Tag: administration

  • Why these pregnant moms are suing the Trump administration over the birthright citizenship executive order




    CNN
     — 

    Liza counted the months until Donald Trump would be president. And she counted the months until her baby was due.

    The timing filled her with dread. She’d learned from a friend that Trump planned to end birthright citizenship, right around the time she’d learned she was pregnant.

    Last week, the moment she feared came even faster than she expected.

    “I was shocked that it happened so quickly. … My world fell apart,” says Liza, a grad student in Texas who’s 24 weeks pregnant. Trump’s executive order banning birthright citizenship, she says, has thrust her family’s life into uncertainty.

    Now the mass communications student from Russia is part of a group of pregnant moms – and advocacy organizations who represent them – who are fighting back.

    “We have to do it for us, for our baby, and for all the other people like us,” she told CNN.

    The federal lawsuit Liza and others filed is among a number of legal challenges arguing the ban violates the Constitution and longstanding legal precedent. Ultimately, the Supreme Court could have the final say.

    Advocates argue the mothers’ voices particularly convey the urgency and significance of this moment.

    “The executive order is already creating chaos in immigrant communities,” says Conchita Cruz, executive director of the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project (ASAP). The organization is also a plaintiff in the case, and Cruz says its members include numerous families who would be impacted by the ban.

    CNN has reached out the Justice Department for comment on the lawsuit. In response to another federal lawsuit over the order filed in Seattle, administration officials have argued that the 14th Amendment only grants birthright citizenship “to those persons born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction — and thus excludes children of noncitizens here illegally as well as children of temporary visaholders.”

    In their lawsuit filed in federal court in Maryland, Liza and other plaintiffs argue that the government’s interpretation “violates long-settled law” and unjustly denies citizenship to US-born children who “are plainly ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ of the United States.”

    Losing birthright citizenship wouldn’t be merely a bureaucratic matter, according to Liza, who asked to be identified only by her first name because she fears she could face persecution for speaking out. On top of the stress of pregnancy, she says, she now finds herself worrying that her baby won’t be able to get health care or go to school, or that the child could even face deportation someday. Getting a birth certificate from the Russian Embassy wouldn’t be an option, she says, as her husband is seeking asylum and they fear persecution from the Russian government.

    “My baby will be stateless,” she says.

    Liza says she fears returning to a country she fled in 2023 – and now fears for the future of her unborn child in a country that feels more unwelcoming by the day.

    “It looks like my baby will have less rights than I have,” she says. “You feel unwelcome in your own country. You come here for opportunities. You come here to study, to change the world. … And then it’s all for nothing. They clearly tell you that they do not want you here.”

    She thought she’d found safety and stability in the US. Now nothing seems certain

    Mónica, a doctor from Venezuela who’s living in South Carolina, thought she and her husband had finally found stability in the United States six years after arriving.

    “We’ve been trying to do everything the right way,” she says. “We’ve been working, we have been paying taxes and we actually were able to buy our own home.”

    The moment seemed right to have a child, Mónica told reporters last week.

    “Time was passing, and this was something that was important to us. And we had reached a point of stability in this country,” she said.

    And now at 12 weeks pregnant, she says she should be focusing on her baby’s health.

    But lately, she says her thoughts have been consumed by other worries.

    “Instead, my husband and I are stressed, we’re anxious and we’re depressed about the reality that my child may not be able to become a US citizen,” says Mónica, who asked to be identified by a pseudonym to protect her safety.

    Further complicating matters, it isn’t clear whether Trump’s executive order applies to her. Monica has Temporary Protected Status, which allows her to legally work in the US, and she’s applying for asylum. If she wins her case, she would eventually become a legal permanent resident of the US. But there’s no telling how long that process will take, she says.

    “I’ve been waiting for many years, and I might be waiting for another 10 years before they even call me for an interview, it seems,” she says.

    In the meantime, she says, she also fears her child will be stateless. The Venezuelan Embassy in the US has been closed for years.

    “I don’t know what will happen. … and I don’t understand how it is that my child could be treated differently than other children,” she says. “It should be a right for him to be born in the United States and get US citizenship.”

    Barbara was a lawyer in Cuba, and she’s always liked the idea of fighting injustice. Now, about two years after arriving in the US, she’s working as a school custodian in Kentucky while seeking asylum in the US. And she’s about four months pregnant. Being listed among the impacted ASAP members in a legal filing, she says, has given her strength.

    “Everything that’s in my hands, I’m going to do,” she says. “I want to support this cause because really it’s the children who are being harmed by this, it’s the pregnant women who are going to receive this stress, it’s the families of so many immigrants that are going to be affected.”

    Barbara says the baby, due this summer, would be her second child, a little sister for her 4-year-old daughter.
    Her family has already begun buying baby items to prepare.

    Barbara asked to be identified only by her first name to protect her family’s safety. The stress of handling pregnancy while also worrying about whether the baby girl she’ll have this summer will be a US citizen is overwhelming, she says.

    “After they announced it, I couldn’t sleep. It’s a double concern,” she says. “I feel like they can suddenly steal my baby’s future.”

    It’s a sharp contrast to the supportive environment that Barbara says she, her husband and her 4-year-old daughter have found in Kentucky.

    “There’s a huge Hispanic community,” she says, including many Cubans. And Barbara says they feel at home.

    “My dream is to settle permanently in this country,” she says, “and with God’s blessing, to have our family and a peaceful life.”

    In the days since the lawsuit was filed, Liza says she’s found herself mulling many questions.

    Chief among them: “How do these kids hurt Trump?”

    She says it’s difficult to understand why the US president would target her unborn child and so many others.

    “It’s not making anyone’s life better — not mine, not my family’s, not the people who voted for Trump,” she says. “I would just like people to understand that. Hurting someone does not make your life better.”

    Liza's husband, Igor, is a Russian artist seeking asylum in the United States. After learning Liza was pregnant with their child, he created this oil painting, titled

    A better life is what Liza says she dreams of for her own child.

    “The baby will be bilingual. I think that’s a big thing. There will be so many opportunities for the baby. And in the US…if you work hard, you will get what you deserve,” she says.

    The future for a child in this country, she says, is still bright.

    Despite all the uncertainty of this moment, Liza says that’s one thing she knows.

    CNN’s Tierney Sneed and Hannah Rabinowitz contributed to this report.



    In a recent development, a group of pregnant mothers have decided to take legal action against the Trump administration over the birthright citizenship executive order. The controversial order, which seeks to end automatic citizenship for children born on U.S. soil to non-citizen parents, has sparked outrage and concern among immigrant communities.

    These pregnant mothers argue that the executive order is not only discriminatory but also goes against the principles of the Constitution. They believe that every child born in the United States should have the right to citizenship, regardless of their parents’ immigration status.

    Furthermore, these mothers are concerned about the impact that this order will have on their children’s future. By denying them citizenship, they fear that their children will be deprived of essential rights and opportunities that come with being a U.S. citizen.

    The lawsuit aims to challenge the legality of the executive order and protect the rights of children born to non-citizen parents in the United States. These mothers are determined to fight for their children’s right to citizenship and ensure that they are not unfairly targeted by discriminatory policies.

    As this legal battle unfolds, it is clear that these pregnant mothers are willing to stand up and fight for the rights of their children. Their courage and determination serve as a powerful reminder of the importance of upholding the values of equality and justice for all.

    Tags:

    pregnant moms, Trump administration, birthright citizenship, executive order, lawsuit, legal action, immigration policy, constitutional rights, citizenship rights, pregnant women, immigration reform, legal challenge, Trump policies, government lawsuit

    #pregnant #moms #suing #Trump #administration #birthright #citizenship #executive #order

  • Madonna Slams Trump Administration for “Slowly Dismantling All the Freedoms We Have Been Fighting For”


    Madonna is slamming the Donald Trump administration for their slew of executive orders targeting marginalized groups.

    The pop icon took to her X account (formerly Twitter) on Thursday to express her support for the LGBTQ community after the president, who returned to the White House last Monday, signed an order barring transgender people from serving and enlisting in the military.

    More from The Hollywood Reporter

    “It’s so sad to watch our new Government slowly dismantling all the Freedoms we have been fighting for and WON over the years,” Madonna wrote, adding the LGBTQ pride flag and broken red heart emojis. “Don’t give up the Fight!”

    On Monday, Trump signed a controversial executive order titled “Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness.” The order reinstates a policy from Trump’s first term and rescinds a 2021 order by Joe Biden that allowed trans people to enlist in the military and serve openly. The president has also rolled back diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility initiatives in his first week back in office.

    The “Material Girl” singer has been a longtime advocate for the LGBTQ community, dating back to the 1980s, when she spoke out about the HIV/AIDS crisis and was fighting for gay rights. In 2019, Madonna was also honored with the Advocate for Change Award at the 30th annual GLAAD Media Awards.

    Sarah Kate Ellis, the president and CEO of GLAAD, also wrote in a statement following Trump’s executive order, “Transgender people are already serving in the military with honor and keeping our country and military safer and stronger. They meet the same rigorous health and readiness standards, and continue to do so. The Trump administration’s inaccurate statements and rhetoric targeting transgender people are not based on facts. LGBTQ Americans have been here before, ending ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ and Trump’s previous trans military ban. Research and military experts have made it loud and clear that targeting service members because of who they are is blatantly discriminatory and makes our country less safe.”

    Madonna isn’t the only celebrity condemning Trump’s aggressive new policies. In a since-deleted Instagram video, Selena Gomez got vulnerable over the deportation of undocumented immigrants. “All my people are getting attacked … the children. I don’t understand,” she said as tears streamed down her face. “I’m so sorry. I wish I could do something but I can’t. I don’t know what to do. I’ll try everything, I promise.”

    Best of The Hollywood Reporter

    Sign up for THR’s Newsletter. For the latest news, follow us on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram.



    Madonna Slams Trump Administration for “Slowly Dismantling All the Freedoms We Have Been Fighting For”

    Madonna, the iconic singer and outspoken activist, has once again taken aim at the Trump administration for what she sees as a systematic erosion of the rights and freedoms that Americans have fought so hard to achieve.

    In a recent interview, Madonna criticized President Trump and his administration for their handling of various social and political issues, including the treatment of immigrants, LGBTQ rights, and women’s rights. She accused the administration of slowly dismantling the progress that has been made in these areas over the years.

    Madonna, who has never been one to shy away from controversy, has been a vocal critic of President Trump since he took office in 2017. She has used her platform to speak out against his policies and actions, and has urged her fans to stand up and fight for what they believe in.

    The singer’s latest comments come at a time when tensions in the United States are running high, with many Americans feeling disillusioned and frustrated with the current political climate. Madonna’s words serve as a reminder that the fight for equality and justice is far from over, and that it is up to all of us to continue pushing for progress and positive change.

    As Madonna herself put it, “We cannot let the actions of a few powerful individuals dictate the future of our country. We must stand together and fight for the freedoms that we hold dear.”

    Tags:

    Madonna, Trump Administration, freedoms, dismantling, fighting for, political activism, current events, celebrity news, social justice, resistance, activism, equality, human rights, government policies.

    #Madonna #Slams #Trump #Administration #Slowly #Dismantling #Freedoms #Fighting

  • Trump Administration considers killing NYC congestion pricing: report


    The Trump Department of Transportation is actively considering its options to kill New York’s congestion pricing plan, just three weeks after it started, two sources told the New York Times.

    The paper reported Thursday that the Trump Administration is weighing whether it can pull the plug on “a key federal authorization” granted by the Biden administration last year. Trump has repeatedly stated he opposes the congestion plan, which charges most motorists $9 a day to enter Manhattan south of 60th St.

    An MTA spokesman declined to comment on the report Thursday, referring the Daily news to an earlier comment made by MTA chairman Janno Lieber.

    We’ve been sued in every federal court and state court east of the Mississippi, and we’re batting a thousand,” Lieber said in an interview earlier this month. “We’ve won every time.”

    Sources told The News that key authorization the Trump administration is thought to be targeting is the so-called “VPPP” agreement, signed in December under the Value Pricing Pilot Program, to allow congestion pricing tolls to be used for purposes other than road maintenance.

    The funds from the tolling plan are earmarked for mass transit improvements.

    Congestion pricing cameras are pictured on Central Park West at Columbus Circle Tuesday, Dec. 31, 2024 in Manhattan, New York. (Barry Williams/ New York Daily News)
    Congestion pricing cameras are pictured on Central Park West at Columbus Circle Tuesday, Dec. 31, 2024 in Manhattan, New York. (Barry Williams/ New York Daily News)

    The value pricing program, signed in the waning days of 2024 by the state, local and federal departments of transportation, was the final sign-off required to authorize the program, revenue from which is required by law to back bonds funding the MTA’s capital program.

    It was not immediately clear what legal authority the Trump administration might have to renege on the agreement.

    Originally Published:



    The Trump Administration is reportedly considering killing New York City’s congestion pricing plan, which aims to reduce traffic congestion and raise funds for public transportation improvements.

    According to a recent report, the administration is concerned that the plan could negatively impact commuters and businesses in New York City. The plan, which was approved by the state legislature in 2019, would charge vehicles a fee to enter certain parts of Manhattan during peak hours.

    Supporters of the plan argue that congestion pricing is necessary to address the city’s growing traffic problems and provide much-needed funding for public transportation projects. However, opponents fear that the fees could disproportionately affect low-income residents who rely on cars for transportation.

    The Trump Administration’s potential decision to kill the congestion pricing plan has sparked debate among city officials, transportation advocates, and residents. Stay tuned for updates on this developing story.

    Tags:

    1. Trump Administration
    2. NYC congestion pricing
    3. New York City
    4. Traffic congestion
    5. Transportation policy
    6. Toll pricing
    7. Government decision
    8. Public transit
    9. Urban planning
    10. Traffic management

    #Trump #Administration #considers #killing #NYC #congestion #pricing #report

  • Trump Administration Considers Halting Congestion Pricing


    The Trump administration is considering a move to halt New York City’s congestion pricing program, according to two people with knowledge of the matter.

    The Department of Transportation is discussing whether to withdraw a key federal authorization that the tolling plan received from the Biden administration last year. Such a move would almost certainly touch off a legal battle between the state and federal governments, and could effectively kill congestion pricing in its infancy.

    No final decision has been made but President Trump had vowed to halt congestion pricing once he entered office, saying it was harmful to the city’s economy. The program’s opponents have urged Mr. Trump to re-examine it, with Gov. Philip D. Murphy of New Jersey calling it “a disaster for working- and middle-class New Jersey commuters and residents” in a letter to Mr. Trump last week.

    The tolling program started on Jan. 5 after surviving a number of lawsuits seeking to block it and a last-minute suspension by Gov. Kathy Hochul of New York in June.

    Ms. Hochul and Mr. Trump have spoken twice this week including on Thursday morning. They discussed a range of issues including congestion pricing, according to a person familiar with the matter, with the governor conveying to Mr. Trump that the program was showing signs of success.

    President Trump told Ms. Hochul, the person said, that there would be no immediate action and that before any decisions were made they should touch base again next week.

    A White House spokesman did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

    There is little precedent for the reversal of a transportation project of this magnitude, transit experts said. New York’s congestion pricing plan, an idea that first took shape in the state more than six decades ago, is the first such program in the country. Legal experts said that the federal government’s maneuver could flout the law and would undoubtedly face resistance in the courts.

    “It is questionable whether the administration can unilaterally halt congestion pricing,” said Michael Gerrard, a Columbia Law School professor who supports the program. “The legal authority for that is not at all apparent.”

    The Metropolitan Transportation Authority, which operates congestion pricing, declined to comment on the latest potential threat to the program, but pointed to recent comments it had made about the plan’s resilience.

    “We’ve been sued in every federal court and state court east of the Mississippi, and we’re batting 1.000,” Janno Lieber, the chair and chief executive of the M.T.A., said in an interview this month. “We’ve won every time.”

    A spokesman for Ms. Hochul pointed to her past statements talking up the merits of the program and why it was important to help improve New York’s transit system.

    Other cities that have implemented congestion pricing programs, including London, Stockholm and Singapore, have used the tolls to cut traffic and vehicle emissions, push people to use other modes of transportation and raise money. The tolls are typically unpopular at the onset before gradually winning over more public support. In New York, more than half of voters across the state were opposed to congestion pricing in a Siena College survey released in December.

    The plan, which state lawmakers approved in 2019, charges most vehicles a $9 fee to enter Manhattan below 60th Street, home to some of the most traffic-choked roads in the world. The program cleared its final bureaucratic hurdle in November when the Federal Highway Administration granted New York the approval it needed to toll drivers.

    The M.T. A. had spent half a billion dollars on infrastructure for toll collection during the run-up to the program’s implementation.

    Congestion pricing seeks to reduce the number of vehicles entering the newly tolled zone, which contains famed landmarks like the Empire State Building, Times Square and Wall Street. The tolls aim to help the M.T.A. raise $15 billion in financing for repairs and upgrades to the city’s decrepit subway system, which still depends on equipment that in some cases predates World War II. The funding is also earmarked for improvements to the authority’s bus fleet and two commuter train lines.



    The Trump Administration is currently considering halting congestion pricing, a policy that aims to reduce traffic congestion by charging drivers a fee for entering certain areas during peak hours. This move comes as cities like New York have implemented congestion pricing in an effort to reduce traffic and improve air quality.

    Critics of congestion pricing argue that it unfairly targets low-income individuals who may not have other transportation options and could end up paying a significant portion of their income in fees. Proponents, on the other hand, believe that congestion pricing is an effective way to reduce traffic congestion, encourage the use of public transportation, and ultimately improve the quality of life in urban areas.

    The Trump Administration’s potential decision to halt congestion pricing could have significant implications for cities across the country that are considering implementing similar policies. It remains to be seen how this debate will play out and what the ultimate impact will be on traffic congestion and air quality in urban areas. Stay tuned for updates on this developing story.

    Tags:

    Trump Administration, Congestion Pricing, Transportation Policy, Traffic Management, Urban Planning, Public Policy, Road Pricing, Traffic Congestion, Trump Administration News, Infrastructure Development

    #Trump #Administration #Considers #Halting #Congestion #Pricing

  • Trump administration fires Coast Guard Commandant Linda Fagan


    Coast Guard Commandant Adm. Linda Fagan was ousted by the Trump administration Tuesday, on President Trump’s first full day in office. In 2022, Fagan became the first woman to lead a branch of the U.S. military. 

    Fagan was relieved of her duties Monday night in a workforce-wide message by Acting Homeland Security Secretary Benjamin Huffman. 

    “Under my statutory authority as the Acting Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security I have relieved Admiral Linda L. Fagan of her duties as Commandant of the United States Coast Guard,” the brief message read, in part. “She served a long and illustrious career, and I thank her for her service to our nation.”

    The Coast Guard commandant is appointed for a four-year term, and Fagan had served two years.

    A senior DHS official said in a statement that Fagan was terminated “because of her leadership deficiencies, operational failures, and inability to advance the strategic objectives of the U.S. Coast Guard.” 

    In particular, the official said she had failed to address border security threats, citing “insufficient coordination” with DHS on operations along maritime borders and “ineffective deployment of Coast Guard assets” to support efforts to interdict fentanyl and other illicit substances.

    The official also cited “significant shortfalls” in recruitment and mismanagement, including “[i]nadequate accountability for acquisition failures highlighted during the Trump 45 Administration.”

    U.S. Coast Guard Commandant Adm. Linda Fagan arrives for a Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on Investigations hearing on Capitol Hill on June 11, 2024, in Washington, D.C.
    U.S. Coast Guard Commandant Adm. Linda Fagan arrives for a Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on Investigations hearing on Capitol Hill on June 11, 2024, in Washington, D.C.

    Andrew Harnik / Getty Images


    During her time as head of the service, Fagan worked to bolster the recruitment and retention of personnel amid a slump in numbers across the U.S. armed forces. Last year, as CBS News reported, the U.S. Coast Guard met its recruitment goals for its active-duty workforce, the reserves and officers for the first time since 2007. 

    And Hagan was also criticized by the official for “[e]xcessive focus on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion policies including at the US Coast Guard Academy, diverting resources and attention from operational imperatives.”

    Fagan worked to rebuild trust within the halls of Congress and the agency’s own ranks, following previous revelations that the Coast Guard had mishandled sexual harassment and assault allegations. But the official said there had been a “failure to adequately address the systemic issues” and blamed Fagan for “a leadership culture unwilling to ensure accountability and transparency in protecting service members.”

    Adm. Kevin Lunday, the service’s No. 2 in command, was named acting Coast Guard commandant, according to Huffman’s note. Lunday became vice commandant last June. 

    The Coast Guard, which sits under the Department of Homeland Security, has faced a budget crunch for several administrations. Several recent commandants, including Fagan, had urged lawmakers to fund the construction of new ships and repair of older ones to assist in the service’s expanding global role in safeguarding national security. Last year, the Coast Guard officially welcomed its first polar icebreaker in more than 25 years.

    Trump adviser Elon Musk, who leads the new administration’s effort to cut costs across the federal government, did not explicitly confirm the termination of Fagan but wrote on X in response to the news that “undermining the U.S. military and border security to spend money on racist/sexist DEI nonsense is no longer acceptable.”

    Fox News was the first to report the news of Fagan’s ouster. 

    contributed to this report.



    In a shocking move, the Trump administration has fired Coast Guard Commandant Linda Fagan, a highly respected and experienced leader in the maritime industry.

    Fagan, who was the first woman to ever hold the position of Coast Guard Commandant, was known for her dedication to protecting the nation’s waterways and ensuring the safety and security of all those who rely on the Coast Guard for assistance.

    The decision to remove Fagan from her role has been met with widespread criticism and outrage, with many questioning the motives behind the administration’s sudden and unexpected move.

    As details continue to emerge about the circumstances surrounding Fagan’s dismissal, one thing is clear: her absence will be deeply felt within the Coast Guard and the maritime community as a whole.

    We can only hope that the Trump administration will quickly appoint a qualified and capable successor to fill the void left by Fagan’s departure and continue the important work of the Coast Guard in protecting our nation’s waters.

    Tags:

    1. Trump administration
    2. Coast Guard Commandant
    3. Linda Fagan
    4. Firing
    5. News update
    6. Government shakeup
    7. Politics
    8. Controversy
    9. White House decision
    10. Current events

    #Trump #administration #fires #Coast #Guard #Commandant #Linda #Fagan


  • Pam Bondi

    Role offered: Attorney general

    Pam Bondi, the first female attorney general of Florida and a lawyer for Trump during his first impeachment trial, replaced the president’s first pick, Matt Gaetz, to head the justice department.

    At her 15 January hearing, Bondi, 59, insisted she would ensure the justice department would remain independent. At the same time, she failed to say that Trump lost the 2020 election.


  • Doug Collins

    Role offered: Veterans affairs secretary

    Doug Collins, the former Georgia representative who defended Trump during his first impeachment trial, was nominated by Trump to be secretary of veterans affairs.

    During his 22 January hearing, Collins pledged to “take care of the veterans” should he succeed in the confirmation process.


  • Elise Stefanik

    Role offered: UN ambassador

    The New York representative Elise Stefanik was selected by Trump to be the ambassador to the UN. Floated as a possible Trump running mate, Stefanik is the highest-ranking woman in the Republican conference in the House of Representatives.

    During her confirmation hearing, Stefanik endorsed Israeli claims of biblical rights to the entire West Bank, aligning herself with positions that could complicate diplomatic efforts in the Middle East.


  • Russ Vought

    Role offered: Office of management and budget chief

    OMB chief during Trump’s first term in office, Russ Vought has been deeply involved in Project 2025.

    During a 15 January hearing, Vought declined to fully commit to distributing congressionally approved funds, specifically US military aid to Ukraine.


  • Brooke Rollins

    Role offered: Agriculture secretary

    If confirmed, Brooke Rollins would lead a 100,000-person agency that would carry out an agenda with implications for American diets and wallets, both urban and rural.

    Rollins was president of America First Policy Institute, a group helping lay the groundwork for Trump’s second administration.


  • Chris Wright

    Role offered: Energy secretary

    Trump named Chris Wright, an oil and gas industry executive with no political experience, to lead the US Department of Energy.

    During a 15 January confirmation hearing, Wright faced criticism for disputing the ties between climate change and more frequent or severe wildfires, and for calling wildfire concerns “hype” and dismissing their connection to climate policies.


  • Doug Burgum

    Role offered: Interior secretary

    Trump named Doug Burgum, governor of North Dakota, as his pick for secretary of the interior.


  • Scott Turner

    Role offered: Department of Housing and Urban Development secretary

    Photograph: Mark Schiefelbein/AP

    Scott Turner is a former NFL player and White House aide. He ran the White House Opportunity and Revitalization Council during Trump’s first term.


  • Howard Lutnick

    Role offered: Commerce secretary

    Photograph: Evan Vucci/AP

    Trump nominated Howard Lutnick, co-chair of his transition team, to be his commerce secretary. Lutnick has uniformly praised the president-elect’s economic policies, including his use of tariffs.


  • Lori Chavez-DeRemer

    Role offered: Labor secretary

    Photograph: Jemal Countess/UPI/Rex/Shutterstock

    Trump tapped the Oregon Republican for labor secretary, a position that would oversee the department’s workforce and its budget, and would put forth priorities that affect workers’ wages, health and safety, the ability to unionize and employers’ rights to fire workers, among other responsibilities.


  • Robert F Kennedy Jr

    Role offered: Secretary of health and human services

    Trump has named Robert F Kennedy Jr his secretary of health and human services. In a statement, Trump said Kennedy would protect Americans from “harmful chemicals, pollutants, pesticides, pharmaceutical products, and food additives” that have caused a health crisis.


  • Linda McMahon

    Role offered: Education secretary

    Trump named Linda McMahon, co-chair of his transition team, his pick for education secretary. Trump, who previously promised to dismantle the Department of Education, said McMahon would work to “expand ‘choice’” across the US and send education “back to the states”.


  • Tulsi Gabbard

    Role offered: National intelligence director

    Trump announced Tulsi Gabbard, a former Democrat, as his nominee for director of national intelligence.


  • Jamieson Greer

    Role offered: US trade representative

    Trump lauded Jamieson Greer for his role enacting the USMCA, a revamped trade pact between the US, Mexico and Canada, and imposing tariffs on China. If confirmed, Greer will be tasked with reining in the trade deficit and opening up “export markets everywhere”.


  • Kelly Loeffler

    Role offered: administrator of the Small Business Administration

    Trump named former senator Kelly Loeffler to head the Small Business Administration. He said she will use her business experience to “reduce red tape” and “unleash opportunity” for small businesses.


  • Mehmet Oz

    Role offered: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services administrator

    Photograph: Andrew Kelly/Reuters

    Trump tapped Dr Mehmet Oz to serve as the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Administrator, adding that he would work closely with Robert F Kennedy Jr.


  • Brendan Carr

    Role offered: Chair of the Federal Communications Commission

    Trump tapped Brendan Carr to be the chair of the Federal Communications Commission, the independent agency that regulates telecommunications.

    In a statement, Trump said Carr “is a warrior for Free Speech, and has fought against the regulatory Lawfare that has stifled Americans’ Freedoms, and held back our Economy”.


  • Kash Patel

    Role offered: FBI director

    Trump nominated the “deep state” critic Kash Patel to be FBI director. He has called for leadership of the federal law enforcement agency to be fired as part of a drive to bring federal law enforcement “to heel”.



As the Trump administration continues to fill key positions in the government, tracking the confirmation process of his cabinet members is crucial. Here is a rundown of the confirmations so far:

1. Secretary of State: Rex Tillerson was confirmed on February 1, 2017, by a vote of 56-43.

2. Secretary of Defense: James Mattis was confirmed on January 20, 2017, by a vote of 98-1.

3. Secretary of the Treasury: Steven Mnuchin was confirmed on February 13, 2017, by a vote of 53-47.

4. Attorney General: Jeff Sessions was confirmed on February 8, 2017, by a vote of 52-47.

5. Secretary of Homeland Security: John Kelly was confirmed on January 20, 2017, by a vote of 88-11.

6. Secretary of Health and Human Services: Tom Price was confirmed on February 10, 2017, by a vote of 52-47.

7. Secretary of Education: Betsy DeVos was confirmed on February 7, 2017, by a vote of 51-50 with Vice President Mike Pence breaking the tie.

These are just a few of the key cabinet positions that have been confirmed so far. Stay tuned for updates on the confirmation process of other Trump administration nominees.

Tags:

Tracking Trump cabinet confirmations, Trump administration, Trump cabinet, confirmation hearings, cabinet members, government appointments, political updates, White House news, Senate confirmations, Trump nominees, presidential appointments, administration updates

#Tracking #Trump #cabinet #confirmations #Trump #administration

  • Lee Zeldin confirmed to lead key environmental agency in Trump administration


    The Senate voted on Wednesday to confirm former Rep. Lee Zeldin to head the government’s leading agency on environmental rules and regulations.

    President Donald Trump tapped Zeldin, who previously served as a congressman from New York’s 1st Congressional District from 2015 to 2023, to lead the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under his administration. During his tenure in Congress, Zeldin, an Army Reserve lieutenant colonel, launched a campaign for governor in New York, when he trailed only five percentage points in the largely Democratic state.

    Zeldin underwent a confirmation hearing earlier this month, when he was questioned on climate change by members of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.

    In a 56 to 42 vote on Wednesday, the Senate confirmed Zeldin to head the EPA in a final floor vote on his nomination.

    ZELDIN GRILLED BY DEMOCRATS ON CLIMATE CHANGE, TRUMP’S STANCE ON CARBON EMISSIONS DURING EPA HEARING

    Former Rep. Lee Zeldin, President Donald Trump’s pick to head the EPA, appears before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on Capitol Hill, Thursday, Jan. 16, 2025. (AP Photo/Mark Schiefelbein)

    Zeldin will head the agency that surveys environmental issues, provides assistance to wide-ranging environmental projects, and establishes rules that align with the administration’s views on environmental protection and climate change. 

    During his confirmation hearing, Zeldin pledged that if confirmed, he would “foster a collaborative culture within the agency, supporting career staff who have dedicated themselves to this mission. I strongly believe we have a moral responsibility to be good stewards of our environment for generations to come.”

    Former Rep. Lee Zeldin, with athlete Riley Gaines, outside the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee on July 16, 2024. (J. Conrad Williams, Jr./Newsday RM)

    CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

    The latest round of voting comes as Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., continues to advance the confirmation process to push through Trump’s Cabinet nominees.



    Lee Zeldin, Republican congressman from New York, has been confirmed to lead a key environmental agency in the Trump administration. Zeldin, known for his strong conservative views on environmental issues, has promised to prioritize economic growth and job creation while also protecting the environment.

    Environmental groups have criticized Zeldin’s appointment, citing his record of voting against environmental regulations and his ties to the fossil fuel industry. However, Zeldin has stated that he will work to balance environmental protection with economic development, and will prioritize clean air and water for all Americans.

    As the new leader of this important agency, Zeldin will have the opportunity to shape environmental policy for years to come. Stay tuned for updates on his plans and actions in this new role.

    Tags:

    1. Lee Zeldin
    2. Trump administration
    3. Environmental agency
    4. Key appointment
    5. Government official
    6. Leadership role
    7. Environmental policy
    8. Environmental regulation
    9. Lee Zeldin appointment
    10. Trump administration news

    #Lee #Zeldin #confirmed #lead #key #environmental #agency #Trump #administration

  • Lee Zeldin confirmed to lead key environmental agency in Trump administration


    The Senate voted on Wednesday to confirm former Rep. Lee Zeldin to head the government’s leading agency on environmental rules and regulations.

    President Donald Trump tapped Zeldin, who previously served as a congressman from New York’s 1st Congressional District from 2015 to 2023, to lead the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under his administration. During his tenure in Congress, Zeldin, an Army Reserve lieutenant colonel, launched a campaign for governor in New York, when he trailed only five percentage points in the largely Democratic state.

    Zeldin underwent a confirmation hearing earlier this month, when he was questioned on climate change by members of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.

    In a 56 to 42 vote on Wednesday, the Senate confirmed Zeldin to head the EPA in a final floor vote on his nomination.

    ZELDIN GRILLED BY DEMOCRATS ON CLIMATE CHANGE, TRUMP’S STANCE ON CARBON EMISSIONS DURING EPA HEARING

    Former Rep. Lee Zeldin, President Donald Trump’s pick to head the EPA, appears before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on Capitol Hill, Thursday, Jan. 16, 2025. (AP Photo/Mark Schiefelbein)

    Zeldin will head the agency that surveys environmental issues, provides assistance to wide-ranging environmental projects, and establishes rules that align with the administration’s views on environmental protection and climate change. 

    During his confirmation hearing, Zeldin pledged that if confirmed, he would “foster a collaborative culture within the agency, supporting career staff who have dedicated themselves to this mission. I strongly believe we have a moral responsibility to be good stewards of our environment for generations to come.”

    Former Rep. Lee Zeldin, with athlete Riley Gaines, outside the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee on July 16, 2024. (J. Conrad Williams, Jr./Newsday RM)

    CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

    The latest round of voting comes as Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., continues to advance the confirmation process to push through Trump’s Cabinet nominees.



    Lee Zeldin, a Republican congressman from New York, has been confirmed to lead a key environmental agency in the Trump administration. Zeldin, who has a strong record on environmental issues, will now be tasked with overseeing important policies and regulations that impact the environment.

    This appointment has sparked both praise and criticism, with supporters citing Zeldin’s experience and dedication to conservation efforts, while opponents raise concerns about his ties to the fossil fuel industry. Regardless of where one stands on the issue, it is clear that Zeldin’s leadership will have a significant impact on environmental policy in the coming years.

    Stay tuned for updates on how Zeldin’s leadership will shape the future of environmental protection in the United States.

    Tags:

    Lee Zeldin, Trump administration, environmental agency, key appointment, political news, government update

    #Lee #Zeldin #confirmed #lead #key #environmental #agency #Trump #administration

  • Things to know about the Trump administration order on car and pickup fuel economy


    DETROIT (AP) — Hours after being sworn in as the new U.S. Secretary of Transportation, Sean Duffy took aim at the main way the federal government regulates miles per gallon for cars and pickup trucks — also a principal way that it regulates air pollution and addresses climate change. Duffy ordered the federal agency in charge of fuel economy standards to reverse them as soon as possible. The standards have been in place since the 1970s energy crisis and were intended to conserve fuel and save consumers money at the gas pump.

    Here are five things to know about the action.

    What is the Trump administration doing exactly?

    Duffy ordered his chief of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to “propose the rescission or replacement of any fuel economy standards” necessary to bring the rules in line with Trump’s priority of promoting oil and biofuel.

    The order came in a DOT memorandum Tuesday night. Duffy said the rules need to better align with the administration’s overarching agenda because “the existing CAFE standards promulgated by NHTSA are contrary to Administration policy.”

    The NHTSA chief would have to initiate a full rule-making process to set looser standards, which took two years during the first Trump administration. When he came into office the first time, rules from the Obama administration were going to require miles per gallon increase 5% each year, but by 2020, the DOT under Trump was able to loosen that to 1.5% each year through model year 2026.

    What does this mean for consumers and the climate?

    Duffy says eliminating the rules will increase Americans’ access to the full range of gasoline vehicles they need and can afford.

    Others disagree. “This will raise consumer’s costs at the pump, increase tailpipe pollution and jeopardize U.S. automakers’ future, and no one voted for any of it. The only beneficiaries will be oil executives and China’s auto industry, which will be happy to sell electric vehicles around the world with little U.S. competition,” said Dan Becker, director of the Center for Biological Diversity’s Safe Climate Transport Campaign.

    In recent years, automakers have been producing gasoline cars that get significantly better mileage, which lowers the cost of driving and means lower sales for oil companies — both refineries and producers.

    Transportation was the largest contributor to U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in 2022, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. Every atom of carbon pumped into a car’s gas tank comes out the tailpipe and many combine with oxygen to make carbon dioxide which holds onto extra heat for more than a century.

    Why does Trump want to repeal fuel efficiency rules?

    Duffy’s action aligns with a number of President Trump’s promises, notably to end an “electric vehicle mandate” — referring to former President Joe Biden’s target for 50% of new car sales to be electric by 2030.

    Duffy wrote “These fuel economy standards are set as such aggressive levels that automakers cannot, as a practical matter, satisfy the standards without rapidly shifting production away from internal-combustion-engine vehicles to alternative electric technologies.”

    The standards do not kick in immediately, but instead allow automakers time to adjust their designs and production in order to meet them.

    The new Secretary said “artificially high” standards force car manufacturers to phase out gasoline powered vehicles, making cars more expensive for buyers and “destroying consumer choice at the dealership.”

    “It’s hard to understand this action in the context of trying to reduce costs for consumer and help U.S. industry be more competitive, since this will have the opposite effects,” said Roland Hwang, policy director at the University of California, Davis Institute of Transportation Studies.

    “Creating this regulatory uncertainty puts a tremendous number of automaker jobs and investments at risk, and undercuts the American auto industry’s global competitiveness,” he added. “Strong fuel economy standards are critical to ensure automakers are investing in advanced technologies necessary” to do so.

    There is no requirement for automakers to produce or consumers to purchase electric vehicles. The fuel economy standards work in sync with EPA limits on carbon dioxide from vehicle tailpipes to address climate change, which Trump also rejects.

    “It’s reasonable for the new leadership at the Transportation Department to review current fuel economy standards,” said John Bozzella, president and CEO Alliance for Automotive Innovation, a group that represents the industry. “As we’ve said, the existing CAFE rules are extremely challenging to achieve – even in the best of circumstances. They also expose automakers to billions of dollars in civil penalties.”

    Duffy said CAFE rules are supposed to establish realistic rules for fleets “that run on combustible liquid fuels like gasoline and diesel fuel.” He also cited the nation’s vast oil reserves, biofuel feedstocks and refining capacity as reason to establish lower standards.

    Trump has issued a series of orders including an energy emergency declaration, and has said the U.S. will “drill, baby, drill.”

    What’s the idea behind American fuel economy standards?

    CAFE, or Corporate Average Fuel Economy, rules date back to oil shocks Americans suffered in 1974 and 1980. The first ones went into effect in 1978. They are intended to help drivers use less fuel by requiring automakers’ fleets to meet average mile-per-gallon targets that initially increased with each model year, until progress stalled in the 1980s.

    Americans then saw no appreciable improvement in miles per gallon for around two decades. In recent years, automakers have offered car-buyers plenty of internal combustion engine — meaning gasoline-powered — cars with much better mileage, and that is largely due to increasingly stringent standards.

    What were the latest fuel economy rules going to do?

    The latest standards set under the Biden administration required automakers to average about 38 miles per gallon of gas by 2031. That’s in real-world driving. The current average is around 28 miles per gallon.

    In every model year from 2027 to 2031, the rules are supposed to increased fuel economy 2% per year for passenger cars, while SUVs and other light trucks are set to increase by 2% a year from 2029 to 2031. An earlier proposal had even higher requirements.

    The standards aligned with tighter Biden-era EPA limits on pollution from passenger and commercial vehicles, and the former president’s broader support for incentivizing electric vehicle manufacturing and purchases.

    The Biden administration said when it made the rules they would save almost 70 billion gallons of gasoline through 2050.

    Bozzella said U.S. tailpipes are overseen by three federal agencies and multiple rules, so changes the Trump administration proposes to the CAFE standards will have to be coordinated with the other emissions rules overseen by EPA and the Energy Department.

    ___

    Alexa St. John is an Associated Press climate solutions reporter. Follow her on X: @alexa_stjohn. Reach her at [email protected].

    ___

    Read more of AP’s climate coverage at http://www.apnews.com/climate-and-environment

    ___

    The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.




    1. The Trump administration has rolled back Obama-era fuel efficiency standards for cars and pickups, freezing the requirements at 2020 levels.
    2. This decision is part of the administration’s efforts to reduce government regulations and boost the auto industry.
    3. The new rule is expected to result in cheaper vehicles for consumers, but critics argue that it will also lead to more pollution and higher fuel costs in the long run.
    4. The order has faced backlash from environmental groups, states, and car manufacturers who had already started investing in more fuel-efficient vehicles.
    5. The administration argues that the new rule will save lives by making new cars more affordable, leading to more people replacing older, less safe vehicles.
    6. The order may face legal challenges, as several states have already indicated they will sue the federal government over the decision.
    7. The Trump administration has also proposed revoking California’s authority to set its own, stricter fuel efficiency standards, setting up a potential legal battle with the state.
    8. The debate over fuel efficiency standards is likely to continue, with the Biden administration expected to reverse the Trump administration’s policies once in office.

    Tags:

    1. Trump administration
    2. Fuel economy
    3. Car regulations
    4. Pickup truck emissions
    5. Environmental policy
    6. Automotive industry
    7. Government order
    8. Vehicle efficiency standards
    9. Trump executive action
    10. Climate change impact

    #Trump #administration #order #car #pickup #fuel #economy

  • How the Trump administration is working to ‘combat’ DEI in the private sector


    Amid a flurry of executive actions President Trump is taking to dismantle diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives within the federal government, the Trump administration is also turning its attention to private companies and institutions.

    President Trump signed an executive order the day after he was sworn in to his second term that not only rescinded DEI policies in the federal government, but also “[encourages] the private sector to end” what the order calls “illegal DEI discrimination and preferences,” claiming in part that DEI policies “violate the text and spirit of our longstanding Federal civil-rights laws.”

    “Hardworking Americans who deserve a shot at the American Dream should not be stigmatized, demeaned, or shut out of opportunities because of their race or sex,” the order said.

    Several legal experts who advise companies and institutions regarding their DEI policies told ABC News that while the Trump administration doesn’t have the legal authority to mandate that private businesses abandon their DEI policies, the executive order’s language uses the threat of potential legal action against certain companies with DEI policies to ostensibly force them to do so.

    ‘It’s a powerful threat’

    Part of Trump’s Jan. 21 executive order directs the attorney general, “within 120 days of this order, in consultation with the heads of relevant agencies and in coordination with the Director of [the Office of Management and Budget],” the latter of which oversees the performance of all federal agencies, to “submit a report … containing recommendations for enforcing Federal civil-rights laws and taking other appropriate measures to encourage the private sector to end illegal discrimination and preferences, including DEI.”

    The order instructs the federal agencies to “identify up to nine potential civil compliance investigations of publicly traded corporations, large non-profit corporations or associations, foundations with assets of 500 million dollars or more, State and local bar and medical associations, and institutions of higher education with endowments over 1 billion dollars,” as well as “litigation that would be potentially appropriate for Federal lawsuits, intervention, or statements of interest.”

    Those agencies are further directed to identify “key sectors of concern” and “the most egregious and discriminatory DEI practitioners” within each agency’s jurisdiction, and to develop “a plan of specific steps or measures to deter DEI programs or principles.”

    The possibility of a legal battle with the federal government over DEI is already causing concern for many private businesses, experts told ABC News.

    “It’s a powerful threat that companies are responding to it by taking another very close look at their programs to make sure that they are comfortable with them,” said labor attorney Jason Schwartz, a partner and co-chair of the Labor and Employment Practice at Gibson Dunn in Washington, D.C., and who leads the firm’s DEI task force.

    President Donald Trump speaks at the 2025 House Republican Members Conference Dinner at Trump National Doral Miami in Doral, Fla., Jan. 27, 2025.

    Mark Schiefelbein/AP

    “Nobody wants to be on that Donald Trump DEI blacklist,” Kenji Yoshino, a professor of constitutional law at NYU and the director of NYU’s Center for Diversity, Inclusion and Belonging, and who also advises Fortune 500 companies on DEI matters, told ABC News. “I worry that there’s a very smart move and savvy move on the part of the executive branch to cast a fear through this kind of gesture of ‘we are going to single you out,’ or targeting so that a lot of companies are going to withdraw or pull back more than they needed to pull back, strictly legally.”

    “[Companies] just don’t want to be one of those nine,” Yoshino added, referring to the number of the executive order’s “potential civil compliance investigations.”

    “Until those nine are announced, it’s going to cause others to be risk-averse,” said Yoshino. “So there’s a kind of, you know, preemptive compliance, you know, or obedience going on.”

    How companies are responding

    Schwartz told ABC News that since Trump signed his executive order, companies have been scrambling to seek legal counsel regarding their DEI policies and whether they need to be revised.

    “The phone is literally ringing off the hook,” he said, referring to the calls his firm is receiving. “Companies are very concerned. They want to make sure, obviously, that they stay on the right side of the law.”

    A Walmart store is seen in Martinez, Calif., Nov. 18, 2024.

    David Paul Morris/Bloomberg via Getty Images, FILE

    Yoshino said that the phones at NYU’s Center for DEI likewise have been “ringing off the hook” with calls from companies seeking advice on how to proceed with their DEI initiatives. For now, he advises that concerned parties take a measured approach.

    “The reflexive response is often to be like, ‘Oh, if we shut it down, we will minimize risk,’ and we regard that to be short sighted, both because there are smart ways to tweak these programs to lower the risk, or even lower to zero, eliminate the risk while still getting the same results,” Yoshino told ABC News.

    “And alternatively, if you eliminate all your DEI policies, you’re then going to get sued from the other side,” he cautioned, noting that marginalized groups could argue that rolling back DEI “leads to a less inclusive, more discriminatory environment.”

    Several large corporations – including Amazon, Meta, McDonalds, Walmart and Ford – announced before Trump was sworn in for his second term that they were ending, scaling back or otherwise reevaluating some of their DEI-related programs or initiatives.

    However, according to Yoshino, whose office has been tracking the impact of Trump’s actions on DEI, even some companies who are stepping away from some DEI initiatives are retaining some policies or programs committed to inclusion, and that the majority of companies on the Fortune 500 list “still have pro-DEI statements on their websites.”

    In an aerial view, the Costco logo is displayed on the exterior of a Costco store on July 11, 2024 in Richmond, Calif.

    Justin Sullivan/Getty Images, FILE

    Some companies also are publicly standing by their DEI commitments, with leaders at Goldman Sachs, Costco and JPMorgan Chase & Co recently speaking out in support of their diversity programs amid pressure from anti-DEI activist shareholders to roll back their policies.

    “I do think that it’s really important not to overreact,” Yoshino told ABC News.

    What comes next?

    While it’s unclear what might be “litigation that would be potentially appropriate for Federal lawsuits, intervention, or statements of interest” against private companies, as the executive order states, as well as what might be the outcome of any such actions, Yoshino and Schwartz both noted that anti-DEI litigation efforts in the U.S. have been escalating since the Supreme Court’s June 2023 landmark ruling that effectively ended affirmative action in higher education.

    Since the Supreme Court decision, conservative legal advocacy groups have been ramping up litigation against private companies over their DEI initiatives, Schwartz said, noting that with Trump’s executive order, those groups have now “moved their operation into the White House.”

    “They now have the full force and power of the United States government where they can bring these cases,” Schwartz added.

    Yoshino agreed, telling ABC News that the president is now putting the “muscle of the executive branch behind the impact of that decision.”

    The U.S. Supreme Court building is seen in Washington, D.C., on April 6, 2023.

    Elizabeth Frantz/Reuters, FILE

    Yoshino said that while the Supreme Court case addressed the higher education admissions process and was not about diversity and inclusion efforts in the private sector, “it gave us such a clear window into how [the Supreme Court] was thinking about the issue of race discrimination.”

    The Supreme Court ruled that “in the same way that you can’t discriminate against a person of color, you also can’t discriminate against a white individual,” according to Yoshino. “That contrasts that with the previous jurisprudence that said you’re allowed to use a [race] classification in narrow circumstances so long as your intent is to lift up a historically subordinated group.”

    According to Schwartz, while the Trump administration is “not creating new laws” regarding the legality of DEI through his executive order, the Department of Justice is gearing up to bring cases against private companies by arguing that existing laws “already prohibit many of the DEI programs that exist.”

    Schwartz also pointed to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) as a federal agency that is likely to help advance the White House’s anti-DEI efforts. The federal agency, which has the authority to investigate and prosecute cases of alleged employment discrimination, is now led by Trump appointee Andrea Lucas, who said in a statement upon being named EEOC acting chair Jan. 21 that her priorities are “consistent with the President’s Executive Orders,” and include “rooting out unlawful DEI-motivated race and sex discrimination.”

    “Our employment civil rights laws are a matter of individual rights. We must reject the twin lies of identity politics: that justice is measured by group outcomes and that civil rights exist solely to remedy harms against certain groups,” Lucas’ statement continued. “I am committed to ensuring equal justice under the law and to focusing on equal opportunity, merit, and colorblind equality.”

    ABC News’ Kiara Alfonseca and Sabina Ghebremedhin contributed to this report.



    The Trump administration’s approach to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in the private sector has been met with mixed reactions. While some see their efforts as a step in the right direction, others argue that they are actually hindering progress towards creating more diverse and inclusive workplaces.

    One of the main ways the Trump administration is working to “combat” DEI in the private sector is through rolling back or weakening existing regulations that promote diversity and inclusion. For example, they have rescinded guidelines that encouraged companies to consider race and gender in their hiring practices and have proposed changes to affirmative action policies that would make it harder for organizations to address systemic discrimination.

    Additionally, the administration has also taken steps to limit diversity training programs in federal agencies and contractors, claiming that they promote “divisive concepts” and are actually harmful to workplace relationships. This move has been widely criticized for stifling important conversations about race, gender, and other forms of discrimination in the workplace.

    Overall, the Trump administration’s approach to DEI in the private sector has been controversial and has raised concerns about the future of diversity and inclusion efforts in corporate America. It remains to be seen how these policies will impact the progress that has been made towards creating more equitable and inclusive workplaces.

    Tags:

    1. Trump administration policies
    2. Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
    3. Private sector initiatives
    4. Trump administration impact
    5. DEI challenges
    6. Workplace diversity
    7. Inclusion efforts
    8. Corporate diversity
    9. Trump administration strategies
    10. DEI in the private sector

    #Trump #administration #working #combat #DEI #private #sector