Tag: DonaldTrump

From the start of his second term, Donald Trump has pursued a presidency defined not only by sharp rhetoric and personal grievances but by an expansive attempt to consolidate power in the White House. What often appears to be a chaotic stream of attacks against universities, celebrities, corporations, and courts may in fact reflect a unified strategy: to weaken, if not fully dismantle, the system of checks and balances that has defined American governance since the Constitution’s founding.

In recent months, Trump has attacked a range of institutions and individuals—from attempting to block Harvard from enrolling international students to targeting Bruce Springsteen and Taylor Swift online, and pressuring companies like Walmart and Apple over their trade policy positions. On the surface, this might seem like political improvisation. But many legal scholars and political scientists argue that Trump’s actions aim to erode the very foundations of constitutional governance.

According to these experts, Trump’s second term differs from previous presidencies not just in degree but in kind. While past presidents have tested the boundaries of executive authority, Trump’s efforts appear to combine multiple unprecedented moves—sidelining Congress, challenging judicial rulings, asserting sweeping executive control, and using federal power to penalize perceived enemies in civil society.

Paul Pierson, a political scientist at the University of California at Berkeley, says the “sheer level of aggression and the speed at which [the administration has] moved” is without precedent. “They are engaging in a whole range of behaviors that I think are clearly breaking through conventional understandings of what the law says, and of what the Constitution says,” Pierson remarked.

Yuval Levin of the American Enterprise Institute also acknowledges that Trump is advancing the most sweeping vision of presidential authority since Woodrow Wilson. However, Levin predicts that this effort could provoke a counter-reaction, particularly from the Supreme Court, which may seek to reassert limits on presidential power. “The reaction that Trump’s excessive assertiveness will draw from the Court will backfire against the executive branch in the long run,” Levin wrote.

Others aren’t so sure. With the Court’s conservative 6-3 majority, many analysts question whether it will truly rein in Trump’s efforts to expand his authority—raising concerns that America’s constitutional balance might be in serious jeopardy.

A Multi-Front Assault on Constitutional Boundaries

Unlike past presidents who typically challenged one branch of government at a time, Trump’s second term has been marked by a comprehensive campaign to sideline all constitutional constraints simultaneously.

He has marginalized Congress by undermining agencies established by statute, asserting the right to withhold funds Congress has authorized, and bypassing the legislative process to enact major policies—such as on tariffs and immigration—via emergency declarations. He’s refused to enforce laws he dislikes, including the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which bans American firms from bribing foreign officials.

Within the executive branch, Trump has centralized control through purges of civil servants, inspectors general, and independent regulators—blurring the boundaries between independent oversight and presidential authority. These actions have simultaneously weakened the authority Congress originally built into those agencies to shield them from political interference.

Trump has also challenged judicial authority. He’s resisted federal court orders, such as restoring federal funds and complying with rulings on immigration enforcement. One case involved Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a deported immigrant the administration admitted was wrongly removed, yet Trump’s government showed little effort to obey the court’s directive to facilitate his return.

Federalism, too, has been under pressure. Trump’s administration has sought to override blue states by enforcing conservative cultural policies nationwide. He’s pursued controversial arrests of local officials, including a judge in Wisconsin and a mayor in New Jersey. Though charges against the Newark mayor were dropped, a new case was filed against Democratic Representative LaMonica McIver—another sign of Trump’s willingness to use federal power against political opponents.

Even more extraordinary is Trump’s assault on civil society. His administration has targeted law firms with Democratic ties, withheld research funds from universities over ideological disagreements, and tried to revoke their tax-exempt status. Trump has even ordered the Department of Justice to investigate the Democratic fundraising platform ActBlue and critics from his first term. Courts have already rejected some of these actions as unconstitutional.

Eric Schickler, co-author of Partisan Nation, says Trump’s strategy to deter other actors from performing their core roles is unprecedented in its scope. “This ability to just deter other actors from exercising their core rights and responsibilities at this kind of scope is something we haven’t had before,” Schickler said.

Yet for many of Trump’s supporters, this aggressive centralization of authority is precisely the point. Russell Vought, director of the Office of Management and Budget and a key architect of Trump’s governance philosophy, argues that the expansion of presidential power is necessary to undo decades of liberal influence. He contends that bureaucrats and federal agencies have usurped too much authority from elected officials, and the presidency must be “unshackled” to correct that.

Trump put it more bluntly in his first term when he said, “I have an Article II, where I have the right to do whatever I want as president.”

Warnings Echo from the Founding Era

In a nod to American revolutionary tradition, Trump earlier this year signed a proclamation honoring Patrick Henry’s famed “Give me liberty or give me death” speech. However, he omitted a lesser-known but prescient warning from Henry, issued 13 years later when debating the Constitution’s ratification.

Henry feared that the presidency could become a tool for authoritarianism. “If your American chief, be a man of ambition, and abilities, how easy is it for him to render himself absolute!” Henry warned. His concerns about the potential for executive abuse were echoed by other Founders, even those who supported the Constitution.

James Madison, writing in the Federalist Papers, argued that the Constitution’s design would prevent tyranny by dividing power across institutions and levels of government. “Ambition must be made to counteract ambition,” he wrote. Madison believed this system, bolstered by federalism, would safeguard individual liberty through what he called a “double security.”

Despite the Constitution’s flaws—most egregiously its original accommodation of slavery—the separation of powers functioned relatively well for over two centuries, Pierson and Schickler argue. The diffusion of authority helped prevent any single individual or group from consolidating power.

But the system has weakened in recent decades, as growing polarization and nationalized political identities have eroded the commitment of officeholders to their institutional roles. Instead of defending the prerogatives of Congress, courts, or states, many officials now align themselves primarily with their political party. This shift has reduced the likelihood that members of a president’s party will challenge overreach, enabling figures like Trump to push boundaries further than ever before.

A Fragile System Faces an Uncertain Future

Will Trump’s second term mark a turning point in American constitutional history—one in which presidential power overwhelms the traditional system of checks and balances?

That question is no longer academic. Corey Brettschneider, author of The Presidents and the People, notes that past challenges to civil liberties—from John Adams to Richard Nixon—have often triggered successful public resistance. But even he expresses doubt that such outcomes are guaranteed in today’s polarized climate. “We have these past victories to draw on,” Brettschneider said. “But we shouldn’t be naïve: The system is fragile. We just don’t know if American democracy will survive.”

Yuval Levin remains somewhat more optimistic. He sees the Supreme Court as the last likely counterweight to Trump’s ambitions. While he acknowledges that Congress is unlikely to resist, he believes the Court will ultimately differentiate between a president’s authority over the executive branch and overreach into other branches and civil society.

“So this court will simultaneously strengthen the president’s command of the executive branch,” Levin predicts, “and restrain the president’s attempts to violate the separation of powers.”

Still, even that vision suggests a presidency transformed—and a constitutional system facing a stress test unlike any in modern times.

President Donald Trump’s approval rating has dropped to one of its lowest points in his second term, according to a new Reuters and Ipsos poll released on Tuesday. This marks a significant shift in public sentiment, as Trump has frequently pointed to strong poll numbers during his presidency to bolster his political standing.

Since his inauguration in January, the polling group has consistently tracked Trump’s approval ratings. These numbers serve as a barometer of public perception and are often cited by the president at campaign rallies and press events. Trump has routinely highlighted favorable polling data throughout his political career to showcase his popularity and leadership.

The importance of these numbers goes beyond mere perception. Falling approval ratings can impact a president’s influence, especially in a deeply divided political climate. Trump, who returned to the White House in January with relatively strong approval, has seen those numbers erode amid controversial policy decisions. One significant factor was his announcement of sweeping tariffs, which drew criticism and may have contributed to the decline in support. Though Trump later announced a 90-day delay on the majority of the tariffs, the initial backlash appears to have left a mark on public opinion.

A continued dip in approval could potentially weaken Trump’s political leverage and reduce the Republican Party’s prospects in the 2026 midterm elections. In a political landscape already marked by division and intense scrutiny, approval ratings remain a crucial indicator of electoral momentum.

The Reuters and Ipsos poll, conducted between May 16 and May 18 among 1,024 U.S. adults, found that Trump’s approval rating now stands at 42 percent. This is the same level he reached in earlier polls from April 21 and April 27. Just one week ago, the same polling group had him at 44 percent. The margin of error for this latest survey is plus or minus 3 percent.

When it comes to specific issues, the numbers tell a more nuanced story. The president’s approval rating on the economy sits at 39 percent, while 53 percent of respondents expressed disapproval. On employment and jobs, Trump received a 41 percent approval rating compared to a 49 percent disapproval rate. These figures suggest that concerns about the economy and job market may be driving some of the negative sentiment among voters.

However, not all polls show the same trend. A separate survey conducted by InsiderAdvantage between May 17 and May 19 among 1,000 likely voters painted a more optimistic picture for Trump. That poll found that 55 percent approved of the job he is doing, while 44 percent disapproved. With a similar margin of error of 3 percent, the InsiderAdvantage poll indicates a net approval rating of 11 points. This marks a significant improvement from early May, when the same polling organization found Trump’s net approval rating at just 2 points, with 46 percent approval and 44 percent disapproval.

The uptick in the InsiderAdvantage numbers may be tied to Trump’s recent trip to the Middle East, which appeared to boost his standing among voters. Such trips often allow presidents to demonstrate leadership on the global stage, which can translate into short-term approval boosts.

Political analyst Craig Agranoff commented on the fluctuating numbers in a text message to Newsweek on Tuesday. He said, “His approval rating dipping to 42% in the latest Reuters/Ipsos poll signals a troubling trend for his administration, particularly as it aligns with growing public unease over economic policies like tariffs and concerns about governance amid understaffed agencies.”

Agranoff continued, “Given the consistent downward trajectory we’ve seen in recent polls, with disapproval climbing to around 51%, this negative trend could persist unless there’s a significant policy win or shift in public perception. A president typically becomes concerned with low approval ratings when they fall below 40% for a sustained period, as this erodes political capital, weakens legislative leverage, and risks alienating key voter groups; especially independents and moderates, who have shown notable disapproval in recent data.”

He concluded by saying, “For Trump, the challenge will be addressing these economic and credibility concerns swiftly to reverse the slide.”

On social media, the response to the poll numbers has also been swift and pointed. The account Republicans Against Trump posted on X, formerly known as Twitter, “NEW: Donald Trump’s approval rating drops to 42%, per Reuters/Ipsos poll, down two points since early May. Still way too high.”

Despite the varying results between different polls, the trajectory of Trump’s approval ratings remains a focal point for both political allies and critics. These numbers are reported regularly across a range of media outlets and pollsters, giving the public and political analysts alike a window into the president’s current standing.

Ultimately, polling data serves as both a reflection of and influence on the political landscape. While approval ratings can shift quickly in response to national or global events, sustained downward trends are often more telling. For President Trump, managing these numbers may prove essential not only to his current influence but also to his party’s fortunes in the next major election cycle. Whether the decline in the Reuters/Ipsos poll signals a lasting issue or a temporary dip remains to be seen. But the stakes, both political and legislative, are high.

As new polling continues to emerge, Trump’s team will likely watch the results closely and consider strategic adjustments. Whether through policy changes, messaging shifts, or public appearances aimed at boosting confidence, the pressure is on to regain ground before the midterm campaigns ramp up. Until then, the conversation surrounding Trump’s approval rating is unlikely to fade from the national spotlight.

In a surprising turn of events, fiscal conservatives on the House Budget Committee blocked a key vote Friday on the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” a sweeping legislative package central to President Donald Trump’s agenda. The 16-21 vote marked a significant setback for Republican leadership, who had hoped to advance the bill to the Senate by Memorial Day. The defeat highlighted growing divisions within the GOP as lawmakers grapple with balancing demands from both fiscal hawks and moderates.

The bill, referred to as OBBB, encountered resistance from five Republican members—Reps. Chip Roy of Texas, Ralph Norman of South Carolina, Josh Brecheen of Oklahoma, Andrew Clyde of Georgia, and Lloyd Smucker of Pennsylvania. With Republicans only able to afford losing two votes to move the bill forward, Smucker’s switch from yes to no sealed its temporary collapse. His change, however, was a tactical move.

“To be clear—I fully support the One Big Beautiful Bill (OBBB). My vote today in the Budget Committee is a procedural requirement to preserve the committee’s opportunity to reconsider the motion to advance OBBB,” Smucker explained in a post on X.

House Budget Committee Chairman Jodey Arrington of Texas called a recess following the failed vote and told committee members not to expect a return Friday. “Go home,” he instructed them, adding he would notify them if a resumption would take place early Monday.

Smucker, offering further clarification, stated that despite unresolved concerns, the committee decided to proceed with the vote because negotiations were making progress. “There were continued, ongoing discussions and we were very close to having a yes,” he said. Smucker remained optimistic, expressing hope for a resolution by Monday. “We’re working through some remaining issues here, there are just a few outstanding issues I think everyone will get to yes, and we’re going to resolve this as quick as we can and hopefully have a vote, ideally on Monday, and we can advance this bill.”

Later in the day, sources informed The Hill that the committee would reconvene Sunday night at 10 p.m., signaling urgency to push the legislation forward.

Throughout the committee markup, negotiations were underway in a nearby room involving House Majority Leader Steve Scalise of Louisiana. Despite these efforts, leadership was unable to win over the dissenting members. Roy, one of the Republicans who voted against the bill, criticized its fiscal shortcomings. “This bill falls profoundly short. It does not do what we say it does with respect to deficits,” he said during the markup.

Norman echoed Roy’s sentiment, voicing his dissatisfaction with the measure. “Sadly, I’m a hard no until we get this ironed out,” he declared, calling the bill’s current state “very disappointing.”

The OBBB package merges several major components of Trump’s legislative platform. It extends the tax cuts from his 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, implements entitlement reform, and slashes food assistance programs—measures that Republicans claim will save at least $1.5 trillion over ten years. These changes include tightened work requirements for Medicaid targeting “able-bodied” adults, which are expected to cause millions to lose coverage, the repeal of green energy tax credits enacted by Democrats in 2022, and for the first time, requiring states to help fund food assistance programs.

Although House committees had completed detailed markups on these sections earlier in the week, final negotiations were still underway. Moderate Republicans were pushing for an increase in the state and local tax (SALT) deduction cap, which was currently set at $30,000 in the draft. Fiscal conservatives, in contrast, wanted corresponding spending cuts to offset any tax relief expansion.

To satisfy the hawks, conservatives proposed several adjustments, including speeding up the implementation of the new Medicaid work requirements and advancing the timeline to eliminate green energy subsidies. Additionally, they proposed reducing the federal Medicaid match rate for populations covered under the Affordable Care Act’s expansion—changes likely to alienate moderates.

Norman insisted on firm commitments before backing the bill. “It’s a sticking point because it’s huge money,” he said. “I’m tired of smoke and mirrors.”

Scalise confirmed that Republicans were coordinating closely with the Trump administration on timing-related provisions of the package, which emerged as a major point of contention. “What they want to see is progress and get answers on some of the questions and expedite the timelines,” Scalise said. He emphasized the shared GOP goals: “We’re all in agreement on the reforms we want to make. We want to have work requirements, we want to phase out a lot of these green subsidies.”

Scalise added that some delays were unavoidable. “How quickly can you get it done? And it’s not as quick as saying you just turn it off tomorrow,” he explained. “Some things the administration does have to actually create a process to implement it, and we want to make sure that the Trump administration has the time they need while pushing it as fast as possible. So those are the conversations we’re having and we’re making a lot of progress.”

The stakes were underscored by the unexpected arrival of Rep. Brandon Gill of Texas at the markup, despite recently welcoming his second child. “I’m here to support the president’s agenda,” Gill told reporters as he entered the hearing.

Amid the tense negotiations, Trump directly intervened via his platform, Truth Social, urging Republicans to stop stalling and unite behind the bill. “We don’t need ‘GRANDSTANDERS’ in the Republican Party. STOP TALKING, AND GET IT DONE!” he wrote.

The post was clearly aimed at the dissenting members, though it didn’t sway Norman. When asked about Trump’s remarks, Norman responded, “I don’t need to grandstand. This is: how do you disagree with the agenda he laid out? He’s a smart guy, and he’s got so many good things [in the bill]. All we’re asking is [for] a little compromise somewhere.” He continued, “Let’s not give the farm. It’s not right. It’s not right.”

Despite the initial blow, Republican leaders are expected to continue pushing for a resolution by early next week. As negotiations continue, both sides within the GOP remain firm in their positions—fiscal hawks demanding deeper savings and accelerated reforms, and moderates seeking relief for high-tax states. The outcome will determine whether Trump’s sprawling legislative agenda can gain the traction needed to advance to the Senate and potentially reshape key federal programs.

As Elon Musk exits his position leading the so-called Department of Government Efficiency (Doge), a growing number of experts in public administration are voicing concern that the initiative has failed to enhance government services—and may have, in fact, harmed them.

“Doge is not offering any solid claims that it has improved services in any way,” said Donald Moynihan, a professor of public policy at the University of Michigan. “Rather, it has made the quality of some government services worse.”

Musk, currently the world’s wealthiest individual, was tapped by Donald Trump in January to oversee the administration’s efficiency efforts. Appointed as a “special government employee,” Musk was restricted from serving more than 180 days. With his tenure now over and ongoing challenges in his business empire demanding attention, Musk is stepping away—but not without making some bold claims.

Despite widespread skepticism, Musk has declared that Doge achieved $150 billion in savings. However, numerous budget analysts dispute this figure, citing a pattern of Musk making inflated and inaccurate claims. The touted savings also fall significantly short of Musk’s originally stated goal of trimming $1 trillion from government expenditures.

Public policy specialists like Moynihan argue that Musk and Doge focused more on applying a cutthroat, private-sector mindset of slashing payrolls than on actually making government work better for citizens. Rather than investing in long-term service improvements, they accuse Doge of resorting to mass layoffs and quick budget cuts.

Martha Gimbel, executive director of the Yale Budget Lab, described the project as reckless. “They were the ‘department of government slash and burn’,” she said. “There doesn’t seem to be an approach to dig in on places where government services could really be improved. Any improvement in government services takes time. You have to invest. You have to build it out. You have to figure out how to fix it.”

Asked whether Doge had improved any services, Gimbel laughed before replying: “No. There has clearly been a degeneration of government services.”

Indeed, both experts and everyday citizens have reported worsening conditions in several areas. Veterans’ hospitals now require longer wait times for appointments. Calls to the Internal Revenue Service take longer to be answered. Social Security offices are increasingly crowded, and the departure of many experienced workers has left less-qualified staff giving out advice on benefits.

At a White House press conference on May 1, Musk defended his tenure. “In the grand scheme of things, I think we’ve been effective. Not as effective as I’d like. I think we could be more effective,” he said. “But we’ve made progress.”

Musk admitted, however, that achieving his $1 trillion savings goal proved far more difficult than anticipated. “It’s sort of, how much pain is the cabinet and the Congress willing to take?” he said. “It can be done, but it requires dealing with a lot of complaints.”

Despite Musk’s claims of progress, the White House declined to answer questions from the Guardian about deteriorating services or to offer examples of improved outcomes due to Doge’s efforts.

Gimbel warned that conditions are likely to worsen as the full impact of Doge’s job cuts plays out in the coming months. “Things will definitely get worse,” she said, pointing to the administration’s ongoing efforts to eliminate 80,000 positions at the Department of Veterans Affairs as just one example.

While Trump and Musk have frequently alleged widespread waste and fraud across government agencies, Gimbel said there’s a clear difference between targeted reform and indiscriminate cutting. “There is waste, and you can go after it,” she said. “People who have been in government know where those places are. There is a ton of tech that needs modernizing. Doge doesn’t seem interested in that. There’s a lot of Medicare and Medicaid overbilling. Doge doesn’t seem interested in that either. What you have is a relatively expensive exercise in slash-and-burn that sometime in the future will cost a lot to fix.”

Max Stier, president of the Partnership for Public Service, a nonprofit focused on government effectiveness, also expressed alarm. He likened Doge’s approach unfavorably to the strategies of former General Electric CEO Jack Welch, known for cost-cutting. “Jack Welch would be appalled by the approach that Doge has taken,” Stier said. “It’s not actually about cost-cutting. It’s about capability destroyed. Jack Welch would never, ever have fired people without having a real understanding about the way the organization worked and about the qualities of people who were being fired. This is an arbitrary exercise that has moved out employees who are often by far the most qualified rather than the least qualified.”

Stier dismissed Trump’s portrayal of Doge as a model of efficient reform. “That’s just not the case,” he said. “It’s hard to offer any rational basis for the decisions that are being made. There certainly aren’t any improvements that the American public will see.”

He warned of deeper consequences. “It’s burning down government capability,” he said. “It’s unquestionably clear that they are firing people willy-nilly and are disrupting government services without any understanding of the consequences or concern about the consequences. It’s a break-it-is-to-fix-it mentality. It isn’t a mentality that predominates in Silicon Valley. It’s sheer reckless behavior in the public sector because real people get hurt.”

Musk’s $150 billion savings figure, according to Stier, ignores the true costs of the upheaval. His organization estimates that Doge’s moves—through layoffs, rehirings, severance packages, paid leave, and lost productivity for over 100,000 workers—will ultimately cost taxpayers $135 billion in the current fiscal year. The broader public’s increased wait times and reduced service quality should also be factored in, experts argue.

Moynihan asserted that Musk’s entire philosophy was flawed. “His vision is that there is no way that government employees can produce anything of value,” Moynihan said. “So the idea of tools that makes government services better is completely alien to the Musk mindset.”

He added, “I think he believes that nothing public employees do has any real value, that they are not capable employees and therefore cutting them will do no harm. It’s a vision that doesn’t understand what public services are, why they exist and how they benefit people.”

Moynihan was especially critical of Musk for dismantling key initiatives designed to modernize government services, including gutting efforts to use technology more effectively and ending the Direct File program, which allowed citizens to file their taxes simply and at no cost.

Liz Shuler, president of the AFL-CIO, said Doge’s budget slashing would deeply harm workers. She highlighted cuts to the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, an agency that conducts crucial research to ensure the safety of firefighters’ equipment. “There’s this notion that Doge is just cutting line items on a spreadsheet. It’s hurting real lives and real people,” Shuler said. “They’ve treated federal workers with blatant disregard and have been nothing short of dehumanizing and insulting toward them.”

Gimbel also cautioned about future public health risks tied to Doge’s actions. “Part of what government does is mitigate risk,” she explained. “Take food safety. Government inspectors decrease the risk that you will get listeria or salmonella. But when they reduce the number of food inspectors, will you get listeria or salmonella tomorrow? No. Will it probably increase the chances of people getting listeria and salmonella over the next five years? Yes.”

In the end, while Musk and Trump have promoted Doge as a bold effort to streamline government, many experts see it as a destructive campaign that has caused real damage with few, if any, public benefits.

President Donald Trump’s administration unveiled its 2026 budget proposal on Friday, presenting a sweeping reconfiguration of federal spending priorities. The budget reflects the president’s broader vision for his second term, aligning with the direction set in his first 100 days back in office and marked by abrupt terminations of federal personnel.

This proposal includes dramatic reductions, or complete eliminations, of spending in numerous domestic programs. Key targets include child care services, disease research, renewable energy initiatives, and U.S. peacekeeping efforts abroad. Many of these cuts are already in progress under the guidance of Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency. At the same time, the plan boosts funding by billions of dollars for Trump’s high-priority immigration enforcement and mass deportation policies.

Trump’s administration maintains its commitment to ending what it calls “woke programs.” This includes the elimination of preschool grants to states that run diversity programs. It also follows through on Trump’s vow to put an end to what he refers to as the “weaponization of government,” by slashing funding for the Internal Revenue Service, despite criticism that he himself is leveraging government power against perceived adversaries.

Overall, the White House estimates that the proposal reduces domestic spending by $163 billion, or 22.6 percent below current funding levels. In contrast, Trump seeks to inject $375 billion in new funding for the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Defense. This funding surge is part of what Trump calls his “big, beautiful bill” — a legislative package combining significant tax cuts with major reductions in spending. He insists this is essential to repel what he characterizes as a “foreign invasion,” even as data shows migrant arrivals at historic lows.

House Speaker Mike Johnson praised the plan, describing it as “a bold blueprint that reflects the values of hardworking Americans and the commitment to American strength and prosperity.”

Although presidential budgets are not legally binding, they often serve as guiding documents in the fiscal debates that unfold in Congress. Trump’s 2026 proposal is his first since returning to the White House and offers insight into his second-term ambitions and the broader Republican agenda on Capitol Hill.

The timing of the budget also intersects with Trump’s ongoing imposition of tariffs, which many view as a de facto tax increase. These tariffs, totaling potentially hundreds of billions of dollars, have sparked global trade tensions. Consumers, CEOs, and international leaders alike worry that this trade war could tilt the U.S. economy toward a downturn.

In an interview with NBC News’ “Meet the Press,” Trump rejected claims that a recession was looming. When host Kristen Welker brought up Wall Street analysts’ growing concerns, Trump responded, “Well, you know, you say, some people on Wall Street say. Well, I tell you something else. Some people on Wall Street say that we’re going to have the greatest economy in history.”

Democrats were quick to criticize the budget as harmful to average Americans. Senator Patty Murray of Washington, the top Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee, said, “President Trump has made his priorities clear as day: he wants to outright defund programs that help working Americans,” while simultaneously “he shovels massive tax breaks at billionaires like himself and raises taxes on middle-class Americans with his reckless tariffs.”

The budget outline was presented by the White House Office of Management and Budget, led by Russell Vought. A key architect of Project 2025 from the conservative Heritage Foundation, Vought provided only topline figures in a leaner, “skinny” version of the full budget.

It addresses discretionary spending, which currently totals about $1.83 trillion annually across defense and nondefense sectors. Under Trump’s plan, this amount would drop by $163 billion, bringing it down to $1.69 trillion. However, this figure represents only a fraction of the government’s nearly $7 trillion overall budget, which includes mandatory spending programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

In recent years, federal budgets have steadily grown, as have deficits, which now approach $2 trillion annually. Interest payments on the national debt alone are nearing $1 trillion per year, driven in part by emergency COVID-19 spending, tax reforms that cut revenue, and rising costs tied to aging-related health care. The U.S. national debt currently stands at $36 trillion.

Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, emphasized the need for a comprehensive solution. “We need a budget that tells the full story, and it should control spending, reduce borrowing, bring deficits down,” she said.

Key proposals in the budget include slashing the State Department and international programs by 84 percent, leaving them with just $9.6 billion. This includes drastic reductions to the U.S. Agency for International Development. The Department of Health and Human Services would be cut by $33.3 billion, and the Department of Education would see a $12 billion decrease. Both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health face major funding reductions.

Conversely, the Department of Defense would receive an additional $113.3 billion, and the Department of Homeland Security would gain another $42.3 billion, subject to congressional approval of Trump’s broader legislative plan. However, this defense funding boost has not been universally embraced among Republicans.

Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the former GOP Senate Leader, labeled the defense spending hike a “gimmick.” He added, “America cannot expect our allies to heed calls for greater annual defense spending if we are unwilling to lead by example. Fortunately, Presidential budget requests are just that: requests. Congress will soon have an opportunity to ensure that American power – and the credibility of our commitments – are appropriately resourced.”

The power to determine federal spending lies with Congress, which must pass legislation to fund agencies and programs. That process often breaks down, leading to temporary funding measures to prevent government shutdowns. Lawmakers are currently working on Trump’s “big bill” that pairs tax reductions with massive spending cuts and expanded deportation efforts — unlike the budget blueprint, this package would carry legal authority.

Russell Vought is expected to appear before Congress in the coming weeks to defend the administration’s proposals. A veteran of Trump’s first term, Vought played a significant role in shaping the current vision. He also authored a detailed section in the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 outlining a major overhaul of the federal government.

Vought is separately preparing a $9 billion package aimed at defunding both the U.S. Agency for International Development and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which includes PBS and NPR. Late Thursday, Trump signed an executive order instructing the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and other agencies to halt funding for public media.

Vought has indicated that this $9 billion proposal would be only the first in a series of so-called “budget rescissions.” These measures are designed to test how willing lawmakers are to go on record supporting significant funding rollbacks.

Many Americans may only now begin to experience the tangible impact of President Donald Trump’s broad tariff policies. That’s because a key shipping exemption known as the de minimis rule officially expired just after midnight on Friday. This rule had previously allowed goods valued at $800 or less to enter the United States without tariffs, bypassing many inspections and bureaucratic procedures.

The de minimis loophole was pivotal in transforming American shopping habits. It enabled Chinese online retailers such as Shein, Temu, and AliExpress to deliver a wide range of ultra-affordable products—from craft supplies and patio décor to clothing and camera gear—directly into American homes. With its removal, baseline tariffs as steep as 145% are now being imposed on Chinese imports, which could more than double the cost of items that bargain-hunting consumers have come to rely on.

This development is reverberating across social media platforms, where consumers are reacting with alarm. For the first time, abstract trade policy is being translated into something consumers can physically see: a higher receipt at checkout.

Shipping giants including UPS, FedEx, DHL, and the U.S. Postal Service report they are ready to handle the change. A spokesperson from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) affirmed to CNN, “We are prepared and equipped to carry out enhanced package screenings and enforce orders effectively.”

However, whether the average American consumer is truly prepared for these changes is another story.

Earlier this year, when Trump first curtailed the de minimis exemption for shipments originating from Hong Kong and China, the consequences were immediate and disruptive. The U.S. Postal Service briefly halted parcel deliveries from China, and packages that were shipped experienced substantial delays with little to no tracking available domestically.

At the core of the disruption is the sheer volume of affected shipments. A congressional research report found that over 80% of all U.S. e-commerce shipments in 2022 were classified as de minimis imports, most of which came from China. According to CBP, the agency processes nearly 4 million of these duty-free shipments daily, and the total number of such packages in the last fiscal year reached 1.36 billion.

This enormous volume includes everything from dog accessories and kids’ bead kits to kitchen tools and trinkets. Regular users of platforms like Temu and Shein told CNN that these sites have become increasingly popular as American-made products grow less affordable.

“I can’t afford to buy from Temu now, and I already couldn’t afford to buy in this country,” said Rena Scott, a 64-year-old retired nurse from Virginia, in a comment to CNN Business.

The new policy is likely to hit lower-income households the hardest. Research from economists at UCLA and Yale in February revealed that 48% of de minimis shipments were delivered to the poorest zip codes in the U.S., while only 22% went to the wealthiest areas.

This shift might not be instantaneous but is expected to unfold gradually. Even before the exemption officially expired, retailers like Shein and Temu began adjusting their prices. CNN monitored these hikes in real time.

Shein addressed the change directly in a public notice, stating, “Due to recent changes in global trade rules and tariffs, our operating expenses have gone up. To keep offering the products you love without compromising on quality, we will be making price adjustments. We’re doing everything we can to keep prices low and minimize the impact on you.”

Temu, meanwhile, is adapting its operational model. A spokesperson told CNN that the platform is increasingly relying on domestic fulfillment and expanding its network of U.S.-based sellers. “Temu’s pricing for U.S. consumers remains unchanged as the platform transitions to a local fulfillment model,” the company said. “All sales in the U.S. are now handled by locally based sellers, with orders fulfilled from within the country.”

It remains uncertain whether further price hikes will occur among these or other online retailers.

Shipping companies are also adjusting to the change. DHL confirmed to CNN that it has “increased our staffing levels in order to support the additional volume of informal entry clearances we anticipate.”

Meanwhile, the tariff changes themselves are significant. Goods from China and Hong Kong transported by major couriers such as UPS, DHL, and FedEx are now subject to a baseline 145% tariff, in addition to specific duties based on the type of product. Items arriving via USPS face a 120% base tariff or a $100 flat fee per item. That flat fee will rise to $200 beginning June 1.

While core supporters of Trump’s “Make America Great Again” movement continue to stand by him, suggesting in social media posts and interviews that they are willing to weather short-term economic hardship, broader public sentiment is shifting.

A CNN poll conducted by SSRS last month found that 59% of Americans believe Trump’s policies have worsened the U.S. economy. The survey, held between April 17 and 24, came shortly after the White House introduced a series of expansive new tariffs on numerous countries, only to then pause several of them. Nevertheless, 60% of respondents felt Trump’s policies have led to a higher cost of living in their communities.

Now, with the end of the de minimis exemption, those cost increases could become even more noticeable.

At a Cabinet meeting on Thursday, Trump emphasized the significance of the move. “It’s a very, it’s a big deal,” he said. Describing the de minimis rule, he added, “a big scam.” He concluded with, “And we’ve ended, we put an end to it.”

With a stroke of policy, everyday consumers may now find themselves paying more for items they once bought at rock-bottom prices. What was once a behind-the-scenes matter of international trade rules has now become a kitchen table issue for millions of Americans, many of whom are confronting it for the first time not in headlines, but on their receipts.

On Monday, Representative Shri Thanedar, a Democrat from Michigan, publicly announced that he had filed articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump. Thanedar’s move marks a significant step in the ongoing political battle over Trump’s actions during his presidency, despite the apparent lack of support for the measure in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives.

“I have introduced articles of impeachment against President Trump,” Thanedar declared in his online announcement. “When Trump ignores the Constitution, Congress, and the courts, he is not ‘fighting for America.’ He is tearing it down and endangering our democracy.”

Thanedar cited a range of grievances in his seven articles of impeachment, focusing on specific actions by Trump that the congressman deemed abusive of his power. Among the issues raised by Thanedar was the deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a man who was mistakenly sent to El Salvador, and the actions of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) in cutting funding without congressional approval.

Though the filing of the articles has made waves within Democratic circles, the likelihood of these articles advancing in the current political climate appears slim. In the Republican-majority House of Representatives, support from GOP members would be required for a vote on impeachment. Similarly, even if the House were to vote to impeach, a two-thirds majority in the Republican-controlled Senate would be necessary to convict the president. With Republicans maintaining significant control in both chambers, the articles of impeachment are expected to go nowhere.

However, the introduction of the articles is indicative of the deep frustration many Democrats feel with the president, particularly over a variety of issues that have sparked ongoing controversy.

“Donald Trump has already done real damage to our democracy, but defying a unanimous 9-0 Supreme Court ruling, that has to be the one final straw,” Thanedar said, referring specifically to a Supreme Court decision related to the Abrego Garcia case. “It’s time we impeach Donald J. Trump,” he added emphatically, signaling his belief that this final act of defiance represented a threshold moment for impeachment.

Thanedar also highlighted what he considered to be other impeachable offenses by the president, including his aggressive tariff agenda, which he argued had a damaging impact on global markets. He also referenced Trump’s treatment of the press and concerns about the First Amendment, as well as what he described as the president’s involvement in bribery and corruption within the justice system. In addition, Thanedar expressed concern over Trump’s handling of Americans’ personal data, which he framed as yet another abuse of presidential power.

One of the most significant elements of Thanedar’s argument for impeachment was his accusation of “tyrannical overreach” by the president. “Article seven, tyrannical overreach,” Thanedar said. “Finally, and most importantly, he is attempting to consolidate unchecked power and erode the constitutional limits of the presidency.” This statement underscores Thanedar’s broader concern that Trump’s actions represented a threat to the very foundation of the U.S. political system.

Thanedar’s comments regarding Trump’s power were particularly pointed. “In this country, we have presidents, not kings. That’s not just misconduct. It’s impeachable misconduct,” Thanedar declared, adding that the president’s attempts to undermine constitutional checks and balances were clear grounds for impeachment. His words reflect a deep anxiety among some Democrats that Trump’s behavior threatens the balance of power that the Constitution seeks to maintain between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government.

Democratic concerns over Trump’s intentions have only grown more intense in recent months, especially in light of the president’s suggestion that he might seek a third term in office. This concern was amplified when the Trump Organization began selling “Trump 2028” hats on its official website, further fueling speculation about the possibility of a third presidential run. The idea that Trump might attempt to remain in power beyond his constitutionally-mandated two terms has been a source of significant alarm within Democratic circles.

“If we let this stand, we are saying the president is above the law. That the United States Constitution is optional,” Thanedar argued, emphasizing that such a development would set a dangerous precedent for the future of American democracy. He made it clear that he would not remain silent on the issue, calling on his fellow lawmakers—Democrats, Republicans, and independents alike—to join him in standing up against what he views as the erosion of constitutional safeguards.

Thanedar’s call for unity and action was resolute. “I won’t be silent and I’m calling on all my colleagues, Democrats, Republicans, and independents, to stand up with me,” he stated, underscoring his belief that the nation’s political leaders must put aside partisan differences in order to protect the integrity of the Constitution.

In his final remarks, Thanedar delivered a forceful conclusion to his announcement. “Enough is enough. Donald J. Trump must be impeached,” he said, signaling that he intends to continue pushing for accountability and standing firm in his position despite the considerable political obstacles ahead.

The introduction of impeachment articles by Thanedar is likely to remain a contentious issue within the political landscape, particularly as the nation heads toward the 2024 election cycle. While it seems unlikely that these articles will gain the traction necessary to result in Trump’s removal from office, they reflect the broader dissatisfaction and anger that many Democrats continue to feel toward the president and his actions during his time in office. For Thanedar, the impeachment effort represents not just a call for accountability but a desperate attempt to preserve the constitutional values he believes are under siege.

As the situation unfolds, the future of these articles will largely depend on the political dynamics within Congress and whether enough bipartisan support can be garnered for such an effort. For now, Thanedar’s impeachment move stands as a symbolic gesture in the ongoing debate over Trump’s legacy and the health of American democracy.

The White House has initiated a quiet search for a potential replacement for Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, according to a U.S. official familiar with the matter who was not authorized to speak publicly. This development comes in the wake of another controversy involving Hegseth, who is once again under scrutiny for allegedly leaking sensitive military information in a group chat.

According to the source, Hegseth disclosed classified details in a private group conversation using the Signal messaging app on his personal phone. The recipients of this information reportedly included his wife, brother, and legal counsel. The content of the chat allegedly included minute-by-minute updates on U.S. airstrikes targeting Houthi positions in Yemen. This incident is said to have occurred in March, around the same time that Hegseth relayed similar classified information to senior officials at the White House through another Signal group. That group inadvertently included a journalist.

The premature disclosure of strike information could have placed American pilots in harm’s way had it been intercepted by enemy forces. Already, Houthi militants have successfully downed two U.S. Predator drones, raising concerns about potential lapses in operational security.

Despite the allegations, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt denied any effort to replace Hegseth. In a statement posted on X, she declared, “President Trump stands strongly behind him.” President Trump echoed this sentiment during a press interaction at the White House, dismissing the controversy as overblown. “He’s doing a great job — ask the Houthis how he’s doing,” the president remarked.

Hegseth also pushed back against the allegations during a White House Easter event held earlier in the day. “This is what the media does, they take anonymous sources from disgruntled former employees, and then they try to slash and burn people, ruin their reputation. It’s not going to work with me,” Hegseth said in his defense.

The defense secretary’s comments appear to reference the abrupt exits of four high-ranking Pentagon advisers last week. One of them, former Defense Department spokesperson John Ullyot, resigned and subsequently published a strongly-worded opinion article describing recent events at the Pentagon as a “full-blown meltdown” marked by internal disputes that, according to him, are undermining President Trump’s administration.

Three other Pentagon officials—Dan Caldwell, Colin Carroll, and Darin Selnick—were also removed from their positions and escorted out of the building. These individuals were accused of leaking information to the media, although they have denied any wrongdoing. The trio issued a joint statement on X labeling their removal as “unconscionable” and emphasizing that they had not been informed about the specific nature of the alleged leaks.

“All three of us served our country honorably in uniform — for two of us, this included deployments to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. And, based on our collective service, we understand the importance of information security and worked every day to protect it,” they wrote in their statement.

Caldwell and Selnick, in particular, have long-standing professional ties with Hegseth, having collaborated with him at Concerned Veterans for America, a conservative advocacy group that has influenced veterans’ policy in recent years.

The unfolding drama has not gone unnoticed by lawmakers. Senator Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, a Democrat and a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, criticized Hegseth’s actions and pointed to the larger issue of his qualifications for the job. “But we must not forget that ultimate responsibility here lies with President Trump for selecting a former weekend TV host, without any experience successfully leading a large and complex organization, to run our government’s biggest department and make life and death decisions for our military and country,” she stated.

While the White House maintains public support for Hegseth, the internal deliberations about his future suggest a growing concern over the implications of his actions. The fact that the leak could have compromised national security has escalated the urgency of the situation, particularly as tensions continue to rise in the Middle East and the U.S. military maintains a delicate operational presence in the region.

The controversy has also shed light on the potential security vulnerabilities that arise from using personal devices and encrypted messaging apps for sensitive communications. The Signal app, while popular for its end-to-end encryption, is not authorized for the transmission of classified material by U.S. government officials. The revelation that Hegseth may have used it to share top-secret operational data with non-government individuals raises serious questions about protocol adherence and information governance at the highest levels of national defense.

The March leak incident is particularly alarming because of its proximity to real-time operations. Intelligence and defense analysts worry that such breaches, if exploited by foreign actors, could jeopardize not only the safety of military personnel but also the success of U.S. missions abroad. Given that adversaries such as the Houthis have already demonstrated their ability to down advanced American drones, any additional vulnerabilities could be catastrophic.

Although the administration has made no official announcements regarding a search for a new defense secretary, the internal discussions suggest that the controversy surrounding Hegseth has reached a critical point. The situation could develop further depending on whether more details emerge about the extent and impact of the leaks, and whether Congress or the intelligence community demands a formal investigation.

As the Pentagon reels from internal discord and high-level departures, questions remain about morale within the department and the future direction of U.S. military leadership. If more officials continue to speak out, or if further security lapses come to light, the administration could be forced to re-evaluate its stance on Hegseth despite the president’s current support.

In the meantime, the defense secretary remains defiant, attributing the backlash to politically motivated leaks and disgruntled former colleagues. Whether that narrative will hold up under increasing scrutiny is yet to be seen. The situation underscores the complex and high-stakes nature of leadership at the Pentagon, especially during a time of global instability and growing threats.

For now, Hegseth remains in his position, bolstered by public endorsements from President Trump and the White House. However, the growing controversy surrounding his handling of classified information has sparked concerns that may ultimately determine his political and professional future.

U.S. financial markets were rocked once again as President Donald Trump escalated his public criticism of Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, branding him “a major loser” over the central bank’s decision not to cut interest rates. The president demanded that Powell take immediate action to lower borrowing costs in a bid to stimulate the American economy.

Using social media as his platform, Trump urged Powell to slash interest rates “pre-emptively,” accusing the Fed chair of being too slow to react to the evolving economic landscape. “There can be a SLOWING of the economy unless Mr. Too Late, a major loser, lowers interest rates, NOW,” the president declared in his online post.

Trump’s latest remarks come amid growing concern that his own economic policies—particularly aggressive tariffs—have contributed to market instability and increased the risk of a recession. His ongoing feud with Powell, whom he appointed during his first term in office, has only deepened the market unease.

As a result of the heightened tensions and economic anxiety, U.S. stock indexes suffered steep losses. The S&P 500, a barometer of 500 of America’s most significant companies, dropped by approximately 2.4% on Monday. Since the beginning of the year, the index has declined by around 12%. The Dow Jones Industrial Average mirrored that performance, also falling 2.4% and registering a year-to-date loss of roughly 10%. Meanwhile, the tech-heavy Nasdaq fared even worse, shedding more than 2.5% and posting a staggering 18% decline since January.

The market jitters weren’t confined to the U.S. On Tuesday, trading remained subdued in most Asia-Pacific markets. Japan’s Nikkei 225 closed slightly lower by about 0.1%, and Australia’s ASX 200 declined by roughly 0.3%. In contrast, Hong Kong’s Hang Seng Index managed a modest gain of about 0.3%.

European markets also reflected the global unease. In early trading, the UK’s FTSE 100 edged down by about 0.05%, while Germany’s DAX index fell by 0.5%. France’s CAC 40 registered a more pronounced drop of 0.6%.

Ordinarily, the U.S. dollar and government bonds are viewed as safe havens during market turmoil. However, even these assets have come under pressure. The dollar index, which gauges the greenback’s strength against a basket of currencies including the euro, fell on Monday to its lowest point since 2022.

In another sign of market unrest, yields on U.S. government bonds climbed on Tuesday, indicating that investors are demanding higher returns to hold onto Treasuries. This trend reflects a lack of confidence in the near-term stability of the U.S. economy.

At the same time, gold prices soared to a record high, breaching the $3,500 per ounce threshold. The surge in the precious metal’s value signals investors’ preference for assets deemed more secure amid uncertain times. Gold is traditionally seen as a safe haven when economic conditions become volatile.

Susannah Streeter, head of money and markets at Hargreaves Lansdown, pointed to multiple global factors boosting gold’s appeal. “No long-term resolution [is] in sight for conflicts around the world, particularly in Ukraine and Gaza,” she noted. “There are also concerns about the risk that geo-political tensions escalate as opportunities in the Arctic are eyed by the US and Russia,” she added.

Meanwhile, tensions are not just limited to economic policies and markets. On the global diplomatic front, China has issued a warning to other nations, urging them not to “appease” the U.S. in trade negotiations. The comments come amid increasing skepticism of American leadership in global economic matters.

Despite the heightened uncertainty, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) recently stated that a global recession remains unlikely, even with the pressures stemming from U.S. tariffs. However, the IMF also warned that its upcoming country-by-country growth forecasts would include “notable markdowns.”

President Trump’s criticisms of Powell are not new. Throughout his first term, he repeatedly expressed dissatisfaction with Powell’s approach to interest rates and even reportedly considered firing him. Following his return to office, Trump has continued to pressure Powell to cut borrowing costs.

This latest attack followed Powell’s remarks cautioning that Trump’s tariff policies could contribute to inflation and impede economic growth. Trump ramped up his criticism last Thursday by publicly calling for Powell’s removal. “Powell’s termination cannot come fast enough,” he wrote on social media.

The idea of dismissing the Fed chair is controversial and could face significant legal hurdles. The Federal Reserve has traditionally operated with a high degree of independence to insulate it from short-term political influence. Powell has previously told reporters that he does not believe the president possesses the legal authority to fire him.

Still, the Trump administration appears to be exploring options. One of Trump’s top economic advisers confirmed that discussions about removing Powell were underway, noting this on Friday—a day when the U.S. stock market was closed.

These developments coincide with the spring meetings of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, where top financial policymakers have gathered in Washington. The heightened political pressure on the Fed has become a central topic of concern at the gatherings.

Christopher Meissner, an economics professor at the University of California, Davis, and a former IMF employee, explained to the BBC’s Today programme that political interference in central banking was more common in the past. “However, the past 30 or 40 years what we’ve learned is that central bank independence is the key to financial stability and low inflation. And I think this is a major reversal and we have to watch out for it,” he warned.

Streeter echoed this view, emphasizing the importance of insulating monetary policymakers from political influence. “The independence of central banks is seen as critical to ensure long-term price stability, ringfencing policymakers from short-term political pressures,” she said.

Looking ahead, the IMF will release its latest economic projections shortly. These forecasts are expected to reflect growing concerns about U.S. economic performance and its potential ripple effects worldwide. “They used to say ‘When the US sneezed, the rest of the world caught a cold’. It’ll be really curious to see if that continues,” said Meissner. “However, I think people are expecting a pretty significant downturn in the US in the coming months… and that can’t be good for the rest of the world.”

Streeter noted that Trump’s policy decisions have undermined the global perception of the U.S. as a stable economic leader. “Yields on 10-year US Treasuries have held onto their recent rise above 4.4%. It’s another sign of unease about the direction of the US economy, amid worries that policies playing out could keep inflation higher and slow growth, and flags the anxiety rattling through the markets right now,” she said.