New York State's highest court on Wednesday ruled against city retirees who had sought to block an effort by Mayor Eric Adams' administration to move them onto a for-profit, privatized Medicare Advantage plan.

In a unanimous decision, New York Court of Appeals Judge Shirley Troutman wrote that petitioners in the case are not entitled to "promissory estoppel" cause of action, the argument that the retirees throughout their employment with the city were promised traditional Medicare benefits when they retired.

According to Gothamist, "the court also ruled that the retirees did not have a legally binding promise from the city that their coverage would remain unchanged." The Wednesday ruling overruled a state Supreme Court judge’s decision that had prevented the Adams administration from making the switch, though the Court of Appeals said there were still issues in the case that should be sent back down to the Supreme Court, a lower court in New York's state system.

Medicare Advantage plans are run by private health insurers who receive money from the federal government to provide Medicare-covered services. Medicare Advantage enrollment around the country is growing, though the Medicare Advantage system has been accused of offering poor care and boosting corporate profits. A 2022 investigation by The New York Times found that major health insurers have exploited Medicare Advantage to juice their profits by billions of dollars.

The move to switch the city's 250,000 retirees to Medicare Advantage stems from a 2018 agreement between leaders in city government and major public employee unions to cut $600 million from the city's healthcare spending, according to the outlet The City.

"While we are disappointed in the ruling by the Court of Appeals, the solution to protecting seniors' healthcare has always been with the City Council and the mayor," said Marianne Pizzitola, leader of the Organization of Public Service Retirees, which opposes the switch.

"The City of New York should never, ever be screwing over retirees—and neither should the courts. Nobody will ever want to work for New York City again. Zero trust. Medicare Advantage is a bait and switch scam & betrayal. Enough! City Hall clearly doesn't care about retirees," wrote Justin Brannan, New York City Council Finance Committee Chair and Democratic candidate for city comptroller, in response to the ruling.

The Trump Organization on Monday announced the creation of a new cellular phone service named after U.S. President Donald Trump and teased the upcoming release of a gold, $499 smartphone—news that elicited swift rebuke from two watchdog groups.

"The limit to Trump family profiteering does not exist," wrote the group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington in response to Eric Trump discussing the update on Fox Business Network on Monday.

The new wireless service, called "Trump Mobile," advertises a $47.45 a month plan, and will operate as a licensing agreement.

"Trump Mobile, its products and services are not designed, developed, manufactured, distributed, or sold by the Trump Organization or any of their respective affiliates or principals," according to a Monday statement from the Trump Organization, which is headed by the president's sons, Eric Trump and Donald Trump Jr. "T1 Mobile LLC uses the 'Trump' name and trademark pursuant to the terms of a limited license agreement which may be terminated or revoked according to its terms."

According to that same statement, Trump Mobile will offer 5G service in partnership with existing major cellular carriers. It will also offer unlimited talk and text and other benefits, and subscribers to the plan will receive "telehealth services, including virtual medical care, mental health support, and easy ordering and delivery for prescription medications."

In addition to the new wireless service, a gold-colored "T1" smartphone will be available starting September, according to the Trump Mobile website.

"It seems utterly unfathomable that you could build a phone with this set of specs, at this price, to be delivered in September," remarked David Pierce, editor-at-large at The Verge.

The new wireless phone service is one of several products featuring the Trump name, including the $TRUMP meme coin.

Trump reported over $600 million in income stemming from a variety of ventures, including cryptocurrency, in a public financial disclosure report that appeared to cover the period of 2024 and which was released on Friday, according to Reuters. The report showed that Trump made millions in royalty payments for products that feature his name and likeness, according to NBC News. $TRUMP was released in January and not included in the filing, per NBC.

"The foray into phones raises new questions about conflicts of interest, with the president's family business entering a sector heavily regulated by federal agencies while Trump wields executive power over them," The Guardianreported on Monday. "It creates a particularly difficult situation for the Federal Communications Commission chairman, Brendan Carr, who must now oversee regulatory matters affecting a network bearing his boss's name."

Robert Weissman, co-president of the watchdog group Public Citizen, wrote on Monday that "Americans should slam down the phone in response to the latest marketing ploy from the Trump family business. Everything about this plan should tell Americans to disconnect right away."

Weissman cast doubt on the plan for a number of reasons, including that the physical phone would be designed and built in the United States. While speaking on "The Benny Show," Eric Trump said Monday that "eventually all the phones can be built in the United States."

Separately, Weissman added, "Good luck getting a federal agency to hold the company accountable if service fails or things go off the rails."

"We'll need many more details to fully assess what's going on—including the worrisome claim of offering a pharmacy and telehealth benefit—but it's already clear this is a plan that should be canceled, immediately," Weissman concluded.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, the Democrat from Massachusetts, on Tuesday released a report chronicling over 100 examples of "unethical or potentially corrupt actions" that either benefit billionaire Elon Musk or one of his companies and which took place while Musk played a key role in the Trump administration.

According to the report, the past few months have been very profitable for Musk, who officially departed the White House last week. "Since Election Day, Musk's staggering net worth has increased by over $100 billion," the report states.

After spending some $290 million to help elect U.S. President Donald Trump and other Republicans last fall, Musk was tapped by Trump to lead the so-called Department of Government Efficiency, a body tasked with slashing government personnel and spending. DOGE's sweep of government has led, for example, to the hollowing out of the U.S. Agency for International Development and contract cuts at many other agencies.

Last week, Musk announced that he is departing the White House, just ahead of an official May 30 deadline for his departure as a special government employee. That designation allowed the world's richest man to play a key role in the Trump White House without facing Senate confirmation.

During that time, Musk "maintained extensive financial conflicts of interest through his ownership or stake" in several companies, including the electric vehicle company Tesla and his aerospace firm SpaceX, per the report, which was first written up by Rolling Stone.

According to the report, "not every action listed below represents a violation of federal law. In many cases, Musk has violated norms at an astonishing pace." However, "in other cases, Musk has engaged in action that may have violated the statutory prohibition regarding federal employees; participation in particular matters in which a government official has a financial interest, laws against bribery and gratuities, or the regulations prohibiting use of one's government position for private gain."

The report, titled Special Interests Over the Public Interest: Elon Musk's 130 Days in the Trump Administration, sorts the listed actions into 15 main categories, such as "official government time and resources [that] have been spent promoting Musk's businesses." In that first category, the report gives the example of the time that Trump turned the White House lawn into a Tesla showroom.

In a category titled "Musk's parochial interests over the public interest," the report highlights how Musk has appeared to influence Trump's actions toward South Africa, Musk's country of birth.

Musk has been critical of a law passed in South Africa earlier this year, which allows the government to seize land under set circumstances. The law is meant to help rectify the economic exclusion that Black South Africans faced during apartheid. In February, Trump issued an executive order freezing aid to South Africa over the law.

The report also details federal government contracts that Musk's various ventures have either secured or are being considered for. For example, in February, NASA chose SpaceX to provide launch services for a space telescope, a contract worth $100 million. SpaceX is also reportedly being considered to construct part of Trump's "Golden Dome" missile defense shield.

Warren's report also gives instances in which "largely guided by Musk's DOGE, the Trump administration has hamstrung the agencies overseeing Musk's companies, gutting their staff, throwing sand in the gears of their operations, and embedding DOGE staff loyal to Musk." The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in particular has been a target of DOGE.

Despite concerns that it does not address U.S. President Donald Trump's ties to the crypto industry, 16 Democrats in the Senate voted with most Republicans on Monday to advance a bill that creates a regulatory framework for stablecoins, digital assets whose value is tied to traditional currency, such as the U.S. dollar, or a commodity like gold.

The industry-backed Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins (GENIUS) Act passed a cloture vote, with support from Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), the original co-sponsor of the bill, Angela Alsobrooks (D-Md.), Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.), Mark Warner (D-Va.), Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-Del.), Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.), Ben Ray Luján (N.M.), Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.), John Fetterman (D-Pa.), Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.), Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), Jon Ossoff (D-Ga.), Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), and Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.). The bill is now teed up for Senate debate.

Back in February, a coalition of consumer groups and watchdogs warned that the bill would accelerate the "convergence of Big Tech and Big Finance" and is "a necessary prerequisite for future giveaways to the crypto industry."

In early May, the legislation faltered after several crypto-friendly Democrats raised concerns that it did not contain strong enough provisions around anti-money laundering, national security, and other issues.

Pro-crypto Democrats have said that the version of the bill that was considered on Monday contains a number of revisions that address those concerns, including more consumer protections and some limitations on Big Tech's ability to issue stablecoins.

However, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.)—the top Democrat on the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs—said on the Senate floor Monday that the bill's "basic flaws remain unaddressed," according to prepared remarks.

Warren is concerned, in particular, that the bill does not "rein in the president's crypto corruption."

" Trump and his family have already pocketed hundreds of millions of dollars from his crypto ventures and they stand to make hundreds of millions more from his stablecoin, USD1, if this bill passes," Warren said. "Passing this bill means that we can expect more anonymous buyers, big companies, and foreign governments to use the president's stablecoin as both a shadowy bank account shielded from government oversight and as a way to pay off the president personally."

USD1 is a stablecoin developed by the Trump family crypto firm, World Liberty Financial. A few weeks ago, it was announced that USD1 would be used for a $2 billion deal between an investment firm established by the government of Abu Dhabi, MGX, and the world's largest crypto exchange, Binance.

Warren on Monday also expressed concern that the bill, even with revisions, creates a relatively weak regulatory framework, and still allows Big Tech to create private currencies, among other objections.

"Democrats correctly deride Republicans for abetting Trump's endless, daily, sulfurous corruption. But given the chance to stand up to his crypto grift—perhaps the most reeking corruption in presidential history—too many Democrats instead yielded to another depravity, namely unprecedented political spending by a handful of crypto corporations and billionaires," said Public Citizen co-president Lisa Gilbert on Monday, referencing election spending by the crypto industry.

In the last election cycle, crypto industry-supported super political action committees gave money to multiple senators who voted for cloture on Monday, including Slotkin and Gallego.

"No Democrats should be supporting Trump's self-enrichment," the grassroots progressive group Indivisible wrote on Tuesday on Bluesky.

NOW READ: Swing state Republicans headed for a 'wipeout' if candidates refuse to buck Trump

U.S. President Donald Trump verbally thrashed Walmart on Saturday following the retailer's announcement this week that it expects to raise prices on some goods as a result of tariffs imposed by the White House.

On his social media platform Truth Social, Trump wrote that Walmart should "STOP trying to blame Tariffs as the reason for raising prices throughout the chain."

"Between Walmart and China they should, as is said, 'EAT THE TARIFFS,' and not charge valued customers ANYTHING. I'll be watching, and so will your customers!!!" he wrote.

On Thursday, leaders at Walmart said that they will have to raise prices in response to tariffs imposed by the Trump administration even after lowered duties on Chinese imports were announced.

The Trump administration has placed 10% universal tariff on goods entering the United States and imposed higher tariffs on goods coming from China—though on Monday the two countries said they reached a deal to temporarily lower the tariffs they had imposed on one another while they try to hash out a trade deal. Imports from China will now be subject to a 30% tariff, whereas before many goods coming to the U.S. from China previously had at least a 145% tariff.

CEO Doug McMillon said that Walmart, which is known for its low prices, will do its best to keep prices low, but that "given the magnitude of the tariffs, even at the reduced levels announced this week, we aren't able to absorb all the pressure given the reality of narrow retail margins."

One observer expressed skepticism that Walmart would heed Trump's demand.

"If you think Walmart is going to eat the costs of tariffs, then you don't understand Walmart's greed and how it exploits its customers and workers to make its billions," saidMelanie D'Arrigo, the executive director of a group fighting for universal healthcare in New York State.

Economists expect the cost of tariffs, which are a form of tax applied on imports that can be used to support homegrown industries that employ American workers, to be largely passed on from businesses to American consumers.

In an analysis of the Trump administration's tariff regime as of late April, with the higher duties on Chinese goods in place, the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy found that in 2026 the poorest Americans would see the biggest tariff-induced tax hikes compared to other income groups.

Some observers also used Trump's social media post to highlight that in the past he has claimed that other countries would bear the brunt of tariffs.

The social media posts echoes a recent episode when, last month, after a news report that Amazon would display tariff-based price increases next to the price of products online, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt called such a move "a hostile and political act." After a call between Trump and Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, a company spokesperson said displays had been considered for only a section of the site but wouldn't be happening.

NOW READ: At least one Trump attack dog just killed their career

U.S. President Donald Trump is conducting an "unprecedented and illegal" broadside against science and scientists that will have devastating consequences for regular Americans, according to a report released Tuesday by Sen. Bernie Sanders, an Independent from Vermont.

The report, which casts Trump's actions as a "war on science" that will lead to "preventable suffering" and "needless loss of life," was compiled by the minority staff with the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, where Sanders is the ranking member.

To compile the report, staff interviewed federal health workers, analyzed National Institutes of Health (NIH) grant funding data, reviewed self-reported data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and more.

The report concludes that Trump's moves against science will yield fewer breakthroughs for combating diseases, a less robust public health response to future infectious disease threats, and even less trust in public institutions.

In a statement on Tuesday, Sanders said that "Trump's war on science is an attack against anyone who has ever loved someone with cancer."

All told, according to the report, as of April 2025 the Trump administration has terminated at least $13.5 billion in health funding and has dismissed thousands of employees who support America's scientific infrastructure.

In what the report calls the "clearest sign" of the administration's effort to defund science, it states that NIH committed $2.7 billion less to research in the first three months of 2025 compared to the same time period last year, representing an effective 35% cut.

When the researchers behind the report conducted an analysis of National Cancer Institute grants, they found there has been a 31% decline in cancer research grant funding in the first three months of 2025, compared to the first three months of 2024.

The report also relays accounts from federal workers who highlight the Trump administration's efforts to impose control over "scientific speech."

For example, one HHS official said: "We get requests from the media to provide scientific expertise. Normally, [political appointees] would never get involved in this type of non-high-profile stuff but now they have to approve every single media request."

Also, "researchers across the federal science agencies report that certain scientific topics now trigger heightened scrutiny or political review before publication, presentation, or grant consideration," according to the report. The researchers also state that over 100 scientific meetings have been delayed or canceled.

The report also focuses on the impact of firings at HHS. The report states that at least 10,000 workers at HHS agencies have been terminated, on top of some 10,000 who have left voluntarily of been forced out by the Trump administration, citing public reports. This tally aligns with a tracker of federal personnel cuts maintained by The New York Times.

According to the report, federal employees believe that the loss of "public capacity" could mean more power for the private sector. One HHS official quoted in the report anonymously said: "I chose to go into federal service because I care about people. I want to be able to answer to the taxpayer, not the shareholder."

Speaking of overall cuts to HHS, "the agency in charge of the health and well-being of all Americans including tens of millions of seniors, children, and working families may be cut down to... less than one-sixth the size of UnitedHealth Group," according to the report.

The report states that these firings have lead to "chaos" across HHS, and that disruptions have been particularly acute at NIH.

"Initially, we had whole labs full of people that were fired. Complete chaos. Nobody had any idea if their tests were being run," said an anonymously quoted staffer at the NIH Clinical Center—the country's biggest hospital devoted solely to clinical research.

"Trump's war on science is not making America healthy again," Sanders said. "It is making Americans and people throughout the world sicker."

The Trump administration reportedly fired the country's top copyright official, Shira Perlmutter, on Saturday, shortly after her office released the pre-publication version of a report that raised flags about training artificial intelligence models using copyrighted material.

Perlmutter's termination came two days after the White House abruptly fired Librarian of Congress Carla Hayden, who appointed Perlmutter to the role of Register of Copyrights and Director of the U.S. Copyright Office in 2020.

On Saturday, Perlmutter received a communication from the White House that she had been "terminated," according to Politico.

Other outlets have since reported that the Copyright Office confirmed her firing, though the White House appears to have not offered comment on the situation.

Rep. Joe Morelle (D-N.Y.), the top Democrat on the House Administration Committee, which oversees the management of the Library of Congress, said in a statement on Saturday that Trump's termination of Perlmutter is "a brazen, unprecedented power grab with no legal basis."

"It is surely no coincidence he acted less than a day after she refused to rubber-stamp Elon Musk's efforts to mine troves of copyrighted works to train AI models," alleged Morelle, in reference to the recent report from Perlmutter's office.

While not all observers are convinced of the link drawn by Morelle, in a post on Sunday from the American Federation of Musicians labor union echoed Morelle, writing that Perlmutter "understood what we all know to be true: human creativity and authorship are the foundation of copyright law—and for that, it appears, she lost her job."

Her "unlawful firing will gravely harm the entire copyright community," the union said.

The report, the latest in a series exploring the intersection of copyright law and AI, states that the "extent to which they are fair, however, will depend on what works were used, from what source, for what purpose, and with what controls on the outputs."

The report draws a distinction between using copyrighted works in AI training when it comes to research and analysis versus commercial use. "Making commercial use of vast troves of copyrighted works to produce expressive content that competes with them in existing markets, especially where this is accomplished through illegal access, goes beyond established fair use boundaries," according to the report.

AI models are generally trained by feeding them large amounts of data. Several news publishers have sued AI companies alleging their copyrighted content was used to train AI models, in cases that deal directly with fair use.

Billionaire Elon Musk, who owns an AI company called xAI, has been core to the Trump administration's efforts to slash federal spending and personnel through the Department of Government Efficiency. DOGE has reportedly used AI as part of its efforts to reshape government.

In a post prior to news of Perlmutter's firing, University of Colorado law professor Blake Reid on Saturday said that the report is a "straight-ticket loss for the AI companies" and also mused whether a "purge" at the Copyright Office was incoming and whether "they felt the need to rush this out."

According to Reid, when it comes to the significance of the report, "the [Copyright] Office (with a few exceptions) doesn't have the power to issue binding interpretations of copyright law, but courts often cite to its expertise as persuasive."

Following reporting about the behavior of U.S. Sen. John Fetterman—including concerns voiced by current and former staff have concerns about the mental wellbeing of the Democratic lawmaker from Pennsylvania—a growing number of political observers are openly questioning his ability to serve in public office.

A story in New York Magazine last week featuring the concern by staffwas followed by new Associated Pressreporting Thursday, which recounted a recent meeting between Fetterman and representatives from a teachers union that went awry when Fetterman began shouting and asking why "everybody is mad at me."

"Why does everyone hate me, what did I ever do," Fetterman reportedly said, according to someone who was briefed on what had taken place, the AP reported. A staff member ended the meeting and ushered the visitors out, and then broke down crying in the hallway.

Fetterman bested Mehmet Oz, the current head of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, in a race for the U.S. Senate in 2022, despite suffering a stroke while on the campaign trail. In 2023, after being sworn into the Senate, Fetterman checked himself into the hospital to seek treatment for clinical depression, and drew praise for being open about his diagnosis and seeking care.

His standing among progressive supporters has also soured over the past year and a half in part due to his unwavering support for Israel during the country's deadly military campaign in Gaza.

Fetterman was also the only senate Democrat to fly down to Mar-a-Lago and meet with U.S. President Donald Trump following Trump's victory in 2024.

Jeet Heer, the national affairs correspondent for The Nation, reacted to the AP's reporting with expressions of concern and suggested it may be time for the Democrat to step aside.

"We can agree or disagree on Fetterman's politics (I'm not a fan of his shift)," wrote Heer, "but I don't see how anyone can look at what's happening on a human level, to this man and his family, and not think that the best thing for him would be to resign so he can look after himself better."

According to New York Magazine, 14 months after Fetterman's discharge from the hospital, his former chief of staff Adam Jentleson, sent a long email to the medical director who had overseen Fetterman's care, writing that he thought Fetterman was on a "bad trajectory" and sharing concerns that if nothing changed, Fetterman "won't be with us for much longer."

In the email, Jentleson said he was concerned that Fetterman appeared not to be taking his meds, that he was displaying megalomania and conspiratorial thinking, "lying in ways that are painfully, awkwardly obvious to everyone in the room," and engaging in "repetitive and self centered monologues."

To the medical director, Jentleson also detailed that Fetterman had purchased a gun, engaged in a pattern of self isolation, and that he drove his car recklessly to the point that staff would not ride in the car with him.

"Former and current staffers paint a picture of an erratic senator who has become almost impossible to work for and whose mental-health situation is more serious and complicated than previously reported," the magazine reported.

"Jesus," wrote Aaron Regunberg, a progressive policy advocate wrote on social media in response to the reporting," John Fetterman should not be a U.S. Senator."

Jonathan Cohn, another progressive activist, commented on his personal X account that Fetterman was "creating an unsafe environment for his staff and constituents, and that makes him unfit for office."

On Tuesday, speaking to CNN, Fetterman called the article in New York Magazine a "one-source hit piece, and it involved maybe two or three and anonymous disgruntled staffers saying just absolute false things."

Few Democrats have come to Fetterman's aid in the wake of the reporting. There's been increased private talks about primary challenges to Fetterman, perPolitico, and according to the outlet "some Pennsylvania Democrats have begun to quietly review the rules about what would happen if he stepped down and whispered about potential replacements."

Florida Decides Healthcare, a political committee and nonprofit that is fighting for expanded Medicaid eligibility in the Sunshine State, on Sunday sued the Florida secretary of state and other state officials, challenging a law Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis signed last week that makes it tougher for citizens to get constitutional amendments on the ballot.

According to the lawsuit, which was filed in federal court, Florida Decides Healthcare (FDH) is working to qualify a ballot measure to appear on the 2026 general election ballot that, if voted through, would expand Medicaid coverage in Florida.

Provisions in H.B. 1205 include decreased time for organizers to submit signed petitions and increased monetary penalties for violations. The law also makes it a third-degree felony for anyone other than a registered petition circulator to collect or physically possess more than 25 signed petition forms beyond ones own and immediate family members.

"Because of H.B. 1205's punitive and onerous restrictions, set to go into effect in the middle of FDH's ongoing petition drive, the organization faces the real and imminent threat of being unable to continue its operations," according to the suit. "H.B. 1205 creates intolerable uncertainty, exposes FDH to ruinous civil and criminal penalties, and could ultimately force FDH to shut down its campaign entirely."

According to a statement from FDH, the lawsuit contends that the bill is a "direct assault" on the citizen-led constitutional amendment process in Florida, "a vital democratic tool that gives everyday Floridians the power to propose ballot initiatives."

H.B. 1205 creates "vague" and "punitive" restrictions around the process that will have a chilling impact on political speech and dissuade civic engagement, according to the group.

The Elias Law Group, a prominent Democratic law firm, and the Southern Poverty Law Center, a racial justice and legal advocacy group, are lending legal support to FDH.

This targeting of the citizens amendment process comes less than one year after two ballot initiatives in Florida narrowly failed. Amendment 4 sought to ensure the right to an abortion up until fetal viability. The measure narrowly failed, falling short of the 60% majority needed to pass, meaning Florida will remain under a six-week abortion ban. Amendment 3 sought to legalize marijuana and also failed. Groups backing the initiatives raised tens of millions of dollars.

According to the Orlando Sentinel, the DeSantis administration used public money to run ads targeting the initiatives, and defended the ad campaigns as educational.

"Floridians have a constitutional right to change policy themselves. State legislators have now effectively silenced their constituents, all in order to maintain their chokehold on policymaking," said Kelly Hall, executive director of the Fairness Project, in a statement on Tuesday. The Fairness Project was among the groups that backed Amendment 4 last fall.

"It's the ultimate cowardly act—for politicians to enact minority rule when they know their policies don't align with the will of the majority," Hall added. "Sadly, this is nothing new for DeSantis, who used extraordinarily undemocratic means to block the will of the people during the 2024 election."

Mitch Emerson, campaign manager for Florida Decides Healthcare, similarly called the law "cowardly." Emerson is also a plaintiff in the suit.

"It's not reform—it's repression. We are filing this lawsuit because we refuse to let them silence the people of Florida," said Emerson in a statement on Monday. "We believe in democracy, and we believe that when politicians fail to act, the people have the right to step in. Floridians are ready to vote for Medicaid expansion—and we intend to make sure they get that chance."

A new analysis out Friday makes the case that cuts proposed by the Trump administration to Social Security operations nationwide will create a "significant new burden" for millions of people, particularly "those who live in rural areas or have transportation or mobility difficulties."

Those who collect Social Security benefits will no longer be able to update their direct deposit banking information solely by phone. Instead of verifying their identity via security questions over the phone, the agency will require those who rely on Social Security to use a multifactor authentication process that includes a one-time PIN code or to visit a social security office in person.

The left-leaning think tank behind the new analysis, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), warned Friday that even though Trump officials within the SSA have claimed that the policy shift is designed to reduce fraud, "the agency's own figures show that direct deposit fraud is a very small problem—less than one-hundredth of one percent of benefits are misdirected."

A document from the agency gives "estimated burden figures," which indicates that nearly 2 million beneficiaries will need to visit a field office as a result of the changed process.

An April analysis from CBPP estimated that some 6 million live more than a 45-mile trip away from the nearest Social Security field office.

"The new PIN code requirement will be impossible for many beneficiaries to meet," according to the analysis from CBPP released Friday. "Many seniors and people with disabilities lack internet service, computers or smartphones, or the technological savvy to navigate SSA's online services."

What's more, the analysis states, "the PIN requirement expects callers to complete a multi-step, multifactor authentication and generate a PIN code while on the phone with an agent. Or if they don't have an account, they must hang up, establish an online account, then call back—a not-insignificant inconvenience when most callers to SSA do not reach an agent on the first try, and the wait time for a call back from SSA averages 2.5 hours."

Alex Lawson, executive director of Social Security Works, told Common Dreams on Friday that the CBPP analysis helps show how "the Trump administration and its goons are waging a full scale war against Social Security. They are forcing millions of Americans into Social Security offices at the same time they are cutting a huge percentage of the workforce."

"They are forcing millions of Americans into Social Security offices at the same time they are cutting a huge percentage of the workforce," Lawson added. "The Trump-Musk regime has one goal: Wreak Social Security so they can rob it. When people can't get their benefits for any reason, that is a benefit cut."

Trump, with the help of his billionaire advisor Elon Musk and the so-called Department of Government Efficiency, have endeavored to slash government spending and personnel. A tracker from The New York Times estimates that there has been a 5% staff reduction at SSA, but total planned reductions at the agency could ultimately cut staff by 17%.

Reporting from NPR from last week highlighted how workers at the SSA are struggling to keep up, with fewer staff working to serve over 70 million beneficiaries.

NOW READ: Trump’s clown car cabinet is driving off a cliff

Harvard University pushed back forcefully Friday after President Donald Trump declared in a social media post that "we are going to be taking away Harvard Tax Exempt Status," adding that is "what they deserve."

Trump's comment came just hours after Democratic senators sent a letter demanding a probe into whether the administration is acting illegally by trying to compel the U.S. Internal Revenue Service to yank the university's tax exemption.

Trump's post did not specify whether the IRS, the entity that has the power to remove an organization's tax-exempt status, is opting to remove Harvard's designation. Multiple outlets noted they got no immediate response from the IRS when they asked the agency for comment.

"There is no legal basis to rescind Harvard's tax-exempt status," a university spokesperson said in a statement, according to Politico. "Such an unprecedented action would endanger our ability to carry out our educational mission."

It is illegal for the president, vice president, or other top officials to request, indirectly or directly, that the IRS audit a particular taxpayer.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and multiple other Democratic senators on Friday asked the Acting Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) to probe whether the IRS has received illegal pressure from the administration when it comes to Harvard, and to provide information about whether the agency is looking into other entities at the direction of the president or other top officials.

"It is both illegal and unconstitutional for the IRS to take direction from the president to target schools, hospitals, churches, or any other tax-exempt entities as retribution for using their free speech rights," the senators wrote in a letter dated Friday to the Acting TIGTA Heather Hill.

"It is further unconscionable that the IRS would become a weapon of the Trump administration to extort its perceived enemies, but the actions of the president and his operatives have now made this fear a reality. We request that you review whether the president or his allies have taken any step to direct or pressure the IRS to take politically-motivated actions regarding the tax-exempt status of the president's political targets," they continued.

Loss of tax-exempt status, something that would only typically occur after an audit process that allows the university opportunity to defend itself and appeal, would be extremely significant for the university. Tax-exempt status means the school does not pay federal income tax on charitable contributions to the school and other income. It also means that donations to the school are tax-exempt for those who make them.

Trump mused publicly on April 16 that Harvard should lose its tax-exempt status, after the university's president said the institution would not comply with a list of policy demands from the president, that included, according to the Harvard Crimson, derecognizing pro-Palestine student groups and auditing academic programs for viewpoint diversity. The pushback from Harvard prompted the administration to freeze over $2 billion in federal funding for the school.

That same week, it was reported that the IRS was making plans to revoke Harvard's tax-exempt status.

In response to Trump's bullying tactics, Harvard sued the administration, calling the freeze on funding unlawful and asking the court to restore it.

The tangling between Harvard and the Trump administration is part of a broader wave of scrutiny by the White House on higher education.

NOW READ: Is the tide really turning against Trump? Expert says 'there's no going back'

As Republicans in Congress push forward with a sweeping tax and spending plan that could be be paid for in part by deep cuts to Medicaid and to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, the GOP plans to add a defense package to that bill which will include "an initial $27 billion boost" for the Golden Dome desired by U.S. President Donald, according to Thursday reporting from Reuters.

Trump has said he wants an "Iron Dome for America"—something akin to Israel's Iron Dome anti-missile defense. In a speech earlier this year he referred to it as a "Golden Dome."

Experts who spoke to NPR recently said that building a Golden Dome would be more complicated than Israel's Iron Dome for multiple reasons. Dylan Spaulding, a senior scientist with the Union of Concerned Scientists, earlier this week called the Golden Dome idea a "complete fantasy."

According to Reuters, which cited "a document" and a congressional aide, the $27 billion would be a part of a $150 billion defense package Republicans plan to introduce. "It will be part of Trump's sweeping tax cuts bill, which will cut taxes by about $5 trillion and add approximately $5.7 trillion to the federal government's debt over the next decade," per the outlet. The measure, if passed, will also fund the construction of 14 warships and increase homeland security spending.

"The $27 billion investment in Golden Dome will fund the building of more missile interceptors and the purchase of Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) antiballistic missile batteries, according to the congressional aide. THAAD is made by Lockheed Martin," the defense contractor, Reuters reported.

According to reporting from the outlet last week, billionaire "Elon Musk's SpaceX and two partners have emerged as front-runners to win a crucial part of the Golden Dome program that would track incoming missiles."

Bob Peterson, a senior research fellow for strategic deterrence at the right-wing think tank the Heritage Foundation, applauded the move. Peterson shared Reuters' reporting and wrote on Friday: "This is an important start to building Golden Dome. I sincerely hope this passes so that missile defense will protect all Americans from our adversaries."

Not everyone is enthusiastic about the spending.

One observer wrote on social media: "Golden Dome missile defense shield? WTF. $27 billion for a golden defense dome, yet Republicans want to cut Medicaid and Social Security. Vote accordingly in 2026."

"More than 180 companies are interested, but Musk's Space X just so happens to be the 'front-runner' for the contracts," wrote Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas), reacting to earlier reporting from Reuters about Musk's potential involvement in the project. "Shut this corrupt deal down. No cuts to Medicaid and Social Security to pay for more Musk contracts."

NOW READ: Trump, decency and what America has become

In an open letter published Wednesday, amid the Trump administration's unprecedented scrutiny on Big Law, multiple legal groups are calling on elite American law firms to convene and coordinate a unified response to U.S. President Donald Trump's "unconstitutional actions" and "threats to the rule of law and system of justice."

The legal groups include the coalition Lawyers Defending American Democracy (LDAD), the coalition Lawyers Allied Under Rule of Law, and the Steady State—which, according to the executive director of LDAD, "formed in the first Trump term as a loose association that maintained a low internet profile because many members were in government," but has "become much more organized and active" in response to the president's Department of Government Efficiency.

The groups drew a distinction between the several elite law firms who in recent weeks have negotiated deals with the Trump administration either in response to punishments imposed via executive order or to avoid the prospect of an executive order, and law firms who have resisted the Trump administration's pressure.

The law firms Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, WilmerHale, and Susman Godfrey have all filed suits challenging Trump's executive orders targeting them. All four have won initial relief in court.

According to the letter, more than 800 other firms, including 17 firms on the Am Law 200—a ranking of top law firms based on gross revenue—have joined amicus briefs in defense of the firms that have sued.

"Lawyers Defending American Democracy calls on the 170 undeclared Am Law 200 firms to avoid the path of those now notorious nine," the letter states.

"If you are one of these firms, you understand that the threatened executive edicts are not legal or enforceable. Rather, they are a tactic designed to enlist you in undermining the rule of law. Any concession by your prestigious firms only helps the administration intimidate the legal profession from challenging its actions," according to the legal groups.

The letter states that negotiating with the administration is futile in part because "there exists no reasonable terms for resolving this dispute."

The letter also points to the fact that all four courts that have heard the cases from firms challenging Trump "have held that the likelihood of these law firms succeeding on the merits is so great that they have taken the extraordinary step of issuing temporary restraining orders against the government’s enforcement." This is evidence, according to the letter, that negotiation is unnecessary.

"If you band together and agree to support one another, the White House strategy will collapse," the letter states. "These threats reveal the administration's own fear. They don't want you in court where they will lose. They are afraid to find out what happens if you and other firms stand together as a profession."

"We must fight because if lawyers don't stand up for the rule of law, who will? If we don't fight for the principles that we have devoted our professional lives to—and that make us a free society—those principles will be forever compromised," the letter concludes.

According to a statement from LDAD, the legal groups behind the letter collectively represent over 1,000 lawyers who who have worked as senior partners, judges, state attorneys general, senior officials at the U.S. Department of Justice, as general counsel for major companies, and state bar presidents.

To honor Tax Day, a watchdog group is highlighting research showing how 70% of congressional Republicans may see personal financial benefit from the party's tax plan, now making its way through Congress, which would likely be paid for in part by deep cuts to Medicaid and through cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).

According to Accountable.US, a progressive research and advocacy group, "270,000 households in many of the lowest-income Republican congressional districts could lose SNAP benefits while their representatives potentially save millions."

"While millions prepare their returns, the Trump administration and their lackeys in Congress are eagerly seeking a way to rob their constituents of vital services and pay for tax giveaways to themselves, their billionaire donors, and mega corporations," Tony Carrk, the group's executive director, said in a statement Tuesday.

"Put simply: at a time when costs continue to rise for everyday Americans, this tax day, Congressional Republicans aren't focused on making their constituents' lives better; instead they’re focused on gutting programs Americans rely on and cutting taxes for those doing just fine."

As part of its spending and tax plan, Republicans are aiming to extend expiring provisions of Trump's 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, a move that would disproportionately benefit the wealthy.

The provisions set to expire include a 20% deduction for "pass-through" businesses—whose owners report their share of profits as taxable income under the individual income tax—and the current estate tax exemption amount. If the estate tax TCJA exemption were to expire, the exemption would drop down to $7 million per individual, meaning more millionaires would be forced to pay federal estate tax.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D) also recently endorsed a full repeal of the estate tax, which is a tax applied to assets inherited by others when a wealthy person dies.

The pass-through deduction and estate tax are two benefits that are tilted toward the wealthy, according to Accountable.US, which focused on these two benefits when building their "Cash in Congress" database.

To compile the data, the group looked at lawmakers' most recent federal annual disclosure, and counted them within the 70% of lawmakers set to gain from the tax plan if they are set to benefit from the pass-through deduction.

Some lawmakers are also poised to benefit from keeping the TCJA estate tax exemption amount in place. According to Accountable.US, 18% of Republican House members and 28% of Senate Republicans are wealthy enough that they are currently subject to the estate tax. They would also pay even less in estate taxes if the provision was fully repealed.

Specifically, the 10 wealthiest House Republicans are threatening Medicaid access for 1.7 million of their own constituents, among the poorest in their districts, according to a statement from the group when they launched the database last week.

Accountable.US also highlights the situation of individual members who may benefit.

Rep. Diana Harshbarger (R-Tenn.) is a member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which is tasked with coming up with spending cuts that will likely impact Medicaid. Per Accountable.US, she could benefit from the repeal of the estate tax after reporting over $40 million in assets on her most recent annual financial disclosure.

Meanwhile, according to the group, her district has a median household income that is over 20,000 below the U.S. median household income, and 14.3% of adults have income below the poverty line. Over 35,000 of the households she represents receive SNAP benefits.

NOW READ: There’s a new dress code in Trump’s DC — and it’s straight out of a dictator’s playbook

The ever-growing amount of billionaire cash in elections is poisoning U.S. democracy, according to a report published Wednesday by the advocacy group Americans for Tax Fairness—which found that the top 100 billionaire families spent an eye-popping $2.6 billion on federal contests in 2024.

That's more than twice the roughly $1 billion spent by individual billionaire donors in 2020, according to the group, and constitutes 160 times the amount of billionaire political spending since the 2010 Supreme Court decision Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. That decision paved the way for the proliferation of super political action committees (PACs), a type of committee that can accept unlimited donations to spend on political activity.

Picking apart that $2.6 billion, there's a clear partisan skew: 70% of that billionaire money went to entities supporting Republican candidates, while 23% went to entities backing Democratic candidates. The other 7% went toward independent candidates—such as presidential contender Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who is now a Cabinet secretary—and committees that gave to candidates from both parties who champion specific issues, such as cryptocurrency.

That skew is particularly pronounced when it comes to the competitive Senate races that determined control of the chamber in 2024.

Looking at Senate contests in Arizona, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, the authors of the report found that nearly 80% of the total billionaire cash in these races—which tallied $1.14 billion in outside spending—went to outside groups supporting Republican candidates, compared to 20% used to support Democratic hopefuls.

"The billions of dollars of donations these oligarchic clans give candidates, parties, and particularly outside spending groups drown out the voices and concerns of ordinary voters, endangering democracy and distorting public policy," the report states.

What's more, "this undue influence by the billionaire donor class over our government—always a concern and already present in mostly indirect ways—has found its full, frightening expression in the second Trump administration with the ascendancy of Elon Musk, the world's richest man and the biggest billionaire donor in the 2024 elections," the authors wrote.

Musk's ability to convert his extreme wealth into political influence in the Trump administration contrasts with reports that Musk pays relatively little in taxes. In 2018, for example, Musk paid nothing in federal income taxes even as his wealth soared, largely due to Tesla stock appreciation.

But Musk is just the "most notorious example of billionaires literally buying power," according to the group. ATF highlighted that billionaire Linda McMahon secured a position as President Donald Trump's education secretary after she and her ex-husband gave tens of millions to support Republican candidates, as did billionaire businessman Howard Lutnick, now the commerce secretary.

The report, titled Billionaires Buying Elections: They've Come to Collect, is the latest in ATF's "billionaires buying elections" series, and according to the group it is the most comprehensive because it covers both direct billionaire giving and "traces the indirect routes billionaire cash can take through campaign committees contributing to each other."

In its methodology section, the report gives the example of WinSenate—a super PAC that works to elect Democrats to the Senate—which did not report billionaire contributions, but received all of its funding from the Senate Majority PAC. Because the Senate Majority PAC got 19.9% of its funding from billionaires, the report counted WinSenate's share of billionaire spending at 19.9%.

According to the report, other big-name Republican megadonors in the 2024 cycle included shipping supply magnates Richard and Elizabeth Uihlein and Israeli-American billionaire Miriam Adelson.

According to the authors of the report, billionaires need to be taxed more.

"Tax policy—which has the most direct impact on billionaire wealth—is perhaps the most obviously affected by the money-for-power billionaire bargain," according to the group, which cites the current Republican push to extend parts of Trump's 2017 tax cuts that primarily benefit the wealthy as part of a general trend in tax policy over the past four decades to decrease taxes on the wealthiest people and most profitable businesses.

"The self-reinforcing combination of booming billionaire fortunes and weakening campaign finance laws continues to threaten our democratic form of government," according to the report. "As the outcome of the last presidential campaign amply demonstrates, until billionaires pay their fair share of taxes and we put effective curbs on their political spending, this threat will only grow."

The report calls for solutions like bolstering the estate tax and implementing a wealth tax, such as the Ultra-Millionaire Tax Act, a bill that was reintroduced by multiple Democratic senators in 2024. The newer version of the legislation would place a 2% annual tax on the net worth of households and trusts between $50 million and $1 billion, and impose an 1% annual surtax—so 3% tax overall—on the net worth of families and trusts that is above $1 billion.

As U.S. President Donald Trump gears up to unveil yet another round of tariffs this week and observers warn of potential "stagflation," the Wall Street giant Goldman Sachs on Sunday published a research note projecting that the chance of a recession in the next 12 months stands at 35%, up from 20%.

"The upgrade from our previous 20% estimate reflects our lower growth baseline, the sharp recent deterioration in household and business confidence, and statements from the White House officials indicating greater willingness to tolerate near-term economic weakness in pursuit of their policies," according to the research note.

Trump has previously said he plans to unveil a slate of reciprocal tariffs on April 2—a day he has dubbed "Liberation Day"—and on Sunday he said they would impact "all" countries to start. The announcement rattled financial markets globally on Sunday, and stocks continued to fall on Monday. The S&P 500 dropped by over 1% at the start of trading, and the index is on track for its worst month since September 2022, according to The New York Times.

"Don't use his term 'liberation day'! Call it Trump's devastating trade war! He has caused maximum uncertainty, likely to drive the U.S. economy to a near halt," wrote the economist and author Anders Åslund wrote on Bluesky on Saturday.

In the research note, Goldman Sachs analysts said they expect Trump's reciprocal tariffs to average 15% across all U.S. trading partners, though product and country exclusions may bring that average down.

Trump has already imposed blanket tariffs on China and blanket tariffs on traditional trade allies like Mexico and Canada, with some carve outs for certain goods. The administration has also enacted global aluminum and steel tariffs, and announced last week that it would impose 25% tariffs on autos and auto parts that are not produced in the U.S. The government will commence collecting the import tax on April 3.

Economists generally agree that tariffs—a tax on imports from other countries—are a cost that is largely passed on to consumers, though tariffs can be used to support domestic industries by promoting consumption of domestic-made goods.

In early March, U.S. Rep. Chris Deluzio (D-Penn.) penned an op-ed in the Times warning against "anti-tariff absolutism" on the grounds that they can be used as one part of a broader industrial policy to revitalize American manufacturing.

"Mr. Trump's tariff approach has been chaotic and inconsistent. There's no doubt about that. But the answer isn't to condemn tariffs across the board," Deluzio wrote.

Last week, United Auto Workers (UAW) president Shawn Fain, historically a Trump critic, praised the decision to impose auto tariffs.

"The UAW and the working class in general couldn't care less about party politics; working people expect leaders to work together to deliver results," said Fain in a statement. "We will work with any politician, regardless of party, who is willing to reverse decades of working-class people going backwards in the most profitable times in our nation’s history. These tariffs are a major step in the right direction for autoworkers and blue-collar communities across the country."

Meanwhile, Goldman Sachs also predicts higher inflation and lower gross domestic product (GDP) growth. Higher tariffs are likely to increase consumer prices, according to the analysts, who raised their yearend 2025 inflation forecast by 0.5 percentage points to 3.5%, above the Federal Reserve's target inflation rate of 2%.

Also as a result of tariff news and first quarter GDP data, Goldman Sachs has lowered its 2025 GDP growth forecast by 0.5 percentage points to 1%, when measured from the fourth quarter of 2024 to the fourth quarter of 2025. Also, the report's analysts now projects unemployment reaching 4.5%, a 0.3 percentage point increase from the previous forecast.

The Irish journalist and economic commentator David McWilliams warned in an opinion piece published Monday by Common Dreams that the "combination of a rapidly weakening economy and fear of inflation points to an old enemy not seen since the 1970s: stagflation, where unemployment and inflation rise together."

Other observers have also warned that stagflation could be looming.

"Launching chaotic trade wars with our allies and gutting Social Security, Medicaid, and other vital programs in order to fund tax breaks for his billionaire donors isn't making life more affordable for working-class families," said Alex Jacquez, the chief of policy and advocacy at the Groundwork Collaborative, in a statement earlier this month. "It is, however, a perfect recipe for stagflation."

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom on Friday became the latest white-shoe law firm to acquiesce to the Trump administration as the White House ramps up attacks on the legal profession. The news prompted a wave of outrage at the law firm, which was accused of being "pathetic."

The firm has agreed to provide at least $100 million in pro bono legal services to the federal government during his administration "and beyond," according to a Truth Social post from U.S. President Donald Trump.Also, the "firm will not engage in illegal" diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) "discrimination and preferences," according to the post, which also noted that the firm proactively reached out to the administration about an agreement.

Speaking at the White House on Friday, Trump called the deal "essentially a settlement," according to Reuters.

"Pathetic when the richest and most powerful lawyers in America won't stand up for the profession that made them rich and powerful," wrote U.S. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) on X on Friday, reacting to earlier reporting that the firm was in discussions with the White House over a deal.

Author and commentator Wajahat Ali wrote that the move was "shameful" on Bluesky on Friday. "Pathetic and selfish," wrotePod Save America podcast co-host Jon Favreau.

Former New York state Sen. Alessandra Biaggi (D-34) wrote: "I hope American law firms—Paul Weiss and Skadden—are proud of the cowardice they are instilling and inspiring among the legal profession."

The news comes on the heels of news that another top law firm, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, last week brokered a deal with the White House in order to spare the firm from an executive order that suspended security clearances for lawyers and staff.

As part of that deal, the firm will dedicate $40 million in pro bono legal services during Trump's administration "to support the administration's initiatives."

Meanwhile, also last week, Trump issued a memo directing U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi to "seek sanctions" against firms and lawyers that, according to him, "engage in frivolous, unreasonable, and vexatious litigation against the United States."

With the agreement, Skadden Arps has likely avoided joining a list of elite law firms that have been singled out via executive order from Trump, targeting them with various punishments. Three of the firms that have been targeted with an executive order, WilmerHale, Jenner & Block, and Perkins Coie, have sued the Trump administration in response.

Last week, prior to the deal between Skadden Arps and the Trump administration and in response to the deal struck between the White House and Paul Weiss, an associate at Skadden Arps sent an all-staff email saying she would resign if the firm did not do more to stand up to Trump.

"This is not what I saw for my career or for my evening, but Paul Weiss' decision to cave to the Trump administration on DEI, representation, and staffing has forced my hand," she wrote. "We do not have time. It is either now or never, and if it's never, I will not continue to work here."

U.S. President Donald Trump has elicited a fresh wave of anger after he signed an executive order on Thursday targeting exhibits or programs critical of the United States at the Smithsonian Institution, a sprawling network of largely free museums and Washington, D.C.'s National Zoo.

The order aims to prevent federal money from going to displays that "divide Americans based on race" or "promote programs or ideologies inconsistent with federal law and policy," as well as remove "improper ideology" from Smithsonian's museums, education centers, and research centers.

"This is unabashed fascism," wrote the journalist Lauren Wolfe on X on Thursday. Amy Rutenberg, a history professor at Iowa State University, wrote: "Last week, while visiting several Smithsonian museums, I kept wondering how long it would take for this administration to direct exhibits to be pulled. Not long, it turns out."

Another observer, journalist and founding editor of the outlet SpyTalk Jeff Stein, remarked that "Trump goes full-on Soviet with intent to scrub Smithsonian museums etc. of 'improper ideology.'"

The move highlights Trump's desire to reshape not only American politics, but cultural institutions too.

The order, which included an accompanying fact sheet, also directs U.S. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum to reinstate monuments, memorials, statues, and other properties that have been taken down or altered since the beginning of 2020 to "perpetuate a false reconstruction of American history, inappropriately minimize the value of certain historical events or figures, or include any other improper partisan ideology."

The order also specifies that U.S. Vice President JD Vance—a member of the Smithsonian Board of Regents—will be tasked with identifying and appointing Smithsonian board members "who are committed to advancing the celebration of America's extraordinary heritage and progress."

The executive order singles out specific museums, like the African American History and Culture, and a "forthcoming" American Women's History Museum plan to celebrate what the White House described as "the exploits of male athletes participating in women's sports."

"Once widely respected as a symbol of American excellence and a global icon of cultural achievement, the Smithsonian Institution has, in recent years, come under the influence of a divisive, race-centered ideology," according to the executive order.

Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas) connected Trump's targeting of Smithsonian to his administration's attacks on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives.

"First Trump removes any reference of diversity from the present—now he's trying to remove it from our history. Let me be PERFECTLY clear—you cannot erase our past and you cannot stop us from fulfilling our future," she wrote on X on Thursday.

U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem has sparked fierce criticism for a video she filmed on Wednesday while touring the megaprison in El Salvador that is currently holding immigrants who were deported by the Trump administration earlier in March.

The administration defied a court order when deporting over 200 Venezuelans, who the White House alleges are gang members.

In the video, Noem stands in front of a cell that holds male detainees, some of whom are only wearing pants, and warns people against coming to the United States illegally.

"This is some truly sick s---," wrote Fred Wellman, a political consultant and podcast host, on Wednesday. John Pavlovitz, an author and pastor, wrote "If hell exists, Kristi Noem is a shoo-in." Noem was also accused of making "content" out of the imprisoned men at the facility.

"If you ever wondered what the Gestapo would look like in 2025, wonder no longer," wrote the account Polling USA, which is run by Curtis Fric and posts publicly available data, in reference to the political police force of Nazi Germany.

Noem made the video while touring two cell blocks and other areas of the prison, perCNN. While the Trump administration maintains that the detainees who were deported have gang ties, court declarations from attorneys and family members of the migrants allege many of them are not affiliated with gangs.

"If you come to our country illegally, this is one of the consequences you can face," Noem said in the video. "First of all, do not come to our country illegally. You will be removed and you will be prosecuted, but know that this facility is one of the tools in our toolkit that we will use if you commit crimes against the American people."

When deporting the Venezuelans from the United States, the Trump administration invoked a rarely used statute that gives the president the ability to detain or deport noncitizens without first appearing before an immigration judge or federal court judge.

On Wednesday, an federal appeals court panel kept in place a lower court order temporarily barring the Trump administration from deporting more immigrants under the Alien Enemies Act.

Legal advocacy groups have issued a sharp rebuke to U.S. President Donald Trump's directive aimed at holding "accountable" law firms and lawyers that, according to him, "engage in frivolous, unreasonable, and vexatious litigation against the United States."

"Accountability is especially important when misconduct by lawyers and law firms threatens our national security, homeland security, public safety, or election integrity," Trump wrote in a memorandum to U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi and U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, which was issued late Friday. Trump directed Bondi to "seek sanctions against attorneys and law firms" who engage in objectionable litigation, and scrutinize litigation against the government stretching back over the past eight years.

The new directive is a widening of Trump's campaign against lawyers and law firms he does not like. Reuters reported Saturday that the Trump administration has been hit with over 100 legal challenges, taking aim at various White House actions.

Multiple legal groups denounced the move, saying they would not be intimidated.

Nancy Northup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights, wrote on Sunday that for over 30 years her organization "has stood strong against attacks on reproductive freedom. We have litigated scores of cases in federal courts, including against the U.S. government, regardless of the political party in power."

"We will not back down in the face of the president's intimidation campaign—not while his administration refuses to defend women who are denied emergency abortion care; not while it condones violence at abortion clinics; and not while doctors are under threat of criminal prosecution for providing essential care. Not now and not ever," she continued.

Cecillia Wang, national legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), echoed this sentiment in a statement released on Saturday.

"This action by the president of the United States is a chilling and unprecedented attack on the foundations of liberty and democracy. Good lawyers, regardless of ideology or party, will remain undeterred in the honorable pursuit of our profession. We will continue to stand up for the people and the rule of law," Wang wrote.

Trump specifically called out lawyers working in the immigration space. "The immigration system... is likewise replete with examples of unscrupulous behavior by attorneys and law firms. For instance, the immigration bar, and powerful Big Law pro bono practices, frequently coach clients to conceal their past or lie about their circumstances when asserting their asylum claims," he wrote.

Kelli Stump, the president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA), and the group's executive director Ben Johnson, pushed back on Trump's claims.

"The broad assertion that immigration attorneys are acting improperly in their efforts to represent individuals against an increasingly complex and restrictive immigration system is both unfounded and dangerous," they wrote in a statement on Saturday.

The memo also name drops Marc Elias, a prominent attorney who has worked for multiple major Democratic political campaigns.

Skye Perrymen, the CEO and president of the legal group Democracy Forward—where Elias serves as board chair—said in a statement on Saturday that "the ongoing threats to the legal profession and the rule of law by the president are intended to intimidate and inspire fear, but instead they should inspire action."

"The president's increasing targeting of lawyers, the legal profession, and judges is in response to a number of instances where communities across the nation have had to go to federal court to protect their rights from this administration's overreach and where judges nominated by both Republican and Democratic presidents and confirmed by the U.S. Senate have found that the Trump-Vance administration's actions warrant scrutiny and, in many cases, are unlawful," added Perrymen.

Democracy Forward, the ACLU, and AILA have all brought cases challenging Trump administration actions.

The order comes at the end of a rocky week for the field of law. On Thursday, one of the country's top law firms, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, brokered a deal with the White House in order to spare the firm from an executive order that suspended security clearances for lawyers and staff.

As part of the deal, according to a post from Trump on social media, the firm "will dedicate the equivalent of $40 million in pro bono legal services over the course of President Trump's term to support the administration's initiatives, including: assisting our nation's veterans, fairness in the justice system, the president's Task Force to Combat Antisemitism, and other mutually agreed projects."

U.S. President Donald Trump took to his social media platform Truth Social on Saturday to demand an apology from Maine Gov. Janet Mills, a Democratic, after the two had a heated exchange at the White House in February over an executive order banning transgender women and girls from playing in women's sports.

This new scrutiny on Maine comes as the state has been subject to numerous probes and funding cuts following that exchange that "have been widely interpreted as retaliatory," according to the local outlet the Maine Morning Star.

"While the state of Maine has apologized for their governor's strong, but totally incorrect, statement about men playing in women's sports while at the White House House Governor's Conference, we have not heard from the governor herself, and she is the one that matters in such cases," Trump wrote on Truth Social.

"Therefore, we need a full throated apology from the governor herself, and a statement that she will never make such an unlawful challenge to the federal government again, before this case can be settled," he added.

The statement, according to Politico, implied that the Trump administration would continue to target Maine unless Trump receives the apology he wants.

"King Trump demands an apology from the Governor of Maine because she embarrassed him" wrote former NBCUniversal studio executive Mike Sington. "Pathetic."

Multiple outlets reporting on the remarks from Trump noted it was not immediately clear what Trump meant when he said that the "state of Maine" had apologized.

On Saturday, Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows wrote on Bluesky: "Can confirm 'state of Maine' hasn't apologized. (As the official keeper of all state records and guardian of the seal ;))."

Jonathan Ladd, an associate professor Georgetown University's public policy school, wrote that "Trump is constitutionally required to take care that U.S. laws be faithfully executed. On what legal basis can he treat the people of Maine differently depending on if their governor apologizes to him? None."

The dispute between Trump and Mills stems from an interaction at a White House event as part of the National Governors Association on February 21.

"We're going to follow the law sir. We'll see you in court," Mills told the president in a heated exchange, referring to the Maine Human Rights Act, which was amended four yeas ago to include gender identity as a protected class. Mills and Maine Attorney General Aaron Frey have argued that the law supersedes the president's edict barring transgender girls from participating in sports that match their gender identity.

Since that episode, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services investigated and found Maine to be in violation of Title IX for allowing transgender girls to compete in women's sports, the U.S. Department of Agriculture launched and resolved a probe into the University of Maine System's Title IX compliance, and the Trump administration briefly imposed an end to the practice of allowing parents to register their newborns for a social security card at the hospital, among other measures.

NOW READ: John Roberts has created a monster — and he knows it

On the heels of record-breaking attendance at a "Fighting Oligarchy" event in Tempe, Arizona earlier this week, Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York held a rally in Denver, Colorado on Friday evening that drew more than 34,000 people—making it largest event that Sanders or Ocasio-Cortez have ever held.

Sanders, an Independent, wrote on social media on Friday that the turnout is a sign that "the American people will not allow Trump to move us into oligarchy and authoritarianism. We will fight back. We will win."

According to Anna Bahr, Sanders' communications director, the senator's largest rally prior to Denver took place in Brooklyn, New York in 2016, when he was running for president.

Ocasio-Cortez, a Democrat, wrote online that "something special is happening... Working people are ready to stand together and fight for our democracy. Thank you Colorado!"

At the rally, which took place at Denver's Civic Center Park, the two lawmakers hit on the same themes they spoke about in Arizona.

"The American people are saying loud and clear, we will not accept an oligarchic form of society," Sanders said, according to Colorado Public Radio. "We will not accept the richest guy in the world running all over Washington, making cuts to the Social Security Administration, cuts to the Veterans Administration, almost destroying the Department of Education—all so that they could give over a trillion dollars in tax breaks to the wealthiest 1%."

"If you don't know your neighbor, it's easier to turn on them," said Ocasio-Cortez, per CPR. "That's why they want to keep us separated, alone, and apart. Scrolling on our phones thinking that the person next to us is some kind of enemy, but they're not."

Sanders launched his "Fighting Oligarchy: Where We Go From Here" tour in February, with the aim of talking to Americans about the "takeover of the national government by billionaires and large corporations, and the country's move toward authoritarianism."

The series of "Fighting Oligarchy" events have been taking place as some Democrats have gotten an earful at town halls back home, where constituents have come out to implore them to do more to counter efforts by the Trump administration.

Earlier in the day, Ocasio-Cortez and Sanders also held a rally in Greeley, Colorado—which is represented by Republican Gabe Evans in the House of Representatives—which drew more than 11,000 people.

Semaforreporter David Weigel, who attended both the Greely and Denver rally, posted online that at the Greeley rally it wasn't easy to find people in the crowd who had voted for Sanders in the 2020 presidential primary. Weigel also wrote that the Sanders team told him that half of the RSVPs to the rallies were not from the lawmaker's supporter list.

Eric Blanc, an assistant professor the School of Management and Labor Relations at Rutgers University, wrote on Bluesky on Saturday that it is "pretty remarkable how AOC and Bernie have become leaders not just of lefties, but of the Democratic Party's mainstream liberal base."

While its dangerous that "establishment liberals" are yielding to Trump, he wrote, "the silver lining is that this has enabled anti-corporate forces such as labor unions and AOC-Bernie to set the tenor of Resistance 2.0."

"Because today's anti-Trump resistance is more focused on economic concerns, more rooted in labor unions, and more anti-billionaire, it has the potential to sink much deeper roots among working people and, in so doing, to definitively overcome MAGA," wrote Blanc.

A group of House Democrats is demanding that the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform conduct a public hearing on the Trump administration and the so-called Department of Government Efficiency's plans for the U.S. Postal Service, in light of recent reporting that U.S. Postmaster General Louis DeJoy says he signed an agreement with DOGE to assist the nation's mail service "in identifying and achieving further efficiencies."

The news follows Washington Post coverage from February, when the outlet reported that U.S. President Donald Trump is considering putting the Postal Service under the control of the Commerce Department. In December, the Post also reported that Trump was eyeing privatizing the Postal Service. Elon Musk, a GOP megadonor who is playing a core role in Trump's efforts to slash federal spending and personnel, has also said the Postal Service should be privatized.

Postal workers unions are fiercely opposed to any effort to privatize the Postal Service.

"The Trump administration... is now subjecting the USPS, America's most trusted federal institution, to the chainsaw approach of Elon Musk and DOGE. This broad assault on the independence of the USPS demands congressional oversight, especially from the committee with jurisdiction over the USPS," according to the letter, which was signed by 20 House Democrats.

In a March 13 letter to congressional leaders, U.S. Postmaster General Louis DeJoy told Congress he signed an agreement with representatives from Elon Musk's DOGE and the U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) so that DOGE could help the U.S. Postal Service, which has experienced billions in financial losses in recent years, work to address "big problems."

The Postal Service plans to cut 10,000 employees in the next 30 days through a voluntary early retirement program, according to DeJoy's letter.

DeJoy cited challenges facing the Postal Service, such as "mismanagement of our self-funded retirement assets," "burdensome regulatory requirements restricting normal business practice," and "unfunded mandates imposed on us by legislation."

The letter demanding a public hearing, which was addressed to House Oversight Committee Chair Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.), was spearheaded by Oversight Committee Ranking Member Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.), Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.), and Rep. Kweisi Mfume (D-Md.)

"This backroom agreement between the billionaire-led DOGE and Postmaster DeJoy sets off alarm bells about this administration's plans for the Postal Service's role as a cornerstone public institution," according to the letter. "The Postal Service facilitates the delivery of more than 115 billion pieces of mail each year, a significant portion of which is delivered to rural, low-income, and hard-to-reach areas that would not otherwise receive service if not for the universal service obligation, which has received bipartisan support in Congress and is integral to the mission of Postal Service."

"We agree that there are steps Congress could take to strengthen the financial sustainability of the Postal Service, but any potential deal that would give Elon Musk and his DOGE associates unilateral authority to manipulate the most critical, expansive national mail network on the planet is deeply troubling," they continued.

The group is urging that the committee hold a hearing and wrote that they have prepared a letter to send to DeJoy asking that he furnish any signed agreements he made with the GSA and DOGE. The group is urging that Comer also sign on to that letter.

Columnist and editor Ruth Marcus said Monday that she is resigning from The Washington Post after CEO and publisher Will Lewis allegedly decided not to run a column she penned critiquing billionaire owner Jeff Bezos' recent changes to the opinion section, according to a note from Marcus that was obtained by multiple media reporters.

In the note, which is addressed to both Bezos and Lewis, Marcus wrote that as an opinion writer, she was "honored to offer commentary that readers could be assured constituted my best independent judgment of the topic at hand. Unfortunately, on the opinions side of the newspaper, that appears to be no longer the case."

In late February, Bezos—who has owned the paper since 2013—announced a major change in the outlet's opinion section. From now on, the opinion section will advocate for "personal liberties and free markets" and "viewpoints opposing those pillars will be left to be published by others," according to an email from Bezos. The section's editor, David Shipley, decided to depart and the paper lost thousands of subscriptions after Bezos' intentions became public, according to NPR.

The move was denounced, including by the Post's own chief economics reporter, Jeff Stein, who called it a "massive encroachment" on The Post's opinion section and said that the move makes clear "dissenting views will not be published or tolerated there."

In her farewell note, Marcus said that the Lewis' decision "not to run the column that I wrote respectfully dissenting from [Bezos'] edict... underscores that the traditional freedom of columnists to select the topics they wish to address and say what they think has been dangerously eroded."

Marcus, who has been with the paper since 1984, separately sent a note to staff in which she emphasized that her decision does not suggest "what anyone else should do in the circumstances in which we find ourselves," according to a copy of the note obtained by Semafor's Max Tani.

Marcus' departure comes amidst greater turmoil at the Post. In the fall, Bezos decided to block the paper's endorsement of then-presidential candidate Kamala Harris and ended the Post's tradition of endorsing presidential candidates. Hundreds of thousands of readers canceled their subscriptions in response. The paper has also undergone layoffs and experienced other high profile departures.

The news that Marcus was leaving the paper was mourned online on Monday.

"The tragic self-destruction of a great newspaper continues. I had the privilege of working with Ruth Marcus for years and she is the best of the best. Whether you agree with her or not, she is the model of journalistic excellence and integrity," wrote New York Times journalist Peter Baker.

"Terrible news," wrote journalist Julia Preston. "Ruth Marcus writes a well-researched, level-headed column. She is a voice of reason and decency. This just exposes the blatant fallacy in Bezos's new rules: civil liberty for him but not for anyone who disagrees."

Protests at Tesla showrooms and dealerships that are united by the slogan #TakedownTesla are picking up steam—with over 65 actions planned around the country and in Europe through the end of this week, and dozens scheduled for Saturday alone.

Tesla, billionaire Elon Musk's electric vehicle company, has become a site of resistance in the growing movement against the GOP megadonor's central role in the second Trump administration.

Since Trump's inauguration, Musk and the so-called Department of Government Efficiency have helped oversee punishing cuts to the federal workforce, infiltrated government agencies, and gained access to computer systems with sensitive personal information.

Because Musk is unelected, the protest movement urges people to make their voices heard as consumers—by selling their vehicles, getting rid of their stock in Tesla, and showing up to protest.

Already, protests have taken place in Devon, Pennsylvania; Berkley, California; Tucson, Arizona; Washington, D.C., and elsewhere. Signs at protests include messages likes "Musk is the Fraud" and "Tesla Funds Fascists," in part a reference to Musk's apparent Nazi salute during a post-inauguration celebration.

"No One Voted for This," assert the organizing materials provided on the #TeslaTakedown website.

Actor and director Alex Winter, one of the core organizers behind the protests and the creator of the movement's website, said that #TakedownTesla started on Bluesky between friends and activists and grew, according to Business Insider. It grew after Winter created the website to help centralize the effort.

"There have now been protests outside of Tesla locations in over 100 cities, and the movement is picking up speed and going global," wrote Winter in a piece for Rolling Stone that was published on February 21.

"We need an alternative to watching things unravel from our couches, that inspires hope and shows that we still have the capacity to oppose those who want to tear the fabric of our society apart and extract their own benefit from the wreckage," he continued.

Tesla's stock experienced a bump after Trump's election, but the company's share price has plummeted more than 40% from it's post-election peak in December, wiping out those gains. The tumbling of its stock meant that February was Tesla's second-worst month on record, only eclipsed by the 37% loss the stock experienced in December 2022, according to Yahoo Finance.

In Europe, where Musk has promoted far-right political parties, Tesla sales have slumped.

On Monday, one observer shared a visual of Tesla's stock declining and wrote "Turns out pissing off a good deal of the global population isn't good for business," along with #TeslaTakedown.

Democratic Rep. Al Green of Texas is earning praise online after delivering perhaps the most dramatic moment of U.S. President Donald Trump's address to a joint session of Congress on Tuesday night.

Green interrupted the speech, shaking his cane at Trump and shouting that the president had "no mandate to cut Medicaid." He was led out of the chamber by the sergeant-at-arms after being told to sit down by House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), as Republicans cheered. Speaking to reporters after he was escorted out, Green said that he was protesting Trump's efforts to cut federal government programs, including Medicaid, according to The Hill.

"Al Green understood the assignment," wrote Sam Weinberg, the executive director of the progressive group Path to Progress, on Bluesky on Tuesday. Ezra Levin, the co-founder of the grassroots group Indivisible, similarly said: "Al Green stood up. Would like to see more people stand up."

"EVERY DEMOCRAT SHOULD BE EXACTLY LIKE THIS!!! RESPECT TO AL GREEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" posted the leftist Twitch streamer Hasan Piker, on X.

Former Congressman Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.) wrote "Al Green!" and added that all the Democrats in the room should have left with him.

The New York Times reported that Green's act was a show of protest not only against Trump, but also congressional Democratic Party leaders who had asked Democrats to attend the speech but not disrupt it.

During the address, other Democrats sat through the speech and raised signs with messages such as "Save Medicaid" and "Musk Steals." According to Reuters, Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas) and others turned their backs as Trump spoke, revealing messages on the backs of their shirts like "No Kings live here," before exiting.

While threats to Medicaid were the central focus of Green's protests, Republicans' targeting of the program did not feature in Trump's speech—during which he boasted about gutting climate initiatives, ending the "tyranny of so-called diversity, equity and inclusion policies," and peddled the falsehood that Social Security benefits are being paid out out on a large scale to people who have been dead for years.

Last week, House Republicans were able to pass a budget resolution that tees up passing trillions of dollars in tax cuts, a move that will almost certainly be paid for by slashing social programs like Medicaid and nutrition assistance.

The resolution instructs the House Energy and Commerce Committee to "submit changes in laws within its jurisdiction to reduce the deficit by not less than" $880 billion over the next decade. That panel has jurisdiction over Medicaid, which the GOP has repeatedly targeted in public and private discussions, with one leaked document floating over $2 trillion in cuts to the program.

Republicans also rejected numerous Democratic amendments that would have prevented Medicaid and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program cuts in the upcoming budget reconciliation process as their resolution moved through committees.

Watch video of the incident below or at this link.

As the Trump administration's purge of federal workers continues and tariffs imposed on key U.S. trade partners Mexico and Canada take effect Tuesday, multiple economic indicators are warning of potential pain ahead.

On Monday, the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta released an estimate for GDP performance in the first quarter of 2025, which showed an economic contraction of 2.8%. The "GDPNow" estimate is a model-based projection that is not an official forecast from the Atlanta Fed, but it does paint a different economic picture from just a few weeks ago, when the same model-based projection estimated growth of almost 3% in early February.

"Basically unprecedented for a new administration to inherit a strong economy and immediately tank it as both businesses and consumers internalize its agenda," wrote Bharat Ramamurti, a former deputy director at the National Economic Council, in response to the prediction from the Atlanta Fed.

Stocks also tumbled Monday after Trump announced that 25% tariffs on Canada and Mexico would go into effect the next day. Trump also reiterated that the U.S. would impose an additional 10% tariff on China, on top of 10% tariffs that were already in effect.

Meanwhile there are also signs that consumer confidence is declining. The research group the Conference Board released its Consumer Confidence Index for February on Tuesday, which showed the largest monthly decline in consumer confidence since August 2021. "Respondents to the board's survey expressed concern over inflation with a significant increase in mentions of trade and tariffs, the board said," according to The Associated Press. The retail giant Target said Tuesday that consumer confidence is waning, according to CNN.

In a video discussing the Atlanta Fed's "GDPNow" estimate, journalist Krystal Ball reminded listeners that billionaire Elon Musk, the man Trump has deputized to help oversee cuts to the federal spending and bureaucracy, said that the work of his Department of Government Efficiency would cause pain. Musk in October 2024 said that then yet-to-be-created body's work would "necessarily involve some temporary hardship," according to Vox.

The Trump administration has so far already cut tens of thousands of workers, but even if Trump successfully carried out his proposed mass firings of probationary workers (which a judge recently said were likely illegal), possibly impacting 200,000 people, that "on its own, is not recessionary," according to economist Ernie Tedeschi, director of economics at the Yale University Budget Lab, who was interviewed by CNBC.

The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics' February employment situation report will be released on Friday, and economist Dean Baker, who works for the left-leaning Center for Economic and Policy Research, wrote Tuesday that the numbers "are not not likely to pick up much of the effect of the DOGE cuts." That's partly because the data will not capture the time period when many of the cuts went into effect, according to Baker.

The impact of tariffs, however, is more certain. China, Mexico, and Canada account for over 40% of U.S. imports, and key goods imported from the three countries include crude petroleum, cars, computers, telephones, and car parts and accessories, according to the The New York Times.

Tariffs are essentially a tax on imported goods that economists say are largely passed on to consumers.

According to analysis released in early February, the Peterson Institute for International Economics found that the tariffs that were previously announced but went into effect on Tuesday constitute the "the largest tax increase in at least a generation."

Taking into account the 25% tariffs on goods from Canada (aside from the lower rate for Canadian energy) and Mexico, and the 10% increase in tariffs on imports from China, "the direct cost of these actions to the typical, or median, U.S. household would be a tax increase of more than $1,200 a year."

After the Trump administration announced the tariffs on Mexico and China, which the White House said were being implemented to pressure the three countries into halting the flow of fentanyl and immigrants, Trump agreed in February to delay their imposition on Canada and Mexico for a month after those countries announced concessions.

The left-leaning economist Paul Krugman called the tariffs on Mexico and Canada, two countries with whom Trump once helped negotiate a free trade deal, "a profoundly self-destructive move."

"It will impose huge, possibly devastating costs on U.S. manufacturing, while significantly raising the cost of living—without any visible justification," he wrote.

The Trump administration announced Sunday it will cease to enforce penalties and fines on businesses that fail to adhere to beneficial ownership financial reporting requirements under the Corporate Transparency Act, an anti-money laundering law passed by Congress in 2021. The announcement was panned by advocates, economists, and other critics who called the move an on-ramp for corruption.

The Corporate Transparency Act, a bipartisan effort, includes a rule that requires many corporations and limited liability companies to disclose information on who owns and controls a business entity (also known as the beneficial owner) to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), a bureau of the U.S. Treasury Department.

"Exciting news!" wrote Trump on Truth Social when announcing that the Treasury Department would no longer enforce the reporting rule, which he called "invasive and outrageous."

Garbiel Zucman, a professor of economics, reposted Trump's message on X, and wrote: "Exciting news for tax evasion and money laundering!"

Economist and author Anders Åslund reacted to the update writing, "to oppose corporate transparency is to favor corruption."

Supporters of the Corporate Transparency Act, which has face court challenges, argue that the policy is an important step toward reining in anonymous companies, which are the preferred vehicle for moving around illicit funds.

"God, this is grim," weighed in author Oliver Bullough, who has written a book about global wealth and corruption. "The White House has killed the Corporate Transparency Act, which was itself a tiny first step in the marathon journey of stopping U.S. companies from being the most egregiously opaque shell structures on the planet."

In a Monday statement, Ian Gary, executive director of the Financial Accountability and Corporate Transparency Coalition, called the move a "hollowing out" of the Corporate Transparency Act that runs counter to years of bipartisan work to "end the scourge of anonymous shell companies."

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, for his part, said ceasing enforcement is a "victory for common sense," according to a Sunday statement. "Today's action is part of President Trump's bold agenda to unleash American prosperity by reining in burdensome regulations, in particular for small businesses that are the backbone of the American economy," he said. In response, Bullough, argued that Bessent doesn't recognize that fraud "suppresses prosperity, rather than enables it."

According to the announcement, the Treasury Department will issue a proposed rulemaking with the aim of narrowing the scope of the rule so that it solely applies to foreign reporting companies.

Between U.S. President Donald Trump's crackdown on immigration, to his administration's targeting of federal workers, and the White House's attacks on the media, a casual news reader may have missed that Trump has mused on multiple occasions about running for a third term.

But the democracy watchdog group Stand Up America said Thursday that Trump's recent remarks about remaining in office are worth paying attention to.

This "isn't a joke or a slip of the tongue. It's a test to see how far he can go in his quest for unchecked power," said Stand Up America executive director Christina Harvey in a statement.

Trump has made cryptic comments about a third term in office, something the U.S. Constitution does not allow, on multiple occasions.

While speaking with House Republicans on November 13, Trump said: "I suspect I won't be running again unless you say, 'He's so good we've got to figure something else out.'"

"Am I allowed to run again?" Trump asked in late January at House Republicans' annual issues retreat at Trump National Doral, Trump's golf club and resort outside Miami. "[Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.)], I better not get you involved in that."

Harvey's statement comes on the 74th anniversary of the ratification of the 22nd Amendment, which limits a person to being elected only twice to the presidency.

"Today would be a good day for every elected official to reaffirm the oath they took to defend our Constitution, including the 22nd Amendment," Harvey said.

Shortly after Trump was inaugurated, Rep. Andy Ogles (R-Tenn.) introduced a resolution on January 23 seeking to amend the Constitution so that Trump could serve a third term.

A group of Washington Post journalists on Wednesday published what appears to be the most comprehensive readout to date of the government contracts, loans, subsidies, and tax credits that the companies of Elon Musk, who has helped carry out the Trump administration's punishing cuts to government personnel, have secured over the past two decades.

The world's richest man is also "one of the greatest beneficiaries of the taxpayers' coffers," per the Post, which reported that Musk's various companies received at least $38 billion from the U.S. government since 2006—prompting a number of observers to argue that cutting off this spigot ought to be the focus of government saving efforts.

Tim Wu, who worked on competition policy at the National Economic Council under former President Joe Biden, shared the Post's reporting and wrote: "Can anyone think of another way to save over $38 billion that doesn't involve vandalizing agencies."

Since Trump was inaugurated, Elon Musk has helped oversee personnel cuts carried out by the Department of Government Efficiency, an advisory group. Just last week, federal workers received an Musk-backed order, asking them to detail their work in an email or face termination.

So far, the Trump administration has culled some 30,000 federal employees, according to an analysis from Bloomberg Law.

In the public eye, Musk is also closely associated with the effort to slash government spending and personnel. Musk recently appeared on stage at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), brandishing a chainsaw that was given to him by Argentine President Javier Milei—a nod to Milei’s "chainsaw plan" to slash public spending and implement austerity measures.

One Democratic lawmaker used the CPAC gimmick to highlight Musk's own hypocrisy. "Chainsaw anyone? They're on sale at Home Depot," wrote Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) on X. She included a link to the Post's article and also wrote that "Musk's business empire is built on $38 billion in government funding.'

Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas), who has previously criticized Musk for benefiting from government funds while working to scale back government, also posted the Post's reporting and highlighted other recent reporting that, in Casar's words, show "Trump & Elon are corrupt."

The Post's analysis notes that the government contracts, loans, subsidies, and tax credits helped "seed the growth" that eventually turned Musk into the world's richest man. The $38 billion is likely an undercount because the analysis does not include classified defense and intelligence work for the government, and an additional 52 ongoing contracts with various agencies are slated to potentially pay Musk's ventures an additional $11.8 billion over the next few years.

The electric vehicle company Tesla in particular, according to the Post, benefited from the government's largesse in its path to profitability.

International Brotherhood of Teamsters President Sean O'Brien faced backlash from labor movement voices on Wednesday for expressing his support for U.S. President Donald Trump's pick to lead the Department of Labor and for appearing to take a softer stance on so-called "right-to-work" laws—policies generally decried by organized labor because they allow employees to opt out of union expenses while working at a unionized establishment.

Labor journalist Alex Press called his comments regarding right-to-work "shameful" and "embarrassing."

Over the summer, Press spoke with rank-and-file Teamsters members about recent actions from O'Brien that signal a rightward shift, such as his decision to headline the first night of the 2024 Republican National Convention. "Some are undoubtedly thrilled," wrote Press, though "a growing number of members believe their president is offering a straightforward, if not always explicit, endorsement of a political party that wants to destroy them."

On Wednesday, O'Brien attended the Senate confirmation hearing of Oregon Republican Lori Chavez-DeRemer, Trump's labor pick, during which Chavez-DeRemer said she would support Trump's agenda, according to The New York Times. Chavez-DeRemer also told senators that she no longer supports a section of the Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act—sweeping Democratic labor legislation that was introduced in Congress but never passed—which would have weakened state right-to-work laws.

Speaking later Wednesday on Fox News, O'Brien said of Chavez-DeRemer, "Not only do we support her appointment, we are going to the mat to make sure that she gets confirmed."

When asked about Chavez-DeRemer's stance on the right-to-work section of the PRO Act, O'Brien said that he is working with senators such as Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) to come up with a version of the PRO Act that "may not include that."

"That's the beauty of having conversations with people from the other side, where you can collaborate and actually find out what works for that state, what doesn't work for it—but more importantly, what's going to work for the American worker," O'Brien said.

A clip of these comments was reposted by the National Right to Work Committee, a group dedicated to "combating the evils of compulsory unionism," according to its website.

"The Teamsters union is as decentralized as the country. Like the median voter, most Teamsters aren't closely following what Sean O'Brien is saying," wrote labor journalist Luis Feliz Leon in response. "The press should ensure they know how he's selling out members to cozy up to anti-worker politicos and bolstering the power of bosses."

In the same Fox News interview, O'Brien also said the Teamsters do not want to see anyone losing their job, but that "[Trump] thinks he's within his right," when asked about the personnel-slashing Department of Government Efficiency and the Trump administration's widely decried deferred resignation program for nearly all federal employees. Multiple federal employees unions are currently battling the Trump administration in court over its actions targeting federal workers and federal agencies.

"What a shame. Teamsters deserve better than this," wrote Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) in response on Bluesky.

Another labor journalist, Kim Kelly, denounced a video posted Wednesday by Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.)—whom O'Brien nearly physically fought during a Senate hearing last year—in which Mullin and O'Brien chum it up and both express support for Chavez-DeRemer.

Also in response to the video, an observer on X with username katy, who indicates they are a part UFCW Local 371, wrote, "class traitor."

"I was raised in a Teamsters household, survived because of union benefits, and still do. I'd rather starve than lick a boot," katy wrote. "We're the union."