{"id":948,"date":"2025-03-29T00:53:08","date_gmt":"2025-03-29T00:53:08","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/wpinitiate.com\/echo-test\/demo973e36f5\/2025\/03\/29\/trump-live-updates-law-firms-sue-over-eos-jd-vance-visits-greenland-the-new-york-times\/"},"modified":"2025-03-29T00:53:08","modified_gmt":"2025-03-29T00:53:08","slug":"trump-live-updates-law-firms-sue-over-eos-jd-vance-visits-greenland-the-new-york-times","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/wpinitiate.com\/echo-test\/demo973e36f5\/2025\/03\/29\/trump-live-updates-law-firms-sue-over-eos-jd-vance-visits-greenland-the-new-york-times\/","title":{"rendered":"Trump Live Updates: Law Firms Sue Over EOs, JD Vance Visits Greenland – The New York Times"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
\n

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

The ruling was another courtroom defeat for Trump\u2019s retribution campaign.<\/a><\/h2>\n<\/p>\n

A federal judge called President Trump\u2019s attempts to punish the law firm Jenner & Block<\/a> \u201cdisturbing\u201d as he temporarily blocked most of an executive order that targeted it, the latest courtroom defeat in Mr. Trump\u2019s campaign of retaliation<\/a> against law firms that participated in investigations of him.<\/p>\n

The firm once employed a lawyer who became part of the special counsel team that investigated Mr. Trump in his first term. Mr. Trump\u2019s order also took aim at the firm\u2019s pro bono work, a common feature of many large law firms to provide legal representation to unpopular or poor clients, an attack that Judge Beryl A. Howell said she found \u201cdisturbing\u201d and \u201ctroubling.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n

Judge Howell left in place the administration\u2019s stripping of Jenner & Block\u2019s security clearances.<\/p>\n

Jenner & Block and another firm, WilmerHale, filed lawsuits<\/a> in federal court in Washington on Friday, seeking to halt executive orders that Mr. Trump signed targeting them. Those cases were both initially assigned to Judge Howell, who has also blocked, for now, an order against a third firm, Perkins Coie.<\/p>\n

The WilmerHale case<\/a> was later assigned to a different judge, Richard J. Leon. In a hearing Friday evening, Judge Leon said he was \u201cinclined to grant\u201d a temporary restraining order barring the Trump administration from punishing the law firm WilmerHale, where Robert S. Mueller III worked before and after he served as special counsel in the Trump-Russia investigation. The judge did not rule from the bench during the hearing, but said he would issue a written decision in a matter of hours.<\/p>\n

Earlier Friday, President Trump announced a fresh deal with another major law firm to avoid a punitive executive order. The announcement reflected an emerging divide among law firms, as they grapple with how to respond to Mr. Trump\u2019s multifaceted attack on firms<\/a> he accuses of acting unethically. In particular, he has sought to punish firms that have employed lawyers who also once worked on investigations and prosecutions of him.<\/p>\n

Speaking at the White House, the president said the firm, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, would provide $100 million in pro bono work on issues that he supports, heading off an expected executive order<\/a> akin to those he has aimed at other firms that put government buildings and agencies off-limits to the firm\u2019s lawyers.<\/p>\n

\u201cThis was essentially a settlement,\u201d Mr. Trump said. \u201cWe appreciate Skadden\u2019s coming to the table, as you know other law firms have likewise settled the case. It\u2019s a shame what\u2019s gone on.\u201d<\/p>\n

The White House has signaled that more firms are in the president\u2019s cross hairs, particularly those that employ lawyers who have worked on investigations into Mr. Trump or on causes that his supporters object to.<\/p>\n

The president also issued a statement from the firm, in which it declared a \u201cstrong commitment to ending the weaponization of the justice system and the legal profession.\u201d<\/p>\n

An executive partner of Skadden, Jeremy London, said in a statement that the firm \u201cengaged proactively with President Trump and his team in working together constructively to reach this agreement,\u201d adding that it looked forward to a \u201cproductive relationship.\u201d He continued, \u201cWe firmly believe that this outcome is in the best interests of our clients, our people, and our firm.\u201d<\/p>\n

Skadden Arps chose to follow a path similar to that of another large firm, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton and Garrison in cutting a deal, rather than fighting in court.<\/p>\n

The president\u2019s campaign against major law firms, fueled by his anger against lawyers whom he personally blames for his legal troubles, has sent shock waves through the profession and led to an intense debate among lawyers about whether to fight on principle or negotiate.<\/p>\n

The Skadden Arps deal suggests negotiating may be getting more costly. Paul Weiss said it would provide $40 million in pro bono work, while the Skadden Arps agreement more than doubled that amount. The deals have also been met with scathing criticism by those in the legal community who see them as unnecessary capitulation in cases where the firms have the law on their side.<\/p>\n

\n

On Thursday, after news broke that Skadden was seeking to strike a deal with the Trump administration, a group of alumni \u2014 all part of the law firm\u2019s prestigious public interest fellowship<\/a> program \u2014 began to circulate a letter. It urged the firm’s leadership to \u201ctake every measure to resist unlawful interference with the rule of law, to fight any unjust actions\u201d and \u201cto speak publicly about the critical, nonpartisan role of lawyers in defending democracy,\u201d according to a copy of the letter reviewed by The New York Times.<\/p>\n

The letter, which organizers hope to deliver to Skadden\u2019s leadership, has gathered nearly 400 signatures, according to two people familiar with the matter.<\/p>\n

Mr. Trump said Skadden Arps would provide legal services to veterans, members of the military and law enforcement, first responders, and state and local government officials. Their pro bono work, the White House said, would also involve legal issues surrounding antisemitism, and that in general, its pro bono work will \u201crepresent the full political spectrum.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

For months, the president has railed against firms that he said refused to represent conservatives or their causes. His executive orders are intended to force them to do so.<\/p>\n

According to a fact sheet issued by the White House, Skadden Arps \u201cwill not deny representation to clients, such as members of politically disenfranchised groups, who have not historically received legal representation from major national law firms\u201d because of the political views of the firm\u2019s lawyers.<\/p>\n

On Wednesday, the president boasted about his track record of bringing big law firms to heel.<\/p>\n

\u201cThey\u2019re all bending and saying, \u2018Sir, thank you very much,\u2019\u201d Mr. Trump said, adding that they were asking, \u201c\u2018Where do I sign? Where do I sign?\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n

Jessica Silver-Greenberg and Ben Protess contributed reporting from New York.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n
\n

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

The Food and Drug Administration\u2019s top vaccine official, Dr. Peter Marks, abruptly resigned Friday in a searing letter to the agency\u2019s acting commissioner, citing the aggressive stance of the health secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., toward undermining the safety of vaccines.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt has become clear that truth and transparency are not desired by the Secretary, but rather he wishes subservient confirmation of his misinformation and lies,\u201d Dr. Marks wrote to Sara Brenner, the agency\u2019s acting commissioner.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

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

The resignation comes after Kennedy extolled the value of unproven alternative treatments during a major measles outbreak in Texas.<\/p>\n

\u201cUndermining confidence in well-established vaccines that have met the high standards for quality, safety, and effectiveness that have been in place for decades at FDA is irresponsible, detrimental to public health, and a clear danger to our nation\u2019s health, safety. and security,\u201d Dr. Marks wrote.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

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

Appeals court allows Trump to fire the leaders of 2 independent boards.<\/a><\/h2>\n<\/p>\n
\n
\n
<\/div>
President Trump fired Gwynne A. Wilcox, left, of the National Labor Relations Board in January, and Cathy Harris of the Merit Systems Protection Board in February. <\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n

A federal appeals court sided on Friday with President Trump\u2019s drive to bring agencies with some independence more directly under his control, ruling that the president was within his rights to fire the heads of two administrative boards that review employment actions and labor disputes.<\/p>\n

The decision cripples one of the bodies that might stand in Mr. Trump\u2019s way as he slashes and reshapes the government, an agency known as the Merit Systems Protection Board that reviews federal employment disputes, just as it is deluged with cases from the firings of thousands of federal workers.<\/p>\n

\n

It also effectively paralyzes the other body, the National Labor Relations Board, in another blow to unions the day after Mr. Trump moved to end collective bargaining agreements for hundreds of thousands of federal workers.<\/p>\n

More broadly, the decision was an endorsement of Mr. Trump\u2019s expansive view of executive powers in a case that many legal observers believe is headed for the Supreme Court<\/a>. A final ruling there could put agencies across the government that Congress intended to be separate from the White House under the president\u2019s control.<\/p>\n

By a 2-to-1 vote<\/a>, the ruling on Friday from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed two district court decisions that had reinstated Cathy Harris of the Merit Systems Protection Board and Gwynne A. Wilcox of the National Labor Relations Board while their cases play out. Mr. Trump fired Ms. Wilcox<\/a> in January and Ms. Harris<\/a> in February. Both women argued that they had been improperly terminated.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe government contends that the president suffers irreversible harm each day the district courts\u2019 injunctions remain in effect because he is deprived of the constitutional authority vested in him alone. I agree,\u201d Judge Justin Walker wrote in the opinion. Judge Walker was appointed by Mr. Trump in 2020. Judge Karen L. Henderson, who was appointed by President George H.W. Bush, also sided with the government.<\/p>\n

Late Friday, Ms. Harris filed a motion asking the panel to hold off on removing her from her position until the full appellate court in the District of Columbia can consider the appeal.<\/p>\n

Removing Ms. Wilcox and Ms. Harris from their positions will debilitate each board. The labor board requires a minimum of three members to act. Without Ms. Wilcox, there are just two. The merit protections board requires two members to act, and without Ms. Harris, there will be only one member left.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe decision will give the administration more running room in its campaign to weaken labor regulation and to remake the civil service,\u201d said Donald F. Kettl, an emeritus professor at the University of Maryland who studies the civil service. \u201cThat will allow it to move even more quickly to make progress on its goals.\u201d<\/p>\n

Earlier this month, Ms. Harris ordered the reinstatement<\/a> of thousands of probationary employees who were fired in February as part of Mr. Trump\u2019s grand plan to shrink the size of the federal government.<\/p>\n

Mr. Trump also fired the head of the Office of Special Counsel, the government\u2019s independent watchdog agency. The head of that office, Hampton Dellinger, was investigating the probationary firings.<\/p>\n

As with Ms. Wilcox and Ms. Harris, a district judge ordered that Mr. Dellinger be reinstated while his challenge to his termination proceeds. And the same panel of appellate judges in the District of Columbia Circuit reversed the lower court\u2019s decision. Mr. Dellinger dropped his challenge to the firing after the appeals court decision.<\/p>\n

The head of the Office of Special Counsel and members of the labor and merit protections boards are nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate.<\/p>\n

In a dissenting opinion, Judge Patricia A. Millett, an Obama appointee, said that the prevailing opinions are in direct conflict with at least two other circuit courts.<\/p>\n

The decision, she wrote, \u201calso marks the first time in history that a court of appeals, or the Supreme Court, has licensed the termination of members of multimember adjudicatory boards statutorily protected by the very type of removal restriction the Supreme Court has twice unanimously upheld.\u201d<\/p>\n

She described the other judges\u2019 decisions as a \u201churried and preliminary first-look\u201d that traps \u201cin legal limbo millions of employees and employers whom the law says must go to these boards for the resolution of their employment disputes.\u201d<\/p>\n

In termination letters, the Trump administration told fired probationary employees that they may have limited grounds to take their appeals to the Merit Systems Protection Board.<\/p>\n

Government lawyers have also argued that fired employees and labor unions that represent the fired workers do not have standing to bring a case to a district court because Congress designed the merit protections board and similar bodies to handle those matters.<\/p>\n

Judge William H. Alsup in the Northern District of California recently questioned how the administration could do that after the \u201ccannibalization\u201d of the Office of Special Counsel and the Merit Systems Protection Board.<\/p>\n

Judge Alsup is presiding over a case brought by several labor unions challenging the firing of thousands of probationary employees.<\/p>\n

If the merit protections board does not have enough members to make decisions, \u201cthese employees will have no recourse,\u201d Judge Alsup said during a March 13 hearing.<\/p>\n

Rebecca Davis O\u2019Brien contributed reporting.<\/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

The Trump administration has followed through on a directive by President Trump<\/a> to revoke the security clearances of his political opponents, Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence, said in a statement on social media. She said she had \u201crevoked clearances and access to classified information\u201d for Trump\u2019s predecessor, President Joseph R. Biden Jr., his former presidential campaign rival Hillary Clinton, two former<\/a> Republican lawmakers<\/a> who oppose Trump, and witnesses<\/a> from Trump\u2019s first impeachment<\/a> in 2019.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n
\n

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

Judge John Bates of the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia issued a temporary restraining order barring the Trump administration from punishing the law firm Jenner & Block, calling one part of the president\u2019s executive order against the firm \u201cdisturbing.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n
\n

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

The court order is meant to be temporary and does not negate the entire executive order, but it is the latest courtroom defeat in President Trump\u2019s campaign of retaliation against law firms. <\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

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

In ruling against President Trump, the judge said it was \u201cdisturbing\u201d and \u201ctroubling\u201d that the executive order sharply criticized pro bono work, a common feature of many large law firms to provide legal representation to unpopular or poor clients.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

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

The federal judge hearing Jenner & Block\u2019s argument for halting an executive order that President Trump signed targeting the law firm appears deeply skeptical of the Trump administration\u2019s justification for punishing the firm.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

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

A judge grants an injunction to prevent the consumer bureau from being \u2018dissolved and dismantled.\u2019<\/a><\/h2>\n<\/p>\n
\n
\n
\n

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

Protesters outside the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau offices in Washington on Monday.<\/span>Credit…<\/span>Alex Wong\/Getty Images<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n

A federal judge issued a preliminary injunction Friday blocking the Trump administration from carrying out mass firings or otherwise dismantling the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.<\/p>\n

Calling the injunction \u201can extraordinary step,\u201d Judge Amy Berman Jackson of the Federal District Court in Washington said she imposed it to prevent the agency from being \u201cdissolved and dismantled.\u201d The lawsuit\u2019s plaintiffs \u2014 the bureau\u2019s staff union and a collection of consumer advocates \u2014 are likely to succeed in their claim that the administration\u2019s actions to gut the agency were illegal, the judge wrote in a 112-page decision<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cThis ruling upholds the Constitution\u2019s separation of powers and preserves the bureau\u2019s vital work,\u201d said Deepak Gupta, the lawyer representing the union. Representatives of the consumer bureau did not respond to a request for comment.<\/p>\n

The bureau, created after the 2008 financial crisis, has been in turmoil since Feb. 7, when President Trump appointed Russell T. Vought<\/a>, the director of the White House budget office, as the agency\u2019s acting director. Mr. Vought quickly fired hundreds of employees, ordered the rest to stop all work<\/a>, closed the bureau\u2019s offices and canceled contracts with vendors for staffing and services that are essential to the agency\u2019s operations.<\/p>\n

But only Congress can close the bureau, and parts of the agency have flicked back to life<\/a> over the past seven weeks in response to legal challenges. Nearly 200 terminated employees have been rehired, and some of the agency\u2019s departments have returned to work to carry out the bureau\u2019s legally mandated responsibilities. Most of the staff, however, has remained on administrative leave.<\/p>\n

For years, the financial industry has complained that the consumer bureau, which regulates a range of lending activity from mortgages to credit cards, has been overly aggressive<\/a>, tying up companies in litigation and red tape and hindering credit from flowing to consumers.<\/p>\n

Judge Jackson wrote that Mr. Vought\u2019s actions \u201cwere taken in complete disregard for the decision Congress made 15 years ago\u201d to create the agency and assign it the power to monitor banks and other lenders and enforce consumer protection laws. Without an injunction, she said, the government would likely \u201ccomplete the destruction of the agency completely in violation of law\u201d and annihilate it so thoroughly that \u201cit will be impossible to rebuild.\u201d<\/p>\n

The judge opened her ruling with three epigraphs quoting senior administration officials \u2014 including Mr. Trump himself<\/a> \u2014 openly stating their intention to destroy the bureau. (\u201cThat was a very important thing to get rid of,\u201d Mr. Trump said in early February, praising Mr. Vought\u2019s actions.)<\/p>\n

Judge Jackson\u2019s order instructs the government to reinstate and preserve the bureau\u2019s contracts, employees, data and operations while the case progresses.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Advertisement<\/p>\n

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

\n
\n
\n

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

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the nation\u2019s health secretary, said he plans to create a vaccine injury agency within the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in a NewsNation interview<\/a> Thursday night. He said the plan is a priority for him and will help bring \u201cgold-standard science\u201d to the federal government.<\/p>\n

Dr. Michael Osterholm, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota, said the study of vaccine injuries has long been a high priority. \u201cI fear this is a way to emphasize vaccine injuries in a way that\u2019s completely disproportionate to what the real risk is,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n

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

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

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

Kennedy, who dedicated the last 20 years to undermining confidence in vaccines, is leading a major reorganization<\/a> of the nation\u2019s health agency, which is on track to pare 20,000 jobs through buyouts, retirements and layoffs. Despite a federal hiring freeze, his agency recently hired<\/a> a prominent researcher in the anti-vaccine movement to study the long-discounted link between vaccines and autism.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

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

Trump commutes Carlos Watson\u2019s sentence hours before his surrender.<\/a><\/h2>\n<\/p>\n
\n
\n
\n

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

Carlos Watson, a founder of Ozy Media, outside the federal courthouse in Brooklyn in 2023. He continued to assert his innocence up until his sentencing.<\/span>Credit…<\/span>Jefferson Siegel for The New York Times<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n

President Trump on Friday commuted the sentence of Carlos Watson, a co-founder of the now-defunct digital media company Ozy Media, on the day he was set to surrender to prison, three people familiar with the matter said.<\/p>\n

Mr. Watson was sentenced<\/a> in December to almost 10 years in prison for trying to defraud investors and lenders by lying about the company\u2019s finances. He was sentenced after a federal jury last summer convicted<\/a> Mr. Watson and Ozy Media of conspiracy to commit securities and wire fraud. The jury also convicted Mr. Watson of identity theft, after a two-month trial during which witnesses detailed an impersonated phone call, fabricated contracts and misleading claims about Ozy\u2019s earnings from 2018 to 2021.<\/p>\n

\n

A federal judge had also ordered Mr. Watson and Ozy to pay $96 million in restitution and forfeiture. Mr. Watson and Ozy also no longer have to pay those financial penalties, the people said.<\/p>\n

Mr. Watson had pleaded not guilty and continued to assert his innocence up until he was sentenced to 116 months. His commutation was reported earlier by CNBC.<\/p>\n

Mr. Watson did not immediately respond to a request for comment.<\/p>\n

Mr. Watson started Ozy in 2013, publishing news articles and newsletters before venturing into podcasts and television productions. The start-up secured commitments from prominent investors at a time when digital publishers, like BuzzFeed and Vice, attracted billions of dollars in investments that largely didn\u2019t pan out.<\/p>\n

Throughout the legal proceedings, Mr. Watson denied the fraud allegations. In court, his lawyers argued that his representations to investors had been based on good-faith assessments of Ozy\u2019s finances, and they shifted the blame for any fraudulent activity onto other former Ozy employees. When he took the stand at his trial, Mr. Watson said he had not intentionally inflated revenue estimates, but rather had presented the types of service-based income typical of a \u201cscrappy young company\u201d in its early years.<\/p>\n

Mr. Watson, at his sentencing hearing in December, reiterated his stance that the government selectively prosecuted him because he is a Black man.<\/p>\n

Samir Rao, the other founder of Ozy, and Suzee Han, a former Ozy chief of staff, pleaded guilty in 2023 to fraud charges and testified against Mr. Watson.<\/p>\n

At the heart of the case was a 2021 fund-raising call during which Mr. Rao misled Goldman Sachs employees by impersonating a YouTube executive, as first reported by The New York Times<\/a>. Prosecutors contended that Mr. Watson had helped set up the call, citing text messages he sent to Mr. Rao that, they claimed, amounted to a script for what to say. Mr. Watson denied any responsibility.<\/p>\n

Witnesses also testified that Mr. Watson had misrepresented Ozy\u2019s finances to secure investments, inflating revenue figures and presenting misleading claims of commitments from Oprah Winfrey and Live Nation Entertainment.<\/p>\n

Mr. Trump also this week pardoned the three founders of the cryptocurrency exchange BitMEX, who had pleaded guilty in 2022<\/a> to violations of the bank secrecy act, one of the people familiar with the matter said, as well as Trevor Milton, who was convicted by a federal jury in 2022<\/a> of defrauding investors in the electric truck maker Nikola.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

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

President Trump took aim at California six times in 24 hours.<\/a><\/h2>\n<\/p>\n
\n
\n
\n

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

The Justice Department said on Thursday that it would investigate whether Stanford University and three other California schools were complying with the Supreme Court\u2019s 2023 decision banning the consideration of race in admissions.<\/span>Credit…<\/span>John G Mabanglo\/EPA, via Shutterstock<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n

In the annals of ill will between California and the Trump administration, Thursday may have been a record-breaker.<\/p>\n

The U.S. Education Department announced early in the West Coast morning that it would challenge a major state law protecting transgender students<\/a>. Two hours later came the revocation of federal waivers that had let California colleges include undocumented students<\/a> in certain programs that receive federal aid.<\/p>\n

\n

The afternoon brought a flurry of investigations into suspected affirmative action in California higher education<\/a>: The Justice Department said it would investigate whether Stanford University and three schools in the University of California system were violating a Supreme Court decision that banned the consideration of race in admissions. Then the Health and Human Services Department said it was looking into accusations of similar discrimination at \u201ca major medical school in California.\u201d<\/a><\/p>\n

By sundown, the Agriculture Department had sent Gov. Gavin Newsom a letter<\/a> saying it would review its education-related funding in California in connection with transgender protections. And the Justice Department announced that the Los Angeles County Sheriff\u2019s Department was under investigation for allegedly taking too long to approve applications for concealed-carry permits<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Neither California nor President Trump has ever pretended there was much love lost between them. The state, which is dominated by Democrats, sued Mr. Trump\u2019s administration more than 120 times during his first term in office. Californians voted against him by landslides in the 2020 and 2024 presidential elections \u2014 results that Mr. Trump claimed, baselessly, were tied to voter fraud.<\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n

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

President Trump speaking to reporters alongside Gov. Gavin Newsom of California and the first lady, Melania Trump, after the wildfires in January. The president has attacked California officials for their response to the wildfires.<\/span>Credit…<\/span>Kenny Holston\/The New York Times<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n

It\u2019s unclear what triggered the barrage of attention this week to California, and whether it was choreographed or coincidental. The White House did not immediately respond on Friday to a request for comment.<\/p>\n

Mr. Newsom declined to comment as well. A spokesman, Izzy Gardon, said the governor was \u201cfocused on Los Angeles\u2019s recovery.\u201d<\/p>\n

Senator Adam B. Schiff, a Democrat who led the first impeachment of Mr. Trump, said the president had a \u201cpartisan vendetta against California\u201d and was \u201ccontinuing to weaponize the federal government against the one in 10 Americans\u201d who live in the state of more than 39 million people.<\/p>\n

California\u2019s Trump supporters applauded.<\/p>\n

\u201cExtreme policies and unchecked one-party rule have lowered the quality of life across our state,\u201d said Representative Kevin Kiley, Republican of California. \u201cAll Californians will benefit from greater accountability. We need balance and common sense.\u201d<\/p>\n

Other California officials and legal experts said the investigations appeared to be legally questionable and politically driven.<\/p>\n

\u201cHis command of the law and compliance with the law is inconsistent at best,\u201d California\u2019s attorney general, Rob Bonta, a Democrat, said of Mr. Trump. He said the state was already on track to sue the Trump administration almost twice as many times as it did during the president\u2019s first term, and potentially more than 200 times over the next four years. So far, he said, California has sued the administration eight times in eight weeks.<\/p>\n

Since Mr. Trump took office this year, he has serially singled out Democratic strongholds.<\/p>\n

Last month, he chastised Maine\u2019s governor<\/a> over the state\u2019s protections for transgender athletes and opened investigations into the state\u2019s educational system. This week, he signed an executive order initiating a \u201cD.C. Safe and Beautiful Task Force<\/a>\u201d that would increase the police presence in Washington, maximize immigration enforcement, expedite concealed-carry licenses and crack down on subway fare evasion. Local officials countered that crime in the district was down.<\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n

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

Supporters of President Trump in Santa Monica, Calif., in November.<\/span>Credit…<\/span>Isadora Kosofsky for The New York Times<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n

\u201cI think there is no doubt, from the pattern of investigations, that there is targeting of \u2018blue\u2019 states and especially California,\u201d said Erwin Chemerinsky, the dean of the law school at the University of California, Berkeley, one of the schools where Attorney General Pam Bondi opened \u201ccompliance review investigations.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cSome is likely a difference of policies and values,\u201d Mr. Chemerinsky said. \u201cBut some likely is retribution and playing to his political base.\u201d<\/p>\n

Political experts said they were surprised it had taken this long for the Trump administration to let loose on California. For months, the Democrats who lead the state had braced for a Republican assault on its influential policies on D.E.I., gun restrictions, immigration, equity in college admissions and L.G.B.T.Q. rights.<\/p>\n

Several public affairs experts speculated that the administration had planned to make an example of California immediately after the president took office, but hesitated after catastrophic fires erupted in Los Angeles on Jan. 7, less than two weeks before his inauguration. Mr. Trump falsely suggested in his inaugural address that the state authorities had let wildfires tear through Los Angeles \u201cwithout a token of defense,\u201d but refrained from attacking the state on other, more partisan cultural issues.<\/p>\n

After Mr. Newsom\u2019s press office contradicted Mr. Trump<\/a> on social media with photos of firefighters assaulting flames and rescuing terrified fire victims, the president pivoted to an inaccurate claim<\/a> that state protections for endangered fish had diminished the amount of water available for firefighting. In late January, the administration pointedly unleashed a gusher<\/a> of federal irrigation water nearly 200 miles north of Los Angeles as the president claimed on social media that if California had listened to him years before, \u201cthere would have been no fire!\u201d<\/p>\n

The water had no direct connection to the infrastructure supplying Los Angeles County, and more than a billion gallons ended up trapped in a low spot in the Central Valley, where farmers, many of whom had voted for Mr. Trump, complained about the potential impact on summer irrigation supplies.<\/p>\n

As Los Angeles area fire victims have turned to rebuilding, attacks on the state have become politically safer.<\/p>\n

Jason Elliott, a Democratic political consultant and former Newsom adviser, framed Thursday\u2019s assault on California as a well-worn way for Mr. Trump to rekindle his base and distract from bipartisan outrage over tariffs, Elon Musk and the scandal over the discussion of war plans on Signal.<\/p>\n

\u201cClearly somebody put the smelling salts under their nose and they woke up and realized that culture wars are the only thing they have going for them,\u201d Mr. Elliott said. \u201cThey turned to the only play they know how to run.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Advertisement<\/p>\n

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

\n
\n

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

Judge Richard Leon says he is \u201cinclined to grant\u201d a temporary restraining order against the Trump administration, barring it from punishing the law firm Wilmer Hale. The judge did not rule from the bench during a hearing, but said he would issue a written decision in a matter of hours.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n
\n

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

At a packed hearing in federal court in Washington, lawyer Paul Clement argued on the law firm Wilmer Hale\u2019s behalf that it was \u201cclear as day\u201d that the Trump order against the firm<\/a> violated the First Amendment. He said the chilling effect on the firm\u2019s business had been immediate. The firm is suing the administration.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

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

Justice Department lawyer Richard Lawson urged Judge Leon not to issue a temporary restraining order, arguing the specific limitations for Wilmer Hale<\/a> had not been decided, so there was no reason to rush a court decision. <\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

\"Mattathias<\/a>\"Hamed<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

A federal judge\u2019s order slows Trump deportation plans.<\/a><\/h2>\n<\/p>\n
\n
\n
\n

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

Relatives of Venezuelan immigrants who are detained in a prison in El Salvador after being deported from the United States held photos of their loved ones during a protest to demand their release in Caracas, Venezuela, on Tuesday.<\/span>Credit…<\/span>Adriana Loureiro Fernandez for The New York Times<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n

President Trump\u2019s efforts to deport migrants to places other than their country of origin hit a new roadblock on Friday, when a federal judge issued a temporary order<\/a> requiring the administration to give migrants an opportunity to contest their removal on the grounds that they might be at risk of persecution or torture.<\/p>\n

U.S. District Court Judge Brian E. Murphy, who sits in Boston, ordered the government to give migrants a chance to contest their removal to a so-called third country under a federal law<\/a> that limits deportations to places where the deportees\u2019 \u201clife or freedom would be threatened.\u201d He also cited a United Nations treaty against torture.<\/p>\n

\n

The Trump administration has struck deals with Costa Rica, Panama, Guatemala, Mexico and El Salvador as part of its efforts to remove people who are difficult to deport to their home countries. Hundreds of migrants from countries in Africa and Asia, for instance, have been deported to Panama<\/a>, a country those migrants had no ties to.<\/p>\n

In prior administrations, strained diplomatic relationships and difficulties with paperwork have made it hard to deport large numbers of people to certain countries.<\/p>\n

The new order is limited to migrants who have a \u201cfinal order of removal,\u201d meaning their case has already been considered by an immigration court. The administration has also claimed it has the authority to circumvent much of that process using the 1798 Alien Enemies Act, which it has used to remove more than 200 Venezuelans from the United States to El Salvador. Another judge has blocked<\/a> that use of the law, which only applies during wartime. On Friday, the administration asked the Supreme Court<\/a> to intervene.<\/p>\n

The plaintiffs in the case are four migrants, identified only by their initials, who are citizens of Cuba, Honduras, Ecuador and Guatemala. Two are in the United States and fear they will be deported when they arrive for upcoming check-ins with immigration authorities. A third is being held at a county prison in Massachusetts; the fourth \u201cremains in hiding in Guatemala,\u201d a country where a U.S. immigration judge \u201cfound it was more likely than not that he would be persecuted,\u201d according to the complaint.<\/p>\n

Their lawsuit claims<\/a> that the administration\u2019s deportation policies violate the Constitution\u2019s guarantee to due process, and the Administrative Procedure Act.<\/p>\n

Muneer Ahmad, a professor at Yale Law School who represents immigrants as part of the school\u2019s Worker and Immigrant Rights Advocacy Clinic, called the decision \u201cimportant,\u201d adding that it would slow what he called \u201cthe Trump administration\u2019s efforts to bum-rush immigrants out of the country in disregard of these core legal obligations to protect against torture or persecution.\u201d<\/p>\n

Judge Murphy has scheduled a hearing for April 10 to consider whether to issue a preliminary injunction, which would be more lasting than Friday\u2019s temporary restraining order.<\/p>\n

Kathleen Bush-Joseph, a policy analyst with the Migration Policy Institute, noted that the case was one of a series targeting the Trump administration\u2019s lightning-fast efforts to deport migrants.<\/p>\n

\u201cThis will affect the administration\u2019s ability to carry out more high-profile removals to third countries, like those to Panama, Costa Rica and El Salvador,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n

Tim Balk contributed reporting from New York.<\/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 appeals court ruled Friday that Elon Musk\u2019s team could resume its work at the U.S. Agency for International Development, at least for now. The court s<\/a>uspended an order from a U.S. judge that had barred Musk\u2019s team from scraping data and recommending cuts within U.S.A.I.D. even as the Trump administration outlined plans<\/a> to all but eliminate the agency. The court questioned a federal judge\u2019s conclusion earlier this month that Musk\u2019s involvement violated the Constitution, as he was not appointed by Congress or authorized to dismantle U.S.A.I.D.’s operations.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

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

Final cuts will eliminate U.S.A.I.D. in all but name.<\/a><\/h2>\n<\/p>\n
\n
\n
\n

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

The cuts are in keeping with the administration\u2019s plan to use foreign aid as a tool to further its diplomatic priorities.<\/span>Credit…<\/span>Tierney L. Cross for The New York Times<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n

The Trump administration on Friday detailed its plans to put the U.S. Agency for International Development, the government\u2019s main agency for distributing foreign aid, fully under the State Department and reduce its staff to some 15 positions.<\/p>\n

An email to U.S.A.I.D. employees informing them of the impending layoffs, titled \u201cU.S.A.I.D.\u2019s Final Mission\u201d and sent just after noon, detailed an elimination in all but name that the administration had long signaled was coming. It arrived over protests from lawmakers who argued that efforts to downsize the agency were illegal, and from staff members and unions who sued to stop them.<\/p>\n

\n

The agency employed about 10,000 people before the Trump administration began reviewing and canceling foreign aid contracts within days of President Trump\u2019s return to the White House. By Sept. 2, the email said, \u201cthe agency\u2019s operations will have been substantially transferred to State or otherwise wound down.\u201d<\/p>\n

The cuts are in keeping with the administration\u2019s plan to use foreign aid as a tool to further its diplomatic priorities. This month, recipients of U.S.A.I.D. funds were asked to justify their value to the administration through questionnaires that asked<\/a>, among other things, whether their programs helped to limit illegal immigration or secure rare earth minerals.<\/p>\n

In a statement, Secretary of State Marco Rubio praised the forthcoming cuts.<\/p>\n

\u201cWe are reorienting our foreign assistance programs to align directly with what is best for the United States and our citizens,\u201d he said, calling U.S.A.I.D. in its previous form \u201cmisguided and fiscally irresponsible.\u201d<\/p>\n

He pledged that \u201cessential lifesaving programs\u201d would be among those preserved under the State Department. In plans shared with Congress, however, the administration signaled that the U.S.A.I.D. programs it was ending included one that funded vaccines for children in poor countries<\/a>, as well as some funding for combating malaria.<\/p>\n

The email to employees, which was written by Jeremy Lewin, who is part of the Department of Government Efficiency and was recently named as one of two acting deputy administrators for U.S.A.I.D., said that all nonstatutory employees of the agency would receive separation notices with a final date of July 1 or Sept. 2. But some employees reported receiving different dates on Friday, including one Foreign Service officer who was told they would have to depart their post at the end of May.<\/p>\n

Title 5 of the U.S. Code names only 15 specific employees of U.S.A.I.D.: one administrator, one deputy administrator, six assistant administrators, four regional assistant administrators, one chief information officer, one general counsel and one inspector general. At its peak, the agency counted about 10,000 employees on its payroll, including contractors, in the United States and abroad.<\/p>\n

Terminated employees will be able to apply to be rehired by the State Department, the email said, through a process that has not yet been established. Overseas personnel, it said, would be offered \u201csafe and fully compensated\u201d return packages to the United States. Employees posted overseas were told they had 72 hours to request their preferred departure date.<\/p>\n

The email was sent to all U.S.A.I.D. employees \u2014 including those who are actively responding to the powerful earthquake<\/a> that struck Myanmar on Friday. The email landed around midnight local time on the phones of dozens of U.S.A.I.D. employees sheltering in the street in Bangkok, the capital of neighboring Thailand, as tremors continued to shake the city.<\/p>\n

Shortly after the email went out, employees began receiving formal reduction in force notices. One shared with The New York Times read: \u201cThe agency is abolishing your competitive area. You will be released from your competitive level and will not have an assignment right to another position in the competitive area.\u201d<\/p>\n

They then received an email encouraging them \u201cto step away and recharge,\u201d given the impact of the day\u2019s announcement, according to a copy shared with The Times.<\/p>\n

The layoffs are a far more drastic reduction than the Trump administration had initially envisioned for U.S.A.I.D. In February, senior officials at the agency were told that its work force would be cut to a few hundred employees. But on Friday, even some of the workers who had been deemed essential were given their walking papers.<\/p>\n

While the administration notified lawmakers of their intent to pursue the cuts, Congress has not approved the reorganization plan, which Democratic lawmakers have called an illegal closure of the agency.<\/p>\n

Members of the House and Senate committees that oversee foreign affairs and associated budgets were informed about the reorganization on Friday by the Trump administration, which said it would be completed by July 1.<\/p>\n

In the meantime, several employees are taking issue with the way the termination notices were handed out. Some began circulating a list of \u201cirregularities\u201d on Friday, pointing out clerical errors and objecting that the notices had not been disseminated in accordance with the formal reduction in force process.<\/p>\n

To put someone \u201cwith zero meaningful government, foreign policy or development experience in charge of this process is insulting to the career staff around the world with decades of experience,\u201d Julianne Weis, who was a senior adviser in the U.S.A.I.D. global health bureau and also received a termination letter on Friday, said of Mr. Lewin. \u201cIt\u2019s also dangerous for America\u2019s global standing, national security and foreign policy.\u201d<\/p>\n

A request for comment sent to U.S.A.I.D. received an automatic reply directing all inquiries to the State Department\u2019s press office. <\/p>\n

Amy Schoenfeld Walker contributed reporting.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

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

Trump tones down his Canada rhetoric after a call with its prime minister.<\/a><\/h2>\n<\/p>\n
\n
\n
\n

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

Prime Minister Mark Carney of Canada spoke with President Trump on Friday.<\/span>Credit…<\/span>Cole Burston for The New York Times<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n

President Trump toned down his rhetoric about Canada on Friday after his first telephone call with its new prime minister, Mark Carney.<\/p>\n

References to the \u201cgovernor\u201d of the 51st U.S. state that once punctuated Mr. Trump\u2019s social media posts about Justin Trudeau, the previous prime minister, were absent, and the president instead used Mr. Carney\u2019s proper title and his given name.<\/p>\n

\n

And after offering positive comments<\/a> online, the president later suggested to reporters that Canada was not among the nations he believed have treated the United States unfairly in trade.<\/p>\n

Mr. Trump has promised to impose on April 2 a variety of tariffs on American trading partners, including new ones against Canada. \u201cMany countries have taken advantage of us,\u201d but not Canada, Mr. Trump said.<\/p>\n

He added: \u201cI think things will work out very well between Canada and the United States.\u201d<\/p>\n

Earlier, in a social media post, the president described his call with Mr. Carney on Friday as \u201can extremely productive call, we agree on many things.\u201d<\/p>\n

Mr. Carney, the former central banker of England and Canada, became prime minister on March 14 after succeeding Mr. Trudeau as leader of the Liberal Party. Mr. Carney is now in the midst of an election campaign in which the dominant issues have been the response to Mr. Trump\u2019s trade policy targeting Canada and the anger over the president\u2019s repeated calls for the country\u2019s annexation.<\/p>\n

After Mr. Trump announced earlier this week a 25 percent tariff on imported cars and parts, Mr. Carney suggested on Thursday that Canada would re-evaluate its interdependent economic relationship with its neighbor because \u201cit is clear that the United States is no longer a reliable partner.\u201d<\/p>\n

Mr. Carney added: \u201cIt is possible that, with comprehensive negotiations, we will be able to restore some trust. But there will be no turning back.\u201d<\/p>\n

After Friday\u2019s conversation, Mr. Carney also took a less inflammatory approach to relations with the United States. At a campaign event in Montreal, he said that the call was \u201cpositive, cordial, constructive \u2014 exactly what we want.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cWe made progress today, but this is the beginning of negotiations,\u201d Mr. Carney said, adding that the president did not offer to remove the auto tariff on Canada, or the tariffs on Canadian steel or aluminum.<\/p>\n

Both leaders said that they had agreed, as Mr. Trump put it, \u201cto begin comprehensive negotiations about a new economic and security relationship\u201d after the Canadian election on April 28.<\/p>\n

In the interim, Carney said that talks between Howard Lutnick, Mr. Trump\u2019s commerce secretary, and Dominic LeBlanc, Canada\u2019s trade minister, \u201cwill intensify to address immediate concerns.\u201d<\/p>\n

The president\u2019s repeated calls for annexation did not come up, Mr. Carney said.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe president respected Canada\u2019s sovereignty today,\u201d Mr. Carney said.<\/p>\n

However, not all of the Trump administration\u2019s talk about Canada on Friday was positive.<\/p>\n

When asked if the United States still intended to impose tariffs on Canada next week, Mr. Trump said he would \u201cabsolutely follow through.\u201d<\/p>\n

And in Greenland, Vice President JD Vance echoed Mr. Trump\u2019s earlier complaints about Canada, saying that it has imposed \u201can unfair set of rules\u201d on the United States. He also said, \u201cThere is no way that Canada can win a trade war with the United States.\u201d<\/p>\n

Asked about the apparent change in tone from President Trump toward Canada, Pierre Poilievre, the Conservative leader<\/a> and Mr. Carney\u2019s nearest rival in next month\u2019s election, said that \u201cit\u2019s clear that the president would like to keep the Liberals in power.<\/p>\n

\u201cThey\u2019ve been very good for his agenda,\u201d Mr. Poilievre said. \u201cHe wants to take our money and our jobs, and Liberals have helped him do it.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Advertisement<\/p>\n

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

\n
\n

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

\n

David E. Sanger<\/a><\/p>\n

David E. Sanger covers the White House and national security, and writes often on the revival of superpower conflict, the subject of his newest book.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

Visiting Greenland, Vance finds the reception chilly.<\/a><\/h2>\n<\/p>\n
\n
\n
\n

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

Vice President JD Vance on a tour of the Pituffik Space Base in Greenland on Friday.<\/span>Credit…<\/span>Pool photo by Jim Watson<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n

President Trump has been less than subtle in his insistence that the United States will \u201cget\u201d Greenland one way or another, reiterating on Friday that the United States cannot \u201clive without it.\u201d<\/p>\n

By the time he uttered those words in the Oval Office, the highest-level American political expeditionary force ever to set foot on the vast territory had already landed to inspect the real estate prospects. But they were confined inside the fence of a remote, frozen American air base, the only place protesters could not show up.<\/p>\n

\n

Led by Vice President JD Vance, the American visitors quickly discovered what past administrations have learned back to the 1860s: The meteorological conditions are as forbidding as the politics. When Mr. Vance\u2019s plane touched down in the midday sunshine, 750 miles north of the Arctic Circle, it was minus 3 degrees outside.<\/p>\n

Mr. Vance used a jocular and slightly vulgar epithet to describe the temperature, where he was wearing jeans and a parka, but no hat or gloves. \u201cNobody told me,\u201d he said to the troops at the Pituffik Space Base as he entered their mess hall for lunch. The U.S. Space Force Guardians, who run what was once known after World War II as Thule Air Force Base, broke out laughing.<\/p>\n

But for all the humor, the trip was simultaneously a reconnaissance mission and a passive-aggressive reminder of Mr. Trump\u2019s determination to fulfill his territorial ambitions, no matter what the obstacles. As if to drive home the point, Mr. Trump told reporters in the Oval Office on Friday: \u201cWe have to have Greenland. It\u2019s not a question of \u2018Do you think we can do without it.\u2019 We can\u2019t.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n

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

The flag of Greenland, known as \u201cErfalasorput,\u201d flying in Nuuk on Friday. <\/span>Credit…<\/span>Leon Neal\/Getty Images<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n

In fact, of the four territories Mr. Trump has discussed acquiring \u2014 Greenland, the Panama Canal, Canada and Gaza \u2014 it is Greenland that he seems most determined to get. Perhaps it is the vast expanse of the territory, far larger than Mexico. Perhaps it is its strategic location, or his determination to have an American \u201csphere of influence,\u201d a very 19th-century view of how great powers deal with each other.<\/p>\n

Yet one of the mysteries hanging over the Vance tour is how far Mr. Trump is willing to go to achieve his goal. That has been the question since early January, when Mr. Trump, awaiting his inauguration, was asked whether he would rule out economic or military coercion to get his way<\/a>. \u201cI\u2019m not going to commit to that,\u201d he said. \u201cYou might have to do something.\u201d<\/p>\n

Not since the days of William McKinley<\/a>, who engaged in the Spanish-American War in the late 19th century and ended up with U.S. control of the Philippines, Guam and Puerto Rico, has an American president-elect so blatantly threatened the use of force to expand the country\u2019s territorial boundaries. And the visit on Friday appeared designed to make that clear, without quite repeating the threat.<\/p>\n

Mr. Vance is the first sitting vice president to visit a land that Americans have coveted for more than a century and a half. The fact that he was accompanied by the embattled national security adviser, Michael Waltz, and the energy secretary, Chris Wright, was clearly designed to underscore the strategic rationale that Mr. Trump cites as a justification for his territorial ambitions.<\/p>\n

Before the visit, the leader of Greenland suggested that he viewed Mr. Waltz\u2019s presence, in particular, as a show of Mr. Trump\u2019s aggressive intent.<\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n

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

A protest in Nuuk against an increase of the U.S. military presence in Greenland on Friday. <\/span>Credit…<\/span>Leon Neal\/Getty Images<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n

\u201cWhat is the national security adviser doing in Greenland?\u201d M\u00fate Bourup Egede, Greenland\u2019s 38-year-old prime minister, told the local newspaper<\/a> Sermitsiaq on Sunday. \u201cThe only purpose is to demonstrate power over us.\u201d<\/p>\n

Mr. Egede and other Greenland officials made it clear that the Americans were not welcome for a visit. The White House had to scrap a good-will tour by Usha Vance, the vice president\u2019s wife, who had been planning to attend a dog sled race and hold conversations with ordinary Greenlanders. As it became clear that the roads around Nuuk, the capital, would be lined with protesters, the visit was moved just to the Space Force base, where distance from any population center and high fences assured there would be no visible dissent.<\/p>\n

Mr. Trump is not wrong when he claims that there are strategic advantages to acquiring the territory. William Seward, the secretary of state under Abraham Lincoln and Andrew Johnson, was negotiating to buy the territory for a bit more than $5 million in 1868 \u2014 with Iceland thrown in \u2014 just after he acquired Alaska. But the deal never came to fruition. Harry Truman wanted the territory after World War II, recognizing that failure to control it would give advantage to the Soviets, and make the United States more vulnerable to Soviet submarines.<\/p>\n

Today Greenland is the site of a surface and undersea competition with China and Russia for access to the Arctic, a territory with vastly increased military and commercial importance since global warming made traversing polar routes easier. And Mr. Trump has made clear he is interested in Greenland\u2019s untapped mineral reserves and rare earths, as he is in Ukraine, Russia and Canada.<\/p>\n

\u201cIf you look at the globe, you can see why we prefer that the Russians and the Chinese don\u2019t control this,\u201d said Doug Bandow, a senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute in Washington. \u201cBut we don\u2019t need to own it to protect it and prevent them from taking control.\u201d<\/p>\n

Mr. Trump, he said, \u201cwants the resources of Greenland, but in today\u2019s world you can buy resources.\u201d And by expanding the American presence, he could defend against growing Chinese or Russian influence without seizing control of the land.<\/p>\n

But Mr. Trump looks at the world through the eyes of a real estate developer, and he clearly cherishes territorial control. In his inaugural address he talked about \u201cmanifest destiny\u201d and praised Mr. McKinley. James K. Polk\u2019s portrait has made it on the wall of the Oval Office, along with a selection of other past presidents; he was the president who oversaw much of the American expansion to the West Coast.<\/p>\n

Mr. Vance\u2019s audience was American troops, not Greenlanders, once his wife\u2019s trip was turned into a vice-presidential mission. But he was clearly talking to a larger audience when, before getting back on his plane and returning to warmer climes in Washington, he made the case that the United States would be a far better steward for Greenland than Denmark has been for several hundred years.<\/p>\n

\u201cLet\u2019s be honest,\u201d he said. \u201cThis base, the surrounding area, is less secure than it was 30, 40, years ago, because some of our allies haven\u2019t kept up as China and Russia have taken greater and greater interest in Greenland, in this base, in the activities of the brave Americans right here.\u201d<\/p>\n

He charged that Denmark, and much of Europe, has not \u201ckept pace with military spending, and Denmark has not kept pace in devoting the resources necessary to keep this base, to keep our troops, and in my view, to keep the people of Greenland safe from a lot of very aggressive incursions from Russia, from China and from other nations.\u201d<\/p>\n

It was a remarkable public critique of a NATO ally, but milder than what Mr. Vance said to his national security colleagues about European partners in the Signal chat<\/a> that became public earlier in the week.<\/p>\n

\u201cOur message to Denmark is very simple, you have not done a good job by the people of Greenland,\u201d Mr. Vance said, all but goading Greenlanders into declaring independence from Denmark. \u201cYou have underinvested in the people of Greenland and you have underinvested in the security architecture of this incredible, beautiful land mass, filled with incredible people.\u201d<\/p>\n

In an exchange with reporters, Mr. Vance seemed to acknowledge that the drive to acquire the territory had as much to do with Mr. Trump as the national security threat. \u201cWe can\u2019t just ignore this place,\u201d he said at one point. \u201cWe can\u2019t just ignore the president\u2019s desires. But most importantly, we can\u2019t ignore what I said earlier, which is the Russian and Chinese encroachment in Greenland.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cWhen the president says we\u2019ve got to have Greenland, he\u2019s saying this island is not safe,\u201d he said. \u201cA lot of people are interested in it. A lot of people are making a play.\u201d But he was careful to say the decision about whom to partner with was Greenland\u2019s. (Mr. Trump himself has not put it in such voluntary terms.)<\/p>\n

Just before he left, Mr. Vance was asked if military plans had been drafted to take Greenland if it declines to become an American protectorate.<\/p>\n

\u201cWe do not think that military force is ever going to be necessary,\u201d he said. \u201cWe think the people of Greenland are rational and good, and we think we\u2019re going to be able to cut a deal, Donald Trump-style, to ensure the security of this territory, but also the United States of America.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n
\n

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

President Trump\u2019s efforts to deport migrants to places other than their country of origin hit a new roadblock on Friday, when a federal judge issued a temporary restraining order requiring the administration to give migrants an opportunity to contest their removal on the grounds that they might be at risk of torture. The Trump administration has struck deals with multiple countries to detain U.S. deportees.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

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

\u201cThe government has been whisking people out of the country and deporting them to third countries,\u201d said Trina Realmuto, one of the lawyers who submitted the complaint. \u201cThis will effectively stop those deportations.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

\"Santul<\/a>\"Mark<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

A judge is expected to rule within days on moving the Khalil case from Louisiana.<\/a><\/h2>\n<\/p>\n
\n
\n
\n

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

Protesters convened outside a Newark courthouse, where the case had been transferred because Mahmoud Khalil was briefly held in New Jersey.<\/span>Credit…<\/span>Adam Gray for The New York Times<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n

A Newark federal judge on Friday heard arguments on whether the case to free Mahmoud Khalil<\/a>, a leader of pro-Palestinian protests at Columbia University, should continue to play out in New Jersey or be transferred to Louisiana, a potentially more favorable venue for the government\u2019s case.<\/p>\n

The judge, Michael Farbiarz, did not make an immediate decision, but is expected to rule soon. Mr. Khalil, a legal permanent resident, was detained on March 8 at his New York City apartment, sent briefly to a New Jersey detention center and now has been held for nearly three weeks in a facility in Jena, La.<\/p>\n

\n

While Mr. Khalil\u2019s lawyers are fighting for his freedom, the Trump administration is seeking to deport him, saying that he spread antisemitism through his involvement in the protests. If Mr. Khalil stays in Louisiana, his case could end up in one of America\u2019s most conservative appeals courts. Those judges could decide whether the government\u2019s rationale for detaining Mr. Khalil could be used in other cases.<\/p>\n

The case was originally filed in New York, but a judge there decided he lacked jurisdiction and that it should be heard in New Jersey. The attempts by Mr. Khalil\u2019s lawyers to free him have created a tangle of litigation, much of which has focused on a seemingly technical question: In which court should his case be heard?<\/p>\n

On Friday in Newark, Baher Azmy, a lawyer for Mr. Khalil and legal director of the Center for Constitutional Rights, argued in court that transferring the case to Louisiana would set a precedent for other activists to be moved without legal justification, which he called \u201cKafkaesque.\u201d<\/p>\n

The government\u2019s case against Mr. Khalil was undertaken \u201cin order to retaliate against constitutionally protected speech,\u201d Mr. Azmy said.<\/p>\n

But a lawyer for the government, August E. Flentje, said it \u201cmade no good sense\u201d for the case to be heard in New Jersey when Mr. Khalil had been arrested in New York, asserting that \u201cthe case belongs in Louisiana.\u201d<\/p>\n

Judge Farbiarz delayed ruling on a request from Mr. Khalil\u2019s lawyers that he be granted bail, saying he first wanted to resolve the issue of where the case would be heard.<\/p>\n

Mr. Khalil is one of at least nine protest participants<\/a> who have been arrested and detained this month. Unlike some others, he is a legal resident, married to an American citizen who is expected to give birth next month.<\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n

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

Noor Abdalla, Mr. Khalil\u2019s wife, is an American citizen who is weeks from giving birth to their child.<\/span>Credit…<\/span>Adam Gray for The New York Times<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n

He has not been charged with a crime. Instead, the secretary of state, Marco Rubio, has cited a rarely used law to explain Mr. Khalil\u2019s detention, saying that the recent graduate threatens the Trump administration\u2019s foreign policy goal of halting the spread of antisemitism.<\/p>\n

Mr. Khalil\u2019s lawyers initially asked for his release in New York federal court. But the judge there determined that it should be heard neither there, nor in Louisiana, but in New Jersey, where Mr. Khalil was being held at the moment his lawyers filed court papers. Accordingly, the case itself was transferred to New Jersey last week<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Once there, the government\u2019s lawyers continued to fight to transfer the case to Louisiana. In a filing, they noted that Mr. Khalil had never filed a petition in New Jersey \u2014 and argued that the court had no jurisdiction.<\/p>\n

The administration has reason to continue its fight<\/a>. If the legal battle is waged in Louisiana, it is likely to make its way to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which from New Orleans presides over cases from that state.<\/p>\n

The Fifth Circuit is known as one of the country\u2019s most conservative, and in the past has sided with government officials over noncitizens. If its judges rule in favor of the Trump administration, Secretary Rubio could continue to cite the law used to justify the detention of Mr. Khalil in efforts to deport other legal permanent residents.<\/p>\n

Friday\u2019s hearing came days after a judge in Manhattan ordered the government to halt efforts to detain Yunseo Chung, a 21-year-old Columbia student and legal permanent resident who had participated in pro-Palestinian protests. Ms. Chung, who shares a legal team with Mr. Khalil, was never detained by immigration authorities.<\/p>\n

In an interview outside the courthouse after the hearing, Mr. Azmy noted the distinction between her case and Mr. Khalil\u2019s.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe fact that he\u2019s in custody allows the government to have total control over him\u201d Mr. Azmy said.<\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n

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

Baher Azmy, one of Mr. Khalil\u2019s lawyers, said that the government had \u201ctotal control\u201d of his client.<\/span>Credit…<\/span>Adam Gray for The New York Times<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n

As the hearing played out, around 50 demonstrators assembled outside the Newark courthouse to protest Mr. Khalil\u2019s detention. They waved Palestinian flags, held signs and chanted.<\/p>\n

\u201cHands off our students! ICE off our campus!\u201d read one sign. \u201cOpposing genocide does not mean supporting terrorism.\u201d<\/p>\n

Speaking at the rally, Amy Torres, executive director for the New Jersey Alliance for Immigrant Justice, pointed to a chilling effect on free speech created by the detention of students across the country<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\u201cThey have only targeted people that they view to be voiceless,\u201d she said, adding, \u201cThis is about this administration taking the issue that they believe is the least sympathetic, and making an example out of the people that they arrest.\u201d<\/p>\n

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

\n

Advertisement<\/p>\n

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

\n
\n

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

Elon Musk backtracks on a legally questionable plan to pay voters.<\/a><\/h2>\n<\/p>\n
\n
\n
\n

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

Elon Musk and groups tied to him have spent nearly $20 million to try to elect a conservative judge to the Wisconsin Supreme Court. <\/span>Credit…<\/span>Eric Lee\/The New York Times<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n

Elon Musk is walking back part of his legally questionable plan to pay conservative voters.<\/p>\n

During the presidential election, Mr. Musk courted conservative-leaning voters<\/a> by offering $1 million payouts in a sweepstakes to those who agreed to sign a petition. Federal law prohibits payments to Americans in exchange for their registering to vote or casting ballots. Mr. Musk\u2019s allies argued that he was not doing that, but merely paying people who signed a petition.<\/p>\n

\n

Mr. Musk, the world\u2019s richest person, has returned to the tactic as he tries to elect a conservative judge<\/a>, Brad Schimel, in a major race for control of the Wisconsin Supreme Court. The billionaire has offered a chance to earn $1 million to signers of a petition opposing \u201cactivist judges.\u201d<\/p>\n

Early Friday, Mr. Musk took it a big step further: He told his 219 million followers on X that when he visited Wisconsin<\/a> on Sunday, he would hand out two $1 million checks to people who had already voted in the election \u201cin appreciation for you taking the time to vote.\u201d The offer was open only to those who had already voted, he said.<\/p>\n

But later on Friday, Mr. Musk quietly deleted his post on X.<\/p>\n

About 12 hours after that initial post, he said he had to \u201cclarify a previous post.\u201d He wrote that \u201centrance is limited to those who have signed the petition in opposition to activist judges,\u201d adding, \u201cI will also hand over checks for a million dollars to 2 people to be spokesmen for the petition.\u201d<\/p>\n

Mr. Musk, whose shoot-from-the-hip approach on his social media site has gotten him in plenty of legal trouble over the years, appeared to be bowing to the legal scrutiny that was building on Friday.<\/p>\n

It is Wisconsin law, not federal law, that applies, and the state\u2019s Democratic attorney general, Josh Kaul, on Friday sued to block Mr. Musk\u2019s payments. (In a curious twist of fate, the case was randomly assigned to Susan Crawford, the liberal judge whom Mr. Musk is trying to defeat. She quickly recused herself.)<\/p>\n

Several experts argued before Mr. Musk\u2019s deletion of his post that his new inducement, which seemed to condition the chance of winning $1 million on voting, was illegal under state bribery laws<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\u201cConditioning entrance to this event and eligibility for the $1 million payout on having voted arguably violates Wisconsin law, which prohibits offering or giving anything of value to induce a person to vote,\u201d said Brendan Fischer, a campaign finance lawyer who has defended<\/a> the legality of some of Mr. Musk\u2019s petition payouts.<\/p>\n

Bryna Godar, a staff attorney at the University of Wisconsin Law School, said that Mr. Musk\u2019s original offer was \u201cpretty clearly\u201d a violation of state bribery laws. While Mr. Musk\u2019s offer before the November 2024 election was a \u201cgray area,\u201d Ms. Godar said, \u201cthe key difference here is that the rally and the million-dollar payments are limited to people who have already voted.\u201d<\/p>\n

Part of the reason for Mr. Musk\u2019s petition and payouts has been to gin up controversy and attention from the news media. His 2024 petition was challenged in Pennsylvania state court just before Election Day, and a state judge declined to put a stop to it<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\n

A correction was made on<\/strong>\u00a0<\/p>\n

March 28, 2025<\/p>\n

:\u00a0<\/p>\n

An earlier version of this article misstated the type of judge in Pennsylvania who declined to stop Elon Musk\u2019s election sweepstakes last year. It was a state judge, not a federal one.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/section>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The ruling was another courtroom defeat for Trump\u2019s retribution campaign. A federal judge called President Trump\u2019s attempts to punish the law firm Jenner & Block \u201cdisturbing\u201d as he temporarily blocked most of an executive order that targeted it, the latest courtroom defeat in Mr. Trump\u2019s campaign of retaliation against law firms that participated in investigations […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":949,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-948","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/wpinitiate.com\/echo-test\/demo973e36f5\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/948","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/wpinitiate.com\/echo-test\/demo973e36f5\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/wpinitiate.com\/echo-test\/demo973e36f5\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wpinitiate.com\/echo-test\/demo973e36f5\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wpinitiate.com\/echo-test\/demo973e36f5\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=948"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/wpinitiate.com\/echo-test\/demo973e36f5\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/948\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wpinitiate.com\/echo-test\/demo973e36f5\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/949"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/wpinitiate.com\/echo-test\/demo973e36f5\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=948"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wpinitiate.com\/echo-test\/demo973e36f5\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=948"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wpinitiate.com\/echo-test\/demo973e36f5\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=948"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}