The Republicans’ giant budget reconciliation bill has focused attention on the drastic cuts the Trump administration is making to the American government. On Friday, when a constituent at a town hall shouted that the Republicans’ proposed cuts to Medicaid, the federal healthcare program for low-income Americans, meant that “people will die,” Senator Joni Ernst (R-IA) replied, “Well, we are all going to die.”
The next day, Ernst released a video purporting to be an apology. It made things worse. “I made an incorrect assumption that everyone in the auditorium understood that, yes, we are all going to perish from this Earth. So, I apologize. And I’m really, really glad that I did not have to bring up the subject of the tooth fairy as well. But for those that would like to see eternal and everlasting life, I encourage you to embrace my lord and savior, Jesus Christ," she said.
Ernst blamed the “hysteria that’s out there coming from the left” for the outcry over her comments. Like other Republicans, she claims that the proposed cuts of more than $700 billion in Medicaid funding over the next ten years is designed only to get rid of the waste and fraud in the program. Thus, they say, they are actually strengthening Medicaid for those who need it.
But, as Linda Qiu noted in the New York Times today, most of the bill’s provisions have little to do with the “waste, fraud, and abuse” Republicans talk about. They target Medicaid expansion, cut the ability of states to finance Medicaid, force states to drop coverage, and limit access to care. And the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) says the cuts mean more than 10.3 million Americans will lose health care coverage.
House speaker Mike Johnson has claimed that those losing coverage will be 1.4 million unauthorized immigrants, but this is false. As Qiu notes, although 14 states use their own funds to provide health insurance for undocumented immigrant children, and seven of those states provide some coverage for undocumented pregnant women, in fact, “unauthorized immigrants are not eligible for federally funded Medicaid, except in emergency situations.” Instead, the bill pressures those fourteen states to drop undocumented coverage by reducing their federal Medicaid funding.
MAGA Republicans claim their “One Big, Beautiful Bill”—that’s its official name—dramatically reduces the deficit, but that, too, is a lie.
On Thursday, May 29, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt claimed the measure would carry out “the largest deficit reduction in nearly 30 years with $1.6 trillion in mandatory savings.” She echoed forty years of Republican claims that the economic growth unleashed by the measure would lead to higher tax revenues, a claim that hasn’t been true since Ronald Reagan made it in the 1980s.
In fact, the CBO estimates that the tax cuts and additional spending in the measure mean “[a]n increase in the federal deficit of $3.8 trillion.” As G. Elliott Morris of Strength in Numbers notes, the CBO has been historically very reliable, but Leavitt and House speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) tried to discount its scoring by claiming, as Johnson said: “They are historically totally unreliable. It’s run by Democrats.”
The director of the CBO, economist Philip Swagel, worked as chief of staff and senior economist at the Council of Economic Advisors during the George W. Bush administration. He was appointed in 2019 with the support of Senate Budget Committee chair Michael Enzi (R-WY) and House Budget Committee chair John Yarmuth (D-KY). He was reappointed in 2023 with bipartisan support.
Republican cuts to government programs are a dramatic reworking of America’s traditional evidence-based government that works to improve the lives of a majority of Americans. They are replacing that government with an ideologically driven system that concentrates wealth and power in a few hands and denies that the government has a role to play in protecting Americans.
And yet, those who get their news by watching the Fox News Channel are likely unaware of the Republicans’ planned changes to Medicaid. As Aaron Rupar noted, on this morning’s Fox and Friends, the hosts mentioned Medicaid just once. They mentioned former president Joe Biden 39 times.
That change shows dramatically in cuts to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). NOAA is an agency in the Commerce Department, established under Republican president Richard Nixon in 1970, that monitors weather conditions, storms, and ocean currents. The National Weather Service (NWS), which provides weather, wind, and ocean forecasts, is part of NOAA.
NWS forecasts annually provide the U.S. with an estimated $31.5 billion in benefits as they enable farmers, fishermen, businesspeople, schools, and individuals to plan around weather events.
As soon as he took office, Trump imposed an across-the-board hiring freeze, and billionaire Elon Musk’s “Department of Government Efficiency” fired probationary employees and impounded funds Congress had appropriated. Now, as hurricane season begins, experts in storms and disasters are worried that the NOAA will be unable to function adequately.
Cuts to the NWS have already meant fewer weather balloons and thus less data, leaving gaps in information for a March ice storm in Northern Michigan and for storms and floods in Oklahoma in April. Oliver Milman of The Guardian reported today that 15 NWS offices on the Gulf of Mexico, a region vulnerable to hurricanes, are understaffed after losing more than 600 employees. Miami’s National Hurricane Center is short five specialists. Thirty of the 122 NWS stations no longer have a meteorologist in charge, and as of June 1, seven of those 122 stations will not have enough staff to operate around the clock.
On May 5, the five living former NWS leaders, who served under both Democratic and Republican presidents, wrote a letter to the American people warning that the cuts threaten to bring “needless loss of life.” They urged Americans to “raise your voice” against the cuts.
Trump’s proposed 2026 budget calls for “terminating a variety of climate-dominated research, data, and grant programs” and cutting about 25% more out of NOAA’s funding.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has also suffered dramatic cuts as Trump has said he intends to push disaster recovery to the states. The lack of expertise is taking a toll there, too. Today staff members there said they were baffled after David Richardson, the head of the agency, said he did not know the United States has a hurricane season. (It does, and it stretches from June 1 to the end of November.) Richardson had no experience with disaster response before taking charge of FEMA.
Trump’s proposed cuts to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) are even more draconian. On Friday, in a more detailed budget than the administration published in early May, the administration called for cuts of 43% to the NIH, about $20 billion a year. That includes cuts of nearly 40% to the National Cancer Institute. At the same time, the administration is threatening to end virtually all biomedical research at universities.
On Friday, May 23, the White House issued an executive order called “Restoring Gold Standard Science.” The order cites the COVID-19 guidance about school reopenings from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to claim that the federal government under President Joe Biden “used or promoted scientific information in a highly misleading manner.” (Schools closed in March 2020 under Trump.) The document orders that “[e]mployees shall not engage in scientific misconduct” and, scientists Colette Delawalla, Victor Ambros, Carl Bergstrom, Carol Greider, Michael Mann, and Brian Nosek explain in The Guardian, gives political appointees the power to silence any research they oppose “based on their own ‘judgment.’” They also have the power to punish those scientists whose work they find objectionable.
The Guardian authors note that science is “the most important long-term investment for humanity.” They recall the story of Soviet biologist Trofim Lysenko, who is a prime example of the terrible danger of replacing fact-based reality with ideology.
As Sam Kean of The Atlantic noted in 2017, Lysenko opposed science-based agriculture in the mid-20th century in favor of the pseudo-scientific idea that the environment alone shapes plants and animals. This idea reflected communist political thought, and Lysenko gained the favor of Soviet leader Joseph Stalin. Lysenko claimed that his own agricultural techniques, which included transforming one species into another, would dramatically increase crop yields. Government leaders declared that Lysenko’s ideas were the only correct ones, and anyone who disagreed with him was denounced. About 3,000 biologists whose work contradicted his were fired or sent to jail. Some were executed. Scientific research was effectively banned.
In the 1930s, Soviet leaders set out to “modernize” Soviet agriculture, and when their new state-run farming collectives failed, they turned to Lysenko to fix the problem with his new techniques. Almost everything planted according to his demands died or rotted. In the USSR and in China, which adopted his methods in the 1950s, at least 30 million people died of starvation.
“[W]hen the doctrines of science and the doctrines of communism clashed, he always chose the latter—confident that biology would conform to ideology in the end,” Kean said of Lysenko. He concludes: “It never did.”
On June 1, Ukrainian forces struck deep inside Russia in “Operation Spider Web.” One hundred and seventeen drones, each operated by its own pilot, hit airfields in five regions. Ukraine says the drones hit 41 strategic bombers that had been attacking Ukrainian cities and destroyed at least 13 of them. Russia does not have the industrial capabilities to replace them.
The Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) head Vasyl Malyuk emphasized that military airfields and the aircraft that are bombing Ukraine are “absolutely legitimate targets…[a]ccording to the laws and customs of war.” The SBU estimates the drones did $7 billion of damage, hitting 34% of the aircraft that delivered cruise missiles.
The operation took more than 18 months of planning. It apparently involved sending trucks loaded with wooden cabins that had detachable roofs that could be opened remotely. Unsuspecting truck drivers hauled the cabins to locations near airbases, where the drones launched.
Once the drones were in the air, the vehicles carrying the cabins exploded. Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky said the people who helped with the operation from within Russia had been withdrawn and “are now safe.”
Russia denied that the damage was that extensive, but there is no doubt that the attack was a significant blow to Russia’s war effort, demonstrating as it does that Ukraine can bring the war home. As Kateryna Bonder of the Washington, D.C., think tank Center for Strategic and International Studies notes, June 1 was Military Transport Aviation Day in Russia, a significant holiday for the armed forces. Russian president Vladimir Putin frequently ties operations to significant dates—as when he hosted a number of American lawmakers in Moscow on July 4, 2018—and the choice of this date for an attack on military aircraft threw that habit back at him.
Analysts recognize the Ukrainian attack as a new moment in warfare. Using apparently unwitting civilians, the Ukrainians managed to get their drones close enough to their targets to avoid Russia’s air defense systems; then, Bonder explains, the drones relied on a system that allowed operators to pilot them to the planes’ strategic weaknesses. The drones themselves cost between $600 and $1,000 apiece—and by using deception, technology, and strategic surprise, the Ukrainians managed to destroy billions of dollars worth of aircraft.
Bonder notes that the attack heralds a change in modern warfare, in which technological agility will trump industrial capacity and advantage will go to those countries that can adapt quickly to changing conditions.
Some observers are calling the attack the Russian Pearl Harbor, a reference to the attack by the Japanese Navy on the U.S. Pacific Fleet stationed at Pearl Harbor Naval Base in Hawaii on December 7, 1941, an attack that led to U.S. entry into World War II. But Russia has been attacking Ukraine since 2014 and launched a full-scale invasion in 2022. This attack illustrates extraordinary vulnerability at this point, rather as if Pearl Harbor had happened in early 1945.
A former commander of U.S. Army Europe, retired U.S. Army Lieutenant General Mark Hertling, posted: “For months, some believed that Ukraine didn't 'hold any cards.' Many of us have refuted that claim, saying an inflection point—due to failing Russian war economy and continued lack of Russian leadership adaptation, but especially due to a continued strong Ukrainian government, military and population support and will mixed with their innovative use of Special Operations, un-crewed systems (various drones), and fiber optic capabilities to counter Russian EW—would soon be felt on the battlefield. The coordinated and synchronized attack today, which appears to have decimated much of the Russian air fleet that were based over 4,000 km from the front line, is showing that Ukraine certainly has many aces in the hole.”
Hertling’s comment that some thought Ukraine didn’t hold any cards is a reference to President Donald J. Trump, who ambushed Zelensky in the Oval Office on February 28, warning him that Ukraine must cut a deal with Putin because Zelensky didn’t “have the cards” to win the war. With that meeting, Trump signaled that U.S. policy, which has supported Ukraine since 1994, would change to favor Russia.
In the 1994 Budapest Memorandum on Security Assistances, Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons in exchange for security assurances from the U.S., the United Kingdom, and Russia that they would honor the sovereignty and borders of Ukraine, a promise Russia broke when it invaded Ukraine’s Crimea in 2014.
During the 2024 U.S. presidential election campaign, Trump vowed that he would end the war in Ukraine in a single day, maybe with a single phone call, and as other victories have slipped away from him, he has appeared frustrated that such an achievement has proved more difficult than he thought.
After the Oval Office meeting, the Ukrainians agreed to a 30-day ceasefire on March 11, but Russia has consistently refused to agree unless Ukraine accepts major territorial concessions and permits Russia to dictate that it not join the defensive North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Rather than negotiating, Putin has launched repeated attacks on Ukrainian civil targets. On Sunday, May 25, Russia launched the largest air attack on Ukraine since the war began, and the week before, it launched its largest drone attack.
Those attacks happened even as Trump was talking directly with Putin, allegedly about a ceasefire. The White House policy has skewed heavily toward Russia against Ukraine even to the point that Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff relied on Putin’s own translators during negotiations on February 11, March 13, and April 11. While Putin speaks English, Witkoff does not speak Russian.
Trump claims to be frustrated with Putin, at one point calling him “absolutely crazy,” which prompted Putin’s spokesperson to suggest that Trump was suffering from “emotional overload.” On May 27, Trump appeared to acknowledge his longstanding relationship with Putin when he posted on his social media site: “What Vladimir Putin doesn’t realize is that if it weren’t for me, lots of really bad things would have already happened to Russia, and I mean REALLY BAD. He’s playing with fire!”
And yet, although more than 80 senators from both parties have co-sponsored a bill to impose stronger sanctions against Russia, Trump has refused to back it, thus stalling it. Meanwhile, Benedict Smith of The Telegraph today covered State Department acting under-secretary for public diplomacy and public affairs Darren Beattie, who dismantled the office that countered disinformation from Russia, China, and Iran. In 2021, Smith notes, Beattie married a Russian national whose uncle has ties to Putin.
Beattie was dismissed from the first Trump administration after attending a white nationalist rally. He has attacked the United States as the “globalist American empire” and said that Putin should infiltrate western institutions to fight “woke” ideology. In 2021, Beattie wrote that the “position [of the U.S.] in the global order [is] rapidly deteriorating” and that he looked forward to its “prestige and power” collapsing. Praising Putin as “brave and strong,” he said that Putin had “done more to advance conservative positions in the US than any Republican” and that “just about every Western institution would improve in quality if it were directly infiltrated and controlled by Putin.”
Beattie also wrote: “NATO is a far worse threat to the health, liberty, freedom, and flourishing of American citizens than Russia and China combined.”
Administration officials said the Ukrainians did not notify them before launching Operation Spider Web.
On Tuesday, Ukrainian forces detonated underwater explosives attached to the Kerch bridge connecting Russia to the occupied Crimean Peninsula. This is Ukraine’s third attack on the bridge since 2022. The SBU said the explosives “severely damaged” bridge supports, but the bridge reopened hours later.
The Ukrainian operations are only the most dramatic developments in ongoing stories today that show the Trump administration is not calling all the shots.
Trump’s vow to negotiate trade deals in place of his tariff walls has not yet produced any of those deals, and the White House today said it’s “likely” that a call will take place this week with China’s leader Xi Jinping. But Lingling Wei of the Wall Street Journal explained yesterday that Xi has made it clear China will play hardball with the U.S.
Daniel Russel, assistant secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific affairs in the Obama administration, told Phelim Kine, Daniel Desrochers, Megan Messerly, and Ari Hawkins of Politico: “Beijing has a sharp nose for weakness, and for all his bravado, Trump is signaling eagerness—even desperation—to cut a direct deal with Xi. That only stiffens Beijing’s resolve.”
Biden administration National Security Council deputy senior director for China and Taiwan Rush Doshi noted that Chinese officials see Trump as “unpredictable” and that Chinese diplomats don’t usually put the leader “at risk of a potentially embarrassing or unpredictable encounter.”
Jake Lahut of Wired reported yesterday that Trump advisors are themselves tired of right-wing conspiracy theorist Laura Loomer, who has Trump’s ear. Their comments to Lahut appear designed to put pressure on Trump to push her away, a sign that for now, anyway, she is entrenched.
Newark, New Jersey, mayor Ras Baraka, whom Department of Homeland Security agents arrested on May 9, 2025, has sued the acting U.S. attorney for the District of New Jersey, Alina Habba, and the special agent in charge of the Newark Division of Homeland Security Investigations, Ricky J. Patel, for false arrest and malicious prosecution. He is suing Habba alone for defamation.
The suit outlines Habba’s public statements against Democrats in New Jersey and her vow to “turn…New Jersey red.” It says Habba acted “as a political operative” “in her individual personal capacity” “outside of any function intimately related to the judicial process” when she posted on her social media account that Baraka “committed trespass and ignored multiple warnings from Homeland Security Investigations to remove himself from the ICE detention center in Newark, New Jersey this afternoon. He has willingly chosen to disregard the law.” After repeated similar public statements, Habba dropped all charges.
Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem took down her list of “sanctuary cities” she said weren’t cooperating with federal immigration authorities after the National Sheriffs’ Association demanded an apology.
Trump began today by attacking Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) for his opposition to the extraordinary cost of Republicans’ omnibus bill, insisting that the bill would create “tremendous GROWTH.” But this afternoon, billionaire Elon Musk took a firm stand against Trump’s “One Big, Beautiful Bill,” posting on X: “I’m sorry, but I just can’t stand it anymore. This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination. Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong. You know it.”
Meanwhile, Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) released a report showing that Musk’s net worth has increased by more than $100 billion since Election Day. The report listed the many ways in which he used his position in the federal government to stop investigations into his companies, undercut regulations, win federal contracts, gain access to data and sensitive information, attack his enemies, meddle in elections, and secure foreign deals, all without informing the American people of his conflicts of interest.
Just hours after President Donald J. Trump posted on social media yesterday that “because of Tariffs, our Economy is BOOMING!” a new report from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) said the opposite. Founded in 1961, the OECD is a forum in which 38 market-based democracies cooperate to promote sustainable economic growth.
The OECD’s economic outlook reports that economic growth around the globe is slowing because of Trump’s trade war. It projects global growth slowing from 3.3% in 2024 to 2.9% in 2025 and 2026. That economic slowdown is concentrated primarily in the United States, Canada, Mexico, and China.
The OECD predicts that growth in the United States will decline from 2.8% in 2024 to 1.6% in 2025 and 1.5% in 2026.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released two analyses today of Trump’s policies that add more detail to that report. The CBO’s estimate for the effect of Trump’s current tariffs—which are unlikely to stay as they are—is that they will raise inflation and slow economic growth as consumers bear their costs. The CBO says it is hard to anticipate how the tariffs will change purchasing behavior, but it estimates that the tariffs will reduce the deficit by $2.8 trillion over ten years.
Also today, the CBO’s analysis of the Republicans’ “One Big, Beautiful Bill” is that it will add $2.4 trillion to the deficit over the next decade because the $1.2 trillion in spending cuts in the measure do not fully offset the $3.7 trillion in tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations. Republicans have met this CBO score with attacks on the CBO, but its estimate is in keeping with those of a wide range of economists and think tanks.
Taken together, these studies illustrate how Trump’s economic policies are designed to transfer wealth from consumers to the wealthy and corporations. From 1981 to 2021, American policies moved $50 trillion from the bottom 90% of Americans to the top 1%. After Biden stopped that upward transfer, the Trump administration is restarting it again, on steroids.
Just how these policies are affecting Americans is no longer clear, though. Matt Grossman of the Wall Street Journal reported today that economists no longer trust the accuracy of the government’s inflation data. Officials from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which compiles a huge monthly survey of employment and costs, told economists that staffing shortages and a hiring freeze have forced them to cut back on their research and use less precise methods for figuring out price changes. Grossman reports that the bureau has also cut back on the number of places where it collects data and that the administration has gotten rid of committees of external experts that worked to improve government statistics.
There is more than money at stake in the administration’s policies. The administration's gutting of the government seeks to decimate the modern government that regulates business, provides a basic social safety net, promotes infrastructure, and protects civil rights and to replace it with a government that permits a few wealthy men to rule.
The CBO score for the Republicans’ omnibus bill projects that if it is enacted, 16 million people will lose access to healthcare insurance over the next decade in what is essentially an assault on the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare. The bill also dramatically cuts Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Plan (SNAP) benefits, clean energy credits, aid for student borrowers, benefits for federal workers, and consumer protection services, while requiring the sale of public natural resources.
These cuts continue those the administration has made since Trump took office, many of which fell under the hand of the “Department of Government Efficiency.” But, while billionaire Elon Musk was the figurehead for that group, it appears his main interest was in collecting data. His understudy, Office of Management and Budget director Russell Vought, appears to have determined the direction of the cuts, which did not save money so much as decimate the parts of the government that the authors of Project 2025 wanted to destroy.
Vought was a key author of Project 2025, whose aim is to disrupt and destroy the United States government order to center a Christian, heteronormative, male-dominated family as the primary element of society. To do so, the plan calls for destroying the administrative state, withdrawing the United States from global affairs, and ending environmental and business regulations.
Yesterday the White House asked Congress to cancel $9.4 billion in already-appropriated spending that the Department of Government Efficiency identified as wasteful, a procedure known as “rescission.” Trump aides say the money funds programs that promote what they consider inappropriate ideologies, including public media networks PBS and NPR; the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), which provides food and basic medical care globally; and PEPFAR, the U.S. President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief that was established under President George W. Bush to combat HIV/AIDS in more than 50 countries and is currently credited with saving about 26 million lives.
Vought appeared today before the House Appropriations Committee, where members scolded him for neglecting to provide a budget for the year, which they need to do their jobs. But Vought had plenty to say about the things he is doing. According to ProPublica’s Andy Kroll, he claimed that under Biden “every agency became a tool of the Left.” He said the White House will continue to ask for rescissions, but also noted that, as Project 2025 laid out, he does not believe that the 1974 Impoundment Control Act, which requires the executive branch to spend the money that Congress has appropriated, is constitutional, despite court decisions saying it is.
Representative Rosa DeLaur0 (D-CT) told Vought: “Be honest, this is never about government efficiency. In fact, an efficient government, a government that capably serves the American people and proves good government is achievable is what you fear the most. You want a government so broken, so dysfunctional, so starved of resources, so full of incompetent political lackeys and bereft of experts and professionals that its departments and agencies cannot feasibly achieve the goals and the missions to which they are lawfully directed. Your goal is privatization, for the biggest companies to have unchecked power, for an economy that does not work for the middle class, for working and vulnerable families. You want the American people to have no one to turn to, but to the billionaires and the corporations this administration has put in charge. Waste, fraud, and abuse are not the targets of this administration. They are your primary objectives.”
The use of the government to impose evangelical beliefs on the country, even at the expense of lives, also appears to be an administration goal. Yesterday, the administration announced it is ending the Biden administration’s 2022 guidance to hospital emergency rooms that accept Medicare—which is virtually all of them—requiring that under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act they must perform an abortion in an emergency if the procedure is necessary to prevent a patient’s organ failure or severe hemorrhaging. The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act requires emergency rooms to stabilize patients.
The Trump administration will no longer enforce that policy. Last year, an investigation by the Associated Press found that even when the Biden administration policy was being enforced, dozens of pregnant women, some of whom needed emergency abortions, were turned away from emergency rooms with advice to “let nature take its course.”
Finally tonight, in what seems likely to be an attempt to distract attention from the omnibus bill and all the controversy surrounding it, Trump banned Harvard from hosting foreign students. He also banned nationals from a dozen countries—Afghanistan, Chad, Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Myanmar, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen—from entering the United States, an echo of the travel ban of his first term that threw the country into chaos.
Trump justified his travel ban by citing the attack Sunday in Boulder, Colorado, on peaceful demonstrators marching to support Israeli hostages in Gaza. An Egyptian national who had overstayed a tourist visa hurled Molotov cocktails at the marchers, injuring 15 people.
Egypt is not on the list of countries whose nationals Trump has banned from the United States.
