logo
Pressed on his new student visa policy, Trump seems unaware of basic details

Pressed on his new student visa policy, Trump seems unaware of basic details

Yahoo2 days ago

As the intersection of the Trump administration's offensive against immigrants and higher education rests a misguided new policy. As NBC News reported, the president's team this week 'stopped scheduling new interviews for international students seeking visas to study in the United States,' as the State Department prepares a new effort to screen students' social media accounts.
Evidently, students found to have expressed the 'wrong' ideas will be excluded from American colleges and universities.
A day after his administration advanced this policy, Donald Trump was pressed for an explanation. It went badly — not because the president offered a weak defense, but because he didn't seem to know what the reporter was talking about.
Asked specifically when his administration might resume interviews for foreign student visas, Trump responded, 'On what?' Reminded that she was asking about foreign student visas, Trump asked, 'For the French?' possibly in reference to the reporter's accent.
When he eventually figured out what the question was about, he offered an evasive 'we're gonna see,' before changing the subject and whining anew about Harvard.
Watching the exchange, it was hard not to get the impression that he simply didn't know about his administration's new policy on foreign student visas — which has proven to be a familiar problem in this White House.
Earlier this month, for example, less than 24 hours after he nominated Dr. Casey Means to serve as the nation's next surgeon general, the president conceded that he didn't know who Casey Means is.
A day earlier, amid reports that the administration was also planning to expand its deportations agenda to Libya, Trump was pressed on the policy. 'I don't know,' he responded. 'You'll have to ask the Department of Homeland Security.'
The same week, NBC News aired Trump's latest appearance on 'Meet the Press,' and when host Kristen Welker asked whether everyone in the United States is entitled to due process, the president replied, 'I don't know. I'm not, I'm not a lawyer. I don't know.' When Welker reminded her guest about the Fifth Amendment, Trump again said, 'I don't know.'
As part of the same exchange, Welker went on to say, '[D]on't you need to uphold the Constitution of the United States as president?' Once again, Trump answered, 'I don't know.'
As the interview continued, the host asked whether anyone in his administration is in contact with El Salvador about returning Kilmar Abrego Garcia to the U.S. 'I don't know,' the president said. 'You'd have to ask the attorney general that question."
Around the same time, during a White House meeting with members of the World Cup task force, a reporter asked Trump about Russia having been banned from competing in next year's FIFA World Cup tournament. 'I didn't know that. Is that right?' Trump responded.
A day later, fielding questions in the Oval Office, Trump was asked whether he agreed with Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent's comments about possible tariff exemptions for certain family consumer goods. 'I don't know, I'll think about it,' the president said. 'I don't know. I really don't.'
Around the same time, a reporter reminded Trump that JD Vance said Russia was asking for too much to end the war in Ukraine. 'When did he say that?' the president asked. Reminded that the vice president had made the comments hours earlier, Trump added, 'Well, it's possible that's right. He may know some things.'
In case that weren't quite enough, at the same Q&A, Trump also said he had no idea that Republican Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina had announced his opposition to Ed Martin's U.S. attorney nomination a day earlier.
In April, Time magazine asked Trump how much the U.S. government is paying El Salvador to imprison immigrants. 'I don't know,' the president responded. Asked if he approved the payments, the Republican added, 'No, I didn't.'
A month earlier, Trump was asked about four U.S. soldiers who'd gone missing during a NATO training exercise in Lithuania, and the president was clueless. Asked about the apparent assassination of a Russian general, Trump again had no idea what the reporter was talking about.
When the Republican was asked about the Signal group chat scandal and whether he believed classified information was shared, he replied, 'I don't know. I'm not sure, you have to ask the various people involved.'
These weren't trick questions. No one appeared to be trying to trip the president up with unexpected inquiries about obscure topics. In all of these instances, Trump should've been able to respond to the questions with substantive responses.
But he didn't. Instead, the Republican effectively said, over and over again, 'Don't look at me, I just work here.'
Around this time five years ago, as the severity of the pandemic came into focus, The New York Times published a memorable analysis that included a word to describe Trump that stood out to me as significant — 'bystander.'
'While he presents himself as the nation's commanding figure, Mr. Trump has essentially become a bystander as school superintendents, sports commissioners, college presidents, governors and business owners across the country take it upon themselves to shut down much of American life without clear guidance from the president,' the Times explained.
A half-decade later, it appears President Bystander has returned. Trump has taken a keen interest in countless trivialities, but on substantive issues, he's offering the public a lot of shrugged shoulders and blank stares.
As for why this matters, there are a handful of angles to keep in mind. Right off the bat, there have been a great many instances in recent months when Trump has sounded a bit too much like a man who just wandered into the Oval Office.
What's more, most objective observers would probably agree that if Joe Biden repeatedly said, 'I don't know' in response to simple questions about his own administration, it would be front-page news — and the Democrat's responses would be played on a loop, for hours on end, in conservative media.
Similarly, Trump has personally invested considerable time and energy in accusing Biden of having been a doddering old 'autopen' president who was unaware of events unfolding around him. Given the frequency with which the Republican clings to 'I don't know' responses, he should probably consider a new line of attack.
Indeed, let's not overlook that Trump has repeatedly seemed unaware of the executive orders that have been handed to him to sign.
Finally, let's not overlook that Trump's authoritarian-style tendencies are rooted, at least in part, in the idea that governmental power must be concentrated in the president's hands, to be executed as he sees fit.
It makes Trump's apparent cluelessness that much more alarming.
This post updates our related earlier coverage.
This article was originally published on MSNBC.com

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Donald Trump's Approval Rating Surges Among Millennials
Donald Trump's Approval Rating Surges Among Millennials

Newsweek

time25 minutes ago

  • Newsweek

Donald Trump's Approval Rating Surges Among Millennials

Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. President Donald Trump's approval rating among millennials has surged, according to a new poll. The latest YouGov/Yahoo poll, conducted May 22-27 among 1,560 adults, shows that Trump's job approval among 30- to 44-year-olds is at 41 percent, up from 33 percent in April. Disapproval is down to 51 percent from 59 percent in April. The poll had a margin of error of plus or minus 3.2 percentage points. Why It Matters Millennials, typically defined as born between 1981 and 1996, represent the largest bloc of the U.S. electorate. Trump reduced the Democrats' lead among voters aged 30 to 44 by 9 points between 2020 and 2024, from 12 points to 3. However, since the beginning of his second term, polls have shown signs of waning support for Trump among millennials. But the new poll shows his approval rating among this demographic may be creeping up again. For Trump, a rebound in support from voters age 29 to 44 could help stabilize his approval ratings at a time when he has faced discontent over issues such as immigration and the economy. While millennials have historically leaned Democratic, even a modest uptick in support during his second term could strengthen his political leverage and influence the landscape for the 2026 midterms and beyond. President Donald Trump speaks in the Oval Office of the White House on May 28, 2025, in Washington. President Donald Trump speaks in the Oval Office of the White House on May 28, 2025, in Washington. Evan Vucci/AP What To Know The boost for Trump comes as more millennials now say the country is headed in the right direction. According to the poll, 32 percent are optimistic about the direction of the country, up from 26 percent. Trump's approval ratings have generally been ticking up in recent weeks after a period of decline following the introduction of his "Liberation Day" tariffs in April. The policy move rattled markets, prompting a sharp sell-off before an eventual recovery and a pause on the tariffs by the Trump administration. Since then, economic anxiety has died down. Consumer confidence saw a surprising increase in May. The Conference Board reported a rise to 98.0, much higher than both the expected 87.1 and April's 86.0 reading. It was the biggest one-month jump in more than a year. At the same time, Trump's general approval ratings are on the rebound. Newsweek's tracker currently shows that 46 percent approve of Trump's job performance, while 51 percent disapprove. Earlier this month, his approval rating stood at 44 percent, while his disapproval rate was firmly in the 50s. Other polls have shown the same trend. The latest Insider Advantage poll, conducted May 17-19 among 1,000 likely voters, gave Trump a net approval rating of +11 points, with 55 percent approving and 44 percent disapproving. That was up from a net approval rating of +2 points in early May, when 46 percent approved and 44 percent disapproved. Poll Date Approve Disapprove Rasmussen May 29 52 47 YouGov/Economist May 23-26 44 52 Morning Consult May 23-25 48 50 YouGov/Yahoo May 22-27 41 54 Quantus May 18-20 48 48 Civiqs May 17-20 47 52 American Research Group May 17-20 41 55 Insider Advantage May 17-19 55 44 Reuters/Ipsos May 16-18 42 52 Navigator Research May 15-18 44 54 However, the overarching trend in the polls is one of stability, with some showing that his ratings have not substantially changed beyond a 1- or 2-point dip—within the margin of error—or have not changed at all. That includes the most recent Navigator Research poll, conducted May 15-18 among 1,376 registered voters which showed Trump's approval rating at 44 percent, while 54 percent disapprove. That is unchanged from April. Similarly, in Quantus' latest poll, conducted May 18-20, Trump's approval rating stood at 48 percent, while 48 percent disapproved. That is unchanged from a poll conducted earlier in May, and an April poll also showed his approval rating stood at 48 percent, while his disapproval rating at 50 percent. Marquette's most recent poll also showed his approval rating unchanged from March, while an American Research Group poll, conducted March 17-20 among 1,100 adults, put Trump's approval rating at 41 percent, down just 2 points from April. His disapproval grew from 53 percent to 55 percent. And the latest Civiqs poll, conducted May 17-20 among 1,018 registered voters, put Trump's approval up by 1 point, and his disapproval down by 1 point. The same trend occurred in the latest YouGov/Economist poll, conducted May 23-26 among 1,660 adults, which put his approval at 44 percent and disapproval at 52 percent. The latest YouGov/Yahoo poll put Trump's approval down 1 point to 41 percent and his disapproval up 1 point to 54 percent. In Morning Consult's latest survey, conducted May 23-25 among 2,237 registered voters, Trump's approval rating was unchanged at 48 percent while his disapproval was up 1 point to 51 percent. What Happens Next Trump's approval rating among millennials could fluctuate in the coming weeks, depending on the outcome of key events, including critical negotiations in the Russia-Ukraine war, the evolving tariff situation and concerns about a recession.

Supreme Court lets President Donald Trump end humanitarian parole for 500,000 people from Venezuela, Cuba, Haiti and Nicaragua
Supreme Court lets President Donald Trump end humanitarian parole for 500,000 people from Venezuela, Cuba, Haiti and Nicaragua

Chicago Tribune

time26 minutes ago

  • Chicago Tribune

Supreme Court lets President Donald Trump end humanitarian parole for 500,000 people from Venezuela, Cuba, Haiti and Nicaragua

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Friday again cleared the way for the Trump administration to strip temporary legal protections from hundreds of thousands of immigrants, pushing the total number of people who could be newly exposed to deportation to nearly 1 million. The justices lifted a lower-court order that kept humanitarian parole protections in place for more than 500,000 migrants from four countries: Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela. The court has also allowed the administration to revoke temporary legal status from about 350,000 Venezuelan migrants in another case. Republican President Donald Trump promised on the campaign trail to deport millions of people, and in office has sought to dismantle Biden administration polices that created ways for migrants to live legally in the U.S. Trump amplified false rumors that Haitian immigrants in Ohio with legal status under the humanitarian parole program were abducting and eating pets during his only debate with President Joe Biden, according to court documents. His administration filed an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court after a federal judge in Boston blocked the administration's push to end the program. Justice Kentanji Brown Jackson wrote in dissent that the effect of the court's order is 'to have the lives of half a million migrants unravel all around us before the courts decide their legal claims.' Justice Sonia Sotomayor joined the dissent. Jackson echoed what U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani wrote in ruling that ending the legal protections early would leave people with a stark choice: flee the country or risk losing everything. Talwani, an appointee of Democratic President Barack Obama, found that revocations of parole can be done, but on a case-by-case basis. Her ruling came in mid-April, shortly before permits were due to be canceled. An appeals court refused to lift her order. The Supreme Court's order is not a final ruling, but it means the protections will not be in place while the case proceeds. It now returns to the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston. The Justice Department argues that the protections were always meant to be temporary, and the Department of Homeland Security has the power to revoke them without court interference. The administration says Biden granted the parole en masse, and the law doesn't require ending it on an individual basis. Taking on each case individually would be a 'gargantuan task,' and slow the government's efforts to press for their removal, Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued. Biden used humanitarian parole more than any other president, employing a special presidential authority in effect since 1952. Beneficiaries included the 532,000 people who have come to the United States with financial sponsors since late 2022, leaving home countries fraught with 'instability, dangers and deprivations,' as attorneys for the migrants said. They had to fly to the U.S. at their own expense and have a financial sponsor to qualify for the designation, which lasts for two years. The Trump administration's decision was the first-ever mass revocation of humanitarian parole, attorneys for the migrants said. They called the Trump administration's moves 'the largest mass illegalization event in modern American history.' The case is the latest in a string of emergency appeals the administration has made to the Supreme Court, many of them related to immigration. The court has sided against Trump in other cases, including slowing his efforts to swiftly deport Venezuelans accused of being gang members to a prison in El Salvador under an 18th century wartime law called the Alien Enemies Act.

US Supreme Court lets Trump revoke 'parole' status for migrants
US Supreme Court lets Trump revoke 'parole' status for migrants

Yahoo

time29 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

US Supreme Court lets Trump revoke 'parole' status for migrants

By Andrew Chung (Reuters) -The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday let President Donald Trump's administration revoke the temporary legal status of hundreds of thousands of Venezuelan, Cuban, Haitian and Nicaraguan migrants living in the United States, bolstering the Republican president's drive to step up deportations. The court put on hold Boston-based U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani order halting the administration's move to end the immigration "parole" granted to 532,000 of these migrants by Trump's predecessor Joe Biden, potentially exposing many of them to rapid removal, while the case plays out in lower courts. As with many of the court's orders issued in an emergency fashion, the decision was unsigned and gave no reasoning. Two of the court's three liberal justices, Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor, publicly dissented. The court botched its assessment of whether the administration was entitled to freeze Talwani's decision pending the litigation, Jackson wrote in an accompanying opinion. The outcome, Jackson wrote, "undervalues the devastating consequences of allowing the government to precipitously upend the lives and livelihoods of nearly half a million noncitizens while their legal claims are pending." Immigration parole is a form of temporary permission under American law to be in the country for "urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit," allowing recipients to live and work in the United States. Biden, a Democrat, used parole as part of his administration's approach by to deter illegal immigration at the U.S.-Mexican border. Trump called for ending humanitarian parole programs in an executive order signed on January 20, his first day back in office. The Department of Homeland Security subsequently moved to terminate them in March, cutting short the two-year parole grants. The administration said revoking the parole status would make it easier to place migrants in a fast-track deportation process called "expedited removal." The case is one of many that Trump's administration has brought in an emergency fashion to the nation's highest judicial body seeking to undo decisions by judges impeding his sweeping policies, including several targeting immigrants. The Supreme Court on May 19 also let Trump end a deportation protection called temporary protected status that had been granted under Biden to about 350,000 Venezuelans living in the United States, while that legal dispute plays out. In a bid to reduce illegal border crossings, Biden starting in 2022 allowed Venezuelans who entered the United States by air to request a two-year parole if they passed security checks and had a U.S. financial sponsor. Biden expanded that process to Cubans, Haitians and Nicaraguans in 2023 as his administration grappled with high levels of illegal immigration from those nationalities. The plaintiffs, a group of migrants granted parole and Americans who serve as their sponsors, sued administration officials claiming the administration violated federal law governing the actions of government agencies. Talwani in April found that the law governing such parole did not allow for the program's blanket termination, instead requiring a case-by-case review. The Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declined to put the judge's decision on hold. In its filing, the Justice Department told the Supreme Court that Talwani's order had upended "critical immigration policies that are carefully calibrated to deter illegal entry," effectively "undoing democratically approved policies that featured heavily in the November election" that returned Trump to the presidency. The plaintiffs told the Supreme Court they would face grave harm if their parole is cut short given that the administration has indefinitely suspended processing their pending applications for asylum and other immigration relief. They said they would be separated from their families and immediately subject to expedited deportation "to the same despotic and unstable countries from which they fled, where many will face serious risks of danger, persecution and even death."

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store