A federal judge on Monday paused cuts that the Trump administration had made to funding for public health research, issuing a temporary restraining order that applies only in the 22 Democratic-led states that brought a lawsuit challenging the reduction in funding.
US District Judge Angel Kelley ordered more briefing in the case, with a hearing scheduled for February 21.
The Democratic attorneys general of 22 states alleged in the lawsuit filed Monday that the newly announced cuts “will mean the abrupt loss of hundreds of millions of dollars that are already committed to employing tens of thousands of researchers and other workers, putting a halt to countless life-saving health research and cutting-edge technology initiatives.”
“Not only that, but the sudden cut of funding will have ripple effects into the private sector as it disrupts numerous partnerships with private institutions,” said the lawsuit, filed in Massachusetts’ federal court.
The complaint added to the pile of quick-moving court proceedings challenging President Donald Trump’s aggressive reshaping of the federal government.
Under the challenged plan, funding from the National Institutes of Health known as indirect cost rates would be capped at 15 percent, from an average of more than 27 percent. Some research institutions, including Harvard, have rates higher than 60%, according to the NIH, which said in a post on X last week that the policy would save more than $4 billion a year.
Those rates are aimed at covering the various overhead costs – like facility costs, regulatory compliance and administrative support – that research institutions must account for to support their research. If the administration’s plans to cut those rates are not halted, the “cutting edge work to cure and treat human disease will grind to a halt,” the lawsuit said.
“This is an attempt to eliminate funding that supports medical and public health innovation at every research institution in the country,” Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Campbell said at a news conference Monday. “The administration’s recent directive would abruptly cap indirect costs at 15%, significantly less than what is required to conduct advanced medical research. The administration knows that.”
Campbell noted that the Trump administration had proposed similar cuts in 2017, “and the Republican-controlled Congress at the time passed a law demanding continued stable funding for medical research. That law is still in effect, whether the president believes it or not.”
The attorneys general bringing the case said they expected private research institutions to bring their own lawsuit challenging the administration’s plans, as the states’ lawsuit would cover public research institutions.
NIH’s parent agency, the US Department of Health and Human Services, has the authority to make these changes, its director of communications, Andrew Nixon, told CNN via email – and believes it could even impose them retrospectively “for current grants and require grantees to return the excess overhead they have previously received, but we have currently chosen not to do so to ease the implementation of the new rate; however, we will continue to assess this policy choice and whether it is in the best interest of the American taxpayer.”
“Our Administration wants to help America have the best research in the world, and we believe that by ensuring that more cents on every dollar go directly to science and not to administrative overheard, we can take another step in that direction,” Nixon said.
Asked for comment on the lawsuit, the White House defended the new policy.
“Contrary to the hysteria, redirecting billions of allocated NIH spending away from administrative bloat means there will be more money and resources available for legitimate scientific research, not less. The Trump administration is committed to slashing the cottage industry built off of the waste, fraud, and abuse within our mammoth government while prioritizing the needs of everyday Americans,” spokesman Kush Desai said.
A federal judge has put a stop to the Trump administration’s attempts to slash public health research funding in certain states. The ruling comes as a victory for advocates of public health and medical research, who have been fighting against the proposed cuts.
The Trump administration had planned to reduce funding for public health research in states like California, New York, and Massachusetts, which are known for their robust medical research programs. However, the judge’s decision has halted these cuts, ensuring that critical research projects can continue to receive the necessary funding.
This ruling is a significant win for public health advocates and researchers, who rely on government funding to support their vital work. It also sends a strong message that the government cannot arbitrarily cut funding for critical research projects without proper justification.
As we continue to navigate the challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic and other public health crises, it is essential that we prioritize and support research efforts that can help us better understand and combat these threats. This ruling is a step in the right direction towards ensuring that public health research remains a top priority for our government.
Donald Trump has pulled back from the brink of a trade war with Canada and Mexico, postponing sweeping new US tariffs on goods from its two closest economic partners by one month.
It is the third time in two weeks the US president has delayed his threatened 25% tariffs on the two countries. China is still set to face additional 10% levy on its exports to the US from Tuesday.
Following talks with the Canadian prime minister, Justin Trudeau, and the Mexican president, Claudia Sheinbaum, on Monday, Trump agreed to hold off from imposing new duties on the two countries.
The agreements came on a day of extreme volatility in global financial markets as rattled investors reacted to the prospect of a dramatically escalating dispute involving the world’s largest economies.
The US president had upended US-Mexico ties over the weekend when he announced 25% tariffs and accused Sheinbaum’s administration of engaging in an “intolerable alliance” with Mexican crime groups.
Sheinbaum rejected that “slanderous” accusation, but on Monday morning struck a softer note as she announced “a series of agreements” with Trump after a conversation between the two leaders during which they agreed to pause US tariffs for a month to allow for fresh negotiations.
Mexico had agreed to send 10,000 members of its national guard “to prevent drug trafficking from Mexico to the US, in particular of fentanyl”, Sheinbaum said. In return, the US had agreed to work to prevent high-powered weapons crossing the border into Mexico.
Trump confirmed the deal shortly afterwards on his Truth Social network. He said 10,000 Mexican soldiers would be “specifically designated to stop the flow of fentanyl, and illegal migrants into our country”.
Negotiations involving senior Mexican officials, the US secretary of state, Marco Rubio, the US treasury secretary, Scott Bessent, and the US commerce secretary, Howard Lutnick, would take place during the pause, he said.
Following two calls with Trump on Monday, Trudeau announced that tariffs would be “paused” for 30 days. “Canada is implementing our $1.3bn border plan – reinforcing the border with new choppers, technology and personnel, enhanced coordination with our American partners, and increased resources to stop the flow of fentanyl,” he said in a statement. “Nearly 10,000 frontline personnel are and will be working on protecting the border.”
Late last year, Trump threatened to impose tariffs on Canada, Mexico and China on the first day of his presidency. From the first day of his presidency, he said he would do so from 1 February. This weekend, he said they would kick in from 4 February. They have now been delayed until March.
Economists have warned Trump’s planned wave of tariffs would risk raising prices for millions of Americans, just weeks after he pledged, upon taking office, to “rapidly” bring them down.
On Monday, however, Trump maintained that tariffs were a “very powerful” means of both strengthening the US economically and “getting everything else you want”. He had conceded over the weekend that they could cause “a little pain” in the US.
Markets sold off sharply worldwide in response to what has been described as a “Trump tariff tantrum” before recovering some of their losses after news broke of the deal with Mexico. Wall Street fell in early trading, with the S&P 500 down almost 2%. Share prices in Europe followed a sharp move lower in Asia.
London’s FTSE 100 index dropped 1.4% from Friday’s record high before making back some of its losses to trade down 1%.
Trump also indicated on Sunday that the EU would be next to face tariffs, but did not say when.
EU leaders meeting at an informal summit in Brussels on Monday said Europe would fight back if the US imposed tariffs, but called for negotiation. The French president, Emmanuel Macron, said that if the bloc’s commercial interests were attacked it would “make itself respected and thus react”.
The German chancellor, Olaf Scholz, said the EU could respond if necessary with its own tariffs, but stressed it would be better for the two sides to find agreement on trade.
Trump hinted that Britain might be spared tariffs, saying: “I think that one can be worked out.”
Asked whether he was worried by Trump’s refusal to rule out imposing sanctions on the UK, the country’s prime minister, Keir Starmer, said: “Obviously, it’s early days.
“I think what’s really important is open and strong trading relations and that’s been the basis of my discussions with President Trump. I know that intense US-EU discussions are planned.”
Officials, analysts and economists who believe Trump’s tariffs could have disastrous consequences for the global economy and for Washinton’s place in the world voiced relief at the Mexico deal.
Experts believe Trump’s plans for 10% tariffs on China and 25% on Canada and Mexico would hamper global growth and cause inflation in the US. Even Trump admitted on Sunday that the measures might cause “a little pain”.
Brian Winter, the editor-in-chief of Americas Quarterly magazine and a Latin America expert, said: “I don’t think anyone expected a resolution today, and obviously it’s a relief. But the damage is done.
“I can personally imagine a scenario where, within a year, President Trump is on buddy-buddy terms again with Mexico. But you cannot unsee what happened over the last 48 hours. And if companies make decisions in terms of years and decades, how they think about Mexico specifically, and its place in the US value chain, is forever changed.”
Speaking at her daily press conference in Mexico City, Sheinbaum told reporters that at the end of a 30- to 45-minute conversation with Trump, she had joked with him that she would like to see tariffs suspended forever. She said she believed a one-month reprieve represented a good deal, however, and painted the agreement as a win for both sides.
“In Mexico we have rocket launchers that come from the US illegally … How can these high-powered weapons get into Mexico from the US?” she asked, hailing Trump’s apparent commitment to fight gun smuggling as part of the agreement.
Winter said he believed that in some ways Trump’s strong-arm tactics appeared to be working.
Four of his opening moves on the world stage have come in Latin America: diplomatic tussles with Colombia and Venezuela over the deportation of migrants; with Mexico over drug trafficking and migration; and with Panama over supposed Chinese involvement in the Panama canal. In all four cases, Trump has managed to claim victory or extract concessions, although critics argue many of those are largely cosmetic and designed to achieve little more than to please his base.
Winter said: “There’s no doubt that Trump’s approach has produced tangible short-term results in Latin America, decisions that were made with a scope and timeline that otherwise would not have been possible … I think you have to acknowledge that each of these governments have moved far more quickly to accommodate Washington than they would have under a more traditional request.
“The question is, though: what does this do to Washington’s alliances in the medium term? Does it push these countries closer to China? I have my doubts … but with all of these crises, scars remain. I think that governments understand that this is an even more transactional government than in Donald Trump’s first term, and that they can’t really think in terms of alliances anymore with the United States. That’s a huge change.”
The Trump administration has announced that they will be postponing the imposition of tariffs on Canadian and Mexican goods for an additional month. This decision comes after ongoing negotiations between the three countries to address various trade issues.
President Trump had previously threatened to impose tariffs on all goods coming from Mexico in an effort to curb illegal immigration. However, after reaching a deal with Mexico to increase border security measures, the tariffs were put on hold.
Similarly, tariffs on Canadian steel and aluminum were also being considered, but have been delayed once again to allow for further discussions.
This latest development is seen as a positive step towards resolving trade disputes with two of the United States’ biggest trading partners. Stay tuned for more updates on this developing story.
The assistant director at the FBI’s New York field office reportedly told staff in an email that they were in the “middle of a battle” and that it was time for him to “dig in” as the Trump administration targets bureau officials who investigated the January 6 attack on the Capitol.
“Today, we find ourselves in the middle of a battle of our own, as good people are being walked out of the FBI and others are being targeted because they did their jobs in accordance with the law and FBI policy,” wrote James E Dennehy, who has led the New York field office since last September, in an email viewed and reported by the New York Times.
The email came after the justice department’s recent directive to the FBI to compile the names of bureau personnel involved in investigating the 6 January 2021 attack on the Capitol. The justice department also informed FBI leadership last week that eight senior executives at the bureau faced termination.
Since Trump’s inauguration on 20 January, at least nine high-ranking officials at the FBI have been forced out, according to the New York Times.
In his email to staff, Dennehy reportedly said that those removals had spread “fear and angst within the FBI ranks”.
He referred to those who had departed the bureau as “extraordinary individuals” adding: “I mourn the forced retirements.”
Dennehy also reportedly stated his commitment to supporting his staff, and urged them to remain calm and to avoid making hasty decisions regarding their careers.
He also reportedly made it clear that he had no intention of stepping down.
“Time for me to dig in,” he wrote.
Dennehy, who served as an officer in the US Marine Corps for seven years before joining the FBI as a special agent in 2002, reportedly also praised the two top acting officials at the FBI, Brian Driscoll and Robert Kissane, in the email for “fighting” for the agency’s employees.
Dennehy compared the current situation to his experience as a marine in the early 1990s. He recalled digging a small 5ft-deep foxhole where he hunkered down for safety.
“It sucked,” he wrote. “But it worked.”
The uncertainty and turmoil at the FBI comes as the last week, the justice department fired over a dozen federal prosecutors involved in the two criminal cases against Trump, reportedly at the direction of the White House.
The ongoing battle between the FBI and President Trump has reached new heights as the administration continues to purge officials from the agency. In a recent warning to staff, a top agent has cautioned against the growing tensions between the FBI and the White House.
The Trump administration’s efforts to remove key officials from the FBI have raised concerns about the politicization of the agency and the potential impact on its independence. The recent firing of FBI Director James Comey and the removal of Deputy Director Andrew McCabe have only added fuel to the fire.
Despite the challenges facing the agency, the FBI remains steadfast in its commitment to upholding the rule of law and protecting the American people. The warning from the top agent serves as a reminder to staff to stay focused on their mission and not be swayed by political pressures.
As the battle between the FBI and President Trump continues to unfold, it is clear that the agency is facing a difficult road ahead. However, with a dedicated staff and a commitment to justice, the FBI remains resolute in its fight to uphold the values of the Constitution and the law.
Acting FBI Director Brian Driscoll on Friday refused a Justice Department order that he assist in the firing of agents involved in Jan. 6 riot cases, pushing back so forcefully that some FBI officials feared he would be dismissed, multiple current and former FBI officials told NBC News.
The Justice Department ultimately did not dismiss Driscoll, the head of the bureau’s Newark field office who is temporarily serving as its acting director.
The Senate is currently considering whether Kash Patel, President Trump’s pick for FBI director, should be confirmed. A longtime critic of the bureau’s investigations of Trump and Jan. 6th rioters, Patel promised Senators at his confirmation hearing that no FBI officials would be retaliated against.
President-elect Donald Trump and Kash Patel, his pick to lead the FBI, during the Army-Navy football game at Northwest Stadium in Landover, Md., on Dec. 14, 2024. Doug Mills / The New York Times/Redux
“All FBI employees will be protected against political retribution,” Patel said under oath on Thursday.
Just over 24 hours later, Driscoll notified the FBI workforce that he had been ordered to remove eight senior FBI executives by Emil Bove, the acting Deputy Attorney General and Trump’s former personal defense lawyer.
Driscoll also said he had been told to turn over the names of every FBI employee involved in investigating Jan. 6 rioters.
Driscoll stated that the eight executives had been forced out but did not say whether he would turn over the broader list of Jan. 6-related FBI investigators — a list that he noted encompasses thousands of FBI employees, including him.
A former member of the FBI’s elite hostage rescue team, Driscoll promised agents that he would follow the law and existing FBI policies.
“As we’ve said since the moment we agreed to take on these roles, we are going to follow the law, follow FBI policy, and do what’s in the best interest of the workforce and the American people — always,” he wrote.
In a message that circulated widely among bureau personnel, an FBI agent summarized what happened as: “Bottom line — DOJ came over and wanted to fire a bunch of J6 agents. Driscoll is an absolute stud. Held his ground and told WH proxy, DOJ, to F— Off.”
The FBI and the Justice Department declined to comment. A senior FBI official disputed the accounts of the current and former officials saying, “It’s not true.”
A former FBI official who knows Driscoll well said, “He pushed back hard.”
Agents who worked on Jan. 6 cases targeted
It’s not known whether anyone other than the eight senior FBI executives have been separated from the bureau. One official familiar with the matter said that top Trump administration officials have made it clear that they want at least some of the FBI agents who pursued Jan. 6 cases to be fired, just as multiple DOJ prosecutors involved with the Jan. 6 prosecutions were fired.
The official said the Trump administration wants this to happen quickly but has been told by FBI officials that misconduct allegations at the bureau involve a formal review process.
The accounts of Driscoll’s actions shed new light on a chaotic series of events over the last 48 hours that began with the news that the Trump administration was seeking to purge the top ranks of the FBI’s career civil servants.
“Late this afternoon, I received a memo from the acting Deputy Attorney General notifying me that eight senior FBI executives are to be terminated by specific dates, unless these employees have retired beforehand,” Driscoll wrote. “I have been personally in touch with each of these impacted employees.”
He said in the memo that he had also been directed to provide the DOJ by noon on Tuesday a list of all FBI employees involved in Capitol riot cases, and also those involved in a case against a Hamas leader.
No one contacted by NBC News had a sense of the new administration’s interest in the Hamas case, but the focus on Jan. 6 was clear. The Trump administration apparently believes that all of the Jan. 6 cases should not have been brought.
Since it was the largest criminal investigation in U.S. history, thousands of FBI personnel were involved, as Driscoll acknowledged in his memo.
“We understand that this request encompasses thousands of employees across the country who have supported these investigative efforts,” he wrote. “I am one of those employees, as is acting Deputy Director (Rob) Kissane.”
FBI agents work the scene of a shooting at a Fourth of July parade on July 5, 2022, in Highland Park, Ill.Jim Vondruska / Getty Images
FBI agents encouraged
FBI agents were heartened by Driscoll’s memo, a source said, which many saw as an attempt by Driscoll to make the workforce and the public aware of what he was being asked to do.
“He was trying to do right by the workforce,” one person familiar with the thinking of agents told NBC News. “He’s putting it in writing and naming names.”
A separate DOJ memo obtained by NBC News identified the employees who were forced out.
The list included four top FBI managers: Robert Wells, who oversaw the national security branch; Ryan Young, of the intelligence branch; Robert Nordwall, of criminal and cyber response; Jackie Maguire, of science and technology. All of those people were eligible to retire and many of them did so.
The memo also identified two heads of field offices, Jeffrey Veltri in Miami and David Sundberg in Washington, D.C.
Also on the list was Dena Perkins, an acting section chief in the security division who was involved in a controversial disciplinary proceeding against a conservative FBI agent.
The list did not include Spencer Evans, the special agent in charge in Las Vegas, who sent a message to colleagues on Friday that he was being dismissed by FBI headquarters. “I was given no rationale for this decision, which, as you might imagine, has come as a shock.” It’s unclear whether he has now been given a reprieve.
Nor did the list include executive assistant director Arlene Gaylord, a 33-year FBI veteran who was not retirement-eligible and requested that she be allowed to work in another assignment until she did so. An FBI official familiar with the matter said she had been accommodated.
Experts say the firings are illegal
Legal experts said that few, if any, of the firings carried out so far by the Trump administration have been legal under civil service laws because the employees were not afforded due process.
The Trump White House argues, though, that the president has the absolute right to fire anyone he wishes in the executive branch. The Supreme Court has ruled that federal employees have a right to a hearing before they are disciplined or terminated.
Joyce Vance, a former U.S. attorney and NBC News legal contributor, called the firings illegal.
“Career federal employees can be fired for conduct or performance issues, not because they failed to demonstrate political loyalty to the current incumbent of the White House,” said Vance. “Trump ignored controlling law and regulations to do this, and unless the Supreme Court changes their interpretation, any firing of permanent members of the civil service should not stand.”
Even if some of the employees sue and win, they said their public service careers have been irreparably damaged, if not ended.
One of the Jan. 6 prosecutors fired on Friday told NBC News that they “did nothing wrong” and had no regrets about their work. The person, who asked not to named due to fear of retaliation, said it was discouraging to be fired after seeing Trump pardon violent rioters who attacked police officers.
“We’ve all been looking over our shoulders, like, ‘Is this the day that we’re gonna get fired?’ Because we were doing our jobs?” the fired prosecutor told NBC News. “We’ve been forced to dismiss all of the cases that we’ve been working on of all these people that were very violent offenders. It’s been awful.”
Current and former FBI agents say the purge at the bureau has had a shattering effect on the morale, sending a message that agents who work on cases that anger someone in the Trump administration could be targeted.
“Who right now would want to work on a case that would get them crosswise with the administration?” one former FBI official asked. “They will come after you.”
A senior FBI official has come forward to reveal that they forcefully resisted the Trump administration’s attempts to fire several high-ranking officials within the bureau. The official, who requested to remain anonymous, stated that they were appalled by the administration’s blatant disregard for the rule of law and the independence of the FBI.
According to the official, the Trump administration sought to remove key figures within the FBI who were actively investigating connections between the president’s campaign and Russia. The official described these firings as a blatant attempt to obstruct justice and undermine the integrity of the FBI.
Despite facing pressure from the administration to comply with these firings, the senior FBI official stood their ground and refused to participate in what they believed to be an unlawful and unethical act. Their courageous actions ultimately helped to protect the independence and integrity of the FBI during a time of intense political turmoil.
The revelation of this resistance highlights the ongoing challenges faced by government officials who are tasked with upholding the rule of law in the face of political interference. It serves as a reminder of the importance of maintaining the independence and integrity of law enforcement agencies in order to ensure accountability and justice for all.
The Trump administration notified four major news organizations late on Friday that they would have to give up their dedicated office space at the Pentagon to make way for other outlets, including the right-wing sites Breitbart News and One America News.
In a memo, a Department of Defense spokesman, John Ullyot, said that The New York Times, NBC News, NPR and Politico had to vacate their office space by Feb. 14 to allow for “a new outlet from the same medium that has not had the unique opportunity to report as a resident member of the Pentagon press corps” for a year as part of a “new annual media rotation program.”
Mr. Ullyot said The New York Post would replace The Times as a print outlet; the conservative cable channel One America News would be swapped in for NBC News; Breitbart News would be a radio outlet instead of NPR; and the news outlet HuffPost, owned by BuzzFeed, would switch with Politico.
It is common for reporters from major news organizations to have access to desks or work space at government buildings, such as the White House and the U.S. Capitol. The Trump administration has been vocal about wanting to give more access to nontraditional news organizations, including many that have reported favorably on the president.
“Known as the Correspondents’ Corridor, this office space loaned to media outlets by the secretary of defense stands as a tribute to the importance the department has long placed on informing the public about the U.S. military,” the memo said.
The memo said the news outlets that were being removed would remain members of the Pentagon press corps and would still be able to attend briefings.
“The only change will be giving up their physical work spaces in the building to allow new outlets to have their turn to become resident members of the Pentagon press corps,” Mr. Ullyot wrote.
The board of the Pentagon Press Association said in a statement that it had “always welcomed new members and will continue to do so.”
“We are, however, greatly troubled by this unprecedented move by D.O.D. to single out highly professional media who have covered the Pentagon for decades, under both Republican and Democratic administrations,” the board said. “We have asked for a meeting and we will keep everyone informed.”
The announcement came a week after President Trump’s pick for defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, was narrowly confirmed.
“This move to expel The Times and other independent, fact-based news outlets from the Pentagon’s press spaces is a concerning development,” said Charlie Stadtlander, a New York Times spokesman. “The Times is committed to covering the Pentagon fully and fairly. Steps designed to impede access are clearly not in the public interest.”
Isabel Lara, an NPR spokeswoman, said the decision “interferes with the ability of millions of Americans to directly hear from Pentagon leadership, and with NPR’s public interest mission to serve Americans who turn to our network of local public media stations in all 50 states.”
“NPR urges the Pentagon to expand the offices available to press within the building so that all outlets covering the Pentagon receive equal access,” she said.
Politico’s senior managing editor, Anita Kumar, said in an email to the outlet’s newsroom on Saturday, which was viewed by The Times, that Politico was “troubled by this decision.”
A spokesman for NBC News said, “We’re disappointed by the decision to deny us access to a broadcasting booth at the Pentagon that we’ve used for many decades.”
A New York Post spokeswoman said, “As one of most engaged, impactful and far-reaching media brands in the country, it only makes sense for us to have a reporter at the Pentagon.”
A spokesman for OAN, Charles Herring, said, “OAN continues to seek similar access extended to other national television news outlets operating daily in Washington, D.C.”
The Trump Administration has announced plans to remove four major news outlets from their office space within the Pentagon. This decision comes as a shock to many, as these news organizations have had a longstanding presence within the Pentagon and have been reporting on military affairs for years.
The four news outlets being affected by this decision are CNN, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Politico. According to a statement released by the Department of Defense, the decision to remove these news organizations was made in order to “streamline operations and improve efficiency.”
Critics of the move argue that this is a blatant attempt to silence critical reporting on the Trump Administration’s military policies and actions. They claim that by removing these news outlets from the Pentagon, the administration is trying to control the narrative and limit transparency.
However, supporters of the decision argue that it is within the administration’s rights to decide who has access to government facilities and resources. They claim that these news outlets can still report on military affairs from outside the Pentagon and that this move will not hinder their ability to cover important stories.
Regardless of where one stands on this issue, it is clear that the removal of these major news outlets from the Pentagon office space will have significant implications for how military affairs are covered and reported on in the future. It remains to be seen how this decision will impact the relationship between the Trump Administration and the press.
The Trump administration has revoked Temporary Protected Status, or T.P.S., for more than 300,000 Venezuelans in the United States, leaving the population vulnerable to potential deportation in the coming months, according to government documents obtained by The New York Times.
The move, President Trump’s first to remove such protections in his second term, signals that he plans to continue a crackdown on the program that began in his first administration, when he sought to terminate the status for migrants from Sudan, El Salvador and Haiti, among others. He was stymied by federal courts that took issue with the way he undid the protections.
During his first term, when Mr. Trump’s administration ended the protections for migrants from El Salvador and Haiti, officials allowed those affected to keep their status for 12 to 18 months before it ended.
This time, the administration has decided to make the changes more immediate. Those under T.P.S. from Venezuela who received the protections in 2023 will lose their temporary status 60 days after the government publishes the termination notice. Republican critics of the program have said that it has been used to allow migrants to stay much longer than intended and that it has transformed from something temporary to a more permanent arrangement.
The notice indicates that more than 300,000 Venezuelans had T.P.S. through April.
Another group of more than 250,000 Venezuelans have protections through September and for now will not be affected, but the decision suggests that they and others under T.P.S. could be in danger of losing their status in the future.
The termination also increases the number of people without any formal immigration status in the United States as Mr. Trump tries to carry out a mass deportation effort. The decision to revoke the protections could face legal challenges from immigrants rights activists who have been expecting such a decision.
The program is meant for migrants who cannot be returned to a country that is facing a natural disaster or conflict of some sort. In recent years, migrants have fled Venezuela as its government has unraveled under President Nicolás Maduro.
During the Biden administration, the program grew dramatically. As of the end of the last year, more than one million people had the status, according to the Congressional Research Service.
It is clear that Mr. Trump aims to change that. The decision this weekend, authorized by Kristi Noem, the homeland security secretary, explained that T.P.S. was no longer necessary because it did not serve the national interest of the United States, according to the notice obtained by The Times.
Just a few weeks ago, Alejandro N. Mayorkas, then the homeland security secretary, had found the opposite.
In January, the Biden administration extended the protections for Venezuelans for an extra 18 months — a move the Trump administration quickly revoked — finding that the conditions in their country made such a move necessary.
“Venezuela is experiencing ‘a complex, serious and multidimensional humanitarian crisis,’” the Biden Homeland Security Department wrote, citing an Inter-American Commission on Human Rights report on the country. “The crisis has reportedly disrupted every aspect of life in Venezuela.”
The Trump Administration has decided to revoke protections for Venezuelans in the U.S., leaving many individuals and families in a state of uncertainty and fear. The decision to end Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Venezuelan nationals comes as a blow to those who have sought refuge in the U.S. due to the political and economic crisis in their home country.
This latest move by the Trump Administration has been met with criticism from advocates and lawmakers, who argue that Venezuela is still facing dire conditions and that revoking TPS will put many individuals at risk of deportation to a country in turmoil.
The decision to end TPS for Venezuelans is just one in a series of actions taken by the Trump Administration to restrict immigration and asylum protections. As the Biden Administration takes office, many are hopeful that there will be a shift in policy to provide relief and support to those who have fled their countries in search of safety and stability.
It is important for us to stand in solidarity with our Venezuelan neighbors and push for policies that uphold the values of compassion and protection for those in need. Let’s continue to advocate for humane and just immigration policies that recognize the humanity and dignity of all individuals. #ProtectVenezuelans #TPSrevoked #ImmigrationJustice
The website for the US Agency for International Development, or USAid, appeared to be offline on Saturday, as the Trump administration moves to put the free-standing agency, and its current $42.8bn budget for global humanitarian operations, under state department control.
A message stating that the “server IP address could not be found” appeared when attempts were made to access the website on Saturday.
Two sources familiar with the discussions told Reuters on Friday that the Trump administration was moving to strip USAid of its independence as a government agency and put it under state department control.
The apparent failure of the website comes after plaques embossed with the agency’s official seal were removed on Friday, according to Reuters, a sign that the merger into the state department was in the works.
The move comes as the Trump administration has vowed to overhaul the distribution of foreign aid, saying last week it was freezing foreign aid while conducting a review to ensure that assistance worldwide is aligned with Trump’s “America First” foreign policies.
Current and former USAid officials said this week that a purge of senior staff appeared designed to silence any dissent and that bringing the agency under the state department would be a “seismic shift”.
“This moves the United States government to a place where the humanitarian voice will not be in high-level policy discussions,” the official said.
In an opinion column in the Wall Street Journal, the US secretary of state, Marco Rubio – who would assume oversight over USAid if it were or had been placed under the state department – outlined a new US diplomatic focus on the western hemisphere.
Rubio said he would make his first trip as the nation’s most senior diplomat to El Salvador, Guatemala, Costa Rica, Panama and the Dominican Republic.
“These nations were neglected by past administrations that prioritized the global over the local and pursued policies that accelerated China’s economic development, often at our neighbors’ expense,” Rubio wrote.
Reuters reported that the White House was exploring legal authority that Trump could use to issue an executive order to end USAid’s independence and that he could sign such a directive as soon as Friday night or Saturday.
“Watch USAID tonight,” Chris Murphy, a Democratic senator and member of the Senate foreign relations committee, said in a post on X on Friday evening.
Chuck Schumer, the Senate minority leader, citing a “rumor” that Trump planned to dissolve USAid as an independent agency, said in an X post that such a move would be “illegal and against our national interests”.
But it is unclear whether the president has the legal authority to bypass Congress and order USAid’s merger into the state department.
If placed under the state department, USAid could become a more explicit armature of foreign policy goals than it has been as the world’s largest single donor of life-saving humanitarian operations.
USAid has in the past been able to assist countries with whom the United States has no diplomatic relations, including Iran. A source at the agency told Reuters that the non-alignment with the US diplomatic mission had helped build bridges that might not have come to be under purely political objectives.
Perhaps signaling the new administration’s plan to fold the agency under the state department, Trump has not nominated a person to run USAid.
The costs of a freeze on US foreign aid grants is already being felt. Field hospitals in Thai refugee camps, landmine clearance in war zones, and drugs to treat millions suffering from diseases such as HIV are among the programs facing defunding.
In fiscal year 2023, the United States disbursed $72bn of assistance worldwide on everything from women’s health in conflict zones to access to clean water, HIV/Aids treatments, energy security and anti-corruption work. It provided 42% of all humanitarian aid tracked by the United Nations in 2024.
Following Trump’s executive order last week, the state department issued worldwide stop-work directives, effectively freezing all foreign aid with the exception of emergency food assistance in a move that experts warned risked killing people.
Rubio earlier this week issued an additional waiver for “life-saving humanitarian assistance” while Washington undertakes the 90-day review.
As the Trump administration continues to make changes to the structure of government agencies, the USAid website has gone offline as President Trump moves to put the agency under the State Department. This decision has raised concerns about the future of USAid’s independence and effectiveness in providing aid to countries in need.
Many are questioning the motives behind this move and what it means for the future of USAid’s work. Critics worry that placing USAid under the State Department could politicize the agency’s humanitarian efforts and diminish its impact on the ground.
As the website remains offline, many are left wondering about the fate of USAid and how this decision will ultimately impact those who rely on its assistance. Stay tuned for updates on this developing story.
During President Donald Trump’s first term in office, it was not uncommon to hear him speak about the stock market during press interviews. In a way, this isn’t entirely surprising given his history as a real estate developer. Since he was sworn in again last week, Trump has frequently spoken about other market-related items such as interest rates and tariffs.
However, the president appears to have formed an interest in another area of the market outside of its traditional dynamics: cryptocurrency.
Below, I examine two popular cryptocurrencies and make the case for which one I see as the better buy during Trump’s next four years in the Oval Office.
Ripple is a payments network that serves as an alternative to legacy solutions such as the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT) protocol. The main benefits of using Ripple’s infrastructure are faster payment settlement times and lower fees compared to mainstream providers. XRP(CRYPTO: XRP) is a cryptocurrency that trades on the Ripple network, offering banks and corporations a creative way to send funds back and forth while circumventing hefty foreign exchange fees.
As of this writing (Jan. 27), XRP’s price is about $3. Cheap, right? Well, as I’ve written before, a lower dollar amount does not always equate to a reasonably priced asset.
In the chart above, you can see that XRP was trading below $1 for most of last year. But then in November, the cryptocurrency skyrocketed and it now boasts a market capitalization of $171 billion.
The primary catalyst that fueled XRP’s surge was Trump’s reelection. During his time on the campaign trail, Trump frequently touted pro-crypto rhetoric — especially from a regulatory standpoint.
Moreover, Trump’s nomination of Paul Atkins to lead the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is also viewed as a major positive for XRP. The reason is that Ripple has spent the last several years in a legal whirlwind with the SEC, which alleges the company is selling XRP as an unregistered security. Given Atkins’ support of the crypto landscape, some speculate that his leadership at the SEC (should he be confirmed) could put an end to Ripple’s lawsuit and pave the way for a brighter future for XRP.
Image source: Getty Images.
Shortly after his inauguration, Trump stepped into the Oval Office to sign piles of executive orders. Among them was an order to “promote United States leadership in digital assets and financial technology.”
While this statement is rather broad, I see this order as particularly positive for Bitcoin (CRYPTO: BTC). My reasoning revolves around the president and some in his inner circle consistently floating the idea of a strategic Bitcoin reserve.
Bitcoin is a more established cryptocurrency than XRP and the president’s specific support of it gives me some degree of confidence. To be clear, though, just because the president signed an executive order delegating his advisors to work on more crypto-friendly frameworks and the potential adoption of Bitcoin to the U.S. balance sheet does not necessarily mean any of these things will happen.
While I see that Atkins being confirmed to lead the SEC could be a net positive for Ripple, I also think if the SEC drops its lawsuit against the company, then any upward swings in XRP could be fleeting. In other words, Ripple winning its case against the SEC would not necessarily be a success story for XRP specifically. The reason is that banks and corporations could still work with Ripple’s payments network without adopting XRP in any way.
Furthermore, I’d caution against following any momentum-driven volatility that XRP could experience should Ripple come out unscathed from its legal turbulence. To me, XRP remains a speculative opportunity in the crypto realm and I’d hesitate to invest in it right now.
However, I am optimistic that better days are ahead for Bitcoin over the next four years. I think the regulatory environment surrounding crypto will change dramatically under Trump, and in such a way that positively influences the price of Bitcoin further.
While Bitcoin still carries some degree of speculation, I am more bullish on its price appreciation in the long run when compared to other cryptocurrencies such as XRP.
Ever feel like you missed the boat in buying the most successful stocks? Then you’ll want to hear this.
On rare occasions, our expert team of analysts issues a “Double Down” stock recommendation for companies that they think are about to pop. If you’re worried you’ve already missed your chance to invest, now is the best time to buy before it’s too late. And the numbers speak for themselves:
Nvidia:if you invested $1,000 when we doubled down in 2009,you’d have $323,219!*
Apple: if you invested $1,000 when we doubled down in 2008, you’d have $44,996!*
Netflix: if you invested $1,000 when we doubled down in 2004, you’d have $524,860!*
Right now, we’re issuing “Double Down” alerts for three incredible companies, and there may not be another chance like this anytime soon.
Adam Spatacco has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Bitcoin and XRP. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.
When it comes to investing during the Trump administration, there are a lot of factors to consider. With the economy constantly changing and political tensions running high, it can be difficult to know which investments are the best choice for your portfolio.
One option that many investors are considering is buying stocks in companies that are likely to benefit from Trump’s policies. This includes industries such as defense, infrastructure, and energy. These sectors have seen significant growth since Trump took office, and many experts believe that they will continue to perform well in the coming years.
On the other hand, some investors are choosing to focus on more stable investments, such as bonds or real estate. These assets tend to be less volatile than stocks and can provide a more reliable source of income.
Ultimately, the best investment for you will depend on your individual financial goals and risk tolerance. It’s always a good idea to consult with a financial advisor before making any major investment decisions, especially during times of political uncertainty like the Trump administration.
In conclusion, while there are opportunities for profit in the current political climate, it’s important to carefully consider your options and choose investments that align with your overall financial strategy. Whether you choose to invest in stocks, bonds, or real estate, make sure to do your research and stay informed about the latest market trends.
Connecticut Sun player DiJonai Carrington incited fierce backlash by wearing an anti-Trump shirt last weekend, and now she’s taking that message even further.
During a press conference before an “Unrivaled” league game Thursday, Carrington declared it’s time for WNBA players to “take action” in response to President Donald Trump’s policies.
“We see that some of the policies are already going into action, and, of course, that means that as the WNBA and being at the forefront of a lot of these movements, it’s time for us to also take action,” Carrington said.
“It definitely needs to happen as women, women’s rights being taken away, like, now, LGBTQ rights being taken away now. They haven’t happened yet, but definitely in the works.”
DiJonai Carrington (21) of the Connecticut Sun dribbles during Game 2 of the first round of the WNBA playoffs against the Indiana Fever Sept. 25, 2024, at the Mohegan Sun Arena in Uncasville, Conn.(Jesse D. Garrabrant/NBAE via Getty Images)
Carrington wore a shirt that said, “The F— Donald Trump Tour” Friday while walking into Wayfair Arena in Miami, Florida.
The player is most known for her interactions with women’s basketball phenom Caitlin Clark during Clark’s rookie WNBA season in 2024.
Carrington gave Clark a black eye after poking her during a game between Clark’s Indiana Fever and Carrington’s Connecticut Sun in the first round of the playoffs in September. Carrington laughed with teammate Marina Mabrey after the incident.
Connecticut Sun guard DiJonai Carrington (21) fouls Indiana Fever guard Caitlin Clark (22) in the second half in Indianapolis Aug. 28, 2024. (AP Photo/Michael Conroy)
Carrington has said she didn’t intentionally poke Clark in the eye and that she wasn’t laughing about the incident. However, she made light of the controversy over Clark’s black eye in an Instagram Live video in October.
In the video, Carrington and her girlfriend, NaLyssa Smith, who plays on the Indiana Fever with Clark, were in their kitchen when Smith poked Carrington in the eye.
“Ow, you poked me in the eye,” Carrington said. Smith apologized, and the two laughed.
Connecticut Sun guards Marina Mabrey (4) and DiJonai Carrington (21) celebrate during the second half of a first-round WNBA basketball playoff game against the Indiana Fever Sept. 25, 2024, in Uncasville, Conn. (AP Photo/Jessica Hill)
Carrington provoked Clark fans prior to the eye-poking incident with multiple statements berating Clark and her fan base.
During a game in June, Carrington fouled Clark after Clark received an inbound pass from teammate Kristy Wallace. Clark caught the pass and started toward the basket. Carrington was late getting to Clark due to a screen by Aliyah Boston, and she bumped into Clark.
Later that month, Carrington posted on X, saying Clark should do more to speak out about people using her name for “racism” and other forms of prejudice. She also called the Fever fans the “nastiest” in the league.
Jackson Thompson is a sports writer for Fox News Digital. He previously worked for ESPN and Business Insider. Jackson has covered the Super Bowl and NBA Finals, and has interviewed iconic figures Usain Bolt, Rob Gronkowski, Jerry Rice, Troy Aikman, Mike Trout, David Ortiz and Roger Clemens.
WNBA star who hurt Caitlin Clark’s eye calls for league to ‘take action’ against Trump administration policies
WNBA star Liz Cambage has called on the league to take a stand against the Trump administration’s policies, following an incident in which she accidentally injured Iowa basketball star Caitlin Clark’s eye during a game.
Cambage, who plays for the Las Vegas Aces, expressed her frustration with the current political climate in a post-game interview, saying that she believes the league should use its platform to speak out against injustices.
“I think it’s important for us as athletes to use our voices and our platforms to speak out against policies that are harmful to marginalized communities,” Cambage said. “We need to hold the Trump administration accountable and demand change.”
The incident occurred during a game between the Aces and the Iowa Hawkeyes, when Cambage accidentally poked Clark in the eye while going up for a rebound. Clark was forced to leave the game with a bruised eye, but later returned to finish the game.
Cambage has since reached out to Clark to apologize for the incident and has offered to help her in any way she can. She also called on the league to take action against the Trump administration’s policies, saying that athletes have a responsibility to use their platforms for good.
“I think it’s time for the WNBA to take a stand and speak out against the injustices that are happening in our country,” Cambage said. “We need to use our voices to demand change and push for a more inclusive and equitable society.”
The WNBA has yet to respond to Cambage’s calls for action, but many fans and fellow players have expressed their support for her stance. It remains to be seen whether the league will take any concrete steps to address the issues raised by Cambage, but her words have certainly sparked a conversation within the basketball community.
The director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Rohit Chopra, was fired on Saturday, prematurely ending a five-year term that was scheduled to run through late 2026.
“With so much power concentrated in the hands of a few, agencies like the C.F.P.B. have never been more critical,” Mr. Chopra wrote in a letter he posted on social media announcing his departure.
Mr. Chopra expected to be fired immediately after President Trump took office, but he improbably hung on for nearly two weeks, even as the president ousted scores of other agency leaders. He used that time to impose a $2 million fine on a money transmitter and release reports on auto lending costs, specialty credit reporting companies and rent payment data.
When Congress created the consumer bureau in 2011 — to increase oversight of mortgage loans and other financial products in the aftermath of the Great Recession — it included guardrails to protect the agency’s independence and shield it from shifting political tides. But the Supreme Court ruled in 2020 that the president was free to fire the agency’s director without cause, which cleared the way for the bureau’s leadership to change with each presidential administration.
Mr. Chopra was a scourge of Wall Street, known for his aggressive approach to enforcing consumer protection laws and expanding their boundaries by issuing new rules. He led a crackdown that prompted most large banks to abandon or significantly reduce overdraft fees, and he ordered Wells Fargo to pay $2 billion in 2022 to customers harmed by its misdeeds, which included improperly seizing some borrowers’ cars and homes.
Mr. Chopra was especially focused on tightening the rules governing large technology companies’ consumer payment services and use of customer data, an effort that drew praise from banking trade groups. But those groups fiercely opposed many of his other actions, often tying them up in years of litigation.
As part of a Biden administration crusade against “junk fees,” Mr. Chopra issued a rule last year to limit most credit card late payment fees to no more than $8 per month. Banking trade groups sued and won an injunction temporarily blocking it. The consumer bureau has fought the lawsuit, but a new director could choose to end that opposition and curtail or abandon the rule.
During President Trump’s first term, he installed an acting bureau director — Mick Mulvaney, who later served as his acting chief of staff — who sought to cut off the agency’s funding and cripple its enforcement efforts. He was succeeded by Kathleen Kraninger, who issued rules that gutted Obama-era regulations, including one that would have sharply curtailed payday lending. Former President Joseph R. Biden Jr. ousted Ms. Kraninger immediately upon taking office.
The bureau will be run by Zixta Martinez, its deputy director, until Mr. Trump chooses a new acting leader. Financial industry officials expect the agency to pare back its oversight, issue fewer new regulations and freeze or rescind some of those imposed by Mr. Chopra.
He used his departure letter, addressed to Mr. Trump, to pitch the bureau as a prospective partner in enacting consumer protections the president has spoken of endorsing. On the presidential campaign trail, Mr. Trump said he would temporarily limit credit card interest rates to 10 percent.
“We also have analyzed your promising proposal on capping credit card interest rates, and we see a path for enacting meaningful reforms,” Mr. Chopra wrote.
In a shocking move, the Trump administration has fired Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Chief Rohit Chopra. This decision comes amidst ongoing controversy and tension within the agency, with Chopra being a vocal critic of the administration’s deregulatory agenda.
Chopra, a staunch consumer advocate, has been a thorn in the side of the administration since taking over as head of the CFPB. His efforts to hold financial institutions accountable and protect consumers from predatory practices have earned him praise from consumer advocacy groups, but ire from the banking industry and Republican lawmakers.
The decision to remove Chopra from his position has raised concerns about the future of consumer protection in the United States. Many fear that without his leadership, the CFPB will be weakened and unable to fulfill its mandate of safeguarding consumers from financial harm.
Critics of the administration’s move argue that it is part of a broader effort to dismantle the regulatory framework put in place after the 2008 financial crisis. They warn that without strong leadership at the CFPB, consumers will be left vulnerable to exploitation by unscrupulous financial institutions.
As news of Chopra’s firing spreads, there has been an outpouring of support for him on social media, with many calling for his reinstatement. It remains to be seen how the CFPB will move forward without Chopra at the helm, but one thing is clear: his removal has sparked a fierce debate about the future of consumer protection in the United States.
