Politics
As a Felon, Trump Upends How Americans View the Presidency
A big economic package, mass deportations, maybe even some invasions of other countries. Oh, and one more item. “I’ll do my little thing tomorrow,” a busy President-elect Donald J. Trump mentioned the other night.
That little thing was the first criminal sentencing of an American president. That little thing was confirmation that Mr. Trump, just 10 days later, would become the first president to move into the White House with a rap sheet. That little thing is the latest shift in standards that once governed high office.
Mr. Trump does not really consider it a little thing, of course, given how strenuously he sought to avoid Friday’s sentencing for 34 felony counts in his hush money case. But to a remarkable degree, he has succeeded in making it a little thing in the body politic. What was once a pretty-much-guaranteed disqualifier for the presidency is now just one more political event seen through a partisan lens.
After all, no one seemed shocked after Friday’s sentencing in New York. While Mr. Trump was spared jail time or financial penalties, he effectively had the word “felon” tattooed on his record for all time unless a higher court overturns the conviction. But that development was already baked into the system. Voters knew last fall that Mr. Trump had been found guilty by a jury of his peers, and enough of them decided it was either illegitimate or not as important as other issues.
“It speaks to the moment we’re in,” said Norman L. Eisen, a former White House ethics counsel to President Barack Obama who has closely tracked Mr. Trump’s various legal cases and has founded a new organization aimed at defending democracy. “You have somebody who is an adjudicated felon 34 times over, but you also have a nation that is either so numb or so in shock that it does not know how to react.”
And so the nation will soon witness the paradox of a newly elected president putting his hand on a Bible to swear an oath to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States,” the supreme law of the land, barely a week after being sentenced for violating the law.
This will be a national Rorschach test. His critics will find it appalling. His admirers will see it as vindication.
That is no accident. Mr. Trump for years has worked to discredit any and all criminal and civil cases against him as nothing more than politically motivated witch hunts and found plenty of Americans to agree with him. His supporters do not view him as a villain but as a victim. Even a significant number of opponents have grown weary of it all, or their outrage has faded into resignation.
“What is extraordinary about Trump’s behavior and record is that the electorate does not care, as it once did, that a president pay public fealty to law and norms and other traditional expectations of the office,” said Jack Goldsmith, a Harvard Law School professor and former assistant attorney general under President George W. Bush. “Trump has revolutionized how the public thinks about the presidency even before his second term has begun.”
Indeed, he has not only moved the bar for the presidency, but is attempting to do the same for senior cabinet positions and other top officials in government. He picked Pete Hegseth, a Fox News personality, to be secretary of defense despite the allegation that he raped a woman at a Republican political conference and a report that he was pushed out as head of two veterans organizations after being accused of mismanagement, drunken behavior and sexual impropriety.
Mr. Hegseth, who has since left Fox, has insisted the encounter at the conference was consensual, and police did not file charges. But Mr. Trump has selected other candidates for top positions who have been accused of sexual misconduct themselves or failure to stop it. Most of them, like Mr. Hegseth, dispute the allegations and Mr. Trump and his allies seem willing to accept their denials. But there was a time when an incoming president would have avoided nominees with such baggage in the first place.
Mr. Trump’s allies maintain that if standards have shifted, the president-elect’s pursuers have only themselves to blame by initiating unfounded or overhyped investigations as part of what they said looked like an effort to stop a political opponent. Mr. Trump’s adversaries cannot win at the ballot box, his camp charges, so they have abused the justice system.
“Our norms have changed in what we will accept in presidents because federal and state Democratic officials debased prosecution by deploying it as a political tool to influence presidential elections,” said John Yoo, another former Bush Justice Department official now teaching at the University of California, Berkeley.
A YouGov survey released on Friday found that 48 percent of adults said they believed that Mr. Trump had committed crimes in the hush money case, while 28 percent did not and 25 percent were not sure. Following the sentencing, 19 percent said it was too harsh, 24 percent said it was about right and 39 percent did not think it was harsh enough.
On the broader question of whether Mr. Trump was politically singled out for the worst treatment, most Americans disagreed. Forty-two percent said they thought Mr. Trump was actually treated more leniently than other people and 14 percent said he was treated about the same, while 30 percent said he was treated more harshly. That 30 percent clearly reflects Mr. Trump’s hard-core base, and enough other voters evidently concluded that they were not bothered enough to vote against him and cared more about inflation, immigration or other issues.
The hush money case was not the only legal issue confronting Mr. Trump, though. He was indicted three other times, twice for trying to overturn the 2020 election and hold onto power illegitimately and a third time for taking classified documents that were not his when he left the White House and refusing to give them back even after being subpoenaed. None of those cases made it to trial before the election, but voters were extensively told about the evidence.
Moreover, Mr. Trump lost several other cases that in the past would have been hard for a would-be president to overcome. He was found liable for sexual abuse in one civil case and business fraud in another. And his Trump Organization was convicted in criminal court of 17 counts of tax fraud and other crimes. He will be the first president with judgments of this scale against him to take the oath of office as well.
“Essential to the efforts of the founders was their ultimate respect for the citizens who they believed would be informed and for the most part moral and sensible,” said Ty Cobb, a former White House lawyer for Mr. Trump who has become a critic. “Sadly, we blew past all that somehow.”
Still, the only criminal conviction of Mr. Trump personally was the hush money case, in which he was found guilty of falsifying business records to hide $130,000 paid to a woman who said she had a sexual tryst with him while his wife Melania was pregnant with their son. He denied the affair, but made the payments through a fixer anyway.
Mr. Yoo said that the nature of the hush money case worked against Mr. Trump’s adversaries because it seemed less momentous than the other three criminal indictments.
“If the Democratic lawfare campaign had actually convicted Trump of a crime related to Jan. 6, we might think of Trump differently,” Mr. Yoo said. “But pursuing him for bookkeeping shenanigans to conceal hush money payments showed that Trump’s opponents would stoop to the most inconsequential legal charges to try to stop him.”
Even some who have been critical of Mr. Trump questioned whether the hush money prosecution was worth it, especially since it was brought by a Democratic district attorney who reopened the matter after his predecessor opted against filing charges.
“Of all the cases against Mr. Trump, the New York case was the most partisan and least meritorious,” said Michael W. McConnell, a Stanford Law School professor and former federal appeals court judge appointed by Mr. Bush. “The conviction says more about the low standards of prosecutorial integrity in the once-vaunted Manhattan D.A. office than about Mr. Trump.”
Even the judge’s sentence seemed to undermine perceptions of the case’s seriousness. Rather than try to impose jail time or financial penalties, the judge gave Mr. Trump what is called unconditional discharge, a concession to the reality that an actual penalty was implausible 10 days before the inauguration.
At the end of the day, beyond the minimum qualifications in the Constitution, the standards for who is fit to be president are determined not by politicians or a judge or jury but by the voters. In this case, the voters gave their verdict long before the official sentencing.
And that is no little thing.
With California facing increasingly destructive wildfires, experts and officials have long urged the strategic removal of dense, flammable vegetation that can erupt into particularly destructive flames from a lightning bolt or the spark of a power line.
But after years of record investment by the state in such wildfire risk mitigation, two key money sources are drying up, potentially reducing the state’s annual budget for vegetation removal by hundreds of millions of dollars.
Wildfire resiliency advocates are warning that the loss of these funds will leave the state vulnerable to devastation, and are calling on California’s next governor to take that threat seriously.
Currently, California relies heavily on two funding sources for wildfire mitigation work: A state program that charges polluters for their emissions and a climate bond approved by voters in 2024.
Late Friday, however, state officials adopted a new structure for the emissions program, called cap-and-invest, that analysts say will likely reduce wildfire mitigation funding by $200 million per year. At the same time, the governor’s latest budget proposal puts the state on track to allocate the majority of the climate bond’s $1.5 billion in wildfire prevention money within just three years.
As a result, California could go from routinely pulling more than $600 million a year from these sources, to just $150 million, according to an estimate from the Wildfire Solutions Coalition — a group of more than 80 organizations representing conservationists, business owners, fire officials and tribal leaders.
The coalition is urging the state to find new sources of funding for the work.
“We have the scientists, we have the technicians, we have the advocates,” said Michelle Decker, who is on the coalition’s executive committee and serves as president and CEO of the Inland Empire Community Foundation. “We see this problem. We can get ahead of this problem. It is a revenue issue.”
California wildfires have become increasingly costly. The 2025 L.A. fires alone caused an estimated $250 billion in damage and economic loss. Insurance companies have already paid out $22.4 billion.
In attempt to reduce the risk of damage to communities and ecosystems, the state has employed a wide range of tactics. These includes fortifying homes against wildfires, replanting fire-ravaged forests and thinning out vegetation with prescribed burns, goat grazing and manual thinning with heavy machinery to reduce the intensity of potential fires.
Research suggests wildfire mitigation work pays off. A recent analysis of 285 fires in the western U.S. found that every dollar spent on landscape projects saved about $3.75 in wildfire damage.
But as funding from cap-and-invest and the climate bond dwindle, the state must increasingly turn to Cal Fire, which devotes only a small portion of its budget to mitigation work.
“This is not an issue that can be pushed off to a timeline based solely on politics,” said Steve Frisch, a founding member of the coalition and president of the Sierra Business Council. “Fire happens whether we want it to or not.”
After a series of destructive wildfires in Northern California and the 2017 Thomas fire in Southern California, the state legislature began to explicitly focus on funding wildfire mitigation.
In 2018, lawmakers directed $200 million per year of cap-and-invest funds to wildfire mitigation projects.
As the Woolsey fire in Southern California and the Camp fire in Paradise raged later that fall, Trump accused the state of “gross mismanagement” of forest lands and threatened to cut off federal funds unless it was corrected.
Gov. Gavin Newsom and the legislature, with a significant budget surplus, began earmarking even more funds, leading to a peak of $1.1 billion in wildfire mitigation investments during the 2021-2022 fiscal year.
After the surplus dwindled, the legislature opted in 2024 to put a $10-billion climate bond in front of voters — $1.5 billion of which was dedicated specifically for wildfire mitigation work.
Newsom has since pointed to this high state funding to call on the federal government to step up its own investments into forest management work.
The federal government manages 57% of all forests in the state. While the U.S. Forest Service spent $3.1 billion mitigating wildfire conditions in the state over the last few years, California spent $4.3 billion, according to the California Forest Resilience and Wildfire Task Force.
However, the state has already allocated about $600 million of the climate bond’s wildfire mitigation pot for the 2024-2025 and current fiscal years. The latest budget proposal would allocate more than $300 million for this upcoming fiscal year. While many advocates support allocating the money quickly, it leaves little for future years.
Once that money is spent, California has to pay off the $10 billion bond with interest. The result is an estimated price tag of $16 billion, paid in roughly $400 million increments every year, for 40 years, according to the state’s Legislative Analyst’s Office.
As for the cap-and-invest funds, a fraught months-long debate at the California Air Resources Board on how to extend the program beyond 2030 resulted in a compromise that will cut the revenue it generates in half, the Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates.
Since other projects get priority — including $1 billion every year for California’s high-speed rail project — the new proposal would “likely leave no funding” for the wildfire and forest resilience line item, the Legislative Analyst’s Office found.
Cal Fire still holds a modest annual budget for wildfire mitigation work. In the 2024-2025 fiscal year, the agency had $500 million for forest management and fire prevention that was not directly tied to cap-and-invest or the bond — up from about $65 million two decades prior.
As for the federal government, independent analyses by Grassroots Wildland Firefighters and NPR found that Forest Service wildfire mitigation work is on the decline amid federal staffing cuts. The Forest Service claims the decrease in work was primarily due to poor weather conditions for activities like prescribed burns and staff being occupied with firefighting.
Both the state and federal government’s investments pale in comparison to the spending of California’s investor-owned utilities. In 2025 alone, the utilities planned to spend more than $9.2 billion on preventing their equipment from sparking the next devastating wildfire, primarily funded by Californians’ electricity bills.
Times staff writer Hayley Smith contributed to this report.
By Zolan Kanno-Youngs, Gilad Thaler, Jon Miller, Stephanie Swart, Rafaela Balster, Whitney Shefte and Nikolay Nikolov
May 29, 2026
Politics
Federal judge orders Trump’s name removed from Kennedy Center, says only Congress can rename it
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
A federal judge on Friday ordered that President Donald Trump’s name be removed from the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.
U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper, an Obama appointee, said the iconic venue cannot be renamed without an act of Congress, ruling that the Kennedy Center Board of Trustees overstepped its “statutory bounds by unilaterally renaming” the building.
As part of his ruling, the Trump administration will be required to take down all physical signage bearing Trump’s name and eliminate any references to a “Trump-Kennedy Center” from official materials.
TRUMP KENNEDY CENTER’S BOARD VOTES UNANIMOUSLY TO APPROVE $257M RENOVATIONS AND TWO-YEAR CLOSURE
A sign is displayed on the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts building. (Getty Images)
“The Kennedy Center’s organic statute makes crystal clear that the Center is to be named for President Kennedy, and it cannot bear any other formal name or public memorial based on the Board’s unilateral say-so,” Cooper wrote. “Congress gave the Kennedy Center its name, and only Congress can change it.”
Roma Daravi, the Trump Kennedy Center vice president of public relations, said the board plans to appeal the decision.
“We will review the decision carefully though the reality remains — the Center requires an urgent and significant restoration – a truth that even the plaintiff acknowledges,” Daravi said. “With $257 million secured by President Trump and approved by Congress, the resources are in place and we remain committed to pursuing every lawful avenue to ensure the Trump Kennedy Center is restored as a national cultural landmark for all Americans to enjoy.”
The ruling was part of a lawsuit filed by U.S. Rep. Joyce Beatty, D-Ohio. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
BOARD VOTES KENNEDY CENTER TO BE RENAMED ‘TRUMP-KENNEDY CENTER,’ LEAVITT SAYS
President Donald Trump stands in the presidential box during a tour of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in Washington, D.C., on March 17, 2025. On Friday, a federal judge ruled that Trump’s name must be removed from he iconic venue. (Jim Watson/AFP/Getty Images)
Cooper previously denied a request for a preliminary injunction filed by a preservation group to block the planned two-year closure of the Kennedy Center for a rehabilitation project.
Trump secured $257 million from Congress as part of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act to address disrepair and deferred maintenance of the Kennedy Center, which critics say has been neglected and mismanaged before Trump intervened.
The funds appropriated by Congress are spent on maintenance, repairs, security, and capital projects related to the building and site.
Beatty, who serves as an ex officio member of the board, praised Friday’s ruling.
“Today’s ruling rightly affirms that this administration’s efforts to rename and close the Center have no basis in law,” Beatty said in a statement provided to Fox News Digital. “The Kennedy Center is an institution that belongs to the American people, not to Donald Trump. He has desecrated this sacred memorial for his own vanity. I am proud to have fought for the rule of law and to protect this sacred institution.”
Workers install Donald J. Trump signage above the existing Kennedy Center sign in Washington, D.C., on Dec. 19, 2025. (Jacquelyn Martin/AP)
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
Trump’s name was added to the venue last December following a unanimous decision by the board. In February 2025, Trump was elected chairman of the Kennedy Center board after removing 18 trustees appointed by former President Joe Biden.
-
Politics7 seconds ago
Fire-prone California could lose hundreds of millions of dollars for wildfire prevention
-
Sports10 minutes agoSouthern California sprinters scorch CIF state prelims, setting up record-chasing finals
-
World22 minutes agoZelenskyy warns Russia may be preparing ‘massive’ new attack
-
News45 minutes agoTrump’s doctor recommends he lose weight and exercise more but says he is in ‘excellent health’ | CNN Politics
-
Los Angeles, Ca2 hours agoMan arrested for multiple Los Angeles freeway shootings: CHP
-
Detroit, MI3 hours agoArchdiocese of Detroit’s list of parishes chosen for halted Masses grows
-
San Francisco, CA3 hours agoGiants reassign 3B coach Borg; Wotus named interim replacement
-
Dallas, TX3 hours agoVigil honors victims of Dallas apartment explosion that killed three and injured five
