Maria Varenikova Ukraine’s foreign minister, Andriy Sybiha, called Russia’s statement of conditions for a cease-fire “a set of old ultimatums that do not move the situation any closer to true peace” in a post on X on Tuesday. Two rounds of talks have focused mostly on prisoner exchanges, which the countries were conducting before the Trump administration began pushing for an agreement to end the war. Russia has not responded to the cease-fire conditions Ukraine presented before a meeting Monday in Istanbul at which Russia offered its conditions, Sybiha said. He said Russia had contradicted its “previous promises, including to the United States, that it would put forward something realistic and doable this week in Istanbul,” adding: “Russia has so far rejected any meaningful formats for a cease-fire. This is sufficient reason for our partners to impose new sanctions on Russia, already now.” Ana Swanson President Trump signed an executive order doubling his tariffs on foreign steel and aluminum, to 50 percent, effective tomorrow. He announced the tariffs last week during a visit to a U.S. Steel plant. Steelworkers have cheered the tariffs, but they will invite criticism from foreign countries, as well as companies that use steel and aluminium to make their products and will now pay higher prices. Canada is the largest foreign supplier of both steel and aluminum to the U.S. Catie Edmondson and Benjamin Mullin Catie Edmondson, a congressional correspondent, reported from Washington. Benjamin Mullin, a media reporter, reported from New York. The White House formally asked Congress on Tuesday to claw back more than $9 billion in federal funds that lawmakers had already approved for foreign aid and public broadcasting, seeking to codify spending cuts put forward by Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency. In a package compiled by the Office of Management and Budget, officials outlined 22 programs targeted by President Trump in executive orders and by DOGE. The bulk of the rollbacks — $8.3 billion — are aimed at foreign aid spending. The rest — $1.1 billion — would rescind funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which funds NPR and PBS. The proposal comes as the White House has aggressively challenged Congress’s power of the purse and made clear it is willing to steer around the legislative branch to unilaterally control federal spending. In this case, though, the administration is going through normal channels and asking Congress to go along with its efforts to redirect federal money. Lawmakers can approve such a measure by a simple majority vote in both chambers. Republican lawmakers have argued that it is important for Congress to codify spending cuts that were already enacted by the Trump administration by executive order. “This rescissions package reflects many of DOGE’s findings and is one of the many legislative tools Republicans are using to restore fiscal sanity,” Speaker Mike Johnson said on Tuesday. “Congress will continue working closely with the White House to codify these recommendations, and the House will bring the package to the floor as quickly as possible.” The last time the Trump administration asked lawmakers to pull back federal funds they had already approved, during Mr. Trump’s first term, the effort failed after two Republican senators joined Democrats to defeat what had been a largely symbolic effort. In an attempt to avoid another failed vote, White House officials worked to narrow the range of proposed cuts. But at least one powerful Republican, Senator Susan Collins of Maine, the chairwoman of the Appropriations Committee, said she could not accept at least one provision in the package: a $400 million cut to the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, the global health program started by George W. Bush that is credited with saving more than 25 million lives worldwide. “It appears that it is cutting PEPFAR, and I will not support a cut to PEPFAR, which is a program that has saved literally millions of lives and has been extremely effective and well-run,” Ms. Collins said. Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska said in an opinion column for The Daily News-Miner in Fairbanks, Alaska, last month that she supported government funding for public broadcasting, which she called “a key part of daily life.” With narrow majorities in both chambers, Republicans can afford to lose no more than three votes in either the House or Senate on legislation that is opposed by Democrats, if all members are present and cast a vote. The plan raised alarms at NPR and PBS, which also represent local stations that rely on government grants. Katherine Maher, the chief executive of NPR, said in a memo to employees Tuesday that the clawbacks would have “devastating impact” on local stations and “disproportionately harm audiences in rural communities.” She wrote, “If the funding already appropriated by Congress is rescinded, the effect will be immediate.” Paula Kerger, the chief executive of PBS, said the cuts would deprive Americans of “unique local programming and emergency services in times of crisis.” The package is one of several attempts underway by Republicans to weaken public media. Mr. Trump signed an executive order last month to cut off funding for NPR and PBS, an edict that was challenged in court. Legislation is also working its way through Congress that would eliminate the funding. Patricia Harrison, the chief executive of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, said in a statement that funding from Congress was “irreplaceable.” “The path to better public media is achievable only if funding is maintained," she said. Michael Gold congressional memo When Republicans muscled their sweeping domestic policy bill through the House by a single vote after an overnight debate, they breathed a sigh of relief, enjoyed a celebratory moment at sunrise and then retreated to their districts for a weeklong recess. Not even two weeks later, the victory has, for some, given way to regret. It turns out that the sprawling legislation to advance tax and spending cuts and to cement much of President Trump’s domestic agenda included a raft of provisions that drew little notice or debate on the House floor. And now, Republicans who rallied behind the bill are claiming buyer’s remorse about measures they swear they did not know were included. Last week, Representative Mike Flood of Nebraska admitted during a town hall meeting in his district that he did not know that the bill would limit judges’ power to hold people in contempt for violating court orders. He would not have voted for the measure, he said, if he had realized. And as lawmakers returned to Washington on Tuesday after their weeklong break, Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia said that she had been unaware that the mega-bill she voted for would block states from regulating artificial intelligence for a decade. “Full transparency, I did not know about this section,” Ms. Greene posted on social media, calling it a violation of states’ rights and adding that she “would have voted NO if I had known this was in there.” The remorseful statements highlighted the realities of legislating in the modern age. Members of Congress, divided bitterly along partisan lines and often working against self-imposed political deadlines, have become accustomed to having their leaders throw together huge pieces of legislation at the very last moment — and often do not read the entirety of the bill they are voting on, if they read any of it at all. At the same time, the polarization of Congress means that few pieces of legislation make it to the floor or to enactment — and the few “must pass” bills that do are almost always stuffed full of unrelated policy measures that would otherwise have little hope of passing on their own. In the case of the 1,037-page bill the G.O.P. is calling the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, Republicans barely cobbled together the votes to pass it after a protracted fight within their ranks and significant pressure from Mr. Trump to advance some of his top domestic priorities. As a number of disparate factions threatened to withhold their support, the focus remained on Mr. Trump’s key agenda items: extending tax cuts, boosting defense and immigration spending and rolling back Biden-era climate initiatives. The effort ended with a sprint to the finish line as Speaker Mike Johnson tried to meet a self-imposed Memorial Day deadline for passing the bill. The final version was not completed and moved to the floor until 10:40 p.m. the evening before it passed, giving lawmakers eight hours overnight to read it and decide how they would vote. By then, it was clear that nearly every Republican was going to toe the party line and vote “yes.” With the legislative battle in the rearview mirror and the measure in the hands of the Senate, House Republicans can now turn to a politically expedient excuse that they often used to defend their votes on giant spending bills with small objectionable provisions: that the bill was simply too big. Ms. Greene said she was not sure whether other colleagues had similar concerns about provisions in the bill that they might not have been aware of. “You know, it’s hard to read over 1,000 pages when things keep changing up to the last minute before we voted on it,” she said. Their criticism was echoed in part by Elon Musk, a staunch Trump supporter who just last week left his role leading the Department of Government Efficiency. On Tuesday, he unloaded on the sprawling measure, which he described as “massive, outrageous, pork-filled” and “a disgusting abomination.” “Shame on those who voted for it,” Mr. Musk wrote. “You know you did wrong. You know it.” Both Ms. Greene and Mr. Flood have urged Republican senators to strike the provisions that they are concerned about. That may well happen, since both could run afoul of the special rules that Republicans are using to push the legislation through the Senate on a simple-majority vote, shielding it from a filibuster and Democratic opposition. Such bills must comply with strict rules that require that all of their components have a direct effect on federal revenues. Still, Democrats swiftly criticized Ms. Greene and Mr. Flood for failing to properly examine legislation that both of them had backed and at various points championed. “PRO TIP: It’s helpful to read stuff before voting on it.” Representative Ted Lieu of California said, responding to Ms. Greene’s post. And throughout the debate on the bill, Democrats repeatedly voiced their objections to the language that would bar states from setting their own regulations on artificial intelligence. “I even brought this provision up during the debate,” Representative Brendan Boyle, a Pennsylvania Democrat, wrote on social media. “I welcome those on the other side to join me in opposition to it.” The language that Mr. Flood said he opposed, which could potentially shield Mr. Trump and members of his administration from being held in contempt for disobeying court orders, was part of a larger push by Republicans to address injunctions that have blocked the president’s executive actions. The measure was advanced out of committee three weeks before the policy bill passed the House. Still, at a town hall last week, Mr. Flood told constituents in Nebraska that it was “unknown to me when I voted for the bill.” Met with boos from the crowd, he added: “I am not going to hide the truth.” Glenn Thrush Reporting from Washington The Justice Department has abruptly dropped its effort to force Peter Navarro, President Trump’s trade adviser, to turn over hundreds of his emails dating to the first Trump administration to the National Archives, according to a court filing on Tuesday. The decision to drop the civil lawsuit was disclosed in a one-page notice filed in Federal District Court in the District of Columbia. The department offered no explanation for the move, but it is one of many recent actions it has taken to dismiss criminal and civil actions taken against Trump allies. Mr. Navarro, 75, had long resisted the government’s request that he give the archives emails from his personal ProtonMail account relating to his role as a White House adviser, as required by the Presidential Records Act. Defiance is Mr. Navarro’s default. He served about four months in the geriatric unit of a federal prison in Miami after refusing to comply with a subpoena to appear before a congressional committee investigating his false claims about the 2020 election. In 2022, the Biden Justice Department sued Mr. Navarro, one of the main architects of Mr. Trump’s second-term tariff policy, to retrieve the communications. The lawsuit charged him with “wrongfully retaining presidential records that are the property of the United States, and which constitute part of the permanent historical record of the prior administration.” The lawsuit accused Mr. Navarro of using his private email account to conduct public work, including an effort to influence the White House response to the pandemic. Those emails were needed to preserve the historical record, officials at the archives said. Mr. Navarro unsuccessfully petitioned the Supreme Court to dismiss the suit last year. A federal magistrate judge earlier reviewed about 900 messages, determining that more than 500 were not presidential records. He ordered additional hearings to decide how many of the remaining 350-plus emails needed to be turned over to the government. Mr. Navarro’s lawyer did not immediately return a request for comment. Stanley Woodward, who represented Mr. Navarro in both his civil and criminal cases, recused himself after Mr. Trump appointed him in April to serve as associate attorney general. Michael Gold Representative Scott Perry, Republican of Pennsylvania and a member of the ultraconservative House Freedom Caucus, said that he agreed with Musk’s criticism of the Republican domestic policy bill — even though Perry voted to pass it. Perry was among several fiscal hawks and conservative hardliners who ended up voting for the bill after threatening to withhold support if it did not more substantially address their concerns about the national debt. In a social media post, Perry said he wished he “had a nickel” for every time the Freedom Caucus “sounded the alarm and nobody listened, only to find out the hard way we were right all along.” But he did not address the fact that most members of the caucus voted for the bill. Sheryl Gay Stolberg Reporting from Washington The Trump administration announced on Tuesday that it had revoked a Biden administration requirement that hospitals provide emergency abortions to women whose health is in peril, including in states where abortion is restricted or banned. The move by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, a branch of the department led by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., was not a surprise. But it added to growing confusion around emergency care and abortions since June 2022, when the Supreme Court rescinded the national right to abortion by overturning Roe v. Wade. “It basically gives a bright green light to hospitals in red states to turn away pregnant women who are in peril,” Lawrence O. Gostin, a health law expert at Georgetown University, said of the Trump administration’s move. The administration did not explicitly tell hospitals that they were free to turn away women seeking abortions in medical emergencies. Its policy statement said hospitals would still be subject to a federal law requiring them to provide reproductive health care in emergency situations. But it did not explain exactly what that meant. Mr. Gostin and other experts said the murky policy could have dire consequences for pregnant women by discouraging doctors from performing emergency abortions in states where abortions are banned or restricted. “We’ve already seen since the overturn of Roe that uncertainty and confusion tends to mean physicians are unwilling to intervene, and the more unwilling physicians are to intervene, the more risk there is in pregnancy,” said Mary Ziegler, a professor at the University of California-Davis and a historian of the American abortion debate. “This is not just withdrawing what the Biden administration did,” she said. “It’s creating a lot of unanswered questions about what hospitals are supposed to do going forward. So more confusion means more risk.” Abortion opponents were pleased. “President Trump promised to dismantle the abortion radicalism left by his predecessor, and today another abortion mandate bites the dust,” said Roger Severino, the vice president for domestic policy at the conservative Heritage Foundation, who served in the first Trump administration. At issue is how the government should interpret the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, a 1986 law aimed at discouraging hospitals from turning away patients who lack insurance or cannot afford care. The law requires hospitals that receive federal funding to treat or stabilize emergency patients, or transfer them to a facility that can provide care. The law does not specifically include abortion, but Mr. Gostin said administrations going back to President George W. Bush have interpreted it that way. After the Supreme Court overturned Roe, the Biden administration reminded hospitals that the law obligated them to provide abortions in cases where they were medically necessary. In a statement announcing the revocation of that policy, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services said it would “work to rectify any perceived legal confusion and instability created by the former administration’s actions.” The Biden policy resulted in lawsuits; the Biden administration sued Idaho, and Texas sued the administration. Both states asserted that their laws restricting abortion superseded the emergency medical act. Idaho has one of the strictest abortion bans in the nation, offering an exception only when the life — not the health — of the mother is at risk. The Idaho case made its way to the Supreme Court last year. But the court ultimately decided that it had taken the case in error and dismissed it, leaving intact a lower-court ruling that allowed women in the state to receive abortions when their health was at risk. Karoun Demirjian and John Ismay Reporting from Washington Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has ordered the Navy to review the names of vessels honoring prominent civil rights leaders, including Harvey Milk, who was one of the country’s first openly gay elected officials and a Navy veteran. News of Mr. Hegseth’s decision, reported earlier by Military.com, comes just days into Pride Month, which celebrates the contributions of luminaries in the L.G.B.T.Q. community. Instead, Mr. Hegseth’s order was intended as a rebuke of Pride Month, keeping with the Trump administration’s drive to expunge diversity, equity and inclusion efforts across the federal government, according to a senior defense official familiar with the decision. Mr. Milk is one of several trailblazers whose name has been identified for possible removal from naval vessels. According to a senior official familiar with a memo from John Phelan, the secretary of the Navy, they include Thurgood Marshall, the first Black Supreme Court justice; Ruth Bader Ginsburg, another Supreme Court justice, who became a feminist icon; Harriet Tubman, who, after being born into slavery, became an abolitionist instrumental in the Underground Railroad; Lucy Stone, a prominent abolitionist and suffragist; Medgar Evers, a civil-rights leader who was assassinated by a member of the Ku Klux Klan; Cesar Chavez, a labor leader; and Dolores Huerta, another labor leader. The names of the additional ships under review were previously reported by CBS News. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly about unannounced policy decisions. “Secretary Hegseth is committed to ensuring that the names attached to all DOD installations and assets are reflective of the commander in chief’s priorities, our nation’s history, and the warrior ethos,” the Pentagon said in a statement issued on Tuesday. Any potential ship renaming, the statement said, “will be announced after internal reviews are complete.” In January, Mr. Hegseth issued an order stating that the military would not expend resources to recognize cultural awareness months, including Pride. Representative Nancy Pelosi, the former speaker of the House, condemned the move. “Our military is the most powerful in the world — but this spiteful move does not strengthen our national security or the ‘warrior’ ethos,” Ms. Pelosi, a California Democrat, wrote on social media. “It is a shameful, vindictive erasure of those who fought to break down barriers for all to chase the American Dream.” The vessels in question are mostly John Lewis-class fleet replenishment ships, named for Representative John Lewis of Georgia, a prominent figure in the civil rights movement who died in 2020. Congress began funding the construction of those ships in late 2015, and the first of them was launched in 2021. Not all of the vessels that might be subject to renaming have yet been put into service. The U.S.N.S. Cesar Chavez and U.S.N.S. Medgar Evers belong to a separate class of supply ships but serve a similar purpose of supporting warships at sea with fuel, ammunition and other supplies. Several of the military’s official web pages noting the introduction of some of those vessels were nonfunctional Tuesday afternoon. Amy Harmon The U.S. Bureau of Prisons must provide transgender inmates with hormone therapy and social accommodations such as gender-appropriate clothing while a lawsuit over the issue proceeds, a federal judge ruled on Tuesday. The ruling, by Judge Royce C. Lamberth of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, also certified a class-action lawsuit filed on behalf of more than 1,000 inmates who have been diagnosed with gender dysphoria. The lawsuit claims the Trump administration’s policy denying gender-related treatment to prisoners violates their Eighth Amendment right to medical care and the Administrative Procedure Act, which prohibits “arbitrary and capricious” actions by federal agencies. In his order, Judge Lamberth said it was not necessary to address the constitutional issue at this stage of the case because the plaintiffs were likely to prevail on Administrative Procedure Act grounds. Under the act, he wrote, the Bureau of Prisons “may not arbitrarily deprive inmates of medications or other lifestyle accommodations that its own medical staff have deemed to be medically appropriate without considering the implications of that decision.” Judge Lamberth was appointed by President Ronald Reagan. The ruling temporarily blocks a policy that stemmed from an executive order, issued by President Trump the day he took office, that no federal funds be spent for medical treatments “for the purpose of conforming an inmate’s appearance to that of the opposite sex.” That order, part of a broader push to eliminate protections for transgender people in the United States, suggested that recognizing the legitimacy of gender identities that do not match a person’s biological sex “has a corrosive impact” on the “entire American system.” One plaintiff in the suit, Alishea Kingdom, a transgender woman who had been receiving hormone therapy since 2016, was denied hormone injections under the new policy, though she later began receiving them again, according to court documents. Two other plaintiffs, both transgender men, were told that their hormone therapies would not be renewed. Each was denied access to undergarments or hygiene products that corresponded with their gender identity. About 600 inmates with gender dysphoria are receiving hormone treatments, according to the Bureau of Prisons. The judge’s order does not require the bureau to provide gender-related surgeries. The number of inmates requesting such operations is minuscule, and only two such surgeries are known to have been performed on inmates. Gender dysphoria can “produce severe side effects ranging from depression and anxiety to suicidal ideation and self-harm if inadequately treated,” the judge wrote, adding that the Bureau of Prisons “does not dispute this medical reality.” He wrote that it was not necessary to take into account debates over the efficacy of hormone therapies in his decision to issue a preliminary injunction against the policy. “To conclude that the defendants have failed to meet the procedural strictures of the APA,” Judge Lamberth wrote, referring to the Administrative Procedure Act, “is not to take any position on the underlying merits of the BOP’s substantive policy decisions or the goals motivating the Executive Order.” Ana Swanson Ana Swanson covers international trade and the U.S.-China economic relationship. She reported from Washington. The U.S.-China trade conflict is quickly morphing into a fight over global supply chains, as the two nations limit the sharing of critical technologies that could have lasting consequences for scores of industries. The United States last week suspended some sales to China of components and software used in jet engines and semiconductors, a response to a clampdown by Beijing on the export of minerals used in large sectors of manufacturing. Both sides over the last few days have accused the other of operating in bad faith. The supply chain warfare, which comes on top of tariffs the two countries have inflicted on the other’s imports, has alarmed companies that say they cannot make their products without components sourced from both. And it has made officials in Washington increasingly nervous about other choke points where China could squeeze the United States, including pharmaceuticals or shipping. In recent weeks, the airplane industry has emerged as both a weapon, and a victim, in this fight. The jet engine technology that powers airplanes, and the navigation systems that control them, largely come from the United States, developed by companies like General Electric. In China’s quest to build a viable competitor to Boeing, for example, it has had to source engine technology from GE Aerospace. But a jet engine also cannot be made without China. Minerals that are processed there are essential for special coatings and components that help the engine operate smoothly at high temperatures, as well as other uses. Beijing restricted exports of those minerals, known as rare earths, in April after President Trump began imposing high tariffs on Chinese imports. The move has threatened to shutter what is left of advanced manufacturing in the United States — including the work done by many defense contractors. In May, Ford Motor temporarily closed a factory in Chicago after one of its suppliers ran out of the magnets it needed to build cars. The United States responded with its own tech restrictions. Last week, U.S. officials suspended some licenses that allowed American companies to ship airplane technology to China, as well as others related to biotechnology and semiconductors, people familiar with the move say. At the same time, officials in the Department of Defense, the Department of the Interior and the National Security Council are accelerating efforts to find more domestic supplies of rare earths, including considering U.S. government funding for new mines and processing facilities, people familiar with the matter said. But any such efforts could take years to come to fruition. On average, it has taken the United States 29 years to develop a single mine, according to statistics from S&P. The Trump administration is also weighing further actions. It has been considering including major Chinese chipmakers, as well as units of Chinese technology giants like Alibaba, Tencent and Baidu, on a so-called entity list that prohibits them from engaging in trade with the United States, people familiar with the discussions said. The supply chain battle has been years in the making. And both countries have been trying to guard against the other’s control of strategic goods by diversifying their own sources of supply. After Mr. Trump levied tariffs on China during his first term, many American companies established factories in countries outside of China, including Vietnam and Mexico. Xi Jinping, China’s leader, set out to make his country less reliant on foreign sources of energy and technology by pumping huge investments into factories making semiconductors, solar panels and electric vehicles. Even so, the economies remain deeply integrated, an intractable reality as hundreds of billions of dollars in trade flow across the Pacific each year. While both countries are resolved to reduce their dependencies on the other for national security reasons, doing so will be expensive and painful. Since 2022, for example, the United States has been steadily expanding a global system to regulate advanced semiconductors and stop the technology from flowing to China. The rules have been aimed at restricting China’s access to artificial intelligence and advanced computing needed to augment its military. But they have been met with fierce resistance from an industry that sees China as an important source of revenue. The United States has extended these export controls around the world, even forbidding companies in other countries from selling products to China if they use American parts, technology or software to manufacture them. While some foreign governments have bristled at these rules, many have fallen in line. This system rests on the idea that the United States should be the sole global power whose rules other countries need to abide by. But for China, rare earth minerals are a way to challenge the American assertion of dominance. Beijing set up a licensing system that allows it to monitor and approve sales of rare earths, and magnets made from them, to companies worldwide. When Mr. Trump ratcheted up tariffs on China to 145 percent in April, Beijing responded by targeting shipments of rare earths, including pausing many of them. In May, American and Chinese officials arranged a meeting in Geneva to try to defuse their trade tensions. The Trump administration had several reasons to try to strike a truce. Companies had been warning of the risk of empty store shelves later this year because of plummeting imports from China, and stock and bond markets were flashing warning signs. But it was China’s rare earth restrictions that appeared to put the most pressure on the United States to reach a resolution. Negotiators agreed in Geneva to lower tariffs. As part of the deal, China said it would “suspend or remove the non-tariff countermeasures taken against the United States since April,” according to a joint statement. U.S. officials say Chinese shipments have yet to return to their previous levels. During an appearance on CNBC on Friday, Jamieson Greer, the United States Trade Representative, said that the Chinese were “slow-rolling their compliance” and that American officials “haven’t seen the flow of some of those critical minerals like they’re supposed to be doing.” Mr. Trump was more blunt. In a post on Truth Social on Friday, he wrote that China had “TOTALLY VIOLATED ITS AGREEMENT WITH US,” adding, “So much for being Mr. NICE GUY!” Lin Jian, a spokesman for the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, denied the accusation in a briefing Tuesday, saying that China had “earnestly implemented” the consensus reached in Geneva. Chinese officials say it is the United States that broke the deal, including by issuing a notice saying that the use of chips made by Huawei, the Chinese technology firm, anywhere in the world violated U.S. law. “The U.S., without any factual basis, has smeared and accused China, imposed export controls on chips, suspended sales of chip design software to China and announced the cancellation of Chinese student visas — extreme measures that severely undermine the Geneva Consensus and harm China’s legitimate rights and interests,” Mr. Lin said. While some U.S. auto and electronics makers have recently received licenses from China for mineral shipments, the uncertainty and continued backlog of requests for the products are continuing to make companies nervous. China had also appeared to be giving preference to European companies over American ones. The tensions are spilling over into other aspects of the United States’ diplomatic relations with China. The Trump administration has also proposed plans to “aggressively revoke” visas of Chinese students, including those with ties to the Communist Party. So far, it is unclear how the tensions can be defused. Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, said Monday that Mr. Trump and Mr. Xi would likely speak in a call this week. The Chinese foreign ministry spokesman said he had “no information to offer” on the call. Daniel H. Rosen, the co-founder of Rhodium Group, a research company, said that Beijing recognized years ago that rare earths would be central to advanced technologies and subsidized the build-out of those supplies. The United States, he added, “horribly underestimated” the demand for them. China mines 70 percent of the world’s rare earths, but it does the chemical processing for 90 percent of them. The country also makes more than 80 percent of the world’s batteries, more than 70 percent of its electric cars, and about half of the world’s steel, iron and aluminum, according to data from the International Energy Agency. Securing an alternative supply would likely require the United States to invest hundreds of billions of dollars, Mr. Rosen said, and cooperation with global partners who were willing to work to set up supply chains outside of China. “It’s going to be expensive,” he said. “We have a long way to go.” While some shipments of minerals have restarted, many U.S. industries remain anxious about shortages of supplies. Paul Triolo, a partner at Albright Stonebridge Group, said the Chinese licensing system was cumbersome and that there had been a notable drop in shipments of critical minerals since the start of April, when Mr. Trump first issued astronomical tariffs on China. Mr. Triolo said the United States had no choice except to negotiate with Beijing on the issue, as well as set up a long-term strategy with other countries to reduce its dependence on China over the next five to seven years. “This problem is deep and long lasting,” he said. “It will not go away, or be easily solved.” Chris Buckley, Keith Bradsher and Amy Chang Chien contributed reporting and research. Michael Gold Amid his attacks on House Republicans over their sweeping domestic policy agenda bill, Elon Musk ominously warned on social media that Americans would “fire all politicians who betrayed the American people” in next year’s midterm elections. Musk, the world’s richest person, spent hundreds of millions of dollars to back Republicans in last year’s elections, but recently said he planned on “a lot less” spending in the next cycle. But Musk’s deep pockets and previous spending have made some Republicans fearful that he might back primary challengers. Zach Montague Reporting from Washington The Trump administration has backed off a demand that states hand over personal information about food stamp recipients in the face of a lawsuit brought by a coalition of public interest groups. An Agriculture Department official said in a sworn statement filed in the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia over the weekend that the agency was pausing its plans, announced last month, to create a database of Americans who receive nutrition benefits through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP. The move was a rare instance of the Trump administration proceeding cautiously amid litigation, relenting for now before potential intervention by a judge. The Agriculture Department released guidance outlining the federal government’s intentions in May. The document referred to states and territories, which administer the program independently, as “a SNAP information silo” and directed state agencies to begin providing personal data on recipients under an executive order that President Trump signed in March. The data the department requested from state administrators includes identifying details on recipients including home addresses, federal tax returns and social security numbers. A group of individuals and nonprofits quickly filed a lawsuit challenging the policy on personal privacy grounds, represented by lawyers from public interest groups including the Protect Democracy Project and the National Student Legal Defense Network. The lawsuit raised broader concerns about the data-collection efforts driven by Elon Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency team he has left in place, which have spawned multiple legal challenges. At the same time the Agriculture Department was canvassing data from states, Mr. Musk’s team was also contacting third-party companies that process bank transactions tied to the benefits in an attempt to build out the database, according to emails first reported by NPR. Mr. Musk’s team has in recent months taken steps to merge and centralize sensitive data maintained by multiple federal agencies, including the Social Security Administration, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Education and others. The Trump administration has also quietly enlisted Palantir, a data analysis firm, to organize and interrogate that data in order to piece together holistic portraits of individual Americans based on the totality of the information stored on them across the federal government. The lawsuit against the Agriculture Department argued that the demand for up-to-date information on SNAP recipients fit the larger pattern, and promised to put tens of millions of people who rely on the program into a system where they could be scrutinized over eligibility requirements. In a filing, the groups suing noted that Alaska, Arkansas, Iowa and Ohio had already started producing data, and that all other states were already facing pressure to comply in violation of federal privacy laws. “This case concerns the executive branch’s attempt to round up the sensitive personal data of tens of millions of economically vulnerable Americans with callous indifference for the mandatory privacy protections enshrined in federal law,” the groups wrote. The concerns raised in the lawsuit have been compounded by proposals by Republicans in Congress to dramatically shrink SNAP and other federal anti-poverty programs as part of sweeping cuts that lawmakers have used to justify tax cuts concentrated on the wealthiest Americans. An analysis by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office found that the provisions of the tax cut bill could result in 1.3 million people losing access to SNAP benefits. After the groups suing moved to block the Agriculture Department from implementing the policy, the government said in its filing that it had yet to receive any data and would not proceed until it had taken steps “to satisfy all necessary legal requirements.” Michael Gold Speaker Mike Johnson called Elon Musk’s criticism of the domestic policy bill “very disappointing,” telling reporters at the Capitol that the two had spoken on Monday and that Musk “seemed to understand” the virtues of the legislation. “For him to come out and pan the whole bill is to me just very disappointing, very surprising,” Johnson said. Johnson specifically cited changes the bill would make to subsidies and tax credits meant to spur the production and purchases of electric vehicles. “I know that has an effect on his business, and I lament that,” he said. But he added that he did not believe the government should be subsidizing a transition to electric cars. Catie Edmondson Democrats are loving Elon Musk’s tweet denigrating the G.O.P.’s signature domestic policy bill as an “abomination.” Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the minority leader, brought a printed-out copy of Musk’s X posts to the party’s weekly news conference. “He’s right,” Schumer said. “Republicans should listen to him.” Michael Gold Representative Jasmine Crockett of Texas announced to her colleagues that she was running to become the top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, making her the fourth person to jump into an internal contest that is shaping up to be a generational battle over a prominent post. In a letter sent today, Crockett, 44, highlighted her experience as a lawyer and her strong fund-raising numbers and said that Democrats needed to put up a stronger fight against Trump and Republicans. “No longer can it be the case that as Democrats we continue to go above and beyond to get back-breaking work done, yet receive no credit,” she wrote. Kate CongerMichael Gold and Jonathan Swan Elon Musk lashed out on Tuesday against the far-reaching Republican bill intended to enact President Trump’s domestic policy agenda, posting on X that it was a “disgusting abomination” and telling House members who voted for it: “You know you did wrong.” The tech billionaire criticized the bill, one of Mr. Trump’s top priorities, in a series of about 10 posts. In them, Mr. Musk reshared commentary from lawmakers like Senators Rand Paul of Kentucky and Mike Lee of Utah, two Republicans who had sided with him in opposing the rising U.S. deficit. “I’m sorry, but I just can’t stand it anymore,” Mr. Musk wrote on X. He called the domestic policy bill “massive, outrageous, pork-filled,” adding that it would “massively increase the already gigantic budget deficit” and that “Congress is making America bankrupt.” He did not target any specific members of Congress, but hinted that he might support efforts to unseat those who backed the bill in the 2026 midterm elections. “In November next year, we fire all politicians who betrayed the American people,” he wrote. The blitz of messages signaled a widening rift between Mr. Musk and Mr. Trump as the tech mogul winds down his governmental role leading the Department of Government Efficiency. While the men have publicly professed continued admiration for each other, Mr. Musk’s departure from Washington has appeared to liberate him from presenting a united front with the White House. Instead, he has returned to wielding his brand of unpredictable political influence through X, the social media platform he owns. In December, before Mr. Trump’s inauguration, Mr. Musk torpedoed a bipartisan spending bill with an onslaught of posts on X, including a threat to find primary challengers for Republicans who supported it. In March, he tried unsuccessfully to sway the outcome of a Wisconsin judicial race with myriad posts in favor of the conservative candidate. Now unshackled from loyalty to the Trump party line, Mr. Musk can again foment chaos with his X feed. Mr. Musk, 53, has often criticized legislation, agencies and others that are against the interests of himself and his companies, which include the electric carmaker Tesla and the rocket company SpaceX. In its current form, Mr. Trump’s domestic policy bill would end subsidies and tax credits meant to spur consumers to buy electric vehicles, which would have ramifications for Tesla. The House speaker, Mike Johnson, called Mr. Musk’s criticism of the domestic policy bill “very disappointing.” He told reporters at the Capitol that the two spoke on Monday and that Mr. Musk “seemed to understand” the virtues of the legislation. The White House and the president were caught off guard by Mr. Musk’s posts, a person with knowledge of the situation said, but it’s not yet clear whether Mr. Trump will return fire. “The president already knows where Elon Musk stood on this bill,” said Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary. “It doesn’t change the president’s opinion. This is one big, beautiful bill, and he’s sticking to it.” A representative for Mr. Musk did not respond to requests for comment. Mr. Trump has urged swift passage of the legislation — officially called the One Big, Beautiful Bill Act — which would slash taxes, providing the biggest savings to the wealthy, and steer more money to the military and immigration enforcement. As written, the legislation would cut health, nutrition, education and clean energy programs to cover part of the cost. White House officials and Mr. Johnson have claimed that the bill would shrink the national debt, although the Congressional Budget Office and a number of independent analysts have estimated that the bill would increase federal deficits by well over $1 trillion, even when economic growth is factored in. Mr. Musk posted his criticism at a critical moment for the bill, which passed the House on May 22 in the face of a strong pressure campaign by Mr. Trump. As Mr. Johnson corralled several competing Republican factions, the president summoned recalcitrant holdouts to the White House, and his staff likened Republican opposition to the bill to “the ultimate betrayal.” But Republican senators have already made clear that they plan to make changes to the bill. Fiscal conservatives, alarmed at the estimates that it would swell the national debt, have demanded further changes and cuts to Medicaid and other programs that could help rein in deficits. Mr. Trump has warned Republicans not to mess with Medicaid, a program that many of his supporters rely on. Mr. Musk started publicly criticizing Mr. Trump’s bill last week, saying on CBS News’s “Sunday Morning” that he was disappointed in the legislation’s size and impact on the deficit. People close to the congressional negotiations said Mr. Musk was disappointed that Republicans were removing electric vehicle subsidies, according to two people familiar with the negotiations. “I know that has an effect on his business, and I lament that,” Mr. Johnson said. But he added that he did not believe the government should be subsidizing a transition to electric cars. In an earlier public break with the administration, Mr. Musk slammed the president’s top trade adviser, Peter Navarro, as a “moron” and “dumber than a sack of bricks” in a series of X posts in April. Tesla executives said Mr. Musk, who abstained from criticizing Mr. Trump directly, seemed not to immediately realize the impact that the administration’s tariffs could have on the automaker. The White House downplayed the conflict at the time. Asked about it then, Ms. Leavitt said, “Boys will be boys.” Late that month, Mr. Musk was briefed on the tariffs’ effects and the company’s supply chain vulnerabilities. Mr. Musk’s threats about unseating Republicans contrast with his political spending last year. His super PAC, America PAC, spent about $20 million in the last election cycle to boost Republicans running for the House. And a different PAC he backed spent $10 million to help Republicans in the Senate. Some Democrats celebrated Mr. Musk’s criticism. Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the minority leader, brought a printed-out copy of Mr. Musk’s X posts to the party’s weekly news conference on Tuesday. “He’s right,” Mr. Schumer said. “Republicans should listen to him.” Earlier on Tuesday, Mr. Musk — who appeared onstage at the Conservative Political Action Conference in February with a chain saw and said it would be “easy” to save the government billions of dollars — shared a meme on X that included a photo of fingertips pinching a minuscule pair of scissors. “Republicans getting ready to reduce the size of government,” the caption read. Shawn McCreesh, Theodore Schleifer and Catie Edmondson contributed reporting. Shawn McCreesh President Trump has been uncharacteristically calm and tolerant of dissent when it comes to his relationship with Elon Musk. He has said at times that he does not want to break with Musk, because doing so would give the media too much pleasure. It was one thing when Musk was tangling with cabinet secretaries and aides. But what Musk posted today is something else: an attack on one of the administration’s tentpole efforts, one on which Trump is expending significant political capital. Michael Gold Musk’s fierce criticism of what Trump has referred to as his “one big, beautiful bill” threatens to set up a clash between two men who hold access to bully pulpits. Trump has long used screeds on his social media platform, Truth Social, to try and cow recalcitrant lawmakers to get behind his agenda. Since buying X, Musk has used his massive following there to mount pressure campaigns against politicians and billionaires. Both men have also been willing to use their access to fortunes or fund-raising in political battles, concerning Republicans worried about primary challengers. Theodore Schleifer As Musk tees off on the House G.O.P., it’s worth noting that he is somewhat responsible for the body’s current makeup. His super PAC, America PAC, spent about $20 million in the last election cycle to boost Republicans running for the House. And he spent more than $10 million to help Republicans in the Senate. Michael Gold Elon Musk’s criticism of the Republican mega-bill, which is meant to push forward President Trump’s domestic agenda, also echoes the arguments that have been made by Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky — whom Trump has been digitally browbeating for opposing the legislation. Both Musk and Paul have expressed concern that the bill would balloon federal deficits. But Musk also has a significant financial stake in the bill. As passed by the House, the bill would end credits for electric vehicles — including Teslas — at the end of the year. Shawn McCreesh Elon Musk has added to the criticism of the Republican bill that the White House is trying to push through Congress. “It will massively increase the already gigantic budget deficit,” he wrote on X a few minutes ago. “Congress is making America bankrupt,” he added in a follow-up post. It is noteworthy that he made the posts at about the same time the press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, was at the podium in the White House briefing room vociferously refuting the idea that the bill would balloon the deficit. This represents the most pronounced public split between Musk and the White House. Farnaz FassihiDavid E. Sanger and Jonathan Swan The Trump administration is proposing an arrangement that would allow Iran to continue enriching uranium at low levels while the United States and other countries work out a more detailed plan intended to block Iran’s path to a nuclear weapon but give it access to fuel for new nuclear power plants. The proposal amounts to a diplomatic bridge, intended to maneuver beyond the current situation, in which Iran is rapidly producing near-bomb-grade uranium, to reach the U.S. goal of Iran enriching no uranium at all on its soil. But it is far from clear that the Iranians will go along. Under the proposal, the United States would facilitate the building of nuclear power reactors for Iran and negotiate the construction of enrichment facilities managed by a consortium of regional countries. Once Iran began receiving any benefits from those promises, it would have to stop all enrichment in the country. The outline of the potential deal, which was described on the condition of anonymity by Iranian and European officials, was handed to Iran over the weekend. Officials in Tehran indicated on Monday that a response would come in several days. It is the first concrete indication since President Trump took office that the United States and Iran might be able to find a path to compromise that would head off a potential regional war over Tehran’s ambitions to build a nuclear weapon. But the details remain vague, the two sides remain far apart on some elements of a deal, and the domestic politics for both are complex. In his first term, Mr. Trump canceled an agreement negotiated under President Barack Obama that had similarly sought to keep Iran from being able to produce a nuclear bomb. At least in the opening years of the proposed arrangement, when new enrichment facilities to produce fuel for power plants are being built in cooperation with Arab states, Iran would be allowed to continue enriching uranium at low levels, despite Mr. Trump’s post on social media on Monday saying the United States would “not allow any enrichment of uranium.” (It is possible that he was referring to what would be allowed at the concluding stage of the potential deal rather than during an interim arrangement.) The idea of a regional consortium would essentially wrap Iran in a bearhug with countries that might include the United States, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and others, allowing the production of low-grade nuclear fuel for power plants while seeking to ensure that Iran is not enriching fuel on its own for a bomb. But one key unresolved question is whether Iran’s leadership will agree to an ultimate arrangement in which no nuclear fuel is produced on Iranian soil. “We do not need anyone’s permission to enrich uranium,” Iran’s foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, said on Tuesday. Israel has also been deeply skeptical of any deal that would leave Iran with nuclear capabilities. It has repeatedly suggested that now is the time for a military strike on Iranian nuclear facilities, citing Tehran’s degraded air defense systems and the weakness of its regional allies Hamas and Hezbollah. Iran, however, still possesses a formidable arsenal of conventional weapons, including ballistic missiles, capable of threatening Israel, Gulf neighbors and U.S. bases in the region. Iranian officials have warned that in the event of a military strike on their nuclear facilities, they would respond forcefully, exit the nonproliferation agreement and end international inspectors’ access to sites. The wording of the new proposal, crafted by Steve Witkoff, Mr. Trump’s special envoy to the Middle East, is vaguely worded on many of the most important issues, suggesting that considerable negotiating lies ahead, Iranian and European officials said. For example, it is unclear that the accord meets the standard Mr. Trump said last week that he would demand, an agreement where “we can take whatever we want, we can blow up whatever we want.” Senior Iranian officials involved in the negotiations called the bombastic statement “a fantasy.” Mr. Araghchi said on Monday at the sideline of meetings in Egypt with officials that Iran would “soon send America an appropriate response. Without respecting our right to enrich uranium, there will be no agreement.” He added that he was confident of a diplomatic breakthrough to avert further crises. Some details of the proposal were reported earlier by Axios. Asked about Mr. Witkoff’s outline, Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, said on Monday that “President Trump has made it clear that Iran can never obtain a nuclear bomb.” In a statement to The New York Times, she added: “Special Envoy Witkoff has sent a detailed and acceptable proposal to the Iranian regime, and it’s in their best interest to accept it. Out of respect for the ongoing deal, the administration will not comment on details of the proposal to the media.” Any breakthrough would be a diplomatic victory for Mr. Trump, whose efforts to negotiate a cease-fire in the Russia-Ukraine war have floundered. His diplomacy with Iran has also been unexpected: After pulling out of the Obama-era nuclear agreement, he ordered the killing in early 2020 of one of Iran’s highest-ranking generals. Iran, in return, has been accused by U.S. officials of hiring assassins to kill Mr. Trump during his 2024 presidential campaign. Iran has denied the allegations. The Trump administration’s proposal, according to two Iranian officials, leaves unclear exactly what would be required in dismantling the country’s nuclear program. Iran has invested billions of dollars in building its two main nuclear enrichment facilities, Natanz and Fordow, and in developing its advanced nuclear program, which it considers a source of national pride. Shuttering the facilities would be humiliating and difficult to justify, according to an Iranian official familiar with the internal deliberations. These facilities also employ hundreds of scientists, some of the country’s most talented, and the government worries that many of the top ones may leave Iran if they are unemployed and waiting for the new consortium to take shape, an Iranian official said. Over the years, Israel has targeted and assassinated a number of leading nuclear scientists, including Mohsen Fakhrizadeh. The proposal raises the possibility of U.S. help in facilitating the construction of a nuclear power reactor in Iran. The country currently has only one such plant, built and supplied by Russia. Iran has said it has a goal of constructing 10 more. (A similar project was conceived for North Korea by the Clinton administration in 1994. It collapsed a decade later, and soon after North Korea conducted a nuclear weapons test for the first time.) The proposal did not specify which of the hundreds of sanctions against Iran would be removed in any final deal. Iran has told the United States that all sanctions would need to be removed in order to sign a deal — not just those related to its nuclear program. Iranian officials said they would not take any measures curbing their program without parallel sanctions relief, particularly diluting or exporting the huge stockpile of enriched uranium that the United Nations’ atomic watchdog says allows them to build 10 bombs if they chose to weaponize. The United States has sanctioned Iran’s oil sales and banking transactions over the years, stifling the country’s economy for advancing its nuclear program, supporting terrorism, helping Russia in the Ukraine war, plotting assassinations of Western officials and perpetuating human rights abuses. Iranian officials said they did not trust Mr. Trump because of his unilateral exiting of the Obama-era nuclear deal and conflicting comments from American officials during negotiations in the past few weeks. The officials said one of the issues being debated in Tehran was what guarantees Washington would provide that Mr. Trump or his successors would not force Iran out of the consortium in the future. While the outcome of the negotiation remains unclear, Mr. Witkoff’s strategy is beginning to emerge. The consortium he proposed would provide nuclear fuel for Iran and any of its neighbors interested in developing civilian nuclear power or research programs. The many players would watch one another — and they would be watched by the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. group that monitors nuclear fuel around the world and is supposed to send alarms if it believes the fuel is being diverted to a weapons program. But the proposal does not make clear exactly where the enrichment facility would be located, though the United States has said it cannot be in Iran. Iranian officials continue to insist it must be in their territory, because they would not give up their right to enrich nuclear fuel under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Iran is a signatory to the treaty, though so far it has not ratified an addendum, called the Additional Protocol, that would give inspectors much greater rights to search any part of the country where they suspect nuclear activity. Although it was not noted in the U.S. proposal, Omani and Saudi officials have discussed the idea of building an enrichment facility on an island in the Persian Gulf. This would potentially give both sides a talking point: The Iranians would be able to say they are still enriching uranium, and the Americans could state that enrichment is not happening on Iranian soil. Two Iranian officials said the country was open to accepting the consortium idea because the government did not want talks to fail. But the Iranian officials said negotiators planned to bargain in the next round of talks for the island to be one of their own: They may propose Kish or Qeshm in the Persian Gulf, though other possibilities have been discussed. Iran would most likely argue that this would allow it to keep enrichment on its soil. But it would also make a facility much more visible to the world than Iran’s current enrichment facilities, which are underground, and in one case deep inside a mountain to protect against Israeli attack. Another unknown is how Israel will react to the American proposal. Mr. Witkoff met with Ron Dermer, one of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s closest advisers, around a negotiating session in Rome. The two countries have been in regular communication over the negotiations, even while Mr. Netanyahu has pressed for military action. In Iran, as in the United States, a minority of hard-line politicians steadfastly oppose any concessions to the United States. They openly called the terms of the U.S. proposal a defeat and suggested that Iran walk away from talks. But these politicians do not hold much sway because the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has given the green light for negotiations to continue with the goal of reaching a deal. Some analysts described the consortium idea as a win-win, saying it would allow Iran to save face and let regional allies and American inspectors be directly involved in Iran’s nuclear activities. It also removes the U.S. concern of a regional race to enrich uranium. “But even if the parties agree on the concept, they still need to hash out the details,” said Ali Vaez, the Iran director for the International Crisis Group. “They will also need an interim solution, as it will probably take a few years to set up a functional consortium.” Mr. Vaez added that as long as the two sides remained divided on core issues — namely, whether Iran can enrich uranium — a final deal remained elusive and at best the two sides could agree on a document laying out broad frameworks of a future deal. A correction was made on June 3, 2025: An earlier version of a photo caption misidentified a Salvadoran prison. The facility is a prison in San Salvador, not CECOT.