Tag: Politics

  • European nations are hoping that Meloni, Italy’s leader who is close to Trump, can help them with trading

    European nations are hoping that Meloni, Italy’s leader who is close to Trump, can help them with trading

    When Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni touches down in Washington for a meeting Thursday at the White House, the European Union, scrambling to strike a deal on trade, will be playing its Trump card.

    Few European leaders make a better emissary to the court of President Donald Trump. The 48-year-old Meloni heads Italy’s most right-wing government since Benito Mussolini and ranks among the select list of leaders Trump seems to like. He has described her as a “wonderful woman,” hosting her at Mar-a-Lago and inviting her to his January inauguration.

    The two see eye to eye on migrant crackdowns and the anti-woke agenda. Both slam judges who don’t rule in their favor. Meloni was also one of the few European leaders to defend Vice President JD Vance after his controversial speech in Munich in which he chided Europe for isolating far-right parties.

    The question now is whether Meloni can truly be the bridge to Trump she claims to be. The E.U. is racing to take advantage of a 90-day pause on “reciprocal” U.S. tariffs, as well as to dial back the U.S. levies already imposed on steel and cars. Her meeting comes as Brussels and Washington still appear far from a trade deal after a fresh round of talks Monday, but also during a big week for Italian-U.S. relations: After her White House visit, Meloni will quickly double back to Rome to host the visiting Vance in the Italian capital Friday.

    “They have a very good relationship, Donald Trump and Giorgia Meloni, and she would like to help [Europe] reach a goal,” said Nicola Procaccini, a member of the European Parliament from Meloni’s Brothers of Italy party, and a close political ally of the prime minister. “The goal could be a zero-tariff deal from both sides.”

    Procaccini said Italy recognizes the trade imbalance with the United States and is committed to taking steps to correct it. He suggested that Meloni, who has criticized Trump’s tariffs but also cautioned Europe against responding with more levies of its own, may offer to buy more U.S. liquefied natural gas — one thing Trump has said he wants. The Italian press reported that Meloni may also come to the table with pledges to rapidly boost lagging Italian defense spending as well as large-scale investment in the United States by Italian companies, along with a potential sale to the U.S. of a sophisticated border protection system by Italian defense contractor Leonardo.

    E.U. trade negotiators have already offered the Trump administration more purchases of American LNG and reciprocal zero tariffs on industrial goods. So far, those offers have yielded little sign of a breakthrough.

    Meloni is gambling it may come down to the messenger.

    Speaking to Italian business leaders Tuesday, she offered a candid assessment of the herculean task ahead.

    “I don’t feel any pressure, as you can imagine, about the next two days,” she said ironically. “We’ll do our best, as always. Surely I’m aware of what I represent, and I’m aware of what I’m safeguarding.”

    For her, the visit is high-stakes. Meloni is risking political capital both in Europe and at home on a meeting with possible negative outcomes. Should she come back empty-handed, the notion that she is favored by Trump could begin to crumble. Should she walk out the door with benefits for Italy, rather than the entire 27-nation E.U. — as some in her right-wing coalition have demanded — she risks dividing the bloc at a time when unity is seen as paramount to confronting Washington’s trade war.

    “It’s hard to see what she can get,” said Nathalie Tocci, director of the Rome-based Institute for International Affairs. “The big prize — say, an E.U.-U.S. summit — seems pie in the sky. Nitty-gritty negotiations on trade are not conversations taking place at that level,” Tocci said.

    It is “easier to see what she can lose if Trump is smart enough … to play divide and [conquer],” Tocci said. “In a sense, the best one can hope for is that the meeting takes place without any incident. That in itself would go down as success.”

    Yet Meloni’s trip has been portrayed positively at E.U. headquarters in Brussels, where officials have been straining for an opportunity to reboot talks after Trump’s tariff barrage. Some European diplomats are also keenly aware that Trump, who likes to deride the E.U., appears uninterested in the leaders of the bloc itself, preferring to deal with national leaders such as Meloni and French President Emmanuel Macron.

    However welcoming they are of Meloni’s efforts, E.U. officials have also been quick to issue reminders that trade negotiations are the remit of the E.U.’s executive branch — the European Commission, led by President Ursula von der Leyen. Commission spokeswoman Arianna Podestà told reporters Monday that von der Leyen and Meloni have been “in regular contact” about the Washington trip, and described it as welcome “outreach.”

    That doesn’t mean the trip hasn’t caused some friction. France’s industry minister initially cautioned that Meloni’s trip could play into Trump’s hands and divide Europe — though a French government spokesman later welcomed Meloni’s dialogue with Trump. In Italy, the center-left opposition has slammed the trip as embarrassing kowtowing: “The self-styled patriots bow their heads once again,” Elly Schlein, head of the Democratic Party, wrote of the trip on Facebook.

    Meloni’s deputy prime minister and erstwhile rival Matteo Salvini, meanwhile, has called for Meloni to put Italy’s interests before Europe’s. But observers say Meloni is acutely aware that anything that looks like a bilateral trade deal will be considered illegal by the E.U. and cause her more headaches than the U.S. tariffs themselves. Antonio Tajani, her other deputy who also serves as foreign minister, has said Meloni is clear-eyed about her mission.

    7ERTXEDYJXPT6ZE7SEEU3N6UQQ
    Italian Deputy Prime Minister Matteo Salvini speaks on an Italian television program on April 7, in front of a screen showing images of Meloni and President Donald Trump. (Riccardo Antimiani/EPA-EFE/Shutterstock)

    The Trump visit is “a mission supportive of European stances,” Tajani said in a television interview this week. “We are convinced that Europe must present itself united.”

    Ignacio García Bercero, a former European Commission trade official, said Meloni would have little to gain — and much to lose — from seeking carve-outs for Italian products like olive oil. Many Italians hold industrial jobs, for instance, that are geared toward making auto parts for German factories — meaning they would still be hit hard if there isn’t a European-wide deal on trade.

    “You probably can distinguish olive oil from Country A and Country B, but if you’re talking about cars, about manufactured products, any product that goes into the United States has components from all over the European Union,” Bercero said. “It’s very difficult [for Trump] to do something that doesn’t hurt everyone in the E.U.”

    E.U. trade chief Maros Sefcovic traveled to Washington in February and March, only to declare that the administration was not ready to seriously engage. Now, the E.U. sees a window for negotiations following Trump’s decision to pause what was a punitive 20 percent blanket tariff. But European diplomats say they are still struggling for clarity on what the White House really wants.

    Sefcovic held hours of talks with Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer on Monday. In subsequent statements, he signaled no progress toward a deal.

    “Achieving this will require a significant joint effort on both sides,” Sefcovic said.

    Sefcovic’s meeting in Washington “covered a lot of ground, from tariffs to nontariff barriers,” said Olof Gill, a European Commission spokesman for trade. “The E.U. is doing its part. Now, it is necessary for the U.S. to define its position,” he added. “This must be a two-way street.”

    In the meantime, current and former E.U. officials said the bloc was also seeking to understand the Trump administration’s plans for tariffs that the president has signaled are still to come, including on pharmaceuticals.

    As a gesture of goodwill, the E.U. has paused its countermeasures against U.S. tariffs on steel, and is still hashing out its response to car levies. E.U. leaders have also warned the bloc could hit back harder against Trump’s across-the-board tariffs if negotiations fall apart during the 90-day pause, even floating the prospect of targeting American services from Big Tech companies.

    But Meloni is leading the camp searching for a more conciliatory approach — suggesting it is better to catch Trump with honey than vinegar.

    The bar for success, Procaccini said, is a “first step.”

    “I don’t expect in a few hours they reach the main goal,” he said. “A first step in the right direction for me is enough.”

  • A new person running for Senate in Michigan says people should be harder on Trump

    A new person running for Senate in Michigan says people should be harder on Trump

    Dr. Abdul El-Sayed, a progressive former public health official from Ann Arbor, joined the Michigan Senate race on Thursday, casting himself as a populist fighter eager to mount a muscular opposition to the Trump administration.

    Dr. El-Sayed, a former health director in Wayne County, Mich., who ran unsuccessfully for governor in 2018, is the latest entrant into a Democratic primary field that is likely to be crowded and competitive. Democrats are hoping to retain the seat, now held by Senator Gary Peters, who is retiring.

    “We need to break the chokehold that billionaires and oligarchs like Donald Trump and Elon Musk have on our politics and economy,” he said in a statement as he announced his candidacy. “It’s not just about what we’re fighting against. It’s about what we fight for.”

    Yet even as he name-checked his policy goals around the economy, the environment and guaranteed health care, Dr. El-Sayed, 40, also made clear this week that he hoped to tap into the fury of Democrats who are horrified by President Trump’s actions and frustrated with their party’s inability to curb his powers.

    “They want somebody who can take the fight openly, honestly and clearly and directly to Trump and Musk, but also somebody who can build from the wreckage that they leave behind,” he said in an interview, alluding in part to Mr. Musk’s efforts to gut the federal government.

    Of course, Republicans control the House and the Senate, and Democrats in Washington are severely limited in their ability to rein in the majority party, much less advance their own agenda. 

    “Right now is the ‘fight’ part,” Dr. El-Sayed said when asked about those constraints. “When we retake the majority, that’s going to be the ‘build’ part.”

    In the meantime, he suggested, Democrats across the board should be speaking up far more forcefully. Dr. El-Sayed pointed to a few Trump critics who, he said, were doing that effectively, including Senator Bernie Sanders, the democratic socialist from Vermont who is holding rallies across the country and is expected to endorse Dr. El-Sayed. He also mentioned Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut and Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey, who delivered a 25-hour tirade against the president and his administration.

    “Senators have an incredible platform,” Dr. El-Sayed said, adding that Michigan residents were asking of their elected officials: “When are you going to step up and represent me? When are you going to speak out? When are you going to engage?”

    “Sometimes,” he said, “people get into positions of power, and then mistake procedure for fighting.”

    If he were in office today, Dr. El-Sayed said, he would hold town halls across the state and seek out tactics in the Senate “to lay the mayhem that Trump and Musk are causing at their feet.”

    Dr. El-Sayed, who has been a vocal supporter of Mr. Sanders, finished second in the 2018 Democratic primary for governor, losing to Gretchen Whitmer, the eventual general-election winner, who had staked out more centrist territory.

    This time around, he will face opponents including State Senator Mallory McMorrow, a Democrat from the Detroit suburbs. Representative Haley Stevens, another Democrat from outside Detroit, could also enter the race.

    On the Republican side, former Representative Mike Rogers, who narrowly lost Michigan’s Senate race last fall to Elissa Slotkin, a Democrat, announced this week that he was running again.

    Some Democrats have argued that the biggest battles in the party’s primaries will not be over ideology, as recent races have been, but rather over how, and how hard, to push back against the Trump administration.

    But in Michigan, there will certainly be room for policy clashes over issues including the Middle East, a particularly sensitive subject in a state that is home to significant Arab American, Muslim and Jewish communities.

    During the presidential primary last year, Dr. El-Sayed protested the Biden administration’s support of Israel in the Gaza war by voting “uncommitted.” But, he was quick to note, he backed former Vice President Kamala Harris in the general election.

  • Biden speaks out, criticizes Trump for proposed cuts to Social Security.

    Biden speaks out, criticizes Trump for proposed cuts to Social Security.

    Former president Joe Biden, in his first public comments since leaving the White House, slammed the Trump administration’s handling of Social Security, saying sweeping cuts to the program’s staffing have left beneficiaries uncertain whether they will receive their payments.

    “In fewer than 100 days, this administration has done so much damage and so much devastation. It’s breathtaking that it could happen so fast,” Biden said, though he never mentioned Trump’s name during the speech. “They’re taking a hatchet to the Social Security Administration, pushing out 7,000 employees, including the most seasoned officials.”

    Biden added: “People are now genuinely concerned for the first time in history — for the first and only time in history — that their Social Security benefits may be delayed or interrupted. They’ve gotten it during wartime, during recessions, during the pandemic — no matter what they got it. But now, for the first time ever, that may change. It would be a calamity for millions of families, millions of people.”

    As Trump and his ally Elon Musk have pursued drastic cost-cutting efforts throughout the government, the Social Security Administration has lost thousands of employees, with thousands more expected to follow. Amid that turmoil, the agency has faced website outages, technical glitches, unanswered phone lines, attempts to access private data and other problems.

    Democrats have seized on those struggles to hammer home a broader message that Trump is pursuing a chaotic agenda at the expense of ordinary Americans, an argument that is likely to be central to their message in the 2026 midterms.

    Former Maryland governor Martin O’Malley (D), who headed the Social Security Administration under Biden, introduced the former president, saying that “when he left office, left the agency heading in a better direction, but now so many of those gains have been wiped out.” O’Malley now chairs the advisory board of Advocates, Counselors and Representatives for the Disabled, the group hosting Biden in Chicago.

    The Trump administration took strong issue with the Democrats’ narrative.

    Ahead of Biden’s remarks, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt announced that Trump would sign a presidential memorandum aimed at “stopping illegal aliens and other ineligible people” from obtaining Social Security benefits. That would expand a fraud prosecution program to at least 50 U.S. attorney’s offices, she said.

    “Let me make it very clear ahead of former president Biden’s remarks,” Leavitt added. “This president, President Trump, is absolutely certain about protecting Social Security benefits for law-abiding, taxpaying American citizens and seniors who have paid into this program.”

    She also took aim at Biden’s age, or at least his capacity. “I’m shocked that he’s speaking at nighttime,” Leavitt said of the 82-year-old former president. “I thought his bedtime was much earlier.” Trump is 78.

    Biden himself took a shot at his age during his comments, joking, “Back when I was a senator, 400 years ago … .”

    He argued that the Trump team was seeking cuts to finance tax cuts for the wealthy. “They’re following that old line of tech firms — ‘Move fast and break things,’” Biden said. “Well, they’re certainly breaking things. They’re shooting first and asking questions later. And the result is a lot of needless pain and sleepless nights.”

    PDADNLQ64332IA44NBOCEH6CME size normalized
    Former president Joe Biden took aim at the Trump adminsitration’s handling of Social Security in his speech Tuesday. (Nam Y. Huh/AP)

    Social Security has long been a battlefield between the two parties. Republicans suggest overhauling the program to cut costs and put the program on a sounder financial footing. Democrats argue that such cuts would hurt elderly and disabled Americans, especially if they are used to subsidize tax cuts for the wealthy.

    The Social Security Administration, in its 2024 annual report, found that its trust fund for the elderly would be able to pay 100 percent of its scheduled benefits until 2033. Unless changes are made, the fund’s reserves would be depleted, and only 79 percent of benefits could be paid at that point.

    Tuesday’s speech carried a political drama that went far beyond the future of the program itself.

    Biden is the sole politician to defeat Trump, having driven him from the White House in 2020 after a campaign in which he portrayed Trump as immoral and unfit to serve. Trump has never accepted that defeat, alleging falsely and repeatedly that the election was stolen and insulting Biden as “Sleepy Joe” or “Crooked Joe.”

    Even after Biden ceded the 2024 Democratic nomination to then-Vice President Kamala Harris, Trump often seemed to attack Biden as much as Harris. And since taking office in January, Trump has repeatedly slammed Biden, blaming him for problems such as inflation and the Russia-Ukraine war that Trump promised to fix instantly but is struggling to address.

    Biden had followed the tradition in which presidents avoid criticizing their successors. He welcomed Trump to the White House after the election, and he has not spoken publicly since Inauguration Day — until now. The former president appeared fit Tuesday evening, although he occasionally stumbled over his words, as he had toward the end of his presidency.

    As a growing number of Democrats voice their frustration with Trump’s unprecedented moves to cut the government, circumvent Congress and challenge the courts, former president Barack Obama also criticized him, indirectly at least, in a recent talk at Hamilton College in New York.

    Without mentioning Trump by name, Obama suggested that the United States is at risk of abandoning “this basic idea that we are a rules-based society.” He added, “This is the first time I’ve been speaking publicly for a while. … It is up to all of us to fix this.”

    Biden on Tuesday echoed other Democrats in depicting the administration as needlessly callous to many Americans. “The last thing they need from their government is deliberate cruelty,” he said. “Social Security is about more than retirement accounts. It’s about honoring the fundamental trust between government and people. It’s about peace of mind for those who worked their whole lives.”

    As Trump has opened his second presidency with a rapid-fire barrage of edicts and actions, Democrats have seemed stunned at times and struggled to unite behind a coherent message. The president’s on-again, off-again tariff announcements, which have rattled the markets and forecast higher prices, have given them a potential rallying point.

    Social Security may be another. Politicians for years have hesitated to suggest cuts in the program, which serves 73 million Americans, in recognition of its popularity and the sense of many Americans that after a lifetime of paying into the program, they deserve its benefits.

    Musk raised the issue in colorful fashion in an appearance on the “Joe Rogan Experience” podcast several weeks ago, calling Social Security “the biggest Ponzi scheme of all time.” Musk argued that the amount being paid into the system is dwarfed by its future obligations.

    In his March address to Congress, Trump cited “shocking levels of incompetence and probable fraud in the Social Security program for our seniors and that our seniors and people that we love rely on.” He complained that the program is paying money to thousands of people who are purportedly 160 years old or older, a claim that has repeatedly been debunked.

    O’Malley on Tuesday slammed “the ‘big lie’ that there’s a massive zombie apocalypse of dead people, some of them not only 150 years old, they’re 300 years old. Not true.”

  • DOGE is gathering federal information to displace immigrants from housing and employment.

    DOGE is gathering federal information to displace immigrants from housing and employment.

    The Trump administration is using personal data normally protected from dissemination to find undocumented immigrants where they work, study and live, often with the goal of removing them from their housing and the workforce.

    At the Department of Housing and Urban Development, for example, officials are working on a rule that would ban mixed-status households — in which some family members have legal status and others don’t — from public housing, according to multiple staffers who spoke on the condition of anonymity out of fear of retribution. Affiliates from the U.S. DOGE Service are also looking to kick out existing mixed-status households, vowing to ensure that undocumented immigrants do not benefit from public programs, even if they live with citizens or other eligible family members.

    The push extends across agencies: Last week, the Social Security Administration entered the names and Social Security numbers of more than 6,000 mostly Latino immigrants into a database it uses to track dead people, effectively slashing their ability to receive benefits or work legally in the United States. Federal tax and immigration enforcement officials recently reached a deal to share confidential tax data for people suspected of being in the United States illegally.

    The result is an unprecedented effort to use government data to supportthe administration’s immigration policies. That includes information people have reported about themselves for years while paying taxes or applying for housing — believing that information would not be used against them for immigration purposes. Legal experts say the data sharing is a breach of privacy rules that help ensure trust in government programs and services.

    “It’s not only about one subgroup of people, it’s really about all of us,” said Tanya Broder, senior counsel for health and economic justice policy at the left-leaning National Immigration Law Center. “Everyone cares about their privacy. Nobody wants their health-care information or tax information broadcast and used to go after us.”

    The White House did not reply to a request for comment. In response to questions, a DHS official said, “The government is finally doing what it should have all along: sharing information across the federal government to solve problems.”

    “Information sharing across agencies is essential to identify who is in our country, including violent criminals, determine what public safety and terror threats may exist, scrub these individuals from voter rolls, as well as identify what public benefits these aliens are using at taxpayer expense,” the department’s assistant secretary for public affairs said.

    President Donald Trump campaigned on promises of the most deportations in U.S. history and has moved forcefully since his inauguration to pursue that goal, including reopening family detention centers, moving migrants to the former prison for terrorism suspects at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and invoking the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to expel alleged gang members without a hearing. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi L. Noem has also moved to rescind temporary protected status for Venezuelans and pare back protections for Haitian migrants.

    The push is more extensive than administration officials have made public, staffers across multiple federal agencies said, mostly speaking on the condition of anonymity because they weren’t authorized to discuss the policies publicly. It’s not clear whether or how a growing list of names or addresses would immediately translate into more deportations.

    But the ramp-up is clearly starting. DHS had already asked the Social Security Administration for help with immigration enforcement and tracking down fraudulent use of Social Security numbers, according to a government official briefed on the matter. At the IRS, officials agreed this month to share data with DHS, which indicated it might seek to use tax information to find as many as 7 million people suspected of being in the country illegally, The Post has reported. The acting IRS commissioner resigned after the deal was signed.

    Other federal employees have raised concerns that DOGE officials are bulldozing through guardrails meant to keep information accessible to only a small number of people and used only for specific purposes. That includes information people reported months ago, not knowing how it would eventually be used.

    The push to link agency data with the White House’s policy goals comes from the top. Last month, Trump signed an executive order to eliminate “information silos.” The order said the move would boost the government’s “ability to detect overpayments and fraud.”

    At HUD, Secretary Scott Turner announced an agreement in March to facilitate data sharing with DHS and ensure that taxpayer funds “are not used to harbor or benefit illegal aliens.” Turner told Fox News Digital that “those that are here illegally, that are living in HUD-funded public housing, we’re putting on notice.” He has said there are 24,000 “ineligible” people in HUD-assisted housing.

    HUD knows which households include undocumented people because all applicants are required to report their status when seeking assistance. Undocumented immigrants are prorated out of the amount of assistance households receive but have been allowed to live in public housing for years. An undocumented grandparent or parent sometimes lives in public housing with other eligible family members.

    The effort to locate and kick out mixed-status households is being led by Mike Mirski, a DOGE staffer at HUD who plans to target cities such as New York and Chicago first, according to one employee. The power to mine that information effectively lets Mirski “decide who is a citizen and who is not a citizen,” the employee said, adding that those decisions would be based on flawed analyses of datasets he doesn’t know how to use.

    Mirski did not respond to a request for comment.

    In most scenarios, HUD does not have the authority to knock on people’s doors and remove them from housing. But Immigration and Customs Enforcement and law enforcement do. Multiple people close to the department said public housing authorities are on alert, hosting webinars and internal meetings about what to do if immigration officials arrive en masse. They often conclude they have little recourse but to call the police.

    In a statement, HUD spokeswoman Kasey Lovett said that “there are tens of thousands of ‘ineligible’ individuals in HUD housing, which more than likely translates to illegal aliens.” She added that the department currently serves only 1 in 4 American families who need help.

    “Secretary Turner is using every tool at his disposal to reverse the wrongdoings and negligence of the Biden administration and is making certain that under the leadership of President Trump, American citizens are the only priority,” Lovett said.

    At Social Security, DOGE representatives have spent the past month seeking access to data and asking questions that would allow them to ascertain people’s citizenship status, according to two staffers with direct knowledge of DOGE’s activities who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of retaliation. The team gained increasing access to claimants’ full names, Social Security numbers, dates of birth, mailing addresses, contact information, bank details and more.

    In March, DOGE advisers accessed a dataset with highly sensitive personal information, including applicants’ driver’s licenses, citizenship status and various other markers collected by DHS, which it shares with Social Security under existing interagency agreements. They later asked career employees how to understand, interpret and use Social Security data and wage data. Specifically, the staffer said, the data would permit DOGE officials to identify individuals who are working in the country without a Social Security number, a strong indication of illegal status.

    Career staffers fielding the DOGE team’s questions grew increasingly uncomfortable. Employees asked themselves, “Is it better to try to mediate and correct from the inside, knowing that we are aiding them in an effort to track down noncitizens?” the staffer said. “Or is it better to wipe our hands clean of it, knowing they’re going to do it anyways but in a way that is likely to impact a greater number of people — some of whom very well could be citizens?”

    The issue became moot on March 21 when a judge temporarily forbadeDOGE team members from accessing sensitive Social Security data, leading the agency to boot all DOGE representatives from its systems. But in the days since, DOGE members have repeatedly asked to get back inside the datasets, which would be in violation of the court order, according to a staffer and records obtained by The Post.

    In a statement, a spokesperson for Social Security said that it would work with DHS to “use all the tools available, including using data exchanges to their fullest potential, to protect all Americans.”

    At the Education Department, officials are also seeking information that could be used to help immigration authorities find people to deport.

    In February, the administration opened investigations into whether five universities properly handled allegations of antisemitism. Education Department political appointees told the attorneys handling the cases to ask the schools for the names and nationalities of protesters against Israel’s war in Gaza, according to documents and three attorneys with the Office for Civil Rights who have direct knowledge of the situation, and who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the cases publicly.

    The move appears to echo a plan laid out in an essay in the Washington Examiner in December by Max Eden, then a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and now a White House official. The essay suggested that the department’s civil rights office could find “the identities of every single foreign student who supported the protests,” and then immigration authorities could “revoke every single one of the protesting foreign students’ visas.”

    Asked why the department was seeking the data on protesters and whether it related to immigration, Craig Trainor, the Education Department’s acting assistant secretary for civil rights, said the information was necessary to assess how the universities handled the antisemitism cases. His statement did not directly address the question of deportations.

  • Harvard Saying ‘No’ to Trump Is a Really Big Deal

    Harvard Saying ‘No’ to Trump Is a Really Big Deal

    Harvard University is 140 years older than the United States, has an endowment greater than the G.D.P. of nearly 100 countries and has educated eight American presidents. So if an institution was going to stand up to the Trump administration’s war on academia, Harvard would be at the top of the list.

    Harvard did that forcefully on Monday in a way that injected energy into other universities across the country fearful of the president’s wrath, rejecting the Trump administration’s demands on hiring, admissions and curriculum. Some commentators went so far as to say that Harvard’s decision would empower law firms, the courts, the media and other targets of the White House to push back as well.

    “This is of momentous, momentous significance,” said J. Michael Luttig, a prominent former federal appeals court judge revered by many conservatives. “This should be the turning point in the president’s rampage against American institutions.”

    Michael S. Roth, who is the president of Wesleyan University and a rare critic of the White House among university administrators, welcomed Harvard’s decision. “What happens when institutions overreach is that they change course when they meet resistance,” he said. “It’s like when a bully is stopped in his tracks.”

    Within hours of Harvard’s decision, federal officials said they would freeze $2.2 billion in multiyear grants to the university, along with a $60 million contract.

    That is a fraction of the $9 billion in federal funding that Harvard receives, with $7 billion going to the university’s 11 affiliated hospitals in Boston and Cambridge, Mass., including Massachusetts General, Boston Children’s Hospital and the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute. The remaining $2 billion goes to research grants directly for Harvard, including for space exploration, diabetes, cancer, Alzheimer’s disease and tuberculosis.

    It was not immediately clear what programs the funding freeze would affect.

    Harvard, the nation’s richest as well as oldest university, is the most prominent object of the administration’s campaign to purge “woke” ideology from America’s college campuses. The administration’s demands include sharing its hiring data with the government and bringing in an outside party to ensure that each academic department is “viewpoint diverse.”

    Columbia University, which faced a loss of $400 million in federal funding, last month agreed to major concessions the government demanded, including that it install new oversight of its Middle Eastern, South Asian and African Studies Department.

    14dc education vqfg superJumbo
    Columbia University faculty at a rally on Monday against federal funding cuts. The university last month agreed to major concessions that the Trump administration demanded. Credit…Graham Dickie/The New York Times

    In a letter on Monday, Harvard’s president, Alan M. Garber, refused to stand down. “Neither Harvard nor any other private university can allow itself to be taken over by the federal government,” he wrote.

    The administration’s fight with Harvard, which had an endowment of $53.2 billion in 2024, is one that President Trump and Stephen Miller, a powerful White House aide, want to have. In the administration’s effort to break what it sees as liberalism’s hold on higher education, Harvard is big game. A high-profile court battle would give the White House a platform to continue arguing that the left has become synonymous with antisemitism, elitism and suppression of free speech.

    Steven Pinker, a prominent Harvard psychologist who is also a president of the Council on Academic Freedom at Harvard, said on Monday that it was “truly Orwellian” and self-contradictory to have the government force viewpoint diversity on the university. He said it would also lead to absurdities.

    “Will this government force the economics department to hire Marxists or the psychology department to hire Jungians or, for that matter, for the medical school to hire homeopaths or Native American healers?” he said.

    Harvard has not escaped the problems that roiled campuses nationwide after the Hamas-led attacks in Israel on Oct. 7, 2023. In his letter, Dr. Garber said the university had taken steps to address antisemitism, support diverse viewpoints and protect free speech and dissent.

    Those same points were made in a letter to the administration from two lawyers representing Harvard, William A. Burck and Robert K. Hur.

    Mr. Burck is also an outside ethics adviser to the Trump Organization and represented the law firm Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP in the deal it recently reached with the Trump administration.

    Mr. Hur, who worked in the Justice Department in Mr. Trump’s first term, was the special counsel who investigated President Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s handling of classified documents and termed him “an elderly man with a poor memory,” enraging Mr. Biden.

    Both lawyers understand the legal workings of the current administration, an expertise of benefit to Harvard.

    “Harvard remains open to dialogue about what the university has done, and is planning to do, to improve the experience of every member of its community,” Mr. Burck and Mr. Hur wrote in the letter, addressed to the acting general counsels of the Departments of Education and Health and Human Services and to a commissioner within the General Services Administration. “But Harvard is not prepared to agree to demands that go beyond the lawful authority of this or any administration.”

  • The High Cost of Trump’s Drug Tariffs: A Political Minefield

    The High Cost of Trump’s Drug Tariffs: A Political Minefield

    33dd8f1d fc66 4f72 96d5 d3ae355a9fa4
    A Illusion orange color Medicine tablet. Jeff Henry/The NewYorkBudgets

    President Trump’s decision to move a step closer to imposing tariffs on imported medicines poses considerable political risk, because Americans could face higher prices and more shortages of critical drugs.

    The Trump administration filed a federal notice on Monday saying that it had begun an investigation into whether imports of medicines and pharmaceutical ingredients threaten America’s national security, an effort to lay the groundwork for possible tariffs on foreign-made drugs.

    Mr. Trump has repeatedly said he planned to impose such levies, to shift overseas production of medicines back to the United States. Experts said that tariffs were unlikely to achieve that goal: Moving manufacturing would be hugely expensive and would take years.

    It was not clear how long the investigation would last or when the planned tariffs might go into effect. Mr. Trump started the inquiry under a legal authority known as Section 232 that he has used for other industries like cars and lumber.

    Mr. Trump said in remarks to reporters on Monday that pharmaceutical tariffs would come in the “not too distant future.”

    “We don’t make our own drugs anymore,” Mr. Trump said. “The drug companies are in Ireland, and they’re in lots of other places, China.”

    While some drugs are made at least in part in the United States, America’s reliance on China for medicines has generated alarm for years, with both Republicans and Democrats identifying it as a national security vulnerability.

    Many drugs are not produced without at least one stage of the manufacturing process happening in China. Even India’s giant generic drug sector is deeply dependent on China, because Indian manufacturers typically obtain their raw materials from Chinese plants.

    Imposing disruptive levies on lifesaving medications creates risks for Mr. Trump that were not a major concern with some of his other tariff targets, like steel and aluminum, where Americans generally aren’t directly exposed to increased prices.

    He could face a harsh backlash if pharmaceutical tariffs lead to significant drug price increases or shortages for patients. The number of drug shortages reached a record-level high last year. Americans fill several billion prescriptions a year, on top of purchasing over-the-counter products like cough syrup and Tylenol.

    On Tuesday, Mr. Trump signed an executive order outlining a series of actions intended to lower drug prices, including helping states import drugs from Canada. The idea behind these imports is to bring in cheaper drugs, but tariffs could mean that those imports would not offer the same savings as in the past.

    If pharmaceutical tariffs cause an increase in any drug prices, Democrats could jump on the issue for the midterm elections next year and try to undercut Mr. Trump’s popularity among working-class voters.

    Democrats have already seized on the issue. In a letter sent to Trump officials last week, a group of lawmakers led by Representatives Doris Matsui of California and Brad Schneider of Illinois wrote that “reckless tariffs” on medicines threatened to harm Americans.

    “The supply disruptions of critical medical products will unavoidably hurt U.S. patients, force providers to make impossible rationing decisions, and potentially even result in death as treatments are delayed, or more effective medicines and products are swapped for less effective alternatives,” they wrote.

    Kush Desai, a spokesman for the White House, said in a statement on Monday that “President Trump has long been clear about the importance of reshoring manufacturing that is critical to our country’s national and economic security.”

    Targeting pharmaceuticals also risks further inflaming relations with allies like the European Union and India, whose economies are supported by drug exports to the United States. Officials of those countries fear that drug tariffs could prompt companies to renege on investments, resulting in a loss of jobs, factories and tax revenue.

    Along with cars and electronics, pharmaceuticals are one of the categories of goods that the United States imports the most, measured by value.

    Tariffs on drugs would add tens of billions of dollars of import costs for a powerful industry that relies on a complex global supply chain. Production of most medications consumed in the United States happens in more than one part of the world, with plants in different countries handling different stages of the process.

    Expensive patented medications, like the popular weight-loss drug Wegovy, are more likely to be made in Europe or the United States.

    China and India do most of the production of cheaper generic drugs, which account for the vast majority of U.S. prescriptions. For example, plants in those countries make nearly all of the world’s supply of the active ingredients in the painkiller ibuprofen and the antibiotic ciprofloxacin, according to Clarivate, an industry data provider.

    Pharmaceuticals are the latest sector that Mr. Trump has targeted. Tariffs of 25 percent are already in effect for imported steel, aluminum and cars. The Trump administration has also initiated Section 232 investigations, or inquiries into national security concerns, for copper, lumber and computer chips.

    Investigations under the 232 provision must be completed within nine months.

    The drug industry has been lobbying the Trump administration to phase in tariffs gradually or to exempt certain types of products, such as medications at risk of shortages or those deemed essential, like antibiotics.

    John Murphy III, the head of a trade group that represents manufacturers of generic drugs, said in a statement on Monday that tariffs “will only amplify the problems that already exist in the U.S. market for affordable medicines.”

    The tariffs would be paid by drug companies importing products or ingredients into the United States. Many of those manufacturers would most likely try to pass at least some of the added costs to employers and government programs like Medicare and Medicaid that cover most of the tab for Americans’ prescription drugs. That would ultimately affect patients.

    Levies could cause shortages of some cheaper generic drugs, because prices are so close to production costs. Manufacturers with such thin margins may be forced to curtail or end production.

    Industry experts said they were not concerned about shortages for brand-name drugs, which generally have high profit margins that could absorb tariffs.

    Patients whose insurance requires them to pay a deductible or a percentage of a drug’s price could eventually face higher out-of-pocket costs for some drugs. They may also have to pay a higher co-payment if shortages resulting from the tariffs force them to switch to a different, pricier medication. In future years, people could face higher health insurance premiums.

    In some cases, contractual agreements and steep financial penalties may discourage manufacturers from sharply raising prices. With patented products, manufacturers typically have such large margins that their sales would still be highly profitable even if they absorbed the cost of tariffs.

    David Ricks, the chief executive of Eli Lilly, told the BBC earlier this month that his company expected to eat the cost of tariffs. But Lilly could reduce its research spending or cut staffing as a result, he said.

    Mr. Trump has been saying that his tariffs will prompt drugmakers to move their overseas production back to the United States. In recent weeks, several of the industry’s richest companies — Eli Lilly, Johnson & Johnson and Novartis — announced plans to spend billions of dollars to build new plants in the United States.

    But experts say the tariffs aren’t nearly enough to bring most drug production back to the United States. The obstacles are especially steep with crucial generic drugs. Building a new plant takes years. Even shifting production to an existing American plant may be too costly. Labor and other production expenses are much higher in the United States.

    Joaquin Duato, chief executive of Johnson & Johnson, said on a call with analysts on Tuesday that “if what you want is to build manufacturing capacity in the U.S., both in med-tech and in pharmaceuticals, the most effective answer is not tariffs, but tax policy.”

    The Trump administration has been taking aim at Ireland, where nearly all of the largest American drugmakers have a manufacturing presence, in some cases dating back decades. One of Ireland’s biggest appeals for the industry is the tax advantages it offers. Some drugmakers shift their profits there to lower their overall tax bills.

    Last month, Mr. Trump said that Ireland “took our pharmaceutical companies away.” Howard Lutnick, the commerce secretary, saidthat Ireland was running a “tax scam” that American pharmaceutical companies were exploiting. “That’s got to end,” Mr. Lutnick said.

    Some of the industry’s biggest blockbusters, including the cancer drug Keytruda and the anti-wrinkle injection Botox, are partly produced in Ireland. The United States imports more pharmaceutical products, as measured by their value, from Ireland than any other country.

    Irish officials fear that tariffs could prompt drugmakers to pull back from investments in the country. But experts said that drugmakers may be reluctant to undergo the costly, disruptive process of uprooting their operations there, especially while uncertainty persists about how long Mr. Trump’s tariffs will last.

    Pharmaceuticals have historically been spared from tariffs under a World Trade Organization agreement meant to ensure that patients have access to vital medications.

    Medications were mostly exempted from the round of global tariffs Mr. Trump announced earlier this month and then partly delayed for 90 days. Drugmakers importing from China into the United States have been subject to tariffs, initially 10 percent and later 20 percent, that Mr. Trump had imposed on Chinese imports earlier this year.

  • Trump’s Tricky Spot: How a Trade Fight Could Mess Up All Other Talks with China

    Trump’s Tricky Spot: How a Trade Fight Could Mess Up All Other Talks with China

    President Trump came into office sounding as if he were eager to deal with President Xi Jinping of China on the range of issues dividing the world’s two biggest superpowers.

    He and his aides signaled that they wanted to resolve trade disputes and lower the temperature on Taiwan, curb fentanyl production and get to a deal on TikTok. Perhaps, over time, they could manage a revived nuclear arms race and competition over artificial intelligence.

    Today it is hard to imagine any of that happening, at least for a year.

    Mr. Trump’s decision to stake everything on winning a trade war with China threatens to choke off those negotiations before they even begin. And if they do start up, Mr. Trump may be entering them alone, because he has alienated the allies who in recent years had come to a common approach to countering Chinese power.

    In conversations over the past 10 days, several administration officials, insisting that they could not speak on the record, described a White House deeply divided on how to handle Beijing. The trade war erupted before the many factions inside the administration even had time to stake out their positions, much less decide which issues mattered most.

    The result was strategic incoherence. Some officials have gone on television to declare that Mr. Trump’s tariffs on Beijing were intended to coerce the world’s second-largest economy into a deal. Others insisted that Mr. Trump was trying to create a self-sufficient American economy, no longer dependent on its chief geopolitical competitor, even if that meant decoupling from the $640 billion in two-way trade in goods and services.

    Autonomous vehicles transport shipping containers at Tianjin port.Source: Bloomberg
    Autonomous vehicles transport shipping containers at Tianjin port.Source: Bloomberg

    “What is the Trump administration’s grand strategy for China?” said Rush Doshi, one of America’s leading China strategists, who is now at the Council of Foreign Relations and Georgetown University. “They don’t have a grand strategy yet. They have a range of disconnected tactics.”

    Mr. Doshi says he holds open the hope that Mr. Trump could reach deals with Japan, South Korea, India, Taiwan and the European Union that would allow them to confront Chinese trade practices together, attract allied investment in U.S. industry and increase security ties.

    “If you are up against someone big, you need to get bigger scale — and that’s why we need our allies to be with us,” said Mr. Doshi, who in recent days published an article in Foreign Affairs with Kurt M. Campbell, the former deputy secretary of state, arguing for a new approach. “This is an era in which strategic advantage will once again accrue to those who can operate at scale. China possesses scale, and the United States does not — at least not by itself,” they wrote.

    Mr. Trump insisted on Monday that his tariffs were working so well that he might place more of them on China, among other nations. Just 48 hours after he carved out a huge exemption for cellphones, computer equipment and many electronic components — nearly a quarter of all trade with China — he said he might soon announce additional tariffs targeting imported computer chips and pharmaceuticals. “The higher the tariff, the faster they come in,” he said of companies investing in the United States to avoid paying the import tax.

    So far, the Chinese response has been one of controlled escalation. Beijing has matched every one of Mr. Trump’s tariff hikes, trying to send the message that it can endure the pain longer than the United States can. And in a move that appeared to experts to have been prepared months ago, China announced that it was suspending exports of a range of critical minerals and magnets used by automakers, semiconductor producers and weapons builders — a reminder to Washington that Beijing has many tools to interrupt supply chains.

    14dc assess 03 bkqp jumbo
    American soldiers during a military exercise in Finland in February. China announced that it was suspending exports of rare minerals widely used in the U.S. defense industry.Credit…Jim Huylebroek for The New York Times

    The result, said R. Nicholas Burns, who left his post in January as the American ambassador to China, is “one of the most serious crises in U.S.-Chinese relations since the resumption of full diplomatic relations in 1979.”

    “But Americans should have no sympathy for the Chinese government, which describes itself as the victim in this confrontation,” said Mr. Burns. “They have been the greatest disrupter in the international trade system.” He said the challenge now would be “to restore communications at the highest levels to avoid a decoupling of the two economies.”

    So far, neither side wants to be the one to initiate those communications, at least in public, for fear of being perceived as the one that blinked. Mr. Trump often insists he has a “great relationship” with Mr. Xi, but he gave the Chinese leader no direct warning about what was coming — or a pathway to head it off. And Mr. Xi has pointedly avoided joining the ranks of what the White House insists are 75 countries that say they want to strike a deal.

    There are flickers of back-channel communications: Cui Tiankai, who served as China’s ambassador to the United States from 2013 to 2021, was in Washington as the tariffs were rolling out, talking to old contacts and clearly looking for a way to defuse the growing confrontation. Though retired, Mr. Cui is still among the Chinese with deep connections in both capitals — he is a graduate of the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, and American officials still use him as a conduit to the Chinese leadership.

    But recent history suggests that freezes in the U.S.-China relationship can be long-lasting and that relations never quite get back to where they had been before. The August 2022 visit to Taiwan by a congressional delegation led by Representative Nancy Pelosi, the California Democrat who at the time was still the speaker of the House, led China to send its air and naval forces on military exercises over the “median line” in the Taiwan Strait. Nearly three years later, those exercises have only intensified.

    The following winter a high-altitude balloon, which China claimed was a weather balloon and U.S. intelligence officials said was stuffed with intelligence-gathering equipment to geolocate communications transmissions, crossed over the continental United States. President Joseph R. Biden Jr. ultimately ordered it shot down off the South Carolina coast.

    Again, it took months to get past the mutual recriminations and set up a summit meeting between Mr. Xi and Mr. Biden. That encounter resulted in some modest agreements on cracking down on fentanyl precursors, along with a joint statement that A.I. technologies should never be used in nuclear command-and-control systems.

    14dc assess 04 vgzj jumbo
    A Chinese high-altitude balloon crossed over the continental United States in 2023. President Joseph R. Biden Jr. eventually ordered it shot down off the South Carolina coast.Credit…Larry Mayer/The Billings Gazette, via Associated Press

    But the stakes in those confrontations were not as high as they are in the emerging trade war, which could help push both countries to the brink of recession — and could ultimately spill into the power plays happening each day around Taiwan, in the South China Sea and just offshore of the Philippines.

    Among the questions hanging over the administration now is whether it can put together a coherent approach to China at a moment when key members of Mr. Trump’s inner circle are arguing in public about the right strategy. Elon Musk, who relies on China as a key supplier to his companies Tesla and SpaceX, called Peter Navarro, a top White House trade adviser, a “moron” and “dumber than a sack of bricks.” Mr. Navarro shrugged it off during a Sunday appearance on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” saying, “I’ve been called worse.”

    Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent pushed back Monday on a Chinese commerce official who dismissed the tariffs as a “joke.”

    “These are not a joke,” Mr. Bessent said in Argentina, where he is on a visit. But then he added that the tariffs were so big that “no one thinks they’re sustainable.”

    But whether they are sustainable is a different question than whether Mr. Trump or Mr. Xi can afford, politically, to be the first to back away from them. And then the administration will have to decide what its priorities are when it comes to China. Will the United States declare that it will defend Taiwan? (Mr. Trump clearly has his hesitations, based on his public statements.) Will it seek to find common projects to work on with Beijing?

    It is hardly unusual for an administration to spend months, maybe more than a year, debating how to navigate a relationship as complex as the one with China. President Richard M. Nixon and Henry A. Kissinger spent years plotting out their approach to what was still called “Red China,” resulting in Mr. Nixon’s historic trip to the country and the yearslong diplomatic opening it triggered. President Bill Clinton entered office having campaigned against the “butchers of Beijing,” a reference to the killings in Tiananmen Square and the crackdowns that followed, and he ended his term ushering China into the World Trade Organization. President George W. Bush courted Chinese leaders to join the battle against terrorism.

    Mr. Biden had to get beyond the Covid era before he settled on a strategy of denying Beijing access to critical semiconductors and other technology.

    But none was trying to overcome what Mr. Trump faces. He has unleashed an act of economic confrontation so large that it may poison the relationship with a country that is deeply intertwined with the American economy. In the end, Mr. Trump may have to choose between an unhappy marriage or an abrupt divorce.

  • Can India Gain From the US and China’s Trade Problems? Is India Set?

    Can India Gain From the US and China’s Trade Problems? Is India Set?

    Container trucks are seen while waiting for cross the border at Huu Nghi border gate connecting with China, in Lang Son province, Vietnam February 20, 2020. REUTERS/Kham/File Photo
    Container trucks are seen while waiting for cross the border at Huu Nghi border gate connecting with China, in Lang Son province, Vietnam February 20, 2020. REUTERS/Kham/File Photo

    Even when India was staring down the barrel of a 27 percent tariff on most of its exports to the United States, business executives and government officials saw an upside. India’s biggest economic rival, China, and its smaller competitors like Vietnam were facing even worse.

    India has been pushing hard in recent years to become a manufacturing alternative to China, and it looked as if it had suddenly gained an advantage.

    Then India and its smaller rivals got 90-day reprieves, and President Trump doubled down on China, boosting its tariff to 145 percent.

    The sky-high tax on Chinese imports to America presented “a significant opportunity for India’s trade and industry,” said Praveen Khandelwal, a member of Parliament from the ruling party of Prime Minister Narendra Modi and a top figure in the country’s business lobby.

    India, with its enormous work force, has been trying to elbow into China’s manufacturing business for a long time, yet its factories are not ready. For the past 10 years Mr. Modi has pursued a goal he named “Make in India.”

    The government has paid incentives to companies producing goods in strategic sectors, budgeting over $26 billion, and tried to attract foreign investments in the name of reducing India’s dependence on Chinese imports. One of its goals was to create 100 million new manufacturing jobs by 2022.

    There have been successes. The most eye-catching one is that Foxconn, the Taiwanese contract manufacturer, has started making iPhones for Apple in India, moving some work from China.

    Yet the role of manufacturing in India over a decade has shrunk, relative to services and agriculture, from 15 percent of the economy to less than 13.

    Manufacturing and the jobs it can bring are thought to be crucial to India’s rise as a global power. China, with an economy five times the size of India’s, is the biggest of the Asian countries to have sped toward prosperity by making and selling stuff the rest of the world wants to buy. But manufacturing accounts for a 25 percent share of most East Asian economies — twice as much as in India.

    1716054806 0481
    Image Source: Bloomberg
    BIZ INDIA FACTORIES 11 tpqj superJumbo
    A factory for electric scooters in Tamil Nadu. Public infrastructure has improved under Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s direction, but the growing work force requires more training to match businesses’ needs. Credit…Atul Loke for The New York Times

    Public infrastructure has come a long way under Mr. Modi’s direction. But 10 years has not been enough time to train the country’s growing work force to match businesses’ needs. And the route remains bumpy when it comes to connecting India’s pockets of economic strength to one another.

    Barely an hour from New Delhi on a new eight-lane elevated highway, the Rai Industrial Estate in Haryana occupies land that grew wheat and mustard crops earlier this century. Some of the factories on the dusty grid inside have been grinding out auto parts and processed foods for 20 years. Others are just starting, hoping for an imminent breakthrough.

    Vikram Bathla, who in 2019 founded LiKraft, which manufactures lithium-ion batteries for vehicles, said access to technology was the most frustrating obstacle to his business. He depends heavily on imports, which need to be bought in bulk and take time to ship, and finds it difficult to hire the people he needs to do highly technical work.

    “We can buy the equipment, and we do” — and most of it comes from China. “What we don’t have,” he said, “is the skilled workers to use it.” For five years, he said, he has been trying to catch up with competitors that started 15 years before him.

    Mr. Bathla, tall, mild-mannered and English-speaking, paces among LiKraft’s 300 workers, most of them migrants from poorer Indian states, quietly bent over brightly lit benches, assembling batteries. They start with cells imported from China, some of them turquoise cylinders labeled “Made in Inner Mongolia.”

    Other workers operate larger machines, also imported from China, to weld cells and electronic components into batteries. The finished products will be marked “Made in India.” But the supply chain is foreign.

    It is not just a high-tech phenomenon. Another factory, half a mile away in the same industrial park, depends on foreign inputs, too.

    BIZ INDIA FACTORIES 12 vwjl superJumbo
    Factory workers in Navi Mumbai, a city in the state of Maharashtra. A problem for many Indian factories is the reliance on foreign inputs.Credit…Elke Scholiers for The New York Times
    BIZ INDIA FACTORIES 10 whtv superJumbo
    A factory in Silvassa. Among the problem manufacturers face are the high cost of land, a shortage of the right kinds of engineers and a lack of good financing from banks.Credit…Elke Scholiers for The New York Times

    AutoKame designs, cuts and sews car-seat covers for the Indian market. Its high-precision fabric cutters, with whirring, robotic arms, are imported from Germany and Italy. The synthetic fiber also has to be imported.

    Expensive raw materials are only the tip of the iceberg, said Anil Bhardwaj, the secretary general of a trade organization for manufacturing businesses. Also contributing to the problem, he said, are the high cost of land, a shortage of the right kinds of engineers and a lack of good financing from banks. Many difficulties that he and other owners face are about inconsistent government policy and red tape, problems that have dogged Indian industry for many decades.

    Mr. Bhardwaj also cited a less obvious need faced by manufacturers: a well-functioning justice system. India’s courts are slow and their rulings arbitrary, he said, putting small businesses like his colleagues’ at the mercy of larger firms that can afford better lawyers and political influence.

    “That’s why people really fear the big companies in India,” he said.

    Smaller companies can’t afford to confront them, or the politicians and regulators who accommodate them. India’s court system is so disastrously backed up — with more than 50 million cases pending — that any entanglement can turn deadly for a smaller player. So they avoid growing, and miss out on efficiencies of scale.

    He and other experts acknowledge significant improvements in recent years. For instance, power, which was in short supply 10 years ago, has become plentiful in places like Haryana’s industrial parks, though it is not as reliable as the small factories there would like. Many government processes have been streamlined during Mr. Modi’s time in office.

    And states have managed to replicate some parts of the production system that made China’s factories the world’s envy. A cluster of Apple suppliers in the state of Tamil Nadu is by some estimates producing 20 percent of the world’s iPhones. Until the past few years, nearly all were made in China.

    Records from Tamil Nadu’s main airport show that in the weeks before Mr. Trump announced his 27 percent tariff, outbound shipments of electronics doubled, to more than 2,000 tons a month, as Apple and other companies stocked up. A decision on Friday by Mr. Trump to exclude smartphones and other electronics could tamp down the rush to ship iPhones to America.

    Still, long-term changes are afoot. A person who works closely with Apple’s suppliers, who was not authorized to discuss their plans publicly, said the suppliers were hoping to ramp up production so India could make 30 percent of the world’s iPhones.

    Mr. Khandelwal, the politician, said India was ready to seize the overnight advantage created by the 145 percent tariff against China across many industries, including electronics, auto parts, textiles and chemicals.

    Smaller factory owners are eager for the same things. But they see big old Indian obstacles in their way, the very kind that have resisted reform for decades.

  • The President’s Office Wants Congress to Take Away Funding From NPR and PBS

    The President’s Office Wants Congress to Take Away Funding From NPR and PBS

    The White House is planning to ask Congress to claw back more than $1 billion slated for public broadcasting in the United States, according to two people briefed on the plan, a move that could ultimately eliminate almost all federal support for NPR and PBS.

    The plan is to request that Congress rescind $1.1 billion in federal funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the taxpayer-backed company that funds public media organizations across the United States, one of the people said. If Congress agrees, that will amount to about two years of the organization’s funding, nearly all of which goes to public broadcasters including NPR, PBS and their local member stations. The Trump administration isn’t planning to ask Congress to claw back about $100 million allocated for emergency communications.

    Government money accounts for a small part of the budgets at NPR and PBS, which also generate revenue through sponsorships and donations. Most of the government funding goes to local stations, which rely on it to finance their newsrooms and pay for programming.

    The proposal would be part of a broader rescission package, a formal request to Congress to rescind previously approved funds, that would also eliminate billions allocated to foreign aid, the two people said. The process is established under law, which gives the House and Senate 45 days to vote to approve the request after it is submitted. The White House plans to submit this rescission request in the coming weeks, the people said. If Congress does not approve the rescission request, the money must be spent as originally intended.

    The Trump administration’s proposal to defund public broadcasting comes amid sustained pressure on NPR and PBS from Republicans in Congress, who have intensified long-running attacks on the broadcasters. The chief executives of both organizations testified before Congress last month in a fiery hearing that played out along mostly partisan lines: Republicans assailed the executives for what they saw as liberal bias, and Democrats argued that the proceeding was a waste of time.

    The ask would also be the latest move by the Trump administration to exert pressure on media organizations. The administration is waging a legal battle with The Associated Press over its decision to exclude the wire service from the presidential press pool, breaking decades of precedent. Mr. Trump is also personally suing CBS News and The Des Moines Register, and the Federal Communications Commission has launched investigations into Comcast, PBS and NPR.

    Spokespeople for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, PBS and NPR declined to comment.

    The Corporation for Public Broadcasting is “forward-funded” two years to insulate it from political maneuvering, and a sizable chunk of the money for 2025 has already been paid out to public broadcasters in the United States, according to a person familiar with the matter.

    Public media executives have been planning for the possibility of having public funding clawed back for months. According to a document prepared by station directors this past fall, the immediate elimination of funding, while unlikely, would be “akin to an asteroid striking without warning.”

    “It is the highest risk scenario especially in a time in which the media ecosystem is rapidly changing,” the document said.

    Public media defenders say rural audiences would be hit the hardest if funding was cut from NPR and PBS stations. In very remote areas without broadband access, public radio and TV are among the few sources of news and entertainment.

    But those in favor of defunding say advances in technology have made those services obsolete. In an interview last month, Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, Republican of Georgia, said residents in rural parts of her district had enough access to cellphone and internet services to keep them informed.

    “The bottom line here: NPR and PBS only have themselves to blame,” said Mike Gonzalez, a fellow at the Heritage Foundation who has argued publicly for defunding public media. “For the last 50 years, every Republican president has tried to defund them or reform them.”

    In 2011, NPR executives produced a secret report that explored what would happen if government funding was eliminated. According to the report, up to 18 percent of roughly 1,000 member stations across the United States would close, and $240 million would vanish from public radio. Stations in the Midwest, the South and the West would be most affected, and roughly 30 percent of listeners would lose access to NPR programming.

    One potential upside, according to the document: Cutting off federal funding would galvanize public radio supporters, leading to a sudden surge in donations to stations across the United States.

  • Trump Administration to Withhold $2 Billion Following Harvard’s Rejection of Demands

    Trump Administration to Withhold $2 Billion Following Harvard’s Rejection of Demands

    The Trump administration acted quickly on Monday to punish Harvard University after it refused to comply with a list of demands from the federal government that the school said were unlawful.

    On Monday afternoon, Harvard became the first university to refuse to comply with the administration’s requirements, setting up a showdown between the federal government and the nation’s wealthiest university. By the evening, federal officials said they would freeze $2.2 billion in multiyear grants to Harvard, along with a $60 million contract.

    Other universities have pushed back against the administration’s interference in higher education. But Harvard’s response, which called the Trump administration’s demands illegal, marked a major shift in tone for the nation’s most influential school, which has been criticized in recent weeks for capitulating to Trump administration pressure.

    A letter the Trump administration sent to Harvard on Friday demanded that the university reduce the power of students and faculty members over the university’s affairs; report foreign students who commit conduct violations immediately to federal authorities; and bring in an outside party to ensure that each academic department is “viewpoint diverse,” among other steps. The administration did not define what it meant by viewpoint diversity, but it has generally referred to seeking a range of political views, including conservative perspectives.


    Read the Trump Administration’s Letter to Harvard


    “No government — regardless of which party is in power — should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue,” said Alan Garber, Harvard’s president, in a statement to the university on Monday.

    Since taking office in January, the Trump administration has aggressively targeted universities, saying it is investigating dozens of schools as it moves to eradicate diversity efforts and what it says is rampant antisemitism on campus. Officials have suspended hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funds for research at universities across the country.

    The administration has taken a particular interest in a short list of the nation’s most prominent schools. Officials have discussed toppling a high-profile university as part of their campaign to remake higher education. They took aim first at Columbia University, then at other members of the Ivy League, including Harvard. The announcement of the funding freeze was issued by members of a federal antisemitism task force that has been behind much of the effort to target schools.

    “Harvard’s statement today reinforces the troubling entitlement mindset that is endemic in our nation’s most prestigious universities and colleges,” said a statement from the task force, posted by the General Services Administration.

    Harvard, for its part, has been under intense pressure from its own students and faculty to be more forceful in resisting the Trump administration’s encroachment on the university and on higher education more broadly.

    The Trump administration said in March that it was examining about $256 million in federal contracts for Harvard, and an additional $8.7 billion in what it described as “multiyear grant commitments.” The announcement went on to suggest that Harvard had not done enough to curb antisemitism on campus. At the time, it was vague about what the university could do to satisfy Trump administration concerns.

    Last month, more than 800 faculty members at Harvard signed a letter urging the university to “mount a coordinated opposition to these anti-democratic attacks.”

    The university appeared to take a step in that direction on Monday. In his letter rejecting the administration’s demands, Dr. Garber suggested that Harvard had little alternative.


    Read Harvard’s Response to the Trump Administration


    “The university will not surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights,” he wrote. “Neither Harvard nor any other private university can allow itself to be taken over by the federal government.”

    The government’s letter to Harvard on Friday demanded an extraordinary set of changes that would have reshaped the university and ceded an unprecedented degree of control over Harvard’s operations to the federal government. The changes would have violated principles that are held dear on colleges campuses, including academic freedom.

    Some of the actions that the Trump administration demanded of Harvard were:

    • Conducting plagiarism checks on all current and prospective faculty members.
    • Sharing all its hiring data with the Trump administration, and subjecting itself to audits of its hiring while “reforms are being implemented,” at least through 2028.
    • Providing all admissions data to the federal government, including information on both rejected and admitted applicants, sorted by race, national origin, grade-point average and performance on standardized tests.
    • Immediately shutting down any programming related to diversity, equity and inclusion.
    • Overhauling academic programs that the Trump administration says have “egregious records on antisemitism,” including placing certain departments and programs under an external audit. The list includes the Divinity School, the Graduate School of Education, the School of Public Health and the Medical School, among many others.

    The demands suggested that the federal government wanted to intrude on processes that universities prefer to have control over, like how they admit their incoming classes. It also touched on issues that conservative activists have used as cudgels against academics. Plagiarism accusations, for example, are part of the reasons that Harvard’s former president, Claudine Gay, was forced to resign.

    “Harvard has in recent years failed to live up to both the intellectual and civil rights conditions that justify federal investment,” the Trump administration letter said. 

    Last month, after the Trump administration stripped $400 million in federal funds from Columbia University, Columbia agreed to major concessions demanded by the federal government. It agreed to place its Middle Eastern studies department under different oversight and to create a new security force of 36 “special officers” empowered to arrest and remove people from campus.

    The demands on Harvard were different, and much more expansive, touching on many aspects of the university’s basic operations.

    Representative Elise Stefanik, a Republican from New York who had questioned university leaders, including Dr. Gay, over allegations that they had tolerated antisemitism on campus, said that the Trump administration should “defund Harvard” for defying the federal government.

    “It is time to totally cut off U.S. taxpayer funding to this institution,” she wrote in a social media post on Monday.

    In Harvard’s response on Monday, it said it had already made major changes over the last 15 months to improve its campus climate and counter antisemitism, including disciplining students who violate university policies, devoting resources to programs that promote ideological diversity, and improving security.

    Harvard said it was unfortunate that the administration had ignored the university’s efforts and moved instead to infringe on the school’s freedom in unlawful ways.

    The forceful posture taken by Harvard on Monday was applauded across higher education, after universities had drawn widespread criticism for failing to resist Mr. Trump’s attacks more aggressively.

    Harvard itself had been under fire for a series of moves in recent months that faculty members said were taken to placate Mr. Trump, including hiring a lobbying firm with close ties to the president and pushing out the faculty leaders of the Center for Middle Eastern Studies.

    A Harvard faculty group filed a lawsuit last week, seeking to block the administration from carrying out its threat to withdraw federal funding from the university. Nikolas Bowie, a law professor and secretary-treasurer of Harvard’s chapter of the American Association of University Professors, the group that filed the suit, applauded Harvard’s rejection of the Trump administration’s demands.

    “I’m grateful for President Garber’s courage and leadership,” said Dr. Bowie. “His response recognizes that there’s no negotiating with extortion.”

    Ted Mitchell, president of the American Council on Education, which represents many colleges and universities in Washington, said Harvard’s approach could embolden other campus leaders, whom he said were “breathing a sigh of relief.”

    “This gives more room for others to stand up, in part because if Harvard hadn’t, it would have said to everyone else, ‘You don’t stand a chance,’” said Dr. Mitchell, a former president of Occidental College. “This gives people a sense of the possible.”

    He described Harvard’s response as “a road map for how institutions could oppose the administration on this incursion into institutional decision-making.” He added, “Whether it’s antisemitism or doing merit-based hiring or merit-based admissions, the basic texture of the academic enterprise needs to be decided by the university, not by the government.”

    Ethan Kelly, 22, a senior at Harvard from Maryland, said that Monday’s message from Dr. Garber was a relief. He said that he and many of his classmates have been concerned that their school would cave to the Trump administration’s demands.

    “There’s been so much concern that Harvard would fold under political pressure, especially with how aggressive the Trump administration has been in trying to control higher education,” Mr. Kelly said. Seeing Dr. Garber draw a clear line, he added, was something “that matters.”

    In a related development, nine major research universities and three university associations sued the Trump administration on Monday to restore $400 million in funding that the Energy Department said it was slashing last week.

    In a statement, Michael I. Kotlikoff, the president of Cornell University, one of the schools that joined the lawsuit, said the research at stake was “vital to national security, American manufacturing, economic competitiveness and progress toward energy independence.”

    Other schools listed as plaintiffs were Brown University, Caltech, the University of Illinois, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the University of Michigan, Michigan State, Princeton and the University of Rochester. The Energy Department said it would dramatically reduce overhead or “indirect” costs associated with the grants.

  • Bukele rejects returning Maryland man Trump officials mistakenly deported

    Bukele rejects returning Maryland man Trump officials mistakenly deported

    Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele said Monday that he does not plan to return a Maryland man whom the Trump administration mistakenly deported to his country, as the U.S. judicial system barrels toward a potential constitutional crisis over the standoff.

    “How can I return him to the United States?” Bukele said in an Oval Office meeting with President Donald Trump, responding to a reporter’s question. “I smuggle him into the United States? Of course I’m not going to do it. The question is preposterous.”

    Kilmar Abrego García, a Salvadoran immigrant who is married to a U.S. citizen, was deported last month to El Salvador’s brutal mega-prison, CECOT. His case has become a focal point of the Trump administration’s attempt to deport more than 1 million immigrants from the United States — and the court battles over the legality of that campaign. The Supreme Court on Thursday backed a lower-court order that requires the White House to “facilitate” the release of Abrego García, but the justices stopped short of saying a lower-court judge could order the administration to “effectuate” his return.

    Trump officials on Monday suggested that the administration was not bound to follow court orders to return Abrego García from El Salvador.

    “No court in the United States has a right to conduct the foreign policy of the United States,” Secretary of State Marco Rubio said during the Oval Office meeting.

    Trump officials on Monday repeated their arguments that Abrego García is a member of a criminal gang, MS-13, that Trump has declared a foreign terrorist organization, allowing for his deportation. Abrego García’s lawyers have denied the claim, and U.S. District Court Judge Paula Xinis, who has ordered the Trump administration to return Abrego García from El Salvador, has said that there is no evidence Abrego García is a gang member.

    The claims date to 2019, when Abrego García and other day laborers seeking construction jobs at a Home Depot were detained by police and questioned about gang activity. Abrego García said he wasn’t in a gang. A U.S. immigration judge that year shielded Abrego García from deportation to El Salvador, concluding that he was likely to face persecution there by a local gang that tried to extort his family and then recruit him into their ranks before he fled the country. The Trump administration did not appeal that decision, known as a withholding of removal order.

    Muzaffar Chishti, a senior fellow at the Migration Policy Institute, said the Trump administration’s argument that the withholding of removal order cannot apply is a “totally new development.”

    “The first question is, why didn’t they assert that before,” Chishti said, adding that the declaration of whether Abrego García is a foreign terrorist and whether that affects the withholding of removal order should fall to an immigration judge or potentially to the Justice Department’s immigration appeals board. “Just because the government is asserting that someone was a member of the terrorist organization … the final word on that cannot be the government’s, the final word on that has to be an immigration judge.”

    Trump also told reporters on Monday that he was open to deporting U.S. citizens if they had committed violent, criminal acts.

    “If it’s a homegrown criminal, I have no problem,” Trump said in the Oval Office. “We’re studying the laws right now, Pam [Bondi, the attorney general] is studying. If we can do that, that’s good.”

    Immigration experts have said there is no legal way for a person with U.S. citizenship to be deported. The president has previously raised the idea of sending U.S. citizens who have been convicted of some crimes to prisons in other countries.

    Bukele, whom Trump hailed Monday as “one hell of a president,” has emerged as a key player in the Trump administration’s plans to conduct mass deportations of undocumented immigrants.

    The two presidents struck a deal that has allowed El Salvador to accept more than 200 Venezuelans deported from the United States since Trump’s inauguration in January. The White House and the Salvadoran government have circulated videos and pictures of the purported gang members — kneeling, hands behind their backs, clothes pulled open to expose tattoos — being processed into the prison.

    A top Immigration and Customs Enforcement official admitted in a court filing that “many” of those deported do not have criminal records in the United States. Lawyers and relatives of many of the men have disputed the Trump administration’s claim that they are members of criminal gangs.

    Bukele has described the agreement as an opportunity for America to “outsource part of its prison system,” saying that his country was willing to accept convicted criminals — including convicted U.S. citizens — and place them in its mega-prison in exchange for a fee.

    “You are helping us out, and we appreciate it,” Trump told Bukele on Monday. He also praised El Salvador’s president for constructing the CECOT prison complex.

    “I said, can you build some more of them, please?” Trump said, suggesting that he wanted to ramp up deportations to El Salvador.

    Bukele responded that it was an honor to participate in Trump’s mass-deportation efforts, saying the initiative would help protect other U.S. citizens.

    “To liberate 350 million people, you have to imprison some,” Bukele said. “You have to imprison them so you can liberate 350 million Americans that are asking for the end of crime and the end of terrorism.”

    The Abrego García case has become a major point of contention in Trump’s mass-deportation efforts, and the nuanced order from the Supreme Court has given the government’s lawyers an opening to push back on Xinis, the district court judge overseeing the case in Maryland, with non-answers, shifting claims and a defiant tone.

    Government attorneys said Sunday night that the administration is not required to engage El Salvador’s government in efforts to facilitate Abrego García’s return, arguing that he “is no longer eligible” for the protection from deportation that should have prevented him from being sent to El Salvador in the first place.

    Abrego García’s attorneys say he is the victim of a “Kafkaesque mistake.” They also warn he is danger of being tortured and killed in the mega-prison where he is being held, and have told Xinis that the Trump administration should be held in contempt for failing to detail its efforts to repatriate their client.

    Bukele has risen in power as he has tempered widespread violence in what had been one of the world’s most dangerous, gang-infested countries. The 43-year-old skirted a constitutional ban on successive terms for president, jokingly referring to himself as the “world’s coolest dictator.”

    But those inroads against crime and gangs have come at a humanitarian cost. Some 85,000 people have been imprisoned in El Salvador since Bukele declared emergency rule in 2022 — one of the highest incarceration rates in the world. Most don’t have access to an attorney and have not been tried in court, caught in a legal, and at times fatal, black hole. Nearly 400 people have died in the unhygienic, overcrowded prisons, according to human rights groups.

    Bukele, who has aspired for a larger presence on the global stage, has found an ally in a Trump administration searching for novel ways to fulfill the president’s immigration-related promises. He has soaked up praise from Rubio and other U.S. officials. And this week he received red-carpet treatment in the United States, welcomed by an honor guard at the White House before sitting down in the Oval Office with the most powerful person in the world.

    6EK4BN6RGFJ7PWIUUGRZN7TCFM
    Bukele speaks during the inauguration ceremony of the Key Institute in Antiguo Cuscatlan, El Salvador, on March 19. (Jose Cabezas/Reuters)

    His visit also raised anxiety among Democrats who questioned why Trump was hosting El Salvador’s leader while the Trump administration was refusing to share information about people that it had deported to the country.

    Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Maryland) on Sunday requested an urgent meeting with Bukele, saying he needed answers on the status of Abrego García, a constituent.

    “I have met with Mr. Abrego Garcia’s wife, mother and brother and, as you can imagine, they are extremely worried about his health, safety, and continued illegal confinement, as am I,” Van Hollen wrote in a letterto Milena Mayorga, El Salvador’s ambassador to the United States. A Van Hollen spokeswoman said Monday morning that the embassy had confirmed receipt but had not yet scheduled a meeting.

  • Arrest warrant issued in Bangladesh for UK MP Tulip Siddiq

    Arrest warrant issued in Bangladesh for UK MP Tulip Siddiq

    An arrest warrant for the former City minister Tulip Siddiq has been issued in Bangladesh with a new allegation accusing her of illegally receiving a plot of land from her aunt, the ousted former prime minister Sheikh Hasina.

    Bangladeshi media reported the warrant was issued by a judge for 53 people connected to Hasina, including Siddiq. There is no formal extradition treaty between the UK and Bangladesh.

    Siddiq’s representative said there was “no basis at all for any charges to be made against her, and there is absolutely no truth in any allegation that she received a plot of land in Dhaka through illegal means”.

    The MP for Hampstead and Highgate has denied allegations of corruptionlinked to her aunt’s collapsed regime and accused the Bangladeshi authorities of a “targeted and baseless” campaign against her.

    Siddiq resigned in January as economic secretary to the Treasury, citing the risk of becoming a distraction and saying the government was being harmed by the furore over her use of properties given to herself and her family by allies of the regime of Hasina.

    She was not deemed by Keir Starmer’s ethics adviser to have broken any rules over her use of the homes and he found no evidence to suggest that any of Siddiq’s assets were derived from anything other than legitimate means.

    But Laurie Magnus did find a lack of records and said lapse of time meant he had “not been able to obtain comprehensive comfort in relation to all the UK property-related matters”.

    A Conservative party spokesperson said: “If it is the case that Keir Starmer’s choice for anti-corruption minister is the subject of an international arrest warrant for corruption, she should immediately stand down as Labour MP.

    “It is shocking that Keir Starmer believes ‘the door remains open’ for Ms Siddiq returning to a government position. Keir Starmer must put his close friendship and association with Ms Siddiq aside and take the action he should have months ago.”

    Bangladesh’s anti-corruption commission (ACC) has alleged that Siddiq, 42, received a 670 sq metre plot in the diplomatic zone of the capital, Dhaka, through ties to the former rulers, according to the Sunday Telegraph.

    The allegation is that Siddiq persuaded her aunt to allocate three plots of land in the exclusive enclave for her family members, including her mother, Sheikh Rehana, her brother Radwan and her younger sister Azmina. The family are all based in Britain.

    The ACC chair, Mohammad Abdul Momen, previously told the BBC the investigations in Bangladesh were “based on documentary evidence of corruption” and Siddiq should return to fight her case in Bangladesh.

    In a statement made through her lawyers, Siddiq’s representatives said: “The ACC has made various allegations against Ms Siddiq through the media in the last few months. The allegations are completely false and have been dealt with in writing by Ms Siddiq’s lawyers.

    “The ACC has not responded to Ms Siddiq or put any allegations to her directly or through her lawyers. Ms Siddiq knows nothing about a hearing in Dhaka relating to her and she has no knowledge of any arrest warrant that is said to have been issued.

    “To be clear, there is no basis at all for any charges to be made against her, and there is absolutely no truth in any allegation that she received a plot of land in Dhaka through illegal means.

    “She has never had a plot of land in Bangladesh and she has never influenced any allocation of plots of land to her family members or anyone else.

    “No evidence has been provided by the ACC to support this or any other allegation made against Ms Siddiq and it is clear to us that the charges are politically motivated.”