Human Rights Report Under Trump Blunts Language on Israel and El Salvador
The omissions were another sign of the Trump administration's sharp move away from criticizing human rights offenses.
The collective report had been expected months ago, but was delayed as State Department officials worked under the orders of political appointees in the agency to cut language in the report. This year's report, which covers actions in 2024, is much shorter and less detailed than last year's.
Key language in sections on El Salvador, Hungary, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Israel — all seen as close partners by the Trump administration — was scaled back or excised.
The Biden administration also viewed Israel as a close partner, in line with decades of U.S. policy. But last year's report on the 2023 record of the country had many more lines in the executive summary on the country's human rights violations during the military strikes that followed the Hamas attacks in October of that year.
The new report also leaves out many prior references to violations of the rights of women and L.G.B.T.Q. people in multiple countries.
Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Appeals court ruling will let Trump administration cut billions in foreign aid
A federal appeals court has reversed a lower court's ruling, clearing the way for the Trump administration to cut billions in foreign aid funding this year. In a 2-1 decision Wednesday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit overruled a lower court's decision that prohibited the Trump administration from making drastic cuts to USAID funding that had already approved by Congress. The court sidestepped the substantive question of whether the cuts were constitutional, instead deciding that the nonprofits that sued the Trump administration lacked the standing to bring a case. MORE: Supreme Court rules Trump administration must unfreeze foreign aid payments Judges Karen Henderson and Gregory Katsas -- appointed by Presidents George H. W. Bush and Donald Trump, respectively -- determined that only the head of the Government Accountability Office has the authority to sue under the Impoundment Control Act. "The district court erred in granting that relief because the grantees lack a cause of action to press their claims," the majority wrote. The lawsuit over USAID funding had been one of the first major legal successes for nonprofits challenging the Trump administration, which ordered the suspension of grants that didn't comply with the president's priorities. After U.S. District Judge Amir Ali issued a temporary restraining order in February blocking Trump's executive order from taking effect, both the D.C. circuit court and the United States Supreme Court sided with the nonprofits, denying a request from the Trump administration to block an order enforcing the TRO. In a dissenting opinion issued with Wednesday's ruling, Judge Florence Pan, a Biden appointee, criticized her colleagues for ignoring the concern that the funding cuts were unconstitutional and thus harmed "the rule of law and the very structure of our government." "At bottom, the court's acquiescence in and facilitation of the Executive's unlawful behavior derails the 'carefully crafted system of checked and balanced power' that serves as the 'greatest security against tyranny -- the accumulation of excessive authority in a single Branch," she wrote.
Forbes
29 minutes ago
- Forbes
‘Let's Be Blunt—This Is Bad': MSNBC Host On Trump's ‘Really Dangerous' Smithsonian Order
In the first months of his second term, President Trump has targeted what universities can teach, and now he wants to influence how the Smithsonian tells visitors about moments in American history. The Trump Administration sent a letter to The Smithsonian Institution on Tuesday ordering a "comprehensive internal review" of exhibits at the Smithsonian and its collection of museums, education centers, and the National Zoo. 'This initiative aims to ensure alignment with the President's directive to celebrate American exceptionalism,' the letter says, informing the Smithsonian that the president wants to 'remove divisive or partisan narratives, and restore confidence in our shared cultural institutions.' The letter gives the Smithsonian 120 days to replace "divisive or ideologically driven language with unifying, historically accurate, and constructive descriptions." On MSNBC's Morning Joe Wednesday, co-host Jonathan Lemire said the Trump effort to control the Smithsonian's exhibits raises disturbing questions about the accuracy of how the nation's history--bad and good--is told. "I mean, let's be blunt: This is really bad and really, really dangerous," Lemire said. "A nation needs to know its history. It has to be honest about its history to learn from it, to honor it, and also to then grow and improve for the present and future. There's no way that rewriting a history to fit one president's vision is good for a nation's health or good for a nation's democracy." 'A sweeping revisiting of American history' Earlier this month, the Smithsonian's National Museum of American History removed references in an exhibit to Trump becoming the first American president to be impeached twice. The reference was later restored, but edited. The Smithsonian said in a statement Tuesday that its work 'is grounded in a deep commitment to scholarly excellence, rigorous research, and the accurate, factual presentation of history. We are reviewing the letter with this commitment in mind and will continue to collaborate constructively with the White House, Congress, and our governing Board of Regents.' 'Now it seems that's just the first step to a sweeping revisiting of American history,' Lemire said. Museum content 'should not be reviewed, revised, or edited for political gain' "Museums cannot change content to suit a political whim or agenda," said Lisa Strong, a professor of art history at Georgetown University, in an interview with NPR. "The best way for museums to maintain the high public trust they already enjoy is by remaining independent. Museums are staffed by experts in their fields who interpret the collection to help educate the public about art, history, science and culture. Their content should not be reviewed, revised, or edited for political gain."
New York Times
31 minutes ago
- New York Times
Trump Warns of Economic Disaster if Court Strikes Down Tariffs
The Trump administration's top lawyers urged a federal court this week to uphold its sweeping global tariffs or risk 'financial ruin,' warning that the United States could slip into an economic depression if an adverse ruling forces the government to refund billions of dollars in duties. While experts broadly disputed that a losing verdict would trigger a calamity of that magnitude, many said the government's extraordinary assertions underscored the risks looming over President Trump, who has widened the scope of his punishing trade war even while its legal basis remains unsettled. At the heart of the wrangling is a 1977 law that empowers the president to impose trade embargoes and sanctions in response to economic emergencies. The word tariff appears nowhere in that statute, but Mr. Trump has nonetheless invoked its powers as the basis for his withering levies, including the steep taxes he imposed on imports from more than 90 countries on Aug. 7. For Mr. Trump, the worst-case scenario would be a resounding defeat at the hands of the Supreme Court, which is likely to take up one of the pending cases. If the justices rule overwhelmingly against the president, the decision could halt tariff collections while triggering 'a significant wave of claims' from businesses demanding refunds, said Andrew Morris, a senior litigation counsel at the New Civil Liberties Alliance. The legal group has represented businesses in tariff lawsuits. The mechanics of that process — from how it would work, to whom would be eligible to reclaim the money — would depend on the scope of any court decision. Still, a loss could undercut one of Mr. Trump's primary reasons for imposing tariffs in the first place, choking off a source of revenue that the president says is already making America 'rich.' The prospect has spooked Mr. Trump, who took to social media last week to warn it would be 'impossible to ever recover, or pay back, these massive sums of money,' if a court ruled against him, adding that a loss could trigger a 'GREAT DEPRESSION!' Mr. Trump's top lawyers formalized those arguments in a filing on Monday with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which is considering a legal challenge initially brought by small businesses and states. In a letter signed by D. John Sauer, the U.S. solicitor general, the government said that a ruling against tariffs would undermine the president on foreign policy, jeopardize his recent trade deals and damage the U.S. economy. The letter echoed Mr. Trump in cautioning that such a loss would leave the government in 'financial ruin,' and carry a '1929-style result,' a reference to the depression. It added that such a disruption could see Americans 'forced from their homes' while leaving Social Security and Medicare 'threatened' financially. Many budget experts raised significant objections to the Trump administration's claims about the potential loss of tariff revenue, with has helped to generate about $152 billion in customs duties through July, according to the Treasury Department. Economists say the U.S. government long has operated with a substantial debt, and the loss of tariff revenue would be unlikely to cause a catastrophic economic downturn. Those import taxes also do not directly affect Social Security and Medicare. Payroll taxes fund those entitlements, with Medicare receiving additional support through other sources, such as premiums. 'Tariff money is not a game changer with a $2 trillion deficit and a $7 trillion budget,' said Jessica Riedl, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, who said the result of refunds would not be a 'budgetary earthquake.' Ted Murphy, the co-leader of the trade practice at the law firm Sidley Austin, said the administration's claims were 'remarkable' in seeking to advance the idea that the 'ends justify the means.' By Mr. Murphy's reading, Mr. Trump and his advisers had argued he should win the case because 'what he's achieved is so good, and the consequences of taking it away are so bad, the courts should look beyond the legality of the matter.' For now, at least, the Trump administration's plea to the courts illustrated the stakes for the president's trade strategy, which hinges on his ability to impose or threaten tariffs on a whim, and without the need to obtain the approval of Congress. Mr. Trump has used these rates as carrot and stick to induce favorable trade deals and punish nations that fail to acquiesce — or, in some cases, to accomplish political objectives well outside the remit of trade. A ruling against him could neuter that primary source of leverage, leaving Mr. Trump with only limited options to impose duties on his own. The White House did not respond to a request for comment. 'I think the more deals we've done, the more money coming in, it gets harder and harder for SCOTUS to rule against us,' said Scott Bessent, the Treasury secretary, in an appearance Tuesday on Fox Business, using an acronym to refer to the Supreme Court. The Trump administration lost the first round of arguments at the Court of International Trade, where a panel of judges determined in May that the president did not have 'unbounded authority' to issue tariffs under the 1977 International Economic Emergency Powers Act, known as I.E.E.P.A. The administration quickly appealed, and in oral arguments this month, Brett A. Shumate, an assistant attorney general, maintained that the law allowed the president 'to take extraordinary action' to regulate trade, which Mr. Trump had interpreted to mean tariffs. But Mr. Shumate also told the judges that they could not second guess Mr. Trump in his declaration of a national emergency. At times, the judges appeared skeptical about some of the arguments, which trade experts later interpreted as a poor sign for the president. The administration has already asked the appellate court to pause any decision that might invalidate its tariffs, which would buy the government time to seek emergency relief at the Supreme Court. In their letter Monday, lawyers for the government specifically called attention to the agreements that Mr. Trump has brokered recently with major trading partners, including those in the European Union, some of which had also committed to investing in the United States. Mr. Sauer, the solicitor general, said a verdict against the president may result in the 'forced dissolution' of those deals, which would be 'ruinous' for the economy, given that foreign leaders had 'committed' to pay trillions of dollars to the United States. 'There is no substitute for the tariffs and deals that President Trump has made,' he wrote along with Mr. Shumate. The small businesses that sued the government responded on Tuesday. Lawyers for those firms, including VOS Selections, a wine importer in New York, told the court that the president did indeed have other powers to achieve his trade goals — and could, for example, 'submit agreements for congressional approval.' Michael Lowell, who is chair of the regulatory enforcement group at the law firm Reed Smith, described the administration's strategy and pacing as deliberate. He said it showed that Mr. Trump hoped to 'move far enough, fast enough,' on tariffs, potentially dissuading the Supreme Court from unwinding them because doing so would prove too damaging. In the meantime, the president has continued to brag about the revenue tariffs have raised. 'Trillions of Dollars are being taken in on Tariffs," Mr. Trump said on Tuesday, overstating the amount, adding it 'has been incredible for our Country, its Stock Market, its General Wealth, and just about everything else.'
