Business
Tax Cuts or the Border? Republicans Wrestle Over Trump’s Priorities.

Republicans are preparing to cut taxes, slash spending and slow immigration in a broad agenda that will require unifying an unruly party behind dozens of complicated policy choices.
For now, though, they are struggling with a more prosaic decision: whether to cram their policy goals into one bill or split them into two.
It is a seemingly technical question that reveals a fundamental divide among Republicans about whether to prioritize a wide-ranging crackdown on immigration or cutting taxes, previewing what could be months of intramural policy debate.
Some Republicans have argued that they should pass two bills in order to quickly push through legislation focused on immigration at the southern border, a key campaign promise for Mr. Trump and his party’s candidates. But Republicans devoted to lowering taxes have pressed for one mammoth bill to ensure that tax cuts are not left on the cutting-room floor.
President-elect Donald J. Trump met with Republican senators in Washington on Wednesday, as those lawmakers sought clarity on his preferred strategy. He has waffled between the two ideas, prolonging the dispute.
“Whether it’s one bill or two bills, it’s going to get done,” Mr. Trump told reporters after the meeting.
Republicans are planning to ram the partisan fiscal package through the Senate over the opposition of Democrats using a process called reconciliation, which allows them to steer clear of a filibuster and pass bills with a simple majority vote. But for much of this year, Republicans will be working with a one-seat majority in the House and a three-seat majority in the Senate, meaning they will need near unanimity to pass major legislation.
That has left some worried that it will be hard enough passing one bill, much less two.
“There’s serious risk in having multiple bills that have to pass to get your agenda through,” Representative Steve Scalise of Louisiana, the majority leader, said. “When you know you’ve got a lot of people that want this first package, if you only put certain things in the first package, they can vote no on the second and you lose the whole second package. That would be devastating.”
Adding to the urgency of achieving their policy goals, Republicans are facing a political disaster should they fail to deliver. Many of the tax cuts they put into place in 2017, the last time Mr. Trump was president, expire at the end of the year. That means that taxes on most Americans could go up if Congress does not pass a tax bill this year.
Passing tax cuts can take time, though. While much of the Republican tax agenda involves continuing measures the party passed in 2017, Mr. Trump and other Republicans have floated additional ideas, including no taxes on tips and new incentives for corporations to manufacture in the United States. Ideas like that could take months to formulate into workable policy.
Then there is the gigantic cost. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that simply extending the 2017 tax cuts would cost more than $4 trillion over a decade — a price tag that would grow if other tax cuts, like Mr. Trump’s proposal to not tax overtime pay, are included.
Further complicating support for the legislation is that Republicans plan to raise the debt limit through reconciliation, another sensitive issue for fiscal hawks.
Members of the ultraconservative House Freedom Caucus have said they would not support any legislation unless the costs it introduces are offset by spending cuts. While most Republicans support reining in federal spending, agreeing on which federal programs to slash always proves harder than expected. In an attempted workaround, Republicans have instead begun to explore ways to change Washington’s budget rules so the tax cuts are shown to cost less.
The complexity of pulling together a tax bill that can secure the necessary votes has some Republicans hoping to hold off until later in the year and first charge ahead with a smaller bill focused on immigration, energy and military issues. Republicans have not yet publicly sketched out what that bill would look like.
Proponents of that strategy argue it would deliver Mr. Trump an early political victory on immigration and treat a top Republican campaign issue with the urgency it deserves.
“The No. 1 priority is securing our border,” Representative Byron Donalds of Florida told reporters on Tuesday. “In my opinion it’s the top priority, and everything else is a close second.”
Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, the chairman of the Budget Committee who will be overseeing the reconciliation process, has also pressed for a two-bill approach. “If you hold border security hostage to get tax cuts, you’re playing Russian roulette with our national security,” he said.
Republicans have looked to Mr. Trump to intervene and set a clear direction for the party. On Sunday, he wrote on social media that Congress should pass “one powerful Bill,” an apparent victory for lawmakers like Representative Jason Smith of Missouri, the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, who had championed that approach. Mr. Trump’s equivocation since then, though, has left Republicans still unsure of which strategy they should pursue.
Mr. Trump’s meeting with top Republican senators on Wednesday will be followed by a discussion with various House Republicans in Florida over the weekend.
In a sign of how politically complicated the tax cut discussion could get, one of the sessions is expected to focus on relaxing the $10,000 limit on the state and local tax deduction, known as SALT.
Republicans included the $10,000 limit in the 2017 tax law as a way to contain the cost of that legislation. But the move angered House Republicans from high-tax states like New York and New Jersey, many of whom voted against the entire 2017 tax bill as a result. Such defections are a luxury that Republican leaders can’t afford this year given their narrow majority.
G.O.P. lawmakers from New York, New Jersey and California could tank a tax bill if they are unsatisfied with how the provision is handled. They are now pushing to lift the cap as part of the party’s tax bill. Eliminating the cap entirely could add roughly $1 trillion to the price tag of the legislation.
Maneuvering ambitious policy agendas through Congress has often been a messy and time-consuming process for presidents. A Republican effort to repeal the Affordable Care Act during Mr. Trump’s first term collapsed after more than six months of discussion.
After quickly passing pandemic relief measures in 2021 under President Biden, much of Democrats’ broader agenda was stymied for almost two years before a second party-line measure passed that was far narrower than many in the party had hoped.
This time around, Republicans will be grappling not only with a historically slim margin in the House, but also a president prone to sudden changes of heart.
“You can argue the merits of both” strategies, said Representative Jodey Arrington, a Texas Republican who leads the House Budget Committee. “He has to tell us what he wants and what he needs.”

Business
China Backs Iran in Nuclear Talks, Slams ‘Threat of Force’ From the West

China and Russia joined Iran on Friday in urging an end to Western sanctions after President Trump called this week for nuclear talks with Tehran, with both countries denouncing the “threat of force.”
After talks in Beijing with the deputy foreign ministers of Russia and Iran to discuss Iran’s nuclear program, the Chinese government said the three countries had agreed that all parties should “abandon sanctions, pressure and threats of force.”
That appeared to be a reference to recent overtures that Mr. Trump has made toward Iran. Mr. Trump said last week that he had sent a letter to the Iranian government seeking to negotiate a deal to prevent Tehran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. But he warned that the country would have to choose between curbing its fast-expanding program and losing it in a military attack.
The meeting was the latest sign of Beijing’s close alignment with Moscow and Tehran, and of its ambition to become a key arbiter of international disputes. Earlier this week, the three countries held joint naval drills in the Gulf of Oman.
China and Russia are taking a very different approach to Iran now than they did a decade ago. In 2015, they insisted on first reaching a deal with Iran to stop its nuclear weapons program before ending sanctions. Russia even took a lot of Iran’s nuclear fuel stockpile as part of that arrangement.
The United States is now pursuing maximum political pressure with a threat of military action. But China and Russia are pursuing a more cooperative and conciliatory approach. This means that major powers are divided on how to approach Iran, which may give Tehran more diplomatic room to maneuver.
“Russia and China are also signaling to other countries that there are alternatives to U.S. global leadership — that Moscow and Beijing are responsible global actors that can address major global challenges like nuclear weapons,” said Andrea Kendall-Taylor, a senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security, a Washington research group.
The most concerning part of the Iranian program is the production of potential nuclear weapons material that has been enriched to 60 percent purity, which is nearly bomb-grade. It could take a week or so to convert it to the 90 percent purity required for use in bombs that produce large nuclear detonations. Experts believe Iran may now have enough for roughly six weapons.
Russia and China did not present a plan to remove or reduce in purity the Iranian supply of potential nuclear weapons material. Nor did they address Iran’s installation of more advanced centrifuges, which will increase the size of the country’s stockpile of enriched material.
The Iranian government said in late November that it would begin operating the advanced centrifuges to enrich more uranium, which could bring it closer to having a nuclear weapon.
Wang Yi, China’s foreign minister, issued a five-point plan for addressing Iran’s nuclear program. While calling for an end to sanctions on Iran, the plan also urged Iran to “continue to abide by its commitment not to develop nuclear weapons.”
Beijing wants to show that “while the United States irresponsibly pulls out of the Iran Nuclear Agreement, China will also hold fast to this international commitment and assume the responsibility of leadership,” said Shen Dingli, an international relations scholar in Shanghai.
The message is also one of solidarity with Iran. “Even though the United States exerts extreme pressure, as long as Iran does not give up on its relevant commitments, it will still have friends,” Mr. Shen said. “Iran doesn’t need to worry. In the end, this is a strategic game between China and the United States.”
Iran’s supreme leader last week decried “bullying governments” and seemed to push back on the idea of negotiating with the United States.
China and Russia’s support could help Iran seem less isolated, but Tehran might have concerns, as well.
“The Iranians, for their part, are very wary of Chinese, but especially of Russian involvement in negotiations, as they fear they will be sold out by Moscow as part of a broader U.S.-Russia accord,” said Gregory Brew, a senior analyst at the Eurasia Group. “They will be looking for support from Russia while resisting any pressure to give in to U.S. demands.”
China has considerable leverage over Iran: Chinese companies purchased over 90 percent of Iran’s oil exports last year, often at deep discounts to world prices, according to Kpler, a Vienna-based company that specializes in tracking Iran’s oil shipments. Most other countries have refrained from buying oil from Iran so as to comply with Western-led sanctions aimed at persuading Iran to stop its development of nuclear weapons.
Sales by Iran’s state oil company to China represent about 6 percent of Iran’s entire economy, or half of government spending in Iran.
David E. Sanger contributed reporting from Washington and David Pierson from Beijing.
Business
Trump Expands Trade Threats in Global Game of Chicken

For the second time this week, President Trump has threatened to disrupt trade with a close ally for retaliating in a trade war that he started — a tactic that could lead to compromise, or to economic spats that spiral further out of control.
On Thursday morning, Mr. Trump tried to cow the European Union into submission, threatening in a social media post to put a 200 percent tariff on European wine and Champagne unless the bloc dropped a 50 percent tariff on U.S. whiskey. The European Union had imposed that tariff in response to levies that Mr. Trump put on global steel and aluminum on Wednesday.
Mr. Trump deployed a similar tactic against Canada on Tuesday, threatening to double 25 percent tariffs on Canadian steel and aluminum to try to get Ontario to lift a surcharge on electricity sold to the United States. The province had imposed the charge after Mr. Trump put other tariffs on Canada this month.
After Ontario suspended its surcharge, Mr. Trump walked back his threats.
Over the last several weeks, Mr. Trump has presided over a confusing and potentially economically devastating back and forth of tariffs and tariff threats, playing a global game of chicken as he tries to get some of the United States’ closest allies and trading partners to back down.
Mr. Trump has wielded the tariff threats without regard for their economic consequences and, increasingly, seemingly without regard for the impact on stock markets. The S&P 500 slumped again on Thursday after Mr. Trump threatened Europe and reiterated at the White House that he would impose big tariffs.
When asked whether he might relent on Canada, which sent a delegation to the United States on Thursday to try to calm trade tensions, Mr. Trump said: “I’m not going to bend at all.”
He said the United States didn’t need imports like lumber and energy from Canada, one of America’s largest trading partners. “We don’t need anything they have,” he said.
The president, who spoke to reporters during a meeting with Mark Rutte, the secretary general of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, acknowledged that his tariffs could cause “a little disruption” but said that “it won’t be very long.”
“And we have to do this,” he said. “I’m sorry, we have to do this.”
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, asked on Thursday about market volatility and the economic effects of tariffs, said the White House was not concerned “about the short term.”
“We’ve got strategic industries we’ve got to have,” Mr. Bessent said. “We want to protect the American worker.”
Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick also warned other countries against retaliating against the United States, saying in an interview on Bloomberg TV on Thursday that Mr. Trump could respond temperamentally.
“If you make him unhappy, he responds unhappy,” Mr. Lutnick said.
Mr. Lutnick said some countries, like Britain and Mexico, had thoughtfully examined how they did business with the United States. But for countries that respond with further tariffs, “the president’s going to deal with them with strength and with power,” he threatened.
It remains to be seen whether other countries will retaliate with their own levies and, if so, how many economic disagreements may spiral into true tit-for-tat trade wars. Mr. Trump has promised more levies on cars and other products to come in April.
Some governments, like those in Australia, Brazil, Britain, Japan and Mexico, have chosen not to retaliate for now, as they try other routes to defuse tensions with Mr. Trump. But China, the European Union and Canada have all made different calculations.
Those governments may be encouraged by domestic political constituencies to stand up to Mr. Trump’s bullying or, in the case of Europe and China, emboldened by the size of their economies.
Some European officials said they wouldn’t bow to pressure. In a statement on Wednesday, Ursula von der Leyen, the president of the European Commission, the bloc’s executive arm, said that Europe needed to act to “protect consumers and business” and that it would take “strong but proportionate” countermeasures.
“We will not give in to threats,” Laurent Saint-Martin, France’s foreign trade minister, said in a post on X. Mr. Trump “is escalating the trade war he chose to unleash,” he added.
Canadian officials have also generally been outspoken against the United States, a dynamic that may be amplified by a political transition and an upcoming federal election in Canada.
“If you hit us, we will hit back,” Chrystia Freeland, a former Canadian minister of finance, said in an interview on CNN on Thursday. Ms. Freeland said that Canada was small but that it had leverage in the economic relationship because it was the largest export market for the United States by far.
“Canada is a more important export market for the U.S. than China, Japan, the U.K. and France combined,” she said. “You guys are the country that invented the phrase ‘the customer is always right.’ Well, we’re your biggest customer.”
Mr. Trump may be gambling on the idea that other countries are more dependent on the U.S. market than the United States is on them. Canada sends about 80 percent of its exports to the United States, while roughly 17 percent of U.S. exports go to Canada.
But being larger and more distant, the European Union and China are less reliant on American buyers. The United States is the destination for about 20 percent of E.U. exports and about 15 percent of Chinese exports.
On Thursday, Canada initiated a dispute at the World Trade Organization over the steel and aluminum tariffs that Mr. Trump had imposed the day before. China initiated a suit over a separate tranche of tariffs last month. But the W.T.O. challenges are largely a symbolic gesture, since the United States disabled the organization’s dispute settlement system in Mr. Trump’s first term.
Canadian officials were expected to meet with Mr. Lutnick to discuss trade issues on Thursday. A European spokesman said Maros Sefcovic, the European Union’s trade commissioner, would talk with both Mr. Lutnick and Jamieson Greer, the U.S. trade representative, on Friday.
Jeanna Smialek and Matina Stevis-Gridneff contributed reporting.
Business
How Companies Like J&J, Live Nation and Uber Retreating From DEI Programs

Household-name companies, like Walmart and Meta, have scaled back diversity, equity and inclusion goals in recent months. These brands are part of a widespread retreat happening across corporate America, according to a New York Times analysis of annual financial filings. It has been as noticeable among tech giants as among drug makers, concert promoters and nearly every sector of the U.S. economy.
So far this year the number of companies in the S&P 500 that used the language “diversity, equity and inclusion” in these filings has fallen by nearly 60 percent from 2024.
The Companies That Mentioned ‘Diversity, Equity and Inclusion’ Each Year
Source: Securities and Exchange Commission
Seventy-eight percent of companies — 297 out of the 381 that have filed their reports so far this year — continue to discuss various diversity and related initiatives, according to the Times analysis, which examined a decade of financial filings known as 10-Ks that public companies submit each year to the Securities and Exchange Commission.
But many of them have softened or shifted previous language, by removing the word “equity,” for example, or emphasizing “belonging” rather than D.E.I.
Major corporations began to shy away from taking strong stances on D.E.I. before President Trump re-entered office, but the trend accelerated rapidly after.
These filings aren’t the only reflection of what companies are doing, or declining to do, to promote diversity, equity and inclusion — but they offer one view of changing stances in the words of the companies themselves. Plenty of language in these filings changes from year to year, though the Times analysis focused specifically on language about D.E.I.
In some ways, the shift reflects a pattern of companies chasing what seems most socially and politically expedient. After the killing of George Floyd in May 2020 and the Black Lives Matter protests that followed, many companies denounced racial injustice.
By 2022, over 90 percent of the S&P 500 had language about D.E.I. in their annual filings. Uber, for example, “committed to becoming an anti-racist company.” Best Buy wrote in a quarterly regulatory filing that “in the wake of George Floyd’s death” the company would strive to “address racial inequities.”
By 2024, the social pressure had started to reverse — “critical race theory” was labeled by some senators as “activist indoctrination,” and many states took steps to restrict D.E.I. programs at universities. This backlash was accelerated by a Supreme Court decision in 2023 that struck down affirmative action in college admissions. While that decision was not directed at corporations, some law firms began to face lawsuits over fellowships that were open only to marginalized groups, and other employers started to pay more attention.
Mr. Trump then took direct aim at corporations. Soon after his inauguration in January, he issued an executive order that instructed federal agencies to investigate “illegal D.E.I.” in the private sector. He changed the staffing and leadership of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which enforces the country’s anti-discrimination laws, putting in place an acting chair who said her priorities included “rooting out unlawful D.E.I.-motivated race and sex discrimination.”
Lawyers who have been helping companies navigate the new legal landscape said that some executives were worried about public disclosures on diversity efforts. Company leaders might want to keep their diversity initiatives in place, but realize that describing D.E.I. goals in public documents, like 10-Ks, could prompt scrutiny or government investigation. So some have found ways to hedge or otherwise tweak the language they use to make it more vague.
Used the same language about employee resource groups from 2021 to 2024.
Added in 2025
Dow’s 10 ERGs represent a workforce rich in diversity of thought, perspectives and backgrounds
Used language about historically black colleges and universities from 2021 to 2024.
Added in 2025
We take action to improve the hiring, retention and promotion of a more diverse workforce that reflects Adobe’s global footprint. We invest in partnerships and events to grow our pipeline and engage candidates across underrepresented communities.
Dow Chemical and Adobe did not reply to requests for comment on the shift in language in their annual reports.
“You don’t want to provide a road map for critics to look into what you’re up to,” said Jon Solorzano, a partner at the law firm Vinson & Elkins who counsels companies on governance issues, including D.E.I. “Talking about it externally is now viewed as a riskier proposition, while continuing to talk about it internally is maybe less risky.”
Because executives were preparing their 10-K reports right as Mr. Trump took office, Mr. Solorzano noted, they were able to move quickly to drop public disclosures on D.E.I., though actually unwinding the programs will take more time. “There’s an annual review of 10-Ks, and the annual review happened to coincide with new fears,” he added.
Other D.E.I. experts noted that some companies are shying away from the term “equity” because it tends to attract more scrutiny than “diversity” or “inclusion.”
“The E in D.E.I. is the real problematic one,” said Musa Al-Gharbi, a sociologist and an assistant professor at Stony Brook University who has written extensively on diversity programs. “To actually achieve equity often requires policies that are alienating to a lot of stakeholders.”
Used the same D.E.I. language from 2021 to 2024.
Added in 2025
we focus on a culture that values all employees
Used the same D.E.I. language between 2021 and 2024.
Added in 2025
underpinning these focus areas are ongoing efforts to cultivate and foster a culture built on innovation, health, well-being and safety, inclusion and belonging where the company’s employees are encouraged to succeed both professionally and personally while helping the company achieve its business goals
Vertex Pharmaceuticals did not reply to a request for comment on the shift in its 10-K language on D.E.I. It still has a page on its website on the topic, something that other companies have also maintained — even as they have softened the language on it in their annual regulatory disclosures.
In a statement, a Johnson & Johnson spokeswoman said the company “has always been and will continue to be compliant with all applicable legal requirements and remains dedicated to the values in our credo.”
Given the mounting pressures from the Trump administration, it is perhaps surprising that hundreds of companies have maintained D.E.I. language in their 10-Ks this year. Delta Air Lines wrote: “Our commitment to diversity, equity and inclusion is critical to effective human capital management.” Arthur J. Gallagher & Company, the insurance brokerage, reported the share of its employees and managers who are “racially/ethnically diverse.”
(The New York Times, which is not in the S&P 500, shortened the section on diversity in its 10-K this year. Danielle Rhoades Ha, a spokeswoman for The Times, said: “We still have the same diversity and inclusion-related programs that we did last year.” She added: “Specific language in 10-Ks changes year to year.”)
Still, the pendulum is swinging away from D.E.I., many corporate lawyers say, and the momentum can be hard to resist. Companies often tend to follow the crowd, whether that means adopting a certain approach to management (think “agile”), a popular strategy on innovation (like “design thinking”) or a job title that many of their peers are suddenly adding (“chief of staff”).
But fads often have shallow roots, and companies might drop that practice as soon as it opens them to social critique or legal scrutiny.
“Companies will adopt these fads and fashions, and they’ll do it for legitimacy and reputation management purposes and never fully adopt it,” said Ranjay Gulati, a Harvard Business School professor. “Then it’s a self-fulfilling prophecy, because it doesn’t achieve their business goals so it goes out of fashion and they dump it.”
2021
In July 2020, we publicly committed to becoming an anti-racist company
2022
In July 2020, we announced 14 commitments to becoming a more anti-racist company
2023
In July 2020, we announced commitments to becoming a more anti-racist company
2021
The Company believes that diversity and inclusion is central to high employee engagement.
2022
The Company believes that diversity, equity and inclusion (“DE&I”) is central to high employee engagement.
2023
The Company believes that diversity, equity and inclusion (“DE&I”) is central to high employee engagement.
2024
The Company believes that diversity, equity and inclusion (“DE&I”) is central to high employee engagement.
2021
In July 2020, in response to events in the U.S. and around the world that sparked overdue reflection on racism and discrimination in our societies, we announced ambitious goals to strengthen the company’s diversity from the top down that we will strive to obtain by the end of 2025
2022
We remain committed to reaching the ambitious goals we set to strengthen the company’s diversity from the top down
2023
We remain committed to reaching the ambitious goals we set to strengthen the company’s diversity from the top down
2024
We remain committed to making continuous progress toward our ambitious representation goals — to strengthen the company’s diversity from the top down
DuPont declined to comment and Uber did not reply to a request for comment.
A spokesperson for Live Nation wrote in a statement: “While the legal landscape may be evolving, our commitment to inclusivity and Taking Care of Our Own will always remain at our core.” Some of Live Nation’s previously announced diversity goals stated 2025 as the target year to reach them, and previous 10-K documents had said the company was making progress toward achieving them.
An additional factor in the pullback, lawyers say, is some executives’ realizing that they might have set goals in 2020 or 2021 that they cannot achieve without aggressive D.E.I. efforts that might be targeted with lawsuits or investigations in the coming months.
Since President Trump took office, the E.E.O.C. has made clear that it intends to investigate what it sees as D.E.I. overreach, which could include specific targets for hiring employees of underrepresented groups, or executive bonuses tied to meeting those goals.
“Some goals based on race and gender that were set during the Biden administration were not reflective of availability in the work force, potentially operating more like a quota than a good faith placement goal,” said Craig E. Leen, a partner in the employment practice at the law firm K&L Gates. “Some employers are realizing that the goals are not attainable in a legal manner and are therefore resetting expectations.”
To some D.E.I. proponents, the speed of the reversal has underscored the shallowness of some of the initial commitments. “As you’re seeing companies pull back from these commitments, a lot of people are questioning how credible those commitments were in the first place,” Mr. Solorzano of Vinson & Elkins said.
Methodology
The New York Times analyzed a decade of 10-Ks for companies currently in the S&P 500, totaling 25,000 documents. The Times included companies that had submitted an annual report in 2025 as of March 8, which totaled 381 companies. Using custom code, The Times processed the filings with a combination of keyword searches and artificial intelligence tools to identify paragraphs related to diversity, equity and inclusion. Journalists manually reviewed the results to ensure the accuracy of the A.I. classifications.
-
Politics1 week ago
EXCLUSIVE: Elon Musk PAC thanks Trump for 'saving the American Dream' in new million-dollar ad
-
News6 days ago
Gene Hackman Lost His Wife and Caregiver, and Spent 7 Days Alone
-
Politics6 days ago
Republicans demand Trump cut American legal association out of nominee process
-
Politics6 days ago
Agriculture secretary cancels $600K grant for study on menstrual cycles in transgender men
-
News6 days ago
States sue Trump administration over mass firings of federal employees
-
Movie Reviews1 week ago
‘Black Bag’ Review: Cate Blanchett and Michael Fassbender Cozy Up in Steven Soderbergh’s Snazzy Spy Thriller
-
News1 week ago
Who Paid for Trump’s Transition to Power? The Donors Are Still Unknown.
-
News6 days ago
Trump Seeks to Bar Student Loan Relief to Workers Aiding Migrants and Trans Kids