Judge pauses Trump administration’s plans for mass layoffs at Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

posted in: All news | 0

By MICHAEL KUNZELMAN

WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal judge who blocked President Donald Trump’s administration from dismantling the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ruled Friday that the bureau can’t go forward immediately with plans to mass fire hundreds of employees.

U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson said she is “deeply concerned” that Trump administration officials aren’t complying with her earlier order that maintains the bureau’s existence until she rules on the merits of a lawsuit seeking to preserve it.

During a hearing, Jackson said she will bar officials from carrying out any mass firings or cutting off employees’ access to bureau computer systems on Friday.

Jackson scheduled a hearing on April 28 to hear testimony from officials who were working on the reduction in force, or RIF, procedures.

“I’m willing to resolve it quickly, but I’m not going to let this RIF go forward until I have,” she said.

Roughly 1,500 employees are slated to be cut, leaving around 200 people.

Trump, a Republican, has sought to reshape the federal government, saying it’s rife with fraud, waste and abuse. Conservatives and businesses have often chafed at the bureau’s oversight and investigations, and Trump adviser Elon Musk made it a top target of his Department of Government Efficiency.

Related Articles


The Abrego Garcia case pulls Democrats into the immigration debate Trump wants to have


Strange sell-off in the dollar raises the specter of investors losing trust in the US under Trump


Wisconsin governor can lock in 400-year school funding increase using a veto, court says


Law firms, universities and now civil society groups are in Trump’s sights for punitive action


US intelligence contradicts Trump claims linking gang to Venezuelan government to speed deportations

Idaho police release body camera video of nonverbal and autistic teen’s fatal shooting

posted in: All news | 0

By GENE JOHNSON

Police in Idaho released body-worn and security camera recordings Thursday showing officers fatally shooting a knife-wielding, intellectually disabled teenage boy from the other side of a chain link fence, confirming that they made no effort to de-escalate the situation before opening fire.

Victor Perez was autistic and nonverbal and had cerebral palsy, though there is no indication the responding officers were aware of that. The 17-year old was removed from life support and died in a hospital a week after the shooting, and a law firm said Wednesday it intends to file a federal wrongful death suit against the city of Pocatello on behalf of his family.

This photo provided by Ana L Vazquez, shows Victor Perez in a hospital bed in Pocatello, Idaho. (Ana L Vazquez via AP)

Perez was in a confrontation in his fenced yard with family members who tried to get the blade away from him on April 5 when a neighbor called 911, reporting that an apparently intoxicated man armed with a knife — Perez, who walked with a staggered gait due to his disabilities — was chasing people in the yard.

Perez had fallen over and was on the ground when officers arrived. Guns drawn, they repeatedly yelled, “Drop the knife!” but he instead stood up and began to step toward them. Three officers opened fire with their handguns, while a fourth fired a bean-bag shotgun, officials said Thursday.

The shots came just seconds after the officers got out of their vehicles.

The city’s release of the videos included text slides that stressed that Perez was approaching the officers, who were on the other side of a chain link fence from him, while holding the knife, and that he was close to two family members who were behind him.

“Whether or not Perez had a medical condition or was experiencing a mental health crisis was not provided to dispatch or known to officers,” one slide read.

The shooting has outraged community members who questioned why the officers fired without trying to learn more about the situation, use de-escalation techniques or use less-lethal force. About 200 people attended a vigil Saturday morning outside the Pocatello hospital where Perez died, and another crowd of protesters gathered that afternoon outside Pocatello City Hall, which also houses the police department.

Police Chief Roger Schei and Mayor Brian Blad have declined to answer questions about the shooting, citing an investigation being conducted by the East Idaho Critical Incident Task Force. The officers’ names have not been released.

Law enforcement officials say it is not always appropriate for police to use de-escalation techniques, especially when there is danger to the officers or the public or if a subject is not complying with orders.

But policing experts who have reviewed cellphone video of Perez’s shooting note that there was a fence between the officers and the teen, that they used lethal force instead of Tasers and that they failed to use the basic tactic of backing up to create space between them and Perez.

Brad Andres, who recorded video of the shooting on his phone after his son called 911, said the police “appeared to be like a death squad or a firing squad.”

“They never once asked, ‘What is the situation, how can we help?’” he said. “They ran up with their guns drawn, they triggered a mentally disabled person to react and when he reacted … they shot him.”

The Abrego Garcia case pulls Democrats into the immigration debate Trump wants to have

posted in: All news | 0

By STEPHEN GROVES and ADRIANA GOMEZ LICON

WASHINGTON (AP) — For Democrats, the Kilmar Abrego Garcia case is about fundamental American ideals — due process, following court orders, preventing government overreach. For the Trump administration and Republicans, it’s about foreigners and gang threats and danger in American towns and cities.

And that argument is precisely the one that Donald Trump wants to have.

This dichotomy is playing out as Democrats double down on their defense of Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran man mistakenly deported and imprisoned without communication. They’re framing his case as a threat to individual rights to challenge President Trump’s immigration policies.

The effort comes as the Trump administration pushes back harder, turning this deportation into a test case for his crusade against illegal immigration despite a Supreme Court order saying Abrego Garcia must be returned to the United States.

In trying to shape public discourse against Democrats, White House officials are accusing them of defending a foreigner who they’ve claimed is a gang member based on testimony of an informant — and whose wife admitted she once filed a protective order against him despite now advocating for his return.

“Due process and separation of powers are matters of principle,” Democratic Rep. Adriano Espaillat, the chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, said Thursday. “Without due process for all, we are all in danger.”

Democrats began the year without unity on immigration

The opposition started the year splintered on its immigration strategy, especially after an election season where Trump led Republicans to victories by harping on illegal border crossings and vowing to conduct mass deportations.

But now many Democrats are latching onto the Abrego Garcia case, with a senator trekking down to El Salvador and a number of House representatives working to organize official visits to the Salvadoran prison. On Thursday evening, Maryland Sen. Chris Van Hollen posted photos of himself meeting in El Salvador with Abrego Garcia. The lawmaker did not provide an update on the status of Abrego Garcia, whose attorneys are fighting to force the Trump administration to facilitate his return to the U.S.

Trump responded Friday with a social media post saying Van Hollen “looked like a fool yesterday standing in El Salvador begging for attention.”

Still, other high-profile Democrats such as Hillary Clinton, California Gov. Gavin Newsom and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders are making a public appeal by painting the case as an example of government overreach.

But even Newsom, who has presidential aspirations, recognized Trump’s ability to curry favor with the public.

“These are not normal times, so we have to call it out with clarity and conviction,” Newsom said in an interview with YouTube commentator Brian Tyler Cohen. “But we’ve got to stay focused on it so the American people can stay focused on it. Because his success is his ability to win every damn news cycle and get us distracted and moving in 25 different directions.”

Immigration was a relative strength for Trump in a March AP-NORC poll, which found that about half of U.S. adults approved of his approach to immigration. And he came into office with strong support for one component of his immigration agenda — deporting people with certain kinds of criminal histories. The vast majority of U.S. adults favored deporting immigrants convicted of violent crimes, according to a January AP-NORC poll.

There was far less consensus about how to handle deportations more broadly, though.

The January poll found that removing immigrants who are in the country illegally and have not committed a violent crime was divisive, with only about 4 in 10 U.S. adults in support and slightly more than 4 in 10 opposed. Along those lines, a Pew Research Center poll from late February found that while about half of Americans said at least “some” immigrants living in the country illegally should be deported, very few people in that group supported deporting immigrants who have a job or are married to a U.S. citizen.

Trump staunchly defends his administration’s position

The Trump administration has acknowledged Abrego Garcia’s deportation was a result of “an administrative error,” saying immigration officials were aware of his protection from deportation. But Trump officials have described Abrego Garcia, who was living in Maryland, as a “terrorist” and claimed he is a member of the MS-13 gang, even though he was never criminally charged in the U.S. with gang involvement. “He is not coming back to our country,” Attorney General Pam Bondi has said.

In defending his administration’s position, Trump says he is doing what he was elected to do and justifying the need to deport millions, saying a “big percentage” of migrants who arrived during the Biden administration are criminals — an assertion for which there is no evidence. Studies show immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than native-born Americans.

And while it is not clear when Abrego Garcia arrived in the U.S., he began fighting against deportation proceedings in 2019 — before Democratic President Joe Biden took office.

“I was elected to get rid of those criminals — get them out of our country or to put them away, but to get them out of our country. And I don’t see how judges can take that authority away from the president,” Trump, a Republican, said Thursday.

Related Articles


Immigration judge denies bond for Tufts University student from Turkey, her lawyers say


Tennessee’s GOP leads the fight to deny public education to children without documents


What happens next after judge warns of possible contempt prosecution over deportation flights order


Family says ICE agents smashed car window in seizing Guatemalan man who’s seeking asylum


Maryland Sen. Van Hollen meets with Abrego Garcia in El Salvador amid court fight over US return

A three-judge panel from the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said Trump’s government is “asserting a right to stash away residents of this country in foreign prisons without the semblance of due process that is the foundation of our constitutional order.”

While immigration is a relative strength, defiance of court rulings could put his administration in a trickier situation. A Washington Post/Ipsos poll conducted in February found that about 8 in 10 Americans think the Trump administration should follow a federal court’s ruling if it determines that the administration has done something illegal.

Rep. Glenn Ivey, a Democrat who represents the Maryland district where Abrego Garcia lived, told The Associated Press that no allegations brought up by Trump officials would change how he approaches the case. Ivey, who is more aligned with the party’s moderates, described the issue as about more than just immigration.

“On the one hand, it’s an immigration issue. On the other hand, it’s also a constitutional issue,” he said. “Yes, there’s an immigration component, but it’s rapidly growing into a separation of powers conflict that could actually end up taking on historic proportions.”

Gomez Licon reported from Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Associated Press writers Seung Min Kim in Washington and Jonathan J. Cooper in Phoenix contributed to this report.

Strange sell-off in the dollar raises the specter of investors losing trust in the US under Trump

posted in: All news | 0

By BERNARD CONDON, Associated Press Business Writer

NEW YORK (AP) — Among the threats tariffs pose to the U.S. economy, none may be as strange as the sell-off in the dollar.

Currencies rise and fall all the time because of inflation fears, central bank moves and other factors. But economists worry that the recent drop in the dollar is so dramatic that it reflects something more ominous as President Donald Trump tries to reshape global trade: a loss of confidence in the U.S.

The dollar’s dominance in cross-border trade and as a safe haven has been nurtured by administrations of both parties for decades because it helps keep U.S. borrowing costs down and allows Washington to project power abroad — enormous advantages that could possibly disappear if faith in the U.S. was damaged.

Related Articles


US strikes on a Yemeni oil port kill 74 people, Houthis say, in deadliest attack of Trump campaign


Law firms, universities and now civil society groups are in Trump’s sights for punitive action


US intelligence contradicts Trump claims linking gang to Venezuelan government to speed deportations


Trump’s attacks on Powell threaten the Fed’s independence. Here’s why it matters


Federal judge in Baltimore temporarily limits DOGE access to Social Security data

“Global trust and reliance on the dollar was built up over a half century or more,” says University of California, Berkeley, economist Barry Eichengreen. “But it can be lost in the blink of an eye.”

Since mid-January, the dollar has fallen 9% against a basket of currencies, a rare and steep decline, to its lowest level in three years.

Many investors spooked by Trump don’t think the dollar will be pushed quickly from its position as the world’s reserve currency, instead expecting more of a slow decline. But even that is scary enough, given the benefits that would be lost.

With much of world’s goods exchanged in dollars, demand for the currency has stayed strong even as the U.S. has doubled federal debt in a dozen years and does other things that would normally send investors fleeing. That has allowed the U.S. government, consumers and businesses to borrow at unnaturally low rates, which has helped speed economic growth and lift standards of living.

Dollar dominance also allows the U.S. to push around other countries like Venezuela, Iran and Russia by locking them out of a currency they need to buy and sell with others.

Now that “exorbitant privilege,” as economists call it, is suddenly at risk.

“The safe haven properties of the dollar are being eroded,” said Deutsche Bank in a note to clients earlier this month warning of a “confidence crisis.” Added a more circumspect report by Capital Economics, “It is no longer hyperbole to say that the dollar’s reserve status and broader dominant role is at least somewhat in question.”

Traditionally, the dollar would strengthen as tariffs sink demand for foreign products.

But the dollar not only failed to strengthen this time, it fell, puzzling economists and hurting consumers. The dollar lost more than 5% against the euro and pound, and 6% against the yen since early April.

As any American traveler abroad knows, you can buy more with a stronger dollar and less with a weaker one. Now the price of French wine and South Korean electronics and a host of other imports could cost more not only due to tariffs but a weaker currency, too.

And any loss of safe-haven status could hit U.S. consumers in another way: Higher rates for mortgages and car financing deals as lenders demand more interest for the added risk.

More worrisome is possible higher interest rates on the ballooning U.S. federal debt, which is already at a risky 120% of U.S. annual economic output.

“Most countries with that debt to GDP would cause a major crisis and the only reason we get away with it is that the world needs dollars to trade with,” says Benn Steil, an economist at the Council on Foreign Relations. ”At some point people are going to look seriously at alternatives to the dollar. ”

They already have, with a little help from a U.S. economic rival.

China has been striking yuan-only trading deals with Brazil for agricultural products, Russia for oil and South Korea for other goods for years. It has also been making loans in yuan to central banks desperate for cash in Argentina, Pakistan and other countries, replacing the dollar as the emergency funder of last resort.

Another possible U.S. alternative in future years if their market grows: cryptocurrencies.

Said BlackRock Chairman Larry Fink in his annual shareholder letter about dollar dominance, ”If deficits keep ballooning, America risks losing that position to digital assets like Bitcoin.”

Not everyone is convinced that a big reason the dollar is falling is because of lost faith in the U.S.

Steve Ricchiuto, an economist at Mizuho Financial, says dollar weakness reflects anticipation of higher inflation due to tariffs. But even if investors aren’t as comfortable holding dollars, he says, they really don’t have much of a choice. No other currency or other asset, like yuan or bitcoin or gold, is vast enough to handle all the demand.

“The U.S. will lose the reserve currency when there is someone out there to take it away,” Ricchiuto says. “Right now there isn’t an alternative.”

Maybe so, but Trump is testing the limits.

It’s not just the tariffs, but the erratic way he’s rolled them out. The unpredictability makes the U.S. seem less stable, less reliable, and a less safe place for their money.

There are also questions about his logic justifying the policy. Trump says the U.S. needs tariffs to drive down its trade deficits with other countries. But most economists believe those deficits, which measure trade in goods, not services, are a bad measure of whether a country is “ripping off” America, as Trump puts it.

Trump has also repeatedly threatened to chip away at the independence of the Federal Reserve, raising fears that he will force interest rates lower to boost the economy even if doing so risks stoking runaway inflation. That is a sure fire way to get people to flee the dollar. After Fed Chair Jerome Powell said Wednesday that he would wait to make any rate moves, Trump blasted him, saying “Powell’s termination cannot come fast enough!”

Economists critical of Trump’s April 2 tariff announcement recall another event, the Suez Crisis of 1956, that broke the back of the British pound. The military attack on Egypt was poorly planned and badly executed and exposed British political incompetence that sank trust in the country. The pound fell sharply, and its centuries-long position as the dominant trading and reserve currency crumbled.

Berkeley’s Eichengreen says Liberation Day, as Trump called April 2, could be remembered as a similar turning point if the president isn’t careful.

“This is the first step down a slippery slope where international confidence in the U.S. dollar is lost.”