Trump redoubles attack on federal jobs data, calls numbers political
'It's a highly political situation,' Trump said Tuesday morning on CNBC's 'Squawk Box.' 'It's totally rigged.' Trump offered no evidence for his assertion, which his former BLS commissioner has said is not true.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Associated Press
a few seconds ago
- Associated Press
What to know as Trump's immigration crackdown strips tuition breaks from thousands of students
AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — Tens of thousands of U.S. college students without legal resident status are losing access to in-state tuition prices as part of President Donald Trump's crackdown on immigration. The Justice Department has been suing states to end tuition breaks for students without legal residency, starting with Texas in June. It has also filed lawsuits in Kentucky, Minnesota and, most recently, Oklahoma. Last year, Florida ended its tuition break for students living there illegally, 'Federal law prohibits aliens not lawfully present in the United States from getting in-state tuition benefits that are denied to out-of-state U.S. citizens,' the Justice Department argued in a lawsuit this month in Oklahoma. 'There are no exceptions.' The tuition breaks once enjoyed wide bipartisan support but have increasingly come under criticism from Republicans in recent years. Here's what to know about the tuition breaks: Texas' program was blocked firstTexas' tuition policy was initially passed with sweeping bipartisan majorities in the Legislature and signed into law by then-Gov. Rick Perry, a Republican, as a way to open access to higher education for students without legal residency already living in the state. Supporters then and now say it boosted the state's economy by creating a better-educated and better-prepared workforce. The law allowed students without legal resident status to qualify for in-state tuition if they had lived in Texas for three years before graduating from high school and for a year before enrolling in college. They also had to sign an affidavit promising to apply for legal resident status as soon as possible. Texas now has about 57,000 qualifying students enrolled in its public universities and colleges, according to the Presidents' Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration, a nonpartisan nonprofit group of university leaders focused on immigration policy. The state has about 690,000 students overall at its public universities. The difference in tuition rates is substantial. For example, at the University of Texas Rio Grande Valley, a 34,000-student campus along the border with Mexico, a state resident will pay about $10,000 in basic tuition for a minimum full-time class schedule in the upcoming school year. A nonresident student will pay $19,000. Political pushback and a swift end Texas' law stood mostly unchallenged for years, but it came under fire as debates over illegal immigration intensified. In the 2012 Republican presidential primary, Perry apologized after saying critics of the law 'did not have a heart.' The law withstood several repeal efforts in the Republican-dominated Legislature. During the legislative session that ended June 2, a repeal bill did not even get a vote. But the ax fell quickly. After the Trump administration filed a lawsuit calling the law unconstitutional, state Attorney General Ken Paxton, a key Trump ally, chose not to defend the law in court and instead filed a motion agreeing that it should not be enforced. In Oklahoma, Attorney General Gentner Drummond, also a Republican, filed a similar motion. 'Rewarding foreign nationals who are in our country illegally with lower tuition costs that are not made available to out-of-state American citizens is not only wrong — it is discriminatory and unlawful,' Drummond said in a statement. Campuses nationwide feel the impact At least 21 states and the University of Michigan system have laws or policies allowing tuition breaks for the immigrant students, according to the National Immigration Law Center, which favors them. Those states include Democratic-leaning ones such as California and New York, but also GOP-leaning ones such as Kansas and Nebraska. According to the center, at least 16 states allow the immigrant students to receive scholarships or other aid to go to college. Immigration lawyers and education advocates said they are assessing whether there are legal avenues to challenge the rulings.
Newsweek
a few seconds ago
- Newsweek
Trump Scores Two Big Wins in One as NATO Buys US Arms for Ukraine
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. A string of NATO state pledges to acquire mostly U.S. weapons to provide to Ukraine has marked a victory for President Donald Trump in his effort to strike a balance on shifting the burden of Washington's role in the war to European allies while maintaining a role in the conflict. The developments take place as Trump has hardened his rhetoric against Russian President Vladimir Putin, offering him until Friday to demonstrate progress on stalled peace talks. "This initiative strikes the correct balance between ensuring Ukraine has the weapons needed to continue to resist Russian aggression and buying time for President Trump's diplomacy and economic pressure to take hold," Alexander Gray, a senior fellow at the American Foreign Policy Council who served on the staff of the National Security Council under the first Trump administration, told Newsweek. Gray also pointed out the broader geopolitical stakes that the Trump administration had in mind, including "the very real need of the United States to empower Europe to take the lead in its backyard while U.S. attention adjusts to the existential threat of China in the Indo-Pacific." U.S. President Donald Trump speaks at a press conference during the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) summit in The Hague on June 25, 2025. U.S. President Donald Trump speaks at a press conference during the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) summit in The Hague on June 25, 2025. JOHN THYS/AFP/Getty Images Money and Munitions on the Move The Netherlands was the first to announce on Monday that it would deliver an estimated $580 million package of U.S. weapons, including Patriot air defense systems and artillery equipment, to Ukraine. NATO reported the following day that Denmark, Norway and Sweden had confirmed they would purchase $500 million worth of U.S.-sourced equipment. Both moves mark the first two tranches under the NATO-led Prioritized Ukraine Requirements List (PURL) initiative. State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce welcomed the back-to-back moves as critical for Ukraine, as well as for the Trump administration's broader outlook on recalibrating the transatlantic security partnerships in a way that was more beneficial to the U.S. "These commitments deliver on President Trump's initiative to facilitate billions of dollars in investment to the United States defense industry and create American jobs while ensuring Europe can ultimately defend itself long term," Bruce told reporters on Tuesday. They also come on the heels of a trade deal reached late last month between the U.S. and the European Union, through which Trump said EU member states—the majority of whom are also in NATO—agreed to purchase "hundreds of billions of dollars-worth of military equipment" from the U.S. Last week, EU Ambassador to the U.S. Jovita Neliupšienė spoke to the importance of the military component of the trade agreement, both in the context of the war in Ukraine and EU member states' own security, in an interview with Newsweek. "Because of the Russian aggression in Ukraine, and because for European countries, security is really an existential topic right now," Neliupšienė told Newsweek at the time, "I think cooperation on the strategic level, but as well on defense procurement with the U.S., is extremely important." A Patriot air defense system is seen installed at the military hub for Ukraine at the Rzeszow-Jasionka airport in Jasionka, south-east Poland, on March 6, 2025. A Patriot air defense system is seen installed at the military hub for Ukraine at the Rzeszow-Jasionka airport in Jasionka, south-east Poland, on March 6, 2025. SERGEI GAPON/AFP/Getty Images A Transatlantic Shift Neliupšienė also discussed how European allies of the U.S. were looking to double down on investments in their own defense industrial base in order "to make sure we have more strategic independence, we have diversification, and we are really increasing the production and real defense industry on the ground, to have a possibility to not only to defend ourselves, but to deter." EU and NATO leaders, including French President Emmanuel Macron, have long sounded the alarm on the necessity for Europe to improve on defense. Such calls have accelerated this year since the reelection of Trump, who has repeatedly accused European leaders of taking advantage of U.S. security guarantees. The EU took an unprecedented step on this front in March, announcing that member states would spend some $685 billion—on top of more than $170 billion in EU loans—to launch a large-scale rearmament plan. With the tides of transatlantic security changing, Gray argued that the Trump administration should "continue to encourage Europe to invest in its own defense, including by purchasing U.S. systems like Patriot and others that strengthen our defense industrial base and further integrate our militaries." "This also has very real domestic benefits for the United States," he added. "President Trump is likely to continue encouraging significant arms sales from our partners globally, as he did in his first term for strategic and economic reasons, including to balance our trade deficits." A Ukrainian soldier stands on a U.S. Bradley Fighting Vehicle, on January 15, 2025, in Sumy, Ukraine. A Ukrainian soldier stands on a U.S. Bradley Fighting Vehicle, on January 15, 2025, in Sumy, Off of Washington While the rush of U.S. arms may serve to meet some of Ukraine's shortfalls on the battlefield, some argue the tranches also run the risk of deepening rather than countering European dependence on the U.S. in the long run. "Arms sales are an unfortunate Catch 22 situation, both for European policymakers and for American advocates of greater burden-shifting to Europe," Emma Ashford, senior fellow at the Stimson Center's Reimagining US Grand Strategy program, told Newsweek. "In the short run, purchasing U.S. arms may be good for the American economy— and also may enable European states to step up their military capabilities more quickly," Ashford said. "But in the long run, these purchases from the United States also undermine the development of a robust European defense industrial base." At the same time, she argued that "European allies buying American weapons to send to Ukraine is more sustainable from the point of view of U.S. public opinion, in that it reduces the concerns over cost among the public and policymakers." "It also means that Congress does not need to take up another supplemental spending bill, which could be politically problematic for many members," Ashford said, "and that the Trump administration—which has publicly opposed such a bill—would not have to sign it." There's another challenge she points out, and that's a "concrete shortfall in some weapons systems needed for both the Indo-Pacific and Europe, and in a few cases, the Middle East." "Money does not resolve this concern, which particularly attaches to things like air defense systems," she said, "this was the source of the recent disagreement over the Pentagon's halt on weapons systems to Ukraine." A destroyed U.S.-made M1 Abrams tank is seen in footage released by the Russian military on April 8, 2025. A destroyed U.S.-made M1 Abrams tank is seen in footage released by the Russian military on April 8, 2025. Russian Defense Ministry Press Service Press Service/AP 'Europeans Need to Do More' With the dust still settling from the U.S.-EU trade deal, some analysts in Europe see the recent NATO arrangement as a step forward, though not without uncertainty. "From a U.S. political perspective, it is understandable that President Trump— frustrated by his failed efforts to broker a ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine, and constrained by his MAGA base and campaign promises to end military aid— has been seeking an alternative solution to keep Ukraine armed," Juraj Macjin, policy analyst at the European Policy Center in Brussels, told Newsweek. "Despite repeatedly calling it 'Joe Biden's war,'" Macjin said, "Trump knows that the fall of Kyiv would mark a major strategic failure for any U.S. administration, including his own." He called the new NATO mechanism as "commendable," but argued it "does little to strengthen the quality of the transatlantic partnership" at a time when European skepticism toward Trump's long-term commitments on the continent remained high. "Many in Europe perceive this approach as a way for the United States to quietly distance itself from both the war in Ukraine and its European allies," Macjin said, "however diplomatically framed by NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte." "Furthemore, viewed in the context of the recently concluded EU–U.S. trade agreement," he added, "many in Europe feel that the deal offers limited benefits for the EU and is largely tilted in favor of Washington." And at a time when the U.S. was eyeing its rivalry with China in the Asia-Pacific, he said that "Europeans need to do more to persuade Trump that supporting Ukraine is in America's strategic interest." "With only a fraction of its GDP, the U.S. is significantly degrading military capabilities of one of its main adversaries—Russia—while also sending a clear message to China," he added, "which is closely watching how Washington manages its security commitments."
CNN
a few seconds ago
- CNN
DOJ tells judge it will ask Supreme Court to quickly rule on constitutionality of Trump's birthright citizenship order
The Trump administration is planning to quickly ask the Supreme Court to review the constitutionality of President Donald Trump's executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship. Justice Department attorneys informed a federal judge in Seattle of the plans on Wednesday as part of a court-ordered update on where things stand in a challenge to Trump's Day One order. Late last month, the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the judge's ruling that blocked implementation of the order nationwide. 'In light of the Ninth Circuit's decision, Defendants represent that the Solicitor General plans to seek certiorari expeditiously to enable the Supreme Court to settle the lawfulness of the Citizenship Order next Term, but he has not yet determined which case or combination of cases to take to the Court,' the attorneys told US District Judge John Coughenour. The appeal would force the Supreme Court to confront the issue it avoided in its major ruling in the case earlier this summer: Whether Trump's underlying effort to end birthright citizenship is permitted under the 14th Amendment. If the court agrees to debate that question it would immediately become one of the highest-profile cases of the decade and a ruling could be possible by mid-2026. Administration officials have acknowledged that the high court would eventually need to look at Trump's order, with Attorney General Pam Bondi saying in June that she's 'very confident' the court would eventually rule in its favor on the merits of the policy. While several other lower courts have blocked Trump's executive order, the 9th Circuit's ruling on July 23 represented the first time that an appeals court has fully concluded that the policy is unconstitutional. That type of ruling is typically the last stop for a case before the losing side decides whether to ask the nation's highest court to review the matter. The 1st US Circuit Court of Appeals appears poised to issue a similar decision in coming weeks after hearing arguments last Friday in a series of cases in which lower courts in New Hampshire and Massachusetts said Trump's order violated the Constitution, decades-old Supreme Court precedent and federal law. The filing to Coughenour appeared to suggest that Solicitor General D. John Sauer may be waiting until that court rules before making a decision on what to do with the Seattle case. Separately, a federal judge in New Hampshire last month blocked Trump's order via a class action lawsuit that was brought after the Supreme Court limited the use of nationwide injunctions in June. Such lawsuits are one of the ways the justices suggested challengers could try to jam up enforcement of the policy for those who would be impacted by it. The Justice Department has not appealed that ruling, though one of its attorneys told the 1st Circuit last week that he was confident the government will be appealing it. It's possible that some of these appeals could first land on the Supreme Court's emergency docket, with the government asking the justices to put the rulings on hold while the cases get resolved. CNN's John Fritze contributed to this report.
