Update from Zolan Kanno-Youngs (2025)

Pinned

President Trump’s defiance of the federal courts gets the backing of El Salvador’s president.

“Of course I’m not going to do it,” Mr. Bukele said when reporters asked if he was willing to help return the man, Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, a 29-year-old father of three who was deported last month. The Trump administration has acknowledged that his deportation was the result of an “administrative error.”

The message from the meeting was clear: Neither Mr. Trump nor Mr. Bukele had any intention of returning Mr. Abrego Garcia, even though the Supreme Court has ruled that he should come back to the United States. The case has come to symbolize Mr. Trump’s defiance of the courts and his willingness to deport people without due process.

Mr. Trump also mused about the possibility of sending American citizens convicted of violent crimes to prison in El Salvador, although he said Attorney General Pam Bondi was still studying the legality of the proposal.

“If it’s a homegrown criminal, I have no problem, no,” Mr. Trump said. “I’m talking about violent people. I’m talking about really bad people.”

Before the full group of reporters was allowed into the Oval Office for the meeting, television cameras captured Mr. Trump telling Mr. Bukele to build more prisons.

Mr. Trump invited some of his top officials to Monday’s meeting, much of which was held in front of news cameras. Ms. Bondi and Stephen Miller, who is the architect of Mr. Trump’s immigration agenda, accused Mr. Abrego Garcia of being a member of the MS-13 gang.

Mr. Abrego Garcia has never been charged with or convicted of being in a gang. In 2011, Mr. Abrego Garcia’s lawyers say, he fled threats and violence in El Salvador and came to the United States illegally to join his brother, a U.S. citizen, in Maryland. He later married an American citizen. In 2019, an immigration judge prohibited the United States from deporting him to El Salvador, saying he might face violence or torture there.

Mr. Abrego Garcia’s lawyers did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

“That’s up to to El Salvador if they want to return him,” Ms. Bondi said. “That’s not up to us.” Mr. Miller went further, arguing that a federal judge had overstepped in directing the administration to provide a road map to Mr. Abrego Garcia’s return. “Neither the secretary of state nor the president could be compelled by anybody to forcibly retrieve a citizen of El Salvador from El Salvador who again is a member of MS-13,” he said.

Mr. Bukele followed suit, saying that returning Mr. Abrego Garcia would be akin to smuggling “a terrorist into the United States.” As the Salvadoran president talked, Mr. Trump, surrounded by cabinet members who spoke in support of the president on cue, smiled in approval.

On Monday evening, more than an hour after the deadline ordered by a judge, the Justice Department submitted its daily update outlining what steps it had taken to return Mr. Abrego Garcia to the United States. It echoed many of the recalcitrant remarks that administration officials had made in the Oval Office.

Representative Hakeem Jeffries of New York, the top House Democrat, called on the courts to hold Trump administration officials in contempt.

“The Supreme Court and/or the federal district court actually needs to enforce its order,” Mr. Jeffries said on MSNBC, suggesting that contempt citations could be directed at the secretaries of state and homeland security, as well as their subordinates.

Mr. Abrego Garcia’s wife, Jennifer Vasquez Sura, said the American and Salvadoran governments were playing “political games” with her husband’s life.

“My heart is heavy, but I hold on to hope and the strength of those around me,” she said.

Stephen Vladeck, a law professor at Georgetown University, said the idea that “the government can disappear people to a foreign country with no due process and no responsibility for what happens next” amounted to “a rule-of-law crisis.”

“If the government can do it to Abrego Garcia, they can do it to anybody,” Mr. Vladeck said.

In Mr. Bukele, Mr. Trump has found a partner in his efforts to force scores of migrants to a Salvadoran prison and keep them there with little regard for checks and balances.

The Supreme Court last week ordered the administration to “facilitate” Mr. Abrego Garcia’s return, but it never defined the specific steps that U.S. officials should take to carry out the plan. Ms. Bondi on Monday argued that the court ruling means the United States would need to help with Mr. Abrego Garcia’s return — such as by providing a plane — only if Mr. Bukele were to decide to send him back to the United States.

“The court gave the administration an opening and the administration has taken a millimeter-wide opening and driven a Mack truck through it,” Mr. Vladeck said.

Michael G. Kozak, the senior bureau official in the State Department’s Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs, said in a sworn statement on Saturday that, based on information from the U.S. embassy in San Salvador, Mr. Abrego Garcia is “alive and secure” in the prison known as the Terrorism Confinement Center, or CECOT.

In a legal filing on Sunday, the Justice Department also argued that the courts lacked the ability to dictate steps the White House should take to return Mr. Abrego Garcia because only the president has the power to handle U.S. foreign policy.

The Trump administration has invoked a centuries-old wartime authority to deport migrants to El Salvador by alleging that they are members of violent gangs like MS-13, which originated in the United States and operates in South America, and the Venezuelan criminal group Tren de Aragua.

The law, the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, allows for the summary deportation of people from countries at war with the United States.

While some of the deportees had criminal convictions, court papers have shown that the evidence the government has relied on to label some of them gang members was often little more than tattoos or clothing associated with a criminal organization.

Though the administration resisted helping Mr. Abrego Garcia, Senator Chris Van Hollen, Democrat of Maryland, said on Monday that he wanted to discuss with Mr. Bukele returning the Salvadoran migrant. He added that he would travel to El Salvador this week if Mr. Abrego Garcia was not returned.

The Trump administration doubled down on its incarceration agreement with Mr. Bukele on Sunday when it announced that it had sent 10 more people alleged to be members of the two gangs to El Salvador over the weekend.

Mr. Bukele has found a spot on the global stage through opening the doors of his prison system to Mr. Trump.

The Biden administration treated Mr. Bukele, who has referred to himself as the world’s “coolest dictator,” as a pariah. The Justice Department under the previous administration even accused Mr. Bukele and the Salvadoran government of secretly being lenient toward certain gang leaders. Mr. Trump has appeared to admire Mr. Bukele as a MAGA equivalent in Latin America who won’t hesitate to defend his domestic agenda.

At times on Monday, Mr. Bukele and Mr. Trump broke from discussing immigration to show they were aligned in criticizing politicians who supported allowing transgender athletes to compete in women’s sports.

Mr. Bukele also joked about how his staff does not include “D.E.I. hires.”

Mr. Trump and Mr. Bukele have paired their tough-on-crime personas with highly sensationalized public relations campaigns on social media.

After a surge of gang violence in El Salvador, Mr. Bukele imposed a state of emergency, which has yet to be lifted, and directed the police and military forces to carry out mass arrests. Many of the 85,000 Salvadorans who were arrested disappeared into the prison system without trial and without their families knowing whether they were alive.

“The United States should be holding Bukele’s government accountable for these serious violations, but instead the Trump administration is cozying up to and copying Bukele’s authoritarian playbook — rounding up people with no evidence, denying them any due process and disappearing them in abusive Salvadoran prisons indefinitely,” said Amanda Strayer, the senior counsel for accountability at the advocacy group Human Rights First.

Still, Mr. Bukele’s popularity has soared, and he was re-elected in a landslide last year as his government reported a drop in violent crime. The Trump administration just last week changed a travel advisory for El Salvador, effectively saying it was safer to visit than countries like France or the United Kingdom.

The Trump administration cited El Salvador’s progress in driving down gang violence over the past three years, even though the Justice Department previously accused Mr. Bukele of doling out favors to gang members in exchange for keeping homicide numbers down.

Mr. Bukele described the decision on social media as akin to receiving a “gold star.”

Alan Feuer and Chris Cameron contributed reporting.

The White House tapped Bloomberg to send a reporter along with photographers from four news organizations, but The A.P. was not among them.

A court blocks the Trump administration’s shuttering of a migrant entry program.

Judge Talwani blocked the wholesale shutdown of the program. Otherwise, she wrote in her ruling, the migrants would “be forced to choose between two injurious options: continue following the law and leave the country on their own, or await removal proceedings.”

Immigrant advocates hailed the decision as a win for those worried about the imminent stripping of their status.

“This ruling is a victory not just for our clients and those like them, but anyone who cherishes the freedom to welcome,” said Karen Tumlin, the director of the Justice Action Center, an immigrant advocacy group. “Our clients — and our class members — have done everything the government asked of them, and we’re gratified to see that the court will not allow the government to fail to uphold its side of the bargain.”

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The judge’s decision came as the Trump administration has moved to end legal protections for migrants from many countries, including by shutting down a program granting legal status to Afghan and Cameroonian migrants. A separate effort to revoke Temporary Protected Status for Venezuelans in the United States was also blocked by a federal judge.

The Biden-era program allowed more migrants from Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela and Haiti to fly into the United States and stay temporarily with access to work permits if they had a financial sponsor and passed security checks. They were allowed to stay for up to two years.

More than 500,000 migrants entered the country under the program. Biden officials said it was part of an effort to deter migrants from those countries from crossing into the country illegally, and encourage a legal pathway instead.

Trump officials, announcing the move to end the program last month, said the program added to immigration problems in the United States by granting some protections to “a substantial population of aliens in the interior of the United States without a clear path to a durable status.”

Advertisement

SKIP ADVERTISEMENT

JD Vance drops the College Football Playoff national championship trophy during a White House celebration.

TreVeyon Henderson, a Buckeyes running back, stepped in to help, grabbing the top of the trophy as Mr. Vance lifted the base. As the men hoisted it off the table, the trophy split in two and Mr. Vance dropped the base, which fell to the ground. Mr. Henderson and another player managed to hold onto the top of the trophy.

According to the College Football Playoff website, the trophy consists of separate components — a 12-inch bronze base, and a 26-and-a-half-inch trophy made from 24-karat gold, bronze and stainless steel.

Together, the pieces weigh 50 pounds, the Ohio State Athletic Department said on social media in January, three days after the Buckeyes defeated Notre Dame to win the title.

After the base fell, some in the crowd gasped, while others laughed or clapped. Mr. Vance joked about the incident on social media.

“I didn’t want anyone after Ohio State to get the trophy so I decided to break it,” Mr. Vance said.

It was hardly the first championship trophy calamity.

In 2006, after the tennis star Maria Sharapova won the U.S. Open, the top of the trophy popped off when she hoisted it above her head. (The announcer Dick Enberg called it her first unforced error of the night.)

In 2011, as the soccer club Real Madrid celebrated its Copa del Rey victory over Barcelona, a player dropped the trophy from the upper level of an open double-decker bus, which ran over the cup and smashed it into pieces.

And two years ago, at a ceremony after the Hungarian Grand Prix, the British racing driver Lando Norris slammed a bottle of sparkling wine on a table onstage, sending the trophy of the race winner, Max Verstappen, tumbling to the ground.

Trump administration memo proposes nearly halving State Department funding.

It also proposes cutting funding for humanitarian assistance and global health programs by more than 50 percent despite Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s pledges that lifesaving assistance would be preserved.

It was not clear if Mr. Rubio had endorsed the cuts outlined in the memo, which was dated April 10. Pete Marocco, who oversaw the gutting of government foreign aid programs before abruptly leaving the department, and Douglas Pitkin, who is in charge of the department’s budget planning, prepared the document. It was also not clear how seriously the proposed cuts would be entertained in Congress, which appropriates federal dollars.

But, according to a U.S. official familiar with the department’s review, it is likely that the White House will send Congress a budget proposal this spring that is substantially similar to what the memo outlines in an effort to press lawmakers to formalize downsizing efforts that are already underway.

Agencies are facing a deadline this week to submit detailed reorganization plans to the White House explaining what cuts they will make to help further shrink the federal government. While many departments have already announced or begun carrying out their planned cuts, the State Department has yet to publicly detail complete plans for downsizing. The memo is part of a process involving the White House budget office and the State Department trading proposals and suggestions.

Reports of steep cuts already had Democrats on Capitol Hill reeling.

Senator Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, the top Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee, said in a statement on Monday that the cuts “would leave our country alone and exposed and allow China and Russia to fill the vacuum made vacant by this administration.”

“Why in the world would we cut funding for NATO at a moment when war is raging in Europe and security threats on the continent grow?” she added.

Senator Brian Schatz of Hawaii, the top Democrat on the appropriations committee, said: “While ultimately Congress controls the purse strings, recent reports about the administration’s plan to gut State Department personnel, U.S. presence overseas and foreign assistance are deeply troubling. These cuts don’t make America safer, they risk our security.”

“I want to hear from Secretary Rubio directly,” he added.

A copy of the budget memo began circulating in Washington in recent days. The Washington Post reported details of the memo earlier on Monday.

The State Department had no immediate comment.

The memo states that the State Department will request a $28.4 billion budget in fiscal year 2026, which begins Oct. 1. That figure is $26 billion less than what was on the books for fiscal year 2025, according to the document.

The administration intends to claw back some funds for the current fiscal year as well, according to the memo. Mr. Marocco and Mr. Pitkin wrote that the Trump administration would seek to reclaim approximately $20 billion in unspent funds from fiscal year 2025 to return to the Treasury.

Among other cuts, the memo proposes keeping a pay and hiring freeze through fiscal 2026, with the exception of any hires needed to take over foreign aid programs inherited from the U.S. Agency for International Development, which is being disbanded. Overall, the memo seeks to cut foreign aid spending by more than half of current budget levels for the State Department and U.S.A.I.D.

Though Mr. Rubio promised last month that the State Department would continue administering a number of lifesaving assistance programs, the Trump administration has quietly canceled some of those initiatives in recent weeks.

The only funding for global health programs that the State Department envisions preserving is $2.9 billion for H.I.V. treatments provided through the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief; $687 million for interventions for diseases like tuberculosis and malaria; $200 million for global health security; and $800 million for the Global Fund, distributed at a rate of $1 for every $4 other donors provide. The Global Fund is an international organization that finances disease treatment and prevention.

All other programs — including those to tackle neglected tropical diseases, provide vaccines to children in poor countries and preserve maternal and child health — would be cut.

The memo offers fewer details about the cuts to humanitarian aid. It outlines $2.5 billion for a new Bureau for Humanitarian Assistance at the State Department, and $1.5 billion in emergency migration and refugee assistance that President Trump can use “to address humanitarian emergencies.”

The memo also proposes a one-year freeze for a key narcotics control program, rationalizing the suspension of funds by noting that the program has an unspent $1.4 billion on hand that should cover that period.

Additionally, it envisions creating a roughly $2 billion America First Opportunities Fund at the Treasury, which would give the Trump administration latitude to “provide targeted support for economic and development assistance for enduring and emerging Trump administration priorities.”

Stephanie Nolen contributed reporting.

Advertisement

SKIP ADVERTISEMENT

Democratic lawmakers denounce Trump and El Salvador’s president.

Representative Sylvia Garcia of Texas on Monday accused President Trump of “hiding behind the president of El Salvador” and “mocking our judicial system from the Oval Office.” And Representative Veronica Escobar of Texas dismissed the leaders’ claim that they were powerless to return Mr. Abrego Garcia to the United States, calling them “wanna-be dictators in every way possible.”

In an Oval Office meeting with President Trump on Monday, Mr. Bukele told reporters that he did not have “the power” to release the man, Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, to the United States, and called the question “preposterous.” Mr. Abrego Garcia was mistakenly deported to a prison in El Salvador almost a month ago.

Mr. Abrego Garcia was deported in what the Trump administration had called an “administrative error,” a position that senior administration officials distanced themselves from on Monday. After Attorney General Pam Bondi and Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the decision to return Mr. Abrego Garcia now rested solely with Mr. Bukele, he said any move to return him now was akin to smuggling “a terrorist into the United States.”

Representative Hakeem Jeffries of New York, the House minority leader, called for Mr. Abrego Garcia’s return from the prison known as the Terrorism Confinement Center, or CECOT, raising concerns about his safety.

“Enough with the fake bravado,” Mr. Jeffries said in a statement. “This is not America.”

Representative Nancy Pelosi of California on Monday chastised Mr. Trump for sitting in silence as Mr. Bukele called Mr. Abrego Garcia a “terrorist” and, using the standard abbreviation for Supreme Court of the United States, said of Mr. Abrego Garcia on X: “SCOTUS ordered his return — but instead, the Trump Administration is defying the law, disappearing people and yielding to a fellow tyrant at the expense of the victim’s family.”

In their Oval Office meeting, Mr. Trump and Mr. Bukele affirmed that they had no intention of bringing Mr. Abrego Garcia back to the United States. Mr. Trump grinned with approval as Mr. Bukele spoke on Monday.

Senator Chris Van Hollen, Democrat of Maryland, said he sent a letter to the Salvadoran ambassador to Washington, Milena Mayorga, requesting a meeting with Mr. Bukele “to discuss the illegal detention of my constituent.”

Van Hollen said he would travel to El Salvador this week if Mr. Abrego Garcia, a father of three with no criminal record, was not returned.

Representative Linda Sanchez of California said the leaders’ actions were “sickening.”

“If they can do this to him, they can do it to anyone,” Ms. Sanchez said on X.

Advertisement

SKIP ADVERTISEMENT

In Trump’s White House, the Oval Office becomes a set where policy and power unfold.

Now, here was the answer, delivered from the Oval Office by a chorus of the administration’s top officials, as well as El Salvador’s president, Nayib Bukele (who once described himself as the world’s “coolest dictator”).

There was Secretary of State Marco Rubio, squished on a couch between Vice President JD Vance and Attorney General Pam Bondi. Susie Wiles, the president’s chief of staff, crowded in behind them, along with Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and Stephen Miller, the architect of much of the administration’s domestic policy. In the middle, center stage, was President Trump, sitting in a gold armchair.

As the cameras rolled and reporters jostled, each figure jumped in to play their parts. Their lines did not always hew to the facts.

“That’s up to El Salvador if they want to return him,” Ms. Bondi said. “That’s not up to us.”

“I don’t understand what the confusion is,” Mr. Rubio said. He added, “No court in the United States has a right to conduct a foreign policy of the United States. It’s that simple, end of story.”

Mr. Miller fumed at the reporters in the room, claiming that “people like CNN” simply “want foreign terrorists in the country who kidnap women and children.”

“Of course I’m not going to do it,” Mr. Bukele said when a reporter asked if he would send back the man from Maryland. The El Salvadoran leader said that to do so would be akin to sending “a terrorist into the United States.” (Mr. Abrego Garcia has not been charged as a gang member or a terrorist, and a federal judge has said the evidence that he is part of the gang MS-13 has not been substantiated.)

Past White Houses turned to court filings or sober policy statements to argue their case when on defense. But Mr. Trump has a keen sense of how to take control of the story line — and the power of giving the public a look inside the West Wing.

The Oval Office dramalogue is now becoming a regular set piece for the president. Mr. Trump is using the increasingly gilded room as a place to flex his executive muscle while recasting the narrative around some of his most consequential foreign policies. It’s a space in which his cabinet members lavish him with praise, and where foreign leaders quickly find out where they stand. In February, it was where he and Mr. Vance confronted President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine, berating him as an ingrate for all to see.

This time, there was another young foreign leader, tieless and in a dark outfit, sitting beside Mr. Trump. But this one seemed to relish his role as guest star. Certainly, he understood how to play the part.

Mr. Bukele offered up Trumpian turns of phrase, saying he “liberated millions” in his own country. “Very good,” Mr. Trump hummed appreciatively. “Who gave him that line? Do you think I can use it?” Both men laughed chummily.

“What you’re doing with the border is remarkable,” Mr. Bukele said, adding, “Why are those numbers not in the media?” That prompted Mr. Trump to take one of his regular swipes at the press. He paused to marvel at Mr. Bukele for even asking such a thing. “Isn’t that a great question?” Mr. Trump said. (In Mr. Bukele’s country, the press is not so free).

At 43, Mr. Bukele is close in age to Mr. Trump’s adult sons (ages 41 and 47) and his vice president (40). Mr. Trump repeatedly called him a “young man” and seemed charmed by his youthful appearance. “You sort of look like a teenager,” he observed at one point. “You look like a teenager!”

“I don’t know if that’s good or bad, Mr. President,” Mr. Bukele responded with a coy grin.

When Mr. Trump began to talk about another one of his most animating issues, transgender athletes, Mr. Bukele picked up on the topic and ran with it, throwing in the phrase “D.E.I. hires” for good measure.

Mr. Trump seemed pleased — so much so that he invited his guest to the next performance, a photo op with Ohio State football players and coaches. “By the way, we have the great championship team from Ohio coming in today,” Mr. Trump said, “if you want to stick around?”

Advertisement

SKIP ADVERTISEMENT

Greene bought stocks before Trump paused his tariffs, profiting from the market’s rally.

The report came as Democrats in Congress have demanded investigations of whether the president’s whipsawing moves on trade might have been aimed at manipulating the market and giving his allies a lucrative opportunity for insider trading.

Members of Congress are required to report their stock trades within 30 days of making them, though they only have to mark down broad ranges rather than specific dollar amounts. Ms. Greene’s April 8 and 9 trades — 21 each in the range of $1,001 to $15,000 — are some of the first among members of Congress that will be reported over the coming month as lawmakers detail their financial moves around the time the president encouraged people to buy the dip ahead of his pause on tariffs.

“THIS IS A GREAT TIME TO BUY!!!” Mr. Trump wrote on social media the morning of April 9. About four hours later, he said he was pausing most tariffs on every country except China, an announcement that resulted in massive one-day gains in stocks.

Ms. Greene, one of Mr. Trump’s most loyal allies in the House and an active stock trader, appeared to heed the advice, making an unusually large volume of stock purchases. That day, she bought stock in several companies, including Apple, which has since gone up in value by about 5 percent. She also bought stock in other technology companies, as well as energy firms such as Devon Energy Corporation and the pharmaceutical giant Merck & Company, according to her public disclosures.

The day before, she purchased stock in Palantir, whose value has since gone up 19 percent, and in Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., whose stock has since risen 21 percent. She also sold the Treasury bills as government bond yields were rising amid the tariff chaos, (Ms. Greene had previously purchased up to $500,000 in Treasuries before April 2, when Mr. Trump announced his most expansive tariffs to date.)

Ms. Greene, who is the chairwoman of the DOGE subcommittee of the House Oversight Committee, did not respond to a request for comment. When her stock trades were examined in the past, she told The Atlanta-Journal Constitution that she relies on a financial adviser to trade on her behalf and does not have input on which companies are being traded, or when.

Lawmakers in both parties have long championed legislation to ban individual stock trading by members of Congress as a way to appeal to growing populist sentiment among constituents.

The tumult in the stock market caused by Mr. Trump’s erratic moves on tariffs has led Democrats to question who is gaining financially because of it. Ms. Greene is not alone in appearing to have capitalized on the market volatility.

Representative Rob Bresnahan, a Pennsylvania Republican who has emerged as one of the most active stock traders in the freshman class despite saying during his campaign that he wanted to ban congressional stock trading, also appears to have profited from Mr. Trump’s tariffs.

Mr. Bresnahan sold up to $50,000 in Alibaba stock on March 4, the same day Mr. Trump doubled the tariff on Chinese imports to 20 percent. Alibaba is an e-commerce giant with close ties to the Chinese Communist Party. The stock price rose by about 30 percent between Mr. Bresnahan’s initial purchase and his final sale.

A spokeswoman for Mr. Bresnahan said that he relies on a financial adviser to trade stocks for him, and never knows about the trades before they happen or when they occur. The Alibaba trade, she said, was part of a larger strategic stock package. When it was reported in his disclosure, Mr. Bresnahan’s team put in guardrails so that he would not be able to trade that stock again.

While there has been no evidence of insider trading, Democrats have zeroed in on the potential for malfeasance as a way to attack Mr. Trump’s tariff moves and suggest that he and his friends are exploiting decisions that have hurt ordinary people.

Representative Hakeem Jeffries of New York, the top House Democrat, called for a ban on stock trades for members of Congress after the disclosure of Ms. Greene’s trading. “Until we get to that point,” Mr. Jeffries said on MSNBC on Monday evening, “we obviously have to continue to highlight why this is problematic.”

A group of Democrats, led by Senators Adam Schiff of California and Ruben Gallego of Arizona, demanded in a letter last week that Paul Atkins, the chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, open an investigation to determine whether Mr. Trump or any “insiders” had engaged in insider trading or other securities laws violations.

“It is unconscionable that as American families are concerned about their financial security during this economic crisis entirely manufactured by the president, insiders may have actively profited from the market volatility and potentially perpetrated financial fraud on the American public,” they wrote.

Separately, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Democrat of New York, wrote in a fund-raising appeal on Friday that “any member of Congress who purchased stocks in the last 48 hours should probably disclose that now,” after Nasdaq call volume spiked ahead of Mr. Trump’s announcement. Ms. Ocasio-Cortez has been a longtime proponent of legislation to ban stock trading for members of Congress.

Chris Cameron contributed reporting.

Advertisement

SKIP ADVERTISEMENT

Trump officials misrepresented facts and court rulings in the case of a Maryland man deported to El Salvador.

The White House also sought to portray a recent Supreme Court ruling in Mr. Abrego Garcia’s case as a victory when in fact the decision was a nuanced one. It partly found in favor of Mr. Abrego Garcia while also leaving open a loophole for the administration to avoid bringing him back from El Salvador.

The efforts by the Trump administration to misrepresent the case came as President Nayib Bukele of El Salvador announced after a meeting with Mr. Trump that his government would not return Mr. Abrego Garcia to U.S. soil.

Here are some of the ways in which the White House has twisted the facts.

A top Trump adviser said Mr. Abrego Garcia had not been mistakenly deported.

When Mr. Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran immigrant, was arrested while looking for work at a Home Depot in Maryland in 2019, a judge determined that he should not be deported to his homeland because he might face danger there. The ruling, known as a “withholding from removal” order, meant that he could stay in the United States with a measure of legal protection.

In March, however, he was suddenly pulled over by federal agents who accused him of being a member of the Salvadoran gang MS-13 and inaccurately told him that his protected status in the country had changed. Within three days, he was on a plane with other migrants to a prison in El Salvador called CECOT, which is known for its human rights violations.

After Mr. Abrego Garcia’s family sued the government seeking his return, several Trump administration officials — including the United States solicitor general — made a rare admission: The White House had made a mistake when it deported Mr. Abrego Garcia.

But on Monday, Stephen Miller, Mr. Trump’s top domestic policy adviser, abruptly changed course. He declared on Fox News that Mr. Abrego Garcia had not in fact been wrongfully deported.

“He was not mistakenly sent to El Salvador,” Mr. Miller said, adding, “This was the right person sent to the right place.”

The sudden turnabout was remarkable not only because Mr. Miller, who is not a lawyer, contradicted previous assertions by some within the administration, but also because he appeared to go against the findings of the Supreme Court. In their recent ruling in Mr. Abrego Garcia’s case, the justices immediately stated that the government itself had taken the position that “the removal to El Salvador was the result of an ‘administrative error.’”

That view had already been advanced in court papers by a top official at U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and by D. John Sauer, Mr. Trump’s newly appointed solicitor general. It was also offered during a court hearing this month by Erez Reuveni, a Justice Department lawyer who was handling the case — that is, until he was fired this weekend, according to a person familiar with the matter.

Mr. Miller blamed a Justice Department lawyer for admitting the deportation was wrong.

In one of the more remarkable moments in his appearance on Fox News, Mr. Miller blamed Mr. Reuveni — and only Mr. Reuveni — for having planted the idea that Mr. Abrego Garcia’s deportation had been in error.

“A D.O.J. lawyer who has since been relieved of duty, a saboteur, a Democrat, put into a filing, incorrectly, that this was a mistaken removal,” Mr. Miller said.

That assertion, however, flew in the face of the fact that other Trump officials had said the exact same thing.

One of them was Mr. Sauer, a top-ranking Justice Department official. Another was Robert Cerna, the acting field office director for enforcement and removal operations at ICE.

Early in the case, Mr. Cerna submitted a sworn declaration about Mr. Abrego Garcia’s deportation, and made clear that it was a mistake.

“This removal was an error,” he said.

Moreover, just a few weeks before he was fired, Mr. Reuveni was praised as a “top-notched” prosecutor by his superiors in an email announcing a recent promotion.

The attorney general did not fully explain what the courts have said about Mr. Abrego Garcia and MS-13.

Mr. Trump and his top aides have repeatedly accused Mr. Abrego Garcia of being a member of MS-13. They have also said at times that he is a terrorist — but only because the administration recently designated MS-13 as a terrorist organization.

In the Oval Office on Monday, Attorney General Pam Bondi said that two courts — an immigration court and an appellate court — had “ruled” that Mr. Abrego Garcia was a member of MS-13. But Ms. Bondi’s statement was a bit misleading.

To be clear, Mr. Abrego Garcia has never been charged with — let alone convicted of — being a member of the gang. But during his deportation proceedings, some evidence was introduced that he belonged to MS-13, and judges decided it was enough to keep him in custody while the matter was resolved.

But other judges have found the same evidence to be lacking.

When Judge Paula Xinis, who has been overseeing the efforts to bring Mr. Abrego Garcia back to the United States, considered the accusations that he was a gang member, she decided they were less than persuasive.

“The ‘evidence’ against Abrego Garcia consisted of nothing more than his Chicago Bulls hat and hoodie, and a vague, uncorroborated allegation from a confidential informant claiming he belonged to MS-13’s ‘Western’ clique in New York — a place he has never lived,” Judge Xinis wrote in an order last week.

In its daily update to Judge Xinis outlining what steps it has taken to return Mr. Abrego Garcia to the United States, the Justice Department, submitting its filing more than an hour late, echoed many of the recalcitrant remarks that administration officials made in the Oval Office. It included the assertion that in 2019, a judge had determined that Mr. Abrego Garcia was a member of MS-13.

Mr. Miller portrayed the Supreme Court’s ruling as a clear victory for the administration.

When the Supreme Court handed down its ruling in Mr. Abrego Garcia’s case last week, its findings were complicated and rather ambiguous.

The justices endorsed Judge Xinis’s previous order that required the administration to “facilitate” the return of Mr. Abrego Garcia. But they stopped short of actually ordering his return, indicating that even federal courts may not have the authority to require the executive branch to do so.

And yet Mr. Miller, in his appearance on Fox News and in the Oval Office, portrayed the ruling as an unmitigated victory for the Trump administration.

He said, for instance, that the Supreme Court’s instructions that the White House had to “facilitate” getting Mr. Abrego Garcia out of custody meant that Trump officials could assume an entirely passive stance toward his release.

“If El Salvador voluntarily sends him back,” Mr. Miller said on Fox News, “we wouldn’t block him at the airport.”

But whether that position flies with Judge Xinis remains to be seen. She has scheduled a hearing to discuss what the government should do for Tuesday in Federal District Court in Maryland.

Mr. Miller also seized upon a small portion of the justices’ ruling that directed Judge Xinis to take the first crack at telling the White House what to do. The justices cautioned Judge Xinis that as she considered that issue, her ultimate decision needed to be made “with due regard for the deference owed to the executive branch in the conduct of foreign affairs.”

The Justice Department used that line in a court filing on Sunday to suggest that the courts were powerless to dictate how the White House should act because the president alone has broad powers to handle foreign policy.

“The federal courts have no authority to direct the executive branch to conduct foreign relations in a particular way, or engage with a foreign sovereign in a given manner,” lawyers for the department wrote. “That is the ‘exclusive power of the president as the sole organ of the federal government in the field of international relations.’”

Glenn Thrush contributed reporting.

Advertisement

SKIP ADVERTISEMENT

Advertisement

SKIP ADVERTISEMENT

Advertisement

SKIP ADVERTISEMENT

Republicans Ponder the Unthinkable: Taxing the Rich

The idea is one of many tax changes Republicans are floating. Lawmakers and lobbyists expect the party’s anti-tax antibodies to kick in and eventually block it. But even the possibility of raising taxes on high-income Americans has stirred a debate among Republicans about the party’s relationship with the richest Americans as its base of support increasingly comes from the working class.

“You’ve got these two conflicting streams of thought within the Republican Party,” said Dave Kautter, a Treasury official under the first Trump administration. “There’s ‘Let’s raise the rate so we can provide relief for lower- and middle-income people who are now part of our coalition,’ versus the traditional few that say, ‘The top rate should be as low as we can get it.’”

At issue is the marginal tax rate for Americans in the highest income bracket, a group that is largely made up of the top 1 percent of earners. Under the income tax system, Americans pay a higher rate for every dollar they make above increasing thresholds.

In their last major tax cut, in 2017, Republicans lowered marginal tax rates across income levels, including the top rate, which dropped to 37 percent from 39.6 percent. Like many of the other tax cuts Republicans passed that year, the 37 percent rate is set to expire at the end of the year if Congress does not pass another law renewing it.

For Republicans struggling with the roughly $4 trillion cost of continuing the 2017 cuts, letting the top rate snap back to 39.6 percent would be an easy way to reduce the cost of the bill. Not only would such a move save roughly $366 billion, according to the Tax Policy Center, a think tank in Washington, it could also help inoculate Republicans against attacks from Democrats accusing them of seeking to cut taxes for the rich at the expense of programs that help the poor.

So could creating another income bracket. Right now, the 37 percent rate kicks in on earnings above $609,351 for a single American. Another option would create a new income threshold, say $1 million per year, and tax earnings above that level at a higher rate.

Republicans on Capitol Hill and in the administration described the ideas as part of the early brainstorming process for their tax bill. Democrats have tried and failed to make similar moves, and without a clear champion the ideas could fizzle out. Some Republicans quickly promised to try and kill any tax increases, and leadership was circumspect.

“Generally, we’re trying to reduce taxes around here, so that’s a general principle; we’ll have to see,” House Speaker Mike Johnson, Republican of Louisiana, said when asked about the possibility of raising taxes on rich Americans.

At the same time, Republicans face deep internal pressure to not blow out the deficit with the bill they are planning, pushing the party to consider ideas it would usually avoid.

“We’ve got this incredible national debt, and so at some point you’ve got to address the elephant in the room,” Senator Bill Cassidy, Republican of Louisiana, said on raising the top rate. “Can’t tell you if it’s going to happen or not.”

After months of scrimmaging, the House and Senate in recent weeks approved a resolution outlining the contours of the legislation. Agreeing to the budget outline was the first step along a fast-track procedure, called reconciliation, for passing a bill without Democratic support in the Senate. Some Republicans only reluctantly agreed to vote for the budget blueprint and demanded that the final bill show more fiscal discipline.

Even if Republicans raised taxes on rich Americans, much of the legislation would still be dedicated to cutting taxes. Beyond continuing the 2017 tax cuts, Republicans are trying to figure out how to turn into law President Trump’s promises to not tax tips, overtime pay or Social Security benefits. And lawmakers have additional demands, some of which would provide tax breaks that help the rich, including lifting the $10,000 cap on the state and local tax deduction and eliminating the estate tax.

Those proposals are expensive, so lawmakers are studying ways to raise other taxes and craft a bill that falls within the budget they agreed to. (House Republicans have given themselves a $4.5 trillion budget for tax cuts, while Senate Republicans have an allowance of roughly $5.3 trillion.)

But other ideas for raising revenue also have problems. Some Republicans whose states have benefited from clean-energy incentives have said they would oppose the total repeal of the tax credits, for example. There’s also concern about limiting how much companies can deduct in state and local taxes, another idea for raising taxes that has gained some ground. Mr. Trump’s pitch to eliminate carried interest, a loophole that hedge fund and private equity managers have enjoyed, would have to overcome fierce industry resistance, which has killed other recent attempts to narrow the tax break.

Even Republicans who say they could support raising the top individual income rate worry about how doing so could affect business owners. Many businesses pass their profits directly onto owners, who then owe individual income taxes on the earnings. In 2017, Republicans created a deduction for the owners of these businesses, often called pass-throughs, and industry groups are now furiously lobbying to protect the lower rates.

“I think as long as we can tailor it to where small businesses are not swept into it, I’m open to it,” Senator Thom Tillis, a Republican from North Carolina, said of raising the top individual rate.

Other Republicans believe raising the top rate could help the party reorient its economic agenda. Senator Josh Hawley, Republican of Missouri, who has opposed cuts to the safety-net in the bill, said he recently spoke with Mr. Trump about the need to create tax breaks for low- and working-class Americans who did not owe much in income tax. Mr. Hawley is open to raising taxes on the rich to pay for a tax break for lower-income Americans.

“I think we need to cut taxes for working folks, so if the president wants to offset that, then I’m definitely open to it,” Mr. Hawley said. “I would go so far as to argue that’s the core of his base. So we need to do something for those folks.”

Advertisement

SKIP ADVERTISEMENT

Trump moved to put new tariffs on computer chips and drugs.

The investigations will also cover the machinery used to make semiconductors, products that contain chips and pharmaceutical ingredients.

In a statement confirming the move, Kush Desai, a White House spokesman, said the president “has long been clear about the importance of reshoring manufacturing that is critical to our country’s national and economic security.”

The new semiconductor and pharmaceutical tariffs would be issued under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, which allows the president to impose tariffs to protect U.S. national security.

Earlier in the day, Mr. Trump hinted that he would soon impose new tariffs on semiconductors and pharmaceuticals, as he looked to shore up more domestic production.

“The higher the tariff, the faster they come in,” Mr. Trump told reporters at a White House appearance, citing import taxes he has imposed on steel, aluminum and cars.

Semiconductors are used to power electronics, cars, toys and other goods. The United States is heavily dependent on chips imported from Taiwan and elsewhere in Asia, a reliance that Democrats and Republicans alike have described as a major risk to national security.

As for pharmaceuticals, Mr. Trump argued that too many vital medicines were imported. “We don’t make our own drugs anymore,” he said.

Some drugs are produced at least in part in the United States, though China, Ireland and India are significant sources of some types of pharmaceuticals.

Mr. Trump also signaled Monday that he could offer certain companies relief from his tariffs, as he did for electronics imports in recent days — a break from his past insistence that he would not spare entire industries.

The president said he was “looking at something to help some of the car companies, where they’re switching to parts that were made in Canada, Mexico and other places.” He added, “And they need a little bit of time because they’ve got to make them here.” Shares of General Motors, Ford Motor and Stellantis jumped after his comments.

“I’m a very flexible person. I don’t change my mind, but I’m flexible,” Mr. Trump said on Monday when asked about possible exemptions. He added that he had spoken to Apple’s chief executive, Tim Cook, and “helped” him recently.

The president has announced significant changes over the last week to his trade agenda, which has roiled markets and spooked the businesses that he is trying to persuade to invest in the United States.

Mr. Trump announced a program of global, “reciprocal” tariffs on April 2, including high levies on countries that make many electronics, like Vietnam. But after turmoil in the bond market, he paused those global tariffs for 90 days so his government could carry out trade negotiations with other countries.

Those import taxes came in addition to other tariffs Mr. Trump has put on a variety of sectors and countries, including a 10 percent tariff on all U.S. imports; a 25 percent tariff on steel, aluminum and cars; and a 25 percent tariff on many goods from Canada and Mexico. Altogether, the moves have increased U.S. tariffs to levels not seen in over a century.

Amid a spat with China, Mr. Trump raised tariffs on Chinese imports last week to an eye-watering minimum of 145 percent, before exempting smartphones, laptops, TVs and other electronics on Friday. Those goods make up about a quarter of U.S. imports from China.

The administration argued that the move was simply a “clarification,” saying those electronics would be included within the scope of the national security investigation on chips.

But industry executives and analysts have questioned whether the administration’s real motivation might have been to avoid a backlash tied to a sharp increase in prices for many consumer electronics — or to help tech companies, like Apple, that have reached out to the White House in recent days to argue that the tariffs would harm them.

Mr. Trump has already used the legal authority under Section 232 to issue tariffs on imported steel, aluminum and automobiles. The administration is also using the authority to carry out investigations into imports of lumber and copper.

The notices on Monday said the administration had begun its investigations into imports of pharmaceuticals and semiconductors on April 1. Neither the White House nor the president previously said the process had officially begun.

Kevin Hassett, the director of the White House National Economic Council, told reporters on Monday that the chip tariffs were needed for national security.

“The example I like to use is, if you have a cannon but you’re getting the cannonballs from an adversary, then if there were to be some kind of action, then you might run out of cannonballs,” he said. “And so you can put a tariff on the cannonballs.”

Mr. Trump has argued that tariffs on chips will force companies to relocate their factories to the United States.

Some tech companies have been responsive to the president’s requests to build more in the United States. Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, the world’s largest chip manufacturer, announced at the White House in March that it would spend $100 billion in the United States over the next four years to expand its production capacity.

Apple has announced that it will spend $500 billion in the United States over the next four years to expand facilities around the country.

On Monday, Nvidia, the chipmaker, announced that it would produce supercomputers for artificial intelligence made entirely in the United States. In the next four years, the company said, it will produce up to $500 billion of A.I. infrastructure in the United States in partnership with TSMC and other companies.

“The engines of the world’s A.I. infrastructure are being built in the United States for the first time,” Jensen Huang, Nvidia’s chief executive, said in a statement.

The White House blasted out the news in an announcement that credited the president.

“It’s the Trump Effect in action,” the statement said, adding, “Onshoring these industries is good for the American worker, good for the American economy and good for American national security — and the best is yet to come.”

But some critics have questioned how much tariffs will really help to bolster the U.S. industry, given that the Trump administration is also threatening to pull back on grants given to chip factories by the Biden administration. And foreign governments like China, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan all subsidize semiconductor manufacturing heavily with tools like grants and tax breaks.

Globally, 105 new chip factories, or fabs, are set to come online through 2028, according to data compiled by SEMI, an association of global semiconductor suppliers. Fifteen of those are planned for the United States, while the bulk are in Asia.

Mr. Trump has criticized the CHIPS Act, a $50 billion program established under the Biden administration and aimed at offering incentives for chip manufacturing in the United States. He has called the grants a waste of money and insisted that tariffs alone are enough to encourage domestic chip production.

Jimmy Goodrich, a senior adviser to the RAND Corporation for technology analysis, said tariffs could be effective “if used smartly, as part of a broader strategy to revitalize American chip making that includes domestic manufacturing and chip purchase preferential tax credits, along with clever ways to limit the coming tsunami of Chinese chip oversupply.”

“However,” he added, “the United States on its own only accounts for about a quarter of all global demand for goods with chips in them, so working with allied nations is critical.”

Administration officials have suggested that chip tariffs could be applied to semiconductors that come into the United States within other devices. Most chips are not directly imported — rather, they are assembled into electronics, toys and auto parts in Asia or Mexico before being shipped into the United States.

The United States has no system to apply tariffs to chips encased within other products, but the Office of the United States Trade Representative began looking into this question during the Biden administration. Chip industry executives say such a system would be difficult to establish, but possible.

Rebecca Robbins contributed reporting from Seattle.

Advertisement

SKIP ADVERTISEMENT

Lawyers for Venezuelan immigrants mount a challenge in Colorado over the Alien Enemies Act.

Lawyers for the A.C.L.U. brought the suit on behalf of two men — known in court papers only by the their initials, D.B.U. and R.M.M. The men claim they have been wrongly accused by the administration of being members of the Venezuelan gang, Tren de Aragua.

In a later filing, the A.C.L.U. appeared to suggest that the administration might be preparing to deport additional migrants in Colorado, also accused of being affiliated with Tren de Aragua.

Court papers say that D.B.U., 32, was arrested on Jan. 26 at a gathering that federal drug and immigration agents have repeatedly described as a Tren de Aragua party. After his arrest, the papers say, he denied being a member of the gang and has not been charged with any crime.

Federal agents arrested R.M.M., 25, last month after they saw him standing with three other Hispanic men near their vehicles outside a residence in Colorado that was under surveillance as part of an investigation into Tren de Aragua, court papers said.

R.M.M. has claimed that he had nothing to do with the gang and had gone to the location with friends “to meet a prospective buyer for his vehicle at a public meeting,” the papers said.

Mr. Trump’s efforts to use the Alien Enemies Act to deport scores of Venezuelan immigrants have set off one of the most contentious legal battles of his second term. It began last month, after the president invoked the act, which has been used only three times since it was passed in 1798, to authorize the deportation of people he claimed were members of Tren de Aragua.

The A.C.L.U. immediately began fighting Mr. Trump’s use of the act, which the administration has already employed to deport more than 100 Venezuelan immigrants to the CECOT megaprison in El Salvador, known for its human rights violations.

The initial challenge by the A.C.L.U. was brought in Washington, where a federal judge, James E. Boasberg, issued an order to temporarily stop the deportation flights to El Salvador. Judge Boasberg expressed concern that the immigrants who fell subject to Mr. Trump’s proclamation had no way to contest whether they were gang members in the first place.

A federal appeals court in Washington subsequently agreed with him, finding that, at this early stage, it appeared unlikely that the Alien Enemies Act could be applied as Mr. Trump was trying to use it.

Then last week, the Supreme Court weighed in, ruling that immigrants subject to deportation under the act needed to be given notice before being removed from the country so that they could challenge the process in court. But those challenges, the justices said, were required to be made in the places where the immigrants were being held.

That prompted the A.C.L.U. to scramble to locate any Venezuelans who might be subject to Mr. Trump’s proclamation. They have so far located immigrants in Texas, New York and Colorado and the lawsuits filed on their behalf were temporary measures meant to keep them in the country until the underlying legal questions involving the administration’s use of the Alien Enemies Act were resolved.