{"id":780,"date":"2025-03-21T08:53:46","date_gmt":"2025-03-21T08:53:46","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/wpinitiate.com\/echo-test\/demo973e36f5\/2025\/03\/21\/trump-signs-executive-order-ending-education-department-live-updates-the-new-york-times\/"},"modified":"2025-03-21T08:53:46","modified_gmt":"2025-03-21T08:53:46","slug":"trump-signs-executive-order-ending-education-department-live-updates-the-new-york-times","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/wpinitiate.com\/echo-test\/demo973e36f5\/2025\/03\/21\/trump-signs-executive-order-ending-education-department-live-updates-the-new-york-times\/","title":{"rendered":"Trump Signs Executive Order Ending Education Department: Live Updates – The New York Times"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
\n

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

Food banks are left in the lurch as some shipments are suspended.<\/a><\/h2>\n<\/p>\n
\n
\n
\n

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

Food banks across the country recently learned that the shipments they had expected to receive this spring through a federal program had been suspended. They were left with little time to identify new funds and supplies, and with no assurance that the aid would ever be restored.<\/span>Credit…<\/span>Sophie Park for The New York Times<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n

Food banks across the country are scrambling to make up a $500 million budget shortfall after the Trump administration froze funds for hundreds of shipments of produce, poultry and other items that states had planned to distribute to needy residents.<\/p>\n

The Biden administration had slated the aid<\/a> for distribution to food banks during the 2025 fiscal year through the Emergency Food Assistance Program, which is run by the Agriculture Department and backed by a federal fund known as the Commodity Credit Corporation. But in recent weeks, many food banks learned that the shipments they had expected to receive this spring had been suspended.<\/p>\n

\n

Vince Hall, chief of government relations for Feeding America, a nationwide network of over 60,000 food pantries and other distributors, said that when he asked U.S.D.A. officials about the suspended shipments, he was told that the department was reviewing the food aid programs funded through the Commodity Credit Corporation.<\/p>\n

It was unclear whether the review was related to the activities of Elon Musk\u2019s DOGE team, which has sought to curtail spending across the government.<\/p>\n

The halt to the funds, which was first reported by Politico,<\/a> comes in addition to other recent cuts to federal food assistance. Earlier this month, the Agriculture Department halted two other programs<\/a> that distributed food to banks and schools. Lawmakers are also mulling cuts<\/a> to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, better known as food stamps, which were used by about 42 million people in the 2023 fiscal year.<\/p>\n

Food bank directors fear that an across-the-board contraction to federal food assistance could drive more people to food banks just as they are losing access to critical supplementary funds.<\/p>\n

\u201cThis is perhaps the first moment in the history of food banking that we have seen record low unemployment and record high demand at food banks,\u201d Mr. Hall said. \u201cAny circumstance that would cause even a modest increase in demand at food distributions will result in a food crisis.\u201d<\/p>\n

Representatives of the Agriculture Department did not respond to requests for comment.<\/p>\n

Mr. Hall said that Feeding America had struggled to get clear guidance from U.S.D.A. about how long the review will take, and whether the funds would ever be restored. Food banks have been left with little time to identify new funds and supplies, and with no assurance that the aid would ever be restored.<\/p>\n

In the meantime, Mr. Hall added, rural communities would most likely feel the deepest immediate impact. Emergency food assistance programs, including those funded through the Commodity Credit Corporation, are \u201cthe food lifeline for rural America,\u201d he explained, because they come with funding to improve food storage and distribution, which can be more challenging in rural areas.<\/p>\n

The direct impact to communities across the country is likely to vary by state.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt\u2019s really hard to make up that volume that C.C.C. had been providing, especially at a time when the need is so great,\u201d said Danny Faccinetti, vice president of Oregon Food Bank, which is expecting to lose access to 30 truckloads of food under the freeze.<\/p>\n

Oregon\u2019s food banks reported a 31 percent increase in use of their services in the 2024 fiscal year, which ended in June, compared with the year before. In late 2024, the funds in question made up 18 percent of all food aid they had distributed.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt\u2019s going to be a really, really big hit for certain areas,\u201d Mr. Faccinetti continued, adding: \u201cWe\u2019re already maximizing some of the donations that were available to us, so it would be difficult to make that up.\u201d<\/p>\n

In Maryland, food bank officials were notified that the U.S.D.A.\u2019s freeze would deprive them of 12 truckloads of items like chicken, eggs, collard greens and blueberries. They are expecting to have four additional shipments frozen as well, for a total of almost $1.3 million in lost goods. But they seem relatively certain they will be able to weather the immediate impact of that cut without having to shortchange the approximately one million people who rely on their distribution centers.<\/p>\n

In nearby Virginia, however, Eddie Oliver, the executive director of the Federation of Virginia Food Banks, said one food bank lost a scheduled shipment of seven loads of food, accounting for about a third of what the food bank was expecting this year through the Emergency Food Assistance Program.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt\u2019s going to be hard for us to replace that,\u201d he said, noting the current economic climate. \u201cCollectively, Virginia food banks are spending five times more money on food than we did in 2019, both because of higher food prices and greater demand at our pantries.\u201d<\/p>\n

Cynthia D. Kirkhart, the chief executive of Facing Hunger food bank, which manages about 250 pantries in West Virginia, put the losses her state is facing in more quantifiable terms.<\/p>\n

\u201cOne thousand fifty cases of cheese; boned chicken by the can, 600 cases; fresh milk, 1,200 cases \u2014 all that stuff\u2019s not coming,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n

In New Mexico, food bank officials are also doing some fast calculations in order to weather the unexpected suspension of federal assistance.<\/p>\n

Food bank administrators there are bracing for missing 24 truckloads of food, including milk, cheese, cranberries and meats, that they had expected to receive between April and June. Officials are contemplating canceling contracts for future food purchases in order to free up funds needed immediately, according to Sonya Warwick, the communications director for Roadrunner Food Bank, part of the Feeding America network.<\/p>\n

New Mexico\u2019s network of food pantries includes several rural areas that are experiencing significant food insecurity, Ms. Warwick said, citing places like McKinley County, which includes tribal land and has a large Native American population, and where more than 30 percent of children are at risk of hunger.<\/p>\n

While the state has allocated some extra funds for food aid, it is not enough to meet the growing need amid dwindling resources, Ms. Warwick added.<\/p>\n

\u201cNone of us have crystal balls, but what we can do is encourage the community to get involved and get engaged,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n

If they cannot find resources through private donors, some food banks worry that they may need to cut back on the assistance they can offer the needy.<\/p>\n

\u201cEssentially, we had anticipated receiving many truckloads of U.S.D.A. food over the next few months,\u201d said Cathy Kanefsky, the president and chief executive officer of the Food Bank of Delaware.<\/p>\n

\u201cNow it\u2019s uncertain whether we will receive this food, meaning less meals we can provide to our neighbors,\u201d she said, adding: \u201cThe effect on our neighbors could be devastating.\u201d<\/p>\n

Campbell Robertson, Chris Cameron and Linda Qiu contributed reporting from Washington.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Advertisement<\/p>\n

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

\n
\n

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

Long-standing tensions<\/a> between the United States and Mexico over water-sharing rights have escalated, after the State Department said that the U.S. would for the first time reject a special request from Mexico for water. The countries share water from the Colorado and Rio Grande Rivers through a treaty. The State Department said in a statement that it denied the request because of \u201cMexico\u2019s continued shortfalls in its water deliveries\u201d under its treaty obligations.<\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n

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

Credit…<\/span>Daniel Berehulak for The New York Times<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n

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

The Pentagon set up a briefing for Musk on plans for a potential war with China.<\/a><\/h2>\n<\/p>\n
\n
\n
\n

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

President Trump with Elon Musk and Mr. Musk\u2019s son X, at the White House this month. It is unclear what the reasoning is for providing Mr. Musk such a sensitive briefing.<\/span>Credit…<\/span>Doug Mills\/The New York Times<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n

The Pentagon was scheduled on Friday to brief Elon Musk on the U.S. military\u2019s plan for any war that might break out with China, two U.S. officials said on Thursday.<\/p>\n

Another official said the briefing would be China focused, without providing additional details. A fourth official confirmed Mr. Musk was to be at the Pentagon on Friday, but offered no details.<\/p>\n

\n

Hours after news of the planned meeting was published by The New York Times, Pentagon officials and President Trump denied that the session would be about military plans involving China. \u201cChina will not even be mentioned or discussed,\u201d Mr. Trump said in a late-night social media post.<\/p>\n

It was not clear if the briefing for Mr. Musk would go ahead as originally planned. But providing Mr. Musk access to some of the nation\u2019s most closely guarded military secrets would be a dramatic expansion of his already extensive role as an adviser to Mr. Trump and leader of his effort to slash spending and purge the government of people and policies they oppose.<\/p>\n

It would also bring into sharp relief the questions about Mr. Musk\u2019s conflicts of interest as he ranges widely across the federal bureaucracy while continuing to run businesses that are major government contractors. In this case, Mr. Musk, the billionaire chief executive of both SpaceX and Tesla, is a leading supplier to the Pentagon and has extensive financial interests in China.<\/p>\n

Pentagon war plans, known in military jargon as O-plans or operational plans, are among the military\u2019s most closely guarded secrets. If a foreign country were to learn how the United States planned to fight a war against them, it could reinforce its defenses and address its weaknesses, making the plans far less likely to succeed.<\/p>\n

The top-secret briefing that exists for the China war plan has about 20 to 30 slides that lay out how the United States would fight such a conflict. It covers the plan beginning with the indications and warning of a threat from China to various options on what Chinese targets to hit, over what time period, that would be presented to Mr. Trump for decisions, according to officials with knowledge of the plan.<\/p>\n

A White House spokesman did not respond to an email seeking comment about the purpose of the visit, how it came about, whether Mr. Trump was aware of it, and whether the visit raises questions of conflicts of interest. The White House has not said whether Mr. Trump signed a conflicts of interest waiver for Mr. Musk.<\/p>\n

The chief Pentagon spokesman, Sean Parnell, initially did not respond to a similar email seeking comment about why Mr. Musk was to receive a briefing on the China war plan. Soon after The Times published this article on Thursday evening, Mr. Parnell gave a short statement: \u201cThe Defense Department is excited to welcome Elon Musk to the Pentagon on Friday. He was invited by Secretary Hegseth and is just visiting.\u201d<\/p>\n

About an hour later, Mr. Parnell posted a message<\/a> on his X account: \u201cThis is 100% Fake News. Just brazenly & maliciously wrong. Elon Musk is a patriot. We are proud to have him at the Pentagon.\u201d<\/p>\n

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth also commented on X<\/a> late on Thursday, saying: \u201cThis is NOT a meeting about \u2018top secret China war plans.\u2019 It\u2019s an informal meeting about innovation, efficiencies & smarter production. Gonna be great!\u201d<\/p>\n

Roughly 30 minutes after that social media post, The Wall Street Journal confirmed<\/a> that Mr. Musk had been scheduled to be briefed on the war planning for China.<\/p>\n

Whatever the meeting will now be about, the planning reflected the extraordinary dual role played by Mr. Musk, who is both the world\u2019s wealthiest man and has been given broad authority by Mr. Trump.<\/p>\n

Mr. Musk has a security clearance, and Mr. Hegseth can determine who has a need to know about the plan. <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n

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

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has already received part of the China war plan and is expected to present the information to Mr. Musk alongside top U.S. government and military officials.<\/span>Credit…<\/span>Kenny Holston\/The New York Times<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n

Mr. Hegseth; Adm. Christopher W. Grady, the acting chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; and Adm. Samuel J. Paparo, the head of the military\u2019s Indo-Pacific Command, were set to present Mr. Musk with details on the U.S. plan to counter China in the event of military conflict between the two countries, the officials said.<\/p>\n

The meeting had been set to be held not in Mr. Hegseth\u2019s office \u2014 where an informal discussion about innovation would most likely take place \u2014 but in the Tank, a secure conference room in the Pentagon, typically used for high-level meetings of members of the Joint Chiefs, their senior staff and visiting combatant commanders.<\/p>\n

Operational plans for major contingencies, like a war with China, are extremely difficult for people without extensive military planning experience to understand. The technical nature is why presidents are typically presented with the broad contours of a plan, rather than the actual details of documents. How many details Mr. Musk had wanted or expected to hear was unclear.<\/p>\n

Mr. Hegseth received part of the China war plan briefing last week and another part on Wednesday, according to officials familiar with the plan.<\/p>\n

It was unclear what the impetus was for providing Mr. Musk such a sensitive briefing. He is not in the military chain of command, nor is he an official adviser to Mr. Trump on military matters involving China.<\/p>\n

But there is a possible reason Mr. Musk might have needed to know aspects of the war plan. If Mr. Musk and his team of cost cutters from the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, want to trim the Pentagon budget in a responsible way, they may need to know what weapons systems the Pentagon plans to use in a fight with China.<\/p>\n

Take aircraft carriers, for example. Cutting back on future aircraft carriers would save billions of dollars, money that could be spent on drones or other weaponry. But if the U.S. war strategy relies on using aircraft carriers in innovative ways that would surprise China, mothballing existing ships or stopping production on future ships could cripple that plan.<\/p>\n

Planning for a war with China has dominated Pentagon thinking for decades, well before a possible confrontation with Beijing became more conventional wisdom on Capitol Hill. The United States has built its Air Forces, Navy and Space Forces \u2014 and even more recently its Marines and Army forces \u2014 with a possible fight against China in mind.<\/p>\n

Critics have said the military has invested too much in big expensive systems like fighter jets or aircraft carriers and too little in midrange drones and coastal defenses. But for Mr. Musk to evaluate how to reorient Pentagon spending, he would want to know what the military intends to use and for what purpose.<\/p>\n

Mr. Musk has already called for the Pentagon to stop buying certain high-priced items like F-35 fighter jets<\/a>, manufactured by one of his space-launch competitors, Lockheed Martin, in a program that costs the Pentagon more than $12 billion<\/a> a year.<\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n

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

Mr. Musk\u2019s company SpaceX has become so valuable to the Pentagon that the Chinese government has suggested that it might target SpaceX assets if a war with China were to break out.<\/span>Credit…<\/span>Valerie Plesch for The New York Times<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n

Yet Mr. Musk\u2019s extensive business interests make any access to strategic secrets about China a serious problem in the view of ethics experts. Officials have said revisions to the war plans against China have focused on upgrading the plans for defending against space warfare. China has developed a suite of weapons that can attack U.S. satellites.<\/p>\n

Mr. Musk\u2019s constellations of low-earth orbit Starlink satellites, which provide data and communications services from space, are considered more resilient than traditional satellites. But he could have an interest in learning about whether or not the United States could defend his satellites in a war with China.<\/p>\n

Participating in a classified briefing on the China threat with some of the most senior Pentagon and U.S. military officials would be a tremendously valuable opportunity for any defense contractor seeking to sell services to the military.<\/p>\n

Mr. Musk could gain insight into new tools that the Pentagon might need and that SpaceX, where he remains the chief executive, could sell.<\/p>\n

Contractors working on relevant Pentagon projects generally do have access to certain limited war planning documents, but only once war plans are approved, said Todd Harrison, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, where he focuses on defense strategy. Individual executives rarely if ever get exclusive access to top Pentagon officials for such a sensitive briefing, Mr. Harrison said.<\/p>\n

\u201cMusk at a war-planning briefing?\u201d he said. \u201cGiving the CEO of one defense company unique access seems like this could be grounds for a contract protest and is a real conflict of interest.\u201d<\/p>\n

Mr. Musk\u2019s SpaceX is already being paid billions of dollars by the Pentagon and federal spy agencies to help the United States build new military satellite networks to try to confront rising military threats from China. SpaceX launches most of these military satellites for the Pentagon on its Falcon 9 rockets, which take off from launchpads SpaceX has set up at military bases in Florida and California.<\/p>\n

The company separately has been paid hundreds of millions of dollars by the Pentagon that now relies heavily on SpaceX\u2019s Starlink satellite communications network for military personnel to transmit data worldwide.<\/p>\n

In 2024, SpaceX was granted about $1.6 billion in Air Force contracts. That does not include classified spending with SpaceX by the National Reconnaissance Office, which has hired the company to build it a new constellation of low-earth orbit satellites to spy on China, Russia and other threats.<\/p>\n

Mr. Trump has already proposed that the United States build a new system the military is calling Golden Dome<\/a>, a space-based missile defense system that recalls what President Ronald Reagan tried to deliver. (The so-called Star Wars system Mr. Reagan had in mind was never fully developed.)<\/p>\n

Perceived missile threats from China \u2014 be it nuclear weapons or hypersonic missiles or cruise missiles \u2014 are a major factor that led Mr. Trump to sign an executive order recently instructing the Pentagon to start work on Golden Dome.<\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n

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

The site of SpaceX Starbase in Boca Chica, Texas. The Pentagon briefing could help Elon Musk gain insight into new tools that the Pentagon might need and that SpaceX, where he remains the chief executive, could sell.<\/span>Credit…<\/span>Callaghan O’Hare for The New York Times<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n

Even starting to plan and build the first components of the system will cost tens of billions of dollars, according to Pentagon officials, and most likely create large business opportunities for SpaceX, which already provides rocket launches, satellite structures, and space-based data communications systems, all of which will be required for Golden Dome.<\/p>\n

Separately, Mr. Musk has been the focus of an investigation by the Pentagon\u2019s inspector general over questions about his compliance with his top-secret security clearance.<\/p>\n

The investigations<\/a> started last year after some SpaceX employees complained to government agencies that Mr. Musk and others at SpaceX were not properly reporting contacts or conversations with foreign leaders.<\/p>\n

Air Force officials, before the end of the Biden administration, started their own review, after Senate Democrats asked questions<\/a> about Mr. Musk and asserted that he was not complying with security clearance requirements.<\/p>\n

The Air Force, in fact, had denied a request by Mr. Musk for an even higher level of security clearance, known as Special Access Program, which is reserved for extremely sensitive classified programs, citing potential security risks associated with the billionaire.<\/p>\n

In fact, SpaceX has become so valuable to the Pentagon that the Chinese government has said it considers the company to be an extension of the U.S. military.<\/p>\n

\u201cStarlink Militarization and Its Impact on Global Strategic Stability\u201d was the headline of one publication<\/a> released last year from China\u2019s National University of Defense Technology, according to a translation of the paper prepared by the Center for Strategic and International Studies.<\/p>\n

Mr. Musk and Tesla, an electric vehicle company he controls, are heavily reliant on China, which houses one of the auto maker\u2019s flagship factories in Shanghai. Unveiled in 2019, the state-of-the-art facility was built with special permission<\/a> from the Chinese government, and now accounts for more than half of Tesla\u2019s global deliveries. Last year, the company said in financial filings<\/a> that it had a $2.8 billion loan agreement with lenders in China for production expenditures.<\/p>\n

In public, Mr. Musk has avoided criticizing Beijing and signaled his willingness to work with the Chinese Communist Party. In 2022, he wrote a column<\/a> for the magazine of the Cyberspace Administration of China, the country\u2019s censorship agency, trumpeting his companies and their missions of improving humanity.<\/p>\n

That same year, the billionaire told The Financial Times<\/a> that China should be given some control over Taiwan by making a \u201cspecial administrative zone for Taiwan that is reasonably palatable,\u201d an assertion that angered politicians of the independent island. In that same interview, he also noted that Beijing sought assurances that he would not sell Starlink in China.<\/p>\n

The following year at a tech conference<\/a>, Mr. Musk called the democratic island \u201can integral part of China that is arbitrarily not part of China,\u201d and compared the Taiwan-China situation to Hawaii and the United States.<\/p>\n

On X, the social platform he owns, Mr. Musk has long used his account to praise China. He has said the country is \u201cby far\u201d the world leader<\/a> in electric vehicles and solar power, and has commended<\/a> its space program for being \u201cfar more advanced than people realize.\u201d He has encouraged<\/a> more people to visit the country, and posited<\/a> openly about an \u201cinevitable\u201d Russia-China alliance.<\/p>\n

Aaron Kessler contributed reporting.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Advertisement<\/p>\n

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

\n
\n

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

President Trump has issued an executive order<\/a> invoking a Cold War-era law to increase U.S. mineral production. The law, the Defense Production Act of 1950, could help finance American production efforts and reduce the nation\u2019s reliance on China for critical minerals, which are needed for electric vehicles and other technologies. President Joseph R. Biden Jr. invoked the law<\/a> in 2022 with the same aim.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n
\n

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

Linda McMahon, the education secretary who has been tasked with dismantling her own department, said in an interview on Fox News that she would work to persuade lawmakers to sign off on President Trump\u2019s plan, knowing that the agency can only be eliminated with approval of Congress.<\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n

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

Credit…<\/span>Haiyun Jiang for The New York Times<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n

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

Speaking to reporters at the White House, McMahon also said that many details of the planned shutdown had not been finalized. For example, it is unclear what would happen to the Office for Civil Rights, which investigates allegations of racial discrimination and antisemitism. Recent mass firings at the Department of Education had already gutted the Office of Civil Rights<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe executive order did not specify what happens with any of the departments within Education,\u201d McMahon said. \u201cSo we are looking at where best those those departments can be located.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

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

President Trump has escalated his attack on the judiciary in a pair of social media posts Thursday evening. After already calling for the impeachment of Judge James E. Boasberg, who has ordered the administration to provide him with flight data<\/a> regarding the deportation of Venezuelans to El Salvador, Trump said the judge was \u201cdoing everything in his power to usurp the presidency.\u201d Another post called out Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., who put out a rare statement this week<\/a> that condemned the impeachment of judges.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

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

In the latest twist in the battle over New York City\u2019s congestion pricing<\/a>, with less than 24 hours to go before the Trump administration\u2019s deadline for ending the tolling program the transportation secretary has given the state another 30 days. Gov. Kathy Hochul of New York and the Metropolitan Transportation Authority have vowed to keep collecting the tolls until a court orders them to stop.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Advertisement<\/p>\n

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

\n
\n

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

A big law firm reached a deal with Trump over an executive order.<\/a><\/h2>\n<\/p>\n
\n
\n
\n

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

Brad Karp, head of the law firm Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, recently met with President Trump at the White House to discuss a resolution.<\/span>Credit…<\/span>New York Times photographs by Carly Zavala and Eric Lee<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n

President Trump and the head of the law firm Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP have reached a deal under which Mr. Trump will drop the executive order he leveled against the firm, Mr. Trump said on Thursday.<\/p>\n

In the deal, Mr. Trump said, the firm agreed to a series of commitments, including to represent clients no matter their political affiliation and contribute $40 million in legal services to causes Mr. Trump has championed, including \u201cthe President\u2019s Task Force to Combat Antisemitism, and other mutually agreed projects.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n

It\u2019s unclear how the money will be used to help the task force. The firm, Mr. Trump said, also agreed to conduct an audit to ensure its hiring practices are merit based \u201cand will not adopt, use, or pursue any DEI policies.\u201d<\/p>\n

The deal materialized after the head of the firm, Brad Karp, went to the White House this week and had a face-to-face meeting with Mr. Trump to discuss a resolution. Members of the legal profession said in interviews that they were surprised by the deal, as it appears as if the firm \u2014 which is dominated by Democrats and has long prided itself in being at the forefront of the fight against the government for civil rights \u2014 was capitulating to Mr. Trump over an executive order that is likely illegal.<\/p>\n

The agreement is a significant development in the retribution campaign<\/a> Mr. Trump has opened against several top law firms that he sees as having supported efforts to help his opponents or unfairly prosecute him. And it is the latest demonstration of how Mr. Trump has used his power<\/a> to extract concessions or public signs of support for his agenda from corporate leaders, news organizations and others since his election victory in November.<\/p>\n

The White House said that Mr. Karp had acknowledged \u201cwrongdoing\u201d by one of the firm\u2019s former partners, Mark F. Pomerantz. Mr. Pomerantz had tried to build a criminal case against Mr. Trump several years ago while working at the Manhattan district attorney\u2019s office. It was not clear what wrongdoing Mr. Trump was referring to.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe president is agreeing to this action in light of a meeting with Paul, Weiss Chairman, Brad Karp, during which Mr. Karp acknowledged the wrongdoing of former Paul, Weiss partner, Mark Pomerantz, the grave dangers of Weaponization, and the vital need to restore our System of Justice.\u201d<\/p>\n

In a statement, Mr. Pomerantz denied he had done anything wrong.<\/p>\n

\u201cI engaged in no wrongdoing by working as a prosecutor to uphold the rule of law,\u201d Mr. Pomerantz said on Thursday evening.<\/p>\n

Along with Mr. Pomerantz\u2019s status as a former partner, the firm represented him as recently as 2023 in connection with efforts by congressional Republicans to question him as they sought to undermine charges brought against Mr. Trump by prosecutors in Manhattan.<\/p>\n

Thursday\u2019s deal applies only to the executive order against Paul, Weiss. It\u2019s not clear what effect, if any, it will have on the orders targeting other firms or whether it will lead Mr. Trump to back off his stated intention to go after more of them.<\/p>\n

Among the many accusations Mr. Trump and his allies have leveled at big law firms, like Paul, Weiss, is that they refused to represent conservative defendants like Mr. Trump because of their politics. In the meeting, Mr. Karp said that his firm \u2014 which has done legal work for Trump allies like Rupert Murdoch\u2019s Fox \u2014 would represent clients no matter their political affiliations.<\/p>\n

The firm has long prided itself on breaking barriers and standing up to the government on issues like civil rights. Its website trumpets how it was the first major New York City firm to have Jewish lawyers working alongside Gentiles, to hire a Black associate and to have a female partner.<\/p>\n

Throughout the legal community, the firm is well known for having a stable of Democratic-leaning partners and has prominent former Obama administration officials in its ranks. Mr. Karp helped host a \u201cLawyers for Biden\u201d fund-raiser for President Joseph R. Biden Jr.\u2019s re-election campaign in 2023 and one of its top lawyers oversaw then-Vice President Kamala Harris\u2019s preparation for her debates with Mr. Trump.<\/p>\n

As part of the agreement, the firm committed to working with the Trump administration on helping veterans, combating antisemitism, and on fairness in the justice system. In a statement posted on social media by Mr. Trump, Mr. Karp said he is looking forward \u201cto an engaged and constructive relationship with the president and his administration.\u201d<\/p>\n

The deal on Thursday follows a series of moves by companies that found themselves at odds with Mr. Trump.<\/p>\n

This year, Meta, the parent company of Facebook, agreed to pay<\/a> $25 million to settle a lawsuit Mr. Trump filed in 2021 over the suspension of his Facebook and Instagram accounts after the Jan. 6 riot at the Capitol. In that case, most of the money went to Mr. Trump\u2019s future presidential library.<\/p>\n

ABC News agreed<\/a> in December to to pay $15 million to settle a defamation lawsuit Mr. Trump brought, with the money also going to his presidential library fund.<\/p>\n

Mr. Trump\u2019s executive orders targeting top law firms introduced a new element to his retribution campaign. They have raised deep concerns among legal experts and threatened to pose serious financial problems for the firms, creating a chilling effect that has deterred them from taking on clients at odds with the Trump administration.<\/p>\n

The first order targeted Covington & Burling, a large firm that had done legal work for Jack Smith, who as special counsel during the Biden administration had brought two federal indictments against Mr. Trump.<\/p>\n

Last week, a federal judge in Washington ruled that a subsequent executive order Mr. Trump signed targeting the law firm Perkins Coie, which is also aligned with Democrats, was likely unconstitutional and issued a restraining order halting it.<\/p>\n

But two days later, Mr. Trump signed a nearly identical executive order against Paul, Weiss. Mr. Trump said he was taking the action to punish the firm for its ties to a lawyer who had pushed for him to be indicted and another who had brought a lawsuit against Jan. 6 rioters. The order barred the firm\u2019s lawyers from dealing with the federal government and raised the possibility that its clients would lose their government contracts.<\/p>\n

Over the weekend, the leaders of the top law firms in New York and Washington were in constant contact as they tried to figure out how to respond. A range of possibilities were discussed. Amid those discussions, Paul, Weiss reached out to Bill Burck, the co-managing partner of the firm Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, to represent it.<\/p>\n

Quinn Emanuel, one of the few large law firms that has done work for Mr. Trump\u2019s company and top officials in his administration, prepared to represent Paul, Weiss in bringing a suit against the president. At the same time, Mr. Burck engaged in discussions with the White House to potentially broker a deal between Mr. Karp and Mr. Trump. On Wednesday, Mr. Karp and Mr. Trump met in the Oval Office to discuss the framework for an agreement.<\/p>\n

In the day that followed, White House aides and Mr. Karp finalized the terms of the agreement.<\/p>\n

According to two people familiar with the matter, the White House and Mr. Karp had reached an agreement on the wording of the statement. But despite that agreement, the wording of the statement changed, including a reference to the fact that the firm would \u201cnot adopt, use, or pursue any DEI policies.\u201d<\/p>\n

A spokesperson for Paul, Weiss did not respond to a message seeking comment on how the statement changed and Mr. Trump\u2019s statement about how Mr. Karp had criticized Mr. Pomerantz.<\/p>\n

Jonah E. Bromwich contributed reporting from New York.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

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

White House says test scores haven\u2019t improved since 1979. That\u2019s not true.<\/a><\/h2>\n<\/p>\n
\n
\n
\n

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

The president said he wanted the American school system to be like successful systems abroad.<\/span>Credit…<\/span>Philip Cheung for The New York Times<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n

The Trump administration\u2019s plan to eliminate the U.S. Department of Education is based in part on claims that student outcomes have not improved since the department was founded more than 40 years ago.<\/p>\n

Despite increases in student spending since 1979, \u201cthere has been virtually no measurable improvement in student achievement,\u201d the administration said in a posting on the White House website<\/a> on Thursday.<\/p>\n

\n

This claim is far from true.<\/p>\n

While it is true that reading scores for 13-year-olds are about the same as they were in the 1970s and math scores are only slightly better, this is because of recent, sharp declines<\/a> that accelerated during the pandemic.<\/p>\n

For most of the last half-century, American student achievement had been steadily climbing. This is best seen in long-term national data testing of 9-year-olds and 13-year-olds<\/a>, which tracks performance over time.<\/p>\n

From the 1970s to the early 2010s, students made particularly strong progress in math, which many experts believe is more influenced by what happens at school. Reading, which can be more influenced by students\u2019 home lives, saw smaller gains.<\/p>\n

By 2012, the share of 13-year-olds who could do complex math problems had nearly doubled<\/a> to 34 percent, up from 18 percent in 1978. Students at this level can find averages, compute with fractions and solve the area of a rectangle.<\/p>\n

There are a number of factors that experts say helped boost student achievement during this time frame, including the racial integration of public schools,<\/a> which peaked in 1988. During the 2000s, a push for school accountability during the No Child Left Behind era also coincided with a rise in test scores.<\/p>\n

The White House release also noted that school spending has also increased<\/a> significantly. (Only about 10 percent of funding for K-12 schools comes from the federal government.)<\/p>\n

There are intense debates about whether spending more money on schools helps achievement. But a wide body of research has shown that increases in money spent per pupil is associated with test score gains<\/a> and increases in going to college. It matters how money is spent, however. Investments in low-income students and teacher quality are associated with greater improvements<\/a>.<\/p>\n

In arguing that education reform is needed, President Trump pointed out that United States is not a top performer internationally. This is true.<\/p>\n

The United States routinely underperforms peer countries in math<\/a>, though it does slightly better in reading<\/a>.<\/p>\n

While there are many reasons for that, one problem is the wide variety in both funding<\/a> and outcomes<\/a> seen across different states and districts. <\/p>\n

Mr. Trump\u2019s vision would further empower states, which could lead to even more variation. On Thursday, he vowed that states like Texas, Florida and Iowa would have \u201ceducation that will be as good as Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, those top countries,\u201d while other states, he said, would be \u201claggards\u201d that his administration would seek to help. <\/span><\/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 judge bars Social Security officials from giving DOGE unredacted data.<\/a><\/h2>\n<\/p>\n
\n
\n
\n

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

Elon Musk at the Capitol.<\/span>Credit…<\/span>Haiyun Jiang for The New York Times<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n

A federal judge on Thursday issued a temporary restraining order barring the Social Security Administration from granting Elon Musk and members of his Department of Government Efficiency access to sensitive records stored in the agency\u2019s systems, or from holding onto sensitive data they had already taken.<\/p>\n

The order<\/a>, issued by Judge Ellen L. Hollander of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, was the latest ruling aimed at preventing Mr. Musk\u2019s team from sifting through an agency\u2019s databases because of privacy concerns.<\/p>\n

\n

While Judge Hollander blocked Social Security\u2019s top officials \u2014 Leland Dudek and Michael Russo<\/a> \u2014 and the agency\u2019s employees from granting Mr. Musk\u2019s team of engineers entry to their systems, her order focused only on documents, such as tax records, that would allow Mr. Musk\u2019s team to analyze people at an individual level. The order stated that the agency could provide Mr. Musk\u2019s team with redacted or anonymized data that facilitated broader analysis without running afoul of federal privacy laws.<\/p>\n

In other lawsuits challenging Mr. Musk\u2019s aggressive incursions into the Treasury and Education Departments, judges have issued similar orders barring officials there from handing over sensitive data. As President Trump has escalated efforts to deport students and other foreign nationals, including some with valid visas, lawyers have argued that agencies\u2019 data systems could be used to aid a broader immigration crackdown.<\/p>\n

In sworn statements<\/a>, Treasury officials have insisted that they have not given sensitive tax data stored in their systems to the Department of Homeland Security.<\/p>\n

As in other cases, lawyers for the government had argued that the risks of data being improperly disclosed were still speculative, since the groups that filed the suits had not shown clear evidence that Mr. Musk\u2019s team\u2019s access to Social Security data had led to identity theft or political retaliation. The lawyers also argued that letting Mr. Musk\u2019s team audit the agency\u2019s books did not amount to an unlawful \u201cdisclosure,\u201d such as a leak that could result in identity theft.<\/p>\n

But Judge Hollander said in a 137-page opinion<\/a> accompanying the order that the intrusion into Social Security data was concerning enough to justify the two-week restraining order while the lawsuit continued. She said that retirees, when submitting their bank information and other financial data to the agency to receive common benefits, had a reasonable expectation that their records would not be used to inform a governmentwide effort to slash spending.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe unrestricted access to PII that SSA provided to the DOGE Team, without specified need, and\/or without adequate training, detail agreements, and\/or background investigations of all DOGE Team members,\u201d she wrote, using abbreviations for personally identifiable information and the Social Security Administration, \u201cwould be highly offensive to an objectively reasonable person.\u201d<\/p>\n

She added: \u201cThe expectation of privacy shared by plaintiffs\u2019 members is objectively reasonable. It is almost self-evident that, in our society, PII, such as SSNs, medical information, and certain financial records, are regarded as private, sensitive, and confidential information.\u201d<\/p>\n

Judge Hollander\u2019s order came roughly a month after a coalition of labor unions sued to stop Mr. Musk, who has called Social Security a Ponzi scheme, from targeting the agency\u2019s data. Mr. Musk has also backed cuts to the agency\u2019s call centers<\/a>, and other changes that critics have warned could make customer support less accessible, and even make it easier for fraudsters to impersonate Social Security beneficiaries.<\/p>\n

The order will expire in 14 days. Judge Hollander asked both sides to file motions by March 27 so she can schedule the next steps, such as extending the injunction that would keep Mr. Musk\u2019s team barred from accessing the databases.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

\"Charlie<\/a>\"Julian<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

In deportations, Trump tied a gang to Venezuela\u2019s government. Intelligence contradicts him.<\/a><\/h2>\n<\/p>\n
\n
\n
\n

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

The Trump administration declared that the gang had been invading the United States at the direction of the Venezuelan administration under President Nicol\u00e1s Maduro. A U.S. intelligence assessment concluded the gang was not controlled by or acting on the orders of Venezuela\u2019s government.<\/span>Credit…<\/span>The New York Times<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n

President Trump\u2019s assertion that a gang is committing crimes in the United States at the direction of Venezuela\u2019s government was critical to his invocation of a wartime law last week<\/a> to summarily deport people whom officials suspected of belonging to that group.<\/p>\n

But American intelligence agencies circulated findings last month that stand starkly at odds with Mr. Trump\u2019s claims, according to officials familiar with the matter. The document, dated Feb. 26, summarized the shared judgment of the nation\u2019s spy agencies that the gang was not controlled by the Venezuelan government. <\/p>\n

\n

The disclosure calls into question the credibility of Mr. Trump\u2019s basis for invoking a rarely used wartime law, the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, to transfer a group of Venezuelans to a high-security prison in El Salvador<\/a> last weekend, with no due process.<\/p>\n

The intelligence community assessment concluded that the gang, Tren de Aragua, was not directed by Venezuela\u2019s government or committing crimes in the United States on its orders, according to the officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.<\/p>\n

Analysts put that conclusion at a \u201cmoderate\u201d confidence level, the officials said, because of a limited volume of available reporting about the gang. Most of the intelligence community, including the C.I.A. and the National Security Agency, agreed with that assessment.<\/p>\n

Only one agency, the F.B.I., partly dissented. It maintained the gang has a connection to the administration of Venezuela\u2019s authoritarian president, Nicol\u00e1s Maduro, based on information the other agencies did not find credible.<\/p>\n

\u201cMultiple intelligence assessments are prepared on issues for a variety of reasons,\u201d the White House said in a statement. \u201cThe president was well within his legal and constitutional authority to invoke the Alien Enemies Act to expel illegal foreign terrorists from our country.\u201d<\/p>\n

A spokesman for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence declined to comment.<\/p>\n

Mr. Trump\u2019s extraordinary use of wartime powers to advance his immigration crackdown has edged the administration closer to a constitutional clash<\/a> with the judiciary. A judge in Washington is considering whether the administration violated his order<\/a> blocking, for now, the expulsion of migrants under the law. The Justice Department denounced the order as infringing on Mr. Trump\u2019s national security powers and asked an appeals court to overturn it.<\/p>\n

The Alien Enemies Act empowers the executive branch to summarily remove foreign citizens whose government is in a declared war with the United States or is otherwise invading or engaged in a \u201cpredatory incursion\u201d into American territory. The government last used the law in the internment and repatriation of Japanese, Italian and German citizens<\/a> during and after World War II.<\/p>\n

On its face, the law appears to require not just an invasion or incursion, but a link to the actions of a foreign government.<\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n

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

German immigrants being prepared for deportation in Hoboken, N.J., during World War I in 1918. The Alien Enemies Act has been used to repatriate immigrants during World War I and II.<\/span>Credit…<\/span>Universal History Archive\/Universal Images Group, via Getty Images<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n

In his proclamation, Mr. Trump effectively summoned such a link into legal existence by saying that he had determined that Tren de Aragua was a proxy for the Venezuelan government and committing crimes in the United States at its direction because Mr. Maduro sought to destabilize the country.<\/p>\n

\u201cI make these findings using the full extent of my authority to conduct the nation\u2019s foreign affairs under the Constitution,\u201d Mr. Trump said.<\/p>\n

But Mr. Trump\u2019s key factual assertions contradicted the earlier intelligence assessment, the officials said. It concluded that the gang was not acting at the direction of the Maduro administration and that the two are instead hostile to each other, citing incidents in which Venezuelan security forces exchanged gunfire with gang members.<\/p>\n

Because available information in the world of intelligence is often imperfect or incomplete, analysts assign levels of confidence to factual assertions and conclusions. Such caveats indicate that even if most or all the currently available evidence points in one direction, it remains possible that something else might turn up that would change their minds.<\/p>\n

The overall conclusion was put at \u201cmoderate\u201d confidence, and some supporting points put at \u201clow\u201d confidence, the officials said, because there was not as much reporting as analysts typically want to have \u201chigh\u201d confidence. The United States has long scrutinized the government of Venezuela, but only recently has it begun to focus on Tren de Aragua, they said.<\/p>\n

The assessment, according to one official, also portrayed the gang as lacking the resources and being too disorganized \u2014 with little in the way of any centralized command-and-control \u2014 to be able to carry out any government orders. And, the official said, the assessment says that while a handful of corrupt Venezuelan officials have ties to gang members, that does not amount to the gang\u2019s being under the sway of the government as a whole.<\/p>\n

The assessment, this official also said, asserts that when the State Department designated<\/a> the gang as a foreign terrorist organization last month at Mr. Trump\u2019s direction<\/a>, a minister in the Maduro administration publicly praised the action. (The administration\u2019s move broke with the practice<\/a> of limiting \u201cterrorism\u201d designations to organizations that are clearly ideologically motivated.)<\/p>\n

Federal courts typically defer to the executive branch\u2019s factual declarations about what is happening and why, rather than probing for what may actually be going on. That is particularly the case in matters of national security and foreign policy.<\/p>\n

But such deference is premised on the idea that officials are making determinations in good faith and drawing on executive branch resources like intelligence agencies to evaluate fast-moving and sometimes dangerous situations. Mr. Trump\u2019s pattern of distorting the truth is testing that practice<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The administration\u2019s insistence that all the men it sent to El Salvador are members of Tren de Aragua has also been challenged<\/a>. In one court filing, an official acknowledged<\/a> that many have no criminal records but said the dearth of details only underscored that \u201cthey are terrorists with regard to whom we lack a complete profile.\u201d<\/p>\n

Lawyers for some of the migrants have collected statements from family members and others denying involvement in the gang<\/a>. A lawyer for one detainee, for example, identified her client as a soccer player<\/a> who had been tortured for participating in anti-Maduro protests and so fled to the United States to request asylum.<\/p>\n

The lawyer said U.S. officials accused him of being a Tren de Aragua member based on a tattoo and on a hand gesture he made in a picture on social media. But, she said, the tattoo was a version of a soccer team logo, and the hand gesture was a common \u201crock \u2019n\u2019 roll\u201d symbol.<\/p>\n

Mr. Trump\u2019s proclamation cited scant evidence for his core finding that Tren de Aragua as an organization has been committing crimes to destabilize the United States \u201cat the direction, clandestine or otherwise, of the Maduro regime in Venezuela.\u201d<\/p>\n

Its most concrete detail was that the gang had expanded from 2012 to 2017, when Tareck El Aissami served as governor of the region of Aragua, and in 2017 Mr. Maduro appointed him as vice president. But the proclamation omitted that Mr. Aissami is no longer part of the Maduro administration, which is prosecuting him on corruption charges<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n

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

Tareck El Aissami was appointed as vice president by Mr. Maduro in 2017, after serving as governor of the Venezuelan region of Aragua. Mr. Aissami is now being prosecuted by the Maduro administration.<\/span>Credit…<\/span>Matias Delacroix\/Associated Press<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n

On Saturday, as planeloads of Venezuelan migrants were being flown to El Salvador, Judge James E. Boasberg, the chief judge of the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia, temporarily barred the administration from summarily removing people based on the Alien Enemies Act.<\/p>\n

A former prosecutor, he was first appointed to the bench by a Republican president and elevated to his current role by a Democratic one. His decision to block the Trump administration\u2019s deportations under the law has outraged the president and his allies, prompting Mr. Trump to call for his impeachment<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The administration has appealed to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The case is now before Judges Karen Henderson and Justin Walker, both Republican appointees, and Patricia Millett, a Democratic appointee.<\/p>\n

Appeals courts typically reject challenges to temporary restraining orders. But the panel has ordered expedited briefings and scheduled arguments, suggesting it is considering deciding on the legal merits of Mr. Trump\u2019s invocation of Alien Enemies Act powers.<\/p>\n

Any ruling could turn in part on whether the judges accept Mr. Trump\u2019s assertions about Tren de Aragua and its supposed ties to the Venezuelan government, as the administration has insisted.<\/p>\n

The Justice Department wrote that \u201cthe determination of whether there has been an \u2018invasion\u2019 or \u2018predatory incursion,\u2019 whether an organization is sufficiently linked to a foreign nation or government, or whether national security interests have otherwise been engaged so as to implicate the A.E.A., is fundamentally a political question to be answered by the president.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Advertisement<\/p>\n

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

\n
\n

\"Carl<\/a><\/p>\n

\n

Carl Hulse<\/a><\/p>\n

Carl Hulse covers judicial issues on Capitol Hill and wrote a book about confirmation fights.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

House Republicans want to impeach judges. Here\u2019s how the process would work.<\/a><\/h2>\n<\/p>\n
\n
\n
\n

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

Impeachment advocates have pointed to the Constitution\u2019s high crimes and misdemeanors clause as the basis for trying to remove Judge James E. Boasberg of the District of Columbia, who temporarily blocked President Trump\u2019s plan for deportations.<\/span>Credit…<\/span>Eric Lee\/The New York Times<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n

President Trump<\/a>, Elon Musk<\/a> and a handful of House Republicans have intensified their calls to impeach federal judges who have made rulings unfavorable to the Trump administration. But taking such a step over a court finding would break new ground in the relationship between the legislative and judicial branches, and draw condemnation as a violation<\/a> of the separation of powers.<\/p>\n

No federal judge has been impeached strictly for the outcome of a case. But the House does have broad power to act against federal judges.<\/p>\n

\n

House Republicans, facing demands from Mr. Trump, could press the Judiciary Committee to at least explore the idea. But Democrats and some Republicans are certain to resist. And even if the House were to summon the necessary majority to impeach a judge, persuading the required 67 senators to convict and remove a judge over a ruling would be highly unlikely.<\/p>\n

Here is how the process works, and a sense of how the politics of the issue could play out.<\/p>\n