#trump

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.

Trump has been impeached twice, though the Senate acquitted him both times.

In December 2019, the House voted to impeach Trump on two articles, one charging him with abuse of power by asking Ukrainian officials to investigate his political opponent and another that he obstructed the congressional investigation into the matter. In February 2020, the Senate voted to acquit the president, and Sen. Mitt Romney, R-Utah, was the only Republican to cross party lines in voting to convict.

In January 2021, the House voted to impeach Trump again, charging the president with "incitement to insurrection" related to the events at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. 10 Republicans broke ranks and voted with Democrats to impeach Trump. Only two of those 10 lawmakers are still in office, and one of them has said he will not seek re-election in 2026. The others retired from Congress or lost their races.

The Senate trial occurred after Trump left office, and some Republicans found it unnecessary since he was no longer in power. A majority voted to convict with seven Republicans crossing party lines, but the 57-43 vote fell short of the two-thirds majority needed for a conviction.

Republican Sen. Thom Tillis (N.C.), a senior member of the Senate Banking Committee, is questioning the “credibility” of the Department of Justice’s investigation of Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell and threatening to oppose President Trump’s nominees to the central bank until the matter is resolved.

To some "free speech" means you're free to say only what they want you to say.

The State Department is instructing its staff to reject visa applications from people who worked on fact-checking, content moderation or other activities the Trump administration considers “censorship” of Americans’ speech.

First Amendment experts criticized the memo’s guidance as itself a potential violation of free speech rights.

“People who study misinformation and work on content-moderation teams aren’t engaged in ‘censorship’— they’re engaged in activities that the First Amendment was designed to protect. This policy is incoherent and unconstitutional,” said Carrie DeCell, senior staff attorney and legislative advisor at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, in a statement.

Even as the administration has targeted those it claims are engaged in censoring Americans, it has also tightened its own scrutiny of visa applicants’ online speech.

On Wednesday, the State Department announced it would require H-1B visa applicants and their dependents to set their social media profiles to “public” so they can be reviewed by U.S. officials.

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics estimates that at least 33 people pardoned for crimes on Jan. 6 have since been charged or convicted for additional crimes, though the final tally is unclear.

The real question isn’t whether this action was legal; it is what to do about its illegality. Ignoring the law and the people’s will in this fashion is a high crime. Any Congress inclined to impeach and remove Trump from office over Venezuela would be within their rights. That outcome is unlikely unless Democrats win the midterms. But Congress should enforce its war power. Otherwise, presidents of both parties will keep launching wars of choice with no regard for the will of people or our representatives. And anti-war voters will be radicalized by the dearth of democratic means to effect change.

War-weary voters who thought it was enough to elect a president who called the Iraq War “a stupid thing” and promised an “America First” foreign policy can now see for themselves that they were wrong. In 2026, as ever, only Congress can stop endless wars of choice. And if Trump faces no consequences for this one, he may well start another.

The U.S. military strikes that targeted Venezuela on Saturday morning and the subsequent capture of Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro and his wife may turn out to be popular or defensible, given Maduro's history of despotism and the legal indictments awaiting him in federal court.

What they were not, however, is legal.

The U.S. Constitution gives Congress the sole authority to approve military strikes against foreign countries. Federal laws, like the War Powers Resolution, allow for unilateral executive action only in response to an imminent threat against Americans or U.S. troops. That separation of powers is fundamental to American democracy—not an optional arrangement for presidents to discard when it is politically or logistically inconvenient.

At a press conference on Saturday morning, President Donald Trump termed the attack an "extraordinary military operation," which he claimed was unlike anything seen since World War II. Therefore, there should be no debate about what this was: a military strike, one that utterly lacked congressional authorization.

Vice President J.D. Vance tried a different line of argument earlier on Saturday, when he claimed on X that Trump did not need congressional authorization for the attack on Venezuela because "Maduro has multiple indictments in the United States for narcoterrorism. You don't get to avoid justice for drug trafficking in the United States because you live in a palace in Caracas."

That argument, however, shreds the concept of separation of powers. The executive branch makes indictments. If it is also allowed to use the existence of those indictments to authorize military strikes in foreign nations, then there is no need for Congress to be involved at all.

Indeed, if Vance's argument were correct, why did President George W. Bush bother going to Congress for an Authorization for the Use of Military Force to invade Iraq? It would have been much easier to simply have the attorney general indict Saddam Hussein, then send in in the troops.

Is any nation justified in seizing another nation's leader—even a nasty, illegal one like Maduro—for any alleged crimes? Does the existence of an indictment allow for "extraordinary military operations" anywhere, at any time? That's a framework that seems certain to create more international chaos, not more stability.

The Trump administration claims Maduro was violating the law, but the U.S. loses its moral high ground by acting illegally to remove him. If Trump is doing the right thing by taking Maduro out, then it should have been easy to make that case to Congress.

Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence panel, said Congress should have had primary authority to approve the military action against Maduro, warning the attack could embolden China and Russia to act aggressively against regional neighbors. “Our Constitution places the gravest decisions about the use of military force in the hands of Congress for a reason. Using military force to enact regime change demands the closest scrutiny, precisely because the consequences do not end with the initial strike,” he warned. He said the unilateral action could give justification for China to attack Taiwan or Russia to strike at Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. “If the United States asserts the right to use military force to invade and capture foreign leaders it accuses of criminal conduct, what prevents China from claiming the same authority over Taiwan’s leadership?” he said. “What stops Vladimir Putin from asserting similar justification to abduct Ukraine’s president?” he asked.

Shortly after the US’s capture of Maduro, the wife of Stephen Miller, a key Trump aide, posted a picture of Greenland on X in the colours of the US flag with the caption “SOON”.

The legal authority for the incursion, done without congressional approval, was not immediately clear, but the Trump administration promoted the ouster as a step toward reducing the flow of dangerous drugs into the U.S. The president touted what he saw as other potential benefits, including a leadership stake in the country and greater control of oil.