National Security Council Will Be Cut by Half
The dramatic changes involve a combination of officials from other agencies returning to their original offices, as well as others being placed on administrative leave, effective immediately, said the person, who was not authorized to speak publicly. Some of the teams on the N.S.C. that focus on specific regions or issues will be gutted, while others will be collapsed and folded into others. Still other teams will cease to exist.
Andy Baker, Vice President JD Vance's national security adviser, will serve as the deputy for the reconfigured N.S.C., alongside Robert Gabriel, whose current title is assistant to the president for policy.
The changes were reported earlier by Axios.
The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The dramatic downsizing comports with President Trump's view of how foreign policy debates should be conducted: from the top down, with advisers taking the president's desired outcomes and finding a way to comply with them. Past presidents have used the N.S.C. in different ways, but generally it has served as a coordinating body across departments for key policy discussions and decisions.
The N.S.C. has a core staff of presidential appointees supported by dozens of specialists who are detailed — or essentially on loan — from other departments and agencies across the government.
Mr. Trump also has held a deep distrust for and suspicion of the N.S.C. since the earliest days of his first term, in 2017. People who have worked for him over time say he believes it was the source of significant undermining of his policy views.
Mr. Trump's first of two impeachments involved testimony before Congress from Alexander Vindman, the director of European Affairs at the N.S.C., about the president pressing the then newly elected Ukrainian leader, Volodymyr Zelensky, for an investigation into Joseph R. Biden Jr. and his family. At the time, Mr. Biden was one of Mr. Trump's chief potential rivals in the 2020 election.
In early April, Mr. Trump fired several N.S.C. aides after a meeting with the far-right activist Laura Loomer, who presented him with a list of people she suspected of disloyalty.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Meta Clashes With Apple, Google Over Age Check Legislation
(Bloomberg) -- The biggest tech companies are warring over who's responsible for children's safety online, with billions of dollars in fines on the line as states rapidly pass conflicting laws requiring companies to verify users' ages. Trump Awards $1.26 Billion Contract to Build Biggest Immigrant Detention Center in US The High Costs of Trump's 'Big Beautiful' New Car Loan Deduction Can This Bridge Ease the Troubled US-Canadian Relationship? Salt Lake City Turns Winter Olympic Bid Into Statewide Bond Boom Trump Administration Sues NYC Over Sanctuary City Policy The struggle has pitted Meta Platforms Inc. and other app developers against Apple Inc. and Alphabet Inc.'s Google, the world's largest app stores. Lobbyists for both sides are moving from state to state, working to water down or redirect the legislation to minimize their clients' risks. This year alone, at least three states — Utah, Texas and Louisiana — passed legislation requiring tech companies to authenticate users' ages, secure parental consent for anyone under 18 and ensure minors are protected from potentially harmful digital experiences. Now, lobbyists for all three companies are flooding into South Carolina and Ohio, the next possible states to consider such legislation. The debate has taken on new importance after the Supreme Court this summer ruled age verification laws are constitutional in some instances. A tech group on Wednesday petitioned the Supreme Court to block a social media age verification law in Mississippi, teeing up a highly consequential decision in the next few weeks. Child advocates say holding tech companies responsible for verifying the ages of their users is key to creating a safer online experience for minors. Parents and advocates have alleged the social media platforms funnel children into unsafe and toxic online spaces, exposing young people to harmful content about self harm, eating disorders, drug abuse and more. Blame Game Meta supporters argue the app stores should be responsible for figuring out whether minors are accessing inappropriate content, comparing the app store to a liquor store that checks patrons' IDs. Apple and Google, meanwhile, argue age verification laws violate children's privacy and argue the individual apps are better-positioned to do age checks. Apple said it's more accurate to describe the app store as a mall and Meta as the liquor store. The three new state laws put the responsibility on app stores, signaling Meta's arguments are gaining traction. The company lobbied in support of the Utah and Louisiana laws putting the onus on Apple and Google for tracking their users' ages. Similar Meta-backed proposals have been introduced in 20 states. Federal legislation proposed by Republican Senator Mike Lee of Utah would hold the app stores accountable for verifying users' ages. Still, Meta's track record in its state campaigns is mixed. At least eight states have passed laws since 2024 forcing social media platforms to verify users' ages and protect minors online. Apple and Google have mobilized dozens of lobbyists across those states to argue that Meta is shirking responsibility for protecting children. 'We see the legislation being pushed by Meta as an effort to offload their own responsibilities to keep kids safe,' said Google spokesperson Danielle Cohen. 'These proposals introduce new risks to the privacy of minors, without actually addressing the harms that are inspiring lawmakers to act.' Meta spokesperson Rachel Holland countered that the company is supporting the approach favored by parents who want to keep their children safe online. 'Parents want a one-stop-shop to oversee their teen's online lives and 80% of American parents and bipartisan lawmakers across 20 states and the federal government agree that app stores are best positioned to provide this,' Holland said. As the regulation patchwork continues to take shape, the companies have each taken voluntary steps to protect children online. Meta has implemented new protections to restrict teens from accessing 'sensitive' content, like posts related to suicide, self-harm and eating disorders. Apple created 'Child Accounts,' which give parents more control over their children's' online activity. At Apple, spokesperson Peter Ajemian said it 'soon will release our new age assurance feature that empowers parents to share their child's age range with apps without disclosing sensitive information.' Splintered Groups As the lobbying battle over age verification heats up, influential big tech groups are splintering and new ones emerging. Meta last year left Chamber of Progress, a liberal-leaning tech group that counts Apple and Google as members. Since then, the chamber, which is led by a former Google lobbyist and brands itself as the Democratic-aligned voice for the tech industry, has grown more aggressive in its advocacy against all age verification bills. 'I understand the temptation within a company to try to redirect policymakers towards the company's rivals, but ultimately most legislators don't want to intervene in a squabble between big tech giants,' said Chamber of Progress CEO Adam Kovacevich. Meta tried unsuccessfully to convince another major tech trade group, the Computer & Communications Industry Association, to stop working against bills Meta supports, two people familiar with the dynamics said. Meta, a CCIA member, acknowledged it doesn't always agree with the association. Meta is also still a member of NetChoice, which opposes all age verification laws no matter who's responsible. The group currently has 10 active lawsuits on the matter, including battling some of Meta's preferred laws. The disagreements have prompted some of the companies to form entirely new lobbying outfits. Meta in April teamed up with Spotify Technology SA and Match Group Inc. to launch a coalition aimed at taking on Apple and Google, including over the issue of age verification. Competing Campaigns Meta is also helping to fund the Digital Childhood Alliance, a coalition of conservative groups leading efforts to pass app-store age verification, according to three people familiar with the funding. Neither the Digital Childhood Alliance nor Meta responded directly to questions about whether Meta is funding the group. But Meta said it has collaborated with Digital Childhood Alliance. The group's executive director, Casey Stefanski, said it includes more than 100 organizations and child safety advocates who are pushing for more legislation that puts responsibility on the app stores. Stefanski said the Digital Childhood Alliance has met with Google 'several times' to share their concerns about the app store in recent months. The App Association, a group backed by Apple, has been running ads in Texas, Alabama, Louisiana and Ohio arguing that the app store age verification bills are backed by porn websites and companies. The adult entertainment industry's main lobby said it is not pushing for the bills; pornography is mostly banned from app stores. 'This one-size fits all approach is built to solve problems social media platforms have with their systems while making our members, small tech companies and app developers, collateral damage,' said App Association spokesperson Jack Fleming. In South Carolina and Ohio, there are competing proposals placing different levels of responsibility on the app stores and developers. That could end with more stringent legislation that makes neither side happy. 'When big tech acts as a monolith, that's when things die,' said Joel Thayer, a supporter of the app store age verification bills. 'But when they start breaking up that concentration of influence, all the sudden good things start happening because the reality is, these guys are just a hair's breath away from eating each other alive.' (Updates with App Association statement in 24th paragraph.) Burning Man Is Burning Through Cash Confessions of a Laptop Farmer: How an American Helped North Korea's Wild Remote Worker Scheme It's Not Just Tokyo and Kyoto: Tourists Descend on Rural Japan Elon Musk's Empire Is Creaking Under the Strain of Elon Musk A Rebel Army Is Building a Rare-Earth Empire on China's Border ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
From Columbia University to Paramount, Trump keeps getting his way as America's 1st 'suer in chief'
Donald Trump is no stranger to lawsuits. In fact, he was involved in more than 4,000 of them before winning the White House in 2016. Since then, Trump has made headlines mostly as a defendant — that is, the individual getting sued (for sexual abuse and defamation; for business fraud; for hush-money payments; for trying to end birthright citizenship; and so on). But now, six months into his second presidential term, Trump is positioning himself as something new: America's first 'suer in chief.' And the strategy seems to be working. Late Wednesday, the Trump administration and Columbia University announced that they had settled a months-long dispute that started when the White House accused the Ivy League school of failing to protect Jewish students from discrimination during recent Gaza War protests — then froze the majority of its $1.3 billion a year in federal research grants and funding. To end the ordeal, Columbia agreed to pay the U.S. treasury more than $200 million over the next three years while scrutinizing international students more closely and releasing data to show that admissions and hiring are based on 'merit' rather than 'diversity.' (An independent monitor will oversee the deal and report to the government every six months.) In return, the administration agreed to restore Columbia's federal cash flow. Trump's spat with Columbia didn't technically take the form of a lawsuit; instead, the president has been using his executive powers — launching investigations, withholding money — to pressure elite campuses to conform to his ideological preferences. (The University of Michigan, Duke University and Cornell University are negotiating with the White House as well.) The logic, however, is the same: imposing your will through aggressive — and expensive — lawfare. As a real-estate mogul, Trump perfected this tactic long ago under the tutelage of his pugnacious lawyer Roy Cohn. But no one else has ever really used it as president. Here are a few of the suer in chief's recent wins. Paramount In October, then-candidate Trump sued Paramount, the parent company of CBS News, over the way that 60 Minutes edited an interview with his Democratic rival, Kamala Harris. Trump's allegation? That the program violated Texas's Deceptive Trade Practices Act, which generally targets false advertising, by only including part of her answer to a question about the Gaza War in its main broadcast. 'The work that we have done has resulted in a number of movements in that region by Israel that were very much prompted by or a result of many things, including our advocacy for what needs to happen in the region,' Harris said in the interview. 'We are not going to stop pursuing what is necessary for the United States to be clear about where we stand on the need for this war to end.' The second part of Harris's answer aired on 60 Minutes. The first part did not, appearing instead on CBS's social-media accounts and in a promo that aired on another CBS program, Face the Nation. 'To paper over Kamala's 'word salad' weakness, CBS used its national platform on 60 Minutes to cross the line from the exercise of judgment in reporting to deceitful, deceptive manipulation of news,' Trump's lawsuit claimed. In response, CBS insisted that Trump's 'repeated claims against 60 Minutes are false. The interview was not doctored and 60 Minutes did not hide any part of Vice President Harris's answer to the question at issue. 60 Minutes fairly presented the interview to inform the audience and not to mislead it. The lawsuit Trump brought against CBS is completely without merit and we will vigorously defend against it.' Editing for brevity is commonplace in television, and many legal experts agreed that the case was frivolous, arguing that Paramount would win in court on First Amendment grounds. Yet on July 2, the company decided to settle with Trump and pay $16 million to his future presidential library. Skeptics claimed that Paramount's decision — which involves no admission of wrongdoing — had less to do with journalism than with business, insisting that what the company really wanted was for Trump's Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to sign off on its proposed $8 billion mega-merger with the Hollywood studio Skydance. On July 18, Paramount announced that it would be cancelling its long-running Late Show with host Stephen Colbert, a frequent Trump critic. The company said the decision was 'purely financial.' And then on Thursday, the FCC approved the Paramount-Skydance merger. Trump has claimed that as part of the Paramount settlement, he 'also anticipate[s] receiving $20 Million Dollars more from the new Owners, in Advertising, PSAs, or similar Programming' on CBS in the future. If the Skydance deal goes through, Oracle billionaire Larry Ellison and his son, David, will control Paramount. The elder Ellison is a Trump friend and donor. Earlier this week, South Park kicked off its 27th season with an episode about religion in schools that skewered Paramount — just one day after signing its own $1.5 billion deal with the company. 'I didn't want to come back and be in the school, but I had to because it was part of a lawsuit and the agreement with Paramount,' Jesus tells some reluctant South Park parents. He then urges them to settle with Trump, who has threatened to sue for $5 billion if they don't let Jesus in. 'You guys saw what happened to CBS? Well, guess who owns CBS. Paramount,' Jesus says. 'You really want to end up like Colbert? You guys got to stop being stupid. … He also has the power to sue and take bribes and he can do anything to anyone.' At the end of the episode, the townspeople agree to pay Trump $3.5 million and create 'pro-Trump messaging.' ABC News In a similar (though much simpler) case, Trump sued ABC News and its This Week host George Stephanopoulos last March for defamation over a segment in which Stephanopoulos repeatedly said that Trump had been found liable for 'rape' in a sexual assault case brought by writer E. Jean Carroll. Stephanopoulos's statements were incorrect. Asked on its verdict sheet whether Carroll had proved by a preponderance of evidence that Trump had 'raped' her under New York's narrow legal definition — which requires vaginal penetration by a penis — the jury answered no. Instead, they found Trump liable for 'sexual abuse.' At the time, the judge said that Trump's behavior — which, according to Carroll, included yanking down her tights and shoving his hand inside her — would mean that 'Mr. Trump 'raped' her as many people commonly understand the word rape.' 'Indeed,' the judge added, 'the jury found that Mr. Trump in fact did exactly that.' But legal experts largely agreed that Stephanopoulos should have used the phrase 'sexual abuse' rather than the word rape, and in December 2024 ABC News agreed to settle the lawsuit by paying $15 million toward Trump's future presidential library and another $1 million in legal fees. Meta Way back in July 2021, Trump sued Meta and its CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, for suspending his Facebook and Instagram accounts following the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. Privately owned social media platforms are permitted under Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act to moderate their services by removing posts that violate their standards — as long as they are acting in 'good faith.' Users agree to these terms of service when they sign up. Yet Trump claimed in his suit that Meta was engaging in 'illegal, shameful censorship of the American people.' Not much happened in the case for a few years — until Trump won the 2024 election. At that point, Zuckerberg visited Trump at his Mar-a-Lago club in Florida, where the incoming president 'brought up the litigation and suggested they try to resolve it,' according to the Associated Press. Two months later, in January of this year, Meta agreed to donate $22 million to Trump's presidential library and pay $3 million in legal fees. Around the same time, Meta announced that it was ending its diversity, equity and inclusion programs and eliminating fact-checking on Facebook — both longtime priorities of Trump and his allies. The company also made a $1 million donation to Trump's inaugural committee, and Zuckerberg sat front and center at his swearing-in. Law firms In the early weeks of his second term, Trump issued executive orders targeting three prominent law firms that had pursued what he viewed as politically motivated investigations and lawsuits against him and his allies. One was Perkins Coie, a firm that represented Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign and repeatedly won election law cases in 2020 against Trump's campaign. Another was Covington & Burling, a firm that provided legal advice to Jack Smith, the special counsel who brought two federal indictments against Trump. And the third was Paul Weiss — a firm whose chairman, Brad Karp, 'has a long history of fund-raising for Democrats [and] sought to unite major law firms in 'a call to arms' to fight Mr. Trump in court on issues like his administration's policy of separating migrant children from their parents,' according to the New York Times. In his orders, Trump effectively sought to cripple these firms by revoking their lawyers' security clearances — which they need to represent key clients — and limiting their access to government buildings and officials. Again, it wasn't a lawsuit, per se — but it was a form of lawfare. And again, it worked. In March, Trump announced Karp had agreed to represent clients regardless of their political affiliation; to contribute $40 million in legal services to causes Trump has championed, including 'the President's Task Force to Combat Antisemitism'; and to end its internal DEI policies. In exchange, Trump rescinded his order against Paul Weiss. A few days later, however, the president issued a new order directing the heads of the Justice and Homeland Security departments to 'seek sanctions against attorneys and law firms who engage in frivolous, unreasonable and vexatious litigation against the United States' or in matters that come before federal agencies. Eventually, eight other firms followed Paul Weiss's lead, committing a combined total of nearly $1 billion in pro bono legal services to initiatives supported by the Trump administration in order to avoid becoming targets themselves. 'This is certainly the biggest affront to the legal profession in my lifetime,' Samuel Buell, a longtime professor of law at Duke University and a former federal prosecutor, told the New York Times.
Associated Press
23 minutes ago
- Associated Press
Judge blocks Trump's birthright citizenship restrictions in third ruling since high court decision
BOSTON (AP) — A federal judge on Friday blocked the Trump administration from ending birthright citizenship for the children of parents who are in the U.S. illegally, issuing the third court ruling blocking the birthright order nationwide since a key Supreme Court decision in June. U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin, joining another district court as well as an appellate panel of judges, found that a nationwide injunction granted to more than a dozen states remains in force under an exception to the Supreme Court ruling. That decision restricted the power of lower-court judges to issue nationwide injunctions. The states have argued Trump's birthright citizenship order is blatantly unconstitutional and threatens millions of dollars for health insurance services that are contingent on citizenship status. The issue is expected to move quickly back to the nation's highest court. Lawyers for the government had argued Sorokin should narrow the reach of his earlier ruling granting a preliminary injunction, arguing it should be 'tailored to the States' purported financial injuries.' 'The record does not support a finding that any narrower option would feasibly and adequately protect the plaintiffs from the injuries they have shown they are likely to suffer,' Sorokin wrote.
