Since its closure in 1963, Alcatraz Prison has become the stuff of legend. The seemingly inescapable federal penitentiary on a California island surrounded by frigid and powerful currents gained notoriety for housing some of history’s most famous prisoners, from Al “Scarface” Capone to George “Machine Gun” Kelly. But now, decades since the island was purchased by the National Park Service and turned into a popular tourist destination, Donald Trump wants to convert it back into a prison. What Trump said about Alcatraz “REBUILD, AND OPEN ALCATRAZ!” the President posted on Truth Social on Sunday evening, announcing that he has directed the Bureau of Prisons, the Department of Justice, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and Homeland Security to “reopen a substantially enlarged and rebuilt” prison on Alcatraz Island to “house America’s most ruthless and violent Offenders.” The move comes as Trump has pursued more aggressively punitive policies in his second term, including signing orders that encourage the use of extreme sentences and the death penalty, that target incarcerated trans women, and that expand police powers. Trump has also been criticized for eschewing the rule of law in carrying out a mass deportation campaign, detaining and deporting both undocumented immigrants as well as people legally in the U.S. without due process. At an April meeting between Trump and El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele, Trump said he’d be “all for” deporting Americans to El Salvador next. In January, Trump ordered the opening of a detention center in Guantanamo Bay, where the U.S. has long leased a site from Cuba, to which his Administration would send the “worst criminal aliens.” “When we were a more serious Nation, in times past, we did not hesitate to lock up the most dangerous criminals, and keep them far away from anyone they could harm. That’s the way it’s supposed to be,” Trump added in his Truth Social post. “We will no longer be held hostage to criminals, thugs, and Judges that are afraid to do their job and allow us to remove criminals, who came into our Country illegally.” Trump told reporters on Sunday night while returning to the White House from Florida that his Alcatraz plan was “just an idea I’ve had” to counter the “radicalized judges [that] want to have trials for every single—think of it—every single person that’s in our country illegally.” Alcatraz is “a symbol of law and order,” he said. “It’s got quite a history, frankly.” Experts, however, say Trump misunderstands the history and functionality of Alcatraz. “So many of his policies sound good—at least to those with the same politics—as long as you don’t think about them too seriously,” Ashley Rubin, an associate professor in the Sociology Department at the University of Hawai'i at Mānoa, tells TIME. “If you do, you realize all the practical problems and holes in the reasoning and how if we actually do these things, it will just make us worse off. Reopening Alcatraz is like that. It would be much safer for Americans and punitive toward criminals to use our current prison system than to reopen a tourist attraction.” The history of Alcatraz and why it closed Long before Alcatraz became the site of a prison, it was a military fortress. Originally the land of the Ohlone people indigenous to the San Francisco Bay Area, the island was named La Isla de las Alcatraces after its large pelicans that a Spanish Navy officer who arrived in 1775 thought were gannets, called alactraces in Spanish. Later, the island became a U.S. naval defense fort after the Mexican-American War of 1848. The U.S. military also used the island to hold prisoners, including confederate sympathizers during the Civil War and Hopi Native Americans who resisted the government’s land decrees and mandatory education programs in 1895. By 1912, it was rebuilt as an official military prison. In 1933, the Justice Department took over the island and made it a maximum-security federal penitentiary, partly in response to a rise in organized crime during prohibition. If the surrounding conditions didn’t make escape a hard enough prospect, the prison was retrofitted so that each prisoner was kept to one cell, and one guard was on duty for every three prisoners. Thirty-six men attempted 14 different escapes over the 29 years that the prison was open, and nearly all were caught or died in the attempt. But the prison closed in March 1963. Its facilities were crumbling and would have cost $3 to $5 million to restore, and its isolated location made operating costs too expensive to maintain—nearly three times higher than any other federal prison, according to the Bureau of Prisons—because everything, including potable water, had to be shipped in. The prison has long been a site of public fascination. It was featured in the 1962 film Birdman of Alcatraz about Robert Stroud, a convicted felon who studied the birds he saw while incarcerated and became an ornithologist, even finding a cure to a common avian hemorrhagic disease. It was also featured in the 1979 film Escape from Alcatraz, starring Clint Eastwood, and based on the real-life 1962 attempted escape of three prisoners who were never found, as well as in the 1996 fictional action thriller The Rock, starring Sean Connery and Nicolas Cage. After its purchase by the NPS in 1972, the island has become a major tourist attraction and brings in more than a million visitors each year, according to the agency. How the Bureau of Prisons and others have responded—and what experts tell TIME of Trump’s proposal A spokesperson for the Bureau of Prisons told the Associated Press that the BOP will “comply with all Presidential Orders,” but did not explain how it would restore or reopen the prison while it is under the jurisdiction of the NPS, whose staff and funding have been threatened by Trump cuts, particularly while the BOP is struggling to keep its own facilities open amid deteriorating infrastructure and staffing shortages. “The President’s proposal is not a serious one,” former House Speaker and California Democrat Rep. Nancy Pelosi posted on X. David Ward, professor emeritus of sociology at the University of Minnesota who interviewed and wrote about prisoners at Alcatraz, tells TIME that there’s little practical use to try to reopen Alcatraz as a prison, but Trump may be more interested in its name and legacy than practicality. “The reopening of ALCATRAZ will serve as a symbol of Law, Order, and JUSTICE,” Trump said in his Truth Social announcement. Rubin says that even historically, Alcatraz was not the most efficient or most punitive maximum-security prison. Rather, it served more as a “public relations piece” and “administrative salve.” For one, its capacity is limited by the island’s size. When the prison was functioning, it could hold at maximum around 300 people—or up to about 1,000 if overcrowded. And while it was billed to hold “the worst of the worst,” in reality, says Rubin, it held just a handful of notorious criminals along with some prisoners who had previously managed to escape or who were “difficult” at other prisons: “People like to talk about the Hannibal Lecters of the world, but they usually don’t end up in these types of facilities. It’s usually people who are just a thorn in the side of administrators.” If the BOP were to go ahead with rebuilding Alcatraz, however, the old prison facility is significantly deteriorated and would have to be entirely rebuilt, Rubin says, which would likely take years and could go beyond Trump’s term. Another possibility, Rubin suggests, would be for Alcatraz to become a “rapid turnover facility,” where the Administration might send people without due process before deporting them, in which case it would mostly serve as a “photo-op” for Trump. “The publicity of Alcatraz Island is what [Trump] wants: a bastion where inmates are treated inhumanely because they deserve it,” says Ward. It’s a “monument to punishment and brutality.” Given the challenges restoring the island prison presents, Trump could even pursue his goal of “reopening” Alcatraz by transplanting the name elsewhere, such as El Salvador. It wouldn’t be the first time it’s been done: After Alcatraz closed, it was succeeded by two supermax prisons: “New Alcatraz” in Marion, Illinois, and the “Alcatraz of the Rockies” in Florence, Colorado. “The name Alcatraz always goes with the prisons because it conveys the message the government likes to have,” says Ward, “which is, ‘we’re doing real punishment for the bad guys.’”

“The Movie Industry in America is DYING a very fast death,” President Donald Trump posted on his social platform Truth Social on Sunday night. “Other Countries are offering all sorts of incentives to draw our filmmakers and studios away from the United States. Hollywood, and many other areas within the U.S.A., are being devastated. This is a concerted effort by other Nations and, therefore, a National Security threat. It is, in addition to everything else, messaging and propaganda! Therefore, I am authorizing the Department of Commerce, and the United States Trade Representative, to immediately begin the process of instituting a 100% Tariff on any and all Movies coming into our Country that are produced in Foreign Lands. WE WANT MOVIES MADE IN AMERICA, AGAIN!” But experts tell TIME that it’s not clear how such a policy would work or who would be charged such a tariff. “I know it’s not the U.S. government or the President’s job to understand how movies are made,” says entertainment consultant Kathryn Arnold, “but if you understand how complex and interconnected the global film market is—both on a production and a distribution level—it’s devastating and doesn’t make any sense.” While the President identified a real problem—the U.S. film industry has indeed suffered as production increasingly moves overseas—experts agree that Trump’s seemingly favorite policy tool, tariffs, isn’t really an applicable solution. Trump’s global trade war thus far has involved slapping levies on foreign goods, for which the U.S. is a net-importer. But foreign films are intellectual property and part of the global trade of services, for which the U.S. is actually a net-exporter. “The operating theory that the Trump Administration seems to be embracing is that if they make foreign manufacturing more appealing for any part of American industry, it will result in domestic manufacturing improving. So if there are tariffs on anything foreign, it’s supposed to inspire manufacturing domestically,” says Tom Nunan, a continuing lecturer at the School of Theater, Film and Television at University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA). “It was predictable that it would turn to entertainment as well.” “If it’s cost-prohibitive to produce motion pictures and episodic television, or to acquire motion pictures or episodic television from foreign territories, then it would stand to reason, at least from his Administration’s standpoint, that foreign production would return to the United States. I think that’s the operating theory, at least,” says Nunan, adding however that “it’s not black or white like that.” Speaking to reporters outside the White House on Sunday night, Trump said: “other nations have been stealing the moviemaking capabilities from the United States.” Trump added that he has done “very strong research” over the past week and that “Hollywood is being destroyed” and “if they’re not willing to make a movie inside the United States, then we should have a tariff on movies that come in.” While Hollywood has seen a decline in production in recent years, in part due to rising labor costs, Arnold tells TIME that one way Trump could actually try to reverse that trend is by offering incentives, such as tax credits, for shooting in the U.S., which some foreign countries and cities already do as well as several U.S. states. But that would only impact one aspect of filmmaking, and some films shoot across multiple locations. Arnold added that many films are also co-produced by multiple production companies across countries. Offering an incentive for specific aspects of production would be much more straightforward than trying to determine whether a film is “American” or “foreign” in order to penalize the latter. The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative has said that although services are not subject to tariffs, they can be subject to trade barriers like regulatory requirements. But when it comes to film and entertainment, imposing certain restrictions can lead to a dramatically less free media environment within the country. In China, foreign films—defined as any film not produced by domestically licensed production companies, which can have no more than a 49% foreign partnership stake—are subject to strict censorship and quotas, which require going through state-run distributors. And in response to Trump’s recent tariffs against the country’s goods, the Chinese government announced it would “moderately reduce” the quota of U.S. movies allowed into its massive but tightly controlled market. There’s also the risk that other countries would retaliate to a foreign-film tariff. And with the film industry being one of America’s strongest service-sector exports—according to the latest Motion Picture Association economic impact report, from 2023, it “generated a positive balance of trade in every major market in the world” for the U.S.—Center for Strategic and International Studies economic adviser and former president of the National Foreign Trade Council William Reinsch told Reuters: “We have a lot more to lose than to gain.” Trump’s foreign-film tariff proposal, which has sent jitters through the entertainment industry, came after he met at Mar-a-Lago over the weekend with actor Jon Voight, whom the President had previously named “special ambassador” to Hollywood. Voight addressed the meeting in a video statement shared on Monday, saying that, after consulting with industry leaders, he presented recommendations to Trump for “certain tax provisions that can help the industry” to address the decline in domestic film production. The recommendations, according to a press release by Voight’s manager’s firm SP Media Group, included “federal tax incentives, significant changes to several tax codes, the establishment of co-production treaties with foreign countries, and infrastructure subsidies for theater owners, film and television production companies, and post-production companies.” According to the release, the proposal “also includes a focus on job training, and tariffs in certain limited circumstances.” Scott Karol, the president of SP Media Group who was also at the meeting with Voight and Trump at Mar-a-Lago, clarified to Bloomberg that “bad actors” who take their entire production overseas would face a tariff equal to any incentives they received from other countries, while co-producers would receive credit for their U.S. spending. Still, with all the questions hanging over the tariff proposal and how it may be implemented, White House spokesperson Kush Desai clarified in a statement on Monday that “no final decisions on foreign film tariffs have been made,” adding that “the Administration is exploring all options to deliver on President Trump’s directive.” Trump himself also suggested Monday that he may not pursue the tariff idea if pushback is too strong. “I’m not looking to hurt the industry. I want to help the industry,” he said, noting that he plans to consult members of the film industry. “I want to make sure they’re happy with it, because we’re all about jobs.”

There has been ongoing discussion as to whether President Donald Trump will seek a third term—only strengthened by the fact the Trump Store is now selling “Trump 2028” merchandise. In his April 22 interview with TIME, Trump said: “I'd rather not discuss that now, but as you know, there are some loopholes that have been discussed that are well known. But I don't believe in loopholes. I don't believe in using loopholes.” Per the 22nd Amendment of the U.S. constitution, this is the second—and final—term that Trump can serve. In an interview with the Atlantic, published on April 28, the topic came up once again, with Trump saying that running for a third term was not something he is looking into. However, speculation continued. In his latest interview with NBC’s Meet the Press, which aired on Sunday, May 4, Trump appeared to set the record straight, emphasizing once more that it’s “not something” he’s looking to do and elaborating on his decision. “I'm looking to have four great years and turn it over to somebody, ideally a great Republican, a great Republican to carry it forward,” Trump told host Kristen Welker. "I just want to serve, do a great job. I’ll be an eight-year President, I’ll be a two-term President. I always thought that was very important, to be honest with you." Trump did, however, state that he’s had numerous requests to seek an additional term. “So many people want me to do it. I've never had requests so strong as that,” Trump said of the third term rhetoric. “I think it’s so strong and we have tremendous people… you look at [Secretary of State] Marco Rubio and [Vice President] J.D. Vance, who is fantastic, I could name 10 to 15 people right now just sitting here,” he said. When asked about a possible successor, Trump said it was “far too early” to say definitively, but once again mentioned Vance and Rubio by name. "Certainly you would say that [if] somebody’s the VP, if that person is outstanding, I guess that person would have an advantage," Trump said of Vance, adding: "But you know, it could be that he’d be challenged by somebody. We have a lot of good people in this party." Trump’s latest comments contrast what he told Welker in his last interview on Meet the Press, whereby he teased “there are methods” for seeking out a third term. “I’m not joking,” Trump said in March, when asked to clarify whether he wanted another term. “But I’m not—it is far too early to think about it.” But in his most recent sit-down, Trump seemed to highlight that he knew “to the best of [his] knowledge,” he would not be able to do it. Trump’s clarification also comes after he told a Michigan crowd at a rally on April 29 that he had “already served” a third term. “We actually already served three [terms], if you count. But remember, I like the victories, I like the three victories which we absolutely had. I just don't like the results of the middle term,” Trump said, once again denying the results of the 2020 election, which he lost to former President Joe Biden.

The first 100 days of President Donald Trump’s second term in the White House have been dominated by talks of Executive Orders, tariffs, foreign relations and economic stability in light of the trade war sparked by the tariffs, comments about annexing Canada, the possibility of seeking a third term, and much more. Such topics were discussed in Trump’s April 22 interview in TIME, and it was of little surprise that the subject matters came up again when Trump sat down for an interview with NBC’s Meet the Press at his Mar-a-Lago home in Palm Beach, Florida. Here are some of the key topics Trump spoke out about in his televised interview, conducted by Kristen Welker, which aired in full on Sunday, May 4: A desire to annex Canada and make it the "51st state" In recent months, Trump has made a number of comments highlighting his desire to annex Canada and make it the 51st state. In a post shared on Truth Social on March 11, when addressing the concerns Canada raised regarding tariffs, Trump said: “The only thing that makes sense is for Canada to become our cherished Fifty First State. This would make all tariffs, and everything else, totally disappear.” Canada’s Prime Minister Mark Carney, whose Liberal Party won the Canadian election on April 28, has—much like his predecessor Justin Trudeau—made it clear that Canada has no intention of taking Trump up on his offer. “It will never happen,” he said. In this latest interview, Trump said he had congratulated Carney on his election win, but doubled down on his desire to make Canada the 51st state, saying he will “always talk about that.” Trump repeated his previous sentiments, referring once more to Canada’s former Prime Minister as “Governor Trudeau.” He emphasized what he believes are unfair trade practices with the country, claiming that Canada needs the United States. “If Canada was a state it wouldn't cost us. It would be great. It would be such a great—it would be a cherished state. And, if you look at our map, if you look at the geography, I'm a real estate guy at heart. When I look down at that without that artificial line that was drawn with a ruler many years ago… You don't even realize. What a beautiful country it would be,” he said. “Again, remember this, we don't need their cars, we don't need their lumber, we don't need their energy. We don't need anything. We do very little business with Canada. They do all of their business practically with us. They need us. We don't need them.” Trump added that it would be “highly unlikely” for him to use military force on Canada, as much as he would like to see the country implemented as a state. Is the U.S. heading into a recession? Trump echoed his previous comments regarding whether or not the fallout of his so-called “reciprocal tariffs,” which led to market volatility after their announcement in early April, will help lead the U.S. into a recession. When asked if it's "okay to have a recession in the short-term," Trump said: "Yeah, it's... everything's okay. I said, this is a transition period. I think we're going to do fantastically." The President was asked if he's worried about concerns raised by Wall Street, that the possibility of a recession is increasing. At the end of April, the Commerce Department reported that the U.S. economy shrank in early 2025. Trump once again focused on the long-term positive effects he is hoping for, rather than any concerns regarding the current economy. “Anything can happen,” he said. “But I think we're going to have the greatest economy in the history of our country. I think we're going to have the greatest economic boom in history.” He also insisted that many economic issues were left over from President Joe Biden's era. “I think the good parts are the Trump economy and the bad parts are the Biden economy, because he’s done a terrible job,” he said. Does a President need to uphold the Constitution? Trump was questioned about his recent back-and-forth with the Supreme Court, after it ordered the federal government to “facilitate” Kilmar Ábrego García's return to the United States. The Maryland man was deported to El Salvador by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in March, in what was initially called an administrative error. Although Ábrego García entered the U.S. illegally years ago, in 2019 a judge granted him "withholding of removal" status, after determining that his fears of persecution if he were returned to El Salvador were credible. Despite the Supreme Court's instruction, the Trump Administration has so far declined to "facilitate" Ábrego García's return. “I have the power to ask for him to come back if I'm instructed by the Attorney General that it's legal to do so,” Trump said. “But the decision as to whether or not he should come back will be the head of El Salvador. He's a very capable man.” When asked if he believes that every person in the U.S. deserves due process—regardless of their legal status—Trump said “I don’t know. I'm not a lawyer.” After Welker pointed to the Fifth Amendment, which states that “no person” shall be “deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law,” Trump responded once more. “I don’t know. It seems—it might say that, but if you’re talking about that, then we’d have to have a million or two million or three million trials,” the President said. “We have thousands of people that are—some murderers and some drug dealers and some of the worst people on Earth.” When asked if he needs to uphold the Constitution as the U.S. President, Trump said: "I don't know. I have to respond by saying, again, I have brilliant lawyers that work for me, and they are going to obviously follow what the Supreme Court said. What you said is not what I heard the Supreme Court said. They have a different interpretation."

Since taking office, President Donald Trump has been implementing a slew of actions and executive orders that stand to have wide-reaching impacts on climate policies. During Trump’s first term, the administration put climate on the back burner—rolling back more than 125 environmental rules and policies. When former-President Joe Biden took office, he led the U.S. forward on climate action, signing the Inflation Reduction Act, the largest federal climate change investment in American history. Now, the Trump administration stands to dismantle much of the momentum it has inherited—curbing progress to reduce fossil fuel emissions, the largest contributor to climate change, just as the world surpassed 1.5°C of warming in 2024—the hottest year on record. Columbia University’s Sabin Center for Climate Change Law’s “Climate Backtracker,” has logged nearly 100 efforts to scale back or eliminate federal climate mitigation and adaptation measures since the administration took office at the end of January—ranging from boosting fossil-fuel production to withdrawing the U.S. from the Paris Climate Accords. Fast-Tracking Deep-Sea Mining On April 24, the Trump Administration moved forward with an executive order aimed at boosting the highly controversial practice of deep-sea mining. The order side-steps ongoing international efforts to regulate the practice, and would allow companies to approve licenses in the high seas, an area typically overseen by an intergovernmental agency, the International Seabed Agency (ISA). The U.S. never signed a U.N. treaty, overseen by the ISA, that governs the seabed, though has in the past respected it. There are currently no approved commercial-scale deep-sea mining projects anywhere in the world, and many countries have called for a moratorium until the environmental impact is better understood. Blocking State Climate Laws In addition to rolling back federal climate action, the Trump Administration has taken action to block the enforcement of state level climate measures. In an April 8 Executive Order, the White House directed the Attorney General to identify all state and local laws on addressing climate change, ESG initiatives (short for environmental, social, and governance), environmental justice, and carbon emissions—and make moves to block them. Many state leaders have reaffirmed their commitment to addressing climate change in the wake of the Trump Administration’s regressions. New York governor Kathy Hochul and New Mexico governor Michelle Lujan Grisham, who co-chair the U.S. Climate Alliance, have said they will not be deterred. "We will keep advancing solutions to the climate crisis that safeguard Americans' fundamental right to clean air and water, create good-paying jobs, grow the clean energy economy, and make our future healthier and safer,” they said in a joint statement. Ramping up Oil and Gas Production On Feb. 14, Trump signed an executive order to create a new “National Energy Dominance Council,” aimed at increasing the country’s oil and gas production. Trump’s “drill, baby, drill” approach is meant to lower energy prices and increase supply of fossil fuels. The country’s oil and gas production, however, already reached record highs under the Biden administration, according to the Center for American Progress. And some experts have warned the moves may actually harm some refineries and raise gas prices. In response to Trump’s declaration of a national energy emergency, the Department of Interior said on April 23 that it would implement emergency permitting processes to accelerate approval times for energy and mining projects on federal lands. EPA Deregulation On March 12, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lee Zeldin announced 31 actions aimed at rolling back a number of significant environmental regulations, in what the agency called "the most consequential day of deregulation in U.S. history." The list of targets includes reconsidering restrictions on carbon dioxide emissions from power plants, rolling back vehicle emission standards meant to accelerate a transition to EVs, and pushing to challenge a 2009 finding that greenhouse gasses like carbon dioxide and methane are a threat to public health. In a video announcing the actions, Zeldin refashioned the goals of the EPA, saying the agency’s actions would help lower costs and make purchasing cars or heating homes more affordable to Americans. “Today the green new scam ends as the EPA does its part to usher in the golden age of American success,” he said. More Logging in National Forests On March 1, the President signed an executive order to increase timber production across 280 acres of national forests and federal land. In the executive order, Trump said that “heavy-handed Federal policies” have “prevented full utilization” of the country’s timber resources. The move appeared to be an attempt to boost domestic production ahead of imposing tariffs on foreign countries. (In 2023, the U.S. was the largest importer of wood products in the world, importing $24.8 billion worth from Canada, China, Brazil, and others.) Logging drastically impacts a region’s biodiversity—causing wildlife to lose their habitat and food sources and produces harmful greenhouse gas emissions. The order also directed federal agencies to look for ways to bypass endangered species protections and other environmental regulations, putting the fate of many of the nation’s long protected ecosystems at risk. NOAA Staff Cuts More than 600 workers at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA, were laid off on Feb. 27 as part of the Trump Administration’s efforts to cull the federal workforce. The move stands to have profound impacts on the country’s ability to protect public safety during extreme weather events that are only increasing in frequency as the planet warms. NOAA is a vital data resource on everything from hurricanes to drought, which weather forecasters, local authorities, farmers, and others around the country rely on. The agency’s weather alerts are also an essential warning system allowing communities to protect themselves from extreme weather. Last year, NOAA recorded 27 weather and climate disasters with at least $1 billion in damages, the second highest number since the agency began tracking the numbers in 1980. Withdrawing From Paris Accords One of the administration’s first moves on the first day of Trump’s presidency, was to begin the process of withdrawing the United States from the Paris Agreement. The pact, which was signed by nearly 200 countries in 2015, aimed to curb long-term global warming to 2.7°F (2°C) above pre-industrial levels or keep temperatures below 3.6°F (1.5°C) above pre-industrial levels. The move did not come as a surprise—during his first administration, Trump also withdrew the U.S. from the agreement, though Biden rejoined upon taking office. “In recent years, the United States has purported to join international agreements and initiatives that do not reflect our country’s values or our contributions to the pursuit of economic and environmental objectives,” President Trump said in an executive order. “Moreover, these agreements steer American taxpayer dollars to countries that do not require, or merit, financial assistance in the interests of the American people.” The move weakens the U.S. position and reliability when it comes to international climate negotiations. In a November interview with the Guardian, U.N. Secretary General António Guterres likened a potential U.S. withdrawal to losing a limb or organ. “The Paris Agreement can survive, but people sometimes can lose important organs or lose the legs and survive. But we don’t want a crippled Paris Agreement. We want a real Paris Agreement,” he said. In early March, the U.S. also withdrew from the International Partners Group, an agreement which had rich countries allocate money to the green energy transition in South Africa, Indonesia, Vietnam, and Senegal, as well as the board of the Loss and Damage Fund, which is dedicated to helping developing countries weather climate disasters. Evaluating FEMA The president signed an executive order on Jan. 24 calling for an assessment of the effectiveness of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the nation’s main arm for disaster recovery. While visiting Hurricane Helene victims in North Carolina on Jan. 24, he proposed “getting rid” of FEMA, a move that could impact the country’s ability to recover from extreme weather events that are becoming more intense and frequent due to climate change. The appointed council, which will include the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of Defense, will have one year to evaluate “the existing ability of FEMA to capably and impartially address disasters occurring within the United States.” EPA Cuts The Trump Administration and its newly created Department of Governmental Efficiency (DOGE) proposed sweeping cuts to many federal agencies, including the EPA. At the beginning of February, the agency told more than 1,000 “probationary” employees, those who had been working for the agency for less than a year, that they could be fired immediately, according to NBC News. The agency has since “terminated” nearly 400 employees, according to The Hill. Banning Paper Straws Trump signed an executive order on Feb. 10 ending the use of paper straws by the federal government, calling them “nonfunctional” and urging the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy and “relevant agencies” to “issue a national strategy to end the use of paper straws” within 45 days. The move, while considered largely symbolic, undoes part of a Biden Administration initiative aimed at phasing out the use of single-use plastics, such as plastic straws and water bottles, from all federal operations by 2035. Pausing Electric Vehicle Adoption In 2021, the Biden Administration set a goal to have EVs make up half of all new cars sold by 2030, a move which President Trump revoked upon returning to power. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) also released a memo on Feb. 6 saying that the Department of Transportation was reviewing the implementation of the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) Formula Program. The move froze roughly $3 billion dollars in funding that was allocated to expand the network of electric vehicle charging stations across the country, according to Atlas Public Policy. According to the most recent EPA data, in 2022 transportation was the largest source (28%) of emissions in the U.S. Decarbonizing this sector would go a long way to reducing the country’s carbon footprint.

Just days before the papal conclave is set to begin—and a new leader of the Catholic Church will be chosen—President Donald Trump posted an AI-generated image of himself as the Pope. Trump took to his social media platform, Truth Social, late on Friday, May 2, to share an image of himself in the traditional papal clothing. The official White House social media account later reposted the image on X. The image garnered a mixed response, with one critic saying it was "rather offensive for Catholics." Michael Steele, a former chairman of the Republican National Committee, was among those to critique the posting of the image, referring to Trump as "unserious and incapable." Since the death of Pope Francis on Easter Monday, the Catholic community—along with the rest of the world—has been eagerly waiting to see who will succeed him. That decision will be made during the papal conclave, which is set to begin on May 7. Trump’s post of himself as the Pontiff comes just days after he teased he would choose himself to succeed Pope Francis. “I’d like to be Pope,” Trump told reporters outside the White House on April 30, when he was asked about the next Pontiff. “That would be my number one choice.” The quip was then bolstered by others—including Sen. Lindsay Graham, who joked on X that he was “excited” that the President is “open to the idea of being the next Pope.” Trump went on to more seriously suggest New York Cardinal Timothy Dolan, the Archbishop of New York, as a contender to be the next Pope. Dolan has been seen as Trump’s preferred cardinal and delivered traditional prayers at both of his inaugurations. “I must say, we have a cardinal that happens to be out of a place called New York who’s very good,” Trump said. On May 1, Trump signed an Executive Order establishing the “Religious Liberty Commission,” and named Cardinal Dolan as one of the individuals who will serve as a member. The President attended Pope Francis’ funeral on Saturday, April 26, but the two notably had a complicated relationship, as the Catholic Church leader sharply disagreed with Trump’s mass deportation efforts, saying that the practice “damages the dignity of many men and women, and of entire families.” Pope Francis also notably referred to Trump’s first term efforts to build a wall on the Southern border between the U.S. and Mexico as “not Christian.”

More than a month after Harvard University filed a lawsuit against President Donald Trump for freezing its federal funding, the President has come back with another financial swing against the university. “We are going to be taking away Harvard’s Tax Exempt Status,” Trump posted on Truth Social early Friday. “It’s what they deserve!” The immediate effect of Trump’s declaration is not immediately clear. Per U.S. law, it is illegal for the President and other senior officials to ask the IRS to “conduct or terminate an audit or other investigation of any particular taxpayer with respect to the tax liability of such taxpayer.” Lily Batchelder, a New York University School of Law professor on tax policy, called the announcement a “lawless action by the President.” “If the President can announce that he is revoking the tax-exempt status of a charity, we have crossed a rubicon that has no clear end. What will stop him or any President from weaponizing the IRS to intimidate any political opponents or groups he dislikes into silence?” she says. Harvard University was one of the first higher education institutions in recent weeks to stand firmly against the Trump Administration—which ordered the university to take on anti-DEI policies, among other measures. The school’s pushback has placed $2.2 billion in multi-year federal funding at risk, and the Administration has threatened to pull another $1 billion in grants. Federal funding exceeds the $2.4 billion distributed by Harvard’s endowment for the fiscal year ending in June 2024, which made up nearly 40% of the institution’s total operating revenue.. Much of the university’s staff has cheered the university’s decision, with dozens of professors vowing to take pay cuts in order to help the university battle Trump in court. Private universities and colleges are tax-exempt if they qualify for 501(c)(3), or nonprofit, status, which requires that they operate “exclusively for…educational purposes,” according to the Association of American Universities (AAU). Higher education schools must show they are complying through tax filings, audits, and reports. An institution can lose its tax-exempt status if it fails to abide by rules regarding the “valuation, disclosure, and use of charitable gifts,” the AAU says. Batchelder lists examples, such as exceeding limits on lobbying and board members or executive directors using the charity for their personal gains. “The tax exemption means that more of every dollar can go toward scholarships for students, lifesaving and life-enhancing medical research, and technological advancements that drive economic growth. There is no legal basis to rescind Harvard’s tax-exempt status,” a Harvard University spokesperson told TIME in an emailed statement. The IRS directed TIME to the Treasury Department for comment, which did not immediately respond to a request. “Such an unprecedented action would endanger our ability to carry out our educational mission,” the Harvard spokesperson added. “It would result in diminished financial aid for students, abandonment of critical medical research programs, and lost opportunities for innovation. The unlawful use of this instrument more broadly would have grave consequences for the future of higher education in America.” For fiscal year 2024, Harvard distributed more than $749 million in financial aid and scholarships. About 55% of Harvard undergraduates received need-based scholarships. Harvard University is also under investigation by the Trump Administration over pro-Palestinian campus protests and allegations of anti-semitism on campus. In April, the Department of Homeland Security announced that it would cancel $2.7 million in grants to Harvard because of the participation of some international students in pro-Palestinain protests. “Harvard bending the knee to antisemitism—driven by its spineless leadership—fuels a cesspool of extremist riots and threatens our national security,” said DHS Secretary Kristi Noem. Noem asked for Harvard’s records pertaining to foreign student visa holders, saying it would lose its Student and Exchange Visitor Program certification if it did not comply. The program allows international students to study in the U.S.

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. Charles Koch never uttered his name, but it was mighty clear that President Donald Trump was on his, and everyone else’s, mind Thursday night at a glitzy gala that might have as well have been Koch Con. “With so much change, and chaos, and conflict, too many people and organizations are abandoning these principles and turning to power to solve problems,” said the 89-year-old billionaire industrialist behind some of the most formidable organizations on the political Right. “But we know from history, this just makes them worse. “People have forgotten that when principles are lost, so are freedom and progress,” he added at the gala convened in his honor by the Cato Institute, the libertarian think tank he founded. Charles Koch has long been a foe of protectionism and an evangelist for free markets, competitive advantage, and mutual benefit. In fact, the remarks he delivered Thursday evening—just a few minutes of efficiently coded winks and nods sprinkled with quotes from philosophical favorites Friedrich Hayek and Frederick Douglass—could just as easily have come a decade ago or a decade later. But they came in May 2025, at a moment when Trump and his economic team are engaging in some of the riskiest and costliest brinksmanship over global trade in a generation. And when the head of the second-largest private company in the United States speaks, there’s an oracle-like aura that demands parsing. “You can see why we’re in the mess we are today,” Koch said. The “mess” was as explicit as he was willing to get in regard to a pursuit of power at all costs that led to the long-building Trump’s movement and what has unfolded in the first months of his second term. The President marked his 100th day in office this week with a report from his Commerce Department that showed the economy shrunk in his first quarter. His trade war has shifted buying patterns, shaken U.S. consumer confidence, and rattled the stock market. Consumers are already starting to notice costs rising from Trump’s tariff strategy, which has been all over the map: adding some here, delaying them there, canceling them here, upping them there. It is, to those who share Koch’s worldview, government intervention run amok. Koch and free-market ideals have long been wed. Charles, along with his late brother David Koch, has been a force in conservative circles for a half century, funding and fueling dozens of efforts to help small-government causes. Americans for Prosperity—a conservative powerhouse of volunteers, ads, and door-knockers—is one of the backbones of the grassroots efforts that have bolstered Republicans for decades—and AFP’s partner groups targeting veterans, young voters, voters of color, and women have all proven efficient investments for the Kochs and their circle of high-dollar pals. But it has always been a mistake for Republicans to assume blind political fealty from Charles Koch and his lieutenants. Koch-linked groups helped muscle through Trump’s first-term tax cuts and they were back in the field trying to push their extension even before Trump came back to Washington. Trump also worked with the Koch orbit on a massive rewrite of the criminal justice system and Koch-minded activists cheered on Trump-era efforts to let terminally ill patients access medical treatments that had not yet fully cleared FDA vetting. Yet the Koch groups were patently against Trump’s ban on migrants from countries with Muslim majorities, objected to his hardline view of immigration, and fought for legal status for Dreamers. In fact, the Koch orbit did its best to ignore Trump, sitting out the 2016 general election after flirting with other potential nominees who came up short. Shunned by the ultra-rich circle, Trump claimed he had turned down their invitation to join a closed-door summit that summer, but it was clear an offer had never been extended. In 2020, the Koch universe went to ground on the White House race, too, saying their focus was the Senate. And four years later, their collection of groups spent $42 million to unsuccessfully keep Trump from becoming the nominee for a third time. Its flagship political arm, Americans for Prosperity, dumped almost $160 million into political and policy advocacy in the last cycle without lifting a penny to help Trump. Despite his recent setbacks on the political stage, Koch and his fans are not shying from the fight. When a hype video played before his speech, the crowd laughed when criticism from Bernie Sanders, Tucker Carlson, and Lou Dobbs played on the screens—a nod to the fact that Koch is reviled by those who otherwise share zero in common, yet has not backed down. And judging from the applause in the room when Cato president and CEO Peter Goettler said explicitly what Koch merely waved at, the feistiness is not fading. “We will always oppose when a policy is moving in a direction that contradicts these principles,” Goettler said. “When the President disappears people without due process, or enacts extra-legal tariffs that threaten business and prosperity around the world, or targets individual law firms for retribution and calls into great danger to the rule of law, we’ll stick to our principles, speak out, push back, and oppose it.” The free-market fanboys and libertarian aficionados have spent almost a half century decrying the exact meddling that Trump is now engaging in. A hands-off-the-market approach has been sacrosanct for these wonks. Lost on no one was the fact that Koch was in town—a rare visit, really—to accept the 2025 Milton Friedman Prize for Advancing Liberty, named in honor of the economist who was pretty strident in his opposition to tariffs. Tariffs that have come to define Washington over the last few weeks.

Alandmark agreement for Ukraine to hand over half of its future oil, gas and mineral wealth to the U.S. may be thawing a cold war within the Republican Party. For more than a year, Republicans have been at odds over the war-torn country, with Trump-aligned lawmakers skeptical of continued involvement and national security hawks intent on countering Russia's continued invasion. But several Republicans in Congress told TIME Thursday that the deal gives both factions what they need: a path to continued support that could be sold to voters as either a business arrangement or a moral obligation—or both. “Yesterday was a very bad day for the dictator and war criminal, Vladimir Putin,” Senator Roger Wicker, a Kansas Republican and chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, tells TIME. “The door is now open for more aid. It's a game changer." The deal, completed on Wednesday after months of negotiations, will give the U.S. a 50% stake in all new oil, gas and mineral projects and infrastructure inside Ukraine and will be used to fund Ukrainian purchases of U.S. weapons systems. The terms, which still have to be ratified by Ukraine’s parliament, seem to have dissolved weeks of tension between the inner circles of President Donald Trump and Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky after Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance dressed down Zelensky in a heated Oval Office exchange. The U.S. has provided more than $66 billion in military assistance to Ukraine since Russia launched a full scale invasion of the country in 2022. In recent months, Trump and Congressional Republicans have balked at sending more U.S. assistance to the country, pressuring Ukraine to make territorial concessions to Russia in exchange for a ceasefire agreement. But Russian President Vladimir Putin appears to have overplayed his hand by continuing to launch fatal strikes into Kyiv during the talks, frustrating Trump and exposing how little influence he has with the Russian leader. While the agreement does not offer Ukraine the security guarantees it had long sought, it does, in effect, give Trump and his allies a tangible, economic rationale for maintaining U.S. aid. For long-time Ukraine-backers in the Capitol, the deal revives the prospect of Congress appropriating more funds to Ukraine as early as this year. “This puts American skin in the game,” Republican Sen. James Lankford of Oklahoma tells TIME. Senator Joni Ernst of Iowa calls the agreement a “huge breakthrough” that allows Trump “to say to the American people that the Ukrainians will pay us back, and we can continue providing the military aid to defend something we are really invested in.” The joint U.S.-Ukraine investment fund will be administered by both countries and financed through revenues from future energy and mineral projects, including those tied to Ukraine’s vast reserves of lithium, titanium, and rare earth elements, according to a Trump administration official. Existing operations will remain fully under Ukrainian control, and ownership of all resources will remain with Ukraine. But going forward, Kyiv would be required to match any new U.S. military assistance with a resource-based contribution to the fund. Zelensky’s leadership team was buoyant about the terms. “This is excellent news—we’re feeling optimistic,” says a foreign policy advisor to Zelensky who was involved in the negotiations. Ukrainian negotiators were able to “take out all the really onerous stuff” proposed by the U.S., the adviser says, leaving a deal in which the costs to Ukraine “look minimal.” While the deal lacks an explicit promise the U.S. will protect Ukraine from more Russian incursions, giving the U.S. a financial stake in the country’s future may be the next best thing. “This is probably as close as we’re going to get to security guarantees with this administration,” the advisor tells TIME. A former senior Ukrainian official had a more measured reaction, noting that the agreement doesn’t change much on the battlefield. “It’s hard to call this a security guarantee. The Americans can tell the Russians not to attack any projects with US investment. But that does not give security to the rest of the country,” the former official says. The reaction from Democrats was also mixed, with some warning that the deal risks turning U.S. foreign policy into a pay-to-play operation. For lawmakers who had long supported Ukraine based on shared democratic values and geopolitical interests, the shift to an explicitly transactional arrangement was jarring. “My worry is that Trump will succumb to the bully Putin,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer tells TIME. “He's doing these elaborate dances, but the proof of the pudding will be if he stands up to Putin, if he stands up for Zelensky, when they're going to sign a real agreement.” Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, who recently introduced a bipartisan bill that would impose new sanctions and tariffs on nations buying Russian energy, describes the mineral deal as “a positive step” but “largely symbolic.” “It’s meaningless in the immediate practical terms,” he tells TIME. “But it could be a stepping stone toward Trump reaffirming our support for Ukraine in military as well as economic terms.” Senator Chris Murphy, another Connecticut Democrat, was even more critical, dismissing the deal as pointless since “Donald Trump is rooting for the destruction of Ukraine.” He pointed to reports that Ukraine’s most resource-rich regions are in areas Trump officials have encouraged Ukraine to give up as part of a ceasefire. “My sense is that [the deal] likely has no teeth in it, and it likely has to do with mineral deposits that are in the Russian-controlled territories that Donald Trump has already said will remain permanently in Russia’s hands,” Murphy tells TIME. Lawmakers and analysts in Ukraine and America on Thursday were still poring over the details of the deal, particularly the mechanics of the joint U.S.-Ukraine investment fund. Even though accessing the country’s minerals is years off, the way the fund is structured may provide Ukraine with immediate help in its war effort, says Mark Montgomery, a retired U.S. Navy rear admiral and a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. For Ukraine to continue to fend off the Russian advance, the Ukraine military needs the U.S. to continue to provide real-time intelligence, specialized missiles for Ukrainian fighter jets, and missiles for Patriot batteries that are defending Ukrainian civilians. In recent months, Trump and other Republicans were threatening to cut off all of that. Over the long term, if this arrangement actually leads to the extraction of valuable minerals, it will "more deeply integrate the United States into the future of Ukraine," says Montgomery. That shared interest is what Ukraine’s leaders–and Republican hawks–have been pitching to Trump for months, and this deal may have established the right way to get his attention—with dollars and cents.

President Donald Trump is replacing his National Security Adviser, Mike Waltz, and nominating him to be Ambassador to the United Nations, he announced Thursday, marking the first major personnel shake-up of Trump’s second term. A senior White House official told TIME that Waltz and his deputy Alex Wong are set to leave their posts Thursday, weeks after a bombshell report revealed Waltz used the encrypted messaging app Signal to coordinate a sensitive military strike against Houthi militants in Yemen. A former Green Beret and congressman from Florida, Waltz mistakenly added The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg to the private chat, which ultimately led to the publication of key operational details after the attack, including timing and weapons packages—details that were later confirmed after Trump Administration officials downplayed the sensitivity of the information in the chat. While it was Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth who disclosed the specific military plans on the Signal thread, it was Waltz who created the group and inadvertently invited a journalist to read along. "I take full responsibility. I built the group," he told Fox News at the time. "It's embarrassing. We're going to get to the bottom of it." The misstep sparked a flurry of speculation in Washington about whether anyone would be held accountable. Trump publicly backed both members of his Cabinet in the immediate aftermath, calling Waltz “a good man” who had “learned his lesson.” Waltz will now need the Senate's backing to represent the U.S. at the United Nations—a confirmation process that could prove challenging given the slim Republican majority. The U.N. Ambassador role was open after Rep. Elise Stefanik withdrew her nomination so she could hold onto her House seat amid concerns over the GOP’s narrow majority. “From his time in uniform on the battlefield, in Congress and, as my National Security Advisor, Mike Waltz has worked hard to put our Nation’s Interests first,” Trump posted on Truth Social. “I know he will do the same in his new role.” Trump announced that Secretary of State Marco Rubio will serve as interim national security advisor. With Waltz being replaced, more than five weeks after The Atlantic’s story, Democrats on Capitol Hill speculate that the Administration believes enough time has passed to cast the exit as part of a broader reorganization, rather than a direct response to the leak. Many are calling for Hegseth to also step down from his post. Additional reports have revealed Hegseth shared military plans in a second Signal group chat that included his wife and brother. Meanwhile, former staffers have said that there’s a “culture of fear and toxicity” at the Pentagon. “If the Trump Administration cared about either national security or accountability, Pete Hegseth would be out on his butt,” Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren tells TIME. “Hegseth’s notion of leadership is to blame Waltz, but I don't think it was Waltz who had the Signal line installed in Hegseth’s office or invited his wife, brother and lawyer to be on calls where classified information was exchanged… He put our national security at risk—that’s about as bad as it gets.” Trump told the Atlantic over the weekend that he thinks Hegseth is “gonna get it together” and that he had a “positive talk” with the former Fox News host. Hegseth and Waltz both attended Trump’s Cabinet meeting Wednesday, touting the Administration’s record on national security. “We've had 100 days of your leadership with respect, with strength,” Waltz said. “Pulling this great team together Mr. President… It's an honor to serve you in this Administration." Also leaving the Administration is Wong, a veteran diplomat who was appointed deputy national security advisor and previously served in Trump’s first term as a North Korea envoy. The White House did not respond to a request for comment for this story. The Signal incident was not Waltz’s only vulnerability. He had long been seen by many in Trump’s orbit as more hawkish than Trump on Russia, Iran, and China, sometimes clashing with other White House officials, the Wall Street Journal reported. His presence in the White House was also a lightning rod for far-right activists, including Laura Loomer, a firebrand right-wing commentator who is known to have Trump’s ear. Loomer has been critical of Waltz and reportedly accused him of staffing the NSC with “neocons” and officials insufficiently loyal to the “America First” agenda. On Thursday, she publicly celebrated Waltz’s exit on social media, writing “SCALP.” With Waltz’s exit from the National Security Council, none of the three House Republicans Trump picked to join his second Administration remain in their original positions. Former Rep. Matt Gaetz, who resigned from his seat when he was picked to be attorney general, ended his nomination in November amid mounting legal issues. In March, Stefanik had to give up plans to represent the U.S. at the United Nations amid concerns that House Republicans, working with a narrow majority, couldn’t afford to lose her vote. Waltz’s fall comes against the backdrop of Trump’s efforts to project a more stable administration after a first term defined by high-level churn. Trump cycled through four national security advisers in his first four years—including Michael Flynn, who was fired within a month of the 2017 inauguration after misleading Vice President Mike Pence about contacts with the Russian ambassador. Though Waltz survived longer, his tenure was no less rocky—facing external pressure from Trump loyalists and bearing the brunt of a damaging leak that reverberated through national security circles. On Thursday morning, he appeared on television touting a new critical minerals agreement with Ukraine. Hours later, his exit became apparent.