax cut in history, which will put an extra $5,000 in their pockets with a double-digit percent decrease to their tax bills. In fact, Americans earning between $30,000 and $80,000 will pay around 15% less in taxes.”

The specifics of the tax bill have not been finalised. In its current form, it would cut taxes by an average of 2.4 percent, for middle-income households, according to analysis by the Tax Policy Center.

While it is a significant tax cut, it is not the biggest in history. That was under Ronald Reagan in 1981 at 2.9 percent.

It is accurate that there will be a double-digit percentage decrease in tax bills, at least in the immediate term, at a little more than 11 percent across all tax brackets. It is also true that people earning between $30,000 and $80,000 will pay 15 percent less, according to the Non-Partisan Joint Committee on Taxation.

“They’re opposing NO TAX ON TIPS for the millions of Americans who work in the service industry and NO TAX ON OVERTIME for law enforcement, nurses, and more.”

This is true only in their opposition to Trump’s tax and spending bill.

Democrats and Republicans have supported the concept of no tax on tips. Both Donald Trump and the Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris pledged to do so on the campaign trail. Senate Democrats backed the No Tax on Tips Act, passed by the US Senate on May 20. The bill, authored by Republican Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, was co-sponsored by notable Democrats, including Jacky Rosen of Nevada and passed unanimously.

“They’re opposing historic tax cuts for senior citizens”

Outside of the “big beautiful bill”, Democrats have generally not opposed tax cuts for seniors. Many Democrats have championed legislation that would expand tax cuts for seniors. California Democrat Jimmy Panetta co-sponsored a Republican led bill that would increase the standard deduction for adults over the age of 65 by $4,000.

In 2024, House Democrats introduced the “You Earned It, You Keep It Act”, which would effectively eliminate taxes on social security benefits. The bill, however, has never made it past committee.

“They’re opposing a boost to the child tax credit.”

Again, they are opposing Trump’s “big beautiful bill”, not objecting to the child tax credit.

In fact, Democrats have long pushed to expand the child tax credit. In April, Senate Democrats, including Georgia’s Raphael Warnock and Colorado’s Michael Bennett, introduced legislation that would expand the child tax credit. The bill would increase the tax credit, from $2,000 where it currently stands, to $6,360 for newborns, $4,320 for children ages one to six and $3,600 for children six to 17, permanently.

While the “big beautiful bill” would also increase the child tax credit, it would do so only by $500, and that would kick in in 2028.

“They’re opposing new savings accounts for newborns and the chance for children across America to experience the miracle of compounded growth.” 

In the “big beautiful bill”, House Republicans introduced new savings accounts for children. The accounts would include a $1,000 handout for every child born between January 1, 2025 and January 1, 2029.

Democrats have not only been supporters of the idea for savings accounts for newborns, but prominent Democrats actually championed it.

In 2018, Cory Booker of New Jersey introduced the American Opportunity Accounts Act, which would also give $1,000 to newborns and up to $2000 in annual contributions. He reintroduced the bill again in 2023.

“They’re opposing expanded access to childcare for hardworking American families.”

This appears to be false. The White House link refers to the Paid Family and Medical Leave Credit, not child care access. Trump’s bill offers up to 12 weeks of paid leave for employees who have worked a year and earn $57,600 or less.

While that gives parents more time at home, Democrats have focused on expanding access to child care, including universal pre-K. In 2023, Republicans opposed a Democratic plan to keep child care centres open that struggled in the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic.

“They’re opposing historic border security to keep their communities safe.”

Last year, Trump pressured Republicans to vote against a bipartisan border security bill, a move that reportedly helped Trump’s chances of winning in November 2024. Democrats have opposed Republican plans to use US military bases for migrant detention, arguing that it misuses Department of Defense resources. Democrats have long opposed border wall funding, including during Trump’s first term.

A 2018 Stanford University analysis estimated that a border wall would reduce migration by just 0.6 percent. Despite this, the “big beautiful bill” allocates more than $50bn to complete the wall and maritime crossings, $45bn for building and maintaining detention centres, and $14bn for transportation.

“They’re opposing expanded health savings accounts that give Americans greater choice and flexibility in how they spend their money.”

This is sort of true. Democrats have not been huge proponents of health savings accounts. The belief is that healthcare savings accounts do not help the socioeconomically disadvantaged, who may not have the financial resources to contribute to the accounts. Democrats have also objected to other cuts to healthcare in the bill, including the potential $880bn that could be cut from essential government programmes like Medicaid.

“They’re opposing scholarships that empower Americans to choose the education that best fits the needs of their families.”

In the bill, the White House is conflating the longstanding debate on school choice with scholarships. Under school choice, funds otherwise allocated to the public school system can be re-allocated to private institutions, which Republicans argue will allow students to have potential access to a higher quality education.

Democrats have opposed school choice because it diverts funds from public school systems, many of which are already drastically underfunded. In Texas, Senator Ted Cruz, for example, pushed legislation that would expand school choice, even as three out of four school districts in the state are underfunded, according to a Kinder Institute analysis.

WASHINGTON — President Trump said that Russian President Vladimir Putin told him “very strongly” in a phone call Wednesday that he will respond to Ukraine’s weekend drone attack on Russian airfields as the deadlock over the war drags on and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky dismisses Russia’s ceasefire proposal.

The U.S. president said in a social media post that his lengthy call with Putin “was a good conversation, but not a conversation that will lead to immediate Peace.”

It’s the first time Trump has weighed in on Ukraine’s daring attack inside Russia. The U.S. did not have advance notice of the operation, according to the White House, a point the president emphasized during the call with the Russian leader, according to Putin’s foreign affairs advisor.

The U.S. has led a recent diplomatic push to stop the full-scale invasion, which began Feb. 24, 2022.

Trump, in his social media post, did not say how he reacted to Putin’s promise to respond to Ukraine’s attack, but his post showed none of the frustration that Trump has expressed with his Russian counterpart in recent weeks over his prolonging of the war.

Yuri Ushakov, Putin’s foreign affairs advisor, said at a briefing that the two leaders characterized the call as “positive and quite productive,” and reaffirmed their readiness to stay in touch.

“I believe it was useful for Trump to hear our assessments of what happened,” Ushakov said, noting that the discussion of the attacks was one of the key points in the conversation. He didn’t respond to a question about what the Russian response to the attacks could be.

Trump repeatedly promised to end the war quickly and even said he would accomplish it before he was sworn in. But he lost patience with Putin in recent weeks, publicly pleading with him to stop fighting and even said late last month that the Russian leader “has gone absolutely CRAZY.”

Trump, however, has not committed to backing a bipartisan push to sanction Putin.

The call was Trump’s first known talk with Putin since May 19. They also discussed, according to Trump and Ushakov, Iran’s nuclear program and the possibility of Russia engaging in talks with Tehran as the U.S. pushes the Islamic Republic to abandon its rapidly advancing nuclear program.

It was unclear whether Trump also planned to speak with Zelensky. The White House did not respond to a message Wednesday afternoon.

Zelensky brushes off Russian plan and pushes for talks

The Ukrainian leader earlier Wednesday dismissed Russia’s ceasefire plan as “an ultimatum” and renewed his call for direct talks with Putin to break the stalemate over the war, which has dragged on for nearly 3½ years.

Putin, however, showed no willingness to meet with Zelensky, expressing anger Wednesday about what he said were Ukraine’s recent “terrorist acts” on Russian rail lines in the Kursk and Bryansk regions on the countries’ border.

“How can any such [summit] meetings be conducted in such circumstances? What shall we talk about?” Putin asked in a video call with top Russian officials.

Putin accused Ukraine of seeking a truce only to replenish its stockpiles of Western arms, recruit more soldiers and prepare new attacks such as those in Kursk and Bryansk.

Both sides exchanged memorandums setting out their conditions for a ceasefire for discussion at Monday’s direct peace talks between delegations in Istanbul, their second meeting in just over two weeks. Zelensky had challenged Putin to meet him in Turkey, but the Kremlin leader stayed away.

Russia and Ukraine have established red lines that make a quick deal unlikely, despite a U.S.-led international diplomatic push to stop the fighting. The Kremlin’s Istanbul proposal contained a list of demands that Kyiv and its Western allies see as nonstarters.

‘This document looks like spam’

Zelensky said that the second round of talks in Istanbul was no different from the first meeting on May 16. Zelensky described the latest negotiations in Istanbul as “a political performance” and “artificial diplomacy” designed to stall for time, delay sanctions and convince the United States that Russia is engaged in dialogue.

“The same ultimatums they voiced back then — now they just put them on paper…. Honestly, this document looks like spam. It’s spam meant to flood us and create the impression that they’re doing something,” Zelensky said in his first reaction to the Russian document.

The Ukrainian leader said that he sees little value in continuing talks at the current level. Defense Minister Rustem Umerov led the Ukrainian delegation in Istanbul, while Vladimir Medinsky, an aide to Putin, headed the Russian team.

Zelensky said he wants a ceasefire with Russia before a possible summit meeting with Putin, possibly also including Trump, in an effort to remove obstacles to a peace settlement.

U.S. Defense secretary stays away

A second round of peace talks Monday between Russian and Ukrainian delegations in Istanbul lasted just over an hour and made no progress on ending the war. They agreed only to swap thousands of their dead and seriously wounded troops.

A new prisoner exchange with Russia could take place over the weekend, Zelensky said.

In tandem with the talks, both sides have kept up offensive military actions along the roughly 620-mile front line and carried out deep strikes.

Ukraine’s Security Service gave more details Wednesday about its spectacular weekend drone strike on Russian air bases, which it claimed destroyed or damaged 41 Russian aircraft, including strategic bombers.

The agency released more video showing drones swooping under and over parked aircraft and featuring some planes burning. It also claimed the planes struck included A-50, Tu-95, Tu-22, Tu-160, An-12, and Il-78 aircraft, adding that the drones had highly automated capabilities and were partly piloted by an operator and partly by using artificial intelligence, which flew the drone along a planned route in the event it lost signal.

The drones were not fully autonomous and a “human is still choosing what target to hit,” said Caitlin Lee, a drone warfare expert at Rand, a think tank.

Ukraine’s security agency said it also set off an explosion Tuesday on the seabed beneath the Kerch Bridge, a vital transport link between Russia and illegally annexed Crimea, claiming it caused damage to the structure.

But Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said Wednesday that there was no damage.

Russia’s Defense Ministry said Wednesday that its troops have taken control of another village in northern Ukraine’s Sumy region, on the border with Russia. Putin announced May 22 that Russian troops aim to create a buffer zone that might help prevent Ukrainian cross-border attacks. Since then, Russia’s Defense Ministry claims its forces have taken control of nine Sumy villages.

Arhirova and Price write for the Associated Press. Arhirova reported from Kyiv, Ukraine. Illia Novikov in Kyiv, Chris Megerian in Washington, Emma Burrows in London and Katie Marie Davies in Manchester, England, contributed to this report.

June 4 (UPI) — Russian President Vladimir Putin will respond to the Ukrainian drone strikes that destroyed Russian military aircraft in several locations on Sunday, President Donald Trump said on Wednesday.

Trump spoke with Putin by phone for more than an hour on Wednesday and said it was “not a conversation that will lead to immediate peace,” CNBC reported the president saying in a Truth Social post.

Putin told Trump the Russian military will retaliate against Ukraine for the drone strikes conducted during a long-planned operation dubbed “spiderweb.”

The drone strikes destroyed more than 40 Russian heavy bombers that are capable of deploying missiles that contain nuclear warheads.

Putin said Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is disrupting peace talks with such attacks.

Putin aide Yury Ushakov said the conversation lasted about 70 minutes and was the fourth between the two world leaders.

“It was emphasized that Ukraine tried to derail these talks by carrying out targeted attacks on entirely civilian targets and civilians on direct orders from the Kiev regime,” Ushakov said in an online announcement.

“These attacks unequivocally constitute an act of terrorism under international law,” Ushakov said. “The Kiev regime has essentially degenerated into a terrorist organization.”

Trump said the United States had no advance knowledge of the drone strikes, Ushakov said, adding that the two presidents agreed to continue working to achieve peace between Ukraine and Russia.

Putin and Trump also discussed matters in the Middle East, the conflict between India and Pakistan, and a potential restoration of cooperation between Russia and the United States regarding various global issues.

“We also discussed Iran and the fact that time is running out on Iran’s decision pertaining to nuclear weapons, which must be made quickly!” Trump said in his Truth Social post.

Putin said he could assist with nuclear talks with Iran, which Trump is working to stop from developing nuclear weapons, the BBC reported.

Ushakov credited Trump with halting the recent armed conflict between India and Pakistan and said both agreed their phone conversation was “positive and highly productive.”

The leaders of Canada and Mexico have criticised the latest hike in steel and aluminium tariffs under United States President Donald Trump, who increased import taxes on the metal from 25 to 50 percent.

The international condemnation came just hours after the latest tariff increase went into effect early on Wednesday.

Speaking to reporters on Wednesday, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney said the tariff increases were “unjustified”.

“They’re illegal. They’re bad for American workers, bad for American industry and, of course, for Canadian industry,” he said.

Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum, meanwhile, pledged to pursue countermeasures if the Trump administration refuses to grant tariff relief. She warned that the tariffs would have a “huge impact” on Mexico’s steel and aluminium industries.

“This isn’t about an eye for an eye, but rather about protecting our industry and our jobs,” she added, without specifying what steps her government might take.

Canada calls for action

Wednesday’s tariff hike had been unveiled last Friday, when Trump held a rally with steelworkers outside Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

That region of the US is a part of the Rust Belt, an area that has been heavily affected by the decline in US manufacturing. Trump pledged to use tariffs and other measures to bring jobs and investments back to the area.

Previously, in March, Trump set tariffs on steel and aluminium at 25 percent. But he threatened to lift that rate to 50 percent specifically for Canadian imports of the metals, a plan he later appeared to walk back.

Those threats, however, roiled relations between the US and its northern neighbour in particular. Canada is the top supplier of steel to the US, followed by Brazil and then Mexico. South Korea and China also top the list.

Canada is also responsible for about 40 percent of aluminium imports to the US, followed by the UAE, Russia and Mexico. Carney’s government has pledged to pursue retaliatory measures so long as Trump’s tariffs remain in place.

On Wednesday, one of Canada’s largest labour unions, Unifor, called on Carney to take immediate action against the latest tariff hike, including by limiting the country’s exports of critical metals to the US.

“Unifor is urging the federal government to act without delay to defend Canada’s manufacturing sector and counter the escalating trade assault,” the union said in a statement.

Premier Doug Ford — who leads the top manufacturing province in Canada, Ontario — also called for Canada to respond in kind and “slap another 25 percent” on US steel imports.

“It’s tariff for tariff, dollar for dollar. We need to tariff the steel coming into Canada an additional 25 percent, totalling 50 percent,” Ford told reporters. “Everything’s on the table right now.”

Navigating global trade pacts

Both Canada and Mexico have been hard hit by Trump’s aggressive tariffs, which include a blanket 25-percent tax on all imports not subject to the US-Mexico-Canada free trade agreement (USMCA), as well as a separate 25-percent levy on automobile imports.

The three countries have highly integrated economies, with products like automobiles being built using supplies and factories from multiple locations.

The USMCA pact was agreed upon during Trump’s first term, from 2017 to 2021. But he has since signalled he hopes to renegotiate the free-trade deal to get more favourable terms for the US.

But the doubling of the US steel and aluminium tariffs is expected to have a global impact, well beyond North America.

The European Union is also bracing for the increase. The bloc’s trade commissioner, Maros Sefcovic, met US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer on the sidelines of a meeting for the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) on Wednesday.

“We’re advancing in the right direction at pace – and staying in close contact to maintain the momentum,” Sefcovic wrote on X afterwards.

UK Trade Secretary Jonathan Reynolds also met with Greer, and he said steel and aluminium tariffs would remain at 25 percent for his country. The two countries have been in the process of forging a post-Brexit bilateral trade agreement, announcing a “breakthrough” last month.

“We’re pleased that as a result of our agreement with the US, UK steel will not be subject to these additional tariffs,” a British government spokesperson said.

‘Extremely hard to make a deal’

Trump’s latest tariff hike comes days after a federal court ruled that his so-called reciprocal tariffs — which imposed customised taxes on nearly all US trading partners — were illegal.

Trump had imposed those tariffs in April, only to pause them for 90 days. The court’s ruling was quickly paused while legal proceedings continued, and Trump’s tariffs have been allowed to remain in place for now.

One of the hardest hit countries has been China, which saw US tariffs against its exports skyrocket to 145 percent earlier this year.

The Trump administration, however, has since sought to reach a deal with China to end the trade war between the world’s two largest economies.

The White House said on Monday that Trump would speak to Chinese President Xi Jinping this week, raising hopes the duo could soothe tensions and speed up negotiations.

But on Wednesday, Trump appeared to dampen hopes for a quick deal.

“I like President XI of China, always have, and always will, but he is VERY TOUGH, AND EXTREMELY HARD TO MAKE A DEAL WITH!!!” he posted on his Truth Social platform.

When asked about the remarks during a regular news briefing, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lin Jian said Beijing’s “principles and stance on developing Sino-US relations are consistent”.

The United States will begin revoking visas for Chinese students. The State Department said this will include those with connections to the Chinese Communist Party as well as those studying in “critical fields”, though it did not provide details. This is to stop the exploitation of US universities and protect national security, according to the statement. Who is losing out in this latest development in US-China tensions?

The US president says Putin also suggested he would participate in talks aimed at reaching a new nuclear deal with Tehran.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has told Donald Trump in a telephone conversation that Moscow would have to respond to the recent Ukrainian drone attacks, the US president said.

Trump said on Wednesday that the two men “discussed the attack on Russia’s docked airplanes, by Ukraine, and also various other attacks that have been taking place by both sides.”

Putin “did say, and very strongly, that he will have to respond to the recent attack on the airfields”, Trump said in a social media post.

Al Jazeera’s Kimberly Halkett said that Trump described his 85-minute phone call with Putin as “a good conversation but not one that would lead to immediate peace”.

“You have to remember that Donald Trump, when he came into office, was very confident that he could end this war on day one, but here we are now in June and the fact is … this is far from resolved,” she said from the White House.

Moscow said earlier on Wednesday that military options were “on the table” for its response to Ukrainian attacks deep inside Russia and accused the West of being involved in them.

Russia also urged the US and Britain to restrain Kyiv after the attacks, which Ukrainian officials have lauded as showing Kyiv can still fight back after more than three years of war.

British and US officials have said they had no prior knowledge of the weekend attacks on Russian nuclear-capable long-range bombers.

In his social media post, Trump said he and Putin also discussed Iran. Putin suggested he would participate in talks aimed at reaching a new nuclear deal with Tehran, Trump said.

“I stated to President Putin that Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon and, on this, I believe that we were in agreement,” Trump said. He accused Iran of “slow-walking” decisions regarding the talks.

Putin told Iran’s President Masoud Pezeshkian that Moscow was ready to help advance talks on a nuclear deal, the Kremlin said on Tuesday.

But Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said earlier on Wednesday that Washington’s proposal was against Tehran’s national interests, amid sharp differences over whether Tehran can continue to enrich uranium.

US President Donald Trump said on Wednesday he had a “good conversation” with Russian President Vladimir Putin, in a call about Ukraine’s recent drone attack and Iran.

Following Ukraine’s major drone attack deep on air bases inside Russia, Trump reported that Putin told him Russia “will have to respond”.

Trump also warned in a social media post that the phone call, which lasted more than an hour, would not “lead to immediate Peace”.

The two leaders also discussed Iran, and Putin suggested he could help with nuclear talks with the country.

The conversation between the two leaders marks the first since Ukraine launched an audacious attack striking Russian air bases on 1 June, targeting nuclear-capable long-range bombers.

In his post, Trump said that Putin told him – “very strongly” – that he “will have to respond to recent attacks on the airfields.”

Last week, Trump appeared to set a two-week deadline for Putin, threatening to change how the US is responding to Russia if he believed Putin was still “tapping” him along on peace efforts in Ukraine.

The comment was one of a string of public critical remarks by Trump, who earlier had said that Putin had gone “absolutely crazy” and is “playing with fire” when Russia intensified drone and missile attacks on targets in Ukraine.

Trump made no mention of a deadline or his previous remarks in Wednesday’s post on his Truth Social platform.

The post also comes just days after a second round of direct peace talks between the warring sides, held in Istanbul, ended without a major breakthrough, although the two sides agreed to swap more prisoners of war.

Ukrainian negotiators said Russia rejected an “unconditional ceasefire” – a key demand of Kyiv and its Western allies including the US.

The Russian team said they’d proposed multi-day ceasefires in “certain areas” of the frontline in Ukraine, although they gave no further details.

Trump has previously – and repeatedly – said he believes the two sides are making progress, despite ongoing fighting on the frontline and aerial attacks carried out in both Russia and Ukraine.

Additionally, Trump said that on the call he and Putin discussed Iran, and he believed the two “were in agreement” that “Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon”.

The US reportedly proposed Iran halt all production of enriched uranium – which can be used to make reactor fuel but also nuclear weapons – and instead rely on a regional consortium for supplies. Iran has not yet responded to the plan presented at talks last Saturday.

According to Trump, Putin “suggested that he will participate in discussions with Iran and that he could, perhaps, be helpful in getting this brought to a rapid conclusion.”

“It is my opinion that Iran has been slow walking their decision on this very important matter,” Trump wrote. “We will need a definitive answer in a very short period of time.”

VLADIMIR Putin has warned Donald Trump he “will have to respond” to Ukraine’s daring drone strike on Russian airfields, the US president revealed.

In a dramatic post on Truth Social, Trump said the Russian tyrant issued the warning during a 75-minute phone call where the pair discussed rising tensions in Ukraine, as well as Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

1

“It was a good conversation, but not a conversation that will lead to immediate Peace,” Trump wrote.

“President Putin did say, and very strongly, that he will have to respond to the recent attack on the airfields.”

The call, confirmed by the Kremlin, came after Ukrainian drones targeted Russian warplanes stationed at airbases deep behind enemy lines — a bold assault seen as a major embarrassment for Mad Vlad Putin.

More to follow… For the latest news on this story, keep checking back at The U.S. Sun, your go-to destination for the best celebrity news, sports news, real-life stories, jaw-dropping pictures, and must-see videos.

Like us on Facebook at TheSunUS and follow us on X at @TheUSSun

Tucked within the proposed “Big Beautiful Bill”, the more than 1,000-page tax and spending overhaul that United States President Donald Trump wants to see enacted in law, is a provision that is being referred to as a “revenge tax”.

The “Enforcement of Remedies Against Unfair Foreign Taxes” in Section 899 targets countries that the Trump administration believes impose unfair or discriminatory taxes on US companies and individuals, and will allow the US to impose additional taxes on entities from those countries.

The provision calls, for instance, for levies on revenue from digital services, such as data monetisation and online advertising.

The proposal also includes a higher minimum tax on the profits of foreign entities, even if those profits are earned outside US borders. This could impact passive income streams, such as interest and dividends, and may discourage international investors from countries flagged as discriminatory.

The administration’s unpredictable approach to global economic policy has already created uncertainty in international markets. Should this measure be signed into law, it could further erode foreign investor confidence in the US market.

‘This revenge tax move will add to economic uncertainty. It will stop foreign CEOs from investing – the very thing President Trump says he wants. It means more wild economic swings, stock market declines, less stability and a greater chance of recession this year,” Stuart Mackintosh, the executive director of the financial think tank Group of Thirty, told Al Jazeera.

“Every few days, we see a destabilising misuse of US power, more self-inflicted wounds, that look set to drive up prices and slow the economy. America has shredded its political and economic alliances. These revenge taxes underscore that America cannot be trusted.”

Who could be affected

Under the provision, certain foreign governments and international businesses could face an additional 20 percent tax, which would apply to non-US entities earning income from US sources, including interest, dividends and royalties.

Taxes would be hiked gradually at the rate of 5 percent annually.

It would also affect profits earned at US locations, which are transferred to foreign parent companies, as well as income from the sale of US real estate by designated “bad actors”. Trusts, global foundations and partnerships with passive income could also be impacted.

However, exceptions are built into the legislation for foreign pension funds and charitable organisations. The tax would only apply to countries designated as “discriminatory” by the US Treasury Department. Countries not flagged would remain unaffected.

House of Representatives Ways and Means Committee Chairman Jason Smith, a Republican from Missouri, said that while the provision could serve as an effective retaliatory tool, it “will hopefully never take effect”.

According to the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation, the measure could bring in revenue of $116.3bn over the next decade. But it would also lower tax revenue in the long term, by $12.9bn in both 2033 and 2034.

Impacted investment climate

The administration’s shifting trade strategies have already led to legal battles, policy reversals and a climate of unpredictability that has left companies hesitant to make long-term plans.

Companies like toy manufacturer Mattel and automaker Stellantis have suspended financial guidance due to the volatile nature of US tariff policy.

These policies have also contributed to swings in consumer confidence. When Trump announced his series of sweeping tariffs against trade partners on April 2, which he dubbed “Liberation Day”, confidence fell to a 13-year low, only to rebound after the administration paused the tariffs’ implementation.

Analysts warn that provisions like the “revenge tax” could deter foreign investment and strain developing partnerships.

“If you’ve got the headwinds of an extra withholding tax that starts at an extra 5 percent [and] moves up to 20 percent over the subsequent four years, I think [investors would] have second thoughts. In terms of optimising your investment strategy, you’d have a slightly smaller allocation to the US,” Chris Turner, the global head of markets and regional head of research for the United Kingdom and Europe at ING, a financial services company, told Al Jazeera.

There is already evidence that some economies have started diversifying away from the US. Canada, for example, has increased trade with Europe and Asia. Trump’s trade policies have also been cited as a factor in foreign governments divesting from US treasuries, while the European Central Bank continues to promote the euro as a competing global reserve currency.

This measure adds another mechanism to the Trump administration’s broader trade strategy, which has relied heavily on tariffs even as many face legal scrutiny.

Last week, the US Court of International Trade blocked the administration’s blanket global tariffs enacted under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act. A federal district court temporarily halted the block’s enforcement as legal battles unfold.

Experts believe many of these tariffs may not withstand judicial review.

“There’s no statute that provides the president that authority”, to impose sweeping international tariffs through the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, Greg Shaffer, a law professor at Georgetown University, told Al Jazeera. “And as the court said, if there were such a statute, it would be unconstitutional because the Constitution provides that responsibility to Congress.”

However, the ruling did not address tariffs on aluminium, steel and automobiles, which fall under a different legal basis – the 1962 Trade Expansion Act. Under that statute, Trump recently announced plans to raise those tariffs to 50 percent for most imports.

Growing strains in US-China relations over implementation of agreement to roll back tariffs and trade restrictions.

United States President Donald Trump has said his Chinese counterpart, Xi Jinping, is tough and “extremely hard to make a deal with”, days after he accused China of violating an agreement to roll back tariffs and trade restrictions.

“I like President Xi of China, always have, and always will, but he is VERY TOUGH, AND EXTREMELY HARD TO MAKE A DEAL WITH,” Trump said in a post on his Truth Social online platform on Wednesday, amid growing tensions between the two nations over their tariff truce.

On Monday, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt had said Trump would speak with Xi to iron out differences on last month’s tariff agreement, among larger trade issues.

In May, American and Chinese negotiators had struck a deal in Geneva that lowered US tariffs on goods from China from 145 percent to 30 percent. In exchange, China dropped its tariffs on US goods from 125 percent to 10 percent.

Analysts had described the agreement as unexpected, pointing out that the two sides had been so widely apart on their tariff dispute. Still, the deal was seen as a welcome development averting a bigger showdown that unnerved the global market.

But on Monday, China’s Ministry of Commerce said the US has “severely violated” the deal, adding that it would take steps to defend its interests.

US violations included the halting sales of computer chip design software to Chinese companies, the blocking of usage of Chinese-made chips from the tech giant Huawei, as well as the cancellation of visas for Chinese students, the Commerce Ministry said.

The ministry also said US actions severely violate an agreement reached in January during an earlier phone call between Xi and Trump.

Trump had also ranted on social media last week, accusing Beijing of “totally” violating the agreement with the US.

He did not specify which provisions in the May tariffs deal were violated. But US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer was later quoted in media reports as saying Beijing had failed to remove non-tariff barriers levied against the US, as agreed under the deal.

Last week, a US trade court ruled that Trump overstepped his authority in imposing the bulk of his tariffs on imports from China and other countries under an emergency powers act.

Less than 24 hours later, a federal appeals court reinstated it, saying it was considering the government’s appeal.

WASHINGTON — White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt was already at the briefing room lectern Tuesday when Elon Musk, the world’s richest man and a special advisor to President Trump until just last week, launched into a scathing rebuke targeting his signature legislation.

“I’m sorry, but I just can’t stand it anymore,” Musk wrote on his social media platform, X. “This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination.”

“Shame on those who voted for it,” he added. “You know you did wrong. You know it.”

It was the latest, sharpest critique of the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” making its way through Congress from Musk, who ended his tenure as a special government employee last week despite his efforts to stay on, according to an Axios report.

In a CBS interview aired last week, Musk also called the bill a disappointment. “I think a bill can be big or it can be beautiful,” he said, “but I don’t know if it can be both. My personal opinion.”

The Trump administration had already been on defense over the future of the bill, which the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates would result in a $3.8-trillion increase to the national debt over 10 years.

House Republicans approved the measure in late May. But multiple Republicans in the Senate, where the party holds a slim majority, have balked at its effects on the deficit, as well as several major proposals in the legislation that would result in millions of Americans losing access to Medicaid coverage.

One GOP senator, Joni Ernst of Iowa, drew national criticism over the weekend after responding to constituent concerns regarding Medicaid cuts at a town hall last week by saying, “well, we are all going to die.” The exchange put threats to Medicaid in the legislation back in the headlines, forcing the White House to put out a press release on Monday with the subject line: “MYTHBUSTER: No, People Will Not ‘Literally Die’ with the One Big Beautiful Bill.”

“The president already knows where Elon Musk stood on this bill,” Leavitt said at the briefing, asked to respond to Musk’s X post. “It doesn’t change the president’s opinion.”

The bill would also cut clean energy tax credits passed during the Biden administration, which have benefited Musk’s electric vehicle company, Tesla.

Trump has also bucked Musk on other matters in recent days. Despite Musk’s opposition, Trump brokered an agreement with the United Arab Emirates to build the largest artificial intelligence campus outside of the United States with the backing of Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI, a Musk rival.

The president also withdrew Jared Isaacman, reportedly an ally of Musk, as his nominee for NASA administrator. Musk’s rocket ship company, SpaceX, relies heavily on government contracts.

He openly advocated for the death of then-President-elect Donald Trump, hailing himself as an “assassin” and threatening to shoot the would-be 47th commander-in-chief shortly after the election, prosecutors say.

Those words, left on Facebook posts, are at the center of a federal grand jury indictment. On Tuesday, Yucca Valley resident Thomas Eugene Streavel, 73, pleaded not guilty to three felony counts of making threats.

The San Bernardino County man was arrested Monday just before 11 a.m. by United States Marshals and arraigned the next day inside Central District Court in Riverside.

He’s out on a $10,000 bond and is expected back in court July 28. Streavel could serve up to 15 years in prison if found guilty on all counts.

“This defendant is charged with threatening the life of our President — a man who has already survived two deranged attempts on his life,” said U.S. Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi in a statement. “The Department of Justice takes these threats with the utmost seriousness and will prosecute this crime to the fullest extent of the law.”

A number listed for Streavel was not answered, and no attorney was listed for him in court documents.

His actions were detailed in a grand jury indictment from May 29 that was unsealed Tuesday.

Streavel posted a variety of threats in the days after Trump’s electoral victory in November, according to the Justice Department.

“[T]rump is a dead man walking for the time being until a patriot like myself blows his [expletive] brains out in the very near future,” Streavel posted on Nov. 6., according to court documents.

Six days later, Streavel posted on Facebook that he was “willing to make America great again and blow his [expletive] brains out,” the indictment says.

There were similar Facebook rants on Nov. 19 and on 28.

In the earlier instance, he wrote, “Let me put a bullet right between the ears of your president-elect…That’s my purpose for living,” according to the indictment.

He later posted, “I’m praying for a successful assassination of your president-elect.” He then added, “my life’s mission is killing the worthless LOSER [expletive] and my mission starts tonight so watch yourself trump [sic], you are a dead [expletive] and I am your assassin,” court documents show.

Streavel’s posts extend to before the election, when on Oct. 15 he wrote, “today is the perfect day to blow his brains out and I’d love to be the one to pull the trigger.”

The Secret Service is also investigating the matter.

“The type of rhetoric and threats made by this defendant are similar to those that led to an attempt on the President’s life last year,” said United States Atty. Bill Essayli. “There is no place for political violence or threats of violence in the United States.”

Trump was injured in a shooting at a campaign rally in Butler, Pa., on July 13. The shooting left one rally attendee dead and two critically injured, and the unidentified gunman was killed by the Secret Service, according to that agency.

At Trump’s West Palm Beach, Fla., golf course on Sept. 15, a Secret Service agent scoping out the area one or two holes ahead of him saw the muzzle of an AK-47-style weapon pointing out of the tree line on the perimeter of the course.

Trump was unharmed in the second attempt on his life in two months.

Washington, DC – There were shackles at her wrists. Her waist. Her ankles.

The memory of being bound still haunts 19-year-old Ximena Arias Cristobal even after her release from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) custody.

Nearly a month after her arrest, the Georgia college student said she is still grappling with how her life has been transformed. One day in early May, she was pulled over for a minor traffic stop: turning right on a red light. The next thing she knew, she was in a detention centre, facing a court date for her deportation.

“That experience is something I’ll never forget. It left a mark on me, emotionally and mentally,” Arias Cristobal said during a news conference on Tuesday, recounting her time at the Stewart Detention Center in Lumpkin, Georgia.

“What hurts more,” she added, “is knowing that millions of others have gone through and are still going through the same kind of pain”.

Rights advocates say her story has become emblematic of a “dragnet” deportation policy in the United States, one that targets immigrants of all backgrounds, regardless of whether they have a criminal record.

President Donald Trump had campaigned for a second term on the pledge that he would expel “criminals” who were in the country “illegally”.

But as he ramps up his “mass deportation” campaign from the White House, critics say immigration agents are targeting immigrants from a variety of backgrounds — no matter how little risk they pose.

“The quotas that they are pushing for [are] creating this situation on the ground where ICE is literally just trying to go after anybody that they can catch,” said Vanessa Cardenas, the executive director of America’s Voice, an immigration advocacy group.

She explained that young, undocumented immigrants, known as Dreamers, are among the most vulnerable populations.

“In the dragnet, we’re getting long-established, deeply rooted Dreamers and other folks that have been in the United States for a long time,” Cardenas explained.

A vulnerable group

An avid runner who studies finance and economics at Dalton State College, Arias Cristobal is one of the 3.6 million people known as Dreamers. Many were sent to the US as children, sometimes accompanied by family members, others alone.

For decades, the US government has struggled with how to handle those young, undocumented arrivals to the country.

In 2012, then-President Barack Obama announced a new executive policy, the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). It provided temporary protection from deportation for younger immigrants who had lived in the US since June 2007.

About 530,000 Dreamers are protected by their DACA status. But Gaby Pacheco, the leader of the immigration group TheDream.US, said that number represents a small proportion of the total population of young immigrants facing possible deportation.

Some arrived after the cut-off date of June 15, 2007, while others have been unable to apply: Processing for new applications has been paused in recent years. Legal challenges over DACA also continue to wind their way through the federal court system.

“Sadly, in recent months multiple Dream.US scholars and alumni have either been arrested, detained and even deported,” Pacheco said.

She noted that 90 percent of the Dreamers that her organisation is supporting during their first year of higher education have no protections under DACA or other programmes.

All told, she said, the last few months have revealed a “painful truth”: that “Dreamers are under attack”.

Setting quotas

But advocates like Pacheco warn that the first months of the Trump administration may be only a harbinger of what is to come.

Last week, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller informed ICE agents that the Trump administration had increased its daily quota for immigration arrests, from 1,000 per day to 3,000.

The current draft of Trump’s budget legislation — known as the One Big Beautiful Bill — would also surge an estimated $150bn in government funds towards deportation and other immigration-related activities. The bill narrowly passed the House of Representatives and is likely to be taken up in the Senate in the coming weeks.

Both actions could mean a significant scale-up in immigration enforcement, even as advocates argue that Trump’s portrayal of the US as a country overrun with foreign criminals is starkly out of step with reality.

Studies have repeatedly shown that undocumented immigrants commit fewer crimes — including violent crimes — than US-born citizens.

Available data also calls into question Trump’s claims that there are large numbers of undocumented criminal offenders in the country.

The rate of arrests and deportations has remained more or less the same as when Trump’s predecessor, former President Joe Biden, was in office, according to a report by the TRAC research project.

From January 26 to May 3, during the first four months of Trump’s second term, his administration made an average of 778 immigration arrests per day. That is just 2 percent higher than the average during the final months of Biden’s presidency, which numbered about 759.

The number of daily removals or deportations under Trump was actually 1 percentage point lower than Biden’s daily rate.

‘More and more pushback’

All told, Pacheco and Cardenas warned that the pressure to increase arrests and deportations could lead to increasingly desperate tactics.

The administration has already rolled back a policy prohibiting immigration enforcement in sensitive areas, like churches and schools. It has also sought to use a 1798 wartime law to swiftly deport alleged gang members without due process, and revoked temporary protections that allowed some foreign nationals to remain in the country legally.

In an effort to increase immigration arrests, the Trump administration has also pressured local officials to coordinate with ICE. Drawing on section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, the administration has even delegated certain immigration powers to local law enforcement, including the right to make immigration arrests and screen people for deportation.

In one instance in early May, the Tennessee Highway Patrol coordinated with ICE in a sweep of traffic stops that led to nearly 100 immigration arrests. Another large-scale operation in Massachusetts in early June saw ICE make 1,500 arrests.

Swept up in that mass arrest was Marcelo Gomes Da Silva, an 18-year-old high school student on his way to volleyball practice. His arrest sparked protest and condemnation in Gomes Da Silva’s hometown of Milford, Massachusetts.

Cardenas pointed to those demonstrations, as well as the outpouring of support for Arias Cristobal, as evidence of a growing rejection of Trump’s immigration policies.

“I think we are going to see more and more pushback from Americans,” she said.

“Having said that, it is my belief that this administration has all the intention to implement their plans… And if Congress gives them more money, they’re going to go after our communities.”

WASHINGTON — The White House on Tuesday officially asked Congress to claw back $9.4 billion in already approved spending, taking funding away from programs targeted by Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency.

It’s a process known as “rescission,” which requires President Donald Trump to get approval from Congress to return money that had previously been appropriated. Trump’s aides say the funding cuts target programs that promote liberal ideologies.

The request, if it passes the House and Senate, would formally enshrine many of the spending cuts and freezes sought by DOGE. It comes at a time when Musk is extremely unhappy with the tax cut and spending plan making its way through Congress, calling it on Tuesday a “disgusting abomination” for increasing the federal deficit.

White House budget director Russ Vought said more rescission packages and other efforts to cut spending could follow if the current effort succeeds.

“

Here’s what to know about the rescissions request:

Will the rescissions make a dent in the national debt?

The request to Congress is unlikely to meaningfully change the troublesome increase in the U.S. national debt. Tax revenues have been insufficient to cover the growing costs of Social Security, Medicare and other programs. The Congressional Budget Office estimates the government is on track to spend roughly $7 trillion this year, with the rescission request equaling just 0.1% of that total.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters at Tuesday’s briefing that Vought would continue to cut spending, hinting that there could be additional efforts to return funds.

“He has tools at his disposal to produce even more savings,” Leavitt said.

Vought said he can send up additional rescissions at the end of the fiscal year in September “and if Congress does not act on it, that funding expires.”

“It’s one of the reasons why we are not putting all of our expectations in a typical rescissions process,” he added.

What programs are targeted by the rescissions?

A spokesperson for the White House Office of Management and Budget, speaking on condition of anonymity to preview some of the items that would lose funding, said that $8.3 billion was being cut from the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development. NPR and PBS would also lose federal funding, as would the U.S. President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, also known as PEPFAR.

The spokesperson listed specific programs that the Trump administration considered wasteful, including $750,000 to reduce xenophobia in Venezuela, $67,000 for feeding insect powder to children in Madagascar and $3 million for circumcision, vasectomies and condoms in Zambia.

Is the rescissions package likely to get passed?

House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., complimented the planned cuts and pledged to pass them.

“This rescissions package reflects many of DOGE’s findings and is one of the many legislative tools Republicans are using to restore fiscal sanity,” Johnson said. “Congress will continue working closely with the White House to codify these recommendations, and the House will bring the package to the floor as quickly as possible.”

Members of the House Freedom Caucus, among the chamber’s most conservative lawmakers, said they would like to see additional rescission packages from the administration.

“We will support as many more rescissions packages the White House can send us in the coming weeks and months,” the group said in a press release.

Sen. Susan Collins, chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, gave the package a less optimistic greeting.

“Despite this fast track, the Senate Appropriations Committee will carefully review the rescissions package and examine the potential consequences of these rescissions on global health, national security, emergency communications in rural communities, and public radio and television stations,” the Maine lawmaker said in a statement.

Boak writes for the Associated Press.

US Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem says authorities investigating whether family knew of planned ‘heinous attack’.

Federal officials in the United States have taken into custody the family of a man suspected of attacking a pro-Israel rally in Boulder, Colorado, over the weekend.

In a video on Tuesday, US Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem announced that the family of Egyptian national Mohamed Sabry Soliman had been detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

“This terrorist will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law,” Noem said in the video. “We are investigating to what extent his family knew about this heinous attack, if they had knowledge of it, or if they provided support to it.”

Police have accused the 45-year-old Soliman of throwing Molotov cocktails into a crowd that had gathered for an event organised by Run for Their Lives, a group calling for the release of Israeli captives held in Gaza.

According to an affidavit, Soliman yelled “Free Palestine” while hurling the incendiary devices.

The firebombs injured 12 people, three of whom remain hospitalised. Police have said Soliman planned the attack for more than a year. He is facing federal hate crime charges.

“When he was interviewed about the attack, he said he wanted them all to die, he had no regrets, and he would go back and do it again,” J Bishop Grewell, Colorado’s acting US attorney, said during a news conference Monday.

Soliman said that he acted alone and that nobody else knew of his plans. But officials with the administration of US President Donald Trump said they will investigate whether his wife and five children were aware of the suspect’s intentions.

Administration officials have also highlighted the fact that Soliman, an Egyptian national, was in the US on an expired tourist visa, tying his arrest — and that of his family — to a larger push against undocumented immigration.

“The United States has zero tolerance for foreign visitors who support terrorism,” White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Tuesday.

“Under the Trump administration, aliens will only be admitted into the United States through the legal process and only if they do not bear hostile attitudes towards our citizens, our culture, our government, our institutions or, most importantly, our founding principles.”

Soliman’s family includes a wife and five children. The official White House account on the social media platform X indicated that they “could be deported by tonight”.

“Six One-Way Tickets for Mohamed’s Wife and Five Kids. Final Boarding Call Coming Soon,” Tuesday’s post read.

The attack comes amid rising tensions in the US over Israel’s continued war in Gaza, which United Nations experts and human rights groups have compared to a genocide. It also comes less than two weeks after the fatal shooting of two Israeli embassy employees outside a Jewish museum in Washington, DC.

Jewish as well as Muslim and Arab communities have reported sharp upticks in harassment and violence since the war began.

Trump and his allies have used concerns about anti-Semitism as a pretext to push hardline policies on immigration and a crackdown on pro-Palestine activists.

“This is yet another example of why we must keep our Borders SECURE, and deport Illegal, Anti-American Radicals from our Homeland,” Trump said in a social media post on Monday.

But the president and his supporters have themselves faced allegations of leaning into anti-Semitic rhetoric. And his administration’s push to expel foreign nationals has caused alarm among civil liberties groups.

The administration is currently attempting to deport several international students involved in pro-Palestine activity, including a Turkish graduate student named Rumeysa Ozturk.

Her legal team argues that Ozturk appears to have been arrested for co-signing an op-ed calling for an end to the war in Gaza. Ozturk was released from immigrant detention in May following a legal challenge, but she continues to face deportation proceedings.

A New Jersey mayor has filed a lawsuit against a federal prosecutor and close ally of United States President Donald Trump after he was arrested at a protest outside an immigration detention centre.

In a civil complaint filed on Tuesday, Mayor Ras Baraka of Newark, New Jersey, accused acting US Attorney Alina Habba of “subjecting him to false arrest and malicious prosecution”.

The complaint also names Ricky Patel, a special agent with the Department of Homeland Security’s investigations unit, as a co-defendant.

“As a result of this false arrest”, the lawsuit argues that Mayor Baraka “suffered severe reputational harm, emotional distress and other damages”.

The suit is the latest fallout from a May 9 protest outside Delaney Hall, a privately run immigration detention facility in Newark.

Baraka, a longtime critic of the facility, had joined three Democratic members of the US House of Representatives for a tour of the 1,000-bed detention centre, as protesters gathered outside the gate.

The lawsuit alleges that a member of the GEO Group, which owns the facility, allowed Baraka to come inside Delaney Hall’s wire gate. But once inside, it says Patel ordered him to exit again, on threat of arrest.

Baraka complied, but a few minutes later, as he stood with protesters outside the gate, agents with the Department of Homeland Security surrounded the mayor, handcuffed him and led him away.

The complaint alleges that Patel ordered the agents to “take [the mayor] down” and that they “pushed, shoved and assaulted” the mayor’s security team before arresting him. Baraka denies trespassing onto the Delaney Hall grounds.

“They abused their power to violently arrest me at Delaney Hall despite being invited inside,” Baraka wrote on social media on Tuesday. “No one is above the law.”

Habba initially filed a trespassing charge against Baraka for his actions during the protest. But by May 19, she moved to dismiss the charge, prompting a rebuke from the judge overseeing the case.

“Your role is not to secure convictions at all costs, nor to satisfy public clamour, nor to advance political agendas,” Judge Andre Espinosa told a representative for Habba’s office.

“The hasty arrest of Newark Mayor Ras Baraka, followed swiftly by the dismissal of those trespassing charges a mere 13 days later, suggests a worrisome misstep by your office,” Espinosa added.

“An arrest, particularly of a public figure, is not a preliminary investigative tool. It is a severe action, carrying significant reputational and personal consequences, and it should only be undertaken after a thorough, dispassionate evaluation of credible evidence.”

At the same time as she announced she was seeking the dismissal of the trespassing charge, Habba revealed she would be pursuing criminal charges against US Congress member LaMonica McIver, who was also at the Delaney Hall protest.

Habba accused McIver of assaulting law enforcement during Baraka’s arrest. That case is ongoing. But Representative McIver has called the charges against her “purely political”, and she issued a statement on Tuesday in support of Baraka’s lawsuit.

“The way Mayor Baraka was treated at Delaney Hall was outrageous,” the statement reads. “It is beyond clear that there was never any legal or factual basis to arrest or charge him. The administration’s playing politics with our justice system is disgraceful.”

In the lead-up to Baraka’s lawsuit, Habba herself weighed in, suggesting the mayor’s complaint was a waste of time.

“He is planning to sue the Feds,” Habba wrote on social media Monday. “My advice to the mayor – feel free to join me in prioritizing violent crime and public safety. Far better use of time for the great citizens of New Jersey.”

Habba had served as part of Trump’s personal legal team before joining his administration following his second inauguration in January.

Trump has pledged to pursue a policy of “mass deportation” during his second term as president, but that goal has run up against logistical issues, including a lack of detention space. His administration awarded Delaney Hall a 15-year contract to help address the growing demand for beds, and the facility opened this past May.

Baraka, however, has argued that Delaney Hall failed to receive the proper local permitting and has been a visible presence at protests outside the immigration centre. The GEO Group denies any permitting violations.

Critics, particularly on the left, have long accused the Trump administration of retaliating against those who oppose the president’s signature policies, including his crackdown on immigration.

Tuesday’s lawsuit, for example, accuses Habba of defaming Baraka in her efforts to detain and charge him with trespassing.

“In authorizing and/or directing the arrest of Mayor Baraka without proper legal grounds, Defendant Habba was acting for political reasons and fulfilling her stated goal of ‘turning New Jersey red’,” the lawsuit argues.

The complaint further alleges that other members of the Trump administration participated “in promoting a false and defamatory narrative”, including that Baraka “broke into” the detention facility.

Baraka is running this November as a Democratic candidate in the race to be New Jersey governor. His lawsuit alleges the arrest and subsequent trespassing charge was designed to “damage him politically”.

Last month, Trump endorsed one of Baraka’s Republican rivals, businessman and former state Representative Jack Ciattarelli, for the governorship.

WASHINGTON — President Trump wants his “big, beautiful” bill of tax breaks and spending cuts on his desk to be signed into law by the Fourth of July, and he’s pushing the slow-rolling Senate to make it happen sooner rather than later.

Trump met with Senate Majority Leader John Thune at the White House early this week and has been dialing senators for one-on-one chats, using both the carrot and stick to nudge, badger and encourage them to act. But it’s still a long road ahead for the 1,000-page-plus package.

“His question to me was, How do you think the bill’s going to go in the Senate?” Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) said about his call with Trump. “Do you think there’s going to be problems?”

It’s a potentially tumultuous three-week sprint for senators preparing to put their own imprint on the massive Republican package that cleared the House late last month by a single vote. The senators have been meeting for weeks behind closed doors, including as they returned to Washington late Monday, to revise the package ahead of what is expected to be a similarly narrow vote in the Senate.

“Passing THE ONE, BIG, BEAUTIFUL BILL is a Historic Opportunity to turn our Country around,” Trump posted on social media. He urged them Monday “to work as fast as they can to get this Bill to MY DESK before the Fourth of JULY.”

Thune, like House Speaker Mike Johnson, has few votes to spare from the Senate’s slim, 53-seat GOP majority. Democrats are waging an all-out political assault on GOP proposals to cut Medicaid, food stamps and green energy investments to help pay for more than $4.5 trillion in tax cuts — with many lawmakers being hammered at boisterous town halls back home.

“It’d be nice if we could have everybody on board to do it, but, you know, individual members are going to stake out their positions,” Thune said Tuesday.

“But in the end, we have to succeed. Failure’s not an option. We’ve got to get to 51. So we’ll figure out the path forward to do that over the next couple of weeks.”

At its core, the package seeks to extend the tax cuts approved in 2017, during Trump’s first term at the White House, and add new ones the president campaigned on, including no taxes on tips and others. It also includes a massive build-up of $350 billion for border security, deportations and national security.

To defray the lost tax revenue to the government and avoid piling onto the nation’s $36-trillion debt load, Republicans want to reduce federal spending by imposing work requirements for some Americans who rely on government safety net services. Estimates are 8.6 million people would no longer have healthcare and nearly 4 million would lose Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program benefits.

The package also would raise the nation’s debt limit by $4 trillion to allow more borrowing to pay the bills.

Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer said Trump’s bill “is ugly to its very core.”

Schumer said Tuesday it’s a “lie” that the cuts won’t hurt Americans. “Behind the smoke and mirrors lies a cruel and draconian truth: tax breaks for the ultra-wealthy paid for by gutting healthcare for millions of Americans,” said the New York senator.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office is expected to soon provide an overall analysis of the package’s impacts on the government balance sheets, particular its rising annual deficits. But Republicans are ready to blast those findings from the congressional scorekeeper as flawed.

Trump on Tuesday switched to tougher tactics, deriding the holdout Republican senators to get on board.

The president laid into Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, the libertarian-leaning deficit hawk who has made a career of arguing against government spending. Paul wants the package’s $4-trillion increase to the debt ceiling out of the bill.

“Rand votes NO on everything, but never has any practical or constructive ideas. His ideas are actually crazy (losers!).” Trump posted.

The July 4 deadline is not only aspirational for the president, it’s all but mandatory for his Treasury Department. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has warned Congress that the nation will run out of money to pay its bills if the debt ceiling, now at $36 trillion, is not lifted by mid-July or early August to allow more borrowing. Bessent has also been meeting behind closed doors with senators and GOP leadership.

Thune acknowledged Tuesday that lifting the debt ceiling is not up for debate.

“It’s got to be done,” the South Dakota senator said.

The road ahead is also a test for Thune, who, like Johnson, is a newer leader in Congress and among the many Republicans adjusting their own priorities with Trump’s return to the White House.

While Johnson has warned against massive changes to the package, Thune faces demands from his senators for adjustments.

To make most of the tax cuts permanent — particularly the business tax breaks that are the Senate priorities — senators may shave some of Trump’s proposed new tax breaks on automobile loans or overtime pay, which are policies less prized by some senators.

There are also discussions about altering the $40,000 cap that the House proposed for state and local deductions, known as SALT, which are important to lawmakers in high-tax New York, California and other states, but less so among GOP senators.

“We’re having all those discussions,” said Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), another key voice in the debate.

Hawley is among a group of senators, including Maine’s Susan Collins and Alaska’s Lisa Murkowski, who have raised concerns about the Medicaid changes that could boot people from health insurance.

A potential copay of up to $35 for Medicaid services that was part of the House package, as well as a termination of a provider tax that many states rely on to help fund rural hospitals, have also raised concerns.

“The best way to not be accused of cutting Medicaid is to not cut Medicaid,” Hawley said.

Collins said she is reviewing the details.

There’s also a House provision that would allow the auction of spectrum bandwidth that some senators oppose.

Mascaro and Jalonick write for the Associated Press. AP writer Matt Brown contributed to this report.