The Trump administration placed a Justice Department lawyer on indefinite paid leave for not arguing strenuously enough against allowing a Maryland man who was mistakenly deported to El Salvador back into the U.S.
Erez Reuveni was placed on leave by Attorney General Pam Bondi for not "zealously advocating" the government's position. Reuveni admitted that the U.S. made a mistake when it deported Maryland resident Kilmar Abrego Garcia last month.
At a hearing on Friday, a judge ruled that Garcia must be returned to the U.S. by Monday.
“At my direction, every Department of Justice attorney is required to zealously advocate on behalf of the United States,” Bondi told the New York Times. “Any attorney who fails to abide by this direction will face consequences.”
The Trump administration launched an emergency appeal on Saturday, arguing that U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis doesn't have the ability to force the administration to return Garcia to the U.S.
“Late Friday afternoon, a federal district judge ordered the United States to force El Salvador to send one of its citizens – a member of MS-13, no less – back to the United States by midnight on Monday. If there was ever a case for an emergency stay pending appeal, this would be it,” the government wrote.
The government no longer has "control" over Garcia after he was deported, the DOJ further argued.
Nevertheless, the court’s injunction commands that Defendants accomplish, somehow, Abrego Garcia’s return to the United States in give or take one business day,” the appeal said, calling it “indefensible.”
The DOJ claimed that Garcia was a member of MS-13, but he has denied this, according to other reports.
In fact, an immigration judge ruled five years ago that Garcia could not be deported because he would be in danger from gang activity in El Salvador.
Garcia entered the country in 2011, and at the time of his deportation he was married to an American citizen and had a child. He was also working as a sheet metal fabricator.
He was arrested in front of his son, who was in the car in an IKEA parking lot where he was detained.
In an NPR interview on Monday, Assistant Secretary for public affairs at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Tricia McLaughlin said that multiple judges had viewed classified information and confirmed that Garcia was an MS-13 gang member.
"I think the bottom line for the American people and for those who are listening today is that this individual in question, who's an MS-13 gang member, he should be behind bars, whether it be in El Salvador or in a U.S. detention facility," she said. "He should not be on the streets of America. And to remind listeners, MS-13 is a gang that murders, rapes, traffics drugs. They maim for sport. These are individuals we do not want in our country, especially those who are here illegally."
President Donald Trump took a dramatic step toward fulfilling a key campaign promise last week when he implemented sweeping tariffs on a host of countries as a means to rectify massive trade deficits and increase revenue.
French President Emmanuel Macron was among the world leaders outraged by Trump's move, declaring that harsh retaliation was in order, a statement that prompted Ric Grenell, White House special envoy for special missions, to suggest that the U.S. halt loan guarantees that benefit France, as Breitbart reports.
According to Reuters, it was on Thursday that Macron called on companies in Europe to halt planned investments in America as a means of response to Trump's tariffs.
Speaking to a group of industry representatives from his own country, Macron stated, “Investments to come or investments announced in recent weeks should be suspended until things are clarified with the United States.”
The French president further declared Trump's tariff initiative to be “brutal and unfounded, and he vowed that the response would be “more powerful” than prior reactions to American tariffs on steel and aluminum.
Macron's reaction comes in the wake of an announcement made weeks ago by French shipping firm CMA CGM in which plans to invest $20 billion in America were announced and another made by French electrical equipment supplier Schneider Electric pledging an investment of $700 million in the U.S.
Notably, neither firm offered an immediate response to Macron's recommendation that such injections of capital be halted, according to Reuters.
During a Friday appearance on Greg Kelly Reports on Newsmax TV, Grenell wasted little time in responding to Macron's tough talk on Trump's tariffs.
Grenell stated that if Macron moves forward with urging a halt on European investments in America, the U.S. should stop guaranteeing loans made via the Export-Import Bank or the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation (DFC).
Such a move is justified, Grenell said, “if they're going to try to manipulate the tariff process so that they always have one up on us.”
Grenell stated, “Well, look, what President Macron is doing and what the French are doing and what some other countries are doing is trying to retaliate against President Trump trying to make tariffs equal. … President Trump is the first one to actually step out and make it so that it would be equal. But the French have decided to respond, and they are going to increase tariffs.”
The Trump administration official added, “But what the French don't realize is that there [are] a whole bunch of programs, whether it's through one of the entities of the United States called the DFC or the [Export-Import] Bank, where we have guaranteed loans, the American taxpayer has guaranteed loans for the French on some big infrastructure projects. And we shouldn't be doing that.”
Much debate has emerged in recent days as to whether Trump's tariffs are intended to be permanent or are simply a tool of negotiation, and on Thursday, the president indicated his belief that they offer him “great power” to develop deals with foreign leaders, noting that “if somebody said that we're going to give you something that's so phenomenal,” he is open to discussions.
Whether that was Trump's plan all along remains an open question, but on Sunday morning, White House Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett told ABC News, “More than 50 countries have reached out to the president to begin negotiations,” seemingly vindicating that notion that the president's decisive action has, as he put it, placed him firmly in the "driver's seat.”
The North Carolina Court of Appeals has ruled that nearly 65,000 ballots from the state Supreme Court race can be challenged, The Guardian reported. The 2-1 decision came as part of a months-long battle over the results.
In November's election, Republican appellate judge Jefferson Griffin lost to Democrat Allison Riggs by just 734 votes. Griffin now sits on the Court of Appeals, where three of his colleagues ruled that his challenge could proceed.
"To permit unlawful votes to be counted along with lawful ballots in contested elections effectively ‘disenfranchises’ those voters who cast legal ballots, at least where the counting of unlawful votes determines an election’s outcome," the majority opinion said. The race remains undecided.
🚨 JUST IN: North Carolina Court of Appeals orders 65K voters to prove eligibility in Supreme Court race as Republican Jefferson Griffin challenges 700-vote deficit. pic.twitter.com/WOjskJZ125
— Proud Elephant 🇺🇸🦅 (@ProudElephantUS) April 4, 2025
Griffin claims that several ballots counted should not have been due to ineligibility. The 60,000 that are to be challenged come from voters who failed to provide the last four digits of their social security number or North Carolina driver's license number.
In addition, 5,500 ballots were cast by people living abroad and did not include the required ID, including the children of military members who never lived in the state. Despite these concerns, the state board of elections refused to hear Griffin's case.
However, Friday's decision now demands a review of the ballots, which Democratic Judge Toby Hampson said was "directly counter to law" in his dissenting opinion. "The diligent actions these voters undertook to exercise their sacred fundamental right to vote was, indeed, the same as every other similarly situated voter exercising their voting right in the very same election," Hampson wrote.
"Changing the rules by which these lawful voters took part in our electoral process after the election to discard their otherwise valid votes in an attempt to alter the outcome of only one race among many on the ballot is directly counter to law, equity, and the constitution," he added. Hampson also believes it's impractical to have voters respond to eligibility request notices after the fact.
"The proposition that a significant portion of these 61,682 voters will receive notice and timely take curative measures is a fiction that does not disguise the act of mass disenfranchisement the majority’s decision represents," Hampson wrote. Despite requiring the verification points since 2004, the state didn't change its form until 2023 to include them.
According to the New York Times, the decision to potentially toss votes after the fact is unprecedented. Court challenges almost without fail have erred on the side of upholding election results.
Benjamin Ginsberg, an attorney for the Bush-Cheney 2000 campaign and its aftermath, noted the significance of this decision. "By changing the rules of the game after it’s been played to potentially disenfranchise as many as 60,000 voters, this court has gone where no court has gone before," Ginsberg said.
"Until this decision, courts facing challenges to ballots cast in compliance with past practice and election administrators’ instructions had uniformly sided with the voters," he added. This issue in North Carolina could go to the U.S. Supreme Court for resolution.
"If the State Supreme Court affirms the lower court’s decision, that would present a federal constitutional question for consideration by the Supreme Court of the United States," former federal appeals judge J. Michael Luttig, a President George H.W. Bush appointee, said. It's unclear how the conservative-leaning court would rule in that case.
Voter eligibility is a valid concern, especially in races that come down to just a few hundred votes. However, the practicality of overturning election results and dragging out legal battles is questionable and could have a damaging impact on voter confidence.
Vice President J.D. Vance is in no hurry to announce a run for the presidency, Fox News reported. He was asked about his political future on Fox&Friends Thursday but said he was "not focused on politics."
Vance sat for an interview with Fox News' Lawrence Jones, and the host asked him about whether he would run when President Donald Trump's term ends in 2028. "I really am just not focused on politics," Vance said.
"I'm not focused on the midterm elections in 2026, much less the presidential election in 2028. When we get to that point, I'll talk to the president. We'll figure out what we want to do. The way I think about it is, if we do a good job, the politics take care of themselves."
Vance and Trump are currently focused on getting the things they were elected to do done. One of the main priorities is return the U.S. to prosperity.
"I just want America to be wealthy again. I want our communities to be safe again. I want us to be opening factories rather than closing down factories," Vance told Jones.
"I want people of my generation to be able to afford a home, to raise a family. And I want to stop all the ridiculous wars that were started by the previous administrations. There's so much to do, man," Vance continued.
Biden left office with a legacy of record inflation, a tattered economy, out of control immigration, and other domestic woes. Vance said he's focused on taking care of those problems first.
"If I do a good job, if the president does good for the American people, and I know that we will, the politics will take care of itself. Let's just do a good job," Vance said.
Trump's tariffs went into effect this week, and Jones asked Vance about the consequences ordinary Americans may face. "What I’d ask folks to appreciate here is that we are not going to fix things overnight," Vance told Jones.
The vice president said that Biden left the "largest peacetime debt and deficit in the history of the United States of America" that also comes with untenable interest rates. Vance said that the "right deregulation" will take the heat off of workers while ensuring foreign nations "can't take advantage of us anymore."
Vance also talked up the Department of Government Efficiency run by Tesla billionaire Elon Musk for cutting spending. "Elon came in, and we said, ‘We need you to make government more efficient. We need you to shrink the incredible, vast bureaucracy that thwarts the will of the American people, but also costs way too much money.’" Vance recalled.
"And we said that’s going to take about six months, and that’s what Elon signed up for," he added. The vice president cautioned that it won't "happen all in six months" but instead will be "a long and committed effort."
Trump and Vance were elected to fix what's wrong with the nation's economy right now. If their novel strategies of implementing tariffs and making cuts through DOGE are effective, Vance is correct that he will be set up to run for president in 2028.
U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell has concluded that the $500 million U.S. Institute of Peace headquarters may be transferred to the General Services Administration at no cost, Wired reported. This was decided even as legal battles continued.
The fight over the building came after the Department of Government Efficiency dismissed 10 USIP board members on March 14. When DOGE workers tried to enter the building, the USIP staffers physically prevented it.
Since then, DOGE received a physical key and took over the space, which Howell has acknowledged in the decision not to stop them at the moment. "Ambiguity persists given the paucity of apposite law regarding USIP's proper classification as an ‘independent establishment’ or ‘Government corporation’ that rests outside of or within the executive branch and whether it qualifies as an agency," she wrote.
However, the judge indicated there would be further review and had previously denied USIP's request to reinstate the board. "This issue will be more fully addressed in the expedited summary judgment briefing being prepared by the parties," Howell said.
As of Saturday, the building and its contents were turned over to the GSA. Howell's decision Tuesday took that fact into account, though it doesn't mean it's a final determination of what's to become of the property.
"The deal is no longer merely ‘proposed’ but done, rendering plaintiffs’ requested relief moot as to that property," Howell wrote. This is a measured approach, but USIP general counsel George Foote took issue with Howell's rationale.
"That’s like letting a burglar break into your house, steal your TV, and have the court say, well, there’s no TV to adjudicate, so I can’t do anything about it," he said. However, USIP was the party in the wrong when staffers engaged in a standoff after being ordered out.
According to Fox News, President Donald Trump's executive order in February demanded that USIP, which was established in 1984 and funded by Congress, would have to cut staff to a bare minimum. After refusing to do so, the Trump administration moved as it had warned.
"Rogue bureaucrats will not be allowed to hold agencies hostage. The Trump administration will enforce the president’s executive authority and ensure his agencies remain accountable to the American people," White House spokesperson Anna Kelly said.
Amid the row over the building and contents, another issue has emerged regarding what the USIP was doing, according to the Washington Times. In an exchange on X, formerly Twitter, a user posted a headline claiming that a USIP contract for $1.3 million went to "Taliban and Iraqi leaders" for Iraqi League for Youth.
This implied that the USIP was funding America's enemies, though there was no evidence given to back it up. However, Elon Musk, the outgoing head of DOGE, further insinuated that the agency covered its tracks.
"They deleted a terabyte of financial data to cover their crimes, but they don’t understand technology, so we recovered it," Musk posted. It remains to be seen if any of this is verified to date.
They deleted a terabyte of financial data to cover their crimes, but they don’t understand technology, so we recovered it 🙄
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) April 1, 2025
The pushback against DOGE is at a fever pitch as Musk seeks to streamline the government. These employees at USIP and other taxpayer-funded government agencies are used to their cushy jobs and bloated salaries, and they won't give up without a fight.
Senator Michael Bennet said that Democrats have a "brand" problem as many Americans see the party as "toxic," DrewBerquist.com reported. The Colorado Democrat made this admission on NBC's Meet the Press Sunday.
California Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom said Friday on Real Time with Bill Maher that he was concerned about how his political party was being perceived. Host Kristen Welker asked Bennet about his thoughts on the matter, and he concurred.
"I do agree that the Democratic Party brand is really problematic. And I think that it is a brand that is...associated with the educated elites in this country, and not anymore with working people in this country," Bennet cautioned.
The Democrats are floundering after a crushing defeat in the 2024 election. While some are continuing to move to the left and embrace the radicalism that got them there, it appears others are attempting to change things.
Bennet believes that the party "is associated with New York and with California" to appeal to average Americans. However, despite this clarity, Bennet also believes that President Donald Trump's policies will drive people back to the Democrats.
"You know, the good news for the party, I think, is that Donald Trump is pursuing the same trickle-down economics that he pursued the first time he was president," Bennet claimed. He went on to say that Trump is giving "tax cuts for the wealthiest people in the United States, and pay for it by taking away healthcare from the American people," which is another Democratic talking point.
"That's really bad for America. But the Democratic Party ought to be able to come back, under those circumstances, with a pretty good argument about why we could lead better than Donald Trump and why we are able to provide a better set of economic policies," Bennet said.
He also championed "universal healthcare" and a "21st-century school system that makes them competitive again," claiming that "our kids are invisible to Donald Trump," the former school superintendent added. "And if the Democratic Party would show up with some imagination, I think, not only would we do better, the American people would do better."
While Bennet and others are on the right track about the problem with the Democratic Party, they have reached the wrong conclusions about how they got there and what to do about it. There's currently in-fighting within the party about how best to pull out of this tailspin.
Some have begun attacking Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer after he caved to pressure to side with the GOP to avert a government shutdown. Bennet stopped short of blaming Schumer when the host asked him about it, but he leaned into more leftism.
"I think that a much more important question is what we're going to do, as the Democratic Party, to create a compelling view for Americans that is going to allow us to lead again. We should never have lost to Donald Trump once, much less twice," Bennet admitted.
"The Democratic Party has lost touch with working people in our country, at a time when 50 years of trickle-down economics has meant that most Americans feel like, no matter how hard they work, their kids are not going to live a life better than the life they led. And I think the Democratic Party needs to use this moment of having been repudiated at the national level..." he added.
Democrats don't appeal to average citizens because their ideas are radical and unpopular. However, Bennet is saying the quiet part out loud that the party is out of touch and in need of an overhaul even if he and his cohorts can't figure out what that should look like.
House Intelligence Committee Democrats are urging Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard to conduct an independent review after a journalist inadvertently added to Signal chat about a military attack, WPRI-TV reported. Ranking member Jim Himes (D-CT) sent a letter to Gabbard Monday demanding a written response.
The issue occurred because National Security Advisor Mike Waltz accidentally added an Atlantic journalist to the Signal chat with officials. They were discussing a strike on Houthi terrorists, and a recent Wall Street Journal report later noted that Israel provided the intelligence for the attack.
"The U.S. ally complained to the United States that Mr. Waltz’s texts had become public. The Wall Street Journal’s reporting, if accurate, is deeply concerning. These developments underscore the need for the intelligence community, under your leadership, to conduct a parallel inquiry into the chat," the letter from Himes and 11 other members said to Gabbard on Monday.
HPSCI Democrats are calling on the intelligence community, led by DNI Tulsi Gabbard, to conduct an independent investigation into the Signal chat in which participants discussed plans for an impending US military attack in Yemen. pic.twitter.com/RiXzESIX93
— House Intelligence Committee (@HouseIntelDems) March 31, 2025
The White House has already cleared up the matter of the group chat and moved on. "This case has been closed here at the White House, as far as we are concerned," White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Monday.
However, the committee members believe the new information about a reaction from Israel warrants further investigation. "Since you and other intelligence community leaders testified about the group chat before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence last Wednesday, there have been new developments," the letter said.
The letter cited the Wall Street Journal's assertion that "Waltz sent texts on the Signal chain following the attack—noting the U.S. had ‘positive ID’ that the building in which the operative was located had collapsed—that may have been linked to information from that source." Himes and the undersignors noted that Israel was not happy that the information "became public."
According to the Wall Street Journal, Waltz gave specific information that was later disclosed to the public because of the Signal chat. "The first target—their top missile guy—we had positive ID of him walking into his girlfriend’s building and it is now collapsed," Waltz had written in the chat.
However, Waltz has insisted, "No classified information was included in the thread." Waltz added that "the messages have no locations, no sources and methods, and no war plans. Foreign partners had already been notified strikes were imminent."
National security is of the utmost importance, and a blunder like this one is certainly worth investigating. However, it appears the left is hammering President Donald Trump with this story for political points.
The Hill reported that Trump called out the media for this in a post to his Truth Social on Sunday, calling their "never-ending" fascination with it "old and boring." He lauded Senate Armed Services Committee member Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-OK) for coming to his defense.
"A GREAT job by Senator Markwayne Mullin on beating back Kristen Welker’s, and the Radical Left’s Witch Hunt, on the never ending Signal story," Trump said Mullin's response to NBC's Welker. "They just don’t stop – Over and over they go!" Trump added.
"This story and narrative is so old and boring, but only used because we are having the most successful ‘First One Hundred Presidential Days’ in the history of America, and they can’t find anything else to talk about. The Fake News Media has the lowest Approval Ratings in history, and for good reason," Trump said.
Democrats and their accomplices in the media will continue to pursue this story as long as it is politically expedient. Though serious, this mishap certainly was not as severe as they're making it out to be to rile up their anti-Trump base.
During an appearance on Fox News's "Sunday Morning Futures," Breitbart Editor-in-Chief Alex Marlow addressed the phenomenon of Democrat-tied judges blocking President Donald Trump's agenda, calling it a "national disgrace" and saying the rules regarding "judge-shopping" need to change.
Host Maria Bartiromo asked Marlow whether it was a coincidence that Federal Judge James Boasberg has gotten four cases involving the president.
Marlow answered, “Of course not. It’s not a coincidence, Maria, what’s going on is judge shopping. This is a practice that’s been in play since 1988 when Congress changed laws so that you don’t have to have any connection to the jurisdiction where you’re filing cases."
He called the numerous cases against Trump and the administration seeking injunctions to stop their actions an attempted "judicial coup."
"The Democrats have figured this out, their lawfare machine which is very well funded, very well organized, and they’re targeting specific judges to try to have a judicial coup against the President of the United States.”
So far, judges have blocked Trump's executive actions 15 times on a nationwide level, more than during the entire administration of his predecessor, Joe Biden.
Judges have ordered planes carrying imprisoned illegal immigrants to turn around in the sky, prevented Trump from cutting staff or firing people at various government agencies, and stopped various budget cuts suggested by DOGE but implemented by agency heads.
“It is now the point now where Donald Trump, if he wants an executive action, he needs unanimous consent from 700 odd judges essentially," Marlow pointed out.
In other words, all Democrats need to do is find a sympathetic judge on the opposite side of the aisle politically, and they can block whatever Trump is trying to do with an emergency injunction, then tie up the action for months or years while the lawsuit plays out.
"This is tyranny, but unfortunately there’s no quick way to stop it," Marlow said.
He suggested a rules change that would disallow judge-shopping or block injunctions from being effective nation-wide rather than only in the jurisdiction where the case was filed.
"We need to change these rules right away. They’re targeting these judges and it’s blocking just about every element of the agenda from what DOGE is doing to DEI to rolling back some of the trans stuff to deregulation to trying to deport illegally child molesters," he concluded. "They can’t do any of it unless all these judges sign on to it which they’re not."
Instead of ruling fairly, the judges are bending to the will of partisans and using the law to do things it was not intended to do, like thwart the will of the voters by blocking the agenda of the president they elected.
"They’re Democratic-tied. You all know what’s going on. This is truly a national disgrace,” Marlow said.
President Donald Trump has made no secret of his intention to deport non-citizens engaged in illegal activity or those who support or promote terrorist organizations.
Not surprisingly, however, the Trump administration has encountered obstacles erected by federal district court judges who are increasingly asserting a controversial degree of authority over the executive branch, as evidenced by a Friday ruling preventing the deportation of a Tufts University graduate student, as Fox News reports.
At issue late last week was the case of Rumeysa Ozturk, 30, an international student from Turkey living in Somerville, Massachusetts, who was detained by federal authorities near her off-campus apartment.
A representative from the Department of Homeland Security asserted that Ozturk has been “engaged in activities in support of Hamas,” and according to Fox News, she co-authored an op-ed piece last year in the Tufts Daily blasting the school's stance on Israel's actions in Gaza.
Ozturk and her co-authors demanded that Tufts “acknowledge the Palestinian genocide” and adjust its financial affairs based on other entities' ties to the Jewish state.
After her arrest, Ozturk was taken to an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention center, presumably in preparation for eventual deportation, a move her attorneys said was improper due to her status as a F-1 visa holder with no pending criminal charges.
U.S. District Judge Denise Casper halted any deportation plans, saying, “To allow the Court's resolution of its jurisdiction to decide the petition, Ozturk shall not be removed from the United States until further order of this court,” referencing an updated complaint filed by the student's attorneys to which the government has until Tuesday to file a response.
It was in January that Trump signed an executive order mandating the revocation of student visas for those advocating in support of Hamas.
The order came in response to what the president said was an “unprecedented wave of vile, antisemitic discrimination, vandalism, and violence against our citizens, especially in our schools and on our campuses.”
As NBC News reports, Secretary of State Marco Rubio has indicated that several hundred student visas have already been pulled as a result of the executive order.
“It might be more than 300 at this point. We do it every day. Every time I find one of these lunatics, I take away their visas,” Rubio said.
Rubio also opined, “We gave you a visa to come and study and get a degree, not to be a social activist that comes in and tears up our university campuses. If you invite me into your home because I say, 'Oh, I want to go to your house for dinner,' and I come into your house and I start putting mud on your couch and spray-painting your kitchen, I bet you you're going to kick me out.”
While Ozturk's case continues its journey in the courts, another high-profile matter involving Columbia University protest leader and alleged Hamas supporter Mahmoud Khalil is making headlines after the activist was detained over two weeks ago by ICE agents.
During a hearing on Friday, U.S. District Judge Michael Farbiarz ruled that Khalil will remain in the aforementioned Louisiana ICE facility for the time being amid unsettled jurisdictional arguments, leaving the fate of his and several other similar cases uncertain as complex legal wrangling appears poised to continue.
President Donald Trump's administration is considering allowing tax cuts to expire for high-income earners to overcome possible shortfalls without cuts, Axios reported. The outlet claimed an unnamed senior White House official said that Trump would be forced to do so as a concession to Democrats in exchange for the tax cut extensions.
Axios called this an amazing "scoop" but did not name inside sources who allegedly dished this information. However, the report made it clear that the sources also claimed this was still in the works and not "set in stone."
The top tax rate for individuals earning more than $609,351 and married couples earning $731,201 is 35% with Trump's tax cuts still in effect. With this concession, the top tax rate will go back to 39.6% with a lower income threshold, just as it was before 2018.
This would defang Democrats' main arguments, including slamming Trump for looking to cut Medicaid while cutting taxes for the rich. "If we renew tax cuts for the rich paid for by throwing people off Medicaid, we're gonna get f--king slaughtered," the White House official reportedly claimed.
Democrats have used class warfare as a major party platform point for decades. Part of their appeal has always been to make the rich pay their "fair share" to redistribute wealth to lower earners, which is exactly what the punishingly high top tax rate has done.
Republicans have historically opposed such a strategy and have run and won on precisely that. For example, President Ronald Reagan left office with the top tax rate at 28%, down from 70% when he was sworn in in 1981 which lead to another GOP victory in 1988.
President George W. Bush also lowered the 39.6% top marginal tax rate under President Bill Clinton down to 35% during his administration. If Trump reverses that trend, it would be a break from conventional Republican governance.
Although Trump has not been much of a fiscal conservative in his spending, he has championed his tax cuts and the positive economic impact they have. Meanwhile, some have claimed that his imposition of tariffs is the same thing as a tax increase, NPR reported.
Since taking office, Trump has imposed 25% tariffs on goods from Mexico and Canada and 10% to 20% on goods from China. Trump sees this as a way of forcing companies to make products in the U.S., while his detractors claim it will simply be another cost passed on to consumers.
The chatter from unnamed officials about a tax hike comes as Republicans worry about the serious ramifications of such a move. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent warned of "economic calamity" if lawmakers fail to extend the cuts.
During his confirmation hearing, Bessent said they must extend the cuts to avoid imposing a "crushing $4 trillion tax hike" on the nation. He made his case to the Senate Finance Committee before ultimately being confirmed.
"Today, I believe that President Trump has a generational opportunity to unleash a new economic golden age that will create more jobs, wealth, and prosperity for all Americans. We must make permanent the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act and implement new pro-growth policies to reduce the tax burden on American manufacturers, service workers and seniors," Bessent said.
"This is the single most important economic issue of the day. If we do not renew and extend, then we will be facing an economic calamity and, as always with financial instability, that falls on the middle and working class people," Bessent added.
Even if Trump is in discussions about allowing the higher earners to pay more taxes, it doesn't mean it will happen. These kinds of reports are meant to demoralize supporters and give ammo to his opposition, but only time will tell whether any of this is true.