Social Security workers are being asked to use an AI chatbot. An animated video on how to do so failed to mention that the chatbot can’t be trusted with personally identifiable information.
The acting head of the General Services Administration says it has no DOGE team. It merely lists at least a half-dozen DOGE affiliates on payroll and has a section of its building for DOGE use only.
Donald Trump's staggering tariffs on Chinese imports have hit nearly every category of consumer goods, from electronics and automobiles to clothing and footwear. One of the most vulnerable industries is the ultracheap e-commerce sites like Shein, Temu, and AliExpress that American shoppers have become accustomed to. It is already showing signs of a bloodbath.
Last week Shein and Temu warned shoppers that price increases were coming on April 25th. A spot-check of prices on Shein show modest increases across categories, though not every item is more expensive than it was a week ago. A pair of kid's fleece pants that were $8.29 on April 17th are now $10.19. A women's plus-size dress that was $22.39 is now $27.51. A pair of pants that were $13.99 have gone up to $17.09. Shein's inventory and prices change daily so it's impossible to pinpoint why an item has changed in price, but Shein shoppers have noticed their shopping carts and wish lists getting more expensive: shoppers on Reddit report some items doubling. According to data provided to The Verge by Bright Data, price increases on Shein until early March were for the most part modest compared to late 2024 prices, and many product …
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.”
President Trump 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.
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.
President Donald Trump said in an interview published Friday by Time he would actually “love” a tax on millionaires. This comes amid strong opposition from much of the GOP and contradicts other public statements he’s made this week about taxing the wealthy.
Being a billionaire himself, it’s no surprise President Donald Trump has been against higher taxes on the wealthy. But in an interview published Friday by Time, Trump appeared to change his tune.
When asked whether he supports the millionaires tax, Trump said he “certainly [doesn’t] mind having a tax increase,” but the only reason he wouldn’t support it is out of fear he’d lose an election.
“I saw Bush where they said, where he said ‘Read my lips’ and he lost an election,” Trump said in the Time interview. “He would have lost it anyway, but he lost an election. He got beat up pretty good.” (President George H.W. Bush actually won the 1988 election after he said “Read my lips: No new taxes” during his campaign. There was subsequently a massive deficit, and he agreed to tax increases, therefore breaking his promise. He lost his re-election bid to President Bill Clinton in 1992).
Meanwhile, Trump’s inner circle as of this week was reportedly weighing whether the White House should support raising taxes on Americans who make more than $1 million per year, which is part of the GOP’s 2025 tax legislation, according to The Washington Post. But Trump and House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) on Wednesday said the complete opposite.
“I think it would be very disruptive, because a lot of the millionaires would leave the country," Trump told reporters. "The old days, they left states. They go from one state to the other. Now with transportation so quick and so easy, they leave countries."
But in Trump’s interview with Time, he said he'd be “honored” to pay more taxes, but with one caveat.
“But I don't want to be in a position where we lose an election because I was generous, but me, as a rich person, would not mind paying and you know, we're talking about very little,” Trump said. “We're talking about one point. It doesn't make that much difference, and yet, I could just see somebody trying to bring that up as a subject, and, you know, say, ‘Oh, he raised taxes.’”
Since taxing the rich more is typically associated with the Democratic Party, many of Trump’s allies have openly disagreed with a move by the GOP to tax the rich. Trump advisers including Newt Gingrich, Steve Moore, and Larry Kudlow argue the plan goes against the president’s promise to lower taxes, according to The Washington Post. Johnson and GOP Sens. Dave McCormick and Ted Cruz have also noted their opposition.
The other side of the argument is that raising taxes on the wealthy would help the middle class, which voted for Trump in droves.
“I'd be raising [taxes] on wealthy to take care of middle class,” Trump said. “And that's—I love that. I actually love the concept, but I don't want it to be used against me politically, because I've seen people lose elections for less, especially with the fake news.”
Raising taxes on the wealthy would also help fulfill Trump’s “big, beautiful bill” to fund the government with trillions of dollars in tax breaks and federal program cuts.
“The current system we have is not sustainable,” former chief strategist for the first Trump administration Steve Bannon said at Semafor’s World Economy Summit on Wednesday. “You have to go to an alternative. I think the alternative is budget cuts. And … it has to be tax increases on the wealthy.”
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.
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.
President Donald Trump is badgering the Federal Reserve to cut interest rates, but it wouldn't necessarily lead to lower borrowing costs for consumers.
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.
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.
President Donald Trump arrives at Leesburg Executive Airport on Marine One in Leesburg, Va., Thursday, April 24, 2025, en route to Trump National Golf Club Washington DC in Sterling, Va.
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.
FBI director Kash Patel arrives on the South Lawn of the White House before President Donald Trump and first lady Melania Trump participate in the White House Easter Egg Roll Monday, April 21, 2025, in Washington.
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.
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.
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.
President Donald Trump will mark his first 100 days in office next week with a rally in Michigan, his first since returning to the White House earlier this year.
Trump will visit Macomb County on Tuesday, the White House press secretary said. The region just north of Detroit, known as an automotive hub.
“President Trump is excited to return to the great state of Michigan next Tuesday, where he will rally in Macomb County to celebrate the FIRST 100 DAYS!” Karoline Leavitt said Wednesday on social media.
The rally will take place one day before Trump’s 100th day in office — a traditional early milestone in which a president's progress is measured against campaign promises. Michigan was one of the key battleground states Trump flipped last year from Democrats on his path back to the White House.
Trump has not traveled much since taking office outside of personal weekend trips. His only other official trip in his second term was during the first week, when he visited disaster zones in North Carolina and California and held an event in Las Vegas to promote his plan to eliminate taxes on tips.
But later this week, Trump will travel to Pope Francis' funeral in Rome, the first foreign trip in his second term.
Trump’s upcoming trip to Michigan follows a series of meetings and phone calls with the state’s high-profile Democratic governor, Gretchen Whitmer. Once a sharp critic of Trump, Whitmer has said that she hopes to find common ground with the president in his second term.
A key area of potential cooperation that Whitmer has pointed to is Selfridge Air National Guard Base, long a concern for Whitmer and Michigan lawmakers amid uncertainty over its future as the A-10 aircraft stationed there are phased out. The base is located in Macomb County, where he is set to appear Tuesday.
Trump mentioned Selfridge during an April 9 executive order signing in the Oval Office, an event that Whitmer was present for, saying he hoped to keep the base “open, strong, thriving.”
“I think we’re going to be successful, Governor. I think we’ll be very successful there,” Trump said about Selfridge.
Whitmer — whom Trump praised during his remarks — later said she was unexpectedly brought into the Oval Office during her visit. A photo captured her trying to shield her face from cameras with a folder.
Asked Wednesday if Whitmer would appear with the president in Michigan, a spokesperson for the governor said they “don't have anything to share at this time."
Whitmer and other Michigan officials have long advocated for a new fighter mission to replace the outgoing A-10 squadron at Selfridge.
In a 2023 letter sent during President Joe Biden’s administration, Whitmer urged the secretary of the Air Force to act, writing, “I repeat and reiterate what I stated in November and many times before over the past year: a fighter mission at Selfridge to recapitalize the A10s is the right path forward for the State of Michigan, the Air Force, and the nation."
President Donald Trump arrives at a swearing in ceremony for Dr. Mehmet Oz to be Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, in the Oval Office of the White House, on April 18, 2025.
Senator Elizabeth Warren on Wednesday questioned Apple Inc. Chief Executive Officer Tim Cook on his discussions with the Trump administration ahead of the president’s retreat on tariffs covering crucial Apple products built in China.
“The circumstances surrounding Apple’s exemptions raise fresh concerns about influence-peddling by huge well-connected corporations, and their ability to gain special favors from President Trump,” Warren wrote in a letter to Cook which was obtained by Bloomberg News.
In early April, President Donald Trump announced a series of tariffs on items imported from China that could reach as high as 145%. That would have either dramatically cut into Apple’s profit margins on iPhones, which are primarily built in China, or significantly raised prices. But a couple of weeks later, the administration announced carve outs on several types of electronics that benefited the iPhone maker.
Warren, a progressive Democrat who has been a vociferous critic of Trump, cited news reports that the Apple CEO worked behind the scenes to influence the Trump administration to cut back on the tariffs.
Apple didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.
For years, Cook has been praised by industry watchers and investors for his ability to navigate the Trump Administration and protect his company’s interests, including those related to tariffs. Trump’s pledge to bring jobs back to America and re-locate manufacturing to the US has been particularly challenging for Apple, which has been tied to China for years and produces the vast majority of its devices there.
“At best, your work to eliminate the tariffs on Apple products, and President Trump’s subsequent decision to exempt certain Apple products, creates the appearance of impropriety,” Warren wrote. “However, recent reporting also raises serious questions about the extent to which it is possible for massive corporate special interests to use their money and influence to secure tariff exemptions that are unavailable to Main Street small businesses.”
In the letter, Warren asks Cook what the nature of his discussions were with Trump officials related to tariffs, when the discussions happened and when Apple found out about the exemptions. She also mentions Cook’s appearance at Trump’s inauguration in January and a $1 million donation Cook made to the inaugural committee, two moves that were mirrored by several other technology CEOs.
The Massachusetts senator suggested the treatment repeated a pattern set during Trump’s first-term tariff campaigns.
“During his first term, Donald Trump’s tariff policy became a feeding frenzy for big corporations to secure lucrative exemptions and special treatment,” Warren wrote. She cited prior tariff exclusions for the iPhone, Apple Watch and Mac components.
While Apple no longer needs to brace for 145% tariffs and avoided an immediate crisis in its supply chain, the Trump Administration has warned that it will impose new tariffs on electronics soon, likely covering Apple products.
Pete Buttigieg appears on Flagrant with Andrew Schultz on April 23rd, 2025.
A Democrat has entered the manosphere.
Pete Buttigieg, the former Secretary of Transportation in the Biden Administration and a presidential candidate in 2020, sat for a three-hour appearance on Andrew Schultz's Flagranton Wednesday to discuss current events, the state of politics, and the culture wars - his latest foray into breaking outside of the Democrats' preferred "echo chamber," as he put it, and his first into the world of online, woke-skeptical bro media.
Sporting a beard, Buttigieg criticized his colleagues in the Democratic Party for shirking podcasts such as Flagrant, which conducted an interview with Donald Trump during the election. According to co-host Akaash Singh, Flagrant, which has drawn controversy for its hosts' willingness to engage with racist content,was unable to get Democrats to agree to come on the show, prompting Buttigieg to call them out for turning down the invitation. "We have to be encountering people who don't think like us and who don't view the world the way we do, both in order to become smarter and better and make better choices and take better positions, and also to persuade," he said.
Calling Buttigieg "the Democrats' secret weapon," S …
Login
Fortune
