标签： North America

Just two weeks after it was first unveiled, a controversial $1.8 billion taxpayer-funded plan backed by former and current President Donald Trump to compensate his political allies has been formally scrapped by the U.S. Department of Justice, collapsing under overwhelming bipartisan pushback that included open revolt from members of Trump’s own Republican Party.

The proposal, labeled the “anti-weaponisation” fund, emerged from a legal settlement that ended a lawsuit Trump had brought against the Internal Revenue Service. The initiative framed its payouts as compensation for Americans the Trump administration deemed wrongfully targeted by the prior Biden administration, and included a controversial provision that permanently blocked new tax audits of Trump, his family members, and his business entities. While the White House maintained the fund was open to applicants from all political parties, administration officials repeatedly refused to rule out extending payouts to rioters who participated in the January 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol, triggering immediate outrage from lawmakers on both sides of the aisle.

The swift rejection of the plan from congressional Republicans marked one of the most high-profile examples of growing intraparty pushback against Trump in his second term, showing that the president does not hold unchallenged control over his own party even after returning to the White House. Lawmakers across the GOP warned that the proposal represented an unforced political error at a moment when Trump and the party were already grappling with major headwinds: an unpopular ongoing military conflict in Iran, soaring domestic gasoline prices, and Trump’s persistently low approval ratings that threaten to undermine Republican prospects in the upcoming midterm elections.

“This was a total self-inflicted wound and completely unnecessary,” a senior anonymous former Trump adviser told reporters, adding that the controversy highlighted “the president’s myopic view sometimes — he’s going to do what he wants to do regardless of whether it hurts Republicans.”

Intra-GOP criticism boiled over days after the plan was announced, during a tense closed-door May 21 meeting between Senate Republicans and Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, who has served as the public face of the fund initiative. Texas Republican Senator Ted Cruz described the meeting on his podcast, noting “multiple senators yelling at the attorney general, saying this feels like self-dealing.”

To escalate their pressure, congressional Republicans halted progress on a critical, long-delayed immigration spending bill that would fund U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection, two agencies central to Trump’s immigration policy agenda. Bipartisan opposition further mounted as Senate Majority Leader John Thune publicly urged the White House to abandon the plan, and Democrats pledged to block the immigration bill indefinitely until the fund was scrapped. Multiple advocacy groups also filed federal lawsuits to block the initiative, and a federal judge issued an order last Friday forcing the DOJ to suspend the fund pending legal review.

On Monday, the Department of Justice announced a temporary suspension of the program, citing the court order. But critics including many Republicans demanded a full, permanent cancellation. On Tuesday, Blanche formally confirmed to House lawmakers that “we’re not moving forward with the fund,” bringing the short-lived initiative to a close. Even so, the controversy is far from over: Blanche declined to commit to a formal written end to the plan, leading many critics to argue the door remains open for the Trump administration to revive the proposal at a later date. Legal challenges from advocacy groups will also move forward, even after the administration’s announcement.

“Litigation provides a safeguard to make sure” Trump cannot resurrect the scheme, explained Norm Eisen, co-founder of the Democracy Defenders Fund, which is one of the plaintiffs in the ongoing legal action against the administration. Senate Democrats have already announced plans to pass a permanent legislative ban on the program, framing the fund as a corrupt “MAGA slush fund” that enables tax fraud by the president and his allies. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer argued that the administration’s verbal commitment to end the plan is not enough, saying “Blanche and Trump’s words are worthless. The only way to stop Trump’s nearly $2 billion MAGA slush fund and his blank check to commit tax fraud is to abolish it by law – permanently.” The issue is already set to become a central campaign talking point for Democrats ahead of the fall midterm elections, as the party looks to flip control of Congress from Republican hands.

This latest controversy follows a string of recent breaks between Trump and congressional Republicans in his second term. Last month, multiple Senate Republicans joined Democrats to pass a war powers resolution aimed at limiting the duration of the Iran conflict. Last year, Republicans also joined Democrats to force the DOJ to release sealed documents related to the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, after months of pressure that ultimately forced Trump to concede to the release.

In a renewed push for hardline trade policy after a major judicial setback earlier this year, the Trump administration has rolled out a new round of import tariffs ranging from 10% to 12.5% on dozens of U.S. trading partners, framing the move as a response to alleged failures by these nations to crack down on forced labor in global supply chains.

This announcement marks the second major tariff action from the White House since the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a large portion of Trump’s previous import duties in February. In that earlier ruling, the court invalidated the controversial “Liberation Day” tariffs that Trump imposed on a wide swath of countries across the globe in April 2025. Trump publicly denounced the ruling at the time, calling it “terrible” and labeling the justices who rejected his trade policy “fools”. Immediately following the Supreme Court decision, the administration implemented a temporary 10% global tariff, after floating a potential 15% rate that never took effect. That temporary measure is set to expire in July unless Congress votes to extend it.

The 60 trading partners targeted in the new tariffs read like a who’s who of major global economies, including the United Kingdom, the European Union, Canada, and Japan. Combined, these nations account for a staggering 99.4% of all goods imported into the United States, meaning the new duties will touch nearly every segment of U.S. cross-border trade. The new tariffs stem from a broad investigation the U.S. Trade Department launched back in March, which examined the forced labor enforcement frameworks of all 60 trading partners. After concluding the probe, the agency announced Tuesday that every nation under review had “failed both to impose a legal prohibition on the importation of goods produced wholly or in part with forced labor (forced labor goods) and to effectively enforce such a prohibition”.

U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer defended the policy, arguing that allowing unregulated trade with nations that do not police forced labor creates an unfair system for American workers. “It creates a dynamic where American workers are forced to compete globally on an unlevel playing field”, Greer said. The U.S. government’s formal position holds that engaging in trade with countries that permit goods made with forced labor constitutes unfair competition for the United States. Still, the policy has drawn sharp criticism from trade analysts and political opponents, who warn that Trump’s broad-based tariff strategy has already driven up consumer prices in the United States and caused economic disruptions in global markets, with new duties set to exacerbate these upward pressures on costs.

One day after Super Tuesday primary voting across multiple U.S. states, political observers are still waiting for final results in two high-profile California contests, with Democratic incumbent Karen Bass the first to lock in her spot on the November general election ballot for Los Angeles mayor. According to projections from CBS News, the BBC’s U.S. election partner, Bass has advanced out of California’s nonpartisan “jungle primary” system, which advances the top two vote-getters regardless of party affiliation. Her November opponent remains undecided as counting continues, with two candidates locked in a tight race for the second spot. Currently holding second place is Republican political newcomer Spencer Pratt, a reality television star who entered the race in January 2026 on the one-year anniversary of the devastating 2025 Palisades Fire that destroyed his home. Tailing Pratt by roughly 8 percentage points with nearly half of all ballots counted is left-wing Democratic city councilmember Nithya Raman. The eventual winner of November’s general election will lead the United States’ second-largest city for the next four years, and will oversee the city’s final preparations for the 2028 Summer Olympic Games while tackling long-running crises of unhoused populations and a lack of affordable housing. If Bass wins in November, it will mark her second and final four-year term as mayor, capping a decades-long career in Los Angeles politics and community organizing. Before her first mayoral term, Bass represented Los Angeles in the U.S. House of Representatives for six terms, chaired the Congressional Black Caucus, and served as a prominent member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. She was even widely discussed as a potential vice presidential running mate for Joe Biden during his 2020 presidential campaign. Bass’s first term has been defined largely by her efforts to address LA’s homelessness crisis and respond to federal immigration enforcement actions, but her tenure faced significant backlash following the January 2025 Palisades Fire. The blaze killed 12 people, destroyed thousands of homes across Southern California, and stands as one of the most destructive wildfires in state history – and Bass’s administration drew widespread criticism for its slow emergency response. That criticism has become the core of Pratt’s underdog campaign. The 42-year-old political outsider, who holds a degree in political science but has never held public office, first rose to fame in 2007 as a cast member on MTV’s hit reality series *The Hills*, where he became known for his dramatic, abrasive on-screen persona. Today, he campaigns on a platform of “fixing broken Los Angeles,” framing the city as unsafe and unkempt, and pushing for mandatory drug treatment programs as a solution to homelessness. For Raman, her entry into the mayoral race came as a surprise to many political observers: the 44-year-old urban planner and first-term city councilmember endorsed Bass shortly before reversing course and entering the race just ahead of the candidate filing deadline. A member of the Democratic Socialists of America, Raman has drawn comparisons to New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani for her progressive politics. Her campaign centers on expanding access to affordable housing, accelerating progress on reducing homelessness, and revitalizing job growth in Hollywood’s entertainment sector, arguing that Bass has failed to deliver meaningful change on the city’s most pressing issues. Bass has already secured enough support to move on to November under LA’s primary rules: a candidate wins the contest outright only if they earn more than 50% of the primary vote, a threshold no candidate is on track to hit this cycle, meaning the top two will advance to the general election. Tuesday’s LA mayoral primary was just one of dozens of contests held across California, Iowa, New Jersey, and New Mexico that day, all part of the 2026 national midterm election cycle that will determine control of Congress and dozens of state and local offices across the country. In the other high-profile California contest, the race for governor, vote counting is also ongoing, with the contest already making history as the most expensive gubernatorial race in U.S. history. No clear front-runner has emerged through the primary, with three leading candidates locked in a tight race to advance to November. California has been led by Democratic governors since 2011, but the state’s high cost of living and ongoing homelessness crisis have created a competitive 2026 cycle. The leading contenders include Steve Hilton, a British-American conservative commentator and former policy adviser to ex-British Prime Minister David Cameron who played a key role in shaping Conservative strategy during the Brexit process. Endorsed by former President Donald Trump, Hilton campaigns on a platform of “disrupting the status quo” in Sacramento, promising to address the homelessness crisis, roll back California’s decades-long sanctuary state immigration policies, and increase cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. He is also known for his casual California-inspired style, often appearing barefoot and without a tie at campaign events. Close behind Hilton is Xavier Becerra, a longtime California politician and former U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services during the Biden administration. Becerra has centered his campaign on his decades of governing experience at both the state and federal level, promising to push back against any policy changes pushed by Trump and his allies, and to freeze rising insurance and utility rates for cash-strapped California residents. The third leading contender is billionaire progressive activist Tom Steyer, who is campaigning on a platform of sweeping progressive policy change, including implementing a single-payer universal healthcare system in California and closing tax loopholes to force the state’s highest earners to pay a greater share of taxes. The race comes as California holds the highest cost of living in the United States, leaving many low- and middle-income residents struggling to cover basic housing, food, and utility costs, a reality that has shaped policy debates across all 2026 contests in the state.