Latest news with #Trump-appointee
Miami Herald
30-05-2025
- Business
- Miami Herald
Housing market chief Pulte sends blunt message on Fed interest rate cuts
In the midst of one of the slowest spring real-estate markets in decades, the director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency strongly urged Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell to resume cutting the central bank's interest rates. Trump-appointee FHFA Director William J. Pulte made his blunt request on X just a few days before the minutes of the May Federal Open Meeting Committee, chaired by Powell, showed multiple reasons why the central bank chose not to reduce rates. Don't miss the move: Subscribe to TheStreet's free daily newsletter Pulte and other Trump administration officials have been demanding that the independent Federal Reserve Bank's leaders cut interest rates as early as its June or July meetings to allow, among other outcomes, mortgage rates to drop for was sworn in as the director of the U.S. Federal Housing Agency, FHFA, following his nomination by President Donald J. Trump and bipartisan confirmation by the U.S. Senate. In this role, Pulte oversees Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banks. Related: Fed official sends strong message about interest-rate cuts He knows a thing or two about the housing market. Pulte is the grandson of the founder of PulteGroup, one of the largest U.S. homebuilders. He has had a longstanding career in homebuilding, housing products, and community development, including sitting on PulteGroup's board from 2016 to 2020. In 2011, Pulte founded Pulte Capital Partners LLC, an investment firm that focuses on building and housing products. He's also widely followed on the social media site, "X", where he garnered over 3.2 million followers partly due to his focus on philanthropy. As inflation stays relatively steady and housing inventory dries up, Pulte turned to Elon Musk's social media platform X to plead for a long-awaited change in the federal funds interest rate. More Economic Analysis: Hedge-fund manager sees U.S. becoming GreeceA critical industry is slamming the economyReports may show whether the economy is toughing out the tariffs The Federal Reserve impacts consumer interest rates by influencing the federal funds rate, which in turn affects the money supply. When the federal funds rate is lowered, it can stimulate economic growth and lower interest rates for consumers. Mortgage rates are impacted by changes in the 10-year Treasury note, which is influenced by changes in the Fed Funds Rate. Most U.S. mortgages, particularly the 30-year fixed rate, are influenced more directly by the movement of the 10-year Treasury yield. The current Fed Funds Rate is between 4.25 and 4.50%. The average interest rate on a 30-year home mortgage is approximately 6.86%. The 10-year Treasury yield as of May 29 is 4.32%, an increase from early 2023. Some analysts believe the 10-year Treasury yield could reach 5.5% by the end of the year if inflationary pressures and global trade policies are not addressed. "Jay Powell needs to lower interest rates - enough is enough," he wrote. "President Trump has crushed Biden's inflation, and there is no reason not to lower rates. The housing market would be in much better shape if Chairman Powell does this," Pulte said in the X post on May 27. Pulte says the rate cut is overdue and prolongs the multiple economic damages the Biden administration left behind. Pulte did not mention Trump's seesawing tariffs. Redfin recently announced that there were 500,000 more buyers for homes in the United States than inventory of houses for sale. Related: Fed minutes send strong message on interest-rate cuts The Arena Media Brands, LLC THESTREET is a registered trademark of TheStreet, Inc.
Forbes
27-04-2025
- Politics
- Forbes
Did ICE Deport Children From Louisiana Who Are U.S. Citizens? Rubio Denies Characterization Amid Controversy
Secretary of State Marco Rubio defended the actions of U.S. officials following a report that the U.S. deported three children from Louisiana who were U.S. citizens, saying the children were not deported but their mothers, who he said were here illegally, were deported and chose to take their children with them. Marco Rubio speaks before the arrival of then-presidential candidate Donald Trump at the Club 47 ... More group in the Palm Beach Convention Center on June 14, 2024, in West Palm Beach, Florida. The Washington Post published an article Saturday alleging the children—one of whom has Stage 4 cancer and all of whom are U.S. citizens—were deported with their mothers last week, leading to 'renewed concerns' about the Trump administration violating rights of due process. The lawyers for the two families involved told the Post the mothers and children were taken into custody during check-ins they were doing as part of the immigration process, and then were driven three hours, prevented from talking to family and lawyers and put on a plane to Honduras. When asked by NBC's Kristen Welker on Sunday if it is the U.S. policy to deport children who are citizens along with their families without due process, Rubio said, 'No … if someone's in this country unlawfully, illegally, that person gets deported. If that person is with a two-year-old child … and says I want to take my child with me,' the decision is up to the parent. Rubio said the mothers in this situation opted to take their children with them to Honduras, but that if they have fathers who are U.S. citizens, they will be allowed to come back at any time. Get Forbes Breaking News Text Alerts: We're launching text message alerts so you'll always know the biggest stories shaping the day's headlines. Text 'Alerts' to (201) 335-0739 or sign up here. Yes, at least one person has sued on one child's behalf. A habeas corpus petition was filed on behalf of the two-year-old on Thursday, alleging her detention is 'unlawful' and she should be immediately released. A request for a temporary restraining order was also filed Thursday. The government argued in a filing that the child's mother doesn't want the child released from her custody, and it questioned whether the girl's father and the person who filed the legal requests on the girl's behalf were really who they said they were. On Friday, Judge Terry A. Doughty, a Trump-appointee, ordered a hearing on the matter for May 16 'in the interest of dispelling our strong suspicion that the Government just deported a U.S. citizen with no meaningful process.' 'You guys just make it sound like I say, 'Just kick down the door and grab the two-year-old' and threw them on an airplane. That's misleading, that's just not true,' Rubio told Welker in response to questions about the deportation of children. 'If those children are U.S. citizens, they can come back into the United States if there's their father or someone here who wants to assume them,' Rubio said. 'But ultimately, who was deported was their mother, their mothers who were here illegally. The children just went with their mothers.' Rubio argued it would've been a bigger controversy to keep the children in the U.S. without their mothers, claiming reports would have said the government was holding the children 'hostage' if that were the case. Trump's deportations of migrants has become a focal point of his presidency as he seeks to crack down on immigration. His administration has sent more than 200 Venezuelan migrants to a maximum-security prison in El Salvador, and has been working to revoke visas of international students—though most of the moves have faced legal challenges that are making their way through courts. On Friday, lawyers for the Justice Department reportedly said in court they were restoring about 1,500 student visas and working on a new policy to review them after facing a number of lawsuits over the revocations. Trump's deportation of Venezuelan migrants to El Salvador under the Alien Enemies Act—including Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who the government said was deported by mistake but will not return—has also faced major legal challenges. One judge has said there's 'probable cause' the Trump administration acted in contempt of court by landing a plane with migrants in El Salvador after he ordered they stop the flights, but the Trump administration says it did not intentionally defy any ruling. Rubio said to Welker he believes all people are entitled to due process. 'Yes, of course,' Rubio said when Welker asked if both noncitizens and citizens should have due process—despite the Trump administration deporting scores of people before giving them the chance to oppose the action in court. Secretary of State Marco Rubio: 'Of course' all people in the U.S. are entitled to due process (NBC News) Trump DOJ Backs Down On International Student Visas: 1,500 Will Be Restored (Forbes) Trump Administration Says It Will Simply Re-Deport Kilmar Abrego Garcia If He Is Brought Back To U.S. (Forbes)
Time of India
27-04-2025
- Health
- Time of India
American dilemma: Undocumented immigrant parents are deported. Should their US-born children with cancer go with them?
TOI correspondent from Washington: America's liberal conscience is being shaken this weekend by the deportation on Friday of three US-born citizens, children of immigrant parents, including a two-year old baby and four-year old child with stage-4 metastatic cancer. US authorities maintained that the children's mothers, who were undocumented, were being deported to their home country Honduras, and they chose to take the children with them. But a judge, a Trump-appointee, found the process questionable and said there appeared to be no meaningful process to their deportation. He called the move "illegal and unconstitutional." Lawyers for the families said the two mothers were taken into custody while attending a routine check-in in New Orleans as part of the Intensive Supervision Appearance Program, which allows individuals to remain in their communities while undergoing immigration proceedings. In one case, Jenny Carolina Lopez Villela, mother of the two-year old girl and her older sister, is said to have given a handwritten note in Spanish choosing to take them with her even as the children's father, whose immigration status is unclear, was on the phone with her to remind her their younger daughter was a US citizen and not liable for deportation. He was cut off when he was about to give her contact information for lawyers. In the other case, a 4-year-old child with Stage 4 cancer was deported without medication or means to contact doctors, the family's lawyer said. It was the second such case prosecuted by the Trump administration after a 10-year-old US citizen with brain cancer was deported to Mexico on February 4 while en route to a medical appointment, due to her parents' undocumented status. The family was traveling from Rio Grande City, Texas, to Houston for an emergency medical check-up for the girl, who had undergone brain surgery in 2024 to remove a tumor, when they were detained at a Customs and Border Protection (CBP) checkpoint in South Texas. The Trump administration maintains that it does not deport US citizens, but they may choose to accompany family members being deported, and in the case of minor children, family members being deported may take the children with them as part of a policy not to separate families. The MAGA perspective: Trump didn't deport two-year old American citizen. US provided free transportation to a young child whose custodial mother wanted her daughter to come with her. But civil liberties lawyers and activists say the families are being rushed out of the country without due process. In the New Orleans case US District Judge Terry Doughty appeared to agree with them. The two mothers and their children were reportedly prevented from communicating fully with their families trying to arrange legal representation, driven to the airport, and put on a flight to Honduras, irking even a Trump-appointee judge. 'The Government contends that this is all okay because the mother wishes that the child be deported with her. But the Court doesn't know that,' Judge Doughty said, noting that he was unable to verify the mother's consent for the child to accompany her before the deportation. The case highlighted growing disquiet in the country over the Trump administration's crackdown on not just undocumented immigrants, but even green card and visa holders, including international students, not to speak of bearing down on judges, two of whom have been arrested for purportedly obstructing the deportation of illegal immigrants. In some cases, homeland security officials in plainclothes have been arresting immigrants without serving warrants, with supporters of such action citing security concerns. New Trump administration policies include reversing Biden-era restrictions on arrests in sensitive locations like hospitals and invoking the Alien Enemies Act for expedited removals.
Yahoo
10-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Opinion - Not every Trump move is authoritarian — focus on the real threats
Each day brings a new wave of controversy from the Trump White House, sparking dramatic headlines and deep alarm from some commentators. The normally restrained Associated Press warns that the president's actions are 'shaking the foundations of U.S. democracy' while the U.K.-based Guardian has even declared that 'U.S. Democracy has Died.' There are real reasons for concern — both in policy and respect for the rule of law — but the failure to distinguish routine governance from authoritarianism poses its own threat. If every action of Trump's administration is labeled authoritarian, it becomes harder to recognize true dangers. For those who are troubled by his presidency or who want to assess the administration fairly, it is crucial to make distinctions between policy disagreements, norm violations and outright illegalities in order to know how to respond best in each case. First, many of Trump's policies are simply standard Republican policy ideas. School vouchers, tax cuts, conservative interpretations of the law in the courts, a more limited federal role in education, light-touch regulation of new technologies and increased fossil fuel production are all longstanding Republican priorities. Even trade protectionism — a policy we both soundly reject — has significant support across the political spectrum. There are plenty of reasons to disagree with policies like these, but, with the exception of trade, they are roughly those that any other Republican elected in modern times would have enacted. Second, some of Trump's policies represent a break from recent Republican orthodoxy or political norms, but are still clearly within the law. His takeover of the Kennedy Center, for example, is clearly within his legal authority, thanks in large part to a court decision regarding former President Joe Biden's (D) sacking of Trump-appointee Sean Spicer from another board. While there are many reasons to watch what Trump does with respect to the military, picking his own person to chair the Joint Chiefs of Staff is likewise the president's prerogative as commander-in-chief. Trump's efforts to slash the federal workforce may be unevenly executed, slapdash, and on a historic scale, but buyouts and layoffs of probationary employees have been done before. They do not necessary imply a sinister plot. Mischaracterizing these actions as authoritarianism rather than just potentially bad policy weakens the credibility of those who would challenge Trump if he actually crosses the line. Few of the 77 million Americans who voted for Trump will be moved to sharply reconsider their opinion on a truly egregious presidential act if, day in and day out, they are bombarded by breathless critics claiming every one of his acts means 'the end of democracy.' That said, Trump has committed real violations of law and democratic norms that deserve strong opposition. Trump did not have the power to unilaterally halt federal payments, and courts have rightly delayed this with a temporary stay. His firings of inspectors general certainly violated laws designed to protect oversight. Likewise, the allegations against Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) team's handling of classified materials, if proven, would constitute a serious breach of national security laws that courts and prosecutors have taken seriously. These actions represent huge problems. Even when a president violates laws or norms, however, it does not invalidate the entire administration. Executive overreach is not new — presidents of both parties have pushed legal boundaries. Former President Barack Obama acted unilaterally to implement many of his immigration proposals when Congress wouldn't, and Biden spent hundreds of billions of dollars on student loan forgiveness without the required congressional approval. Trump could well do worse if he, for example, decides to blatantly violate a court decision or issues illegal orders to the military. But it undermines the power of democracy to declare that U.S. democracy is dying because of policy disagreements or even questionable individual executive actions. If Trump is to be rendered ineffective, as some of his most vocal detractors insist, it must be through elections or legal challenges. And there are ways to make a difference now. Narrow congressional majorities give individual lawmakers, particularly in the House, leverage to demand concessions and shape policy. While Trump will not embrace any progressive priorities, there are key areas where bipartisan cooperation could check his administration's worst impulses. For example, scores of Democrats already voted for crime legislation supported by the administration. Further, a party with any claim to support the working class should do everything it can to avoid the $1,500 tax hike that middle income earners will face if Trump's first-term tax cuts expire. Similarly, expanding high-skill immigration could be an area for real negotiation. And the list could go on. There are real reasons to oppose Trump's policies and overreach. But if every action is labeled authoritarian and no common ground is ever sought, Trump's opponents may bring about the very democratic decline they fear. Pete Sepp is president of the National Taxpayers Union and Eli Lehrer is president of the R Street Institute. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
10-03-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
Not every Trump move is authoritarian — focus on the real threats
Each day brings a new wave of controversy from the Trump White House, sparking dramatic headlines and deep alarm from some commentators. The normally restrained Associated Press warns that the president's actions are ' shaking the foundations of U.S. democracy ' while the U.K.-based Guardian has even declared that ' U.S. Democracy has Died.' There are real reasons for concern — both in policy and respect for the rule of law — but the failure to distinguish routine governance from authoritarianism poses its own threat. If every action of Trump's administration is labeled authoritarian, it becomes harder to recognize true dangers. For those who are troubled by his presidency or who want to assess the administration fairly, it is crucial to make distinctions between policy disagreements, norm violations and outright illegalities in order to know how to respond best in each case. First, many of Trump's policies are simply standard Republican policy ideas. School vouchers, tax cuts, conservative interpretations of the law in the courts, a more limited federal role in education, light-touch regulation of new technologies and increased fossil fuel production are all longstanding Republican priorities. Even trade protectionism — a policy we both soundly reject — has significant support across the political spectrum. There are plenty of reasons to disagree with policies like these, but, with the exception of trade, they are roughly those that any other Republican elected in modern times would have enacted. Second, some of Trump's policies represent a break from recent Republican orthodoxy or political norms, but are still clearly within the law. His takeover of the Kennedy Center, for example, is clearly within his legal authority, thanks in large part to a court decision regarding former President Joe Biden's (D) sacking of Trump-appointee Sean Spicer from another board. While there are many reasons to watch what Trump does with respect to the military, picking his own person to chair the Joint Chiefs of Staff is likewise the president's prerogative as commander-in-chief. Trump's efforts to slash the federal workforce may be unevenly executed, slapdash, and on a historic scale, but buyouts and layoffs of probationary employees have been done before. They do not necessary imply a sinister plot. Mischaracterizing these actions as authoritarianism rather than just potentially bad policy weakens the credibility of those who would challenge Trump if he actually crosses the line. Few of the 77 million Americans who voted for Trump will be moved to sharply reconsider their opinion on a truly egregious presidential act if, day in and day out, they are bombarded by breathless critics claiming every one of his acts means 'the end of democracy.' That said, Trump has committed real violations of law and democratic norms that deserve strong opposition. Trump did not have the power to unilaterally halt federal payments, and courts have rightly delayed this with a temporary stay. His firings of inspectors general certainly violated laws designed to protect oversight. Likewise, the allegations against Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) team's handling of classified materials, if proven, would constitute a serious breach of national security laws that courts and prosecutors have taken seriously. These actions represent huge problems. Even when a president violates laws or norms, however, it does not invalidate the entire administration. Executive overreach is not new — presidents of both parties have pushed legal boundaries. Former President Barack Obama acted unilaterally to implement many of his immigration proposals when Congress wouldn't, and Biden spent hundreds of billions of dollars on student loan forgiveness without the required congressional approval. Trump could well do worse if he, for example, decides to blatantly violate a court decision or issues illegal orders to the military. But it undermines the power of democracy to declare that U.S. democracy is dying because of policy disagreements or even questionable individual executive actions. If Trump is to be rendered ineffective, as some of his most vocal detractors insist, it must be through elections or legal challenges. And there are ways to make a difference now. Narrow congressional majorities give individual lawmakers, particularly in the House, leverage to demand concessions and shape policy. While Trump will not embrace any progressive priorities, there are key areas where bipartisan cooperation could check his administration's worst impulses. For example, scores of Democrats already voted for crime legislation supported by the administration. Further, a party with any claim to support the working class should do everything it can to avoid the $1,500 tax hike that middle income earners will face if Trump's first-term tax cuts expire. Similarly, expanding high-skill immigration could be an area for real negotiation. And the list could go on. There are real reasons to oppose Trump's policies and overreach. But if every action is labeled authoritarian and no common ground is ever sought, Trump's opponents may bring about the very democratic decline they fear.
