Tuesday, November 12, 2024

‘Mass deportations would disrupt the food chain’: Californians warn of ripple effect of Trump threat

WHO WILL DO MY JOB, WHITE MAN?!

In 2023, state was nation’s sole producer of almonds, artichokes, figs, olives, pomegranates, raisins and walnuts


Cecilia Nowell
THE GUARDIAN
Mon 11 Nov 2024


Take a drive through the Salinas or Central valleys in California and you’ll pass from town to town advertising its specialty fruit or vegetable: strawberries in Watsonville, garlic in Gilroy, pistachios in Avenal and almonds in Ripon. More than 400 types of commodities are grown in the Golden state – including a third of the vegetables and three-quarters of the fruits and nuts produced in the United States.

Much of that food is grown by immigrant farm workers – many of whom are undocumented. According to the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), about half of the country’s 2.4 million agricultural farm workers do not have legal status in the US. But farm worker advocates say the number is much higher in places like California, where it can be “as high as 70% in some areas”, according to Alexis Guild, vice-president of strategy and programs at Farmworker Justice, a non-profit based in Washington DC.

Donald Trump’s campaign promise to “launch the largest deportation program in American history” by targeting millions of undocumented immigrants could upend the lives of the majority of these agricultural workers who grow and harvest our food – which would dramatically hit California’s communities and economy, with ripple effects that would touch every table in the country.

“Without undocumented immigrant labor, we wouldn’t be able to sustain a food supply at the capacity that we have right now,” said Ana Padilla, executive director of the Community and Labor Center at the University of California at Merced.

Farm workers already perform dangerous and often underpaid labor. In the fields, they are vulnerable to pesticide exposure and workplace injuries doing work that is exempt from federal overtime laws. Trump and his allies have repeatedly said that undocumented immigrants have “taken” jobs from Black and Hispanic Americans, but farm worker advocates say these are not jobs US citizens are eager to hold.

“Rather than thinking about how immigrants ‘took’ jobs that existed, the historic wave of migration from Mexico that began in the 1970s is really a story of the growth of an industry and a very large and profitable one at that,” said Edward Flores, a sociologist and faculty director of the Community and Labor Center, who compares the size of California’s agricultural industry to Hollywood.

“The fact that there were so many people working in agriculture meant that the nation exported much more produce than it otherwise would have – that it opened up opportunities for people all along the supply chain.”

In 2023, California’s agricultural exports totaled more than $24.7bn, according to the USDA. The state was the nation’s sole producer of many specialty crops – including almonds, artichokes, figs, olives, pomegranates, raisins and walnuts – and the leading producer of other staples, such as lettuce and celery.
Proposed deportations would be absolutely devastating not just for immigrant households, but most American householdsEdward Flores, University of California at Merced

“Proposed deportations would be absolutely devastating not just for immigrant households, but most American households,” Flores said. “Mass deportations would disrupt the food chain at a time when inflation is one of workers’ most pressing concerns.” He added that such deportations would slow production and increase prices of many grocery store staples, including milk, wheat and eggs.

Without the undocumented immigrant workforce, the United States would probably import more of its food supply – making food prices vulnerable to fluctuations and to Trump’s proposed tariffs. (The United States currently imports about 15% of its food supply – including about a third of vegetables, half of its fruit and 94% of seafood.)

A mass deportation operation would face logistical and financial hurdles: a recent report from the American Immigration Council estimates that a one-time mass deportation would cost at least $315bn – so the real reason to threaten to deport undocumented farm workers, advocates and academics say, is to discourage immigrant laborers from organizing for better working conditions.

“There’s a contradiction in business owners who employ undocumented immigrants and at the same time support Trump and his proposal for the largest deportation initiative in US history,” said Flores. “Unless your aim is to have greater control over labor than ever before. Because under such a proposal, an employer could recruit a vulnerable workforce and then government would provide the means to get rid of them at will.”
An employer could recruit a vulnerable workforce and then government would provide the means to get rid of them at willEdward Flores, University of California at Merced

During his previous administration and the Covid-19 pandemic, Trump expedited H-2A visas for agricultural workers – but his allies have voiced disapproval of even legal immigration options for farm workers. The now infamous Project 2025, authored by former Trump administration officials, proposes capping and phasing down the H-2A visa program in order to “put American workers first”.

Farm worker advocates worry that other immigration and labor protections for farm workers, especially ones recently introduced by the Biden administration, are at risk. Republican-led states have sued the Biden administration over a rule allowing H-2A workers to unionize. And Padilla worries that the upcoming Trump administration would also challenge a Biden policy called Deferred Action for Labor Enforcement, which protects undocumented immigrants from deportation when reporting labor violations.


“These types of programs are essential – especially in certain industries like meat packing, agriculture, construction, food service – to report employer noncompliance, unsafe conditions, so [farm workers] could feel protected in doing that,” she said.

“Most undocumented farm workers in California and across the country have been here for at least 10 years,” said Antonio De Loera-Brus, communications director for the United Farm Workers of America. This means “they’ve lived through a Trump presidency before”, he added.

Although many farm workers are anxious about another Trump administration, he said, “what we need to do is reassure communities that they will not be left alone, that they will not be abandoned” and “this union is your union, and your union will always stick up for you”.

Last week, California’s governor, Gavin Newsom, called for a special session of the state’s legislature “to protect California values” including “civil rights, reproductive freedom, climate action and immigrant families”. In 2018, California became the first “sanctuary state” in the nation when its legislature enacted a law limiting local and state officials from cooperating with federal immigration authorities.

“Farm workers of all immigration statuses are going to continue feeding America just like they have every day,” said De Loera-Brus. “And they don’t care if the food they’re picking is going to end up on a Democrat or Republican table. They just want to be paid fairly and treated with dignity for their literally essential work. And then they want to go home safely to their families.”


Trump’s mass deportations will raise grocery prices even higher: Nobel-winning economist

Erik De La Garza
November 11, 2024 

Republican presidential nominee and former U.S. President Donald Trump reacts as a scoreboard in the background displays "Trump 45" and "Trump 47", referring to Trump as the nation's 45th president and his bid to become the 47th president, during a rally in Greensboro, North Carolina, U.S. October 22, 2024. REUTERS/Carlos Barria


President-elect Donald Trump’s plans to institute across-the-board tariffs and mass deportation of undocumented immigrants will likely usher in the unintended consequence of “soaring inflation,” according to a Noble Prize-winning economist, who added that grocery and housing prices will specifically be affected.

American consumers feeling the grocery store pinch are not likely to see any relief if Trump follows through on his threats of deporting en masse immigrants, a group that New York Times columnist Paul Krugman added make up a large segment of the agricultural workforce.

“If these workers are deporte, the food industry will probably have great difficulty replacing them,” Krugman wrote Monday, noting that undocumented immigrants also play a major part in food processing. “Even in the best case, the industry will have to offer much higher wages — and, of course, these higher wages will be passed on in higher prices.”

The longtime columnist continued his bleak assessment of the “downstream economic effects” of two of Trump’s major campaign pledges – sweeping tariffs and mass deportations – by writing that housing would also take a hit.

“What will Trump do if inflation rises? Bear in mind that his campaign was replete with false claims — about immigration, jobs, inflation, crime and more. And one of his go-to tactics for dismissing data that shows his claims are false is to insist that the data is fake,” Krugman wrote.

He added that consumers shouldn't expect Trump to acknowledge the “inflationary consequences” of his policies, noting that it’s “far likelier" that the former president will “deny reality or blame bad actors and try to order prices back down again.”

Krugman concluded by writing that while his concern about the threat Trump poses to democracy is greater than inflation worries, the nation’s future will depend greatly on how Americans, including those who voted for Trump, will react “if they come to find that they bought into a false belief in Trump’s ability to manage the economy.”


Trump's ex-DHS head cornered on massive impact of deporting '5 percent of the workforce'

Matthew Chapman
RAW STORY
November 11, 2024 

Former Trump acting DHS Secretary Chad Wolf. (AFP)

CNN's Jake Tapper cornered Donald Trump's one-time acting Secretary of Homeland Security Chad Wolf on how the president-elect's plans for mass deportation — which could cost massive amounts of money and require the deployment of the military — would actually work, and how the administration would avoid catastrophic economic damage.

Tapper began by noting that a huge amount of the workforce would meet Trump's apparent standard for deportation.

"What happens to the economy if 5 percent of the workforce is deported?" he asked

"Again, you've got to prioritize the removals ... making sure you're removing the worst of the worst," said Wolf. "But this idea that you've got to turn your head and just exempt people from the law or from consequences of the law, deportation and the like, because they have a job here in the United States — we certainly need to take a look at that, but there are other ways and other mechanisms and, certainly, other visas that allow individuals to come in and to contribute to the U.S. economy. If the Congress wants do more, that's a debate they should have. But to simply say that we're going to turn our head and just ignore the fact that the law's being broken, I don't think right approach."

"Are Trump transition team members talking to Republican lawmakers to figure out how Trump will fund this plan?" asked Tapper.

"Well, I'll let the transition team speak for itself," said Wolf, adding that he "would suspect" they are.

"I think that's really important because it's not only just a change in policy, which obviously the president can do, but obviously there's going to be some resources required to make sure that those policies are implemented in a way that's smart and consistent and that's sustainable over the long term," he said.

"What about the impact — again, I'm not arguing in favor, pro or con against any of this," Tapper pressed him. "But what about — say there is an undocumented gentleman and he's married to an American citizen and they have children. Does he get deported? What if both parents are undocumented, but the kid was born in this country? Do all three get deported? Is somebody gaming out all of these different permutations of the various statuses of these people?"

"Well, Jake, I'm not going to get into hypotheticals because the background of all these individuals really, really matter," he said, but repeated, "You go back to the prioritization of removing the worst of the worst first."

 Watch the video below or at the link here.

- YouTubeyoutu.be




A COUPLE OF ARYAN NATIONALISTS

Indian-origin Ramaswamy backs Trump's mass deportation plans

Indian-origin Ramaswamy backs Trump's mass deportation plans

YOU GO FIRST


PTI
Washington,
 Updated At : Nov 11, 2024 

Photo: @VivekGRamaswamy/X

Vivek Ramaswamy, top Indian-American aide to President-elect Donald Trump, expressed his support for the mass deportation plan of illegal immigrants and said that the legal immigration system in the country is "broken".

He said that those who broke the law while entering the United States have no right to stay here and they need to go.

"Do we have a broken legal immigration system? Yes, we do. But I think the first step is going to be to restore the rule of law, to do it in a very pragmatic way,” entrepreneur turned-politician told ABC News in an interview.

“Those who have entered in the last couple of years, they haven't established roots in the country. Those who have committed a crime, should be out of this country. That is by the millions. That alone would be the largest mass deportation. Combine that with ending government aid for all illegals. You see self-deportations,” he said.

Ramaswamy appeared on multiple Sunday talk shows, the first after the stunning win of Donald Trump in the November 5 presidential elections. He told ABC News that he is having some “high impact” discussions on his future role in the administration, Congress of the party.

From being a rival of Trump during the Republican primaries, Ramaswamy has emerged as a staunch supporter and confidant of Trump.

“I think he cares about uniting the country. I think that is Donald Trump's number one focus. I do think we have to get back to a place after this election after that decisive victory, which I do think was a gift to the country, get back to a place where ordinary Americans who might have voted differently amongst their family members or their colleagues or their neighbours, to be able to get together at the dinner table and say, we're still Americans at the end of this, that's very much Donald Trump's headspace,” he said.

“He's also learned a lot from that first term, and I think he's going into this second term even to take to new heights some of the things he wasn't able to accomplish in the first term, which I think is going to be a good thing,” Ramaswamy said.

The Republican Party, he said, is now a multi-ethnic working-class coalition. “You saw black voters, Hispanic voters, young voters. That was a big one. A much younger composition of the Republican primary base came together on basic principles that really weren't as beholden to older Republican orthodoxies, but principles like free speech, anti-censorship, meritocracy, and staying out of World War III. These are some of the common threads that bring together what is a pretty diverse and broad tent coalition to restore those basic constitutional principles,” he said.

“Here's a big one. And Donald Trump talked for a long time about the deep state. But this idea of restoring self-governance is big in this new coalition. The idea that the people we elect to run the government, they haven't been the ones actually running the government for a very long time," Ramaswamy said.

"Donald Trump is going to be the president of the United States in the real sense of that word. Capital P president where he is actually making the decisions with the democratic will of the people behind him, not the unelected bureaucratic class underneath him,” the Indian American said.

“That's something that unites a common thread of even former Democrats to independents, to libertarians, to, of course, traditional Republicans as well. I think that that's a common thread that unites us,” he said.

Trump, he said, is focused on what makes people's lives better. “And actually, my message to Democrats out there, even those who didn't vote for Donald Trump, is to give them a chance to actually make your life better. A lot of people across the country, even those who have bought into some false narratives about Donald Trump, are going to be pleasantly surprised to find more money in their paychecks, prices coming down in the country, and a secure border. Those are things most Americans actually care about,” Ramaswamy said.
Morgan Stanley on the Impact of Trump's Tariffs, Immigration, and Fiscal policies

ICYMI MS note from last week

Eamonn Sheridan
Sunday, 10/11/2024 | 17:53 GMT-7

Morgan Stanley categorizes the Trump administration's macroeconomic policies into three main areas:

tariffs,
immigration,
and fiscal measures.

The report anticipates that tariff policies will be among the first to be implemented. MS model an immediate imposition of 10% global tariffs and 60% China tariffs

core inflation in the U.S. could increase by roughly 0.9 percentage points

GDP growth reduction by about 1.5 percentage points


But, MS add, the tariff policy might be introduced gradually instead, which would reduce the impacts by spreading them over time.

Morgan Stanley add that while the negative effects of tariffs would slow economic growth, the current strength of the U.S. economy means that an immediate recession would not necessarily follow.

Immigration:reducing immigration could restrict the labor supply in the U.S., thereby increasing inflationary pressure.

Fiscal policy: significant fiscal stimulus might not materialize until into 2025, with potential changes only taking place in 2026.
Trump’s tariffs could tank the economy. Will the Supreme Court stop them?


President-elect Trump is his own worst enemy, unless his fellow Republicans on the Supreme Court intervene.



by Ian Millhiser
Nov 10, 2024
VOX

President-elect Donald Trump’s tariffs are unwise, but assuming that he implements them in compliance with federal law, they are not unconstitutional.
Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

After winning the 2024 election in part due to high inflation early in President Joe Biden’s term, President-elect Donald Trump wants to enact policies that would lead to the very same kind of inflation that doomed Democrats.

Though Trump inherits a strong economy and low inflation, he’s proposed a 10 to 20 percent tariff on all imports, and a 60 percent tariff on all imports from China. The Budget Lab at Yale estimates that this policy alone could raise consumer prices by as much as 5.1 percent and could diminish US economic growth by up to 1.4 percent. An analysis by the think tank Peterson Institute for International Economics, finds that Trump’s tariffs, when combined with some of his other proposals such as mass deportation, would lead to inflation rising between 6 and 9.3 percent.

If Trump pushes through his proposed tariffs, they will undoubtedly be challenged in court — and, most likely, in the Supreme Court. There are no shortages of businesses that might be hurt financially by these tariffs, and any one of them could file a lawsuit.


That raises a difficult question: Will this Supreme Court permit Trump to enact policies that could sabotage his presidency, and with it, the Republican Party’s hopes of a political realignment that could doom Democrats to the wilderness?


The legal arguments in favor of allowing Trump to unilaterally impose high tariffs are surprisingly strong. Several federal laws give the president exceedingly broad power to impose tariffs, and the limits imposed by these statutes are quite vague.


A presidential proclamation imposing such tariffs wouldn’t be unprecedented. In 1971, President Richard Nixon imposed a 10 percent tariff on nearly all foreign goods, which a federal appeals court upheld. Congress has since amended some of the laws Nixon relied on, but a key provision allowing the president to regulate importation of “any property in which any foreign country or any national thereof has or has had any interest” remains on the books.


The judiciary does have one way it might constrain Trump’s tariffs: The Supreme Court’s Republican majority has given itself an unchecked veto power over any policy decision by the executive branch that those justices deem to be too ambitious. In Biden v. Nebraska (2023), for example, the Republican justices struck down the Biden administration’s primary student loans forgiveness program, despite the fact that the program is unambiguously authorized by a federal statute.


Nebraska suggests a Nixon-style tariff should be struck down — at least if the Republican justices want to use their self-given power to veto executive branch actions consistently. Nebraska claimed that the Court’s veto power is at an apex when the executive enacts a policy of “vast ‘economic and political significance.” A presidential proclamation that could bring back 2022 inflation levels certainly seem to fit within this framework.


The question is whether a Republican Supreme Court will value loyalty to a Republican administration, and thus uphold Trump’s tariffs; or whether they will prefer to prop up Trump’s presidency by vetoing a policy that could make him unpopular and potentially invite the Democratic Party back into power.

Related:The Supreme Court’s Trump immunity decision is a blueprint for dictatorship


After the Court’s decision holding that Trump is allowed to use the powers of the presidency to commit crimes, it is naive to think that this Court’s decisions are driven solely – or even primarily – by what the law and the Constitution actually have to say about legal questions. But that does not mean that this Court will necessarily strike down a Republican tariff policy that could do long term damage to the GOP.

The federal laws governing tariffs give the president an enormous amount of power


Tariffs are often viewed as economic weapons that the United States can use to combat other nation’s activities that undermine US interests. For this reason, federal law gives the president significant power to impose new tariffs after an appropriate federal agency determines that deploying such a weapon is justified.


One striking thing about these laws, however, is that they focus far more on process than on substance. Federal tariff laws tend to lay out a procedure the federal government must follow before it can authorize a new tariff, but they place few explicit restrictions on the nature of those tariffs once the process is followed. The Trump administration must follow certain processes to create new tariffs, but so long as it follows that process it has broad latitude over tariff policy.


Consider, for example, Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. This law requires the US trade representative, a Cabinet-level official appointed by the president, to make certain findings before their power to issue new tariffs is triggered. But specific findings the trade representative must make before acting are quite vague. The power to issue tariffs can be triggered if the trade representative finds that a foreign country is engaged in activity that “is unjustifiable and burdens or restricts United States commerce,” or that is “unreasonable or discriminatory and burdens or restricts United States commerce.”


So that’s not much of an explicit limit on tariffs — the government’s power to issue them is triggered if a Cabinet official determines that a foreign nation’s behavior is “unreasonable.”


Once the trade representative makes this determination, their powers are quite broad. The government may “impose duties or other import restrictions on the goods of, and, notwithstanding any other provision of law, fees or restrictions on the services of, such foreign country for such time as the trade representative determines appropriate.”


As my colleague Dylan Matthews notes, “Trump used this power to impose sweeping tariffs against China. Biden has made liberal use of this power, too, expanding tariffs on steel, batteries, solar cells, and electric vehicles from China.”


Another statute gives the president similarly broad authority to impose tariffs after the commerce secretary conducts an investigation and determines that a foreign good “is being imported into the United States in such quantities or under such circumstances as to threaten to impair the national security.” In his first term, Trump used this to tax imports of steel and aluminum.


And then there’s the authority that Nixon used in 1971 to issue broad new tariffs on a variety of imports. In its current form, this law allows the president to act only after they declare a national emergency “to deal with any unusual and extraordinary threat, which has its source in whole or substantial part outside the United States, to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States.” But the law doesn’t define terms like “national emergency” or “unusual and extraordinary threat.” And, once such an emergency is declared, the president’s power is quite broad.


This is the law that also permits the president to regulate importation of “any property in which any foreign country or any national thereof has or has had any interest.”


It’s important to emphasize that, while these laws impose few substantive limits on tariffs, they do require Trump to jump through certain procedural hoops — and his administration struggled with such procedural barriers in his first term. In 2020, for example, a 5-4 Supreme Court rejected the administration’s attempt to eliminate the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, which allows hundreds of thousands of undocumented young immigrants to live and work in the US, due to a paperwork error.


Still, assuming the second Trump administration is staffed with competent lawyers who can navigate procedural hurdles more deftly this time, federal law places few explicit limits on the president’s power to issue tariffs.

How the Court could veto Trump’s tariffs, if a majority of the justices want to do so


The strongest legal argument against Trump’s proposed tariff policy involves something called the “major questions doctrine,” a power that the Supreme Court gave itself in recent years, which has only ever been used to block policies handed down by the Biden administration. The Court has never explained where this major questions doctrine comes from, and has never attempted to ground it in any statute or constitutional provision — although some individual justices have written concurring opinions that attempt to do so.

Related:How the Supreme Court put itself in charge of the executive branch


When summarizing this fabricated legal doctrine, the Court often quotes a line from Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA (2014), which states that “we expect Congress to speak clearly if it wishes to assign to an agency decisions of vast ‘economic and political significance.’” But the justices have only provided vague guidance on just how “clearly” Congress must write a statute if it wants to give broad policymaking authority to an agency, so it is unclear if this Court would follow a statute permitting the president to tax “any property” that “any foreign country” has “any interest” in.


The major questions doctrine is a new legal concept, which is poorly defined and which has never been used to block any policy by a Republican president — or, indeed, any president not named “Joe Biden” (some scholars argue that the Court applied an early version of the doctrine in FDA v. Brown & Williamson (2000) to block a Clinton administration policy, but the Court’s reasoning in that case bears only a passing resemblance to its reasoning in its Biden-era decisions). Because this doctrine is so ill-defined, a lawyer can only guess at whether this Court will apply it to the Trump administration at all, or specifically to Trump’s tariff policies.


Still, there is both a principled argument for why it might apply to Trump, and a cynical one.


The principled one is that the law should be the same regardless of which party controls the White House. So, if the Republican justices insisted on vetoing Biden administration policies they deemed too ambitious, they should also veto similarly ambitious Trump administration policies. Under this argument, the major questions doctrine may still be bad law that the Republican justices pulled out of thin air, but the least they can do is apply it equally harshly to presidents of both parties.


The cynical argument, meanwhile, is that Democrats got crushed at the polls, despite low inflation and a strong economy, seemingly in part because they held power during a period of high inflation. If Trump gets to implement his tariffs, that would also likely trigger a period of similarly high inflation, and that would be bad for the political party that controls the Supreme Court.

So what should the Supreme Court do?


Trump has proposed many policies that violate the Constitution. If he follows through on his threats to have his political enemies arrested, that would violate the First Amendment and may violate the Fourth Amendment’s requirement that law enforcement must have “probable cause” to make an arrest. Depending on how Trump conducts his deportation policies, they may violate constitutional due process guarantees. His anti-transgender policies could violate constitutional protections against discrimination, and some of his policies targeting incarcerated transgender people could violate the Constitution’s ban on “cruel and unusual punishments.”


But there’s nothing in the Constitution that prohibits tariffs. Tariffs are a common part of US economic and foreign policy. Federal laws that long predate the Trump administration give the president broad authority over tariffs. And there’s even a precedent, from the Nixon administration, for the kind of sweeping tariffs that Trump says he wants to implement.


The coming legal fight over tariffs presents a dilemma. A decision against the tariffs would consolidate more power in an unelected Supreme Court, and breathe more life into a legal doctrine that has no basis in law. A decision for the tariffs, however, would cause needless misery to millions of Americans.


The Constitution itself is pretty clear about what should happen in this case. When a duly elected president violates the Constitution or a federal law, it’s the Supreme Court’s job to step in. But when the president merely enacts an unwise economic policy, the Court is supposed to play no role whatsoever — even if this policy is likely to hurt the nation or the political party that controls the Court. Trump’s tariffs are unwise, but assuming that he implements them in compliance with federal law, they are not unconstitutional.


In any event, it’s far from clear what these justices will do. But, if Trump does try to implement the kinds of tariffs he touted on the campaign trail, a legal showdown over whether he can actually do what federal law says he can do is almost certainly inevitable.


Ian Millhiser is a senior correspondent at Vox, where he focuses on the Supreme Court, the Constitution, and the decline of liberal democracy in the United States. He received a JD from Duke University and is the author of two books on the Supreme Court.

Trump demands Senate allow him to circumvent hearings to appoint cabinet



Trump urges support from Rick Scott, John Thune and John Cornyn for ‘recess appointments’ while US Senate is paused

Robert Tait in Washington
Mon 11 Nov 2024 

Donald Trump has demanded that the three frontrunners to lead the Senate allow him to appoint officials to his new administration without confirmation hearings on Capitol Hill, as a future Republican government began to take shape the week after his election victory.

In a demonstration of his political muscle, the US president-elect urged support for “recess appointments”, which allow the president to make appointments while the Senate is temporarily paused, and can be used to circumvent the confirmation process, which can result in appointments being delayed or blocked.

The demand amounted to a full-frontal intervention in this week’s GOP’s election for a new Senate leader to replace Mitch McConnell, the party’s longtime leader who is retiring. The three men tipped to lead the Senate – Rick Scott, John Thune and John Cornyn – all quickly agreed to Trump’s request.

It also signalled Trump’s determination to press ahead with his agenda without being encumbered by congressional oversight, which is mandated by the US constitution.

Trump has already given out several senior positions in his new administration. CNN reported on Monday that Stephen Miller, a senior adviser in his first administration and a hardliner on immigration, was in line to become White House deputy chief of staff for policy.

Tom Homan, a former acting director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice) in his first presidency, was announced as a new “border czar”, spearheading his promised crackdown on immigration.

And Elise Stefanik – a representative from New York whose performance at Capitol Hill hearings on antisemitism led to the downfall of two Ivy League university presidents – was offered US ambassador to the United Nations.

Trump’s demand for recess appointments, however, was aimed squarely at dominating the future Senate. When the Republicans take control of the chamber in January, they will have at least 53 of the Senate’s 100 seats.

“Any Republican Senator seeking the coveted LEADERSHIP position in the United States Senate must agree to Recess Appointments (in the Senate!), without which we will not be able to get people confirmed in a timely manner,” Trump posted on X.

“Sometimes the votes can take two years, or more. This is what they did four years ago, and we cannot let it happen again. We need positions filled IMMEDIATELY.”


Recess appointments are controversial. A 2014 US supreme court verdict ruled that Barack Obama had exceeded his constitutional authority when he made high-level appointments after declaring the Senate to be in recess – though the ruling still gave presidents wide latitude to use a clause in the US constitution to make appointments during recess.

Trump’s call was endorsed by all three Republican candidates in Wednesday’s leadership election: Thune of South Dakota, Cornyn of Texas and Scott of Florida. The winner will ascend to the powerful position of Senate majority leader when Congress reconvenes in the new year.

The quickest backing came from Scott, thought to be an outsider in the three-man race, though his candidacy has won the support of Trump’s most fervent Maga cheerleaders, such as Elon Musk, the world’s richest man; the broadcaster Tucker Carlson; Charlie Kirk, the far-right activist and founder of Turning Point USA; and Robert F Kennedy Jr.

“100% agree. I will do whatever it takes to get your nominations through as quickly as possible,” Scott wrote on X within minutes of Trump’s post.

Thune and Cornyn, who also signalled their support of recess appointments in posts on social media after Trump’s demand, are Republicans who have both opposed Trump at times in the past. Thune called Trump’s role in the January 6 riot, when a mob tried to overturn the 2020 presidential election result, “inexcusable”.

Trump has not endorsed a candidate in the Senate race, amid signs that his surrogates’ interventions were backfiring among senators, who vote for McConnell’s replacement by secret ballot.

A Senate aide told Politico that the lobbying on Scott’s behalf was “pissing off senators whose votes Rick needs”.

“Senators do not take kindly to having an army of social media trolls attack them,” the aide told the site.

A GOP senator – talking anonymously to Punchbowl – said: “I really don’t much care what Tucker Carlson thinks. They’re trying to bully us. That’s not how these elections work.”

The Republicans’ forthcoming Senate majority should mean Trump’s appointees earn confirmation without the need to short-circuit the process.

However, there has been speculation that his intention to give Kennedy a wide-ranging brief over health, drug control and food safety could fail to clear the confirmation process because of the former independent candidate’s controversial views on vaccines.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Sunday that he and US President-elect Donald Trump see "eye to eye on the Iranian threat".


Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced on Sunday that he has recently spoken three times with US President-elect Donald Trump.

                     
By Euronews with AP
Published on 11/11/2024 

Netanyahu revealed that he had spoken with Trump three times in recent days, describing their discussions as "very good and important."

He emphasised their shared understanding of the Iranian threat, acknowledging the various dangers it poses.

As Trump prepares to take office, Israel's military offensive in Gaza continues, and the country intensifies its campaign against Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Tensions between Israel and Iran remain high, with no sign of de-escalation. Israel is also engaged in ongoing conflicts with Iranian-backed proxies in Iraq and Yemen, while the threat posed by Iran's nuclear program continues to be a significant concern for Israel.

In a separate statement, Netanyahu discussed an antisemitic attack in Amsterdam targeting fans of the Maccabi Tel Aviv soccer team. Dutch Prime Minister Dick Schoof expressed his "shame" over the incident, and Netanyahu called for the harsh punishment of the attackers.

Palestinians gather at the site of an Israeli strike in the courtyard of the Al-Aqsa Hospital in Deir al-Balah, 9 November, 2024Abdel Kareem Hana/Copyright 2024 The AP. All rights reserved.

Following the incident, Amsterdam police launched a large-scale investigation into the violent 'hit and run' assaults carried out by youth gangs, reportedly encouraged by social media calls to target Jewish individuals.

Five people were treated for injuries at local hospitals, and more than 60 suspects were arrested.

Prosecutors in Amsterdam confirmed that four suspects, including two minors, remained in custody on Saturday, with arraignments set for the following week. They also stated that further arrests are expected as investigators review video footage of the attacks.

Before the match, it was reported that Israeli football fans had torn a Palestinian flag, chanted anti-Arab slogans and started fights.

Fire crews on both US coasts battle wildfires, 1 dead; Veterans Day ceremony postponed

Fires on both US coasts

Fire crews on both coasts of the United States battled wildfires Monday, including a blaze in New York and New Jersey that killed a parks employee and postponed Veterans Day plans, and another in Southern California that destroyed more than 130 structures.

Firefighters continued making progress against a wildfire northwest of Los Angeles in Ventura County that broke out Wednesday and quickly exploded in size due to dry, warm and gusty Santa Ana winds.

The Mountain Fire prompted thousands of residents to flee their homes and was 31% contained as of late Sunday, up from 26% the previous day. The fire’s size remains around 32 square miles (about 83 square kilometers). The cause is under investigation.

Some people have been allowed to return to their homes, “but road closures, evacuation warnings, and orders remain in effect in some areas,” according to the Ventura County Fire Department. “Certain areas are open to residents only. As you return home, please watch for hazards such as live power lines and debris.”

Meanwhile, New York State Police said they were investigating the death of Dariel Vasquez, an 18-year-old state parks employee who died when a tree fell on him Saturday afternoon as he battled a major brush fire in Sterling Forest, located in New York state's Greenwood Lake near the New Jersey line.

“Rip brother your shift is over job well done,” a New York State forestry services post said.

New Jersey's state forest fire service said Sunday that the blaze — dubbed the Jennings Creek Wildfire — was threatening 25 structures, including two New Jersey homes. It had grown to 4.7 square miles (12 square kilometers) and was 10% contained as of Sunday night.

In West Milford, New Jersey, a Veterans Day ceremony was postponed to later in the month because of the firefighting effort, said Rudy Hass, the local Veterans of Foreign Wars of the U.S. commander.

“Many of those personnel currently engaged with the fires are veterans themselves, and right now we need to keep them in our thoughts as they spend many hours, day and night, doing all they can in order protect our great communities in that area,” he posted online.

Health advisories were issued for parts of New York, including New York City, and northeastern New Jersey due to unhealthy air quality due to smoke from the fires. People were urged to limit strenuous outdoor physical activity if possible; those especially sensitive included the very young and very old and people with ailments such as asthma and heart disease.

But there was progress on other fires.

New Jersey officials reported 75% containment of a 175-acre (70-hectare) fire in the Pompton Lakes area of Passaic County that was threatening 55 homes, although no evacuations had been ordered, as well as progress made on other fires burning in the state amid bone-dry conditions.

In New Jersey, Ocean County prosecutors on Saturday announced arson and firearms charges in connection with a 350-acre (142-hectare) Jackson Township fire that started Wednesday. The blaze was largely contained by the end of the week, officials said.

They said that fire was sparked by magnesium shards from a shotgun round on the berm of a shooting range.

In Massachusetts, one wildfire among several fueled by powerful wind gusts and dry leaves has burned hundreds of acres in the Lynn Woods Reservation, a municipal park extending across about 3.4 square miles (8.8 square kilometers) in the city some 10 miles (16 kilometers) north of Boston.

The Lynn Fire Department cited "a dry spell we have not seen during this time of year in many years.”

“We have had over 400 acres of the woods that have burned so far. We believe we have the fire contained using the main fire roads. We will maintain a presence to ensure the fire doesn’t spread further," Lynn Fire Chief Dan Sullivan said in a statement late Sunday.

The Northeast has been experiencing prolonged dry conditions. In New Jersey, the state Department of Environmental Protection is planning a hearing on Tuesday to review its water supply conditions. A major drought was declared in much of Massachusetts last week.

What Is Agenda47? 

What To Know About Trump’s Policy Agenda After Election Win

Alison Durkee
Forbes Staff
Alison is a senior news reporter covering US politics and legal news.Follow
Nov 6, 2024



Former President Donald Trump has won the presidential election and will take office in January, and while his final policy choices remain to be seen, he could push plans from a years-old platform that includes stricter rules for schools, more hardline immigration policies, scrapping climate regulations and creating entirely new “freedom cities.”


Key Facts


Trump’s “Agenda47” consists of proposals his campaign issued on its website during the primary election season, from December 2022 to December 2023, many of which may require congressional action but some of which could be enacted through executive orders—and are separate to the Project 2025 proposals developed by third-party organizations.



While Trump’s Agenda47 proposals and videos were long linked on his campaign website, his website’s homepage now only links to a shorter set of proposals and includes a separate link to the Republican National Committee’s broader platform—but the links to his more detailed Agenda47 proposals remain active, offering more insight about the ex-president’s priorities than what’s listed on his website now.



Education: Trump’s proposals for K-12 schools include having parents elect school principals, cutting federal funding to any school teaching “critical race theory,” ending teacher tenure, creating a new credentialing body to only certify teachers “who embrace patriotic values,” encouraging prayer in schools, making it easier to kick “out-of-control troublemakers” out of school, supporting school districts that allow teachers to carry concealed firearms and pushing “school choice” policies.



Universities: Trump has proposed getting rid of existing accreditors for colleges and universities and creating new ones who impose his party’s values on institutions, along with levying significant fines on colleges and universities that he believes “discriminate” against students—with a plan to use those fines to create a free online “American Academy” that “cover[s] the full spectrum of human knowledge and skills.”


Climate Change: The U.S. would again leave the Paris Climate Accord, and the ex-president has proposed getting rid of President Joe Biden’s policies restricting emissions and targeting 67% of new vehicles to be electric by 2032 and massively scaling up oil and gas production.


Justice Department: Trump has pledged to appoint 100 U.S. attorneys who would be aligned with his policies and investigate some left-leaning local district attorneys, also pledging to establish a DOJ task force on “protecting the right to self-defense” and fight purported anti-conservative bias at law schools and law firms.


Crime: Trump has vowed to invest in hiring and retaining police officers (and increase their protections from legal liability), push policies like “stop and frisk,” direct the DOJ “to dismantle every gang, street crew, and drug network in America,” deploy federal troops including the National Guard “to restore law and order” when local officers “refuse to act” and impose the death penalty for drug dealers, drug cartels and human traffickers.


Immigration: Trump plans to prohibit undocumented immigrants from receiving any benefits, end birthright citizenship for the children of undocumented immigrants, reinstitute a “travel ban” from certain countries, pause refugee admissions, mandate “extreme vetting of foreign nationals,” block federal grants to sanctuary cities, end the “catch-and-release” practice of releasing migrants while they await immigration hearings, close the southern border to asylum seekers and suspend visa programs including the visa lottery and family visas.


Economy: Trump proposes cutting taxes and slashing federal regulations, also proposing baseline tariffs on foreign goods in hopes of spurring American manufacturing, which will go up for countries who have “unfair trade practices.”


Healthcare: Trump has proposed requiring federal agencies to buy medicines and medical devices manufactured in the U.S. and barring federal agencies from other countries from purchasing “essential” drugs; he also has plans for an executive order saying the government will only pay pharmaceutical companies the “best price they offer to foreign nations.”


Foreign Policy and Defense: Trump wants European allies to pay back the U.S. for depleting its military stockpiles sending weapons to Ukraine; he has also taken a hardline stance on China, calling for new restrictions on Chinese-owned infrastructure in the U.S., and wants to build a missile defense shield.


Social Security: In a shift from some pre-Trump GOP politicians’ views, Trump has said there should be no cuts to Social Security or Medicare “under any circumstances.”


Homelessness: Trump plans to work with states to ban “public camping” by homeless people and instead give them the choice of receiving treatment or being arrested, and calls for creating large “tent cities” where homeless people would be relocated, which would have doctors and social workers on site, along with expanding mental institutions.


Transgender Rights: Trump takes a hard stance against transgender rights, calling for any healthcare provider providing gender-affirming care for youth to be terminated from Medicare and Medicaid, stripping federal funding from any school where an official or teacher suggests a child could be “trapped in the wrong body,” and encouraging Congress to pass legislation saying “the only genders recognized by the U.S. government are male and female—and they are assigned at birth.”

Big Tech: In line with conservatives’ claims that social media platforms are biased against them, Trump said he’ll pass an executive order barring any federal department from working with other entities to “censor” Americans and prohibit federal money being used to combat misinformation, also announcing steps like altering Section 230 to open up social media platforms to more legal liability.


What Does Trump’s Website Say Now?

The “platform” section of Trump’s campaign website now lists a set of 20 vague priorities, which are the same as those in the Republican National Committee’s formal platform and often overlap with his previous Agenda47 proposals. The proposals now outlined on the website include “seal[ing] the border;” “carry[ing] out the largest deportation operation in American history;” ending inflation, increased manufacturing and energy production; “large tax cuts for workers;” preserving Social Security and Medicare; enacting transgender sports bans; stripping federal funding for schools that teach what he describes as “critical race theory” or “radical gender ideology;” imposing stricter requirements for voting and keeping “the U.S. dollar as the world’s reserve currency.”


What Is Project 2025—and Is It Similar?

Trump’s Agenda47 is distinct from Project 2025, a potential policy blueprint for the next conservative administration—namely Trump’s—developed by the Heritage Foundation along with other third-party groups. While Agenda47 was released directly by the Trump campaign, the ex-president has said he doesn’t have any involvement with Project 2025 and has attempted to distance himself from it, even as the 900-page policy guidebook was created with help from more than 100 people who served in his administration. Trump has also praised the Heritage Foundation’s policy work in the past. The two policy proposals do have many commonalities—like calling to leave the Paris Climate Agreement, kicking out career bureaucrats, pushing “school choice” policies and railing against transgender rights—and it’s unclear how much of Project 2025 Trump could choose to implement if he’s elected.
What To Watch For

Many of the items in Agenda47 and Project 2025 would probably require acts of Congress—which could be doable, as Republicans have gained control of the Senate and it’s still unclear which party will retake the House—but both agendas have proposed expanding the president’s control over the executive branch. Trump’s Agenda47 proposes reviving Trump’s 2020 executive order (which Biden rescinded) that makes it significantly easier to replace career civil servants with political appointees. He also wants to “overhaul federal departments and agencies” to get rid of “corrupt actors,” crack down on government leakers and implement a “Truth and Reconciliation Commission” to fight what the GOP calls the “Deep State.”
Tangent

Since the last Agenda47 video was released in December 2023, Trump has announced other policy proposals separate from those released under the Agenda47 heading. On abortion, Trump has said he believes the issue should be left to the states—though many abortion rights advocates still believe he’d restrict abortion. He and the GOP have also vowed mass deportations of undocumented immigrants, which is not mentioned in Agenda47’s immigration plans. He’s additionally pushed to eliminate the federal income tax on tips for service workers, as well as eliminate taxes for Social Security and edouble taxation for Americans living abroad and make interest on car loans tax deductible. Trump has also called for mass arrests and prosecutions of people who oppose his claims on voter fraud, which he claims would include “Lawyers, Political Operatives, Donors, Illegal Voters & Corrupt Election Officials.”

What We Don’t Know

What Trump will do once he takes office. Trump’s initial Agenda47 was released during the primary election and with the proposals on his website during the general election offering much less detail, it’s still unclear what policies Trump will actually impose now that he’s been elected. The ex-president has tacked slightly more to the center in the general election on issues like abortion, but it remains to be seen what policies he will adopt once he’s back in the White House.
Surprising Fact

In addition to proposals around more expected issues like immigration, education and defense, Trump’s Agenda47 also includes a proposal for “freedom cities,” as the ex-president has called for using federal land to create up to 10 new cities, which would be roughly the size of Washington, D.C. Plans for the cities would be chosen via a nationwide contest, and Politico reported in March 2023 Trump’s proposal includes investing in “vertical takeoff-and-landing vehicles” akin to human-sized drones and “baby bonuses” in hopes of staving off a declining birth rate.
Key Background

The Associated Press projected Trump as the winner of the presidential election early Wednesday morning, after he won key battleground states including Georgia, North Carolina and Pennsylvania. The ex-president released his Agenda47 videos as he faced what was initially a crowded field of Republican primary candidates, though Trump ultimately proved to be the clear frontrunner, clinching the nomination in March. The policy proposals have come under increased scrutiny in recent months—particularly as Democrats used the controversial Project 2025 to oppose Trump’s candidacy while President Joe Biden faced criticism over his age—though Project 2025 and Agenda47 have both been published since last year.


Trump’s master plan for a radical reformation of the US government

Analysis by Zachary B. Wolf, CNN
Thu November 7, 2024





CNN —

President-elect Donald Trump has promised to completely remake the US government and wield new power as president.

The ambitious promises, if enacted, would transform society. Some of his most-repeated promises on the campaign trail include:
Mass deportation of 11 million undocumented immigrants
Closing the southern border and ending birthright citizenship
Unprecedented tariffs on foreign goods from all countries, but especially China
Expansive tax cuts to benefit corporations, tipped workers, seniors on Social Security, property owners in the Northeast and many others
Trillions in cuts in government spending with help from Elon Musk
Reforming the country’s health and food systems with help from vaccine skeptic Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
Reversing regulations aimed at addressing climate change
Building a new missile defense shield with help from former NFL player Herschel Walker
And so much more

Now Americans will find out what was hyperbole and what was real – what is achievable and what he will be able to push through by himself, with help from Congress and without interference by the courts.

His pledge to end Russia’s war on Ukraine “in 24 hours,” for example, seems overwrought, to say the least.

His pledge for a mass deportation effort, on the other hand, is very serious. It seems to be backed up by some clear planning but there’s a lack of public details.
Is there a master plan?

During the campaign, Trump tried to distance himself from Project 2025, the controversial and detailed blueprint for a newly reimagined federal government published by conservatives at the Heritage Foundation in anticipation of a second Trump term.

While Trump may not want to associate with that plan, it was formulated by his allies – at least 140 people associated with Project 2025 worked in Trump’s administration, according to a review by CNN’s Steve Contorno. Certainly there is some overlap between much of what the 900-page Project 2025 proposes and what Trump has said he will do in a series of very simple “Agenda47” videos on his website laying out his plans for a second term.

In one Agenda47 video, for instance, Trump promises to have an executive order prepared to end birthright citizenship for the children of undocumented immigrants. The 14th Amendment guarantees birthright citizenship, so expect court fights if this happens.

One of the policy maestros of Protect 2025, Russell Vought – who served as the director of the Office of Management and Budget during Trump’s first term – was captured on hidden camera by undercover journalists over the summer talking about an aggressive agenda he was writing to get Trump’s new administration off to an active start in its first 180 days.
On mass deportations

Trump’s most aggressive promise is the rounding up and deportation of millions of undocumented immigrants. Expect Trump to come into office with a series of executive orders already written to reinstate border policies unwound by the Biden administration.

Such is the yo-yoing of US immigration policy given that Congress has been unable to pass meaningful reform for decades. What’s not clear is how exactly Trump will go about closing the US border and whether it will include the US military, the National Guard or local law enforcement agencies.

Trump’s adviser Stephen Miller said on Fox News to expect deportations to begin the moment Trump is again president on January 20, 2025.

“They begin on Inauguration Day, as soon as he takes the oath of office,” he said.

But it’s still not clear exactly how deportations will work. Rep. Carlos Gimenez, a Florida Republican, told CNN’s Pamela Brown on Thursday that he expects every undocumented immigrant will continue to get a hearing before he or she is deported, something that will require the hiring of a large number of additional government workers if deportations are amplified to a massive scale. The current process is lengthy.

“I agree; it’s going to be a very, very big task,” Gimenez said. “And my hope is, and I expect, that we’ll just simply follow the law.”

CNN’s Priscilla Alvarez reported there have already been discussions among Trump allies and some in the private sector to detain and deport migrants at a large scale – though any operation would come with a big price tag.

She noted that Tom Homan, who was acting director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement during Trump’s first term, has said a deportation effort would start with anyone accused of a crime. It’s not clear what would happen to so-called Dreamers, people brought to the US as children who have lived most of their lives here. Some of them are protected by an Obama-era program, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, that Trump tried unsuccessfully to end during his first term.

Plans to ‘aggressively’ fire government workers and move agencies out of DC

At the end of his first term, Trump planned to reclassify a large portion of the federal civilian workforce to make it easier to fire federal workers. Commonly referred to as “Schedule F,” Trump’s plan was to undo long-standing protections for nonpartisan civil servants.

The Biden administration has put some roadblocks in place to ward against such reclassification, but Trump promises in an Agenda47 video to immediately begin working to reinstate it so that he can “remove rogue bureaucrats.” He says he will also “clean out all of the corrupt actors” in the national security and intelligence apparatus and “immediately” move federal agencies out of the nation’s capital.

John McEntee, who was director of the White House Presidential Personnel Office during Trump’s first administration, worked on Project 2025, building a list of Trump loyalists suitable for administration roles. He remains close to Trump, according to CNN’s report on Trump’s transition.

McEntee said recently he wasn’t involved with the policy recommendations in Project 2025, even though he said, “I agree with probably most of it.” Instead, he’s interested in “staffing the president with good people … I think he deserves that.”
What about Trump’s Cabinet?

Trump likes to associate himself and his programs with boldface names. Musk will have a role in government efficiency but probably not a Cabinet position. Kennedy says he wants to give individuals more agency to reject vaccines for their children, but perhaps that does not mean he will have a Cabinet position. Does Trump’s promise at a rally in Georgia to put Walker in charge of a missile defense program mean an official government job for the failed Senate candidate?


Related articleTrump’s plan to radically remake government with RFK Jr. and Elon Musk is coming into view


There are 26 people in President Joe Biden’s Cabinet. Some, like CIA director or US ambassador to the United Nations, can be added or subtracted depending on the administration. Only two of the 26 potential positions in a Trump Cabinet are in place. Look for Trump to continue naming top officials in the coming days.

In addition to Vice President-elect JD Vance, Trump’s first key personnel news came Thursday night when he announced Susie Wiles, his campaign manager, would become his chief of staff. She’ll be the first woman to hold the position. Trump went through four such top aides during his previous administration. The longest-serving of those, retired Marine Gen. John Kelly, had warned against Trump’s election.

Trump can simply hire a chief of staff, but most Cabinet positions, like secretaries of Defense and Homeland Security, will require Senate confirmation. Trump will have a Republican majority in the Senate, which should ease the confirmation of key positions, but each of the ultimate Cabinet appointees will have a confirmation hearing before they get a vote.

Frustrated by the difficulty of getting Cabinet officials confirmed during his first administration, Trump frequently appointed people as “acting” secretaries, although those appointments can only be made on a temporary basis.

Trump’s oldest son, Donald Jr., said on Fox News that Trump will prize loyalty and look for “people who don’t think that they know better than the duly elected president of the United States.”

Taking power away from Congress

Trump won’t have the 60 votes he’ll need to shoot sweeping legislation quickly through Congress without bipartisan support in the Senate. It’s not yet clear if Republicans will hold control of the House, but any majority will be slim.

One of his big plans to challenge current governing norms that’s gotten less attention is his pledge to seize some power over government spending from Congress. In one Agenda47 video, Trump says he would try to reassert the principle of “impoundment,” by which a president can reject spending instructions from Congress and use taxpayer money in other ways.

Congress reined in presidents with a law after the Nixon administration, but Trump says he will challenge it and take more power for the president.