
Morning Report — Trump offers to pay migrants to exit US
U.S. to migrants without legal status: Cash out
Trump budget, tariffs rattle GOP lawmakers
Gubernatorial races to watch in 2026
Israel plans full, indefinite Gaza takeover
President Trump returned to an issue that helped him win the White House twice when he offered on Monday to pay migrants who lack legal status a chance to exit the U.S. of their own volition.
Washington also is discussing with far-flung nations, including Rwanda, whether their governments will accept migrants deported by the U.S.
The border ' is the most secure it's ever been in the history of our country,' Trump said during an NBC News interview broadcast on Sunday. ' Isn't that a nice statement?'
Data from Customs and Border Protection (CBP) tracked by NBC affirmed that unauthorized crossings at the southern border have plummeted.
The administration, using sticks and carrots to amend bold promises to deport 10 million people, tells those without legal status to stay away from the United States or face arrests, deportations and prison. At the same time, Trump and his team are dangling cash to get frightened migrants already in the U.S. to voluntarily depart.
Trump's self-deportation offer of $1,000 would provide taxpayer funds to migrants without legal status in the U.S. to 'facilitate' their travel home. They would receive the U.S. funds, according to the Department of Homeland Security, once their exit and arrivals were confirmed through a CBP app.
That app option was touted last month by Trump in a video in which he said it was an opening for migrants to exit first and then legally re-enter the U.S. while the government saves taxpayer funds and federal manpower.
Immigration lawyers across the United States — including in Chicago, Cleveland and San Antonio — say they've seen a Justice Department app message to migrant clients urging them to self-deport. The message is posted on the walls of immigration courts and as part of electronic communications sent to lawyers, Mother Jones reported.
Meanwhile, Rwandan Foreign Minister Olivier J.P. Nduhungirehe confirmed to media at home his country's consideration to accept deported U.S. prisoners. 'It is true that we are in discussions with the United States. These talks are still ongoing, and it would be premature to conclude how they will unfold.'
The United Kingdom experimented with a Rwanda deportation plan under the government of former Prime Minister Rishi Sunak. It was jettisoned by his successor after the U.K. spent $904 million. Home Secretary Yvette Cooper, who called the effort a 'shocking waste of taxpayer money,' explained the plan's costs included payments to Rwanda, plus ' chartering flights that never took off, detaining hundreds of people and then releasing them and paying for more than a thousand civil servants to work on the scheme.'
The president's immigration critics say his programs are harbingers of a larger attack on civil rights.
Trump says he's willing to send U.S. citizens who are accused of misdeeds to international prisons. That has inspired GOP senators to draw the line against Trump's exploration of sending 'homegrown' criminals out of the country, reports The Hill's Alexander Bolton.
The president told The Atlantic when asked if he'd send U.S. citizens to serve time outside the country, 'If it was legal to do — and nobody's given me a definitive answer on that — but if it was legal to do, I would have no problem with moving them out of the country into a foreign jail, which would cost a lot less money.'
The Hill: Trump's order on Sunday to rebuild and reopen San Francisco's former Alcatraz prison to incarcerate prisoners faces 'daunting' challenges.
SMART TAKE with NewsNation's BLAKE BURMAN:
Two-term Republican Gov. Brian Kemp of Georgia announced he will not run for Senate in 2026, opening the door for a new GOP contender to enter the race. With Kemp out, speculation is intensifying around Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.).
I asked Greene about a potential Senate run, and she told me, 'I'll give it some thought,' adding, 'I'm very grateful for the support I have in Georgia. The polling shows I can win the governor's primary or the Senate primary.'
Greene didn't offer a timeline for when she might make a decision about her political future, but the sense I got Monday evening after the Kemp news broke was that the congresswoman feels she has plenty of options.
Burman hosts 'The Hill' weeknights, 6p/5c on NewsNation.
3 THINGS TO KNOW TODAY
▪ Introducing The Movement, a new newsletter from The Hill's Emily Brooks tracking the influences and debates steering politics on the right. Click here to sign up and get it in your inbox.
▪ Trump on Monday ordered a ban on federal funding for controversial infectious disease research in China, Iran and other countries.
▪ The White House asked a federal judge on Monday to dismiss a lawsuit that seeks to sharply restrict access to the abortion pill mifepristone — taking the same position as the Biden administration.
LEADING THE DAY
BUDGET AND TARIFFS: Senate Republicans on Monday were spooked by Trump's claims over the weekend that some of his tariffs could be permanent and that a short-term recession would be 'OK' amid questions about the stability of the U.S. economy. The Hill's Al Weaver reports that GOP lawmakers acknowledge the president's refusal to rule out the possibility that some of his levies could remain in place in the long term, coupled with his remarks on the possibility of a recession, constitutes a one-two punch that is spooking consumers.
'I think there's just a lot of uneasiness,' said Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), a member of GOP leadership. 'They keep saying they're close to a deal with a country, so I think that would be helpful to show that there's progress here. I think people are sort of wondering where this is all going to lead.'
▪ The New York Times: With high costs and low prices for their crops, Iowa's soybean and corn farmers were already nervous as they planned for planting season this year. Tariffs aren't helping.
▪ The Hill: Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.) said farmers in his state and across the Midwest are 'already seeing' the impacts of Trump's tariffs and called for the country to open agricultural trade with other countries to support the industry.
▪ The Atlantic: How the GOP's indecision in Congress could crash the markets.
Trump's economic messaging has evolved: Trump is changing his tune on the economy, suggesting that Americans should buy less, will probably pay more and bear the brunt of an uncertain economic landscape as his widespread tariff policy takes effect.
For weeks, Trump and his economic team have said the tariffs would result in only short-term pain and that the tumult in the stock market would eventually level out. But the White House's messaging has evolved to Trump suggesting that the U.S. needs a cultural shift on consumer spending while accepting that his tariff plan will raise prices.
▪ The New York Times: Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent is urging skittish global business leaders to ignore Trump's economic naysayers and ramp up investment in the U.S.
▪ Time magazine: Voters are clear: This economy belongs to Trump.
▪ The Washington Post: Trump's trade war is sending construction costs up, and interest rates are expected to stay high this year.
▪ The Hill: Trump's proposal to impose a 100 percent tariff on foreign films is getting skepticism from Hollywood and Washington.
DEFENSE: Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth used Signal more extensively for official Pentagon business than previously disclosed, engaging in at least a dozen separate chats, The Wall Street Journal reports. He told aides on the chat app to inform foreign governments about an unfolding military operation, as well as to discuss media appearances, foreign travel and his schedule.
The Hill: Hegseth wants the number of active-duty four-star generals and admirals in the U.S. military to be cut by at least 20 percent, according to a new memo released Monday.
HIGHER EDUCATION: Trump doesn't have the legal authority to nix Harvard University's tax-exempt status on his own. But will that stop him? The president, who has shown a willingness to test the boundaries of the law as he seeks to hurt universities financially, is at war with Harvard, locked in a lawsuit while he goes after its research funding, international students and, perhaps most dangerously for the school, its tax exemption.
Education Secretary Linda McMahon sent a letter to Harvard on Monday telling the university it will no longer be eligible for new research grants from the government until it can 'demonstrate responsible management,' a senior Education Department official said on a call with reporters.
The Wall Street Journal: The Trump administration has presented Columbia University with a proposal for a consent decree, a form of federal oversight that would give a judge responsibility for ensuring Columbia complies with the agreement.
KIDS ONLINE: The fight over a key internet protection for children is ramping up in Washington, where Big Tech companies are pinning the responsibility on each other as lawmakers push for stricter requirements. After months of action in the states, age verification legislation made its way to Congress last week, when Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Rep. John James (R-Mich.) introduced a bill that would put the onus on app stores like Apple and Google to verify all users' ages. The issue is uniquely pitting some of the country's largest technology companies against one another. But the proposal could face hurdles even among Big Tech critics in Congress.
'Age verification is largely i neffective,' Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) told The Hill. 'It is so easily worked around by young people, who frankly think it's laughable that we would rely on age verification to protect them.'
CBS News: The Food and Drug Administration's top official overseeing drug and food safety inspections told staff on Monday he has decided to leave the agency.
WHERE AND WHEN
The House will meet at 10 a.m.
The Senate will convene at 10 a.m.
The president greets Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney at 11:15 a.m. at the White House. The two leaders will have lunch and a bilateral meeting to discuss trade and other issues. Trump will participate in an East Room FIFA task force meeting at 3:30 p.m. to prepare for the U.S. hosting next year of the FIFA World Cup. The president will hold a swearing-in ceremony at 5 p.m. for a top adviser.
The Federal Reserve meets on the first day of a two-day gathering to consider the economy and interest rates. Here's what to expect.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio will meet at 3 p.m. with the prime ministers of Antigua and Barbuda, the Bahamas, Dominica, Grenada, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines at the State Department.
JOIN The Hill's Energy & Environment Summit today from 8 a.m. to noon as leaders in government, sustainability and global energy solutions discuss how rapidly changing policies will impact the future of U.S. energy and environmental policy. Key speakers include: Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Rep. Bob Latta (R-Ohio), former Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Christine Todd Whitman and more.
GOVERNORSHIPS: Multiple states are gearing up for competitive gubernatorial elections in 2026, which will offer a litmus test on voter sentiment. Michigan and Georgia are teeing up open races as both Govs. Gretchen Whitmer (D) and Brian Kemp (R), respectively, are term limited. Wisconsin could also see an open race, as Gov. Tony Evers (D) has not said yet whether he'll run for a third term.
The Hill's Caroline Vakil breaks down the candidate pools in those three states, as well as Arizona and Nevada.
Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) said in a Fox News interview Sunday that she's 'strongly considering' a run for New York governor in 2026, after her nomination to become U.S. ambassador to the United Nations fell through earlier this year to try to fortify the slim GOP House majority.
Former Rep. Tim Ryan (D-Ohio) is 'seriously considering' a run for Ohio governor, his communications adviser told The Hill on Monday.
▪ Axios: The governor-to-Senate pipeline is suddenly flowing in the other direction.
▪ The Hill: Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) announced on Monday that she won't seek another term in Congress, teeing up an open race for the seat she's held since 1999.
▪ The Hill: Former Maine Gov. Paul LePage (R) filed paperwork Sunday to run against Rep. Jared Golden (D-Maine) for Maine's 2nd Congressional District next year.
▪ NBC News: Inside the Trump White House's early 2026 midterm strategy. Presidents' parties historically do poorly in midterms. But White House advisers are confident about holding the Senate, despite tension with Senate Republicans' campaign committee.
EYE ON 2028: Kemp announced on Monday that he's forgoing a bid to challenge Sen. Jon Ossoff (D) in the Peach State next year, delivering a major blow to Republicans who sought to recruit him for the race. Kemp has also been seen as a potential 2028 White House contender, and most believed that if he was considering running for president, he was unlikely to make a bid for the Senate in 2026.
Meanwhile, Arizona Sen. Ruben Gallego (D) is heading to Pennsylvania this week to participate in a town hall in the swing county of Bucks County, stirring speculation over whether he might be harboring presidential ambitions.
GAZA: Israel has set Trump's visit to the Middle East next week as a deadline for a new hostage and ceasefire deal in Gaza. If that objective is not reached by May 15, the military will proceed with a massive ground operation aimed at defeating Hamas, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said after his security Cabinet unanimously approved a plan to seize the entire Palestinian enclave indefinitely. After Israel's announcement, a senior Hamas official said there is 'no point' in further ceasefire talks.
Palestinian civilians will be moved for their own protection, Netanyahu said in a video posted on social media. Before the last ceasefire went into effect, Israel had already taken full control of a third of Gaza. A senior Israeli security official said Monday that the 'humanitarian [aid] blockade will continue, and only later — after the operational phase begins and a large-scale civilian evacuation to the south is completed — will a humanitarian plan be implemented. '
The alternative to remaining in the humanitarian zone is for Palestinians to leave the enclave 'voluntarily' for other countries 'in line with President Trump's vision for Gaza,' an Israeli official said.
▪ The New York Times: Trump's hope for a Gaza deal is fading, experts say.
▪ The Washington Post: Israel plans to control aid distribution in Gaza and use U.S. contractors. Aid agencies say the plan runs counter to humanitarian principles, is logistically unworkable and could put Gazans and workers at risk.
UKRAINE: Ukraine's Western allies are discussing supplying additional Patriot air defense systems to Kyiv, Reuters reports, and aim to reach an agreement before a NATO summit at the end of June. Meanwhile, Ukrainian drones targeted Moscow for the second consecutive night, as the Russian capital prepares for Victory Day celebrations. Chinese President Xi Jinping and other Kremlin-friendly world leaders are expected to attend.
▪ The Economist: How new drones are sneaking past jammers on Ukraine's front lines.
▪ The Hill: Trump spoke Monday with Turkish President about efforts to end the war in Ukraine.
■ Here is what Prime Minister Mark Carney must achieve on his historic mission to Washington, by Alan Kessel, opinion contributor, Toronto Star.
And finally … 🗞️ The Pulitzer Prizes, the nation's top honor for print journalism, were announced Monday. The staffs of The Washington Post and Wall Street Journal both took home awards for reporting on Trump and tech billionaire Elon Musk.
The Post earned the award in the breaking news category for its reporting on the first attempted assassination against Trump on July 13, 2024, during a campaign rally in Butler, Pa.
The Journal won the top prize for national reporting for its extensive reporting on the personal and public life of Musk, including his relationships with business associates, drug use and shifting political orientation as he entered Trump's inner circle.
The New York Times earned four Pulitzers, The New Yorker won three and ProPublica was given the public service award for its coverage of the deadly consequences of abortion bans in the U.S.
Stay Engaged

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Bloomberg
29 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Dalay: Putin Blames Ukraine & EU for the Lack of Deal
Live on Bloomberg TV CC-Transcript 00:00Before we get to this meeting today, I want to start with what we saw on Friday and what, if anything, you think was accomplished or achieved by these two leaders. I think first what the true leader wanted from these meetings. Putin clearly wanted the meeting, wanted a deal, at least a deal and a cease fire to be in all of the meetings. And obviously the Putin got to a meeting that he wanted that's effective. And then the western isolation of Russia breaking the Western consensus on Russia. And probably he hopes that it's not only going to be Ukraine in talks between himself and Trump, but rather Ukraine turns into one subject among many other subjects. That's all the subject includes from that and from the nature, the overall nature of the relation between us and Russia, how to improve it and how to prevent the further sanctions coming down on Russia. So therefore, for Putin, the meetings and the meetings should not be only about Ukraine. For Trump, obviously he wanted a deal that to be announced. Right now what we see at this word in terms of the initial outcomes that Putin has gotten, what it wanted, which was the meetings and the Trump in terms of what he has gotten is still unclear. But what is so important, what is so significant at this stage is the normalization of the meetings and the record like treatment with the Putin by the by the most important by the most important country in the world, which is the united of the most powerful country in the world in the Western camps. And I think that meeting probably has paved the way for paved the way for other meetings coming down, coming down on the coming down the road. And the finally, in all the important things that Russia always wanted to talk about, the European security, not only Ukraine, but the overall nature of the European security order with us, not with with Europeans. And thus far it seems that the Russia is succeeding. Well. Well, so then where does that leave the discussions around a ceasefire or potentially peace? Because Trump also wants to see Zelensky and Putin meeting in the near term. European leaders are against that. Is that not a part of the discussion right now? Is that what you're saying? Well, the Trump wanted a ceasefire and they found that Putin didn't want a ceasefire. Is that the Putin talk about a comprehensive peace agreement which is unlikely to be achieved anytime soon? And I think one thing that probably one strategy that put it is pursuing the failure of getting a comprehensive deal, whatever that means at this stage, because that will that will involve some really tough questions regarding the territorial adjustment, the regarding what the U.S. means by the security guarantees that deal with the security guarantees that has been floated around, whether that is effectively a NATO like commitment without the NATO membership for Ukraine or what it is like, just like an idea that is being floated without much of much did. But nevertheless, right now, the if the failure the failure of this talk about a comprehensive deal, I think then Putin wants to blame Ukraine and Europeans for the intransigence and then basically tell the standard from that it was it was dumb that they didn't want a comprehensive deal rather than Russia once did, and therefore that it is time for the U.S. and Russia to even to reset the ties despite the fact that there may not be over or Ukraine. Gleb, do you see the European leaders stepping in and potentially changing the calculus of where these talks are at right now? Well, the trouble with European leaders or the European strategy towards Russia, towards Ukraine is even though Europe has been talking about the plan A, plan B, a plan C, but all of them coming to the same idea, actually, how to keep the U.S. in the game in one way or another. I still don't see any European plans despite all this talk about or the formation of the coalition of the willing, the formation, or the idea that the U.S. may not be in the game for long despite all this holds. I still do not see any European plan that is premised on the idea that Europe and the U.S. might be completely out of the picture. So the idea that I see is still gaining currency at the European capital. If the US even withdraw in presence, can we can we have like the U.S. backstops for the Europeans? So that's the first thing. The second thing that I see beyond offering the financial commitment, beyond offering further military equipment to Ukraine and further financial financial help to Ukraine, also buy more from the Americans. What for markets? I still don't see a workable European plan if the U.S. exit, if the U.S. is not in endgame. So therefore, this is like a drastic moment where, as in true for the European security, but probably one of the most significant days that we are passing through since the end of the Cold War and the tragedy for Europe. The Europe is not ready for the game. Europe is not ready for the challenge. If the U.S. is not in the game.
Yahoo
30 minutes ago
- Yahoo
News Analysis: Newsom's decision to fight fire with fire could have profound political consequences
Deep in the badlands of defeat, Democrats have soul-searched about what went wrong last November, tinkered with a thousand-plus thinkpieces and desperately cast for a strategy to reboot their stalled-out party. Amid the noise, California Gov. Gavin Newsom has recently championed an unlikely game plan: Forget the high road, fight fire with fire and embrace the very tactics that virtue-minded Democrats have long decried. Could the dark art of political gerrymandering be the thing that saves democracy from Trump's increasingly authoritarian impulses? That's essentially the pitch Newsom is making to California voters with his audacious new special election campaign. As Texas Democrats dig in to block a Republican-led redistricting push and Trump muscles to consolidate power wherever he can, Newsom wants to redraw California's own congressional districts to favor Democrats. His goal: counter Trump's drive for more GOP House seats with a power play of his own. It's a boundary-pushing gamble that will undoubtedly supercharge Newsom's political star in the short-term. The long-game glory could be even grander, but only if he pulls it off. A ballot-box flop would be brutal for both Newsom and his party. The charismatic California governor is termed out of office in 2026 and has made no secret of his 2028 presidential ambitions. But the distinct scent of his home state will be hard to completely slough off in parts of the country where California is synonymous with loony lefties, business-killing regulation and an out-of-control homelessness crisis. To say nothing of Newsom's ill-fated dinner at an elite Napa restaurant in violation of COVID-19 protocols — a misstep that energized a failed recall attempt and still haunts the governor's national reputation. The redistricting gambit is the kind of big play that could redefine how voters across the country see Newsom. The strategy could be a boon for Newsom's 2028 ambitions during a moment when Democrats are hungry for leaders, said Democratic strategist Steven Maviglio. But it's also a massive roll of the dice for both Newsom and the state he leads. 'It's great politics for him if this passes,' Maviglio said. 'If it fails, he's dead in the water.' The path forward — which could determine control of Congress in 2026 — is hardly a straight shot. The 'Election Rigging Response Act,' as Newsom has named his ballot measure, would temporarily scrap the congressional districts enacted by the state's voter-approved independent redistricting commission. Under the proposal, Democrats could pick up five seats currently held by Republicans while bolstering vulnerable Democratic incumbent Reps. Adam Gray, Josh Harder, George Whitesides, Derek Tran and Dave Min, which would save the party millions of dollars in costly reelection fights. But first the Democratic-led state Legislature must vote to place the measure on the Nov. 4 ballot and then it must be approved by voters. If passed, the initiative would have a 'trigger,' meaning the redrawn map would not take effect unless Texas or another GOP-led state moved forward with its own gerrymandering effort. 'I think what Governor Newsom and other Democrats are doing here is exactly the right thing we need to do,' Democratic National Committee Chairman Ken Martin said Thursday. 'We're not bringing a pencil to a knife fight. We're going to bring a bazooka to a knife fight, right? This is not your grandfather's Democratic Party,' Martin said, adding that they shouldn't be the only ones playing by a set of rules that no longer exist. For Democrats like Rep. Laura Friedman (D-Glendale), who appeared alongside Newsom to kick off the effort, there is "some heartbreak" to temporarily shelving their commitment to independent redistricting. But she and others were clear-eyed about the need to stop a president "willing to rig the election midstream," she said. Friedman said she was hearing overwhelmingly positive reactions to the proposal from all kinds of Democratic groups on the ground. "The response that I get is, 'Finally, we're fighting. We have a way to fight back that's tangible,'" Friedman recounted. Still, despite the state's Democratic voter registration advantage, victory for the ballot measure will hardly be assured. California voters have twice rallied for independent redistricting at the ballot box in the last two decades and many may struggle to abandon those beliefs. A POLITICO-Citrin Center-Possibility Lab poll found that voters prefer keeping an independent panel in place to draw district lines by a nearly two-to-one margin, and that independent redistricting is broadly popular in the state. (Newsom's press office argued that the poll was poorly worded, since it asked about getting rid of the independent commission altogether and permanently returning line-drawing power to the legislators, rather than just temporarily scrapping their work for several cycles until the independent commission next draws new lines.) California voters should not expect to see a special election campaign focused on the minutia of reconfiguring the state's congressional districts, however. While many opponents will likely attack the change as undercutting the will of California voters, who overwhelmingly supported weeding politics out of the redistricting process, bank on Newsom casting the campaign as a referendum on Trump and his devious effort to keep Republicans in control of Congress. Newsom employed a similar strategy when he demolished the Republican-led recall campaign against him in 2021, which the governor portrayed as a "life and death" battle against "Trumpism" and far-right anti-vaccine and antiabortion activists. Among California's Democratic-heavy electorate, that message proved to be extremely effective. "Wake up, America," Newsom said Thursday at a Los Angeles rally launching the campaign for the redistricting measure. "Wake up to what Donald Trump is doing. Wake up to his assault. Wake up to the assault on institutions and knowledge and history. Wake up to his war on science, public health, his war against the American people." Kevin Liao, a Democratic strategist who has worked on national and statewide campaigns, said his D.C. and California-based political group chats had been blowing up in recent days with texts about the moment Newsom was creating for himself. Much of Liao's group chat fodder has involved the output of Newsom's digital team, which has elevated trolling to an art form on its official @GovPressOffice account on the social media site X. The missives have largely mimicked the president's own social media patois, with hyperbole, petty insults and a heavy reliance on the 'caps lock' key. "DONALD IS FINISHED — HE IS NO LONGER 'HOT.' FIRST THE HANDS (SO TINY) AND NOW ME — GAVIN C. NEWSOM — HAVE TAKEN AWAY HIS 'STEP,' " one of the posts read last week, dutifully reposted by the governor himself. Some messages have also ended with Newsom's initials (a riff on Trump's signature "DJT" signoff) and sprinkled in key Trumpian callbacks, like the phrase 'Liberation Day,' or a doctored Time Magazine cover with Newsom's smiling mien. The account has garnered 150,000 new followers since the beginning of the month. Shortly after Trump took office in January, Newsom walked a fine line between criticizing the president and his policies and being more diplomatic, especially after the California wildfires — in hopes of appealing to any semblance of compassion and presidential responsibility Trump possessed. Newsom had spent the first months of the new administration trying to reshape the California-vs.-Trump narrative that dominated the president's first term and move away from his party's prior "resistance" brand. Those conciliatory overtures coincided with Newsom's embrace of a more ecumenical posture, hosting MAGA leaders on his podcast and taking a position on transgender athletes' participation in women's sports that contradicted the Democratic orthodoxy. Newsom insisted that he engaged in those conversations to better understand political views that diverged from his own, especially after Trump's victory in November. However, there was the unmistakable whiff of an ambitious politician trying to broaden his national appeal by inching away from his reputation as a West Coast liberal. Newsom's reluctance to readopt the Trump resistance mantle ended after the president sent California National Guard troops into Los Angeles amid immigration sweeps and ensuing protests in June. Those actions revealed Trump's unchecked vindictiveness and abject lack of morals and honor, Newsom said. Of late, Newsom has defended the juvenile tone of his press aides' posts mocking Trump's own all-caps screeds, and questioned why critics would excoriate his parody and not the president's own unhinged social media utterances. "If you've got issues with what I'm putting out, you sure as hell should have concerns about what he's putting out as president," Newsom said last week. "So to the extent it's gotten some attention, I'm pleased." In an attention-deficit economy where standing out is half the battle, the posts sparkle with unapologetic swagger. And they make clear that Newsom is in on the joke. 'To a certain set of folks who operated under the old rules, this could be seen as, 'Wow, this is really outlandish.' But I think they are making the calculation that Democrats want folks that are going to play under this new set of rules that Trump has established,' Liao said. At a moment when the Democratic party is still occupied with post-defeat recriminations and what's-next vision boarding, Newsom has emerged from the bog with something resembling a plan. And he's betting the house on his deep-blue state's willingness to fight fire with fire. Times staff writers Seema Mehta and Laura Nelson contributed to this report. Sign up for Essential California for news, features and recommendations from the L.A. Times and beyond in your inbox six days a week. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Yahoo
36 minutes ago
- Yahoo
How the Supreme Court could wind up scrapping high-profile precedents in coming months
The Supreme Court's landmark opinion on same-sex marriage isn't the only high-profile precedent the justices will have an opportunity to tinker with – or entirely scrap – when the court reconvenes this fall. From a 1935 opinion that has complicated President Donald Trump's effort to consolidate power to a 2000 decision that deals with prayer at high school football games, the court will soon juggle a series of appeals seeking to overturn prior decisions that critics say are 'outdated,' 'poorly reasoned' or 'egregiously wrong.' While many of those decisions are not as prominent as the court's 2015 ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges that gave same-sex couples access to marriage nationwide, some may be more likely to find a receptive audience. Generally, both conservative and liberal justices are reticent to engage in do-overs because it undermines stability in the law. And independent data suggests the high court under Chief Justice John Roberts has been less willing to upend past rulings on average than earlier courts. But the Supreme Court's 6-3 conservative majority hasn't shied from overturning precedent in recent years – notably on abortion but also affirmative action and government regulations. The court's approval in polling has never fully recovered from its 2022 decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, which established the constitutional right to abortion. Here are some past rulings the court could reconsider in the coming months. Who Trump can fire Even before Trump was reelected, the Supreme Court's conservatives had put a target on a Roosevelt-era precedent that protects the leaders of independent agencies from being fired by the president for political reasons. The first few months of Trump's second term have only expedited its demise. The 1935 decision, Humphrey's Executor v. US, stands for the idea that Congress may shield the heads of independent federal agencies, like the National Labor Relations Board or the Consumer Product Safety Commission, from being fired by the president without cause. But in recent years, the court has embraced the view that Congress overstepped its authority with those for-cause requirements on the executive branch. Court watchers largely agree 'that Humphrey's Executor is next on the Supreme Court's chopping block, meaning the next case they are slated to reverse,' said Victoria Nourse, a professor at Georgetown University Law Center who worked in the Biden administration. In a series of recent emergency orders, the court has allowed Trump – ever eager to remove dissenting voices from power – to fire leaders of independent agencies who were appointed by former President Joe Biden. The court's liberal wing has complained that, following those decisions, the Humphrey's decision is already effectively dead. 'For 90 years, Humphrey's Executor v. United States has stood as a precedent of this court,' Justice Elena Kagan wrote last month. 'Our emergency docket, while fit for some things, should not be used to overrule or revise existing law.' Through the end of the Supreme Court term that ended in June, the Roberts court overruled precedent an average of 1.5 times each term, according to Lee Epstein, a law professor at Washington University in St. Louis who oversees the Supreme Court Database. That compares with 2.9 times on average prior to Roberts, dating to 1953. An important outstanding question is which case challenging Humphrey's will make it to the Supreme Court – and when. Flood of campaign cash? The high court has already agreed to hear an appeal – possibly this year – that could overturn a 2001 precedent limiting how much political parties can spend in coordination with federal candidates. Democrats warn the appeal, if successful, could 'blow open the cap on the amount of money that donors can funnel to candidates.' In a lawsuit initially filed by then-Senate candidate JD Vance and other Republicans, the challengers describe the 2001 decision upholding the caps – FEC v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee – as an 'aberration' that was 'plainly wrong the day it was decided.' If a majority of the court thinks the precedent controls the case, they wrote in their appeal, 'it should overrule that outdated decision.' Republicans say the caps are hopelessly inconsistent with the Supreme Court's modern campaign finance doctrine and that they have 'harmed our political system by leading donors to send their funds elsewhere,' such as super PACs, which can raise unlimited funds but do not coordinate with candidates. In recent years, the Supreme Court has tended to shoot down campaign finance rules as violating the First Amendment. Obergefell's anniversary A recent Supreme Court appeal from Kim Davis, a former county clerk from Kentucky who refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, has raised concerns from some about the court overturning its decade-old Obergefell decision. Davis is appealing a $100,000 jury verdict – plus $260,000 for attorneys' fees – awarded over her move to defy the Supreme Court's decision and decline to issue the licenses. Davis has framed her appeal in religious terms, a strategy that often wins on the conservative court. She described Obergefell as a 'mistake' that 'must be corrected.' 'If ever there was a case of exceptional importance, the first individual in the Republic's history who was jailed for following her religious convictions regarding the historic definition of marriage, this should be it,' Davis told the justices in her appeal. Even if there are five justices willing to overturn the decision – and there are plenty of signs there are not – many court watchers believe Davis' appeal is unlikely to be the vehicle for that review. Ilya Somin, a law professor at George Mason University, wrote recently that there are 'multiple flaws' with Davis' case. People in the private sector – say, a wedding cake baker or a website developer – likely have a First Amendment right to exercise their objections to same-sex marriage. But, Somin wrote, public employees are a very different matter. 'They are not exercising their own rights,' he wrote, 'but the powers of the state.' Race and redistricting Days after returning to the bench in October to begin a new term, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in one of the most significant appeals on its docket. The case centers on Louisiana's fraught congressional districts map and whether the state violated the 14th Amendment when it drew a second majority-Black district. If the court sides with a group of self-described 'non-Black voters,' it could gut a key provision of the Voting Rights Act. Three years ago, a federal court ruled that Louisiana likely violated the Voting Rights Act by drawing only one majority Black district out of six. When state lawmakers tried to fix that problem by drawing a second majority-minority district, a group of White voters sued. Another court then ruled that the new district was drawn based predominantly on race and thus violated the Constitution. The court heard oral arguments in the case in March. But rather than issuing a decision, it then took the unusual step in June of holding the case for more arguments. Earlier this month, the court ordered more briefing on the question of whether the creation of a majority-minority district to remedy a possible Voting Rights Act violation is constitutional. The case has nationwide implications; if the court rules that lawmakers can't fix violations of the Voting Rights Act by drawing new majority-minority districts, it could make it virtually impossible to enforce the landmark 1965 law when it comes to redistricting. That outcome could effectively overturn a line of Supreme Court precedents dating to its 1986 decision in Thornburg v. Gingles, in which the court ruled that North Carolina had violated the Voting Rights Act by diluting the power of Black voters. Just two years ago, the court ordered officials in Alabama to redraw the state's congressional map, upholding a lower court decision that found the state had violated the statute. 'Some opponents of the Voting Rights Act may urge the court to go further and overturn long-standing precedents, but there's absolutely no reason to go there,' said Michael Li, an expert on redistricting and voting rights and a senior counsel in the Brennan Center's Democracy Program. The case will not affect the battle raging over redistricting and the effort by Texas Republicans to redraw congressional boundaries to benefit their party. That's because the Supreme Court ruled in a landmark 2019 decision that federal courts cannot review partisan gerrymanders. What's at stake in the Louisiana case, instead, is how far lawmakers may go in considering race when they redraw congressional and state legislative boundaries every decade. When soldiers sue Air Force Staff Sgt. Cameron Beck was killed in 2021 on Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri when a civilian employee driving a government-issued van turned in front of his motorcycle. When his wife tried to sue the federal government for damages, she was blocked by a 1950 Supreme Court decision that severely limits damages litigation from service members and their families. The pending appeal from Beck's family, which the court will review behind closed doors next month, will give the justices another opportunity to reconsider that widely criticized precedent. The so-called Feres Doctrine generally prohibits service members from suing the government for injuries that arose 'incident to service.' The idea is that members of the military can't sue the government for injuries that occur during wartime or training. But critics say the upshot is that service members have been barred from filing routine tort claims – including for traffic accidents involving government vehicles – that anyone else could file. 'This court should overrule Feres,' Justice Clarence Thomas, a stalwart conservative, wrote earlier this year in a similar case the court declined to hear. 'It has been almost universally condemned by judges and scholars.' Thomas is correct that criticism of the opinion has bridged ideologies. The Constitutional Accountability Center, a liberal group, authored a brief in the Beck case arguing that the 'sweeping bar to recovery for servicemembers' adopted by the Feres decision 'is at odds' with what Congress intended. But the federal government, regardless of which party controls the White House, has long rejected those arguments. The Justice Department urged the Supreme Court to reject Beck's case, noting that Feres has 'been the law for more than 70 years, and has been repeatedly reaffirmed by this court.' Prayer for relief Prominent religious groups are taking aim at a 25-year-old Supreme Court precedent that barred prayer from being broadcast over the public address system before varsity football games at a Texas high school. In that 6-3 decision, the court ruled that a policy permitting the student-led prayer violated the Establishment Clause, a part of the First Amendment that blocks the government from establishing a state religion. But the court's makeup and views on religion have shifted substantially since then, with a series of significant rulings that thinned the wall that once separated church from state. When the justices meet in late September to decide whether to grant new appeals, they will weigh a request to overturn that earlier decision, Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe. The new case involves a Christian school in Florida that was forbidden by the state athletic association from broadcasting the prayer ahead of a championship game with another religious school. The Supreme Court should overrule Santa Fe 'as out of step with its more recent government-speech precedent,' the school's attorneys told the high court in its appeal. 'Santa Fe,' they said, 'was dubious from the outset.' It is an argument that may find purchase with the court's conservatives, who have increasingly framed state policies that exclude religious actors as discriminatory. In 2022, the high court reinstated a football coach, Joseph Kennedy, who lost his job at a public high school after praying at the 50-yard line after games. Those prayers, conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the court at the time, amounted to 'a brief, quiet, personal religious observance.' Kennedy submitted a brief in the new case urging the Supreme Court to take up the appeal – and to now let pregame prayers reverberate through the stadium. The school, Kennedy's lawyers wrote, 'has a longstanding tradition of, and deeply held belief in, opening games with a prayer over the stadium loudspeaker.' Solve the daily Crossword