The U.S. Department of Education announced on April 21 that the Office of Federal Student Aid (FSA) will restart its student debt collections on May 5. The announcement marks the first time in five years that the federal government may penalize Americans who fall behind on their student loan payments. Part of that penalization includes the resumption of “involuntary collections,” which can lead to the garnishing of wages. According to the announcement, borrowers will begin receiving collection notices through the U.S. Treasury Offset Program before any further action is taken. “The Department will also authorize guaranty agencies that they may begin involuntary collections activities on loans under the Federal Family Education Loan Program,” per the press release. There is the disclaimer, though, that “all FSA collection activities are required under the Higher Education Act and conducted only after student and parent borrowers have been provided sufficient notice and opportunity to repay their loans under the law.” Involuntary collections are “one of the harshest consequences borrowers can face when federal student loans fall into default,” says Ken Ruggiero, co-founder and CEO of Ascent Funding, an education loan provider. This occurs typically after 270 days, or close to nine months, of missed payments. “It’s an aggressive, automated system that often catches borrowers off guard and deepens their financial hardship,” says Ruggiero. “In addition to the financial hardship, the student borrower is often embarrassed when their employer is notified and then implements wage garnishments.” What can be withheld under involuntary collections? Through involuntary collections, the government can garnish wages, withhold tax refunds, and seize portions of Social Security checks and other benefit payments to go toward paying back the federal loan. According to the Treasury Department, for those who have defaulted on their federal loans, the Treasury Offset Program can withhold to 100% of federal tax refunds, up to 15% of federal salaries, up to 15% of Social Security and Railroad Retirement benefits, up to 25% of federal retirement payments, 100% of payments to vendors, and 100% of travel payments for federal employees. Wage garnishment, which the Education Department’s announcement said will begin late in the summer, is when your loan holder can order your employer to withhold up to 15% of your disposable pay to collect your defaulted debt, without taking you to court. What have Trump officials said about involuntary collections? Department of Education Secretary Linda McMahon wrote an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal in conjunction with the announcement of collections restarting, in which she articulated the department's outlook. “Borrowers who don’t make payments on time will see their credit scores go down, and in some cases their wages automatically garnished,” she wrote. “Why? Not because we want to be unkind to student borrowers. Borrowing money and failing to pay it back isn’t a victimless offense.” Jonathan Collins, assistant professor of political science and education at Teachers College, Columbia University, says that though this is a pre-2020 system, there is a difference here with the Trump Administration. “Usually standard practice for the federal government is to work with the borrowers, and if there are issues with repayment, they usually grant forbearance periods, and you can apply for extension on forbearance periods,” Collins says. “But, what [The Trump Administration is] trying to do is get rid of, if not drastically reduce, the amount of people who are in this forbearance zone.” What can student borrowers do to avoid involuntary collections? Experts’ main advice is to be proactive and act now. “All of the responsibility is on the borrower,” says Nicholas Hillman, professor in the school of education at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. But there are options out there for borrowers. Ruggerio suggests that those struggling to meet payments should explore an income-driven repayment (IDR) plan, with the intention of reducing their monthly payments in accordance with their income and family size. “The window to get out of default through options like consolidation or rehabilitation is still open—waiting until collections begin only limits your options,” he says. On Feb. 18, 2025, a federal court issued a new injunction preventing the Department of Education from implementing the Saving on a Valuable Education (SAVE) plan. But other repayment programs remain available, including the Pay As You Earn (PAYE) program and the Income-Contingent Repayment (ICR) plan. Hillman recommends navigating through the federal loan servicers to identify who your loan servicer is, and then contacting said federal loan servicer for further information. Collins adds that in order to do this, borrowers must first make sure that their loans were federally supplied, rather than serviced through the private sector. This way, borrowers can have a clear idea of where their loan stands. Khandice Lofton, counsel at the Student Protection Borrower Center (SPBC), recommends that borrowers look at the National Consumer Law Center (NCLC), which has a toolkit that provides information for how borrowers can seek consolidation or rehabilitation—two ways borrowers can get out of default by either making payments or consolidating their loans. Furthermore, Lofton also recommends looking into legal and political modes of protesting the way in which the Trump Administration is continuing the student federal loan collections. “What we're pushing right now is for every borrower to take steps to reach out to their elected officials. Why? Because these officials [are] now responsible for helping them get engaged in government programs,” she says. Understanding the timeline of student loan relief over the last few years Part of the confusion related to involuntary collections, experts say, relates to both the pause on student loan collections and repayments brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic—a pause which occurred from March 2020 until September 2023, as well as the efforts by former President Joe Biden to grant student loan forgiveness—attempts that were struck down at the courts and differ from President Donald Trump and his Administration. Still, federal student loan repayments began again in Oct. 2023, though the Biden Administration gave one year as an “on ramp” for borrowers to transition back to repayments, notes Hillman. For that one year—from Oct. 1, 2023 until Sept. 30, 2024—the records of student borrowers who missed monthly payments would not be considered delinquent, nor would the individuals be reported to credit bureaus, sent to collections, or referred to the Treasury Offset Program. But after Sept. 30, 2024, Hillman says the “ramp was closed, and it's sort of business as usual”—a return to the 2020 repayment system. And now, starting May 5, major consequences may be felt by around 9.7 million borrowers who are past due on their bills since the end of the relief period, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. But, the confusion regarding these systems, Hillman argues, means that many Americans may have defaulted on their student loans without fully understanding the consequences. This is exacerbated as Biden’s SAVE program makes its way through the courts and Republicans propose to overhaul the repayment plans, all while the Trump Administration attempts to dismantle the Department of Education, which houses the FSA. “It’s so confusing for borrowers,” says Lofton. “Borrowers should understand this isn't their fault, and they shouldn't be forced to pay the price for this dysfunction that's going on right now.” Lofton also argues that the Trump Administration's commitment to restarting collections is misaligned with the affordability arguments upon which the President campaigned. “This could not have come at a worse time where things right now are so uncertain, financially and economically, and during a time where borrowers are already struggling to pay for things like rent, groceries, medical bills, just day to day life,” Lofton says. The important thing to remember, Hillman notes, is that student loan borrowers who have found themselves in limbo are not alone. “You have like a third of borrowers who are current, they're making payments. You have a third of borrowers who are either in some sort of deferment or forbearance … and the other third are either going for or [already] in default,” Hillman says. "It's massive, because the loan repayment system is fundamentally broken.”

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) released a report on Thursday, May 1, aiming to discredit gender-affirming-care and instead encouraging transgender and nonbinary individuals to try “exploratory therapy”—or psychotherapy—and stating that mental health care alone is a way to treat gender dysphoria in children. “There is a dearth of research on psychotherapeutic approaches to managing gender dysphoria in children and adolescents. This is due in part to the mischaracterization of such approaches as ‘conversion therapy,’ the report said. “Psychotherapy is a noninvasive alternative to endocrine and surgical interventions for the treatment of pediatric gender dysphoria.” Though the report argues that this “exploratory therapy” is not the same as the long practice of “conversion therapy”—which is a practice of attempting to change someone’s sexual orientation or gender identity—advocates see little difference. “This report not only rejects health care best practices for transgender people, it goes a step further by recommending conversion therapy, though under a new, rebranded name, ‘exploratory therapy,’” said Casey Pick, director of law and policy at the LGBTQ+ advocacy group the Trevor Project, in an emailed statement. “Despite the report’s claims, this is, in fact, the same harmful practice of conversion therapy, just using friendlier language. We urge this Administration to respect and support people for who they are—and to let families and doctors make decisions based on what keeps people healthy, not government ideology.” The report arrives following a Trump Executive Order, titled “Protecting Children from Chemical and Surgical Mutilation,” which threatens to cut federal funding to hospitals and medical providers that provide gender-affirming-care to people ages 19 or younger. The Executive Order directed HHS to release a report on the existing literature for treatment for children with gender dysphoria in 90 days, which fell on April 28. The language used in the report expresses a shift in policy and in sentiments regarding gender-affirming care—referring to the practice only as “Pediatric Medical Transition” and referring to “gender confirmation surgery” as “sex reassignment surgery.” This shift is in line with language brought about by Trump’s Jan. 20 Executive Order which proclaimed that there are only two sexes and that gender identity is “disconnected from biological reality,” calling for an erasure of the term. A federal judge issued a preliminary injunction against the order—and though the order hasn’t fully been enforced, some federal offices, including the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, issued notices stating that they will change their practices to comply with Trump's restrictions on gender-affirming-care. Conversion therapy aims to alter someone’s sexual orientation or gender identity. It has been proven to be ineffective and harmful to LGBTQ+ people, and it can include a wide variety of practices. "Endorsing this kind of therapy is devastating,” says Shannon Minter, vice president of legal of the National Center for Lesbian Rights. “Being gay, being transgender is not a choice. No amount of talking or persuasion or any kind of counseling can change that.” Gender-affirming-care is supported by the major medical associations in the U.S., including the American Academy of Pediatrics and American Medical Association. Meanwhile, conversion therapy has been discredited by numerous medical associations. As the Trump Administration ushers in an era of anti-trans policy at the federal level, Supreme Court cases could also dictate LGBTQ+ rights. In March, the nation’s highest court announced it would be hearing oral arguments for Chiles v. Salazar, which challenges Colorado’s conversion therapy ban under the premise that it infringes on free speech. A decision for U.S. v. Skrmetti—expected in June—will decide whether gender-affirming-care bans for minors are unconstitutional. “Those cases just raise the stakes of the issue even higher and create really maximum danger for transgender young people,” says Minter. “Worst-case scenario would be for the Supreme Court to uphold state laws banning essential medical care for these young people, and then turn around and strike down state laws protecting LGBTQ+ youth from conversion therapy. That would be a devastating double blow.” A 2022 report estimated that there were some 300,000 transgender youth ages 13 to 17 in the U.S., according to UCLA School of Law’s Williams Institute. Trump’s Executive Order on gender-affirming-care also called for investigations into this type of health care in sanctuary states, stating that medical professionals were “maiming… impressionable children.” Trump also declared April as “National Child Abuse Prevention Month,” and in his proclamation stated that he is “taking action to cut off all taxpayer funding to any institution that engages in the sexual mutilation of our youth.” More than 500 anti-LGBTQ+ bills were introduced on the state level for the 2025 legislative session, per the ACLU’s legislative tracker. In Kentucky, legislators voted to overturn their existing conversion therapy ban, legalizing the practice in the state. Attacks on gender-affirming-care have been much more rampant in recent years, as 26 states have passed laws limiting access to such care for trans and nonbinary people, according to the Human Rights Campaign. “This isn't about us as doctors. This is about our patients and ensuring that they continue to get the science-based, evidence-based, standard-of-care medicine that really keeps them whole and healthy,” says Dr. Morissa Ladinsky, an academic general pediatrician at Stanford Medicine who treats children with gender dysphoria. Ladinsky was named as a plaintiff in Ladinsky v. Ivey, a 2022 lawsuit against an Alabama law that criminalizes parents for allowing their children to access gender-affirming-care. (The case was later taken down and another lawsuit against the Alabama law was filed.) Experts and advocacy organizations warn of the detrimental effects of conversion therapy. A peer-reviewed study conducted by the Trevor Project in 2020 found that young LGBTQ+ people who underwent conversion therapy were more than twice as likely to report attempting suicide compared to those who did not. Nearly half of all U.S. states ban the controversial practice, though attempts to ban it at the federal level have never proven fruitful. A 2023 Trevor Project report found that conversion therapy still happens across the country. Two years ago, there were at least 1,300 practitioners believed to be still offering the practice in the U.S.

This week marks 100 days since President Donald Trump took office for a second term. In that time, Trump has made several moves that affect abortion and reproductive health care access across the country. Within his first month in office, Trump acted quickly on a number of issues related to reproductive health. He pardoned several anti-abortion protesters convicted of violating the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act, a law intended to protect abortion clinics and patients by barring people from physically blocking or threatening patients. The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) said it would be curtailing prosecutions against people accused of violating the FACE Act. The Department of Defense rescinded a Biden-era policy that helped facilitate travel for active service members and their families to obtain certain reproductive health care services, including abortion. Internationally, the Trump Administration’s freeze on foreign aid halted reproductive health care services for millions of people. Trump also reinstated what’s known as the Mexico City Policy or the Global Gag Rule, a policy often implemented by Republican presidents that prohibits foreign organizations receiving U.S. aid from providing or discussing abortion care. Since February, the Trump Administration has taken additional actions that have limited or threatened access to reproductive health care. Here’s what else Trump has done on reproductive health care in his first 100 days—and what reproductive rights advocates fear could happen next. The Administration dropped a Biden-era lawsuit seeking to protect access to emergency abortions In March, the DOJ filed a motion to dismiss a lawsuit it had inherited from the Biden Administration. The original lawsuit was about a federal law known as the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), which requires emergency rooms that receive Medicare dollars to stabilize patients experiencing medical emergencies before discharging or transferring them, whether or not the patient is able to pay. The Biden Administration had argued that emergency abortion care is required because of EMTALA, and that Idaho’s near-total abortion ban conflicted with the federal law. The state of Idaho has rejected that claim. Advertisement Branded Content XPRIZE at the 2025 TIME100 Summit: Making the Impossible, Possible By XPRIZE The Trump Administration dropping the lawsuit would have allowed Idaho to fully enforce its near-total abortion ban, even in medical emergencies. But the state’s largest health care provider, St. Luke’s Health System, had filed its own lawsuit a few months earlier in anticipation of the Trump Administration dropping the case, and a judge temporarily blocked Idaho from fully carrying out its ban. Abortion rights advocates condemned the Trump Administration's decision to drop the lawsuit. Amy Friedrich-Karnik—director of federal policy at the Guttmacher Institute, which researches and supports sexual and reproductive health—says the case was, at its core, about protecting people’s access to “life-saving care” in the most urgent situations. The Administration froze Title X funding for 16 organizations On April 1, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) began withholding Title X funding from 16 organizations. Enacted in 1970, Title X is the country’s sole federally funded family planning program. The program, which does not fund abortion services, allocates more than $200 million a year for clinics that provide birth control, cancer screenings, STI testing, and other health care services for people from low-income households. HHS said it was withholding funds from the organizations in the Title X program “pending an evaluation of possible violations” of federal civil rights laws, and the President’s Executive Order that said undocumented immigrants are prohibited “from obtaining most taxpayer-funded benefits.” The National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association (NFPRHA), a membership organization for family planning providers, and the American Civil Liberties Union have sued the Trump Administration over the freeze. According to NFPRHA, the freeze is threatening about $65.8 million in Title X funds, potentially affecting more than 840,000 patients. Reproductive rights advocates have said the freeze would prevent some of the most vulnerable community members from accessing a range of health care services. “When you go after Title X for contraceptive access, there’s a ripple effect across all types of reproductive health care,” Friedrich-Karnik says. Mass layoffs at HHS On March 27, HHS announced that it would reduce its staff from 82,000 to 62,000 full-time employees—about 10,000 from layoffs and an additional 10,000 from staffers who retired or resigned. Included in those cuts was eliminating “the majority of employees” in the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) reproductive health division, according to the legal advocacy group Center for Reproductive Rights. A team at the CDC focused on compiling data on abortion access—including the number of people getting abortions and what methods they choose—has been eliminated, according to Shannon Russell, federal policy counsel at the Center for Reproductive Rights. “It really stymies efforts to understand the impact of state abortion bans in the aftermath of [Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization],” Russell said during a press briefing. The staff working on the CDC’s Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System (PRAMS), which collected data on maternal and infant health, was cut. The team working on the National Assisted Reproductive Technology Surveillance System, which provided patients with information about options such as in vitro fertilization (IVF), was also eliminated. “This is really hampering HHS’s efforts to ensure that people are getting quality, essential reproductive health care and that they know their options,” Russell said. What experts anticipate could happen next Experts are waiting to see what actions the Trump Administration will take on mifepristone, a drug that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved for abortion use more than two decades ago. Years of research have proven that the drug is safe, but anti-abortion groups have tried—so far unsuccessfully—to challenge it in court, and during his confirmation hearing, HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said Trump has expressed an interest in launching further research into mifepristone. Russell said the Center for Reproductive Rights also anticipates that the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) will seek to limit abortion care. In March, the VA submitted for review an interim final rule regarding reproductive health services; the details of the rule have not been publicized, but abortion rights advocates fear that the rule will reinstate the VA’s previous abortion ban, repealing a Biden-era policy that had allowed VA medical facilities to offer abortion counseling and abortion care to veterans and their beneficiaries in certain situations. Friedrich-Karnik says the Trump Administration could withhold additional Title X funds or place restrictions on grant recipients, as the Administration did during Trump’s first term. She adds that the DOJ may continue to take an anti-abortion stance in various cases, such as declining to prosecute protesters accused of violating the FACE Act. Trump’s actions on reproductive rights have drawn support from anti-abortion activists. Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the anti-abortion group Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, said in a statement that Trump “set the bar for a pro-life president” in his first term, and applauded the actions he’s taken within the first 100 days of his second term. In March, Trump said that he would be known as the “fertilization president,” and the New York Times reported last week that the White House has been evaluating ways to convince women to have children. But Russell criticized the Trump Administration for offering what she called “sweepstakes style incentives” to encourage people to have children without implementing policies to ensure that people have the support and resources they need to do so, while curtailing access to reproductive health care. “They have made it more dangerous to be pregnant,” Russell said, “and they've done nothing to ensure that people who want to grow or build their families are able to do so more affordably and more accessibly.”

The White House has announced measures aimed at reducing the cost of cars for U.S. consumers, easing the effect of tariffs on imported cars imposed by the Trump Administration. "It's a little bit of help," President Trump, who will mark his first 100 days in office during a rally in Michigan, told reporters Tuesday. "We just wanted to help them enjoy this little transition, short-term." In late March, Trump announced a 25% tariff on all imported automotive goods into the U.S. which went into effect on April 3. Trump had also declared tariffs on steel and aluminum, which are key materials for auto production. The measures announced on Tuesday mean that these tariffs will not be additional to the 25% rate on cars, a White House spokesperson said, easing potential production costs for U.S. manufacturers. A further 25% tariff on imported car parts is still set to go into effect on May 3, but there are expected to be some reimbursements to reduce the impact for consumers. Read more: What Are Tariffs and Why Is Trump In Favor of Them? In a statement to Reuters, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said: "This deal is a major victory for the President's trade policy by rewarding companies who manufacture domestically." Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said that the President will later be signing an executive order in relation to these expected measures. Without further details not yet outlined, it will likely focus on encouraging manufacturers to move operations to the U.S. in order to avoid tariff costs. What will this mean for consumers? Car dealerships in the United States have warned about the potential impact of auto tariffs on their businesses, and the need of passing costs on to the consumer. After the widespread imposing of global tariffs on April 3, automakers quickly responded with temporary job cuts, halting car shipments to the States, and expected price increases. For a number of international car manufacturers, the U.S. market makes up a large portion of their global sales. In 2024, 39% of international sales for Honda were in the U.S. For Nissan, Porsche and Kia, the U.S. made up 28% of their international sales. With such large portions of the consumer market being U.S. based, the impact of automakers passing on the cost of tariffs could hit American buyers significantly. Economist Arthur Laffer estimated that a 25% tariff on autoparts could add an average $4,711 to the cost of a car in the U.S. How are U.S. car makers responding? For automakers based in the United States, the White House announcement signals optimism. The Trump Administration has put the goal of increasing U.S. production at the center of its reasoning behind tariffs, but domestic companies are likely to still feel the hit of tariffs. Manufacturers including Ford, General Motors and Stellantis will see this as potential respite on higher production costs. An industry report from the Center for Automotive Research estimated that tariffs could cost these three manufacturers $42 billion. In a statement, Stellantis Chairman Elkann said: “While we further assess the impact of the tariff policies on our North American operations, we look forward to our continued collaboration with the U.S. Administration to strengthen a competitive American auto industry and stimulate exports,” General Motors CEO Mary Barra also welcomed the measures from the Trump Administration. She said in a statement: “We believe the President’s leadership is helping level the playing field for companies like GM and allowing us to invest even more in the U.S. economy.”

President Donald Trump has some thoughts on who should be the next Pope—that is, if it can’t be himself. “I’d like to be Pope. That would be my number one choice,” he joked to reporters on Tuesday, a prospect that Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-Sc) posted (hopefully facetiously) would have “many upsides.” It would certainly be a dramatic shift from the world’s first Latin American and first Jesuit Pope, who often sparred with Trump on issues of immigration, climate change and religion, to the first American, billionaire, and, critically, non-Catholic to serve as Pope—and concurrently with being President at that. But Trump did plug another dark-horse candidate who would also make history as the first American Pope. While he said he has no preference for who should replace the late Francis, he added, “I must say we have a cardinal that happens to be out of a place called New York who’s very good, so we’ll see what happens.” That cardinal is Timothy Dolan, the archbishop of New York. The 75-year-old is not on most lists of papabili—most likely to be elected Pope at the conclave that begins next week—although, as history has shown, the next Pope isn’t always who the media and the public expects. Read More: How a New Pope Is Chosen—and Who It Could Be Ordained as a priest in 1976, Dolan was appointed as an auxiliary bishop of the Archdiocese of St. Louis by Pope John Paul II, then as Archbishop of Milwaukee in 2002. In Milwaukee, he took on the role of rebuilding trust after a decades-long sexual abuse scandal wracked the church. He removed several accused priests and informed the Vatican of cases of abuse in 2003 to which the Vatican was slow to respond. But he was also found through bankruptcy filings in 2012 to have overseen payments of up to $20,000 to accused priests to incentivize them to agree to being laicized (the process of having their priestly status and powers removed), relocated some accused priests rather than removing them, and requested to transfer millions of dollars into a cemetery trust to shield church funds from lawsuits brought by victims. He nevertheless rose the ecclesiastical ranks to become Archbishop of New York in 2009, overseeing roughly 2.5 million Catholics—the second-largest diocese in the U.S.—and was made a cardinal by Pope Benedict XVI in 2012. Still, experts say it’s unlikely that Trump’s backing will carry much weight. “The short answer is that it doesn’t seem very likely that Timothy Dolan will be elected pope,” Miles Pattenden, a historian of the Catholic Church at Oxford University, tells TIME. “It’s very doubtful that any cardinals will view President Trump’s endorsement favourably.” Dolan has come to be known as a “favorite cardinal” of Trump, delivering the traditional prayer at both the President’s first-term and second-term inaugurations. Dolan was part of an April 2020 conference call with Trump and other Catholic leaders, in which Trump called Dolan a “great gentleman” and “a great friend of mine,” to which Dolan responded that it was “mutual.” That year, Dolan said of Trump, “I really salute his leadership” during the COVID-19 pandemic, adding that Trump is “particularly sensitive to the, what shall I say, to the feelings of the religious community.” These comments drew criticism from other faith leaders. John Gehring, Catholic program director for Faith in Public Life, said: “There is a difference between dialogue and a kind of deferential coziness with a president who, frankly, has used cruelty as a political weapon and who abuses power. That’s what the concern was here. It was not that there was an engagement with this president.” More than 1,500 faith leaders signed onto an open letter to Dolan, calling on him to “Please speak truth to power and refrain from giving even the appearance that bishops have their hands on the scales in this [2020] election.” Earlier this year, Dolan said that Trump “takes his Christian faith seriously.” He’s also criticized the Democratic Party’s support for abortion rights. “I’m a pastor, not a politician, and I’ve certainly had spats and disappointments with politicians from both of America’s leading parties,” Dolan wrote in a Wall Street Journal op-ed slamming Democrats in 2018. “But it saddens me, and weakens the democracy millions of Americans cherish, when the party that once embraced Catholics now slams the door on us.” Still, Dolan has at times also criticized the anti-immigration rhetoric from both Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance. Vance, who converted to Catholicism in 2019, claimed in January that the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ opposition to the White House’s mass deportation policy was motivated by financial interests as USCCB receives public funding through federal partnerships to provide services to asylum seekers—funding that was cut by the Trump Administration. Dolan called Vance’s comments “vulgar” and “very mean.” While generally considered orthodox, some of Dolan’s more controversial actions have departed from traditional conservatism. He said in 2018 that he “didn’t see anything really sacrilegious” about that year’s Met Gala theme, ‘Heavenly Bodies: Fashion and the Catholic Imagination,’ and joked that he lent Rihanna a bejeweled mitre for her outfit. He also congratulated football player Michael Sam for coming out as gay in 2014, saying “Bravo,” “God bless ya,” and “good for him,” adding that the Bible teaches us “not to judge people.” Last year, however, following the funeral service for trans activist Cecilia Gentili at his cathedral, St. Patrick’s in Midtown Manhattan, Dolan said the priests “knew nothing” about Gentili’s background, and praised officiants for cutting it short. Some have insinuated that the next Pope is likely to be someone who shared Francis’ progressive values, because of the large number of cardinals that he appointed during his papacy—around 80% of the voting cardinals. Pattenden previously told TIME that that’s a misreading of Vatican politics: “It’s very simplistic to say cardinals just vote along ideological lines as though they’re part of political parties.” What does make this conclave different from previous ones, though, is that it will be the most geographically diverse in the church’s history—something Francis made a point of when appointing cardinals. That is likely to diminish the chances of an American Pope, particularly as there’s already reportedly concern that doing so would upset the global balance of power. “The general opinion within the upper ranks of the Catholic Church over the past 50 years has also been that America is powerful enough anyway without the Americans also winning the papacy,” Pattenden says. But, Pattenden adds, “there might be some advantages to an American pope which the cardinals may consider.” Specifically, that an American Pope can communicate well in English, “the global language,” which Francis could not. Ultimately, experts say cardinals aren’t typically overly influenced by public sentiment, whether that’s from Trump or social media posts of people’s favorite picks. “The College of Cardinals will not pay much attention—if any—to what he or any other head of state suggests,” says Carlos Eire, a professor of history and religious studies at Yale University, of Trump’s promotion of Dolan. “The church is their main concern, and they tend to view the election from that perspective. World politics might concern them to some extent, but not the opinions of lay people, much less the opinions of lay people who aren’t Catholic.”

Prime Minister Mark Carney clinched a narrow win against Pierre Poilievre and the Conservative Party in Canada’s historic election on Monday night, securing a fourth term for the Liberal Party. The election was framed as a fight against U.S. President Donald Trump and his threats against the country—with all other issues falling by the wayside. Even Carney’s climate background wasn’t enough to put climate action on center stage—one recent poll found that climate change wasn’t among the top 10 priorities for Canadian voters. It’s a big shift from previous elections. “It doesn't really seem like this election was a climate change election,” says Jennifer Winter, professor at the school of public policy at the University of Calgary whose research focuses on climate policies. “The two overriding narratives, have been Trump and U.S. tariffs and its effect on Canada, and then the other predominant narrative is cost of living.” But the Liberal Party’s win means that Canada will likely stay the course on many existing environmental policies—including a zero-emission vehicle sales mandate along with clean electricity and fuel regulations. “In most respects, it is a continuation of a slate of policies that were put in place by the Liberal government under Justin Trudeau,” says Kathryn Harrison, professor of political science at the University of British Columbia. Carney’s career has often straddled the line between the private sector and the climate fight. He became a U.N. Special Envoy for Climate Action and Finance in 2019, and in 2021 launched the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero, an initiative aimed at bringing together financial institutions to support the transition to a net-zero economy. His experiences were reflected in many of the Liberal’s campaign proposals, Harrison says. “A couple of the items you see in the platform, [like] that commitment to sustainable investment guidelines, is very consistent with Carney's work as a special envoy,” she says. Carney, however, has vowed to make Canada “an energy superpower”—both in clean energy, as well as oil and gas. Harrison says the shift comes as Canada is looking to distance itself from importing natural resources from the U.S. “He seemed to be envisioning a pipeline that would serve Canada's own oil demand, rather than proposing new pipelines to get more of Canada's oil to the coast or to export it to [other] markets.” And after first taking office when former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau stepped down in March, one of Carney’s first moves was to scrap the country’s carbon tax, a divisive climate policy that placed an added fee on consumers using fossil fuels. The initiative was often blamed for rising costs of living in the country—even though 80% of families received more money in rebates than they paid in the tax. An essential next step for Carney, experts say, will be to find a replacement for the carbon tax. “It opens up the question of if Canada is still going to meet its emissions reduction goals without consumer emissions pricing, and what would replace it,” says Green. “I think this is one of the key things that will be answered in the coming weeks and months after the election.” Some, meanwhile, believe the government needs to think bigger. Canada wasn’t on track to meet emission reduction standards even with the carbon tax, says Rick Smith, president of the Canadian Climate Institute, who notes that the new leadership could provide momentum for Canada to embrace more ambitious policies. “There's a number of policies that need to be improved, that need to be added to the table to get the country back on track for the scale of emission reductions that we committed to under the powers agreement,” says Smith. While much debate has focused on the future of the consumer carbon tax, he recommends Canada instead focuses on solutions with greater potential for reducing emissions, like accelerated methane reduction policies or the creation of a national carbon market. “The question needs to be broadened.”

President Donald Trump and Amazon founder Jeff Bezos are feuding again. The White House lashed out at Amazon on Tuesday for reportedly planning to display how much of a product’s cost comes from Trump’s tariffs. Doing so would emphasize to consumers that U.S. tariffs are not paid by overseas companies, but by the American companies importing the goods, and then largely passed on to customers. “This is a hostile and political act by Amazon,” White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters Tuesday at a briefing focused on the economy and Trump’s 100th day in office. She said she had just talked to Trump on the phone about Amazon’s plan, citing a report from Punchbowl News. “Why didn’t Amazon do this when the Biden administration hiked inflation to the highest level in 40 years?” Leavitt said. Amazon soon disputed the report, with a spokesperson initially telling The Washington Post that the company was only thinking about listing tariff costs on some products on a lower-cost section of the site called Amazon Haul. Then the company walked back the idea entirely. "The team that runs our ultra low cost Amazon Haul store considered the idea of listing import charges on certain products," spokesman Tim Doyle said in a statement. "This was never approved and is not going to happen.“ Bezos had clashed publicly with Trump for years. When Trump was running for president in 2016, he said Trump’s calls to “lock up” his political rival Hillary Clinton “erodes our democracy.” Trump has called him “Jeff Bozo.” But Bezos extended an olive branch last summer after Trump was shot in the ear at a rally in Butler, Pa., writing on X that Trump had shown “tremendous grace and courage.” After the Bezos-owned Washington Post decided not to endorse a presidential candidate in 2024, Bezos defended the decision, saying presidential endorsements “create a perception of bias.” When Trump won a second term, Bezos praised Trump’s “extraordinary political comeback and decisive victory” and said at a New York Times event that he wanted to work with Trump to reduce regulation and was “actually very optimistic” about Trump’s return to office. That outlook may have changed over the past 100 days, as Trump launched a trade war that included 10% across-the-board tariffs on all goods brought into the U.S. and a 145% tariff on goods from China. Trump paused a raft of even higher tariffs on dozens of countries for 90 days to allow time for countries to petition his Administration directly for relief. The higher tariffs are scheduled to snap into place in July. Trump officials say they are negotiating trade deals with 17 countries, but the trade negotiations with China are stalled. The on-again-off-again tariff announcements have rattled investors, wiping out trillions in value from stock markets and frustrating business leaders who are struggling to make business decisions without knowing how much goods will cost in the long run. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who appeared with Leavitt in the press briefing room on Tuesday, said Trump’s erratic tariff actions were part of the President’s negotiating strategy to achieve better trade deals and encourage more companies to open factories in the U.S. “President Trump creates what I call strategic uncertainty in the negotiations,” Bessent said. Bessent acknowledged that some business leaders have pulled back from launching new projects in recent weeks. He said that Trump’s work stripping away federal regulations and a tax bill Republicans hope to pass this summer may include incentives for businesses to buy equipment and build new factories. “Business leaders, they’ve gone into a pause, and I think we are going to give them great certainty on this tax bill,” Bessent said. Congressional Republicans are hoping to include a raft of tax breaks in the bill they hope to finish by early July. On the campaign trail, Trump promised he would end taxes on tips, overtime, Social Security payments, and auto payments for cars made in the U.S. Bessent said Trump is pushing for companies to be able to deduct the cost of new equipment and factory buildings to encourage more manufacturing in the U.S. Americans have become more skeptical of Trump’s economic decisions since he took office. A Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted in mid-April found that 37% of Americans approve of Trump’s handling of the economy, down from 42% in late January.

After an election in which Donald Trump won back the presidency and his party held the House and won the Senate, congressional leaders were quick to fantasize of all the legislation they would be able to pass. They envisioned a flurry of bills rewriting immigration law, slashing regulations, and delivering on Trump’s bold campaign promises. But the first 100 days of Trump’s second term paints a more complicated picture. Instead of relying on the Republican-led Congress, Trump has leaned heavily on executive action to carry out his agenda, issuing an unprecedented 135 executive orders since he took office in January. In doing so, Trump has largely bypassed Congress at the outset of his Administration, a sharp break from his first term. So far, Congress has only passed six bills—five of which have been signed into law—the fewest of any president in the first 100 days of an administration in the last seven decades, according to a TIME analysis of congressional records. At this point in his first term, Trump had already signed 30 bills into law—a high watermark for Presidents this century. Former President Joe Biden signed 10 bills by his 100th day in 2021, compared to 14 by Barack Obama in 2009 and seven by George W. Bush in 2001. Some earlier presidents—including Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter—signed 20 or more pieces of legislation within their first 100 days. Trump's second-term tally—just five bills signed—underscores a dramatic shift toward consolidating presidential power. The bills that have passed Congress so far have been relatively modest: three of the six bills were measures undoing regulations established by the Biden Administration, such as eliminating rules on environmental protections and cryptocurrency taxation, which were passed under the Congressional Review Act. Another was a stopgap funding bill to keep the government open. The other bills were the Laken Riley Act, an immigration detention measure, and the Take It Down Act, which Trump is expected to soon sign after it overwhelmingly passed the House on Monday. The bill criminalizes non-consensual deepfake porn and requires platforms to take down such material within 48 hours of being served notice. While Congress has largely been relegated to the sidelines under Trump’s second Administration, most Republicans on Capitol Hill have supported his unfettered use of executive power. Trump has often drawn on rarely-used laws to advance his agenda, such as invoking the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to carry out mass deportations and declaring a national emergency to enact sweeping tariffs on countries around the world. “The executive always wants to control more things, but in the past, members—whether it's a Democratic president or Republican president— have always resisted that,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer told reporters in March. “It didn't happen this year for the first time. They just bowed down to the President, and they're surrendering their power.” Trump is now calling on Republicans in Congress to pass what many are calling his "one big, beautiful bill"—a massive legislative package designed to cement many of his campaign promises into law. The bill aims to extend the 2017 tax cuts, expand domestic energy production, fund immigration enforcement, and boost military spending. In the meantime, Trump’s reliance on executive orders to push his agenda—often bypassing Congress altogether—has become a defining feature of his presidency. Constitutional scholars and political analysts have warned that the sheer volume of executive actions is testing the limits of presidential power, raising concerns about the potential erosion of the rule of law. Here’s what Congress has accomplished—and what Republicans are still hoping to achieve—as Trump’s second presidency reached the 100-day mark. Laken Riley Act The most high-profile measure to pass Congress was the Laken Riley Act, named after a nursing student who was murdered last year by a Venezuelan immigrant who was in the country unlawfully and had been previously apprehended by Border Patrol and released. The bill, signed into law by Trump nine days into his presidency, changes how the federal government handles immigrants who are in the country unlawfully and mandates that those charged with theft, burglary, or other serious crimes be detained until their cases are resolved. The bill requires the secretary of the Department of Homeland Security “to take into custody aliens who have been charged in the United States with theft, and for other purposes,” meaning immigration officers would be required to arrest and detain those people. Before, immigration officials would use their discretion to first detain people with violent criminal records. The bill ultimately passed the House with unanimous support from Republicans, and the backing of 46 of 215 Democrats. In the Senate, 12 Democrats joined all Senate Republicans to move the bill forward. Avoided a government shutdown Congress managed to avert a government shutdown in late March, passing a stopgap funding bill to keep federal agencies running through the end of the fiscal year. The effort required careful maneuvering by GOP leaders—and a surprising degree of cooperation from ten Senate Democrats who voted alongside Republicans. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer was criticized by many in his party for voting in favor of the legislation, which critics said stripped away numerous funding directives and gave Trump unprecedented power to reallocate money as he saw fit without fear of judicial intervention. Rolled back Biden Administration regulations One area where Trump and congressional Republicans have been unusually productive is in using the Congressional Review Act—a powerful but little-used law that allows Congress to repeal recent federal regulations with a simple majority vote, bypassing the Senate filibuster. Of the five bills Trump has signed, three were CRA resolutions aimed at dismantling Biden-era rules. In March, Trump signed a resolution overturning the Waste Emissions Charge, an environmental regulation finalized near the end of Biden’s presidency. Although parts of Biden’s broader climate agenda remain in place, Republicans succeeded in nullifying this specific fee on methane emissions. That same month, Trump also signed a CRA resolution blocking a Bureau of Ocean Energy Management rule that had required oil and gas companies operating offshore to submit detailed archaeological surveys. Republicans argued the rule created unnecessary compliance costs for energy producers. And in April, Trump signed into law a bill to overturn a revised rule from the Internal Revenue Service that expanded the definition of a broker to include decentralized cryptocurrency exchanges. Take It Down Act A bipartisan bill that criminalizes non-consensual deepfake porn is expected to soon become law, after it was sent to Trump’s desk on Monday. The measure, which had the backing of First Lady Melania Trump, aims to stop the scourge of AI-created illicit imagery that has exploded in the last few years along with the rapid improvement of AI tools by making it a federal crime to knowingly post or threaten to publish computer-generated pornographic images and videos of real people. Trump has said he would sign the bill into law: “I’m going to use that bill for myself too if you don’t mind because nobody gets treated worse than I do online, nobody,” he told a joint session of Congress in early March. A few days earlier, Melania Trump staged a press conference with deepfake victims—her first solo public appearance since she resumed the role of First Lady. Up next: Trump’s "big, beautiful bill" Now, attention is shifting to what Republicans hope will be their crowning legislative achievement: an enormous package that seeks to extend the 2017 tax cuts, implement additional tax relief, ramp up border defenses, expand energy production, and slash federal spending by at least $1.5 trillion. “Republicans, it is more important now, than ever, that we pass THE ONE, BIG, BEAUTIFUL BILL,” Trump posted on Truth Social in April. “The USA will Soar like never before!!!” The House and Senate passed a budget resolution earlier this month to begin a process known as reconciliation that they hope will allow them to pass the measure without Democratic support. Yet significant divisions within the GOP caucus remain. Senate Republicans set a relatively modest $4 billion target for cuts, while House Republicans are under orders to find at least $1.5 trillion in savings, a gap that will be difficult to bridge. Disagreements have already surfaced over proposed cuts to Medicaid, food assistance, and clean energy initiatives. Moderate Republicans from swing districts are balking at deep cuts to social safety net programs, even as hardliners demand more aggressive reductions. Adding to the pressure is the looming threat of a government default. The bill is expected to include a provision raising the federal debt ceiling by as much as $5 trillion, which the Treasury Department warns must happen by late summer to avoid an unprecedented financial crisis. Economists across the political spectrum have warned that extending the Trump tax cuts without equivalent new revenue or significant changes to entitlement programs like Social Security could balloon the federal deficit to record levels.

Prime Minister Mark Carney clinched a narrow win against Pierre Poilievre and the Conservative Party in Canada’s historic election on Monday night, securing a fourth term for the Liberal Party. The election was framed as a fight against U.S. President Donald Trump and his threats against the country—with all other issues falling by the wayside. Even Carney’s climate background wasn’t enough to put climate action on center stage—one recent poll found that climate change wasn’t among the top 10 priorities for Canadian voters. It’s a big shift from previous elections. “It doesn't really seem like this election was a climate change election,” says Jennifer Winter, professor at the school of public policy at the University of Calgary whose research focuses on climate policies. “The two overriding narratives, have been Trump and U.S. tariffs and its effect on Canada, and then the other predominant narrative is cost of living.” But the Liberal Party’s win means that Canada will likely stay the course on many existing environmental policies—including a zero-emission vehicle sales mandate along with clean electricity and fuel regulations. “In most respects, it is a continuation of a slate of policies that were put in place by the Liberal government under Justin Trudeau,” says Kathryn Harrison, professor of political science at the University of British Columbia. Carney’s career has often straddled the line between the private sector and the climate fight. He became a U.N. Special Envoy for Climate Action and Finance in 2019, and in 2021 launched the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero, an initiative aimed at bringing together financial institutions to support the transition to a net-zero economy. His experiences were reflected in many of the Liberal’s campaign proposals, Harrison says. “A couple of the items you see in the platform, [like] that commitment to sustainable investment guidelines, is very consistent with Carney's work as a special envoy,” she says. Carney, however, has vowed to make Canada “an energy superpower”—both in clean energy, as well as oil and gas. Harrison says the shift comes as Canada is looking to distance itself from importing natural resources from the U.S. “He seemed to be envisioning a pipeline that would serve Canada's own oil demand, rather than proposing new pipelines to get more of Canada's oil to the coast or to export it to [other] markets.” And after first taking office when former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau stepped down in March, one of Carney’s first moves was to scrap the country’s carbon tax, a divisive climate policy that placed an added fee on consumers using fossil fuels. The initiative was often blamed for rising costs of living in the country—even though 80% of families received more money in rebates than they paid in the tax. An essential next step for Carney, experts say, will be to find a replacement for the carbon tax. “It opens up the question of if Canada is still going to meet its emissions reduction goals without consumer emissions pricing, and what would replace it,” says Green. “I think this is one of the key things that will be answered in the coming weeks and months after the election.” Some, meanwhile, believe the government needs to think bigger. Canada wasn’t on track to meet emission reduction standards even with the carbon tax, says Rick Smith, president of the Canadian Climate Institute, who notes that the new leadership could provide momentum for Canada to embrace more ambitious policies. “There's a number of policies that need to be improved, that need to be added to the table to get the country back on track for the scale of emission reductions that we committed to under the powers agreement,” says Smith. While much debate has focused on the future of the consumer carbon tax, he recommends Canada instead focuses on solutions with greater potential for reducing emissions, like accelerated methane reduction policies or the creation of a national carbon market. “The question needs to be broadened.”

The White House has announced measures aimed at reducing the cost of cars for U.S. consumers, easing the effect of tariffs on imported cars imposed by the Trump Administration. "It's a little bit of help," President Trump, who will mark his first 100 days in office during a rally in Michigan, told reporters Tuesday. "We just wanted to help them enjoy this little transition, short-term." In late March, Trump announced a 25% tariff on all imported automotive goods into the U.S. which went into effect on April 3. Trump had also declared tariffs on steel and aluminum, which are key materials for auto production. The measures announced on Tuesday mean that these tariffs will not be additional to the 25% rate on cars, a White House spokesperson said, easing potential production costs for U.S. manufacturers. A further 25% tariff on imported car parts is still set to go into effect on May 3, but there are expected to be some reimbursements to reduce the impact for consumers. In a statement to Reuters, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said: "This deal is a major victory for the President's trade policy by rewarding companies who manufacture domestically." Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said that the President will later be signing an executive order in relation to these expected measures. Without further details not yet outlined, it will likely focus on encouraging manufacturers to move operations to the U.S. in order to avoid tariff costs. What will this mean for consumers? Car dealerships in the United States have warned about the potential impact of auto tariffs on their businesses, and the need of passing costs on to the consumer. For a number of international car manufacturers, the U.S. market makes up a large portion of their global sales. In 2024, 39% of international sales for Honda were in the U.S. For Nissan, Porsche and Kia, the U.S. made up 28% of their international sales. With such large portions of the consumer market being U.S. based, the impact of automakers passing on the cost of tariffs could hit American buyers significantly. Economist Arthur Laffer estimated that a 25% tariff on autoparts could add an average $4,711 to the cost of a car in the U.S. How are U.S. car makers responding? For automakers based in the United States, the White House announcement signals optimism. The Trump Administration has put the goal of increasing U.S. production at the center of its reasoning behind tariffs, but domestic companies are likely to still feel the hit of tariffs. Manufacturers including Ford, General Motors and Stellantis will see this as potential respite on higher production costs. An industry report from the Center for Automotive Research estimated that tariffs could cost these three manufacturers $42 billion. In a statement, Stellantis Chairman Elkann said: “While we further assess the impact of the tariff policies on our North American operations, we look forward to our continued collaboration with the U.S. Administration to strengthen a competitive American auto industry and stimulate exports,” General Motors CEO Mary Barra also welcomed the measures from the Trump Administration. She said in a statement: “We believe the President’s leadership is helping level the playing field for companies like GM and allowing us to invest even more in the U.S. economy.”