Weekend News Recap
Keeping you up to date on pressing news from May 9 – 12.
Welcome back to Ghost Reader – a publication to help you stay informed when you don’t have the time, access or energy to keep pace with today’s news cycle.
Here’s what you can look forward to this edition:
High-Impact Events: De-escalations in the U.S. and China trade landscape, as well as the conflict between India and Pakistan.
Federal Government Operations: A new court ruling to pause federal worker layoffs, as well as a directive for federal employees to report “anti-Christian bias” in the workplace. We’ll also examine recent news about President Trump potentially receiving an airplane from Qatar.
Human Experience & Rights: Proposed cuts to Medicaid in the most recent draft of Trump’s “big, beautiful” spending bill.
Executive Orders & Legislative Impacts: An executive order for pharmaceutical companies to lower drug prices; and an upcoming court hearing that could carry large implications for President Trump’s tariffs.
Good for the Soul: We’re keeping it light today with a video of Eminem’s “Lose Yourself” set to lines from 331 movies.
Let’s get into it.
High-Impact Events
Catch me up on U.S.-China trade talks
Monday, the U.S. and China agreed to significantly scale back tariffs for 90 days.
What should I know?
The details: Beginning Wednesday (May 14), both countries will reduce tariffs by 115%. This means U.S. tariffs on China will decrease from 145% to 30% and Chinese tariffs on the U.S. will drop from 125% to 10%. China also agreed to roll back some non-tariff measures implemented in retaliation against the U.S. tariffs – more details on what that entails should be released this week.
A quick caveat on the math: The original 20% tariff the U.S. imposed on China due to its alleged role in the fentanyl crisis will remain – that, combined with the 10% reciprocal tariff on all countries – is what equals the 30%.
The rationale: The agreement followed a weekend of negotiations in Switzerland. In acknowledging the tariff impacts, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said the high tariffs were equivalent to a trade embargo and “neither side wants that.” Similarly, the Chinese commerce ministry said the reduction is in the best interests of both countries and the tariffs “seriously damaged normal bilateral economic and trade exchanges and undermined the international economic and trade order.”
How markets responded: Chinese and U.S. markets jumped Monday in response to the news. In the U.S., the S&P 500 rose 2.54%, Dow Jones rose 1.97%, and Nasdaq increased 3.31%. In China, the Hong Kong Stock Exchange’s Hang Seng Index ended the day 3.02% up while the Shanghai Composite Index jumped 0.82%. Both indexes erased all losses since Trump’s April 2 ‘Liberation Day’ tariff announcement.
What comes next: Additional details on China’s ease of non-tariff measures should be released soon, and both sides agreed to continue discussions about economic and trade relations moving forward.
Give me an update on India and Pakistan
Saturday, India and Pakistan agreed to a full, immediate ceasefire following four days of rapidly escalating conflict. While there were reports about potential explosions and violations later that day, as of Monday, it appears that truce is holding.
What should I know?
The context: Last Wednesday, India struck targets in Pakistan and the Pakistani-controlled side of Kashmir in response to an April 22 terrorist attack on the Indian-controlled side of Kashmir that left at least 26 tourists dead and more than a dozen injured. India suggested Pakistan was behind the attack, while Pakistan denied the claim. From last Wednesday to Saturday, the two nuclear-armed countries engaged in their worst fighting in nearly three decades that threatened to erupt into a full-scale war. For more context, check out the May 7 and May 9 editions of Ghost Reader.
How the ceasefire came to be: Three dozen countries are said to have helped facilitate the agreement between India and Pakistan. It’s unclear how involved the U.S. was in the talks, as claims differ between President Trump, U.S. officials, and Indian and Pakistani officials.
About the differing claims: Saturday, President Trump posted on Truth Social that India and Pakistan agreed to a full and immediate ceasefire. Soon after, Secretary of State Marco Rubio claimed the two countries also agreed to start talks on a broader set of issues at a neutral site. India and Pakistan confirmed the agreement shortly after, with differing statements on how it came to be. India’s Ministry of Information said the agreement was reached in direct talks with Pakistan, downplayed U.S. involvement, and said there were no plans for further talks; while Pakistani officials thanked the U.S., claiming Rubio, in particular, was important in facilitating the agreement.
Why this might be: The differing claims shouldn’t be surprising. India has historically resisted international mediation, whereas Pakistan (heavily dependent on foreign aid) tends to welcome it. Dr. Aparna Pande, research fellow for India and South Asia at the Hudson Institute (a think tank in Washington, D.C.) reiterated this, saying India does not like to accept mediation in disputes, but Pakistan always seeks international mediation and views it as the only way to put pressure on India.
Where things stand today: Despite claims that fighting initially continued on Saturday, it appears the ceasefire has held. Regardless, previously announced punitive measures by India and reciprocated by Pakistan – such as trade suspension, border closures, and visa cancellations – will remain in place for now. As of Monday, India reopened 32 airports to civil operations, and Pakistan had also reopened its airspace.
Federal Government Operations
Let’s talk about the latest court order to pause federal worker layoffs
Friday, a California-based judge ordered the Trump administration to temporarily pause layoffs at several federal agencies.
What should I know?
The background: Last week, labor unions and several cities filed a lawsuit seeking to prevent the Trump administration’s firing of federal workers. The request was limited to departments where cuts are underway or planned to occur, such as the Department of Health and Human Services, which announced in March it would lay off 10,000 workers.
Who filed the suit: The cities of San Francisco, Chicago, and Baltimore; as well as the labor group American Federation of Government Employees and nonprofit groups Alliance for Retired Americans, Center for Taxpayer Rights, and Coalition to Protect America’s National Parks.
About the ruling: Presiding Judge Susan Illston issued an emergency order to pause in-motion or planned large-scale reductions in force, ruling the President must request Congressional approval to order such changes. The temporary restraining order will last 14 days and directs numerous federal agencies to pause their efforts to align with the workforce executive order signed in February and subsequent memo issued by the ‘Department of Government Efficiency’ (DOGE) and Office of Personnel Management. The order does not require agencies to rehire people. It applies to the departments of Agriculture, Energy, Labor, Interior, State, Treasury, and Veterans Affairs. It also applies to the National Science Foundation, Small Business Administration, Social security Administration, and Environmental Protection Agency.
The rationale: Illston said the president has authority to seek changes in the executive branch departments and agencies created by Congress, but must do so lawfully and in collaboration with Congress. In the ruling, Illston provided several examples of the impact of recent downsizing, including certain offices that were eliminated and delayed operations due to staffing shortages.
About the Trump administration’s argument: Department of Justice (DOJ) attorneys argued the executive order and memo were only guidelines agencies could use to make their own decisions on reductions in force. This is a similar argument the DOJ made in other cases related to the mass layoffs.
I heard federal workers are supposed to report “anti-Christian bias”
You heard correctly. The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) recently asked employees to report “any instance of anti-Christian discrimination” to a newly established task force. This follows an executive order signed by President Trump to create a so-called “commission on religious liberty.”
What should I know?
Some context: This followed other executive orders to create a Faith Office and plan to “eradicate anti-Christian bias” in the federal government.
The rationale: These moves reflect a persistent claim by the Trump administration that Christians are under attack in the U.S.
The response: Many federal workers and some Christian faith groups have said the executive orders are confusing and possibly problematic – including for those who identify as Christian – who don’t subscribe to the type of evangelicalism the White House promotes. Critics also point out that Title VI of the Civil Rights Act already prohibits religious discrimination in federal programs.
A take on the federal reporting requirement: David Super, a Georgetown Law School professor whose research focuses on administrative law, said asking employees to report unlawful bias is not a bad thing if done honestly; but Trump administration officials “seem to be making little effort to explain or define what anti-Christian bias is” and that he fears “some people will think that Jews, Muslims, or others who do not celebrate Christian holidays will be reported for anti-Christian bias.”
Tell me about the luxury plane Trump might receive
Over the weekend, news broke that Qatar is considering donating an aircraft to the U.S. government for President Trump to temporarily use as an Air Force One plane. While the subject is still said to be in discussions, ethics experts have raised concerns about this potentially violating the U.S. Constitution.
What should I know?
About the potential deal: Sunday, ABC News reported the Trump administration is preparing to accept a plane from the royal family of Qatar. Per the report, Trump would be able to use the jet as his new Air Force One plane until shortly before the end of his term, when it would be transferred to the foundation handling his Presidential Library.
Some background: Trump often complains about the current Air Force One jet and recently criticized Boeing over a contract to build two new planes he said is behind schedule. For context, the Qatari plane is believed to be 13 years old, while the two existing Air Force One aircrafts are more than three decades old and long overdue for upgrades.
The current narrative: While Trump appeared to confirm the discussions in a social media post Sunday night, Qatar’s media attaché to the United States said any reports of a jet being gifted to the U.S. government are inaccurate.
Why this matters: In Article I of the U.S. Constitution, there is something called the “Enoluments Clause.” It states, “No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Enolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.”
What that means: Basically, the President cannot accept gifts or donations from foreign governments without congressional approval, as it would violate the clause.
Again, why this matters: Former U.S. ambassador Norm Eisen (and current executive chair of the Democracy Defenders Fund) said this would probably be the largest gift to a U.S. president by a foreign government in modern history, and that it could set a dangerous precedent. According to legal scholars, the Enoluments Clause was added to the Constitution out of concern American ambassadors might be corrupted by gifts from rich European powers. Aside from that, there is concern the gift raises ethics questions because of how Trump and his family do business with Qatar.
An interesting caveat on how gifts are typically received: Jordan Libowitz, vice president of communications for Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, said when the government receives a gift from a foreign entity that is worth more than a few hundred dollars, the gift is typically given to the National Archives.
Human Experience & Rights
Let’s talk about the proposed cuts to Medicaid
As Republicans approach House Speaker Mike Johnson’s Memorial Day deadline to pass a spending bill, the House recently unveiled a draft that includes at least $880 billion in cuts largely to Medicaid that would help cover the cost of $4.5 trillion in tax breaks.
What should I know?
What Medicaid is: Originally authorized in 1965, it’s a joint federal and state program that helps cover medical costs for some people with limited income and resources. Currently, it provides free health care to more than 70 million Americans, and the Affordable Care Act, which expanded in the 15 years since it was first approved.
A reminder on what’s happening: Currently, there are 11 committees in the House working to compile sections of a spending bill based on the previously passed budget resolution. In the bill, Republicans seek at least $1.5 trillion in savings to cover the cost of preserving Trump’s 2017 tax breaks set to expire at the end of this year.
Where Medicaid comes in: As previously mentioned in this newsletter, there are three programs that make up most of federal spending – Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. To make any meaningful cuts – without cutting defense spending – one or more of those programs will have to see reductions. While President Trump repeatedly said none of the programs will be touched, this recent draft shows something different.
About the proposed changes: To be eligible, the proposal includes new “community engagement requirements” of at least 80 hours per month of work, education, or service for able-bodied adults without dependents. People would also have to verify their eligibility for the program twice a year, rather than what is currently once. Additionally, a 5% boost for states implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic would be eliminated, as would funding to states for immigrants who have not shown proof of citizenship.
The rationale: Republicans responsible for drafting the proposal say it will help root out “waste, fraud, and abuse” and generate savings via the new eligibility requirements.
The potential impact: The changes will likely lead to more churn in the program, presenting hurdles for people to stay covered – especially if they have to drive far distances to local benefits offices to verify their incomes. A preliminary estimate from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said the proposal would reduce the number of people with healthcare by 8.6 million over a decade.
What comes next: Over the next two weeks, House Republicans will hold public hearings on the proposal and other sections of the draft legislation before stitching it all together into what will become the “big, beautiful bill” Trump asked for.
Executive Orders & Legislative Impacts
Catch me up on the EO to lower drug prices
Monday, President Trump signed an executive order directing pharmaceutical companies to lower the prices of their medicines to align with what other countries pay.
What should I know?
The details: The order directs a few things. It gives drugmakers price targets in the next 30 days and will take action to lower prices if companies don’t make “significant progress” toward those goals within six months. It also directs the U.S. Federal Trade Commission to consider aggressive enforcement against what the government calls “anti-competitive practices” by drugmakers. The order also directs the government to consider facilitating direct-to-consumer purchasing programs that would sell drugs at the prices other countries pay.
The background: Currently, the U.S. pays the highest prices for prescription drugs – often nearly three times more than other developed nations.
What happens if companies don’t comply: To be determined. Trump tried to do this during his first term but was blocked by the courts. This time around, he said the government will impose tariffs on companies if U.S. prices don’t match those in other countries, calling for cuts ranging from 59% to 90%. He also said he would consider importing medicines from other developed nations and implementing export restrictions.
About the legal implications: The EO will likely face legal challenges, particularly for exceeding limits set by U.S. law on drug imports from abroad. The order’s suggestion of broader direct-to-consumer importation also stretches beyond current U.S. statutes.
What drug companies said: They were expecting something else. Four lobbyist sources told Reuters they were expecting an executive order that called for “most favored nation” pricing on a subset of Medicare drugs, instead of the broader directive.
Tell me about a lesser known, but significant, lawsuit on tariffs
Tomorrow (May 13), the U.S. Court of International Trade will hear oral arguments in the case of V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump regarding the ‘Liberation Day’ tariffs.
What should I know?
Why this matters: This case challenges the legality of certain tariffs imposed on imported goods, raising questions about the scope of executive authority and impact of trade policy on American businesses.
What will be argued: The Liberty Justice Center will argue the tariffs exceed the President’s authority and violate constitutional protections for businesses engaged in international trade. It will also argue the President exceeded his legal authority beyond what Congress authorized and the executive branch’s actions violated the Constitution’s separation of powers.
About the lawsuit: It challenges the President’s invocation of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to justify the tariffs. Under IEEPA, the President may invoke emergency economic powers only after declaring an emergency in response to “unusual and extraordinary threat” to national security, foreign policy, or the U.S. economy originating outside the U.S. The lawsuit argues the President’s justification for the tariffs – a trade deficit in goods – is neither an emergency nor an unusual or extraordinary threat.
What comes next: We’ll keep an eye on this case, as its outcomes could have far-reaching implications for the tariffs and more broadly, limits on executive power.
Good for the Soul
It’s the start of another week and the world is still full of chaos. Let’s kick Monday off with some hype vibes.
Whether you’re a fan of the musical artist Eminem or not, let’s throw it back to 2002 with this fun video of his popular song “Lose Yourself” represented by 331 movies. May it give us all a little extra grit and amusement to carry us through the week.
That’s all for today. Until Wednesday, let’s keep creating clarity in the chaos.
Did you find today’s newsletter helpful? If so, please share and subscribe.