X Corp., the social media platform owned by Trump adviser Elon Musk, is challenging the constitutionality of a Minnesota ban on using deepfakes to influence elections and harm candidates, saying it violates First Amendment speech protections.

The company's federal lawsuit filed this week also contends that the 2023 state law is preempted by a 1996 federal statute that shields social media from being held responsible for material posted on their platforms.

“While the law's reference to banning ‘deep fakes’ might sound benign, in reality it would criminalize innocuous, election-related speech, including humor, and make social-media platforms criminally liable for censoring such speech," the company said in a statement. “Instead of defending democracy, this law would erode it.”

Minnesota's law imposes criminal penalties — including jail time — for disseminating a deepfake video, image or audio if a person knows it's fake, or acts with reckless disregard to its authenticity, either within 90 days before a party nominating convention, or after the start of early voting in a primary or general election.

It says the intent must be to injure a candidate or influence an election result. And it defines deepfakes as material so realistic that a reasonable person would believe it's real, and generated by artificial intelligence or other technical means.

“Elon Musk funneled hundreds of millions of dollars into the 2024 presidential election and tried to buy a Wisconsin Supreme Court seat," said the law's author, Democratic state Sen. Erin Maye Quade.

"Of course he is upset that Minnesota law prevents him from spreading deepfakes that meant to harm candidates and influence elections. Minnesota’s law is clear and precise, while this lawsuit is petty, misguided and a waste of the Attorney General Office’s time and resources,” her statement said.

Democratic Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison's office, which is legally obligated to defend the constitutionality of state laws in court, said in a statement that it's “reviewing the lawsuit and will respond in the appropriate time and manner.”

The Minnesota law was already the subject of a constitutional challenge by Christopher Kohls, a content creator, and GOP state Rep. Mary Franson, who likes to post AI-generated parodies of politicians. That case is on hold while they appeal to overturn a judge's denial of their request to suspend the law.

The attorney general's office argues in that case that deepfakes are a real and growing threat to free elections and democratic institutions, that the law is a legitimate and constitutional response to the problem, and that it contains important limitations on its scope that protect satire and parody.

X, formerly known as Twitter, said it's the only social media platform challenging the Minnesota law, and that it has also challenged other laws it considers infringements of free speech, such as a 2024 California political deepfakes law that a judge has blocked.

X said in its statement that its “Community Notes” feature allows users to flag content they consider problematic, and that it's been adopted by Facebook, YouTube and TikTok. The company's lawsuit said its “Authenticity Policy” and “Grok AI” tool provide additional safeguards.

Alan Rozenshtein, a University of Minnesota law professor and expert on technology law, said in an interview Friday that it's important to separate the free-speech issues from whatever one thinks about the controversial Musk.

“I'm almost positive that this will be struck down,” Rozenshtein said.

There's no exception under the First Amendment for false or misleading political speech, even lies, he said. And the potential for criminal penalties gives social media companies like X and Facebook “an incentive to take down anything that might be a deepfake. ... You're going to censor a massive amount to comply with this law.”

Deepfakes aren't good, but it would be nice to get evidence that they're causing actual problems before imposing such limits on free speech, the professor said. And while it's easy to focus on the supply of misinformation, the large demand for it is the problem.

“People want to be fooled, and it's very bad for our democracy, but it’s not something I think can be solved with a deepfakes ban," he said.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

© AP Photo/Alex Brandon

President Donald Trump can't stop contradicting himself on his own tariff plans.

He says he's on a path to cut several new trade deals in a few weeks — but has also suggested it's “physically impossible" to hold all the needed meetings.

Trump has said he will simply set new tariff rates negotiated internally within the U.S. government over the next few weeks — although he already did that on his April 2 “Liberation Day,” which caused the world economy to shudder.

The Republican president says he's actively negotiating with the Chinese government on tariffs — while the Chinese and U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent have said talks have yet to start.

What should one believe? The sure bet is that uncertainty will persist in ways that employers and consumers alike expect to damage the economy and that leave foreign leaders scratching their heads in bewilderment.

And the consequences of all this tariffs turmoil are enormous.

Trump placed tariffs totaling 145% on China, leading China to retaliate with tariffs of 125% on the U.S. — essentially triggering a trade war between the world's two largest economies with the potential to bring on a recession.

Trump's negotiating trade deals with himself

The president told Time magazine in an interview released Friday that 20%, 30% or 50% tariffs a year from now would be a “total victory,” even though a financial market panic led him to temporarily reduce his baseline import taxes to 10% for 90 days while talks take place.

“The deal is a deal that I choose,” Trump said in the interview. “What I’m doing is I will, at a certain point in the not too distant future, I will set a fair price of tariffs for different countries.”

If that is confusing for the nation's trading partners, it's also sowing anxiety at home.

The Federal Reserve’s beige book, a compilation of anecdotes from U.S. businesses prepared eight times a year, on Wednesday reported a huge spike in uncertainty among American companies that has caused them to pull back on hiring and investment in new projects. The word “uncertainty” cropped up 80 times, compared with 45 in early March and just 14 in January.

Beyond the idea that Trump plans to keep some level of tariffs in place, the world finance ministers and corporate executives who gathered this past week in Washington for the International Monetary Fund conference said in private discussions that the Trump administration was providing no real clarity on its goals for substantive talks.

"There’s not a coherent strategy at the moment on what the tariffs are supposed to achieve," said Josh Lipsky, senior director of the GeoEconomics Center at The Atlantic Council. “My conversations with the ministers and governors this week at the IMF meetings have been they don’t understand completely what the White House wants, nor who they should be negotiating with.”

Other countries trying to get talks going

Swiss President Karin Keller-Sutter, in an interview with broadcaster SRF released Friday, said after a meeting with Bessent that Switzerland would be one of 15 countries with which the United States plans to conduct “privileged” negotiations. But she said a memorandum of understanding would have to be reached for talks to formally begin.

She was happy to at least know whom to talk to, saying that “we have also been assigned a specific contact person. This is not easy in the U.S. administration.”

Nations are deploying various negotiating tactics.

The South Korean officials who met with their U.S. counterparts this week say they specifically asked for the tariffs to be lifted with the goal of working toward an agreement by July. The European Union has pushed for cutting tariffs to zero for both parties, though Trump objects to European countries charging a value-added tax, which is akin to a sales tax that he says hurts U.S. goods.

Trump continues to radiate optimism that negotiated deals with other countries will occur despite his claims that he will set his own deals and a lack of clarity about how the process goes forward.

“I’m getting along very well with Japan,” Trump told reporters on Friday. “We’re very close to a deal.”

As part of a deal with Japan, the Trump administration has publicly called on the Japanese government to change its auto safety standards that put a greater focus on pedestrian safety. But the steering wheels on autos sold in Japan are on the right-hand side, while U.S. automakers put their steering wheels on the left.

“I don’t think left-hand drive cars sell in Japan,” Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba told a parliamentary session this week.

“We want to make sure we aren’t seen as being unfair,” Ishiba said, suggesting a possibility of reviewing Japanese car safety standards.

Higher prices and shortages are likely

As Trump continues to make conflicting statements about tariffs, companies are actively looking at higher prices, lower sales and possibly bare shelves in stores due to fewer shipments from China.

Ryan Petersen, CEO of Flexport, a supply chain company, said on the social media site X: “In the 3 weeks since the tariffs took effect, ocean container bookings from China to the United States are down over 60% industry wide.”

Consumers are getting notices via email and social media from retailers that lamps, furniture and other housewares will now include tariff-related charges.

The showerhead company Afina on Wednesday reported on a test to see if people would buy an American-made product that cost more than an import. Their Chinese-made filtered showerhead retails for $129, but to manufacture the same product domestically would take the price up to $239.

When customers on the company's website were given a choice between a showerhead made in the USA or a cheaper one made in Asia, there were 584 purchases of the $129 model made abroad and not one sale of the domestically produced showerhead.

Ramon van Meer, Afina's founder, concluded in his written analysis: “If policymakers and pundits want to rebuild American industry, they need to grapple with this truth: idealism doesn’t always survive contact with a price tag.”

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

© Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

Luigi Mangione pleaded not guilty Friday to a federal murder charge in the killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson as prosecutors formally declared their intent to seek the death penalty against him.

Mangione, 26, stood with his lawyers as he entered the plea, leaning forward toward a microphone as U.S. District Judge Margaret Garnett asked him if understood the indictment and the charges against him.

Mangione said, “yes.” Asked how he wished to plead, Mangione said simply, “not guilty" and sat down.

Mangione’s arraignment for the killing last December attracted several dozen people to the federal courthouse in Manhattan, including former Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning, who served about seven years in prison for stealing classified diplomatic cables.

Mangione, who has been held in a federal jail in Brooklyn since his arrest, arrived to court in a mustard-colored jail suit. He chatted with one of his lawyers, death penalty counsel Avi Moskowitz, as they wanted for the arraignment to begin.

Late Thursday night, federal prosecutors filed a required notice of their intent to seek the death penalty.

That came weeks after U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi announced that she would be directing federal prosecutors to seek the death penalty for what she called “an act of political violence" and a “premeditated, cold-blooded assassination that shocked America.”

It was the first time the Justice Department said it was pursuing capital punishment since President Donald Trump returned to office Jan. 20 with a vow to resume federal executions after they were halted under the previous administration.

Mangione’s lawyers have argued that Bondi’s announcement was a “political stunt” that corrupted the grand jury process and deprived him of his constitutional right to due process. They had sought to block prosecutors from seeking the death penalty.

Mangione’s federal indictment includes a charge of murder through use of a firearm, which carries the possibility of the death penalty. The indictment, which mirrors a criminal complaint brought after Mangione’s arrest also charges him with stalking and a gun offense.

Mangione, an Ivy League graduate from a prominent Maryland real estate family, faces separate federal and state murder charges after authorities say he gunned down Thompson, 50, outside a Manhattan hotel on Dec. 4 as the executive arrived for UnitedHealthcare’s annual investor conference.

The state murder charges carry a maximum punishment of life in prison.

Surveillance video showed a masked gunman shooting Thompson from behind. Police say the words “delay,” “deny” and “depose” were scrawled on the ammunition, mimicking a phrase commonly used to describe how insurers avoid paying claims.

The killing and ensuing five-day search leading to Mangione’s arrest rattled the business community, with some health insurers deleting photos of executives from their websites and switching to online shareholder meetings. At the same time, some health insurance critics have rallied around Mangione as a stand-in for frustrations over coverage denials and hefty medical bills.

Prosecutors have said the two cases will proceed on parallel tracks, with the state case expected to go to trial first, but Mangione lawyer Karen Friedman Agnifilo said his defense team would seek to have the federal case take precedent because it involves the death penalty.

Mangione was arrested Dec. 9 in Altoona, Pennsylvania, about 230 miles (about 370 kilometers) west of New York City and whisked to Manhattan by plane and helicopter.

Police said Mangione had a 9mm handgun that matched the one used in the shooting and other items including a notebook in which they say he expressed hostility toward the health insurance industry and wealthy executives.

Among the entries, prosecutors said, was one from August 2024 that said “the target is insurance” because “it checks every box” and one from October that describes an intent to “wack” an insurance company CEO. UnitedHealthcare, the largest U.S. health insurer, has said Mangione was never a client.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

© Steven Hirsch/New York Post via AP

CENTRAL ISLIP, N.Y. (AP) — Disgraced former U.S. Rep. George Santos, who lied about his life story and defrauded donors, arrived Friday at a federal court to face sentencing.

The New York Republican, who served in Congress for barely a year before his House colleagues ousted him in 2023, pleaded guilty last summer to federal wire fraud and aggravated identity theft.

He admitted to deceiving donors and stealing the identities of nearly a dozen people, including his family members, to fund his winning campaign. As part of a plea deal, Santos has agreed to pay roughly $580,000 in penalties in addition to prison time.

The 36-year-old didn't respond to reporters' shouted questions as he walked into a Long Island courthouse, but he told The Associated Press on Thursday that he’s resigned to his fate.

“I’m doing as well as any human being would be doing given the circumstances,” Santos wrote in a text message on Thursday, adding that he was “ready to face the music.”

Prosecutors are seeking seven years in federal prison for Santos, arguing in recent court filings that he “remains unrepentant” and has not shown genuine remorse, despite what he claims.

They cite recent comments Santos has made on social media in which he casts himself as a victim of prosecutorial overreach.

In a letter to the court this week, Santos stressed that he remains “profoundly sorry” for his crimes but said prosecutors' proposed sentence is too harsh.

Santos’ lawyers have called for a two-year prison stint, which is the mandatory minimum sentence for aggravated identity theft.

They argue such a penalty is comparable to sentences handed to former U.S. Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. and other political figures convicted of similar financial crimes.

Santos was elected in 2022, flipping a wealthy district representing parts of Queens and Long Island for the GOP.

Soon after, it was revealed that the political unknown had fabricated much of his life story, painting himself as a successful business owner who worked at prestigious Wall Street firms and held a valuable real estate portfolio.

In reality, Santos was struggling financially and even faced eviction. The revelations led to congressional and criminal inquiries into how he had funded his campaign.

As his sentencing approached, Santos was reflective in social media posts, thanking his supporters and detractors alike.

“I learned that no matter left, right or, center we are all humans and for the most part Americans (LOL) and we have one super power that I cherish and that is compassion,” he wrote Thursday on the social platform X. “To the trolls… well you guys are an impactful part of how people shape themselves, and y’all made me much stronger and made my skin thicker!”

He also made one final plug for his Cameo account, where he records personalized video messages for $100.

“Think ahead and of any celebration or event coming up later this year. Book them today,” Santos wrote, ending the post with a series of heart emojis.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

© Yuki Iwamura / Bloomberg—Getty Images

President Donald Trump is badgering the Federal Reserve to cut interest rates, but even if the Fed gave in to the pressure, it wouldn't necessarily lead to lower borrowing costs for consumers.

In fact, economists say, Trump's ongoing attacks on Fed Chair Jerome Powell and his tariff policies could keep the longer-term interest rates that matter for consumers and businesses higher than they otherwise would be. A less-independent Fed can lead, over time, to higher borrowing costs, as investors worry that inflation may spike in the future. As a result they demand higher yields to own Treasury securities.

Trump has repeatedly urged Powell to cut the short-term interest rate that the central bank controls. The Fed typically reduces its rate during an economic downturn to encourage more borrowing and spending, and raises it to cool the economy and fight inflation when prices rise.

But long-term rates on things like mortgages, auto loans, and credit cards are largely set by market forces. And in recent weeks, fears that Trump's sweeping tariffs could raise inflation, along with the administration's threats to the Fed's independence, have led markets to push those longer term rates higher. It's not clear that the Fed can fully reverse those trends by itself.

“It’s not automatically true that even if the Fed were to cut rates, that you would see a measured decline in long-term interest rates,” Francesco Bianchi, an economist at Johns Hopkins University, said. “This kind of pressure on the Fed might backfire...if markets don't believe the Fed has inflation under control."

Trump renewed calls on Wednesday and Thursday for Powell to reduce the Fed's short-term rate, telling reporters that the chair is “making a mistake” by not doing so.

And last week, Trump suggested he could fire Powell, while a top aide said that the White House was “studying” whether it could do so.

Stock markets plunged in response, the yield on the 10-year Treasury bond rose, and the dollar fell, an unusual combination that suggested investors were selling most American assets. Markets recovered those losses after Trump said on Tuesday that he had “no intention” of firing the Fed chair.

Still, the threats to the Fed's independence unnerved Wall Street investors, because they see a Fed free from political pressure as critical to keeping inflation in check. An independent Fed can take unpopular steps, such as raising rates, to fight inflation.

“Threatening the Fed doesn’t soothe markets — it spooks them,” said Lauren Goodwin, chief market strategist at New York Life Investments. “And the result is often the opposite of what any administration wants to see: higher rates, weaker confidence, and more market turmoil.”

Since Trump began imposing tariffs in early March, when he slapped duties on Canada and Mexico, the 10-year Treasury yield has risen from 4.15% to about 4.3%. The yield is a benchmark for mortgage rates and other borrowing. Mortgage rates, in turn, have increased during that time, from 6.6% to 6.8%.

While Trump says he is negotiating over tariffs with many countries, most economists expect some level of duties to remain in place for at least this year, including his 10% duties on nearly all imports.

The 10-year yield did fall Thursday when two Federal Reserve officials said that rate cuts are possible as soon as this summer, should the economy falter and unemployment rise.

Yet last fall, longer-term interest rates also fell in anticipation of rate cuts, but then rose once the Fed cut in September and then continued to rise as the central bank reduced its rate again in November — two days after the election — and in December. Mortgage rates are now higher than they were when the Fed cut.

A range of factors can affect longer-term Treasury rates, including expectations for future growth and inflation, as well as the supply and demand for government bonds. Bianchi worries that stubbornly high government budget deficits — which are financed by trillions of dollars of Treasurys — could also lift long-term rates.

Should the Fed cut rates now, llonger-term borrowing costs “would move in the opposite direction, absolutely,” Goodwin said, “because the threat of inflation is so palpable -- that move would call their credibility into question."

Trump said in a social media post this week that there is “virtually No Inflation” and as a result, the Fed should lower its key rate, from its current level of about 4.3%. Many economists expect the central bank will do so this year. But Powell has underscored that the central bank wants to evaluate the impact of Trump's policies before making any moves.

Inflation has fallen in recent months, dropping to 2.4% in March, the lowest level since last September. Yet excluding the volatile food and energy categories, core inflation was 2.8%. Core prices often provide a better signal of where inflation is headed.

A key issue for the Fed is that the economy is very different now than it was during Trump's first term. Back then inflation was actually below the Fed's target. At that time, it was a “no-brainer” to cut rates, Bianchi said, if there was a threat of a recession, because inflation wasn't an issue.

But now, tariffs will almost certainly lift prices in the coming months, at least temporarily. That raises the bar much higher for a Fed rate cut, Bianchi said.

Still, once there are clear signs the economy is deteriorating, such as a rising unemployment rate, the Fed will cut rates, regardless of what Trump does, economists said.

Trump on Monday accused Powell of often being “too late” with his rate decisions, but ironically the Fed may move more slowly this time because of the threat of higher prices from tariffs. Without clear evidence of a downturn, Fed officials would worry about being seen as giving in to political pressure from Trump if they cut.

“Powell knows the irreparable damage that would occur if it was perceived that he cut because he was forced to by Trump,” said Tom Porcelli, chief U.S. economist at PGIM Fixed Income.

The Fed now “will be even more delayed because I think you’re going get more of an inflation lift initially, before you get the more pronounced slowing in growth," Porcelli said.

Either way it may take more than a Fed cut or two to bring down longer-term borrowing costs, Bianchi said.

“To really lower long-term rates you need to provide a stable macroeconomic environment, and right now we are not there yet," he added.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

© Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

Why not tax the millionaires?

As Congress begins drafting a massive package for President Donald Trump’s “big, beautiful bill” with trillions of dollars in tax breaks and federal program cuts, it’s a question that won’t seem to go away.

Trump himself has mused he'd “love” to tax wealthier Americans a little bit more, but the Republican president has also repeatedly walked it back. This week, the president dismissed a tax hike as “disruptive” when asked about it at the White House.

But still it swirls.

And it’s setting up a potential showdown between the old guard of the Republican Party, which sees almost any tax hike as contrary to the GOP goal of slashing government, and its rising populist-nationalists, who view a millionaire's tax as championing working-class voters who helped deliver the White House.

“Bring it, baby,” said former Trump strategist Stephen Bannon on his podcast.

Think of it as Bannon on the one side, versus Newt Gingrich, anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist and others on the other — a debate that once seemed unfathomable for Republicans who have spent generations working to lower taxes and reduce the scope of the federal government.

“I don’t think we’re raising taxes on anybody,” House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., said this week on Fox News Channel.

Johnson said there have been lots of ideas thrown out but the Republicans are working against the idea of a tax on millionaires. “I’m not in favor of raising the tax rates because our party is the group that stands against that, traditionally,” he said.

This spring and summer, the Republican-led Congress is determined to make progress on the package, which is central to the party’s domestic policy agenda. It revolves around extending many of the GOP tax cuts that Congress approved in 2017, during Trump’s first term, but are expiring later this year.

As it stands, the top individual tax rate is now 37%, on annual incomes above $611,000 for single filers and $767,000 for married couples. If Congress fails to act, that rate is set to revert to what it was before the 2017 tax law, 39.6%, on top filers.

It seems impossible that Republicans in Congress will purposefully wade into the debate. They are striving to keep all the existing tax brackets in place, while adding new tax breaks the president campaigned on during the 2024 election — including no taxes on tips, Social Security income, overtime pay and others. It's a potentially $5 trillion-plus package.

But the Bannon wing is working to force the issue, saying it’s time to raise that top rate on the wealthier households, at least $1 million and above.

Sounding at times more like progressive Democrats, Bannon's flank sees a tax hike as a way not only to ensure wealthy Americans pay their fair share but to generate federal revenue. With federal debt at $36 trillion, they say it can help counter annual deficits that cannot be offset by budget cuts alone.

“The current system we have is not sustainable,” Bannon said at Semafor’s World Economy Summit on Wednesday in Washington. “You have to go to an alternative. I think the alternative is budget cuts. And … it has to be tax increases on the wealthy.”

That’s drawing fierce blowback from the traditional tax-cutters, who have gone into overdrive, warning of nothing short of a political shattering of GOP orthodoxy, and the party itself, if Republicans entertain the idea.

“Madness,” Gingrich, the former Republican House speaker, told Fox News’ Larry Kudlow.

Gingrich warns of a George Bush-style political implosion similar to his “Read my lips: No new taxes” pledge, which contributed to his failed 1992 presidential reelection bid.

“It would be a disaster,” Gingrich said.

Trump appears to be weighing the arguments, sending mixed messages about what he prefers.

“Newt is quite possibly right on this,” the president said in a note Gingrich said he received from the president and reposted Tuesday on social media.

“While I love the idea of a small increase,” Trump said in the note, “the Democrats would probably use it against us, and we would be, like Bush, helpless to do anything about it.”

Trump went on to counsel that if they can do without it, they're probably better off. “We don't need to be the ‘READ MY LIPS’ gang who lost an election,” he posted.

Asked about a tax hike on millionaires Wednesday in the Oval Office, Trump was more definitive.

“I think it would be very disruptive,” he said, suggesting wealthy Americans would simply leave the country, rather than pay the higher tax, and end up costing in lost revenues.

Yet in a Time magazine interview posted Friday, Trump said of a millionaires' tax: “I actually love the concept, but I don’t want it to be used against me politically.”

As Republicans in Congress work behind the scenes crafting the tax bill — and at least $1.5 trillion in government spending cuts to help cover the lost revenues — it seems highly unlikely enough of them would agree to a tax hike.

Most of the congressional Republicans have signed a no-taxes pledge from Norquist's Americans for Tax Reform group, even as others signal some interest.

With Democrats prepared to oppose the package altogether because of its expected steep cuts to federal programs, the Republicans will need to keep all their lawmakers in line if they hope to pass the bill through the House and the Senate with their narrow majorities.

Yet, as Republicans are scrounging for ways to pay for their tax bill, they face potential resistance within their own ranks to reductions in Medicaid, food stamps or other federal programs.

Even an accounting measure preferred by the Senate Republicans, which would count the 2017 tax breaks as current policy rather than a new one requiring an offset, still comes up short for covering the full price tag of the new package, which could swell beyond $5 trillion over 10 years.

Setting the new top rate at about 40% for those earning $1 million or above would bring in some $300 billion in revenue over the decade, analysts have said.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

© Brendan SMIALOWSKI / AFP

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump’s handling of immigration remains a point of strength as he takes wide-ranging actions to ramp up deportations and target people in the U.S. illegally, according to a new poll.

The survey from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research finds that 46% of U.S. adults approve of Trump’s handling of immigration, which is nearly 10 percentage points higher than his approval rating on the economy and trade with other countries.

While Trump’s actions remain divisive, there’s less of a consensus that the Republican president has overstepped on immigration than on other issues. Still, there’s little appetite for an even tougher approach. About half of Americans say he’s “gone too far” when it comes to deporting immigrants in the U.S. illegally. They’re divided on the deportation of Venezuelan immigrants who are accused of being gang members to El Salvador, and more oppose than support revoking foreign students’ visas over their participation in pro-Palestinian activism.

Here’s what the poll shows about how Americans are viewing the Trump administration’s actions on immigration.

Immigration is a point of strength for Trump, particularly with Republicans

Immigration was a major factor for voters in last November’s election, particularly for Trump’s supporters, and they were more open to tough stances on the issue than they’d been four years earlier. And even though many of Trump’s immigration enforcement efforts are currently mired in battles with federal judges, it’s remained an issue of relative strength in the court of public opinion.

Similar to an AP-NORC poll conducted in March, nearly half of Americans approve of Trump’s immigration approach, while about 4 in 10 approve of how he’s handling the presidency.

This higher approval on immigration comes primarily from Republicans. About 8 in 10 Republicans approve of Trump’s handling of immigration, higher than the roughly 7 in 10 Republicans who approve of how he’s handling the economy or trade negotiations with other countries.

Other groups are less enthusiastic about Trump’s approach. About 4 in 10 independents and only about 2 in 10 Democrats approve of Trump on immigration.

Relatively few Americans are concerned they’ll know someone who is directly affected by increased immigration enforcement, according to the poll. About 2 in 10 Americans say they are “extremely” or “very” concerned that they or someone they know will be directly affected.

Democrats are more likely than Republicans to worry they’ll be affected, and Hispanic adults are more likely than white or Black adults to be concerned.

About half say Trump has ‘gone too far’ on deportations

About half of Americans say Trump has “gone too far” when it comes to deporting immigrants living in the U.S. illegally. About one-third say his approach has been “about right,” and about 2 in 10 say he’s not gone far enough.

They’re unhappier, generally, with how he’s approaching trade negotiations. About 6 in 10 say he’s “gone too far” in imposing new tariffs on other countries.

There is not a strong desire for more aggressive action on immigration, though, even among the people who approve of what’s Trump doing. Among the Americans who approve of how Trump is handling immigration, about 6 in 10 say his approach has been “about right,” and roughly 3 in 10 say he hasn’t gone far enough.

Americans are split on sending Venezuelans to El Salvador but oppose revoking student visas

There is a deep divide on whether and how the Trump administration should undertake large-scale deportations, according to the survey, which was conducted in mid-April, while Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., was on a trip to El Salvador to demand the release of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who was mistakenly deported there in what officials later described as an “administrative error.”

The poll found that 38% of Americans favor deporting all immigrants living in the U.S. illegally, down slightly from an AP-NORC poll conducted just before Trump took office in January. About the same share of Americans are opposed, and about 2 in 10 are neutral.

The findings are very similar for Trump’s policy of sending Venezuelan immigrants in the U.S. who authorities say are gang members to a prison in El Salvador.

But the public is more opposed, broadly, to revoking foreign students’ visas over their participation in pro-Palestinian activism, which has emerged as another flashpoint.

About half of U.S. adults oppose this, and about 3 in 10 are in support. This action is particularly unpopular among Americans with a college degree. About 6 in 10 strongly or somewhat oppose it, compared with about 4 in 10 Americans who aren’t college graduates.

___

The AP-NORC poll of 1,260 adults was conducted April 17-21, using a sample drawn from NORC’s probability-based AmeriSpeak Panel, which is designed to be representative of the U.S. population. The margin of sampling error for adults overall is plus or minus 3.9 percentage points.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

© Jacquelyn Martin—AP Photo

MILWAUKEE (AP) — The FBI on Friday arrested a Milwaukee judge accused of helping a man evade immigration authorities, escalating a clash between the Trump administration and the judiciary over the Republican president’s sweeping immigration crackdown.

FBI Director Kash Patel announced on social media the arrest of Judge Hannah Dugan, who he said “intentionally misdirected” federal agents away from a man they were trying to take into custody at her courthouse.

“Thankfully our agents chased down the perp on foot and he’s been in custody since, but the Judge’s obstruction created increased danger to the public,” Patel wrote.

The arrest comes amid a growing feud between the Trump administration and the judiciary over the White House’s immigration enforcement policies. The Justice Department had previously signaled that it was going to crack down on local officials who thwart federal immigration efforts.

Court documents detailing the case against the judge were not immediately available, and the Justice Department didn't immediately have a comment Friday.

A person answering the phone Friday at Dugan’s office said he could not comment. The Associated Press left an email and voicemail Friday morning seeking comment from Milwaukee County Courts Chief Judge Carl Ashley.

The Justice Department in January ordered prosecutors to investigate for potential criminal charges against state and local officials who obstruct or impede federal functions. As potential avenues for prosecution, a memo cited a conspiracy offense as well as a law prohibiting the harboring of people in the country illegally.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

© Alex Brandon—AP Photo

The Swiss president says Switzerland is among 15 countries with which the United States plans to conduct “privileged” negotiations to help reach a deal in the wake of sweeping U.S. tariffs on dozens of countries that have shaken global markets.

Karin Keller-Sutter, in an interview with broadcaster SRF published Friday, said she was “satisfied” with talks in Washington this week that included an International Monetary Fund conference and her one-on-one meeting with U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent. Keller-Sutter also serves as Switzerland’s finance minister.

“The United States has defined a group of 15 countries with which it wants to find ... a quick solution in this tariff question. Switzerland is part of this group of these 15 countries,” she told reporters separately late Thursday in Washington.

It was not immediately clear which 14 other countries were included, but she told SRF that “the U.S. envisages conducting — I would say somewhat privileged — negotiations and finding solutions” with that group.

Before the Trump administration paused some of its most stringent tariff plans, products imported from Switzerland had been set to face tariffs of 31% — more than the 20% tariffs on goods from the European Union. Switzerland is not a member of the 27-country bloc.

According to figures published by the Swiss Embassy in Washington, the U.S. has been Switzerland’s most important goods export market worldwide since 2021, while Switzerland is the fourth most important export market for U.S. services. The bilateral trade volume in goods and services between Switzerland and the U.S. reached a total of $185.9 billion in 2023, the embassy says on its website.

Keller-Sutter said a memorandum of understanding was to be drawn up after which negotiations can begin. A document would also lay out the most important topics, and “we have also been assigned a specific contact person. This is not easy in the U.S. administration,” she was quoted as saying.

“The U.S. authorities have clearly expressed their desire to find a solution with Switzerland,” Keller-Sutter told SRF. She said no timetable had been set, but the two sides agreed to move forward quickly “because uncertainty is poison for the economy.”

Trump’s sweeping “Liberation Day” tariffs on April 2 set off turmoil in world stock markets. A week later, Trump spoke by phone with Keller-Sutter in a conversation that her office said focused on tariffs. She emphasized the “important role of Swiss companies and investments" in the U.S.

Hours later, Trump announced the U-turn that paused the steep new tariffs on about 60 countries for 90 days, fanning speculation — which was not confirmed — in some Swiss media that her chat with Trump might have played a role in the change of course.

On Thursday, Swiss Foreign Minister Ignazio Cassis, during a trip to Beijing, said the U.S. tariffs have thrust the affected countries into “a sort of coalition” to try to reach a deal with the United States. And on Monday, Swiss pharmaceuticals giant Roche announced plans to invest $50 billion in the U.S. over the next five years — an unspecified amount of which has already been under way.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

© Hollie Adams/Bloomberg via Getty Images

A federal judge on Thursday blocked Trump administration directives that threatened to cut federal funding for public schools with diversity, equity and inclusion programs.

The ruling came in a lawsuit brought by the National Education Association and the American Civil Liberties Union, which accused the Republican administration of giving “unconstitutionally vague” guidance and violating teachers’ First Amendment rights.

A second judge in Maryland on Thursday postponed the effective date of some U.S. Education Department anti-DEI guidance, and a third judge in Washington, D.C., blocked another provision from taking effect.

In February, the department told schools and colleges they needed to end any practice that differentiates people based on their race. Earlier this month, it ordered states to gather signatures from local school systems certifying compliance with civil rights laws, including the rejection of what the federal government calls “illegal DEI practices.”

The directives do not carry the force of law but threaten to use civil rights enforcement to rid schools of DEI practices. Schools were warned that continuing such practices “in violation of federal law” could lead to U.S. Justice Department litigation and a termination of federal grants and contracts.

U.S. District Court Judge Landya McCafferty in New Hampshire said the April letter does not make clear what the department believes a DEI program entails or when it believes such programs cross the line into violating civil rights law. “The Letter does not even define what a ‘DEI program’ is,” McCafferty wrote.

The judge also said there is reason to believe the department's actions amount to a violation of teachers' free speech rights.

“A professor runs afoul of the 2025 Letter if she expresses the view in her teaching that structural racism exists in America, but does not do so if she denies structural racism’s existence. That is textbook viewpoint discrimination,” McCafferty wrote.

An Education Department spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

States were given until the end of Thursday to submit certification of their schools’ compliance, but some have indicated they would not comply with the order. Education officials in some Democratic-led states have said the administration is overstepping its authority and that there is nothing illegal about DEI.

The Feb. 14 memo from the department, formally known as a “Dear Colleague” letter, said schools have promoted DEI efforts at the expense of white and Asian American students. It dramatically expands the interpretation of a 2023 Supreme Court decision barring the use of race in college admissions to all aspects of education, including, hiring, promotion, scholarships, housing, graduation ceremonies and campus life.

In the ruling in Maryland, U.S. District Judge Stephanie Gallagher postponed that memo. She found it was improperly issued and forces teachers to choose between “being injured through suppressing their speech or through facing enforcement for exercising their constitutional rights.” That suit was filed by the American Federation of Teachers, one of the nation's largest teachers' unions.

“The court agreed that this vague and clearly unconstitutional requirement is a grave attack on students, our profession, honest history and knowledge itself,” Randi Weingarten, president of the AFT, said in a statement.

A judge in Washington, D.C., granted a preliminary injunction against the certification letter after the NAACP argued it failed to identify specific DEI practices that would run afoul of the law.

All three lawsuits argue that the guidance limits academic freedom and is so vague it leaves schools and educators in limbo about what they may do, such as whether voluntary student groups for minority students are still allowed.

The April directive asked states to collect the certification form from local school districts and also sign it on behalf of the state, giving assurance that schools are in compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

President Donald Trump’s education secretary, Linda McMahon, has warned of potential funding cuts if states do not return the form by Friday.

In a Tuesday interview on the Fox Business Network, McMahon said states that refuse to sign could “risk some defunding in their districts.” The purpose of the form is “to make sure there’s no discrimination that’s happening in any of the schools,” she said.

Schools and states are already required to give assurances to that effect in separate paperwork, but the new form adds language on DEI, warning that using diversity programs to discriminate can bring funding cuts, fines and other penalties.

The form threatens schools’ access to Title I, the largest source of federal revenue for K-12 education and a lifeline for schools in low-income areas.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

© Alex Brandon—AP

Houthi rebels in Yemen have shot down seven U.S. Reaper drones in less than six weeks, a loss of aircraft worth more than $200 million in what is becoming the most dramatic cost to the Pentagon of the military campaign against the Iran-backed militants.

According to defense officials, three of the drones were shot down in the past week — suggesting the militants' targeting of the unmanned aircraft flying over Yemen has improved. The drones were doing attack runs or conducting surveillance, and they crashed both into the water and onto land, said the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss military operations.

The U.S. has increased its attacks on the Houthis, launching daily strikes since March 15, when President Donald Trump ordered a new, expanded campaign. He promised to use “overwhelming lethal force” until the Houthis cease their attacks on shipping along a vital maritime corridor.

Central Command spokesman Dave Eastburn said Thursday night that the U.S. has struck more than 800 Houthi targets. “These strikes have destroyed multiple command-and-control facilities, air defense systems, advanced weapons manufacturing facilities, advanced weapons storage locations, and killed hundreds of Houthi fighters and numerous Houthi leaders,” Eastburn said.

Another defense official said that although hostile fire is likely the cause of the drone losses, the incidents are still under investigation. The official noted that the increase in U.S. strikes can add to the risk to aircraft, but said the U.S. will take every measure possible to protect troops, equipment and interests in the region. The official spoke on condition of anonymity to comment on sensitive military issues.

The sophisticated drones, built by General Atomics, cost about $30 million each, and generally fly at altitudes of more than 40,000 feet (12,100 meters). Houthis leaders have consistently touted the strikes in public statements. One of the defense officials said the U.S. lost Reaper drones on March 31 and on April 3, 9, 13, 18, 19 and 22.

U.S. senators, meanwhile, are raising concerns about civilian casualties caused by the American strikes in Yemen. Democratic Sens. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Tim Kaine of Virginia wrote to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Thursday questioning whether the Trump administration is “abandoning the measures necessary to meet its obligations to reducing civilian harm.”

Specifically, they questioned reports that U.S. strikes at the Ras Isa fuel terminal in Yemen last week potentially killed more than 70 civilians.

“Military leaders agree that ingraining civilian harm mitigation practices within U.S operations leads to better outcomes and that civilian casualties actually undermine the mission that the military has been sent in to do,” their letter said.

In addition to downing the drones, the Houthis have been persistently firing missiles and one-way attack drones at U.S. military ships in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden. They haven't hit any.

The U.S. has been using an array of warships, fighter jets, bombers and drones to strike the Houthis, and aircraft can now launch from two Navy carriers in the region.

Hegseth decided in March to beef up the Navy warship presence in the Middle East, ordering the USS Harry S. Truman to extend its deployment there, as the USS Carl Vinson steamed toward the area.

The Truman, along with two of the destroyers and a cruiser in its strike group, is now in the Red Sea. And the Vinson, along with two destroyers and a cruiser, is in the Gulf of Aden.

The third destroyer assigned to the Truman is in the Mediterranean Sea. And two other U.S. Navy destroyers are in the Red Sea, but aren't part of the Truman's group.

Hegseth is weighing whether to grant a request by U.S. Central Command to once again extend the Truman's deployment. A decision to do that could keep the Truman and at least some of its strike group in the region for several more weeks.

It has been rare in recent years for the U.S. to have two aircraft carriers in the Middle East at the same time. Navy leaders have generally been opposed to the idea because it disrupts ship maintenance schedules and delays time at home for sailors strained by the unusually high combat tempo.

Last year, the Biden administration ordered the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower aircraft carrier to remain in the Red Sea for an extended time, as U.S. warships waged the most intense running sea battle since World War II.

Prior to that it had been years since the U.S. had committed that much warship power to the Middle East.

The Houthis have been waging persistent missile and drone attacks against commercial and military ships in the region in what the group's leadership has described as an effort to end the Israeli war against Hamas in the Gaza Strip.

From November 2023 until this January, the Houthis targeted more than 100 merchant vessels with missiles and drones, sinking two of them and killing four sailors. That has greatly reduced the flow of trade through the Red Sea corridor, which typically sees $1 trillion of goods move through it annually.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

© Osamah Abdulrahman—AP

A judge on Thursday blocked the Trump administration from immediately enacting certain changes to how federal elections are run, including adding a proof-of-citizenship requirement to the federal voter registration form.

The decision is a setback for President Donald Trump, who has argued the requirement is needed to restore public confidence in elections. But the judge allowed other parts of Trump's sweeping executive order on U.S. elections to go forward for now, including a directive to tighten mail ballot deadlines around the country.

Trump's March executive order overhauling how U.S. elections are run prompted swift lawsuits from the League of United Latin American Citizens, the League of Women Voters Education Fund, the Democratic National Committee and others, who called it unconstitutional.

U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly in Washington sided with voting rights groups and Democrats, saying that the Constitution gives the power to regulate federal elections to states and Congress — not the president. She noted federal lawmakers are currently working on their own legislation to require proof of citizenship to vote.

In a 120-page decision on Thursday, she said the plaintiffs had proven that the proof-of-citizenship requirement would cause their clients irreparable harm and go against the public interest, while the government had offered “almost no defense of the President’s order on the merits.”

Accordingly, she granted a preliminary injunction to stop the citizenship requirement from moving forward while the lawsuit plays out.

The judge also blocked part of the Republican president’s order requiring public assistance enrollees to have their citizenship assessed before getting access to the federal voter registration form.

But she denied other requests from a group of Democratic plaintiffs, including refusing to block Trump's order to require all mailed ballots to be received by Election Day nationwide. She also did not touch Trump's order to open certain databases to billionaire Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency to allow it to review state voter lists to search for noncitizens. The judge said those arguments brought by Democrats were either premature or should be brought by states instead.

The plaintiffs had argued Trump's proof-of-citizenship requirement violated the Constitution’s so-called Elections Clause, which gives states and Congress the authority to determine how elections are run.

They also argued that Trump’s order asserts power that he does not have over an independent agency. That agency, the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, sets voluntary voting system guidelines and maintains the federal voter registration form.

During an April 17 hearing, attorneys for the plaintiffs had said requiring proof of citizenship on the federal voter registration form would complicate their clients’ voter registration drives at grocery stores and other public places.

Aria Branch, counsel for the Democratic National Committee and other Democratic plaintiffs, also argued the executive order’s effort to tighten mail ballot deadlines would irreparably harm her clients by forcing them to reallocate resources to help voters navigate the changes.

“That’s time, money and organizational resources and strategy that can’t be recouped,” she said.

Michael Gates, counsel for the Trump administration, said in the hearing a preliminary injunction wasn’t warranted because the order hadn’t been implemented and a citizenship requirement would not be on the federal voter registration form for many months.

Roman Palomares, president of the League of United Latin American Citizens, a nonpartisan plaintiff, said Thursday the judge's decision was a “victory for voters.”

“Efforts to silence the voice and votes of the U.S. electorate must not stand because our democracy depends on all voters feeling confident that they can vote freely and that their vote will be counted accurately,” he said in a statement.

Representing the Democratic plaintiffs, Branch said in a Thursday statement that “this fight is far from over” but called the ruling a “victory for democracy and the rule of law over presidential overreach."

The chairs of the DNC, Democratic Governors Association and Democratic committees in Congress said if the judge hadn't ruled in their favor on citizenship proof, “Americans across the country — including married women who changed their last name and low-income individuals — could have been unable to register to vote.”

The Justice Department's Civil Rights Division said it was disappointed by the ruling.

“Few things are more sacred to a free society or more essential to democracy than the protection of its election systems,” said Harmeet Dhillon, assistant attorney general for civil rights.

Donald Palmer, chair of the EAC, a defendant in the case, said his office was still reviewing the ruling and opinion “but we will comply with the Judge's decision.”

The judge's decision comes as state and local election officials from across the country are meeting to consider the implications of Trump’s executive order on their work.

The U.S. Election Assistance Commission’s Standards Board, which was holding a public hearing in North Carolina on Thursday, is a bipartisan advisory group of election officials from every state that meets annually.

Meanwhile, other lawsuits against Trump’s order are still pending.

In early April, 19 Democratic attorneys general asked the court to reject Trump’s executive order. Washington and Oregon, which both hold all-mail elections, followed with their own lawsuit against the order.

The U.S. differs from many other countries in that it does not hold national elections run by the federal government. Instead, elections are decentralized — overseen by the states and run by thousands of local jurisdictions.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

© Demetrius Freeman/The Washington Post via Getty Images

Diana and Rick Bellamy initially planned to take a Caribbean cruise out of Houston before heading to Laurel, Mississippi, to visit the home of one of their favorite HGTV shows, “Home Town.”

The Calgary couple scrapped those plans and vacationed last month along Mexico's Pacific coast instead, put off by U.S. President Donald Trump's trade war with Canada, the insults he's hurled at their homeland, and stories about American border agents searching people's phones and detaining foreigners for minor reasons.

She found it ironic that she felt more comfortable traveling to Mexico than the U.S.

“I never thought I would hear myself say that,” Diane Bellamy said.

Trump’s attacks on Canada’s economy and threats to make it the 51st state have infuriated Canadians, who are canceling trips to the U.S. in big numbers. They also seem to have also flipped the narrative heading into Canada's parliamentary elections on Monday, with Prime Minister Mark Carney's Liberal Party surging after trailing far behind in the polls just a few months ago.

A steep decline

The U.S. gets more visitors from Canada each year than from any other country, according to the U.S. Travel Association, an industry trade group, which said the 20.4 million visits from Canada last year generated $20.5 billion in spending.

But there has been a big drop in foreigners traveling to the U.S. since Trump took office, and Canadians are no exception. There were more than 910,000 fewer land border crossings from Canada into the U.S. last month than in March of 2024 — a more than 22% drop — according to U.S. Customs and Border Protection data. An Air Canada spokesman, meanwhile, said Canada-U.S. flight bookings for April through September are down about 10%.

Trump brushed aside the decline in tourism to the United States on Wednesday, saying, “There’s a little nationalism there I guess, perhaps. It’s not a big deal."

Traveler worries

Since Trump started his second term, there have been well-publicized reports of tourists being stopped at U.S. border crossings and held for weeks at immigration detention facilities before being allowed to fly home at their own expense.

On March 3, Canadian Jasmine Mooney, an actor and entrepreneur on a U.S. work visa, was detained by U.S. border agents in San Diego. She was released after 12 days detention.

Before Mooney’s release, British Columbia Premier David Eby expressed concern, saying: “It certainly reinforces anxiety that ... many Canadians have about our relationship with the U.S. right now, and the unpredictability of this administration and its actions.”

The Canadian Association of University Teachers, which represents faculty and staff at Canadian universities, warned its members against nonessential travel to the U.S. due to the “political landscape” under Trump and reports of Canadians encountering difficulties crossing the border.

Academics who have expressed negative views about the Trump administration should be particularly cautious about traveling to the U.S., said the group.

“People are scared to cross the border. I don’t know what Americans are thinking, quite frankly. Are they that oblivious?” said former Quebec Premier Jean Charest, who has family in Florida.

Mike Sauer, who runs a community policing center in Vancouver, said he and his partner have no interest in traveling to the U.S. now because of Trump’s politics and border fears. One of Sauer’s concerns is that if a border guard were to check his cellphone, the guard might see his past purchases of marijuana, which is legal to buy in Canada and about half the 50 states but is still illegal under U.S. federal law.

“The States have a different view on drugs. They could certainly look at my phone and see I’m 420-friendly,” he said, meaning he’s marijuana-friendly. “I think it kind of depends on which border guard would have a problem with that and which ones wouldn’t.”

Dietra Wilson, 32, said when she was younger, she often visited Detroit, which is just across the border from Windsor, Ontario, where she and her husband, Ben, own a secondhand shop. She hasn’t visited much in recent years, though, and she said she's heard of people's worries about crossing the border since Trump moved back into the White House.

“It’s worrisome,” she said.

Ben Wilson, 37, also has qualms about trying to cross.

“Why would I want to?” he said. “Regardless of the tariffs, if I’m going to be stopped at the border for my phone or something somebody texted me, why go?”

Industry worries

The drop in Canadian tourism to the U.S. led California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a frequent target of Trump, to announce an ad campaign this month meant to lure Canadians back to his state, citing a 12% year-on-year drop in February.

McKenzie McMillan, a consultant with a Vancouver-based travel agency, The Travel Group, said the company's bookings to the U.S. have dried up. “We have seen a near-total collapse of U.S. business,” he said. “Probably about a 90% drop since February.”

Lesley Keyter, the CEO and founder of the Travel Lady agency in Calgary, said she’s seen people actually forfeit money to cancel their U.S. trips.

“Even if they’re going on a Caribbean cruise, they don’t want to go down to Fort Lauderdale to get on the cruise ship,” she said.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

© Corey R. Williams—AP

The federal prosecutor’s office in Manhattan accidentally filed an internal memo that poked holes in the Trump administration's strategy to kill New York's toll on driving in Manhattan — arguing the government should change tactics if it wants to block the nascent program.

The memo, intended for a U.S. Department of Transportation attorney, was inadvertently filed Wednesday night in New York's lawsuit against the administration over its efforts to shut down the fee.

The blunder came days after the Trump administration gave New York a third ultimatum to stop collecting the toll, which started in January and charges most drivers $9 to enter the most traffic-snarled part of the borough.

In the memo, three assistant U.S. attorneys from the Southern District of New York wrote that there is “considerable litigation risk” in defending Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy's decision to pull federal approval for the toll and that doing so would likely result in a legal loss.

Instead, the three attorneys wrote, the department might have better odds if it tried to end the toll through a different bureaucratic mechanism that would argue it no longer aligns with the federal government's agenda.

Nicholas Biase, a spokesperson for the Southern District of New York, said in a statement Thursday that the filing was “a completely honest error and was not intentional in any way."

The Transportation Department, meanwhile, took aim at the Manhattan federal prosecutor’s office and said it was pulling the Southern District off the case.

"Are SDNY lawyers on this case incompetent or was this their attempt to RESIST? At the very least, it’s legal malpractice," a spokesperson for the agency said.

The statement comes after several top prosecutors in the office resigned and defiantly criticized their bosses in Washington, saying they were asked to handle a now-dismissed corruption case against Mayor Eric Adams in a manner they concluded was unethical, improper and wrong.

Jay Clayton, President Donald Trump's nominee to lead the office, was sworn in this week.

Trump, whose namesake Trump Tower is within the “congestion pricing” tolling zone, has been a vocal critic of the program and had promised to kill it once he took office.

His administration in February ordered the state to shutter the program, saying it was revoking federal approval for the toll. Duffy has described the program as “a slap in the face to working class Americans and small business owners."

Within minutes, New York filed suit in federal court to keep the program alive and said it would continue to collect the toll until ordered to stop by a judge.

The Transportation Department repeatedly has urged New York to shut down the toll and has threatened to pull funding and approvals from various transportation projects if it fails to comply.

The toll amount varies on the kind of vehicle and time of day. It has drawn some pushback from suburban commuters in the metropolitan area because it comes on top of existing tolls for crossing bridges and tunnels into the city.

Most drivers end up paying $9 to enter Manhattan south of Central Park on weekdays between 5 a.m. and 9 p.m. and on weekends between 9 a.m. and 9 p.m. The toll costs $2.25 during off hours for most vehicles.

New York officials have argued the program is helping to reduce traffic in the city and will eventually bring in billions of dollars for its subways, commuter trains and public buses.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

© Alex Kent/Getty Images

The South Carolina Senate has voted what is effectively an $18,000-a-year pay raise into the state's spending plan for the next budget year.

Republican Sen. Shane Martin introduced the plan Wednesday which would increase what is called “in-district compensation” — money set aside for legislative duties but have few limits on how it can be spent — from $1,000 a month to $2,500 a month for all 46 senators and 124 House members.

Martin explained the plan for about 30 seconds before it was approved 24-15. It is part of the overall $14.4 billion budget plan the Senate approved later Wednesday.

The monthly stipend for lawmakers has not been increased in about 30 years. If it makes it through the rest of the budget process, lawmakers would go from $12,000 a year to $30,000 a year for those expenses. In all, the proposal would cost $3 million a year.

In his brief explanation on the Senate floor, Martin said the increase was needed to adjust for inflation and keep up with a world where there are more expenses.

Lawmakers also get a salary of $10,400 a year that has not changed since 1990. In addition, they get money for meals, milage to drive to Columbia and hotel rooms while in session. Legislators are considered part time because South Carolina's General Assembly meets three days a week from January to May.

Republican House leadership said they were not aware of the Senate plan and needed to discuss it with their colleagues before speaking publicly. A small conference committee of senators and House members will have to agree in about a month to keep it in the spending plan.

Lawmakers passed a $1,000-a-month increase in the budget in 2014, but Republican Gov. Nikki Haley vetoed it and senators did not have the votes to override her decision.

Senate Majority Leader Shane Massey voted against the proposal Wednesday. He said lawmakers should have been more transparent.

“You ought to let it go through the subcommittee process — let people come in and fuss at you — let it go through all the committee work, let it come on the floor and have a debate,” said Massey, one of 15 Republicans to vote against it.

Massey said he understands the argument that low compensation tends to limit who can serve to people who run their own businesses, are independently wealthy or retired. And he said $1,000 a month doesn't go as far as it used to.

“You can use that just in gas,” Massey said. “My district is five counties.”

Democratic Rep. John King has been pushing for some kind of additional compensation for lawmakers for years. Representatives like him don't have an office in their home county. He had to set one up himself with a computer, furniture and all the other supplies. He pays someone to handle constituent issues while he is legislating which also eats into his compensation.

King, who is a funeral director for his family's funeral home, can afford to be a lawmaker because there are people to help with the family business when he is away. But he knows there are a lot of people in his district who could not choose to run because of a money crunch.

“Let’s find a fair way where any citizen in the state of South Carolina who chooses to run for office can run," King said.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

© AP Photo/Jeffrey Collins

U.S. automakers developing self-driving cars will be allowed more exemptions from certain federal safety rules for testing purposes to help them compete against Chinese rivals, the Transportation Department said Thursday.

The department also said it will streamline crash reporting requirements involving self-driving features and will move toward national rules for the technology to replace a patchwork of state regulations.

“This Administration understands that we’re in a race with China to out-innovate, and the stakes couldn’t be higher,” said Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy in a statement. “As part of DOT’s innovation agenda, our new framework will slash red tape and move us closer to a single national standard that spurs innovation and prioritizes safety.”

The new exemption procedures will allow U.S. automakers to apply to skip certain safety rules for self-driving vehicles if they are used only for research and other non-commercial purposes. The exemptions were in place previously for foreign, imported vehicles whose home country rules may be different than those in the U.S.

The crash reporting rule being changed has drawn criticism from Trump advisor Elon Musk as onerous and unfair. His car company, Tesla, has reported many of the total crashes under the rule in part because it is the biggest seller of partial self-driving vehicles in the U.S.

Traffic safety watchdogs had feared that the Trump administration would eliminate the reporting rule, but the transportation department statement Thursday emphasized that only the paperwork will change, not the reporting requirement itself.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

U.S. preorders for the Nintendo Switch 2 kicked off shortly after the clock struck midnight Thursday. But chaos soon ensued amid high demand.

Scores of consumers hoping to be among the first to own Nintendo's latest gaming console — which is set to officially launch June 5 — jumped online to try and snag a preorder. And while some lucky buyers found success, many others ran into frustrating delays or saw the product's early listings appear to quickly sell out at participating retailers like Target, Walmart and Best Buy in the wee hours of the night.

Among the headaches, social media users shared painfully-long wait times, screenshots of error messages and carts that suddenly appeared empty — or, in some cases, received confirmation emails that were soon followed by notices about the orders being canceled.

Nintendo acknowledged the “very high demand” in an update about those interested in purchasing the Switch 2 from its own My Nintendo Store. The company said it would be “working diligently to fulfill orders as product becomes available,” but noted that delivery by June 5 was not guaranteed — urging those who want to increase their chances of getting the Switch 2 at the launch date to visit a participating retailer.

Nintendo did not immediately respond to a request for further information about Thursday's preorder demand.

GameStop also begun accepting preorders for the Switch 2 Thursday — hours following the late night launches at other retailers. Online preorders from GameStop went live at 11 a.m. ET, but its listing appeared to be unavailable within minutes.

“We’re seeing overwhelming demand for Switch 2, which is causing some site issues,” GameStop Help wrote on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter, shortly after 11:30 a.m. ET. But the company added that its previously-announced in-store preorders “are open and running smoothly.”

It wasn't immediately clear what that capacity GameStop and other retailers had for Switch 2 preorders. The Associated Press reached out to GameStop — as well as Target, Walmart and Best Buy — for comments Thursday.

The sizeable (and speedy) demand for Nintendo's Switch 2 isn't surprising. The new gaming console has been marketed as bigger and better than its predecessor of eight years past — with highly-anticipated features including an interactive chat, larger screen and new games.

Still, the Switch 2's rollout arrives at an uncertain time for much of the industry due to new tariffs implemented by U.S. President Donald Trump and responding retaliation from targeted countries, notably China. Economists have warned that the steeper levies will result in higher prices on a range of consumer goods relying on a global supply chain today, including electronics.

The Switch 2’s baseline launch price is $449.99 — significantly higher than the original Switch’s $299 price tag. While new bells and whistles may account for a sizeable portion of that hike, experts have previously noted that the new import taxes are also a contributor.

And U.S. preorders for the Switch 2 were already delayed earlier this month — ahead of Trump's steepest levies, most of which have now been postponed, going into effect.

Preorders were originally slated to go live on April 9, an update from Nintendo shared by GameStop notes, but were pushed back to “assess the potential impact of tariffs and evolving market conditions.” Nintendo later confirmed that some Switch 2 accessories would see price adjustments — but maintained that its previously-announced baseline price for the console would remain the same.

Super Mario creator Nintendo Co. is banking on the Switch 2 to revive demand for its gaming consoles, with its older predecessor recently losing momentum. In February, the Kyoto, Japan-based company said it expected to sell 11 million Switch consoles for its full fiscal year ending in March, lower than its initial projection of 12.5 million.

Nintendo reported profit of 237 billion yen ($1.5 billion) for the first nine months of its latest fiscal year, down 42% from the same period the year prior.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

© AP Photo/Richard Drew

Americans’ trust in President Donald Trump to bolster the U.S. economy appears to be faltering, with a new poll showing that many people fear the country is being steered into a recession and that the president’s broad and haphazardly enforced tariffs will cause prices to rise.

Roughly half of U.S. adults say that Trump’s trade policies will increase prices “a lot” and another 3 in 10 think prices could go up “somewhat,” according to the poll by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research.

About half of Americans are “extremely” or “very” concerned about the possibility of the U.S. economy going into a recession in the next few months.

While skepticism about tariffs is increasing modestly, that doesn’t mean the public is automatically rejecting Trump or his approach to trade. However, the wariness could cause problems for a president who promised voters he could quickly fix inflation.

Trump shows vulnerability on the economy

Three months into his second term, Trump’s handling of the economy and tariffs is showing up as a potential weakness. About 4 in 10 Americans approve of the way the Republican president is handling the economy and trade negotiations. That’s roughly in line with an AP-NORC poll conducted in March.

Matthew Wood, 41, said he’s waiting to see how the tariffs play out, but he’s feeling anxious.

“I’m not a huge fan of it, especially considering China and going back and forth with adjustments on both ends,” said Wood, who lives in West Liberty, Kentucky, and is unemployed. “Personally, it hasn’t affected me as of yet. But, generally, I don’t know how this is going to come to an end, especially with the big countries involved.”

Still, Wood said he changed his registration from Republican to independent, having been turned off by Trump’s attitude and deference to billionaire adviser Elon Musk. Wood voted for Trump last year and said he’s willing to give the president until the end of the year to deliver positive results on tariffs.

About half of U.S. adults, 52%, are against imposing tariffs on all goods brought into the U.S. from other countries. That’s up slightly from January, when a poll found that 46% were against tariffs. Driving that small shift largely appears to be adults under age 30 who didn’t previously have an opinion on tariffs.

Trump supporter Janice Manis, 63, said her only criticism of Trump on tariffs is that he put in a partial 90-day pause for trade negotiations with other countries.

“Actually, I think he shouldn’t have suspended it,” said Manis, a retired sheriff’s deputy from Del Rio, Texas. “Because now China is trying to manipulate all of these other countries to go against us, whereas if he would have left all the tariffs in play then these countries would be hit hard. But, oh, well, things happen.”

Skepticism remains about Trump’s tariff approach

Not quite 100 days into Trump’s second term in the White House, people around the country are bracing for possible disruptions in how they spend, work and live. The U.S. economy remains solid for the moment with moderating inflation and a healthy 4.2% unemployment rate, yet measures such as consumer confidence have dropped sharply.

Trump has used executive actions to remold the global economy. He’s imposed hundreds of billions of dollars a year in new import taxes — albeit partially suspending some of them — launching a full-scale trade war against China and pledging to wrap up deals with dozen of other countries that are temporarily facing tariffs of 10%. Financial markets are swinging with every twist and turn from Trump’s tariff pronouncements.

Many Americans are not convinced this is the right approach. About 6 in 10 say Trump has “gone too far” when it comes to imposing new tariffs, according to the poll.

Stocks are down this year, while interest charges on U.S. government bonds have climbed in ways that could make it more costly to repay mortgages, auto loans and student debt. CEOs are scrapping their earnings guidance for investors and seeking exemptions from Trump’s tariffs, which hit allies such as Canada and even penguin-inhabited islands.

Trump seemed to recognize the drag from tariffs as he highlighted this week the possibility of a deal with China. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent had also said in a closed-door speech that the situation with China is not “sustainable.”

Widespread concern about rising grocery prices

About 6 in 10 U.S. adults are “extremely” or “very” concerned about the cost of groceries in the next few months, while about half are highly concerned about the cost of big purchases, such as a car, cellphone or appliance. Less than half are highly concerned about their ability to purchase the goods they want — a sign of the economy’s resilience so far.

Retirement savings are a source of anxiety — about 4 in 10 Americans say their retirement savings are a “major source” of stress in their lives. But fewer — only about 2 in 10 — identify the stock market as a major source of anxiety.

“This whole tariff war is just a losing situation not only for the American people but everybody worldwide,” said Nicole Jones, 32. “It’s revenge — and everybody’s losing on it.”

The Englewood, Florida, resident voted last year for then-Vice President Kamala Harris, who replaced the incumbent president, Joe Biden, as the Democratic nominee. Jones hadn’t given much thought to tariffs until recently, and now, as an occupational therapy student, she also worries about losing her financial aid and facing high amounts of educational debt.

“Things are more expensive for us,” she said.

And most Americans still think the national economy is in a weak state.

The difference is that Republicans — who largely thought the economy was in bad shape when Biden was president — now feel more optimistic. But Democrats have become much more bleak about the country’s financial future.

“It wasn’t all sunshine and rainbows, but we were doing fine,” Jones, a Democratic voter, said about the economy before Trump’s policies went into effect.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

© Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

Major U.S. airlines are reducing their flight schedules and revising or withdrawing their profit outlooks for the year due to less domestic travel demand as sentiment about the national and global economies sours.

American Airlines pulled its financial guidance for 2025 on Thursday, joining rivals Southwest and Delta in declaring the economic outlook too uncertain to provide full-year forecasts. All three airlines cited weakening sales among economy class leisure travelers.

“We came off a strong fourth quarter, saw decent business in January, and really domestic leisure travel fell off considerably as we went into the February time frame,” American Airlines CEO Robert Isom told CNBC.

Consumer reluctance to book vacations would correspond with a new poll that showed many people fear the U.S. is being steered into a recession and that President Donald Trump's broad and haphazardly enforced tariffs will cause prices to rise.

There's also increasing concerns about international travelers. Michael Feroli, chief U.S. economist at J.P. Morgan, said in a client note that anti-American sentiment could be spurring a travel dropoff, with data showing that international visitors to the U.S. are running about 5% lower than a year ago.

“In recent weeks there have been numerous news stories about tourists canceling trips to the U.S. in protest of the perceived heavy-handedness of recent trade policies,” he wrote. “This points to potentially another channel to consider in assessing the effects of tariffs on economic activity.”

Some economic indicators point to expectations of a slowdown. Sales of previously occupied U.S. homes slowed in March, and U.S. consumer sentiment plunged in April, the fourth consecutive month of declines. However, fears of a downturn have not translated into layoffs.

Trump announced sweeping tariffs on April 2 that triggered panic in financial markets and generated recession fears, leading consumers and businesses to start pulling back on spending, which includes travel. The president put a partial 90-day hold on the import taxes but increased his already steep tariffs against China.

Beijing increased its import tax on American goods to 125% in retaliation. On Thursday China denied Trump’s assertion that the two sides were involved in active negotiations to end or mitigate their trade war.

American Airlines said it would give an update on its full-year guidance “as the economic outlook becomes clearer.” Airline executives said sales among business travelers and for premium seats on long-haul international flights remained solid.

Southwest Airlines reported late Wednesday that it would trim its flight schedule for the second half of the year due to lower demand. The company also said it could not reaffirm its 2025 and 2026 outlooks for earnings before interest and taxes, given “current macroeconomic uncertainty.”

United Airlines last week gave two different financial forecasts for how it may perform this year, one if there’s a recession and one if not. The airline said it planned to reduce its scheduled domestic flights by 4% starting in July in response to lower-than-expected demand for economy fare tickets.

“We think there is a reasonable chance things can weaken from here,” United CEO Scott Kirby said.

Delta Air Lines, the nation’s most profitable carrier, predicted as recently as January that the company was on track for the best financial year in its history. Earlier this month, the airline scratched its performance expectations for 2025 and said it was putting a planned flight schedule expansion on hold.

“With broad economic uncertainty around global trade, growth has largely stalled,” Delta CEO Ed Bastian said at the time. “In this slower-growth environment, we are protecting margins and cash flow by focusing on what we can control. This includes reducing planned capacity growth in the second half of the year.”

The parent companies of Frontier Airlines and Alaska Airlines also pulled their 2025 guidance.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

© Kevin Dietsch—Getty Images

Americans’ trust in President Donald Trump to bolster the U.S. economy appears to be faltering, with a new poll showing that many people fear the country is being steered into a recession and that the president’s broad and haphazardly enforced tariffs will cause prices to rise.

Roughly half of U.S. adults say that Trump’s trade policies will increase prices “a lot” and another 3 in 10 think prices could go up “somewhat,” according to the poll by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research.

About half of Americans are “extremely” or “very” concerned about the possibility of the U.S. economy going into a recession in the next few months.

While skepticism about tariffs is increasing modestly, that doesn’t mean the public is automatically rejecting Trump or his approach to trade. However, the wariness could cause problems for a president who promised voters he could quickly fix inflation.

Trump shows vulnerability on the economy

Three months into his second term, Trump’s handling of the economy and tariffs is showing up as a potential weakness. About 4 in 10 Americans approve of the way the Republican president is handling the economy and trade negotiations. That’s roughly in line with an AP-NORC poll conducted in March.

Matthew Wood, 41, said he’s waiting to see how the tariffs play out, but he’s feeling anxious.

“I’m not a huge fan of it, especially considering China and going back and forth with adjustments on both ends,” said Wood, who lives in West Liberty, Kentucky, and is unemployed. “Personally, it hasn’t affected me as of yet. But, generally, I don’t know how this is going to come to an end, especially with the big countries involved.”

Still, Wood said he changed his registration from Republican to independent, having been turned off by Trump’s attitude and deference to billionaire adviser Elon Musk. Wood voted for Trump last year and said he’s willing to give the president until the end of the year to deliver positive results on tariffs.

About half of U.S. adults, 52%, are against imposing tariffs on all goods brought into the U.S. from other countries. That’s up slightly from January, when a poll found that 46% were against tariffs. Driving that small shift largely appears to be adults under age 30 who didn’t previously have an opinion on tariffs.

Trump supporter Janice Manis, 63, said her only criticism of Trump on tariffs is that he put in a partial 90-day pause for trade negotiations with other countries.

“Actually, I think he shouldn’t have suspended it,” said Manis, a retired sheriff’s deputy from Del Rio, Texas. “Because now China is trying to manipulate all of these other countries to go against us, whereas if he would have left all the tariffs in play then these countries would be hit hard. But, oh, well, things happen.”

Skepticism remains about Trump’s tariff approach

Not quite 100 days into Trump’s second term in the White House, people around the country are bracing for possible disruptions in how they spend, work and live. The U.S. economy remains solid for the moment with moderating inflation and a healthy 4.2% unemployment rate, yet measures such as consumer confidence have dropped sharply.

Trump has used executive actions to remold the global economy. He’s imposed hundreds of billions of dollars a year in new import taxes — albeit partially suspending some of them — launching a full-scale trade war against China and pledging to wrap up deals with dozen of other countries that are temporarily facing tariffs of 10%. Financial markets are swinging with every twist and turn from Trump’s tariff pronouncements.

Many Americans are not convinced this is the right approach. About 6 in 10 say Trump has “gone too far” when it comes to imposing new tariffs, according to the poll.

Stocks are down this year, while interest charges on U.S. government bonds have climbed in ways that could make it more costly to repay mortgages, auto loans and student debt. CEOs are scrapping their earnings guidance for investors and seeking exemptions from Trump’s tariffs, which hit allies such as Canada and even penguin-inhabited islands.

Trump seemed to recognize the drag from tariffs as he highlighted this week the possibility of a deal with China. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent had also said in a closed-door speech that the situation with China is not “sustainable.”

Widespread concern about rising grocery prices

About 6 in 10 U.S. adults are “extremely” or “very” concerned about the cost of groceries in the next few months, while about half are highly concerned about the cost of big purchases, such as a car, cellphone or appliance. Less than half are highly concerned about their ability to purchase the goods they want — a sign of the economy’s resilience so far.

Retirement savings are a source of anxiety — about 4 in 10 Americans say their retirement savings are a “major source” of stress in their lives. But fewer — only about 2 in 10 — identify the stock market as a major source of anxiety.

“This whole tariff war is just a losing situation not only for the American people but everybody worldwide,” said Nicole Jones, 32. “It’s revenge — and everybody’s losing on it.”

The Englewood, Florida, resident voted last year for then-Vice President Kamala Harris, who replaced the incumbent president, Joe Biden, as the Democratic nominee. Jones hadn’t given much thought to tariffs until recently, and now, as an occupational therapy student, she also worries about losing her financial aid and facing high amounts of educational debt.

“Things are more expensive for us,” she said.

And most Americans still think the national economy is in a weak state.

The difference is that Republicans — who largely thought the economy was in bad shape when Biden was president — now feel more optimistic. But Democrats have become much more bleak about the country’s financial future.

“It wasn’t all sunshine and rainbows, but we were doing fine,” Jones, a Democratic voter, said about the economy before Trump’s policies went into effect.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

© Jeff Chiu—AP