{"id":713,"date":"2025-03-19T00:11:24","date_gmt":"2025-03-19T00:11:24","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/wpinitiate.com\/echo-test\/demo973e36f5\/2025\/03\/19\/trump-live-updates-news-on-chief-justice-roberts-russia-ukraine-and-elon-musk-the-new-york-times\/"},"modified":"2025-03-19T00:11:24","modified_gmt":"2025-03-19T00:11:24","slug":"trump-live-updates-news-on-chief-justice-roberts-russia-ukraine-and-elon-musk-the-new-york-times","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/wpinitiate.com\/echo-test\/demo973e36f5\/2025\/03\/19\/trump-live-updates-news-on-chief-justice-roberts-russia-ukraine-and-elon-musk-the-new-york-times\/","title":{"rendered":"Trump Live Updates: News on Chief Justice Roberts, Russia-Ukraine and Elon Musk – The New York Times"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
\n

\"Adam<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

The chief justice rarely issues public statements.<\/a><\/h2>\n<\/p>\n

Just hours after President Trump called for the impeachment<\/a> of a judge who sought to pause the removal of more than 200 migrants to El Salvador, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. issued a rare public statement.<\/p>\n

\u201cFor more than two centuries,\u201d the chief justice said, \u201cit has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision. The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n

Mr. Trump had called the judge, James E. Boasberg, a \u201cRadical Left Lunatic\u201d in a social media post and said he should be impeached. On Saturday, Judge Boasberg ordered the administration to return planes carrying migrants said to be members of a Venezuelan gang to the United States while he considered whether their removal was lawful. The planes did not turn around.<\/p>\n

The case has emerged as a flashpoint in a larger debate over presidential power and the role of the courts in reviewing the actions of the executive branch. The chief justice\u2019s statement did not take sides on that debate, and he has often taken a broad view of the president\u2019s authority, notably in his majority opinion in July<\/a> granting Mr. Trump substantial immunity from prosecution.<\/p>\n

His statement instead made a modest point. But it came in the face of rising calls for impeachment not just by Mr. Trump but also by his network of supporters, which has complained that judges have blocked a series of the president\u2019s initial policy moves.<\/p>\n

The correct reaction to a ruling that a party disagrees with, the chief justice wrote, is to file an appeal.<\/p>\n

Just weeks ago, Chief Justice Roberts\u2019s point would have been uncontroversial. There is no modern tradition<\/a> of impeaching judges for their rulings. Just eight federal judges have been impeached, convicted and removed in the history of the country, most for egregious criminal and personal behavior.<\/p>\n

It takes just a majority vote in the House of Representatives to impeach a judge or other official. But two-thirds of the Senate must vote to convict, meaning its Republican members would need substantial support from Democrats.<\/p>\n

That math makes clear that the talk of impeachment is largely performative.<\/p>\n

Still, Representative Brandon Gill, Republican of Texas, said on social media<\/a> on Tuesday that he had filed articles of impeachment against Judge Boasberg, asserting that the judge\u2019s rulings amounted to \u201chigh crimes and misdemeanors.\u201d<\/p>\n

Chief Justice Roberts\u2019s statement on Tuesday was reminiscent of two earlier ones.<\/p>\n

In 2018, he defended the independence and integrity of the federal judiciary after Mr. Trump called a judge who had ruled against his administration\u2019s asylum policy \u201can Obama judge.\u201d<\/p>\n

The chief justice said that was a profound misunderstanding of the judicial role.<\/p>\n

\u201cWe do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges,\u201d he said in a statement then. \u201cWhat we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them. That independent judiciary is something we should all be thankful for.\u201d<\/p>\n

Two years later, he denounced Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the Democratic leader, for comments at a rally outside the Supreme Court.<\/p>\n

Mr. Schumer, speaking while the court heard arguments in a major abortion case<\/a>, attacked two of Mr. Trump\u2019s appointees, Justices Neil M. Gorsuch and Brett M. Kavanaugh. \u201cYou have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price,\u201d Mr. Schumer said. \u201cYou will not know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.\u201d<\/p>\n

Chief Justice Roberts condemned those remarks.<\/p>\n

\u201cJustices know that criticism comes with the territory, but threatening statements of this sort from the highest levels of government are not only inappropriate, they are dangerous,\u201d he said in a statement. \u201cAll members of the court will continue to do their job, without fear or favor, from whatever quarter.\u201d<\/p>\n

Mr. Schumer walked his comments back<\/a> the next day, saying he had meant there would be political consequences.<\/p>\n

In his year-end report<\/a> on the state of the federal judiciary, issued weeks before Mr. Trump took office, the chief justice seemed to anticipate some of what was coming.<\/p>\n

\u201cAttempts to intimidate judges for their rulings in cases are inappropriate and should be vigorously opposed,\u201d Chief Justice Roberts wrote. \u201cPublic officials certainly have a right to criticize the work of the judiciary, but they should be mindful that intemperance in their statements when it comes to judges may prompt dangerous reactions by others.\u201d<\/p>\n

Mr. Trump did not square his attack on Judge Boasberg with comments he made last week while visiting the Justice Department. Then, he complained about people who have criticized judges, declaring that \u201cit has to stop, it has to be illegal, influencing judges.\u201d<\/p>\n

In that case, he was complaining about criticisms of Judge Aileen M. Cannon, who had dismissed one of the criminal cases that had been pending against him.<\/p>\n

Later Tuesday, Laura Ingraham, the Fox News host, taped a segment with President Trump to air on her nightly show. Ingraham asked the president about the chief justice\u2019s statement. \u201cWell, he didn\u2019t mention my name in the statement,\u201d Trump said. \u201cI just saw it quickly. He didn\u2019t mention my name.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

\"Tara<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

The Social Security Administration said on Tuesday that people who want to file for benefits or change the bank where their payments are deposited can no longer do so by phone and must first verify their identity online or go into a field office.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

\"Shawn<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

In an interview with Laura Ingraham on Fox News, President Trump maintained his view that his administration is not actually defying the courts because, in his estimation, the judge who ruled against him should not have been allowed to do so. \u201cThat\u2019s not for a local judge to be making that determination,\u201d he said. He vowed that he wouldn\u2019t defy a court order, but he then said, \u201cWe have very bad judges, and these are judges that shouldn\u2019t be allowed.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Advertisement<\/p>\n

SKIP ADVERTISEMENT<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

\"Troy<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

Mahmoud Khalil, in first public remarks, says he is \u2018a political prisoner.\u2019<\/a><\/h2>\n<\/p>\n
\n
\n
\n

Image<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>

Mahmoud Khalil attended a student protest at Barnard College in New York on March 5. He was detained a few days later.<\/span>Credit…<\/span>Marco Postigo Storel for The New York Times<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n

Mahmoud Khalil, the recent Columbia University graduate who was detained by federal immigration agents, on Tuesday called his arrest a \u201cdirect consequence of exercising my right to free speech\u201d about the Palestinian cause in his first public statement since being detained.<\/p>\n

Mr. Khalil, a prominent figure in pro-Palestinian demonstrations at Columbia who has been held in a Louisiana detention facility<\/a> since last week, criticized the university for yielding to \u201cfederal pressure\u201d and argued that the Trump administration had targeted him \u201cas part of a broader strategy to suppress dissent.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cI am a political prisoner,\u201d Mr. Khalil wrote in a letter shared by several groups including the New York Civil Liberties Union. \u201cVisa holders, green card carriers and citizens alike will all be targeted for their political beliefs.\u201d<\/p>\n

Mr. Khalil, a green card holder and legal permanent resident, emerged as a lead spokesman<\/a> for students during the demonstrations that engulfed Columbia\u2019s Manhattan campus last spring. He was arrested on March 8 upon returning home from dinner with his wife, a U.S. citizen.<\/p>\n

In his letter on Tuesday, Mr. Khalil said that he did not know what was happening as he was handcuffed and \u201cforced\u201d into an unmarked car by federal authorities, who \u201crefused to provide a warrant.\u201d He said that he feared his wife \u201cwould be taken, too,\u201d and that he waited hours to learn the reason for his arrest or whether he would face immediate deportation.<\/p>\n

Mr. Khalil, who is of Palestinian heritage, described his birth in a refugee camp in Syria to a family that \u201chas been displaced from their land since the 1948 Nakba.\u201d That term is used by Palestinians to refer to their people\u2019s expulsion and mass flight amid Israel\u2019s declaration of independence almost 77 years ago<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\u201cI have always believed that my duty is not only to liberate myself from the oppressor, but also to liberate my oppressors from their hatred and fear,\u201d Mr. Khalil wrote.<\/p>\n

The White House has accused<\/a> Mr. Khalil of siding with terrorists and has said that it plans to detain and deport many other current and recent students. Mr. Khalil\u2019s lawyers have denied the accusation, and Mr. Khalil has not been charged with any crime.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

\"Dave<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

A judge blocked a policy that would expel transgender troops.<\/a><\/h2>\n<\/p>\n
\n
\n
\n

Image<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>

President Trump\u2019s executive order claimed that the presence of transgender troops in the military was \u201charmful to unit cohesion.\u201d<\/span>Credit…<\/span>Brendan Smialowski\/Agence France-Presse \u2014 Getty Images<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n

A federal judge blocked the Trump administration on Tuesday from banning transgender people from serving in the military.<\/p>\n

In a forcefully written opinion that rebuked the president\u2019s effort, U.S. District Judge Ana C. Reyes issued an injunction that allows trans troops to keep serving in the military, under rules that were established by the Biden administration, until their lawsuit against the Trump administration\u2019s ban is decided.<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cThe ban at bottom invokes derogatory language to target a vulnerable group in violation of the Fifth Amendment,\u201d Judge Reyes wrote.<\/p>\n

The government had argued that courts must defer to military judgment, but in a 79-page opinion<\/a>, the judge said the government had thrown together a ban based on next-to-no evidence and that \u201cthe law does not demand that the Court rubber-stamp illogical judgments based on conjecture.\u201d<\/p>\n

According to the Defense Department, about 4,200 current service members, or about 0.2 percent of the military, are transgender. They include pilots, senior officers, nuclear technicians and Green Berets as well as rank-and-file soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines. Despite their relatively small numbers, they have been a disproportionate focus of the Trump administration.<\/p>\n

In January, President Trump signed a caustically worded executive order<\/a> saying that trans troops had afflicted the military with \u201cradical gender ideology,\u201d and that the \u201cadoption of a gender identity inconsistent with an individual\u2019s sex conflicts with a soldier\u2019s commitment to an honorable, truthful and disciplined lifestyle, even in one\u2019s personal life.\u201d<\/p>\n

In February, the Defense Department issued new policies that included the same language, and said that all trans troops, regardless of merit, would be forced out of the military.<\/p>\n

Several service members immediately sued, saying the policy amounted to illegal discrimination that violated their Constitutional right to equal protection under the law.<\/p>\n

The military was still finalizing its plans for putting the ban into effect, and had not yet forced any trans troops out, though it had encouraged them to \u201cvoluntarily separate,\u201d and had even offered payments to encourage their fast departure. The Navy had set a deadline of March 28 for trans sailors to request voluntary separation.<\/p>\n

In the six weeks since Mr. Trump\u2019s executive order was signed, troops say, they have been forced to use the pronouns and conform to the grooming standards of their birth sex, and have been denied medical care, passed over for assignments sent home from deployments and put on administrative leave.<\/p>\n

\u201cTheir lives and careers are completely disrupted,\u201d said Shannon Minter, a lawyer who represents the service members and is the legal director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights. \u201cThat\u2019s why getting them immediate relief is so important.\u201d<\/p>\n

Mr. Minter said Mr. Trump\u2019s executive order was so loaded with illegal ill will \u2014 known in the legal world as animus \u2014 toward a specific group of people that he felt it was unlikely to survive the scrutiny of a federal court.<\/p>\n

At a contentious hearing on March 12, Judge Reyes, who was appointed by President Biden in 2023, spent a full day firing questions at Justice Department lawyers who were defending the policy, and she often showed frustration with their responses<\/p>\n

The judge went line by line through reports on transgender service members that the government had cited when the ban was issued, noting that data were years out of date and that the Defense Department\u2019s conclusions were \u201ctotally, grossly misleading,\u201d because they \u201ccherry-picked one part, and misrepresented even that.\u201d<\/p>\n

The evidence presented was so thin, she said at one point, that the Defense Department might have well cited the latest Beyonc\u00e9 album.<\/p>\n

\u201cHow can you even say that \u2014 that a whole group of people lack humility?\u201d the judge said to the government\u2019s lawyers about one claimed justification for the ban. \u201cIt just makes no sense.\u201d<\/p>\n

One of the government lawyers, Jason Manion, argued in the hearing that federal law gives special leeway to the military to make decisions, and that it was not the court\u2019s job to decide on the merit of the Defense Department\u2019s evidence. \u201cAt the end of the day we are asking you to defer to military judgment,\u201d Mr. Manion said.<\/p>\n

\u201cYou keep assuming that judgment is embedded in this,” the judge responded. \u201cThe only judgment in this case, far as I can tell,\u201d she said, is that the administration believed that transgender people lack integrity, humility, judgment and a warrior ethos.<\/p>\n

The judge repeatedly hinted that the apparent lack of evidence that trans troops in the ranks had any negative effect suggested that the administration\u2019s policy was driven by animus.<\/p>\n

Mr. Manion argued that showing that animus influenced the policy would not be enough to justify finding it illegal. Citing a Supreme Court ruling<\/a> that upheld President Trump\u2019s 2017 executive order banning travelers from seven majority-Muslim nations, he said the order regarding trans troops would be illegal only if it were based solely on animus, and nothing else.<\/p>\n

\u201cJust having evidence of animus,\u201d he said, \u201cdoesn\u2019t get over the hump.\u201d<\/p>\n

Trans troops have already prevailed in court once against a similar order. Early in his first term in office, President Trump announced a transgender ban on Twitter<\/a>, but the policy was quickly blocked<\/a> by two federal judges.<\/p>\n

The resulting injunction remained in place for two years, until a 2019 ruling by the Supreme Court allowed a reconfigured ban<\/a> to take effect while the court considered the constitutionality of the policy. The case was dropped after President Joe Biden rescinded Mr. Trump\u2019s ban in 2021, leaving unsettled the question of whether a ban on transgender service members would be constitutional.<\/p>\n

The Trump administration\u2019s latest effort is a remarkable departure from a 77-year trend in the military toward welcoming an increasingly diverse variety of Americans. Over that time, it was generally the White House that was pushing for more inclusion, and the military that was resisting. Now the roles have flipped.<\/p>\n

Military leaders have repeatedly opposed<\/a> the transgender ban.<\/p>\n

The transgender order is part of a sweeping effort to roll back diversity efforts in the military. efforts that the Trump administration sees as counterproductive. The rollback has included firing some top military leaders, ending recognition of Gay Pride and Black History months, and purging content mentioning diversity and inclusion efforts from Defense Department websites \u2014 even removing a photo of the B-29 bomber<\/a> that dropped the first atomic bomb, presumably because its name, Enola Gay, was flagged in a search for words the department wanted to scrub.<\/p>\n

This week the Department of Veterans Affairs announced<\/a> it would end gender affirming care for trans veterans.<\/p>\n

\u201cIf veterans want to attempt to change their sex, they can do so on their own dime,\u201d Doug Collins, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs said Monday.<\/p>\n

Though the new injunction has spared trans service members from dismissal for now, many say it will be difficult to go on with their careers as if nothing had happened.<\/p>\n

Sgt. First Class Julia Becraft, assigned to an Army armor battalion in Texas, was slated to be promoted to platoon leader this coming July, but since the ban was announced, the promotion has been put on hold.<\/p>\n

She was so distraught over the president\u2019s order that she decided to take vacation time to focus on her mental health, and has been attending therapy sessions.<\/p>\n

\u201cEveryone in my unit has been really supportive, but my world has been turned upside down,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n

Sergeant Becraft has served in the Army for 14 years, deployed to Afghanistan three times, and been awarded a Bronze Star. Now she faces being forced out of the service with no retirement benefits.<\/p>\n

Even if she is ultimately allowed to stay, she said, the actions of the president have her wondering whether she can still commit to serving her country.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt\u2019s not just because they came after me and want me out,\u201d she said. \u201cIt\u2019s a culmination of all the other things they are doing: take down the D.E.I. efforts, firing of all these great leaders for no reason. I wish I could stay strong and fight, but, honestly, I\u2019m just scared.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Advertisement<\/p>\n

SKIP ADVERTISEMENT<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

\"Chris<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

Days after President Trump suggested that the government would charge those who vandalize Tesla products as domestic terrorists, the attorney general, Pam Bondi, released a statement saying that attacks on Tesla property were \u201cnothing short of domestic terrorism.\u201d She added that \u201cthe Department of Justice has already charged several perpetrators with that in mind.\u201d<\/p>\n

She went on, \u201cWe will continue investigations that impose severe consequences on those involved in these attacks, including those operating behind the scenes to coordinate and fund these crimes.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n

Image<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>

Credit…<\/span>Steve Marcus\/Las Vegas Sun, via Associated Press<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n

\"Chris<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

A federal judge in Washington blocked an order by President Trump to remove transgender military service members, ruling that the directive banning transgender people from serving was \u201ca violation of their constitutional rights.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cIndeed,\u201d Judge Ana C. Reyes wrote, \u201cthe cruel irony is that thousands of transgender servicemembers have sacrificed \u2014 some risking their lives \u2014 to ensure for others the very equal protection rights the military ban seeks to deny them.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

\"David<\/a>\"Jeremy<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

DOGE reversed a move that made it harder to fact-check its claims.<\/a><\/h2>\n<\/p>\n
\n
\n
\n

Image<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>

Elon Musk\u2019s Department of Government Efficiency had removed identifying information on federal grants it had canceled from the public source code of its website, before re-adding some of the missing details on Tuesday.<\/span>Credit…<\/span>Al Drago for The New York Times<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n

Elon Musk\u2019s Department of Government Efficiency on Tuesday reversed a change that had made some of its claims far more difficult to fact-check.<\/p>\n

In early March, the group \u2014 which had been caught in a series of high-profile errors<\/a> \u2014 began posting itemized claims about the savings it had achieved from canceling federal grants. Its website interface provided only minimal details about those grants but the site\u2019s public source code included identification numbers, making it possible to glean more information from other official sources.<\/p>\n

\n

On March 5, however, the group removed those identifiers<\/a> from the code, while also adding thousands more grants, making it very difficult to verify the figures provided. A White House official said the group had withheld identifying information \u201cfor security purposes.\u201d<\/p>\n

On Tuesday, the group added some of the missing details, providing links to many of the grants\u2019 entries in a federal spending database, USAspending.gov. Now, fact-checkers will have the ability to match the claims with other sources.<\/p>\n

The White House did not respond to a question about the change.<\/p>\n

The new details provided by the group made clear that its claims about these canceled grants also contained the same kind of errors that had marred its previous work.<\/p>\n

For instance, the group said that it had saved $1.75 billion by cutting a U.S. Agency for International Development grant<\/a> to a nonprofit called Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance.<\/p>\n

The New York Times reported last week that Gavi had said that the website\u2019s claims were wrong. The nonprofit said that its grant had not been canceled and that, even if it was, all the money it was owed had already been paid. So canceling the grant would save nothing.<\/p>\n

The Times had identified that grant using the details that Mr. Musk\u2019s group had briefly embedded in the source code of its website.<\/p>\n

On Tuesday, that erroneous claim about the $1.75 billion grant was still on DOGE\u2019s website, which the group calls its \u201cwall of receipts,\u201d \u2014 its line by line accounting of the group\u2019s purported cost savings.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Advertisement<\/p>\n

SKIP ADVERTISEMENT<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

\"Luke<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

A third deportation plane left the U.S. after a judge\u2019s order. The Trump administration argues there was no violation.<\/a><\/h2>\n<\/p>\n
\t \t\t \t\t \t\t \t\t \t\t \t\t \t\t \t\t \t\t \t\t \t\t \t\t \t\t \t\t <\/head> \t\t<\/p>\n
\n
\n
\n

Location of deportation flights when a judge ordered them to stop<\/h3>\n

This map shows the planes\u2019 positions at 6:48 p.m. on March 15. ICE had chartered the planes, which carried hundreds of Venezuelans from Texas to El Salvador with a stop in Honduras.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Source: Flightradar24<\/p>\n

Note: All times Eastern.<\/p>\n

By Albert Sun<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/figure><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n

As the Trump administration used three flights bound for El Salvador to deport hundreds of Venezuelans over the weekend \u2014 one of the planes left a Texas airport after a federal judge issued a written order halting any deportations carried out under an obscure wartime law from the 18th century to deport people without a hearing. <\/p>\n

That the third plane left after the judge\u2019s order is not in dispute. <\/p>\n

\n

Judge James E. Boasberg of the Federal District Court in Washington had ordered a halt to deportations carried out under the executive order signed by President Trump invoking wartime powers on Saturday. From the bench, he verbally ordered planes that were already in the air to return the detainees to the United States. <\/p>\n

In a declaration filed Tuesday, Robert L. Cerna, the acting field office director for enforcement and removal operations at the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, said the third flight had not violated the judge\u2019s order because all migrants on the flight had already received their due process rights. Immigration courts had already approved their removals from the country, he said. <\/p>\n

In the filing, Mr. Cerna acknowledged the third flight removed migrants from the country after the judge\u2019s written order. <\/span><\/p>\n

Mr. Cerna said he understood Mr. Trump\u2019s invocation of wartime powers targeting Venezuelan members of the Tren de Aragua gang took effect around 3:53 p.m. on March 15 when it was posted to the White House website. He noted that the judge\u2019s written order halting the deportation flights was posted around 7:25 p.m. that day. <\/p>\n

\u201cAfter the Proclamation was publicly posted and took effect, three planes carrying aliens departed the United States for El Salvador International Airport (SAL),\u201d Mr. Cerna wrote. \u201cTwo of those planes departed U.S. territory and airspace before 7:25 PM EDT. The third plane departed after that time, but all individuals on that third plane had Title 8 final removal orders and thus were not removed solely on the basis of the Proclamation at issue.\u201d <\/p>\n

Mr. Cerna\u2019s statement refers to the authority of immigration judges, under U.S. code, to order the removal of migrants from the United States. He said those on the third plane had been ordered to be removed. <\/p>\n

Mr. Cerna said his agency \u201ccarefully tracks\u201d which detainees are subject to the president\u2019s order to expedited removal. <\/p>\n

He said the administration is poised to remove more than 200 additional Venezuelans covered by Mr. Trump\u2019s order should the judge allow the removals to proceed. <\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

\"Shawn<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

Laura Ingraham, the Fox News host, taped a segment with President Trump to air on her show tonight. Ingraham asked the president about Chief Justice John Roberts\u2019s rare public statement after Trump said that a judge should be impeached for defying him. \u201cWell, he didn\u2019t mention my name in the statement,\u201d Trump said of the chief justice. \u201cI just saw it quickly. He didn\u2019t mention my name.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

\"Alan<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

A new court filing in a case challenging President Trump\u2019s use of a rarely invoked wartime statute from 1798 called the Alien Enemies Act to deport people suspected of being members of a violent Venezuelan criminal gang to El Salvador suggests the broader import of his policy. Lawyers for some of the suspected gang members say that Trump\u2019s attempts to use the 227-year-old law could have an impact that goes beyond the recent deportations. \u201cThe implications of the government\u2019s position are staggering,\u201d the lawyers wrote in the filing. \u201cIf the president can designate any group as enemy aliens under the act, and that designation is unreviewable, then there is no limit on who can be sent to a Salvadoran prison, or any limit on how long they will remain there.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Advertisement<\/p>\n

SKIP ADVERTISEMENT<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n
\n

\"Shawn<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

The White House says that President Trump just signed a memorandum directing the secretary of state to remove all diversity, equity and inclusion policies from the Foreign Service. The memo goes on to say that \u201cBiden\u2019s State Department conditioned eligibility for promotions on an employee\u2019s ability to pass a D.E.I. loyalty test,\u201d citing specific policies and iniatives enacted under the last administration. This memo signed by Trump effectively merges two of his priorities since returning to office: eliminating D.E.I.<\/a> from government and reforming the Foreign Service<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

\"Michael<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

The order also calls for \u201cappropriate action\u201d against any officials found to have taken actions motivated by \u201cdiscriminatory equity ideology.\u201d It adds that federal policy toward \u201chiring in foreign policy positions, like hiring in all other parts of the Government, shall be based solely on merit.\u201d The order was directed to other federal offices that employ Foreign Service workers, including the departments of commerce and agriculture.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

\"David<\/a>\"Cecilia<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

Trump fires Democrats on Federal Trade Commission.<\/a><\/h2>\n<\/p>\n
\n
\n
\n

Image<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>

President Trump, shown in the Oval Office last month, fired Rebecca Kelly Slaughter and Alvaro Bedoya from the Federal Trade Commission on Tuesday.<\/span>Credit…<\/span>Haiyun Jiang for The New York Times<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n

President Trump fired the two Democratic members of the Federal Trade Commission on Tuesday, a rejection of the corporate regulator\u2019s traditional independence that may clear the way for the administration\u2019s agenda.<\/p>\n

The White House told the Democrats, Rebecca Kelly Slaughter and Alvaro Bedoya, that the president was terminating their roles, according to statements from the pair. The F.T.C., which enforces consumer protection and antitrust laws, typically has five members, with the president\u2019s party holding three seats and the opposing party two.<\/p>\n

\n

Members of the F.T.C. and other independent regulatory boards are protected from removal under a 1935 Supreme Court precedent<\/a> that says the president may not fire them solely over policy disagreements. Ms. Slaughter and Mr. Bedoya said they planned to challenge Mr. Trump\u2019s decision in court.<\/p>\n

\u201cToday the president illegally fired me from my position as a federal trade commissioner, violating the plain language of a statute and clear Supreme Court precedent,\u201d Ms. Slaughter, whom Mr. Trump nominated to the F.T.C. during his first term in 2018, said in a statement. \u201cWhy? Because I have a voice. And he is afraid of what I\u2019ll tell the American people.\u201d<\/p>\n

In an interview, Mr. Bedoya, who became a commissioner three years ago, said he was worried that an F.T.C. without independence from the president would be subject to the whims of Mr. Trump\u2019s business world allies.<\/p>\n

\u201cWhen people hear this news, they need to not think about me,\u201d he said. \u201cThey need to think about the billionaires behind the president at his inauguration.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n

Image<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>

Mr. Bedoya had served on the F.T.C. since 2022. <\/span>Credit…<\/span>Tom Williams\/CQ-Roll Call, via Getty Images<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n

The firings are Mr. Trump\u2019s latest attempt to assert the power of the presidency over independent regulators at agencies inside the U.S. government, including those that Congress set up to be independent from direct White House control. While regulators are appointed by the president, many of them have traditionally held wide latitude to determine the direction of their agencies.<\/p>\n

But the Trump administration has disregarded their traditional protections.<\/p>\n

\u201cI am writing to inform you that you have been removed from the Federal Trade Commission, effective immediately,\u201d said a letter sent to one of the commissioners, which was reviewed by The New York Times. \u201cYour continued service on the F.T.C. is inconsistent with my administration\u2019s priorities.\u201d<\/p>\n

The Republican chairman of the F.T.C., Andrew Ferguson<\/a>, said in a statement on Tuesday that the agency would continue protecting consumers but backed Mr. Trump\u2019s authority to fire the commissioners.<\/p>\n

\u201cPresident Donald J. Trump is the head of the executive branch and is vested with all of the executive power of our government,\u201d Mr. Ferguson said. \u201cI have no doubts about his constitutional authority to remove commissioners, which is necessary to ensure democratic accountability for our government.\u201d<\/p>\n

A spokesman for the White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.<\/p>\n

The firings followed an executive order from Mr. Trump last month that sought greater authority over the F.T.C., the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Federal Communications Commission and the National Labor Relations Board.<\/p>\n

The order required the independent agencies to submit their proposed regulations to the White House for review, asserted a power to block such agencies from spending funds on projects or efforts that conflict with presidential priorities, and declared that they must accept the president\u2019s and the Justice Department\u2019s interpretation of the law as binding.<\/p>\n

In January, Mr. Trump fired Gwynne A. Wilcox, a Democratic member of the N.L.R.B. She sued to challenge her dismissal, and a judge reinstated her<\/a> early this month. The administration has appealed that ruling.<\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n

Image<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>

Gwynne A. Wilcox was reinstated to the National Labor Relations Board by a judge this month after Mr. Trump fired her.<\/span>Credit…<\/span>FM Archive\/Alamy Stock Photo<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n

The Justice Department no longer plans to defend as constitutional the Supreme Court precedent on firing regulators only for cause, according to a Feb. 12 letter that the acting solicitor general, Sarah M. Harris, sent to Senator Richard J. Durbin, Democrat of Illinois. The department\u2019s analysis applies to the F.T.C., the N.L.R.B. and the Consumer Product Safety Commission, according to the letter, which was first reported by Reuters<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The letter sent to one of the F.T.C. commissioners on behalf of Mr. Trump on Tuesday reiterated that position. The Supreme Court protections do not fit \u201cthe principal officers who head the F.T.C. today,\u201d the letter said.<\/p>\n

Rebecca Haw Allensworth, a professor at Vanderbilt Law School who studies antitrust, said the F.T.C. had been established as an independent agency in 1914 \u201con the theory that consumer protection and the various goals of the F.T.C. were better addressed through less political means.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cIf we introduce the idea of political hirings and firings there, that serves to really undermine both the things the F.T.C. can do and also its legitimacy as a bipartisan institution,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n

Corporate executives and their advisers are closely watching the direction of the F.T.C. under Mr. Ferguson, its new chairman. During the Biden administration<\/a>, the F.T.C. sued to block<\/a> corporate mergers, aggressively punished companies<\/a> for user-privacy failures and filed a sweeping lawsuit<\/a> accusing Amazon of squeezing small businesses. It is set to face off with Meta during a trial in April scrutinizing the social media company\u2019s strategy in acquiring Instagram and WhatsApp to cement its dominance.<\/p>\n

Ms. Slaughter and Mr. Bedoya have consistently voted in favor of actions to rein in the power of the tech giants.<\/p>\n

After Mr. Trump nominated Ms. Slaughter to the majority-Republican commission in 2018 to fill an unexpired term, President Joseph R. Biden Jr. nominated her for a full seven-year term in February 2023. She previously served as chief counsel to Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the current minority leader, and led his congressional work on telecommunications and tech legislation.<\/p>\n

Mr. Bedoya, a former head of a tech and privacy center at Georgetown University and Senate aide, joined the F.T.C. in May 2022 after Mr. Biden nominated him.<\/p>\n

Mr. Bedoya said in the interview that he had learned of Mr. Trump\u2019s decision when he received a call from Ms. Slaughter while at his daughter\u2019s gymnastics class.<\/p>\n

\u201cHe\u2019s trying to fire me,\u201d Mr. Bedoya said. \u201cI am still an F.T.C. commissioner, and I am going to go to court to make sure that\u2019s clear to everybody.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n

Image<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>

Ms. Slaughter had been serving her second term on the F.T.C.<\/span>Credit…<\/span>Susan Walsh\/Associated Press<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n

Senator Amy Klobuchar, Democrat of Minnesota, called the firings \u201coutrageous\u201d and \u201cillegal,\u201d and warned that the actions would harm consumers. The agency\u2019s 2023 orders on hidden and junk fees resulted in a return of $330 million to consumers, she said.<\/p>\n

\u201cIllegally gutting the commission will empower fraudsters and monopolists, and consumers,\u201d said Ms. Klobuchar, who serves on the Senate Judiciary subcommittee on antitrust and consumer rights.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

\"Zach<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

Judge finds Musk\u2019s role in dismantling aid agency likely violated Constitution.<\/a><\/h2>\n<\/p>\n
\n
\n
\n

Image<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>

Judge Theodore D. Chuang said that Elon Musk\u2019s rapid assertion of power over executive agencies was in violation of the Constitution\u2019s appointments clause.<\/span>Credit…<\/span>Jason Andrew for The New York Times<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n

Efforts by Elon Musk and his team to permanently shutter the U.S. Agency for International Development likely violated the Constitution \u201cin multiple ways\u201d and robbed Congress of its authority to oversee the dissolution of an agency it created, a federal judge found on Tuesday.<\/p>\n

The ruling<\/a>, by Judge Theodore D. Chuang of U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, appeared to be the first time a judge has moved to rein in Mr. Musk and his Department of Government Efficiency directly. It was based on the finding that Mr. Musk has acted as a U.S. officer without having been properly appointed to that role by President Trump.<\/p>\n

\n

Judge Chuang wrote that a group of unnamed aid workers who had sued to stop the demolition of U.S.A.I.D.<\/a> and its programs was likely to succeed in the lawsuit. He agreed with the workers\u2019 contention that Mr. Musk\u2019s rapid assertion of power over executive agencies was likely in violation of the Constitution\u2019s appointments clause<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The judge also ordered that agency operations be partially restored, though that reprieve is likely to be temporary. He ordered<\/a> Mr. Musk\u2019s team to reinstate email access to all U.S.A.I.D. employees, including those on paid leave. He also ordered the team to submit a plan for employees to reoccupy a federal office from which they were evicted<\/a> last month, and he barred Mr. Musk\u2019s team from engaging in any further work \u201crelated to the shutdown of U.S.A.I.D.\u201d<\/p>\n

Given that most of the agency\u2019s work force and contracts were already terminated, it was not immediately clear what effect the judge\u2019s ruling would have. Only a skeleton crew of workers<\/a> is still employed by the agency.<\/p>\n

And while the order barred Mr. Musk from dealing with the agency personally, it suggested that he or others could continue to do so after receiving \u201cthe express authorization of a U.S.A.I.D. official with legal authority to take or approve the action.\u201d<\/p>\n

As early as Feb. 3, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said he had assumed control<\/a> of the agency and had directed a variety of cuts in his own authority. The judge noted that Mr. Rubio could declare his intent to permanently close the agency\u2019s headquarters within 14 days of his order, and the offices would remain closed.<\/p>\n

Last week, Mr. Rubio said in an announcement<\/a> on social media that he had canceled 83 percent of the agency\u2019s programs, and that the State Department would administer the roughly 1,000 grants and contracts remaining.<\/p>\n

\u201cThank you to DOGE and our hardworking staff who worked very long hours to achieve this overdue and historic reform,\u201d he wrote.<\/p>\n

Judge Chuang said that it appeared clear that Mr. Rubio had effectively surrendered control over the agency\u2019s operations<\/a> to Mr. Musk in a move that essentially resulted in the elimination of the agency.<\/p>\n

\u201cDefendants also likely lack congressional authorization to take even the primary specific steps toward abolition of U.S.A.I.D. already conducted,\u201d he wrote. \u201cIn relation to the most recent appropriation for U.S.A.I.D., Congress placed certain restrictions on any \u2018reorganization, redesign or other plan\u2019 relating to U.S.A.I.D., which consists of any actions to \u2018expand, eliminate, consolidate or downsize\u2019 the agency or its bureaus or offices.\u201d<\/p>\n

The finding that Mr. Musk had personally, and unlawfully, overseen the dismantling of the agency offered a firm rejection of his operation\u2019s authority. In the sternly worded order, Judge Chuang warned that any skirting of its requirements could result in him holding Mr. Musk or members of his team in contempt.<\/p>\n

\u201cToday\u2019s decision is an important victory against Elon Musk and his DOGE attack on U.S.A.I.D., the U.S. government and the Constitution,\u201d said Norm Eisen, executive chair of State Democracy Defenders Fund, a group representing the aid workers. \u201cThey are performing surgery with a chain saw instead of a scalpel, harming not just the people U.S.A.I.D. serves but the majority of Americans who count on the stability of our government. This case is a milestone in pushing back on Musk and DOGE\u2019s illegality.\u201d<\/p>\n

Lawyers representing the government had previously argued in that case that the Department of Government Efficiency, or the U.S. DOGE Service, was in fact not headed by Mr. Musk and that he and his associates were serving in an advisory capacity only. They said Mr. Musk had no authority to steer decisions on his own.<\/p>\n

But Judge Chuang appeared to dismiss those claims entirely, noting that Mr. Musk had targeted and celebrated actions to dramatically downsize U.S.A.I.D., including the firing of a vast majority of its workers and the cancellation of most of its contracts and grants.<\/p>\n

\u201cDOGE has taken numerous actions without any apparent advanced approval by agency leadership,\u201d the judge wrote, reeling off a list of examples at the Education Department, the National Institutes of Health and the Energy Department, where Mr. Musk\u2019s associates apparently recommended cuts on their own.<\/p>\n

The judge noted that Mr. Musk, during a cabinet meeting he attended at the White House last month, acknowledged that his team had accidentally slashed<\/a> funding for Ebola prevention administered by U.S.A.I.D. He also cited numerous instances in which Mr. Trump and Mr. Musk have both spoken publicly about their reliance on Mr. Musk\u2019s team to effectuate goals like eliminating billions in federal contracts.<\/p>\n

And he cited Mr. Musk\u2019s own comments on social media taking credit for the aid agency\u2019s dismantling. On X, the social media platform he owns, Mr. Musk wrote in February that it was time for U.S.A.I.D. to \u201cdie,\u201d that his team was in the process of shutting the agency down, and that he had \u201cspent the weekend feeding U.S.A.I.D. into the wood chipper.\u201d<\/p>\n

The judge also quoted Mr. Musk talking about the need to \u201cdelete entire agencies\u201d and pointed to a post Mr. Musk shared stating \u201cDOGE can now DISMANTLE U.S.A.I.D.\u201d after a judge lifted an order blocking the agency<\/a> from carrying out mass firings.<\/p>\n

\u201cTaken together, these facts support the conclusion that U.S.A.I.D. has effectively been eliminated,\u201d Judge Chuang wrote.<\/p>\n

\u201cBased on the present record, the only individuals known to be associated with the decisions to initiate a shutdown of U.S.A.I.D. by permanently closing U.S.A.I.D. headquarters and taking down its website are Musk and DOGE team members,\u201d he added.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Advertisement<\/p>\n

SKIP ADVERTISEMENT<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

\"Zach<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

A federal judge ordered the Education Dept. to restore some grants to schools.<\/a><\/h2>\n<\/p>\n
\n
\n
\n

Image<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>

Credit…<\/span>Michael A. McCoy for The New York Times<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n

A federal judge on Tuesday ordered the Education Department to restore some federal grants that were terminated as part of the Trump administration\u2019s purge of diversity, equity and inclusion programs.<\/p>\n

Judge Julie R. Rubin of the Federal District Court for the District of Maryland said in an opinion<\/a> that the department had acted arbitrarily and illegally when it slashed $600 million in grants that helped place teachers in underserved schools. The judge also ordered the administration to cease future cuts to those grants.<\/p>\n

\n

The grants fund programs that train and certify teachers to work in struggling districts that otherwise have trouble attracting talent. The programs cited goals that included training a diverse educational work force, and provided training in special education, among other areas.<\/p>\n

The department, led by Education Secretary Linda McMahon, argued that the grants trained teachers in \u201csocial justice activism\u201d and other \u201cdivisive ideologies\u201d and should be eliminated.<\/p>\n

A coalition of educator organizations sued to stop the Education Department from terminating the grants. The coalition included groups, such as the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education and the National Center for Teacher Residencies, whose members depend on the grants at issue.<\/p>\n

The judge found that the loss of the federal dollars would harm students and schools with the fewest resources.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe harms plaintiffs identify also implicate grave effect on the public: fewer teachers for students in high-need neighborhoods, early childhood education and special education programs,\u201d she wrote. \u201cMoreover, even to the extent defendants assert such an interest in ending D.E.I.-based programs, they have sought to effect change by means the court finds likely violate the law.\u201d<\/p>\n

In early February, schools involved in the programs received a letter from the Education Department notifying them that the grants had been canceled as part of the agency\u2019s initiative to \u201celiminate discrimination in all forms of education throughout the United States.\u201d<\/p>\n

The grants, made through the Supporting Effective Educator Development, or SEED, program and the Teacher Quality Partnership Program<\/a>, among others, are competitive for the states and school districts seeking the assistance. The grants also help states set up specialized college programs to train educators with the goal of placing them in schools where literacy rates or performance gaps are deemed key issues.<\/p>\n

For example, last year, Miami-Dade County received a nearly $10 million grant<\/a> to set up a partnership between Miami Dade College and Miami-Dade County Public Schools through which the college would help train 180 teachers to \u201cbreak the cycle of teacher shortages\u201d and help prepare future educators for work in high-need schools over five years.<\/p>\n

In another case last year, Sacred Heart University in Connecticut, where Ms. McMahon previously served on the board of trustees<\/a>, received nearly $3.5 million<\/a> to enroll around 20 teaching residents per year, who would team up with mentors and help staff local schools facing teacher shortages. The grant noted a focus on \u201cemphasizing outreach to recruit teachers of color.\u201d<\/p>\n

The preliminary injunction issued on Tuesday also covered the Teacher and School Leader Incentive Program, which provided performance-based financial incentives for teachers and principles who were able to close achievement gaps in high-need schools. It stopped short of a nationwide injunction, but required the department to reinstate the funding that was previously awarded to any members of the groups behind the lawsuit.<\/p>\n

Taken together, Congress had appropriated well over $200 million to fund the three programs in past years. The continuing resolution, passed last week<\/a>, provides less clarity than a full budget<\/a> on specific grant programs, giving the Education Department more discretion in how to spend congressionally appropriated funds.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

\"Theodore<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

Vance will lead G.O.P. fund-raising, an apparent first for a sitting vice president.<\/a><\/h2>\n<\/p>\n
\n
\n
\n

Image<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>

Vice President JD Vance has had significant relationships with some conservative donors, particularly in Silicon Valley.<\/span>Credit…<\/span>Haiyun Jiang for The New York Times<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n

Republicans named Vice President JD Vance on Tuesday to lead the party\u2019s fund-raising operation as it gears up for the 2026 midterm elections, a posting that could also help him position himself for the 2028 Republican presidential primary race.<\/p>\n

Mr. Vance will serve as the finance chair of the Republican National Committee, an unusual arrangement for a sitting vice president. In both national parties, the finance chair role has typically gone to a reliable party fund-raiser who has time on his or her hands, not someone with significant governing responsibilities.<\/p>\n

\n

The R.N.C. said that Mr. Vance would be the first sitting vice president to serve in that role. In a statement, President Trump praised Mr. Vance as someone who \u201cknows how to fight and win tough races\u201d and said he would do a \u201cfantastic job.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cTo fully enact the MAGA mandate and President Trump\u2019s vision that voters demanded, we must keep and grow our Republican majorities in 2026,\u201d Mr. Vance said in a statement. He pledged to \u201cbuild the war chest we need to deliver those victories next November.\u201d<\/p>\n

At this early juncture, Mr. Vance is widely considered one of the strongest contenders for the Republican presidential nomination in 2028. His new fund-raising role will give him a great deal of face time with the sort of heavyweight Republican donors who could bankroll a national campaign.<\/p>\n

Mr. Vance has had significant relationships with some conservative donors, particularly in Silicon Valley, including Peter Thiel, who was also at one point Mr. Vance\u2019s employer. But he has not always been universally embraced by the party\u2019s contributor class: Some G.O.P. donors have recoiled from some of his positions<\/a> on foreign affairs and trade.<\/p>\n

Still, Mr. Vance was a workhorse for Mr. Trump<\/a> on the fund-raising trail after he joined the national ticket, headlining many events in smaller cities that would not raise enough to be worth Mr. Trump\u2019s time as the presidential nominee.<\/p>\n

Mr. Trump has not wanted for cash since his victory. He has continued to raise money for his political committees and presidential library, including from business leaders eager to get on the good side of his administration<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Mr. Vance will take over as finance chairman from Duke Buchan III, an investment banker and early Trump backer who served as ambassador to Spain in the first Trump administration and was nominated this month to serve as ambassador to Morocco.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Advertisement<\/p>\n

SKIP ADVERTISEMENT<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n
\n

\"Alan<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

There has been another update on how a federal judge in Washington intends to handle the Trump administration\u2019s reluctance to provide key facts about two planes carrying suspected members of a Venezuelan street gang from the United States to El Salvador on Saturday. <\/p>\n

The judge, James E. Boasberg, ordered the Justice Department to send him a sealed declaration by tomorrow at noon detailing the times the planes took off, left U.S. airspace and landed.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

\"Alan<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

Judge Boasberg is trying to figure out if the immigrants were flown out of the United States after he issued his order stopping them. <\/p>\n

The Justice Department has repeatedly said that the flights left before a written version of the order was posted at 7:25 p.m. on Saturday night. But department lawyers have so far refused to give any additional details about the timing of the flights.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

\"Andrew<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

The Treasury secretary promoted two I.R.S. agents who said an investigation of Hunter Biden was stymied.<\/a><\/h2>\n<\/p>\n
\n
\n
\n

Image<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>

Gary Shapley, left, and Joseph Ziegler, testified about the Biden family before a House committee in 2023.<\/span>Credit…<\/span>Kenny Holston\/The New York Times<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n

The Treasury Department is elevating two Internal Revenue Service agents who claim that the investigation into Hunter Biden\u2019s taxes was soft-pedaled, an unusual promotion that will empower officials embroiled in a high-profile political battle with Democrats.<\/p>\n

Gary Shapley and Joseph Ziegler, two veteran I.R.S. agents, brought their concerns about the tax case against Hunter Biden to lawmakers on Capitol Hill. House Republicans later turned the two men into key witnesses in their unsuccessful attempt to impeach former President Joseph R. Biden Jr.<\/p>\n

\n

The I.R.S. officials accused the Justice Department of holding back on the Hunter Biden case, an allegation that prosecutors have denied. Mr. Shapley and Mr. Ziegler have also said that the I.R.S. retaliated against them for airing their concerns about Hunter Biden\u2019s tax case, including by taking them off the investigation.<\/p>\n

Hunter Biden pleaded guilty to nine federal tax charges<\/a> last year. The former president later pardoned his son.<\/p>\n

It was unclear exactly what positions Mr. Shapley and Mr. Ziegler will play within Treasury. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said in a statement announcing them as senior advisers that the two men will \u201cdrive much-needed cultural reform within the I.R.S.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cThese veteran civil servants join us to help further the agency\u2019s focus on collections, modernization, and customer service, so we can deliver a more effective and efficient I.R.S. experience for hardworking American taxpayers,\u201d Mr. Bessent said.<\/p>\n

The Trump administration has been undertaking an aggressive overhaul of the I.R.S., pushing to dramatically slash its staff and instead rely on automated technology to run the agency.<\/p>\n

Many top leaders at the typically apolitical agency have left or been demoted under President Trump, who has nominated Billy Long, a former Republican congressman with little background in taxes, to run the I.R.S.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

\"Karoun<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

Meet the judge whose order to stop deportation flights drew Trump\u2019s ire.<\/a><\/h2>\n<\/p>\n
\n
\n
\n

Image<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>

Judge James E. Boasberg ruled the Trump administration could not use an obscure wartime law to deport people without a hearing.<\/span>Credit…<\/span>Erin Schaff\/The New York Times<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n

As chief judge of the Federal District Court of the District of Columbia since 2023, Judge James E. Boasberg has been responsible for setting the tone of the court through some of its highest-profile dealings with President Trump, including overseeing the end of grand jury inquiries in both federal cases against Mr. Trump, the 2020 elections case and the president\u2019s handling of classified documents.<\/p>\n

But in the last several days, Judge Boasberg and his court have been drawn into a battle with the Trump administration over immigration enforcement that threatens, more than anything to date, to pitch the branches of government into a constitutional crisis.<\/p>\n

\n

Over the weekend, the Trump administration sent three planes carrying 238 migrants from Venezuela to El Salvador, even as Judge Boasberg ordered a halt to the deportations and to turn the planes around. Shortly before the migrants were expelled, Mr. Trump signed an executive order invoking the Alien Enemies Act, a law from 1798 that gives the president power to deport citizens and subjects of any foreign nation with which the United States is at war or which are in the process of an invasion. Mr. Trump\u2019s order<\/a> justified the deportations by accusing the migrants of being members of Tren de Aragua, a Venezuelan gang that he charged with \u201cconducting irregular warfare against the territory of the United States both directly and at the direction, clandestine or otherwise,\u201d of President Nicolas Maduro of Venezuela.<\/p>\n

On Monday, the threat of a showdown between the executive and the judicial branches appeared to grow, as Justice Department lawyers stonewalled<\/a> Judge Boasberg and tried to get him removed from the case, refusing to answer any of his questions about the deportation flights and claiming Mr. Trump had unfettered power to remove immigrants from the United States that could not be questioned by the courts. It worsened still after Mr. Trump called for Judge Boasberg\u2019s impeachment on his social media platform, Truth Social, and the Supreme Court\u2019s chief justice, John G. Roberts Jr., rebuked the idea<\/a> in a public statement.<\/p>\n

Here\u2019s more about Judge Boasberg, the jurist going toe-to-toe with the Trump administration.<\/p>\n