Tag: JoeBiden

Buried within the vast pages of a multi-trillion-dollar budget proposal currently advancing through the Republican-led U.S. House of Representatives lies a brief but powerful clause that could significantly limit the judiciary’s ability to compel government compliance through contempt rulings. This paragraph would weaken one of the courts’ key enforcement tools—contempt findings—against the federal government.

Although the fate of the bill remains uncertain—it recently failed a committee vote and may face opposition in both the full House and the Senate—the inclusion of this provision reveals growing anxiety among lawmakers over judicial authority as conflicts between courts and the Trump administration intensify.

Tensions reached a new high on Friday when Republican President Donald Trump lashed out at the U.S. Supreme Court after it blocked his administration from resuming swift deportations under an old wartime statute. Posting on Truth Social, Trump declared, “THE SUPREME COURT WON’T ALLOW US TO GET CRIMINALS OUT OF OUR COUNTRY!”

Escalating Conflict with Lower Courts

The most contentious legal battles have emerged in the lower federal courts. One judge found that Trump administration officials may be subject to contempt after defying an order to halt deportation flights authorized under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. In another case, the administration ignored a ruling—upheld by the Supreme Court—to “facilitate” the return of a man wrongly deported to El Salvador.

There have been other incidents where the government proceeded with deportations despite judicial orders or failed to comply with judicial instructions. Dan Bongino, now serving as Trump’s deputy director of the FBI, fueled the defiance on his radio show in February when he encouraged Trump to ignore court directives. “Who’s going to arrest him? The marshals?” he asked rhetorically, before adding, “You guys know who the U.S. Marshals work for? Department of Justice.”

Administration Testing Boundaries

Despite heated rhetoric, the Trump administration has largely complied with most court rulings—especially those tied to his executive orders. Trump himself has often insisted he will follow court decisions, even as he publicly criticizes judges who oppose his policies.

Still, legal scholars note the unusually aggressive tone of the administration’s pushback. “It seems to me they are walking as close to the line as they can, and even stepping over it, in an effort to see how much they can get away with,” said Steve Vladeck, a Georgetown University law professor. “It’s what you would expect from a very clever and mischievous child.”

Mike Davis, leader of the Article III Project advocating pro-Trump judicial appointments, believes the courts’ resistance will ultimately strengthen Trump’s hand. “The more they do this, the more it’s going to anger the American people, and the chief justice is going to follow the politics on this like he always does,” Davis said.

Supreme Court Showdown and Judicial Skepticism

These tensions were on full display during an unusual Supreme Court session the day before the deportation ruling. Trump’s legal team sought to limit lower courts’ power to issue sweeping nationwide injunctions, a tactic not unique to his presidency but one that has increasingly drawn criticism. Several justices have previously questioned the frequency and scope of such injunctions.

During the session, Justice Amy Coney Barrett challenged Solicitor General D. John Sauer on whether the administration would obey an unfavorable ruling from an appeals court. “Really?” Barrett asked, highlighting the court’s concern. Sauer replied that it was standard policy at the Department of Justice to respect such rulings and assured the justices that the administration would comply.

Mounting Judicial Concerns

Some members of the judiciary have grown more vocal about the administration’s attitude toward the courts. Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown-Jackson have cautioned against ignoring court orders or threatening judges. Meanwhile, Chief Justice John Roberts publicly criticized Trump’s attempt to impeach Judge James E. Boasberg, who found probable cause of contempt after the administration defied a deportation-related ruling.

Even after the Supreme Court upheld a lower court’s order requiring the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia to the U.S., the official White House account posted on X: “he’s NOT coming back.” Legal experts suggest this defiance could potentially lead to contempt charges.

U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis has accused the administration of acting in “bad faith” as she continues to demand updates on its efforts to comply with her ruling. While contempt proceedings against the government tend to unfold slowly and are often resolved before penalties are imposed, this case could test the limits of that tradition.

Understanding Contempt of Court

Contempt of court applies when a party disobeys a judicial order. Sanctions can include fines, civil penalties, or, in extreme cases, criminal prosecution and imprisonment. The budget provision put forth by House Republicans would significantly restrict contempt enforcement in cases involving injunctions or temporary restraining orders—the very tools used most frequently to curb Trump’s executive actions—unless plaintiffs have first posted a bond. This is uncommon in lawsuits against the government.

Yale law professor Nick Parrillo, in an in-depth review, found only 67 instances of contempt rulings being upheld against the federal government, out of over 650 cases where contempt was considered. Most were overturned by appellate courts. Still, higher courts have repeatedly signaled that a future case might withstand appeals.

David Noll, a professor at Rutgers Law School, noted, “The courts, for their part, don’t want to find out how far their authority goes, and the executive doesn’t really want to undermine the legal order because the economy and their ability to just get stuff done depends on the law.”

Exploring Uncharted Legal Territory

Some legal analysts are now questioning whether courts could appoint independent prosecutors to pursue contempt or if they’d be forced to rely on the Department of Justice, which may be reluctant to act. They also wonder whether U.S. marshals would actually arrest individuals found in contempt.

“If you get to the point of asking the marshals to arrest a contemnor, it’s truly uncharted territory,” Noll said.

There remains another avenue courts can use—civil contempt—which often leads to fines. According to Justin Levitt, a former Obama administration official now advising President Biden, civil contempt may be more effective because it bypasses the Justice Department and cannot be nullified by a presidential pardon.

“Should the courts want, they have the tools to make individuals who plan on defying the courts miserable,” Levitt said, adding that government lawyers and those executing illegal orders would face the most risk.

Beyond contempt, courts possess other ways to exert pressure. Judges can reduce the Justice Department’s credibility in future cases, potentially making it harder for the government to win. Friday’s Supreme Court order showed some justices were skeptical of the administration’s claims regarding deportations.

Furthermore, public opinion appears strongly opposed to defying court rulings. A recent Pew Research Center poll found that roughly 80 percent of Americans believe the federal government must comply with a court ruling declaring a Trump policy illegal.

Ultimately, the broader picture may be less dire than a few dramatic immigration cases suggest, according to Vladeck. “In the majority of these cases, the courts are successfully restraining the executive branch and the executive branch is abiding by their rulings,” he said.

Immigration, a defining pillar of Donald Trump’s 2024 presidential campaign and a topic on which he previously enjoyed strong public support, is now emerging as a point of vulnerability. Recent polling data reveals a noticeable dip in Trump’s approval ratings on immigration, signaling possible dissatisfaction with his approach among voters and highlighting evolving public attitudes.

A new Morning Consult survey, conducted from May 9 to 11 among 2,221 registered voters, indicates that Trump’s approval on immigration has dropped to the lowest level since he began his second term. According to the poll, 51 percent of respondents approved of his immigration stance, while 44 percent expressed disapproval. Notably, enthusiasm for mass deportations as a top policy priority has waned, with only 35 percent in favor.

This shift comes as additional surveys reveal growing disapproval of Trump’s hardline immigration policies, which include widespread deportations and a reduction in legal immigration opportunities. A Fox News poll conducted in April found Trump with a negative approval rating on immigration for the first time: 47 percent approved of his performance, while 48 percent disapproved. However, Trump still received better marks for his handling of the border, where 55 percent expressed approval.

Similarly, the most recent AP-NORC poll, carried out between May 1 and 5 among 1,175 adults, reported that 49 percent approved of Trump’s immigration policies, while 51 percent disapproved. This showed a slight improvement from April, when the approval rating stood at 46 percent and disapproval at 53 percent.

Another survey, conducted in April by Atlas Intel, showed a net approval rating of minus 6 points for Trump on immigration. In that poll, 52 percent rated his performance as “terrible” or “very poor,” compared to 46 percent who said it was “excellent” or “good.” This marked a notable drop from March, when 51 percent viewed Trump’s immigration policies positively and only 43 percent negatively.

This decline in approval is occurring against a backdrop of increased legal scrutiny and mounting criticism over Trump’s deportation agenda. One case drawing particular attention is that of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who was deported from Maryland. The Department of Justice referred to his removal as an “administrative error.” Although Trump’s administration identified Garcia as a member of MS-13, a gang now classified as a terrorist organization, Garcia’s legal team and family deny any such affiliation.

Trump’s current immigration plan calls for the deportation of millions of undocumented individuals through expanded operations by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and involvement of the National Guard. His strategy involves reviving and intensifying first-term policies, constructing large detention centers, and accelerating deportations by limiting judicial review.

What stands out about the current enforcement is that it targets undocumented immigrants without criminal records. During Trump’s first 50 days back in office, ICE arrested over 32,000 people, nearly half of whom had no prior criminal record. A report by El País also revealed that by mid-February 2025, over 40 percent of deportees had no criminal background.

Public support for deportation of non-criminal undocumented immigrants appears weak. A Pew Research Center survey found that while a slim majority—51 percent—of Americans support the deportation of at least some undocumented individuals, only around one-third support mass deportation. Notably, there is overwhelming support for removing violent criminals, but approval sharply declines when it comes to deporting individuals married to U.S. citizens or those brought to the country as children.

Trump’s declining approval on immigration mirrors broader polling trends showing a general downturn in public support since the start of his second term, even though he entered it with record-high approval levels. According to Morning Consult, Trump’s overall approval rating dropped one point since April to 45 percent, while 52 percent disapproved of his performance.

Echelon Insights also documented a one-point drop in Trump’s approval between April and May, falling to 46 percent, with disapproval climbing to 52 percent. Similarly, Big Data Poll found that Trump’s approval now stands at 48 percent, down from 56 percent in January. Meanwhile, disapproval has risen to 47 percent, compared to just 37 percent in January.

Nonetheless, some recent surveys indicate a slight rebound in Trump’s approval. Newsweek’s approval tracker currently shows Trump at 46 percent approval with 50 percent disapproval. This marks a marginal improvement over the previous week, when he had a 45 percent approval rating and disapproval was firmly in the 50s.

A compilation of various polls paints a mixed picture:

Rasmussen (May 12): 52% approve, 46% disapprove

Morning Consult (May 9-11): 46% approve, 52% disapprove

Echelon Insights (May 8-12): 46% approve, 52% disapprove

YouGov (May 6-8): 42% approve, 50% disapprove

Quantus (May 5-7): 48% approve, 48% disapprove

Big Data Poll (May 3-5): 48% approve, 47% disapprove

YouGov/Economist (May 2-5): 42% approve, 52% disapprove

AP-NORC (May 1-5): 41% approve, 57% disapprove

RMG Research (April 30-May 8): 49% approve, 49% disapprove

TIPP Insights (April 30-May 2): 42% approve, 47% disapprove

While these polls show Trump’s approval rating holding relatively steady, they also reveal a subtle but consistent uptick in disapproval. For instance, the YouGov poll conducted from May 6 to 8 among 1,143 adults showed a 42 percent approval rate—unchanged from previous polling—while disapproval rose by 2 points to 50 percent. A similar pattern was seen in the Quantus Insights poll, conducted between May 5 and 7.

Comparing Trump’s current ratings with those from his first term provides additional perspective. On May 13, 2017, RealClearPolitics recorded Trump’s approval at 42 percent and disapproval at 53 percent, a net rating of minus 11 points. This suggests Trump is marginally less popular now than he was at the same point during his first term.

In comparison to Joe Biden, Trump’s current approval rating also falls short. On May 13, 2021, Biden enjoyed a 54 percent approval rating, with 42 percent disapproving, according to RealClearPolitics.

Even though Trump began his second term with his highest approval rating to date, Gallup’s initial poll for the term—conducted between January 21 and 27—showed him as the least popular incoming president since 1953, and the only one to start with an approval rating below 50 percent. Gallup noted that Biden started his presidency with a 57 percent approval rating.

Historical data from Gallup, analyzed by The American Presidency Project, underscores Trump’s low standing compared to previous presidents at the 100-day mark. Dwight Eisenhower held a 73 percent approval rating at that point. Other presidents also fared better: John F. Kennedy had 83 percent, Richard Nixon 62 percent, Jimmy Carter 63 percent, Ronald Reagan 68 percent, George H.W. Bush 56 percent, Bill Clinton 55 percent, George W. Bush 62 percent, and Barack Obama 65 percent.

Looking ahead, Trump’s approval ratings may fluctuate depending on several critical developments, such as the outcome of the Russia-Ukraine war, changing dynamics in international trade, and increasing economic uncertainty linked to potential recession fears.

President Donald Trump took center stage at the White House during an ‘Invest in America’ event this afternoon, highlighting his administration’s efforts to boost domestic investment. The event attracted top executives from major corporations, including tech giant Nvidia. Those interested were able to follow the event live through a broadcast link provided on the official platform.

Earlier in the day, Trump convened a Cabinet meeting with his senior leadership team, where he lauded the impact of tariffs on strengthening the American economy. He praised businesses that have committed to investing within the United States, asserting that these actions were signs of a healthy and resilient economy despite recent concerns.

This series of public engagements came on the heels of a troubling new economic report indicating that the U.S. economy contracted at an annual rate of 0.3% during the first quarter of the year. This downturn, attributed to companies stockpiling imports ahead of Trump’s tariffs, marks the first time the economy has shrunk since 2022. The move to accumulate imports was widely seen as a preemptive strategy by firms anticipating cost increases due to upcoming tariff policies.

Despite the contraction, President Trump remained steadfast in his defense of tariffs and dismissed suggestions that his trade policies were to blame. Instead, he shifted the focus to his political opponent, President Joe Biden. “Bad numbers” on Wall Street, Trump claimed, “have nothing to do with tariffs.” His comments suggest an effort to reframe the economic narrative, distancing himself from the contraction and placing blame squarely on the Biden administration.

While Trump’s comments dominated the headlines, another significant development unfolded more quietly in the background. The United States and Ukraine have reached a major economic agreement concerning the development and management of rare earth minerals, a critical area in both geopolitical and technological terms. According to information obtained by the BBC, the two nations have agreed to form an economic partnership designed to support Ukraine’s post-war recovery and bolster U.S. access to strategic resources.

A press release issued by the U.S. Treasury Department confirmed this, stating that both countries would collaborate through the creation of a “Reconstruction Investment Fund.” The purpose of the fund is to ensure that “mutual assets, talents, and capabilities” can be leveraged to expedite Kyiv’s recovery and contribute to long-term regional stability. This fund marks a new chapter in U.S.-Ukraine relations, reinforcing economic ties while addressing strategic concerns about resource dependency.

Meanwhile, Trump used the ‘Invest in America’ platform to make a series of economic claims, particularly about consumer prices under his leadership. One of his key assertions was that gasoline prices have declined since he took office. However, recent fact-checking by BBC Verify found that this claim does not align with current data.

According to the American Automobile Association (AAA), the average national price for regular gasoline now stands at $3.16. This figure actually represents a slight increase from the $3.125 average on the day Trump assumed office. Despite Trump’s repeated claims that gas prices “just hit $1.98 in a lot of states,” BBC Verify was unable to find any evidence supporting this. Data from AAA confirms that no state currently has an average gas price lower than $2.67.

Another economic metric highlighted by Trump was the price of eggs. During his White House remarks, he insisted that egg prices had fallen since he became president. BBC Verify reviewed this statement and, again, found no supporting data.

When Trump entered office in January, the average national retail price for a dozen large Grade A eggs was about $4.95. Since then, the cost has not gone down but instead reached a record high of around $6.23 per dozen in March, based on the most recent available data. This contradicts Trump’s public statements and underscores a disconnect between his messaging and verified consumer price trends.

The White House, in its defense, has pointed to wholesale prices as evidence of improvement in the egg market. According to data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, wholesale prices for large white eggs have decreased significantly. From a high of $6.55 per dozen in January, prices have dropped by approximately 52%, landing at $3.15 in the past week. This drop, while notable, reflects wholesale trends rather than retail prices experienced directly by consumers.

These contradictions between the president’s statements and independent data have raised questions about the administration’s broader economic messaging strategy. While Trump continues to paint a picture of economic strength, citing falling prices and increasing domestic investment, analysts and fact-checkers warn that the reality is more complex.

Still, Trump’s core message appears focused on long-term growth through protectionist policies and strong international partnerships. By praising businesses that reinvest in American infrastructure and forming economic alliances with key global players like Ukraine, he aims to project confidence in his administration’s economic vision, despite immediate challenges.

Trump’s day at the White House was marked by a dual focus on promoting domestic investment and defending his economic policies in the face of troubling data. He offered strong support for tariffs, insisted consumer prices were improving, and announced a strategic deal with Ukraine. However, some of these claims, especially regarding gas and egg prices, do not stand up to independent verification. The contrast between political rhetoric and economic data continues to be a defining feature of the current discourse, as Trump positions himself for future challenges.

On January 20, Donald Trump began his second term as President of the United States, declaring that he would deliver “the most extraordinary first 100 days of any presidency in American history.” For decades, the 100-day benchmark has served as a symbolic moment to evaluate a new administration’s achievements. The early data from Trump’s second term offers insight into the progress he has made on his key promises—ranging from imposing global tariffs and arresting migrants to making deep cuts to federal spending.

One of the most telling indicators of a president’s early performance is the public’s approval rating. Gallup, the U.S. polling firm that has long tracked presidential approval at the 100-day mark, shows Trump faring poorly compared to his predecessors. Trump, now the first post-war president to serve two non-consecutive terms, has seen low ratings in both his presidencies. Historically, presidents such as John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan enjoyed strong support with 83% and 67% approval ratings, respectively. Joe Biden and Bill Clinton were also above 50%. In contrast, both of Trump’s terms saw him with under 50% approval at this milestone, making him the only post-war president with this distinction.

However, looking at approval through a partisan lens tells a more complex story. Trump’s second term shows the most extreme polarization to date, with 90% of Republicans supporting him and just 4% of Democrats. This 86-point gap marks the largest partisan split ever recorded at the 100-day point. “The longer the line, the more polarised the support,” Gallup’s polling analysis notes.

The most recent Gallup poll, conducted from April 1–14 during a time of market volatility triggered by Trump’s tariff announcements, recorded his approval at 44%. This figure, drawn from over 1,000 interviews, reflects stable ratings consistent with the first quarter of his term.

Throughout his campaign, Trump promised swift action on top issues. He said he would lower prices, end the war in Ukraine, and pardon individuals tied to the January 6 Capitol attack. While not all promises have been fulfilled, Trump has been extremely active in terms of executive action. He has issued more executive orders in 100 days than any president in the last 100 years. In fact, he has already signed more than half the number of orders from his entire first term and nearly 90% of the total executive orders Joe Biden issued in four years.

Some of these executive orders have been high-impact. On his first day, Trump announced that the U.S. would withdraw from the UN’s Paris Climate Agreement, calling it an unfair burden on Americans. He also declared a national energy emergency to boost domestic oil production. Other actions have been less weighty but symbolic, such as lifting the ban on plastic straws.

Despite this flurry of executive activity, Trump has not shown much interest in working with Congress. He has signed only five bills into law in his first 100 days—a lower number than any new president in 70 years, according to Punchbowl News. His aggressive use of executive authority has also sparked legal backlash. Over 200 of his orders have been challenged in court, and judges have blocked several of them, as reported by the legal publication Just Security.

Economically, Trump’s platform centered on lowering prices and creating jobs. His pro-business rhetoric was initially welcomed by Wall Street, reflected in a spike in S&P 500 stock prices following his election. But as Trump escalated his threats of tariffs, investor confidence waned. The markets dipped sharply on April 2 when Trump imposed sweeping global tariffs. Though he softened some tariffs a week later, global markets remained jittery, and his trade policies were blamed for economic disruptions.

Consumer confidence has also declined. The University of Michigan’s Consumer Sentiment Index, a long-running measure of public economic outlook, dropped for four straight months. April’s score was the second-lowest on record. The lowest came in June 2022 during Biden’s presidency, amid inflation concerns following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. In April 2025, Americans voiced worries about an impending trade war, reporting deteriorating expectations for inflation, income, and personal finances. Trump hasn’t ruled out a recession but remains confident in the long-term benefits of his policies.

Inflation trends remain uncertain, but the U.S. Federal Reserve has warned that Trump’s tariff strategy could drive prices upward again. On trade, Trump argues that global tariffs will help bring jobs and manufacturing back to the U.S. while reducing the trade deficit. He criticizes America’s long-standing trade imbalance as a sign of other countries “ripping off” the U.S., frequently citing China.

According to data from the U.S. Census Bureau and the Bureau of Economic Analysis, America continued to import more goods and services than it exported through 2024. After Trump’s re-election in November 2024, importers rushed to bring in products before tariffs could take effect. By January 2025, imports hit a record high of $329 billion—the highest monthly total since records began in 1992. Although Trump paused many of his harshest tariffs in early April, reports suggest Americans have been stockpiling goods, fearing price hikes. Tariffs on Chinese imports remain, but Trump has signaled he is open to reducing them if a deal can be made.

On immigration, Trump returned to the presidency vowing large-scale deportations and an end to birthright citizenship. Although he has faced legal blocks on birthright citizenship, one area where he claims success is at the southern border. In March 2025, just over 7,000 arrests were made at the U.S.-Mexico border—down significantly from the 137,000 arrests in March 2024 during Biden’s presidency.

While the number of deportations remains lower than promised and legal challenges persist, Trump points to rising internal detentions and strong cooperation with local law enforcement as evidence of success. ICE raids have increased, with many targeting individuals with criminal records. Trump’s team is also promoting what it calls “unprecedented” collaboration with police departments across the country.

However, with detention facilities nearing capacity, experts warn of potential overcrowding issues. The future of Trump’s immigration policies—and their legality—will likely be shaped by court rulings in the coming months.

Looking ahead, Trump’s broader agenda depends heavily on what unfolds in the next 100 days. Public perception of his actions on the border, trade decisions, and economic outcomes such as food prices will help determine whether Trump maintains his reputation as the most polarizing president in modern history.

A growing number of Americans believe that  President Donald Trump’s policies have negatively impacted the nation’s economy, according to a new CNN poll conducted by SSRS. The survey reveals that 59% of the public now thinks Trump’s economic approach has worsened conditions in the country, a noticeable increase from 51% in March. This figure matches the lowest approval numbers President Joe Biden received regarding his economic handling during his tenure.

The poll reflects widespread dissatisfaction with the state of the U.S. economy. There is little excitement among Americans for the White House’s sweeping new trade initiatives, with most respondents pessimistic about the direction things are headed. Although many of Trump’s recently announced tariffs are yet to be implemented, 60% of those surveyed already say his policies have raised the cost of living in their communities. Only 12% believe that Trump’s actions have actually helped reduce prices.

The findings further show that 69% of Americans believe an economic recession within the next year is at least somewhat likely. Of that group, 32% think a recession is very likely. In terms of general economic outlook, only 34% of Americans describe themselves as enthusiastic or optimistic, while 29% are pessimistic and 37% say they feel afraid. Among those under the age of 45, 70% express pessimism or fear. This sentiment is shared even more strongly among Americans of color, with 76% reporting similar concerns.

This increasing dissatisfaction marks a notable change for Trump, who during his first term was often credited with strong economic management. In fact, Trump’s 2024 campaign heavily emphasized economic recovery, with the promise to “immediately bring prices down, starting on Day One.” He was particularly successful with voters who ranked economic concerns as their primary motivation, according to CNN’s exit poll data.

One Republican respondent, a 59-year-old from Georgia, expressed his anxiety over the current market turbulence and how it has impacted his retirement plans. “Everything I worked for all my life is rapidly [disappearing],” he wrote. “It will probably take years to recover what I have lost due to what’s going on.”

Despite this, Republican sentiment regarding the economy has improved slightly over the past month. Many within the GOP remain hopeful that the newly announced tariffs will have a long-term positive effect on the economy.

However, most Americans remain skeptical about Trump’s tariff strategy. A 55% majority says his tariff actions so far this term have been poor policy, while just 28% view them positively. Another 17% consider them neither good nor bad. Tariffs imposed specifically on Chinese imports are viewed a bit more favorably, though still mostly negatively: 53% say they are bad policy and 32% consider them good.

The poll was conducted between April 17 and April 24, shortly after the White House first announced a wave of new tariffs targeting dozens of countries, only to pause many of them shortly thereafter. During the survey period, the administration issued multiple contradictory statements about the state of international trade talks and the intended goals of the tariff plan. Overall, 58% of respondents say they do not believe Trump has a clear strategy for introducing and managing tariffs, while 42% believe he does.

Most Americans predict the tariffs will harm the economy in the short term. Specifically, 72% expect negative consequences for the U.S. economy, 60% foresee damage to the country’s global standing, and 59% believe their personal finances will be adversely affected. Fewer than 30% expect the tariffs to help in any of these areas.

Looking at the long-term picture, 53% think the tariffs will ultimately hurt the U.S. economy, compared to 34% who believe they will be beneficial. This view reflects a cautious optimism among some Republicans, who believe the initial damage could eventually lead to gains. Among GOP respondents, 47% think the tariffs will hurt the economy in the near future, but roughly three-quarters anticipate eventual benefits.

John Metcalf, a Democrat from Michigan, expressed concern about the unpredictability of Trump’s tariff policy. “I’m not an economics guy, but I can kind of see with what he’s doing with tariffs,” he said. “It’s just causing confusion. If you are a business owner and you’re thinking about the future, how in the world can you make decisions when he flips back and forth every other day?”

Public perception of the broader economy continues to be bleak. Only 28% describe current economic conditions as good, while 71% say they are poor. These numbers have remained virtually unchanged since fall 2023. Meanwhile, 47% of Americans are satisfied with their personal finances, which also shows little movement over recent years.

Underneath these stable numbers, there is growing partisan division. The percentage of Republicans who call the economy good has increased by 10 points since March, whereas Democratic approval has continued to decline. Republicans are now over ten times more likely than Democrats to say they are enthusiastic or optimistic about the economy.

Nonetheless, signs of discontent are emerging within the GOP. While 94% of Republicans say they trust Trump to manage the economy, only 63% believe his policies have improved conditions, and just 23% credit him with lowering living costs in their communities. Nearly as many Republicans think his tariff policies will hurt their personal finances (28%) as those who believe they will help (33%).

A Republican respondent from New Jersey observed, “The prices for energy, medical services, higher education, repair and maintenance continue to [rise]. I think that Pres. Trump’s program will help once they are given a chance.”

When asked to name their family’s biggest economic challenge, most Americans cite costs and inflation. That includes 28% who specifically mention inflation, 15% the overall cost of living, and 16% food prices. Those figures are largely unchanged from June 2024. However, some newer concerns are emerging: 9% cite tariffs, 7% mention investment or stock market worries, and 4% each say Trump’s policies and general economic uncertainty.

One Democrat from Pennsylvania wrote, “My wife lost her job due to the Trump administration DOGE cuts. We are suddenly down an income with costs rising all around us. My own job is at risk due to NIH grant cuts. Our retirement accounts are plummeting in value. Everything is just so, so much worse than it was before Trump took office.”

Among working Americans, half believe Trump’s tariff plans will hurt their industries, while just 11% say the impact will be beneficial. A respondent from Massachusetts explained, “I make board games and they can’t be made in the US. I have preorders I need to fulfill but can’t afford to with the tariffs. The profit I would have gotten from sales would have allowed my business to grow into a studio, hire people, etc. Now I will lose money.”

Even as the Trump administration promotes tariffs as a strategy to create new manufacturing jobs in the U.S., the public remains unconvinced. By a margin of 73% to 26%, Americans say they would personally prefer an office job to a manufacturing job with equal pay. Men are slightly more inclined toward manufacturing work, with 37% expressing that preference, which rises to 43% among Republican men.

The CNN poll surveyed 1,678 adults nationwide using online and telephone interviews. Conducted between April 17 and 24, the sample was drawn from a mix of probability-based online panels and registration-based sources. Initial contact was made via mail, phone, or email. The margin of error for the full sample is plus or minus 2.9 percentage points.

Chief Justice John Roberts issued a rare public statement on Tuesday, pushing back against former President Donald Trump’s increasingly aggressive rhetoric targeting the federal judiciary. The statement appeared to be a direct response to Trump’s call for the impeachment of judges who have ruled against him.

“For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision,” Roberts said in a statement released by the Supreme Court. “The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose.”

Although Roberts did not mention Trump by name, his remarks came shortly after the former president escalated his attacks on federal judges. Earlier in the day, Trump had singled out U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, who temporarily blocked the deportation of alleged Venezuelan gang members, calling for his impeachment.

Trump’s allies, including Elon Musk, have for weeks been advocating for the impeachment of judges amid a series of unfavorable preliminary rulings against Trump’s administration. The former president’s criticism of the judiciary has become significantly more intense compared to his first term, sparking concerns over a constitutional crisis.

Some Republican lawmakers have taken action in response to Trump’s statements. Texas Representative Brandon Gill announced on social media that he had introduced articles of impeachment against Boasberg.

“This Radical Left Lunatic of a Judge, a troublemaker and agitator who was sadly appointed by Barack Hussein Obama, was not elected President—He didn’t WIN the popular VOTE (by a lot!), he didn’t WIN ALL SEVEN SWING STATES,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. “This judge, like many of the Crooked Judges I am forced to appear before, should be IMPEACHED!!!”

Later that evening, Trump addressed Roberts’ statement in an interview with Fox News’ Laura Ingraham.

“Well, (Roberts) didn’t mention my name in the statement, and I just saw it quickly,” Trump said. “He didn’t mention my name—but many people have called for (Boasberg’s) impeachment, the impeachment of this judge.”

However, Trump maintained that he had no intention of defying court orders.

“No, I never did defy a court order… you can’t do that,” Trump said. “However, we have bad judges, we have very bad judges, and these are judges that shouldn’t be allowed—I think at a certain point you have to start looking at, what do you do when you have a rogue judge?”

Roberts’ Complicated Relationship with Conservatives

Roberts has had a strained relationship with some conservatives, particularly after his 2012 vote to uphold the Affordable Care Act. Although he has frequently sided with conservatives on issues such as gun rights, abortion, affirmative action, and religious liberty, some on the right have never fully trusted him.

The Supreme Court currently has a 6-3 conservative majority, with three justices appointed by Trump. While the court has ruled in Trump’s favor on key issues, including a landmark decision last year granting broad immunity to former presidents for official acts, it has also ruled against him in a series of emergency cases since he returned to the White House.

Despite this, Trump appeared eager to gain Roberts’ favor. During his address to Congress earlier this month, Trump was overheard telling the chief justice, “Thank you again. I won’t forget it.” He later claimed on social media that he was simply thanking Roberts for swearing him in at his inauguration.

Gabe Roth, executive director of the watchdog group Fix the Court, acknowledged the significance of Roberts’ statement but criticized the chief justice’s past decisions.

“Roberts made an important point, but it’s a little rich coming from the guy that, by giving Donald Trump near-total immunity in a major decision last year, helped usher in the present era of lawlessness,” Roth said.

Impeachment Threats and Legal Fallout

Until now, Roberts and the Supreme Court have largely remained silent as Trump and his allies ramp up their attacks on the judiciary. Many of the recent rulings against Trump’s administration are expected to be appealed, with some cases potentially reaching the Supreme Court.

While Roberts’ statement did not directly reference a specific case, it coincided with an ongoing legal battle in Washington, D.C., where the Biden administration and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) are disputing the deportation of Venezuelan nationals.

The Justice Department’s handling of the case has raised questions about whether the White House ignored a court order requiring it to halt deportations immediately. Boasberg’s order was a temporary measure intended to allow more time for legal arguments, but the administration has framed the judge’s actions as an overreach.

During a Monday hearing, Boasberg demanded to know what steps the administration had taken after his ruling. Justice Department lawyers initially refused to respond, citing national security concerns. On Tuesday, immigration officials submitted a sworn declaration asserting that the deported Venezuelans were subject to removal orders under laws other than the Alien Enemies Act.

Trump is invoking the Alien Enemies Act, a 1798 law that permits expedited deportations of foreign nationals from hostile countries during times of war or invasion. Critics argue that the U.S. is not formally at war and question whether the administration’s definition of “invasion” meets the law’s criteria.

The issue is likely to be resolved in the courts, including the Supreme Court.

Roberts’ Previous Defense of Judicial Independence

Roberts’ statement on Tuesday echoed his 2018 rebuke of Trump’s criticism of the judiciary. At the time, Trump had attacked a federal judge from California who issued an injunction against his asylum restrictions, calling him an “Obama judge.”

“It’s a disgrace when every case gets filed in the 9th Circuit,” Trump complained, referring to the historically liberal appeals court. “That’s not law. Every case in the 9th Circuit we get beaten and then we end up having to go to the Supreme Court, like the travel ban, and we won. Every case, no matter where it is, they file… they file it in what’s called the 9th Circuit. This was an Obama judge. I’ll tell you what, it’s not going to happen like this anymore.”

In response, Roberts issued a rare statement defending the judiciary’s independence.

“We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges,” Roberts, who was nominated by President George W. Bush, said at the time. “What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them. That independent judiciary is something we should all be thankful for.”

Despite Roberts’ insistence on judicial neutrality, Trump and his allies continue to attack judges who rule against them. With impeachment articles already introduced in Congress, and legal battles mounting, the clash between the judiciary and the executive branch is unlikely to subside anytime soon.

The United States was added to the CIVICUS Monitor Watchlist on Sunday, a global research tool that tracks the status of freedoms and threats to civil liberties worldwide.

CIVICUS, a global alliance of civil society organizations that includes Amnesty International, cited President Donald Trump’s “assault on democratic norms and global cooperation” as a key reason for the U.S. being placed on the watchlist. In a press release, the organization highlighted the Administration’s decision to cut over 90% of its foreign aid contracts, as well as its executive actions against diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, which Trump described as “illegal and immoral discrimination programs.”

“The Trump Administration seems hellbent on dismantling the system of checks and balances which are the pillars of a democratic society,” said Mandeep Tiwana, Interim Co-Secretary General of CIVICUS. He added, “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.”

Other nations currently on the watchlist include the Democratic Republic of Congo, Italy, Pakistan, and Serbia.

CIVICUS’ Civic Space Rankings

CIVICUS assesses civil liberties in countries through five categories: open, narrowed, obstructed, repressed, and closed. “Open” is the highest classification, indicating that people can freely exercise their civil liberties, while “closed” is the lowest ranking, where severe restrictions on freedoms exist.

The organization defines a decline in “open civic space” as instances where “repressive legislation curtails free speech and dialogue, obstacles to civil society activities and operations arise, and crackdowns on civil disobedience and peaceful demonstrations occur.”

According to CIVICUS, the U.S. falls under the “narrowed” category, meaning that while most citizens can exercise their rights to free speech, assembly, and expression, there are instances where the government attempts to curb these freedoms.

Crackdowns on Protests and Government Response

CIVICUS pointed to the Biden Administration’s response to pro-Palestinian protests as an example of how civil liberties in the U.S. are being challenged. Advocates took to the streets and staged encampments on college campuses to protest American military assistance and funding to Israel. Students involved in these demonstrations demanded that their universities divest from companies with ties to Israel.

“We urge the United States to uphold the rule of law and respect constitutional and international human rights norms,” Tiwana stated. “Americans across the political spectrum are appalled by the undemocratic actions of the current Administration.”

The White House has rejected CIVICUS’ characterization of the U.S. as a “narrowed” civic space. Deputy Press Secretary Anna Kelly dismissed the report, stating in an email on Tuesday, “This is nonsense: President Trump is leading the most transparent administration in history.”

Concerns About Press Freedom

CIVICUS’ “narrowed” label also reflects concerns about press freedom in the U.S. While a free press exists, the organization noted that regulatory policies and political pressure on media ownership could pose restrictions.

The issue of media independence has been widely debated following recent editorial decisions by major media organizations and regulatory actions. In February, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) launched an investigation into NPR and PBS over concerns that the organizations had violated federal law by airing commercials—an allegation both newsroom CEOs denied. The FCC chair also expressed opposition to public funding for these media outlets.

That same month, Jeff Bezos, the CEO of Amazon and owner of The Washington Post, directed the newspaper to shift the focus of its opinion pages. Bezos told his editorial team that they would be writing “in support and defense of two pillars: personal liberties and free markets.” He added, “We’ll cover other topics too of course, but viewpoints opposing those pillars will be left to be published by others.”

White House Press Access and Media Lawsuit

The White House’s handling of the press has also drawn criticism. In February, the administration announced that it would be selecting the reporters who participate in the press pool. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt defended the decision, stating that it was about “restoring power back to the American people, who President Trump was elected to serve.” However, the move was met with backlash from journalism advocates.

“This move tears at the independence of a free press in the United States,” the White House Correspondents’ Association said in a statement on February 25. “It suggests the government will choose the journalists who cover the president. In a free country, leaders must not be able to choose their own press corps.”

Adding to the concerns over media freedom, the Associated Press has filed a lawsuit against three Trump Administration officials, including Leavitt. The lawsuit claims the news organization was barred from White House press briefings after it refused to comply with an Executive Order signed by Trump in January. The order required media outlets to refer to the Gulf of Mexico as the “Gulf of America,” a rebranding the AP declined to adopt.

Broader Implications

The addition of the United States to the CIVICUS Monitor Watchlist raises broader concerns about the state of democracy and civil liberties in the country. The organization’s assessment suggests that while the U.S. remains a functioning democracy, increasing governmental actions are raising alarms about the erosion of fundamental rights.

As political and legal battles over civil liberties continue to unfold, the U.S. remains under scrutiny from international organizations monitoring the state of democracy and press freedom worldwide.

After an intense six weeks back in the White House, President Trump delivered a bold and partisan speech to a joint session of Congress on Tuesday night.

Lasting just under 100 minutes, it became the longest such address in modern history. The speech also saw a Democratic lawmaker being ejected, multiple Democrats walking out at different points, and a Republican Party that stood firmly behind its president.

Here are six major takeaways from the speech:

1. Trump Praised His Actions So Far, Including Controversial Moves

“America is back,” Trump declared at the start of his speech. Ironically, this was the same phrase Joe Biden used at the beginning of his presidency following Trump’s first term.

The similarity highlights the deep division in the country regarding its values, identity, and direction for the future.

Trump has pursued what he describes as a “commonsense revolution,” characterized by “swift and unrelenting action.” This effort has been led by Elon Musk and his Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), with Trump spotlighting and praising Musk’s initiatives. These moves have been popular among the GOP base but strongly opposed by many others, including independents.

A recent NPR/PBS News/Marist poll showed that only 34% of independents approve of Trump’s performance, and Musk and DOGE received the same 34% favorability rating. Additionally, two-thirds of respondents felt that Trump was implementing changes too quickly without fully considering their impact on the federal government.

2. A Speech Geared Toward MAGA Supporters, Not Bipartisanship

While Americans remain divided on Trump’s leadership, his speech did not attempt to bridge that divide. Instead, it focused primarily on issues that resonate with MAGA supporters.

Trump dismissed Democrats, referring to them as “these people” and “radical left lunatics.” He also used his controversial nickname “Pocahontas” when discussing Senator Elizabeth Warren and the ongoing war in Ukraine. Warren later responded, stating that she was applauding U.S. aid to Ukraine, which Trump has since halted.

Trump claimed that Democrats would never support his policies, so he concentrated on topics favored by his base, including the anti-trans culture war, opposition to pro-diversity programs, his push to make English the country’s official language, and his effort to rename North America’s highest peak back to Mount McKinley. (The peak was renamed Denali during Obama’s presidency to reflect the preferences of most Alaskans.)

“Our country will be woke no longer,” Trump proclaimed.

During his speech, Trump spoke more forcefully about cracking down on illegal immigration than about the economy and inflation—despite rising prices playing a crucial role in his 2024 election victory.

Presidents often receive more credit or blame for the economy than they deserve, as they have limited control over prices. However, one tool they do have—tariffs—can lead to higher prices in the short term, according to economists.

Trump’s speech coincided with the implementation of steep tariffs on Mexico and Canada. He defended these measures, calling tariffs essential to saving the “soul” of the country—a phrase Biden has also used but in a different context.

Experts, business owners, and most Americans disagree with Trump’s approach. In the NPR poll, conducted before the latest round of tariffs, 57% of respondents anticipated higher prices in the next six months. Additionally, more people believed Trump’s economic policies would worsen conditions rather than improve them.

Despite these concerns, Trump largely avoided discussing the economy, instead repeatedly blaming Biden. He mentioned the former president 13 times, stating, “Joe Biden especially let the price of eggs get out of control. The egg prices, out of control. And we’re working hard to get it back down.”

However, the recent spike in egg prices has primarily been attributed to a bird flu outbreak.

While it is common for presidents to blame their predecessors for economic struggles, accountability eventually shifts to the person currently in office.

3. Numerous False or Misleading Claims

Trump made several inaccurate statements throughout his speech, many of which have been thoroughly fact-checked. NPR compiled an in-depth analysis of over 20 misleading claims.

Among the most notable were:

— Trump claimed DOGE uncovered “hundreds of billions” in fraud, but even DOGE’s own estimates do not support this figure. He exaggerated the amount even beyond what the agency itself reports.

— He alleged that numerous people over 120 years old were still receiving Social Security payments. However, even Trump’s own Social Security Administration head refuted this claim, clarifying that these individuals lack recorded death dates but are not fraudulently receiving benefits.

— Trump stated that tariffs on China during his first term generated trillions of dollars for the U.S. This is inaccurate. While tariffs were imposed on about $380 billion in goods, they did not result in a net economic gain. In fact, economists argue they may have harmed the GDP in the long run.

— Trump falsely claimed the U.S. spent $350 billion on the war in Ukraine. The actual amount is closer to $115 billion over three years, with some funds allocated to domestic weapons production rather than direct aid to Ukraine. While the U.S. has provided more military aid than any single country, European nations collectively have contributed around $130–140 billion.

4. Legislative Priorities for the Republican-Led Congress

Trump outlined several policy requests, offering insight into his legislative agenda for the coming year. His asks included:

— Increased funding for deportations

— Another round of major tax cuts

— Enhanced police protections (with no mention of the January 6 attack on officers at the U.S. Capitol)

— A new crime bill

— A mandate for the death penalty for anyone convicted of murdering a police officer (noting that the death penalty varies by state)

— The creation of a “Golden Dome” missile defense system, similar to Israel’s Iron Dome but intended for U.S. use.

5. Reality-TV-Style Moments, A Trump Staple

While this speech lacked some of the theatrics of past Trump addresses, it still included dramatic moments, such as:

— Announcing an executive order naming a wildlife refuge after a girl allegedly killed by undocumented immigrants.

— Naming a 13-year-old cancer survivor as an honorary Secret Service agent.

— Publicly recognizing a high school student’s acceptance to West Point.

— Declaring the capture of the suspect responsible for the Abbey Gate bombing in Afghanistan.

6. Elissa Slotkin’s Response: A Speech for Democrats to Note

Michigan Senator Elissa Slotkin delivered what many consider one of the strongest rebuttals to a presidential address in recent history. Comparisons were drawn to former Senator Jim Webb’s fiery response to George W. Bush in 2007 during the Iraq War.

Unlike previous opposition responses, which have often been met with criticism, Slotkin’s speech was commanding and poised. Speaking before a backdrop of American flags, she leaned on her background as a former CIA officer and the daughter of a Republican father and Democratic mother. She also highlighted her success in a state that Trump won in 2024.

Slotkin emphasized that the “middle class is the engine of our country” and warned against reckless policymaking. She criticized Trump’s tax plans for benefiting billionaires at the expense of essential public programs. Additionally, she took aim at Musk and his team, accusing them of improperly accessing sensitive personal data.

“As a Cold War kid, I’m thankful it was Reagan and not Trump in office in the 1980s,” she remarked, referencing Trump’s handling of the war in Ukraine. “Trump would have lost us the Cold War.”

Slotkin’s speech provided a clear strategy for Democrats struggling to respond to Trump’s presidency. Her composed delivery stood in stark contrast to the chaotic reaction from Rep. Al Green, whose loud interruptions led to his removal from the chamber.

As Trump moves forward with his agenda, the battle lines in Washington appear more firmly drawn than ever.

The Senate confirmed Tulsi Gabbard as the director of national intelligence in a largely party-line vote on Wednesday, overcoming strong objections from Democrats and initial concerns from Republicans regarding her qualifications and past statements. The 52-48 vote concluded two months of deliberations on whether the former Hawaii congresswoman was suited to lead the nation’s 18 intelligence agencies and brief President Trump daily on security matters.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell was the sole Republican to vote against Gabbard’s confirmation. Some Republican senators had initially questioned her stance on intelligence-gathering practices, particularly her past opposition to Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). While serving in the House, Gabbard had pushed for repealing the law, which grants broad surveillance authority. Additionally, concerns arose over her past remarks about Syrian leader Bashar Assad and Russian President Vladimir Putin.

During confirmation hearings, both Democratic and Republican senators pressed Gabbard on whether she viewed former National Security Agency (NSA) contractor Edward Snowden as a traitor. Snowden had stolen 1.5 million classified documents, an act that frustrated many lawmakers. Despite repeated questioning, Gabbard declined to label him a traitor, which further frustrated Republicans.

Republican senators also noted that Gabbard struggled to articulate clear answers in private meetings. Senator Susan Collins was among those initially doubtful, questioning whether Gabbard had genuinely embraced the surveillance powers under Section 702, which provides roughly 60% of the intelligence included in the president’s daily brief.

However, Republicans eventually united behind Gabbard after Vice President J.D. Vance played a key role in swaying support. Vance worked closely with Senator Todd Young, a former Marine intelligence officer, to ease GOP concerns. Additionally, Senate Intelligence Committee Chair Tom Cotton remained a steadfast supporter of Gabbard’s nomination, strengthening Republican backing.

Supporters of Gabbard argue that she represents the kind of “disruptor” Trump seeks in leadership roles. They compare her to Pete Hegseth, the recently confirmed Pentagon chief, and claim that she will overhaul the intelligence community, which they believe has been “weaponized” against Trump. Many Trump allies continue to cite a controversial 2020 letter signed by 51 former intelligence officials, which suggested that reports about Hunter Biden’s laptop could be a “Russian influence operation.”

Vance was instrumental in ensuring Young’s support, holding multiple discussions with him between Gabbard’s turbulent confirmation hearing and the committee vote. The Senate Intelligence Committee ultimately advanced her nomination with full Republican support, leading to a procedural vote on Monday where all Republicans present voted in favor of moving toward final confirmation.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune praised Gabbard as a “patriot, motivated by service,” highlighting her extensive background. “Tulsi Gabbard has worn the uniform of our country for the last 22 years, leading American soldiers in some of the most dangerous parts of the world,” Thune stated. He also emphasized her eight years in Congress, where she served on the House Homeland Security, Foreign Affairs, and Armed Services committees.

Democrats, however, strongly opposed her appointment, arguing that she lacked the necessary experience and had displayed poor judgment on critical intelligence matters. They pointed to her skepticism of U.S. intelligence findings on Assad’s use of chemical weapons and her alignment with Putin’s reasoning for invading Ukraine.

“By any objective measure and by every objective measure as well, she is not qualified,” said Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer. “From the moment she was nominated, both Democrats and Republicans were puzzled by the choice.”

Schumer criticized Trump’s selection, stating, “Of all people Donald Trump could have picked to oversee national intelligence, he picked someone known for repeating Russian propaganda and getting duped by conspiracy theories.” He went on to claim that if the vote had been conducted by secret ballot, Gabbard would have received no more than 10 votes.

Senator Mark Warner, the vice chair of the Intelligence Committee, was also outspoken in his opposition. He argued that Gabbard had “demonstrated she’s not up to the task” of representing the intelligence community, citing her defense of Assad’s claim that he had not used chemical weapons, despite U.S. intelligence reports stating otherwise.

Warner further contended that Gabbard had “knowingly met with the Syrian cleric who threatened to conduct serial bomb attacks against the United States” and had unfairly blamed the U.S. and NATO for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. He pointed to her past assertions that the Biden administration had failed to acknowledge Putin’s concerns about Ukraine joining NATO.

Republican senators faced considerable pressure to support Trump’s controversial nominees, including Gabbard, Hegseth, and Robert F. Kennedy Jr., whose confirmation vote for Secretary of Health and Human Services is set for later this week.

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse was among the most vocal critics of Gabbard’s appointment, characterizing it as “part of a pattern of unilateral disarmament by the Trump administration against Russia.”

Citing a Washington Post article from November, Whitehouse noted that “Gabbard’s appointment as head of national intelligence elicited the most excitement in Russia because she has long been regarded as a darling of the propagandist Russian R.T. network.”

“Russian TV has called Ms. Gabbard ‘our friend Tulsi,’” Whitehouse said. “[A] Russian newspaper published an op-ed, and it was titled, ‘The CIA and FBI are trembling [that] Trump protégé Tulsi Gabbard will support Russia.’”

Despite these objections, Gabbard’s confirmation received strong backing from Republican leadership. Tom Cotton, a key figure on national security within the GOP, defended her against accusations of disloyalty.

“Let me remind everyone that Ms. Gabbard has served in our Army for more than two decades, she has multiple combat tours, and she still wears the uniform today,” Cotton stated. “She has undergone five FBI background checks.”

One of the primary hurdles Gabbard faced during her confirmation was her prior advocacy for repealing Section 702 of FISA. In the past, she criticized the law as an “overreach” that infringed on civil liberties. However, in private meetings with Republican senators, she clarified that her stance had evolved due to recent reforms to the program.

Senator James Lankford, a member of the Intelligence Committee, revealed that he decided to back Gabbard after she reassured him that she now supported Section 702, describing it as a “vital” tool for national security.

Lankford noted in an interview with NBC’s “Meet the Press” that Gabbard had convinced him she would uphold the surveillance authority, which played a crucial role in securing Republican votes for her confirmation.

Ultimately, Gabbard’s path to confirmation reflected the deep divisions in the Senate, with Republicans rallying behind Trump’s pick despite lingering concerns, while Democrats staunchly opposed her, citing her past positions and perceived sympathies toward Russia and Assad.

The number of Black people living in the United States reached a record high of 48.3 million in 2023, reflecting a 33% increase since 2000, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of government data. The Black population has become increasingly diverse, with more individuals identifying as belonging to multiple racial backgrounds.

For Black History Month, key insights into the country’s Black population have been highlighted. This analysis focuses on three primary groups: non-Hispanic Black individuals of a single race, non-Hispanic multiracial Black individuals, and Black Hispanics. However, it is important to note that Black Hispanics are distinct from the Afro-Latino population.

A Changing Demographic Landscape

Since 2000, the Black population has increased from 36.2 million to 48.3 million, with a significant rise in those identifying as multiracial. The number of Black individuals who also identify with another race has surged by 269%, while those who identify as Hispanic have increased by 210%. This reflects a broader national trend of growing racial diversity and a shift in how Americans identify their racial backgrounds. Additionally, immigration from Africa, the Caribbean, and other regions has contributed significantly to this growth.

State-Level Trends in Black Population Growth

The Black population has expanded most rapidly in states that historically had smaller Black communities. Utah witnessed the highest growth rate, with an 89% increase between 2010 and 2023. Other states with substantial Black population growth include Arizona, Nevada, and Minnesota, each experiencing a 60% rise during the same period.

Texas, Florida, and Georgia saw the largest numerical increases in Black residents between 2010 and 2023. Texas added 1.2 million Black residents, while Florida and Georgia saw increases of 800,000 and 610,000, respectively. As a result, these states now have larger Black populations than New York, which had the highest Black population in 2010.

Meanwhile, some areas saw declines. Between 2010 and 2023, the Black population decreased by 2% in both Mississippi and Illinois, and by 1% in Washington, D.C.

Metro Areas with the Largest Black Populations

The New York City metropolitan area continues to have the highest number of Black residents in the U.S., with approximately 3.8 million Black individuals living there in 2023. Other metro areas with large Black populations include Atlanta (2.3 million), Washington, D.C. (1.8 million), and Chicago (1.7 million).

As a proportion of the overall population, Atlanta leads among metro areas with at least 1 million Black residents. In 2023, 37% of Atlanta’s population was Black. Other metro areas with significant Black population shares include Washington, D.C. (28%), Philadelphia (23%), and Detroit (23%).

Among major metro areas, Dallas experienced the highest percentage growth in Black residents, increasing by 47% between 2010 and 2023. In contrast, Detroit saw no net growth, while Los Angeles recorded a slight decline of 1%. Although the Black population within Washington, D.C., itself decreased, the overall Black population in its larger metro area grew by 3%.

A Young Population Compared to Others

The U.S. Black population remains relatively young. In 2023, the median age of Black Americans was 32.6 years, compared to 39.2 years for those who do not identify as Black. Additionally, 27% of Black Americans were under the age of 18, a higher percentage than among non-Black Americans (21%).

The median age varies among different Black demographic groups. In 2023, the median age was:

• 35.4 years for single-race, non-Hispanic Black individuals
• 21.7 years for Black Hispanic individuals
• 19.5 years for multiracial, non-Hispanic Black individuals

Rising Educational Attainment Among Black Americans

Educational achievement among Black Americans has steadily improved. In 2023, 27% of Black adults aged 25 and older—equivalent to 8.2 million people—had earned at least a bachelor’s degree, nearly doubling from 14.5% in 2000.

Both Black women and men have seen increased levels of higher education, though Black women have experienced the most significant gains. In 2023, 30.1% of Black women aged 25 and older held at least a bachelor’s degree, up from 15.4% in 2000. By comparison, 23.6% of Black men in this age group had attained at least a bachelor’s degree, rising from 13.4% in 2000.

Marriage and Relationship Trends

Black Americans are less likely to be married compared to the general population. In 2023, 48% of Black adults had never been married, whereas only 29% of non-Black adults remained unmarried.

Black men were more likely than Black women to be married, with 36% of Black men being married in 2023 compared to 29% of Black women. Meanwhile, Black women were more likely than Black men to be divorced, separated, or widowed, with 25% of Black women falling into these categories compared to 15% of Black men.

Interracial Marriage and Spouse Demographics

Approximately 18% of married Black adults had a spouse of a different race in 2023. Among married Black men, 21% were married to someone who was not Black, while 13% of married Black women had non-Black spouses. These figures account only for couples living in the same household.

However, Black women were more likely than Black men to have a Black spouse. In 2023, 87% of married Black women had a Black spouse, compared to 79% of married Black men. This includes spouses who identify as single-race Black, multiracial Black, or Black Hispanic.

Income Levels Among Black Households

In 2023, Black households had a median annual income of $54,000. Income levels varied among different Black demographic groups:

• Multiracial Black households: Median income of $65,800
• Black Hispanic households: Median income of $60,000
• Single-race Black households: Median income of $52,800

The data highlights the economic diversity within the Black population, with significant variations based on racial and ethnic identity.

Conclusion

The U.S. Black population has grown substantially over the past two decades, both in size and diversity. This increase has been driven by multiple factors, including immigration and a broader societal shift in racial self-identification. The growth patterns across different states and metro areas highlight changing demographics, while trends in education, marriage, and income provide insight into the evolving social and economic landscape of Black Americans today.

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/01/23/key-facts-about-black-americans/

Enviroment

Trump Declares End to Biden’s ‘Plastic Straw Mandate,’ Plans Executive Order to Reinstate Plastic Use

Former U.S. President Donald Trump took to Truth Social on Saturday, February 8, to announce the end of what he described as President Joe Biden’s “plastic straw mandate.” He celebrated the return of plastic straws while ridiculing paper alternatives.

In his post, Trump wrote, “Crooked Joe’s MANDATE, ‘NO PLASTIC STRAWS, ONLY PAPER,’ IS DEAD! Enjoy your next drink without a straw that disgustingly dissolves in your mouth!!!”

He further revealed his plan to sign an executive order the following week, reversing Biden’s push for paper straws and officially reinstating plastic.

Labeling the move “ridiculous,” Trump criticized the functionality of paper straws. Expressing his frustration in a post on X, he stated, “I will be signing an Executive Order next week ending the ridiculous Biden push for Paper Straws, which don’t work. Back to plastic!”

Exit from Paris Agreement

Trump’s announcement came shortly after he signed an executive order withdrawing the United States from the Paris Climate Agreement. This decision mirrored a move he made during his first term in office. The international accord, signed by nearly 200 countries, seeks to limit global warming, though it is not legally binding.

Donald Trump has introduced new tariffs on goods imported into the U.S. from Canada, Mexico, and China. The former president signed an executive order imposing a 25% tariff on all imports from Canada and Mexico, aiming to pressure these countries into taking stronger action against illegal immigration and drug trafficking.

Additionally, a 10% tariff will be levied on goods from China, on top of existing duties, until the country addresses fentanyl smuggling. Trump has previously pledged to impose a 60% tariff on Chinese goods and has even considered a 200% tax on certain vehicle imports.

Tariffs have been a key component of Trump’s economic strategy, which he believes can bolster the U.S. economy, protect domestic jobs, and generate tax revenue. During his election campaign, he reassured voters that these taxes would not be a burden on them. “It’s not going to be a cost to you, it’s a cost to another country,” he asserted.

However, this claim was widely dismissed by economists as misleading.

How Tariffs Function

A tariff is essentially a domestic tax applied to goods entering the country, based on their value. For instance, if an imported car worth $50,000 is subject to a 25% tariff, an additional $12,500 charge will be applied. The cost of the tariff is paid by the domestic company that imports the product rather than the foreign exporter. In practice, this means U.S. firms must pay the tariff to the U.S. government.

In 2023, the U.S. imported approximately $3.1 trillion worth of goods, representing about 11% of the nation’s GDP. The tariffs imposed on these imports generated $80 billion in revenue, accounting for roughly 2% of total U.S. tax revenue.

However, the ultimate economic impact of tariffs is more complex. If an importing company passes the tariff cost onto consumers through price increases, American buyers bear the financial burden. Conversely, if the firm absorbs the cost, it results in reduced profits. A third possibility is that foreign exporters lower their prices to offset the tariff and maintain U.S. customers, leading to reduced profits on their end.

While all these scenarios are theoretically possible, economic analyses of the tariffs implemented by Trump between 2017 and 2020 indicate that American consumers bore most of the burden.

A University of Chicago survey conducted in September 2024 found that an overwhelming majority of economists agreed with the statement that “imposing tariffs results in a substantial portion of the tariffs being borne by consumers of the country that enacts the tariffs, through price increases,” with only 2% disagreeing.

Price Increases and Consumer Impact

One concrete example of tariff-driven price hikes is Trump’s 2018 decision to impose a 50% tariff on washing machine imports. Researchers found that this policy led to a 12% price increase, costing U.S. consumers approximately $1.5 billion annually.

If Trump were to introduce even higher tariffs in a future administration, the economic impact is expected to be similar. The Peterson Institute for International Economics, a nonpartisan think tank, estimates that Trump’s proposed tariffs would lower American incomes. The wealthiest fifth of Americans would see a reduction of around 2%, while the poorest fifth would experience a decline of approximately 4%.

A typical middle-income U.S. household would lose an estimated $1,700 per year due to these tariffs. The Center for American Progress, a left-leaning think tank, projects even higher losses, estimating that middle-income families could see annual financial hits ranging from $2,500 to $3,900.

Several economists have warned that another large round of tariffs could contribute to increased domestic inflation.

Job Market Effects

Trump has repeatedly justified his tariffs as a means to protect and create American jobs. “Under my plan, American workers will no longer be worried about losing your jobs to foreign nations, instead, foreign nations will be worried about losing their jobs to America,” he stated during his campaign.

His tariffs were introduced in response to longstanding concerns over the decline of U.S. manufacturing jobs due to globalization, particularly following the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) with Mexico in 1994 and China’s entry into the World Trade Organization in 2001.

In January 1994, when NAFTA came into effect, the U.S. had nearly 17 million manufacturing jobs. By 2016, that number had fallen to about 12 million.

However, many economists argue that this decline is not solely due to trade agreements but also reflects the rise of automation and other technological advancements.

Studies analyzing Trump’s first-term tariffs found no substantial overall employment gains in U.S. industrial sectors that were protected by these policies.

For example, in 2018, Trump imposed a 25% tariff on imported steel to support domestic steel producers. Yet, by 2020, employment in the U.S. steel industry had actually declined, standing at 80,000 jobs—down from 84,000 in 2018.

It is possible that without the tariffs, steel industry employment would have dropped even further. However, detailed economic studies concluded that the tariffs did not lead to meaningful job growth.

Moreover, some industries suffered indirect job losses due to higher material costs. For example, manufacturers reliant on steel, such as agricultural machinery producer Deere & Co, reportedly experienced lower employment levels as a result of higher steel prices.

Trade Deficit Challenges

Trump has frequently criticized the U.S. trade deficit, arguing that it harms the economy. “Trade deficits hurt the economy very badly,” he has claimed.

In 2016, before Trump assumed office, the U.S. trade deficit for goods and services was $480 billion, or about 2.5% of GDP. By 2020, despite his tariff policies, the deficit had ballooned to $653 billion, approximately 3% of GDP.

Economists attribute this increase partly to the impact of tariffs on currency values. By reducing demand for foreign currencies in international trade, tariffs strengthened the U.S. dollar, making American exports less competitive globally.

Additionally, tariffs in a globalized economy can often be circumvented.

For instance, Trump imposed a 30% tariff on Chinese solar panel imports in 2018. However, the U.S. Commerce Department later found that many Chinese manufacturers had relocated assembly operations to countries such as Malaysia, Thailand, Cambodia, and Vietnam. By exporting finished solar panels from these nations, companies effectively evaded U.S. tariffs.

Limited Support for Tariffs Among Economists

While most economists oppose Trump’s tariffs, some believe they could benefit U.S. industry. Jeff Ferry of the Coalition for a Prosperous America, a domestic industry advocacy group, supports the tariffs as a means of strengthening American manufacturing.

Similarly, Oren Cass, director of the conservative think tank American Compass, argues that tariffs can incentivize companies to keep production in the U.S., which he believes has national security and supply chain benefits.

Despite Trump’s aggressive trade policies, the Biden administration has retained many tariffs introduced after 2018. Additionally, Biden has imposed new tariffs on certain Chinese imports, including electric vehicles, citing concerns over national security, domestic industry protection, and unfair subsidies from Beijing.

Looking Ahead

As Trump prepares for a potential return to office, his tariff policies remain a focal point of economic debate. While he insists that tariffs will boost U.S. industry and protect jobs, economic studies suggest they have primarily increased costs for American consumers without delivering significant employment benefits.

With China, Canada, and Mexico vowing to retaliate, the long-term consequences of these policies remain uncertain.

The House of Representatives passed the Laken Riley Act on Wednesday, delivering an immigration-focused bill to President Trump’s desk. This marks a potential legislative victory for Trump following his return to the White House earlier this week.

The bill was passed by a vote of 263-156, with 46 Democrats joining all present Republicans in support. The House’s approval followed the Senate’s bipartisan vote on Monday, where the measure was cleared by a margin of 64-35.

Trump is expected to sign the bill into law, making it the first legislation enacted during his second term. Immigration and border security have been central to Trump’s agenda and campaign messaging.

“The Laken Riley Act will now go to President Trump’s desk for him to sign into law,” said Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) on social platform X. “Criminal illegal aliens must be detained, deported, and NEVER allowed back into our country. The American people demand and deserve safety and security.”

While the White House has not confirmed a signing ceremony, Trump is scheduled to leave for North Carolina on Friday.

Provisions of the Laken Riley Act

The legislation mandates the detention of a wide range of migrants without legal status, including those legally allowed into the United States to seek asylum, if they have been accused of crimes such as theft, burglary, or shoplifting.

The bill is named after Laken Riley, a nursing student from Georgia who was killed by a Venezuelan migrant previously arrested for shoplifting. This incident occurred after the individual had been paroled into the U.S.

Criticism and Concerns

The bill has drawn criticism for requiring the detention of individuals based on accusations rather than convictions. Critics argue this could lead to unjust detainment and deportation.

“Under this bill, a person who has lived in the United States for decades, say for most of her life, paid taxes and bought a home, but who is mistakenly arrested for shoplifting would not be free to resume her life, but rather would be detained and deported, even if the charges are dropped,” said House Judiciary Committee ranking member Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) during earlier debates.

Legislative Journey

The passage of the bill in the House marks the culmination of months of effort by Republicans. The legislation was first approved by the House in March, shortly after Riley’s death. However, it stalled in the then-Democratic-controlled Senate.

The bill was reintroduced earlier this month as the first measure of the 119th Congress. With a Republican majority in the Senate, the legislation quickly advanced. The Senate made minor technical adjustments and added two amendments before sending it back to the House for final approval.

One amendment, introduced by Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), adds assault of a law enforcement officer to the list of crimes triggering detainment. Another amendment, known as Sarah’s Law and proposed by Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), requires the detention of migrants without legal status who are charged with crimes resulting in death or serious bodily harm. This provision honors Sarah Root, a victim of a fatal car crash in 2016 caused by a migrant who later fled the country after posting bond.

Twelve Democrats joined all Senate Republicans in passing the final version of the bill.

Dividing Democrats

The legislation has exposed divisions among Democrats, who are still grappling with the aftermath of their losses in the November elections. Immigration and border security were pivotal issues during the campaign, with polls consistently identifying these topics as top concerns for voters.

Trump frequently highlighted Riley’s case on the campaign trail, using her death to critique the Biden administration’s immigration policies. When a Georgia court sentenced Jose Ibarra, the Venezuelan migrant who killed Riley, to life in prison in November, Trump described the verdict as “justice.”

“The Illegal who killed our beloved Laken Riley was just found GUILTY on all counts for his horrific crimes,” Trump said at the time, shortly after his election victory.

Executive Actions on Immigration

Immigration remains a priority for the Trump administration. On his first day back in office, Trump issued several executive orders aimed at tightening border security and restricting migration.

One order pauses refugee admissions, while another reinstates a program that partners local law enforcement with immigration officials. Additionally, Trump declared a national emergency to allow for greater deployment of active-duty military personnel at the southern border and to allocate resources for border wall construction.

Another executive order frames migration as an “invasion” and seeks to halt asylum processing by citing public health and national security concerns.

The Path Forward

With the Laken Riley Act expected to be signed into law, Republicans view this as a significant step toward fulfilling their campaign promises on immigration. However, critics warn that the bill’s provisions may lead to human rights concerns and unintended consequences for migrants who have long been part of American society.

As immigration continues to be a contentious issue, the passage of this legislation highlights the deep divide between Republicans and Democrats on how to address border security and the treatment of migrants.

In his first three days, President Donald Trump launched a flurry of executive orders aimed at reshaping the U.S. government across multiple sectors, reflecting his commitment to campaign promises and a rightward shift in policy. These orders span immigration, trade, civil rights, government efficiency, and climate action. While some have immediate implications, others face legal challenges, and several have symbolic significance.

Immigration and Border Security

Trump focused heavily on immigration, declaring a national emergency at the southern border, characterizing the influx of migrants as an “invasion.” His orders trigger several immediate actions, including utilizing military personnel for border enforcement—a move that could challenge the Posse Comitatus Act, which restricts military involvement in domestic law enforcement. Other directives include halting refugee arrivals, redefining birthright citizenship, prioritizing border wall construction, and revoking the “catch-and-release” practice. Trump also authorized local law enforcement to assist federal immigration enforcement and mandated DNA collection from immigration detainees. The orders aim to streamline deportations and curtail family reunification programs, setting the tone for a tough stance on immigration.

International Trade and the Economy

Trump took steps to address trade imbalances by ordering reviews of U.S. trade relations, especially with Mexico, Canada, and China. He proposed new tariffs, including a 25% tariff on Mexican and Canadian goods. He also directed the establishment of an “External Revenue Service” to handle tariffs and foreign trade revenues. Additionally, Trump suspended U.S. participation in the Global Tax Deal, aiming to protect American interests in international corporate taxation.

Climate, Energy, and Environmental Policy

In a significant move away from the Biden administration’s climate policies, Trump withdrew the U.S. from the Paris climate agreement, blocking funding for the International Climate Finance Plan. He also declared a national energy emergency to promote fossil fuel production, including streamlining permitting processes for energy projects. Trump rolled back numerous regulations aimed at reducing carbon emissions, including restrictions on fossil fuel extraction in Alaska and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. His directives signal a push for greater energy independence and a reversal of the green energy push under Biden.

Civil Rights and Transgender Rights

Trump issued orders to roll back Biden-era initiatives on racial and ethnic equity and transgender rights. The White House ordered the elimination of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs, including positions like “chief diversity officer.” Trump also mandated the recognition of only male and female gender categories on government documents, ending policies that supported transgender individuals in federal programs and military service. He directed that civil rights laws be interpreted with the understanding that “sex” excludes “gender identity.”

Federal Workers and Government Efficiency

On the domestic front, Trump focused on streamlining government operations. He established the Department of Government Efficiency, led by Elon Musk, to recommend cuts in federal programs and spending. Additionally, Trump froze federal hiring, with exceptions for immigration, border enforcement, and military positions. His orders also make it easier to remove, demote, or reassign senior federal employees, effectively tightening control over the federal workforce.

These executive actions highlight Trump’s goal of centralizing power within the executive branch and taking swift action on key issues. They reflect his unwavering commitment to his political base and his ambition to reshape U.S. policies on immigration, trade, civil rights, and government structure. However, many of these orders face legal hurdles and will continue to spark debates over the balance of power in the U.S. government.

Donald Trump has been officially sworn in as the 47th President of the United States by Chief Justice John Roberts, marking a dramatic political return after his felony convictions. His running mate, JD Vance, took the oath of office administered by Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

In his inauguration speech, Trump declared that “the golden age of America begins right now.” The new administration is preparing to implement numerous executive actions, including efforts to end birthright citizenship and declaring a national emergency regarding the U.S.-Mexico border, according to incoming White House sources. Additionally, sources informed CNN that Trump plans to pardon some individuals involved in the January 6 riots on his first day in office.

The inauguration event was attended by a broad spectrum of political figures, former presidents, and influential billionaires like Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos. Country music sensation Carrie Underwood performed “America the Beautiful” at the event. The world was able to tune in to the proceedings via various media platforms.

In the lead-up to the inauguration, outgoing President Joe Biden took a significant step by issuing pardons for key individuals. These included General Mark Milley, Dr. Anthony Fauci, and members of Congress who had been involved in investigating the January 6 events. Biden also granted preemptive pardons to his family members, including his brothers James and Frank, his sister Valerie, and their spouses.

Trump took the opportunity in his speech to reflect on his personal journey and the significance of his victory. In particular, he referenced a moment of personal reflection tied to an assassination attempt during his campaign. “My life was saved by the grace of God to make America great again,” Trump said, evoking religious imagery. This sentiment was shared by many of his supporters, who believed his survival of the assassination attempt was a divine sign.

Trump further characterized Inauguration Day, January 20, 2025, as “liberation day,” emphasizing the hope that the presidential election would be remembered as “the greatest and most consequential election in the history of our country.” He argued that his victory marked a broad and rapidly growing unity among the American people. “The entire nation is rapidly unifying behind our agenda with dramatic increases in support from virtually every element of our society,” he stated.

Acknowledging the diverse coalition that helped propel him to victory, Trump expressed gratitude toward Black and Hispanic voters. He thanked them for the “tremendous outpouring of love and trust that you have shown me with your vote.” He vowed to remember this support, saying, “We set records and I will not forget it. I’ve heard your voices on the campaign, and I look forward to working with you in the years to come.”

Trump also addressed the recent devastation caused by wildfires in Los Angeles, where numerous homes were destroyed. These fires, exacerbated by high winds, affected not only the general public but also some of the “wealthiest and most powerful” individuals in the country. “They’re raging through the houses and communities, even affecting some of the wealthiest and most powerful individuals in our country, some of whom are sitting here right now. They don’t have a home any longer,” Trump remarked. Despite the loss, he underscored the importance of preventing further tragedies, stating, “That’s interesting. But we can’t let this happen.”

In another portion of his speech, Trump criticized the Biden administration, which was present at the inauguration, for its handling of domestic and international challenges. “We now have a government that cannot manage a simple crisis at home while at the same time stumble into a continuing catalog of catastrophic events abroad,” he claimed. He also expressed frustration over immigration policies, asserting that the government had “failed to protect our magnificent law-abiding citizens but proves sanctuary and protection for dangerous criminals.” Trump continued, emphasizing the disparity in border protection efforts: “We have a government that has given unlimited funding to the defense of foreign borders but refuses to defend American borders or, more importantly, its own people.”

Trump highlighted his commitment to ending what he described as America’s ongoing decline, particularly in sectors like education and healthcare. He vowed to reverse the current trajectory swiftly: “All of this will change starting today, and it will change very quickly,” he said. His victory, he asserted, was a mandate to undo “a horrible betrayal” of the American people. “From this moment on, America’s decline is over,” Trump declared, signaling his intention to enact sweeping reforms.

As the 47th president, Trump expressed optimism and confidence about the future. He promised to lead the country into “a thrilling new era of national success” and emphasized that “a tide of change is sweeping the country.” Reflecting on the opportunities before the nation, he said, “Sunlight is pouring over the entire world and America has the chance to seize this opportunity like never before.” His words were an indication of his hope to restore American greatness and assert the country’s place on the world stage.

With his inaugural speech, Trump set the tone for his presidency, stressing the need for immediate change and national unity. From addressing the wildfires to criticizing the previous administration, he laid out an ambitious agenda aimed at reasserting American values and interests. As the nation looks forward to the new administration, Trump’s bold promises will serve as a framework for the first term of his presidency.

The inauguration of President Donald Trump marks the beginning of a new chapter in American politics, characterized by promises of national revitalization and a determination to reverse the country’s perceived decline. His speech touched on various themes, from personal reflections to critiques of the previous administration, and outlined his vision for the future. With a strong emphasis on unity and restoration, Trump’s presidency begins with a clear sense of direction, ready to implement the changes he campaigned on.

On Monday, Donald Trump launched his second term with swift and sweeping actions, aiming to redefine his presidency while addressing his previous term’s shortcomings. Proclaiming the dawn of a “Golden Age” for America, Trump quickly consolidated his authority, implementing measures that targeted Joe Biden’s legacy and signaling an aggressive approach to governance.

Within hours, he pardoned hundreds of January 6 rioters, initiated stringent immigration reforms, and solidified alliances with influential tech leaders. His unorthodox foreign policy decisions sent ripples through global capitals, underscoring a dramatic pivot from the internationalism championed by most presidents since World War II.

In a press conference at the Oval Office, Trump showcased a confident, decisive demeanor, drawing on lessons from his first term to maximize his control over executive powers. However, alongside ambitious goals and bold rhetoric, Trump’s actions were accompanied by grievances, misinformation, and a growing sense of self-importance, raising concerns about his commitment to democratic principles.

The day’s rapid sequence of events, including the issuance of numerous executive orders, hinted at looming legal battles. Despite the theatrics, Trump’s agenda faces challenges, with new legislation requiring cooperation from a narrowly Republican-controlled House of Representatives. Without such legislative backing, many of his actions could be reversed by the next administration, much like his dismantling of Biden-era policies.

Pardons for January 6 Rioters

In a polarizing move, Trump issued blanket pardons to approximately 1,500 individuals convicted or accused of crimes during the January 6, 2021, Capitol attack. These pardons extended to high-profile members of extremist groups like the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers, erasing distinctions between violent offenders and those guilty of lesser charges.

This act underscored Trump’s willingness to shield his supporters from legal consequences, even at the cost of undermining democratic norms. Critics warned this could embolden future acts of political violence. Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi denounced the move, stating, “Trump’s actions are an outrageous insult to our justice system and the heroes who suffered physical scars and emotional trauma as they protected the Capitol, the Congress, and the Constitution.”

Biden’s Preemptive Pardons

Trump wasn’t the only president accused of misusing pardon power. Before leaving office, Biden issued blanket pardons to officials such as Dr. Anthony Fauci, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley, and members of the House committee investigating January 6. Biden justified these actions as necessary protections against Trump’s threats of retribution.

Additionally, Biden preemptively pardoned several family members, including his brothers and sister, claiming it was to safeguard their reputations. Critics argued this expanded the potential misuse of presidential pardon power, setting a dangerous precedent. Trump seized on this development, remarking, “Now every president, when they leave office, they are going to pardon everyone they met.”

Immigration Overhaul

Trump moved swiftly on immigration, declaring an emergency at the southern border, ending the use of an app facilitating legal migrant entry, and initiating efforts to terminate birthright citizenship. He also suspended refugee resettlement for four months and dismissed senior Justice Department officials overseeing immigration courts.

While his actions aimed to fulfill campaign promises, they also set the stage for constitutional and legal challenges. Trump’s broader vision for mass deportations requires congressional approval, highlighting the limitations of executive orders in enacting lasting policy changes.

Rolling Back Diversity Policies

Fulfilling another campaign promise, Trump revoked Biden’s executive orders protecting against discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation. Federal diversity programs were also dismantled, with changes extending to documentation requirements, such as passports and visas reflecting applicants’ biological sex.

These actions catered to Trump’s base but risked alienating many Americans who viewed such policies as steps backward in civil rights.

Tech Titans Join Trump’s Inner Circle

Trump’s inaugural celebrations prominently featured Silicon Valley leaders, marking a shift in allegiance from Democrats to his administration. Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Tim Cook, Sundar Pichai, and Mark Zuckerberg attended events and appeared alongside Trump, signaling their willingness to collaborate with his government.

Musk, who received significant federal contracts, was even appointed to lead a newly established Department of Government Efficiency. While Trump argued that leveraging tech pioneers was in America’s interest, their proximity to power raised concerns about potential conflicts of interest and the influence of tech giants on public discourse.

Shaking Global Norms

Trump’s return to power reverberated across the globe. In his first press conference, he demanded NATO allies increase defense spending to 5% of GDP—a nearly unattainable goal for many nations. He also reignited tensions over the Panama Canal, falsely claiming, “China is operating the Panama Canal and we didn’t give it to China. We gave it to Panama and we’re taking it back.”

Additionally, Trump labeled Mexican drug cartels as foreign terrorist organizations and hinted at deploying special forces into Mexico—a proposal fraught with diplomatic and security risks. On Ukraine, he increased pressure on Russian President Vladimir Putin to negotiate peace, asserting, “The war does not make him look very good.”

Economic and Trade Policies

While Trump refrained from immediately imposing new tariffs, he confirmed plans to introduce 25% duties on Mexican and Canadian imports starting February 1, risking a trade conflict within North America. Although tariffs on China remain unimplemented, Trump hinted at using them as leverage in upcoming negotiations.

Trump’s assertion that tariffs would generate significant revenue for the U.S. was misleading, as their costs are typically borne by American consumers. Potential inflationary effects and rising prices for essentials like food and fuel could pose challenges to his administration’s economic agenda.

Challenges Ahead

Despite a dramatic start, Trump’s second term faces significant hurdles. His reliance on executive orders underscores his difficulty in securing legislative support, a necessity for long-lasting reforms. Additionally, his tendency toward grievance politics and self-promotion could distract from meaningful governance.

The widespread pardons and sweeping policy changes highlight Trump’s determination to reshape America, but they also risk deepening divisions and eroding democratic norms. As he seeks to solidify his legacy, the success of his presidency will hinge on balancing bold ambitions with the practicalities of governance.

By the end of his first day back in office, Trump had cemented his reputation as a disruptor, willing to challenge conventions and push the boundaries of presidential power. However, whether this approach can deliver sustained progress or merely provoke further polarization remains to be seen.