<The calamitous nature of President Donald Trump’s first 100 days in office shouldn’t surprise anyone who was paying attention before the election.

He has done things he said he would do, many of them cruel, many of them damaging to both the U.S. economy and to America’s reputation on the global stage. He allowed an unelected billionaire to run roughshod over the federal government, slashing valuable agencies and smugly ruining the lives of an army of federal workers who had devoted themselves to research or to global aid or to helping their fellow Americans.

He put a vaccine-denying loon in charge of America’s health as a measles outbreak has spread across the Southwest. His wildly unqualified Defense secretary spared little time getting embroiled in multiple scandals, including texting sensitive U.S. war plans to his wife over a commercial messaging app.

Every day has brought a crass comment or cruel act, some development that would have ended any other president or Cabinet member, things large and small that have made America worse.

And an important thing to remember is that all of this is what Republicans wanted when they cast their presidential ballots for a convicted felon. As surprised as you might feel by the speed and horror of it all, nothing should be surprising.

The payoff has been somewhere between pitiful and nonexistent, unless your idea of presidential success involves seeing others suffer. The markets have been down and distraught since Trump launched a wholly unnecessary trade war. Our allies have lost faith in us, understandably. International tourism to the United States is plummeting, and the research firm Tourism Economics estimates the drop could cost U.S. businesses $64 billion in travel spending in just 2025.

Responding to the tourism drop, Trump said in the Oval Office on April 23: “It’s not a big deal.”

He should tell that to the business owners who will feel this bruising financial hit over the summer.

Grocery prices are not down, as Trump promised.

The war in Ukraine is not over, as Trump promised. In fact, he seems ready to hand the country to Russia as he continues to bow to President Vladimir Putin and other dictators while assailing our long-standing allies around the globe.

His actions in this short time have led political scientists like M. Steven Fish of the University of California, Berkeley, to say: “It’s hard to see the United States ever recovering its power and prestige. The power and prestige and influence that it has enjoyed over the last 80 years have all been squandered by Trump.”

While immigration was a winning issue during the campaign, Trump’s recent deportations – sweeping up alleged gang members and even U.S. citizen children with zero due process and shipping them to other countries – have proved too un-American for many.

The president is now underwater in most polls when people are asked about his immigration policies, and federal judges across the country have been slamming the administration for its reckless actions.

The Trump administration has been sued relentlessly for executive orders and polices that dramatically overstep legal boundaries. Judges have been ruling right and left in these cases. The New York Times reported, "As of April 28, at least 123 of those rulings have at least temporarily paused some of the administration’s initiatives."

For example, on April 24, a federal judge in New Hampshire stopped the U.S. Department of Education from denying federal funding to public schools that have diversity, equity and inclusion programs.

These absurd culture-war moves by Trump and Co. revolve around cruelty and callousness – attacking transgender people, warring with universities and decrying diversity initiatives. But the myriad lawsuits that stem from the administration's policies are costing taxpayers money.

Technically, we’re still one day away from the 100th day of this administration, April 30. But Trump's 100-day approval rating already is the lowest of any president in 80 years. And the willingness of Trump and his coterie of toadies to ignore laws in order to implement a draconian right-wing worldview isn’t likely to let up, regardless of how hard public opinion comes crashing down around them.

America has simply never seen this level of lawless behavior from a president, much less during the earliest days of a presidency.

So Americans are hurting economically – just check your retirement plan, if you’re fortunate enough to have one – and the impact of Trump’s ludicrous tariffs has yet to be fully felt. The number of freight ships from China to the United States has dropped dramatically.

CNBC recently reported: “Already, a decline in manufacturing orders from China, and a plummet in Chinese freight vessel bookings and sailings to the U.S., are edging the national supply chain closer to a tipping point.”....>

<....A recent Gallup survey showed that 53% of Americans believe their personal financial situation is getting worse, noting: “Americans’ six-month outlooks for economic growth and the stock market have turned from positive to negative, while their forecasts for inflation, interest rates and the job market have dimmed.”

But beyond our borders, the Trump administration has positioned America to be seen as heartless and isolationist, cutting foreign aid in ways that have literally killed people.

One of the first agencies that Elon Musk, Trump’s right-hand billionaire, went after was the U.S. Agency for International Development, a key soft-power tool to promote democracy and help people around the world. The agency accounted for less than 1% of the federal budget.

Musk effectively shuttered it, and the outcome has been disastrous.

For example, USAID oversaw PEPFAR, the U.S. President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, which was launched by President George W. Bush in 2003 to fight the global HIV/AIDS epidemic.

Brooke Nichols, an associate professor of global health at Boston University, has been tracking the estimated number of deaths since the Trump administration’s cuts and funding halts interrupted or stopped PEPFAR’s work. Since Jan. 24, Nichols estimates, more than 41,000 adults and nearly 4,400 children have died.

A New York Times opinion column by Nicholas Kristof said in March: “An estimated 1,650,000 people could die within a year without American foreign aid for H.I.V. prevention and treatment.”

He noted that the cost “of first-line H.I.V. medications to keep a person alive is less than 12 cents a day.”

The International Rescue Committee had 40% of its programs affected by Trump’s aid cuts. David Miliband, the group’s CEO, told CBS News that “international aid is 0.2% of the U.S. economy, not 25% of federal spending. It's a strategic investment, it's a moral investment, and it's an impactful investment.

"If you've got people in need, and you can help them and you don't, it's a sin. But also, when you don't help people in need, instability follows. We know that as much as night follows day.”

I’ll note this one more time: Nothing Trump has done – not the cruel things, not the illegal things, not the immoral things – should come as any surprise. He said he would do these things. And Republicans wanted him in office.

The damage that has come from his first 100 days will take years upon years to repair. And unless Americans of good conscience from all parts of the political spectrum stand up, protest and denounce the things this president is doing and the way he is doing them, the next 100 days will be every bit as bad.

As will every 100 days thereafter.>

<The White House has hit back against a reported plan by Amazon to detail the price impact of Donald Trump's trade tariffs to its customers, calling it a "hostile" political act.>

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c...

It's like, how dare Amazon expose the Trump lies on tarriffs?

"A hostile political act," they say?

So informing via the truth is now a political thing and hostile to boot?

<So informing via the truth is now a political thing and hostile to boot?>

This apparently depends on whose truth is being used.

<People cannot possibly be blind to these shenanigans.>

<On Monday, President Donald Trump issued a new executive order just shy of the 100th day of his second term that has some experts and academics sounding the alarm.

Trump's new order, which is entitled "Strengthening and Unleashing America's Law Enforcement to Pursue Criminals and Protect Innocent Citizens," makes various declarations about the administration's commitment to supporting law enforcement professionals in the opening paragraphs. However, one section further down specifically mentions the U.S. military and the administration's intent to have enlisted service members participate in civilian law enforcement actions.

"Within 90 days of the date of this order, the Attorney General and the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security and the heads of agencies as appropriate, shall increase the provision of excess military and national security assets in local jurisdictions to assist State and local law enforcement ... [and] shall determine how military and national security assets, training, non-lethal capabilities, and personnel can most effectively be utilized to prevent crime."

"The Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall utilize the Homeland Security Task Forces (HSTFs) formed in accordance with Executive Order 14159 of January 20, 2025 (Protecting the American People Against Invasion) to coordinate and advance the objectives of this order," the order continued.

That section in particular prompted Lead Matthew Noe, who is the lead collection & knowledge management librarian at Harvard Medical School, to call the order "legitimately frightening." Philadelphia, Pennsylvania-based writer Susan Keiser posted to Bluesky: "Serious Question: Is this martial law[?]" Former criminal defense investigator Andrew H. Sowards responded to the order by simply declaring: "Not good."

"We're already a police state," Daily Beast columnist David Rothkopf skeeted (the accepted term for Bluesky posts). "But now, thanks to this EO, moreso."

Deploying the U.S. military within American borders to act as a police force would be a direct violation of the Posse Comitatus Act, which is a 143 year-old law prohibiting the president from ordering the military to double as law enforcement. As the Brennan Center for Justice explained in 2021, Congress passed the law during Reconstruction in order to prevent the military from being used to enforce Jim Crow laws in former Confederate states after the Civil War. Additionally, deploying the military to conduct law enforcement activity violates parts of the 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution — which were ratified in direct response to the British military's abuse of colonists prior to the Revolutionary War.>

<The Trump administration issued a formal veto threat Monday morning regarding a bipartisan resolution that would terminate the president’s emergency powers underpinning his sweeping global tariffs.

The Senate is set to vote as early as this week on a resolution to rescind Trump’s national emergency declaration justifying the imposition of broad tariffs on imported goods. The White House Office of Management and Budget said the president would veto the resolution in the event the resolution makes it to his desk, according to a statement of administration policy exclusively obtained by the Daily Caller News Foundation.

“There can be no doubt that S.J. Res. 49 -- if passed -- would undermine U.S. national and economic security,” the White House Office of Management and Budget wrote. “If S.J. Res. 49 were presented to the president, he would veto it.”

Democratic Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden and Republican Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul are co-leading the effort to eliminate the foundation of Trump’s tariff authority. Congress has the power to force a vote on terminating the president’s emergency powers, which is subject to a simple majority vote in both chambers.

Trump issued a national emergency declaration April 2 to correct certain trade practices, including “the large and persistent annual U.S. goods trade deficit.” The administration has criticized trade imbalances for hollowing out the country’s industrial base, suppressing wages, and leaving supply chains vulnerable.

“President Trump refuses to let the United States be taken advantage of and believes that tariffs are necessary to ensure fair trade, protect American workers, and reduce the trade deficit -- this is an emergency,” a White House fact sheet said regarding the president’s “Liberation Day” tariffs.

Trump declared a 90-day pause on most country-specific reciprocal tariffs on April 9, with the exception of China, after the administration said more than 75 countries had expressed interest in negotiating trade deals.

Despite the administration racing to craft trade agreements with dozens of countries, Wyden told Politico April 10 that he will seek to force a vote on eliminating the president’s emergency declaration.

“The president is now in active negotiations with many of these countries to eliminate barriers to U.S. exports,” OMB said. “Disturbing the conditions underlying these negotiations would signal to U.S. trading partners that they can continue to discriminate against U.S. exports with impunity.”

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said Thursday that negotiations with South Korea over eliminating trade barriers “may be moving faster” than expected.

Vice President J.D. Vance heralded progress on a trade deal with India during a visit to the country on Tuesday.

“Tariffs are taxes, and the power to tax belongs to Congress -- not the president,” Paul, who has been a vocal critic of the president’s tariffs, said in an April 8 statement. “Our Founders were clear: tax policy should never rest in the hands of one person. Abusing emergency powers to impose blanket tariffs not only drives up costs for American families but also tramples on the Constitution. It’s time Congress reasserts its authority and restores the balance of power.”

Trump criticized GOP lawmakers seeking to rein in his effort to reorder global trade during remarks at the National Republican Congressional Committee’s annual president’s dinner on April 8.

“And then I’ll see some rebel Republican, you know, some guy that wants to grandstand say, ‘I think that Congress should take over negotiations,'” Trump said. “Let me tell you, you don’t negotiate like I negotiate. If Congress takes over negotiating, sell America fast because you’re going to go bust.”

Paul also co-led a separate resolution to block the president’s national emergency declaration justifying tariffs on Canada on April 2. This resolution passed the Senate 51 to 48, with three Republicans in addition to Paul voting to terminate the president’s tariffs on Canadian imports. Speaker Mike Johnson refused to take up the resolution in the House.

The Wyden-Paul resolution targeting Trump’s global tariffs also faces long odds to land on the president’s desk given the speaker’s decision to stall a vote on the measure. House Republicans inserted language in a procedural rule for the Trump-backed budget blueprint on April 9 preventing a vote on the resolution until Sept. 30.>

<With the Trump administration making space in the press briefing room for right-wing podcasters and other conservative "new media" content creators, viewers of briefings since President Donald Trump took office have seen his press secretary field questions about the Ukrainian president's clothing during an Oval Office meeting, compliments about Trump's "fitness plan," and attacks on reporters who have long reported from the White House.

On Monday, the first question of the briefing was derided by one Democratic politician as "absolute insanity," as right-wing commentator and influencer Rogan O'Handley—also known by the handle "DC Draino"—was given the floor to ask whether Trump will suspend the writ of habeas corpus in order to circumvent several judges' rulings and "start shipping out" undocumented immigrants without due process.

"Can you please let us know if and when the Trump administration is planning to suspend the writ of habeas corpus to circumvent these radical judges?" asked O'Handley after accusing federal judges of "thwarting [Trump's] agenda with an unprecedented number of national injunctions."

O'Handley shared some familiar right-wing talking points—saying federal judges have provided "more due process to violent MS-13 and Tren de Aragua illegal aliens than they did for U.S. citizens who peacefully protested on January 6"—as he suggested the administration should abandon the legal principle under which people who are detained are permitted to challenge their imprisonment in court.

"You have got to be kidding me," wrote Sara McGee, a Democrat running for the Texas House of Representatives.

His question came amid escalating attacks by Republicans and the administration on judges who have ruled against the White House. A Republican congressman said last month that Chief Judge James Boasberg of the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. should be impeached for issuing an order against Trump's invocation of the Alien Enemies Act to expel hundreds of undocumented immigrants to El Salvador. Last week, the FBI arrested Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan for allegedly helping a migrant evade arrest by escorting him out of her courtroom.

Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, a senior fellow with the American Immigration Council, noted that O'Handley and press secretary Karoline Leavitt also repeatedly cited at least one statistic that was "completely made up"—that the Biden administration allowed 15 million undocumented immigrants into the United States—as they suggested Trump should take legal steps to force all of them out of the country without the input of the judicial system.

The undocumented population in the U.S. in 2023 was 11.7 million, according to the Center for Migration Studies, down from the peak of 12 million, which was reached in 2008.

"They've been pushing this on the right for about a week now," said Reichlin-Melnick of the push to suspend habeas corpus for undocumented immigrants. "Anyone advocating for suspending the writ of habeas corpus because they don't like due process is spitting on the legacy of those who fought and died for this country and our Constitution."

Leavitt responded to O'Handley's question by saying while she has "not heard such discussions take place... the president and the entire administration are certainly open to all legal and constitutional remedies" to continue expelling people from the United States.

Several cases of undocumented immigrants who have been sent to El Salvador's notorious Terrorism Confinement Center have made national headlines in recent weeks, including that of Maryland resident Kilmar Abrego Garcia; Merwil Gutiérrez, a 19-year-old who federal agents acknowledged was not who they were looking for during a raid; and Andry Hernandez Romero, a makeup artist who was accused of being a gang member solely because he had tattoos.

O'Handley's suggestion that the bedrock legal principle be suspended for undocumented immigrants—hundreds of whom have already been forced out of the country without due process—came ahead of Trump's scheduled signing of two new immigration-related executive orders.

One would direct the departments of Justice and Homeland Security to publish a list of sanctuary cities and states—those where local law enforcement are directed not to cooperate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement as it seeks to arrest undocumented immigrants.

The other, Leavitt said, would "unleash America's law enforcement to pursue criminals." The New York Post reported that the order would be related to providing local police agencies with military equipment and legal support for officers accused of wrongdoing.>

<President Donald Trump and his administration are sensitive to "deep vulnerabilities" on the economy — and nothing reveals that more clearly than the administration's furious response to reports Amazon will display tariff costs in consumer transactions, Greg Sargent wrote for The New Republic.

The instant the news became public, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt condemned the move as a political ploy to hurt Trump, and Trump personally called Amazon's billionaire founder, Jeff Bezos, to scream at him. Shortly, the company appeared to back down, stating they had only proposed this for a select service and didn't plan to roll it out to all users on their general site.

"You might be tempted to see this as another sign of Trump’s fearsome strength: He merely hinted at unleashing the power of the government on Amazon, a company worth $2 trillion, and it immediately fell into line, right?" wrote Sargent. "Naah. This little saga is better seen as highly revealing of Trump’s weakness right now, both on tariffs specifically and more generally. The last thing that Trump and his propagandists can tolerate is the spectacle of voters being told basic facts about his tariffs. Which puts Trump at the mercy of those who will tell the truth about them."

The fact is, Sargent noted, even if Amazon was cowed into not transparently breaking down the price increases due to tariffs, "people are still going to have to pay higher prices for these tariffs on an enormous range of consumer products, whether Amazon labels them as such or not. And the ability of the White House to manage this problem — either by browbeating the private sector into not raising prices, or by flooding Americans with propaganda about how 'other countries' are the ones paying the tariffs in a much-needed global rebalancing — is actually quite limited."

As a case in point, he wrote, just last month Trump threatened automakers against raising prices in response to tariffs — a move that just shows "Trump himself knows that importers and domestic manufacturers using imported parts — and not 'other countries' — are the ones who will pay the tariffs." And automakers didn't commit to obey this at all, holding out until Trump capitulated and announced he would make some carveouts in the tariffs for them.

To that end, he said, even if Amazon isn't willing to disclose the tariff costs, other businesses can do so, and operating in numbers, Trump can do nothing to stop them.

"Slap his name right on those added costs, just as Trump put his name on those 2020 stimulus checks," said Sargent.

"Just look how infuriated Trump grew at the prospect of one company — admittedly a giant and influential one, but still — telling consumers the truth about his policies," Sargent concluded. "The wildly disproportionate response to Amazon from Trump and Leavitt wasn’t a sign of strength and power. It was a display of deep, enduring weakness, just waiting to be exploited.">

<President Donald Trump granted a lengthy interview to Time magazine in honor of completing his first 100 days of his second term today. As usual, the interview consisted of bluster and bombast, with hefty doses of B.S. Here’s a guide to the inaccuracies in 32 claims, in the order in which he made them.

“You know, we’re resetting a table. We were losing $2 trillion a year on trade, and you can’t do that. I mean, at some point somebody has to come along and stop it, because it’s not sustainable.”

Trump gets two things wrong here. First of all, the goods and services deficit was almost $920 billion in 2024, according to the Commerce Department. So he’s doubling the real number. Second, the United States is not “losing” money on trade deficits. After all these years, Trump still does not grasp this fundamental economic point. Yet he’s basing policy — and steering the United States into economic uncertain times — on this misunderstanding.

“Many criminals — they emptied their prisons, many countries, almost every country, but not a complete emptying, but some countries a complete emptying of their prison system. But you look all over the world, and I’m not just talking about South America, we’re talking about all over the world. People have been led into our country that are very dangerous.”

This is poppycock. Immigration experts know of no effort by other countries to empty their prisons and mental institutions. As someone who came to prominence in the late 1970s and early ’80s, Trump appears to be channeling Cuban leader Fidel Castro’s 1980 Mariel boatlift. About 125,000 Cubans were allowed to flee to the United States in 1,700 boats — but there was a backlash when it was discovered that hundreds of refugees had been released from jails and mental health facilities. But there’s no evidence this happened during the Biden administration. Yet again, Trump is basing policy on an invention.

“We’re taking in billions of dollars of tariffs, by the way. And just to go back to the past, I took in hundreds of billions of dollars of tariffs from China, and then when covid came, I couldn’t institute the full program, but I took in hundreds of billions, and we had no inflation.”

This is false. Trump’s China tariffs in his first term took in only about $75 billion — not counting $28 billion in aid to farmers who lost their shirts when China stopped buying soybeans, pork and other products. Inflation averaged about 2 percent in Trump’s term, but was about 1.23 percent in 2020 because of the pandemic. According to Customs and Border Protection, as of April 19, the United States has taken in about $14 billion in tariffs under his International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) declarations. But again, Trump has a fundamental misunderstanding. Countries do not pay tariffs; the burden falls mainly on American consumers.

“Now, if you take a look, the price of groceries are down. The price of energy is down.”

This is false. The consumer price index for at-home food items increased 0.49 percent from February, while retail gas prices are basically the same since Trump took office in January. The price of oil could drop if there’s a recession, as some economists predict.

“It was all going through the roof. And we had the highest inflation we’ve ever had as a country, or very close to it. And I believe it was the highest ever. Somebody said it’s the highest in only 48 years. That’s a lot, too, but I believe we had the highest inflation we’ve ever had.”

This is false. President Joe Biden did not have the highest inflation in U.S. history. Inflation spiked to 9 percent in mid-2022, a 40-year-high, but fell to about 3 percent for the last six months of his term. (For all of 2022, inflation was 6.5 percent.) Inflation was 12.5 percent in 1980, 13.3 percent in 1979 and 18.1 percent in 1946 — and many other years were higher than 6.5 percent.

Higher prices for goods and services would have happened no matter who was elected president in 2020. Inflation initially spiked because of pandemic-related shocks — increased consumer demand as the pandemic eased and an inability to meet this demand because of supply-chain problems, as companies reduced production when consumers hunkered down during the pandemic. Indeed, inflation rose around the world — with many peer countries doing worse than the United States — because of pandemic-related shocks that rippled across the globe.

“No wait, just so you understand: How can we sustain and how is it sustainable that our country lost almost $2 trillion on trade in Biden years?”

Trump’s numbers are wrong. The trade deficit in the Biden years (2021-2024) was $3.5 trillion, but as we noted, no economist would call that a loss. For context, the trade deficit in Trump’s first term was $2.4 trillion — and it went up during his presidency....>

<....“If you look at, more importantly, the companies, the chip companies, the car companies, the Apple. $500 billion. Apple is investing $500 billion in building plants. They never invested in this country.”

This is false. Shortly after Biden became president, Apple announced it would invest $430 billion over five years in the United States. In Trump’s first term, Apple announced a $350 billion investment over five years — which Trump repeatedly credited to his policies.

“Look, that’s what China did to us. They charge us 100 percent. If you look at India — India charges 100-150 percent. If you look at Brazil, if you look at many, many countries, they charge — that’s how they survive. That’s how they got rich.”

This is false. Before Trump became president the first time, China had minimal tariffs on U.S. products and about 8 percent on the rest of the world, and few products were subject to tariffs, according to the Peterson Institute for International Economics. When Trump imposed tariffs in 2018, China responded with tariffs of about 20 percent, affecting about half of exports. In his second term, Trump has imposed tariffs of 143 percent, and China has responded with 124 percent. China’s tariffs on goods from the rest of the world is now about 6 percent. As for India, its average applied tariff is about 17 percent, according to Office of U.S. Trade Representative, far less than what Trump claims.

“We’re also, very importantly, because of that, because of the money we’re taking in, those companies are going to come back and they’re going to make their product here. They’re going to go back into North Carolina and start making furniture again.”

This is dubious. North Carolina has a thriving furniture industry, but it increasingly relies on wood from countries such as Mexico — and exports to Canada. Trump’s tariffs will make raw materials more expensive and retaliatory tariffs will price U.S. products out of the market. Already this month, a North Carolina housewares company that supplies Walmart and Target said it would shut down and fire all its employees, in part because tariffs would make materials from Mexico and Asia too costly.

“I’ve made 200 [trade] deals.”

This is false. Trump declined to provide any details, and none have been announced. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick on Tuesday suggested one deal was close to being completed — but he said it needed approval from the country’s leaders. He declined to name the country.

“You know, as an example, we have Korea. We pay billions of dollars for the military. Japan, billions for those and others. But that, I’m going to keep us a separate item, the paying of the military.”

South Korea and Japan pay as well. Trump often suggests other countries take advantage of U.S. military might. But it’s a two-way street. “From 2016 through 2019, the Department of Defense spent roughly $20.9 billion in Japan and $13.4 billion in South Korea to pay military salaries, construct facilities, and perform maintenance,” the Government Accountability Office concluded in 2021. “The governments of Japan and South Korea also provided $12.6 billion and $5.8 billion, respectively, to support the U.S. presence.” The U.S. stations 80,000 troops in the region and the GAO “found that U.S. forces help strengthen alliances, promote a free and open Indo-Pacific region, provide quick response to emergencies, and are essential for U.S. national security.”

“We have $7 trillion of new plants, factories and other things, investment coming into the United States. And if you look back at past presidents, nobody was anywhere near that. And this is in three months.”

This is false. At the beginning of April, the White House produced a list of only $1.5 trillion — two-thirds of which came from Apple and an AI project called Stargate that was already under development before Trump took office. Since then, we’ve counted a series of announced investments (Nvidia, Roche, IBM, Abbott Laboratories, Johnson & Johnson and so forth) that total perhaps another $1 trillion, though some may predate Trump and others are still vague. Announcements aren’t the same thing as actually breaking ground, so Trump may be counting his chickens before they hatch.

“He’s [Chinese leader Xi Jinping] called. And I don’t think that’s a sign of weakness on his behalf.”

The Chinese government denies this. “I would like to reiterate that China and the U.S. have not engaged in consultations or negotiations regarding tariff issues,” said Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Guo Jiakun on Monday....>

<....“I believe that they made him [Kilmar Abrego García] look like a saint, and then we found out about him. He wasn’t a saint. He was MS-13. He was a wife beater and he had a lot of things that were very bad, you know, very, very bad. When I first heard of the situation, I was not happy, and then I found out that he was a person who was an MS-13 member. And in fact, he had a tattooed right on his — I’m sure you saw that — he had it tattooed right on his knuckles: MS-13.”

This is exaggerated. Kilmar Abrego García is a Maryland man who was in the country illegally but the administration admits he was wrongly deported to El Salvador — which led to a Supreme Court ruling that the White House must “facilitate” his return. The evidence that he was a member of violent Salvadoran gang Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13) is slim; it is a claim made by the alleged confidential source, and neither the police officer who wrote the report nor the alleged source testified in court, under oath and subject to cross-examination. His wife filed a temporary protective order against him, alleging that he beat her repeatedly, but she did not pursue it and now says the marriage became stronger after counseling. Abrego García did not have MS-13 tattooed on his knuckles. Rather, Trump on social media displayed a photo that superimposed those letters on his knuckles, but there is no evidence the tattoos Abrego García has are related to gang membership.

“Because I’ve watched in Portland and I watched in Seattle, and I’ve watched in Minneapolis, Minnesota and other places. People do heinous acts, far more serious than what took place on Jan. 6. And nothing happened to these people. Nothing.”

This is false. Trump justifies his pardoning of Jan. 6, 2021, defendants with a falsehood. People were prosecuted in Seattle and Minneapolis for violence during the 2020 protests after the George Floyd killing, and Trump lauded federal authorities for killing a man suspected in a shooting in Portland.

In Seattle, two people were killed, according to the Armed Conflict Location and Event Data project (ACLED), a nonprofit. Summer Taylor, a Black Lives Matter activist, died when a car rammed into the protests. Another person, 16-year-old Antonio Mays Jr., was shot in an incident that ACLED said was tied to the broader unrest. (Another fatal shooting of a teen was not connected, ACLED concluded.) Dawit Kelete, 30, who drove into the protest on July 4, 2020, killing Taylor and seriously injuring another person, was sentenced to 78 months in jail. The judge said that while there was no evidence he hit the protesters intentionally, his conduct was “extremely reckless.”

Mays died in the early morning of June 29, 2020, while driving a stolen Jeep in Seattle’s Capitol Hill Organized Protest zone, which protesters occupied for three weeks after police abandoned the area. No one has been charged in Mays’s death.

In Minneapolis, one person was killed, according to ACLED. The Max It Pawn Shop was set on fire during protests on May 28, 2020, and then two months later, police discovered a charred body in the wreckage. Surveillance video showed Montez Terriel Lee, 26, pouring an accelerant around the pawn shop and lighting it on fire. Lee was sentenced to 10 years in prison, to be followed by three years of supervised release, the Justice Department said.

In Portland, Aaron Danielson, an American supporter of a right-wing group, was shot on Aug. 29, 2020, by Michael Reinoehl, an activist who days later was shot and killed by a federal task force. Reinoehl had admitted the killing but claimed he acted in self-defense.

“Nobody mentions the fact that the unselect committee of political scum, the unselect committee, horrible people, they destroyed all evidence, they burned it, they got rid of it, they destroyed it, and they deleted all evidence.”

This is false. The House Select Committee that investigated the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol said some videos and sensitive evidence were not included in an archive to protect witnesses. But more than 100 depositions, transcripts and other documents are available online and open to inspection....>

<....“Well, I’ll tell ya, I certainly don’t mind having a tax increase, and the only reason I wouldn’t support it is because I saw Bush where they said, where he said ‘Read my lips’ and he lost an election. He would have lost it anyway, but he lost an election. He got beat up pretty good. I would be honored to pay more, but I don’t want to be in a position where we lose an election because I was generous, but me, as a rich person, would not mind paying and you know, we’re talking about very little.”

This is dubious. First of all, President Barack Obama raised taxes on the wealthy, and Biden won in 2020 while promising to do it again; George H.W. Bush’s problem was he broke a promise not to raise taxes. Second, as documented by the New York Times, despite his wealth Trump has a long history of paying little or no taxes. “Donald J. Trump paid $750 in federal income taxes the year he won the presidency. In his first year in the White House, he paid another $750,” the newspaper reported. “He had paid no income taxes at all in 10 of the previous 15 years — largely because he reported losing much more money than he made.”

“I don’t think they’re going to cut $800 billion. They’re going to look at waste, fraud, and abuse.”

This is false. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office issued a report that an analysis by KFF, a nonprofit health-policy organization, says the only way to reduce congressional spending, as mandated by the House GOP budget resolution, would be to cut $880 billion from planned Medicaid spending over 10 years.

“Well, I watched Nancy Pelosi get rich through insider information, and I would be okay with it [sign a bill banning congressional stock trading]. If they send that to me, I would do it.”

This is false. There is no evidence the former House speaker used inside information while trading stocks — which would be a crime. Her office said she owns no stocks, and investments listed in her financial disclosure statement belong to her husband, Paul, a venture capitalist and property investor.

“DOGE has been a very big success. We found hundreds of billions of dollars of waste, fraud, and abuse. Billions of dollars being given to politicians, single politicians based on the environment. It’s a scam. It’s illegal, in my opinion, so much of the stuff that we found, but I think DOGE has been a big success from that standpoint.”

This is false. Even the Department of Government Efficiency website, which has been found to be riddled with errors and double-counting, lists $160 billion in savings. The overall impact is still unclear. Experts think the sharp cutbacks in enforcement at the IRS ordered by DOGE might result in lower revenue, wiping out any of the claimed budget savings.

“Stacey Abrams got $2 billion on the environment. They had $100 in the account and she got $2 billion just before these people left — and had to do with something that she knows nothing about.”

This is false. Abrams helped ensure Trump’s 2020 election loss in Georgia by registering more than 800,000 voters in the state — many of them people of color — so he has a particular animus toward the former minority leader of the Georgia House of Representatives. But she did not receive $2 billion. She was an adviser to a consortium of five major players in housing, climate and community investment that won $1.9 billion in grants for clean-energy projects. As for the “$100 in the account,” the nonprofit entity filed a form with the IRS in 2023 showing $100 in revenue — but the application process just started that year and grants were not awarded until 2024.

“I had a great election. Won all seven swing states, won millions and millions of votes. Won millions of votes. They say it was the most consequential election in 129 years. I don’t know if that’s right, but it was certainly a big win, and that’s despite cheating that took place, by the way, because there was plenty of cheating that took place.”

This needs context. Trump won 77.3 million votes, or 49.81 percent, compared with Vice President Kamala Harris’s 75 million votes, or 48.33 percent, for a difference of 1.48 percentage points. He did win the seven swing states — giving him a 312-226 victory in the electoral college — but the popular-vote margin was narrow, and he did not win a majority of the vote. His reference to 129 years is interesting. He’s referring to the 1896 victory of William McKinley, his political idol, but most historians would count other elections as more consequential. Oh, and there’s no evidence of “plenty of cheating.” That’s false too....>

<....“This war has been going on for three years. It’s a war that would have never happened if I was president. It’s Biden’s war. It’s not my war. I have nothing to do with it. I would have never had this war. This war would have never happened. Putin would have never done it. This war would have never happened … Oct. 7 would have never happened. Would have never happened.”

This is fantasy. There is no evidence that the February 2022 invasion of Ukraine or the October 2023 Hamas attack on Israel would not have happened if Trump had been president. In fact, before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Trump called Russian President Vladimir Putin a “genius” and “very savvy” for advancing on Ukraine.

“You got to say, that’s pretty savvy,” Trump said on a conservative talk radio show of Putin’s decision to declare certain breakaway regions in Ukraine as independent. “And you know what the response was from Biden? There was no response. They didn’t have one for that. No, it’s very sad. Very sad.” “This is genius,” Trump said. “Putin declares a big portion of the Ukraine … as independent. Oh, that’s wonderful.”

“Well, Crimea went to the Russians. It was handed to them by Barack Hussein Obama, and not by me. … Would it have been taken from me like it was taken from Obama? No, it wouldn’t have happened. Crimea, if I were president, it would not have been taken.”

This is false. Obama did not hand Crimea to Russia; it was annexed by Putin in 2014 over Obama’s objections. Obama rallied European leaders to sanction Russia for grabbing it, even though Crimea had many Russian speakers and had historically been part of Russia. (In 1783, Catherine the Great achieved Russia’s longtime goal of having a warm-water port, Sevastopol, by seizing Crimea from the Ottoman Empire.)

Crimea was populated mostly by Tatars until Russian dictator Joseph Stalin deported the whole population in 1944. According to the last official Ukrainian census, in 2001, 60 percent of Crimea’s population was Russian, 24 percent Ukrainian and 10 percent Tatar. Despite a majority-Russian population, Crimea voted to join Ukraine after the Soviet Union collapsed, though it was approved by a relatively narrow majority (54 percent) compared with other areas of Ukraine.

“We lose $200 to $250 billion a year supporting Canada. … We’re taking care of their military. We’re taking care of every aspect of their lives.”

This is false. In 2024, the deficit in trade in goods and services with Canada was about $45 billion. (Even so, a trade deficit is not a subsidy.) White House officials claim that Trump is also counting military expenditures allegedly spent on behalf of Canada, but when we did the math, the total never came close to $200 billion, let alone $250 billion.

“There was no money for Hamas. There was no money for Hezbollah. There was no money. Iran was broke under Trump. … They had no money, and they told Hamas, we’re not giving you any money. When Biden came and he took off all the sanctions, he let China and everybody else buy all the oil, Iran developed $300 billion in cash over a four-year period. They started funding terror again, including Hamas. Hamas was out of business. Hezbollah was out of business. Iran had no money under me. I blame the Biden administration, because they allowed Iran to get back into the game without working a deal.”

This is misleading. There is no evidence that Iran, which has suffered economically from sanctions over its nuclear program, sent billions of dollars to Hamas. Trump’s State Department calculated in 2020 that Iran sends Hamas and two other militant groups $100 million a year. So far, there is no report showing that the amount of funding from Iran to Hamas increased under Biden. Experts said that it would have been difficult for Trump, if he had been reelected in 2020, to maintain sanctions on Iran as they erode over time. In particular, China became adept at evading U.S. sanctions by arranging for many buyers of Iranian oil to be small, semi-independent refineries known as “teapots.” Such entities accounted for about one-fifth of China’s worldwide oil imports, according to Reuters.

“I happen to like the [Saudi] people very much, and the Crown Prince and the King — I like all of them, but they’ve agreed to invest a trillion dollars in our economy. $1 trillion.”

This is false. Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman said he pledged $600 billion after a call with Trump in January. We will see if this comes to fruition....>

<....In Trump’s first term, he grandly announced he had scored more than $350 billion of business deals during a trip to Saudi Arabia — which he later claimed would create more than 500,000 jobs. (This was his excuse for not punishing the kingdom for ordering the murder of Washington Post contributor Jamal Khashoggi.) Not only were those job numbers wildly inflated, it turned out most of the jobs that would be created were in Saudi Arabia — not the United States.

“They did nothing with the Abraham Accords. We had four countries in there, it was all set. We would have had it packed. Now we’re going to start it again. The Abraham Accords is a tremendous success, but Biden just sat with it.”

This is false. Biden endorsed the Abraham Accords — the normalization of relations between Israel and Arab countries — and focused on bringing Saudi Arabia on board. But the process halted with the Hamas attack on Oct. 7, 2023. In fact, the attack may have been launched to thwart expansion of the Abraham Accords, which suggested normalization was possible with Israel’s neighbors while ignoring the grievances of Palestinians.

“Tremendous antisemitism at every one of those rallies. Tremendous, and I agree with free speech, but not riots all over every college in America. Tremendous antisemitism going on in this country. … They can protest, but they can’t destroy the schools like they did with Columbia and others.”

Trump’s words differ from his government’s actions. Numerous foreign students appear to have been targeted for deportation because of their opinions. For instance, Rümeysa Öztürk, a Tufts University PhD student, was detained last month by Homeland Security agents and sent to a detention center in Louisiana. She co-wrote an opinion article in the student newspaper criticizing the university response to protests over Gaza and urged that it respect resolutions passed by the university senate, including acknowledging “Palestinian genocide” and divesting from companies with ties to Israel. DHS has provided no evidence she participated in protests, let alone violent ones. Even a profile of her on the pro-Israel Canary Mission, which highlights the op-ed, does not make such a claim.>

<Former Vice President Kamala Harris rebuked President Donald Trump in her first major speech since leaving office, accusing her former rival of setting off the “greatest man-made economic crisis” in modern history through his across-the-board tariffs, and warning that his conflicts with the courts were moving the nation toward a constitutional crisis.

Harris spoke Wednesday evening at the Emerge Gala in San Francisco, benefitting an organization that supports women interested in entering politics. The 2024 Democratic presidential nominee marked the first 100 days of the second Trump administration during her address, saying that “instead of an administration working to advance America’s highest ideals, we are witnessing the wholesale abandonment of those ideals.”

“And what we are also seeing in these last 14 weeks is Americans using their voice and showing their courage,” Harris added.

The former vice president delivered a series of attacks on the administration, blaming Trump for the economic turbulence caused by the tariffs he has imposed on goods imported from major trading partners.

Harris called Trump’s tariffs “reckless” and said, “as I predicted,” they are “clearly inviting a recession.”

Harris said those import taxes will “hurt workers and families by raising the cost of everyday essentials, devastate their retirement accounts that people spent a lifetime paying into, and paralyze American businesses, large and small, forcing them to lay off people.”

Trump has said the across-the-board tariffs are meant to correct a trade imbalance with other countries and restore US manufacturing jobs. However, the administration’s policy changes have rocked global markets and added to mounting economic pressure on the US economy. Official data released Wednesday showed the economy contracted in the first quarter by 0.3%.

Harris told Democrats there is a method behind the break-neck pace of policy rollouts of the Trump administration, calling the president a “vessel” of a much larger conservative project.

“Friends, please, let us not be duped into thinking everything is chaos. I know it may feel that way, but understand, what we are in fact witnessing is a high velocity event where a vessel is being used for the swift implementation of an agenda that has been decades in the making,” the former vice president said.

Harris’ speech on Wednesday comes at an inflection point for the 2024 Democratic presidential nominee, with weighty questions about both her own path forward and that of her party.

In the wake of last year’s loss, Harris and her team began debating her next steps, considering another run for president in 2028, or a return to her home state for a 2026 gubernatorial run. Notably, Harris’ public address on Wednesday took place in California. “It’s wonderful to be home,” Harris said during her speech.

Harris’ advisors believe that getting into the governor’s race would require making her intentions clear at the latest by the summer of 2025, but she faces some pressure to make a decision soon – that contest is heating up, with Democratic former Rep. Katie Porter, Lt. Gov. Eleni Kounalakis, and several other prominent contenders having already launched campaigns.

Whether she enters the California race as a heavy favorite, or holds out for the 2028 presidential primary, a less certain proposition, Harris’ remarks Wednesday also reflect a deliberate reemergence, months after her defeat, as Democrats look for leadership amid the turbulence of the new Trump administration.

As she lambasted the Trump administration Wednesday night for attempting to “divide and conquer,” Harris urged Democrats to stay together.

She also highlighted several lawmakers across the party’s ideological spectrum who she said have “in different ways have been speaking with moral clarity about this moment.” Harris named New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker, Maryland Sen. Chris Van Hollen, Connecticut Sen. Chris Murphy, Texas Rep. Jasmine Crockett, Florida Rep. Maxwell Frost, New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders.

“I am not here tonight to offer all the answers. But I am here to say this: You are not alone, and we are all in this together,” Harris said. “And straight talk: Things are probably going to get worse before they get better,” she said. “But we are ready for it. We are not going to scatter. We are going to stand together, everyone a leader.”....>

<....For Harris, the speech was part of a slow return to the public eye after leaving office in January.

The former vice president is slated to do a fundraiser for the Democratic National Committee in New York City on Tuesday, per a source who received an invitation. In recent months, Harris has also been regularly soliciting funds for the committee using the extensive email list she helped develop during the 2024 campaign.

Earlier this month, Harris began ramping up her public criticism of her former rival, appearing at the Leading Women Defined Summit, also in California, to share her misgivings about the course of events since Trump’s inauguration. “There were many things we knew would happen,” Harris said in a video of her remarks. “I’m not here to say I told you so,” she added before laughing.

Harris’ speech Wednesday included sober warnings about the potential for a “constitutional crisis” as she suggested that checks and balances within the government had begun to “buckle” amid the administration’s clashes with the courts.

“We are living in a moment where the checks and balances on which we have historically relied have begun to buckle,” Harris. “And we here know that when the checks and balances ultimately collapse, if Congress fails to do its part, or if the courts fail to do their part, or if both do their part but the president defies them anyway - well friends that is called a constitutional crisis. And that is a crisis that will eventually impact everyone.”

She added, “The one check, the one balance, the one power that must not fail is the voice of the people.”

From immigration fights to defending President Trump’s federal government cutbacks, the Justice Department has responded to more than a hundred emergency lawsuits in the first hundred days, in some case clashing publicly with judges as the administration lays out an expansive view of executive authority.

Democrats mark Trump’s first 100 days with speeches, sit-ins as party looks to project strength against administration

Harris’ condemnation of the administration Wednesday – her most direct comments this year – adds to an increasingly crowded Democratic chorus. Several other prominent party members have been active during Harris’ quiet period, taking advantage of the leadership vacuum to elevate their national profiles, some with an eye toward 2028.

Sen. Bernie Sanders has been touring the country with Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in an attempt to galvanize the party’s progressive base around fighting “oligarchy”; California Gov. Gavin Newsom has sparred with far-right leaders on his new podcast in an effort to broaden Democratic messaging; and Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker traveled to the early-voting state of New Hampshire and accused parts of his own party of “simpering timidity” in the face of Trump’s sweeping early actions.

Meanwhile, Harris’ running mate, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, has been publicly reflecting on lessons learned from the ticket’s loss last year. And Walz also spoke to the delicate balance of setting the stage for the 2028 presidential race during an appearance earlier this week at Harvard University.

“If people think you’re hungry for the office rather than the moment that we’re in and the fighting of this, I think they’re going to bury you. I think people are like, not very patient right now for the politics as usual,” Walz said.>

<Retailers have a new factor to manage in their tariff plans: Getting called out by President Donald Trump.

Companies are likely rethinking how to address any of their own tariff-related price hikes after the White House called out Amazon, four retail experts told Business Insider, making a complicated business environment even trickier to navigate.

After Punchbowl News reported that Amazon planned to publicize how much tariffs were contributing to price hikes on its website, press secretary Karoline Leavitt called the proposal a "hostile and political act" during a press conference. Amazon denied the report. A spokesperson told Business Insider that only its low-cost Amazon Haul store considered listing import charges on some products and never approved the plan, but the situation could have a chilling effect nonetheless, experts told BI.

"The sharp reaction to Amazon sends a warning signal to other companies that the administration is going to lash out at any firm that explicitly highlights the negative impacts of its tariff policy," GlobalData retail analyst Neil Saunders wrote in an email to BI.

"Any retailer who was even considering implementing something along the lines of what it was reported Amazon was planning has likely immediately stopped all work and any further discussions to that end," wrote Chris Walton, Omni Talk Retailer's cofounder, in an email to BI. He thinks retailers will let the price "speak for itself" rather than draw any attention to tariffs.

"There is really no workaround that I can think of that wouldn't catch the potential ire of DC given what we saw yesterday," Walton wrote.

Some retailers, including Target and Walmart, have already said they will need to raise prices because of tariffs, and one of Trump's former advisors predicted that consumers could see the hikes by the end of May. Trump has paused plans for additional tariffs on many countries for now, but has raised the levies on China, a huge exporter of consumer goods to the US.

When asked for comment, a representative for the White House directed BI to Leavitt's statements during her press conference.

Companies communicate with consumers about how prices are calculated all the time, Rob Lalka, a professor at Tulane's Freeman School of Business, said. Think, he said, about stores noting a state sales tax on a receipt.

"That's always a way of redirecting public backlash against higher prices away from the company itself and toward policy or a policymaker," Lalka said.

And consumers generally appreciate the transparency, according to Jason Miller, a professor of supply-chain management at Michigan State University.

"We could know from some well-established theories about the fairness of raising prices that it's much easier to say, 'Hey, I'm having to charge you more because my costs went up and here's the exact amount my costs went up,'" Miller told BI. "People are much more accepting of that, because they view it as legitimate."

With Trump's Amazon rebuke, retailers are more hamstrung in how they can address rising costs. Saunders wrote that retailers might become "more sensitive" about any messaging around price hikes. Nearly every retailer will be affected given the global nature of our supply chains, but Saunders thinks the apparel and electronic sectors will likely face particularly tough questions.

As much as the Trump administration steers retailers away from highlighting tariffs — Saunders said it's "sensitive to the growing backlash" and working to "manage the narrative" — consumers might get there on their own.

"Consumers are smart, and if they see prices go up at their favorite retailers, they will put two and two together and know that it is likely because of tariffs," Walton wrote. Saunders also wrote that the messaging might not matter much if prices rise sharply, since Americans are "very aware" of the impact tariffs might have.

The potentially bigger consideration for retailers, Walton told BI, is how to set their future prices to remain competitive. Like many other questions plaguing businesses, that answer remains uncertain.

"How that plays out is still anyone's guess," Walton said.>

<President Donald Trump‘s imposition of worldwide tariffs are neither fun nor games and are, in fact, a threat to independent toy sellers everywhere, the owners of a Minnesota toy store say.

Mischief Toy Store, a St. Paul-based retailer, is one of many plaintiffs in a lawsuit filed by several businesses against the Trump administration who are suing the stop the import duty regime announced in early April — but the 45th and 47th president’s recent comments about children’s access to toys has put Mischief’s participation in stark relief.

“Well, maybe the children will have two dolls instead of 30 dolls,” Trump said during a cabinet meeting on April 30. “And maybe the two dolls will cost a couple bucks more than they would normally.”

That estimate of the toll tariffs will have on the toy business is a severe underestimation, Mischief’s co-owner Dan Marshall says.

“Something like 80-90% of toys are made in China,” Marshall told Minneapolis-based NBC affiliate KARE. “There are very few companies left making them in the U.S., and this is something that has been going on for 40-50 years. This is not something you can change overnight.”

While government messaging has been contradictory and there are prospects of exceptions, further delays, or a deal-based resolution, Trump instituted 145% tariffs on goods emanating from China — the highest of any import duty on businesses in any nation.

Such numbers equate to something not entirely unlike devastation for Mischief, according to the store’s co-owners and the 27-page lawsuit filed in the U.S. Court of International Trade on April 24.

“Approximately 95% of the products sold in its store are imported, with 85% of those products coming from China,” the lawsuit reads. “The tariffs levied pursuant to actions challenged herein will likely have a substantial negative impact on Mischief’s business as a result of price increases on those products.”

In comments to the TV station, Marshall predicted the prices for some toys would more than double and that in many other cases, the inventory would simply disappear altogether.

In the litigation, Mischief is teaming up with 10 other businesses across the country to try and stop the tariff regime — calling Trump’s controversial actions “unlawful and unconstitutional.”

The filing is reminiscent of another lawsuit filed in mid-April — both complaints allege Trump exceeded the bounds of his authority by improperly invoking the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) in order to justify the massive expansion of tariffs.

“While IEEPA authorizes the President to take a number of significant actions, the imposition of tariffs is not among them,” the latest filing argues. “Second, the national emergencies declared by the President do not constitute an ‘unusual and extraordinary threat’ as required by IEEPA, rendering any tariffs imposed pursuant to IEEPA unlawful.”

The lawsuit is seeking a refund of the difference between any tariffs collected from Trump’s new proposal and what they would have paid without the new and much-larger import fees.

“We’re not afraid of Trump,” Marshall told KARE. “The Constitution gives Congress the power to impose tariffs, not the President. Yes, there is the Emergency Powers Act, which allows him to do certain things, but it doesn’t specify tariffs, so everything that he’s done is blatantly illegal in terms of this trade war that he’s started. That’s why we’re suing him.”

Each case was also filed by attorneys with public interest law firms. The first case was filed by the Liberty Justice Center, a libertarian public interest law firm. The present case is being filed by the Pacific Legal Foundation, which is also a libertarian nonprofit law firm. That fact has made Mischief’s involvement in the case something of a strange bedfellows case.

The Minnesota toy company is a self-identified progressive retailer, according to KARE and the Pioneer Press.

“Our whole mission is to promote diversity and representation and social justice,” Marshall told the TV station. “We want to make a safe place for kids of all kinds to find things that they enjoy playing with, and Trump is against all of that.”

The store’s co-owner took stock of the new alliance.

“While we may disagree on other issues, we are all in full agreement on the need to check Trump’s abuses of power,” Marshall said in an open letter obtained by the newspaper, along with co-owners Millie Adelsheim and their daughter Abigail Adelsheim-Marshall.>

<Texas Gov. Greg Abbott claims to be all about “America First,” so why is he threatening to punish a city in his state for insufficient loyalty to Israel?

The city council of San Marcos has set up a vote for next week on a largely symbolic resolution that calls for “an Immediate, Permanent, and Sustained Ceasefire in Occupied Palestine, Arms Embargo on the State of Israel, Recognition of Palestinian Sovereignty and Protection of Constitutional Rights.”

The proposed resolution reads in part:

We follow the lead of the World Health Organization, United Nations, Save the Children, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, His Holiness Pope Francis, more than 150 countries, and countless other organizations in the United States and around the world in calling for a ceasefire, because what happens internationally impacts our constituents locally. We believe in the shared humanity of all people, reiterate that all people are entitled to live life in safety and free from violence, and affirm these as common values held by San Marcos residents and leaders.

The resolution specifically highlights that Palestinians of Jewish, Muslim and Christian faiths are facing a humanitarian crisis in Gaza and says that the council “condemns anti-Palestinian, Islamophobic, antisemitic, and all xenophobic rhetoric and attacks.” Nonetheless, in a threatening letter to San Marcos’ mayor, Abbott decried the resolution for being “antisemitic.”

In the letter, Abbott wrote that “anti-Israel policies are anti-Texas policies” and said the proposed resolution “seems calculated to violate” a state law on boycotting Israel. The resolution notes that San Marcos residents’ tax dollars funded more than $4 million of Israel’s weapons purchases in 2024 and says that San Marcos “stands to benefit from a reallocation of local funds towards essential domestic priorities such as transportation, education, housing, healthcare, environmental protection, and public goods and services, which currently face neglect due to state and federal appropriations to Israel’s military.”

According to Abbott, this puts the city’s state grants at risk. He concluded by saying:

Whenever San Marcos enters into grant agreements with my office, it is required to certify that it will comply with all state laws, including laws prohibiting government support for boycotts of Israel. My office is already reviewing active grants with San Marcos to determine whether the City has breached terms by falsely certifying compliance with Texas law. If the City Council adopts this Resolution, the Office of the Governor will not enter into any future grant agreements with the City and will act swiftly to terminate active grants for non-compliance. I will further direct all other state agencies to review agreements with the City for possible breach.

The hypocrisy at play is hard to ignore. Abbott has made a fairly similar argument to the one made in the proposed resolution, in which he says federal aid to Ukraine would be money better spent on Americans. For the record, most of the funding authorized for Ukraine has been spent making purchases from the U.S. defense industry, but the contradiction is clear: Abbott seems perfectly fine with the argument that American tax dollars are better off staying at home — unless anti-Israel sentiment is involved.

With a recent Pew Research survey showing that 53% of Americans carry an unfavorable view of Israel, up from 42% in March 2022, it seems like Abbott is intent on quashing broadening dissent over all else.>

Time for the worthless, insane Abbott to be voted into obscurity.

<The Trump administration asked the US trade court to reject a lawsuit by small businesses challenging the president’s global tariffs, arguing that judges don’t have the authority to review the national emergency he invoked to justify the sweeping levies.

The businesses are improperly questioning the veracity of President Donald Trump’s assertion of a national emergency, “inviting judicial second-guessing of the president’s judgment,” the Justice Department said in a filing late Tuesday in the US Court of International Trade.

Trump is attempting to stave off claims that his trade war is based on a false emergency and therefore illegal. The 78-year-old Republican issued the tariffs after asserting in an executive order that US trade deficits had become a major threat to national security and military readiness.

“Congress designated itself — not the judiciary — as the body to supervise emergency declarations and the adequacy of the president’s response,” said the government.

The filing comes as Wall Street continues to reel from Trump’s levies as well as a series of delays and reversals. Supply disruptions are expected to hit American consumers in the coming months, particularly after the US raised levies on China to 145%.

The suit is among several filed by conservative legal advocacy groups on behalf of small businesses. An injunction would be a major setback for one of Trump’s signature economic policies, and potentially trigger yet another clash between the executive and judicial branches.

The suit against Trump and his administration was filed earlier this month in response to his “Liberation Day” executive orders rolling out the tariffs. The businesses argue that his use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose tariffs is unconstitutional and that the emergency he declared “is a figment of his own imagination.”

The filing doubles down on Trump’s use of the emergency act, citing his concern that US trade deficits have compromised the nation’s “military readiness” and “national security posture.” Any court intervention on the matter would undermine the president’s ability to use “his foreign-affairs powers to protect the United States’ economy and national security,” according to the filing.

The specialized trade court in New York has assigned the tariff challenge to a three-judge panel that includes one judge appointed by Trump, one by Barack Obama and one by Ronald Reagan. The panel last week refused a request by the five small businesses represented by the Liberty Justice Center to immediately halt Trump’s tariffs, saying the companies failed to show the levies would cause them “immediate and irreparable harm.”

Even so, the companies have now asked for a longer-lasting preliminary injunction against the tariffs and to enter a judgment in their favor without a trial.

A group of Democratic state attorneys general has also sued in the same court. A judge asked the states to respond to the government’s filing in the suit by the small businesses by May 7, though they aren’t required to do so. The administration must respond by May 12.

The administration is trying to transfer other cases that were filed in federal district courts to the Court of International Trade, arguing that it has “exclusive jurisdiction” over tariff disputes.

The US said the businesses’ lawsuit is based on the companies’ “personal opinions on economic theory” supported by their conception of a “mainstream economic consensus.”

“But whether that is so is precisely the sort of judgment committed to the political branches of government,” the US said.

And the government said the harm the plaintiffs claim from the tariffs is too speculative because they haven’t paid the levies yet.

Justice Department lawyers also argued that if the trade court grants a temporary injunction against the administration, it should be limited so it applies only to the plaintiffs in the case rather than nationwide. The US urged the court to require the companies to pay bonds equal to the amount of the potential tariffs in order to continue with their suit if the case moves forward.

The case is V.O.S. Selections v. Donald J. Trump, 25-cv-00066, US Court of International Trade (Manhattan).>

<One sitting Supreme Court associate justice is now publicly coming out against President Donald Trump's attacks on the federal judiciary — without mentioning the president by name.

Politico reported Thursday that Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who was appointed by former President Joe Biden, addressed "the elephant in the room" during a judges' conference in Puerto Rico. She said that threats to impeach Article III judges solely because they issued rulings that conflict with a president's wishes is a direct threat to the American system of government.

“The attacks are not random. They seem designed to intimidate,” Jackson said. “The threats and harassment are attacks on our democracy, on our system of government. And they ultimately risk undermining our Constitution and the rule of law.”

The liberal jurist received a standing ovation for her remarks, in which she urged her colleagues to have "raw courage" when carrying out their duties. Politico reported that Jackson spoke about the attacks on judges for roughly 18 minutes.

"I urge you to keep going, keep doing what is right for our country, and I do believe that history will vindicate your service," she said.

Trump and his supporters have specifically called for the impeachment of U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, who ordered deportation flights carrying 238 Venezuelan immigrants deported under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to be turned around until the issue could be fully litigated. Rep. Brandon Gill (R-Texas) even submitted articles of impeachment against Boasberg to the House Judiciary Committee. Chief Justice John Roberts (who was appointed by former President George W. Bush) spoke out against the impeachment threat, though like Jackson on Thursday, did not specifically mention Trump's name.

"For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision," Roberts wrote. "The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose.">

<Harvard University pushed back forcefully Friday after President Donald Trump declared in a social media post that "we are going to be taking away Harvard Tax Exempt Status," adding that is "what they deserve."

Trump's comment came just hours after Democratic senators sent a letter demanding a probe into whether the administration is acting illegally by trying to compel the U.S. Internal Revenue Service to yank the university's tax exemption.

Trump's post did not specify whether the IRS, the entity that has the power to remove an organization's tax-exempt status, is opting to remove Harvard's designation. Multiple outlets noted they got no immediate response from the IRS when they asked the agency for comment.

"There is no legal basis to rescind Harvard's tax-exempt status," a university spokesperson said in a statement, according toPolitico. "Such an unprecedented action would endanger our ability to carry out our educational mission."

It is illegal for the president, vice president, or other top officials to request, indirectly or directly, that the IRS audit a particular taxpayer.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and multiple other Democratic senators on Friday asked the Acting Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) to probe whether the IRS has received illegal pressure from the administration when it comes to Harvard, and to provide information about whether the agency is looking into other entities at the direction of the president or other top officials.

"It is both illegal and unconstitutional for the IRS to take direction from the president to target schools, hospitals, churches, or any other tax-exempt entities as retribution for using their free speech rights," the senators wrote in a letter dated Friday to the Acting TIGTA Heather Hill.

"It is further unconscionable that the IRS would become a weapon of the Trump administration to extort its perceived enemies, but the actions of the president and his operatives have now made this fear a reality. We request that you review whether the president or his allies have taken any step to direct or pressure the IRS to take politically-motivated actions regarding the tax-exempt status of the president's political targets," they continued.

Loss of tax-exempt status, something that would only typically occur after an audit process that allows the university opportunity to defend itself and appeal, would be extremely significant for the university. Tax-exempt status means the school does not pay federal income tax on charitable contributions to the school and other income. It also means that donations to the school are tax-exempt for those who make them.

Trump mused publicly on April 16 that Harvard should lose its tax-exempt status, after the university's president said the institution would not comply with a list of policy demands from the president, that included, according to the Harvard Crimson, derecognizing pro-Palestine student groups and auditing academic programs for viewpoint diversity. The pushback from Harvard prompted the administration to freeze over $2 billion in federal funding for the school.

That same week, it was reported that the IRS was making plans to revoke Harvard's tax-exempt status.

In response to Trump's bullying tactics, Harvard sued the administration, calling the freeze on funding unlawful and asking the court to restore it.

The tangling between Harvard and the Trump administration is part of a broader wave of scrutiny by the White House on higher education.>

<House Speaker Mike Johnson's (R-La.) goal of passing President Donald Trump's policy agenda in one so-called "big, beautiful bill" just hit a major snag.

NOTUS reported Friday that multiple moderate members of the House Republican Conference have told the speaker that they will not support any budget plan that makes steep cuts to Medicaid (the program that provides health insurance to low-income and disabled people). Some of those outwardly opposed include Reps. Don Bacon (R-Neb.) and David Valadao (R-Calif.), though NOTUS' sources said at least 10 Republicans were the record against cutting Medicaid.

Moderates spoke out after a comment from House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) saying that moderates were "on board" with leadership's proposed changes to Medicaid's funding structure, which would end up cutting federal support by hundreds of billions of dollars. One unnamed source told the outlet that Scalise's remarks were "not representative of any conversations that the members representing majority making districts has had with leadership, leadership staff, [Energy and Commerce Committee] staff [or] chairman [Brett] Guthrie."

"I disagree with what Scalise is saying, and a lot of us have been very clear about where we stand," Valadao said. "And his comments frustrated a lot of us."

Given the tiny seven-member Republican majority in the House of Representatives, Johnson can only afford to lose four votes on any given legislation assuming full attendance. This means if he loses moderates like Bacon and Valadao, he won't be able to pass legislation out of the House. But on the other hand, hard-liners like Reps. Chip Roy (R-Texas) and Andy Ogles (R-Tenn.) have insisted on massive cuts to Medicaid and other programs, and have even publicly said that their continued support of Johnson's speakership is contingent on him championing those cuts.

"Leadership has had many open conversations with Members from all sides of the Conference on a pathway to reforming the Medicaid program to make sure it’s working for those it’s intended for, and those conversations will continue," a Scalise spokesperson told NOTUS.

Johnson also has a significant obstacle in the form of Trump himself. The president has told aides and advisors that he is hesitant to sign any bill that cuts Medicaid, recognizing that doing so would come at a significant political cost for Republicans in next year's midterm elections. While the budget bill that passed through the House earlier this year cut Medicaid by more than $800 billion, both Trump and Senate Republicans have been uneasy about reducing federal support for the popular program.>

<Almost like clockwork since mid-November, Tesla Inc. board chair Robyn Denholm has been selling the company’s stock. During that time, shares whipsawed and the company’s sales slowed — and then cratered — around the world.

As part of a pre-arranged plan around exercising equity options, Denholm cashed in 112,390 shares worth $35 million on Nov. 15, weeks after a post-presidential election pop. Then the same amount of stock on Dec. 2. Then again on Feb. 3, March 3 and, most recently, on Tuesday.

All told, Denholm has sold $558 million worth of stock since 2020, according to data compiled by Bloomberg, building a fortune she’s described as “life-changing.” That’s almost half the $1.2 billion worth of shares sold by Tesla’s current directors in that span, nearly all of which came from exercising options.

That massive sum is emblematic of the riches created by Tesla over the past several years under Elon Musk’s tenure as chief executive officer. While much of that has accrued to Musk, the world’s wealthiest person with a $332.7 billion fortune, the carmaker’s volatile rise also benefited its board, which is partly populated by his friends and family.

Yet, even by Musk’s own telling, the world’s most valuable automaker is at a crossroads. Tesla stock is down 41% from its highs in December, with his emergence as a top donor and adviser to US President Donald Trump rendering its vehicles, stores and charging stations targets for the administration’s detractors at home and abroad.

Where Tesla goes from here will depend on Denholm and the rest of its low-profile board, which faces questions from some investors over Musk’s focus and future with the company. Members recently reached out to several executive-search firms to work on a process for finding the carmaker’s next CEO, the Wall Street Journal reported. Denholm denied this, saying the board is “highly confident in his ability to continue executing.”

Musk, Denholm and representatives of Tesla didn’t respond to requests for comment.

With Musk’s time in the US government potentially winding down as soon as this month, Tesla’s board — collectively still holding about $1.63 billion worth of shares and options — will be under new pressure to chart the best path forward with Musk.

They have in the past contemplated existence without Musk as CEO. Rather, he could be the company’s chief product officer, with the board finding a CEO who would run other parts of the business, including sales, finance and human resources. Former director Antonio Gracias — another volunteer at Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency — testified during the Delaware pay case that Tesla lost early last year that this was once considered.

“We did think about that, but we couldn’t find anyone,” Gracias said. He left Tesla’s board in 2021.

The current members of the board have drawn criticism for years over their close ties to Musk, including from the judge who last year rejected Musk’s $55 billion compensation package.

Denholm, a former executive at Telstra Corp. and Juniper Networks Inc., joined Tesla’s board in 2014. She took over as chair four years later as part of settlements with the US Securities and Exchange Commission of charges related to Musk’s short-lived attempt to take the carmaker private.

Other current members of the board include Ira Ehrenpreis, a venture capitalist who’s invested in several of Musk’s other companies; Joe Gebbia, the Airbnb Inc. co-founder working alongside Musk at DOGE; Tesla co-founder JB Straubel; and Musk’s brother, Kimbal.

While the company refuted that it was exploring a CEO change, the report affirms the board’s oversight role and serves as a “warning shot” to Musk, Wedbush Securities analyst Dan Ives said on Bloomberg Television.

“The board had to do something,” he said. “This was the moment of truth.”>

<Last week, I challenged Sen. Tommy Tuberville to clear his residency questions once and for all by doing something that most Alabamians would be able to do without any problem — by showing whether he paid state income taxes for each of the last seven years.

To run for the U.S. Senate, he had to live in Alabama only for a day before the 2020 election, but to run for governor in Alabama, residency requirements say a candidate has to live in the state for seven years.

If he truly was an Alabama resident, his income taxes should show it. It’s a chance to lay his cards face up on the table and take the whole pot.

But so far he hasn’t.

Instead, Tuberville has fallen back on a different argument — that his wife’s homestead exemption in Auburn is enough to prove his residency going back to 2018. A homestead exemption is a property tax break homeowners can take on their primary residence.

The trouble is, the Tubervilles’ homestead exemptions might mean less than he thinks, and clinging to that as proof of residency could make new problems for Tuberville he hasn’t considered.

Or to put it another way, if he was living in Alabama in 2018, why was he still voting in Florida in 2018?

Here’s what public records show.

In 2018, Tuberville’s wife, Suzanne, and their son Tucker claimed a homestead exemption on a house in Auburn. (Tommy Tuberville was not on that deed but this is what says is proof of his residency.) However, later that same year, Tuberville and his wife continued to vote in Florida, according to election records.

Tuberville’s homestead messiness doesn’t stop there, either.

More recently, Tuberville put his name on, not one, but two Alabama deeds last year — one in Auburn and another in Madison — each with their own homestead exemptions, according to state property tax records.

If a homestead exemption means residency, then which is it?

It’s a lot to keep up with, and even Tuberville seems to be struggling to keep it all straight.

Let’s put together a timeline, shall we?

On February 10, 2017, Tuberville’s wife Suzanne registered to vote in Walton County, Fla., where they own a $4.8 million beach house.

On March 30, 2017, Suzanne and their son, Thomas Tucker Tuberville (who goes by Tucker) bought the three-bedroom home in Auburn.

On May 24, 2017, two months after the Auburn home purchase, Tommy Tuberville registered to vote in Walton County, Florida, using his Santa Rosa Beach address.

On July 19, 2017, Tuberville recorded a video for ESPN as a promo for his new gig on the network. He filmed the video on his deck overlooking the ocean in Santa Rosa Beach, Florida.

“Six months ago, after 40 years of coaching football, I hung up my whistle and moved to Santa Rosa Beach, Florida, with the white sands and the blue water,” he said. “What a great place to live.”

In October 2018, Tucker and Suzanne (not Tommy) began claiming a homestead exemption on the Auburn house.

On November 6, 2018, a month after Suzanne and Tucker claimed the homestead in Auburn, both Tommy and Suzanne Tuberville voted in Walton County, Fla.

If Suzanne Tuberville’s Auburn homestead exemption is proof of where Tuberville lives, then at this point, he’s voting in the wrong state. She was, too.

On March 28, 2019, Tuberville registered to vote in Alabama at the Auburn address owned by his wife and son, Alabama election records show.

On April 6, 2019, less than two weeks after changing his voter registration, Tuberville announced that he would run for the U.S. Senate.

On May 2, 2019, Tuberville told talk radio host Dale Jackson that he moved back to Alabama in August of 2018.

“I moved back about, I would say, probably, full-time, end of August,” Tuberville said.

Jackson noted that Tuberville voted in Florida in November of that year, which Tuberville did not dispute. Jackson asked Tuberville whether he voted for Matt Gaetz, and Tuberville said he voted for the full Republican ticket.

In the interview, Tuberville claimed that he moved to Florida because it had better airport access for his ESPN duties, despite saying in his ESPN promo video that he moved to Florida six months before taking that job....>