#trump

From taxes to the environment to public broadcasting like PBS and NPR, the Senate has recently passed record levels of legislation and confirmed record numbers of nominations with senators representing less than half the people.

Using historical data, GovTrack found 56 examples of Senate votes on legislation that passed with senators representing a “population minority.” 26 of those 56 examples, nearly half, have occurred since President Donald Trump’s current term began.

Several of the second Trump administration’s most prominent members were confirmed by Senate “population minority” votes – including RFK Jr. (Secretary of Health and Human Services), Pete Hegseth, Pam Bondi, Kash Patel, and Tulsi Gabbard.

The oldest example GovTrack found of a “population minority” Senate vote is actually  famous: Clarence Thomas’s 1991 Supreme Court nomination by President George H. W. Bush. The Senate approved Thomas with 52% support, but 49% of the population.

He still serves on the Court today.

GovTrack found three other “population minority” Senate confirmations for Supreme Court justices, totalling four: Thomas plus Trump’s three first-term nominees. All four still serve on the Court.

Currently, Republicans hold a Senate majority: 53 to 47. However, based on the Census Bureau’s current estimates, it’s actually the other way around by population: Democratic senators represent a 53% majority of the states’ population, versus Republicans with 47%.

How is this possible? Because while the U.S. House is apportioned based on population, with larger states receiving more representatives, the U.S. Senate guarantees each state two senators regardless of size.

This was baked into the American system from the beginning, creating what political scientists call a “counter-majoritarian” institution.

In 2025, according to Census Bureau estimates, the most populous state (California) had about 67x the population as the least populous: Wyoming. Today, a Senate voting majority could be cobbled together from senators representing just 17% of the population.

But that’s actually been the same for a while. Going back to 1900, a Senate voting majority could be cobbled together with senators representing 16% to 20% of the population.

Instead, small states may be more politically aligned than they used to be and are voting together more often as a bloc.

Senators have recently taken advantage of old rules, and also changed some rules, to use lower vote thresholds. This means votes are more often succeeding with less support.

Both parties contributed to this.

In 2013, under President Obama, Senate Democrats changed the threshold for most nominations from three-fifths to a simple majority. They left it at three-fifths for the Supreme Court, though.

Then in 2017 during Trump’s first term, Senate Republicans changed the threshold for the Supreme Court, too, to confirm Justice Gorsuch by a simple majority. (This rule applied to all subsequent justices, too.)

As for legislation, many of the recent “population minority” Senate votes used the Congressional Review Act of 1996, which lowered the usual Senate vote threshold from three-fifths to a simple majority for certain deregulation bills. The One Big Beautiful Act and the Rescissions Act were both voted on under other rules, which lower the vote threshold for certain spending-related bills.

So the three-fifths threshold is now gone for nominations and some types of legislation.

It might not stop there. Trump has called for the Senate to end the three-fifths threshold for all legislation, in order to enact certain Republican policies – particularly regarding election rules. If that happens, “population minority” Senate votes could become even more frequent.

Why does this usually benefit Republicans?

This discrepancy usually benefits the GOP, since they tend to represent smaller states.

This small-state Republican benefit also holds true at the presidential level. Indeed, two presidents in living memory won election despite losing the national popular vote, both Republicans: George W. Bush in 2000 and Donald Trump in 2016.

The Congressional Review Act, which makes it easier for Congress to deregulate – and the rules for rescissions bills, which makes it easier to cut funding – also are more aligned with Republican goals than Democratic goals.

But for better or for worse, it’s clear that the Senate is diverging from popular opinion far more than ever before, at least in recent memory. Even if one believes the Senate is, in fact, “right” while popular opinion is “wrong.”

The US wants a clear and enforceable commitment that Iran will not develop nuclear weapons – or even the capability to do so quickly.

Washington and Tehran signed a nuclear deal in 2015 under US President Barack Obama. The agreement put a limit on Iran’s uranium enrichment of 3.67 percent in return for sanctions relief. But Trump, who succeeded Obama, withdrew Washington from the deal three years later and slapped sanctions back on Iran. Since then, Iran has accelerated its uranium enrichment to 60 percent. To make an atomic bomb, 90 percent enrichment is required.

During Israel’s 12-day war on Iran in June, the US carried out air strikes on Iran’s three main nuclear sites, after which Trump claimed that Iran’s nuclear programme had been obliterated. But eight months later, he started a war against Iran by saying one of his main goals was to keep Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

The war was launched while talks mediated by Oman were under way between Iran and the US. Oman had said a short time before the attacks began that a deal was “within reach”.

Iran is pushing for a broader regional ceasefire, including an end to fighting involving its allies, such as Hezbollah in Lebanon.

While Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has expressed support for Washington’s decision to suspend the strikes on Iran, he said the ceasefire will not extend to Israel’s ongoing military operations in Lebanon.

Hours into the ceasefire, which began on Wednesday, Israel carried out dozens of attacks across Lebanon, killing more than 300 people in one day.

However, Tehran insisted the ceasefire included Lebanon, citing Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif’s ceasefire announcement on X, which unequivocally stated this was the case.

“Tuesday will be Power Plant Day, and Bridge Day, all wrapped up in one, in Iran. There will be nothing like it!!!” posted President Donald Trump on Easter Sunday. In case one thought that was an impulsive utterance, it’s notable that the president in apparently prepared remarks a few days earlier said, “If there is no deal, we are going to hit each and every one of their electric generating plants very hard and probably simultaneously.”

Such rhetorical statements – if followed through – would amount to the most serious war crimes – and thus the president’s statements place servicemembers in a profoundly challenging situation.

Iranian power plants and other critical civilian infrastructure are protected from attacks by the law of war the United States helped craft after World War II. Such an object can lose its protection only if it is used for military purposes by the enemy and its destruction “offers a definite military advantage.” Even then, such an object can be attacked only if, after a case-by-case rigorous analysis, the “concrete and direct military advantage anticipated” outweighs the civilian suffering that is expected to result. (Geneva Convention Additional Protocol I art. 52, art. 57; DOD Law of War Manual, § 5.6, § 5.12).

Despite those well-settled legal parameters, President Trump has repeatedly threatened to obliterate such infrastructure without regard to the law’s high demands. His comments are blatant expressions that he is willing to turn the United States into a rogue State like Iran and Russia, one that rejects the fundamental legal restraints that protect innocent non-combatants like children, and the Iranian civilian population itself.

U.S. military commanders have sworn to obey the Constitution and only those orders from their superiors that are lawful.  Threats to bomb Iran “back to the Stone Ages” and to show “no quarter, no mercy” are plainly illegal.  Trump’s outrageous statements gravely threaten our military professionals’ bedrock moral and legal principles, ones enshrined in the law of war that they’ve been trained to follow their entire careers.

the DOD Law of War Manual’s note on targeting civilian infrastructure states: “Diminishing the morale of the civilian population and their support for the war effort does not provide a definite military advantage. However, attacks that are otherwise lawful are not rendered unlawful if they happen to result in diminished civilian morale.”  DOD Law of War Manual, § 5.6.  Such “morale bombing” has been rejected for many decades; it had gained support during World War II only to be roundly rejected by Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions and customary international law.  The idea of using civilian pain in order to effectuate political goals would rightly stoke criticisms that the United States’s use of military force against civilian targets equates to acts of sheer terrorism. (See Additional Protocol I art. 51(2) (“Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited.”) (emphasis added); DOD Law of War Manual, § 5.2.2 (“Measures of intimidation or terrorism against the civilian population are prohibited, including acts or threats of violence, the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population.”) (emphasis added).

US President Donald Trump says he has agreed to a two-week ceasefire with Iran, paving the way for a temporary cessation of US-Israeli strikes in exchange for the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz. Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi says Tehran has also accepted the truce, adding that safe passage through the Strait of Hormuz during the two-week period would be possible in coordination with Iranian armed forces. Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, who mediated the ceasefire deal, says the agreement between Iran and the US, along with their allies, also includes “Lebanon and elsewhere” and is effective immediately. He also confirmed that talks between Iran and the US will begin in Pakistan’s capital, Islamabad. Dozens of Democratic lawmakers condemn Trump’s threatening rhetoric towards Iran, calling for his removal from office despite the announcement of the ceasefire deal. The US oil benchmark plunged more than 17 percent after the ceasefire announcement while major stock markets in Japan and South Korea opened strongly.

The 2019 Trump–Ukraine political scandal arose primarily from the discovery of U.S. president Donald Trump's attempts to coerce Ukraine into investigating his political rival Joe Biden and thus potentially damage Biden's campaign for the 2020 Democratic Party presidential nomination. Trump enlisted surrogates in and outside his administration, including personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani and Attorney General William Barr, to pressure Ukraine and other governments to cooperate in supporting and legitimizing the Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory and other conspiracy theories concerning U.S. politics.[1][2][3][4][5] Trump blocked payment of a congressionally-mandated $400 million military aid package, in an attempt to obtain quid pro quo cooperation from Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Contacts were established between the White House and government of Ukraine, culminating in a phone call between Trump and Zelenskyy on July 25, 2019.

The White House corroborated allegations raised by the whistleblower. A transcript of the Trump–Zelenskyy call confirmed Trump requested investigations into Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden, as well as a conspiracy theory involving a Democratic National Committee server, while urging Zelenskyy to work with Giuliani and Barr on this.

Former acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney said one reason why Trump withheld aid to Ukraine was Ukrainian "corruption related to the DNC server", referring to a debunked theory that Ukrainians framed Russia for hacking into the DNC system.[12] Trump has publicly urged Ukraine and China to investigate the Bidens.[13] The Trump administration's top diplomat to Ukraine, Bill Taylor, testified he was told aid to Ukraine and a Trump–Zelenskyy White House meeting were conditional on Zelenskyy announcing investigations into the Bidens and alleged Ukrainian interference in the 2016 U.S. elections.

Trump was impeached on charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress,[18] but was acquitted by the Senate.

“Punishing Anthropic for bringing public scrutiny to the government’s contracting position is classic illegal First Amendment retaliation,” Judge Lin wrote in the order. A final verdict in the case could still be months away.

“Nothing in the governing statute supports the Orwellian notion that an American company may be branded a potential adversary and saboteur of the U.S. for expressing disagreement with the government,” she wrote.

Judge James Boasberg said that the government has “produced essentially zero evidence to suspect Chair Powell of a crime” and called its justifications for the subpoenas so “thin and unsubstantiated” that they were simply a pretext to force Powell to cut interest rates, as Trump has repeatedly demanded.

“There is abundant evidence that the subpoenas’ dominant (if not sole) purpose is to harass and pressure Powell either to yield to the President or to resign and make way for a Fed Chair who will,” he wrote.

President Donald Trump’s military strikes in Iran have likely cost American taxpayers over $1 billion using cursory estimates—with hundreds of millions lost on lost aircraft over the weekend—with a price tag that could approach $100 billion, depending on how long it can stretch on.

As Congress returns to session this week amid a new conflict in the Middle East, a crucial question hangs over Washington: Who gets to decide when America's military can be sent to war?

The Constitution says that only Congress has that power, with limited exceptions. In the four days after hostilities began, the Trump administration has struggled to articulate whether any of those exceptions apply to this situation. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth has called this a "war," undermining the argument that it's a different kind of military action that doesn't require congressional authorization. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and others have said the strikes against Iran were in response to an imminent threat against American troops in the region—only to later back down from that claim. President Donald Trump has made overlapping and contradictory claims about the conflict's aims, and on Tuesday seemed to claim responsibility for initiating Saturday's attack.

Video from bystanders showed that Pretti had not attacked officers, as Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said immediately after the shooting. Critics raised further complaints after Noem and Homeland Security advisor Stephen Miller both called Pretti a domestic terrorist before an investigation had concluded.

Ford said the US car maker's tariff costs were $900m (£660m) higher than expected last year because of a last minute change to the Trump administration's tariff relief program.

Chief executive Jim Farley said Ford spent double what it had expected on tariffs in 2025 - roughly $2bn - due to "the unexpected and late year change in tariff credits for auto parts".

Separately, Ford had previously disclosed a $19.5bn hit as a result of its shift away from electric vehicle plans. Those charges also contributed to its fourth-quarter net loss of $11.1bn. The vehicle manufacturer had said it was backing away from plans to make large EVs, citing lacklustre demand and recent regulatory changes under Trump. The business case for leaning heavily into EV production, specifically large-sized EV models, has "eroded", the company had said.

In research released Thursday by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, a group of analysts and economists found that in 2025, the average tariff rate on imported goods rose to 13% from just 2.6% at the start of the year. The New York Fed found that 90% of the cost of increased tariffs, which Trump imposed on goods from Mexico, China, Canada and the European Union, was paid for by companies and often passed on to shoppers. "US firms and consumers continue to bear the bulk of the economic burden of the high tariffs imposed in 2025."

The reaction from exporters in 2025 was essentially the same in 2018, when Trump imposed certain tariffs during his first term in office – the cost of goods for consumers rose, with little other economic impact recorded, the New York Fed said at the time.

The Kiel Institute for the World Economy, an independent research firm in Germany, said in a report last month that it had found "near-complete pass-through of tariffs to US import prices." Kiel researchers analysed 25 million transactions and found that in exporting countries like Brazil and India, the price of goods from those countries did not decline. "Trade volumes collapsed instead," the Kiel report said, meaning exporters preferred to cut the amount of goods being shipped into the US rather than lower prices.

The National Bureau of Economic Research also found that the pass-through of tariffs was "almost 100%", meaning the US is paying for the increase in prices, not exporting countries.

Similarly, the Tax Foundation, a Washington DC-based think tank focused on US tax policy, found that increased tariffs on goods in 2025 increased costs for every American household. Defining tariffs as a new tax on consumers, the Tax Foundation said the 2025 increases cost the average household $1,000 (£734.30). In 2026, tariffs will cost the same household $1,300. The Tax Foundation said even the "effective" tariff rate, an average rate that takes into account people buying fewer goods in response to increased prices, is now 9.9%, making it the "the highest average rate since 1946". With such impacts on people, the Tax Foundation said any economic benefits of tax cuts included in Trump's "Big Beautiful Bill" will be offset entirely.

What happened before and at the moment of the shooting? published at 08:14 08:14 As we've posted earlier, our colleagues at BBC Verify have analysed seven videos showing the moments leading up to and around the shooting. The footage shows an agent pushing someone over, with Pretti standing between them and the agent while filming on his phone. The agent pepper sprays Pretti in the face. Pretti raises his hand defensively and turns away, pockets his phone, and starts to help the woman on the floor as the agent continues spraying. Other agents rush over. They drag Pretti away and several agents wrestle him to the floor. Pretti then tries to crawl away - he’s clearly not holding a gun. An agent in a grey jacket is seen reaching for something from Pretti’s waist. Next to him, another agent draws his gun. The agent in the grey jacket turns away from Pretti, holding what appears to be a pistol. Less than a second later, an agent shoots Pretti. Ten shots are heard in total. For context, after the shooting, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem gave the following description of what happened: "An individual approached US Border Patrol officers with a 9mm semi-automatic handgun. The officers attempted to disarm the suspect but the armed suspect violently resisted. Fearing for his life and the lives and safety of fellow officers, an agent fired defensive shots."

Republican Congressman Thomas Massie has defended the carrying of a gun as a "constitutional right", following the Department of Homeland and Security's claim that Alex Pretti was armed when he was shot dead by federal agents yesterday. "Carrying a firearm is not a death sentence, it’s a Constitutionally protected God-given right," Massie says, criticising an X post from US attorney Bill Essayli, which alludes to Pretti's death. Essayli, in his own post, says there is a "high likelihood" federal officers will "be legally justified" in shooting an armed person who approaches them. Generally, Republicans celebrate the right to possess firearms as enshrined in the US Constitution.

While Washington frames this as a roadmap for “reconstruction and prosperity”, the exclusion of Palestinians from the top decision-making body suggests they will have little say in deciding the future governance structure.

According to the White House statement, the “Founding Executive Council” sits at the apex of the pyramid. This body holds the purse strings and sets the strategic vision. It is chaired by President Trump, who retains veto power.

Advertisement The lineup of Executive Board members is:

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio: Rubio is one of the most pro-Israel officials in the Trump administration. He has said that those who criticise Israel will not be granted US visas. He has also criticised the move by several Western countries to recognise Palestinian statehood as a “reckless decision” that “only serves Hamas propaganda”. US Special Envoy Steve Witkoff: Witkoff is a New York-based real estate developer and investor close to Trump. He was tasked with ceasefire talks in Gaza. Witkoff was accused of reneging on Gaza talks after he accused Hamas of blocking a deal last July. Hamas political bureau member Basem Naim accused him of “serving the Israeli position”. Jared Kushner: Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law. is also a staunch supporter of Israel who previously suggested that Palestinians are incapable of self-governance. He has described Gaza as having “very valuable waterfront property”. Kushner was also the driving force of the so-called Abraham Accords, a series of deals that formalised ties between several Arab countries and Israel. Billionaire businessman Marc Rowan: Rowan is a co-founder of Apollo Global Management, which is one of the world’s largest investment firms. He has run philanthropic activities in Israel and has funded pro-Israel advocacy groups in the United States, according to media reports. He has also supported the Israeli-American Council, which works to strengthen Israeli and American Jewish communities.

Aryeh Lightstone: A key figure in the Abraham Accords and the controversial aid organisation the “Gaza Humanitarian Foundation” (GHF), which faced severe accusations regarding aid mismanagement and coordination failures that led to the killing of hundreds of Palestinians seeking food.

In September 2024, Mr. Witkoff co-founded the cryptocurrency company World Liberty Financial (WLF) alongside his two sons, President Donald Trump, Donald Trump Jr., Eric Trump, and Barron Trump.1 On November 12, 2024, President Trump announced that Mr. Witkoff would serve as his Special Envoy to the Middle East.

growing ties between WLF and the very countries Mr. Witkoff negotiates with as Special Envoy is particularly alarming. In May 2025, Witkoff’s son, Zach Witkoff, and Eric Trump jointly announced that the U.A.E.-backed investment fund MGX had agreed to purchase $2 billion in WLF’s stablecoin.6 Two weeks later, the U.S. and U.A.E. announced an agreement to allow the U.A.E. to access advanced U.S.-exported chips for artificial intelligence.7 This deal was reportedly negotiated by Mr. Witkoff, despite his and his family’s financial relationship with the U.A.E. through WLF and national security concerns from senior advisors.8 The timing of these two deals raises serious questions about the impact Mr. Witkoff’s personal and family finances are playing in his official role as Special Envoy

Canadian company TransAlta’s coal-burning power plant in Centralia, Washington, shut down Dec. 19

The plant has not re-started since then, despite a Dec. 16 emergency order from U.S. Secretary of Energy Chris Wright to keep operating.

On Dec. 9, TransAlta announced it had reached a deal with Puget Sound Energy, Washington’s largest utility, to convert the Centralia plant and run it on natural gas for another 16 years

Even without adding in Trump’s own $5.5 billion net worth, Forbes estimates that his top advisors are worth $7.5 billion, more than doubling the $3.2 billion combined worth of Trump’s 2019 Cabinet. (By contrast, Biden’s Cabinet of regular Joes was barely worth $110 million combined in 2021.)

“Considering your Country decided not to give me the Nobel Peace Prize for having stopped 8 Wars PLUS, I no longer feel an obligation to think purely of Peace, although it will always be predominant, but can now think about what is good and proper for the United States of America,” Trump's text, sent at 4:15 pm Norway time (10:15 am ET), said.

"I have done more for NATO than any other person since its founding, and now, NATO should do something for the United States. The World is not secure unless we have Complete and Total Control of Greenland," he continued.

In just the past week, President Donald Trump has ordered defense companies to halt dividends and stock buybacks, and limited executive compensation to $5 million a year; ordered Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to buy $200 billion of mortgage-backed securities; ordered an array of energy firms to invest in Venezuelan oil infrastructure, called for a 10 percent cap on credit card interest rates; announced steps to ban institutional purchases of single-family homes; and opened a criminal investigation into Jerome Powell's handling of Federal Reserve building renovations in an attempt to influence monetary policy.