Blog

Image

It was a turnabout from just a day earlier, when Mr. Schumer proclaimed that Democrats were “unified” against the legislation, and a remarkable move at a time when many of the party’s members in both chambers and progressive activists have been agitating vocally for senators to block it in defiance of President Trump.

In a speech hours later on the Senate floor, Mr. Schumer announced his plan to vote to move forward with the Republican measure, which would fund the government through Sept. 30. He argued that if Democrats stood in the way, it would lead to a shutdown that would only further empower Mr. Trump and Elon Musk in their bid to defund and dismantle federal programs.

“The Republican bill is a terrible option,” Mr. Schumer said in his evening speech. “It is deeply partisan. It doesn’t address far too many of this country’s needs. But I believe allowing Donald Trump to take even much more power via a government shutdown is a far worse option.”

In a shutdown, Mr. Schumer said, “the Trump administration would have full authority to deem whole agencies, programs and personnel nonessential, furloughing staff with no promise that they would ever be rehired.”

He also warned that if the government closed, Mr. Trump and Republicans would have no incentive to reopen it, since they could selectively fund “their favorite departments and agencies, while leaving other vital services that they don’t like to languish.”

His announcement came little more than 24 hours before a shutdown deadline. If Congress fails to approve legislation extending federal funding, it will lapse at 12:01 a.m. on Saturday.

In a meeting with reporters after his remarks, Mr. Schumer declined to confirm that he had sufficient Democratic votes to move the legislation past procedural hurdles, saying that senators were making their own decisions. But other Democrats said they were confident that he had the backing to push the measure forward.

Senate Republicans are expected to need the support of at least eight Democrats to steer around a filibuster. Other than Mr. Schumer, only one Democrat, Senator John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, has said he will support the bill.

Mr. Schumer has long seen responsibility for government shutdowns as a political albatross. But many Democrats on Capitol Hill have refused to go along with the stopgap spending measure, regarding it as their only leverage against Mr. Trump. All but one House Democrat voted against the plan on Tuesday, and many of them, along with their colleagues in the Senate, have spent the last few days pressing to hold firm against it to challenge the president.

Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York said on CNN that it would be a “mistake” for Mr. Schumer not to block the bill.

“I hope that individuals that are considering that reconsider it,” Ms. Ocasio-Cortez said. “I genuinely do. I don’t think it’s what New Yorkers want.”

In lengthy closed-door group discussions over the past three days, Senate Democrats have agonized over how to handle the spending bill, which would keep government funding largely flat over the next six months.

Many of them described an impossible choice between two evils: supporting a bill that would give the Trump administration wide latitude to continue its unilateral efforts to slash government employees and programs, or a shutdown that would also give Mr. Trump and his team broad leeway to decide what to fund.

Several Democrats — including both centrists and progressives — declared that they could not back legislation that would give that kind of power to the president and Mr. Musk. They groused that Republicans had unilaterally drafted the legislation and refused to consider any changes to win their votes, essentially daring them to take the blame for a politically toxic shutdown.

“What everyone is wrestling with is that either outcome is terrible,” said Senator Martin Heinrich of New Mexico. “This president has put us in a position where, in either direction, lots of people’s constituents are going to get hurt and hurt badly. So people are wrestling with what is the least worst outcome.”

Thursday’s session was particularly emotional, stretching on for two hours and at times growing heated. At one point, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand of New York could be heard through closed doors shouting, “This will not be a normal shutdown!”

Senator Mark Kelly of Arizona, who had widely been seen as one of the Democrats who might be willing to join Republicans to overcome a filibuster, announced that he would oppose the measure, adding that his decision was the most difficult call he had made since he was elected five years ago.

“That is a calculation I’ve been struggling with for days — weeks, in fact,” he said. “It’s a tough call, and that’s why we spent a lot of time talking. That’s one of the challenging things on either path: There’s a lot of unknowns out there.”

But he added that Mr. Musk “had been wreaking havoc on our government,” and said that the Republican-written bill, drafted in consultation with the White House, “is designed to give him more influence, more power.”

“This is not the way we should be funding the government,” Mr. Kelly said.

Republicans sought to escalate the pressure on Democrats to relent and end the spending fight, and warned on Thursday that the moment for making a decision was at hand.

“As the expression goes, it’s time for Democrats to fish or cut bait,” said Senator John Thune, the South Dakota Republican and majority leader. “Democrats need to decide if they’re going to support funding legislation that came over from the House or if they’re going to shut down the government. So far it looks like they plan to shut it down.”

At the same time, residents of the District of Columbia were protesting on Capitol Hill to demand that Senate Democrats block a spending bill that would amount to a $1 billion budget cut for the District over the next six months. Crowds of school-age children carried signs made with crayons and colored markers, one of which read, “You cut my dad’s job and now you want to cut my school,” punctuated by four sad faces.

Some Democrats said they were still trying to assess whether the best approach to reining in Mr. Trump was defeating the spending plan or allowing it to become law.

“We are intent on stymying and stopping the slide toward Trump’s tyrannical and autocratic power, which is happening in real time and inflicting harm on real people,” said Senator Richard Blumenthal, Democrat of Connecticut, who said he would vote to block the spending bill. “I’m respectful of my colleagues who have a different opinion with the same goal, which is to prevent unchecked and unbridled dictatorial power for President Trump and Elon Musk.”

Image

Postmaster General Louis DeJoy, who took his position during the first Trump presidency and moved to shrink the agency’s ranks during the Biden administration, said he had signed an agreement with Mr. Musk’s group on Wednesday.

Mr. DeJoy, a Republican megadonor, wrote in the letter that Mr. Musk’s initiative was “an effort aligned” with his efforts.

He said that the Postal Service’s work force had shrunk by 30,000 since the 2021 fiscal year, and that the agency planned to complete a “further reduction of another 10,000 people in the next 30 days” through a previously established voluntary-retirement program.

Last week, Mr. Musk said at a tech conference organized by the bank Morgan Stanley that the Postal Service should be privatized, declaring, “We should privatize anything that can reasonably be privatized.”

Mr. Trump has by turns suggested privatizing the independent agency and merging it with the Commerce Department. Union officials and Democratic lawmakers have been alarmed by the talk of privatization, and have argued that such a move would hurt workers, drive prices higher and disproportionately damage service in rural areas.

The agreement described by Mr. DeJoy on Thursday was comparatively less disruptive, but it drew a stern rebuke from Representative Gerald E. Connolly of Virginia, the ranking Democrat on the House Committee on Oversight and Reform, which oversees the Postal Service.

Mr. Connolly said in a statement that the deal would bring “catastrophic consequences for all Americans — especially those in rural and hard-to-reach areas — who rely on the Postal Service every day.”

The “only thing worse for the Postal Service,” Mr. Connolly said in the statement, would be if the agency were turned over to Mr. Musk so that he could “undermine it, privatize it, and then profit off Americans’ loss.”

In his letter, the postmaster general argued that the service had transformed in recent years from a “battered government bureaucracy” on the verge of financial collapse into an agency “experiencing an unprecedented period of growth and innovation.”

“Our strategies have focused on maintaining a modified, but sustainable, universal service mission that was noble when constructed, still meritorious today, and that can be financially self-sufficient with the changes we are pursuing,” Mr. DeJoy wrote.

The Postal Service was once a Cabinet-level department of the government, but was turned into an independent agency under President Richard Nixon. In 2021, the agency reported it had lost $87 billion in the previous 14 years.

Brian L. Renfroe, the president of the National Association of Letter Carriers, said in an interview on Thursday that he was “skeptical of DOGE.”

But Mr. Renfroe said Mr. Musk’s team had not yet done “anything that raises big alarms.”

“We will be in wait-and-see mode,” he said, adding that any new cuts at the Postal Service would “almost directly result in challenges providing the service that we provide every single day.”

Video

The incident put on display the outcry over Mr. Trump’s decision last month to purge the Kennedy Center’s once-bipartisan board of its Biden appointees and have himself elected its chairman. (The president, who broke with tradition during his first term by not attending the Kennedy Center Honors after some of the artists being celebrated criticized him, complained that the center had become too “wokey.”)

Mr. Vance attended Thursday’s performance by the National Symphony Orchestra, one of the Kennedy Center’s flagship groups. The ensemble, under the baton of its music director, Gianandrea Noseda, performed Shostakovich’s Violin Concerto No. 2, with Leonidas Kavakos as the soloist. After an intermission, the orchestra played Stravinsky’s “Petrushka.”

The Vances stayed for the entire concert, audience members said. Ms. Vance was recently appointed by Mr. Trump to serve as a board member at the Kennedy Center, alongside other Trump allies like Susie Wiles, the White House chief of staff; and Laura Ingraham, the Fox News host.

The concert started about 20 minutes late because of added security measures, audience members said.

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

Richard Grenell, whom Mr. Trump named as the center’s new president, posted on social media on Friday morning that the video showing Mr. Vance being booed “should challenge us all to commit to making the Kennedy Center a place where everyone is welcomed.”

“It troubles me to see that so many in the audience appear to be white and intolerant of diverse political views,” he wrote. “Diversity is our strength. We must do better. We must welcome EVERYONE. We will not allow the Kennedy Center to be an intolerant place.”

In February, President Trump ousted the Kennedy Center’s longtime chairman, the financier David M. Rubenstein, the center’s largest donor. His new board of loyalists elected him chairman and fired Deborah F. Rutter, the center’s president for more than a decade. At least three other top staff members were also dismissed.

Performers, including the actress Issa Rae and the musician Rhiannon Giddens, have dropped out in protest amid fears that Mr. Trump’s calls to rid the center of “woke” influences, drag shows and “anti-American propaganda” would result in a reshaping of programming. The musical “Hamilton” recently scrapped a planned tour there next year.

While Mr. Trump has not yet articulated his vision for the center, his appointees have provided some hints. Mr. Grenell recently said that the center planned “a big, huge celebration of the birth of Christ at Christmas.”

Vice President JD Vance told Laura Ingraham on Fox News that he could not rule out a recession after the Trump administration imposed heavy tariffs on its biggest trade partners. “You never can predict the future,” Vance said in an interview on “The Ingraham Angle” that aired Thursday night.

The prospect of a recession this year came up earlier this week in another interview on Fox News that aired Sunday. President Trump declined to dismiss the possibility of a recession, telling Maria Bartiromo on Fox News that there would be a “period of transition, because what we’re doing is very big.” The remark has contributed to anxiety on Wall Street this week, and the S&P 500 fell into a correction Thursday.

Image

The spokesman, who did not allow his name to be used, also said that General Haugh was holding meetings with key White House advisers to ensure the N.S.A. and Cyber Command were “aligned” with the priorities of Mr. Trump, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence.

Mr. Musk’s visit was reported earlier by The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal.

The N.S.A. is one of the most bureaucratic of the U.S. spy agencies but collects some of the most valuable intelligence, scooping up telephone and computer communications around the world.

Cyber Command, while a separate organization, is also headquartered at Fort Meade.

While Mr. Musk has criticized the federal government’s computer systems, the N.S.A. has some of the most expert cryptologists and computer network experts in the world.

Mr. Musk this week complained about a disruption of service attack on X that caused service outages. On Monday, he said on Fox News that the cyberattack originated from “IP addresses originating in the Ukraine area.” However, an activist hacking group, Dark Storm, claimed responsibility, and experts have cast doubt that the attack actually originated from Ukraine.

Panamanian officials responded to a news report that the White House had directed the U.S. military to draw up plans for sending troops to the Panama Canal with a statement in which they said that while Panama valued its partnership with the U.S. and remained committed to regional security, “our sovereignty over the Panama Canal is absolute and not the basis of any negotiation.” The report by NBC News was based on the accounts of two American officials and said that President Trump and his advisers wanted to see “a U.S. military presence in Panama and on the canal itself.”

A federal judge declined to require a coalition of states suing the Trump administration to post a bond covering the federal government’s legal costs if the challenged failed. A week ago, the White House circulated a memo directing agencies to increasingly make that demand of parties suing the government in an attempt to stem the tide of lawsuits it is facing.

In explaining the decision, the judge cited legal precedent allowing “an exception to the bond requirement in suits to enforce important federal rights or public interests.”

Image

Mr. Grijalva, as durable as a cactus in Arizona’s political scene, represented a border district in his state — covering parts of Tucson, tribal reservations and the vast desert along the U.S.-Mexico border — for more than two decades. He was a liberal fixture of a fast-changing state powered by new arrivals, neighborhoods and businesses eating into the Sonoran desert that Mr. Grijalva, a passionate conservationist, cherished and tried to protect.

His liberal stances often put him out of step with Arizona’s Republican-heavy congressional delegation and even Democratic leaders who often tacked to the center in the bitterly contested swing state.

But his progressivism endeared him to voters in his left-leaning district and earned loyal support from tribal leaders. One of his final major legislative efforts sought to block a copper mining project at Oak Flat, a sacred area to Western Apache people.

As the son of a Mexican father who came to the United States as part of the bracero-guest-worker program, Mr. Grijalva espoused staunch support for immigrants, unions, tribal rights and environmental protections. He got his start in politics in Tucson, serving as a school board member and county supervisor before being elected to Congress in 2002.

Mr. Grijalva announced in April that he had been diagnosed with cancer. Months later, he said that he would retire at the end of his current term in January 2027.

Gov. Katie Hobbs of Arizona is required to call a special election for the seat within 72 hours. A special primary election must then be held between 120 and 130 days later, followed by a special general election 70 to 80 days afterward. Mr. Grijalva won re-election with 63.4 percent of the vote in 2024, and whoever wins the Democratic primary for the seat would be the favorite to replace him.

A spokesman for Ms. Hobbs said that it was too soon for any announcement on the timing of an election. Ms. Hobbs also praised Mr. Grijalva in a separate statement as a “true champion for the people of our state.”

She continued: “To his last day, he remained a servant leader who put everyday people first while in office. I join every Arizonan in mourning his passing.”

Robert Jimison contributed reporting.

Image

Kari Lake, a special adviser to Voice of America’s parent organization said that she had directed VOA, a federally funded news agency, to cancel all contracts with news wire services provided by The Associated Press, Reuters and Agence France-Presse. President Trump named her as the next director for VOA, but she has not yet assumed the job, as a bipartisan board that oversees federal news agencies must confirm leadership positions, including those at VOA.

Lake has rebuffed calls from Elon Musk to abolish VOA altogether. But she has said the broadcaster’s coverage will be free from what she described as “Trump derangement syndrome,” or T.D.S. “It won’t become Trump TV,” Lake said during a speech last month at the Conservative Political Action Conference, an influential gathering of conservatives. “But it sure as hell will not be T.D.S.”

Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the Democratic leader, says on the Senate floor of the Republican funding bill, known as a C.R.: “While the C.R. bill is very bad, the potential for a shutdown has consequences for America that are much, much worse. The Republican bill is a terrible option. It is not a clean C.R. It is deeply partisan. It doesn’t address far too many of this country’s needs, but I believe allowing Donald Trump to take even much more power via a government shutdown is a far worse option.”

“A shutdown would give Donald Trump, Elon Musk and DOGE the keys to the city, state and country,” Schumer says. We reported earlier that Schumer told colleagues at the party’s private luncheon at the Capitol on Thursday that he would vote to clear the way for a final vote on the bill.

Image

Agencies were given guidance and a timeline last month to submit outlines for “reductions in force” — a bureaucratic term meaning shrinking of an organization. Many agencies have not yet announced detailed plans. But some plans have trickled out, pointing to a downsizing effort exceeding the number of probationary workers already fired and the number of workers who accepted voluntary resignation offers.

At least some planned cuts could be blocked by the courts. On Thursday night, a federal judge temporarily restrained the government from carrying out any reductions in force across 18 agencies.

And if the layoffs go forward, there are rules governing how government agencies can make them. Part of the process is assigning scores to individual employees based on their length of service, performance and veteran status. Those with the highest scores are supposed to be prioritized for finding other jobs in the agency.

Here is what we know about the reduction in force efforts at various agencies.

Education Department

More than 1,300 workers were fired this week.

This is in addition to the 572 who took resignation packages and 63 probationary workers who have been fired. The reductions have cut the size of the agency, which started the year with 4,133 workers, in half.

Last month, the agency sent an email offering employees a buyout ahead of “very significant” layoffs.

Veterans Affairs Department

The department has planned to cut 80,000 people. That number could include people who are retiring or taking a buyout, however.

In total, the department is looking to shrink its work force from 482,000 to 399,957.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

The agency has planned to cut at least 1,000 people. This is in addition to 1,300 workers who have resigned or were laid off.

Together, the reductions would represent nearly 20 percent of NOAA’s approximately 13,000-member work force.

Food and Drug Administration

The agency held a meeting with employees on Thursday but did not say how many cuts they were looking to make, according to two employees who spoke on the condition of anonymity. Officials presented workers with a list of job categories that were eligible for voluntary separation packages. This included staff focused on laboratory safety, ethics management, records management and the Freedom of Information Act, which enables the public to access government records. Workers were told those jobs could also be targeted for layoffs.

Social Security Administration

The agency has planned cuts of about 7,000 workers, including those opting to retire or resign. The goal is to reduce the work force to 50,000, according to the agency.

NASA

The agency said it would cut jobs by closing specific offices. The Office of Technology, Policy and Strategy; the Office of the Chief Scientist; and the Office of Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Accessibility were targeted, as well as some other employees in the Office of Diversity and Equal Opportunity, according to a March 10 memo shared with The Times.

The agency did not provide a total number of cuts.

Defense Department

A recent memo stated that the department hopes to make reductions through voluntary early retirements and resignation incentives, like buyouts. Plans to make additional work force cuts are due to the department’s head of civilian personnel policy by March 20, the memo said.

Housing and Urban Development

The agency previously announced layoff plans for 144 employees in its Office of Field Policy and Management. It has not disclosed other details about future cuts.

Christina Jewett and Helene Cooper contributed reporting.

Image

In the weeks after Mr. Musk’s team fanned out across federal agencies demanding access to federal offices and databases, lawyers seeking to stop the group’s advances have been forced to rely on news reports and anecdotal evidence about what, exactly, Mr. Musk’s team has been doing.

In many cases, federal judges have grown frustrated by the inability of the government’s own lawyers to answer straightforward questions about what data Mr. Musk’s associates have viewed, or to what extent the group had directly spearheaded recent downsizing efforts. In filings in another case, the government has also downplayed Mr. Musk’s role, claiming he was not officially the group’s leader.

The group of states had asked Judge Chutkan to grant the request to let them probe Mr. Musk’s team for information in order to confirm details about its operations and its future plans, and to “illustrate the nature and scope of the unconstitutional and unlawful authority” they said Mr. Musk has so far exercised.

Judge Chutkan agreed, writing in an opinion that “the requests seek to identify DOGE personnel and the parameters of DOGE’s and Musk’s authority — a question central to Plaintiffs’ claims.”

The order on Wednesday was more limited than the states’ slightly more ambitious request, which included a demand for two members of Mr. Musk’s team to sit for depositions — an ask Judge Chutkan denied. But the order still requires Mr. Musk and his office to provide a broad array of information about its engagement with federal agencies, employees, contracts, grants and databases within three weeks.

Judges in other cases have responded similarly to demands for more clarity about Mr. Musk’s team, which has largely been shrouded in secrecy.

On Thursday, a judge in California required an associate of Mr. Musk’s who was detailed to the Office of Personnel Management, the government’s human resources arm, to be deposed about any role he had in helping steer the mass firings of federal workers.

And on Monday, a judge in Washington ruled that Mr. Musk’s office was subject to the Freedom of Information Act, and ordered it to rapidly produce records that a public ethics group had sued to obtain.

Image

The government called for the university to formalize its definition of antisemitism, to ban the wearing of masks “intended to conceal identity or intimidate” and to place the school’s Middle Eastern, South Asian, and African Studies Department under “academic receivership.”

“We expect your immediate compliance,” officials from the General Services Administration, Department of Education and Department of Health and Human Services said in a letter.

They said that since the Trump administration had announced it was cutting the funding, “your counsel has asked to discuss ‘next steps.’” The administration demanded a response to its letter within a week as “a precondition for formal negotiations regarding Columbia University’s continued financial relationship with the United States government.”

The Trump administration’s move to cut Columbia’s grants and contracts represented an extraordinary escalation of the government’s actions against the university.

Columbia, it said, “has fundamentally failed to protect American students and faculty from antisemitic violence and harassment.”

A Columbia spokeswoman said Thursday evening that the school was “reviewing the letter” from the three government agencies, adding, “We are committed at all times to advancing our mission, supporting our students, and addressing all forms of discrimination and hatred on our campus.”

On social media, Jameel Jaffer, director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia, described the government’s letter as essentially saying, “We’ll destroy Columbia unless you destroy it first.”

Hours earlier, the school announced a range of disciplinary actions against students who occupied a campus building last spring, including expulsions and suspensions.

The punishments levied include “multiyear suspensions, temporary degree revocations and expulsions,” according to a statement. The school did not release the names of students who would be punished, in compliance with federal privacy laws, according to a university spokeswoman. It is unclear how many students have been punished.

The announcement came one day after Gregory J. Wawro, a professor of political science who also serves as the university’s rules administrator, said in a statement that the hearings for students accused of violations “in connection with the April 17-18 encampment on the South Lawn and the occupation of Hamilton Hall” had been completed.

Student defendants were allowed to bring two advisers, including legal counsel, to hearings, which were held over video conference, according to a Columbia employee with knowledge of the process who spoke on the condition of anonymity because she was not authorized to speak publicly.

Late Thursday, Columbia’s interim president, Katrina Armstrong, said that the Department of Homeland Security had searched two dorm rooms after presenting two federal search warrants. In an email to students and staff, and a news release, Ms. Armstrong said that no one was detained and nothing had been taken. She did not say what the target of the warrants was.

Columbia University and the D.H.S. did not immediately respond to requests for comments after working hours.

The Trump administration has placed increasing scrutiny on universities in recent weeks. On Monday, it warned 60 other universities they, too, could face penalties from pending investigations into antisemitism on college campuses.

Last spring, Columbia began to issue suspensions of pro-Palestinian demonstrators who had been encamped for more than a week on campus as they protested the university’s investment in Israel, including its dual-degree program with Tel Aviv University.

A protest that had mostly been nonviolent then took a turn, with demonstrators breaking into and seizing Hamilton Hall, an academic building. After about 20 hours, Columbia’s president at the time, Dr. Nemat Shafik, called in the city’s Police Department. Officers in riot gear arrested dozens of people.

A maintenance worker who was trapped in the building was physically injured in the melee.

In all, nearly 50 pro-Palestinian demonstrators who had been inside Hamilton Hall were arrested, along with more than 100 others who were protesting in and around the campus.

Questions about how the university administration was handling discipline have dogged the school since.

In February, the House Committee on Education and Workforce sent a letter to Ms. Armstrong, and Columbia’s board chairs, David Greenwald and Claire Shipman, listing “numerous antisemitic incidents” that it said had taken place in the last two academic years.

Those incidents include the student occupation of Hamilton Hall last April, the protest against a class taught by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the disruption of an Israeli history class.

Representative Tim Walberg, a Republican from Michigan who is the chair of the House committee, said he was glad that there has been forward movement but expressed frustration that the school has not provided the detailed disciplinary records his committee seeks.

“I welcome the news that some lawbreaking individuals are being held accountable,” Mr. Walberg said, “but I remain skeptical about Columbia University’s long-term ability to continue to hold pro-terror supporters accountable given the school’s obfuscation.”

The university said that it began its judicial process last summer, filing its complaints against students with the University Judicial Board, which is an independent panel of faculty, students and staff.

Students notified on Thursday of the sanctions have five business days to file an appeal, on grounds that there was a procedural error, availability of new information or “excessiveness of sanction.” A university appellate board has 10 days to issue a ruling.

Columbia University Apartheid Divest, a group that helped organize the protests and last fall asserted its support for “armed resistance,” said on its Instagram page Thursday that “the university’s extreme repression is a panicked attempt at silencing the movement for Palestinian liberation,” adding that “they have seen our unyielding commitment to Palestine firsthand over the last year, and they are terrified.”

The announcement of sanctions can be seen as a sign that “Columbia has turned the corner,” said Professor Joshua Mitts, a professor in the law school who this semester is teaching a seminar on free speech and civil liberties on campus. He is also the adviser to Law Students Against Antisemitism, a campus group.

Calling the judicial process “fair and transparent,” Mr. Mitts said that the university showed its fidelity to due process, free speech and academic freedom as it sought to upend antisemitism.

“This is Columbia at its best,” he said.

Representative Raúl M. Grijalva, a progressive Arizona Democrat who was one of the first to urge President Biden to end his re-election campaign last year, has died from cancer, his office said in a statement. Grijalva, 78, was first elected to Congress in 2002.

Grijalva had been absent from the Capitol in recent months as he battled cancer. Those absences — and vacancies from House Republicans stepping down to take jobs in the Trump administration — has significantly affected the balance of power in the House, in which Republicans have a very slim majority.

Image

Nearly half the school’s total revenue last year came from federally funded research, including $365 million from the U.S. Agency for International Development. In all, the university will lose $800 million in funding over several years from U.S.A.I.D., which the Trump administration is in the process of dismantling.

Johns Hopkins is one of the top university recipients of the funding that the administration is aiming to slash. And it appears to be among the most deeply affected of the major research institutions that are reeling from cuts — or the threat of cuts — to federal money that they depend on for research studies and running labs.

In a statement on Thursday calling it a “difficult day,” Johns Hopkins said it was “immensely proud” of its work on the projects, which included efforts to “care for mothers and infants, fight disease, provide clean drinking water and advance countless other critical, lifesaving efforts around the world.”

In a statement last week describing Johns Hopkins’s reliance on federal funding, Ron Daniels, the university’s president said, “We are, more than any other American university, deeply tethered to the compact between our sector and the federal government.”

Of the school’s total operating revenue in 2023, $3.8 billion, or nearly half, came federally funded research. The Trump administration has said that it wants to make the government leaner and more efficient by, among other measures, dramatically cutting financial support for the program, which promotes public health and food security in low-income countries.

In ordering cutbacks in the agency, which amount to a 90 percent reduction in its operations, President Trump said that it was run by “radical left lunatics” and that is was riddled with “tremendous fraud.”

Critics of the decision, however, have said the cuts are ushering in a new era of isolationism that could prove to be dangerous. Sunil Solomon, an epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins, said the cuts would lead to a resurgence in the spread of H.I.V., the virus that causes AIDS.

“What true great nations do is help other nations, but now, it seems, we’re America first,” Dr. Solomon said.

The administration has also sought to reduce the amount of money that the National Institutes of Health sends to university for research, cuts that have been blocked for now in the courts. If they go into effect, those cuts would reduce federal payments to Johns Hopkins by more than $100 million a year, according to an analysis of university figures.

The university, which receives about $1 billion a year in N.I.H. funding and is currently running 600 clinical trials, is one of the plaintiffs in a federal lawsuit challenging those cuts.

Separately, the Trump administration also has targeted specific schools for cuts. It slashed $400 million from Columbia’s budget last week based on accusations that it had failed to protect students and faculty from antisemitism.

Johns Hopkins and Columbia are on a list of 10 schools that the administration says are being scrutinized by an executive branch antisemitism task force. The administration has threatened to reduce federal funding for schools on the list, and others, that it views as being noncompliant with federal civil rights laws.

In addition to the more than 2,000 employees whose jobs have been eliminated, the university said that an additional 78 domestic employees and 29 international would be furloughed at reduced schedules.

The cuts at Johns Hopkins involve programs funded by U.S.A.I.D. through which American universities have worked with global partners, largely to advance public health and agricultural research. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said this week that 5,200 of the agency’s 6,200 contracts had been canceled and that the remaining programs would be operated directly by the State Department, eliminating the need for U.S.A.I.D., which is under the State Department.

Research projects that are being eliminated include international work on tuberculosis, AIDS and cervical cancer, as well as programs that directly benefit residents of Baltimore.

Dr. Solomon, the epidemiologist, runs a $50 million, six-year program to improve H.I.V. outcomes in India. He said the budget cuts in his program alone would result in layoffs of about 600 people in the United States and India. The program had led to, among other things, the diagnosis of almost 20,000 people with H.I.V. through contact tracing.

“It’s heartbreaking,” Dr. Solomon said. “Stopping funding isn’t going to kill you today, but in six months you’re going to see an impact around the world.”

Dr. Judd Walson runs the department of international health at Johns Hopkins, which oversaw a five-year, $200 million program to diagnose and control tuberculosis in 20 countries funded by U.S.A.I.D.

In Kampala, Uganda, he said, the program was the only way children were diagnosed.

“That’s just one example of how the sudden withdrawal of support is having real impacts on survival,” he said.

In addition to the loss of jobs at Johns Hopkins, he said, the loss of the programs will lead to a spike in communicable diseases worldwide.

What is essentially a shutdown of U.S.A.I.D. has had significant effects at universities around the country.

An organization called USAID StopWork, which is tracking the layoffs, said that overall, 14,000 domestic workers had lost their jobs so far, with thousands more anticipated.

Research by the Federal Reserve shows that universities serve as major economic engines in many agricultural regions, from Iowa to Florida, meaning that the impact of the administration’s cuts to science research will be felt in both red states and left-leaning communities like Baltimore.

The elimination of a $500 million agriculture project called Feed the Future, which funded agriculture labs at 19 universities in 17 states, means many of those labs must shutter.

At the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, 30 people have lost their jobs at a Feed the Future lab that worked on improving soybean cultivation in Africa, according to Peter D. Goldsmith, a professor of agriculture who ran that laboratory.

At Mississippi State University in Starkville, Miss., a fisheries laboratory was shut down, according to Sidney L. Salter, a university spokesman, who did not disclose the number of jobs lost.

Economic ripple effects of the funding cuts are expected to spread through the Baltimore area. Johns Hopkins, which enrolls about 30,000 students, is also one of Maryland’s largest private employers.

Tesla, Elon Musk’s electric car company, warned the Trump administration not to impose tariffs in ways that could hurt U.S. manufacturers. The government ought to “ensure that U.S. manufacturers are not unduly burdened by trade actions that could result in the imposition of cost-prohibitive tariffs on necessary components, or other import restrictions on items essential to support U.S. manufacturing jobs,” the company said in an unsigned letter to the U.S. trade representative, Jamieson Greer, dated March 11.

Tesla joins many businesses sending letters seeking to influence the trade representative’s office, but its message carries perhaps more weight given that Musk is playing a very active role in the administration’s efforts to reshape the federal government. Tesla makes all the cars it sells in the United States at factories in California and Texas. It also has factories in Nevada and New York.

On Thursday, the S&P 500 fell 1.4 percent. After weeks of selling, the index is now down 10.1 percent from a peak that it reached less than one month ago and is in a correction — a Wall Street term for when an index falls 10 percent or more from its peak, and a line in the sand for investors worried about a sell-off gathering steam.

Other major indexes, including the Russell 2000 and the tech-heavy Nasdaq Composite, had already fallen into correction. On Thursday, the Nasdaq fell 2 percent, while the Russell 2000 index of smaller companies, which tend to be more exposed to the ebb and flow of the economy, was 1.6 percent lower.

The deeper worry among investors is that uncertainty around the effects of President Trump’s policies is causing consumers to spend less and discouraging businesses from investing. That reticence could, in turn, drive the economy into a downturn, forcing investors to reassess company valuations.

“I think what markets are telling us is that they are very concerned about the potential for a recession,” said Kristina Hooper, chief global market strategist at Invesco. “That is certainly not what markets expected going into 2025.”

This is the 11th correction in the S&P 500 since the 2008-9 financial crisis, according to data from Yardeni Research. Three of the previous downturns turned into bear markets, defined as a more severe decline of at least 20 percent.

So far, the administration has brushed off the market turmoil. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said on Thursday that he was focused on the “real economy,” downplaying signals sent by business leaders and investors. “I’m not concerned about a little bit of volatility over three weeks,” he said.

As stocks have been falling in recent weeks, the Trump administration has emphasized that its economic policies are designed to promote job growth over the long term, but could cause some market turmoil in the short term.

Seema Shah, chief global strategist at Principal Asset Management, said the economy had already begun to be “negatively impacted.”

The pain has been acutely felt among the behemoth tech companies that drove the market higher in recent years, but their once rallying share prices have since reversed course. The tech-heavy Nasdaq Composite index has fallen roughly 14 percent from its peak in December.

The sell-off has also spread to other corners of the market, signaling broader concerns than simply a re-pricing of highly valued technology companies. The Russell 2000 has fallen 18 percent from its peak in November, close to a full-fledged bear market.

Sectors of the stock market exposed to tariffs, like food producers, have slumped. The effects are being felt by other companies, like retailers and airlines, that are worried about a pullback among consumers should the economy enter a downturn. On Thursday, the low-cost retailer Dollar General said customer traffic fell in its most recent quarter, and the company predicted continued financial pressure. Delta Air Lines cut its financial forecast this week for the first three months of the year, citing less demand for domestic travel.

“So far in 2025, the U.S. economy has only faced headwinds,” Ms. Shah said.

On Thursday, Mr. Trump threatened to impose 200 percent tariffs on European wine and champagne, one day after the European Union announced retaliatory tariffs on imports of U.S. whiskey and several other American products. The president has already added tariffs on steel and aluminum imports, and a wide swath of products from China.

And when asked by reporters about tariffs on Canada — one of the United States’ largest trading partners — he was adamant that he would not offer a reprieve.

“I’m sorry, we have to do this,” Mr. Trump said.

The constantly moving goal posts have left investors so rattled that even recent good news about the economy hasn’t had a calming effect. On Thursday, a report on weekly unemployment claims came in lower than expected. On Wednesday, a better-than-expected reading of the Consumer Price Index had briefly helped bolster stocks.

Investors are worried that tariffs, once in full effect, will push prices higher — hurting business and consumers. Mr. Trump’s immigration policies and firings of federal employees through the so-called Department of Government Efficiency are also looming in the backdrop, as is the threat of an impending government shutdown.

“The outlook for inflation depends more on tariffs, deportations and DOGE than the backward-looking data releases right now,” Bill Adams, chief economist for Comerica Bank, said on Thursday.

Image

According to the lawsuit filed in Massachusetts district court, HUD and DOGE, operating at the direction of President Trump, made an “egregious overstep” when they canceled dozens of grants connected to the Fair Housing Initiatives Program. The program and the grants distributed to state and city organizations are used to enforce the federal Fair Housing Act that prohibits discrimination in housing based on race, ethnicity, religion and other factors, like gender identity and disability.

Most fair housing complaints in the United States are handled by local housing organizations: In 2022, these groups received more than 33,000 complaints.

Local fair housing organizations generally have annual budgets of less than $1 million, and the grants account for a significant portion of their revenues. The groups say they had no warning that the funding would end abruptly. “The impact of these dollars is concrete and profound,” the complaint reads.

“It’s how they pay their bills,” said Yiyang Wu, a lawyer at the civil rights law firm Relman Colfax, which is representing the fair housing organizations. “It’s their bread and butter.”

In its letters, HUD told the organizations that each grant being canceled “no longer effectuates the program goals or agency priorities.”

HUD and DOGE launched a joint task force they said would eliminate waste, fraud and abuse last month. In a news release announcing the task force on Feb. 13, HUD Secretary Scott Turner said that under his leadership, the department would be “detailed and deliberate about every dollar spent” to “better serve the American people.”

The department has made widespread slashes to initiatives that it said promoted diversity, equity and inclusion programs. “DEI is dead at HUD,” Mr. Turner has repeatedly said in recent weeks.

Since receiving notice of the funding cuts, some fair-housing groups are now leaning on their reserves to pay bills. Others are already struggling.

The San Antonio Fair Housing Council, which previously had four full-time staff, three part-time staff and three per-diem workers, was forced to lay off more than half of its work force.

The Massachusetts Fair Housing Center was forced to turn away clients, including a domestic violence survivor who was facing displacement from her temporary shelter. And the Intermountain Fair Housing Council, which serves the entire state of Idaho, has been forced to “narrow its service area, leaving 10 counties without any eviction prevention or fair housing services,” the lawsuit reads.

The grant termination, said Lila Miller, another lawyer at Relman Colfax, was illegal because the grants had been allotted by Congress. She said Congress has not authorized DOGE to direct another agency’s operations.

“Congress makes the law and Congress sets the bounds of agency action,” she said.

“Our caucus is unified on a clean April 11 C.R. that will keep the government open and give Congress time to negotiate bipartisan legislation that can pass,” Mr. Schumer said, using the shorthand for a continuing resolution to extend federal funding temporarily.

Democrats have been dubious about the Republican-drafted bill passed by the House on Tuesday, which would keep federal spending going at roughly current levels for the next six months, saying it would give the Trump administration too much leeway to continue efforts to drastically overhaul the government. The bill would need the support of at least eight Democrats to overcome procedural hurdles and come to a final vote.

Federal funding is set to lapse at 12:01 a.m. on March 15 if Congress does not act before then to extend it.

Any changes in the House bill or another extension would require the House to return and approve it, which is highly unlikely. Republican leaders deliberately adjourned the chamber and left town after passing the legislation on Tuesday to effectively force the Senate to accept their funding legislation.

The standoff puts Senate Democrats at risk of being blamed for any shutdown even as they complain about Trump administration disruptions to federal agencies. But they are under pressure from House Democrats and activists to stand against President Trump and Elon Musk as the new administration seeks to dismantle broad swaths of the federal bureaucracy.

With two days left before the shutdown, there is still time for a reversal by Democrats when the potential implications of a shutdown become clearer.

Mr. Schumer’s announcement came as House Democratic leaders, gathered for a retreat in Virginia on Wednesday, pleaded with their Senate counterparts to follow their lead and oppose the government funding bill.

Representative Hakeem Jeffries, Democrat of New York and the minority leader, called the measure “a power grab that further unleashes and entrenches Elon Musk’s efforts” and applauded his caucus for sticking together on Tuesday in voting against it and sending a clear message of repudiation for its policies on the House floor. All but one Democrat opposed the measure in the House.

Annie Karni contributed from Leesburg, Va.

Image

That action came after he revoked security clearances held by lawyers at Covington & Burling after it was revealed that the firm was helping provide legal advice to Jack Smith, the special counsel who brought two federal indictments against Mr. Trump.

Mr. Trump’s actions, and open threats of more to come, have shaken law firms across Washington and beyond, leaving them looking at their client lists and wondering whether their representation could put them in the president’s cross hairs and endanger their business. Perkins Coie has acknowledged that in just the few days since Mr. Trump signed the executive order it “has already lost significant revenue” because of clients who have severed their relationship with the firm.

“This is certainly the biggest affront to the legal profession in my lifetime,” said Samuel W. Buell, a longtime professor of law at Duke University and a former federal prosecutor.

A federal judge on Wednesday sided with Perkins Coie in an initial courtroom skirmish with the White House, temporarily barring Mr. Trump’s executive order against the firm from taking effect.

“I am sure that many in the profession are watching in horror at what Perkins Coie is going through,” said Judge Beryl A. Howell of the Federal District Court in Washington. She added, “It sends little chills down my spine” to hear arguments that a president can punish individuals and companies like this.

Her reaction mirrored those of other legal experts who said the issues at stake go far beyond whether or not Mr. Trump will make life difficult for elite law firms and well-paid lawyers.

The experts say Mr. Trump’s actions could create a trickle-down effect in which those who find themselves under scrutiny from Mr. Trump and his administration struggle to find lawyers who are willing to defend them in the face of the vast powers of the federal government. Those facing scrutiny could be forced to turn to less skilled lawyers or firms that enjoy access or good ties to the White House, the experts say.

“If you’re a political enemy, you really need the best representation when the government comes after you for who you are,” said Daniel C. Richman, a professor of law at Columbia University and former federal prosecutor. “Chilling the lawyers who represent those people hurts the rule of law because when the government can’t be legally opposed, the law provides no protections to anyone and you start to live in an autocracy.”

Mr. Trump’s attack on Big Law comes as his administration has also gone after law schools, the American Bar Association and even lawyers inside the government itself who might question or hinder his agenda.

Last week, the top federal prosecutor in Washington threatened to stop hiring graduates from Georgetown Law School if its dean, William Treanor, failed to abolish the school’s diversity programs. Mr. Treanor all but dared the prosecutor, Ed Martin, to make good on his threats, saying that the First Amendment would forbid them.

Mr. Trump has often relied on pliant lawyers to do his bidding, and last month he fired the three top lawyers in the armed forces who are supposed to advise military leaders on the legality of various policies and operations. The lawyers, known as judge advocates general, were fired without reference to their professional performance, raising concerns that the administration wanted replacements who would be more amenable to Mr. Trump’s orders.

One of the first big tests of this new era arose late last week, setting off maneuvering that shows how big firms in Washington are rushing to adapt to the new challenges they face, according to interviews with people involved in or briefed on those discussions.

In his executive order targeting Perkins Coie, Mr. Trump was going after a firm that represented Ms. Clinton’s campaign and repeatedly won election law cases in 2020 against Mr. Trump’s campaign. Mr. Trump singled out Perkins Coie’s involvement in a dossier complied during the 2016 campaign by a former British spy about Mr. Trump’s potential ties to Russia.

Amid concerns in the legal community about a chilling effect, few, if any, major firms issued statements condemning Mr. Trump’s action. And amid that silence there was a question about whether any firm would take the even bigger step of agreeing to represent Perkins Coie in its effort to challenge Mr. Trump’s executive order in court.

Perkins Coie reached out to Derek L. Shaffer, a lawyer at the firm Quinn Emanuel. Mr. Shaffer had a long history of bringing civil actions against federal and state governments, and had argued before the Supreme Court three times. Perkins Coie wanted to see if he could take on the firm as a client and quickly go to court to file a suit against the Trump administration to stop the executive order.

Convincing Mr. Shaffer to take the case would come with a major potential bonus: close links to Mr. Trump and his allies.

Lawyers at Quinn Emanuel represent Elon Musk and provide ethics advice to the Trump Organization. The firm also represents Mayor Eric Adams of New York as the Trump Justice Department has moved swiftly to drop corruption charges against Mr. Adams in exchange for his cooperation on immigration issues.

But Perkins Coie was rebuffed. Quinn Emanuel decided against taking the case. Its top leaders concluded that this was not an issue they wanted to jump into at this stage as they continue to build themselves into a power center in Mr. Trump’s Washington.

Other major law firms expressed concerns that if they represented Perkins Coie, they, too, could face Mr. Trump’s ire. Leaders of top firms asked: How would their own clients react if Mr. Trump cut off their access to the government?

In response, the elite Washington firm Williams and Connolly decided it would take on Perkins Coie as a client.

It’s unclear why Williams and Connolly was willing to take a risk that other firms were not. But lawyers at Williams and Connolly have long taken pride in their role as an adversary and check against the government, including highlighting the firm’s role in protecting high-profile defendants against prosecutorial misconduct. The firm was founded by the well-known defense lawyer Edward Bennett Williams, who built his career on vigorously representing an array of clients before the government, including those out of political favor.

On Tuesday, Williams and Connolly, on behalf of Perkins Coie, filed suit against the Trump administration in Washington. That suit led to Judge Howell’s ruling from the bench on Wednesday imposing a temporary restraining order to bar for now the actions against Perkins Coie from taking effect.

Other law firms have been discussing whether to file a joint amicus brief on behalf of Perkins Coie. While some major firms have signaled they are willing to sign onto it, others have said they are reluctant. On Wednesday, 21 state attorneys general filed their own amicus brief supporting Perkins Coie.

Covington & Burling, which had its security clearances stripped because of its representation of the special counsel Mr. Smith, has taken a different approach from that taken by Perkins Coie.

Covington has declined to fight Mr. Trump in court. Instead, the firm, concerned about a perception among its clients that it was falling out of favor with Mr. Trump, has begun discussions with other prominent law firms with fewer ties to Mr. Trump’s perceived enemies about becoming the face of some of their most important cases before the Justice Department.

But beyond what Mr. Trump has done to law firms, the political appointees he has placed at departments, agencies and commissions are taking on the legal profession in other ways.

One of Mr. Trump’s political appointees has ordered government officials under him to not renew their memberships to the American Bar Association, hold a position with the association or attend its events.

At the Justice Department, the attorney general has sent a letter to the American Bar Association questioning its diversity practices.

And last week, at an annual conference on white collar crime for the American Bar Association, a slew of top officials from the Justice Department — who regularly attend the event — canceled at the last minute. That meant that a conference designed to bring together the industry about an important topic was devoid of senior department officials in charge of enforcing the law.

Abbie VanSickle and Alan Feuer contributed reporting.

Image

“I can confirm that, at the direction of President Trump, Shelly Lowe has departed her position as chair of N.E.H.,” a spokesman for the agency, Paula Wasley, said in a statement. She said Mr. McDonald would serve as acting chairman “until such time as the president nominates and the Senate confirms a new N.E.H. chairman.”

Agency chairs are appointed for four-year terms, though some have served across administrations. Maria Rosario Jackson, the chair of the endowment’s sister agency, the National Endowment for the Arts, announced her resignation on Jan. 17, shortly before Mr. Trump’s inauguration.

The National Endowment for the Humanities was founded in 1965 and has awarded more than $6 billion in grants to museums, historic sites, universities, libraries and other organizations, according to its website.

Ms. Lowe’s departure comes as Mr. Trump has moved to put his stamp on federal cultural agencies, most prominently the Kennedy Center, where he purged Biden appointees from the bipartisan board, fired the center’s president and had himself elected chairman.

The president has also issued sweeping executive orders banning diversity, equity and inclusion programs across the federal government while calling for the promotion of “patriotic history.” In one order issued in January, Mr. Trump included the heads of both the art and humanities endowments as members of his newly created Task Force 250, which is charged with providing “a grand celebration worthy of the momentous occasion of the 250th anniversary of American independence.”

Last month, the arts endowment, which is led by an interim chair, Mary Anne Carter, announced that it was canceling this year’s “Challenge America” grants, a relatively small program aimed at supporting projects serving underrepresented groups or communities.

Potential applicants were instead encouraged to apply for the agency’s much larger main grant program, which according to its website encouraged projects that “celebrate and honor the nation’s rich artistic heritage and creativity” during the lead-up to the 250th commemoration in July 2026.

In his first term, Mr. Trump repeatedly vowed to eliminate both agencies, which have an annual budget of roughly $200 million each. But they survived.

Information was not immediately available about any staff or budget cuts or shifts in its programs at the humanities endowment.

A federal judge on Wednesday sided with the law firm Perkins Coie, temporarily barring Trump’s executive order that crippled the firm’s ability to do business with the government. Trump signed an executive order last Thursday that essentially barred the firm’s lawyers from doing business with the federal government or entering federal buildings.

Trump said that he was targeting the firm because of its role in representing Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign. Judge Beryl Howell said that the executive order had a chilling effect on the entire legal profession. “I am sure that many in the profession are watching in horror at what Perkins Coie is going through,” she said, adding, “It sends little chills down my spine” to hear arguments that a president can punish individuals and companies like this.

Image

Image

The grants were issued to a total of eight nonprofit organizations through the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, which received $27 billion in funding from Congress through the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act.

But since taking office, Lee Zeldin, the E.P.A.’s administrator, has tried to claw back the money, saying they were part of a “scheme” and citing as evidence a hidden-camera video from Project Veritas, a conservative group known for using covert recordings to embarrass its political opponents.

The E.P.A. can cancel the grant contracts if it can document examples of waste, fraud, and abuse by the grantees. But that hasn’t happened at this point.

Yesterday, Democrats on the House Energy and Commerce Committee launched an investigation into the E.P.A,’s freezing of the funds and what they said were Mr. Zeldin’s “false and misleading statements.”

Two of the nonprofit grant recipients, Climate United and the Coalition for Green Capital, said they will fight the cancellation. A court hearing on a related case is scheduled for Wednesday.

Here is what we know about the $20 billion in funding and how it became a target of the E.P.A.

How the controversy started

In February, Mr. Zeldin announced that he had found billions of dollars of “gold bars” of grant funding at Citibank, calling the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (or “green bank”) grant program a “scheme” and a “rush job with no oversight.”

Mr. Zeldin has embraced the Trump administration’s emphasis on spending cuts, touting his work with the Department of Government Efficiency. He has canceled scores of other E.P.A. contracts, totaling what the agency said is around $2 billion across more than 400 initiatives.

The “gold bars” comment was a reference to a video released in December by Project Veritas in which Brent Efron, then an E.P.A. employee, likened his agency’s efforts to spend federal funds on climate programs before leaving office to throwing “gold bars” off the Titanic.

Mr. Efron’s lawyer has denied his client was referring to the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund.

After Mr. Zeldin’s statement, Ed Martin, the interim U.S. attorney for Washington D.C., asked Denise Cheung, a top federal prosecutor, to freeze the $20 billion held by Citibank. But she abruptly resigned after determining there was not enough evidence to order the funds frozen. The F.B.I. and the Justice Department continued their investigations.

Last week, Mr. Zeldin also referred the matter to his agency’s acting inspector general for a third, concurrent investigation.

The nonprofit grant recipients began executing their legal defense this past weekend, when Climate United sued E.P.A. and Citibank, claiming they were illegally withholding the money. Two other recipients filed suits against Citibank in the following days.

A hearing on Climate United’s request for a temporary restraining order to release the funds was scheduled for Wednesday in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.

What the nonprofits are saying

The cancellations surprised Climate United, a nonprofit organization that was awarded nearly $7 billion, said Beth Bafford, the group’s chief executive officer. She said she received an official termination letter a half-hour before the agency issued a public statement.

The nonprofits have been unable to access the funds in their Citibank accounts since mid-February. The funds have been held there under an agreement between the E.P.A. and the bank.

Without the promised funds, some groups said they are struggling to pay staff.

In a termination letter viewed by The New York Times, the E.P.A. said it had identified “material deficiencies” in the program, including the absence of adequate oversight and improper or speculative allocation of funds. It did not provide any evidence.

The Coalition for Green Capital, one of the largest recipients, called the E.P.A.’s decision “unauthorized and unlawful,” and said it was considering legal options.

What we know about the $20 billion program

The $20 billion program was designed to offer low-cost loans to businesses and developers for climate initiatives, which include things like installing solar panels and retrofitting homes to make them more energy efficient.

The E.P.A. distributed the money to eight nonprofits, which planned to distribute the money as loans as well as grants to local “green banks’” or credit unions, which would in turn make their own loans.

The idea was that the commitment of federal dollars would attract private investments to green projects.

Mr. Zeldin has made much of the fact that $20 billion in grant money was held at Citibank, portraying the E.P.A.’s decision to use an outside financial institution as an intermediary as an attempt to subvert oversight.

Grant recipients and former E.P.A. officials have disputed this characterization, and said that the agency has full visibility into transactions through the Citibank accounts for the nonprofit organizations and their sub-recipients

It’s not clear how much of the $20 billion was spent before the freeze was put in place.

A spokeswoman for the E.P.A. said it could not answer how much of the money has been loaned out by the nonprofits because the funds were spent under the Biden administration.

Citibank did not respond to request for comment.

Parents in the District of Columbia, whose budget would be slashed by more than $1 billion under the stopgap spending bill the House passed last night, are planning to stage a “Recess at the Capitol” protest on Thursday. A flier describing the protest says they plan to bring schoolchildren to the Hart Building near the Capitol to show lawmakers “exactly who they’re impacting.”

Persuading Senate Democrats to block the bill, however, will be a heavy lift. The plight of Washington residents is not top of mind for lawmakers who fear being blamed for a government shutdown if the bill is blocked.

Miguel A. Cardona, the education secretary in the Biden administration, said in an open letter that the Trump administration’s move to gut the Education Department was “deeply disturbing” and would “undoubtedly hurt students.”

Cardona wrote that the cuts would sap resources for students with disabilities and that “vulnerable students in our country will feel the impacts the greatest.” He urged educators to stay “focused on your students and the great work you are doing, and know you are not alone.”

Image

Mr. Rubio also downplayed any notion that he would encounter hostility from American allies because of President Trump’s recent tariffs. And he said he expected to have cordial talks with Canadian officials, despite Mr. Trump’s threat to annex Canada and make it the 51st state. The president has also imposed coercive tariffs on Canada.

“That’s not what we’re going to discuss at the G7, and that’s not what we’re going to be discussing in our trip here,” he said. “They’re the host nation, and I mean, we have a lot of other things we work on together.”

“It is not a meeting about how we’re going to take over Canada,” he added. He landed in Quebec City on Wednesday afternoon, as other foreign ministers were also flying in.

Mr. Rubio and Michael Waltz, the White House national security adviser, met for hours on Tuesday with Ukrainian officials in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, to work out how to start a negotiation process with Russia to end the war. Hostilities began in 2014 when Russia invaded and annexed Crimea, and then launched a full-scale invasion in 2022.

After the meeting on Tuesday, Ukrainian officials said they had agreed to an American proposal for a 30-day interim cease-fire. After berating the president of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelensky, in the White House, Mr. Trump withheld U.S. weapons and intelligence aid to the Ukrainians to try to force them into negotiations. U.S. officials said after the Jeddah meeting that aid had restarted.

Mr. Rubio said U.S. officials planned to “have contact” with Russian officials on Wednesday to discuss the proposed cease-fire.

“If their response is no, it would be highly unfortunate, and it’d make their intentions clear,” he added.

Mr. Rubio said that when he, Mr. Waltz and Steve Witkoff, Mr. Trump’s special envoy to the Middle East, met with Russian officials in Saudi Arabia last month, the Russians appeared open to the idea of a settlement to the war. “They expressed a willingness under the right circumstances, which they did not define, to bring an end to this conflict,” he said.

Mr. Rubio said one of his main goals at the Group of 7 meeting was corralling the other countries — Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy and Japan, all supporters of Ukraine — to have a united front on encouraging peace talks. The meeting begins with a reception in Quebec City on Wednesday night.

He said a “perfect statement” to be issued from the meeting “would be that the United States has done a good thing for the world in bringing this process forward, and now we all eagerly await the Russian response and urge them strongly to consider ending all hostilities, so people will stop dying, so bullets will stop flying and so a process can begin to find a permanent peace.”

Ukrainian officials want to ensure several issues are addressed in any talks, he said, including exchanges of prisoners of war, the release of Ukrainian children abducted by Russia and humanitarian assistance.

When asked what was the American position on Ukraine’s request for security guarantees to help deter any future Russian assaults, Mr. Rubio simply said deterrence would be part of peace talks.

“There’s no way to have an enduring peace without the deterrence piece being a part of it,” he said, adding that any commercial minerals agreement between the United States and Ukraine would help enrich Ukraine, but was not a deterrent against Russian aggression.

Mr. Trump has insisted that the United States and Ukraine sign such an agreement, suggesting that investment by American companies in Ukraine would help stave off a hostile Russia.

Mr. Rubio said European promises to provide security to Ukraine would be part of peace talks as well. He said it was unclear when those nations would become more involved in negotiations, though European countries have insisted they would be central players in a settlement, if one were to happen.

“I would imagine that in any negotiation, if we get there hopefully with the Russians, that they will raise the European sanctions that have been imposed upon them,” Mr. Rubio said. “So I think that the issue of European sanctions are going to be on the table, not to mention what happens with the frozen assets and the like.”

The foreign ministers gathered in Quebec City expect to discuss the war, but Mr. Trump’s hostility to U.S. alliances, his alignment with Russia and his unpredictable tariff actions have created a host of issues that the diplomats intend to raise.

Mr. Rubio said Mr. Trump was imposing tariffs not to punish other nations but “to develop a domestic capability” for manufacturing, especially in defense industries.

Canadian officials, including the incoming prime minister, Mark Carney, are taking reciprocal actions on the tariffs and grappling with Mr. Trump’s other threats. Mr. Rubio said Mr. Trump’s statements on annexation were based on both economic and security concerns.

“What he said is they should become the 51st state from an economic standpoint,” Mr. Rubio said. “He says if they became the 51st state, we wouldn’t have to worry about the border and fentanyl coming across because now we would be able to manage that. He’s made an argument that it’s their interest to do so. Obviously, the Canadians don’t agree, apparently.”

A judge did not make any immediate decisions about the detention of Mahmoud Khalil, the recent Columbia graduate detained over the weekend by the Trump administration. But he did allow Khalil’s lawyer two phone calls, their first privileged contact with their client since his arrest. A lawyer for the government said that Khalil, a legal permanent resident, has been placed in removal proceedings in Louisiana, where he is being held.

President Trump’s border czar, Thomas Homan, said he did not know what legal justification was used for Khalil’s detention. But he told reporters on the sidelines of a meeting in Albany that Khalil was considered “a national security threat” and in “violation of our foreign policy objectives.” About two dozen protesters surrounded Homan as he left the State Capitol, and they yelled that Khalil’s arrest undermined the First Amendment.

Image

Image

“The ball is now in Russia’s court,” said the two European Union leaders, António Costa and Ursula von der Leyen, in coordinated messages on social media welcoming the deal and echoing the statement of Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

But in the same sentence the European leaders also welcomed the resumption of U.S. security support to Ukraine, giving it equal emphasis.

“We welcome today’s news from Jeddah on the U.S.-Ukraine talks, including the proposal for a cease-fire agreement and the resumption of U.S. intelligence sharing and security assistance,” the message said on Tuesday. “This is a positive development that can be a step toward a comprehensive, just and lasting peace for Ukraine.”

They also tried to remind Mr. Trump and his team that if Washington wants Europe to guarantee any peace deal in Ukraine, Europe wants to be at the negotiating table. “The European Union,” the message said (hint, hint), “is ready to play its full part, together with its partners, in the upcoming peace negotiations.”

In general, European leaders were shocked by the anger displayed against President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine in the now infamous Oval Office media gaggle on Feb. 28 and Mr. Trump’s apparent acceptance of the Russian narrative that Ukraine started the war.

They were also struck when Mr. Trump’s special envoy, Keith Kellogg, said that Ukraine had to be hit in the head, “sort of like hitting a mule with a two-by-four across the nose,” to get it to comply with Mr. Trump’s demands. The lumber turned out to be the denial of lifesaving American military and intelligence support to Ukraine, its missiles and its American-built fighter jets.

That prompted some in Europe, like Nathalie Tocci, director of Italy’s Institute of International Affairs, to wonder if Washington would do the same to them some day, and whether it was such a good idea to buy so much high-tech American weaponry, like F-35 fighter jets, that depends on American software and integration with American satellites.

European leaders gathered in Paris, London and Brussels last week and this one to promise Ukraine continued and even increased support. “Ukraine is a matter of our own security,” said Norbert Röttgen, a foreign policy expert and German member of Parliament for the Christian Democrats. “If Ukraine falls, it would be a clear threat to Europe.”

But the key point, emphasized by President Emmanuel Macron of France and Prime Minister Keir Starmer of Britain, was that Ukraine needed American backing. Europe, despite all its vows to continue providing Ukraine with money and weapons, cannot replace key American capabilities like intelligence and missile defense, at least not in the near future.

So European leaders were also relieved at Mr. Zelensky’s understanding of his quandary. After the Oval Office blowup, they worked hard to convince Mr. Zelensky to kowtow to the White House with repeated expressions of gratitude to assuage Mr. Trump. Mr. Zelensky did so, while promising that he continued to support another demand of Mr. Trump for providing the United States privileged access to Ukraine’s mineral wealth, and a share of it besides.

The Europeans have been urging Mr. Zelensky to go along for now to put pressure on Russia and help Mr. Trump see that its president, Vladimir V. Putin, is the problem.

The Europeans have also gathered to have preliminary discussions of what they might be prepared to do to guarantee a future longer-term deal between Ukraine and Russia. Much remains unknown, including the purpose of such a force, its size, financing and command structure. But the Europeans do know they will need American cooperation and air support to make such a mission credible.

Nor is it even clear that Moscow will relent on its current refusal to consider allowing European troops in Ukraine, given that one of the main aims of Russia’s invasion was to keep Ukraine from joining NATO and allowing NATO troops to base there.

But Mr. Macron in particular has gone further, seeing the American turnabout on Ukraine as yet another sign that Europe must do more for its own defense and not rely so much on a United States that appears indifferent to Europe, if not openly hostile to it, both economically and politically.

Now Europeans, like Ukrainians, wait for the response of Mr. Putin. So far, he and his officials have rejected the idea of a cease-fire before a final settlement of the conflict. And of course there are no guarantees that even if a 30-day cease-fire were put in place the war would not recommence, giving at least some the impression that Mr. Trump simply wanted a victory to show that he could stop the killing, even temporarily.

Image

And as recent visits with world leaders have shown, a stop by the White House, even a traditional one, now comes with the heightened risk of the unexpected playing out in front of cameras. There had been questions from the Irish public about whether Mr. Martin should attend at all after the disastrous meeting between Mr. Trump and President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine earlier this month.

Mr. Martin, an experienced statesman, smiled as he was greeted by Mr. Trump. The leaders were expected to head to the Oval Office before holding a closed-door bilateral meeting. According to Mr. Martin’s office, discussions were expected to cover a broad range of issues from trade to the war in Ukraine to the situation in the Middle East, as well as the Northern Ireland peace process, of which the United States has long been a crucial partner.

Earlier, Mr. Martin had a breakfast meeting with Vice President JD Vance at his official residence, with both wearing green ties in a nod to the occasion. Speaking during the breakfast, Mr. Martin first thanked the president and vice president for continuing the annual tradition, before reflecting on the longstanding relationship between the two countries.

“The United States has been a steadfast friend of Ireland’s for centuries,” he said, adding, “First and foremost, our kinship was built upon the ties between our people, especially the generations of Irish who made their homes here.”

On Wednesday evening, at around 5 p.m., the White House will hold a St. Patrick’s Day reception to mark the holiday commemorating the patron saint of Ireland, which is officially on Monday. Mr. Trump will be gifted a bowl of shamrocks, as is tradition.

Ireland has a large trade surplus with the U.S. in goods — driven in large part by the export of pharmaceutical goods manufactured in Ireland by U.S. companies, as well as agricultural products like dairy — but it has a large trade deficit with the country when it comes to services.

Image

While some rulings have gone the president’s way, taken as a whole, they represent an effort to push back at Mr. Trump’s serial attempts to increase his authority and the executive branch’s dominion over the government. They reflect a fraught and chaotic moment where so much seems uncertain and the federal government itself is under siege.

The Trump administration has appealed many, if not most, of the decisions, and a few have already been reversed by higher courts. More will certainly be revised or stricken down as the cases move through the judicial system.

But for now, here are key passages in several noteworthy rulings.

The president’s power to fire appointees

“A president who touts an image of himself as a ‘king’ or a ‘dictator,’ perhaps as his vision of effective leadership, fundamentally misapprehends the role under Article II of the U.S. Constitution. In our constitutional order, the president is tasked to be a conscientious custodian of the law, albeit an energetic one, to take care of effectuating his enumerated duties, including the laws enacted by the Congress and as interpreted by the judiciary.

“At issue in this case, is the president’s insistence that he has authority to fire whomever he wants within the executive branch, overriding any congressionally mandated law in his way. Luckily, the Framers, anticipating such a power grab, vested in Article III, not Article II, the power to interpret the law, including resolving conflicts about congressional checks on presidential authority. The president’s interpretation of the scope of his constitutional power — or, more aptly, his aspiration — is flat wrong.”

Judge Beryl A. Howell of Federal District Court for the District of Columbia, ruling that Mr. Trump does not have the authority to dismiss members of the National Labor Relations Board at will.

Birthright citizenship

“The loss of birthright citizenship — even if temporary, and later restored at the conclusion of litigation — has cascading effects that would cut across a young child’s life (and the life of that child’s family), very likely leaving permanent scars. The record before the court establishes that children born without a recognized or lawful status face barriers to accessing critical healthcare, among other services, along with the threat of removal to countries they have never lived in and possible family separation. That is irreparable harm.”

Judge Leo T. Sorokin of Federal District Court for the District of Massachusetts, ruling that Mr. Trump cannot enact an executive order effectively abolishing birthright citizenship.

Freezing federal funding and foreign aid

“In the simplest terms, the freeze was ill-conceived from the beginning. Defendants either wanted to pause up to $3 trillion in federal spending practically overnight, or they expected each federal agency to review every single one of its grants, loans, and funds for compliance in less than twenty-four hours. The breadth of that command is almost unfathomable. Either way, defendants’ actions were irrational, imprudent and precipitated a nationwide crisis.”

Judge Loren L. AliKhan of Federal District Court for the District of Columbia, ruling that the Trump administration cannot unilaterally freeze all government grants, loans and financial assistance.

“The provision and administration of foreign aid has been a joint enterprise between our two political branches. That partnership is built not out of convenience, but of constitutional necessity. It reflects Congress and the executive’s ‘firmly established,’ shared constitutional responsibilities over foreign policy and it reflects the division of authorities dictated by the Constitution as it relates to the appropriation of funds and executing on those appropriations.

“Congress, exercising its exclusive Article I power of the purse, appropriates funds to be spent toward specific foreign policy aims. The president, exercising a more general Article II power, decides how to spend those funds in faithful execution of the law. And so foreign aid has proceeded over the years.”

Judge Amir H. Ali of Federal District Court for the District of Columbia, ruling that Mr. Trump overstepped his constitutional authority by freezing almost all spending by the U.S. Agency for International Development.

“Stripped of its equitable flair, the requested relief seeks one thing: The conference wants the court to order the government to stop withholding the money due under the cooperative agreements. In even plainer English: The conference wants the government to keep paying up. Thus the conference ‘seeks the classic contractual remedy of specific performance.’ But this court cannot order the government to pay money due on a contract. Such a request for an order that the government ‘must perform’ on its contract is one that ‘must be resolved by the claims court.’”

Judge Trevor N. McFadden of Federal District Court for the District of Columbia, denying a request by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops that the Trump administration uphold contracts for refugee aid funding.

Efforts to remake the federal government

“USDS’s actions to date have proceeded remarkably swiftly. In the less than two months since President Trump’s inauguration, USDS has reportedly caused 3% of the federal civilian work force to resign, shuttered an entire agency, cut billions of dollars from the federal budget, canceled hundreds of government contracts, terminated thousands of federal employees, and obtained access to vast troves of sensitive personal and financial data.

“USDS appears able to do this in part because of its access to many agency’s IT systems, which help the department carry out its objectives at warp speed. But the rapid pace of USDS’s actions, in turn, requires the quick release of information about its structure and activities. That is especially so given the secrecy with which USDS has operated.”

Judge Christopher R. Cooper of Federal District Court for the District of Columbia, ruling that the U.S. DOGE Service is subject to the Freedom of Information Act.

Funding for transgender care

“Plaintiffs have established that the hardship they are suffering, as well as the hardship PFLAG’s members are experiencing, are caused by the discontinuation of what has been deemed by medical professionals to be essential care. This hardship comes as a result of the conditioning on federal funding outlined in the executive orders and is nonspeculative, concrete and potentially catastrophic. Specifically, the sudden denial or interruption of plaintiffs’ medical care has caused or is expected to soon cause unwanted physical changes, depression, increased anxiety, heightened gender dysphoria, severe distress, risk of·suicide, uncertainty about how to obtain medical care, impediments to maintaining a social life, and fear of discrimination, including hate crimes.”

Judge Brendan A. Hurson of Federal District Court for the District of Maryland, ruling that the Trump administration cannot enforce an executive order threatening to withhold federal funding from providers of gender-affirming medical care for people under 19.

Immigration operations in places of worship

“For over 30 years, the United States government has imposed various limitations and safeguards on the execution of immigration enforcement actions in or near places of worship. In light of the First Amendment’s protections relating to religious exercise, such limitations served to mitigate the potential collision between the interests of government and religion that would inevitably arise from intrusions by armed law enforcement officers into churches, synagogues, mosques, temples and other places of worship. On Jan. 20, 2025, the United States Department of Homeland Security abruptly removed all such limitations and safeguards and instead left decisions on whether to conduct such enforcement actions to the unilateral discretion of individual officers. Three different faith communities have now challenged this action.”

Judge Theodore D. Chuang of Federal District Court for the District of Maryland, ruling that federal immigration agents cannot operate around certain places of worship.

Image

Mr. Zeldin’s move effectively ends three decades of work at the E.P.A. to try to ease the pollution that burdens poor and minority communities, which are frequently located near highways, power plants, industrial plants and other polluting facilities. Studies have shown that people who live in those communities have higher rates of asthma, heart disease and other health problems, compared with the national average.

“If anybody needed a clearer sign that this administration gives not a single damn for the people of the United States, this is it,” said Matthew Tejada, a former E.P.A. official who is now a senior vice president for environmental health at the Natural Resources Defense Council, a nonprofit organization.

Molly Vaseliou, an E.P.A. spokeswoman, described the moves as “organizational improvements” that align with President Trump’s orders to end wasteful spending and diversity, equity and inclusion programs.

In a statement, Mr. Zeldin suggested that environmental justice — which the agency defined as “the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income” with respect to environmental laws — was tantamount to discrimination.

“President Trump was elected with a mandate from the American people,” Mr. Zeldin said. “Part of this mandate includes the elimination of forced discrimination programs.”

Asked to explain in what way Mr. Zeldin believes environmental justice is “forced discrimination,” Ms. Vaseliou claimed that such programs “prescribe race-conscious decision-making.”

“As Administrator Zeldin has repeatedly said, ‘We will be good stewards of tax dollars and do everything in our power to deliver clean air, land, and water to every American, regardless of race, religion, background, and creed,’” she said.

Mr. Zeldin’s order prompted an immediate backlash from Democratic lawmakers. In a letter Wednesday, 17 lawmakers led by Senators Tammy Duckworth of Illinois and Cory Booker of New Jersey, urged Mr. Zeldin to reinstate the offices.

“In the United States, communities across the country lack access to safe and reliable drinking water and sewer systems, and remain exposed to pollution that causes cancer and respiratory illnesses,” the lawmakers wrote. “Many of these areas were deliberately targeted due to their demographics for the siting of polluting activities.”

The decision comes after Mr. Zeldin canceled hundreds of grants this week, many of them designated for environmental justice.

Last month, Mr. Zeldin placed 168 employees who work on environmental justice on leave, but this week a federal judge forced him to rehire dozens of them after finding that the action had no legal basis. Several E.P.A. employees said they were bracing for many of those people to again be eliminated, as the agency and others prepared for widespread reductions in force.

Last week, the E.P.A. and the Justice Department dropped a lawsuit against a petrochemical plant that had been filed by the Biden administration. The lawsuit claimed that the plant increased the cancer risk in a predominantly Black community in Louisiana. It was one of President Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s most visible efforts to try to improve conditions in an area that is known as “Cancer Alley” because of its history with toxic pollution.

The E.P.A. withdrew its referral of the case for prosecution “to align with Administrator Lee Zeldin’s pledge to end the use of ‘environmental justice’ as a tool for advancing ideological priorities,” the Justice Department said in a news release.

The environmental justice movement is widely considered to have started in the 1980s when civil rights activists stopped the state of North Carolina from dumping 120 million pounds of soil contaminated with polychlorinated biphenyls, a carcinogen commonly known as PCBs, in Warren County, a predominantly Black community.

In 1987, a landmark study from the United Church of Christ Commission for Racial Justice documented how race was the most significant factor in predicting where such waste sites would be located. Recent studies, including from the E.P.A., have shown that Black Americans have a higher exposure to air pollution than non-Hispanic whites or Asians, regardless of income levels.

As president, Mr. Biden made it a priority to address that unequal burden. He created the White House Office of Environmental Justice and directed federal agencies to deliver 40 percent of the benefits of environmental programs to marginalized communities that face a disproportionate amount of pollution. The E.P.A.’s Office of Environmental Justice, which was created by the Clinton administration, significantly expanded under Mr. Biden.

The Trump administration has now erased all of that.

“This doesn’t make America healthier or greater,” Mr. Tejada said. “It makes us sicker, smaller and uglier than we have been in at least a generation.”

Image

Over the weekend, Mr. Musk traveled to and from Florida aboard Air Force One with Mr. Trump, and posted on his social media website, X, that he had dinner with Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Saturday night after some tense interactions earlier in the week.

And on Tuesday, as Mr. Musk’s electric car company, Tesla, faced some violent protests around the globe, Mr. Trump made a display of having five Teslas brought to the White House grounds in a demonstration for the news media, and checked out the cars with Mr. Musk by his side. It was an extraordinary promotion of a company by the most powerful person in the federal government.

“I think he’s been treated very unfairly by a very small group of people,” Mr. Trump told reporters, referring to Mr. Musk. “And I just want people to know that he can’t be penalized for being a patriot.”

Mr. Musk and White House officials didn’t return a request for comment.

Associates of both Mr. Musk and Mr. Trump have talked in recent days about Mr. Musk’s planned donation to a Trump-controlled entity. Mr. Musk has signaled he wants to make the donations not to his own super PAC, which is called America PAC and has spent heavily on Mr. Trump in the past, but to an outside entity affiliated with the president.

The groups that are leading Mr. Trump’s outside activities include Make America Great Again Inc., a super PAC, and Securing American Greatness, a political nonprofit. It is not clear if the money would go to those groups or to a new entity the Trump team could create.

Both MAGA Inc. and Securing American Greatness were founded by close allies of Mr. Trump, and have a diverse set of major donors aligned with the president.

Mr. Musk is still committed to his own super PAC, which has now spent $6 million to support a conservative candidate in the Wisconsin Supreme Court election next month. He spent close to $300 million on the presidential race last cycle, almost all through America PAC, which he founded last year.

But Mr. Musk is now showing a willingness to also fund some groups he doesn’t directly control. And his past giving indicates he’s willing to exceed amounts that other donors might consider excessive.

At the moment, Mr. Musk may see some political upside in showing that he is a team player of sorts.

Mr. Musk has been viewed by some Trump officials, including by members of Mr. Trump’s cabinet, as pursuing his own agenda without properly consulting the rest of the Trump administration. Mr. Musk pointedly backing some of Mr. Trump’s longer-standing, loyal groups, rather than solely his own, could help soothe those tensions.

The precise split of Mr. Musk’s money, or if he has followed through with his plans, is not known and may never be. The political nonprofit group is not required to disclose its donors.

Mr. Trump is not eligible for re-election, yet his outside groups are continuing to rake in seven-figure contributions from major donors, presumably to reward friendly lawmakers and pressure those who oppose his agenda.

Video

transcript

transcript

Republican Confronted After Misgendering Trans Democrat

After the Republican lawmaker misgendered Representative Sarah McBride of Delaware, the ranking Democrat in the subcommittee spoke up in her defense.

“I now recognize the representative from Delaware, Mr. McBride.” “Thank you, Madam Chair. Ranking member Keating, also wonderful —” “Mr. Chairman, could you repeat your introduction again, please?” “Yes it’s a we have set the standard on the floor of the House and I’m simply —” “What is that standard, Mr. Chairman? Would you repeat what you just said when you introduced a duly elected representative from the United States of America, please?” “I will. The representative from Delaware, Mr. McBride.” “Mr. Chairman, you are out of order. Mr. Chairman, have you no decency? I mean, I’ve come to know you a little bit, but this is not decent.” “We will continue this.” “You will not continue it with me unless you introduce a duly elected representative the right way.” “This hearing is adjourned.”

Ms. McBride, who entered Congress knowing she would present a unique target for Republicans who have politicized and attacked transgender people, has generally chosen to let such moments slide. On Tuesday, she briefly registered her displeasure by returning Mr. Self’s slight, responding, “Thank you, Madam Chair,” before proceeding with her remarks.

But Representative William Keating of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the subcommittee, was not willing to move on. He interrupted to request that Mr. Self repeat his introduction, which he did, again referring to the Delaware Democrat as “Mr. McBride.”

“Mr. Chairman, you are out of order,” Mr. Keating fired back. “Mr. Chairman, have you no decency? I mean, I’ve come to know you a little bit. But this is not decent.”

Mr. Self said it was time to continue the hearing. But Mr. Keating refused to let go.

“You will not continue it with me unless you introduce a duly elected representative the right way,” he said.

With that, Mr. Self adjourned the session.

On social media, Mr. Self later explained himself, writing that, “It is the policy of the United States to recognize two sexes, male and female.” One of President Trump’s early moves of his second term was to sign an executive order that the federal government would only recognize two sexes and that they were not changeable.

House Republicans moved last year to bar transgender women from Capitol Hill women’s restrooms. And during his testy exchange with Mr. Keating, Mr. Self suggested that his refusal to refer to Ms. McBride as a woman was in line with a “standard” that had been set on the House floor.

“What is that standard, Mr. Chairman?” Mr. Keating fired back.

Mr. Self did not elaborate. But House Republicans appear to have established a practice of not referring to Ms. McBride as a woman in official proceedings. In February, when Ms. McBride rose to deliver her maiden floor speech, Representative Mary Miller, Republican of Illinois, referred to her as the “gentleman from Delaware.” Ms. McBride said nothing.

On other occasions, Republicans presiding on the floor and in hearings have tried to steer clear of the issue, recognizing her as “the member from Delaware,” even though the custom is to refer to lawmakers as “gentleman” or “gentlewoman.” In those instances, Ms. McBride has simply proceeded with her remarks.

That approach is in keeping with how she conducted herself on her campaign and in her first months in Congress: She prefers to talk about economic issues and rarely discusses or calls attention to her identity. And she generally gives her G.O.P. colleagues the benefit of the doubt when it comes to dealing with her.

“Honestly, every Republican I’ve interacted with has been warm and welcoming, save for a couple,” Ms. McBride said in an interview in January.

But some who have attacked her have only doubled down. After the contentious moment at the hearing on Tuesday, Ms. Miller threw herself back into the fight with a post on social media.

“Tim ‘Sarah’ McBride is a biological man and always will be,” she wrote, using the Democrat’s birth name along with a photograph of Ms. McBride from before she transitioned. Transgender people and their allies consider it offensive to refer to them by their legal name at birth, known as their deadname, without permission.

Ms. McBride made no public comment about being misgendered during the hearing, but hours after the incident and Ms. Miller’s post, she addressed the issue obliquely in her own statement on social media.

“No matter how I’m treated by some colleagues, nothing diminishes my awe and gratitude at getting to represent Delaware in Congress,” she wrote, adding, “I simply want to serve and to try to make this world a better place.”

Data showing cooler-than-expected inflation helped stocks rebound, rolling back some losses from recent days. But while the S&P 500 index finished up 0.5 percent for the day, trade tensions and lingering uncertainty continued to weigh on investors and governments.

Hours after Trump’s tariffs on metals took effect, the Canadian government said that it would impose new retaliatory tariffs on $20 billion worth of U.S. imports in response to the latest Trump measures. Canada’s latest moves are centered on steel and aluminum imports, but they also apply to tools, computers, sporting goods and cast iron. They were imposed on top of 25 percent tariffs that Ottawa announced earlier this month after an initial round of levies by Mr. Trump.

Dominic LeBlanc, Canada’s finance minister, said that the government could retaliate again if the Trump administration imposed further levies on steel and aluminum.

Earlier on Wednesday, the European Union announced that retaliatory tariffs of up to about $28 billion on U.S. goods would take effect April 1, in proportion to about $26 billion in tariffs applied by the United States. But European officials, already facing a lackluster economy, emphasized that they were ready to strike a deal with the Trump administration. “Jobs are at stake, prices up — nobody needs that,” said Ursula von der Leyen, president of the European Commission.

The 25 percent tariffs on imports of steel and aluminum have the support of some U.S. domestic producers. But they could hit a range of industries, including car manufacturing, and could increase the prices of domestic metals in the short term — all factors that could potentially slow down the American economy.

Mr. Trump issued tariffs on Canada, Mexico and China last week, though he quickly walked some of them back. Many of the targeted countries vowed to retaliate with their own tariffs. Mexico and Brazil, however, have chosen to hold off. President Claudia Sheinbaum of Mexico said her government would wait until April 2 to decide whether to impose reciprocal tariffs on U.S. goods, but reassured the Mexican people that her government had “a plan.”

China did not directly address the latest U.S. tariffs, although its Foreign Ministry spokeswoman said the government would take “firm measures” to safeguard its interests.

Here’s what else we’re covering:

• Metal suppliers: The latest tariffs will hit producers across several continents. Canada is the largest supplier of steel and aluminum to the United States. Brazil, Mexico, South Korea and Vietnam are also among the top suppliers of steel, while the United Arab Emirates, Russia and China are leading sources of aluminum. Among European countries, Germany is a major steel producer.

• Some U.S. allies hold back: Britain has chosen not to retaliate, as Prime Minister Keir Starmer looks to sign a long-term trade deal with the United States. And Prime Minister Anthony Albanese of Australia said his country would not impose reciprocal tariffs because they would hurt domestic consumers.

• Volatile markets: U.S. stocks rose on Wednesday but Wall Street markets have whipsawed this week, and shares of some big automakers, including Ford and Stellantis, have suffered losses. Stocks in Asia on Wednesday moderated slightly, while shares in Australia fell for a second day.

• Economic impact: Mr. Trump’s threat that more tariffs could be on the way are adding to worries about rising prices. The president has said he could impose penalties on foreign cars and other “unfair” relationships, and on Wednesday he said there could be some cases where his April tariffs were “a little beyond reciprocal, because we’ve been abused for a long time as a country.” He added, “We will be abused no longer.”

Image

As Canada braced for the effects of the 25 percent tariff Mr. Trump imposed Wednesday on Canadian steel and aluminum, the central bank lowered interest rates and warned of economic upheaval.

“We’re now facing a new crisis,” said Tiff Macklem, the governor of the Bank of Canada. “Depending on the extent and duration of new U.S. tariffs, the economic impact could be severe. The uncertainty alone is already causing harm.”

In response to Mr. Trump’s moves, Canada on Wednesday said it would impose new retaliatory tariffs on about $20 billion worth of U.S. imports. Those would focus on steel and aluminum, but also apply to tools, computers, sporting goods and cast iron. The measures are stacked on top of the 25 percent tariffs that Ottawa announced earlier this month.

The country is in the middle of a power transition, preparing to swear in a new prime minister, Mark Carney, the former governor of central banks in Canada and Britain. The current prime minister, Justin Trudeau, announced his resignation in January.

“Today is a difficult day for Canada,” Mr. Carney told reporters in Hamilton, while touring a steel plant belonging to ArcelorMittal Dofasco, the city’s other main steel company.

Mr. Carney, alluding to Mr. Trump’s continued threats that Canada would be better off as America’s 51st state, added that he was ready to “sit down with President Trump at the appropriate time, under a position where there’s respect for Canadian sovereignty.”

At a United Steelworkers union hall, tariffs dominated the discussion at the monthly executive meeting on Wednesday, Mr. Wells said. Members lamented losing some overtime shifts, and the company reporting slower orders.

Confusion has settled over Canada’s business community.

“Suddenly, we seem to be Enemy No. 1,” said Matthew Holmes, the executive vice president at the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. “We’re a pretty calm and logical group up in Canada, and it’s just really hard for us to reconcile and rationalize what’s behind this.”

Keanin Loomis, the president of the Canadian Institute of Steel Construction, an industry group, said Hamilton had weathered economic turbulence before, but nothing like the uncertainty — and sense of betrayal — created by Mr. Trump’s tariffs.

“It’s cruel and petty, and there’s no basis for it at all, or at least nothing that’s been explained to us,” Loomis said, adding, “It’s a very raw moment right now.”

Ian Austen contributed reporting from Ottawa.

Image

One of the frustrations steel and aluminum buyers have with tariffs is that they don’t just affect imported metals — domestic prices tend to rise, too, at least for a while.

One such buyer is Aegis Technologies Inc., a Pennsylvania-based manufacturer of pipe fittings that go into building sprinkler systems. Its president, Erik Jensen, said he used 100 percent U.S.-made steel, because of its higher quality. But his costs for raw steel rose significantly when tariffs were imposed in 2018, during President Trump’s first term, and the prospect of new tariffs escalated those costs sharply since the beginning of the year.

It’s difficult to switch suppliers, Jensen said, so he just has to accept the higher price and hope he can pass on as much as possible to customers.

“There’s no reason for it, because ore hasn’t gone up, labor hasn’t gone up, transportation hasn’t gone up,” Jensen said. “They’re just taking this as an opportunity to gouge the users of steel, and a little company like mine gets squeezed.”

President Trump had tough words for the European Union as he met with the Irish leader, Micheál Martin, at the White House today. He said the European Union had treated the United States badly on trade for years, and that now it was America’s turn. Asked if he would retaliate against E.U. tariffs, Trump said, “Of course I’m going to respond.”

Trump talked about the so-called reciprocal tariffs he plans to put on other countries in April, which he has said will match the tariff rates and “unfair” trade practices of foreign governments. He said there could be some cases where his tariffs are “a little beyond reciprocal, because we’ve been abused for a long time as a country.” He added, “We will be abused no longer.”

Image

Image

There was a somewhat bewildered mood among some of the E.C.B. officials, economists and analysts at an annual gathering held in Frankfurt, where Ms. Lagarde delivered her speech. Participants reflected on the rapidly shifting economic environment stemming from the escalating trade tensions and a substantial increase in military spending planned by European countries, particularly Germany.

Under different circumstances, this year’s conference could have seemed like more of a celebration: Inflation in the eurozone slowed to 2.4 percent in February, near the central bank’s target, and policymakers have been able to cut interest rates six times since the middle of last year.

Instead, President Trump’s imposition of sweeping tariffs, and his shifting policies on military aid to Ukraine, are unnerving European leaders. In response, European officials are proposing to borrow more to fund defense and infrastructure investments, significantly altering the region’s fiscal situation. The conference began with one speaker emphasizing the importance of preparing for war in order to avoid war.

“Established certainties about the international order have been upended,” Ms. Lagarde said. “Some alliances have become strained while others have drawn closer. We have seen political decisions that would have been unthinkable only a few months ago.”

When introducing a panel, François Villeroy de Galhau, the governor of the French central bank, said, “We are aware this environment can change tweet by tweet from one day to the next.” He invited panelists to begin their presentations but noted they could be referring to something that may be reversed by the same afternoon.

“We live in a world not only of uncertainty, but still more unpredictability and still more, these last days, irrationality,” he said.

In contrast to Canada and Europe, one big target of the new U.S. tariffs today — Brazil — is practicing restraint. Brazil, the second largest exporter of steel to the United States after Canada, has signaled that it will not retaliate. “President Lula said to remain calm at this time,” Brazil’s economy minister, Fernando Haddad, told reporters on Wednesday. “We’ve negotiated under worse conditions than this.”

Brazil’s president, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, made firmer comments on Tuesday. He told reporters that President Trump should “speak respectfully to me because I have learned to respect people and I want to be respected.” Brazilian officials said they held two meetings with the U.S. commerce secretary, Howard Lutnick, and the U.S. trade representative, Jamieson Greer, last week, making the case that the United States had a trade surplus with Brazil and thus should not target the nation with tariffs.

Image

March 7 March 10 March 11

5,550 5,600 5,650 5,700 5,750 5,800

Lutnick, speaking on Fox Business, denied that tariffs would lead to inflation, saying that while they might raise the cost of foreign steel, “that which is made in America does not cost more.”

Data shows that’s not the case. In the past, the increase in the price of foreign steel because of tariffs has typically allowed U.S. manufacturers to increase their prices too, raising profits.

A study by the bipartisan International Trade Commission, for example, found that similar metal tariffs in Trump’s first term raise the price of domestically produced steel by about 0.7 percent on average from 2018 to 2021.

Tariffs result in price increases because that is the point: making imported goods more expensive increases demand for domestically made products, which helps domestic industries. Whether such increases actually result in inflation — meaning continued price increases over time — is more up for debate.

Image

Food prices more broadly rose 0.2 percent in February, or 2.8 percent compared with the same time last year.

Eggs have driven overall increases in grocery prices in recent months. During the presidential campaign last fall, President Trump blamed the Biden administration for inflation and vowed to bring down prices. But the steep rise in consumer staples, including eggs, has complicated that promise as his tariff policies stoke further concern about inflation.

Producers have blamed the spread of avian flu, which has forced them to cull millions of hens, for tighter supplies and high prices. United Egg Producers, the industry’s trade association, has noted that in 2024, the industry lost more than 40 million egg-laying hens to the virus, while in just the first two months of this year, 31 million were killed.

The Justice Department is in the early stages of an antitrust investigation of major egg producers in the United States after advocacy groups and lawmakers called for regulators to investigate the industry’s pricing practices. Cal-Maine Foods, which is publicly traded and controls about a fifth of the market, reported an 82 percent jump in revenue for the quarter that ended in late November.

The Agriculture Department said in February that it was looking into importing more eggs and increasing funding for efforts to combat the spread of avian flu.

Asked what it would take to remove U.S. tariffs on steel and aluminum, Howard Lutnick, the commerce secretary, said in a television interview this morning that President Trump views the metals as “fundamental for our national security.”

“The president wants steel and aluminum in America,” he said on the Fox Business program “Varney & Co.” “And let me be clear, nothing’s going to stop that until we’ve got a big, strong domestic steel and aluminum capability.”

Lutnick said that foreign countries like China and Japan had been dumping steel on U.S. markets, or selling it below cost. “We’re going to stop that nonsense,” he said.

The Canadian government will impose new retaliatory tariffs on more than $20 billion worth of U.S. imports in response to the latest Trump measures. That is on top of 25 percent tariffs that Ottawa announced earlier this month after an initial round of levies by President Trump.

Canada’s second round of tariffs are centered on steel and aluminum imports, but they also apply to tools, computers, sporting goods and cast iron. Dominic Leblanc, Canada’s finance minister, said that the government could retaliate again if the Trump administration imposes further levies on steel and aluminum.

Image

Image

New research by Ernie Tedeschi, the director of economics at the Budget Lab at Yale and a chief economist at the White House Council of Economic Advisers under the Biden administration, underscores the linkage between government indebtedness and higher inflation.

“When you deficit finance policies, that is going to put upward cost pressure on American households,” Mr. Tedeschi said in an interview. Deficit financing involves using borrowed money to pay for government spending, like tax cuts and other policies.

As the recent pandemic era showed, the generous fiscal stimulus programs spearheaded by the Trump and Biden administrations stoked demand when supply chains were severely constrained, ultimately heating up inflation. The Federal Reserve was then forced to take aggressive action by raising interest rates, further increasing the costs borne by households.

Mr. Tedeschi estimates that a sharp rise in the deficit of around 1 percent of gross domestic product — roughly the same cost of extending the tax cuts Republicans are eyeing before they expire this year — would lower the purchasing power of American households as much as $1,250 on average after five years.

If the Fed responded to rising price pressures by increasing interest rates, that would most likely feed through to not only higher mortgage payments but also those related to automobile loans and those for small businesses. Mortgage payments alone could rise as much as $1,240 per year in today’s housing market, Mr. Tedeschi found.

After 30 years, the cumulative loss per household from price pressures could reach $16,000. Household wealth, once adjusted for inflation and with higher mortgage costs factored in, could decline as much as $36,000 on average.

Mr. Trump and his top economic advisers have made reining in government spending a cornerstone of the administration’s economic agenda, with Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent recently calling for a “detox” from government spending.

But economists are skeptical about how much progress the president will make, especially given the haphazard nature so far of the cuts spearheaded by Elon Musk and his Department of Government Efficiency.

The Republican budget plan recently approved by the House calls for $2 trillion in spending cuts but $4.5 trillion in tax breaks.

“If you are truly worried about debt and deficits for debt and deficits’ sake, then you really need to be just as worried about revenues,” Mr. Tedeschi said. “As in, don’t cut taxes.”

Image

The second wave is still being figured out, though the list of products that could be affected is already public — and is 99 pages long. In that phase, the E.U. is planning to add levies to goods worth about 18 billion euros, or 19.6 billion dollars, and is aiming for them to go into effect on April 13.

The proposed goods include:

• Poultry, beef and pork

• Soybeans

• Wine and sparkling wine

• Beer

• Pants, shirts and other clothing

• Handbags

• Refrigerators

• Washing machines

• Mowers

Exactly what those tariffs will look like remains to be seen. For now, Europe is consulting consumers, companies and policymakers across the 27-nation bloc as it finalizes the list. Many of the potential targets are largely produced in Republican-held areas, such as crops from the Louisiana district that elected Mike Johnson, the House speaker, and livestock from Nebraska and Kansas.

The goal? Officials want to hit America where it hurts in order to force the United States to the negotiating table, while doing as little damage as possible to Europeans.

Image

Mr. Starmer said in parliament that he was “disappointed” by the global tariffs on steel and aluminum but Britain would take a “pragmatic approach.” A new trade deal would include tariffs, he added, and Britain would “keep all options open.”

But Mr. Starmer believes that he can ultimately persuade Mr. Trump that Britain’s trade relationship with the United States is balanced.

Britain runs either an $89 billion trade surplus or a $14.5 billion deficit with the United States, depending on whether one cites British or American statistics. The difference rests in part on how the two sides treat offshore financial centers such as Jersey and Guernsey, which are crown dependencies.

“He was working hard, I’ll tell you that,” Mr. Trump said, after Mr. Starmer lobbied him against tariffs at a White House meeting late last month. “He earned whatever the hell they pay him over there.”

Mr. Starmer has also been pushing Mr. Trump to provide American security guarantees to Ukraine as part of a peace negotiation with Russia. The two leaders have spoken regularly by phone since their meeting, as Mr. Starmer has tried to help heal Mr. Trump’s rift with President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine.

But Britain’s decision not to retaliate to the tariffs could complicate Mr. Starmer’s other big priority: to draw his country closer to the European Union after Brexit. The crisis over Ukraine has given the prime minister a chance to collaborate with the European Union on defense and security, and he clearly hopes it could lead to closer trade and economic links.

The divergent responses to the tariffs are a reminder that, in some respects, Britain still faces a choice between the United States and Europe.

March 7 March 10 March 11

5,550 5,600 5,650 5,700 5,750 5,800

The rise in stock prices reversed some of the losses from earlier in the week and came after another turbulent trading day on Wall Street, when the White House introduced and then rolled back some of its tariffs. The whipsaw on trade policy has added to investors’ confusion over the Trump administration’s economic plans, and the path ahead on interest rates set by the Federal Reserve.

Global trade turmoil intensified on Wednesday as Mr. Trump’s across-the-board tariffs on steel and aluminum imports took effect, and the European Union and Canada responded with billions of dollars in retaliatory tariffs on U.S. exports.

Recent waves of selling have pushed the S&P 500 index down nearly 9 percent below its mid-February record. Falling more than 10 percent would signify a symbolic milestone known on Wall Street as a correction.

The Euro Stoxx 50 index, which comprises the eurozone’s largest listed companies, was up more than 1 percent on Wednesday. Shares in Britain, Germany and France all broadly gained.

In Asia, stock markets in Japan, South Korea and Taiwan nudged higher. Those indexes were seen as among the most exposed if President Trump broadened tariffs on longstanding trading partners. Hong Kong’s Hang Seng Index, a market that had been a bright spot in Asia, fell nearly 1 percent, a fourth straight day of decline.

As Asian and European markets seemed to regain their footing on Wednesday, the European Union said it was implementing tariffs in retaliation to Mr. Trump’s 25 percent duty on steel and aluminum imports, which went into effect earlier in the day.

The European Commission called the U.S. tariffs on steel and aluminum “unjustified.” It said it would impose levies on a wide range of American goods that would take effect on April 1. Ursula von der Leyen, the president of the European Commission, said the tariffs were nearly equal in value to the metals duties being applied by the Trump administration.

“Uncertainty breeds volatility,” said Alan McKnight, chief investment officer at Regions Bank. “Right now the level of uncertainty continues to ratchet up.”

The CBOE’s Vix volatility index, known as Wall Street’s fear gauge, has risen in recent days, a sign of investor jitters.

“Investors are having a tough time discerning what they should expect on a go-forward basis,” Mr. McKnight said. “It’s not just about it being good or bad. It’s about getting some clarity.”

The volatility is extending to how foreign investors are moving money in and out of markets in Asia. Khoon Goh, head of Asia Research at Australian bank ANZ, said foreign investors are turning “cautious” because of uncertainty regarding U.S. trade policy.

“Rising investor concerns over the impact of tariffs on U.S. growth is spilling over into Asian equities,” Mr. Goh wrote in a report.

Shares in Australia fell for a second straight day after the White House ruled out any exceptions or exemptions on its steel and aluminum tariffs. Last month, Mr. Trump said he would give “great consideration” to exempting Australia because it buys more goods from the United States than it sells. During Mr. Trump’s first term, he exempted Australia from steel and aluminum tariffs.

Anthony Albanese, Australia’s prime minister, said he would not impose reciprocal tariffs because they would only hurt Australian consumers by pushing up prices. But he condemned tariffs as an economic policy, calling them “a form of economic self-harm and a recipe for slower growth and higher inflation.”

The “core” measure of inflation, which strips out volatile food and fuel prices to give a better sense of the underlying trend, also ticked lower. The index rose 0.2 percent from the previous month, or 3.1 percent from a year earlier. Both percentages were below January’s increases.

The data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics underscored the bumpy nature of the Fed’s progress toward its 2 percent goal. Prices for consumer staples, such as eggs and other grocery items, are rising steeply again, but costs for other categories like gasoline fell. A 4 percent drop in airfares in February was a primary driver of the better-than-expected data.

Egg prices rose another 10.4 percent in February, as an outbreak of avian influenza continued to exacerbate a nationwide egg shortage. Prices for eggs are up nearly 60 percent since last year. Food prices more broadly rose 0.2 percent, or 2.8 percent from a year earlier.

The cost of used cars also rose 0.9 percent in February, although new vehicle prices declined slightly. Car insurance, which was a huge driver of the index’s unexpectedly large increase in January, rose again, but at a much slower pace of 0.3 percent. It is up just over 11 percent over the past year.

Housing-related costs also notched the smallest 12-month gain since December 2021, with the shelter index up 4.2 percent. From January to February, it rose 0.3 percent.

The big question mark is when Mr. Trump’s tariffs will start to affect consumer prices in a more noticeable way. On Wednesday, the president hailed February’s data, saying it was “very good news.”

“In a very short period of time we’ve done very well,” he said.

The only tariffs in place during the period covered by the February data were the initial 10 percent levies that Mr. Trump imposed on Chinese imports. Ryan Sweet, chief U.S. economist at Oxford Economics, said there was not a “discernible impact on the C.P.I. in February, including for apparel, furniture and electronic prices.” Rather, he expects the levies on China, which were doubled this month, along with the other tariffs that Mr. Trump is now putting in place, to start to lift consumer prices over the next few months.

Peter Tchir, head of macro strategy at Academy Securities, said the biggest effect would likely show up in the months ahead if Mr. Trump followed through with reciprocal tariffs on trading partners. The president has threatened to lift U.S. tariffs to match what other countries charge on imports, which could raise the cost of products that Americans buy from overseas.

Beyond possible price increases, Mr. Tchir said, he was very concerned about the outlook for the economy as a result of tariffs and the administration’s plans to slash government spending.

“The growth scare is real,” he said.

Uncertainty about the trajectory of the president’s policies has also amplified fears that businesses will begin to freeze hiring and investment in a more significant way as they await clarity on the scope and scale of Mr. Trump’s plans.

Those concerns have also materialized in recent measures tracking how consumers feel about the future. According to the latest survey from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, consumers’ expectations about their financial situation in the year ahead “deteriorated considerably,” as they braced for inflation sticking to around 3.1 percent. The share of consumers now expecting to be in a worse situation financially a year from now rose to its highest point since November 2023. The average perceived likelihood of missing a future debt payment rose to the highest level since April 2020.

A combination of slowing growth and resurgent price pressures puts the Fed in a difficult position, given its mandate to pursue low, stable inflation as well as a healthy labor market.

As of January, Fed officials justified their ability to hold off on another round of interest rate cuts and wait for more progress on inflation because the economy was doing well. If that resilience starts to show signs of cracking before inflation is fully vanquished, the Fed may be more limited in how it responds.

When the Fed had to deal with a trade war during Mr. Trump’s first term, it lowered interest rates by a total of three-quarters of a percent in 2019 in an effort to protect the economy from weakening further.

In his most detailed comments yet about Mr. Trump’s tariffs, Jerome H. Powell, the Fed chair, acknowledged last week that the economic backdrop this time was different. “We came off a very high inflation, and we haven’t fully returned to 2 percent on a sustainable basis,” he said at an event on Friday.

Mr. Powell added that the Fed’s typical response to tariffs would be to “look through” any one-time increase, but stressed that officials would be watching for any shocks and how long-term inflation expectations were shifting.

“As we parse the incoming information, we are focused on separating the signal from the noise as the outlook evolves,” he said. “We do not need to be in a hurry, and are well positioned to wait for greater clarity.”

That suggests the Fed will extend its pause on rate cuts when officials gather next week, maintaining the range of 4.25 to 4.5 percent.

Traders in futures markets are betting that the Fed will be able to cut rates three times this year, each by a quarter of a point. That is more cuts than predicted just a couple of weeks ago, reflecting rising anxiety about the economic outlook.

Image

Many auto industry executives believe that the merger could have increased competition and supply in the American steel industry, ultimately lowering steel prices.

In the United States, U.S. Steel and Cleveland-Cliffs are the only major American producers of the high-finish steel favored by automakers. Cleveland-Cliffs has long sought to acquire its rival, but such a merger has raised concerns in the auto industry that it could create a monopoly, giving the combined company the power to raise prices.

By contrast, industry groups expected the proposed Nippon Steel deal to preserve competition in the market. The Alliance for Automotive Innovation, a trade group representing major U.S., Japanese, and European automakers, expressed support for Nippon Steel’s acquisition, saying that a Cleveland-Cliffs-led deal would result in “anti-competitive pricing of materials.”

Even after former President Joseph R. Biden Jr. rejected the deal in January, Nippon Steel continued efforts to revive it. Cleveland-Cliffs has recently indicated that it remains interested in bidding for the financially troubled U.S. Steel. Last month, Mr. Trump reiterated that U.S. Steel must remain American-owned, and said he would block Nippon Steel from taking a controlling stake in the company.

For automakers struggling with challenges such as rising competition from Chinese rivals, costly technological transitions, and signs of a slowdown in U.S. consumer spending, the new steel tariffs are expected to further squeeze profits. The 25 percent levies, which went into effect on Wednesday, are expected to cause steel prices in the United States to rise about 16 percent compared to prices in 2024, according to the research firm Wolfe Research.