July 30, 2025, 1:59 p.m. ETPresident Trump just told reporters that trade talks are continuing with India, even after he said he would impose a 25 percent tariff on its goods starting Friday, along with potentially additional trade penalties for purchasing energy from Russia. “We’re going to see,” the president said.July 30, 2025, 1:33 p.m. ETThe Agriculture Department building in Washington.Credit...Kayla Bartkowski/Getty ImagesThe deputy agriculture secretary forcefully defended his department’s recently unveiled reorganization plans before the Senate Agriculture Committee on Wednesday.The plan, announced in a memo last week, seeks to move most of the Agriculture Department’s Washington-based work force out of the area, instead spreading those workers across five regional hubs around the United States. It would also close the local offices of several subagencies, including the U.S. Forest Service. The announcement prompted concern from unions representing federal workers and farm groups as well as lawmakers on both sides of the aisle.But Stephen A. Vaden, the deputy secretary of agriculture, said on Wednesday that the plan arose in response to the high cost of living in the Washington area and a desire to bring the agency “closer to the American people.”Several senators, both Republicans and Democrats, questioned Mr. Vaden over whether offices and research centers in their states would be affected and criticized the department for failing to notify or consult with Congress before announcing the plan.Mr. Vaden conceded that the agency had not sought the input of lawmakers, farm groups or employees but emphasized that the memo was the “first step” in the process.Asked about the impact on the Agriculture Department’s work force, Mr. Vaden said each of its subagencies would continue to have a presence in and around Washington and that he expected that a majority of its workers would agree to relocate to the regional hubs.July 30, 2025, 1:05 p.m. ETAna IonovaReporting from Brasília, BrazilJustice Alexandre de Moraes during a hearing against former President Jair Bolsonaro, right, in June in Brazil.Credit...Evaristo Sa/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesThe United States applied sanctions on Wednesday on a Brazilian Supreme Court justice accused by the Trump administration of censorship, according to a statement from the U.S. Treasury Department.The justice, Alexandre de Moraes, will face sanctions, such as visa restrictions and asset freezes, under the Global Magnitsky Act, a measure that is usually meant to punish foreigners accused of serious human-rights violations or corruption.Justice Moraes is presiding over the criminal case against former President Jair Bolsonaro, who is accused of orchestrating an attempted coup after losing the 2022 elections.President Trump has called the case against Mr. Bolsonaro, an ally, a “witch-hunt” and has threatened to impose 50 percent tariffs on Brazil if continues to prosecute the former Brazilian president.The Trump administration has accused Justice Moraes of censoring right-wing voices on the internet by ordering the removal of content from social media platforms.“De Moraes is responsible for an oppressive campaign of censorship, arbitrary detentions that violate human rights, and politicized prosecutions — including against former President Jair Bolsonaro,” Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said in a news release.Brazil’s Supreme Court declined to immediately comment on the sanctions against Justice Moraes.This a developing story. Check back for updates.July 30, 2025, 12:06 p.m. ETMegan MineiroSenator Rand Paul, Republican of Kentucky, said he hasn’t decided if he will sign onto a push from Senate Democrats to force the Justice Department to release documents on the convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, who was facing federal charges before his death. He called the decision by the Trump administration to backtrack on promises to release new Epstein files “bizarre” and said that the public interest in the investigation stems from the fact that “people distrust their government because they don’t think the government has been honest with them.”Credit...Haiyun Jiang/The New York TimesJuly 30, 2025, 11:19 a.m. ETIndia’s government said Wednesday that it was studying the implications of President Trump’s announcement that the U.S. would impose 25 percent tariffs on imports from India starting Friday. In a statement, India’s commerce ministry said the two sides have been engaged in negotiations “on concluding a fair, balanced and mutually beneficial bilateral trade agreement over the last few months” and that New Delhi remains “committed to that objective.” The statement made an indirect reference to what could be some of the sticking points, including “protecting and promoting the welfare of our farmers, entrepreneurs” and small businesses.July 30, 2025, 9:50 a.m. ETPresident Trump’s tariffs are already hitting the European Union’s economy, and things could get bumpier as a new trade agreement sets a 15 percent tariff on most European imports to the United States starting Friday. Economic growth in the 20 countries that use the euro was just 0.1 percent from April to June, according to a report on Wednesday, reflecting the damage from Trump’s 10 percent across-the-board tariff that took effect in April.The eurozone’s economy was weighed down by a contraction in Germany, where the auto industry suffered from an industry-specific U.S. tariff of 25 percent. The slowdown was also fallout from an earlier rush to export pharmaceuticals, cars, wine and other goods before the April tariffs kicked in, which fueled a growth spurt in the first quarter.July 30, 2025, 9:45 a.m. ETPresident Trump’s latest tariffs announcement is another reality check for Indian officials who had been excited about Mr. Trump’s return to the White House. The warming of ties over the past two decades between Washington and New Delhi had intensified under the Biden administration, which saw India as a counterweight to China. Defense and technology links expanded at a time of bipartisan support for India. And there was hope that the close relationship between India’s prime minister, Narendra Modi, and Mr. Trump during the president’s first administration would only help. But in recent months, threats of tariffs and complications in trade negotiations, among other things, have thrown cold water on that excitement. The Indian National Congress, the largest opposition party in India, called the tariff announcement a “catastrophic failure of foreign policy.”July 30, 2025, 9:41 a.m. ETAna Swanson and Alex TravelliAna Swanson reported from Washington and Alex Travelli from New Delhi.President Trump and Prime Minister Narendra Modi of India at a news conference in Washington in February.Credit...Eric Lee/The New York TimesPresident Trump announced Wednesday morning that imports from India to the United States would be subject to a 25 percent tariff as of Friday, as he berated the country over trade barriers and its purchases of energy and military equipment from Russia.The announcement could put pressure on India to strike a deal or face hefty tariffs that would most likely put a strain on economic and diplomatic ties between the countries. It could also encourage businesses to choose other Asian nations for manufacturing operations, blunting India’s position as a leading alternative to China.A 25 percent tariff would be just one percentage point lower than what the president threatened India with on April 2, when he announced plans for sweeping tariffs on dozens of countries. It’s also significantly higher than the rates Mr. Trump has settled on for other Asian nations like Indonesia, the Philippines, Vietnam and Japan — all of which have been 20 percent or less.As companies have moved out of China in recent years, some have made India a base of production, manufacturing electronics, pharmaceuticals and other goods for the U.S. market. An industry analysis shows that, this year, India, which is currently the United States’ 12th largest trading partner, is making more smartphones than China or any other country.“WE HAVE A MASSIVE TRADE DEFICIT WITH INDIA,” Mr. Trump wrote on Truth Social. He followed quickly with another post, saying the United States had done “relatively little business” with India over the years “because their Tariffs are far too high. ” Mr. Trump also criticized India’s economic ties with Moscow, saying the country was “Russia’s largest buyer of ENERGY, along with China, at a time when everyone wants Russia to STOP THE KILLING IN UKRAINE.”India’s commerce ministry said it was studying the implications of Mr. Trump’s announcement. It said in a statement that India remained committed to “concluding a fair, balanced and mutually beneficial bilateral trade agreement.”The announcement came as the Trump administration prepared to finalize higher tariffs on many countries globally as of Friday. The European Union, Japan and other governments have signed trade agreements that somewhat lowered the tariffs Mr. Trump threatened on them earlier this year. But according to tracking by Goldman Sachs, trading partners accounting for 56 percent of U.S. imports — including Canada, Mexico, South Korea, Brazil and India — have not yet signed preliminary agreements. On Wednesday, Mr. Trump wrote that the deadline “STANDS STRONG, AND WILL NOT BE EXTENDED.”Mr. Trump’s announcement was an ill omen for relations between the United States and India, which have grown closer amid a more aggressive international posture from China. India is a major commercial partner of the United States, with total trade between the two countries amounting to roughly $130 billion last year. The countries also have deep cultural and demographic ties.The relationship between Mr. Trump and India’s prime minister, Narendra Modi, has generally been warm, and in recent weeks the countries seemed close to clinching a trade deal.But those talks appear to have hit obstacles, including Mr. Trump’s desire for India to open up its agricultural and dairy markets, while India wants to maintain certain protections. Mr. Trump has also sought to retain a relatively high tariff on Indian goods even under a trade agreement, something the Indian government has viewed as unacceptable. The commerce ministry’s statement made indirect reference to some of the apparent sticking points, including “protecting and promoting the welfare of our farmers, entrepreneurs” and small businesses.India has long maintained high barriers to trade, which has brought the government into conflict with Mr. Trump, himself an avid protectionist. India has a trade-weighted average tariff of 12 percent on all goods. For a number of American imports, it imposes tariffs of 100 percent or more and maintains non-tariff barriers to protect agriculture and other industries.Farwa Aamer, the director of South Asian Initiatives at the Asia Society Policy Institute, a think tank, said that even with an early start to talks, “the timeline was too tight, given India’s sectoral concerns and strong reservations on opening access to its dairy and agriculture markets.”"Mr. Modi has also been under pressure domestically not to be seen as caving to Mr. Trump. The prime minister is in the midst of a parliamentary session during which he has faced criticism for another Trump-related matter. To Mr. Modi’s embarrassment, Mr. Trump has repeatedly insisted that it was his use of trade leverage that prompted India and Pakistan to agree to a cease-fire in their conflict this spring, rather than India’s military operations.Nisha Biswal, a partner in The Asia Group and a former assistant secretary of state for South and Central Asia, said the president’s announcement was “unfortunate” but “not entirely surprising.” While the trade negotiations have made tremendous progress, she said, “playing hardball with a friend and partner may have surprised the Indians but it is a tactic the president uses frequently.”“The real tragedy would be if both sides walk away from a big win,” she said, adding, “the implications for U.S. businesses and India’s economy could be quite severe.”Mr. Trump also said Wednesday that India would pay a penalty tariff for its purchases of Russian oil. If enacted, that would be the first use of what Mr. Trump has taken to calling “secondary tariffs,” a kind of penalty that would be imposed instead of the financial sanctions typically used against countries that do business with embargoed nations. Mr. Trump has been moving to replace some of the traditional sanctions tools in the U.S. arsenal with an expanded use of tariffs.Alan Rappeport and Mujib Mashal contributed reporting.July 30, 2025, 8:44 a.m. ETThere hasn’t been a reaction from the Indian government to the Trump announcement yet. But the timing is pretty rough for India’s prime minister, Narendra Modi — in the middle of a parliamentary session where the opposition was already piling onto him about another Trump-related matter. Much to Modi’s embarrassment, the U.S. president has insisted that he got India and Pakistan to agree to a cease-fire in their spring conflict, using trade as leverage. Modi says India’s attacks made Pakistan beg for a cease-fire.July 30, 2025, 8:31 a.m. ETA 25 percent tariff for India is just one percentage point lower than what the president threatened the country with on April 2. It’s also significantly higher than the tariff rates Trump has announced for Asian nations like Indonesia, the Philippines, Vietnam and Japan, all of which have been 20 percent or less. Some companies have been moving factories out of China to India in recent years, but if these tariffs were to hold, it could mean that over time, businesses are more likely to set up export operations in other Asian countries.Credit...Haiyun Jiang for The New York TimesJuly 30, 2025, 8:31 a.m. ETTrump’s announcement that India will pay a penalty tariff for its purchases of Russian oil appeared to be the first use of the so-called “secondary” tariffs that he has threatened. This shows how he is replacing some of the traditional sanctions tools in the U.S. arsenal with an expanded use of trade measures for economic warfare.July 30, 2025, 8:30 a.m. ETPresident Trump said on Truth Social this morning that imports from India will be subject to a 25 percent tariff as of Friday, as he criticized the country, likely signaling that he’s unhappy with how trade talks are going. Trump says that “WE HAVE A MASSIVE TRADE DEFICIT WITH INDIA” and that “we have, over the years, done relatively little business with them because their Tariffs are far too high.” He also criticized their purchases of Russian military equipment and energy.July 30, 2025, 5:02 a.m. ETSenator Chuck Schumer of New York, the minority leader, and all seven Democrats on the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs committee sent a letter to the Justice Department requesting that it turn over its files on Jeffrey Epstein.Credit...Haiyun Jiang/The New York TimesSenate Democrats on Wednesday moved to compel the Trump administration to release material connected to the investigation into the accused sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein, invoking a little-known law in a bid to force Republican leaders to confront the growing furor over the case.Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the minority leader, and all seven Democrats on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee sent a letter to the Justice Department requesting that it turn over its files on Mr. Epstein, the disgraced financier who died in federal prison in 2019 while awaiting trial on sex-trafficking charges.Under a section of federal law commonly referred to in the Senate as the “rule of five,” government agencies are required to provide relevant information if any five members of that committee, which is the chamber’s chief oversight panel, request it.That provision — which became law in 1928 and sets a seven-member rule for the House’s oversight committee — effectively offers a way for members of the minority party to compel information from the executive branch because they cannot issue congressional subpoenas. But it has been infrequently used, and it has not faced significant tests in court, raising questions over whether it can be enforced.Still, in invoking it, Democrats were trying to draw Senate Republicans into the debate over the release of the Epstein files, which has bitterly divided the House G.O.P. and wrought havoc in that chamber. If the Trump administration were to ignore the Democrats’ request, the resulting legal battle would likely force Senator John Thune, Republican of South Dakota and the majority leader, to decide whether to choose between backing the administration or defending the Senate’s constitutional prerogative for congressional oversight.Since President Trump returned to the White House this year, Congress has ceded much of its oversight power, with Republicans showing little willingness to hold hearings or otherwise demand answers from Mr. Trump or his administration. But the Justice Department’s recent decision to backtrack from its promises to release new material in the Epstein investigation ripped open a rift in the party that led several rank-and-file Republicans to break from the president.Though Mr. Trump has urged his supporters to move on from the issue, several House Republicans have joined Democrats to try to force a floor vote on releasing the files. Last week, several close Trump allies joined with Democrats on the House Oversight Committee to issue a subpoena to the Justice Department for its files. The committee has not yet sent its subpoena, though it is required to do so.Exploiting the rift, House Democrats repeatedly threatened to force additional votes on the Epstein files before Republicans could debate unrelated bills. Facing conflicting demands from angry constituents and the White House, House Republicans were so sharply divided on the issue that Speaker Mike Johnson opted to send lawmakers home for the summer slightly ahead of schedule rather than risk having to vote on the matter.The Senate has thus far not faced similar tumult, even as polls show growing dissatisfaction and division among Republicans over Mr. Trump’s handling of the release of the Epstein files. The Democrats’ letter is aimed at forcing Republican senators, including members of the governmental affairs panel, to confront the issue and is likely to needle Mr. Trump.“Americans have every right to wonder, why he is breaking this promise?” Mr. Schumer said in a statement. “What is Trump hiding? Trump campaigned on and promised Americans that he’d release the Epstein files. We’re demanding he keep that promise.”In their letter, a copy of which was obtained by The New York Times, the eight senators cited Mr. Trump’s backtracking on the release of the Epstein files and called on the Justice Department and F.B.I. to give them to the committee by Aug. 15.“After missteps and failed promises by your Department regarding these files, it is essential that the Trump administration provide full transparency,” the senators wrote.The letter was signed by Mr. Schumer; Senator Gary Peters of Michigan, the top Democrat on the committee; and Senators Maggie Hassan of New Hampshire, Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, Andy Kim of New Jersey, Ruben Gallego of Arizona and Elissa Slotkin of Michigan.Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, the Republican chairman of the committee, said he had not decided whether he would sign on to the Democrats’ request. But he called the Trump administration’s decision not to release new Epstein files “bizarre” and ascribed the public interest in the case to a general sense that people “don’t think the government has been honest with them.”Lawmakers from both parties have previously invoked the nearly century-old provision that Senate Democrats are now using. But its enforcement has been a continued question. During the George W. Bush administration, House Democrats twice sued the executive branch to enforce the rule, but no clear resolution was ever reached.More recently, House Democrats sued the General Services Administration in 2017, during Mr. Trump’s first term, after the agency refused to comply with a seven-member request for the release of documents relating to the Trump International Hotel in Washington.After several years, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case in May 2023, promising to weigh in on whether lawmakers could sue a government agency for information. But the case was never argued, after the House Democrats decided to dismiss their lawsuit.Megan Mineiro contributed reporting.July 29, 2025, 10:03 p.m. ET“Dr. Prasad did not want to be a distraction to the great work of the F.D.A. in the Trump administration and has decided to return to California and spend more time with his family,” a Department of Health and Human Services spokesman said on Tuesday evening.Credit...Marvin Joseph/The Washington Post via Getty ImagesThe Food and Drug Administration’s top vaccine and gene therapy official resigned on Tuesday after a public campaign against him led by the right-wing influencer Laura Loomer, according to people familiar with the matter.Over the past week, Ms. Loomer had taken to social media to attack the official, Dr. Vinay Prasad, for a series of decisions denying approval of new drugs for rare diseases. She highlighted past statements of support he had made for prominent figures on the political left, including Senator Bernie Sanders, independent of Vermont.Andrew Nixon, a Department of Health and Human Services spokesman, confirmed the resignation Tuesday evening.“Dr. Prasad did not want to be a distraction to the great work of the F.D.A. in the Trump administration and has decided to return to California and spend more time with his family,” Mr. Nixon said in a statement. “We thank him for his service and the many important reforms he was able to achieve in his time at F.D.A.”Dr. Prasad declined to comment.As Ms. Loomer’s campaign escalated, the federal health secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who oversees the F.D.A., had privately defended Dr. Prasad, according to people familiar with the matter. Mr. Kennedy’s support, they said, stemmed in part from Dr. Prasad’s role overseeing vaccines. During his brief tenure at the F.D.A. Dr. Prasad had already limited the use of Covid shots and had amped up warnings about a rare cardiac side effect of the inoculations.Dr. Marty Makary, the F.D.A. commissioner, also defended Dr. Prasad in an interview on Saturday with Politico, calling him an “impeccable scientist.”Yet it wasn’t enough in the face of criticism from Ms. Loomer and lobbying of White House officials by former Senator Rick Santorum. Ms. Loomer also surfaced old social media posts in which Dr. Prasad declared that he was a “political liberal” and another where he said he had a Trump “voodoo doll.”Dr. Prasad also faced heat for cracking down on the company Sarepta Therapeutics, which came under heightened scrutiny after two teenagers and a 51-year-old man died of liver complications after using the company’s gene therapy drugs. Though Dr. Prasad pressured the company to stop shipping its drug Elevidys for Duchenne muscular dystrophy, he reversed the decision days later for young boys who can still walk and who are believed to be at lower risk for complications.Dr. Prasad’s critics argued that his actions with Elevidys amounted to a crusade against Sarepta. Mr. Santorum, who has ties to Sarepta, also reposted an editorial lambasting Dr. Prasad on social media and called top officials at the White House to relay his concerns, according to a person familiar with the matter.“To Prasad, the danger isn’t a fatal disease killing your child — it’s the prospect that someone might get a new medicine he doesn’t think is worth using,” an article in Real Clear Health, which Mr. Santorum reposted on social media, said.Dr. Prasad was also the centerpiece of a Wall Street Journal opinion article whose headline called him “a Bernie Sanders Acolyte in MAHA Drag.”Dr. Prasad made inroads with the political right during the pandemic, slamming public health efforts such as social distancing and putting masks on toddlers. He had also expressed openness to supporting placebo-controlled trials of vaccines in the past, a top priority of Mr. Kennedy.Before joining the F.D.A., Dr. Prasad was an oncologist and epidemiologist at the University of California, San Francisco, as well as a frequent presence on YouTube and social media. He initially made his name as an outspoken academic. He became well-known in medical circles for arguing that the F.D.A. was greenlighting too many medicines based on weak standards of evidence.Rebecca Robbins contributed reporting.July 29, 2025, 9:25 p.m. ETDuke University is facing a budget crunch, its president said recently.Credit...Travis Dove for The New York TimesThe Trump administration has frozen $108 million in federal funds for Duke University’s medical school and health care system, according to two administration officials, after the government accused the university of “systemic racial discrimination.”Duke University is the latest high-profile school, from Columbia University to Harvard, that the Trump administration has targeted and stripped of a large amount of federal funding, based on vague accusations that the university abets antisemitism or supports diversity, equity and inclusion programs. The move comes amid a wider pressure campaign from the Trump administration to shift the ideological tilt of American higher education.Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the health secretary, and Linda McMahon, the education secretary, sent a letter to Duke administrators on Monday expressing concerns about “racial preferences in hiring, student admissions, governance, patient care, and other operations” in the university’s health care system.In the letter, the officials accused Duke of violating Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination based on race and nationality in programs receiving federal funding. Mr. Kennedy and Ms. McMahon called on Duke Health, the university’s health care system, to review all policies “for the illegal use of race preferences” and to create a “Merit and Civil Rights Committee” that would work with the federal government.The $108 million cut could be permanent, if the government concludes the university violated the Civil Rights Act, according to the two administration officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly.Duke University did not immediately respond to an email request for comment.The university is weighing layoffs amid a budget crunch. It’s considering about $350 million in cuts, amounting to roughly 10 percent of its budget. In a video message last month, Duke’s president, Vincent E. Price, said the university was trying to sort out proposals from the federal government “that have quite dire implications for the university.”He added there was “sadly, no scenario in which Duke can or will avoid incurring substantial losses of funding due to these policy changes.”The university has imposed a hiring freeze and developed buyout plans, but Dr. Price said that Duke would “likely” resort to layoffs.July 29, 2025, 9:07 p.m. ETAt the Justice Department, Emil Bove III played an outsize role in the Trump administration’s aggressive effort to take control of the agency it argues has been “weaponized” against President Trump and other conservatives.Credit...Tierney L. Cross/The New York TimesThe Senate on Tuesday confirmed Emil Bove III, a Trump loyalist whose short tenure in the top ranks of the Justice Department prompted whistle-blower complaints and a storm of criticism from agency veterans, to a powerful federal appeals court judgeship.Mr. Bove had spurred outcries at the department by directing or overseeing the firing of dozens of employees and ordering the dismissal of bribery charges against Mayor Eric Adams of New York. According to one whistle-blower who went public, Mr. Bove also told government lawyers that they might ignore court orders in pursuit of President Trump’s immigration policy goals.Mr. Bove has denied being anyone’s enforcer or henchman, but his nomination to a lifetime appointment one rung below the Supreme Court provoked an intense battle in the Senate. His approval to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which encompasses Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Delaware, came by a tiny margin, 50 to 49, with all Democrats and two Republicans, Senators Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine, opposing him.Still, the confirmation of Mr. Bove provided at least a tacit Senate endorsement of the president’s efforts to bend the justice system to his will. Most Republicans shrugged off concerns that Mr. Bove, 44 and a defense lawyer for Mr. Trump in his Manhattan criminal trial last year, had undermined the traditional independence of the Justice Department or aided in Mr. Trump’s standoffs with the courts.Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York and the minority leader, called Mr. Bove’s confirmation “a dark, dark day.”Senator Cory Booker, Democrat of New Jersey, complained that he had tried repeatedly to share the whistle-blowers’ accusations with G.O.P. lawmakers but that “no one wanted to even listen.”Republicans dismissed such claims as disingenuous posturing. Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa and the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said Democrats had sought to manipulate the confirmation calendar to scuttle the president’s pick.“Even if you accept most of the claims as true, there is still no scandal,” Mr. Grassley said.The day before Mr. Bove’s confirmation hearing in June, Erez Reuveni, a former immigration lawyer at the department, came forward to assert that Mr. Bove had told subordinates he was willing to ignore court orders to fulfill the president’s aggressive deportation promises.In recent days, two more would-be whistle-blowers signaled they had additional derogatory information about Mr. Bove, according to lawmakers and advocates. One of those individuals suggested that Mr. Bove was untruthful in at least one of his answers about his efforts to dismiss the Adams case, while another has offered information to the Justice Department inspector general that would seem to support some of Mr. Reuveni’s claims.Though his time as a senior Justice Department official was relatively brief, Mr. Bove played an outsize role in the Trump administration’s aggressive effort to take control of the agency it argues has been “weaponized” against Mr. Trump and other conservatives.Because his position at the department did not require Senate confirmation, Mr. Bove was among the first Trump appointees to arrive at the department, overseeing a succession of major policy and personnel moves, starting with a memo threatening to prosecute state and city officials who refused to carry out immigration enforcement.But the most defining episode of his tenure was the battle he waged against the U.S. attorney’s office in Manhattan, where he once worked, over the administration’s insistence on dropping bribery charges against Mr. Adams — who had personally appealed to the White House for a legal reprieve.Mr. Bove pressured top prosecutors in the office to drop the case. He claimed that the charges had been brought by an overzealous U.S. attorney appointed by President Joseph R. Biden Jr., and he argued that the case would hinder Mr. Adams’s capacity to cooperate with the White House on immigration enforcement.The Trump-appointed interim U.S. attorney in Manhattan, Danielle R. Sassoon, resigned rather than sign off on Mr. Bove’s command. Other career prosecutors in the public integrity section resigned rather than accede to his demands.Mr. Bove’s current boss, the deputy attorney general, Todd Blanche, who also served with him on Mr. Trump’s legal team, accused Mr. Bove’s critics of spreading slander and misinformation.“Emil is the most capable and principled lawyer I have ever known,” Mr. Blanche wrote in an opinion article for Fox News. “His legal acumen is extraordinary, and his moral clarity is above reproach.”