Donald Trump has called tariffs the “most beautiful word” in the dictionary. He’s said they will make Americans “rich” and restructure the economy for the better. Standing in the Rose Garden on Wednesday, with political and business leaders around the world watching closely, Trump bet his faith in tariffs against the hard reality of economics as he launched what is expected to be one of the single largest increases in U.S. trade barriers in a century. Trump announced he was signing an executive order “instituting reciprocal tariffs on countries throughout the world. Reciprocal—that means they do it to us and we do it to them.” In practice, the White House said that will translate into a new 10 percent tariff on all imported goods, and additional import taxes on 60 other countries. Those additional tariffs vary and were determined by looking at the rules in those countries around U.S. exports, according to the White House. Trump’s new tariff regime will be on top of various tariffs the U.S. already has in place, and ones Trump had already set in motion targeting imports of cars, steel and aluminum. The reciprocal tariffs would go into effect Thursday, he said. Speaking to staff, cabinet secretaries and reporters gathered outside the West Wing, Trump gave a rambling and sometimes contradictory explanation of his tariff plan. He said that his administration would calculate what a country charges the U.S. imports through tariffs, “non-monetary barriers and other forms of cheating” and would charge the country half of that in a flat rate. The new tariffs were not a “full reciprocal,” he said. “I would like to have done that.” Reading from a large chart, he said goods coming from China, for example, would be charged a duty of 34%, goods from the European Union would carry a 20% tariff, Vietnam would have 35% and Taiwan 32%. An eight-page chart handed out to reporters in the Rose Garden listed 60 countries as being charged rates above the baseline of 10%. Trump had previously announced a separate 25% tariff on all auto imports that is slated to kick in on April 3. He’s imposed 20% tariffs on all imports coming from China and put in place 25% duties on steel and aluminum. He had previously delayed 25% tariffs on goods from Mexico and Canada over his accusation that those countries weren’t doing enough to stop fentanyl from coming to the U.S. That delayed tariff kicks in Wednesday and will be stacked on top of the new sweeping tariffs Trump announced. Trump has called the day of his announcement “Liberation Day” and billed it as a moment he is remaking the American economy. He promised that income from the new tariffs would reduce taxes and pay down U.S. debt. American businesses have struggled in recent weeks to plan ahead as Trump’s tariff threats have injected so much uncertainty into their supply chains. Stock indices have dipped. Expectations of inflation have soared. Investors are rattled. Last month, JPMorgan Chase lowered its prediction for GDP growth by 0.3% because of the uncertainty around Trump’s trade policy. Leading economists say the costs of tariffs are mostly passed on to consumers. On the campaign trail last year, Trump often disputed that. More recently, he has said Americans will have to brace for some temporary economic pain in order to strengthen the U.S. economy over the longer term. But he didn’t mention that on Wednesday. Trump's announcement will test his support among Republicans in Congress—all of whom will be hearing about the fallout from their constituents. Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley expressed concerns about how the new tariffs will impact farmers in his state. As an example of the ripple effect, he pointed to potash, a fertilizer from Canada that is essential for soybean production. “If that goes up by 25% that's going to hurt the family farm already not making money,” he tells TIME.

The Trump Administration is withholding millions of dollars allocated for family planning services from more than a dozen organizations. Enacted in 1970, the federal family planning program known as Title X makes millions of dollars available to clinics that provide health care services like birth control, cancer screenings, and STI testing for people from low-income households. On March 31, Planned Parenthood—one of the largest Title X providers—said in a press release that nine of its affiliates received notices from the federal government that their Title X funding would be withheld starting April 1. According to Planned Parenthood, more than three-quarters of its affiliates receive Title X funding, and in 2023, there were more than 1.5 million visits to Planned Parenthood health centers that received Title X funding. One of the nine affiliates affected is Planned Parenthood Great Northwest, Hawai’i, Alaska, Indiana, Kentucky (PPGNHAIK), which serves those four states as well as Idaho and western Washington. Its CEO, Rebecca Gibron, estimates that, as a result of the freeze, about $3 million a year will now be withheld from five of the six states PPGNHAIK serves: Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Alaska, and Hawaii. Gibron says that over half of PPGNHAIK’s health centers across six states serve more than 40,000 patients a year through Title X. “In our states, we are a safety net provider providing affordable birth control, cancer screenings, STI testing, and treatment,” Gibron says. “These patients rely on Title X for their health care, and without this program, patients may have no access to this care at all.” Planned Parenthood Action Fund President and CEO Alexis McGill Johnson said in a press release that if people aren’t able to access this care, cancers could go undetected, access to birth control could be reduced, and sexually transmitted infections could increase. A spokesperson for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) told TIME in an email that the department is withholding Title X funds from 16 organizations “pending an evaluation of possible violations of their grant terms, including based on Federal civil rights laws and the President’s Executive Order 14218, ‘Ending Taxpayer Subsidization of Open Borders,’” which Trump signed on Feb. 19. The Executive Order declares that undocumented immigrants are prohibited “from obtaining most taxpayer-funded benefits.” “HHS is conducting this evaluation to ensure these entities are in full compliance with Federal law and applicable grant terms, and to ensure responsible stewardship of taxpayer dollars,” the spokesperson said. They did not respond to questions about the details of the “possible violations,” how much money was being withheld from the affected organizations, and which organizations were being impacted by the funding freeze. On March 25, the Wall Street Journal reported that HHS was considering freezing $27.5 million out of the more than $200 million allocated for Title X’s annual budget. Gibron calls the withholding of funds "politically motivated.” She accuses the Trump Administration of wanting to “shut down Planned Parenthood health centers to appease their anti-abortion backers,” saying that the Title X freeze is the “latest attempt” by the Administration to defund Planned Parenthood. “The fact is that Planned Parenthood health centers across the country serve millions of patients every year, regardless of their immigration status, political affiliation, race, or gender—everyone is welcome in a Planned Parenthood health center,” Gibron says. “Access to fundamental reproductive and sexual health services is health care that everyone needs.” In 2019, during the first Trump Administration, the federal government implemented a new restriction on Title X recipients, barring them from providing abortion referrals (Title X dollars don’t fund abortion services). The Guttmacher Institute, which researches and supports sexual and reproductive health and rights, found that that the restriction—often referred to as the“domestic gag rule”—combined with the COVID-19 pandemic, led to the loss of 981 health care centers from the Title X program and resulted in about 2.4 million fewer patients receiving care through the federal program in 2020 compared with 2018. The Biden Administration rescinded the domestic gag rule in 2021. Essential Access Health, which distributes Title X funds to clinics in California and Hawaii, said in a press release shared with TIME that it also received a notice that its Title X funds were being temporarily withheld while the group responds to “an inquiry regarding compliance with federal policy and practices related to civil rights and Executive Orders focused on DEI activities within 10 days.” The day he took office, Trump signed an Executive Order aimed at dismantling diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts. “This unprecedented, arbitrary, and immediate pause in distribution of critical resources is harmful to patients and providers,” Essential Access Health said in a press release shared with TIME. “Any funding delay is detrimental, and an extended delay would devastate our family planning safety net.” On April 3, 162 House Democrats signed and sent a letter to HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., urging the department to restore the Title X funds that were being withheld. The letter, shared exclusively with TIME, called Title X “a cornerstone of safety-net care” and said that “freezing funds for this essential program will harm communities that otherwise may not have access to care.” “We hope your agency will not be so reckless as to upend nearly half a century of bipartisan achievement and place Title X on the [Department of Government Efficiency] chopping block without hearing firsthand the consequences of that action,” the letter said. HHS did not immediately respond to a request for comment about the letter on April 3. Reproductive rights experts have condemned the Trump Administration’s move to freeze Title X funds. Amy Friedrich-Karnik, director of federal policy at the Guttmacher Institute, says she wasn’t shocked by the move, but that it is “absolutely devastating.” According to Friedrich-Karnik, early estimates from Guttmacher Institute experts indicate that between 600,000 and 1.25 million people could be impacted by this funding freeze annually, based on the most recently available data on Title X from 2023. “The impact of that program on people’s access to needed reproductive health care services is so clear—how people have benefitted from that access and how it is a program that fills a very important gap for folks who can’t get health care elsewhere," Friedrich-Karnik says. “Not only are reproductive health care services like contraception, STI testing, cancer screenings at risk, [but] for many people, this is their only touchpoint with the health care system at all.” According to data from the HHS Office of Population Affairs, about 83% of patients who received care from clinics that received Title X funding in 2023 had family incomes at or below 250% of the federal poverty level. Friedrich-Karnik says data also shows that people of color are disproportionately likely to access Title X services. She calls the freeze “a direct attack on health equity,” adding that Title X was established “to ensure that historically underserved communities were able to access health care and reproductive health care,” and the Trump Administration’s actions are penalizing Title X recipients “for doing exactly what the program is set up to do.” Friedrich-Karnik says that the freeze is “definitely an attack” on people from low-income households, “who already have the most barriers to accessing health care services.”

More than 150 House Democrats signed a letter sent to U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on April 3, calling for the department to undo the freeze on millions of dollars allocated for family planning services. The letter, shared exclusively with TIME, comes after HHS confirmed this week that it is withholding Title X funds from 16 organizations “pending an evaluation of possible violations” of federal civil rights laws and President Donald Trump’s Executive Order declaring that undocumented immigrants are barred “from obtaining most taxpayer-funded benefits.” Title X is the nation’s only federally funded program dedicated solely to family planning, and each year allocates millions of dollars for clinics that provide birth control, cancer screenings, STI testing, and other health care services for people from low-income households. HHS did not respond to TIME’s questions earlier this week about the details of the “possible violations,” how much money was being withheld from the affected organizations, and which organizations were being hit by the funding freeze. It also did not respond to a further request for comment today, April 3. More than $200 million is allocated for Title X annually. On March 25, the Wall Street Journal reported that HHS was considering freezing $27.5 million of those Title X funds. One of the largest Title X providers, Planned Parenthood, said on March 31 that nine of its affiliates were informed by the federal government that their Title X funding was being withheld as of April 1. The letter sent to Kennedy on April 3 was an effort led by seven House Democrats: Rep. Judy Chu, California; Rep. Diana DeGette, Colorado; Rep. Ayanna Pressley, Massachusetts; Rep. Teresa Leger Fernández, New Mexico; Rep. Lizzie Fletcher, Texas; Rep. Sharice Davids, Kansas; and Rep. Nikema Williams, Georgia. The 162 House Democrats who signed it said in the letter that Title X has been “a cornerstone of safety-net care” for decades. “Championed by then-Congressman George H.W. Bush and signed into law by President Nixon, Title X allows a diverse network of providers to deliver high-quality care to low-income, uninsured, or underinsured individuals confidentially,” the letter said. “These centers offer care to populations that often face severe structural and systemic barriers to accessing quality health care, including individuals with no or insufficient insurance and rural and underserved communities. Freezing funds for this essential program will harm communities that otherwise may not have access to care.” According to the letter, Title X-funded clinics provided services to 2.8 million people in 2023. In 2016, 60% of the women who received birth control from a clinic participating in the Title X program revealed that that was their only source of health care the year before, according to the letter. The letter also cited a report from the Guttmacher Institute, which researches and supports sexual and reproductive health and rights, that found that every dollar spent on Title X services saves $7 in Medicaid-related expenses. Reproductive rights experts have called the freeze “absolutely devastating,” saying that Title X allows many people to access critical health care services they may not otherwise be able to afford. Experts at the Guttmacher Institute estimated that between 600,000 and 1.25 million people could be affected by the freeze annually. In the letter, the signatories also said they were “outraged that reports suggest that this funding is being frozen because of claims that it might support ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion.’” Essential Access Health, which distributes Title X funds to health care centers in California and Hawaii, said in a press release on April 1 that it was informed that its Title X funds were being temporarily withheld pending “an inquiry regarding compliance with federal policy and practices related to civil rights and Executive Orders focused on DEI activities.” Trump signed an Executive Order on his first day in office that was aimed at dismantling DEI initiatives. “This is another way of saying that this program is used to help people of color access care,” the letter said. “Nearly half of the people served each year by Title X are people of color, the vast majority are people with low-incomes and most Title X users are women. A federal program's ability to provide care to people from historically marginalized and underserved communities does not make it wrong or illegal. To suggest otherwise implies that HHS would determine who is worthy of taxpayer dollars based on the color of their skin.” House Democrats who signed the letter urged Kennedy to restore all the Title X funding to the affected organizations, requesting a “prompt reply to coordinate a meeting on this matter” and offering to introduce Kennedy to providers, community leaders, and patients who can speak to the importance of the federal program. “We hope your agency will not be so reckless as to upend nearly half a century of bipartisan achievement and place Title X on the [Department of Government Efficiency] chopping block without hearing firsthand the consequences of that action,” the letter said.

Mallory McMorrow has been considered an up-and-comer in the Democratic Party since 2022, when she went viral after a speech responding to Republican attacks that she was a "groomer" for supporting trans kids. On April 2, the Michigan state senator announced she is launching a campaign for the U.S. Senate seat that will be vacated by the retiring Democratic incumbent Gary Peters. "We need new leaders," McMorrow, 38, says in a video announcing her candidacy. "Because the same people in D.C. who got us into this mess are not going to be the ones to get us out of it." TIME spoke to McMorrow earlier in March, as she was contemplating a Senate run, about her party's messaging mistakes, the story the Democrats should be telling, and how to reclaim the American dream. This interview has been condensed and edited for clarity. So what went wrong for the Democrats, and how can they fix it? I think people just do not know what Democrats stand for and what Democrats are actually going to do for them. And I don't know if it's PTSD, I don't know if it's just struggling with how to manage this moment, but watching Democrats fall back into talking exclusively about what Donald Trump is doing and what Elon Musk is doing, it does not give the alternative vision or a reason to positively vote for Democrats. I think at this point everybody knows who Donald Trump is. We need to say who we are and what we stand for, and we haven't done that. What do you think is the positive vision? What is the reason to vote for Democrats? Democrats fight for the American dream. The idea that if you work hard, you get a good education— which should be available no matter where you are—you will be able to have a good life, afford to buy a house and raise a family, and in a place like Michigan, maybe have a place up north and go on vacation. We've just lost that universal value. We're the first generation that did worse than our parents. And I think people just are so angry with the idea that, ‘I did everything right, and I still can't afford anything, and I am never going to get to where I want to be.’ Democrats have to show that that is what we stand for, and we will fight for you, at a moment when the Republicans are just once again giving massive tax breaks to billionaires. So how specifically should Democrats do that? You have to do contrast, and that isn't just to say, ‘Donald Trump is bad.’ Something that has been really frustrating for me is watching Democratic messaging talk about things like tax cuts for billionaires as if it is just free money that falls out of the sky. We have to made it abundantly clear: these are our taxpayer dollars as Michiganders that go to Washington, and then the Republicans are turning around... and giving your money to Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg. This is reverse Robin Hood at its grossest. And what Democrats want to do—we've been doing this here in Michigan—is we expanded the earned income tax credit. We have vastly expanded childcare. We passed the first permanent funding in the state budget to expand housing units across the state. We are on the path to universal pre-K. We recognize that for a lot of people, the American dream is no longer an option, and we are fighting to make sure that you have good schools, you have enough housing, you have solid infrastructure so that you can realize the American dream again. What do you wish Democrats would stop talking about? I wish Democrats would stop talking about Donald Trump in extremes. Throughout a lot of the 2024 election, the message from Democrats was, ‘Donald Trump is a unique threat to democracy, and he is a fascist, and if you vote for him, democracy will end.’ And the perception that people took away is that that means it will end immediately. And then when you turn around and you're attending the State of the Union and maybe you're wearing a pink blazer, but you're still there, and you're treating it like somewhat normal, you are losing trust with people because you are perceived as the boy who cried wolf. The last time the Democrats had a robust internal policy debate, it was about health care during the 2020 election. What issue should be at the core of the Democrats agenda moving forward? Talking exclusively about healthcare was too in the weeds. I really focus on the American dream because it is that aspirational vision that I think people are missing. Healthcare is just one piece of it. Everybody wants to know that they can afford to go to the doctor, or if they have an emergenc they can go to the ER and not end up bankrupt. But there's a lot more to life than that. It feels like Democratic messaging is always about the bare minimum. I constantly get draft mailers in my office that say things like, ‘Democrats are fighting so you could put food on the table.’ That is the bare minimum. That is not aspirational. And I think that has left a massive vacuum where, you may not like Donald Trump or Elon Musk, but there is something aspirational to the idea that if I work hard enough, I want to be rich. And look, they're rich and successful, and maybe we should have them in charge. What's the story that Democrats should be telling? We are dealing with an Administration who for the next few years is going to be robbing from you, taking your hard-earned dollars to give it to the wealthiest. They are robbing you of your American dream. And the reason to change in the next two years, in the next four years, is to get that future back for you. Most people are tired of how chaotic and crazy everything is, and they just want it to be normal. So if you can present a very normal, very American future to people, that's really appealing. I can tell you, based on the reaction on the ground right now, regardless of party, people are anxious and angry, and that's not sustainable. I think that if you look at the results of the 2024 election and how and where Democrats lost, it wasn't just with one group of people. It was small enough numbers of people across every single demographic, across every county, across every state, you know, basically every age bracket, except black women. Which said to me that even if you are somebody who's struggling to put food on the table, your aspiration is still the same as everybody else. Your aspiration is not, 'Well, I just want to pay the bills and put food on the table.' It's, 'I want to be able to work myself out of this situation to where I have a house in a great community and my kid is going to a great school.' We spend too much time just talking about the individual policy pieces that impact the most vulnerable, when really the message is universal and the same. And Democratic messaging too often talks about people's worries. And I think it keeps people in that state of anxiety. People want to be comfortable. You came to national prominence for the floor speech you gave about defending trans kids. Now the landscape around that issue has changed a bit, and some Democrats are questioning whether putting trans equality so close to the center of their priorities has alienated people, or has been a mistake. What do you think about that? I think that that's bull---t, because Democrats did not make these issues the center of our agenda. Republicans made it the center of Democrats' agenda. Donald Trump spent millions and millions and millions of dollars on one ad: 'Kamala Harris is for they/them and Donald Trump is for you,' right? Where I think Democrats go wrong is taking the bait and falling into the trap. I think the right answer in this moment is to say, unequivocally: yes, sports should be fair, but is that an issue that a politician should be deciding? In the same way that a politician should be deciding whether or not you have reproductive rights and what you can do with your own body? No, I think that a local sports governing body is the best place to make those decisions. Where Democrats have fallen short is taking the bait and falling into the trap and debating whether or not trans people have a right to exist and instead of just saying this is not a decision for politicians in Washington. It's just not. Sports should be fair. And the ultimate decider on whether or not a sport is fair is the governing body of that sport, period. The fear that I have, and I say this very candidly as a woman who has a deeper voice, is that [this debate] is opening the door to be very dangerous for girls. That if you don't look a certain way, and if you don't sound a certain way, or you present in a way that somebody deems is not feminine enough, that they're gonna examine your genitals before you can play a sport. I'm sorry, that is terrifying and disgusting to me, and that is the path that this is going down. You know, I have a square jaw and a deep voice, and there are no shortage of people online who've posted pictures of me and they accuse me of being a man. So I'm on the receiving end of a lot of what girls would face if what Republicans are proposing became law and normalized.

The landslide sweep for the Republican party during last year’s election is set to be tested on Tuesday during a special election for Wisconsin’s Supreme Court. The race has become the most expensive judicial race in U.S. history, with investments nearing $100 million as the candidates, Donald Trump-endorsed Brad Schimel and liberal-backed Dane County Judge Susan Crawford, face each other. The winner will decide the supermajority of the court, which is currently liberal. The impact of the Wisconsin race could be felt at a national level, as the state’s Supreme Court is set to rule on issues from abortion rights to congressional redistricting, the latter of which would impact the makeup of the U.S. House of Representatives in particular. Republicans hold a slim 218 to 213 majority, with four vacancies currently at play. Another special election in Florida—for the seats of National Security Adviser Michael Waltz, the man behind the Signal chat leak to The Atlantic Editor-in-Chief Jeffrey Goldberg, and former Rep. Matt Gaetz, who resigned in his failed pursuit of the position for attorney general—has already put Republican control at risk. Elon Musk, the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) head and CEO of X, along with groups that support him, have donated about $20 million to support Schimel, with Musk even handing out checks for $1 million to two Wisconsin voters on Sunday. “If the [Wisconsin] supreme court is able to redraw the districts, they will gerrymander the district and deprive Wisconsin of two seats on the Republican side,” Musk said on Sunday. “Then they will try to stop all the government reforms we are getting done for you, the American people.” Election day in Wisconsin is April 1st. Here’s what to know. Who are the candidates? The Wisconsin election will decide the ideological makeup of the court in a swing state that elected Trump for President in 2024, but voted for former President Joe Biden in 2020. Musk is backing Schimel, the former Attorney General for Wisconsin and a self-described “top cop,” according to his election website. He promises to be “tough on crime,” per his campaign slogan, and positions himself in opposition to the “rogue judges across the nation putting their radical agenda above the law.” He is also endorsed by Trump. Schimel’s opponent, Crawford, is a Circuit Court Judge who says she is running to “protect the basic rights and freedoms of Wisconsinites under our constitution.” A former prosecutor and private practice attorney who previously represented the Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin, Crawford says she wants to fight to protect basic rights that are under threat by a right-wing agenda. She is endorsed by four current Wisconsin Supreme Court Justices, U.S. Senator Tammy Baldwin, and organizations such as the Wisconsin Education Association Council and Emily’s List. Why does Elon Musk care so much about this race? Musk, who called the race critical for the “future of civilization” at an America PAC event on Sunday, has been a key contributor to the race. Individual campaign contributions can only amount to $20,000, but so far, Musk has donated at least $3 million to Wisconsin’s Republican Party. Other groups fueled by Musk’s dollars have contributed more than $20 million in the race. Crawford has been overtly critical of the billionaire’s actions. “Elon Musk would really like to buy himself a seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court,” she said. “He wants to put somebody there that he thinks he can have some influence over and access to.” Tesla is currently embroiled in a lawsuit regarding dealer licenses after the company’s dealer license was denied in 2024 because of a state law barring manufacturers from owning dealerships, according to Wisconsin Public Radio. The case could potentially reach the state’s Supreme Court. Is Musk really handing out $1 million checks to voters? On Sunday, Musk handed out a million-dollar check to two registered voters in the state. Musk first used this tactic during the general election, where he also gave voters a million-dollar prize if they registered to vote in swing states. Election law experts suggested then that the act was illegal because federal law forbids people from paying or accepting payments to register to vote. Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul filed a lawsuit on Friday to prevent Musk from handing out the exorbitant payments to voters, though an appellate court denied his request. Is George Soros involved in this race? Philanthropist George Soros, a well-known liberal donor who is often the subject of right-wing conspiracy theories, has given $2 million to the state’s Democratic party. Musk blamed Soros on Sunday when he was interrupted while speaking in Wisconsin, saying it was "inevitable at least a few Soros operatives would be in the audience."

Since returning to the White House, Donald Trump has chosen his words carefully when it comes to Taiwan. When a reporter pressed him on the U.S.-allied self-governing island that China claims as its own on Feb. 26, Trump refused to give a straightforward answer. “I never comment on that,” Trump said at the White House after being asked if the U.S. would ever allow China to take control of Taiwan by force. “I don't want to ever put myself in that position.” Trump’s lack of specific commitments as President isn’t a new strategy for the U.S. relationship with Taiwan, but observers say there are other clues as to how his administration may approach the issue. When asked by TIME last year if the U.S. should defend Taiwan if China invades, Trump leaned into the longstanding U.S. policy known as strategic ambiguity. “I’ve been asked this question many times and I always refuse to answer it because I don’t want to reveal my cards,” he said. “I wouldn’t want to give away any negotiating abilities by giving information like that to any reporter.” Reflecting his transactional and more insular approach to foreign policy, Trump told Bloomberg Businessweek last June that Taiwan should pay the U.S. for defense, especially after how the island “took” the U.S. semiconductor business: “You know, we’re no different than an insurance company. Taiwan doesn’t give us anything.” It’s not unlike his recent dealings with Ukraine, in which Trump has shown willingness to negotiate with Russian President Vladimir Putin and potentially try to facilitate the ceding of Ukrainian territory to avoid further fighting. Kevin Chen, associate research fellow at Nanyang Technological University’s S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies in Singapore, previously told TIME that China may be able to take Taiwan “without too much U.S. interference” if Beijing is able to strike a similar deal with Washington. Taipei is not risking it. As Trump has repeated comments about wanting more investment from Taiwan, President William Lai Ching-te said that his government “is willing to cooperate with the U.S. in every aspect” and has promised to increase its own defense spending to 3% of its GDP. Here’s what to know. The basic history of U.S.-China and U.S.-Taiwan relations After the Chinese Civil War ended in 1949, two governments laid claim to China: the People’s Republic of China (PRC) which took over the mainland, and the Republic of China (ROC) which defected to the island of Taiwan. The U.S. initially recognized the ROC, but in 1972, when then-President Richard Nixon visited the mainland, the U.S. and the PRC government issued a communique that took a step forward in normalizing relations, including on the issue of Taiwan. The PRC asserted that “Taiwan is a province of China,” and in turn, the U.S. acknowledged that the Chinese—across the mainland and Taiwan—maintain there is “one China,” and that Washington will not challenge that principle and will let the Chinese settle the dispute themselves. This has come to be known as the “one China” policy, which Washington and many other countries maintain some version of. In 1979, to further placate Beijing and improve ties, the U.S. formally switched diplomatic relations with China from the ROC to the PRC, through another joint communique. However, not wanting to abandon its relationship with Taiwan altogether, the U.S. said in the 1978 communique that it will maintain “cultural, commercial, and other unofficial relations” with the island government. In 1979, the same year the switch went into effect, Congress passed the Taiwan Relations Act, which stated that peace and stability in the region covering Taiwan and China is “in the political, security, and economic interests” of the U.S. and that the switching of diplomatic ties from Taipei to Beijing rests on expectations that “the future of Taiwan will be determined by peaceful means.” Under the law, the U.S. is expected to provide Taiwan with defense arms, but it did not explicitly say Washington would come to Taipei’s defense in the event of an attack. (The U.S. and Taiwan had a mutual defense treaty since 1955, but the U.S. unilaterally ended it in 1979.) The provision of arms to Taiwan courted the ire of the PRC, so the U.S. under President Ronald Reagan in 1982 clarified through another communique that it “does not seek to carry out a long-term policy of arms sales to Taiwan” and that it “intends to gradually reduce its sale.” The Reagan Administration knew this would in turn worry Taiwan and so, weeks before issuing the clarification, gave Taipei what is now known as “Six Assurances”: that a date to end selling arms to Taiwan has not been reached; that the U.S. did not agree to consulting the PRC prior to selling arms to Taiwan; that the U.S. will not mediate between Taipei and Beijing, that the Taiwan Relations Act will not be revised, that the U.S. position on Taiwan sovereignty has not changed, and that the U.S. will not pressure Taipei into negotiating with the PRC. The U.S. has since maintained unofficial relations with Taiwan, with the Taiwan Relations Act, the Six Assurances, and what’s come to be known as the Three Communiqués serving as the bedrock for these ties. As de facto embassies, Taiwan has the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office in D.C., with 12 other offices throughout the states and U.S. jurisdictions, while the U.S. has its counterpart office, the American Institute in Taiwan (AIT), a non-profit corporation in Taipei mandated by the Taiwan Relations Act. Ties during Trump’s first term One of the hallmarks of the first Trump Administration was a tougher stance towards China compared to his predecessors, through tit-for-tat tariffs and an Indo-Pacific strategy that aimed to curb Beijing’s growing influence in the Western Pacific. Alongside this, U.S.-Taiwan relations became more robust. In 2018, Congress passed the Taiwan Travel Act, which authorized high-ranking officials from both Taipei and Washington to visit each other, after years of not doing so to avoid upsetting China. Beijing condemned the law, saying it violates the “one China” principle and could damage U.S.-China relations, but the visits went ahead—and have continued. Taiwan’s then-President Tsai Ing-wen stopped over in New York and Denver in July 2019, meeting with U.S. lawmakers along the way. And in February 2020, then-Vice-President Lai attended the National Prayer Breakfast. Then-Health Secretary Alex Azar visited Taiwan in 2020 to tout the island’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic, to Beijing’s chagrin. (After Trump’s term, then-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi further angered Beijing by visiting in 2022.) During the first Trump administration, defense sales to Taiwan were also the highest in years: the U.S. made some $18 billion in Foreign Military Sales to Taiwan, including a major $8 billion sale of 66 fighter jets. By contrast, President Barack Obama’s eight years in office saw $14 billion in Foreign Military Sales to Taiwan (though there was another $6.2 billion in Direct Commercial Sales), while Joe Biden’s four-year presidency sold just over $8 billion. While China has also pressured other countries to abandon relations with Taiwan to diminish the island’s diplomatic profile and has condemned Taiwan’s inclusion in international forums like the World Trade Organization, the Trump Administration in 2020 enacted the Taiwan Allies International Protection and Enhancement Initiative (TAIPEI) Act, which states the U.S. should advocate for Taiwan’s membership in international organizations. Under Trump 2.0, a focus on finances—and potential dealmaking on both sides of the Taiwan Strait Russell Hsiao, executive director of the Global Taiwan Institute think tank in D.C., tells TIME that the second-term Trump Administration has so far honed in on three aspects of the U.S.-Taiwan relationship: the trade deficit, the reshoring of semiconductor manufacturing, and defense-burden sharing. “For Trump, ultimately, what he cares about [is] the balance of trade,” says Chin-Hao Huang, associate professor at the National University of Singapore’s Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy. A major source of the record-high $73.9 billion trade deficit the U.S. has with Taiwan comes from U.S. imports of semiconductors, the computer chips vital to industries like AI. Taiwan is home to the world's largest contract chipmaker, Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC), and although the Biden Administration tried to improve domestic manufacturing through policies such as the CHIPS Act, Trump has claimed that Taiwan “stole” the U.S. chip business, which Taipei has denied. Trump has since threatened a minimum of 25% tariffs on imports of computer chips. Some of Trump’s colleagues in the House have urged the abandonment of the “one China” policy to foster deeper business ties and a free trade agreement with Taiwan. Huang thinks that’s unlikely, however, because Trump generally prefers protectionist policies. “Trump's ultimate red line is he wants to see jobs come back to the United States,” says Huang. “He wants to see the semiconductor industry in the United States thrive again. So this means investment.” As for defense, while Trump has said little, the people in his orbit have offered more clues as to how the Administration may approach Taiwan. Trump’s now Vice President J.D. Vance suggested last year that the U.S. should take a more proactive role in Taiwan’s defense, telling the New York Times: “We should make it as hard as possible for China to take Taiwan in the first place.” He also previously told Fox News that the U.S. should prioritize preparedness for military conflict with China over other ongoing conflicts: “America is stretched too thin. We do not have the industrial capacity to support a war in Ukraine, a war in Israel, potentially a war in East Asia if the Chinese invade Taiwan, so America has to pick and choose,” he said. “The Chinese are focused on real power. They’re not focused on how tough people talk on TV or how strong our alleged resolve is. They’re focused on how strong we actually are, and to be strong enough to push back against the Chinese, we’ve got to focus there.” In early February, the State Department removed the phrase “we do not support Taiwan independence” from its fact sheet on Taiwan. It’s not the first time the Department has done so, removing the phrase in 2022 but reinstating it following protest from China. The State Department said it was a routine update, but Beijing protested again against the latest wording change, saying the U.S. has “gravely backpedaled” on the issue of Taiwan. “As is routine, the fact sheet was updated to inform the general public about our unofficial relationship with Taiwan,” a State Department spokesperson told NBC in a statement, adding: “The United States remains committed to its one China policy.” Secretary of State Marco Rubio said on February 20 that U.S. commitments to Taiwan are clear: “We are against any sort of compelled, forced change of status. That’s been our policy; that remains our policy.” And Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said in early February that despite the Administration’s “America First” policy, he’s keen to bolster alliances in the Indo-Pacific region, adding: “We want to send the signals to China that that area will be and continues to be contested.” During a trip to Asia in late March, Hegseth, in a joint press conference in Tokyo with his Japanese counterpart, emphasized that the U.S. remains committed to “sustaining robust, ready and credible deterrence in the Indo Pacific,” including in the Taiwan Strait. A secret Pentagon memo, obtained by the Washington Post, mentioned prioritizing deterring China’s takeover of Taiwan. In it, Hegseth reportedly wrote: “China is the Department’s sole pacing threat, and denial of a Chinese fait accompli seizure of Taiwan—while simultaneously defending the U.S. homeland is the Department’s sole pacing scenario.” China has launched multiple large-scale military drills around the island thus far in 2025, citing recent statements by the U.S. and Taiwan as provocation. State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce condemned the latest drills, saying: “In the face of China’s intimidation tactics and destabilizing behavior, the United States’ enduring commitment to our allies and partners, including Taiwan, continues.” Some in the Trump Administration, however, suggest a more cautious approach. Elbridge Colby, a known China hawk and nominee for undersecretary of defense for policy, echoed Trump in pushing Taiwan to increase its own defense spending while also advising that the U.S. “avoid unnecessarily poking Beijing on a ‘core issue’ for them.” During his confirmation hearing in early March, Colby suggested that the island government should bring its military spending up from 2.5% to 10% of its GDP. Nicholas Lardy, a non-resident senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, tells TIME he would be “very surprised” if Trump were to significantly change the status quo: “The reality is the policy of ‘one China’ and strategic ambiguity has served very very well for decades.” Lardy also notes that U.S. public opinion is strongly against China. “There’s a very widespread view that they have been unfair on trade and other issues,” he says. Data from an October 2024 survey by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs suggests Americans are generally in favor of providing Taiwan support, at least short of direct military intervention. At the same time, Steve Tsang of the School of Oriental and African Studies at the University of London says Trump has touted being against war and would not risk Chinese President Xi Jinping’s “humiliation.” “I haven’t seen any evidence that Trump cares much about Taiwan for being a shining example of a U.S.-sponsored democracy,” Tsang tells TIME. “The evidence I have seen is that Trump is first and foremost for Trump, for which he would want to maintain a working relationship with Xi, so he could do some kind of a deal that would project Trump as a winner.”

Ahusband and expectant father; a former high school valedictorian; an architect and adjunct professor of urban planning, and a former Fulbright Scholar with a passion for child education. All legally residing in the U.S. They’re also just some of the targets of Immigration and Customs Enforcement in recent weeks as part of a campaign by President Donald Trump’s Administration to detain and deport noncitizens over their pro-Palestinian campus activism. “This is the first arrest of many to come,” Trump said in a post on Truth Social, following the arrest of Palestinian graduate student Mahmoud Khalil. “If you support terrorism, including the slaughtering of innocent men, women, and children, your presence is contrary to our national and foreign policy interests, and you are not welcome here. We expect every one of America’s Colleges and Universities to comply.” At least 300 international students who are “destabilizing” college campuses have had their visas revoked, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said at a press conference on March 27. “Maybe more, it might be more than 300 at this point,” Rubio said. “At some point I hope we run out because we’ve gotten rid of all of them, but we’re looking every day for these lunatics that are tearing things up.” The effort has raised questions about free speech and the rights of legal noncitizens, and it’s prompted legal challenges and protests in support of the targeted students. CNN’s Jake Tapper said in a post on X on March 31 that, when asked about the evidence against the international students being targeted, a senior state official told him on background that “every individual who has had their visa recently revoked by this administration has displayed problematic behavior that would have made them ineligible for a visa if they would have disclosed this information during the vetting process.” The effort has raised questions about free speech and the rights of legal noncitizens, and it’s prompted legal challenges and protests in support of the targeted students. Here’s what we know about some of the students who have been targeted by ICE so far: A student at Minnesota State University, Mankato An international student at Minnesota State University, Mankato, was detained at an off-campus residence on March 28, the school’s president Edward Inch said in a campus-wide email on March 31, without naming the student. According to the school’s student newspaper, no reason was given for the student’s arrest and the university had not received any information from ICE. “Our international students play an important role in our campus and community,” the statement said. “This actions hurts what we try to accomplish as a university—supporting all learners to receive the education they desire to make the impact they want in their communities.” Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz posted on X that he is working to get more information from DHS, after another international student in Minnesota was detained on March 27. “The University of Minnesota is an international destination for education and research,” he wrote. “We have any number of students studying here with visas, and we need answers.” Rumeysa Ozturk A federal judge in Massachusetts ruled on March 28 that Turkish international student Rumeysa Ozturk can’t be deported without a court order. Ozturk, 30, was on a valid F-1 visa for her PhD studies at Tufts University in Boston when she became another high-profile target of ICE after her arrest, which witnesses caught on video, outside her home in Somerville, Mass., on the night of March 25. Ozturk was walking alone on a sidewalk, on her way back home after meeting friends for iftar, a meal to break fast at sunset during Ramadan, when a plainsclothes officer, wearing a hat and a hoodie, approached her, surveillance video obtained from a neighbor and posted on X on Wednesday shows. The officer grabbed Ozturk by the arms, causing her to yell out, before five other plainsclothes officers approached her. One officer pulled out a concealed badge and confiscated her cell phone. The officers told her, “We’re the police.” A person off camera could be heard saying, “You don’t look like it, why are you hiding your faces? How do I know this is the police?” while the officers—who wore cloth face masks—escorted Ozturk to a black SUV. The entire encounter lasted just under two minutes. Ozturk obtained a degree in psychology and Turkish language and literature from Istanbul Şehir University before coming to the U.S. in 2018 on a Fulbright Scholarship to earn a master’s in developmental and child psychology from Columbia University’s Teachers College, according to her LinkedIn. Passionate about children’s media and education, her LinkedIn says, she’s published research into the representation of refugee characters in children’s animated TV, interned at a consulting firm advising entertainment studios on children’s content and development, and taught courses on media and education to high school students. Last year, Ozturk co-authored an op-ed in Tufts’ student newspaper, The Tufts Daily, backing the Tufts Community Union Senate’s call for the university to “acknowledge the Palestinian genocide, … dislose its investments and divest from companies with direct or indirect ties to Israel.” After she was detained, Ozturk’s attorney filed a petition asking that Ozturk remain held in Massachusetts, which was granted. Nevertheless, ICE transferred her to Central Louisiana ICE Processing Center, which is notorious for unsanitary conditions, harsh punitive measures, and “a culture of abuse,” according to CNN and the ACLU. Jeff Migliozzi, communications director for advocacy group Freedom for Immigrants, told CNN that ICE detention centers are intentionally remotely located, making them “effectively black boxes.” Judge Denise Casper gave the government until April 1 to respond to an updated complaint filed by Ozturk’s attorneys. In the meantime, the government cannot deport her without a court order while her case is being heard. “No charges have been filed against Rumeysa to date that we are aware of,” Ozturk’s lawyer, Mahsa Khanbabai, told the AP. The Turkish Embassy in Washington, D.C., said in a statement on X that the embassy is monitoring Ozturk’s situation and is in touch with the State Department and ICE. Yunseo Chung ICE cannot arrest 21-year-old Yunseo Chung, a judge ruled on March 25, granting a temporary restraining order against the government after her attorneys filed a lawsuit against the Trump Administration for trying to deport her in spite of her legal status. “After the constant dread in the back of my mind over the past few weeks, this decision feels like a million pounds off of my chest. I feel like I could fly,” Chung said in a statement provided to TIME. “I’m so, so grateful to my legal team and my community of professors, students, and staff at Columbia that have given me strength at every turn.” At seven years old, Chung emigrated to the U.S. with her family from South Korea and became a lawful permanent resident, according to the lawsuit. She was valedictorian at her high school and enrolled in 2022 at Columbia University, where she was studying English and gender studies. The 21-year-old reportedly attended—but was not a leader of—a sit-in at Barnard College protesting the expulsion of students who had participated in pro-Palestinian activism on March 5, according to the lawsuit. When an apparent white supremacist bomb threat was called (later determined to be a hoax), police officers instructed protesters to exit the building. Chung was caught in the rush to exit, the lawsuit says, and was arrested, charged with obstruction of governmental administration, given a “desk appearance ticket,” and released. She was suspended from Columbia as a result of the arrest on March 7. On March 9, ICE agents searched her parents’ home in an attempt to find her, the lawsuit alleges. The agents also obtained a warrant against “harboring noncitizens” to search her Columbia dormitory. A law enforcement official told her lawyer that her permanent resident status was being revoked. A DHS spokesperson told the Columbia Spectator, Columbia’s student newspaper, that Chung “engaged in concerning conduct, including when she was arrested by NYPD during a pro-Hamas protest at Barnard College. She is being sought for removal proceedings under the immigration laws.” Chung had previously participated in, but not organized or led, protests and events at the Gaza Solidary Encampment on Columbia’s campus last spring, according to the lawsuit. She also faced disciplinary proceedings from Columbia for vandalism after putting up posters with photos of members of Columbia’s Board of Trustees with the words, “Wanted for Complicity in Genocide.” After a review, the university found Chung had not violated any policies, the lawsuit says. The complaint filed by Chung’s attorneys alleges that the administration is demonstrating a “pattern and practice of targeting individuals associated with protests for Palestinian rights for immigration enforcement” and described the government’s actions as an “unprecedented and unjustifiable assault on First Amendment and other rights…” As of March 31, the Trump Administration has not appealed the temporary restraining order. “Yunseo no longer has to fear that ICE will spirit her away to a distant prison simply because she spoke up for Palestinian human rights,” Ramzi Kassem, one of Chung’s lawyers, said in a statement to TIME. “The court’s temporary restraining order is both sensible and fair, to preserve the status quo as we litigate the serious constitutional issues at stake not just for Yunseo, but for our society as a whole.” Campus Protests Immigration Flyers in support of Badar Khan Suri at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C., on Mar. 25, 2025. Jose Luis Magana—AP Suri, who lives in Arlington, Va., was, like Ozturk, approached by masked men outside his home after an iftar gathering. Suri’s lawyer, Nermeen Arastu, told CNN that the officers were “brandishing weapons.” The agents identified themselves as members of DHS and told Suri that the government had revoked his visa, according to a lawsuit filed for his immediate release. The lawsuit alleges that the government is seeking to deport Suri under a rarely used provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act that gives the Secretary of State the authority to deport noncitizens for whom the Secretary has “reasonable ground to believe” their presence or activities in the U.S. “would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences.” “During his time on campus, I am not aware that Dr. Suri has engaged in any illegal activity, nor has he posed a threat to the security of our campus. He has been focused on completing his research,” Joel Hellman, dean of Georgetown’s School of Foreign Service, wrote in a statement on March 21. Suri has no criminal record and has not been charged with any crime, according to the lawsuit. Rather, the lawsuit alleges Suri has been targeted because his wife, a U.S. citizen, is of Palestinian heritage and because of her past “constitutionally protected free speech.” The couple has “long been doxxed and smeared,” the petition says, including being posted on an anonymously-run blacklisting website. Nader Hashemi, a professor of Middle East and Islamic politics at Georgetown, told Democracy Now! That Suri is “not a political activist. He was just a very serious young academic focusing on his teaching and his research.” Department of Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin confirmed Suri’s detention after it was first reported by Politico. In a post on X, McLaughlin called Suri a “foreign exchange student at Georgetown University actively spreading Hamas propaganda and promoting antisemitism on social media.” McLaughlin added that Suri has “close connections to a known or suspected terrorist, who is a senior advisor to Hamas.” Suri’s wife, Mapheze Saleh, was formerly employed at Qatari-based news outlet Al Jazeera, and her father served as a political adviser to the “Prime Minister of Gaza” (the late Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh, according to the New York Times) until 2010, according to a court declaration filed on March 20. A federal judge ruled on March 20 that the Trump Administration could not deport Suri while his case challenging his detention is being reviewed in court. Suri was held at the Alexandria Staging Facility in Louisiana before being transferred to the Prairieland Detention Facility in Texas, which has also faced complaints about its conditions. Suri’s arrest and detention prompted protests on March 26 by Georgetown University students and academics calling for his release. Taal participated in pro-Palestinian protests last year, causing him to be suspended twice and at risk of losing his student visa. He also faced backlash after posting on X: “colonised peoples have the right to resist by any means necessary” after the October 7, 2023, Hamas attack on Israel. In a Nov. 2023 interview with CNN, Taal said, “I can say clearly categorically I abhor the killing of all civilians no matter where they are and who does it. I love life. I don’t love death. That’s what I am as a human being. Why is it the association because I’m a Muslim and I’m a Black person, I have to condemn a proscribed terrorist organization before having an opinion on genocide?” Taal was banned from campus for the remainder of the spring 2025 semester after protesting at a career fair attended by defense contractors. Taal sought to preemptively block immigration enforcement against him by filing a lawsuit against the Trump Administration on March 15. The complaint, representing Taal and two other student activists, said the plaintiffs “fear government retaliation” for engaging in “constitutionally protected expression critical of U.S. foreign policy and supportive of Palestinian human rights.” Taal, a PhD student in Africana studies, was asked to surrender to ICE agents six days later. His attorneys, including Eric Lee, filed an emergency request blocking his detainment or deportation while the court reviews the constitutional challenge. But after a judge denied a first motion to immediately block his deportation, Taal said in a March 31 post on X that he will voluntarily leave the U.S. “Given what we have seen across the United States, I have lost faith that a favourable ruling from the courts would guarantee my personal safety and ability to express my beliefs. I have lost faith I could walk the streets without being abducted,” Taal wrote. “This is of course not the outcome I had wanted going into this, but we are facing a government that has no respect for the judiciary or for the rule of law.” Around 200 students and faculty protested on Cornell’s Ithaca campus earlier in March in support of Taal. “I wish I could be with you all in person, but the situation has got to the point where it is no longer safe,” Lee read from a statement by Taal at the start of the protest. “Momodou Taal is a test case to determine whether the government can come to your house, grab you and put you in jail for criticizing the United States government and its policies,” Lee said after a hearing on March 26. Leqaa Kordia Leqaa Kordia was arrested in Newark, New Jersey, on March 14, according to a DHS statement, which said that the West Bank Palestinian had overstayed her student visa, which was terminated in January 2022 for “lack of attendance.” Kordia was among those arrested in April 2024 for her involvement in campus protests. As of March 31, she is being held at the Prairieland Detention Center in Alvarado, Texas, according to ICE records. Mahmoud Khalil Mahmoud Khalil was arrested at his home by ICE agents on March 8, 2025, and remains in custody as of March 31 at a Louisiana detention facility. He was born in Syria to Palestinian refugees. Initially meant to study aviation engineering in Syria, he fled the country’s civil war to Beirut, Lebanon, and graduated from the Lebanese American University with a degree in computer science in 2018. He worked with several nonprofits in the Middle East, including Jusoor, a Syrian-American educational nonprofit, and the Syria Chevening Programme at the British Embassy in Beirut, which offers international scholarships to study in the U.K.—a role that former British diplomat Andrew Waller, and Khalil’s colleague at the time, said required an extensive background check. Khalil moved to the U.S. in 2022 to attend Columbia’s School of International and Public Affairs, completing his master’s degree studies in December 2024. He married an American woman—making him eligible for a green card—who is eight months pregnant with their first child. The 30-year-old was involved in several of the protests against the war in Gaza at Columbia University last spring, and he led negotiations between student protesters and university officials. Detractors say Khalil was a prominent leader of Columbia University Apartheid Divest, a student group calling for Columbia to divest from its financial ties to Israel and which has been accused of antisemitism though the group rejects the label. Last year, Khalil was suspended for one day from Columbia after police cracked down on students occupying a campus building. He told the BBC at the time that he was acting only as a protest negotiator and had not participated in the student encampment because he had been on a student visa. The university rescinded the suspension after finding they had no evidence against him. “It shows how random the suspension was,” he said at the time. “They did that randomly, and without due process.” The White House has alleged without evidence that Khalil distributed pro-Hamas materials at a protest and that he failed to disclose his work with the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA) on his green card application. The UNRWA, a U.N. agency that provides aid and relief to Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank, was banned by Israel last year for allegedly “spreading antisemitism” and having members who took part in the October 7, 2023, Hamas attack. Khalil worked as an unpaid intern with UNRWA in 2023 but was never on staff, the agency told CNN. A judge temporarily blocked the attempted deportation of Khalil on March 10, pending review of his case. Lawyers for Khalil also filed a lawsuit challenging his detention by ICE, and a New York judge ruled his case should be transferred to New Jersey instead of Louisiana, which the Trump Administration pushed for, as well as reaffirmed the previous ruling blocking his deportation. Khalil and seven other students filed a lawsuit against Columbia and the House Education and Workforce Committee on March 13 in an effort to prevent the disciplinary records of students—including around the student occupation of Hamilton Hall—from being turned over to the Republican-led committee. Ranjani Srinivasan Ranjani Srinivasan, a 37-year-old architect, came to the U.S. from Chennai, India, as a Fulbright recipient in 2016, became a PhD candidate at Columbia in 2020, and began teaching as an adjunct professor at New York University last fall. She was in the 5th year of her doctoral degree at Columbia University’s Department of Urban Planning when ICE agents knocked at her door on March 7. Srinivasan learned that her student visa had been revoked by the Department of State via an email on March 5. She sought help from Columbia’s international students office and was told she was in legal status, according to a letter published on political scientist Norman Finkelstein’s website. But when three ICE agents came to her Columbia University apartment without a warrant two days later, she became worried, according to the New York Times. Her roommate, an American citizen, refused to let the agents in. Finding little recourse through the university’s hotlines, Srinivasan left for a safer location. On March 9, ICE terminated her SEVIS status and the university de-enrolled her, according to the letter. Facing the risk of detention and deportation, Srinivasan left the U.S. for Canada. Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem posted on X airport surveillance footage showing Srinivasan at LaGuardia Airport in New York. “When you advocate for violence and terrorism that privilege should be revoked and you should not be in this country,” Noem wrote in the post, adding that Srinivasan chose to “self deport.” Srinivasan’s lawyers denied the allegations against her, according to the Times. In her letter posted to Finkelstein’s website, Srinivasan maintained that she only attended “a handful of low-level protests,” and, according to the Times, she signed several open letters related to the war in Gaza. She was arrested by police last year on the day that students occupied Hamilton Hall, but said she had only been walking through the crowd to return to her apartment. She received two summonses—for obstructing vehicular or pedestrian traffic and for refusing to disperse—but her case was dismissed, her lawyers told the Times. “They’re making me out to be some sort of protest leader, which I’m not,” Srinivasan told Indian news site The News Minute. “I am just a PhD student who has too much work. Even if I wanted to go to a protest, I mostly don’t have time because I’m busy grading papers.”

Since President Donald Trump has returned to the Oval Office, Social Security—a program which sends retirement and disability benefits to over 70 million people—has been the subject of many conversations. Although Trump initially assured voters that Social Security wouldn’t be touched, there have since been reports of potential staff and office cuts spearheaded by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). A new policy by the Social Security Administration (SSA) was announced on March 18, with a plan to enforce online and in-person identity proofing as opposed to that which can be done over the phone. This was an attempt to “implement stronger identity verification procedures,” the press release said. The changes were initially scheduled to go into effect on March 31. However, after much confusion and backlash, the SSA backtracked on some of the new measures and also extended the timeline, allowing more time for the system—and Social Security recipients—to prepare for the new identity proofing requirements. Here’s what you need to know ahead of the new Social Security identification policy. What are the new Social Security ID policies? The new SSA ID policy includes a transition to requiring “stronger” identity proofing procedures for both benefit claims and direct deposit changes—identity proofing that can no longer happen over the phone for most beneficiaries of Social Security. Recipients will instead have to verify their identity via an online account, but those who do not have an account will need to prove their identity “in-person” at an SSA field office. People can call 1-800-772-1213 to schedule an in-person appointment. Per the SSA, “the updated measures will further safeguard Social Security records and benefits for millions of Americans against fraudulent activity.” Tesla CEO Elon Musk, who is leading the charge with DOGE, previously characterized Social Security as “the biggest Ponzi scheme of all time,” claiming that the program is riddled with fraud and waste. Some experts have stated that the levels of fraud within the Social Security system are not as prominent as the Trump Administration says. During a March 29 interview on MSNBC, Sen. Tina Smith, a Democrat from Minnesota who serves on the Senate Finance Committee, voiced concerns about the Trump Administration and DOGE’s intentions regarding Social Security. “They’re creating so much chaos and havoc in this system, it’s causing so much anxiety for my constituents and people all over the country,” she said. “I will tell you, I could see my Republican colleagues on the Finance Committee this week, as we were clearing the nominee [Frank Bisignano] for Social Security Administration, reflecting back the anxiety they’re getting from their constituents. But at the same time, are they willing to do anything to stop this? Apparently not.” During Bisignano’s hearing on March 25, Smith declined to ask a question and instead made a statement. “This is a travesty. We can see what’s going on here… this is a wholesale effort to dismantle Social Security from the inside-out. This is not about rooting out waste, fraud, and abuse,” she said. Speaking on MSNBC, Smith said Bisignano was “deflecting” during his hearing, and cast doubt on his assurances that he would protect Social Security. Read More: What Is Happening to Social Security Under the Trump Administration and Should You Be Concerned About Yours? Who will be affected by these new policies and who is exempt? The new policy initially drew criticism from lawmakers and advocates who stated that it alienated those for whom it would be incredibly difficult to make in-person visits to SSA field offices—including those in rural communities far away from offices, those with disabilities, and seniors. AARP, formerly the American Association for Retired Persons, posted a statement, requesting the SSA “rethink” these requirements, pointing out that “requiring rural Americans to go into an office can mean having to take a day off of work and drive for hours merely to fill out paperwork.” During Bisignano’s hearing, he answered questions about these changes from lawmakers worried about the alienation of citizens. Sen. Elizabeth Warren posed a hypothetical scenario to Bisignano in which a senior with a disability has trouble with traveling to a field office and is eventually turned away. She asked him: “Is that a benefit cut?” To which he replied: “I have no intent to have anything like that happen under my watch.” On March 26, the SSA posted an update to these new changes, stating that some people will be exempt from these new rules, allowing people applying for Social Security Disability Insurance, Medicare, or Supplemental Security Income (SSI) to complete their claim by other means. “We have listened to our customers, Congress, advocates, and others, and we are updating our policy to provide better customer service to the country’s most vulnerable populations,” Lee Dudek, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, said in the update. “Medicare, Disability, and SSI applications will be exempt from in-person identity proofing because multiple opportunities exist during the decision process to verify a person’s identity.” All other beneficiaries who are unable to use the online portal must still visit an in-person SSA office, that includes “people applying for Retirement, Survivors, or Auxiliary (Spouse or Child) benefits.” However, the agency states that this will not be enforced in “extreme dire-need situations.” These extreme scenarios include terminal cases or prisoner pre-release scenarios—though the agency says it is still working on a process that will allow for these cases to bypass the new policy. When will the new Social Security ID policy go into effect? With the new shift in policy, the update from the SSA announced a delay in the timeline of the new identity proofing requirements, stating the changes will apply to all beneficiaries beginning April 14. This was in part due to an attempt to have more time to train employees. The changes come amid the SSA denying reports that they are closing multiple field offices. “Since Jan. 1, 2025, the agency has not permanently closed or announced the permanent closure of any local field office,” the SSA statement read. “From time to time, SSA must temporarily close a local field office for reasons such as weather, damage, or facilities issues, and it reopens when the issues are resolved.” Still, experts worry that with planned staff cuts, it may be harder for beneficiaries to receive benefits. Pamela Herd, professor of public policy at the University of Michigan, told TIME on March 26 that the effects are already being felt. “People are waiting for hours to get through on the phone and then getting cut off before they can actually talk to a representative. The field offices, that honestly were already a bit overwhelmed [already], are now completely overwhelmed,” she said. “So there's a real disconnect between the statement, ‘I'm not going to cut benefits,’ and in practice, what is going on in the agency.” How to prepare for the new ID policy Those who are not applying for Medicare, Disability, and SSI should prepare for the new ID policy by creating a “my Social Security” account on the SSA website, if they do not already have one. That way, they will not have to provide identification in-person. This option is the “easiest and most secure” way to verify one’s identity, according to the SSA. People can create their account through either one of two credential service providers: Login.gov or ID.me, and they must have a valid email address. For those who are unable to utilize the “my Social Security” account and therefore must go to a field office in-person, the SSA allows for several different kinds of primary and secondary proofs of identity, including a driver's license, passport, alien or voter registration card, or union card to verify your identity.

Columbia has drawn ire from all sides of the political spectrum since it was roiled by campus protests last year and deals with the fallout from the Trump Administration this year. Now, its controversy could be impacting the makeup of its future student body. Columbia College and the School of Engineering and Applied Science announced Thursday that it received 59,616 applications for the class of 2029, a year-over-year decrease from the previous applicant pool of 60,248 though still larger than the applicant pool from 2023. It’s the first application cycle since the “Gaza Solidarity Encampment” and pro-Palestinian student protests broke out last spring, which resulted in New York police storming the campus at the behest of university leaders and arresting dozens of students. As a matter of longstanding policy, and out of consideration for the tens of thousands of students who apply to Columbia, we do not discuss our applicant pool mid-cycle as it could impact students and potential applicants,” Samantha Slater, a Columbia University spokesperson, told TIME when reached for comment. “However, we can share that the 2025 admissions cycle ranks among the highest number of undergraduate applications ever. We look forward to welcoming the newest members of the Columbia undergraduate community this fall.” Several other elite colleges, including Yale, Brown, and Dartmouth, all of which saw similar demonstrations by students, also saw decreases in application numbers this year. Others, like Harvard and Cornell, did not share or limited their public admissions data at this time, in the second cycle after the Supreme Court’s ruling ending the practice of affirmative action. But even among those who applied, recent administrative actions at Columbia have some admitted students weighing whether or not to accept their offers. Earlier this month, the Trump Administration cancelled $400 million in federal grants and contracts to Columbia, amid an ongoing Department of Education investigation into reports of antisemitism at Columbia and four other institutions. In a letter addressed to Columbia on March 13, the Administration issued a list of demands to the university, including expelling or issuing multi-year suspensions on students who participated in the encampments, abolishing the school’s judicial board and centralizing disciplinary action through the university president’s office, banning masks and requiring any masked individuals to visibly wear their Columbia ID, and empowering the university’s security force with the authority to arrest “agitators.” The letter also requested that Columbia place the Middle East, South Asian, and African Studies department under “academic receivership”—in which an external administrator would directly oversee the department—for at least five years. On the same day, Columbia announced that it expelled or suspended some of the students who participated in the occupation of Hamilton Hall, a campus building, and temporarily revoked the degrees of others who have graduated. And on March 21, the university agreed to several other of the demands. In a 4,000-word letter from its interim president, the university said that it would, among other measures, reform its disciplinary process and empower 36 campus officers with the authority to make arrests. A recent series of high-profile immigration actions against Columbia students who participated in pro-Palestinian campus activism have also shaken some people’s confidence in the university. Mahmoud Khalil, a Palestinian graduate student who led negotiations between student protesters and university officials last spring, was arrested by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement on March 8 and had his green card revoked. ICE has also attempted to arrest and deport Yunseo Chung, a third-year undergraduate, and Ranjani Srinivasan, a fifth-year PhD student. More than 1,400 faculty and students at Columbia and Barnard College signed onto an academic boycott of Columbia University “in response to the university betraying its fundamental responsibility to protect students, defend academic freedom, and promote a climate of open discussion and dissent.” The pledge includes boycotting collaborations with faculty holding administrative positions and academic or cultural events held by Columbia or Barnard. In the past few weeks, a number of social media users have made posts or comments about declining or rescinding acceptance offers, or having withdrawn their applications, to Columbia. (TIME could not verify the authenticity of all the claims in such posts.) One purported admitted student shared a letter they sent to Columbia explaining why they are rejecting their offer of admission in a viral post on X that has since been made private. “While I am honoured and grateful to have been admitted, it is with great disappointment and frustration that I must decline this offer to attend the program,” the letter read. “I would be remiss to not admit that my decision is informed largely by Columbia University’s decision to capitulate to the far-reaching demands of the Trump administration.” Another person shared a letter to Columbia explaining why they withdrew their application: “As someone who is pursuing a legal education for the protection of my community against violations of our civil rights and/or liberties, I do not wish to attend a school that does not protect their own.” In a Reddit post two weeks ago, titled “Situation just went from worse to worser,” a user shared their decision to withdraw their application to Columbia’s law school. “It was my top choice, my dream school,” the user wrote. “Yet, in the case where they would accept me I could not conscionably allow my above median/75th stats to contribute to that institution’s standing.” “I used to think that I shouldn’t have to sacrifice a degree of that caliber in the city that I love due to the actions of university administration, but their most recent actions (including but not limited to degree revocation and expelling their union president a day before negotiations) show me they are irredeemable,” the user added. “They’ve proven they are willing to sacrifice me and [any] other potential student for pennies on their endowment and frankly I do not want to be associated with an institution that will only be remembered for their cowardice during this time.” At least seven others shared across various posts and comments on Reddit that they withdrew their applications, while several said they decided not to apply at all for similar reasons. In several threads posted to Reddit, some admitted students asked for advice on whether or not they should attend given their political views. “I’m a Jewish student, and my research focuses on Jewish students in higher education. At the same time, I’m pro-Palestinian and anti-Zionist, which makes my position somewhat complicated,” one user wrote. “Columbia’s recent actions,” the user continued “make me question the university’s commitment to protecting its students. It feels like an environment that may not align with my values, even though I’ve always dreamed of going to Columbia and living in NYC.” Three others commented that they’ve declined their acceptance offers for similar reasons. Others shared concerns that the cut in federal funding might impact their programs, while others still raised concerns about whether the school would do enough to protect international students from possible immigration action. The university’s journalism school released a statement on March 14 affirming its support for students’ right to free speech after Khalil’s arrest and “in defense of First Amendment principles of free speech and free press across the political spectrum.” “Here at Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism we are witnessing and experiencing an alarming chill,” the statement reads. “Some of our faculty members and students who have covered the protests over the Gaza war have been the object of smear campaigns and targeted on the same sites that were used to bring Khalil to the attention of Homeland Security. President Trump has warned that the effort to deport Khalil is just the first of many.” Several comments across posts raised their own concerns about antisemitism on campus. Last year, the university’s student-run newspaper, the Columbia Spectator, found that some Jewish students declined their offers from Columbia due to concerns about antisemitism on campus. Several of the university’s top donors pulled funding last year in response to the pro-Palestinian protests, and a coalition of U.S. and Israeli citizens filed a lawsuit on March 24 against organizers and supporters of pro-Palestinian actions at Columbia, alleging that they served as Hamas’ “propaganda arm.” It’s unclear how much concerns about the political climate contributed to the slight dip in Columbia’s applicants this year—and a university official noted to TIME that a handful of social media posts cannot be viewed as statistically representative of broader trends among applicants. Ultimately, whether there’s a significant change in enrollment won’t be revealed until later this year.

Texas has one of the strictest abortion restrictions in the country, banning abortion in nearly all situations with very limited exceptions. Since the near-total ban went into effect, several women in the state have shared stories and filed lawsuits, saying that they were denied critical care while experiencing pregnancy complications. On March 14, one of the lawmakers behind the state’s restrictive abortion laws introduced a bill seeking to clarify medical exceptions. But some abortion-rights advocates and legal experts say the bill won’t do what it claims to, and even worry that it could open the door to prosecuting pregnant people and people who help patients access abortions. Here’s what to know. What is current Texas law? The only exception to Texas’ abortion ban is if a person is experiencing a “life-threatening” medical emergency “that places the female at risk of death or poses a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function.” But the current version of the law does not get more specific than that. Doctors have said that the near-total ban causes confusion over when they can provide treatment in urgent situations, leading to care delays or denials. However, there is specificity over the potential severe penalties for doctors who are found to have violated the state’s ban: up to $100,000 in fines, 99 years in prison, and losing their medical license. In the fall of 2024, ProPublica reported that three Texas women died after they didn’t receive appropriate care while experiencing miscarriages. What is the new proposed bill, SB 31? Republican state Sen. Bryan Hughes—who has previously said that exceptions to the state’s near-total ban are “plenty clear”—said during a Senate committee hearing on March 27 that there have been “reports that some doctors and some hospitals are not following the law,” meaning that they have denied necessary medical care. He said he recently introduced a bill, SB 31, in order to “remove any excuse from a doctor or a hospital” from treating a patient experiencing medical emergencies. Republican Texas Rep. Charlie Geren has filed the same bill in the House. (Neither Hughes’s nor Geren’s office responded to a request for comment on this story.) The bill doesn’t expand abortion access in the state, but removes language from the state’s laws that requires a pregnant person to be experiencing a “life-threatening” condition for a doctor to provide care. The bill adds that it “does not require a physician to delay, alter or withhold medical treatment provided to a pregnant female if doing so would create a greater risk of the pregnant female’s death; or substantial impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant female.” It says that a patient’s emergency “need not be imminent or irreversible” for a doctor to provide care. It specifies that ectopic pregnancies are considered exceptions to the state’s near-total abortion ban, but doesn’t include exceptions for fetal anomalies, rape, or incest. The bill also includes language that instructs the State Bar of Texas and the Texas Medical Board to hold education sessions for lawyers and doctors about the medical exceptions to the state’s ban. Why is it controversial? The bill has received some rare bipartisan support, as well as support from both anti-abortion groups and some medical organizations, including the Texas Medical Association. Dr. Julie Ayala, an ob-gyn who practices in Texas, testified during the Senate committee hearing on March 27 on behalf of the Texas Medical Association that she believes “this bill will clear up confusion” and “save women’s lives.” But other abortion rights advocates, doctors, and legal experts say the bill won’t do what it claims. “It’s an attempt to add some clarity, but I think the underlying reasons that we’re seeing what we’re seeing with denials to care aren’t really changed in the bill,” says Mary Ziegler, a professor at the University of California, Davis School of Law with expertise in abortion. While the bill specifies some situations in which abortion is permitted, “pregnancy is complicated, so there are a lot of other scenarios that aren’t going to be enumerated in the bill where physicians aren’t going to know what to do,” Ziegler says. The bill also doesn’t remove the severe penalties for doctors who are found to have violated the state’s near-total ban—one of the reasons “we’re seeing physicians refuse to provide care,” Ziegler says. Samantha Casiano, an advocate for the reproductive rights advocacy nonprofit Free & Just, also criticized the bill. Casiano, who lives in Texas, was forced to carry her baby to term even after doctors told her at 20 weeks of pregnancy that her baby had anencephaly, a fatal birth defect, and wouldn’t survive. Her baby died four hours after being born. Casiano was one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit Zurawski v. State of Texas that was brought by the Center for Reproductive Rights and made national headlines for challenging Texas’ abortion ban. The Texas Supreme Court ruled against the women at the heart of the lawsuit in May 2024, refusing to clarify the exceptions to the state’s abortion ban. “Nothing in [SB 31] would’ve helped my situation at all,” Casiano says. “I’m just so upset that I felt like from 20 weeks to 32 weeks, I was basically a walking coffin for my daughter until I had to give birth, and then she had to suffer and be in agony. So where in that [bill] does that help my situation, or families and mothers like me? It was really upsetting and disappointing to read it.” Dr. Austin Dennard is an ob-gyn practicing in Texas who joined the Zurawski v. State of Texas lawsuit after she was forced to travel out of state to receive care when she learned that her baby had anencephaly. Dennard says that while she believes some of the people behind the bill had good intentions, she doesn’t think the bill “is going to make a lick of difference in the real practicality of practicing medicine.” She says the bill’s language is still very confusing, even to reproductive rights lawyers she’s spoken with, adding that “exceptions don’t work” to ensure access to care. As for the education sessions about the medical exceptions, Dennard questions who would be creating that guidance, and if it would be coming from anti-abortion sources. “It’s extremely disappointing to me, and if anyone is celebrating, I think that they are extremely naive to think that these individuals actually really want to make a change,” says Dennard, who is an advocate for Free & Just. “It feels like a political publicity movement rather than [a] true desire to help people.” A cracked-open “door” to further restrictions Advocates and experts also point out that SB 31 amends a 1925 law predating Roe v. Wade. The 1925 law bans abortion and penalizes anyone who “furnishes the means for procuring an abortion,” with the possibility of up to five years in prison. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton had previously tried to enforce the 1925 law after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe, but a federal judge blocked the move in 2023. Now, advocates and experts worry that the bill could “open the door” to the 1925 law being used to prosecute abortion patients, as well as people and groups who help patients access care, such as through abortion funds. “If there is even a sliver of [a] chance that that bill could open the door to that 1925 criminalization of women and people that help you get an abortion, we have to be concerned,” says Kaitlyn Kash, a Free & Just advocate. Kash was forced to travel out of Texas to receive an abortion after learning that her baby had severe skeletal dysplasia, which impacts bone and cartilage growth, and that her baby likely wouldn’t survive. Texas is also considering a separate bill that would allow authorities to charge people who obtain abortions with homicide, making it one of at least 10 states that have introduced bills for the 2025 legislative session that open the door for penalizing patients—a growing trend since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe. According to Ziegler, SB 31 carves out some situations that wouldn’t be considered “aiding and abetting” an abortion, but in doing so, leaves open the possibility that other situations would be. “It’s sort of a similar dynamic to what you see with the exceptions,” Ziegler says. “There’s some clarity in a few narrow situations, and then a lot of gray area and threat of prosecution in most others.” She adds that Hughes has also introduced another bill, SB 2880, which—among other attempts to crack down on abortion—would expand who could be penalized for “aiding and abetting” abortions, including people who pay for or reimburse the costs associated with obtaining an abortion. Amanda Zurawski, the lead plaintiff in the Zurawski v. State of Texas lawsuit, was denied an abortion after experiencing a complication called preterm pre-labor rupture of membranes (PPROM) because doctors said they detected fetal cardiac activity. A few days later, she developed sepsis, a life-threatening condition. Doctors performed an emergency induction abortion, and she had to spend several days in the ICU. Zurawski, now a Free & Just advocate, criticized SB 31 for attempting to create “blanket rules over every single pregnancy in the state of Texas, because no two are the same.” “I like to believe—I think I have to believe—that the intent of this bill is not malicious,” she says, but she adds that Texas officials have attempted to penalize people providing access to abortion care. The Texas Attorney General’s office recently announced that it had filed criminal charges against a midwife and medical assistant, accusing them of illegally providing abortions in Texas. Dennard says she has received pressure from some people behind the bill and other physicians who disagree with her to support it. While some doctors and legal experts have said that the clarity would make “modest but not meaningless” changes and could save some lives, advocates say they don’t believe it will work. “We shouldn’t be begging for scraps,” Kash says.”You don’t legislate medicine.”