On Wednesday, the GOP-led Senate rejected a resolution designed to undo President Donald Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs, an outcome that came down to attendance. Two members who oppose the tariffs missed the vote — Sen. Shelton Whitehouse (D-RI), who was heading back from a conference in South Korea, and Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) — and the resolution failed to pass in a 49-49 tie. A motion to reconsider the resolution at a future date followed, but Republicans moved to table it. Ultimately, Vice President JD Vance came in with a tie-breaking vote, ending the bid to undermine Trump’s tariffs. The resolution, introduced by Sens. Rand Paul (R-KY) and Ron Wyden (D-OR), sought to terminate the national emergency declaration that Trump used to impose his “Liberation Day” tariffs in early April. In a statement, Paul said tariffs “are taxes, and the power to tax belongs to Congress—not the president. He also declared, “It’s time Congress reasserts its authority and restores the balance of power.” The tariffs imposed a 10% rate on imports from many nations, with higher rates in some cases. Trump granted a 90-day pause, keeping only the base rate for most countries, but escalated China’s tariffs to 145% after Beijing’s retaliatory measures. Officials in the Trump administration have been working to negotiate deals to remedy what they say are grievous trade imbalances while a shrinking U.S. economy grapples with the tariffs as well as cuts in federal spending programs. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) reportedly said “the tariff issue is something that’s … an open question, but we’re giving them some space to negotiate and see if they can get some good deals.” The two Republicans who joined Paul in voting to rein in Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs on Wednesday were Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and Susan Collins (R-ME). McConnell likely would have joined them. “The Senator has been consistent in opposing tariffs and that a trade war is not in the best interest of American households and businesses,” McConnell’s spokesman said in a statement. “He believes that tariffs are a tax increase on everybody.” McConnell and the other Republican defectors previously joined forces with Democrats and independents to pass a similar resolution seeking to stop Trump’s 25% tariffs on Canadian goods. Still, like with the Canada measure, the “Liberation Day” resolution was expected to hit a wall if it reached the House. House Republican leadership placed a provision in a rule for the budget reconciliation resolution that blocked members from forcing a vote on the national emergency underlying the “Liberation Day” tariffs, at least until October. Paul rebuked the lower chamber in a speech, declaring, “The Founders would not have expected the House of Representatives to become so craven as to not even allow a vote on ending the emergency.” On Monday, the White House issued a veto threat against the Senate “Liberation Day” measure. “This resolution would undermine the Administration’s efforts to address the unusual and extraordinary threats to national security and economic stability, posed by the conditions reflected in the large and persistent annual U.S. goods trade deficit,” the Office of Management and Budget said in a statement. Congress may not be done trying to restrain presidential tariff powers. A bipartisan pair, Sens. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and Maria Cantwell (D-WA), introduced a bill to require congressional approval within 60 days for unilateral tariffs imposed by the president or else they would expire, plus the measure would give lawmakers to end the levies at any time.

Democrat strategist James Carville told Democratic National Committee (DNC) Vice Chairman David Hogg during a podcast Wednesday that his attempt to take down fellow Democrat candidates is “jackassery of the highest level.” The DNC vice chairman announced plans in April to help unseat certain Democrat members of Congress in the 2026 primary elections, spending millions […]

'Thanks to President Trump’s tireless efforts'

DEI is Being Written Out of Corporate Filings

Wednesday's Final Word

Public television marked President Trump’s first 100 days in office with a dose of fear and loathing Monday evening, courtesy of the PBS News Hour’s most liberal reporter Laura Barron-Lopez and her guest, hostile presidential historian Mark Updegrove. Barron-Lopez dutifully issued warnings. Barron-Lopez: More than 140 executive orders signed, a record for the first 100 days, and tariffs on allies and adversaries alike, a growing deportation operation, and mass firings across the government, all at a pace that historian Mark Updegrove says has institutions struggling to keep up. Mark Updegrove, Presidential Historian: There's a muzzle velocity, this flooding the zone of activity that has come since he took the Oval Office. There have been enormous gambles that he has taken. And we don't yet know what the ramifications of those gambles are. The process of enforcing immigration law and student visa requirements were reduced to a “dragnet” by Barron-Lopez, and she lamented Trump was "invoking the 18th century Alien Enemies Act" that allowed the deportation of "Venezuelan migrants alleged to be gang members without due process." Laura Barron-Lopez: A move that federal judges, including Republican-appointed ones, have described in rulings as “shocking” and “a path of perfect lawlessness, one that courts cannot condone….” Updegrove: Donald Trump has shown that he has disregarded at certain points of his presidency constitutional and conventional norms. Will there be a continued defiance of court orders and what will that mean to our Constitution? What will that mean to the future of America? The historian gave his ideological preferences away when he included USAID and the Department of Education (the latter founded in 1979 and threatened by Trump) as programs somehow “baked into American life.” Barron-Lopez: And despite railing against what he called the weaponization of government against him, many say President Trump has made good on his promise of retribution, attacking all perceived enemies, stripping security clearances from former officials in his first administration and other political opponents, including Republicans, threatening law firms that worked on legal cases against him, punishing independent news organizations he disagrees with, and targeting institutions like Harvard University by halting billions in public funding. Are there historical parallels? Are there other presidents who attempted to go after their enemies in the same way that Trump is going after his? Updegrove: Not to the same extent that we have seen from Donald Trump, no. We saw from Richard Nixon attacks on his enemies. He had an enemy list, but they were not -- that vengeance was not carried out to the same systematic degree that we have seen from the Trump administration. Another, more recent presidential name was out there -- Joe Biden, under whose administration ridiculous charges were brought against Trump (i.e. "lawfare"), most of which were either dismissed or backfired against the Democrats. And of course Russiagate, which predated Biden, but showed that Republican presidents are not the only one's exacting political vengeance against their opponents. Near the end Updegrove said: Updegrove: Donald Trump campaigned on the notion of making America great again. We have seen him tear down much of what has made America great to this point. What will he build in its place and where will its greatness lie? Updegrove is hardly an objective voice. In 2022 he appeared on ABC News coverage of then-President Biden’s speech marking the anniversary of the January 6 Capitol Hill riot: “Joe Biden needed to deliver a powerful statement about democracy today. This was FDR after Pearl Harbor. This is Lyndon Johnson after Selma. This is George W. Bush after 9/11." This segment was brought to you in part by Raymond James. A transcript is available, click "Expand." PBS News Hour 4/28/25 7:24:02 p.m. Amna Nawaz: President Donald Trump will hit his first 100 days in the White House on Tuesday, a key period of his second presidency, defined by its breakneck pace and the chaotic rollout of an agenda designed to expand his authority. Laura Barron-Lopez has our report. Donald Trump, President of the United States: So this is a big one. Laura Barron-Lopez: Since retaking the Oval Office in January, Donald Trump has tested the limits of presidential power. Donald Trump: We have rogue judges that are destroying our country. Laura Barron-Lopez: More than 140 executive orders signed, a record for the first 100 days, and tariffs on allies and adversaries alike, a growing deportation operation, and mass firings across the government, all at a pace that historian Mark Updegrove says has institutions struggling to keep up. Mark Updegrove, Presidential Historian: There's a muzzle velocity, this flooding the zone of activity that has come since he took the Oval Office. There have been enormous gambles that he has taken. And we don't yet know what the ramifications of those gambles are. Laura Barron-Lopez: Impulsive and often controversial, just one month in, President Trump shocked the world… Donald Trump: You don't have the cards right now. Laura Barron-Lopez: … when he berated Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in an explosive Oval Office showdown that forced allies to reckon with what could be the end of the transatlantic alliance. Donald Trump: You're gambling with World War III. And what you're doing is very disrespectful to the country, this country… Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Ukrainian President: I'm with all respect to you. (Crosstalk) Donald Trump: … that's backed to you far more than a lot of people said they should have. J.D. Vance, Vice President of the United States: Have you said thank you once this entire meeting? Volodymyr Zelenskyy: A lot of times. J.D. Vance: No, in this entire meeting, have you said thank you? Laura Barron-Lopez: And now the administration is threatening to walk away from the peace negotiations. On immigration, Trump moved quickly to shut down the border in many legal pathways to enter the U.S., southern border crossings dropping to the lowest levels in decades, carrying out early raids in major cities. Top immigration officials launched a P.R. blitz to highlight the deportations and pressure immigrants to self-deport. Kristi Noem, U.S. Homeland Security Secretary: If you are considering entering America illegally, don't even think about it. Laura Barron-Lopez: College students were also targeted in the dragnet, as the administration revoked visas from hundreds of foreign students involved in pro-Palestinian campus protests and has detained a growing number of legal permanent residents. The targeting of undocumented and legal immigrants alike has set off a confrontation with coequal judicial branch. After invoking the 18th century Alien Enemies Act, until now only used during times of war, the administration deported hundreds of Venezuelan migrants alleged to be gang members without due process. Donald Trump: These were bad people. That was a bad group of, as I say, hombres. Laura Barron-Lopez: A move that federal judges, including Republican-appointed ones, have described in rulings as shocking and a path of perfect lawlessness, one that courts cannot condone. In an extraordinary response, the Supreme Court halted all future deportations under the Alien Enemies Act until courts can hear more arguments. And they ordered the administration to — quote — "facilitate" the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who was illegally deported to El Salvador, despite a court order expressly forbidding him to be sent there. The White House taunting on social media that Garcia is never coming back. Mark Updegrove: Donald Trump has shown that he has disregarded at certain points of his presidency constitutional and conventional norms. Will there be a continued defiance of court orders and what will that mean to our Constitution? What will that mean to the future of America? Elon Musk, Department of Government Efficiency: Do you have a pulse? (Laughter) Laura Barron-Lopez: Acting with Trump's blessing, special government employee Elon Musk has exerted unprecedented influence inside the administration, while vowing to take a chain saw to the federal government. He's promoted Teslas on the White House driveway. Elon Musk: It's zero to 60 miles an hour in two seconds. Laura Barron-Lopez: Musk's so-called Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, claims to have cut $160 billion in spending since Trump took office, nowhere near the $1 trillion promised by September. Elon Musk: Some of the things that I say will be incorrect and should be corrected. So nobody's going to bet .1000. We will make mistakes. Laura Barron-Lopez: And many of DOGE's — quote — "receipts" have been riddled with billion-dollar errors, deletions or falsehoods. Donald Trump: When you look at the kind of money, billions and billions of dollars being thrown away illegally. Laura Barron-Lopez: At the direction of Musk and his allies across the government, nearly 280,000 federal workers have been fired or put on leave. Most foreign aid spending has been eliminated, including the dismantling of the U.S. Agency for International Development, known as USAID. And there have been major cuts at the Department of Education, the Environmental Protection Agency and others, like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Mark Updegrove: We have never seen the dismantling of government to this extent. These programs are baked into American life. And it's everything from the CDC to the FAA and to all these different things that we almost take for granted in our daily lives as Americans. And we have never seen an axe wielded to take apart government to this extent. Donald Trump: My fellow Americans, this is liberation day. Laura Barron-Lopez: And after promising to rein in inflation and lower the price of goods, President Trump unveiled sweeping tariffs on nearly all of the nations that trade with the U.S., before he backtracked, announcing a 90-day pause just hours before they were set to take effect. Donald Trump: Well, I thought that people were jumping a little bit out of line. They were getting yippy, you know? They were getting a little bit yippy, a little bit afraid. Laura Barron-Lopez: Still, Trump left in place an across-the-board 10 percent tariff on most imported goods and 25 percent levies on foreign autos, steel and aluminum. And he launched a bitter trade war with China, slapping 145 percent tariffs on most Chinese products imported to the U.S., prompting China to retaliate, all sparking chaos in the financial markets and, according to a majority of economists, raising the risk of recession. Mark Updegrove: We have not seen tariffs used as a weapon in the manner that Trump has used them to this point. While this might seem like a good short-term solution to get nations to the bargaining table to get better deals from America, the long-term downstream effects of this remain to be seen, and it's an enormous gamble for America and for the world economy. Donald Trump: They weaponized the vast powers of our intelligence and law enforcement agencies to try and thwart the will of the American people. Laura Barron-Lopez: And despite railing against what he called the weaponization of government against him, many say President Trump has made good on his promise of retribution, attacking all perceived enemies, stripping security clearances from former officials in his first administration and other political opponents, including Republicans, threatening law firms that worked on legal cases against him, punishing independent news organizations he disagrees with, and targeting institutions like Harvard University by halting billions in public funding. Are there historical parallels? Are there other presidents who attempted to go after their enemies in the same way that Trump is going after his? Mark Updegrove: Not to the same extent that we have seen from Donald Trump, no. We saw from Richard Nixon attacks on his enemies. He had an enemy list, but they were not — that vengeance was not carried out to the same systematic degree that we have seen from the Trump administration. Laura Barron-Lopez: President Trump has made clear he will move to enact his agenda with or without Congress. But the near-daily court setbacks continue, as the judiciary questions the legality of some of his actions. Mark Updegrove: Donald Trump campaigned on the notion of making America great again. We have seen him tear down much of what has made America great to this point. What will he build in its place and where will its greatness lie? Donald Trump: Thank you, everybody. Laura Barron-Lopez: Whether the chaos of the president's first 100 days becomes a hallmark of his second term, Updegrove said, remains to be seen. For the "PBS News Hour," I'm Laura Barron-Lopez.

Mark Carney didn’t even have a seat in Canada’s House of Commons when he replaced Justin Trudeau as prime minister and leader of the Liberal Party in March. At the time, it seemed his tenure would be a short one. With the federal election just seven weeks away, the Liberals were trailing the Conservative Party by seven points, 20 to 27. Most assumed that the untested Carney would lose to veteran Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre. In fact, as recently as January, Poilievre's party was expected to win the largest majority in Canada's history. Instead, when the polls closed Monday, the Conservatives had captured a meager 144 seats, and Poilievre was sent packing after 20 years in Parliament. The separatist Bloc Quebecois got 23 seats, while the socialist New Democrats got seven and the Green Party one. And the Liberals? 168 seats, enough to win them a minority government — with Carney at the helm. What happened? In a word: Trump. The American president's trademark bluster proved the gift that kept on giving for Carney and his party. Trump may not really have wanted to annex Canada and make it the "51st state," but many Canadians took him at his word. Even for those who didn't, the crippling tariffs Trump levied against the country were threatening enough. So Carney effectively ran against Trump instead of Poilievre, whom he successfully branded as Canada’s answer to the 47th (and 45th) president. In the process, the former economic adviser for Trudeau somehow convinced voters to see him as an outsider and an agent of change. Never mind that his party had virtually destroyed the economy in a decade of rule — doubling the national debt, creating a vicious affordable housing crisis, and punishing Canadians with a carbon tax that kept rising. Carney wisely put the carbon tax on hold just before he called an election, but did not eradicate it. Carney also bears responsibility for some of his government’s radical environmental policies, notably net zero energy use. It's an onerous standard he wants to enforce for both domestic and foreign companies doing business in Canada with punishing taxes and tariffs. It could kill a Canadian economy that is already one of the weakest in the G20. Businesses are expected to move south or anywhere they won’t be affected by the idiocy of green energy policies. Carney also wants to ban the gas-powered car and introduce a home equity tax that would devastate retirees and hurt homeowners. None of this hampered Carney's rise in the polls. Nor did the allegations of his murky business practices. What about his leadership of Glasgow Financial Alliance, an environmental lobby that was cited by the House Judiciary Committee as a “climate cartel” because it aggressively worked to force banks and corporations to adopt net zero policies? Or his public support for the Chinese yuan to replace the U.S. dollar as the global currency? Or his stint as chairman of Brookfield Asset Management, during which the company avoided paying taxes by funneling its profits through tax havens like Bermuda and the Cayman Islands? Nobody cared. Just call him Teflon Mark. Even in his victory speech Monday night, Carney couldn't resist moaning about his best frenemy. “As I’ve been warned, America wants our land, our resources, our water, our country. But these are not idle threats. President Trump is trying to break us so that America can own us. That will never, that will never ever happen.” Considering that Carney and Trump have had business dealings in the past — and that the president actually endorsed Carney on three separate occasions — it's advisable to take this anti-Trump rhetoric with a grain of salt. Carney’s rise has led to renewed interest in separation in Alberta, with independence gaining more popular support than ever. Alberta knows Carney will suppress the oil and gas sector even more than Trudeau — while at the same time expecting it to dole out money for other less prosperous provinces. If Alberta leaves, it could be the beginning of the end of Canada — but that just might be Carney’s goal. His globalist ties to the World Economic Forum and the United Nations are well known. The Conservatives are hoping that the Liberal minority government will fall within the year before Carney has a chance to do too much damage. As for Poilievre, he put on a brave face in his Monday night concession speech. “Now my message to Canadians, the promise that was made to me and to all of you is that anybody from anywhere could achieve anything; that through hard work, you could get a great life, you have a nice, affordable home on a safe street," he told a the crowd of supporters. "My purpose in politics is and will continue to be to restore that promise.”

From its founding more than a century ago, the FBI has been regarded as the premier law enforcement agency in the world. But during my time as an acting section chief at FBI headquarters, I saw firsthand how the bureau lost its way over the past four years, weaponizing against law-abiding American citizens solely based on their politics. Now, with President Donald Trump’s return to the White House and a new FBI director in charge, the bureau has a chance to reclaim its legacy. Here’s how. Kash Patel’s focus on getting back to basics and focusing on the mission is exactly what the FBI needs. Under Joe Biden, FBI leadership turned the bureau into a political weapon, sacrificing public safety in the process. Top officials redirected personnel and resources away from genuine threats, including foreign terrorism and Chinese espionage, and toward prosecuting Jan. 6 defendants. While violent crime surged across the country, the FBI prioritized ideological targets. Agents scrutinized traditional Catholic services, harassed parents who spoke out at local school board meetings, and carried out Attorney General Merrick Garland’s unprecedented order to raid President Trump’s home at Mar-a-Lago. No more waste Most FBI employees serve the public with integrity. But Director Kash Patel needs to act swiftly to fire the bad actors who damaged the bureau’s credibility in recent years. He should also dismiss any career personnel who resist or slow-roll President Trump’s tough-on-crime agenda. The Department of Government Efficiency is reviewing every agency to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse — and it must make a long stop at the Hoover Building. Patel should cut unnecessary travel and rein in wasteful spending, especially inflated payments to confidential human sources. The bureau — or the DOGE — should also conduct a full audit of contracts with outside organizations, just as other agencies have already begun to do. Get out of DC But more than just overspending on unnecessary travel, the FBI can be reorganized to promote more efficiency — not just for the sake of saving taxpayer dollars, but for the sake of ensuring speed and effectiveness in enforcing the law. For instance, the Bureau could easily do without the intelligence branch and merge its personnel and mission into other FBI units. The FBI is not an intelligence agency. It is, rather, a law enforcement agency that uses intelligence. The bureau should not try to be a domestic version of the CIA. Any reorganization should also move FBI headquarters out of Washington, D.C. Right now, about one-third of FBI personnel work in the Washington area. That’s a terrible idea. Threats to our country are not concentrated in and around the District of Columbia. FBI headquarters should be moved to Huntsville, Alabama, Quantico, Virginia, or to other established FBI locations outside the Beltway. This would save taxpayer money, refresh the culture at the bureau, and enhance the quality of life for FBI personnel and their families. Revive merit-based hiring For future hiring and recruitment, Patel should ensure the end of diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives at the bureau and reinstate merit-based hiring. The bureau’s DEI office was shut down after President Trump’s election in November, but Patel must make sure that the diversity scourge does not return under a different name. We need the best and the brightest at the FBI — regardless of what they look like — so that they can protect every American of every race, color, and creed. Director Patel has already brought about a sea change at the bureau. Applications for new agents are breaking records, signaling renewed public trust in the bureau. a The FBI has already apprehended three of the top 10 most wanted criminals in just three months — after finding zero in total last year. The FBI has also brought to justice one of the terrorists who killed 13 Americans during President Biden’s abandonment of Afghanistan. These results show that Patel’s focus on getting back to basics and focusing on the mission is exactly what the FBI needs. The road ahead More work remains — not just over the next four years, but well beyond. Long-term reform requires congressional action. Lawmakers must strengthen legal penalties for FBI employees who abuse their positions, whether for personal gain or to serve a political agenda. Congress also has a duty to impose serious oversight. Without it, the bureau will repeat the abuses of the recent past. The FBI remains one of America’s most powerful institutions, with a long record of service and sacrifice. With strong leadership and sound policy, it can rebuild trust — and become better than ever.

Denial Ain't Just a River in Egypt: Abby Phillip Says '60 Minutes' Didn't Falsely Edit Harris Interview