Phil Tritz, Jeff Schwartz and Matt Swan, left to right, all AmeriCorps volunteers from New Orleans, work with Habitat for Humanity building homes for Hurricane Katrina victims in Rockefeller Plaza on Sept. 23, 2005, in New York City. Habitat for Humanity, along with the NBC News "Today" show and the Warner Music Group, planned to build around 20 homes with thousands of volunteers working 24 hours a day for five days, starting on Sept. 26. (Photo by Michael Nagle/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — Hillary Kane learned on a Saturday morning in April that within days, she would lose AmeriCorps funding for two programs that match mentors with West Philadelphia high schoolers and first-generation college students — both vulnerable groups at risk of not completing diplomas and degrees.

Kane, director of the Philadelphia Higher Education Network for Neighborhood Development, dreaded calling her AmeriCorps members to say the federal government had just terminated their positions in the nationwide service program. It embeds nearly 200,000 Americans each year in community nonprofits, schools and other organizations.

“My first thought was just a string of expletives, just that sinking feeling in the pit of your stomach,” she said, recalling the April 26 morning.

The federal agency dedicated to community service and volunteerism, which works in close partnership with states, is the latest target since President Donald Trump began his second term with an aggressive campaign to dismantle programs and slash the federal workforce.

The agency abruptly cut $400 million, or 41% of its budget, and placed 85% of its staff on administrative leave last month, according to court records.

AmeriCorps had provided $960 million to fund 3,100 projects across the United States each year, according to general undated figures available on the agency’s website.

Two of Kane’s grants were abruptly canceled as part of the cuts, and as of May 20, she’ll lose nearly 30 AmeriCorps members.

“They’re literally just left stranded,” she said. “You know, I have members who are single moms with kids and suddenly don’t have insurance, or at least by the end of the month they won’t.”

Five of Kane’s members were placed in three high schools in West Philadelphia helping students with career exploration, resumes and college applications. They also provided recreation activities after school.

“We’re in under-resourced schools,” Kane said. “We’ve got schools that have one counselor for 300 students, and they’re not even primarily a college counselor, right? They’re guidance counselors who are dealing with all kinds of other issues.”

Even more short-staffing

The cuts have produced upheaval for many nonprofits.

AmeriCorps members serve various roles in organizations that support environmental conservation projects, rebuild after natural disasters, prepare adults for the GED exam, tutor children and more.

Rick Cohen, of the National Council of Nonprofits, said the announcement was a blow to community organizations that are already stretched thin.

“Groups that were already short-staffed and facing all these other headwinds are now even further short-staffed and trying to figure out how to keep things going and how to keep helping people,” said Cohen, the chief communications officer and chief operating officer for the advocacy organization.

“It’s a very difficult time for a lot of people in the nonprofit sector because you never want to have to tell somebody that’s coming to you for help that you can’t help them, and that there’s not somewhere else for them to turn,” Cohen said.

Aaron Gray, who helped run an AmeriCorps program serving at-risk youth in Pennsylvania’s Allegheny County from 1997 to 2017, said “it’s a shame.”

Over the years as an assistant director, Gray placed thousands of service members with community organizations, faith-based programs and schools.

“I think this is gonna be detrimental. AmeriCorps has been around since the 90s, and it took a long time to build up to this, and it’s just being eviscerated overnight. If it survives, or if it’s brought back at some later point, it’s going to take a generation to rebuild.”

Clinton administration

Congress created AmeriCorps in 1993 when President Bill Clinton was in office. Then titled the Corporation for National and Community Service, the agency absorbed other government service programs including Volunteers in Service of America, or VISTA, created in 1964 to combat poverty, and the National Civilian Community Corps, referred to as NCCC, created in 1992 to assist natural disaster recovery.

The agency grew to include FEMA Corps in 2012 and Public Health AmeriCorps in 2022, among other specialized programs.

Service members, who are not federal employees, are provided a meager stipend of a few hundred dollars a week and receive an education award to pay for college or student loans upon completion of service, which typically lasts just under a year. As of 2024, the award was roughly $7,300.

Members, who range in age from young adults to senior citizens, can also receive health insurance while serving. While participants are not allowed to apply for unemployment, some can seek food assistance.

The administration terminated all NCCC programs in mid-April. Then, late on Friday, April 25, more than 1,000 grantees were told to pull their members from service immediately, according to court filings.

AmeriCorps did not respond to questions about the cuts.

Lawsuits filed

Two lawsuits challenging the cuts are working their way through the federal courts. Fourteen organizations, the union representing AmeriCorps staffers and three individual plaintiffs who were AmeriCorps members filed suit in U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland on May 5.

The nonprofits bringing the lawsuit are based in California, the District of Columbia, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Dakota and Virginia.

Plaintiffs say the immediate termination of grants has caused irreparable harm to nonprofits and AmeriCorps members who have now lost income, health insurance and large portions of their education awards, according to the complaint.

Plaintiff J. Doe 3 relocated to Fayetteville, North Carolina, for a second year of service, embedded with the Kingdom Community Corporation, a nonprofit that helps first-time homebuyers learn how to avoid foreclosure and that provides counseling certified by the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

According to the 55-page complaint, Doe 3 began service in February and was engaging with community members on a daily basis, answering anywhere from 25 to 75 calls. Doe 3 planned to use the education award to continue higher education.

“The sudden cancellation of Doe 3’s AmeriCorps position has left them in a new city, without a job, lacking the experience, skill building, and community they signed up for,” according to the complaint.

States left reeling

States are also affected by the cuts.

AmeriCorps’ structure puts the agency in close connection with states. Each state government establishes its own commission to determine which priorities and organizations receive the annual federal dollars.

For example, in Kane’s state of Pennsylvania, more than 8,500 members were placed in various roles at 1,000 nonprofits in 2024. The state’s commission received $38.8 million in federal dollars, while local dollars supplemented the rest, reaching $54.8 million in total funding for the year, according to the latest AmeriCorps annual state-by-state reports.

On April 29, state attorneys general from nearly two dozen states and the District of Columbia sued the administration, alleging the cuts were illegal.

The 123-page complaint details how U.S. DOGE Service officials arrived at AmeriCorps offices in D.C. on April 8 and began working with the interim agency head, Jennifer Bastress Tahmasebi, to plot program cuts.

“This case presents only the latest chapter in an ongoing saga, as the Administration attempts to dismantle federal agencies without Congressional approval,” according to the court filing.

States that brought the legal challenge include Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin.

White House response

In a statement provided to States Newsroom Thursday, the White House defended the cuts.

“AmeriCorps has failed eight consecutive audits and identified over $45 million in unaccounted for payments in 2024 alone. President Trump is restoring accountability to the entire Executive Branch,” said spokesperson Anna Kelly.

Editor’s note: D.C. Bureau Senior Reporter Ashley Murray served in AmeriCorps in 2011.

The John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts on the banks of the Potomac River in Washington, D.C. The center hosts more than 2,000 performances a year, including theater, contemporary dance, ballet, vocal music, chamber music, hip hop, comedy, international arts and jazz. It is also the home to the National Symphony Orchestra and Washington National Opera. (Photo courtesy Kennedy Center)

WASHINGTON — A Democratic lawmaker is asking why House Republicans approved nearly six times the requested funding for the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts as President Donald Trump cancels federal grants for arts organizations across the United States.

Rep. Chellie Pingree of Maine, the ranking member of the subcommittee that oversees funding for the Kennedy Center, requested a detailed accounting of the $256.6 million for the center included in the Republican-led budget reconciliation package.

The Kennedy Center, a renowned venue in Washington, D.C., had originally requested just $45.73 million for fiscal year 2025. Trump in February took over chairmanship of the center’s board, leading to some artists canceling their performances.

ABC News reported Tuesday that Trump will headline a fundraiser for the center next month.

In a letter Tuesday to Kennedy Center President Richard Grenell, Pingree asked for a breakdown of how the organization plans to spend over $241.7 million on capital repairs projects, $7.7 million on operations and maintenance, and a further $7.2 million on administrative expenses.

The center had only planned on spending $157 million on repairs projects through 2027 as part of a comprehensive building plan, according to its 2025 budget request.

“I am committed to the Kennedy Center having the resources necessary to carry out its mission now and for many years to come, and I appreciate President Trump’s shared interest in the Center’s future,” wrote Pingree, who co-chairs the bipartisan Congressional Arts Caucus.

“However, as this Administration seeks to eliminate vital cultural agencies that serve communities across the nation, we must ensure that funds appropriated by Congress are truly benefitting the artists and audiences that make the Kennedy Center great,” Pingree wrote.

Pingree slammed the Trump administration’s late Friday notice that grant funding from the National Endowment for Arts would be withdrawn from organizations across the country. Trump’s budget request to Congress Friday recommended slashing the NEA completely.

Pingree issued a statement Saturday morning saying her office had already begun hearing from Maine arts organizations who received grant termination emails. “These organizations, like countless others, had already made programming decisions for the upcoming season and were counting on these funds to pay artists and workers,” Pingree said.

‘This project is essential’

A White House official told States Newsroom Wednesday that Trump had worked with Congress to arrive at the Kennedy Center funding figure.

“This project is essential to advancing President Trump’s vision of restoring greatness to our Nation’s capital. Halting Anti-American propaganda is critical to protecting our children and fostering patriotism,” according to the official.

Separately, an emailed statement attributed to White House spokesperson Anna Kelly said that “President Trump cares deeply about American arts and culture, which is why he is revitalizing historic institutions like the Kennedy Center to their former greatness.”

The White House did not immediately respond to follow-up questions about the termination of other arts funding.

The Kennedy Center did not respond to States Newsroom’s requests for comment about how the funds will be used and whether Grenell had received Pingree’s request.

A House Republican document outlining the party’s funding goals for 2024 shows the GOP-led House Committee on Appropriations had planned $44.9 million for the Kennedy Center that year, noting the amount was $454,000 below 2023 funding levels and $3.1 million below former President Joe Biden’s budget request.

Democratic Rep. Chris Deluzio of Pennsylvania joins veterans protesting the Trump administration's proposed cuts to the Department of Veterans Affairs on Tuesday, May 6, 2025, outside the U.S. Capitol. (Photo by Ashley Murray/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — Veterans and Democratic lawmakers on Capitol Hill Tuesday protested the Trump administration’s planned cuts for the Department of Veterans Affairs that include slashing some 80,000 jobs, which many worry will affect the massive agency’s delivery of medical care and benefits.

The group rallied outside the U.S. Capitol shortly after VA Secretary Doug Collins finished lengthy questioning before the Senate Committee on Veterans Affairs, where he defended the cuts as necessary to improve the department’s efficiency.

Holding signs that read “Veterans Healthcare Not For Sale,” a crowd of former service members joined by senators and representatives decried that argument as “nonsensical,” as Sen. Richard Blumenthal, top Democrat on the Veterans Affairs Committee, put it.

“We’re not going to allow veterans to be betrayed by this administration,” Blumenthal, of Connecticut, said. “I’ve just come from a hearing with the VA secretary, and to say it was a disappointment is a huge understatement. That hearing was a disgrace.” 

‘Non-stop smear campaign’

Jose Vasquez, executive director of Common Defense, the advocacy group that organized the press conference, said, “They call this efficiency, but we call it betrayal.”

Vasquez, an Army veteran who recently received care from the VA in New York for a cancerous tumor on his pancreas, said, “Millions of veterans depend on VA every day — survivors of cancer, toxic exposure, traumatic brain injuries and post-traumatic stress.”

He contends the agency’s workers, many of whom are veterans, have been the target of a “non-stop smear campaign.”

“Why? Simple. Because a small group of greedy billionaires would rather get tax cuts than pay for the true cost of war,” Vasquez.

Trump’s temporary DOGE organization, led by top campaign donor Elon Musk, cut roughly 2,400 VA jobs in early March.

Collins, a former Georgia congressman who still serves in the Air Force Reserve, unveiled a plan in early March to return VA staffing to 2019 levels of 398,000, down from the current approximately 470,000 positions.

The lawmaker told senators Tuesday that he’s “conducting a thorough review of the department’s structure and staffing across the enterprise.”

“We’re going to maintain VA’s mission-essential jobs like doctors, nurses and claims processors, while phasing out non-mission-essential roles like interior designers and DEI officers. The savings we achieve will be redirected to veteran health care and benefits,” Collins said.

Collins drew pushback during the hearing, including from Sen. Elissa Slotkin of Michigan, who told the secretary “there’s no way that all those 80,000 are in those job fields,” referring to his comment about DEI and interior designers.

“I’m having a problem understanding how the veterans in Michigan are going to get the same or better care, which is what we want,” said Slotkin, who served three tours in Iraq as a CIA analyst.

GOP says VA must change

Many Republicans on the panel maintained the VA, as Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina said, “is not working.”

“If we just say everything has to stay the same and you just gotta add more money and more people, then you’re looking at it the wrong way,” Tillis said, adding that he’s “open to any suggestions” and will review the proposal for workforce reductions.

Collins criticized the increase in hiring under former President Joe Biden, who signed into law the PACT Act, the largest expansion of VA benefits in decades.

The law opened care to roughly 1 million veterans who developed certain conditions and cancers following exposure to burn pits in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as Vietnam vets exposed to Agent Orange.

Republican Sen. Kevin Cramer of North Dakota said Collins was being “battered” about the possible 80,000 cuts. “Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe there were 52,000 new positions added between 2021 and 2024. … That 52,000, has that saved the day for our veterans?

“I don’t think so,” Collins responded.

But at the rally afterward, Democratic Rep. Chris Deluzio, a former Navy officer who served in Iraq, defended the PACT Act expansion.

“At this moment when so many toxic-exposed veterans of my generation, Agent Orange-exposed veterans from the Vietnam era, are finally getting the benefits they’ve earned because of the PACT Act, we should be investing in the resources for the VA, and Donald Trump and his team are doing the opposite,” said Deluzio, who represents Pennsylvania.

Mike Waltz, national security adviser, looks at his phone as he prepares for a TV interview at the White House on May 01, 2025 in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — Mike Waltz, a former Florida congressman who became known for sharing U.S. plans to strike Yemen on a Signal group chat, was out as White House national security adviser on Thursday.

President Donald Trump announced he will instead nominate Waltz to be the next U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, a position that requires U.S. Senate confirmation.

“From his time in uniform on the battlefield, in Congress and, as my National Security Advisor, Mike Waltz has worked hard to put our Nation’s Interests first. I know he will do the same in his new role,” Trump wrote on his social media site, Truth Social.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio, a former U.S. senator from Florida, will step into the role of national security adviser, according to Trump.

“Together, we will continue to fight tirelessly to Make America, and the World, SAFE AGAIN. Thank you for your attention to this matter!” the president wrote.

Strikes on Houthi rebels

Waltz’s apparent ouster from the National Security Council occurred five weeks after what became known as Signalgate.

The Atlantic magazine’s editor-in-chief, Jeffrey Goldberg, revealed Waltz had invited him, presumably by mistake, to a group chat of high-level officials that included Vice President J.D. Vance, discussing specific plans for strikes on Houthi rebels in Yemen.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and other Cabinet members denied that any classified information was shared in the chat on the commercially available app Signal, prompting Goldberg to release the chat transcript that detailed specific times and locations of the military strikes ahead of their scheduled launch.

In the group chat on March 15, Waltz wrote “amazing job,” minutes after missiles landed, followed by emojis for a fist, an American flag and fire, according to Goldberg, who watched the Signal group messages in real time minutes before news of U.S. bombs in Yemen became public.

The New York Times has since revealed that Hegseth shared details about the same Yemen strikes in a separate Signal group chat that included his wife, brother and personal lawyer. Hegseth has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing.

When contacted for details surrounding Waltz’s departure from the NSC, the White House directed States Newsroom to the president’s Truth Social account.

Senate confirmation votes ahead

Waltz will now face hearings and votes before senators for a post that Trump originally designated for New York U.S. Rep. Elise Stefanik. Stefanik withdrew from the running to remain among the House Republican ranks as insurance against the party’s razor-thin margin.

Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, the top Democrat on the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, characterized Waltz’s exit as an “abrupt dismissal” that is “further proof of the chaos and incompetence that has reigned over President Trump’s White House and national security team during his first 100 days in office.”

“The stunning amount of turnover of senior staff at both the National Security Council and at the Pentagon is alarming. Purges of senior military officers, mass firings of top career officials for perceived political disloyalty and the illegal dismantling of America’s foreign policy institutions only hurts our security and signals weakness to our foes,” Shaheen, of New Hampshire, said in a statement Thursday, while calling for accountability for those sharing information on unsecured channels.

Shaheen further added, “We should remember that it was Secretary Hegseth who initially shared this material and did so a second time with his family. He too must be held accountable.”

White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller and press secretary Karoline Leavitt speak to reporters at the White House briefing on May 1, 2025. (Photo by Ashley Murray/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — Despite news that the U.S. economy has contracted since January, White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller said Thursday that President Donald Trump’s policies are working to “unleash this era of American prosperity.”

Miller, also a top adviser for Trump on immigration, dismissed fears from the small business community and American consumers when pressed by reporters during the final in a series of press briefings marking Trump’s first 100 days.

Questions centered on Trump’s steep 145% tariffs on any goods, including manufacturing parts, imported from China, as well as baseline 10% tariffs on products brought into the U.S. from nearly every other country.

Tariffs are an import tax paid to the U.S. government by American companies and individuals who purchase goods from abroad. A broad consensus among economists is that those costs are passed to consumers.

When asked what the administration’s end goal is for its trade war with China — the nation now charges 125% tariffs on American products entering its borders — Miller said “we need to have a trade relationship with China that does not do harm to our nation’s economic and national security.”

“At the same time, tariffs will bring significant revenue into this country that will allow us to pursue our dramatic plan of tax cuts and reforms,” he said, referring to the massive budget reconciliation package underway in the Republican-led House and Senate.

Tariff order, then a pause

Trump initially triggered much higher rates on products from major trading partners — for example, 20% on European Union goods and up to 46% on products from Vietnam — but paused them for 90 days at a baseline 10% after investor panic erased trillions from the U.S. stock market. The administration maintains it will have new trade agreements in place by the July deadline.

The Institute for Supply Management’s April manufacturing report cited tariff concerns and an “unknown economic environment” for the manufacturing sector’s second month of contraction.

Department of Commerce figures released Wednesday showed the U.S. gross domestic product — a country’s total value of goods and services — decreased at an annual rate of 0.3% since January, the first time GDP dipped into the negative since the first quarter of 2022.

Meanwhile, U.S. consumer sentiment saw its steepest percentage decline over a three-month period since the 1990 recession, according to the University of Michigan’s April survey of consumers.

Tax plans

In response to an inquiry about a U.S. Chamber of Commerce plea for small business tariff relief, Miller said Thursday, “The relief for small businesses is going to come in the form of the largest tax cut in American history.”

At the heart of congressional Republicans’ massive budget reconciliation package is the extension of Trump’s 2017 tax law. Wholesale extending the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act is expected to reduce federal revenue by roughly $4.5 trillion over a decade. And, depending on how or if lawmakers pay for the tax cuts, the costs could shrink the economy in the long run, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget’s analysis of Congressional Budget Office figures.

Miller said Trump’s promise to businesses to revive and expand 100% expensing for business investments in the U.S. will make it “the most pro-small business tax bill in American history.”

House and Senate Republican leaders have indicated differing timelines for final passage of the tax deal — varying from Memorial Day to July 4.

Business community worries

An April 30 letter from the Chamber of Commerce to the administration warned of “irreparable harm” to small businesses, even if the administration strikes new tariff agreements over the next weeks or months.

“The Chamber is hearing from small business owners every day who are seeing their ability to survive endangered by the recent increase in tariff rates,” the letter stated.

Three Republican senators broke with the GOP Wednesday night and voted to rebuke Trump on tariffs. The largely symbolic measure ultimately failed after Republican opposition.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told reporters Tuesday the administration is in conversations with 17 trading partners but would not give any details on talks with China.

Economists are now awaiting Friday’s “all-important” jobs report for any further snapshot of U.S. economic health, as Mark Zandi of Moody’s Analytics wrote Sunday on X.

“If payroll jobs increase by 150k, give or take, which is the consensus, all the weak economic data released during the week will be forgotten, at least for a bit. Fingers crossed. If employment increases by less than 100k, watch out,” he wrote.

Mike Waltz, national security adviser, looks at his phone as he prepares for a TV interview at the White House on May 01, 2025 in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — Mike Waltz, a former Florida congressman who became known for sharing U.S. plans to strike Yemen on a Signal group chat, was out as White House national security adviser on Thursday.

President Donald Trump announced he will instead nominate Waltz to be the next U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, a position that requires U.S. Senate confirmation.

“From his time in uniform on the battlefield, in Congress and, as my National Security Advisor, Mike Waltz has worked hard to put our Nation’s Interests first. I know he will do the same in his new role,” Trump wrote on his social media site, Truth Social.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio, a former U.S. senator from Florida, will step into the role of national security adviser, according to Trump.

“Together, we will continue to fight tirelessly to Make America, and the World, SAFE AGAIN. Thank you for your attention to this matter!” the president wrote.

Strikes on Houthi rebels

Waltz’s apparent ouster from the National Security Council occurred five weeks after what became known as Signalgate.

The Atlantic magazine’s editor-in-chief, Jeffrey Goldberg, revealed Waltz had invited him, presumably by mistake, to a group chat of high-level officials that included Vice President J.D. Vance, discussing specific plans for strikes on Houthi rebels in Yemen.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and other Cabinet members denied that any classified information was shared in the chat on the commercially available app Signal, prompting Goldberg to release the chat transcript that detailed specific times and locations of the military strikes ahead of their scheduled launch.

In the group chat on March 15, Waltz wrote “amazing job,” minutes after missiles landed, followed by emojis for a fist, an American flag and fire, according to Goldberg, who watched the Signal group messages in real time minutes before news of U.S. bombs in Yemen became public.

The New York Times has since revealed that Hegseth shared details about the same Yemen strikes in a separate Signal group chat that included his wife, brother and personal lawyer. Hegseth has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing.

When contacted for details surrounding Waltz’s departure from the NSC, the White House directed States Newsroom to the president’s Truth Social account.

Senate confirmation votes ahead

Waltz will now face hearings and votes before senators for a post that Trump originally designated for New York U.S. Rep. Elise Stefanik. Stefanik withdrew from the running to remain among the House Republican ranks as insurance against the party’s razor-thin margin.

Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, the top Democrat on the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, characterized Waltz’s exit as an “abrupt dismissal” that is “further proof of the chaos and incompetence that has reigned over President Trump’s White House and national security team during his first 100 days in office.”

“The stunning amount of turnover of senior staff at both the National Security Council and at the Pentagon is alarming. Purges of senior military officers, mass firings of top career officials for perceived political disloyalty and the illegal dismantling of America’s foreign policy institutions only hurts our security and signals weakness to our foes,” Shaheen, of New Hampshire, said in a statement Thursday, while calling for accountability for those sharing information on unsecured channels.

Shaheen further added, “We should remember that it was Secretary Hegseth who initially shared this material and did so a second time with his family. He too must be held accountable.”

White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller and press secretary Karoline Leavitt speak to reporters at the White House briefing on May 1, 2025. (Photo by Ashley Murray/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — Despite news that the U.S. economy has contracted since January, White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller said Thursday that President Donald Trump’s policies are working to “unleash this era of American prosperity.”

Miller, also a top adviser for Trump on immigration, dismissed fears from the small business community and American consumers when pressed by reporters during the final in a series of press briefings marking Trump’s first 100 days.

Questions centered on Trump’s steep 145% tariffs on any goods, including manufacturing parts, imported from China, as well as baseline 10% tariffs on products brought into the U.S. from nearly every other country.

Tariffs are an import tax paid to the U.S. government by American companies and individuals who purchase goods from abroad. A broad consensus among economists is that those costs are passed to consumers.

When asked what the administration’s end goal is for its trade war with China — the nation now charges 125% tariffs on American products entering its borders — Miller said “we need to have a trade relationship with China that does not do harm to our nation’s economic and national security.”

“At the same time, tariffs will bring significant revenue into this country that will allow us to pursue our dramatic plan of tax cuts and reforms,” he said, referring to the massive budget reconciliation package underway in the Republican-led House and Senate.

Tariff order, then a pause

Trump initially triggered much higher rates on products from major trading partners — for example, 20% on European Union goods and up to 46% on products from Vietnam — but paused them for 90 days at a baseline 10% after investor panic erased trillions from the U.S. stock market. The administration maintains it will have new trade agreements in place by the July deadline.

The Institute for Supply Management’s April manufacturing report cited tariff concerns and an “unknown economic environment” for the manufacturing sector’s second month of contraction.

Department of Commerce figures released Wednesday showed the U.S. gross domestic product — a country’s total value of goods and services — decreased at an annual rate of 0.3% since January, the first time GDP dipped into the negative since the first quarter of 2022.

Meanwhile, U.S. consumer sentiment saw its steepest percentage decline over a three-month period since the 1990 recession, according to the University of Michigan’s April survey of consumers.

Tax plans

In response to an inquiry about a U.S. Chamber of Commerce plea for small business tariff relief, Miller said Thursday, “The relief for small businesses is going to come in the form of the largest tax cut in American history.”

At the heart of congressional Republicans’ massive budget reconciliation package is the extension of Trump’s 2017 tax law. Wholesale extending the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act is expected to reduce federal revenue by roughly $4.5 trillion over a decade. And, depending on how or if lawmakers pay for the tax cuts, the costs could shrink the economy in the long run, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget’s analysis of Congressional Budget Office figures.

Miller said Trump’s promise to businesses to revive and expand 100% expensing for business investments in the U.S. will make it “the most pro-small business tax bill in American history.”

House and Senate Republican leaders have indicated differing timelines for final passage of the tax deal — varying from Memorial Day to July 4.

Business community worries

An April 30 letter from the Chamber of Commerce to the administration warned of “irreparable harm” to small businesses, even if the administration strikes new tariff agreements over the next weeks or months.

“The Chamber is hearing from small business owners every day who are seeing their ability to survive endangered by the recent increase in tariff rates,” the letter stated.

Three Republican senators broke with the GOP Wednesday night and voted to rebuke Trump on tariffs. The largely symbolic measure ultimately failed after Republican opposition.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told reporters Tuesday the administration is in conversations with 17 trading partners but would not give any details on talks with China.

Economists are now awaiting Friday’s “all-important” jobs report for any further snapshot of U.S. economic health, as Mark Zandi of Moody’s Analytics wrote Sunday on X.

“If payroll jobs increase by 150k, give or take, which is the consensus, all the weak economic data released during the week will be forgotten, at least for a bit. Fingers crossed. If employment increases by less than 100k, watch out,” he wrote.

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., speaks during a nomination hearing with the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs on Capitol Hill on April 03, 2025, in Washington, D.C.  Paul was the sole GOP co-sponsor on Wednesday, April 30, 2025, of a resolution to terminate President Donald Trump's tariffs. (Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — Senate Republicans defended President Donald Trump’s emergency tariffs Wednesday, blocking a largely symbolic measure to terminate the president’s import taxes that have shocked the economy.

The resolution failed in a tied 49-49 vote Wednesday evening. Vice President J.D. Vance broke the tie on a subsequent procedural vote to stop the measure from receiving another chance on the floor.

Republicans Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Rand Paul of Kentucky were the only three to break with their party in support of reining in Trump’s use of emergency powers to trigger tariffs on nearly every other nation across the globe.

Paul was the lone Republican co-sponsor on the Senate resolution, which was likely to go nowhere under House Republican leadership.

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, a Rhode Island Democrat, and Kentucky Republican Mitch McConnell missed the vote. Earlier in April McConnell joined Collins and Murkowski in voting to halt Trump’s tariffs on Canada.

‘Devastating’ economic news

The vote came hours after the release of figures showing the U.S. economy shrank during the first quarter of 2025. 

“The devastating economic news we got this morning should be enough for senators to vote yes tonight. The only winner today is China, which is scooping up markets and allies Donald Trump has left in the dust,” Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon said on the floor just before the vote.

Wyden and Paul co-sponsored the resolution that aimed to block Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs announced April 2 that caused market upheaval.

The president’s shockingly high taxes on goods imported from some of the nation’s closest trading partners — 20% on the European Union, 24% on Japan, 46% on Vietnam — rocked global markets, erasing trillions in wealth. Trump triggered the levies by declaring foreign trade as a national emergency.

Trump announced a 90-day pause on the tariffs starting April 9, but left in place a 10% universal import tax on nearly every country across the globe — excluding China.

The White House is now in an all-out trade war with the world’s no. 2 economy, raising tariffs on Chinese goods to 145%. China stopped at a 125% levy on American goods.

Kaine warning

Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine, who also co-sponsored the resolution, told reporters on a press call Wednesday that he’s willing to “link arms” with Trump to fight what the U.S. views as China’s unfair trade practices, but he said Trump needs to “wake up and smell the coffee” on the damage to relationships with trading partners.

“When you put tariffs on allies what you do is push away the very nations you could be joining with to counter China,” the Virginia Democrat said.

Kaine also blamed Trump’s trade policy for Wednesday’s negative economic headlines.

The Bureau of Economic Analysis report showed the U.S. gross domestic product decreased at an annual rate of 0.3% in the first three months of this year.

“It’s the wrong economic strategy to turn the strongest economy in the world to one that has red flashing lights on it,” Kaine said.

Kaine said he believed some House Republicans would support the resolution but that “leadership has bottled it up.”

Trump blames Biden

Trump’s administration officials and his allies in Congress continue to defend the tariffs. The president himself blames former President Joe Biden for the economic “hangover,” as he described it in his Truth Social post Wednesday.

“This will take a while, has NOTHING TO DO WITH TARIFFS, only that he left us with bad numbers, but when the boom begins, it will be like no other. BE PATIENT!!!,” Trump wrote.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune similarly told reporters on Capitol Hill Wednesday that economic reports are “short term.”

“They measure it sort of day by day, month by month, quarter by quarter. And as I said yesterday, I think that with the tariff issue that they’re playing the long game, but we’ll see,” the South Dakota Republican said.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent defended Trump’s import taxes Tuesday from the White House briefing room, but also announced the administration’s reprieve on 25% taxes on foreign cars and auto parts.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer slammed the vote Wednesday night.

“Leader Thune and Senate Republicans tonight voted to keep the Trump tariff-tax in place. They own the Trump tariffs and higher costs on America’s middle-class families,” the New York Democrat said in a statement.

A U.S. Border Patrol official vehicle  is shown parked near the border. (Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — U.S. House Judiciary Republicans Wednesday worked in committee on a portion of a major legislative package that would help fund President Donald Trump’s plans to conduct mass deportations of people living in the United States without permanent legal status.

The Judiciary panel’s $81 billion share of the “one, big beautiful” bill the president has requested of Congress would provide $45 billion for immigration detention centers, $8 billion to hire thousands of immigration enforcement officers and more than $14 billion for deportations, among other things.

The border security and immigration funds are part of a massive package that wraps together White House priorities including tax cuts and defense spending boosts. Republicans are pushing the deal through using a special procedure known as reconciliation that will allow the Senate GOP to skirt its usual 60-vote threshold when that chamber acts.

House Republicans returning from a two-week recess kicked off their work on reconciliation Tuesday, approving three of 11 bills out of committees on Armed Services, Education and Workforce and Homeland Security.

On Wednesday, lawmakers continued work on the various sections of the reconciliation bill with markups — which means a bill is debated and potentially amended or rewritten — in the Financial Services, Judiciary, Transportation and Infrastructure and Oversight and Government Reform committees.

House Speaker Mike Johnson of Louisiana said Republicans will spend the rest of this week and next debating the 11 separate bills in committees. Committees when they finish their measures will send them to the House Budget Committee, which is expected to bundle them together prior to a floor vote.

The Judiciary panel’s 116-page bill vastly overhauls U.S. asylum laws. It would, for example, create a fee structure for asylum seekers that would set a minimum cost for an application at no less than $1,000. Applications now are free.

“These and other resources and fees in this reconciliation bill will ensure the Trump administration has the adequate resources to enforce the immigration laws in a fiscally responsible way,” GOP Chair Jim Jordan of Ohio said.

The bill would establish a $1,000 fee for immigrants granted temporary protected status, which would mean they would have work authorizations and deportation protections.

It would also require sponsors to pay $3,500 to take in an unaccompanied minor who crosses the border without a legal status. Typically, unaccompanied minors are released to sponsors who are family members living in the United States.

The bill would also require immigrants without permanent legal status to pay a $550 fee for work permits every six months.

The top Democrat on the panel, Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland, slammed the bill as targeting immigrants.

“Every day, this administration uses immigration enforcement as a template to erode constitutional rights and liberties,” he said.

A final committee vote was expected Wednesday night.

‘A giveaway to ICE’

The Judiciary bill directs half of the fees collected from asylum seekers to go toward the agency that handles U.S. immigration courts, but Democrats criticized the provisions as creating a barrier for asylum seekers.

“The so-called immigration fees that are in this bill are really fines and nothing but a cruel attempt to make immigrating to this country impossible,” Washington Democratic Rep. Pramila Jayapal said.

Democratic Rep. Chuy Garcia of Illinois, said the bill would not only “gut asylum” but would significantly increase funding for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention.

Funding for ICE detention this fiscal year is roughly $3.4 billion, but the Judiciary bill would sharply increase that to $45 billion.

Garcia called the increase a “a giveaway to ICE, a rogue agency that’s terrorizing communities and clamping (down) on civil liberties and the Constitution itself, because they’ve been directed to do so by this president.”

House Republicans have also included language that would move the Federal Trade Commission into the Department of Justice’s antitrust division, a move Democrats argued would kneecap the FTC’s regulatory authority.

“You’re trying to shutter the FTC, the Federal Trade Commission, making it harder for us to enforce our antitrust laws,” Democratic Rep. Becca Balint of Vermont said.

Consumer protections to take a hit

Lawmakers on the House Committee on Financial Services met in a lengthy, and at times tense, session to finalize legislation to cut “no less than” $1 billion from government programs and services under the panel’s jurisdiction, according to the budget resolution Congress approved in April.

Funds in the crosshairs include those previously authorized for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and grants provided under the Biden administration-era Inflation Reduction Act for homeowners to improve energy efficiency.

Chair French Hill said the committee “will do its part to reduce the deficit and decrease direct spending, so that Congress can enact pro-growth tax policies.”

“And remember, today, we are here with one purpose, to do our part to put our nation back on a responsible fiscal trajectory,” the Arkansas Republican said.

Democrats introduced dozens of amendments during the hourslong session to block cuts to community block grants and programs protecting consumers, including veterans, from illegal credit and lending practices.

Ranking member Maxine Waters said committee Republicans’ plans to cut the CFPB by 70% “is ridiculous.”

“The bureau has saved American consumers $21 billion by returning to them funds that big banks and predatory lenders swindled out of them,” said Waters, a California Democrat.

Congress created the CFPB in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, when subprime mortgage lending cascaded into bank failures and home and job losses.

Republicans opposed amendment after amendment.

Rep. María Salazar of Florida tossed a copy of one of Waters’ lengthy amendments straight into a trash can after a staffer handed it to her. Michigan’s Rep. Bill Huizenga held up proceedings for several minutes when he accused Waters of breaking the rules by not distributing enough paper copies of her amendment.

“We cannot allow our government to continue spending money like there are no consequences,” GOP Rep. Mike Flood of Nebraska said in response to several Democratic amendments.

A final committee vote was expected Wednesday night.

Transportation section adds fees on electric vehicles

The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee also approved, by a party line 36-30 vote, reconciliation instructions that would cut $10 billion from the federal deficit while boosting spending for the U.S. Coast Guard and the air traffic control system.

Like other portions of the larger reconciliation package, the transportation committee’s instructions would add funding for national security and border enforcement, through the Coast Guard funding, while cutting money from programs favored by Democrats, including climate programs and any spending that could be construed as race-conscious.

The bill would provide $21.2 billion for the Coast Guard and $12.5 billion for air traffic control systems. It would raise money through a $250 annual fee on electric vehicles and a $100 annual fee on hybrids, while also cutting $4.6 billion from climate programs created in Democrats’ 2022 reconciliation package.

Chairman Sam Graves, a Missouri Republican, said the measure included priorities for members of both parties, as well as business and labor interests.

“We all want to invest in our Coast Guard,” he said. “We all want to rebuild our air traffic control system and finally address the broken Highway Trust Fund. We have held countless hearings on all of these topics, both recently and, frankly, for years. And now members have the opportunity to actually act.”

Democrats on the panel complained that the reconciliation package was a partisan exercise and a departure from the panel’s normally congenial approach to business. They introduced dozens of amendments over the daylong committee meeting seeking to add funding for various programs. None were adopted.

“The larger Republican reconciliation package will add more than $15 trillion in new debt, gives away $7 trillion in deficit-financed tax cuts to the wealthy and slashes access to health care and food assistance for families,” ranking Democrat Rick Larsen of Washington said. “Given that, I think we’re going to have to vote no on the bill before us.”

The vehicle fees, which would be deposited into the Highway Trust Fund that sends highway and transit money to states, created a partisan divide Wednesday.

Federal gas taxes provide the lion’s share of deposits to the fund and Republicans argued that, because drivers of electric vehicles pay no gas taxes and hybrid drivers pay less than those who drive gas-powered cars, the provision would make the contributions fairer.

Republicans scrapped a proposed $20 annual fee on gas-powered cars, which Graves said was meant to “start a conversation” on the solvency of the Highway Trust Fund. But the provision “became a political distraction that no longer centered around seriously addressing the problem,” he said.

Pennsylvania Democrat Chris Deluzio criticized the vehicle fees, noting Republicans were pursuing additional revenue opportunities to offset losses from tax cuts.

“I don’t know when you guys became the tax-and-spend liberals,” Deluzio told his Republican colleagues. “But I guess the taxing of car owners so you can pay for tax giveaways to billionaires is your new strategy. Good luck with that.”

Federal employee benefits targeted

The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform voted nearly along party lines, 22-21, to send its portion of the reconciliation package to the Budget Committee, with Ohio Republican Rep. Mike Turner joining Democrats in opposition.

Turner was the first GOP lawmaker to cast a committee vote against reconciliation instructions this year.

The legislation hits at federal employee benefits and comes as the Trump administration continues to overhaul the federal workforce.

Part of the bill would raise federal employees’ required retirement contribution to a rate of 4.4% of their salary and eliminate an additional retirement annuity payment for federal employees who retire before the age of 62, while cutting more than $50 billion from the federal deficit.

At his committee’s markup, Chairman James Comer said the legislation “advances important budgetary reforms that will save taxpayers money.”

The Kentucky Republican acknowledged that the chief investigative committee in the U.S. House has “very limited jurisdiction to help reduce the federal budget deficit,” noting that the panel is “empowered to pursue civil service reforms, including federal employee benefits and reining in the influence of partisan and unaccountable government employee unions.”

But Democrats on the panel blasted the committee’s portion of the reconciliation package, saying the bill chips away at federal employees’ protections.

Rep. Stephen Lynch, the top Democrat on the panel, said congressional Republicans instructed the panel to target the federal workforce with roughly $50 billion in funding cuts “regardless of the impact on hard-working, loyal federal employees and their critical services that they provide to the American people.”

The Massachusetts Democrat said the bill “threatens to further undermine the federal workforce by reducing the take-home pay, the benefits and workforce protections of 2.4 million federal employees, most of whom are middle-class Americans and a third of whom are military veterans.”

Ohio’s Turner, who voted against the legislation because of the provision reducing pension benefits, said he supported the overall reconciliation package and hoped the pension measure would be stripped before a floor vote.

Turner said “making changes to pension retirement benefits in the middle of someone’s employment is wrong.” 

Demonstrators holds signs as a motorist passes with flags supporting President Donald Trump during an April 5, 2025, protest in Columbia, South Carolina. Protestors organized nationwide demonstrations against Trump administration policies and Elon Musk's U.S. DOGE Service. (Photo by Sean Rayford/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — Tuesday marked the 100th day of President Donald Trump’s second term, a period filled almost daily with executive orders seeking to expand presidential power, court challenges to block those orders and economic anxiety that undermines his promised prosperity.

Trump has taken decisive actions that have polarized the electorate. He’s used obscure authorities to increase deportations, upended longstanding trade policy with record-high tariffs, made drastic cuts to the federal workforce and ordered the closure of the Education Department.

Those moves have garnered mixed results and led to legal challenges.

The approach to immigration enforcement has yielded lower numbers of unauthorized border crossings compared to last year. But the immigration crackdown has barreled the country toward a constitutional crisis through various clashes with the judiciary branch.

Those nearing retirement have watched their savings shrink as Trump’s blunt application of tariffs, which he promises will replace income taxes, roils markets. Administration officials have promised the short-term tariff pain will benefit the country in the long term.

And White House advisor and top campaign donor Elon Musk’s efforts at government efficiency have resulted in eliminations of wide swaths of government jobs. That includes about half of the Education Department workforce so far, though Trump has signed an executive order to eliminate the department.

The controversial moves appear unpopular, as Americans delivered record low approval ratings for a president so early in his term. Polls spearheaded by Fox News, NPR, Gallup and numerous others yield overall disapproval of Trump’s job performance.

Deportation push tests legal boundaries

Immigration was Trump’s signature issue on the campaign trail and his first 100 days were marked by a crackdown carried out against people with a range of immigration statuses and at least three U.S. citizen children. The aggressive push has led to clashes with the judiciary branch.

A burst of Inauguration Day executive orders Trump signed upon his return to office included some hardline immigration policies he’d promised.

On day one, he declared a national emergency at the U.S.-Mexico border that enabled his deployment two days later of 1,500 troops to help border enforcement.

He sought to end birthright citizenship and ended several forms of legal immigration, including humanitarian parole for people from certain countries, and suspended refugee resettlement services.

District courts blocked the birthright citizenship and refugee resettlement measures and an appeals court has upheld those interpretations. The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in May on birthright citizenship.

Trump’s record on immigration is a clear example of his desire to expand executive power, said Ahilan Arulanantham, a co-director of the Center for Immigration Law and Policy at the University of California Los Angeles School of Law.

“It’s an attempt to expand the government’s powers far beyond anything that we have seen before in this realm,” he said.

Unprecedented authorities

The administration has taken a series of actions considered nearly unprecedented to conduct mass deportations.

On March 8, immigration authorities detained Mahmoud Khalil, a lawful permanent resident who helped organize Palestinian protests at Columbia University.

Authorities never accused Khalil of committing a crime, but sought to revoke his green card under a Cold War-era provision that allows the secretary of State to remove lawful permanent residents if the secretary deems their presence has “potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences.”

Similar arrests followed at universities across the country.

In mid-March, Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to deport two planeloads of people his administration said belonged to the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua.

It was only the fourth time the law was invoked and the first outside of wartime. The first flights left U.S. soil en route to a mega-prison in El Salvador on Saturday, March 15, amid a hearing on the legality of using the law in peacetime.

When a federal judge entered an oral order to turn the flights around, the administration refused, arguing the oral order was not valid. The administration also ignored a subsequent written order demanding the return of the flights, later arguing the flights were outside U.S. airspace at that time and impossible to order returned.

Administration officials mocked the court order on social media.

The Supreme Court on April 7 allowed for the use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport suspected gang members of Tren de Aragua. However, the justices unanimously agreed that those removed under the wartime law needed to have due process and have a hearing to challenge their removal.

Abrego Garcia

A third March 15 flight carried a man who was mistakenly deported in an episode that has gained a national spotlight.

Maryland resident Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a native of El Salvador, had a final order of removal, but was granted deportation protections by an immigration judge because of the threat he would be harmed by gangs if he were returned to his home country. Despite the protective order, he was deported to the notorious Centro de Confinamiento del Terrorismo, or CECOT prison.

After his family sued over his deportation, the administration admitted he’d been removed through an “administrative error,” but stood by its decision.

The administration argued it had no power to compel the El Salvador government to release Abrego Garcia, despite a possibly illegal $6 million agreement with the country to detain the roughly 300 men.

A Maryland federal court and an appeals court ruled the administration must repatriate Abrego Garcia, whose wife and 5-year-old son are U.S. citizens, and the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the Trump administration must “facilitate” his return, but stopped short of requiring it.

The administration has done little to indicate it is complying with that order, earning a rebuke from a conservative judge on the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals.

“The Supreme Court’s decision does not … allow the government to do essentially nothing,” Circuit Court Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III wrote.  “‘Facilitate’ is an active verb. It requires that steps be taken as the Supreme Court has made perfectly clear.”

The administration’s relationship with the courts — delaying compliance with orders and showing a clear distaste for doing so — has led to the brink of a constitutional crisis, Arulanantham said.

“They’re playing footsy with disregarding court orders,” he said. “On the one hand, they’re not just complying. If they were complying, Abrego Garcia would be here now.”

But the administration has also not flagrantly refused to comply, Arulanantham added. “They’re sort of testing the bounds.”

Tariffs prompted market drop

Trump’s first 100 days spiraled into economic uncertainty as he ramped up tariffs on allies and trading partners. In early April, the president declared foreign trade a national emergency and shocked economies around the world with costly import taxes.

Following a week of market upheaval, Trump paused for 90 days what he had billed as “reciprocal” tariffs and left a universal 10% levy on nearly all countries, except China, which received a bruising 125%.

Some products, including pharmaceuticals, semiconductors, lumber and copper, remain exempt for now, though the administration is eyeing the possibilities of tariffs on those goods.

The administration now contends it will strike trade deals with some 90 foreign governments over the pause, set to expire in July.

Meanwhile, an all-out trade war rages with China after Trump hiked tariffs on the world’s no. 2 economy even further to 145%. China responded with 125% tariffs on U.S. goods. The two economies share a massive trading relationship, both in the top three for each other’s imports and exports.

‘Chaotic’ strategy

Inu Manak, fellow for trade policy at the Council on Foreign Relations, summed up Trump’s first 100 days as “chaotic.”

“We haven’t seen anything like this in our U.S. history in terms of how trade policy is being handled. It’s very ad hoc,” Manak said.

“U.S. businesses can’t figure out what to do. And even for the large companies, it’s hard for them to know some of the long-term trajectories of where this was going to go,” Manak said.

Shortly after his second term began, Trump declared a national emergency over illicit fentanyl entering the U.S. — an unprecedented move to trigger import taxes — and began escalating tariffs on Chinese goods, as well as up to 25% on certain products crossing the borders from Canada and Mexico.

Trump hiked existing tariffs on steel and aluminum in mid-March under trade provisions meant to protect domestic production and national security, followed by 25% levies on foreign cars and auto parts — though Trump signed two executive orders Tuesday to grant some tariff relief to carmakers. 

The import taxes have alarmed investors, small businesses and American consumers following the 2024 presidential campaign when Trump made lowering prices a major tenet of his platform.

The latest University of Michigan survey of consumers — a staple indicator for economists — reported consumer outlook on personal finances and business conditions took a nosedive in April. Expectations dropped 32% since January, the largest three-month percentage decline since the 1990 recession, according to the analysis. 

Manak said Trump’s tariffs are “really at odds with” with the administration’s objectives of helping U.S. manufacturers and cutting costs for Americans.

“The U.S. now has the highest tariff rates in the world,” she said. “That’s going to hurt both consuming industries that import products to make things, and then consumers as well. We’re starting to see notifications coming out on layoffs, and some small businesses considering closing up shop already. And the tariffs haven’t been in place for that long.”

Rhett Buttle, of Small Business for America’s Future, said the policies are “causing real damage in terms of not just planning, but in terms of day-to-day operations.”

Buttle, a senior advisor for the advocacy group that claims 85,000 small business members, said even if Trump begins to strike deals with other countries, entrepreneurs will likely be on edge for months to come.

“It’s that uncertainty that makes business owners not want to hire or not want to grow,” Buttle said. “So it’s like, ‘Okay, we got through this mess, but why would I hire a person if I don’t know if I’m gonna wake up in two weeks and there’s gonna be another announcement?’”

Support dropping

Trillions were erased from the U.S. stock market after “Liberation Day” — the White House’s term for the start of its global tariff policy. The S&P 500 index, which tracks the performance of the 500 largest U.S. companies, is overall down 8.5% since Trump’s inauguration, according to The Wall Street Journal’s analysis.

Numerous recent polls showed flagging support for Trump’s economic policies.

In a poll released Monday, Gallup found 89% of Americans believe tariffs will result in increasing prices. And a majority of Americans are concerned about an economic recession and increasing costs of groceries and other goods, according to an Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research survey between April 17 and April 22.

The Pew Research Center similarly found a growing gloomy outlook among U.S. adults from April 7 to April 13. Results showed a majority of Americans — 59% across race, age and income levels — disapproved of Trump’s approach to tariffs. But when broken down by party, the survey showed a majority of Democrats disapprove while the majority of Republicans approve of the tariff policy.

American households are poised to lose up to $2,600 annually if tariffs remain in place and U.S. fiscal policy doesn’t change, according to the Yale Budget Lab. Analyses show low-income households will be disproportionately affected.

“If these tariffs stay in place, some folks are going to benefit, but a lot of people are going to get hurt,” Manak said.

The White House did not respond to a request for comment.

Government spending

Trump began his second term with a flurry of action on government spending, challenging the balance of power between the president and Congress.

Efforts to unilaterally cancel funding already approved by lawmakers, who hold the authority to spend federal dollars under the Constitution, led to confusion and frustration from both Democrats and Republicans, especially after the U.S. DOGE Service froze allocations on programs that have long elicited bipartisan support.

Many of the Trump administration’s efforts to roll back appropriations are subject to injunctions from federal courts, blocking the cuts from moving forward while the lawsuits advance through the judicial system.

Kevin Kosar, senior fellow at the conservative-leaning American Enterprise Institute, said Trump’s actions on spending so far have sought to expand the bounds of presidential authority.

“We’ve never seen a president in modern times who’s been this aggressive in trying to seize control of the power of the purse,” he said. “To just say, ‘I’m not going to fund this agency, like USAID, despite money being appropriated for it. And we’re going to walk over and take their plaque off their wall and lock their doors.’ This is new.”

Many of Trump’s actions so far indicate to Kosar that the administration expects a change to the balance of power following next year’s midterm elections, when the president’s party historically loses control of at least one chamber of Congress.

“It feels to me that the first 100 days are in large part predicated on an assumption that they may only have two years of unified Republican control of the House of Representatives, the Senate and the presidency,” he said. “We know the margins in the House are quite narrow, and the heavy use of executive actions and the simple defunding of various government contracts and agencies all through executive action, just tell me that the administration feels like they have to get everything done as fast as they possibly can, because the time is short.”

Kosar said he’s watching to see if Trump works with Republicans in Congress, while they still have unified control, to codify his executive orders into law — something he didn’t do with many of the unilateral actions he took during his first term.

“He just did executive actions, which, of course, (President Joe) Biden just undid,” he said. “And I’m just wondering: Are we going to see this movie all over again? Or is he going to actually partner with Congress on these various policy matters and pass statutes so that they stick?”

Zachary Peskowitz, associate professor of political science at Emory University, said Trump has been much more “assertive” during the last 100 days than during the first few months of 2017.

DOGE ‘winding down’

U.S. DOGE Service and Musk hit the ground running, though their actions have fallen short of the goals he set, and appear to be sunsetting with the billionaire turning his attention back toward his businesses.

“I think the big bang is winding down. They did a lot of things early on. It’s not clear how many of them are going to stick, what the consequences are,” Peskowitz said. “And I think, big picture, in terms of federal spending, the amounts of money that may have been saved or not are pretty small.”

Democrats in Congress released a tracker Tuesday listing which accounts the Trump administration has frozen or canceled to the tune of more than $430 billion.

But Trump has just gotten started.

The administration plans to submit its first budget request to Congress in the coming days, a step that’s typically taken in early February, though it happens a couple months behind schedule during a president’s first year.

That massive tax-and-spending proposal will begin the classic tug-of-war between Congress, which will draft the dozen annual appropriations bills, and Trump, who has shown a willingness to act unilaterally when he doesn’t get his way.

Trump and lawmakers must agree to some sort of government funding bill before the start of the fiscal year on Oct. 1, otherwise a partial government shutdown would begin. And unlike the reconciliation package that Republicans can enact all on their own, funding bills require some Democratic support to move past the Senate’s 60-vote cloture threshold.

Eliminating the Education Department

Researchers and advocates predicted even more changes to the federal role in education, underscoring anti-diversity, equity and inclusion efforts and a continued ideological battle with higher education that have marked Trump’s approach to education policy in his first 100 days.

In a torrent of education-related decisions, Trump and his administration have tried to dismantle the Education Department via an executive order, slashed more than 1,300 employees at the department, threatened to revoke funds for schools that use DEI practices and cracked down on “woke” higher education.

The Trump administration has taken drastic steps to revoke federal funding for a number of elite universities in an attempt to make the institutions align more with them ideologically.

Rachel Perera, a governance studies fellow at the Brown Center on Education Policy at the Brookings Institution, cited “brazen lawlessness” when reflecting on Trump’s approach to higher education in his second term.

“The ways that they’re trying to withhold funding from universities are very clearly in violation of federal law and the processes mandated by civil rights law in terms of ensuring that institutions are offered due process in assessing whether violations have taken place,” Perera said. “There’s not even a pretense of pretending to investigate some of these institutions before taking really dramatic action.”

Whether the administration’s approach continues or not depends on court action, she added.

“I think what the next three years might look like is really going to depend on how some of these lawsuits play out,” Perera said, referencing some of the major legal battles involving the Trump administration. 

Wil Del Pilar, senior vice president at the nonprofit policy and advocacy group EdTrust, said “much of what this administration has done has been overreach.” He pointed to the Education Department’s letter threatening to yank federal funds for schools that use race-conscious practices across aspects of student life as one example.

Del Pilar, who was previously deputy secretary of postsecondary and higher education for the state of Pennsylvania, said the administration is “going to take any opportunity to grab at power that advances their ideology.”

Meanwhile, Perera said the consequences of the department implementing a reduction in force plan in March “have yet to be felt.”

“I think we will start to see really the material consequences of the reduced staffing capacity in the coming years, in terms of how programs are administered, in terms of how funding is moving out the building, in terms of auditing, making sure funding is going to the right groups of students that Congress intended for the money to go to, whether big data collection efforts that are congressionally mandated are being carried out in timely and effective ways,” she said.

“All of that remains to be seen.”

Ariana Figueroa contributed to this report. 

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., speaks during a nomination hearing with the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs on Capitol Hill on April 03, 2025, in Washington, D.C.  Paul was the sole GOP co-sponsor on Wednesday, April 30, 2025, of a resolution to terminate President Donald Trump's tariffs. (Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — Senate Republicans defended President Donald Trump’s emergency tariffs Wednesday, blocking a largely symbolic measure to terminate the president’s import taxes that have shocked the economy.

The resolution failed in a tied 49-49 vote Wednesday evening. Vice President J.D. Vance broke the tie on a subsequent procedural vote to stop the measure from receiving another chance on the floor.

Republicans Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Rand Paul of Kentucky were the only three to break with their party in support of reining in Trump’s use of emergency powers to trigger tariffs on nearly every other nation across the globe.

Paul was the lone Republican co-sponsor on the Senate resolution, which was likely to go nowhere under House Republican leadership.

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, a Rhode Island Democrat, and Kentucky Republican Mitch McConnell missed the vote. Earlier in April McConnell joined Collins and Murkowski in voting to halt Trump’s tariffs on Canada.

‘Devastating’ economic news

The vote came hours after the release of figures showing the U.S. economy shrank during the first quarter of 2025. 

“The devastating economic news we got this morning should be enough for senators to vote yes tonight. The only winner today is China, which is scooping up markets and allies Donald Trump has left in the dust,” Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon said on the floor just before the vote.

Wyden and Paul co-sponsored the resolution that aimed to block Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs announced April 2 that caused market upheaval.

The president’s shockingly high taxes on goods imported from some of the nation’s closest trading partners — 20% on the European Union, 24% on Japan, 46% on Vietnam — rocked global markets, erasing trillions in wealth. Trump triggered the levies by declaring foreign trade as a national emergency.

Trump announced a 90-day pause on the tariffs starting April 9, but left in place a 10% universal import tax on nearly every country across the globe — excluding China.

The White House is now in an all-out trade war with the world’s no. 2 economy, raising tariffs on Chinese goods to 145%. China stopped at a 125% levy on American goods.

Kaine warning

Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine, who also co-sponsored the resolution, told reporters on a press call Wednesday that he’s willing to “link arms” with Trump to fight what the U.S. views as China’s unfair trade practices, but he said Trump needs to “wake up and smell the coffee” on the damage to relationships with trading partners.

“When you put tariffs on allies what you do is push away the very nations you could be joining with to counter China,” the Virginia Democrat said.

Kaine also blamed Trump’s trade policy for Wednesday’s negative economic headlines.

The Bureau of Economic Analysis report showed the U.S. gross domestic product decreased at an annual rate of 0.3% in the first three months of this year.

“It’s the wrong economic strategy to turn the strongest economy in the world to one that has red flashing lights on it,” Kaine said.

Kaine said he believed some House Republicans would support the resolution but that “leadership has bottled it up.”

Trump blames Biden

Trump’s administration officials and his allies in Congress continue to defend the tariffs. The president himself blames former President Joe Biden for the economic “hangover,” as he described it in his Truth Social post Wednesday.

“This will take a while, has NOTHING TO DO WITH TARIFFS, only that he left us with bad numbers, but when the boom begins, it will be like no other. BE PATIENT!!!,” Trump wrote.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune similarly told reporters on Capitol Hill Wednesday that economic reports are “short term.”

“They measure it sort of day by day, month by month, quarter by quarter. And as I said yesterday, I think that with the tariff issue that they’re playing the long game, but we’ll see,” the South Dakota Republican said.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent defended Trump’s import taxes Tuesday from the White House briefing room, but also announced the administration’s reprieve on 25% taxes on foreign cars and auto parts.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer slammed the vote Wednesday night.

“Leader Thune and Senate Republicans tonight voted to keep the Trump tariff-tax in place. They own the Trump tariffs and higher costs on America’s middle-class families,” the New York Democrat said in a statement.

A U.S. Border Patrol official vehicle  is shown parked near the border. (Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — U.S. House Judiciary Republicans Wednesday worked in committee on a portion of a major legislative package that would help fund President Donald Trump’s plans to conduct mass deportations of people living in the United States without permanent legal status.

The Judiciary panel’s $81 billion share of the “one, big beautiful” bill the president has requested of Congress would provide $45 billion for immigration detention centers, $8 billion to hire thousands of immigration enforcement officers and more than $14 billion for deportations, among other things.

The border security and immigration funds are part of a massive package that wraps together White House priorities including tax cuts and defense spending boosts. Republicans are pushing the deal through using a special procedure known as reconciliation that will allow the Senate GOP to skirt its usual 60-vote threshold when that chamber acts.

House Republicans returning from a two-week recess kicked off their work on reconciliation Tuesday, approving three of 11 bills out of committees on Armed Services, Education and Workforce and Homeland Security.

On Wednesday, lawmakers continued work on the various sections of the reconciliation bill with markups — which means a bill is debated and potentially amended or rewritten — in the Financial Services, Judiciary, Transportation and Infrastructure and Oversight and Government Reform committees.

House Speaker Mike Johnson of Louisiana said Republicans will spend the rest of this week and next debating the 11 separate bills in committees. Committees when they finish their measures will send them to the House Budget Committee, which is expected to bundle them together prior to a floor vote.

The Judiciary panel’s 116-page bill vastly overhauls U.S. asylum laws. It would, for example, create a fee structure for asylum seekers that would set a minimum cost for an application at no less than $1,000. Applications now are free.

“These and other resources and fees in this reconciliation bill will ensure the Trump administration has the adequate resources to enforce the immigration laws in a fiscally responsible way,” GOP Chair Jim Jordan of Ohio said.

The bill would establish a $1,000 fee for immigrants granted temporary protected status, which would mean they would have work authorizations and deportation protections.

It would also require sponsors to pay $3,500 to take in an unaccompanied minor who crosses the border without a legal status. Typically, unaccompanied minors are released to sponsors who are family members living in the United States.

The bill would also require immigrants without permanent legal status to pay a $550 fee for work permits every six months.

The top Democrat on the panel, Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland, slammed the bill as targeting immigrants.

“Every day, this administration uses immigration enforcement as a template to erode constitutional rights and liberties,” he said.

A final committee vote was expected Wednesday night.

‘A giveaway to ICE’

The Judiciary bill directs half of the fees collected from asylum seekers to go toward the agency that handles U.S. immigration courts, but Democrats criticized the provisions as creating a barrier for asylum seekers.

“The so-called immigration fees that are in this bill are really fines and nothing but a cruel attempt to make immigrating to this country impossible,” Washington Democratic Rep. Pramila Jayapal said.

Democratic Rep. Chuy Garcia of Illinois, said the bill would not only “gut asylum” but would significantly increase funding for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention.

Funding for ICE detention this fiscal year is roughly $3.4 billion, but the Judiciary bill would sharply increase that to $45 billion.

Garcia called the increase a “a giveaway to ICE, a rogue agency that’s terrorizing communities and clamping (down) on civil liberties and the Constitution itself, because they’ve been directed to do so by this president.”

House Republicans have also included language that would move the Federal Trade Commission into the Department of Justice’s antitrust division, a move Democrats argued would kneecap the FTC’s regulatory authority.

“You’re trying to shutter the FTC, the Federal Trade Commission, making it harder for us to enforce our antitrust laws,” Democratic Rep. Becca Balint of Vermont said.

Consumer protections to take a hit

Lawmakers on the House Committee on Financial Services met in a lengthy, and at times tense, session to finalize legislation to cut “no less than” $1 billion from government programs and services under the panel’s jurisdiction, according to the budget resolution Congress approved in April.

Funds in the crosshairs include those previously authorized for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and grants provided under the Biden administration-era Inflation Reduction Act for homeowners to improve energy efficiency.

Chair French Hill said the committee “will do its part to reduce the deficit and decrease direct spending, so that Congress can enact pro-growth tax policies.”

“And remember, today, we are here with one purpose, to do our part to put our nation back on a responsible fiscal trajectory,” the Arkansas Republican said.

Democrats introduced dozens of amendments during the hourslong session to block cuts to community block grants and programs protecting consumers, including veterans, from illegal credit and lending practices.

Ranking member Maxine Waters said committee Republicans’ plans to cut the CFPB by 70% “is ridiculous.”

“The bureau has saved American consumers $21 billion by returning to them funds that big banks and predatory lenders swindled out of them,” said Waters, a California Democrat.

Congress created the CFPB in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, when subprime mortgage lending cascaded into bank failures and home and job losses.

Republicans opposed amendment after amendment.

Rep. María Salazar of Florida tossed a copy of one of Waters’ lengthy amendments straight into a trash can after a staffer handed it to her. Michigan’s Rep. Bill Huizenga held up proceedings for several minutes when he accused Waters of breaking the rules by not distributing enough paper copies of her amendment.

“We cannot allow our government to continue spending money like there are no consequences,” GOP Rep. Mike Flood of Nebraska said in response to several Democratic amendments.

A final committee vote was expected Wednesday night.

Transportation section adds fees on electric vehicles

The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee also approved, by a party line 36-30 vote, reconciliation instructions that would cut $10 billion from the federal deficit while boosting spending for the U.S. Coast Guard and the air traffic control system.

Like other portions of the larger reconciliation package, the transportation committee’s instructions would add funding for national security and border enforcement, through the Coast Guard funding, while cutting money from programs favored by Democrats, including climate programs and any spending that could be construed as race-conscious.

The bill would provide $21.2 billion for the Coast Guard and $12.5 billion for air traffic control systems. It would raise money through a $250 annual fee on electric vehicles and a $100 annual fee on hybrids, while also cutting $4.6 billion from climate programs created in Democrats’ 2022 reconciliation package.

Chairman Sam Graves, a Missouri Republican, said the measure included priorities for members of both parties, as well as business and labor interests.

“We all want to invest in our Coast Guard,” he said. “We all want to rebuild our air traffic control system and finally address the broken Highway Trust Fund. We have held countless hearings on all of these topics, both recently and, frankly, for years. And now members have the opportunity to actually act.”

Democrats on the panel complained that the reconciliation package was a partisan exercise and a departure from the panel’s normally congenial approach to business. They introduced dozens of amendments over the daylong committee meeting seeking to add funding for various programs. None were adopted.

“The larger Republican reconciliation package will add more than $15 trillion in new debt, gives away $7 trillion in deficit-financed tax cuts to the wealthy and slashes access to health care and food assistance for families,” ranking Democrat Rick Larsen of Washington said. “Given that, I think we’re going to have to vote no on the bill before us.”

The vehicle fees, which would be deposited into the Highway Trust Fund that sends highway and transit money to states, created a partisan divide Wednesday.

Federal gas taxes provide the lion’s share of deposits to the fund and Republicans argued that, because drivers of electric vehicles pay no gas taxes and hybrid drivers pay less than those who drive gas-powered cars, the provision would make the contributions fairer.

Republicans scrapped a proposed $20 annual fee on gas-powered cars, which Graves said was meant to “start a conversation” on the solvency of the Highway Trust Fund. But the provision “became a political distraction that no longer centered around seriously addressing the problem,” he said.

Pennsylvania Democrat Chris Deluzio criticized the vehicle fees, noting Republicans were pursuing additional revenue opportunities to offset losses from tax cuts.

“I don’t know when you guys became the tax-and-spend liberals,” Deluzio told his Republican colleagues. “But I guess the taxing of car owners so you can pay for tax giveaways to billionaires is your new strategy. Good luck with that.”

Federal employee benefits targeted

The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform voted nearly along party lines, 22-21, to send its portion of the reconciliation package to the Budget Committee, with Ohio Republican Rep. Mike Turner joining Democrats in opposition.

Turner was the first GOP lawmaker to cast a committee vote against reconciliation instructions this year.

The legislation hits at federal employee benefits and comes as the Trump administration continues to overhaul the federal workforce.

Part of the bill would raise federal employees’ required retirement contribution to a rate of 4.4% of their salary and eliminate an additional retirement annuity payment for federal employees who retire before the age of 62, while cutting more than $50 billion from the federal deficit.

At his committee’s markup, Chairman James Comer said the legislation “advances important budgetary reforms that will save taxpayers money.”

The Kentucky Republican acknowledged that the chief investigative committee in the U.S. House has “very limited jurisdiction to help reduce the federal budget deficit,” noting that the panel is “empowered to pursue civil service reforms, including federal employee benefits and reining in the influence of partisan and unaccountable government employee unions.”

But Democrats on the panel blasted the committee’s portion of the reconciliation package, saying the bill chips away at federal employees’ protections.

Rep. Stephen Lynch, the top Democrat on the panel, said congressional Republicans instructed the panel to target the federal workforce with roughly $50 billion in funding cuts “regardless of the impact on hard-working, loyal federal employees and their critical services that they provide to the American people.”

The Massachusetts Democrat said the bill “threatens to further undermine the federal workforce by reducing the take-home pay, the benefits and workforce protections of 2.4 million federal employees, most of whom are middle-class Americans and a third of whom are military veterans.”

Ohio’s Turner, who voted against the legislation because of the provision reducing pension benefits, said he supported the overall reconciliation package and hoped the pension measure would be stripped before a floor vote.

Turner said “making changes to pension retirement benefits in the middle of someone’s employment is wrong.” 

Demonstrators holds signs as a motorist passes with flags supporting President Donald Trump during an April 5, 2025, protest in Columbia, South Carolina. Protestors organized nationwide demonstrations against Trump administration policies and Elon Musk's U.S. DOGE Service. (Photo by Sean Rayford/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — Tuesday marked the 100th day of President Donald Trump’s second term, a period filled almost daily with executive orders seeking to expand presidential power, court challenges to block those orders and economic anxiety that undermines his promised prosperity.

Trump has taken decisive actions that have polarized the electorate. He’s used obscure authorities to increase deportations, upended longstanding trade policy with record-high tariffs, made drastic cuts to the federal workforce and ordered the closure of the Education Department.

Those moves have garnered mixed results and led to legal challenges.

The approach to immigration enforcement has yielded lower numbers of unauthorized border crossings compared to last year. But the immigration crackdown has barreled the country toward a constitutional crisis through various clashes with the judiciary branch.

Those nearing retirement have watched their savings shrink as Trump’s blunt application of tariffs, which he promises will replace income taxes, roils markets. Administration officials have promised the short-term tariff pain will benefit the country in the long term.

And White House advisor and top campaign donor Elon Musk’s efforts at government efficiency have resulted in eliminations of wide swaths of government jobs. That includes about half of the Education Department workforce so far, though Trump has signed an executive order to eliminate the department.

The controversial moves appear unpopular, as Americans delivered record low approval ratings for a president so early in his term. Polls spearheaded by Fox News, NPR, Gallup and numerous others yield overall disapproval of Trump’s job performance.

Deportation push tests legal boundaries

Immigration was Trump’s signature issue on the campaign trail and his first 100 days were marked by a crackdown carried out against people with a range of immigration statuses and at least three U.S. citizen children. The aggressive push has led to clashes with the judiciary branch.

A burst of Inauguration Day executive orders Trump signed upon his return to office included some hardline immigration policies he’d promised.

On day one, he declared a national emergency at the U.S.-Mexico border that enabled his deployment two days later of 1,500 troops to help border enforcement.

He sought to end birthright citizenship and ended several forms of legal immigration, including humanitarian parole for people from certain countries, and suspended refugee resettlement services.

District courts blocked the birthright citizenship and refugee resettlement measures and an appeals court has upheld those interpretations. The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in May on birthright citizenship.

Trump’s record on immigration is a clear example of his desire to expand executive power, said Ahilan Arulanantham, a co-director of the Center for Immigration Law and Policy at the University of California Los Angeles School of Law.

“It’s an attempt to expand the government’s powers far beyond anything that we have seen before in this realm,” he said.

Unprecedented authorities

The administration has taken a series of actions considered nearly unprecedented to conduct mass deportations.

On March 8, immigration authorities detained Mahmoud Khalil, a lawful permanent resident who helped organize Palestinian protests at Columbia University.

Authorities never accused Khalil of committing a crime, but sought to revoke his green card under a Cold War-era provision that allows the secretary of State to remove lawful permanent residents if the secretary deems their presence has “potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences.”

Similar arrests followed at universities across the country.

In mid-March, Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to deport two planeloads of people his administration said belonged to the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua.

It was only the fourth time the law was invoked and the first outside of wartime. The first flights left U.S. soil en route to a mega-prison in El Salvador on Saturday, March 15, amid a hearing on the legality of using the law in peacetime.

When a federal judge entered an oral order to turn the flights around, the administration refused, arguing the oral order was not valid. The administration also ignored a subsequent written order demanding the return of the flights, later arguing the flights were outside U.S. airspace at that time and impossible to order returned.

Administration officials mocked the court order on social media.

The Supreme Court on April 7 allowed for the use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport suspected gang members of Tren de Aragua. However, the justices unanimously agreed that those removed under the wartime law needed to have due process and have a hearing to challenge their removal.

Abrego Garcia

A third March 15 flight carried a man who was mistakenly deported in an episode that has gained a national spotlight.

Maryland resident Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a native of El Salvador, had a final order of removal, but was granted deportation protections by an immigration judge because of the threat he would be harmed by gangs if he were returned to his home country. Despite the protective order, he was deported to the notorious Centro de Confinamiento del Terrorismo, or CECOT prison.

After his family sued over his deportation, the administration admitted he’d been removed through an “administrative error,” but stood by its decision.

The administration argued it had no power to compel the El Salvador government to release Abrego Garcia, despite a possibly illegal $6 million agreement with the country to detain the roughly 300 men.

A Maryland federal court and an appeals court ruled the administration must repatriate Abrego Garcia, whose wife and 5-year-old son are U.S. citizens, and the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the Trump administration must “facilitate” his return, but stopped short of requiring it.

The administration has done little to indicate it is complying with that order, earning a rebuke from a conservative judge on the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals.

“The Supreme Court’s decision does not … allow the government to do essentially nothing,” Circuit Court Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III wrote.  “‘Facilitate’ is an active verb. It requires that steps be taken as the Supreme Court has made perfectly clear.”

The administration’s relationship with the courts — delaying compliance with orders and showing a clear distaste for doing so — has led to the brink of a constitutional crisis, Arulanantham said.

“They’re playing footsy with disregarding court orders,” he said. “On the one hand, they’re not just complying. If they were complying, Abrego Garcia would be here now.”

But the administration has also not flagrantly refused to comply, Arulanantham added. “They’re sort of testing the bounds.”

Tariffs prompted market drop

Trump’s first 100 days spiraled into economic uncertainty as he ramped up tariffs on allies and trading partners. In early April, the president declared foreign trade a national emergency and shocked economies around the world with costly import taxes.

Following a week of market upheaval, Trump paused for 90 days what he had billed as “reciprocal” tariffs and left a universal 10% levy on nearly all countries, except China, which received a bruising 125%.

Some products, including pharmaceuticals, semiconductors, lumber and copper, remain exempt for now, though the administration is eyeing the possibilities of tariffs on those goods.

The administration now contends it will strike trade deals with some 90 foreign governments over the pause, set to expire in July.

Meanwhile, an all-out trade war rages with China after Trump hiked tariffs on the world’s no. 2 economy even further to 145%. China responded with 125% tariffs on U.S. goods. The two economies share a massive trading relationship, both in the top three for each other’s imports and exports.

‘Chaotic’ strategy

Inu Manak, fellow for trade policy at the Council on Foreign Relations, summed up Trump’s first 100 days as “chaotic.”

“We haven’t seen anything like this in our U.S. history in terms of how trade policy is being handled. It’s very ad hoc,” Manak said.

“U.S. businesses can’t figure out what to do. And even for the large companies, it’s hard for them to know some of the long-term trajectories of where this was going to go,” Manak said.

Shortly after his second term began, Trump declared a national emergency over illicit fentanyl entering the U.S. — an unprecedented move to trigger import taxes — and began escalating tariffs on Chinese goods, as well as up to 25% on certain products crossing the borders from Canada and Mexico.

Trump hiked existing tariffs on steel and aluminum in mid-March under trade provisions meant to protect domestic production and national security, followed by 25% levies on foreign cars and auto parts — though Trump signed two executive orders Tuesday to grant some tariff relief to carmakers. 

The import taxes have alarmed investors, small businesses and American consumers following the 2024 presidential campaign when Trump made lowering prices a major tenet of his platform.

The latest University of Michigan survey of consumers — a staple indicator for economists — reported consumer outlook on personal finances and business conditions took a nosedive in April. Expectations dropped 32% since January, the largest three-month percentage decline since the 1990 recession, according to the analysis. 

Manak said Trump’s tariffs are “really at odds with” with the administration’s objectives of helping U.S. manufacturers and cutting costs for Americans.

“The U.S. now has the highest tariff rates in the world,” she said. “That’s going to hurt both consuming industries that import products to make things, and then consumers as well. We’re starting to see notifications coming out on layoffs, and some small businesses considering closing up shop already. And the tariffs haven’t been in place for that long.”

Rhett Buttle, of Small Business for America’s Future, said the policies are “causing real damage in terms of not just planning, but in terms of day-to-day operations.”

Buttle, a senior advisor for the advocacy group that claims 85,000 small business members, said even if Trump begins to strike deals with other countries, entrepreneurs will likely be on edge for months to come.

“It’s that uncertainty that makes business owners not want to hire or not want to grow,” Buttle said. “So it’s like, ‘Okay, we got through this mess, but why would I hire a person if I don’t know if I’m gonna wake up in two weeks and there’s gonna be another announcement?’”

Support dropping

Trillions were erased from the U.S. stock market after “Liberation Day” — the White House’s term for the start of its global tariff policy. The S&P 500 index, which tracks the performance of the 500 largest U.S. companies, is overall down 8.5% since Trump’s inauguration, according to The Wall Street Journal’s analysis.

Numerous recent polls showed flagging support for Trump’s economic policies.

In a poll released Monday, Gallup found 89% of Americans believe tariffs will result in increasing prices. And a majority of Americans are concerned about an economic recession and increasing costs of groceries and other goods, according to an Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research survey between April 17 and April 22.

The Pew Research Center similarly found a growing gloomy outlook among U.S. adults from April 7 to April 13. Results showed a majority of Americans — 59% across race, age and income levels — disapproved of Trump’s approach to tariffs. But when broken down by party, the survey showed a majority of Democrats disapprove while the majority of Republicans approve of the tariff policy.

American households are poised to lose up to $2,600 annually if tariffs remain in place and U.S. fiscal policy doesn’t change, according to the Yale Budget Lab. Analyses show low-income households will be disproportionately affected.

“If these tariffs stay in place, some folks are going to benefit, but a lot of people are going to get hurt,” Manak said.

The White House did not respond to a request for comment.

Government spending

Trump began his second term with a flurry of action on government spending, challenging the balance of power between the president and Congress.

Efforts to unilaterally cancel funding already approved by lawmakers, who hold the authority to spend federal dollars under the Constitution, led to confusion and frustration from both Democrats and Republicans, especially after the U.S. DOGE Service froze allocations on programs that have long elicited bipartisan support.

Many of the Trump administration’s efforts to roll back appropriations are subject to injunctions from federal courts, blocking the cuts from moving forward while the lawsuits advance through the judicial system.

Kevin Kosar, senior fellow at the conservative-leaning American Enterprise Institute, said Trump’s actions on spending so far have sought to expand the bounds of presidential authority.

“We’ve never seen a president in modern times who’s been this aggressive in trying to seize control of the power of the purse,” he said. “To just say, ‘I’m not going to fund this agency, like USAID, despite money being appropriated for it. And we’re going to walk over and take their plaque off their wall and lock their doors.’ This is new.”

Many of Trump’s actions so far indicate to Kosar that the administration expects a change to the balance of power following next year’s midterm elections, when the president’s party historically loses control of at least one chamber of Congress.

“It feels to me that the first 100 days are in large part predicated on an assumption that they may only have two years of unified Republican control of the House of Representatives, the Senate and the presidency,” he said. “We know the margins in the House are quite narrow, and the heavy use of executive actions and the simple defunding of various government contracts and agencies all through executive action, just tell me that the administration feels like they have to get everything done as fast as they possibly can, because the time is short.”

Kosar said he’s watching to see if Trump works with Republicans in Congress, while they still have unified control, to codify his executive orders into law — something he didn’t do with many of the unilateral actions he took during his first term.

“He just did executive actions, which, of course, (President Joe) Biden just undid,” he said. “And I’m just wondering: Are we going to see this movie all over again? Or is he going to actually partner with Congress on these various policy matters and pass statutes so that they stick?”

Zachary Peskowitz, associate professor of political science at Emory University, said Trump has been much more “assertive” during the last 100 days than during the first few months of 2017.

DOGE ‘winding down’

U.S. DOGE Service and Musk hit the ground running, though their actions have fallen short of the goals he set, and appear to be sunsetting with the billionaire turning his attention back toward his businesses.

“I think the big bang is winding down. They did a lot of things early on. It’s not clear how many of them are going to stick, what the consequences are,” Peskowitz said. “And I think, big picture, in terms of federal spending, the amounts of money that may have been saved or not are pretty small.”

Democrats in Congress released a tracker Tuesday listing which accounts the Trump administration has frozen or canceled to the tune of more than $430 billion.

But Trump has just gotten started.

The administration plans to submit its first budget request to Congress in the coming days, a step that’s typically taken in early February, though it happens a couple months behind schedule during a president’s first year.

That massive tax-and-spending proposal will begin the classic tug-of-war between Congress, which will draft the dozen annual appropriations bills, and Trump, who has shown a willingness to act unilaterally when he doesn’t get his way.

Trump and lawmakers must agree to some sort of government funding bill before the start of the fiscal year on Oct. 1, otherwise a partial government shutdown would begin. And unlike the reconciliation package that Republicans can enact all on their own, funding bills require some Democratic support to move past the Senate’s 60-vote cloture threshold.

Eliminating the Education Department

Researchers and advocates predicted even more changes to the federal role in education, underscoring anti-diversity, equity and inclusion efforts and a continued ideological battle with higher education that have marked Trump’s approach to education policy in his first 100 days.

In a torrent of education-related decisions, Trump and his administration have tried to dismantle the Education Department via an executive order, slashed more than 1,300 employees at the department, threatened to revoke funds for schools that use DEI practices and cracked down on “woke” higher education.

The Trump administration has taken drastic steps to revoke federal funding for a number of elite universities in an attempt to make the institutions align more with them ideologically.

Rachel Perera, a governance studies fellow at the Brown Center on Education Policy at the Brookings Institution, cited “brazen lawlessness” when reflecting on Trump’s approach to higher education in his second term.

“The ways that they’re trying to withhold funding from universities are very clearly in violation of federal law and the processes mandated by civil rights law in terms of ensuring that institutions are offered due process in assessing whether violations have taken place,” Perera said. “There’s not even a pretense of pretending to investigate some of these institutions before taking really dramatic action.”

Whether the administration’s approach continues or not depends on court action, she added.

“I think what the next three years might look like is really going to depend on how some of these lawsuits play out,” Perera said, referencing some of the major legal battles involving the Trump administration. 

Wil Del Pilar, senior vice president at the nonprofit policy and advocacy group EdTrust, said “much of what this administration has done has been overreach.” He pointed to the Education Department’s letter threatening to yank federal funds for schools that use race-conscious practices across aspects of student life as one example.

Del Pilar, who was previously deputy secretary of postsecondary and higher education for the state of Pennsylvania, said the administration is “going to take any opportunity to grab at power that advances their ideology.”

Meanwhile, Perera said the consequences of the department implementing a reduction in force plan in March “have yet to be felt.”

“I think we will start to see really the material consequences of the reduced staffing capacity in the coming years, in terms of how programs are administered, in terms of how funding is moving out the building, in terms of auditing, making sure funding is going to the right groups of students that Congress intended for the money to go to, whether big data collection efforts that are congressionally mandated are being carried out in timely and effective ways,” she said.

“All of that remains to be seen.”

Ariana Figueroa contributed to this report. 

New Nissan cars are driven onto a rail car to be transported from an automobile processing terminal located at the Port of Los Angeles on April 3, 2024. (Photo by Mario Tama/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent signaled a reprieve on auto tariffs will come Tuesday ahead of the president’s stop in Michigan to mark his first 100 days in office.

Bessent and White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt confirmed President Donald Trump is expected to sign an executive order Tuesday curtailing the import taxes for domestic car manufacturers, but offered few specifics. The president’s 25% levy on cars and auto parts went into effect at the beginning of April.

“I’m not going to go into the details of the auto tariff relief, but I can tell you that it will go substantially toward reshoring American auto manufacturing,” Bessent said. “And again, the goal here is to bring back the high-quality industrial jobs to the U.S.”

The press secretary and Bessent began the day defending Trump’s trade policy as part of a weeklong morning press conference series marking the 100-day milestone in Trump’s second administration.

Investors and businesses have been on edge since Trump declared foreign trade a national emergency on April 2 and imposed what he billed as “reciprocal” tariffs on nearly every nation. Trump issued a 90-day pause on the steep levies — some reaching nearly 50% — after trillions of dollars disappeared from U.S. and world markets in reaction to the dramatic policy.

However, Trump dug in his heels on goods from China, increasing tariffs to 145%. Nearly all other countries face universal 10% baseline levy.

No deals yet

Nearly a month after the tariffs went into effect, Bessent told reporters the administration has not yet inked deals with any of the 17 trading partners, not counting China, currently in negotiations with the U.S. When pressed about a timeline for the deals, Bessent said Trump has created “strategic uncertainty” as a tool to get the best terms.

“I think the aperture of uncertainty will be narrowing, and as we start moving toward announcing deals, then there will be certainty. But certainty is not necessarily a good thing in negotiating,” Bessent said.

Bessent sidestepped questions about trade talks with China, saying he wouldn’t get “into the nitty-gritty of who’s talking to whom.” China has imposed 125% tariffs on U.S. goods and has denied any meaningful negotiations.

“I think that, you know, over time, we will see that the Chinese tariffs are unsustainable for China,” Bessent said, adding that China sends more goods to the U.S. than Americans send to China.

Americans’ approval of Trump’s job performance, particularly on economic policy, is lagging, according to numerous recent surveys.

In response to a report that Amazon will highlight spikes in prices due to tariffs, Leavitt said the e-commerce behemoth was committing a “hostile and political act.” Punchbowl News reported the story Tuesday citing “a person familiar with the plan.”

Amazon denied the report hours later, according to NPR and other outlets.

Tax cuts

When asked about potential economic damage from business owners clamping down on hiring and growth, Bessent told reporters “tax cuts are coming.”

The secretary said he and Trump met at the White House Monday with congressional Republicans, including House Speaker Mike Johnson of Louisiana and Senate Majority Leader John Thune of South Dakota.

Johnson and Thune have signaled different timelines — from Memorial Day to further into summer — for when Congress would finish a large budget reconciliation package, at the heart of which is Trump’s plan to extend his 2017 tax law.

Bessent said Trump wants the tax bill to revive and expand full business expensing, meaning businesses could write off expenses for certain investments, like equipment.

“The other thing that we are looking to add is full expensing for factories,” Bessent said. “So bring your factory back, you can fully expense the equipment and the building.”

New Nissan cars are driven onto a rail car to be transported from an automobile processing terminal located at the Port of Los Angeles on April 3, 2024. (Photo by Mario Tama/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent signaled a reprieve on auto tariffs will come Tuesday ahead of the president’s stop in Michigan to mark his first 100 days in office.

Bessent and White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt confirmed President Donald Trump is expected to sign an executive order Tuesday curtailing the import taxes for domestic car manufacturers, but offered few specifics. The president’s 25% levy on cars and auto parts went into effect at the beginning of April.

“I’m not going to go into the details of the auto tariff relief, but I can tell you that it will go substantially toward reshoring American auto manufacturing,” Bessent said. “And again, the goal here is to bring back the high-quality industrial jobs to the U.S.”

The press secretary and Bessent began the day defending Trump’s trade policy as part of a weeklong morning press conference series marking the 100-day milestone in Trump’s second administration.

Investors and businesses have been on edge since Trump declared foreign trade a national emergency on April 2 and imposed what he billed as “reciprocal” tariffs on nearly every nation. Trump issued a 90-day pause on the steep levies — some reaching nearly 50% — after trillions of dollars disappeared from U.S. and world markets in reaction to the dramatic policy.

However, Trump dug in his heels on goods from China, increasing tariffs to 145%. Nearly all other countries face universal 10% baseline levy.

No deals yet

Nearly a month after the tariffs went into effect, Bessent told reporters the administration has not yet inked deals with any of the 17 trading partners, not counting China, currently in negotiations with the U.S. When pressed about a timeline for the deals, Bessent said Trump has created “strategic uncertainty” as a tool to get the best terms.

“I think the aperture of uncertainty will be narrowing, and as we start moving toward announcing deals, then there will be certainty. But certainty is not necessarily a good thing in negotiating,” Bessent said.

Bessent sidestepped questions about trade talks with China, saying he wouldn’t get “into the nitty-gritty of who’s talking to whom.” China has imposed 125% tariffs on U.S. goods and has denied any meaningful negotiations.

“I think that, you know, over time, we will see that the Chinese tariffs are unsustainable for China,” Bessent said, adding that China sends more goods to the U.S. than Americans send to China.

Americans’ approval of Trump’s job performance, particularly on economic policy, is lagging, according to numerous recent surveys.

In response to a report that Amazon will highlight spikes in prices due to tariffs, Leavitt said the e-commerce behemoth was committing a “hostile and political act.” Punchbowl News reported the story Tuesday citing “a person familiar with the plan.”

Amazon denied the report hours later, according to NPR and other outlets.

Tax cuts

When asked about potential economic damage from business owners clamping down on hiring and growth, Bessent told reporters “tax cuts are coming.”

The secretary said he and Trump met at the White House Monday with congressional Republicans, including House Speaker Mike Johnson of Louisiana and Senate Majority Leader John Thune of South Dakota.

Johnson and Thune have signaled different timelines — from Memorial Day to further into summer — for when Congress would finish a large budget reconciliation package, at the heart of which is Trump’s plan to extend his 2017 tax law.

Bessent said Trump wants the tax bill to revive and expand full business expensing, meaning businesses could write off expenses for certain investments, like equipment.

“The other thing that we are looking to add is full expensing for factories,” Bessent said. “So bring your factory back, you can fully expense the equipment and the building.”

U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee during her confirmation hearing on Jan. 15, 2025. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — A handful of Democratic U.S. senators sounded the alarm Friday after federal agents arrested a Wisconsin judge on charges she obstructed immigration officials from detaining a man in her courtroom, saying the arrest marked a new low in President Donald Trump’s treatment of the law.

Some congressional Democrats framed the FBI’s Friday morning arrest of Milwaukee County Judge Hannah Dugan as a grave threat to the U.S. system of government, saying it was part of Trump’s effort to expand his own power and undermine the judiciary, with which the administration has become increasingly noncompliant.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer decried the judge’s arrest on social media late Friday afternoon as a “dangerous escalation.”

“There are no kings in America. Trump and (Attorney General Pam) Bondi can’t just decide to arrest sitting judges at will and threaten judges into submission,” wrote Schumer, a New York Democrat.

Trump administration officials, including Bondi, defended the arrest as legitimate. The FBI had been investigating Dugan after U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers sought to detain an immigrant without legal authority to be in the country who was in her courtroom on a misdemeanor charge.

Bondi wrote on social media just after noon Eastern, “I can confirm that our @FBI agents just arrested Hannah Dugan — a county judge in Milwaukee — for allegedly helping an illegal alien avoid an arrest by @ICEgov. No one is above the law.”

Democrats object

Democrats in Washington who sounded their objections to the arrest Friday argued it subverted separation of powers.

Sen. Dick Durbin, the top Democrat on the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, said Trump “continues to test the limits of our Constitution — this time by arresting a sitting judge for allegedly obstructing an immigration operation at the courthouse.”

In a statement, Durbin added that local courtrooms should be off limits to immigration enforcement agents.

“When immigration enforcement officials interfere with our criminal justice system, it undermines public safety, prevents victims and witnesses from coming forward, and often prevents those who committed crimes from facing justice in the United States,” Durbin wrote.

Sen. Tammy Baldwin, who represents Wisconsin, issued a statement shortly after news of the arrest, calling it “a gravely serious and drastic move.”

“In the United States we have a system of checks and balances and separation of powers for damn good reasons,” Baldwin said.

“The Trump Administration just arrested a sitting judge,” Arizona’s Ruben Gallego said in a social media post. “This is what happens in authoritarian countries. Stand up now — or lose the power to do so later. The administration must drop all charges and respect separation of powers.”

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, who also sits on the Judiciary Committee, was more careful in his criticism but said Trump is “constantly challenging” separation of powers laid out in the Constitution.

“I don’t know what happened in Wisconsin, but amplifying this arrest as the Attorney General and FBI Director have done looks like part of a larger intimidation campaign against judges,” the Rhode Island Democrat said in a statement.

In a since-deleted post on Bluesky, Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey accused Trump of “using immigrants to justify an all-out assault on our democracy and rule of law.

“After openly defying a Supreme Court order, calling for judges to be impeached, and bullying and belittling judges, today his FBI director took the extreme step of ordering a sitting judge arrested,” Booker wrote, referring to the high court’s order that the Trump administration “facilitate” the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who is being held in El Salvador.

Spokespeople for Booker did not respond to a late Friday inquiry about why the post was taken down.

Trump officials back up arrest

Administration officials boasted online following the arrest.

FBI Director Kash Patel deleted a post on X in which he wrote Dugan  “intentionally misdirected federal agents away” from Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, a 30-year-old Mexican immigrant accused of misdemeanor battery.

Trump posted a screenshot on his social media site from the conservative activist account “Libs of TikTok” that featured a photo of Dugan and celebrated her arrest.

White House Border Czar Tom Homan said that Dugan crossed a line in her opposition to the administration’s agenda.

“People can choose to support illegal immigration and not assist ICE in removing criminal illegal aliens from our communities, BUT DON’T CROSS THAT LINE,” he wrote on X. “If you actively impede our enforcement efforts or if you knowingly harbor or conceal illegal aliens from ICE you will be prosecuted. These actions are felonies. More to come…”

Trump vs. courts

Trump and administration officials have publicly attacked judges online, including calling for the impeachment of District Judge James Boasberg for the District of Columbia after he ordered immigration officials to halt deportation flights to El Salvador.

The administration allowed the flights to reach Central America, and is now at risk of being held in criminal contempt of court as a legal fight plays out.

The president’s verbal attacks on Boasberg prompted a rare rebuke from U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts in mid-March.

And the administration has seemingly refused to do anything to facilitate the return of Maryland resident Abrego Garcia from a notorious El Salvador mega-prison, despite a Supreme Court order.

U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee during her confirmation hearing on Jan. 15, 2025. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — A handful of Democratic U.S. senators sounded the alarm Friday after federal agents arrested a Wisconsin judge on charges she obstructed immigration officials from detaining a man in her courtroom, saying the arrest marked a new low in President Donald Trump’s treatment of the law.

Some congressional Democrats framed the FBI’s Friday morning arrest of Milwaukee County Judge Hannah Dugan as a grave threat to the U.S. system of government, saying it was part of Trump’s effort to expand his own power and undermine the judiciary, with which the administration has become increasingly noncompliant.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer decried the judge’s arrest on social media late Friday afternoon as a “dangerous escalation.”

“There are no kings in America. Trump and (Attorney General Pam) Bondi can’t just decide to arrest sitting judges at will and threaten judges into submission,” wrote Schumer, a New York Democrat.

Trump administration officials, including Bondi, defended the arrest as legitimate. The FBI had been investigating Dugan after U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers sought to detain an immigrant without legal authority to be in the country who was in her courtroom on a misdemeanor charge.

Bondi wrote on social media just after noon Eastern, “I can confirm that our @FBI agents just arrested Hannah Dugan — a county judge in Milwaukee — for allegedly helping an illegal alien avoid an arrest by @ICEgov. No one is above the law.”

Democrats object

Democrats in Washington who sounded their objections to the arrest Friday argued it subverted separation of powers.

Sen. Dick Durbin, the top Democrat on the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, said Trump “continues to test the limits of our Constitution — this time by arresting a sitting judge for allegedly obstructing an immigration operation at the courthouse.”

In a statement, Durbin added that local courtrooms should be off limits to immigration enforcement agents.

“When immigration enforcement officials interfere with our criminal justice system, it undermines public safety, prevents victims and witnesses from coming forward, and often prevents those who committed crimes from facing justice in the United States,” Durbin wrote.

Sen. Tammy Baldwin, who represents Wisconsin, issued a statement shortly after news of the arrest, calling it “a gravely serious and drastic move.”

“In the United States we have a system of checks and balances and separation of powers for damn good reasons,” Baldwin said.

“The Trump Administration just arrested a sitting judge,” Arizona’s Ruben Gallego said in a social media post. “This is what happens in authoritarian countries. Stand up now — or lose the power to do so later. The administration must drop all charges and respect separation of powers.”

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, who also sits on the Judiciary Committee, was more careful in his criticism but said Trump is “constantly challenging” separation of powers laid out in the Constitution.

“I don’t know what happened in Wisconsin, but amplifying this arrest as the Attorney General and FBI Director have done looks like part of a larger intimidation campaign against judges,” the Rhode Island Democrat said in a statement.

In a since-deleted post on Bluesky, Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey accused Trump of “using immigrants to justify an all-out assault on our democracy and rule of law.

“After openly defying a Supreme Court order, calling for judges to be impeached, and bullying and belittling judges, today his FBI director took the extreme step of ordering a sitting judge arrested,” Booker wrote, referring to the high court’s order that the Trump administration “facilitate” the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who is being held in El Salvador.

Spokespeople for Booker did not respond to a late Friday inquiry about why the post was taken down.

Trump officials back up arrest

Administration officials boasted online following the arrest.

FBI Director Kash Patel deleted a post on X in which he wrote Dugan  “intentionally misdirected federal agents away” from Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, a 30-year-old Mexican immigrant accused of misdemeanor battery.

Trump posted a screenshot on his social media site from the conservative activist account “Libs of TikTok” that featured a photo of Dugan and celebrated her arrest.

White House Border Czar Tom Homan said that Dugan crossed a line in her opposition to the administration’s agenda.

“People can choose to support illegal immigration and not assist ICE in removing criminal illegal aliens from our communities, BUT DON’T CROSS THAT LINE,” he wrote on X. “If you actively impede our enforcement efforts or if you knowingly harbor or conceal illegal aliens from ICE you will be prosecuted. These actions are felonies. More to come…”

Trump vs. courts

Trump and administration officials have publicly attacked judges online, including calling for the impeachment of District Judge James Boasberg for the District of Columbia after he ordered immigration officials to halt deportation flights to El Salvador.

The administration allowed the flights to reach Central America, and is now at risk of being held in criminal contempt of court as a legal fight plays out.

The president’s verbal attacks on Boasberg prompted a rare rebuke from U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts in mid-March.

And the administration has seemingly refused to do anything to facilitate the return of Maryland resident Abrego Garcia from a notorious El Salvador mega-prison, despite a Supreme Court order.

The U.S. Supreme Court building. (Photo by Ariana Figueroa/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration asked the U.S. Supreme Court Thursday to block a lower court’s decision allowing transgender individuals to continue enlisting and serving in the armed forces.

Administration officials are seeking a stay of a broad district court ruling in late March that applied to all troops rather than only to those who challenged President Donald Trump’s executive order in court. The U.S. Appeals Court for the 9th Circuit upheld the lower court’s ruling Friday.

The government contends its policy does not discriminate against an entire class of people, but rather finds a diagnosis or history of gender dysphoria to be disqualifying. Gender dysphoria is recognized by medical professionals as distress caused by an incongruence between a person’s gender identity and their sex at birth.

In its application to the Supreme Court Thursday afternoon, the Department of Justice argued it’s likely to succeed in the case because the newly adopted policy does not differ widely from those in place under former secretaries of defense.

“The policy was based in part on the findings of a panel of experts convened during the first Trump Administration, which found that service by individuals with gender dysphoria was contrary to ‘military effectiveness and lethality,’” wrote John Sauer, Trump’s solicitor general.

Sauer also argued the district court’s universal order violated the power of the president.

Trump issued an executive order on Jan. 27, asserting the “adoption of a gender identity inconsistent with an individual’s sex conflicts with a soldier’s commitment to an honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle, even in one’s personal life.” Further, the order said that being transgender is “not consistent with the humility and selflessness required of a service member.”

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth issued the new policy a month later, reversing former President Joe Biden’s order allowing service members to transition and serve openly under their preferred gender identity.

Trump’s order immediately drew court challenges, including a separate case now in the U.S. Appeals Court for the District of Columbia.

A Department of Justice attorney arguing before the D.C. Circuit Tuesday alerted the judges that the administration would “imminently” appeal the 9th Circuit decision to the Supreme Court.

Lambda Legal and the Human Rights Foundation, who are representing plaintiffs in the 9th Circuit case, released a statement in response Tuesday asserting, “Transgender service members have been openly serving our country with honor and distinction for almost a decade and have met and are meeting every neutral service-based standard.”

“The U.S. Supreme Court should reject the invitation to stay the district court’s injunction so that they can impose their discriminatory ban while the litigation proceeds,” the statement said.

The administration’s emergency application to the high court Thursday is just the latest in the administration’s whack-a-mole battle against lower federal court rulings that have blocked White House actions, particularly on immigration.
 

U.S. Senate Majority Leader John Thune and U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson hold a press conference on the Republican budget resolution at the U.S. Capitol on April 10, 2025. The Republican leaders each face a challenge in uniting their divided conferences to pass a massive tax and spending plan supported by President Donald Trump. (Photo by Kayla Bartkowski/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — Republicans in Congress have a difficult few months ahead of them as they look to broker agreement within their exceptionally narrow majority on policy issues that have already begun to divide centrists from far-right members of the party.

The negotiations will be the first test of the sort for Speaker Mike Johnson and Senate Majority Leader John Thune, who weren’t in the top posts eight years ago when the GOP passed its last reconciliation package.

Tax law and funding cuts to Medicaid are the issues most likely to prevent one “big, beautiful bill” from moving through both chambers and reaching President Donald Trump’s desk.

Republican leaders will also need to be cautious as the package takes shape about what types of proposals their more vulnerable members vote on, especially if they hope to hold onto at least one chamber of Congress following next year’s midterm elections.

“The swing-district Republicans are in a tougher spot because their voters do want to see some of those tax cuts extended, but they don’t want to see it at the expense of programs like Medicaid,” said Dr. Ben Sommers, Huntley Quelch professor of health care economics at Harvard.

“And so they’re walking a tightrope,” he said. “And at least until there’s a final bill on the floor, a lot of them are going to just keep pushing that final decision down the road and hope that something else happens and that they don’t have to make that tough call.”

The decision to bundle together a permanent extension of the 2017 tax law, hundreds of billions in new spending on border security and defense, a rewrite of the nation’s energy policy and spending cuts means that centrist Republicans will have to cast one take-it-or-leave-it vote.

Breaking up the sweeping package into two or more bills would have given at-risk Republicans the opportunity for more tailored votes, but GOP leaders ultimately rejected that idea — a choice that will put moderates under increasing pressure as the legislation takes shape in the coming weeks.

Democrats in both chambers are expected to unanimously oppose the package.

Normally that would present a challenge in the Senate, where 60 votes are usually needed to limit debate on a bill and move onto final passage. But GOP leaders are using the reconciliation process to pass their bill, meaning they only need the support of a simple majority in the Senate. 

Slim margins

House committee chairs are expected to release and mark up 11 bills after the chamber returns from a two-week break in late April, though that’s only the first step.

Once the pieces are all bundled into one package, it will need to get across the House floor without losing more than three Republican votes, a much narrower threshold than the dozen GOP lawmakers in that chamber who voted against the final version of the 2017 tax law.

Republican leaders will then need to keep the party from making significant changes to the package in the Senate, where lawmakers will be able to offer as many amendments as they want when the bill comes to the floor.

That vote-a-rama will test party unity, with Democrats likely to propose amendments re-writing or eliminating specific sections of the bill — especially those addressing tax provisions benefiting the wealthy or corporations, and Medicaid spending cuts.

If more than three Senate Republicans break from the party to alter various elements, it could endanger final approval. However, if GOP senators from swing states vote to keep unpopular provisions in the bill, it could lead to them losing their next reelection bid to a Democrat.

Difference of opinion on Medicaid

The disagreement between centrist Republicans and far-right lawmakers over potential spending cuts to Medicaid is already on full display.

During floor debate on the budget resolution that cleared the way for Republicans to write the massive reconciliation package, Texas Rep. Chip Roy excoriated the state-federal health program for lower income Americans and some people with disabilities.

“Medicaid is debilitating the vulnerable, not helping them,” Roy said. “We are shoveling money out to the able-bodied on the back of expansion of Obamacare.”

On the other ideological side of the conference, a group of 14 centrist House Republicans sent a letter to GOP leaders a few days after voting to adopt the budget resolution to announce they “cannot and will not support a final reconciliation bill that includes any reduction in Medicaid coverage for vulnerable populations.”

“Cuts to Medicaid also threaten the viability of hospitals, nursing homes, and safety-net providers nationwide,” they wrote. “Many hospitals — particularly in rural and underserved areas — rely heavily on Medicaid funding, with some receiving over half their revenue from the program alone.

“Providers in these areas are especially at risk of closure, with many unable to recover. When hospitals close, it affects all constituents, regardless of healthcare coverage.”

Failed Obamacare repeal

Republican leaders in Congress will want to avoid a repeat of the last time the party tried to overhaul health care in a reconciliation package.

During Trump’s first term, following years of GOP politicians pledging to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, they sought to do just that through the same complex reconciliation process they’re using now.

Ultimately, twenty Republicans voted against the bill in the House and three GOP senators — Alaska’s Lisa Murkowski, Arizona’s John McCain and Maine’s Susan Collins — blocked that chamber’s repeal-and-replace bill.

Collins said in a floor speech at the time she voted against the House’s version of the bill for several reasons, including that it would have made “sweeping changes to the Medicaid program — an important safety net that for more than 50 years has helped poor and disabled individuals, including children and low-income seniors, receive health care.”

Murkowski wrote in a statement that she voted against the Senate’s so-called “skinny” repeal bill because “both sides must do better on process and substance.”

“I know that access to affordable care is a challenge for so many. I hear from fishermen who can’t afford the coverage that they have, small business owners who can’t afford insurance at all, and those who have gained coverage for the first time in their life,” Murkowski wrote. “These Alaskans have shared their anxiety that their personal situation may be made worse under the legislation considered this week.”

Medicaid cuts could hurt state budgets

GOP lawmakers in Congress won’t be the only members of the party that leaders need to keep in the fold. Republican governors may not have a vote in either chamber, but they do have considerable sway with their congressional delegations and many red states have a substantial percentage of their Medicaid programs covered by federal dollars.

Nevada Gov. Joe Lombardo released a letter last month seeking to assuage fears about potential federal cuts to Medicaid, writing that he was “actively engaged in conversations with the White House and others in the federal government to relay our state’s concerns.”

“An abrupt reduction in federal funding would not only disrupt care for those who rely on Medicaid, but would also destabilize public and private healthcare providers, leading to workforce reductions, service limitations, and financial strain on already overburdened health care facilities,” Lombardo wrote.

National Governors Association Chair Jared Polis, a Colorado Democrat, and Vice Chair Kevin Stitt, an Oklahoma Republican, wrote in a joint statement released in March that the organization is “committed to advocating for a robust and efficient health and human services system, including Medicaid.”

“Without consultation and proper planning, Congressionally proposed reductions to Medicaid would impact state budgets, rural hospitals and health care service providers,” they wrote. “It is necessary for Governors to have a seat at the table when discussing any reforms and cuts to Medicaid funding.”

Federal spending cuts to Medicaid could lead some of the 40 states that have expanded the program under Obamacare to roll it back, though Missouri, Oklahoma and South Dakota have the expansion in their constitutions, making the impact of congressional action more complicated for their budgets and residents.

Leighton Ku, professor of health policy and management at The George Washington University, said during an interview that even though GOP governors aren’t members of Congress, they still hold “powerful influence.”

“We’re talking about deep cuts in federal spending that will have profound effects on state economies and state employment,” Ku said. “Governors, particularly those who expanded Medicaid, should feel fairly nervous about: What are the implications for their states in terms of both their political futures as well as what it will do to their state economies?”

“Again, we’re talking about the possibility of maybe somewhere on the order of a million jobs being lost simply because of the Medicaid cuts,” he added. “And that should cause some trepidation among governors.”

Republicans in Congress, Ku said, are trying to reduce spending. But when it comes to Medicaid, where the cost of administering the program is split between states and the federal government, any change to the federal share will come at the expense of the states.

“So the states end up being losers,” he said. “And this will cause states’ governors some unease. Again, it depends on where they lie politically: They may still be willing to accept cuts if it fits in with their ideologies.”

State and local taxes

Republicans also find themselves in a sticky situation when it comes to a major tax provision set to expire at the end of 2025: a limit on the amount of state and local taxes a taxpayer can deduct on their federal tax return. The limit is often simply referred to as the SALT cap.

Like proposed Medicaid cuts, the SALT debate has potential to change the calculus of Republicans willing to vote for the one large reconciliation bill.

For many years prior to the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, taxpayers were able to take full advantage of deducting state and local taxes from their federal taxable income. But in that law, GOP lawmakers changed course and enacted a $10,000 cap on the SALT deduction to raise revenue to cover some of the law’s massive tax breaks.

The ability to deduct all eligible state and local taxes on federal tax returns was a win for wealthy households located in states and municipalities with steeper taxes.

At the time, Democrats, who wholesale opposed Trump’s tax agenda, saw the SALT cap as an attack on high-earning, high-tax blue states. But the SALT cap drew ire from across the aisle as well, said Kyle Pomerleau, senior fellow and federal tax policy expert for the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank.

“The original bill also had a few Republicans that didn’t vote for it because of the cap. So this has been controversial to some degree from the very beginning,” Pomerleau said.

With such a narrow majority in the House, Republicans from high-tax areas, including those representing New York’s Long Island and Staten Island and California’s wealthy suburbs, will have leverage in the coming debate.

“Republicans generally don’t come from those states. There’s only a handful of them. But that brings us back to the vote margin that Republicans have,” Pomerleau said. “They have a lot of power this time around to really get what they want. These lawmakers who represent people that are concerned about this cap are going to want that cap raised.”

The issue is one of the few tax topics not polarized by party because it is defined by location, said Garrett Watson, director of policy analysis at the Tax Foundation, a think tank that generally supports lower taxes.

“It’s an interesting sort of debate, just because a lot of tax policy debates have political, partisan, ideological components, right? That’s somewhat predictable,” Watson said. “What’s interesting about SALT is actually it’s also a strong geographic story.”

Watson published the Tax Foundation’s 2023 county-by-county maps of state and local taxes paid as well as deducted from federal taxes in 2020. The data showed the top reporting counties were concentrated in California and New York.

Raising cap would cost federal government

But many Republicans would be happy if the cap on SALT deductions stayed in place to offset the cost of extending the 2017 tax cuts.

Raising the cap beyond the current $10,000 limit could reduce federal revenue between $200 billion to $1.2 trillion over the next decade, depending on what level Congress decides, according to a January analysis from the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, a nonpartisan think tank that leans center-left.

In other words, households deducting more from their federal taxable income means the federal government reaping less revenue.

“Just to give you some order of magnitude, we looked at what would happen if you raised the cap from $10,000 to $20,000. That would cost (the federal government) $250 billion over 10 years. That’s a big number,” said Howard Gleckman, a senior fellow at the Tax Policy Center.

Deficit hawks, like Roy of Texas and Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky, have spoken out in recent months against raising the cap.

And while more federal revenue is lost with each dollar the cap increases, the benefit mainly goes to high-income earners, according to another Tax Policy Center analysis.

“We estimated when you raise the (SALT cap) from $10,000 to $20,000, 93% of the benefit goes to the top …20% , which are people making more than $200,000,” Gleckman said. “And half of it goes to people in the top 5% who are people who make more than $400,000.”

Most taxpayers take the standard deduction, which in 2025 sits at $15,000 for single taxpayers or $30,000 for married taxpayers filing jointly.

“That’s why the vast majority of people get no benefit from this. It’s only people who make a lot of money, who itemize, and who pay a lot of tax who get caught up in the cap,” Gleckman said.

But they may have an outsized voice as Congress hammers out its reconciliation bill in the coming months.

Johnson, a Louisiana Republican whose constituents would not benefit from raising the SALT cap, will have a “tough balancing act,” Gleckman said.

“Mike Johnson looks at the narrow majority he has in the House, and he sees if he loses half a dozen seats from places like New York and California because he doesn’t fix the cap then he could not be speaker anymore,” he said.

Republicans in the bipartisan SALT caucus include Reps. Mike Lawler, Nick LaLota, Andrew Garbarino and Nicole Malliotakis, all representing New York, as well as Tom Kean Jr. of New Jersey, and Young Kim of California.

Rachel Snyderman, managing director of economic policy at the Bipartisan Policy Center, said “complicated political tetris” is likely to emerge as lawmakers negotiate the reconciliation bill.

“The caucus that has called for (the cap’s) elimination over the past years has only gotten louder and more vocal and see this year as the opportunity to flex their muscle,” Snyderman said.

The U.S. Supreme Court building. (Photo by Ariana Figueroa/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration asked the U.S. Supreme Court Thursday to block a lower court’s decision allowing transgender individuals to continue enlisting and serving in the armed forces.

Administration officials are seeking a stay of a broad district court ruling in late March that applied to all troops rather than only to those who challenged President Donald Trump’s executive order in court. The U.S. Appeals Court for the 9th Circuit upheld the lower court’s ruling Friday.

The government contends its policy does not discriminate against an entire class of people, but rather finds a diagnosis or history of gender dysphoria to be disqualifying. Gender dysphoria is recognized by medical professionals as distress caused by an incongruence between a person’s gender identity and their sex at birth.

In its application to the Supreme Court Thursday afternoon, the Department of Justice argued it’s likely to succeed in the case because the newly adopted policy does not differ widely from those in place under former secretaries of defense.

“The policy was based in part on the findings of a panel of experts convened during the first Trump Administration, which found that service by individuals with gender dysphoria was contrary to ‘military effectiveness and lethality,’” wrote John Sauer, Trump’s solicitor general.

Sauer also argued the district court’s universal order violated the power of the president.

Trump issued an executive order on Jan. 27, asserting the “adoption of a gender identity inconsistent with an individual’s sex conflicts with a soldier’s commitment to an honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle, even in one’s personal life.” Further, the order said that being transgender is “not consistent with the humility and selflessness required of a service member.”

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth issued the new policy a month later, reversing former President Joe Biden’s order allowing service members to transition and serve openly under their preferred gender identity.

Trump’s order immediately drew court challenges, including a separate case now in the U.S. Appeals Court for the District of Columbia.

A Department of Justice attorney arguing before the D.C. Circuit Tuesday alerted the judges that the administration would “imminently” appeal the 9th Circuit decision to the Supreme Court.

Lambda Legal and the Human Rights Foundation, who are representing plaintiffs in the 9th Circuit case, released a statement in response Tuesday asserting, “Transgender service members have been openly serving our country with honor and distinction for almost a decade and have met and are meeting every neutral service-based standard.”

“The U.S. Supreme Court should reject the invitation to stay the district court’s injunction so that they can impose their discriminatory ban while the litigation proceeds,” the statement said.

The administration’s emergency application to the high court Thursday is just the latest in the administration’s whack-a-mole battle against lower federal court rulings that have blocked White House actions, particularly on immigration.