Category: USA

President Donald Trump is facing significant disapproval across multiple issues, with a Fox News host stating Thursday that he is “underwater on everything” when it comes to his approval ratings.

Jessica Tarlov cited a new Quinnipiac poll released this week, which found that 53% of voters disapprove of Trump’s performance during his second term. Voters were surveyed on various topics, including trade policies with China and Canada, immigration, foreign relations, military affairs, the economy, and the federal workforce.

Since the start of his second term, the stock market has been experiencing a downturn, thousands of federal workers have lost their jobs, and Trump has created tension with some of the country’s strongest trade partners.

“The Democratic messaging actually has been going pretty well,” Tarlov said on Fox News’ The Five, despite a separate poll indicating that Democrats have struggled to respond effectively to Trump’s policies. She noted that Democrats have been emphasizing, “They’re trying to cut your healthcare while giving tax breaks to the rich.”

“There’s over 50% disapproval of Trump himself, how he’s handling the economy, how he’s handling the federal workforce, how he’s handling Ukraine-Russia, how he’s handling trade with Mexico, how he’s handling trade with Canada,” Tarlov added. “So basically, he’s underwater on everything.”

Trump’s approval ratings had already been struggling before his joint session of Congress address on March 4. Another Quinnipiac poll from last month showed that 45% of voters approved of his performance, while 49% disapproved.

A CNN poll released this week reported similar findings, with 54% of voters disapproving of Trump’s performance compared to 45% who approved. Additionally, a Reuters poll found that many voters viewed Trump’s economic policies as too “erratic.”

Tarlov attributed part of Trump’s declining approval ratings to recent town halls held by both Democratic and Republican congressional members. These events have drawn large crowds seeking clarification on the Trump administration’s policies, particularly regarding federal workforce reductions.

On the Republican side, social media footage has captured GOP lawmakers facing backlash for supporting the Department of Government Efficiency, which is overseeing these workforce cuts.

“And we know about the Republicans having town halls and then having to run away or asking questions like, ‘What do you think of DOGE?’ and expecting people to say something positive and then they are screaming,” Tarlov said.

House Speaker Mike Johnson has suggested, without evidence, that some of the outraged town hall attendees are “paid actors.”

This week, North Carolina Republican Representative Chuck Edwards faced an intense confrontation with constituents demanding explanations for his support of cuts to the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. He was met with boos and was eventually escorted out of the meeting.

President Donald Trump’s administration on Tuesday began declassifying all government files related to the 1963 assassination of President John F. Kennedy, making potentially tens of thousands of unredacted pages available to the public for the first time.

This release follows Trump’s executive order, signed on his first day in office in January, directing the full disclosure of government documents concerning the assassinations of Kennedy, his brother and presidential candidate Sen. Robert F. Kennedy, D-N.Y., and civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr.

The specific contents of these newly available documents, and whether they contain any previously undisclosed information, remain unclear. Historians noted they would need time to analyze the files to determine whether they offer any significant new insights.

Thus far, the documents have not altered the longstanding conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in assassinating Kennedy on Nov. 22, 1963, as the president rode in a Dallas motorcade.

Public Access to the JFK Files

The newly released JFK files can be accessed on the National Archives’ website. Most are scanned documents, some of which have faded or become difficult to read over time. The collection also includes photographs and sound recordings, predominantly from the 1960s.

Report from Russia: Oswald’s Poor Marksmanship

One document dated Nov. 20, 1991, appears to summarize U.S. intelligence findings on Lee Harvey Oswald, detailing his time in the Soviet Union, his tumultuous marriage to his Soviet wife, and his reportedly poor shooting skills.

According to the document, KGB official Nikonov reviewed Soviet security service files to determine if Oswald had ever been a KGB agent.

“Nikonov is now confident that Oswald was at no time an agent controlled by the KGB,” the document states.

The report, citing American professor E.B. Smith, describes how Nikonov examined five extensive files on Oswald and doubted that anyone could control him. However, the KGB reportedly monitored him closely while he was in the USSR.

The files also document Oswald’s troubled relationship with his wife and suggest that his marksmanship was subpar. “The KGB files reflected that Oswald was a poor shot when he tried target firing in the USSR,” the document notes.

Some conspiracy theorists have pointed to inconsistencies in Oswald’s behavioral records in CIA files, arguing that they support theories suggesting he did not act alone or was not involved in Kennedy’s assassination.

References to Conspiracy Theories in the Files

The newly disclosed documents reference conspiracy theories suggesting that Oswald left the Soviet Union in 1962 with the intent to assassinate Kennedy.

Documents from the Department of Defense, dated 1963, focus on Cold War tensions and U.S. efforts to counter Cuban leader Fidel Castro’s support for communist movements in Latin America.

The records suggest Castro was unlikely to instigate a war with the U.S. but might “intensify his support of subversive forces in Latin America.”

Experts’ Initial Reactions

James Johnston, author of Murder, Inc.: The CIA under John F. Kennedy, told USA Today that he did not expect any major revelations, given that the CIA and other agencies had already transferred their records to the National Archives in 1988.

“If it was going to embarrass the agency or tell a different story, they wouldn’t have turned them over to the National Archives in the first place,” said Johnston, who was a congressional investigator on the 1975 Church Committee, which examined CIA activities.

Johnston cited one notable document missing from the release: a transcript of the first conversation between President Lyndon Johnson and CIA Director John McCone after Kennedy’s assassination.

McCone had long been suspected of withholding information from the Warren Commission, the investigative panel established by Johnson. According to Philip Shenon, author of A Cruel and Shocking Act: The Secret History of the Kennedy Assassination, McCone initially pledged full cooperation but later withheld certain details.

McCone testified that the CIA had no evidence linking Oswald to any conspiracy, foreign or domestic. His testimony aligned with the Warren Commission’s conclusion that Oswald, a former Marine and self-proclaimed Marxist, acted alone.

Years later, however, the CIA acknowledged that McCone had not been entirely forthcoming with the Warren Commission.

The Warren Commission’s Findings

Several of the newly released documents pertain to the Warren Commission, which was created by President Johnson to investigate Kennedy’s assassination.

The commission concluded that Oswald, who was arrested but later killed by nightclub owner Jack Ruby on live television, acted alone. However, Kennedy’s assassination has remained the subject of intense debate, with numerous theories challenging the official findings. Polls have consistently shown that many Americans believe the assassination was part of a broader conspiracy.

Trump’s Push for ‘Maximum Transparency’

Trump did not immediately comment on the document release, but Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard praised the move, calling it part of Trump’s pledge for “maximum transparency and a commitment to rebuild the trust of the American people in the Intelligence Community.”

For years, critics have accused the intelligence community, particularly the CIA, of withholding key information about Kennedy’s assassination. However, intelligence officials have insisted that all essential files have already been released and that any remaining redactions were necessary to protect intelligence sources and methods.

Gabbard stated that she issued a directive following Trump’s announcement, instructing all intelligence agencies to provide unredacted records for immediate public release.

Digital Release and Remaining Files

The newly released documents were made public just before 7 p.m. Tuesday. The National Archives and Records Administration, which manages the files, issued a statement confirming that all records previously withheld for classification were now released in accordance with Trump’s directive.

The National Archives noted that while some files are available online, others can only be accessed in person at the National Archives facility in College Park, Maryland.

“As the records continue to be digitized, they will be posted to this page,” the statement read, indicating that some documents are not yet available in digital form.

The agency also noted that certain information remains restricted under court seals or grand jury secrecy laws, while tax return records are protected under federal regulations.

Public Anticipation and Reaction

The document release followed Trump’s visit to the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, where he now serves as board chairman.

“People have been waiting for decades for this,” Trump told reporters. “We have a tremendous amount of paper. You’ve got a lot of reading. I don’t believe we’re going to redact anything.”

The CIA and FBI, both of which played roles in JFK assassination investigations, declined immediate comment.

Expert Analysis on the Newly Released Files

JFK scholar Jefferson Morley called the release “an encouraging start.”

“We now have complete versions of approximately a third of the redacted JFK documents held by the National Archives,” said Morley, vice president of the Mary Ferrell Foundation, a nonprofit organization that advocates for historical government transparency.

He added that seven out of ten JFK files sought by researchers are now fully public, providing new insights into Kennedy’s distrust of the CIA, attempts to assassinate Castro, surveillance of Oswald in Mexico City, and CIA propaganda efforts involving Oswald.

However, Morley noted that two-thirds of the promised files remain unreleased, including over 500 IRS records and 2,400 recently discovered FBI documents.

“Nonetheless, this is the most positive news on the declassification of JFK files since the 1990s,” Morley said.

The Justice Department’s Effort to Meet Trump’s Deadline

Trump’s order reportedly triggered a rush within the Justice Department to meet his deadline. ABC News and Reuters reported that a senior official in the DOJ’s Office of Intelligence sent an internal email just before 5 p.m. Monday, instructing attorneys to conduct a final review of the documents.

The push for full declassification began with Trump’s first executive order on Jan. 20, when he directed agencies to release files related to the assassinations of Kennedy, Robert F. Kennedy, and Martin Luther King Jr.

FBI Unveils Additional 2,400 JFK Records

Last month, the FBI announced the discovery of approximately 2,400 additional records connected to Kennedy’s assassination. These files are in the process of being transferred to the National Archives, but their contents remain unclear.

While previous investigations found no evidence of a government conspiracy, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Trump’s Secretary of Health and Human Services, has advocated for releasing the files to examine whether U.S. officials were involved in a cover-up.

The National Archives continues to review and release documents in compliance with Trump’s directive.

A global watchdog organization has placed the United States on a list of countries experiencing “faltering civic freedoms” following concerns over President Donald Trump’s recent actions and policies.

CIVICUS, a nonprofit that advocates for democracy and human rights, included the U.S. in its first watchlist of the year on Monday. The organization noted that America, previously regarded as “a global champion for democracy and human rights,” has drawn scrutiny due to Trump’s efforts to reshape the federal government to align with his vision while distancing the U.S. from global affairs.

The United States is now listed among 37 other nations, including the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Pakistan, Chile, and Slovakia, under the category of countries with “narrowed” civic freedoms.

“This is an unparalleled attack on the rule of law in the United States, not seen since the days of McCarthyism in the twentieth century,” said Mandeep Tiwana, the interim co-secretary-general of CIVICUS, in a statement.

Tiwana further elaborated, saying, “Restrictive executive orders, unjustifiable institutional cutbacks, and intimidation tactics through threatening pronouncements by senior officials in the administration are creating an atmosphere to chill democratic dissent, a cherished American ideal.”

The “narrowed” designation by CIVICUS signifies that while people in these countries can still exercise civil liberties, violations of these rights occur periodically. This is the second-highest rating level, following the “open” category.

One of the primary concerns cited by the organization is Trump’s decision to dismiss large numbers of federal employees and replace them with individuals who demonstrate unwavering loyalty to him, a move that CIVICUS warns could “severely impact constitutional freedoms.”

Trump has deliberately chosen appointees based on their personal allegiance to him rather than their qualifications or expertise.

Among those involved in restructuring the government is billionaire Elon Musk, who, despite lacking an official title, has served as a “special government employee.” Musk has played a role in identifying areas within the federal workforce for reduction, seeking to eliminate what the administration views as inefficient or wasteful expenditures.

This initiative has led to significant changes within key government agencies. The U.S. Agency for International Development has been stripped of much of its authority to provide humanitarian aid and assistance, while the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has seen a reduction in its ability to regulate and enforce protections against fraud and unfair business practices.

Additionally, Trump has employed executive orders to consolidate power within the executive branch, thereby increasing his administration’s ability to oversee and control federal agencies, ensuring they align with his policy priorities.

These measures have included halting all diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives, suppressing pro-Palestinian student demonstrations, and promoting policies that reflect his administration’s ideological stance.

“The Trump administration seems hellbent on dismantling the system of checks and balances, which are the pillars of a democratic society,” Tiwana warned in the CIVICUS statement.

Monday’s designation is not the first time the U.S. has been downgraded on the watchdog’s list. In 2020, CIVICUS lowered the country’s status to “obstructed” after determining that the Trump administration had repressed mass protests.

On Saturday, President Donald Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, asserting that the U.S. was under invasion by a Venezuelan gang. The law, originally designed for wartime, grants the president significant authority, enabling him to accelerate mass deportations of undocumented immigrants. This move signals a potential intensification of Trump’s immigration enforcement efforts.

Trump’s order specifically targets the Tren de Aragua gang, which he claims is operating as a hostile force under the Venezuelan government’s direction. “Over the years, Venezuelan national and local authorities have ceded ever-greater control over their territories to transnational criminal organizations, including TdA,” Trump stated, as reported by the Associated Press. He further argued, “The result is a hybrid criminal state that is perpetrating an invasion of and predatory incursion into the United States, and which poses a substantial danger to the United States.”

The declaration came on the same day that a federal judge in Washington blocked the administration from deporting five Venezuelans under the anticipated order, indicating potential legal resistance. Even before Trump’s official announcement, a federal judge had intervened to prevent these deportations using the Alien Enemies Act, signaling an immediate legal battle.

Legal Challenges and Court Rulings

Civil rights organizations, including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Democracy Forward, quickly filed an urgent lawsuit in Washington’s federal court. They argued that Trump’s order classified Tren de Aragua as a “predatory incursion” orchestrated by a foreign government, a move that could lead to indiscriminate deportations of Venezuelans.

DC Circuit Chief Judge James E. Boasberg issued a temporary restraining order, valid for 14 days, to shield five Venezuelans in immigration custody who were at risk of imminent deportation under the act. Boasberg’s ruling sought to preserve the current situation while scheduling a hearing to determine whether broader protections should be extended to all Venezuelans in the U.S.

The Trump administration swiftly challenged the restraining order, arguing that blocking presidential action before its execution would significantly hinder executive operations. The Justice Department warned that allowing such judicial interventions could enable district courts to obstruct crucial national security measures, including intelligence operations, drone strikes, or counterterrorism efforts. The administration urged the court to prevent such a precedent from taking hold.

What Is the Alien Enemies Act?

The Alien Enemies Act, part of the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, is a law designed for use during wartime or when the U.S. faces an imminent invasion threat from a foreign nation. It grants the president the authority to detain or deport foreign nationals from enemy countries during conflicts, with a particular focus on recent immigrants who might be perceived as aligning with U.S. adversaries.

When Was the Alien Enemies Act Last Used?

According to CNN, legal experts believe invoking the act outside of wartime—especially in response to threats from criminal gangs or cartels—would present legal challenges unless the U.S. were under direct attack by a foreign government.

The Alien Enemies Act has been invoked three times in U.S. history, each instance occurring during wartime. As noted by the Brennan Center, it was used during World War I and World War II to detain and deport individuals from Germany, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, Italy, and Japan. Additionally, the act played a central role in the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II, a highly controversial episode in U.S. history.

Presidential Powers Under the Alien Enemies Act

The act grants the president broad authority, including:

• Detention and Deportation: The president can detain or deport any male over the age of 14 from an enemy nation if they are deemed a potential threat.
• National Security Measures: The act provides a legal framework for mitigating risks posed by foreign nationals from hostile nations to protect U.S. interests.
• Restrictions on Movement and Property: The president can impose travel restrictions or require individuals to report regularly to authorities.
• Expedited Mass Deportations: The act allows the president to bypass certain immigration and criminal law protections, facilitating rapid deportations of individuals designated as threats.

Key Implications of Trump’s Order

1. Legal Challenges and Constitutional Concerns

Civil rights organizations, including the ACLU, have already initiated lawsuits, arguing that Trump’s order violates due process and immigrants’ legal rights. A federal judge’s temporary block on some deportations suggests a prolonged legal battle is ahead.

2. Targeting of Venezuelan Migrants

Trump has justified his order by focusing on the Tren de Aragua gang, alleging that it has connections to Venezuela’s government. However, this designation could impact thousands of Venezuelan migrants in the U.S., many of whom fled economic hardship and political repression.

3. Potential Diplomatic Fallout

Trump’s move may strain U.S.-Venezuela relations, particularly if deported individuals face persecution under President Nicolás Maduro’s regime. Maduro’s government has long been at odds with the U.S., and mass deportations could heighten tensions.

4. Uncertainty for Undocumented Immigrants

The order has created widespread fear and uncertainty among undocumented Venezuelan migrants, who now face the possibility of detention or deportation without standard legal protections.

5. Use of Detention Centers and International Transfers

The Trump administration has announced plans to relocate approximately 300 suspected gang members to detention facilities in El Salvador. This decision has drawn criticism from human rights groups concerned about the treatment of detainees in these facilities.

6. Broader Immigration Crackdown

Trump’s move signals his commitment to aggressively pursuing stricter immigration policies, potentially laying the groundwork for more expansive crackdowns if he secures a second term. The use of the Alien Enemies Act in this context raises concerns about its future application beyond Venezuelan migrants.

A Test for Executive Power

Trump’s decision to invoke the Alien Enemies Act marks a significant escalation in his immigration policy. While his administration argues that this move is necessary for national security, legal experts caution that using a wartime law to target migrant groups could face substantial constitutional hurdles.

The federal court’s intervention suggests that judicial challenges will continue to shape the fate of Trump’s order. The restraining order issued by Judge Boasberg may be just the first of many legal barriers Trump faces in implementing this measure.

The Road Ahead

With ongoing court battles, diplomatic considerations, and human rights concerns, Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act remains a contentious issue. While supporters see it as a necessary tool to combat transnational crime, opponents view it as an overreach that could set a dangerous precedent for future immigration policies.

The coming weeks will be crucial as the administration seeks to defend its actions in court, while advocacy groups continue their efforts to challenge what they see as an unlawful and unconstitutional policy. The ultimate outcome of this legal battle could have lasting implications for immigration enforcement and executive authority in the U.S.

The administration of President Donald Trump filed a series of emergency appeals with the Supreme Court on Thursday, seeking approval to proceed with plans to end birthright citizenship. This move elevates a controversial legal theory that multiple lower courts have strongly rejected.

In its emergency appeals, the Trump administration argued that lower courts had overstepped their authority by issuing nationwide injunctions that blocked the policy. It urged the Supreme Court to limit the scope of these orders.

A federal judge in January ruled that Trump’s executive order was “blatantly unconstitutional” and halted its implementation. Shortly afterward, a Maryland judge stated that the order “runs counter to our nation’s 250-year history of citizenship by birth.” Despite appeals, courts have consistently declined to pause the lower court rulings, which imposed nationwide injunctions on Trump’s order issued on the first day of his second term.

For over 150 years, courts have interpreted the 14th Amendment to ensure citizenship to anyone “born or naturalized in the United States,” regardless of their parents’ immigration status. A landmark 1898 Supreme Court decision affirmed this interpretation, and the current Court has not indicated any intention to reconsider that precedent.

However, some conservative legal scholars argue that this long-standing interpretation is incorrect. They point to a phrase in the 14th Amendment that states citizenship applies only to those “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. According to this perspective, immigrants who are in the country illegally remain under the jurisdiction of their home nations and should not be granted U.S. citizenship at birth.

Federal courts in Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington have all issued injunctions preventing the policy’s implementation. These rulings came in response to lawsuits filed by over 20 states, two immigrant rights organizations, and seven individual plaintiffs.

Cody Wofsy, deputy director of the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project and lead attorney in one of the lawsuits challenging the administration, criticized the executive order, saying, “The president’s executive order is outrageously illegal and cruel, and it should not be applied to a single baby in this country.” He added, “We are going to continue fighting to ensure that no child is denied their citizenship by this executive order.”

The Trump administration’s Supreme Court appeals do not directly address whether the executive order is constitutional. Instead, they make what the administration calls a “modest” request to narrow the scope of the injunctions. If granted, this request would allow the government to enforce the policy against individuals not currently covered by ongoing litigation.

The Justice Department, in its emergency appeals, expressed frustration with the increasing use of nationwide injunctions, arguing, “Universal injunctions have reached epidemic proportions since the start of the current administration.” It continued, “Those universal injunctions prohibit a Day 1 Executive Order from being enforced anywhere in the country, as to ‘hundreds of thousands’ of unspecified individuals who are ‘not before the court nor identified by the court.’”

As an alternative measure, the administration requested permission to issue guidance on how it would implement the policy, even if the Court did not fully lift the injunctions.

While the focus of the administration’s legal challenge is on lower court rulings that blocked the executive order, the Justice Department used its Supreme Court appeal to outline broader arguments against birthright citizenship.

“During the 20th century,” the administration argued, “the executive branch adopted the incorrect position that the citizenship clause extended birthright citizenship to almost everyone born in the United States – even children of illegal aliens or temporarily present aliens.” It further claimed, “That policy of near-universal birthright citizenship has created strong incentives for illegal immigration.”

With the Supreme Court now reviewing the case, it is expected to establish a briefing schedule that will require the parties challenging the executive order to submit their responses quickly, possibly within just a few days.

President Trump signed an executive order on Friday aimed at dissolving seven federal agencies, including those overseeing media, libraries, museums, and homelessness initiatives.

The directive instructs these government entities to be “eliminated to the maximum extent consistent with applicable law,” asserting that they should “reduce the performance of their statutory functions and associated personnel.” Agency heads are required to submit a compliance report to the Office of Management and Budget within seven days.

Among the agencies targeted is the U.S. Agency for Global Media, which oversees Voice of America (VOA). The order also seeks to dismantle the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, a think tank within the Smithsonian Institution, and the Institute of Museum and Library Services, which provides support to libraries, archives, and museums nationwide.

Additionally, the executive action eliminates the United States Interagency Council on Homelessness, which works to prevent and address homelessness across the country. Other agencies affected include the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, which helps resolve labor disputes and work stoppages, the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund, which promotes economic opportunities in underserved communities, and the Minority Business Development Agency, which supports the growth of minority-owned businesses.

Trump’s decision has raised concerns about the future of VOA, particularly following his selection of former Arizona gubernatorial and Senate candidate Kari Lake to lead the outlet. Speaking at the Conservative Political Action Conference last month, Lake assured that under her leadership, the international broadcaster would not become “Trump TV.”

While the president does not directly appoint VOA’s leader, Trump has nominated conservative activist L. Brent Bozell III to head the U.S. Agency for Global Media. If confirmed by the Senate, Bozell would have the authority to appoint Lake to the position.

The U.S. Agency for Global Media also supervises Radio Free Asia, which broadcasts and publishes content for audiences in Asia, serving as a countermeasure against Chinese state propaganda.

The Trump administration has been pursuing a broad restructuring of the federal government, with tech billionaire Elon Musk leading efforts to cut spending and reduce the workforce. However, these efforts have faced legal challenges. On Thursday, federal judges in Maryland and Northern California issued rulings blocking mass dismissals of government employees.

In response, the White House announced on Friday that it would appeal the court decisions, which have required the administration to reinstate probationary federal workers.

A federal judge ruled Thursday night that thousands of federal employees dismissed under the Trump administration must be temporarily reinstated.

U.S. District Judge James Bredar in Maryland issued a temporary restraining order against multiple federal agencies, departments, and their leadership, which had terminated workers as part of a workforce reduction initiative.

“In this case, the government conducted massive layoffs, but it gave no advance notice. It claims it wasn’t required to because, it says, it dismissed each one of these thousands of probationary employees for ‘performance’ or other individualized reasons,” Bredar stated in his ruling.

“On the record before the Court, this isn’t true. There were no individualized assessments of employees. They were all just fired. Collectively,” he added.

Earlier that day, a separate federal judge in California directed several federal departments, including Veterans Affairs, Defense, Energy, Interior, Agriculture, and Treasury, to reinstate thousands of probationary employees who had been terminated the previous month. The Justice Department responded by filing a notice of appeal in that case.

Bredar’s order specifically applies to 12 federal departments that dismissed probationary workers. These include the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, Labor, Transportation, Treasury, and Veterans Affairs.

Additionally, the ruling covers recently terminated probationary workers at several federal agencies, including the U.S. Agency for International Development, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the General Services Administration, and the Small Business Administration.

Bredar set a deadline of March 17 at 1 p.m. ET for these agencies to reinstate the affected employees.

The judge acknowledged the scale of his ruling, considering the government had dismissed approximately 200,000 probationary employees—workers who were either newly hired or had recently changed positions—since Donald Trump assumed office in January.

“The Court is not blind to the practical reality that the relief being ordered today will have far-reaching impacts on the federal workforce and will require the Government to expend considerable resources in an effort to undo the [reductions in force] that have been put into place,” Bredar noted.

“When, as is likely the case here, the Government has engaged in an illegal scheme spanning broad swaths of the federal workforce, it is inevitable that the remediation of that scheme will itself be a significant task,” he continued.

A coalition of Democratic attorneys general had initiated the lawsuit, seeking a temporary restraining order that would reinstate the terminated employees. They argued that the Trump administration had disregarded established protocols in executing mass terminations of federal workers.

However, Bredar ruled that certain federal entities, including the Defense Department, the Office of Personnel Management, and the National Archives, would not be subject to his order. He cited “insufficient evidence” that a workforce reduction had taken place at these agencies.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta expressed support for the ruling in a post on X, formerly known as Twitter.

“We’re pleased with the court’s decision to restrain the Trump Admin’s reckless directive and we’ll continue to monitor and ensure compliance,” he wrote.

The White House has yet to provide a response to the ruling.

If the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) were fully privatized, it would likely result in more frequent rate increases, reduced service days, and a restructured network resembling that of FedEx and UPS, according to industry experts.

Former President Donald Trump has proposed the idea of privatizing the nearly 250-year-old institution as part of efforts to address its financial losses. Elon Musk, CEO of Tesla and an influential figure in the Trump administration, also supported the idea during a recent Morgan Stanley conference, according to reports.

However, the prospect of privatization has drawn opposition from postal employees and lawmakers, who argue that it could jeopardize service in rural areas, raise costs, and threaten jobs within the agency. In a video message to USPS employees on February 25, Postmaster General Louis DeJoy acknowledged that any structural changes would ultimately be determined by Congress and the president.

“To the degree possible postal leadership will be involved, so that we ensure the nation’s leaders are aware of how future proposed changes may impact our organization’s ability to serve the American people,” DeJoy stated.

The State of USPS

USPS is already working toward financial stability through DeJoy’s 10-year “Delivering for America” plan, which involves various network adjustments aimed at reducing costs while increasing revenue from package deliveries. Despite these efforts, the agency continues to struggle.

In fiscal year 2024, USPS reported a loss of $9.5 billion, with 80% of the deficit attributed to factors beyond management’s control, such as unfunded pension liabilities. To address these challenges, DeJoy has advocated for administrative and legislative reforms, including changes to pension funding.

The Trump administration and lawmakers are now evaluating whether privatization—turning USPS into a profit-driven enterprise without regulatory constraints—would be beneficial for the country.

Despite its financial struggles, USPS remains a key component of the nation’s infrastructure. A 2018 report by a task force established during Trump’s first term emphasized that its delivery network “is a critical part of the nation’s infrastructure that cannot be replicated by private actors.”

Aaron Alpeter, founder of supply chain consultancy Izba, pointed out that defining USPS’s role is essential before making any structural changes.

“We have to really understand, what is the Post Office?” Alpeter said. “Is it meant to compete with commercial interests that are out there, or is meant to provide a safety net for things that commercial interests are not interested in?”

Currently, USPS faces operational constraints in its cost-cutting efforts. DeJoy noted last June that over half of its carrier routes operate at a loss. However, due to its universal service obligation, the agency cannot simply eliminate these routes, as it is legally required to deliver mail promptly and reliably across the country.

This obligation includes servicing costly-to-reach areas such as Hawaii, Alaska, and Puerto Rico. Anthony Pizza, Vice President of Growth and Innovation at SpeedX, a parcel carrier that also operates in Hawaii, highlighted the inherent cost challenges in reaching such locations.

“There’s a certain floor for the cost to move things there,” Pizza explained.

Unlike private courier companies, USPS does not receive tax funding to cover the added expenses associated with delivering to remote areas. Any changes to its universal service obligation would require oversight by Congress and the Postal Regulatory Commission.

Even if privatized, USPS could still be required to maintain certain service standards. For instance, the privatized Royal Mail in the United Kingdom is mandated to deliver and collect letters six days a week at affordable rates.

“If we’re going to keep the service standards as they are today, you have to be very realistic to think about what privatization can actually accomplish,” said Derek Lossing, founder of Cirrus Global Advisors and a former Amazon Logistics leader. “Again, if you look at the Royal Mail, I don’t think it’s accomplished nearly what they thought it could.”

Potential Changes Under Privatization

Experts predict that a privatized USPS would likely scale back its six-day-a-week delivery service in less profitable rural areas to cut costs. This would align with the agency’s existing cost-reduction efforts in remote regions.

Another major shift could involve significantly reducing USPS’s physical footprint of over 33,000 post offices. Lossing suggested that, like UPS, the agency could shift to using local businesses as pickup and drop-off locations instead of maintaining standalone post offices.

“Your footprint would look more like a UPS or FedEx,” Lossing noted.

Expected Rate Hikes

Privatization would also likely lead to more aggressive rate increases. Analysts at Wells Fargo estimated that USPS would need to raise parcel delivery prices by at least 30% to achieve financial independence. Their February 27 research report indicated that USPS’s pricing was 25% to 60% lower than FedEx and UPS in the fourth quarter of 2024, depending on the service.

“I don’t know how they would be able to sustain delivery with the current price structure,” said Helaine Rich, Vice President of Strategic Sales and Administration at ePost Global.

While raising prices and cutting service days might help USPS improve its financial outlook, experts warned that such measures carry significant risks, especially in package delivery. If USPS reduces delivery days in certain areas, businesses and consumers may increasingly turn to alternative carriers.

On the other hand, USPS’s ability to reliably deliver to rural communities remains a competitive advantage, particularly for e-commerce companies seeking nationwide coverage, according to Lossing.

The Wells Fargo report also pointed out that substantial rate hikes by a privatized USPS could benefit competitors like FedEx and UPS by “increasing the floor for” delivery rates. Additionally, higher postage costs could accelerate declines in mail volume as businesses and individuals seek digital alternatives.

The Road Ahead

Instead of fully privatizing USPS, the U.S. government could opt for a partial approach by keeping the mail business under federal control while privatizing the package delivery segment, which competes with private companies. Several experts believe such a model could limit disruptions to mail service while allowing for competitive efficiencies in package shipping.

“I don’t see it happening, obviously, on the letter mail side of things,” Rich said regarding privatization.

No matter the approach, transitioning to a privatized model would be a lengthy process. Mark Waverek, Managing Partner at PlaidMark Management and Consulting Services, compared it to the multi-year restructuring efforts seen in countries like Germany.

“You just can’t snap your fingers and turn it on tomorrow,” Waverek said. “This is going to take a well-thought-out process of what those cuts are going to be, what it’s going to mean to the people on the service side [and] what alternatives are going to be in place. It’s going to take time.”

Congress narrowly avoided a government shutdown Friday, mere hours before the deadline, as the Senate approved a spending bill that had already cleared the House. However, the passage of this stopgap measure revealed deep fractures within the Democratic Party.

The legislation, designed to keep the government funded into the fall, now awaits the signature of President Donald Trump, who is expected to approve it.

Senate Democrats faced mounting pressure to reject the Trump-backed bill, and Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, along with other Democrats who facilitated its passage, is now facing backlash from within his party.

The internal discord became increasingly apparent as lawmakers raced against the clock to prevent a shutdown that could have had significant consequences across federal agencies. The episode underscored the Democrats’ ongoing struggle to counter Trump and the Republican dominance in Washington.

Roughly 90 minutes before Senate Republicans averted the shutdown in a near party-line vote, Schumer and nine other Democrats crossed the aisle to advance the bill in a critical procedural vote. Despite mounting pressure from within their caucus to block it entirely, the bill required only a simple majority to pass, and nearly all Democrats who had initially supported the procedural step ultimately voted against it in the final tally.

Schumer defended his decision, arguing that the Democrats faced an impossible dilemma: either shut down the government for an indefinite period to challenge Trump or accept a Republican bill that they believed would slash spending on programs such as veterans’ health care and public services in Washington, DC.

“I believe it is the best way to minimize the harm that the Trump administration will do to the American people,” Schumer stated, explaining his reasoning for enabling the bill’s passage.

“Clearly, this is a Hobson’s choice. The CR is a bad bill, but as bad as the CR is, I believe allowing Donald Trump to take even much more power via a government shutdown is a far worse option,” he continued.

Trump, in turn, praised Schumer for his stance, telling reporters after the vote, “I appreciate Senator Schumer, and I think he did the right thing, really. I’m very impressed by that.”

Despite Schumer’s efforts, discontent within the Democratic Party was palpable. Many Senate and House Democrats viewed the move as a concession, squandering a crucial opportunity to exert leverage against Trump in his second term.

Democrats across the country closely followed the procedural vote, seeing it as a key test of their party’s resolve in standing up to the president.

In the end, the Senate passed the stopgap bill in a 54-46 vote, securing government funding through September 30. Among Democrats, Sen. Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire and independent Sen. Angus King of Maine, who caucuses with the party, supported the measure. The only Republican to vote against it was Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky.

“Once I had voted for cloture, it was an opportunity to pass the bill, and I thought it was more honest to vote for it,” Shaheen told CNN. She added, “I thought, much as I didn’t like the CR, I thought a government shutdown would be worse and would give Trump and Elon Musk and the DOGE operation more of an opportunity to fire people, to shut down agencies and to close the work of the government.”

Following the passage of the stopgap measure, the Senate also approved a separate bill to allow Washington, DC, to maintain control over its funds. This move came after Democrats warned that the Republican funding plan would cut $1.1 billion from the city’s budget. The House must now approve this measure, but its fate remains uncertain.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and other prominent Democrats had urged voters to pressure senators into blocking the bill and taking a stand against Trump’s attempts to dismantle federal agencies. Many within the party now believe Schumer failed this test.

The fallout from Schumer’s decision has reverberated throughout the Democratic Party, with critics emerging from various factions. However, no senators have publicly declared their intention to challenge his leadership.

Earlier in the week, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries led an aggressive effort to whip votes against the bill. In the end, House Democrats lost only one member to the opposing side, but their efforts were insufficient to prevent the bill from passing in the House on Tuesday.

Jeffries declined to comment on whether he had lost confidence in Schumer due to their differing stances on the funding issue. When asked about it on Friday, he simply responded, “Next question.”

Democrats Reflect on Next Steps

In the aftermath of the vote, Senate Democrats are now grappling with how to move forward as a unified caucus, given the internal divisions exposed by the spending bill.

Schumer told CNN’s Jake Tapper on Friday evening that he had anticipated disagreements within his party but maintained that a government shutdown would have been the worse outcome.

“My job as leader is to lead the party and if there’s going to be danger in the near future, to protect the party. And I’m proud I did it, I knew I did the right thing, and I knew there would be some disagreements. That’s how it always is,” he said.

Schumer also defended his leadership position, asserting, “My caucus and I are in sync.”

Sen. Martin Heinrich, the top Democrat on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, refrained from commenting on whether the party needed new leadership, telling reporters, “That’s a conversation for inside the caucus. I’m not going to debate that out here.”

“I think that Leader Schumer has been very effective in a lot of battles, but we also need to — these are new times, and we need to all come together. And so, you know, second guessing Leader Schumer out here isn’t going to accomplish the kind of community that we’re going to need to be able to stand up to the president. So, we’ll have that conversation inside caucus,” Heinrich added.

Meanwhile, Sen. Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, expressed confidence in Schumer but acknowledged that the caucus had endured a turbulent week.

“I voted no on the CR. I heard that overwhelmingly from folks, and again, recognizing I got tons of federal workers. But I have total respect for the folks who reached another conclusion, and the idea that they would have had a shutdown that would have put us into the abyss with, unfortunately, parts of this administration, doesn’t follow the law,” Warner said.

He further emphasized the need for a broader vision for the party, stating, “I think the Democrats need to have a pro-growth agenda that recognizes fairness, and that is, frankly, not the debate though, that we just took place. That we just took place, it was two awful choices.”

As the Democratic Party regroups following this divisive episode, the long-term implications for party unity and strategy remain uncertain. With tensions still simmering, the coming months will test whether the party can reconcile internal disagreements while continuing to challenge the Republican-led government.

During his election campaign last year, Donald Trump assured Americans that he would bring in a new wave of economic prosperity. However, two months into his presidency, his messaging has shifted. He has now warned that lowering prices will be challenging and has advised the public to brace for a “little disturbance” before he can restore wealth to the U.S. economy.

Despite recent data indicating that inflation is cooling, analysts suggest that the likelihood of an economic downturn is rising, with many pointing to his policies as a contributing factor. This raises the question: Is Trump steering the world’s largest economy toward a recession?

Markets React as Recession Risks Escalate

In the U.S., a recession is defined as a prolonged and widespread decline in economic activity, often accompanied by rising unemployment and falling incomes. Recently, several economic analysts have sounded the alarm that the risks of such a scenario are mounting.

A report from JP Morgan has raised the probability of a recession to 40%, up from 30% at the beginning of the year, cautioning that U.S. policies are now “tilting away from growth.” Similarly, Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics, has increased his estimate of recession odds from 15% to 35%, citing the impact of tariffs.

These warnings have coincided with a significant decline in the S&P 500, which tracks 500 of the largest U.S. companies. The index has now dropped to its lowest point since September, signaling growing fears about the economic future.

Market instability has been partially fueled by concerns over new import taxes, known as tariffs, that Trump has imposed since taking office. His administration has targeted imports from America’s three largest trading partners with these tariffs and has threatened to expand them further. Analysts believe these actions will drive up prices and slow economic growth.

Meanwhile, official data from the U.S. Labor Department shows that inflation eased slightly in February, with prices rising 2.8% over the past year compared to 3% in January. Despite this, Trump and his economic advisors continue to caution the public to expect economic challenges. This marks a stark departure from his first term, when he frequently touted the stock market as a measure of his success.

“There will always be changes and adjustments,” Trump said last week in response to business leaders calling for more economic stability.

His stance has intensified investor concerns regarding his economic strategy. Goldman Sachs recently raised its own recession risk estimate from 15% to 20%, identifying policy changes as the primary threat to economic stability. However, the investment firm also noted that the White House could still “pull back if the downside risks begin to look more serious.”

“If the White House remained committed to its policies even in the face of much worse data, recession risk would rise further,” analysts at Goldman Sachs warned.

Impact of Tariffs, Uncertainty, and Economic Slowdown

For many businesses, the greatest uncertainty stems from Trump’s tariffs, which have increased costs for American companies by imposing taxes on imports. As the administration continues to roll out its tariff plans, many firms are seeing their profit margins shrink. In response, some companies are holding back on new investments and hiring as they try to navigate an unpredictable future.

Investors are also worried about deep cuts to the government workforce and federal spending reductions.

Brian Gardner, chief of Washington policy strategy at the investment bank Stifel, explained that businesses and investors initially assumed Trump was using tariffs as a bargaining tool.

“But what the president and his cabinet are signaling is actually a bigger deal. It’s a restructuring of the American economy,” he said. “And that’s what’s been driving markets in the last couple of weeks.”

Even before these developments, the U.S. economy was experiencing a slowdown, partly due to actions taken by the Federal Reserve, which has kept interest rates elevated to cool economic activity and stabilize prices.

Recently, some economic data has pointed to a more pronounced weakening. Retail sales declined in February, and consumer and business confidence—which had surged following Trump’s election—has since fallen. Major corporations, including airlines, retailers like Walmart and Target, and manufacturers, have all issued warnings about reduced spending.

Some analysts fear that a continued decline in the stock market could lead to even tighter consumer spending, particularly among wealthier households. Since the U.S. economy is heavily dependent on consumer spending, and higher-income households play an increasingly significant role, such a shift could have major repercussions—especially as lower-income families continue to struggle with inflation.

Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell attempted to reassure the public in a speech last week, arguing that economic sentiment has not always been a reliable indicator of actual behavior.

“Despite elevated levels of uncertainty, the U.S. economy continues to be in a good place,” Powell stated.

However, the U.S. economy is deeply interconnected with global markets, a reality that adds another layer of complexity to the situation. Kathleen Brooks, research director at XTB, pointed out that these tariffs could create significant disruptions at a time when signs of economic weakness are already emerging.

“The fact that tariffs could disrupt that at the same time that there were signs that the U.S. economy was weakening anyway … is really fueling recession fears,” she said.

Tech Stock Market Correction and AI Bubble Concerns

Not all of the turmoil in the stock market can be attributed to Trump’s policies. Investors were already on edge about the possibility of a market correction, particularly after the substantial gains recorded over the last two years. Much of this growth has been fueled by enthusiasm surrounding artificial intelligence (AI) and the tech sector.

For instance, chipmaker Nvidia saw its share price skyrocket from under $15 at the start of 2023 to nearly $150 by November of last year. Such dramatic increases have sparked debate over whether an “AI bubble” has formed. Many investors are now closely watching for signs that the bubble may burst, which could have significant consequences for the broader market—regardless of what’s happening in the wider economy.

As concerns about the U.S. economy intensify, sustaining the optimism surrounding AI has become even more challenging.

Tech analyst Gene Munster of Deepwater Asset Management expressed his growing doubts on social media this week, admitting that his confidence had “taken a step back” due to the rising likelihood of a recession.

“The bottom line is that if we enter a recession, it will be extremely difficult for the AI trade to continue,” he said.

With the combination of Trump’s economic policies, stock market volatility, and uncertainty in the tech sector, investors and analysts remain on high alert. Whether the administration chooses to adjust its approach in response to mounting risks could determine whether the U.S. economy avoids a full-blown recession or slides into one in the months ahead.

A new CNN poll conducted by SSRS reveals that a majority of Americans are dissatisfied with President Donald Trump’s handling of the economy, despite his approval ratings on other key issues reaching some of their highest levels during his presidency.

With financial markets experiencing declines and investors expressing concerns over Trump’s trade policies, 56% of Americans disapprove of his economic management—the worst rating he has received on this issue during his presidency. In contrast, 51% of respondents approve of his immigration policies, particularly his stricter enforcement measures, marking a 7-point increase from previous approval levels during his tenure.

Public opinion is divided regarding Trump’s management of the federal budget and government operations, with 48% approving and about half disapproving in both areas. His approval ratings are even lower for health care policy (43%), foreign affairs (42%), and tariffs (39%).

Currently, Trump’s overall job approval stands at 45%, while 54% disapprove. These figures align with his ratings from March 2017 and match the highest approval ratings of his presidency. Meanwhile, 35% of Americans believe the country is on the right track—an increase from 29% in January, driven largely by a surge in optimism among Republicans. However, Trump’s approval remains highly polarized, with Republicans being roughly ten times more likely than Democrats to view his performance favorably.

A broad consensus exists across party lines that Trump has taken a unique approach to presidential power. An overwhelming 86% of Americans, including more than three-quarters of both Democrats and Republicans, believe his exercise of presidential authority differs significantly from past presidents. Nearly half (49%) consider this a negative shift, while 37% see it as a positive change. Only 14% believe his governing style aligns with historical presidential norms.

Economic Concerns Dominate Voter Priorities

Economic issues remain the primary concern for Americans, with 42% ranking the economy as the top issue out of a list of seven. This is more than twice the percentage who identified any other issue as their biggest concern, including democracy (19%), the functioning of the federal government (14%), immigration (12%), health care (6%), foreign policy (3%), and climate change (2%).

Across party lines, the economy remains a key focus. Among Democrats, concerns about democracy slightly outweigh economic worries (36% versus 33%). However, among Republicans and independents, the economy is the dominant concern, with 45% in both groups selecting it as the top issue.

Trump’s perceived ability to deliver change and effectively manage the government has improved since his first term. Currently, 50% of Americans believe he can bring necessary change, and 49% think he can manage the government efficiently. Both figures have risen from 43% and 42%, respectively, in November 2019. Additionally, 51% believe Trump possesses the stamina and mental sharpness required for the job, though fewer consider him an effective world leader (46%) or believe he respects the rule of law (38%).

Concerns Over Musk’s Role and Government Downsizing

Trump’s return to office has been marked by efforts to cut federal spending and reduce the government workforce. However, the public’s reaction to these initiatives—and to the prominent role Trump has given tech billionaire Elon Musk—has been largely negative.

Only 35% of Americans hold a favorable view of Musk, compared to 53% who view him negatively, with 11% expressing no opinion. This makes Musk both more recognizable and more unpopular than Vice President JD Vance, whom 33% view positively and 44% unfavorably, with 23% undecided.

Skepticism about Musk’s role in government is widespread. About 60% of Americans believe he lacks the necessary experience and judgment to influence government operations. Even among Trump supporters who back government reform, 28% doubt Musk’s ability to carry out such changes effectively.

Public opinion is also split on Trump’s government reforms. A majority (55%) believe his administration’s changes are primarily intended to advance his political agenda, while 45% see them as necessary for improving government efficiency.

When asked about the potential impact of Trump’s federal budget cuts, 62% express concern that the reductions could go too far and result in the elimination of essential programs. Meanwhile, 37% worry that the cuts do not go far enough in eliminating fraud and waste. Partisan divisions are stark: 90% of Democrats and 69% of independents fear the loss of crucial government programs, while 73% of Republicans are more concerned about the persistence of government inefficiencies.

Lingering Doubts From Trump’s First Term

Many of the opinions surrounding Trump’s second presidency mirror those from his first term. Only 40% of Americans believe he genuinely cares about people like them, and just 34% think he can unite the country—figures that remain largely unchanged since 2019.

Strong disapproval of Trump’s presidency continues to surpass strong approval. In this latest survey, 41% of Americans say they strongly disapprove of Trump, compared to 26% who strongly approve.

A consistent trend throughout Trump’s political career has been the public’s skepticism about whether he has the right priorities. In the latest poll, 57% say he has not focused on the country’s most pressing issues. Furthermore, 59% of respondents consider Trump’s views and policies to be too extreme, up slightly from 54% of registered voters who held this view last September, just before his reelection.

Despite widespread criticism, some Americans express nuanced opinions about Trump’s policies and leadership. For instance, 12% approve of his handling of immigration but disapprove of his economic management. Similarly, 15% believe Trump fails to respect the rule of law but still think he can bring necessary change to the country.

Methodology and Survey Details

The CNN poll, conducted by SSRS, surveyed a random national sample of 1,206 U.S. adults from March 6-9. The participants were selected from a probability-based panel, with interviews conducted online or by telephone with a live interviewer. The margin of error for the overall results is ±3.3 percentage points.

Just 20 days ago, the U.S. stock market was at record highs, the economy was expanding steadily, and a recession seemed far from reality. However, in a dramatic turnaround, concerns about an economic downturn are now widespread.

Worries about a potential recession are rattling the stock market, leading to downward revisions in GDP forecasts. Meanwhile, President Donald Trump and his economic advisors are facing increased scrutiny regarding the possibility of a recession but have so far failed to calm growing unease.

On Tuesday, U.S. stocks declined again, unable to recover from Monday’s sharp losses. The Dow fell by approximately 400 points (about 1%), and the Nasdaq continued its slide after suffering its worst day in two and a half years.

Selling pressure intensified following Trump’s announcement of a 50% tariff on steel and aluminum imports from Canada, with warnings that additional tariffs might follow.

The swift shift in investor sentiment is striking. Just a few months ago, there were concerns that the economy was performing too strongly, yet now, fears of a serious downturn have taken hold.

Despite the market’s turbulence, the U.S. economy does not appear to be on the verge of an imminent recession. Economic growth remained solid at the end of last year, and the first quarter has yet to conclude. Furthermore, the job market remained on an upward trajectory in January and February.

It is far too soon to declare that a recession—a prolonged economic slump marked by widespread job losses, bankruptcies, and foreclosures—is inevitable.

Previous recession alarms have, in hindsight, been overblown. The 2022 panic, for instance, included predictions that placed the likelihood of a recession at 99%.

However, economists now acknowledge that the risk of a recession has increased, even if it remains relatively low.

Uncertainty surrounding Trump’s economic policies—particularly his tariff strategies—is a significant factor fueling market instability.

“This is a very resilient economy. It can take a licking and keep on ticking. But it doesn’t like this uncertainty,” said David Kelly, chief global strategist at JPMorgan Asset Management.

On Monday, former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers expressed concern, telling CNN that a recession is a “real possibility.”

“We’ve got a real possibility of a vicious cycle where a weakening economy leads to weaker markets, and then weaker markets lead to a weakening economy,” Summers said during an interview.

Business Community Faces Uncertainty

Kelly described the economy and financial markets as suffering from an “uncertainty tax” stemming from questions about Trump’s tariffs, federal spending reductions, and widespread federal job cuts.

“Right now, a lot of businesspeople are like deer in headlights. That’sa very dangerous place to be,” he warned.

Bill Dudley, former president of the New York Federal Reserve, echoed these concerns in an interview with CNN on Monday. While he called it “premature” to predict a recession, he acknowledged that the risk has “definitely gone up.” Dudley attributed this to confusion surrounding trade policy.

“Tariffs have two effects: One, they push up prices. And two, they push down growth,” he explained. “The Trump administration is making things worse with this on-again, off-again approach. The uncertainty level is higher than it needs to be.”

Summers emphasized the importance of stability in financial markets, noting that they have instead experienced “surprise after surprise after surprise.”

“All of this emphasis on tariffs and all of the ambiguity and uncertainty created about tariffs has, ironically, both chilled demand, made businesses not invest, made consumers think they should hold off before making big spending commitments,” he said.

Market Declines Intensify

The market turmoil has continued to escalate.

Following its worst week in six months, the S&P 500 declined nearly 3% on Monday. The index has now fallen about 9% since reaching its all-time high on February 19.

“The stock market is losing confidence in the Trump 2.0 policies,” Ed Yardeni, president of investment advisory Yardeni Research, said in a phone interview with CNN. “Everything is at risk now, mostly because of the administration’s rush to establish so many objectives in a very short period of time — with unintended consequences.”

CNN’s Fear & Greed Index, which measures market sentiment, plunged further into “extreme fear” territory on Monday, a sharp shift from the “neutral” rating of just a few weeks prior.

Tech stocks have been particularly hard hit as investors flee from riskier assets in favor of defensive sectors such as utilities, healthcare, and consumer staples.

On Monday, the Nasdaq tumbled 4%—its biggest one-day drop since September 2022. The losses were led by the “Magnificent 7,” a group of seven high-growth tech stocks that previously seemed unstoppable. Tesla saw its stock price plunge 13%, while Nvidia, Apple, and Alphabet each dropped by more than 5%.

Potential Real-World Economic Impact

It is important to note that stock market fluctuations do not always directly reflect economic conditions.

Unemployment remains low at 4.1%, and the U.S. economy continued adding jobs in February, marking the 50th consecutive month of employment growth—the second-longest uninterrupted job growth period in modern history.

However, there is a risk that ongoing market instability could spill over into the broader economy.

Consumer confidence, which has already been declining in recent months, may fall further as Americans become increasingly aware of the market turmoil. A decline in consumer sentiment could negatively impact spending, which serves as the primary driver of the U.S. economy.

Delta Air Lines revised its profit outlook downward on Monday, citing deteriorating corporate and consumer confidence as factors dampening travel demand.

Yardeni raised concerns about the “negative wealth effects” that could arise if market losses continue.

“Trump is going to have to rethink his notion that it’s okay to let the market go down while he is experimenting with tariffs and slashing federal payrolls,” he said.

Another troubling sign is the growing number of corporate bankruptcies.

According to S&P Global Market Intelligence, there were 129 U.S. corporate bankruptcies in the first two months of 2025—the highest figure for this period since 2010, when the country was still reeling from the Great Recession.

Goldman Sachs Raises Recession Odds

Concerns over heightened tariffs prompted Goldman Sachs to increase its recession probability estimate on Friday, though the revision was modest. The investment bank now projects a 20% chance of a recession within the next 12 months, up from its previous 15% estimate.

“We raised it by only a limited amount at this point because we see policy changes as the key risk, and the White House has the option to pull back if the downside risks begin to look more serious,” Goldman Sachs economists wrote in a note to clients.

Essentially, Goldman Sachs is betting that Trump will reverse course on tariffs if a recession becomes more likely.

However, if Trump refuses to change course, the risk of a downturn will increase.

“If the White House remained committed to its policies even in the face of much worse data,” the Goldman Sachs economists cautioned, “recession risk would rise further.”

Another major question is how the Federal Reserve will respond to these economic uncertainties.

Dudley, the former New York Fed president, pointed out that Trump’s tariff policies complicate the Fed’s decision-making by simultaneously pushing prices higher while slowing economic growth.

This could leave the Fed in a difficult position, making it reluctant to either raise or lower interest rates.

“I wouldn’t be surprised if the Fed is locked on hold for many, many months,” Dudley said. He added that while some Wall Street analysts expect a rate cut in May, he believes that timeline is “way too soon.”

The U.S. economy has demonstrated significant resilience in recent years.

It has weathered COVID-19 variants, supply chain disruptions, a 40-year high in inflation, and the Federal Reserve’s aggressive efforts to combat inflation.

However, it now faces a fresh challenge—one largely driven by policy uncertainty in Washington.

President Donald Trump remained off-camera today, an unusual move for him, as the U.S. stock market experienced a sharp decline. This drop followed Trump’s reluctance to rule out the possibility of a recession. When questioned about the market downturn, the White House attributed the president’s economic policies to increased investment and emphasized his first-term economic track record. However, the primary factor behind the market selloff was growing uncertainty over the impact of Trump’s tariffs.

As a deadline looms, a potential government shutdown is becoming a pressing concern. The president has urged Republican lawmakers to maintain unity and support a temporary funding measure before Friday’s cutoff to prevent a shutdown. Meanwhile, House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries has advised his party members to oppose the proposal. This opposition puts Republican Speaker Mike Johnson in a precarious position, as his slim majority in the House leaves little margin for error.

On the international stage, discussions about the Ukraine war are gaining momentum. U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio stated that the U.S. wants to understand what compromises Ukraine might be willing to consider in negotiations with Russia. His remarks came just ahead of a crucial meeting between U.S. and Ukrainian officials in Saudi Arabia, where these potential concessions will be discussed.

Judge Rules DOGE Likely Subject to FOIA Requests

A federal judge determined Monday that the U.S. Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) is likely subject to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), a law designed to promote transparency by allowing the public to access government records.

The decision, issued by U.S. District Court Judge Casey Cooper, represents a significant victory for watchdog organizations and others seeking insight into DOGE’s operations. The department, which has been instrumental in President Trump’s efforts to revamp federal bureaucracy, is spearheaded by Elon Musk.

Despite the ruling, the immediate release of DOGE records remains uncertain. The government has the option to appeal Cooper’s decision, which could delay the disclosure of documents requested by the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), the group that filed the lawsuit.

In the meantime, Cooper has issued a preservation order requiring the administration to safeguard the records CREW has requested. Should DOGE fail to take proper measures to retain its documents, it could face legal consequences, including contempt charges.

The judge found that the Trump administration failed to counter the argument that DOGE possesses “substantial independent authority,” thereby making it subject to FOIA regulations. He pointed out that Trump’s executive orders related to DOGE appeared to “endow USDS with substantial authority independent of the President.” Additionally, public statements from both Trump and Musk suggested that DOGE was actively exercising significant decision-making power.

Rejecting claims that DOGE merely serves in an advisory capacity, Cooper noted Musk’s frequent social media posts boasting about the agency’s sweeping changes. “These statements and reports suggest that the President and USDS leadership view the department as wielding decision-making authority to make cuts across the federal government,” Cooper stated.

GOP Faces Internal Divide Over Stopgap Spending Bill

Two conservative Republican lawmakers informed CNN on Monday that they currently oppose a House GOP proposal to fund the government through September. Their opposition signals a potential hurdle for Speaker Mike Johnson and President Trump, who must rally enough support within their own party to pass the bill and avert a shutdown.

With House Democrats expected to vote against the legislation, Johnson can only afford one Republican defection. However, GOP Representative Thomas Massie has already stated his opposition, making the margin for error even smaller. If Congress fails to approve funding legislation by the end of the week, the government will shut down after 11:59 p.m. ET on Friday.

Republican Representatives Tim Burchett and Rich McCormick expressed reservations about the bill, although they have not yet spoken with Trump directly. “Currently, but I’d like to talk some more,” Burchett remarked when asked about his stance. He emphasized his concern about military spending and called for greater oversight.

The Tennessee lawmaker acknowledged that he appreciates aspects of Johnson’s proposal, which includes $13 billion in domestic spending cuts and an additional $6 billion allocated for defense. However, he took issue with “the fact that they push it over to the war pimps at the Pentagon, once again.”

McCormick, representing Georgia, was more direct in his opposition. When asked if he would support the bill, he replied, “Nope.” He argued that extending current funding levels until the fiscal year’s end while postponing decisions on federal cuts gives excessive power to the executive branch, circumventing the constitutional appropriations process.

When pressed on whether he was firmly against the bill, McCormick remained noncommittal. “No, I refuse to paint myself into the corner,” he said.

Kennedy Moves to Close FDA Loophole on Food Safety

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who serves as the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services, announced Monday that he has instructed the acting commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to take steps toward eliminating a controversial regulation known as Generally Recognized As Safe (GRAS).

This rule, part of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, allows certain food additives to bypass premarket approval requirements if experts have determined them to be safe for consumption. The FDA states that substances intentionally used as food additives must receive approval “unless the substance is generally recognized, among qualified experts, as having been adequately shown to be safe under the conditions of its intended use.”

Initially, the GRAS designation was intended for common ingredients such as sugar, vinegar, and baking soda. However, in the late 1990s, the FDA found itself overwhelmed by an increasing number of requests for additive approvals. To manage this, the agency implemented a voluntary GRAS notification program to ensure that these ingredients remained safe for their intended use.

The voluntary nature of this system, however, has led to concerns about regulatory oversight. The FDA itself has acknowledged that this guidance “does not establish legally enforceable responsibilities.” Critics argue that manufacturers can exploit this loophole by introducing new additives into food products without formally notifying regulators.

A 2022 study by the Environmental Working Group revealed that since 2000, nearly 99% of newly approved food-contact chemicals were cleared by the food and chemical industries rather than the FDA. Over this 22-year period, food manufacturers requested FDA approval for a new chemical only 10 times, according to the analysis.

“By 1997, FDA had tentatively concluded that it could no longer devote substantial resources to the GRAS affirmation petition process,” the agency states on its website. This led to the establishment of the voluntary notification program, which has since been criticized for lacking sufficient regulatory enforcement.

Kennedy’s move to eliminate GRAS could mark a significant shift in food safety policy, closing a loophole that has allowed manufacturers to introduce additives with minimal oversight.

On Tuesday, President Donald Trump intensified a trade war by imposing significant tariffs on the top three U.S. trading partners—Canada, Mexico, and China.

The newly announced tariffs include a 25 percent import tax on Canada and Mexico, while duties on Chinese goods were raised from 10 percent to 20 percent.

These measures will impact more than $1 trillion worth of imported goods. In 2022, these three countries exported a combined $1.4 trillion in goods to the U.S., representing over 5 percent of that year’s gross domestic product (GDP).

Trump has made several tariff-related announcements during his tenure, some of which he later reversed or postponed. However, Tuesday’s decision marks the most significant escalation yet in his broader effort to reshape U.S. trade policy, fulfilling a campaign pledge.

Short-Term Market Reaction

The financial markets reacted negatively to Trump’s latest trade move. On Monday, stock prices plummeted after he stated there was “no room left” for Canada and Mexico to negotiate on tariffs.

The market downturn continued into Tuesday. The Dow Jones Industrial Average, which tracks major U.S. companies, dropped by more than 685 points, representing a 1.6 percent decline. The S&P 500 index fell by 1.3 percent, while the tech-focused Nasdaq Composite ended the day down by 0.4 percent.

Goldman Sachs estimated that these tariffs, particularly the 25 percent duties on Canada and Mexico and the higher levies on China, would reduce its earnings-per-share forecasts for the S&P 500 by 2 to 3 percent.

Rising Consumer Costs

Businesses and economic analysts have cautioned that Trump’s import duties could lead to higher consumer prices.

“Tariff-induced disruptions risk exacerbating inflation, increasing the cost of essential goods, and placing financial strain on businesses and consumers alike,” the National Association of Wholesale Distributors stated on Tuesday.

Although tariffs do not automatically translate to price hikes, companies can absorb the increased costs or adjust their supply chains. Trump’s 2018 tariffs did not significantly drive inflation as the COVID-19 pandemic did in 2020.

However, the current tariffs could lead to supply chain disruptions in North America, potentially raising consumer prices. A study by the Anderson Economic Group estimated that the price of some vehicles manufactured in North America could rise by as much as $12,000 due to these import taxes.

Economic Consequences

Economic models suggest the new tariffs will slow U.S. economic growth.

According to the Yale Budget Lab, real GDP growth is expected to be 0.6 percentage points lower in 2025 and 0.1 percentage points lower in 2026 because of these tariffs.

Lower-income Americans will likely feel the impact more than wealthier households. “The percent change in disposable income resulting from the tariffs is almost three times as much for households in the second decile by income as it is for households in the top decile,” Yale researchers reported.

The U.S. economy has been performing well in recent quarters, but consumer spending has been slowing amid concerns over persistent inflation. The Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta has projected a contraction in the U.S. economy for the first quarter of the year.

Despite concerns about economic performance, some labor groups see potential benefits. The Teamsters union acknowledged the risks but suggested tariffs could be worth it if they support American industries.

“We support any solution that brings work back to America,” a Teamsters spokesperson told The Hill.

Political and Diplomatic Fallout

Trump campaigned on reducing costs for Americans, capitalizing on voter frustration over inflation. The cost of living was a key issue in the 2024 election.

If the tariffs lead to higher prices and a slowing economy, they could undermine Trump’s economic credibility, which has been one of his strongest advantages with voters.

Even some Republicans have expressed concern about the tariffs’ impact. When asked whether he was worried about their effects, Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.) responded, “Of course.”

Democrats have seized on the potential economic fallout.

“It’s only taken the president 43 days to wreak havoc on our economy and the American people,” said Rep. Richard Neal (D-Mass.), the ranking Democrat on the House Ways and Means Committee. “The outlook for economic growth has plummeted into the negative, consumer sentiment has plunged, and small businesses and farmers from coast to coast fear what’s to come with his trade war.”

The tariffs could also strain diplomatic relations between the U.S. and its North American neighbors.

Following Trump’s initial tariff announcement in February, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau urged Canadians to avoid vacationing in the U.S.

A recent YouGov poll revealed shifting perceptions between the two countries. Half of Canadians now view the U.S. as “unfriendly” or an “enemy,” while only 6 percent of Americans feel the same way about Canada.

Uncertainty Over the Tariffs’ Future

Trump has a history of imposing tariffs and then reversing them. It remains uncertain whether he will maintain these latest levies.

For example, after he placed tariffs on Chinese shipments worth $800 or less, he reversed the decision two days later when U.S. ports became overwhelmed with undelivered packages.

Many businesses hope Trump will reconsider the latest tariffs as well.

“We urge reconsideration of this policy and a swift end to these tariffs,” said Neil Bradley, the chief policy officer at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, in a statement on Monday.

Mexico has already signaled plans to retaliate. Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum dismissed Trump’s tariff threats as a bluff in the past but stated that Mexico would respond if the measures remain in place.

“We have decided to respond with both tariff and non-tariff measures that I will announce in a public square on Sunday,” Sheinbaum said.

With economic, political, and diplomatic consequences looming, the coming weeks will determine whether these tariffs remain in effect or become another short-lived trade policy shift.

President Donald Trump has introduced tariffs on Canada and Mexico, a move that threatens to escalate into a trade conflict between the United States and its neighboring countries. Goods entering the U.S. from these nations will now face a 25% tax. In response, Canada has announced retaliatory tariffs, and Mexico has stated it will also implement countermeasures.

The three countries have closely connected economies, with supply chains that facilitate the movement of around $2 billion (£1.6 billion) worth of manufactured goods across their borders each day.

Trump has defended the tariffs, saying they are necessary to safeguard American industries. However, many economists caution that these duties could drive up prices for U.S. consumers. This is because the tax is paid by American importers, who may either pass on the increased costs to customers or reduce imports, which would result in a decrease in available products.

Possible Price Increases on Consumer Goods

Automobiles

The cost of cars is expected to rise, with TD Economics estimating an increase of approximately $3,000 per vehicle.

Car manufacturing involves components crossing the U.S., Canadian, and Mexican borders multiple times before final assembly. Several major automakers, including Audi, BMW, Ford, General Motors, and Honda, rely on this cross-border trade.

With the introduction of tariffs, higher costs incurred on imported parts are likely to be passed on to customers.

“Suffice it to say that disrupting these trends through tariffs… would come with significant costs,” noted Andrew Foran, an economist at TD Economics.

He emphasized that “uninterrupted free trade” in the automotive industry had existed for decades, leading to lower prices for consumers.

Alcoholic Beverages: Beer, Whisky, and Tequila

Popular Mexican beer brands such as Modelo and Corona could become more expensive for U.S. consumers if American importers choose to pass on the additional tax costs. However, companies might also decide to reduce the amount they import instead of raising prices.

Modelo, which became the best-selling beer in the U.S. in 2023, continues to hold the top position.

Spirits face a more complex situation. Since the 1990s, the industry has largely operated without tariffs. Prior to the new tariffs, industry organizations from the U.S., Canada, and Mexico issued a joint statement expressing their “deep concern.”

They pointed out that certain spirits, including Bourbon, Tennessee whiskey, tequila, and Canadian whisky, are “recognized as distinctive products and can only be produced in their designated countries.”

Because production cannot simply be relocated, these beverages may face supply shortages, potentially leading to price hikes. The industry groups also noted that many companies own various spirit brands across all three countries.

Housing Costs

Canada supplies approximately one-third of the softwood lumber used in the U.S. annually. This essential building material will now be subject to the tariffs imposed by Trump. Despite Trump’s claim that the U.S. has “more lumber than we ever use,” the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) has urged the administration to exempt building materials, warning that the tariffs could negatively impact housing affordability.

The NAHB has voiced “serious concerns” that tariffs on lumber will drive up the cost of home construction—especially since most U.S. homes are primarily built with wood. The group fears this could deter developers from building new houses.

“Consumers end up paying for the tariffs in the form of higher home prices,” the NAHB stated.

Lumber from Canada is not the only material at risk. A second potential threat now looms over most timber and lumber imports into the U.S., regardless of their country of origin.

On March 1, Trump ordered an investigation into whether additional tariffs should be applied to lumber and timber imports from all countries or if incentives should be introduced to boost domestic production. The findings of this inquiry are expected by the end of the year.

Maple Syrup

For American households, one of the most noticeable effects of the trade dispute with Canada may be the rising cost of Canadian maple syrup, according to Thomas Sampson, an associate professor of economics at the London School of Economics.

Canada’s maple syrup industry is valued at over a billion dollars and accounts for 75% of global production. Approximately 90% of this syrup comes from Quebec, home to the world’s only strategic maple syrup reserve, established 24 years ago.

“That maple syrup is going to become more expensive. And that’s a direct price increase that households will face,” Sampson said.

He added, “If I buy goods that are domestically produced in the U.S., but that are produced using inputs from Canada, the price of those goods is also going to go up.”

Fuel Prices

Canada is the leading foreign supplier of crude oil to the United States. Official trade data indicates that between January and November last year, 61% of U.S. oil imports came from Canada.

While the new tariffs impose a 25% tax on Canadian imports, energy imports will face a lower 10% tariff.

Although the U.S. does not have a shortage of oil, its refineries are specifically designed to process “heavier” crude oil, which primarily comes from Canada and, to a lesser extent, Mexico.

“Many refineries need heavier crude oil to maximize flexibility of gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel production,” according to the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers.

If Canada retaliates by reducing crude oil exports to the U.S., gasoline prices at the pump could increase as a result.

Avocados

One of the most significant potential price increases for U.S. consumers involves avocados.

Mexico, known for its warm and humid climate, is the primary supplier of avocados to the U.S., accounting for nearly 90% of the American avocado market each year.

Should tariffs be imposed, the U.S. Department of Agriculture has cautioned that the cost of avocados could surge, affecting prices for popular avocado-based dishes like guacamole.

Conclusion

The new tariffs imposed by President Trump on Canada and Mexico have sparked concerns about potential price increases on several consumer goods, including cars, alcoholic beverages, housing materials, maple syrup, fuel, and avocados. While the administration argues that these measures will protect American industries, economists warn that they may ultimately burden U.S. consumers with higher costs. With Canada and Mexico already planning retaliatory tariffs, the trade dispute could escalate further, impacting prices and supply chains across North America.

President Donald Trump has issued an executive order declaring English as the official language of the United States.

Under this order, government agencies and federally funded organizations now have the option to decide whether they will offer services and documents in languages other than English. This move overturns a policy introduced by former President Bill Clinton in 2000, which required such entities to provide language assistance to individuals who do not speak English.

“Establishing English as the official language will not only streamline communication but also reinforce shared national values, and create a more cohesive and efficient society,” the order states.

This decision marks the first time in nearly 250 years that the U.S. has designated an official language at the federal level.

However, the order clarifies that agencies are not required to eliminate or discontinue any language assistance services they currently provide.

“In welcoming new Americans, a policy of encouraging the learning and adoption of our national language will make the United States a shared home and empower new citizens to achieve the American dream,” it further states.

The executive order also argues that proficiency in English is beneficial both economically and socially, stating, “Speaking English not only opens doors economically, but it helps newcomers engage in their communities, participate in national traditions, and give back to our society.”

At the same time, it acknowledges America’s multilingual history, emphasizing that the country has a “long tradition of multilingual American citizens who have learned English and passed it to their children for generations to come.”

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, nearly 68 million residents out of the country’s 340 million people speak a language other than English at home. Among these, there are over 160 Native American languages.

Spanish, various Chinese languages, and Arabic are among the most widely spoken languages in the U.S. after English, according to Census Bureau data.

Efforts to declare English as the official language have been made in the past, particularly by Republican lawmakers. Members of the House introduced legislation in 2021 seeking to establish English as the official national language, but the bill did not pass.

Critics of such measures have argued that there is no need for an official language, as English is already widely spoken across the U.S. They have also expressed concerns that this move could lead to discrimination against individuals who do not speak English fluently.

During his 2024 presidential campaign, Trump made references to non-English languages while advocating for stricter immigration policies.

“It’s the craziest thing – they have languages that nobody in this country has ever heard of. It’s a very horrible thing,” he told his supporters in February 2024.

Across the world, around 180 countries have designated official national languages, and many of them recognize multiple official languages.

Some nations, including the United Kingdom, do not have an official language.

Currently, more than 30 U.S. states have already designated English as their official language. Additionally, Alaska and Hawaii have granted official status to several indigenous languages.

Former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo announced his candidacy for mayor of New York City on Saturday, aiming to make a political comeback. In a 17-minute video posted on his website, Cuomo delivered his message while images of the city played alongside him.

“We know that today our New York City is in trouble,” Cuomo said as footage of homeless individuals, graffiti-covered streets, and subway stations appeared on the screen. “You see it in the empty storefronts, the grime, the migrant influx, and the random violence. The city just feels threatening, out of control, and in crisis.”

Cuomo’s decision to enter the already crowded mayoral race represents his attempt to reestablish himself in politics following his resignation in 2021 due to a sexual harassment scandal. Eleven women accused him of misconduct, allegations that were detailed in a report by the state attorney general. Cuomo denied the accusations at the time.

His candidacy sets up a direct challenge to incumbent Mayor Eric Adams, who has faced increased scrutiny. Calls for Adams to step down have grown louder, especially after the Trump-led Department of Justice dropped corruption charges against him. Adams has consistently denied any wrongdoing, and his campaign declined to comment on Cuomo’s announcement.

Since leaving office, Cuomo has largely remained out of the public eye. However, CNN previously reported that he and his team had been laying the groundwork for a mayoral run for months, particularly in light of Adams’ recent controversies. Last week, signs of his intentions became clearer when allies launched a super PAC under the name “Fix the City,” according to State Board of Elections records.

Opponents Respond Swiftly

Cuomo’s announcement was met with immediate pushback from his competitors. There are at least eight other candidates in the race, and some lawmakers who oppose his return to office have been working behind the scenes to recruit additional challengers to counter his bid.

New York City Comptroller Brad Lander criticized Cuomo’s campaign, calling him an “agent of chaos.”

“The greatest city in the world deserves better than this,” Lander stated.

Scott Stringer, who ran for mayor in 2021 and is again a candidate, also responded with a video, arguing that Cuomo has always prioritized his own interests over the needs of New Yorkers.

“Being mayor of New York may help Andrew Cuomo, but it doesn’t do a damn thing for New Yorkers,” Stringer said.

Meanwhile, New York State Attorney General Letitia James, who led the investigation into the sexual harassment allegations against Cuomo, has reportedly been working to encourage City Council Speaker Adrienne Adams to enter the race. While Adrienne Adams has yet to officially announce her candidacy, she recently opened a campaign committee account, signaling she is seriously considering joining the contest.

Shortly after making his campaign announcement, Cuomo hit the campaign trail, beginning with a visit to the headquarters of the 32BJ SEIU union in Manhattan for a candidate screening. He later stopped for lunch at a Dominican restaurant in the Kingsbridge section of the Bronx. Videos posted on social media showed Cuomo shaking hands and greeting diners.

Leveraging Political Experience

Cuomo, the son of former New York Governor Mario Cuomo, has spent decades in politics. Before running for office, he served as President Bill Clinton’s Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. He initially ran for New York governor in 2002 but dropped out after a racially charged primary against then-State Comptroller Carl McCall. The experience was a major political setback, which Cuomo has described as one of the lowest points in his life.

He later rebounded by successfully running for New York attorney general in 2006 and then for governor in 2010.

During the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, Cuomo gained national prominence with his daily televised briefings, which became must-watch events for Americans under lockdown. However, his handling of the pandemic came under scrutiny, particularly a directive that required nursing homes to accept recovering COVID-19 patients. His administration faced accusations of manipulating data to conceal the impact of that policy on nursing home deaths.

Allegations of sexual harassment against Cuomo first emerged in December 2020. Charlotte Bennett, a former aide, claimed Cuomo asked her inappropriate questions about her sex life and mentioned his openness to relationships with younger women. Another former aide, Lindsey Boylan, alleged that Cuomo forcibly kissed her during a private meeting in his office.

Cuomo denied any wrongdoing but acknowledged that his comments may have been misinterpreted.

“I never touched anyone inappropriately,” he said. “I never knew at the time that I was making anyone feel uncomfortable.”

Boylan responded to Cuomo’s mayoral bid by stating, “New York City deserves better.” In a Vanity Fair article, she warned voters that Cuomo’s leadership could be worse than Adams’.

A Bid for Redemption

Cuomo’s return to politics has been in the works for months. According to a source familiar with his strategy, his campaign is not about apologizing but about presenting himself as the right leader to tackle the city’s problems. With concerns over crime, public safety, and affordability dominating voters’ minds, Cuomo believes his experience makes him the best candidate for the job.

The political landscape has shifted since his departure. Although opponents are certain to highlight his past controversies, Cuomo has recently secured some legal victories that may help him reshape his narrative. Charlotte Bennett dropped her lawsuit against him in December, just before she was scheduled to be deposed. However, she later accused Cuomo of using the legal process to intimidate her and her loved ones.

“Throughout this extraordinarily painful two-year case, I’ve many times believed that I’d be better off dead than endure more of his litigation abuse,” Bennett said. “I desperately need to live my life. That’s the choice I am making today.”

After the case was dropped, Cuomo quickly announced his intention to sue Bennett for defamation.

Cuomo’s campaign is relying on a close-knit team of veteran aides, including Melissa DeRosa, his former secretary, and Richard Azzopardi, his longtime spokesperson. He has also sought advice from campaign strategists like Chris Coffey and Steven Cohen, who previously worked in his attorney general’s office.

With only four months until the primary, Cuomo’s candidacy adds a significant twist to the race. He has nearly $8 million in campaign funds that he may be able to use, giving him a financial edge over his opponents.

A Familiar Strategy

Despite never running for mayor before, Cuomo understands New York City’s political dynamics. Winning requires building a coalition of Black and Latino voters, union members, and moderate White voters. While New York City remains a Democratic stronghold, the city’s political climate has shifted slightly rightward in recent years, as some voters have grown disenchanted with progressive policies.

In his campaign video, Cuomo does not directly criticize Trump but expresses a willingness to collaborate with the federal government.

“I have worked with President Trump in many different situations, and I hope President Trump remembers his hometown and works with us to make it better,” Cuomo says.

Although he promotes his leadership experience, Cuomo faces significant obstacles, including his past scandals and the city’s ranked-choice voting system, which may complicate his path to victory.

Cuomo frames himself as a moderate Democrat capable of addressing New York City’s crisis, emphasizing public safety and economic recovery. His proposals include expanding the NYPD’s presence in subways, improving public housing, and regulating e-bikes.

“We know that today our New York City is in trouble. You feel it when you walk down the street and try not to make eye contact with a mentally ill homeless person or when the anxiety rises in your chest as you walk into the subway,” Cuomo states. “The city just feels threatening, out of control, and in crisis.”

Without mentioning Adams by name, Cuomo criticizes what he calls “failed Democratic leadership” and the absence of “intelligent action” in city government.

His entrance into the race ensures that the 2025 mayoral election will be one of the most competitive in decades.

President Donald Trump’s domestic agenda took a significant step forward on Tuesday as House Republicans managed to overcome internal divisions over spending to pass a crucial framework for a multitrillion-dollar plan covering defense, energy, immigration, and tax policy.

The approval of this framework is a vital milestone, as it allows Republicans to utilize a complex legislative process known as reconciliation. This tool enables them to bypass a Democratic filibuster in the Senate, but they first had to come to an agreement on a budget blueprint to unlock it.

“We got it done,” House Speaker Mike Johnson told reporters following the vote. “This is the first important step in opening up the reconciliation process. We have a lot of hard work ahead of us, but we are going to deliver the America First agenda.”

With a slim majority in the House, Republicans needed nearly unanimous support from their members. The measure ultimately passed by a narrow 217-215 margin, with just one Republican opposing the budget resolution.

Tuesday’s vote represents an early victory in what is expected to be a long and challenging road to passing the GOP’s policy priorities. The Senate, which is also under Republican control, had already advanced its own budget reconciliation plan, frustrated by the delays in the House. Now, both chambers must pass an identical bill to move the process forward.

At the start of the day, GOP leaders were still working to consolidate support. Johnson and his team spent weeks engaged in difficult negotiations, struggling to reconcile the demands of various factions within their party.

Fiscal conservatives pushed for deep spending cuts, while other Republicans voiced concerns about reductions affecting Medicaid, the government insurance program that provides health coverage for millions of low-income and disabled Americans.

The House’s budget proposal includes a funding boost for securing the southern border, an increase in military spending, and an increase in the nation’s debt limit by $4 trillion.

Additionally, the plan calls for $4.5 trillion in tax cuts over the next decade. These include an extension of the 2017 Trump tax cuts, which are set to expire at the end of the year, as well as other tax proposals Trump championed during his campaign, such as eliminating taxes on tips, overtime pay, and Social Security benefits.

Spending Cut Compromise

To advance the budget proposal to this stage, Johnson had to concede to demands from some conservative lawmakers for $2 trillion in spending reductions. However, the exact details of these cuts will be determined later by various House committees.

For instance, the House Energy and Commerce Committee has been assigned the task of finding $880 billion in savings. Given that this committee oversees spending on major programs like Medicare and Medicaid, moderate Republicans worry that essential social safety net programs could be targeted for cuts.

Democrats quickly seized on these concerns, particularly regarding Medicaid, which serves low-income, elderly, and disabled Americans.

“The House Republican budget resolution will set in motion the largest Medicaid cut in American history,” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., told reporters after the vote.

Ahead of Tuesday’s vote, several House members had expressed reservations. However, in the end, only one Republican, Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky, voted against the resolution.

On Monday, Massie voiced his opposition in a social media post, writing, “If the Republican budget passes, the deficit gets worse, not better.” His statement drew a response from billionaire Elon Musk, who replied, “That sounds bad.”

House Budget Committee Chair Jodey Arrington, R-Texas, credited Speaker Johnson for successfully rallying enough support to pass the resolution. Arrington acknowledged that there were multiple holdouts before the vote but said Johnson was instrumental in securing the outcome.

“I think that small margin forces you to work together,” Arrington said. “This was a historic election. We know this is a monumental opportunity for us to course correct, for us to reverse course on the last four years, to be frank, and nobody wants to miss that. And everybody had to make some sacrifice or some pain involved.”

A federal judge on Thursday declined a request from a coalition of government employee unions to prevent the Trump administration from proceeding with significant reductions to the federal workforce.

U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper ruled that federal law requires the unions to bring their case before the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA), which handles labor disputes within the federal government, rather than pursuing legal action in a federal district court.

The ruling marks another legal victory for the Trump administration’s Justice Department, which has been defending against multiple lawsuits challenging various executive orders, including those aimed at reducing government spending and restructuring federal agencies.

“The first month of President Trump’s second administration has been defined by an onslaught of executive actions that have caused, some say by design, disruption and even chaos in widespread quarters of American society,” Cooper wrote.

He further noted, “Affected citizens and their advocates have challenged many of these actions on an emergency basis in this Court and others across the country. Certain of the President’s actions have been temporarily halted; others have been permitted to proceed, at least for the time being. These mixed results should surprise no one.”

The unions’ lawsuit contested the administration’s decision to terminate a large number of probationary employees, its broader plans for additional layoffs—commonly referred to as a reduction in force—and its offer of buyouts to most federal employees.

A separate lawsuit previously sought to block the buyouts but was dismissed by another federal judge. However, litigation concerning the dismissal of probationary employees remains ongoing, as a coalition of unions filed a new lawsuit on Thursday to challenge those terminations.

The case was brought by several unions, including the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU), the National Federation of Federal Employees, the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, and the United Auto Workers.

These unions argued that the administration’s workforce reduction strategy violates both the constitutional separation of powers and the established regulations governing how federal job cuts should be carried out.

Cooper did not weigh in on the merits of these claims, instead determining that the unions had filed their challenge in the incorrect venue.

“The Court acknowledges that district court review of these sweeping executive actions may be more expedient. But NTEU provides no reason why it could not seek relief from the FLRA on behalf of a class of plaintiffs and admits that it would ask other agencies to follow an administrative judge’s ruling in its favor,” Cooper wrote.

Meanwhile, President Trump recently dismissed Susan Grundmann, the Democratic-appointed chair of the FLRA. Grundmann, however, is contesting her removal in court.

The Republican-led Senate voted on Thursday to confirm Kash Patel as the new director of the FBI, despite ongoing concerns regarding his qualifications and temperament to lead the country’s most influential law enforcement agency.

Patel, a staunch ally of former President Donald Trump and a vocal critic of the FBI, secured confirmation with a narrow 51-49 vote. Republican Senators Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski broke ranks with their party and joined all Democrats in opposing his appointment.

His confirmation marks a significant milestone in Patel’s career, which has included roles as a public defender, federal prosecutor, and congressional aide. During Trump’s first term, he served as a national security official and later became a prominent figure in right-wing media, frequently appearing on conservative podcasts while maintaining strong loyalty to Trump.

Republicans embraced Patel’s confirmation, arguing that the FBI has unfairly targeted conservatives in recent years and that Patel is the right person to address these concerns.

“Kash is the right man to clean up the FBI to restore Americans’ confidence and trust that the FBI is not a political organization, it is a law enforcement organization,” Senator Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., stated in a post on X.

Despite Republican backing, Patel’s confirmation faced intense resistance from Democrats, who questioned his ability—and willingness—to uphold the FBI’s traditional independence from the White House.

The slim margin of his confirmation vote underscored these concerns. In contrast, his three immediate predecessors—Christopher Wray, James Comey, and Robert Mueller—all received overwhelming bipartisan support, each securing at least 92 votes in their confirmations.

Democrats Highlight “Red Flags”

On Thursday morning, Senate Democrats from the Judiciary Committee gathered outside FBI headquarters to publicly denounce Patel’s appointment.

“Mr. Patel will be a political and national security disaster, if confirmed,” warned Illinois Senator Dick Durbin, the committee’s top Democrat.

“I’m convinced he has neither the experience, the judgment nor the temperament to lead the FBI,” Durbin continued. “My Senate Republican colleagues are willfully ignoring myriad red flags about Mr. Patel, especially his recurring instinct to threaten retribution against his perceived enemies. This is an extremely dangerous flaw for someone who seeks to lead the nation’s most powerful domestic investigative agency for the next 10 years.”

Historically, FBI directors are appointed to serve a 10-year term, but neither of Patel’s most recent predecessors completed theirs. Trump dismissed James Comey in 2017 and subsequently appointed Christopher Wray to replace him.

Following Trump’s election victory last November, he nominated Patel to take over the FBI, effectively forcing Wray out of the position.

Unlike Comey and Wray, Patel has no prior experience as a senior law enforcement official, a factor that has fueled doubts about his qualifications for the role.

However, opposition to his nomination has been more centered on his allegiance to Trump and his past remarks about dismantling what he refers to as the “deep state.” Critics have raised concerns over his rhetoric about targeting political opponents, including those within the FBI.

During one podcast appearance, Patel vowed to shut down FBI headquarters on his first day and convert it into a “museum of the deep state.”

During his confirmation hearing, Patel attempted to downplay concerns regarding his past statements, telling senators, “Any accusations leveled against me that I would somehow put political bias before the Constitution are grotesquely unfair.”

A Bureau in Transition

Patel assumes leadership of the FBI at a turbulent moment for the agency. In recent weeks, the newly installed Justice Department leadership has forced out at least eight senior FBI officials and demanded a list of all personnel involved in investigating the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol—a probe that Trump and his allies have repeatedly criticized.

These developments have sparked fears within the bureau that mass firings could be imminent as part of a broader retaliation effort. The FBI Agents Association (FBIAA), which represents most FBI agents, has taken legal action to block the release of names of FBI employees who were identified to the Justice Department.

Despite the tensions, the association acknowledged Patel’s confirmation on Thursday.

“We look forward to partnering with him as he leads the Bureau forward in our shared mission to keep America safe,” FBIAA President Natalie Bara said in a statement.

“As the new leadership team considers and implements reform measures, the FBIAA stands ready to serve as a valuable resource, ensuring that Special Agents can continue safeguarding the American people from emerging threats while upholding the Constitution.”

Defense stocks saw a sharp decline Thursday afternoon following remarks from President Donald Trump, who suggested that the United States could significantly reduce its defense spending.

Speaking at the White House, Trump proposed that U.S. military expenditures might be slashed by half in the future. His comments arose while discussing the possibility of holding a defense spending conference with China and Russia.

“At some point, when things settle down, I’m going to meet with China and I’m going to meet with Russia, in particular those two, and I’m going to say there’s no reason for us to be spending almost $1 trillion on the military … and I’m going to say we can spend this on other things,” Trump stated.

He further elaborated, “When we straighten it all out, then one of the first meetings I want to have is with President Xi of China and President Putin of Russia, and I want to say let’s cut our military budget in half. And we can do that, and I think we’ll be able to do that.”

Following Trump’s remarks, defense stocks that had previously been trading higher in the day quickly turned downward. Shares of Lockheed Martin dropped 1.6%, Northrop Grumman fell by 3.4%, and General Dynamics declined 2.1%.

Throughout his 2024 campaign and the early days of his presidency, Trump has sent mixed signals regarding military spending.

On one hand, he has enlisted billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk and the so-called Department of Government Efficiency to identify areas where government spending, including defense, could be trimmed. Additionally, Trump has advocated for a swift resolution to the war in Ukraine, a conflict that has led to significant purchases of American weaponry.

Conversely, Trump has repeatedly emphasized the necessity of maintaining a strong military. He has signed an executive order to explore the development of an “Iron Dome of America” missile defense system and has frequently praised U.S. military capabilities. On Thursday, he reiterated, “Right now, people are confused by a number of different crosscurrents” on defense spending.

TD Cowen policy analyst Roman Schweizer commented on the situation, telling CNBC last week, “Right now, people are confused by a number of different crosscurrents” regarding U.S. military expenditures.

Many Americans believe the federal government is overspending, yet polling suggests that a significant number, including Republicans, think funding for major programs like Social Security is insufficient.

Surveys from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research indicate that as former President Donald Trump and adviser Elon Musk advocate for sweeping budget cuts—including reductions in humanitarian aid and potential cuts to the Department of Education and the military—many Americans may not support their approach to trimming federal expenditures.

A January AP-NORC poll found that about two-thirds of Americans believe the government is spending too little on Social Security and education. Additionally, roughly six in ten think more funding should go toward assistance for the poor, and a similar percentage say that Medicare—the health insurance program for seniors—is underfunded. Many also believe Medicaid lacks adequate financial support. Meanwhile, about half of respondents feel that border security is not receiving enough funding.

This presents an ongoing dilemma for lawmakers: while most Americans believe the government isn’t allocating enough money to key programs, they also broadly support budget cuts. A March 2023 AP-NORC poll revealed that six in ten U.S. adults thought the government was spending too much overall.

Foreign Aid Seen as a Primary Area of Overspending

One area where Americans largely agree on overspending is foreign aid. The 2023 AP-NORC poll showed that a majority of Americans believe too much money is directed to other countries.

Approximately seven in ten U.S. adults said the government allocated excessive funds to “assistance to other countries.” This sentiment was particularly strong among Republicans—nearly nine in ten thought foreign aid was overfunded, compared to just over half of Democrats.

Richard Tunnell, a 33-year-old veteran from Huntsville, Texas, believes the U.S. intervenes too frequently in international affairs. An independent voter who supported Trump in the last election, Tunnell appreciates Trump’s “America First” agenda.

“Americans need to worry about Americans,” Tunnell said. “There’s atrocities happening on American soil just as much as there is on foreign soil. You know, if we can’t clean up our own house, why the hell are we trying to clean up somebody else’s house?”

However, surveys suggest that many Americans overestimate how much of the federal budget is spent on foreign aid. Research from KFF found that, on average, Americans believe foreign aid accounts for 31% of the budget, when in reality, it is closer to 1% or less.

Bipartisan Agreement on Social Security and Medicare

Few Americans, regardless of political affiliation, think the country spends too much on Social Security or Medicare. However, opinions diverge when it comes to military spending, border security, Medicaid, and assistance programs for low-income individuals.

About one-third of U.S. adults believe the military receives excessive funding, while another third think the budget is about right. The remaining third feel the military is underfunded. A partisan divide is evident: most Republicans argue that military funding is too low, while nearly half of Democrats say it receives too much money.

Jeremy Shouse, a 38-year-old Democrat from Durham, North Carolina, believes social programs should receive as much funding as the military.

“I think it’s really a slap in our faces as Americans,” Shouse said, expressing frustration over the lack of funding for programs like Medicaid, which he has personally relied on.

“When it comes down to school, Medicaid, any type of government assistance programs, the money is just kind of not there,” he added. “Not like it is for the military or the Army.”

A strong majority of Democrats believe too little is spent on assistance for the poor, education, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. When it comes to border security, Democrats are more divided—about four in ten feel the funding is appropriate, while the remaining respondents are evenly split between those who believe it’s too high and those who think it’s too low. Regarding federal law enforcement agencies such as the CIA and FBI, most Democrats feel funding levels are about right.

Republicans, on the other hand, tend to support increased funding for border security, Social Security, and the military. About eight in ten Republicans believe the government allocates too little to border security, while roughly two-thirds say Social Security needs more funding.

Despite these divisions, the overall data suggests a paradox: while Americans frequently argue that the federal government overspends, many simultaneously believe that crucial domestic programs remain underfunded.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. officially took office as Secretary of the Health and Human Services (HHS) Department on Thursday after a narrow Senate confirmation vote, placing him in charge of a $1.7 trillion budget that oversees vaccine policies, food safety regulations, and health insurance programs that impact nearly half of the U.S. population.

The Senate voted 52-48 in favor of Kennedy, with nearly all Republicans backing former President Donald Trump’s nominee despite reservations about his controversial views on vaccines. Every Democrat opposed his confirmation.

The only Republican to break ranks was Kentucky Sen. Mitch McConnell, who had polio as a child. His opposition mirrored his stance against Trump’s previous nominees for Secretary of Defense and Director of National Intelligence.

“I’m a survivor of childhood polio. In my lifetime, I’ve watched vaccines save millions of lives from devastating diseases across America and around the world,” McConnell stated. “I will not condone the re-litigation of proven cures, and neither will millions of Americans who credit their survival and quality of life to scientific miracles.”

Shortly after taking office, Kennedy appeared on Fox News with Laura Ingraham and announced his intention to establish a more rigorous system to monitor vaccine side effects.

Republicans have largely embraced Kennedy’s approach to public health, particularly his focus on tackling chronic illnesses like obesity.

“We’ve got to get into the business of making America healthy again,” said Sen. Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, who believes Kennedy will introduce a “fresh perspective” to the role.

During his swearing-in ceremony at the Oval Office, Kennedy was accompanied by his wife, other family members, and several members of Congress. Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch administered the oath. Reflecting on his connection to the White House, Kennedy recalled visiting as a child in 1961, when his uncle, President John F. Kennedy, was in office.

Trump announced that Kennedy would lead a new commission to study chronic diseases, an initiative Kennedy praised. He described Trump as a “pivotal historical figure” and expressed gratitude for his role in his life and career.

Kennedy, 71, has long been in the public eye due to his family legacy and personal tragedies. Over the years, he has cultivated a dedicated following through his outspoken views on food safety, chemicals, and vaccines—stances that have at times veered into extreme territory.

His influence grew significantly during the COVID-19 pandemic when he devoted much of his efforts to a nonprofit organization that filed lawsuits against vaccine manufacturers. He also leveraged social media to foster skepticism about vaccines and the government agencies responsible for promoting them.

Despite his history of questioning vaccine safety, Kennedy, with Trump’s endorsement, argued that he was in a unique position to restore trust in public health institutions like the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., voiced optimism about Kennedy’s potential to reshape the health care system, saying he hoped Kennedy “goes wild” in curbing medical costs and improving overall public health.

However, before offering his support, Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., a physician and chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, sought assurances from Kennedy that he would not alter existing vaccine recommendations.

During his confirmation hearings, Senate Democrats repeatedly challenged Kennedy to disavow the long-debunked claim that vaccines cause autism. Some legislators also raised concerns about whether Kennedy could personally profit from altering vaccine policies or weakening legal protections for pharmaceutical companies that manufacture vaccines.

Financial disclosures revealed that Kennedy earned more than $850,000 last year through a referral arrangement with a law firm that has sued the manufacturers of Gardasil, a human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine that helps prevent cervical cancer. To address potential conflicts of interest, Kennedy pledged that if confirmed, he would redirect the earnings from this arrangement to his son.

Kennedy assumes leadership of HHS amid a sweeping federal restructuring led by billionaire Elon Musk. This overhaul has resulted in the suspension—at least temporarily—of billions of dollars in public health funding, leaving thousands of federal employees uncertain about their job security.

On Friday, the NIH announced that it would limit billions of dollars allocated to medical research, particularly in areas such as cancer and Alzheimer’s treatment.

Kennedy has also called for a major shake-up within the NIH, FDA, and CDC. Last year, he vowed to terminate 600 employees at the NIH, which serves as the nation’s largest financial supporter of biomedical research.

In his Fox News interview, Kennedy reiterated his plans to overhaul staffing at HHS and its affiliated agencies, targeting officials responsible for what he views as poor decisions regarding nutrition guidelines and Alzheimer’s treatments.

“I have a list in my head,” Kennedy said, referring to potential dismissals within the agency.

A federal judge in Rhode Island ruled Monday that the Trump administration is violating a court order by continuing to freeze funding for federal programs.

In a strongly worded decision, U.S. District Judge John J. McConnell Jr., who is overseeing a lawsuit brought by 22 states and the District of Columbia, ordered the administration to restore and resume the frozen funding immediately.

This ruling presents a significant challenge to recent suggestions that if President Donald Trump, Vice President JD Vance, and the Department of Government Efficiency’s leader, Elon Musk, disagree with a judge’s order, they may choose to disregard it. Michel Paradis, a constitutional law professor at Columbia Law School, noted the importance of the ruling.

Over the past few days, Vance wrote on X, formerly Twitter, “Judges aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power,” while Musk signaled his support for an X user’s suggestion that Trump openly defy court rulings. Meanwhile, Trump stated over the weekend that judges should not have the authority to challenge recent actions by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).

Commenting on Monday’s court order, Paradis told Business Insider, “That’s some tough language. The judge is not messing around.” He added, “It’s return fire, to the extent that the Trump administration has declared that neither Congress nor the courts are allowed to question his authority.”

McConnell’s order responded to evidence presented by the plaintiff states, which showed that the funding freeze—previously deemed “likely unconstitutional” and causing “irreparable harm”—was still in effect despite the court’s prior ruling.

“The States have presented evidence in this motion that the Defendants in some cases have continued to improperly freeze federal funds and refused to resume disbursement of appropriated federal funds,” McConnell wrote.

The court was presented with descriptions of continued disruptions in funding to the plaintiff states, including allocations from the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Energy, the National Institutes of Health, and the Department of Health and Human Services. Programs such as Head Start, which provides early childhood education, were among those affected.

“The Defendants must immediately restore frozen funding” while the court continues to consider the states’ claims and the administration’s arguments in favor of the freeze, McConnell’s order stated.

The Trump administration swiftly responded by filing a notice to appeal both the judge’s original January 31 order and Monday’s ruling.

Asked whether the administration would comply with the latest order, a White House spokesperson criticized the legal challenges to Trump’s executive actions.

“Each executive order will hold up in court because every action of the Trump-Vance administration is completely lawful,” said Harrison Fields, the principal White House deputy press secretary.

“Any legal challenge against it is nothing more than an attempt to undermine the will of the American people,” he added, stating that voters had chosen Trump to “restore common-sense policies.”

Paradis suggested that if the court order continues to be ignored, McConnell could find the defendants—including Matthew Vaeth, the acting director of the Office of Management and Budget, and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent—in contempt of court.

Trump is also named as a defendant in the lawsuit. However, Paradis noted that holding a sitting president in contempt presents a “constitutionally complex issue” and remains “a totally open question.”

“There are plenty of people who say that just as you can’t prosecute the president, you can’t hold them in contempt because it creates a separation of powers problem,” he explained.

A second federal judge has indefinitely blocked former President Donald Trump’s executive order aimed at restricting birthright citizenship, issuing a strong rebuke of the administration’s attempt to impose such a policy during a court hearing on Thursday.

“It has become ever more apparent that, to our president, the rule of law is but an impediment to his policy goals. The rule of law is, according to him, something to navigate around or simply ignore, whether that be for political or personal gain,” stated U.S. District Judge John Coughenour while delivering his ruling.

Coughenour, who was appointed by former President Ronald Reagan, emphasized his commitment to upholding the legal framework. “Nevertheless, in this courtroom and under my watch, the rule of law is a bright beacon which I intend to follow,” he asserted.

Previously, the judge had issued a temporary halt on Trump’s executive order, but that ruling was set to expire on Thursday after two weeks. This time, he granted a nationwide preliminary injunction, effectively blocking the executive order as requested by four Democratic state attorneys general and a group of private plaintiffs.

Coughenour made his decision after hearing arguments for less than 20 minutes. He referenced his past work in the former Soviet Union to underscore the importance of maintaining judicial independence and legal integrity.

“I said this two weeks ago, and I’ll say it again today: There are moments in the world’s history when people look back and ask, ‘Where were the lawyers, where were the judges?’ In these moments, the rule of law becomes especially vulnerable. I refuse to let that beacon go dark today,” he remarked.

The executive order, signed by Trump on his first day in office, sought to limit birthright citizenship so that it would not apply to children born in the U.S. to parents who lacked permanent legal status. The order was among several immigration-related measures introduced in the administration’s early weeks.

Trump’s policy has already been challenged in nine separate lawsuits, with critics arguing that it contradicts long-standing Supreme Court interpretations of the 14th Amendment’s birthright citizenship guarantee, which has been understood to allow only a few exceptions.

“This case turns on the critical phrase ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ in the Citizenship Clause. On that issue, plaintiffs offer a construction of that phrase that is demonstrably and unequivocally incorrect,” contended Drew Ensign, a deputy assistant attorney general, during Thursday’s hearing.

Coughenour’s decision follows a similar ruling by a federal judge in Maryland on Wednesday, who also issued an injunction against the executive order. Additional hearings related to the issue are scheduled to take place in Boston on Friday and Concord, New Hampshire, on Monday as other lawsuits proceed.

The rulings issued this week will remain in effect indefinitely, preventing the enforcement of Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship until the cases are fully litigated.

However, Coughenour left little doubt regarding his perspective on the legality of the policy.

“The Constitution is not something with which the government may play policy games. If the government wants to change the exceptional American grant of birthright citizenship, it needs to amend the Constitution itself,” he declared.

“That’s how our Constitution works, and that’s how the rule of law works. Because the president’s order attempts to circumscribe this process, it is clearly unconstitutional,” he concluded.

President Donald Trump’s cabinet nominees endured rigorous questioning from both Republican and Democratic senators during marathon confirmation hearings on Thursday. Two nominees in particular, Tulsi Gabbard for director of national intelligence and Kash Patel for FBI director, faced sharp interrogations about their controversial past remarks and associations.

Tulsi Gabbard Questioned on Putin Ties and Snowden Support

Tulsi Gabbard, a former Democratic congresswoman from Hawaii and military veteran, now Trump’s choice for director of national intelligence, encountered tough questions regarding her prior statements about Russia, her meeting with Syria’s former dictator Bashar al-Assad, and her past defense of whistleblower Edward Snowden.

Gabbard, who left the Democratic Party after her unsuccessful 2020 presidential bid and endorsed Trump in 2024, was grilled over comments that seemed sympathetic to Russian President Vladimir Putin’s stance on NATO. Democratic Senator Michael Bennet of Colorado highlighted Gabbard’s past remarks, quoting her statement that Putin had “legitimate security concerns” about NATO’s expansion into Eastern Europe. Bennet accused her of rationalizing Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, pointing out that Russian state television even referred to her as “our friend Tulsi.”

Defending herself, Gabbard cited her military background as a lieutenant colonel in the National Guard, with deployments to the Middle East. However, critics emphasized her lack of formal intelligence experience, raising concerns about her suitability for the role.

When pressed about her past support for Edward Snowden, Gabbard remained evasive. Both Republican and Democratic senators questioned her stance on the former National Security Agency contractor who leaked classified documents exposing U.S. surveillance programs. Although Snowden’s leaks sparked widespread debate about government overreach, many argued his actions endangered national security.

Lawmakers repeatedly asked Gabbard if she considered Snowden a traitor, given that she had previously described him as “brave” and advocated for his pardon. Gabbard resisted providing a clear answer, creating an uncomfortable moment, particularly among Republican senators. “Snowden broke the law,” she acknowledged. “He released information about the United States… I have more immediate steps that I would take to prevent another Snowden.”

Controversy Over Gabbard’s Meeting with Assad

Another contentious topic was Gabbard’s 2017 trip to Syria, where she met with then-President Bashar al-Assad. The visit occurred despite the U.S. government’s strong opposition to Assad due to his regime’s brutal attacks on civilians, including chemical weapon use. Her meeting sparked bipartisan criticism at the time, raising questions about her judgment.

During the hearing, Gabbard defended the trip, stating she had posed “tough questions about his own regime’s actions.” She attempted to preempt criticism in her opening remarks, saying, “I have no love for Assad or Gaddafi or any dictator.” Addressing her stance on Assad’s eventual fall, she remarked, “I shed no tears for the fall of the Assad regime,” referencing the Syrian civil war’s shifting dynamics. However, she added, “But today we have an Islamist extremist who is now in charge of Syria,” suggesting that Assad’s ousting led to the rise of even more dangerous forces.

Kash Patel Faces Tough Questions About Capitol Riot Ties

Following Gabbard’s hearing, Kash Patel, nominated to lead the FBI, faced a grueling five-hour session dominated by questions about his ties to the January 6 Capitol riots and his previous controversial statements. Patel, a former federal prosecutor and Trump administration aide, was scrutinized for his support of individuals involved in the Capitol insurrection.

Senators focused on Patel’s role in promoting a charity song recorded by some January 6 rioters while in prison, including individuals convicted of violence against law enforcement. Democratic lawmakers repeatedly pressed him on his connections to these rioters and his broader views on the events of that day.

One senator asked pointedly, “Was President Donald Trump wrong to give blanket clemency to individuals involved in the January 6 attack?” The question referenced Trump’s public support and legal advocacy for some rioters. Patel dodged giving a direct answer, emphasizing his commitment to upholding the rule of law. “My focus will be on ensuring the FBI remains an independent agency, free from political influence,” he said, though his past affiliations left some senators unconvinced.

Patel’s Ties to the QAnon Movement Under Scrutiny

In addition to questions about the Capitol riots, Patel faced intense scrutiny over his alleged connections to the QAnon conspiracy movement. His previous social media activity, where he appeared to endorse QAnon-related content, raised alarms among senators concerned about the FBI’s leadership under someone with such associations.

Patel denied any formal ties to QAnon but struggled to explain his past comments praising figures linked to the movement. “I have never been part of any conspiracy group,” Patel asserted. “My priority is the safety and security of the American people.” Despite his denials, senators expressed doubts about his impartiality, given his public support for individuals who propagated election-related conspiracy theories.

A Polarizing Set of Hearings

The confirmation hearings highlighted the deep political divisions in Washington, with nominees like Gabbard and Patel embodying Trump’s unconventional approach to governance. Both faced bipartisan criticism, illustrating that their controversies transcended party lines.

Gabbard’s complex foreign policy views and past praise for figures like Snowden, coupled with her meeting with Assad, made her a target for Democrats and skeptical Republicans alike. Meanwhile, Patel’s alignment with Trump loyalists and his connections to the January 6 events fueled concerns about his ability to lead an agency tasked with protecting American democracy.

Throughout the hearings, the nominees attempted to deflect criticism and emphasize their qualifications. Gabbard leaned on her military service, while Patel pointed to his prosecutorial background. Yet their evasive responses on key issues left many senators frustrated.

Final Takeaways

The hearings reflected not only the contentious nature of Trump’s cabinet selections but also the broader ideological battles shaping U.S. politics. As the Senate prepares to vote on their confirmations, both Gabbard and Patel face uncertain paths forward, with bipartisan skepticism threatening to derail their nominations.

Ultimately, these hearings served as a reminder that even in a polarized environment, certain issues—like national security and the integrity of democratic institutions—can unite lawmakers across the aisle in demanding accountability from those seeking high office.

On Friday, President-elect Donald Trump appeared virtually from his Mar-a-Lago residence for his sentencing in the New York “hush money” case. He was granted an unconditional discharge, meaning he faced no jail time or other restrictions ahead of his inauguration on January 20. Justice Juan Merchan, who had made a promise a week earlier, adhered to his commitment by giving Trump a sentence free of any conditions that could hinder his presidency.

Merchan explained that the decision stemmed from his belief that it was the only legal option, considering Trump was just 10 days away from assuming office. He remarked that while the trial had been extraordinary in nature, the trial itself had followed normal legal procedures. However, Merchan noted that the circumstances surrounding Trump’s sentencing were unprecedented due to his imminent return to the presidency. He clarified that the extraordinary nature of the case was not linked to Trump, but rather the legal protections afforded by the office of the president. “This has been a truly extraordinary case,” Merchan remarked. “But because of the office you once occupied and will soon occupy again, the legal protections afforded to the office were extraordinary.”

The judge emphasized that these protections, although significant, were not a mitigating factor. They did not reduce the seriousness of the crimes Trump was convicted for, nor did they erase the jury’s verdict. Merchan concluded that the only lawful sentence, one that did not encroach on the office of the president, was an unconditional discharge. He stated that had Trump been a civilian, he may not have received such leniency.

During the proceedings, Trump was seen virtually alongside his attorney, Todd Blanche. Trump had the opportunity to address the court, describing the trial as “a very terrible experience” and “a tremendous setback for New York.” He expressed his frustration at being indicted for what he believed was a legitimate expense. “With all the horrible things that are going on, I got indicted for calling a legal expense a legal expense,” Trump stated, referring to the falsified reimbursements that formed the heart of the case.

Trump called the investigation a “political witch hunt” aimed at damaging his reputation and preventing his victory in the 2016 election. “It was done to damage my reputation so that I’d lose the election, and obviously, that didn’t work,” he added. Trump also maintained his innocence, stating, “The fact is I’m totally innocent. I did nothing wrong.”

Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass, ahead of the sentencing, accused Trump of attacking the judicial system and prosecutors. He argued that Trump’s actions had been a direct assault on the rule of law and that the former president had not expressed any remorse for his crimes. “Far from expressing any kind of remorse for his criminal conduct, the defendant has purposefully bred disdain for our judicial institutions and the rule of law,” Steinglass stated. “He’s done this to serve his own ends, and to encourage others to reject the jury verdict that he finds so distasteful.”

Steinglass further argued that Trump’s actions had caused lasting harm to public perception of the criminal justice system, endangering officers of the court. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg was present in the courtroom but chose not to address the court during the proceedings.

Trump’s lawyer, Todd Blanche, disagreed with Steinglass’ assessment, claiming that not only Trump but also experts and many American citizens, particularly those who voted for Trump, felt the case should never have been pursued. He asserted that the prosecution was unjust and echoed Trump’s sentiment that the case was politically motivated. “It’s not just Trump and experts cited by Trump who feel the case should not have been brought, but the majority of the American people, particularly those who voted for the Republican in November,” Blanche stated.

Trump’s legal team had been battling Manhattan prosecutors since 2018, when the “hush money” investigation began. They contested subpoenas and rulings by Merchan, even taking their case to the U.S. Supreme Court multiple times. One such instance occurred earlier this week, when the court refused to intervene on Trump’s behalf, clearing the way for the sentencing.

After the high court’s decision, Trump expressed his thoughts, admitting that he found the Supreme Court’s decision fair. “I thought it was a fair decision, actually,” Trump said, noting that the justices had pointed out that Trump could appeal the case. However, he made it clear that an appeal was forthcoming. “But we’re going to appeal anyway,” he stated. “So, I’ll do my little thing tomorrow. They can have fun with their political opponent,” Trump added.

The courtroom, although without cameras, was the site of significant public interest. While the trial had attracted large crowds in earlier proceedings, the general public line for the sentencing was notably sparse. No onlookers were visible outside the courthouse on Friday morning, with no large crowds forming in the park across the street, a stark contrast to previous days.

In May, Trump had been found guilty by a jury of 34 felonies, including his role in authorizing a scheme to falsify records. This was done to cover up reimbursements for the $130,000 hush money payment made to adult film star Stormy Daniels, who testified during the trial. Trump’s former lawyer Michael Cohen, who acted as his “fixer,” also provided testimony, confirming that the reimbursement was to silence Daniels regarding an alleged affair with Trump prior to the 2016 election. Multiple witnesses testified that Trump was relieved that the story did not break before the election.

Throughout the trial, Trump had been held in contempt 10 times by Merchan for violating a gag order that prevented him from making public statements about court witnesses, staff, and others involved in the case. The 10th contempt citation, which came just before sentencing, foreshadowed the likelihood of the discharge sentence. Merchan had made it clear during the trial that he was reluctant to imprison Trump. “The last thing I want to do is to put you in jail,” Merchan had said earlier in the proceedings.

As the sentencing concluded, Merchan extended a final remark to Trump, saying, “the only lawful sentence that permits entry of a judgment of conviction without encroaching on the highest office in the land is an unconditional discharge. Godspeed as you assume your second term in office.”

A new Pew Research Center report, titled Faith on the Hill, sheds light on the religious makeup of the 119th Congress, which is convening today. According to the findings, the vast majority of members in the Senate and House of Representatives continue to identify as Christian.

The data for the report was gathered by CQ Roll Call, a publication known for tracking congressional activities and maintaining legislative data. To gather accurate religious affiliation information, the publication sends questionnaires to incoming members of Congress and follows up with re-elected members.

“Christians will make up 87% of voting members in the Senate and House of Representatives, combined, in the 2025-27 congressional session,” the report states.

Although the number of Christian members of Congress has slightly declined from the previous session’s 88% and from a decade ago, when it stood at 92%, the overall representation of Christians in Congress remains significantly higher than in the general American population. Currently, less than two-thirds of Americans, specifically 62%, identify as Christian.

In stark contrast to the American public, the report highlights that less than 1% of Congress members identify as religiously unaffiliated, often referred to as “nones.” In fact, while “nones” comprise 28% of the U.S. population, only three members of Congress reported having no religious affiliation. This marks an increase of two non-religious members from the previous session.

The 119th Congress will include 71 non-Christian members, a rise of six members compared to the previous session. Among them are 32 Jews, four Muslims, four Hindus, three Unitarian Universalists, three Buddhists, three members who are unaffiliated, and one Humanist. Notably, all but five of these non-Christian members are affiliated with the Democratic Party.

In terms of Christian representation, the new Congress will have 461 Christian members. Of these, 295 are Protestant. As in previous years, Baptists are the most represented denomination, with 75 Baptist members, a rise of eight from the last session. While the report does not specify the exact Baptist group these members align with, it is clear that Baptists remain a dominant force in Congress. Other notable Protestant denominations include Methodists and Presbyterians, both with 26 members each, Episcopalians with 22 members, and Lutherans with 19 members.

The presence of these denominations has diminished in recent years, both within the general American population and in Congress. When the report first debuted in 2011, the religious representation for the 112th Congress showed 51 Methodists, 45 Presbyterians, 41 Episcopalians, and 26 Lutherans. Over the last decade, their numbers have steadily declined.

Notably, Baptists make up a slightly higher percentage in the House of Representatives (15%) than in the Senate (12%). Similarly, Catholics are more prominent in the House, accounting for 29% of its members, compared to 24% in the Senate. Conversely, denominations like Presbyterians, Episcopalians, and Lutherans are more prevalent in the Senate than in the House.

The report also observes that, of the 295 Protestant members, 101 did not provide specific details on their denomination. Many gave vague responses like “Protestant” or “evangelical Protestant.” This marks a significant shift compared to a decade ago. In 2015, during the 114th Congress, only 58 members reported being “just Christian” without specifying a denomination.

Regarding party affiliation, Republicans continue to exhibit a higher rate of Christian identification. Of the 218 Republican members, 98% are Christian. Only five Republican members identify as non-Christians — three as Jewish, one as religiously unaffiliated, and one declined to respond to the question of religious affiliation. On the other hand, while both Democrats and Republicans are largely Protestant, the Democratic Party has a notably higher percentage of Catholics, with 32% of Democratic members identifying as Catholic, compared to 25% of Republicans.

Religious diversity is much more pronounced within the Democratic Party. While roughly three-quarters of Democratic members are Christian, the party also includes 29 Jews, three Buddhists, four Muslims, four Hindus, three Unitarian Universalists, one Humanist, and two members who are unaffiliated. Additionally, 20 Democratic members declined to disclose their religious affiliation.

The 119th Congress also includes 166 non-Protestant Christians, 150 of whom are Catholic, nine members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (all Republicans), and six Orthodox Christians. Notably, one Republican member identifies as a Messianic Jew.

The religious affiliation of 21 members remains unreported, either because they chose not to disclose it or were unreachable for comment. The analysis also did not include Ohio Senator J.D. Vance, who will become vice president on January 20, Representative Matt Gaetz, who resigned amidst allegations of sexual misconduct, or Representative Michael Waltz, who announced his resignation to serve as a national security adviser to the Trump administration. All three had reported being Christian.

In summary, the new Pew Research report on the 119th Congress paints a picture of a legislative body that remains predominantly Christian, even as the share of Christians within the U.S. population continues to decrease. While the religious composition of Congress has become slightly more diverse in recent years, the overwhelming majority of members still identify with one form or another of Christianity. The report also highlights the political implications of these trends, showing clear differences in religious diversity between the Republican and Democratic parties. Despite these shifts, the balance of religious representation in Congress continues to reflect a nation whose roots remain firmly grounded in Christianity, though the face of that belief system is changing in subtle ways.