This article is part of The D.C. Brief, TIME’s politics newsletter. Sign up here to get stories like this sent to your inbox. Donald Trump just did the economic equivalent of Control-Alt-Delete on his trade policy. No, he didn’t fully retreat but he backed down enough that he’s ceded almost all of his leverage. That does not mean he admitted the chaos he unfurled was an entirely unnecessary self-inflicted trauma—or that he fully understands his role in sending the global economy into a freefall for more than a month. Before jetting off to the Middle East, the President on Monday climbed down from a scorched-earth tariff tift and pulled import taxes on goods coming from China from an eye-popping 145% down to a less harsh 30%. In turn, China downgraded its retaliation to 10% from 125%, giving legions of U.S. businesses hope that they could weather a standoff between two global leaders famous for their unbending nature. The added costs will still squeeze Americans who rely on cheap goods from China for day-to-day life, while the world’s two largest economies try to find a way out of their spiraling tit-for-tat standoff that roiled markets, shook consumer confidence, and shrunk the retirement accounts of millions of Americans. Even with the latest turnaround, U.S. consumers may still see some empty shelves in the coming weeks as the supply chain falls off the cliff. And the average American family would still see a net hike of $2,300, according to a new Yale Budget Lab analysis released after Trump’s announcement. And, later Monday, White House aides said the shift was not on all China imports; low-dollar packages from online retailers like Shein and Temu would actually see their surcharges jump in June.Still, ever the salesman, Trump started a victory lap well past the starting line. "There's a big incentive for China to stop, and I take them at their word they're going to work on that, I think, very hard,” Trump told reporters at the White House on Monday. Trusting China has never been a good bet for U.S. policy. Taking Beijing “at their word” is for most Presidents code for being a sucker when it comes to promises of human rights, environmental safeguards, and global ambitions. Trump's stance runs completely counter to orthodoxy popularized by President Ronald Reagan: trust but verify. But U.S. investors for the moment are putting their trust in Trump’s ability to steer the economy out of a potential nosedive and toward a safe landing. Markets broadly surged as the Dow recouped its post-"Liberation Day" losses sparked by Trump’s slapdash score settling. Since April 2, investors have been in open revolt over the tumult. At its lowest point, the Dow was down 14% from the day Trump took office. Before the pause was announced after trade talks in Geneva, the Dow was still down 6% from Inauguration Day levels. By the time markets closed on Monday, the rebound was complete, with traders actually up from January thanks to the biggest day of gains since tariffs tanked confidence.Trump, who has long shown an obsession with the stock markets as much as his polls, surely is taking the response as a win. The President’s unique flavor of grievance prompts him to see the U.S. economy as a perpetual victim of economic bullies and the bearer of bad actors. His protectionist advisers have encouraged his suspicions. But he also seeks approval, and whether it’s from polls or Wall Street’s Big Board, he reacts. His decision to pull back so strongly from the tariff stance he took just a few weeks ago showed just how reactionary and transactional this President can be. Still, Trump’s retreat on tariffs with China is not complete. Ninety days is some breathing room for consumers and investors alike, but it’s not forever. China is painting the reversal as a victory on its side, likely nursing more resentment from Trump and his nationalistic pride. Trump’s defenders, meanwhile, are noting that the United States collected more than $7 billion on import taxes in April compared to a month earlier.Now comes the spin contest. During his first term in office, Trump often used Potemkin announcements to declare victory in the hopes no one would follow up on the tangibles. Just look at the Foxconn project in Wisconsin: Trump promised 13,000 jobs and $10 billion investment there in 2017 and hyped it pretty relentlessly but it never came to pass. It was the same on his now-punchlined Infrastructure Week, a repeal of Obamacare, and a raise in family incomes by $4,000. None of that happened, either. But here’s the thing with Trump and his followers: they often listen to the loudest voice in their ears, and it’s tough to credibly argue that anyone can project further than this President. That’s why this fallback on tariffs might be seen for a good chunk of this country as a victory despite evidence to the contrary. Facts—and 401(k) reports—may say one thing, but feelings have always shown more powerful than hard realities.

President Donald Trump’s plan to accept a luxury aircraft from Qatar for use as a temporary Air Force One has opened a new front in the long-running battle over ethics and foreign influence in his presidency, just as he prepares to embark on his first major international trip since returning to office. The prospective gift—a Boeing 747-8 valued at roughly $400 million and dubbed “a palace in the sky”—would be among the most extravagant ever offered to a U.S. president by a foreign government. Trump has said the plane would be used solely by the Department of Defense during the transition to a new fleet of presidential aircraft and would later be donated to his presidential library. But critics across the political spectrum, including some Republicans, say the arrangement raises serious legal and constitutional questions—especially given Trump’s private business ties in the region and the shadow of past emoluments controversies.I think it’s a great gesture from Qatar. I appreciate it very much,” Trump told reporters Monday. “I would never be one to turn down that kind of an offer. I mean, I could be a stupid person and say, ‘No, we don’t want a free, very expensive airplane.’” Yet legal experts say the matter is far from simple. The Constitution’s Foreign Emoluments Clause bars federal officials—including the President—from accepting gifts, payments, or benefits from foreign states without the consent of Congress. Trump insists the gift would go to the government, not him personally, but watchdogs and former ethics officials note that the practical outcome may still confer benefits on him, particularly if the plane is later showcased at a Trump-controlled presidential library or associated with his public legacy. “The situation is no different than if the Qataris gave $400 million in cash to Trump and told him to keep it under his bed until 2029, when he could spend it freely,” said Robert Weissman, co-president of consumer advocacy organization Public Citizen. Even some Republican allies have voiced discomfort, including far-right activist Laura Loomer and typically friendly venues like Fox News: “Do you worry that if they give us something like this, they want something in return?” host Brian Kilmeade asked White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, who responded with: “Absolutely not, because they know President Trump, and they know he only works with the interests of the American public in mind.” Qatar, a tiny but wealthy Gulf nation with a checkered human rights record and a major U.S. air base, has long navigated a delicate balancing act between American interests and those of regional rivals. In 2017, Trump publicly accused Qatar of funding terrorism and backed a Saudi-led blockade of the country. But by the end of his term, the blockade had lifted and Trump’s stance had softened—a reversal that coincided with deepening business ties between his family’s company and Qatari and Gulf interests. Pam Bondi, the attorney general and former Trump campaign surrogate who reportedly signed off on the plane deal, previously lobbied on behalf of Qatar. Trump’s visit to Qatar on Wednesday, the first by a U.S. President since George W. Bush in 2003, is a significant moment for the Gulf state as it strengthens its geopolitical position in the region, says Elizabeth Dent, a senior fellow at The Washington Institute for Near East Policy. “Qatar is in a far better position now than they were under Trump’s first administration when his visit to Saudi Arabia emboldened Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, the UAE, and Egypt to initiate a blockade on Qatar for funding Islamist groups,” Dent tells TIME. Last month, the Trump Organization finalized a deal to build a luxury golf resort in Qatar featuring Trump-branded villas and a course constructed by a Saudi firm—the first such foreign venture since Trump returned to office.

The first group of refugees brought into the U.S. since Donald Trump became President followed an unusual path. On his first day back in office, he suspended all refugee admissions to the U.S.—upending resettlement plans for thousands fearing persecution and violence. Eighteen days later, he announced an exception for white South Africans who “are victims of unjust racial discrimination.” On Monday, the U.S. welcomed a chartered plane carrying about 50 Afrikaners, marking a new phase of the U.S. refugee program that looks nothing like what came before it. Trump’s order specifically referred to Afrikaners, descendants of mainly Dutch colonial settlers who arrived in South Africa in the 1600s and controlled the country from 1948 to 1994 through the racial separation laws known as apartheid.Shortly after their plane landed at Dulles International Airport in Virginia outside of Washington, D.C., the South Africans stood in front of news cameras holding American flags as they were greeted by Trump administration officials. “You are really welcome here and we respect what you have had to deal with these last few years,” said Christopher Landau, deputy Secretary of State. Landau called the Afrikaners “quality seeds” who will “bloom” in the U.S. “As you know—a lot of you I think are farmers, right—when you have quality seeds, you can put them in foreign soil and they will blossom. They will bloom,” Landau told the families. “We are excited to welcome you here to our country where we think you will bloom.” Trump’s carve out for Afrikaners was partly spurred in reaction to a 2024 South African law that seeks to address the concentration of agricultural land in the hands of white South Africans. “Farmers are being killed,” Trump said Monday, when asked by a TIME reporter why Afrikaners were being accepted over refugees in other parts of Africa and the world. “They happen to be white but whether they’re white or black makes no difference to me. But white farmers are being brutally killed and their land is being confiscated in South Africa.” South African officials insist Trump’s allegations of persecuted white South African farmers are unfounded. “The South Africa Police Services statistics on farm-related crimes do not support allegations of violent crime targeted at farmers generally or any particular race,” the country’s Ministry of International Relations and Cooperation said in a recent statement. “There are sufficient structures available within South Africa to address concerns of discrimination. Moreover, even if there are allegations of discrimination, it is our view that these do not meet the threshold of persecution required under domestic and international refugee law.”Stephen Miller, a White House deputy chief of staff, told reporters on Friday the first flight from South Africa is part of a “much larger-scale relocation effort” and said what Afrikaners face in South Africa “fits the textbook definition of why the refugee program was created.” Another key Trump ally, Elon Musk, was born in South Africa and has pressed for the U.S. to do more to protect white South Africans from what he described on his X platform as “white genocide”. Refugees coming into the U.S. are typically vetted by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, which routinely refers people fleeing persecution and violence in their home countries to safer countries like the U.S. The arrivals from South Africa were not vetted by that office. On Monday, The Episcopal Church refused a Trump administration demand that it help resettle the Afrikaners in the U.S. The protestant church has worked with the federal government for four decades through Episcopal Migration Ministries to help newly arrived refugees find jobs and places to live in the U.S. “It has been painful to watch one group of refugees, selected in a highly unusual manner, receive preferential treatment over many others who have been waiting in refugee camps or dangerous conditions for years,” wrote the presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church, Rev. Sean W. Rowe, in a letter explaining the protestant church’s decision to completely stop working with the federal government on refugee resettlement. Rowe wrote that the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program has been “essentially shut down” since January, and he was “saddened and ashamed” that many refugees denied entrance to the U.S. had served alongside the U.S. military in Iraq and Afghanistan and now face danger at home because of their service. “Jesus tells us to care for the poor and vulnerable as we would care for him, and we must follow that command,” Rowe wrote.

Trump celebrated the annual National Day of Prayer on May 1 by announcing an Executive Order to establish a presidential commission on religious liberty. “[The Religious Liberty Commission] shall be the policy of the executive branch to vigorously enforce the historic and robust protections for religious liberty enshrined in Federal law,” read Trump’s presidential action. An accompanying White House fact sheet added that “the Commission will investigate and recommend policies to restore and safeguard religious liberty for all Americans.”Though the Executive Order itself does not explicitly mention Christianity, the fact sheet does, and both exist in the context of other actions by the President, including a Feb. 6 announcement of a “Task Force to Eradicate Anti-Christian Bias.” Of this measure, Trump said: “My Administration will not tolerate anti-Christian weaponization of government or unlawful conduct targeting Christians.” The President has also announced the establishment of a White House Faith Office. Trump’s focus on religion is not unprecedented—George W. Bush created the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives in 2001, which aimed to partner with faith-based organizations and community groups to address social needs. The initiative was subject to controversy, partly as some critics argued that the program could allow groups to use federal dollars to discriminate against members of what is now known as the LGBTQ+ community and others whose lifestyle choices may not be supported by certain religious groupsBut Trump has gone a step further by appearing to openly question the separation of church and state since he entered the White House for his second term. “Separation? Is that a good thing or a bad thing? I’m not sure… We’re bringing religion back to our country. It’s a big deal,” Trump said during a Rose Garden event celebrating the National Day of Prayer. Here is what to know about Trump’s Religious Liberty Commission—and what experts have to say about it.The Executive Order states that the Religious Liberty Commission will make a “comprehensive report” about threats to religious liberty and strategies to “increase awareness of and celebrate America’s peaceful religious pluralism.” It lays out specific policies that are of interest for the report. “In recent years, some Federal, State, and local policies have threatened America’s unique and beautiful tradition of religious liberty,” the Executive Order reads. “These policies attempt to infringe upon longstanding conscience protections, prevent parents from sending their children to religious schools, threaten loss of funding or denial of non-profit tax status for faith-based entities, and single out religious groups and institutions for exclusion from governmental programs.”

Seven months after the death of Lilly Ledbetter, for whom Congress’s Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act is named after, a film about her life opens in theaters May 9. In the biopic Lilly, Patricia Clarkson stars as Ledbetter, a Goodyear employee who found out that she was getting paid less than fellow supervisors who were men, and follows her legal journey to the U.S. Supreme Court. The film culminates in the historic 2009 passage of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act in Congress. Growing up in poverty gave Ledbetter the resilience necessary to endure a lengthy legal fight. She was born in 1938 in Alabama, when there were few career options for women. “She grew up without running water, without electricity, with only a high school education,” says Lanier Scott Isom, who helped Ledbetter put together her 2012 memoir Grace and Grit: My Fight for Equal Pay and Fairness at Goodyear and Beyond. “Her clothes were made out of feed sack material.” She was never afraid to get her hands dirty. For example, she worked at a chicken processing plant at one point to help her family make ends meet. In 1979, as a married mother of two children, she landed a job as a supervisor at Goodyear’s Gadsden, Alabama, plant. Her husband was always supportive of job, but she encountered many men who felt threatened by her. Ledbetter had always been outspoken about the sexual harassment she experienced on the job. As Isom explains: “One of her supervisors basically said [paraphrasing], ‘If you want to go to the motel down the street with me, I would ensure your promotion.’" Lilly writer and director Rachel Feldman adds: "There was one guy who could not stop talking about her underwear and what kind of bra she was wearing, and one man who said [paraphrasing], ‘I don't like women around here. What if I have to scratch my balls and fart?’” Work wasn’t the only place where Ledbetter encountered offensive men. When her son suffered from repeated ear infections growing up and needed surgery, a doctor suggested she earn the money by participating in a program where young surgeons were learning how to perform hysterectomies. Nineteen years into a job at Goodyear, she learned that a young man she had just trained was making more than she was. An anonymous tipster left her a note at work that had the salaries of her male counterparts written out, so she could see that she was making up to $2,000 a month less than they were.

Top negotiators from the United States and China are set to meet in Geneva on Saturday, as the world’s two largest economies seek to navigate a path away from a bruising trade war that has disrupted global supply chains, slowed economic growth, and sent shockwaves through industries from electronics to agriculture. The talks will mark the first face-to-face meeting between senior officials from the two countries since President Donald Trump imposed historically high 145% tariffs on most Chinese imports in early April. They come on the heels of Trump hailing a “full and comprehensive” trade agreement reached with the United Kingdom on Thursday that left many key sticking points unresolved.But hopes for a breakthrough this weekend with the Chinese remain muted. Trump—who has long decried the trade deficits the U.S. has with China and other countries—tried this week to frame the dramatic slowdown in shipments from China as a positive sign. “We were losing a trillion dollars a year, now we’re not losing anything, you know? That’s the way I look at it,” he said Thursday. Some analysts are skeptical that the meeting will result in any tangible outcomes. “The U.S. has not been particularly interested in what anybody else wants,” says Mary Lovely, an expert on U.S.-China Relations and a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics. “The U.S. is still dependent on China for many individual goods, so China still has a lot of power in this relationship.” Here’s what to know about Saturday’s trade negotiations between the U.S. and China.U.S. officials will be led by Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer, who have signaled that they view these initial talks as a chance to begin easing tensions. “My sense is that this will be about de-escalation, not about the big trade deal,” Bessent told Fox News on Tuesday. Chinese negotiators, led by Vice Premier He Lifeng, are arriving with similar caution, wary of making concessions without signs of U.S. compromise. “To pressure or coerce China in whatever way simply does not work,” Foreign Ministry spokesman Lin Jian wrote on X. Still, the decision to bring senior negotiators from both sides to the table is being seen by some analysts as a positive step forward after months of economic brinkmanship. While expectations for a breakthrough remain low, the fact that both countries have agreed to talk signals a recognition of the steep costs of prolonged conflict. “If we see anything coming out about how the process might be continued, that would be a win,” Lovely says. Trump struck a defiant tone ahead of the talks, telling reporters Thursday that his Administration’s tariff strategy had left China “with absolutely no business” and expressed confidence that the talks would be “very substantive.

This article is part of The D.C. Brief, TIME’s politics newsletter. Sign up here to get stories like this sent to your inbox. The new Pope is an American. Do not for a minute think he wants to Make America Great Again. Cardinal Robert Francis Prevost on Thursday became leader to the world’s 1.4 billion Catholics and took the name Leo XIV. But the former missionary stands to be an ideological check on a certain breed of American-styled Catholicism, which in recent years has been ascendant in Washington yet has drifted into more conservative lanes than its global brethren. With Vice President J.D. Vance and six of the nine Supreme Court Justices as part of his flock, Leo becomes the most powerful Catholic both in the world and among Americans. And Leo, known in Rome as “The Latin Yankee,” clearly represents a rejection by the Vatican of the intense lobbying from rich Americans to install a pontiff sympathetic to President Donald Trump, who went so far as to joke he should be a simultaneous Pope and President.“Congratulations to Cardinal Robert Francis Prevost, who was just named Pope,” Trump posted to his social media site. “It is such an honor to realize that he is the first American Pope. What excitement, and what a Great Honor for our Country. I look forward to meeting Pope Leo XIV. It will be a very meaningful moment!” Perhaps. But like his predecessor, Pope Francis, there’s a very good chance that Leo and Trump will clash on serious issues like immigration, human rights, and the environment. The new Pope has a history of amplifying messages in support of racial justice and gun safety, and against capital punishment. Read More: Where Pope Leo Stands on Specific Issues Another collision between the civic leader of the United States and the sacred leader of the Catholic Church seems inevitable, especially given Trump’s obsession with a nationalistic agenda that would co-opt Christianity in service of his political goals. Within hours of his election, the MAGAverse seemed to be gunning for the new pontiff in nakedly political terms. While Trump rushed to the White House driveway to praise the Chicago-born and Villanova-educated Leo, his legion of fans were less laudatory. “WOKE MARXIST POPE,” tweeted far-right activist and Trump ally Laura Loomer, who also called Leo “just another Marxist puppet in the Vatican.”

NASA has a funny way of framing bad news. On May 2, the White House released its topline budget numbers for fiscal year 2026 and the space agency was quick to respond—with applause. “President Trump’s FY26 Budget Revitalizes Human Space Exploration,” read a press release. In an included statement, acting NASA administrator Janet Petro said, “This proposal includes investments to simultaneously pursue exploration of the Moon and Mars while still prioritizing critical science and technology research. I appreciate the President’s continued support for NASA’s mission and look forward to working closely with the administration and Congress to ensure we continue making progress toward achieving the impossible.” The real impossibility, however, might be in figuring out how NASA will achieve much of anything at all with the draconian cuts the president proposed. Petro is right in touting a relatively modest 10% bump in funding for human space exploration, with $7 billion now proposed for missions to the moon and $1 billion for later travel to Mars. But beyond that, things get awfully bleak. The Mars Sample Return Mission, which is currently underway, with the Perseverance rover collecting and caching soil and rock samples for return by a later robot craft, will be canceled. Twenty-seven sample tubes that have been sealed and left across the Martian surface like Easter eggs for that future rover to gather will be forever untouched. Those samples could have told us about possible conditions for ancient, or even extant, life on the once-watery world—potential knowledge that will now be lost. The Space Launch System (SLS) moon rocket and the Orion spacecraft, both in development in one form or another since 2006, and both intended for crewed travel to the moon, will be scrapped too. Also marked for elimination is the Gateway spacecraft, a small space station planned for lunar orbit—despite the first of its modules having already been built. Gateway was intended to provide rapid service to and from the surface of the moon for future visiting astronauts. Space science missions will be slashed by more than 50%, threatening—among other projects—the Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope, which, like the Gateway module, is already mostly built. Roman is designed to answer deep and thrilling questions, regarding the habitability of exoplanets—or planets orbiting other stars—and the nature of dark energy, which is thought to make up 68% of the universe and holds the key to its accelerating expansion. On top of all this, research into environmentally sustainable aviation technology is one of several “climate scam programs,” as the White House referred to it in a statement, which is also slated for cancellation. Consistent with new government-wide policies, any NASA DEI programs are also to be eliminated. Overall, NASA faces a 24% budget cut, from $24.8 billion in 2025 to $18.8 billion in 2026—its lowest funding level since 2015. “No spin will change the fact that this would end critical missions, dramatically scale back the workforce, and risk our scientific leadership around the globe,” said Rep. George Whitesides, a California Democrat and Vice Ranking Member of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee, on X. “It is completely irresponsible, and I will fight it every way I can.” “The proposed cuts are drastic,” says Stephan McCandliss, research professor with the department of physics and astronomy at Johns Hopkins University. “They are devastating and, well, vicious, in terms of [being] unfriendly to science in general.” The proposed cuts don’t just represent opportunity costs, but the loss of sunk costs too. The SLS has already cost nearly $24 billion, with another $20 billion having gone to Orion—money that will have been spent to no end if the two projects are cancelled. The Roman telescope, currently idling in a clean room at the Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, cost $4 billion. According to the General Accounting Office, $3.5 billion has been spent on Gateway, with the launch of the first module originally set for 2027. Advertisement All of this penury is something of a departure for President Trump, who presided over small but steady budget increases for NASA—from just over $18 billion to just over $21 billion—during his first term. Space Agency funding rose further, to its near-$25 billion peak, under President Joe Biden, before the ax fell this week. The impending starvation rations, as always, have NASA veterans looking wistfully back at the space agency’s golden era, during the space race with the former Soviet Union. Historically, NASA’s peak funding year was 1966, when the agency was allotted $5.93 billion—or $58.5 billion in 2025 dollars. That represented 4% of the government’s overall budget. NASA’s slice of the federal pie today—before the Trump cuts? Just 0.4%. The generous funding of the 1960s yielded impressive results. The U.S. launched 10 crewed flights in just 20 months during NASA’s Gemini program in 1965 and 1966. From 1968 to 1972, eleven Apollo missions were launched—nine of them either to lunar orbit or around the far side of the moon, and six of those proceeding down to the lunar surface. That was all while NASA maintained a robust pure science program, launching more than 20 missions to the moon, Mars, and Venus during the 1960s. It’s the loss of those uncrewed science flights that worries some space experts the most. “It's mortgaging the future,” says Henry Hertzfeld, research professor at George Washington University’s Space Policy Institute. “It takes time to develop these programs, to build the instruments and, of course, to analyze the results.” “I see a role for government in doing the science,” says McCandliss. “That's what government ought to do—the cutting edge stuff that isn't going to be commercially viable, but will in the long run, bring some surprising results.” The matter of commercial viability—with the private sector taking over a growing share of the work now being done by NASA—seems to be driving much of the administration’s budget proposals. The aging International Space Station (ISS) is set to be de-orbited in 2030 and NASA and the White House are looking for industry to bankroll and launch the next generation outpost. “The budget reflects the upcoming transition to a more cost-effective, open commercial approach to human activities in low Earth orbit by … the safe decommissioning of the station and its replacement by commercial space stations,” said NASA in its press release. Currently, NASA spends about $3 billion per year to operate the ISS. Privatization would eliminate that outlay. Similarly, if SLS and Orion stand down, the move would clear the field for SpaceX’s massive Starship rocket. SLS and Orion have flown just once—an uncrewed mission, known as Artemis I, in 2022. Current plans call for Artemis II to carry a crew of four on a circumlunar journey late next year, and Artemis III to follow with a crewed lunar landing before the end of the decade. Artemis IV and beyond were intended to help establish a long-term human presence at the south lunar pole, but the new proposed budget cancels those plans. Starship could be a worthy successor. The biggest and most powerful rocket ever built, Starship stands 40 stories tall and puts out 16.7 million pounds of thrust at launch—nearly twice as much as the SLS’s 8.8 million pounds. The single flight SLS has managed in the 20 years it’s been in development is dwarfed by the eight uncrewed launches Starship has had just since April of 2023. None of those launches has been fully successful, but the business model for SpaceX and its boss, Elon Musk, has always been to fly fast, fail fast, and fly again until you get it right. The unalloyed success of the company’s smaller Falcon 9 rocket, which, with 467 successful flights, has become the world’s workhorse booster, stands as proof that that approach to R&D can work. “It's pretty amazing stuff that they've been doing,” says McCandliss. “When you have a devil-may-care leader who is willing to spend his own personal capital on these sorts of things, it's a different story [from what the government can do]. Musk has not been shy about trying to pursue his dreams, and he has the capital to do that.” If NASA has any hope of escaping the Trump Administration’s proposed cuts it’s in the fact that they are just that—proposed. Presidential budgets are wish lists put forth to Congress, with lawmakers calling the final spending shots, and NASA has seen this movie before—most recently and dramatically in 2010. Back then, President Barack Obama cancelled the space agency’s Constellation program—the precursor of Artemis, which was aiming to have bootprints back on the moon as early as 2015. The move pulled the plug on both Orion and the SLS—the latter of which was then known as Ares V. But legislators from space-friendly states that depend on NASA for thousands of local jobs—most notably Texas, Florida, and California—rebelled, and funding was restored for both vehicles. Today, Sen. Ted Cruz, a Texas Republican, and Sen. Maria Cantwell, a Washington Democrat—the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Technology respectively—are being looked to for leadership to keep the lights on at NASA. Neither lawmaker has made a public statement yet on the proposed cuts and neither responded to a request from TIME for comment. Still, Capitol Hill will get the final word. “The president proposes and Congress disposes,” says McCandliss. “I know that there's an awful lot of NASA centers that are in red states.” NASA is accountable to Congress for its funding and Congress is accountable to the voters in those red states and all of the others for their own jobs. Ultimately, Americans will get the space program they demand.

Sitting next to President Donald Trump, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney got the clip he wanted Canadians to see: him telling Trump that Canada is “not for sale.” But over the course of the 33-minute exchange in front of reporters in the freshly gilded Oval Office, Carney had to wait patiently as Trump repeatedly made lengthy pitches for why Canada should be the US’s 51st state. It was a meeting that Trump repeatedly described as “friendly” but his words told a different story. The awkward tone was set moments before the tête-à-tête began, as Trump posted on Truth Social that the U.S. was giving Canada “FREE Military Protection” and that the U.S. doesn’t need energy, lumber from Canada or cars built there. “We don’t need ANYTHING they have, other than their friendship, which hopefully we will always maintain,” Trump wrote. It was Carney’s first visit to the White House since he led the Canadian Liberal Party last week to victory over the Conservatives to run the government. Trump opened the meeting by calling Carney a “very good person” and complimented him on his race, noting that Carney's Liberal Party had previously been behind in the polls. Trump called Carney’s win “one of the greatest comebacks in the history of politics, maybe even greater than mine.” Carney returned the compliments, saying Trump was a "transformational president” and praising Trump’s “relentless focus on the American worker, securing your borders” as well as ending the “scourge of fentanyl” and “securing the world.” But Carney started to shift uncomfortably when Trump was asked if he still believes Canada should be the 51st US state. Trump argued Canadians would pay lower taxes and have better security and better health care,if they joined the US. Carney was ready with a response that tried to appeal to Trump’s experience buying and selling buildings. “As you know from real estate, there are some places that are never for sale. The one we’re sitting in right now. You know, Buckingham Palace, which you visited as well. And having met with the owners of Canada over the course of the campaign last several months, it is not for sale—won’t be for sale, ever. But the opportunity is in the partnership and what we can build together.” Carney said his government is committed to increasing its investment in Canada’s security and working to defend the Arctic. But later on in their meeting, Trump came back to his conviction that one day Canada would become part of the US. “Never say never,” Trump said, at which point, Carney could be seen mouthing the word "never" five times as reporters shouted questions. In justifying his push for expanding the U.S., Trump described himself as “artistic” and liking the shape of the larger border when the two countries are joined on a map. “This is not necessarily a one-day deal. This is over a period of time they have to make that decision,” Trump said. Since he came to office, Trump has imposed 25% tariffs on steel and aluminum exports from Canada and 25% tariffs on cars and some auto parts. Tariffs on several other resources including potash used in crop fertilizers are at 10%. In retaliation, Canada set targeted 25% tariffs on beer, orange juice, peanut butter, wine and spirits and appliances and other goods. The two countries plan to negotiate those rates in a sweeping talks that could also reopen the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, or USMCA, that replaced the North American Free Trade Agreement in July 2020. Trump said Tuesday that he’d be willing to eliminate the USMCA altogether. “We do have a negotiation coming up over the next year or so to adjust it or terminate it,” Trump said. For his part, Carney described USMCA as the basis for “a broader negotiation” and said “some things about it are going to have to change.” As Trump continued to insist that Canada could one day merge with the U.S., the American President seemed to sense there was a risk this meeting could turn into a full-blown confrontation like the now infamous Oval Office meeting in February, where Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky refused to agree to a ceasefire with Russia without security guarantees from the U.S. “This is very friendly,” Trump said, as if saying the word itself would make it so. "This is not going to be like–we had another little blow up with somebody else—that was a much different thing. This is a very friendly conversation.”

President Donald Trump has been in office for more than three months, but he is still constantly bringing up his predecessor. Whether it’s casting blame or aspersions, Trump can’t stop talking about former President Joe Biden. In recent weeks, he’s mentioned Biden when asked about the stock market, the war in Gaza, what he’s doing to end Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and his decision to send Venezuelan men to a prison in El Salvador. On Friday, NBC’s Kristen Welker asked Trump when he’ll take responsibility for the performance of the U.S. economy. “I think the good parts are the Trump economy and the bad parts are the Biden economy,” Trump said. It was one of about 20 mentions of “Biden” Trump made in the interview, according to the transcript. The previous week, Trump mentioned Biden a dozen times during an interview with TIME. In the Trump White House's first 100 days, “Biden” was the fifth most frequently used word, according to a TIME analysis of transcripts of his public remarks and those of key spokespeople. The former President’s last name was uttered more than “border” and just less than the word “deal.” The most frequently used word was “great,” followed by “American” and “tariff.” To come up with the tally, TIME used an AI algorithm to analyze 92 events where Trump made on-camera remarks as well as press briefings his top officials held at the White House. Andrew Bates, Biden’s former senior deputy White House press secretary, views the constant blaming of his former boss as "counterproductive" for Trump. “The economy was better off when Joe Biden left office—Trump actively damaged it, and so every time he says Joe Biden’s name it just makes people remember a time when the economy was better,” Bates says. Yet Trump appears more than happy to continue blaming Biden for bad economic news. After the Commerce Department released data last week showing the gross domestic product shrank slightly in the first quarter, Trump said “This is Biden,” and then made clear a similar response may be coming in July. “You could even say the next quarter is sort of Biden.” Polls suggest the public is likely to connect any upcoming economic troubles to Trump’s trade war. Gallup polling released in late April found that 70% of Americans believe Trump’s new tariffs will cost the U.S. more than they generate in the short term. And 89% of American adults believe the tariffs will likely result in higher prices. In recent weeks, Biden has started stepping back into the spotlight. In mid-April, he gave a speech in which he criticized Trump’s haphazard firings and cost cuttings in the federal government, saying Trump’s administration is “shooting first and aiming later” and described Trump’s first months in office as being full of “damage” and “destruction” to programs that serve veterans and seniors. On Thursday, Biden and former First Lady Jill Biden will join the hosts of ABC’s The View. Biden’s return to the national stage comes ahead of the release of multiple books looking at how his aides grappled with questions about his mental acuity during his time in office. At the end of May, CNN’s Jake Tapper and Axios’s Alex Thompson plan to publish “Original Sin: President Biden's Decline, Its Cover-Up, and His Disastrous Choice to Run Again.” The Wall Street Journal’s Josh Dawsey, The New York Times’ Tyler Pager and the Washington Post’s Isaac Arnsdorf teamed up to write “2024: How Trump Retook the White House and the Democrats Lost America,” which is slated for early July.