Trump administration unveils more detailed proposal for steep 2026 spending cutsNew Foto - Trump administration unveils more detailed proposal for steep 2026 spending cuts

The Trump administration on Friday unveiled more details of the president's vision for how to fund the government in fiscal year 2026, expanding on its request earlier this monthfor steep spending cuts. Thelengthy budget appendix, which stretches to more than 1,200 pages, comes as Republicans in both chambers have pressed the administration for more information about the president's proposed funding cuts. President Trump is calling for more than $160 billion in cuts to nondefense discretionary spending — amounting to about 22 percent — while requesting a boost to defense dollars. While presidential budget requests aren't signed into law, they can serve as a blueprint for lawmakers as they begin crafting their funding legislation. House appropriators will take up the first set of funding bills next week, with subcommittees on military construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, rural development, and the Department of Agriculture set to meet to consider the proposals on Thursday. The White House rolled out Trump's so-called skinny budget about a month ago. It ran 46 pages, and it's not unusual for presidents to first roll out shorter versions of their proposals before releasing more details. But GOP appropriators said they needed more information about the president's funding wishlist, and budget hawks grumbled at the time about key details missing. "There needs to be a lot more programmatic detail to write these bills to," Cole told The Hill ahead of the current congressional recess. "Their skinny line budget is just that. It's not a full presidential budget." "We will just do a better job for them," Cole said at the time, if appropriators have more guidance from the administration. The documents released Friday build upon the cuts outlined in Trump's earlier request, which called for double-digit cuts for a list of agencies including the departments of Agriculture, Education, Housing and Urban Development, Labor, and State. The administration is also pushing for Congress to put dozens of programs on the chopping block, including the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, Job Corps, the Community Development Block Grant program and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. However, the administration noted that, for defense programs, the document only contained appropriations language and that a "separate document containing budget estimates for the Department of Defense will be published in June 2025." It also said "mandatory spending and receipts proposals in this document are limited to those proposals that support the president's 2026 discretionary request." The forthcoming funding bills from the GOP-led House are expected to be more partisan in nature than in the Senate, where Democratic votes will be needed to get annual funding legislation across the floor.or. The bills from the GOP-led House are expected to be more partisan in nature than in the Senate, where Democratic votes will be needed to get annual funding legislation across the floor. Democrats have already come out in strong opposition to the president's budget request. And there are serious trust issues in the party about eventual negotiations with Republicans on fiscal year 2026 funding as the administration has undertaken a sweeping operation to shrink the size of the government without buy-in from Congress. "This is a draconian proposal to hurt working people and our economy, and it is dead on arrival in Congress as long as I have anything to say about it," Sen. Patty Murray (Wash.), top Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee, said in a statement Friday. "This is not a complete budget," Rep. Rosa DeLauro (Conn.), top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, also said Friday. "We are supposed to start putting together the funding bills for 2026 next week. If, as expected, House Republicans follow what President Trump has proposed so far, it is not a serious effort to deliver for the American people." Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. For the latest news, weather, sports, and streaming video, head to The Hill.

Trump administration unveils more detailed proposal for steep 2026 spending cuts

Trump administration unveils more detailed proposal for steep 2026 spending cuts The Trump administration on Friday unveiled more details of...
Musk leaves D.C. with black eye: 5 takeaways from Oval Office sendoff with TrumpNew Foto - Musk leaves D.C. with black eye: 5 takeaways from Oval Office sendoff with Trump

Elon Muskarrived in Washington, D.C., with high hopes. He left with a literal and reputationalblack eye. President Donald Trumpmarked the end of Musk's tenure as a government employee with an event in the Oval Office May 30, where he thanked the billionaire for his work leading the Department of Government Efficiency and gave him a golden key. "Elon's delivered a colossal change in the old ways of doing business in Washington," Trump declared. The warm sendoff came after Musk struggled to unlock cost savings in the federal government, deliveringfar less than what he promised. He leaves Washington D.C. a much more polarizing figure, the subject of intensecriticism and proteststhat have dinged his business empire. Musk showed up in the Oval Office dressed all in black, from his DOGE hat to his t-shirt and blazer. He also had a black eye given to him by his young son. More:Elon Musk's rise and fall: From Trump's chainsaw-wielding sidekick to a swift exit Musk's DOGE work, meanwhile, left his reputation badly bruised, which formed the subtext of much of the Oval Office gathering. Trump complained about the billionaire suffering "the slings and the arrows" and Musk said DOGE became a "bogeyman." Musk used DOGE to bulldoze through the federal government, shuttering whole agencies and instituting mass layoffs. The result, he said May 30, is about $160 billion in savings so far,far below the $2 trillion he talked about on the campaign trailand $1 trillion he pledged after Trump took office. Critics complained that he hurt vital programs with indiscriminate cutting and nonpartisan researchers calculated thatmost of the savings will be wiped outby the costs of reinstating workers whose firings were illegal, defending those cases in court, and other effects like lost revenue from shrinking the IRS. The resulting backlash took a toll. The billionaire is nowstepping awayfrom his government work to focus more on his businesses such as electric car company Tesla, which was targeted by protesters and has seen sales slip. Here are five takeaways from the Oval Office event. Musk's exit as the DOGE leader came as his designation as a "special government employee" ‒ which allowed him to stay on the job for 130 calendar days a year ‒ ended. "My time as a special government employee necessarily had to end, it was a limited-time thing," Musk said May 30. The billionaire vowed that DOGE's work will continue, though, calling it a "way of life" that is "permeating throughout the government." Musk also said he'll still continue to visit and consult with Trump. "Elon's really not leaving, he's going to be back and forth… it's his baby," Trump said. Yet Musk has taken steps to distance himself from politics and the Trump administration after a tumultuous period.He recently said heplans to spend "a lot less" money on campaigns − after dropping $290 million getting Trump elected and $20 million on a losing judicial race in Wisconsin − and attracted attention forcriticizing Trump's top legislative priority, saying it would add to the deficit and "undermine the work that the DOGE team is doing." The backlash to DOGE hurt Musk's reputation. He also suffered some physical pain recently, the result of "horsing around" with his 5-year-old son, X. "I said, 'Go ahead, punch me in the face.' And he did it,"Musk saidin the Oval Office in explaining his black eye. The injury prompted immediate speculation on social media. Musk's 14 childrenhave been a source of fascinationas he stepped into the public spotlight to lead the Department of Government Efficiency, with X spending weeks tagging along in the Oval Office and around Capitol Hill. The Oval Office meeting came the same daythe New York Times reportedthat Musk allegedly frequently useddrugs such as ketamine, ecstasy and psychedelic mushrooms while campaigning with Trump in 2024. The paper said it was unclear whether Musk used drugs while working for Trump in the Department of Government Efficiency. A reporter tried to ask Muskabout his alleged drug useduring the 2024 campaign. But Musk dodged the question and criticized the New York Times' reporting on Russian interference in the 2016 election. "Let's move on,"Musk said, standing behind the president at the Resolute Desk. Musk, the CEO of carmaker Tesla and rocket company SpaceX, and owner of social-media platform X,acknowledged in March 2024that he used prescription ketamine to combat bouts of depression. He worried corporate executives by smoking marijuanaduring a podcast in 2018. The New York Times story built on aWall Street Journal story in January 2024that alleged Musk used drugs such as LSD, cocaine, ecstasy and mushrooms. The campaign featured some erratic behavior, such as Musk jumping on stage behind Trump during an October rally in Butler, Pennsylvania. Musk didn't respond to reporters' questions related to his drug use, but he has previously acknowledged using "small amount" of ketamine "once every other week" and marijuana "almost never." The New York Times reported that his ketamine use was often enough to affect his bladder. Musk's shiner from his son wasn't the only physical incident that came up during the Oval Office event. Trump offered some advice for French President Emmanuel Macron aftera videoof Macron's wife apparentlyshoving himin the face in front of an open plane door went viral: "Make sure the door remains closed." Trump downplayed the incidentwhen asked about it. "He's fine too. They're fine," Trump said. "They're two really good people I know them very well." Macron called speculation about the incident with his wife, Brigitte Macron, "nonsense," saying it showed the couple "joking around." The clip was taken after the couple landed in Hanoi, Vietnam, as part of a Southeast Asia tour. Trump also fielded a question aboutpardoning the rapper known as Diddy, saying he hadn't been approached about it but not ruling out the clemency move. Fox News Reporter Peter Doocey questionedTrump on May 30 about a possible pardon for Sean Combs, the musician who is on federal trial in New York for racketeering and sex trafficking. The two men have been friends in the past. "Well, nobody's asked," Trump replied. "I know people are thinking about it." Contributing: Joey Garrison This article originally appeared on USA TODAY:Trump gives Musk Oval Office sendoff after DOGE turbulence

Musk leaves D.C. with black eye: 5 takeaways from Oval Office sendoff with Trump

Musk leaves D.C. with black eye: 5 takeaways from Oval Office sendoff with Trump Elon Muskarrived in Washington, D.C., with high hopes. He l...
Why Trump's attack on the conservative legal movement is a big dealNew Foto - Why Trump's attack on the conservative legal movement is a big deal

With Donald Trump's rhetoric, it's often difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff, the statements-of-intent from the just-venting, andthe "literal" from the merely "serious." Hissocial media missiveThursday night suddenly attacking the conservative legal movement should probably be put in the former categories. It could be one of the most significant moments in Trump's long-running attempt to consolidate power – and sideline both Congress and the courts – in his second term. Republican- and even Trump-appointed judges have increasingly formed something of a bulwark against Trump's power grabs. And the president has (at least for now) declared war on them, too. In sum: Trump could be trying to bulldoze one of the biggest remaining impediments to his quest for unchecked power. His Truth Social post ran more than 500 words. And it was a lot. But the crux of it was his decision toattack former Federalist Society head Leonard Leo. Leo is an architect of not just the conservative legal movement but also many of Trump's judicial picks in his first term. One study found80%of Trump's appeals-court judges were tied to the Federalist Society, as were all three of his Supreme Court picks. Trump called Leo a "sleazebag" – in quotation marks – and "a bad person who, in his own way, probably hates America." He said Leo and the Federalist Society gave him bad advice on the judges he picked. And perhaps most notably, he posited that maybe Leo was part of some kind of conspiracy. It's allverysuggestive. "He openly brags how he controls Judges, and even Justices of the United States Supreme Court," Trump said, before adding: "I hope that is not so, and don't believe it is!" Trump isn't saying this, but he's saying it. This, of course, doesn't come out of nowhere. While the White House has frequently attacked judges who rule against Trump's actions as "radical" leftists, an increasing number of the rulings against Trump have come from judges appointed by Republicans and in, in some cases, judges appointed by Trump The ruling the president was responding to in his Thursday night post came from a three-judge federal trade panel, which includes a Trump-appointed judge, thatstruckdown many ofhismost significant tariffs(an appeals court later stayed that decision). Earlier this week, another Trump-appointed judge temporarily halted the administration's efforts to block congestion pricing in New York City. And there's plenty more where that came from, from bothRepublican-appointed judgesandTrump-appointed ones. Many of the adverse rulings pertain to Trump's rapid and legally dubious deportation efforts. A study earlier in Trump's second term from CNN Supreme Court analyst and Georgetown University Law Center professor Stephen Vladeck made clear it wasn't just "leftist" judges who were standing up to Trump and issuing injunctions the White House has frequently derided; when Trump's actions came before Republican-appointed judges, they too were issuing injunctionsat a remarkable 45% clip. All of which undermines the White House's oft-invoked claims that this is something of a "judicial coup" engineered by a bunch of liberal judges. If Republican- and even Trump-appointed judges are doing it, too, that suggests this is really about Trump overstepping, not the judges. So perhaps recognizing the growing problems with that talking point, Trump has decided to include Republican appointees and even judges he himself picked in the grand conspiracy of usurpers. To be clear, there is no real evidence of any such conspiracy. Leo and the Federalist Society are surely formidable figures in American politics – ones whose goals have often overlapped with Trump and created a symbiosis. Trump and other top Republicans have hailed their successful effort to steer the American judiciary to the right during his first term, most notably in the now-6-3-majority Supreme Court. Some of that was happenstance – getting vacancies at the right time – but some of it was the result of a rather bare-knuckle and very political approach to recasting the judiciary. (See: Then-Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell not even giving Barack Obama's Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland a hearing in 2016). But a more logical explanation for the current clash between Trump and these GOP- and Trump-appointed judges is a lot simpler than these judges being under Leo's thumb. These are judges, after all, who built their careers in a different era and corner of the conservative movement. They're generally more traditional establishment conservatives – the kind that used to have more of a foothold in federal politics but have steadily headed for the exits or changed their ways – rather than the brand of Trump loyalists who have increasingly taken over the party. They also have lifetime appointments, which insulates them from the political winds of the day. So where does this leave us? White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller told CNN's Pamela Brown on Friday that the White House will not use the Federalist Society to make judicial picks moving forward. Still, it remains to be seen how much Trump truly presses forward with attacking Leo, the Federalist Society and Republican-appointed judges. Sometimes these moments pass, and Trump makes amends with people he said such awful things about. His attacks here are also a fraught effort, given how much overlap there is between even the Trump-era Republican Party and the Federalist Society. Perhaps Trump views this as a momentary warning flare to Republican-appointed judges, in hopes that they at least feel the pressure. But criticizing them is one thing; suggesting they are beholden to a secret puppet-master who hates America is quite another. And Trump appears motivated to keep it up. Given the makeup of our courts, many of these judges represent pivotal votes for or against Trump's agenda, most notably in the Supreme Court. If these judges keep standing in his way – which wouldn't be surprising, given how brazen many of Trump's moves are – he needs to somehow explain why even seeming ideological allies would do that. And to the extent Trump does marshal his base against even these conservative judges, it's not difficult to see that inching us closer to a truly ugly constitutional clash between the administration and the courts. The administration has already flirted with outright ignoring court orders, which would open up a Pandora's box for our democracy. It might be an unavoidable conflict at this point, and Trump on Thursday sent his first major signal that he's leaning into it. For more CNN news and newsletters create an account atCNN.com

Why Trump’s attack on the conservative legal movement is a big deal

Why Trump's attack on the conservative legal movement is a big deal With Donald Trump's rhetoric, it's often difficult to separa...
Gabbard considering ways to revamp Trump's intelligence briefingNew Foto - Gabbard considering ways to revamp Trump's intelligence briefing

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump's intelligence chief is exploring ways to revamp his routine intelligence briefing in order to build his trust in the material and make it more aligned with how he likes to consume information, according to five people with direct knowledge of the discussions. As part of that effort, National Intelligence Director Tulsi Gabbard has solicited ideas from current and former intelligence officials about steps she could take to tailor the briefing, known as the President's Daily Brief, or PDB, to Trump's policy interests and habits. One idea that's been discussed is possibly creating a video version of the PDB that's made to look and feel like a Fox News broadcast, four of the people with direct knowledge of the discussions said. Currently, the PDB is a digital document created daily for the president and key Cabinet members and advisers that includes written text, as well as graphics and images. The material that goes into the classified briefing, and how it's presented, can shape a president's decision-making. According to his public schedule, since his inauguration Trump has taken the PDB 14 times, or on average less than once a week, which is less often than his recent predecessors — including himself during his first term. An analysis of their public schedules during that same timeframe — from their inauguration through May during their first year in office — shows that former President Joe Biden received 90 PDBs; Trump received 55; and former President Barack Obama received 63. The people with direct knowledge of the PDB discussions said Gabbard believes that cadence may be a reflection of Trump's preference for consuming information in a different form than the formal briefing, as well as his distrust of intelligence officials, which stretches back to his first term, when he accused them of spying on his 2016 campaign. They also said that even if the presentation of the PDB changes, the information included would not. Asked for comment, DNI Press Secretary Olivia Coleman said in a statement,"This so-called 'reporting' is laughable, absurd, and flat-out false. In true fake news fashion, NBC is publishing yet another anonymously sourced false story." A source familiar with the DNI's internal deliberations said that during Gabbard's confirmation process in the Senate, "there was bipartisan consensus that the PDB was in need of serious reform. DNI Gabbard is leading that reform and is ensuring the President receives timely, relevant, objective intelligence reporting." In a statement, White House Spokesman Davis Ingle referred to this reporting as "libelous garbage from unnamed sources," and said, "President Trump has assembled a world-class intelligence team who he is constantly communicating with and receiving real time updates on all pressing national security issues. Ensuring the safety and security of the American people is President Trump's number one priority." It is not unusual for the PDB to be tailored to individual presidents. The PDB's presentation was adjusted for Trump in his first term to include less text and more pictures and graphics. Gabbard has discussed more extensive changes, according to the people with direct knowledge of the discussions. It's unclear how far her effort will go, but the people with direct knowledge of it said she has entertained some unconventional ideas. One idea that has been discussed is to transform the PDB so it mirrors a Fox News broadcast, according to four of the people with direct knowledge of the discussions. Under that concept as it has been discussed, the national intelligence director's office could hire a Fox News producer to produce it and one of the network's personalities to present it; Trump, an avid Fox News viewer, could then watch the broadcast PDB whenever he wanted. A new PDB could include not only graphics and pictures but also maps with animated representations of exploding bombs, similar to a video game, another one of the people with knowledge of the discussions said. "The problem with Trump is that he doesn't read," said another people with direct knowledge of the PDB discussions. "He's on broadcast all the time." The people with direct knowledge of the PDB discussions spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the internal deliberations. U.S. intelligence officials have created videos in the past to present information to presidents, including profiles of world leaders, for instance. Hollywood legend Charlton Hestonnarrated instructional films about highly classified topics for the Energy Departmentand the U.S. intelligence and military community. The films included information about nuclear weapons, requiring Heston to hold the highest relevant security clearance possible for at least six years. Former intelligence officials who worked in the first Trump administrationsaid Trump preferred to be briefed verbally and to ask questions but would not read memos or other lengthy written material. During Trump's first term, the PDB evolved into a one-page outline of topics with a set of graphics, presented verbally by an intelligence officer about twice a week, according to a history of presidential briefings by John Helgerson. To accommodate Trump's style and preferences, Vice President Mike Pence told the briefers to "lean forward on maps," according to Helgerson's book. But there has not been a broadcast or cable news-style PDB presentation. While the PDB has gone through various transformations under different presidents since it was created in 1946, it has largely been in a written format that was then briefed to the president verbally. Gabbard has also discussed tailoring some of the content in the PDB to Trump's interests, such as including more information on economic and trade issues and less routine focus on the war in Ukraine, according to three of the people with direct knowledge of the PDB discussions. Including intelligence on issues the president particularly cares about is not unusual. The PDB for Biden included gender and climate change issues, one of those three people said. "You shift with the priorities of the administration," that person said, adding that because of Trump's distrust of the intelligence community, getting him to embrace the PDB "is a very uphill fight." As director of national intelligence, Gabbard oversees and approves the PDB. A large staff of analysts and other employees at the CIA compiles the PDB, creating detailed text, graphics and videos based on the latest intelligence gathered by America's spy agencies. NBC News has reported that Gabbard plans to move the office that prepares the PDB from the CIA's headquarters in Langley, Virginia, to the national intelligence director's office a few miles away in McLean — apparently to bolster her office's role in presenting intelligence to the president. The ODNI would need to expand its staff and acquire digital tools and other infrastructure to assemble the PDB, one of the five people familiar with the discussions said. If the PDB were to be converted to a video for Trump, it would still most likely be provided in something like its current form to other top administration officials who receive it, that person said. Because he has been taking the PDB a little less than once a week on average, Trump currently receives a product that one of the people familiar with the PDB discussions described as the "best of" highlights from the past week, in addition to anything new that day. Discussions about potential changes to the PDB come amid questions about whether Gabbard may politicize the intelligence process, especially after her chief of staff, Joe Kent, asked analysts to revise an assessment on a Venezuelan criminal gang that appeared to undermine Trump's immigration policy, according to two sources with knowledge of the matter. Two senior officials who led the National Intelligence Council were recently fired after the initial intelligence assessment contradicted Trump's assertions that the Tren de Aragua cartel was operating under the direction of Venezuela's regime, led by Nicolás Maduro. Trump cited claims about the regime's purported relationship with the cartel as his rationale for invoking a rarely used 1798 law, the Alien Enemies Act, to deport people suspected of being gang members without standard due process. It's common for intelligence leaders to put their own staffs in place, but the move concerned congressional Democrats who already questioned some of Gabbard's efforts to have tighter control over what intelligence reaches Trump. "Absent evidence to justify the firings, the workforce can only conclude that their jobs are contingent on producing analysis that is aligned with the president's political agenda, rather than truthful and apolitical," Rep. Jim Himes of Connecticut, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said in a statement. An administration official previously told NBC News that the two officials were fired "because they were unable to provide unbiased intelligence."

Gabbard considering ways to revamp Trump's intelligence briefing

Gabbard considering ways to revamp Trump's intelligence briefing WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump's intelligence chief is explori...
Trump gets key wins at Supreme Court on immigration, despite some misgivingsNew Foto - Trump gets key wins at Supreme Court on immigration, despite some misgivings

By Andrew Chung (Reuters) -The U.S. Supreme Court swept away this week another obstacle to one of President Donald Trump's most aggressively pursued policies - mass deportation - again showing its willingness to back his hardline approach to immigration. The justices, though, have signaled some reservations with how he is carrying it out. Since Trump returned to the White House in January, the court already has been called upon to intervene on an emergency basis in seven legal fights over his crackdown on immigration. It most recently let Trump's administration end temporary legal status provided to hundreds of thousands of migrants for humanitarian reasons by his Democratic predecessor Joe Biden while legal challenges in two cases play out in lower courts. The Supreme Court on Friday lifted a judge's order that had halted the revocation of immigration "parole" for more than 500,000 Venezuelan, Cuban, Haitian and Nicaraguan migrants. On May 19, it lifted another judge's order preventing the termination of "temporary protected status" for more than 300,000 Venezuelan migrants. In some other cases, however, the justices have ruled that the administration must treat migrants fairly, as required under the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of due process. "This president has been more aggressive than any in modern U.S. history to quickly remove non-citizens from the country," said Kevin Johnson, an immigration and public interest law expert at the University of California, Davis. No president in modern history "has been as willing to deport non-citizens without due process," Johnson added. That dynamic has forced the Supreme Court to police the contours of the administration's actions, if less so the legality of Trump's underlying policies. The court's 6-3 conservative majority includes three justices appointed by Trump during his first term as president. "President Trump is acting within his lawful authority to deport illegal aliens and protect the American people. While the Supreme Court has rightfully acknowledged the president's authority in some cases, in others they have invented new due process rights for illegal aliens that will make America less safe. We are confident in the legality of our actions and will continue fighting to keep President Trump's promises," White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson told Reuters. The justices twice - on April 7 and on May 16 - have placed limits on the administration's attempt to implement Trump's invocation of a 1798 law called the Alien Enemies Act, which historically has been employed only in wartime, to swiftly deport Venezuelan migrants who it has accused of being members of the Tren de Aragua gang. Lawyers and family members of some of the migrants have disputed the gang membership allegation. On May 16, the justices also said a bid by the administration to deport migrants from a detention center in Texas failed basic constitutional requirements. Giving migrants "notice roughly 24 hours before removal, devoid of information about how to exercise due process rights to contest that removal, surely does not pass muster," the court stated. Due process generally requires the government to provide notice and an opportunity for a hearing before taking certain adverse actions. The court has not outright barred the administration from pursuing these deportations under the Alien Enemies Act, as the justices have yet to decide the legality of using the law for this purpose. The U.S. government last invoked the Alien Enemies Act during World War Two to intern and deport people of Japanese, German and Italian descent. "The Supreme Court has in several cases reaffirmed some basic principles of constitutional law (including that) the due process clause applies to all people on U.S. soil," said Elora Mukherjee, director of Columbia Law School's immigrants' rights clinic. Even for alleged gang members, Mukherjee said, the court "has been extremely clear that they are entitled to notice before they can be summarily deported from the United States." A WRONGLY DEPORTED MAN In a separate case, the court on April 10 ordered the administration to facilitate the release from custody in El Salvador of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran migrant who was living in Maryland. The administration has acknowledged that Abrego Garcia was wrongly deported to El Salvador. The administration has yet to return Abrego Garcia to the United States, which according to some critics amounts to defiance of the Supreme Court. The administration deported on March 15 more than 200 people to El Salvador, where they were detained in the country's massive anti-terrorism prison under a deal in which the United States is paying President Nayib Bukele's government $6 million. Ilya Somin, a constitutional law professor at George Mason University, said the Supreme Court overall has tried to curb the administration's "more extreme and most blatantly illegal policies" without abandoning its traditional deference to presidential authority on immigration issues. "I think they have made a solid effort to strike a balance," said Somin, referring to the Alien Enemies Act and Abrego Garcia cases. "But I still think there is excessive deference, and a tolerance for things that would not be permitted outside the immigration field." That deference was on display over the past two weeks with the court's decisions letting Trump terminate the grants of temporary protected status and humanitarian parole previously given to migrants. Such consequential orders were issued without the court offering any reasoning, Mukherjee noted. "Collectively, those two decisions strip immigration status and legal protections in the United States from more than 800,000 people. And the decisions are devastating for the lives of those who are affected," Mukherjee said. "Those individuals could be subject to deportations, family separation, losing their jobs, and if they're deported, possibly even losing their lives." TRAVEL BAN RULING Trump also pursued restrictive immigration policies in his first term as president, from 2017-2021. The Supreme Court gave Trump a major victory in 2018, upholding his travel ban targeting people from several Muslim-majority countries. In 2020, the court blocked Trump's bid to end a program that protects from deportation hundreds of thousands of migrants - often called "Dreamers" - who entered the United States illegally as children. Other major immigration-related cases are currently pending before the justices, including Trump's effort to broadly enforce his January executive order to restrict birthright citizenship - a directive at odds with the longstanding interpretation of the Constitution as conferring citizenship on virtually every baby born on U.S. soil. The court heard arguments in that case on May 15 and has not yet rendered a decision. Another case concerns the administration's efforts to increase the practice of deporting migrants to countries other than their own, including to places such as war-torn South Sudan. Boston-based U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy required that migrants destined for so-called "third countries" be notified and given a meaningful chance to seek legal relief by showing the harms they may face by being send there. Murphy on May 21 ruled that the administration had violated his court order by attempting to deport migrants to South Sudan. They are now being held at a military base in Djibouti. The administration on May 27 asked the justices to lift Murphy's order because it said the third-country process is needed to remove migrants who commit crimes because their countries of origin are often unwilling to take them back. Johnson predicted that the Supreme Court will side with the migrants in this dispute. "I think that the court will enforce the due process rights of a non-citizen before removal to a third country," Johnson said. (Reporting by Andrew Chung in New York; Additional reporting by John Kruzel; Editing by Will Dunham)

Trump gets key wins at Supreme Court on immigration, despite some misgivings

Trump gets key wins at Supreme Court on immigration, despite some misgivings By Andrew Chung (Reuters) -The U.S. Supreme Court swept away t...

 

VS POLITICS © 2015 | Distributed By My Blogger Themes | Designed By Templateism.com