After more than a week of ratcheting up tariffs on products imported from China, the Trump administration issued a rule late Friday that appeared to spare smartphones, computers and other electronics from some of the fees, giving tech companies like Apple and Dell a break from levies that threatened to upend their businesses and increase prices for consumers.

A message posted late Friday by U.S. Customs and Border Protection included a long list of products that would not face the reciprocal tariffs President Trump imposed in recent days on Chinese goods as part of a worsening trade war. Apart from smartphones and laptop computers, the exclusions would also apply to transistors and semiconductors, which are largely not made in the United States.

Some tariffs will still apply to electronics and smartphones. The Trump administration had applied a tariff of 20 percent on Chinese goods earlier this year because of its role in the fentanyl trade.

But Friday’s change punctuated a wild week in which Mr. Trump backtracked from many tariffs he introduced on April 2, which he had called “liberation day.” His so-called reciprocal tariffs had introduced taxes that would reach 40 percent or more on products imported from some nations. After the stock and bond markets plunged, Mr. Trump reversed course and said he would pause levies for 90 days.

Because Beijing chose to retaliate against U.S. tariffs with levies of its own, China was the one exception to Mr. Trump's relief. Instead of pausing tariffs on Chinese imports, Mr. Trump increased them to 145 percent and showed no willingness to spare any companies from those fees. In return, China on Friday said it was raising its tariffs on American goods to 125 percent.

That sent shares of many technology companies into free fall, since many of the firms manufacture their products in China. Over four days of trading, the market capitalization of Apple, which makes about 80 percent of its iPhones in China, fell by $773 billion.

The smartphone and electronics exemptions are a repeat of the way Mr. Trump approached trade confrontation with China when he was last in the White House. During that time, the Trump administration exempted smartphones, smartwatches and most electronics from tariffs.

This is a developing story. Check back for updates.

A federal appeals panel on Friday halted parts of a district court judge’s injunction blocking the Trump administration’s effort to dismantle the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, allowing officials to move ahead with firing some agency employees.

Russell T. Vought, the White House budget office director, was named the consumer bureau’s acting director in February and immediately began gutting the agency. He closed its headquarters and sought to terminate its lease, canceled contracts essential to the bureau’s operations, terminated hundreds of employees and sought to lay off nearly all of the rest.

In a lawsuit brought by the bureau’s staff union and other parties, Judge Amy Berman Jackson of the Federal District Court in Washington froze those actions last month with an injunction to stop what she described as the administration’s “hurried effort to dismantle and disable the agency entirely.” The Justice Department appealed her ruling.

A three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit unanimously rejected the government’s request to strike down Judge Jackson’s injunction, but it stayed parts of her ruling while the government’s appeal progresses. Specifically, the appeals court said the agency’s leaders can send a “reduction in force” notice — the process through which the government conducts layoffs — to employees they have determined are not necessary to carry out the agency’s “statutory duties.”

When Congress created the consumer bureau in 2011, it assigned the watchdog agency dozens of tasks and ordered it to staff certain positions, including offices to aid student loan borrowers, military service members and older Americans. Those mandated obligations have been at the heart of the legal fight over the agency, because the bureau is required to fulfill those duties unless Congress acts.

Mr. Vought’s team fired more than 200 probationary and fixed-term employees, only to reinstate most of them, with back pay, on Judge Jackson’s orders. The appeals court cleared the way for some to be fired again. Agency leaders may terminate employees after “an individualized assessment” of their necessity for carrying out the agency’s statutory tasks, the ruling said.

But the court left much of Judge Jackson’s order intact, including her mandates that agency leaders shall not delete or destroy most of the bureau’s records and data, and that employees must be given access to either physical office space or the tools needed to work remotely. The consumer bureau’s Washington headquarters has remained shuttered and off limits to workers since Mr. Vought’s arrival.

The appeals court expedited the government’s appeal and scheduled oral arguments for May 16.

The Trump administration said on Friday that it had moved a portrait of former President Barack Obama in a White House hallway and replaced it with a pop-art painting of President Trump pumping his fist after the assassination attempt last year on the campaign trail in Butler, Pa.

The shuffling of décor is not uncommon at the White House, where portraits are rotated often. But the new, striking artwork depicting Mr. Trump drew criticism from some presidential historians, who could not recall another president hanging a painting of himself during his term in the White House.

Typically, paintings of presidents and first ladies are hung in the White House after they have left office, historians said.

A spokesman for Mr. Obama declined to comment.

The portrait of Mr. Obama, which was unveiled in the East Room during the administration of President Joseph R. Biden Jr., shows the former president in a dark suit and silver tie, standing with his hands in his pockets. The background is white; the portrait was based on photographs taken by the artist Robert McCurdy.

The new painting shows Mr. Trump embraced by a team of Secret Service agents as an American flag billows in a cloudless blue sky behind him. Streaks of red run across his face.

The artwork depicts a scene similar to still images taken after a would-be assassin fired at Mr. Trump, hitting him in his ear, during a campaign speech in Pennsylvania in July. The words uttered by a defiant Mr. Trump after the shooting — “Fight! Fight! Fight!” — became a rally cry for his supporters.

The painting of Mr. Trump is on a wall opposite from Mr. Obama’s, the White House said, adding that Mr. Trump’s was placed in the spot for the newest presidential portrait.

Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, said in a statement that the “executive mansion is the president’s home, and he has the right to make changes as other presidents have in the past.”

“President Trump decided to temporarily display this painting, which represents a pivotal moment in history when he nearly lost his life,” she added. “Only The New York Times would find a problem with this.”

Ted Widmer, a presidential historian at the City University of New York and a former speechwriter for President Bill Clinton, said he was surprised to see the new artwork.

“It just seems tacky,” Mr. Widmer said. “It feels different from our tradition of venerating the distinguished holders of the office from both parties — and going in a new direction of walking around looking at images of yourself all day long.”

But Julian E. Zelizer, a presidential historian at Princeton, said the move fit into a pattern.

“In the second term, it’s not just winning the White House,” Mr. Zelizer said of Mr. Trump. “He’s always had intense animosity for President Obama, all the way back to the early 2010s. And I think this time around, he really wants to show that he has — in his mind — supplanted him.”

Barbara A. Perry, a presidential studies professor at the University of Virginia, said she found the style of the painting, with blood on Mr. Trump’s face, particularly “odd.”

“Can you imagine Gerald Ford having a portrait painted of himself ducking?” Ms. Perry said of an assassination attempt against Ford, the 38th president, in 1975. She added, “This would be viewed as lacking in taste in days gone by.”

President Trump announced a plan on Friday to turn a narrow strip along the Mexican border in California, Arizona and New Mexico into a military installation as part of his effort to curtail illegal crossings.

The plan, set out in a White House memorandum, calls for transferring authority over the 60-foot-wide strip of federal border land known as the Roosevelt Reservation from other cabinet agencies to the Defense Department. Military forces patrolling that area could then temporarily detain migrants passing through for trespassing on a military reservation, said a U.S. military official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss operational matters.

The directive expands a military presence that has increased steadily along the southern border, even as crossings have already dropped precipitously during the Trump administration. The ordering of troops to the border has already put the military in politically charged territory, and, depending on the details of the effort, the plan could run afoul of laws that limit the use of regular federal troops for domestic law enforcement.

The directive says that the border strip will become a “military installation under the jurisdiction of” the Pentagon. Military members would be able to stop anyone crossing into the “military installation” but would not have the power to make immigration arrests, according to the military official. Border Patrol agents could then be summoned to arrest the migrants.

The memorandum formalizes a plan that the administration had been considering for weeks. The Washington Post had reported on the plan earlier.

A White House spokesman did not respond to questions seeking clarity as to what U.S. forces operating in the strip of border land would be able to do. A Defense Department spokesman also did not respond to questions seeking clarity.

Military officials are still working out how to execute the plan, including how long troops could detain migrants before turning them over to Border Patrol agents, and what type of “no trespassing” signs needed to be installed along the border, warning migrants they were about to enter a U.S. military reservation.

Then there are other logistics that would have to be hammered out, such as the languages the signs are written in, and how far apart they are posted. There is also the question of where to position military patrols along hundreds of miles of rugged land along the border, and what additional training those troops might need.

Adam Isacson, who focuses on border security and human rights at the Washington Office on Latin America, said the memorandum appeared to create a path for using quasi-military personnel to detain migrants.

A section of the memorandum calls for the authorization of state National Guard members to work on the military-controlled strip. If those working at the installation hold migrants until Customs and Border Protection officials pick them up, their use “comes very close to military personnel detaining migrants,” Mr. Isacson said.

Zolan Kanno-Youngs contributed reporting.

The Department of Education said on Friday that it was moving to cut off all federal funding for Maine’s public schools because the state had ignored President Trump’s executive order banning transgender athletes from girls’ sports teams.

The agency also said it had asked the Justice Department to pursue “enforcement action” against Maine, which the Trump administration has been targeting since the president picked a fight with the state’s Democratic governor, Janet Mills, over transgender athletes in February.

The administration had set Friday as the deadline for Maine to comply; last month, after a brief investigation, it declared that the state’s education system was violating Title IX, the federal law that prevents sex discrimination.

Ms. Mills has maintained that the state’s human rights law — which prohibits discrimination based on gender identity as well as religion, race and other protected characteristics — can be changed only by the Legislature, not by executive order. She has not expressed her own views on transgender athletes participating in girls’ and women’s sports publicly, though she has said it was an issue “worthy of a debate.”

The Education Department said in a statement that it would “initiate an administrative proceeding to adjudicate termination” of the state’s K-12 funding, which totaled $249 million in the 2024 fiscal year.

“The department has given Maine every opportunity to come into compliance with Title IX, but the state’s leaders have stubbornly refused to do so, choosing instead to prioritize an extremist ideological agenda over their students’ safety, privacy, and dignity,” Craig Trainor, the department’s acting assistant secretary for civil rights, said in the statement.

In a letter to the Education Department on Friday, Sarah A. Forster, an assistant state attorney general, said that Maine would not agree to change its law and conceded that the two sides had reached an impasse.

“Nothing in Title IX or its implementing regulations prohibits schools from allowing transgender girls and women to participate on girls’ and women’s sports teams,” she wrote. “Your letters to date do not cite a single case that so holds. To the contrary, various federal courts have held that Title IX and/or the Equal Protection Clause require schools to allow such participation.”

The Maine Principals’ Association, which supervises interscholastic athletics, has said that among the 151 public and private high schools it oversees statewide, there are two transgender girls currently competing on girls’ teams.

Since February, the Trump administration has hammered the state with overlapping investigations of its education system. Last week, the Agriculture Department froze funding that Maine said could threaten its school meals programs. In response, the state sued the department.

Not long after the Education Department’s announcement on Friday, a federal judge in Maine issued a preliminary ruling in the state’s favor, ordering that the U.S.D.A. funding be restored and issuing a warning to the Trump administration. “The Federal Defendants are barred from freezing, terminating, or otherwise interfering with the State’s future federal funding for alleged violations of Title IX without complying with the legally required procedure,” the ruling said.

It was not immediately clear on Friday where the administrative proceeding on the state’s education funding would be held, or when — or whether it would meet the specifications of the court’s order. The Department of Justice is expected to sue the state to try to compel its compliance.

The announcement highlighted some fundamental legal questions underlying many of Mr. Trump’s recent moves on K-12 education, including: Will the courts uphold the administration’s broad interpretation of civil rights law? And how much latitude does the executive branch have to stop the flow of federal funds that have been allocated by Congress?

Next week, a Federal District Court in New Hampshire is scheduled to hold a hearing on whether the administration can follow through on its threat to cut off Title I funds to schools with certain diversity, equity and inclusion programs.

Democratic-run states, teachers’ unions and progressive interest groups, like the A.C.L.U., have said it cannot, filing several federal lawsuits in response. Some education experts have predicted that the question could reach the Supreme Court.

The F.B.I. has suspended an analyst on Kash Patel’s so-called enemies list after Mr. Patel told lawmakers that the bureau under his leadership would stay out of the political fray and not punish employees for partisan reasons.

Last week, the bureau placed the analyst, Brian Auten, on administrative leave, according to people familiar with the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they feared retaliation. The reasons for the suspension remain unclear.

The F.B.I. declined to comment. A lawyer for Mr. Auten also declined to comment.

The suspension is likely to raise questions about whether the move was retaliatory, and about how closely Mr. Patel would stick to his promise, made during his confirmation hearing in January, that the agency would rise above partisanship despite pressure from President Trump’s allies to fire employees who took part in investigations that conservatives have condemned.

The suspension of Mr. Auten, who had already been disciplined and questioned in a criminal inquiry, will also likely intensify distrust of Mr. Patel among employees who have watched senior leaders forced out in recent months with no explanation.

Mr. Auten worked on two major investigations that angered Mr. Trump and Mr. Patel, including the F.B.I.’s investigation into Russian meddling during the 2016 presidential election. He was also involved in analyzing the information found on Hunter Biden’s laptop, a discovery that roiled the 2020 presidential campaign.

Mr. Patel has called the Russia investigation a hoax, and singled out Mr. Auten in his book, “Government Gangsters.” In the book, Mr. Patel claimed that the F.B.I. was trying to “hide and spin” what he called “the Biden family corruption” buried in the laptop, even as agents investigated the matter.

“Government Gangsters” also included a list of 60 names in an appendix called “Members of the Executive Branch Deep State.”

Mr. Auten was among the names listed in the appendix. At his confirmation hearing, Mr. Patel denied that it was an enemies list.

“It’s a total mischaracterization,” he told senators. He later added: “There will be no politicization at the F.B.I. There will be no retributive actions taken by any F.B.I., should I be confirmed as F.B.I. director.”

The suspension of Mr. Auten came after he and others had been disciplined for serious mistakes found in the F.B.I.’s applications for a secret surveillance warrant involving a former Trump campaign adviser.

Mr. Auten played an important role in unmasking the primary source behind a dossier of rumors and unproven assertions about Mr. Trump. The surveillance warrant applications relied in part on the dossier that Mr. Auten had examined extensively.

In the wake of the Russia investigation, known as Crossfire Hurricane, Mr. Auten had been suspended for 30 days, people said. After Mr. Patel became director, Mr. Auten was moved out of the counterintelligence division, one of the people said.

In his book, Mr. Patel denounced Mr. Auten.

“Yet just like his superiors, Auten has faced no real accountability in light of these findings,” he wrote. “The fact that Auten was not fired from the F.B.I. and prosecuted for his part in the Russia Gate conspiracy is a national embarrassment.”

The Justice Department’s inspector general found that F.B.I. officials had sufficient reason to open Crossfire Hurricane, and did not find evidence that the inquiry was politically motivated.

“We did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced” officials’ decision to open the investigation, the report said.

John H. Durham, the special counsel appointed by Mr. Trump to scrutinize the Russia investigation, said in his final report that “as an initial matter, there is no question that the F.B.I. had an affirmative obligation to closely examine” the tip that prompted the investigation.

But Mr. Durham accused the F.B.I. of “confirmation bias.”

In 2020, The New York Post reported on the laptop once used by Mr. Biden, writing that it contained damning evidence against him and his father, Joseph R. Biden Jr., who was running for president.

In his book, Mr. Patel criticized Mr. Auten’s role in the episode, claiming that he tried to “discredit any derogatory information about Hunter Biden by falsely claiming that none of it was true.”

Five more prominent law firms facing potential punitive action by President Trump reached deals on Friday with the White House to provide a total of $600 million in free legal services to causes supported by the president.

Four of the firms — Kirkland & Ellis, Latham & Watkins, A&O Shearman and Simpson Thacher & Bartlett — each agreed to provide $125 million in pro bono or free legal work, according to Mr. Trump. A fifth firm, Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft, agreed to provide at least $100 million in pro bono work.

With the latest round of deals, some of the biggest firms in the legal profession have agreed over the past month to provide a combined $940 million in free legal services to causes favored by the Trump administration, including ones with “conservative ideals.”

Mr. Trump announced the agreements between his administration and the law firms on Friday on Truth Social, the platform owned by his social media company, Trump Media & Technology Group.

Top lawyers from each firm provided a statement to the White House, which was included in the social media posts. Earlier this week, The New York Times reported onnegotiations with four of the firms.

The deals were announced during a week in which Mr. Trump talked openly in the Oval Office about using the firms he has struck deals with to help negotiate trade agreements with other countries and even work on coal leasing deals.

Mr. Trump did not specifically mention potential work on trade deals or coal leasing agreements in his social media posts. Rather, the posts said the firms would devote free legal work to things like fighting antisemitism, helping Gold Star families, assisting law enforcement and “ensuring fairness in our justice system.”

The terms are similar to ones Mr. Trump previously announced with Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison; Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom; Willkie Farr & Gallagher; and Milbank.

Law firms are settling with the Trump administration to head off executive orders that would make it difficult for them to represent clients with federal contracts or seek government regulatory approvals.But a few firms are fighting Mr. Trump’s executive orders in federal court, claiming the orders are unconstitutional and a form of retaliation for taking positions he doesn’t like. Judges have temporarily stayed the orders against Perkins Coie, WilmerHale and Jenner & Block from going into effect.

A fourth firm, Susman Godfrey, was hit with an executive order this week and became the latest firm to take on the Trump administration. Late Friday the firm filed a lawsuit in federal court in Washington seeking to block the order from taking effect.

Lawyers from Munger, Tolles & Olson are representing Susman in the litigation. Munger is the same firm that helped organize an amicus brief filed by more than 500 law firms in support of Perkins Coie. But only a few large law firms signed on that legal filing.

Susman represented Dominion Voting Systems, a voting machine manufacturer, in a major defamation case against Fox News. The conservative cable news channel agreed to pay $787.5 million to Dominion to resolve the lawsuit. Dominion filed the lawsuit over misinformation the cable network spread about its role in the 2020 election, which Mr. Trump has repeatedly said was stolen from him.

“If President Trump’s Executive Orders are allowed to stand, future presidents will face no constraint when they seek to retaliate against a different set of perceived foes,” Susman’s 66-page complaint begins. “What for two centuries has been beyond the pale will become the new normal. Put simply, this could be any of us.”

Mr. Trump is going after law firms that have hired attorneys he perceives as his political enemies, represented causes he has opposed or refused to represent people because of their conservative and right-wing political beliefs. Some firms are also being targeted for their hiring practices that advance the principle of having a diverse work force.

The president has said repeatedly that diversity, equity and inclusion policies in hiring are illegal and discriminatory and that he intends to get rid of them. The federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, in what has been seen as a related move, sent letters to 20 law firms last month requesting information about their D.E.I. practices.

Four of the firms that reached deals with Mr. Trump — Kirkland, Latham, Shearman and Simpson Thacher — had each received one of those letters. In settling, Mr. Trump said the E.E.O.C. had agreed not to pursue claims against those four firms. Later in the day, the E.E.O.C. announced a separate settlement with the four firms.

Law professors and others in the legal industry have praised the firms that are fighting the administration while criticizing those that have settled. The critics say the law firms that settle have succumbed to pressure tactics by the administration. And each new settlement only encourages Mr. Trump to become even more emboldened in his demands for free legal work.

The Trump administration seems to believe it is “developing a war chest of legal enlistees or conscripts” to do work for it, said Harold Hongju Koh, a professor of international law at Yale Law School, who was an author on a recently published paper that called the executive orders unconstitutional retaliatory measures.

“Every kid learns, on the schoolyard, if you cave to a bully they will come back to bully you some more,” said Mr. Koh.