Judge Julieta Makintach arrives at court for a hearing in the trial of health professionals accused of negligence in the death of soccer star Diego Maradona, in San Isidro, on the outskirts of Buenos Aires, Argentina, Tuesday, May 27, 2025. Jana Maradona, daughter of the late soccer star Diego Maradona, arrives at court for a hearing in the trial of health professionals accused of negligence in his death, in San Isidro on the outskirts of Buenos Aires, Argentina, Tuesday, May 27, 2025. Veronica Ojeda, former partner of the late soccer star Diego Maradona, leaves a cafe during a break in the trial of health professionals accused of negligence in his death, in San Isidro, on the outskirts of Buenos Aires, Argentina, Tuesday, May 27, 2025. Gianinna Maradona, daughter of the late soccer star Diego Maradona, arrives at court for a hearing in the trial of health professionals accused of negligence in his death, in San Isidro on the outskirts of Buenos Aires, Argentina, Tuesday, May 27, 2025. The judges ruled there would be a new trial, without specifying when. In calling for the judge, Julieta Makintach, to be recused, the prosecutor on Tuesday presented the trailer for her documentary — a one-and-a-half-minute teaser that intercuts archival footage of Maradona scoring iconic goals with shots of Makintach strutting through the corridors of the Buenos Aires courthouse in high heels and a short skirt as a string soundtrack heightens suspense. The prosecutor asked judges to investigate allegations that Makintach had violated judicial ethics in allowing a camera crew inside the courthouse to film her overseeing closed-door hearings for the reality TV-style series. As the claims snowballed into a national scandal, Makintach on Tuesday said that she had “no choice” but to resign from the case. He added: “This is an unpleasant decision.” Thursday's ruling said that a higher court would select the three new judges by lottery “within a reasonable period of time.” The case accuses Maradona's medical team of failing to provide adequate care for the soccer star in weeks leading up to his sudden death on November 25, 2020. Maradona died at age 60 from cardiac arrest while recovering from surgery for a blood clot on the brain at a rented home outside Buenos Aires. Although the case largely hinges on medical technicalities, the biweekly testimonies have also become tabloid fodder — like much in Maradona's life, which included long spates of drug and alcohol abuse. Experts have taken the stand to allege that Maradona agonized for 12 hours before his death while his sisters and daughters have tearfully accused his medics of leaving him alone in squalor when he should have been hospitalized. The defendants, who deny all accusations, were charged with culpable homicide, a crime similar to involuntary manslaughter in that it implies the accused were aware of the risk caused by their reckless conduct and ignored it. They include Leopoldo Luque, Maradona's primary physician at the time of his death, as well as his psychologist, psychiatrist, medical coordinator and nurses. The crime carries a maximum penalty of 25 years in prison. The defendants say Maradona was a difficult patient who did not allow himself to be treated. Maradona, who famously led Argentina to victory in the 1986 World Cup, is regarded as one of the greatest soccer players of all time. Associated Press writer Isabel DeBre contributed to this report.

Fans leave as Police and emergency personnel deal with an incident after a car collided with pedestrians near the Liver Building during the Premier League winners parade in Liverpool, England, Monday, May 26, 2025. Scooters lie on the site where a 53-year-old British man plowed a minivan into a crowd of Liverpool soccer fans who were celebrating the city's Premier League championship Monday, injuring more than 45 people in Liverpool, England, Tuesday, May 27, 2025. A fan scarf lies near the site where a 53-year-old British man plowed a minivan into a crowd of Liverpool soccer fans who were celebrating the city's Premier League championship Monday, injuring more than 45 people in Liverpool, England, Tuesday, May 27, 2025. Police and emergency personnel deal with an incident near the Liver Building during the Premier League winners parade, in Liverpool, England, Monday May 26, 2025. LONDON (AP) — A driver who injured nearly 80 people when his car rammed into a crowd of Liverpool soccer fans celebrating their team's Premier League championship was charged Thursday with intentionally causing grievous bodily harm and six other serious counts, a prosecutor said. Paul Doyle, 53, was also charged with dangerous driving and five other counts alleging different variations of causing or attempting to cause grievous bodily harm, Prosecutor Sarah Hammond said. The charges carry a maximum sentence of life in prison if convicted. The charges involve six victims, including two children. Hammond said the investigation was at an early stage as police review a huge volume of evidence, including videos and eyewitness statements. “It is important to ensure that every victim gets the justice they deserve,” Hammond said. The city had been celebrating Liverpool's record-tying 20th title when the driver turned down a street full of fans and joy quickly turned to tragedy. Video that circulated on social media showed scenes of horror as the car struck and tossed a person in the air who was draped in a Liverpool flag and then swerved into a sea of people packed on the side of the road. At least four people, including a child, were rescued from beneath the vehicle when it came to a halt. Merseyside Police said the driver was believed to have acted alone and they did not suspect terrorism. They did not disclose an alleged motive for the act. “I fully understand how this incident has left us all shocked and saddened, and I know many will continue to have concerns and questions,” Assistant Chief Constable Jenny Sims said during a short news conference. “Our detectives are working tirelessly, with diligence and professionalism to seek the answer to all of those questions.”

This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Quotes displayed in real-time or delayed by at least 15 minutes. Powered and implemented by FactSet Digital Solutions. Mutual Fund and ETF data provided by Refinitiv Lipper. Attorney General Pam Bondi on the judicial system's handling of executive power cases, controversy surrounding alleged MS-13 Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia's deportation, the Luigi Mangione case and chatter about President Trump seeking a third term. FIRST ON FOX— The Justice Department on Thursday formally notified the American Bar Association that it will no longer comply with its ratings process for judicial nominees, the result of what it argues is a biased system and one that "invariably and demonstrably" favors nominees put forth by Democratic administrations. The letter, sent by U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi to ABA President William R. Bay, was previewed exclusively to Fox News. It marks the latest escalation in a protracted legal fight that Republicans have waged against the nation's largest association of legal workers. "For several decades, the American Bar Association has received special treatment and enjoyed special access to judicial nominees," Bondi said in the letter. Some administrations would even decide whether to nominate an individual based on a rating assigned by the ABA." Attorney General Pam Bondi speaks at a news conference regarding immigration enforcement at the Department of Justice, Wednesday, Feb. 12, 2025, in Washington. "Accordingly, while the ABA is free to comment on judicial nominations along with other activist organizations, there is no justification for treating the ABA differently from such other activist organizations and the Department of Justice will not do so." It also ended an Office of Legal Policy that directed judicial nominees to provide waivers allowing the ABA access to non-public information for nominees, including bar records. The Department of Justice's headquarters in Washington, D.C. (Drew Angerer) "Nominees will also not respond to questionnaires prepared by the ABA and will not sit for interviews with the ABA," Bondi said. The ABA, established in the late 1800s, has grown into a sprawling organization that touts a membership of over 400,000 legal workers. But it has sparked criticism from Republicans, including members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, previously blasted the ABA as a "radical left-wing advocacy group." President Donald Trump and US Attorney General Pam Bondi (L) arrive to speak at the Department of Justice in Washington, D.C. (Roberto Schmidt/AFP via Getty) He and others on the panel previously took aim at the group for embracing so-called "woke initiatives," including its heavy use of diversity, equity and inclusion, or DEI efforts, in many facets of its work. Fox News Digital has reached out to the American Bar Association for comment. Breanne Deppisch is a national politics reporter for Fox News Digital covering the Trump administration, with a focus on the Justice Department, FBI, and other national news. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Quotes displayed in real-time or delayed by at least 15 minutes. Mutual Fund and ETF data provided by Refinitiv Lipper.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court backed a multibillion-dollar oil railroad expansion in Utah Thursday in a ruling that scales back a key environmental law and could speed development projects around the country. The Trump administration has already said it's speeding up that process after the president vowed to boost U.S. oil and gas development. Justice Brett Kavanaugh referred to the decision as a “course correction” in an opinion fully joined by four conservative colleagues. “Congress did not design NEPA for judges to hamstring new infrastructure and construction projects,” he wrote. The three liberals agreed the Utah project should get its approval, but they would have taken a narrower path. The case centers on the Uinta Basin Railway, a proposed 88-mile (142-kilometer) expansion that would connect oil and gas producers to the broader rail network and allow them to access larger markets. The justices reversed a lower court decision and restored a critical approval from federal regulators on the Surface Transportation Board. Construction, though, does not appear to be imminent. Project leaders must obtain several permits and secure necessary financing with private-sector partners before they can break ground, said Uinta Basin Railway spokesperson Melissa Cano. Supreme Court is seen on Capitol Hill in Washington, April 25, 2024. Environmental groups and a Colorado county had argued that regulators must consider a broad range of potential impacts when they consider new development, such as increased wildfire risk, the effect of additional crude oil production from the area and increased refining in Gulf Coast states. “The goal of the law is to inform agency decision making, not to paralyze it,” he said. The court's conservative majority court has taken steps to curtail the power of federal regulators in other cases, however, including striking down the decades-old Chevron doctrine that made it easier for the federal government to set a wide range of regulations. Justice Sonia Sotomayor said in a concurrence that the court could have simply cleared the way for the railway approval by saying that regulators did not need to consider increased fossil fuel production tied to the project. Justice Neil Gorsuch did not participate in the case after facing calls to step aside over ties to Philip Anschutz, a Colorado billionaire whose ownership of oil wells in the area means he could benefit if the project goes through. Gorsuch, as a lawyer in private practice, had represented Anschutz. The ruling comes after President Donald Trump's vow to boost U.S. oil and gas drilling and move away from former President Joe Biden's focus on climate change. “The court's decision gives agencies a green light to ignore the reasonably foreseeable consequences of their decisions and avoid confronting them,” said Sambhav Sankar, senior vice president of programs at Earthjustice. Wendy Park, a senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, said opponents would continue to fight the Utah project. “This disastrous decision to undermine our nation's bedrock environmental law means our air and water will be more polluted, the climate and extinction crises will intensify, and people will be less healthy,” she said. Spencer Cox, R-Utah, said the ruling affirms a “balanced approach” to environmental oversight. He praised the railroad expansion as a critical infrastructure project that will help “restore America's energy independence” and help the state's rural economy. James Coleman, a professor at University of Minnesota Law School, said the ruling is an “important corrective” that would have judges deferring to federal regulators rather than requiring them to consider upstream and downstream effects of energy transportation projects. “It represents a turning point for rural Utah — bringing safer, sustainable, more efficient transportation options, and opening new doors for investment and economic stability,” said Keith Heaton, director of the Seven County Infrastructure Coalition. Associated Press writer Hannah Schoenbaum in Salt Lake City contributed to this report.

This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Quotes displayed in real-time or delayed by at least 15 minutes. Powered and implemented by FactSet Digital Solutions. Mutual Fund and ETF data provided by Refinitiv Lipper. An Alaska Airlines flight made a hard landing at John Wayne Airport in Orange County, California during a torrential downpour caused by Tropical Storm Hilary. Nearly two years after passengers screamed while sparks flew down a runway during the landing of an Alaska Airlines flight, the cause has been revealed. A final report by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) released on Tuesday points to "incorrect" maintenance work. The flight, which departed from Seattle, Washington, made a hard touchdown in Santa Ana, Calif., during Tropical Storm Hilary after the left main landing gear collapsed on touchdown. Video recorded by a passenger captured the plane slamming into the ground at high speed. Sparks were seen flying as the plane appeared to drag its left wing along the tarmac. NTSB issued the final report for its investigation into a 2023 Alaska Airlines landing that landed with a collapsed left main landing gear at John Wayne-Orange County Airport in Santa Ana, California. Investigators revealed that the incident was caused by a "fatigue crack" of a metal trunnion pin, which is part of the left landing gear. The fracture formed from excessive grinding during a 2018 maintenance overhaul, which introduced heat damage to the metal. "Results of this examination and previous NTSB investigations demonstrate that even relatively mild heat exposure from grinding and/or machining during overhaul can lead to cracking, which can lead to fatigue crack growth and failed landing gear components, as occurred in this accident," the report stated. Firefighters with the Orange County Fire Authority helped passengers deplane Alaska Airlines Flight 1288 on Sunday, Aug. 20, 2023. Although the aircraft sustained substantial damage from the hard landing, all 112 passengers and crew members were able to deplane safely and without injury. Alaska Airlines Flight 1288 was forced to make a hard landing at John Wayne Airport in Orange County, California, amid Tropical Storm Hilary. Alaska Airlines previously said, "our focus is taking care of our guests who were on board, including retrieving their checked bags." "We apologize for the inconvenience and appreciate their patience during this situation." Alaska Airlines did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Fox News Digital. Fox News' Chris Pandolfo contributed to this report. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Quotes displayed in real-time or delayed by at least 15 minutes. Powered and implemented by FactSet Digital Solutions. Mutual Fund and ETF data provided by Refinitiv Lipper.

Fans leave as Police and emergency personnel deal with an incident after a car collided with pedestrians near the Liver Building during the Premier League winners parade in Liverpool, England, Monday, May 26, 2025. Scooters lie on the site where a 53-year-old British man plowed a minivan into a crowd of Liverpool soccer fans who were celebrating the city's Premier League championship Monday, injuring more than 45 people in Liverpool, England, Tuesday, May 27, 2025. A fan scarf lies near the site where a 53-year-old British man plowed a minivan into a crowd of Liverpool soccer fans who were celebrating the city's Premier League championship Monday, injuring more than 45 people in Liverpool, England, Tuesday, May 27, 2025. Police and emergency personnel deal with an incident near the Liver Building during the Premier League winners parade, in Liverpool, England, Monday May 26, 2025. LONDON (AP) — A driver who injured nearly 80 people when his car rammed into a crowd of Liverpool soccer fans celebrating their team's Premier League championship was charged Thursday with intentionally causing grievous bodily harm and six other serious counts, a prosecutor said. Paul Doyle, 53, was also charged with dangerous driving and five other counts alleging different variations of causing or attempting to cause grievous bodily harm, Prosecutor Sarah Hammond said. The charges carry a maximum sentence of life in prison if convicted. The charges involve six victims, including two children. Hammond said the investigation was at an early stage as police review a huge volume of evidence, including videos and eyewitness statements. “It is important to ensure that every victim gets the justice they deserve,” Hammond said. The city had been celebrating Liverpool's record-tying 20th title when the driver turned down a street full of fans and joy quickly turned to tragedy. Video that circulated on social media showed scenes of horror as the car struck and tossed a person in the air who was draped in a Liverpool flag and then swerved into a sea of people packed on the side of the road. At least four people, including a child, were rescued from beneath the vehicle when it came to a halt. Merseyside Police said the driver was believed to have acted alone and they did not suspect terrorism. They did not disclose an alleged motive for the act. “I fully understand how this incident has left us all shocked and saddened, and I know many will continue to have concerns and questions,” Assistant Chief Constable Jenny Sims said during a short news conference. “Our detectives are working tirelessly, with diligence and professionalism to seek the answer to all of those questions.”

This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Quotes displayed in real-time or delayed by at least 15 minutes. Powered and implemented by FactSet Digital Solutions. Mutual Fund and ETF data provided by Refinitiv Lipper. Police in Germantown, Maryland looking for would-be thieves who crashed into a grocery store before a robbery attempt. A chilling discovery made over Memorial Day weekend in the quiet town of Davidsonville, Maryland, a short ride from the state's upscale Eastern Shore, has confounded the community. On the night of May 24, Anne Arundel County Police and fire crews responded to a vehicle fire in the parking lot of 600 West Central Avenue in the tiny town, according to a press release. Davidsonville is located 25 miles east of Washington, D.C., in the Annapolis area. A street that runs through historic Davidsonville, Maryland. After extinguishing the engulfed vehicle, police say they found human remains inside. View of boats anchored in Spa Creek in the historic colonial city of Annapolis, Maryland, not far from Davidsonville. He also asked the public to come forward with information. "Certainly, any surveillance footage would be part of the investigation as well, or anything we can gather to assist our case right now," he said. Fox News Digital reached out to Anne Arundel County Police. Peter D'Abrosca joined Fox News Digital in 2025 after four years as a politics reporter at The Tennessee Star. He grew up in Rhode Island and is a graduate of Elon University. The hottest stories ripped from the headlines, from crime to courts, legal and scandal. By entering your email and clicking the Subscribe button, you agree to the Fox News Privacy Policy and Terms of Use, and agree to receive content and promotional communications from Fox News. You've successfully subscribed to this newsletter! This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Quotes displayed in real-time or delayed by at least 15 minutes. Powered and implemented by FactSet Digital Solutions. Mutual Fund and ETF data provided by Refinitiv Lipper.

Instead, scientists take a sample of animal cells and feed them amino acids, salts, vitamins, and other nutrients until they grow into edible beef, pork, or poultry. You can't buy cellular meat at a grocery store. A newsletter analyzing how the meat and dairy industries impact everything around us. Nevertheless, self-styled champions of free enterprise in Nebraska, Montana, Indiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Texas, and Wyoming have all sought to stymy the manufacture and sale of cellular meat within their borders. Although these bans are of little immediate consequence, they're nevertheless alarming and unconscionable. Lab-grown meat faces many scientific and economic hurdles to viability. Human beings generally love the taste of flesh, and not without reason. Meat is highly nutrient-dense, providing protein and essential amino acids, as well as vitamins and minerals that can be challenging to assemble from plant-based foods. Raising livestock requires more resources than cultivating wheat or rice, which has long rendered highly carnivorous diets unattainable for ordinary people. As soon as humans can afford to eat meat regularly, however, most do so: Around the world, meat consumption rises almost linearly with increases in national income. This relationship may break down some in the wealthiest nations. Past a certain level of affluence, people seem to give more weight to environmental and medical arguments against heavy meat consumption — Germany, for example, has managed to modestly decrease its per capita meat consumption over the last decade. But even in extremely rich societies, moral or environmental arguments against meat consumption haven't made a significant dent on people's dietary choices. According to Gallup's polling, in 1999, 6 percent of Americans identified as vegetarians. And other empirical research, such as studies of shoppers' grocery purchases, comports with Gallup's findings. It therefore seems implausible that moral suasion alone will ever drastically swell the ranks of America's vegetarians. Which is too bad, since the moral arguments against modern animal agriculture are incredibly strong. And it requires little philosophical sophistication to recognize as much. Granted, I don't have hard data for that claim (for some reason, Gallup and Pew have not seen fit to poll that proposition). But it seems like a reasonable assumption, given the public's hostility to dog-fighting rings and other forms of canine abuse. Yet the reasons why we typically consider dogs to be beings of moral worth — their capacity for bonding with humans and other members of their species, intelligence, distinct personalities, empathy, and vulnerability to suffering — also apply to pigs, among other animals raised for slaughter. Most sows, or female breeding pigs, meanwhile, spend their entire lives in cages so small that they cannot stretch their legs or turn around. The scale of cruelty in meat cultivation is greater than it needs to be. But there is an inescapable trade-off between productivity and humanity in industrial agriculture. Pig farmers don't keep sows in tiny cages because they are sadists. Rather, they do so because the less space an individual sow takes up, the more you can breed in a given amount of square footage. At present, there is just no getting around the conflict between our collective appetite for meat and our common moral intuition that torturing animals by the billions is wrong. Maybe, eventually, my vegan colleagues will persuade me to stop eating animals and start worshipping seitan. But such conversions are unlikely to ever happen at scale. Thus, the only way to reconcile humanity's taste for meat with its sympathy for intelligent life is to decouple animals' flesh from their sentience. And lab-grown meat is our best hope for doing that. Yet some conservatives see less promise than peril in cellular meat. Already alarmed by competition from plant-based milks, which now make up more than 10 percent of overall milk sales, some livestock interests have sought to nip lab-grown meat in the bud. Ron DeSantis signed his state's ban into law last year, he was flanked by cattle ranchers. If conservatives' position were solely dictated by Big Ag, they might actually support the technology. Meanwhile, JBS Foods, the world's largest meat processor, has itself invested in lab-grown beef. Some Republican politicians say they're motivated by safety concerns. Ironically, what some Republicans seem to fear about lab-grown meat is precisely that it could render mass animal torture unnecessary, and therefore, verboten. As DeSantis explained when he announced his cellular meat ban last May, “Florida is fighting back against the global elite's plan to force the world to eat meat grown in a petri dish or bugs to achieve their authoritarian goals.” The idea here is that an international cabal of billionaire progressives wants to outlaw traditional meat and make Americans eat insects and poor simulacrums of beef instead (in arguing this, DeSantis was riffing on a popular right-wing conspiracy theory about the World Economic Forum's tyrannical machinations). Other Republican opponents of cellular meat express similar concerns. Jim Pillen, himself a major pork producer, described his state's prohibition as an effort to “battle fringe ideas and groups to defend our way of life.” DeSantis's conspiratorial version of this argument is patently irrational. But the notion that lab-grown meat could eventually lead to bans on factory-farmed animal products is less unhinged. After all, progressives in some states and cities have banned plastic straws, despite the objective inferiority of paper ones. And the moral case for infinitesimally reducing plastic production isn't anywhere near as strong as that for ending the mass torture of animals. While not entirely groundless, this fear is nevertheless misguided. As noted above, roughly 95 percent of Americans eat meat. No municipal, state or federal government could ever end access to high-quality hot dogs, ribs, or chicken fingers and survive the next election. If cellular meat ever becomes both tastier and cheaper than conventional alternatives — across every cut and kind of animal protein — then it could plausibly drive factory farmers into ruin. And in a world where almost no one eats pork derived from tortured sows, it's conceivable that the government could ban such torture. In so doing, however, it would only be ratifying the market's verdict. Labs are making some progress on approximating ground beef and chicken nuggets. In any case, creating one serving of chicken nuggets at gargantuan cost in a lab and producing such nuggets at a global scale and competitive price are radically different propositions. If they are right, then conservatives have nothing to worry about. But if those skeptical scientists are underestimating humanity's capacity for agricultural innovation (as some have done in the past), then the consequences could be downright utopian. Right now, the process for converting energy into animal tissue is riddled with inefficiency, environmental harms, and cruelty. We grow corn and soybeans to capture energy from the sun, then convert those crops into feed, then fatten animals on that feed for weeks, months, or years before slaughtering them. If labs found a commercially viable way to directly convert electricity into chicken wings, steaks, and bacon, we could radically reduce the resource intensity and cost of meat production. At the same time, we would free up the roughly 660 million acres of American land currently devoted to pasture and grazing — a third of the continental US — for housing, parks, or commerce, while eliminating a large share of global carbon emissions. Biology or economics may ultimately block the path to such a utopian food system. But we must not let cultural grievance prevent us from finding out if that world is possible. A version of this story originally appeared in the Future Perfect newsletter. In its first 100 days, the Trump administration has moved to roll back food safety measures, endanger slaughterhouse workers, and more. Eating more meat won't make America healthy again.

This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Quotes displayed in real-time or delayed by at least 15 minutes. Powered and implemented by FactSet Digital Solutions. Mutual Fund and ETF data provided by Refinitiv Lipper. Fox News' Alexandria Hoff provides details on a federal court's ruling that blocks President Donald Trump's sweeping tariffs. Fox News contributor Hugh Hewitt weighs in and discusses the decision to 'aggressively' pull Chinese student visas. The Supreme Court on Thursday limited the authority of judges to block infrastructure projects due to environmental concerns. The justices handed down the lone decision Thursday morning, slightly curbing judicial authority at a time when President Donald Trump's administration is loudly complaining about alleged judicial overreach. "Courts should afford substantial deference and should not micromanage those agency choices so long as they fall within a broad zone of reasonableness," the opinion continued. The U.S. Supreme Court is shown at dusk on June 28, 2023, in Washington, D.C. (Drew Angerer/Getty Images) Thursday's decision was an 8-0 ruling, with Justice Neil Gorsuch taking no part in the consideration of the case. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Amy Coney Barrett joined with Kavanaugh's opinion. Posing for a group phot are, bottom row, from left, Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Clarence Thomas, Chief Justice John Roberts, Justices Samuel Alito and Elena Kagan, and top row, from left, Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Ketanji Brown Jackson at the Supreme Court building, on Oct. 7, 2022. Meanwhile, Justice Sonia Sotomayor filed a separate concurring opinion, onto which joined Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Trump, having a history in major construction projects, has repeatedly complained about environmental impact statements and the roadblocks they can cause. Republicans have also widely criticized what they see as judicial overreach in federal judges unilaterally blocking major aspects of Trump's agenda. "Universal injunctions are an unconstitutional abuse of judicial power," Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, told Fox News Digital earlier this month. "Just this past week, a D.C. district judge issued a universal injunction blocking the president's executive order requiring voter ID or proof-of-citizenship prior to voting in national election," he continued. Get all the stories you need-to-know from the most powerful name in news delivered first thing every morning to your inbox This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Quotes displayed in real-time or delayed by at least 15 minutes. Powered and implemented by FactSet Digital Solutions. Mutual Fund and ETF data provided by Refinitiv Lipper.

Behind the monumental court ruling that blocked most of US President Donald Trump's tariffs is a small wine company run by a father-and-daughter duo. Related article Tariffs, and Trump's entire economic agenda, were just thrown into chaos The decision found Trump overstepped his authority by invoking emergency economic powers to impose sweeping tariffs on China, Canada, Mexico and other US trading partners. “Put it this way: when I started VOS 40 years ago I had no idea that I was signing up for something like this, getting involved in a lawsuit against the executive branch of the United States,” Schwartz, who runs the business alongside his daughter Chloe, told CNN. Schwartz was in the middle of cooking a pasta dinner Wednesday when he received an email from his lawyers telling him they had won. Then, his phone started ringing off the hook with media requests and messages of congratulations. If it survives the challenge, the ruling would put an end to almost all of Trump's tariffs, and cut into his leverage when negotiating trade deals with other countries. Tariffs on autos, auto parts, steel and aluminum will continue because they were enacted under a different law. White House spokesperson Kush Desai said in a statement that “it is not for unelected judges to decide how to properly address a national emergency.” The Trump administration's tariffs have been particularly painful for small businesses, which have had to weather surging prices and constantly shifting trade policies without the level of cash flow that larger companies can dip into. Schwartz said his business, which imports wine, sake and spirits from small-batch producers in countries including France, Lebanon and Japan, was hurt by Trump's tariffs during the president's first term. We can't just ride out the storm,” Schwartz said. This time around, when Trump announced unprecedented global tariffs on almost all US trading partners, Schwartz knew he had to fight back. “Something like this is a complete monkey wrench in your business,” he said, describing the tariffs as an “existential threat.” Related article Elon Musk says his time in the Trump administration has ‘come to an end' Schwartz was put in touch with lawyers at the libertarian advocacy group Liberty Justice Center, which filed the lawsuit on behalf of VOS and four other small businesses, including a women's cycling apparel company and an online fishing tackle shop. Jeffrey Schwab, lead attorney for the Liberty Justice Center, told CNN's Kaitlan Collins “this is a very important case,” not just because of its economic impact, but “because of the tremendous power grab that the administration is claiming here.” Schwartz said he is confident in his lawsuit and plans to see it all the way through to the Supreme Court, if necessary. He said the latest ruling is a win for small businesses everywhere. It's going to change the whole game plan,” he said, clearly elated. As one would expect, Schwartz plans to celebrate with a nice bottle of wine. US market indices are shown in real time, except for the S&P 500 which is refreshed every two minutes. Standard & Poor's and S&P are registered trademarks of Standard & Poor's Financial Services LLC and Dow Jones is a registered trademark of Dow Jones Trademark Holdings LLC. Market holidays and trading hours provided by Copp Clark Limited.

You may not know about it either, but the program helps keep people — and animals — in good health. Nearly two decades ago, scientists made an alarming discovery in upstate New York: Bats, the world's only flying mammal, were becoming infected with a new, deadly fungal disease that, in some cases, could wipe out an entire colony in a matter of months. Since then, the disease — later called white-nose syndrome — has spread across much of the country, utterly decimating North American bats that hibernate in caves and killing over 90 percent of three bat species. According to some scientists, WNS has caused “the most precipitous wildlife decline in the past century in North America.” These declines have clear consequences for human populations — for you, even if you don't like bats or visit caves. Bats eat insect pests, such as moths and beetles. And as they decline, farmers need to spray more pesticides. Insecticide chemicals are known to harm the health of newborns. The Ecosystems Mission Area, which has around 1,200 employees, produces the premier science revealing how animals and ecosystems that Americans rely on are changing and what we can do to keep them intact — or risk our own health and economy. This program is now at an imminent risk of disappearing. Are you a current or former federal employee with knowledge about the Trump administration's attacks on wildlife protections? The Trump administration has asked Congress to slash USGS funding by $564 million in its preliminary 2026 budget request. And while the proposal doesn't specify cuts to Ecosystems Mission Area, an email obtained by Vox indicates that his administration had proposed eliminating funding for the program. Such cuts are also in line with Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation's conservative policy roadmap, which calls for the government to “abolish” Interior's Biological Research Division, an outdated name for the Ecosystems Mission Area. Whether or not Trump officials heed that request will be made clear when the White House releases a more detailed budget proposal in the coming days. Meanwhile, the Trump administration is also reportedly trying to fire government employees in the Ecosystems Mission Area, though a federal judge has so far blocked those efforts. For a decade now, EMA's North American Bat Monitoring Program, or NABat, has been gathering and analyzing data on bats and the threats they face. NABat produces research using data from hundreds of partner organizations showing not only how white-nose syndrome is spreading — which scientists are using to develop and deploy vaccines — but also how bats are affected by wind turbines, another known threat. Energy companies can and do use this research to develop safer technologies and avoid delays caused by wildlife regulations, such as the Endangered Species Act. The irony, another Interior Department employee told me, is that NABat makes wildlife management more efficient. It also helps reveal where declines are occurring before they become severe, potentially helping avoid the need to grant certain species federal protection — something the Trump administration would seem to want. “The damage that can be done by one administration takes decades to rebuild.” “There's no question that they don't know what EMA does,” said the senior Interior employee. Ultimately, it's not clear why the administration has targeted Interior's biological research. EMA does, however, do climate science, such as studying how plants and animals are responding to rising temperatures. That's apparently a no-go for the Trump administration. It also gathers information that sometimes indicates that certain species need federal protections, which come with regulations (also a no-go for President Donald Trump's agenda). “We should be celebrating the 10-year anniversary of this very successful program that started from scratch and built this robust, vibrant community of people all collecting data,” said Winifred Frick, the chief scientist at Bat Conservation International, an environmental group. Literally everything I value, including food, comes down to keeping an eye on these populations. This is what happens when you put a clownfish in hot water. Ganaderos han matado jaguares desde hace mucho tiempo. Now they're earning thousands of dollars to help save them. Dozens of countries have promised to end deforestation. The administration's attack on nature, explained by a dancing chicken. What most of us get wrong about animal instincts.

The United States will “aggressively revoke visas for Chinese students,” Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced Wednesday in a major escalation of tensions with Beijing, and another blow to American higher education institutions. The plan was met with strong opposition from China, which said on Thursday it had lodged a formal protest with the US over what it called a “politically motivated and discriminatory” move. The revocations will target Chinese students including “those with connections to the Chinese Communist Party or studying in critical fields,” Rubio said. The latest move is set to spark consternation and outrage in China, the country of origin for almost a quarter of international students in US higher education. It's also likely to deepen anxiety across American universities, where Chinese and other international students are a significant source of revenue. There are signs that Beijing has been caught off guard by the announcement. That changed when official comment eventually came from Mao Ning, a spokesperson for China's foreign ministry, who accused the US of using ideology and national security as a “pretext” for the move. She added that it would harm the legitimate rights and interests of Chinese students and disrupts people-to-people exchanges between the two countries. Fear and anger is already spreading among Chinese students studying in the US. Candy, a statistics student at the University of Michigan, who did not want to give her full name, said she feared her visa would be canceled before she graduates. “I pray to make it through my undergraduate study safely and smoothly.” For decades, American universities have attracted some of China's brightest minds. Many Chinese officials have sent their children to American schools, including leader Xi Jinping, whose daughter Xi Mingze studied at Harvard under a pseudonym. Some top Chinese officials have been educated in the US themselves. “Many of China's officials, entrepreneurs, and scientists — especially those who played key roles during the era of reform and opening-up — received their training in the US,” said Zichen Wang, a research fellow at the Center for China and Globalization, a non-government think tank in Beijing. Related article China says Trump Harvard ban will ‘tarnish' US image as students caught in crosshairs Student exchanges have been a key constant in the ebb and flow of US-China relations — ties that are now increasingly defined by growing geopolitical rivalry that has fueled an ongoing trade and tech war. China was the top source of international students in the US for 15 straight years until it was surpassed by India just last year, according to figures from Open Doors, a State Department-backed database tracking international student enrollment. Even as relations plummeted, Chinese officials have repeatedly underscored the important role of people-to-people exchanges in stabilizing fractured ties. Now, the Trump administration's move to revoke Chinese student visas risks further undermining an already fragile bilateral relationship, said Wang, the researcher who recently graduated from a master's program at the Princeton School of Public and International Affairs. “Despite numerous challenges in bilateral relations, student exchanges remain one of the few genuine and impactful areas of engagement between the two countries,” he said. “The fact that an announcement like this comes at a time when mutual trust between China and the US is at a historic low is, in my view, quite saddening.” Rubio's statement on Wednesday did not specify what are the “critical fields,” but there has been long-standing concern in Washington about Chinese academics accessing sensitive and military-applicable American technology. To crack down on the perceived threat of Chinese students conducting espionage on US soil, Trump introduced a ban during his first term that effectively prevented graduates in the science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) fields from Chinese universities believed to be linked to the military from gaining visas to the US. His first administration also launched the now defunct China Initiative, a national security program intended to thwart China's intelligence activities in the US, including those aimed at stealing emerging technology from research universities. It's also unclear how US officials will define students “with connections to the Chinese Communist Party” which is ubiquitous across China and boasts 99 million members. As a result, many Chinese students could have parents or relatives who are party members or work in the vast state-owned sector. “If you count in all the friends and relatives, it wouldn't be farfetched to say that almost everyone is somehow linked to the Communist Party in China,” Wang said. CNN's Cynthia Chan and Simone McCarthy contributed to this report.

The Trump administration has faced legal roadblocks that have complicated everything from the president's immigration agenda to his efforts to fire officials appointed by his predecessor in the executive branch, leading to the Justice Department pleading with the Supreme Court for help frequently since the start of President Donald Trump's second term. The first plea from the Trump administration to the Supreme Court came in February, but since then an avalanche of lower court decisions has prompted the DOJ to seek a slew of orders and hearings from the nation's highest court. The high court's term will end in just over a month, but in the second half of that term, the justices have been inundated with requests from the Trump Justice Department seeking relief from judges that Trump and his allies say are overstepping their constitutional authority. Later in April, the high court blocked the deportations of a group of Venezuelans in North Texas through a late-night order, after multiple lower courts had not yet paused the deportations. The speed with which the Supreme Court issued the order blocking the deportations led to a blistering dissent from Justice Samuel Alito, who claimed his colleagues “hastily and prematurely granted unprecedented emergency relief.” The Supreme Court added arguments over the Trump administration's executive order aiming to end birthright citizenship late in the term, hearing oral arguments in May as part of its final arguments day for the 2024 term. The high court consolidated multiple cases and heard arguments earlier this month in a case which could have ramifications for both the executive order changing the longstanding interpretation of constitutional language regarding citizenship and for district courts' ability to grant nationwide injunctions. The justices appeared uncertain in the oral arguments about how to remedy the sweeping use by district judges of nationwide injunctions, which could have a significant impact on the high court's emergency docket. The high court, via its emergency docket, has paved the way for Trump to fire, at least for now, Gwynne Wilcox of the National Labor Relations Board and Cathy Harris of the Merit Systems Protection Board, and has temporarily shielded the Department of Government Efficiency from being subject to discovery in a lawsuit about whether it is subject to the Freedom of Information Act. As the Trump administration continues to face losses and setbacks at the lower courts, the Justice Department will almost certainly continue petitioning the Supreme Court for action through its emergency docket. The latest emergency application from Solicitor General D. John Sauer asked the high court to permit the deportations of eight convicted criminal illegal immigrants to South Sudan after a lower court halted the removals.

• Crackdown on China: The US will “aggressively revoke visas for Chinese students,” Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced, in a major escalation of tensions with Beijing and another blow to American education institutions. • Musk exits: Tech billionaire Elon Musk, who was granted special government employee status to lead the Department of Government Efficiency, said this evening that his time in the administration has come “to an end.” China has reiterated its position that there are “no winners” in a trade war after a US court blocked the bulk of US President Donald Trump's tariffs. Mao Ning, a spokesperson for China's foreign ministry, said at a news conference on Thursday that “there are no winners in a tariff or trade war,” adding that “protectionism harms everyone's interests and ultimately goes against the will of the people.” Perhaps Trump's greatest grudge in his trade war has been with China. In recent weeks, he has hiked overall levies on Chinese goods into the United States to 145%, before recently slashing that figure down to 30% for 90 days following talks with Beijing. Brent crude, the world's oil benchmark, was also up 1.2% Thursday morning to trade at nearly $66 a barrel. Some context: On Trump's “Liberation Day” in early April, the president said he would impose a punishing 20% levy on all goods imports from the European Union. The EU has spent the past few weeks trying to negotiate a trade deal with Washington to avoid the tariffs and threatened to impose its own on US goods if a deal cannot be struck. “We will continue to engage and strongly advocate for the removal of tariffs.” As with almost all other US allies, Australia was not spared from Trump's tariffs, something Prime Minister Anthony Albanese previously criticized as “against the spirit of our two nations' enduring friendship.” Other countries in the region struck a more neutral tone. New Zealand's Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade said in a statement it was aware of the ruling, but added: “We need to wait for more details before commenting further.” Similarly, Japanese Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshimasa Hayashi told a news conference that Tokyo would “carefully examine the details of the ruling and its implications and respond appropriately.” The court ruling to block most of President Donald Trump's tariffs is likely to slow negotiations between the US and its major trading partners, analysts told CNN. “The court ruling may offer a reprieve for US trade partners, but there's still a huge amount of global anxiety stemming from the unpredictability and instability generated by Trump's trade policies,” said Joe Mazur, senior analyst at Trivium China, a research and advisory firm. Experts said the court ruling is also going to delay negotiations between the US and its trade partners, which began after Trump threatened aggressive “reciprocal” tariffs, before pausing them for 90 days in April. Other trade restrictions may still be on the horizon, Ng added. In the meantime, Chinese exporters will try to “front-load as many goods as possible” to take advantage of the tariff injunction, he said. And countries will continue reducing their dependence on the US and deepen ties with other partners, said William Yang, senior analyst for East Asia at the International Crisis Group, which analyzes policy. Many Chinese officials have sent their children to American schools, including leader Xi Jinping, whose daughter Xi Mingze studied at Harvard under a pseudonym. Some top Chinese officials have been educated in the US themselves. Student exchanges have been a key constant in the ebb and flow of US-China relations — ties that are now increasingly defined by growing geopolitical rivalry that has fueled a trade and tech war. China was the top source of international students in the US for 15 straight years until it was surpassed by India just last year, according to figures from Open Doors, a State Department-backed database tracking international enrollment. Even as relations plummeted, Chinese officials have repeatedly underscored the important role of people-to-people exchanges in stabilizing fractured ties. The US State Department is reviewing all Harvard University-affiliated visa holders, not just students, three senior State Department officials told CNN on Wednesday. The administration previously moved to revoke Harvard's ability to enroll international students, but the attempt has been halted by a federal judge. Harvard argued revocation of its certification in the Student and Exchange Visitor Program was “clear retaliation” for its refusal of the government's ideologically rooted policy demands. On Tuesday, the agency paused all new student and exchange visa appointments as it prepares to expand social media vetting for applicants. It is unclear what the expanded social media vetting will entail. On Wednesday, Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced he would “aggressively revoke visas for Chinese students.” A federal court's ruling against Donald Trump's authority to levy some of his most sweeping tariffs may have also dealt a serious blow to the president's entire economic agenda. Trump's core economic policy has been his tariffs, but the administration has described its aggressive trade actions as just one leg of a three-legged stool. The three-legged economic stool just lost a leg, at least for now. Without trade, Trump's whole economic policy plan could come crashing down. Revenue from Trump's tariffs, meanwhile, could, at least in part, help pay for Trump and congressional Republicans' massively expensive tax cuts, that could boost economic growth and add certainty to the markets by raising the debt ceiling. Because of its fragile construction, Trump's plan to usher in a new economic Golden Age has plenty of naysayers, including most mainstream economists, who argue that the administration lacks the discipline, authority and political support to make it happen. Asia-Pacific markets were in the green following a US court decision that blocked President Donald Trump's global tariff assault. Japan's benchmark Nikkei 225 jumped 1.68% in the morning session, while South Korea's KOSPI rose 1.73%. Some context: Many Asian economies were among the hardest hit by Trump's “reciprocal” tariffs announced in early April, including levies of 24% on Japan, 25% for South Korea and 32% on Taiwan. But the court ruling on Wednesday has halted that 10% universal tariff on most goods coming into the US, as well as the remaining 30% tariffs on China, which had negotiated down from an initial three-digit levy rate under a trade truce reached earlier this month. Just hours after a US federal court blocked President Donald Trump from imposing most of his tariffs, Hong Kong's financial secretary appeared to praise the move. Although Hong Kong is a semi-autonomous Chinese city long known as an international trade hub, it has been caught in the crossfire of the US-China trade war. It previously had a special trading status with the US that allowed for lower tariffs and a separate customs process from mainland China — but Trump revoked this status in 2020 as Beijing cracked down on dissent in the city and imposed a sweeping national security law. The notice of appeal came after a federal court ruled that Trump overstepped his authority to impose sweeping tariffs that have raised the cost of imports for everyone from giant businesses to everyday Americans. Tech billionaire Elon Musk, who was granted special government employee status to lead the Department of Government Efficiency, said this evening that his time in the Trump administration has come “to an end.” During his time helming DOGE, Musk oversaw major cuts to the federal workforce as part of the Trump administration's efforts to reduce federal spending. “As my scheduled time as a Special Government Employee comes to an end, I would like to thank President @realDonaldTrump for the opportunity to reduce wasteful spending,” Musk said in a post on X, the social media platform he owns. Musk's post comes after he raised concerns about President Donald Trump's sweeping tax and spending cuts package, saying in an interview with “CBS Sunday Morning” that he believes it would raise the US budget deficit and undercut efforts by DOGE. Separately, a White House official said Musk will begin the offboarding process tonight, which essentially includes paperwork. This post has been updated with comment from a White House official. White House spokesperson Kush Desai, reacting to a court's blocking of President Donald Trump's global tariffs, said in a statement that “it is not for unelected judges to decide how to properly address a national emergency.” “Foreign countries' nonreciprocal treatment of the Unites States has fueled America's historic and persistent trade deficits. These deficits have created a national emergency that has decimated American communities, left our workers behind, and weakened our defense industrial base – facts that the court did not dispute. Remember: A three-judge panel at the US Court of International Trade, a relatively low-profile court in Manhattan, stopped Trump's global tariffs that he imposed citing emergency economic powers, including the “Liberation Day” tariffs he announced on April 2. It also prevents Trump from enforcing his tariffs placed earlier this year against China, Mexico and Canada, designed to combat fentanyl coming into the United States. Pheonix-based immigration officials are “currently working with ICE Air to bring O.C.G. US District Judge Brian Murphy, who sits in Boston, ordered O.C.G. The case that Murphy is overseeing concerns the deportation of migrants to “third countries,” or nations that are not their home country. After entering the US and being deported a first time, the Guatemalan man reentered United States again in 2024, at which point he sought asylum, having suffered “multiple violent attacks” in Guatemala, according to court documents. said, he was raped and held for ransom in Mexico –– a detail he made known to an immigration judge during immigration proceedings. In 2025, a judge ruled he should not be sent back to his native country, the documents read. The Trump administration will “aggressively revoke visas for Chinese students,” Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced today in another blow to international students and higher education institutions across the United States. “We will also revise visa criteria to enhance scrutiny of all future visa applications from the People's Republic of China and Hong Kong,” he said. China sent the second most students from abroad of any country, trailing behind only India. The move comes a day after the State Department ordered a pause on all new student visa appointments worldwide as it prepares for expanded social media vetting. Secretary of State Marco Rubio spoke with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov amid growing frustration from President Donald Trump toward President Vladimir Putin. According to a State Department readout, Rubio “reiterated President Trump's calls for constructive, good faith dialogue with Ukraine as the only path to ending this war.” He also “welcomed Russia and Ukraine's exchange of ‘1,000-for-1,000' prisoners over the weekend,” it said. Russia also said today that another round of talks with Ukraine will be held in Istanbul next week. The Justice Department is investigating whether a California law violates students' rights by allowing transgender student athletes to play on girls' sports teams. Investigators are probing California's School Success and Opportunity Act — which prohibits public schools from blocking transgender students who to participate in school sports — on whether or not it violates Title IX, the federal law that prohibits sex-based discrimination at schools that receive federal aid, the DOJ said in a statement today. Newly disclosed letters sent to the state's attorney general and the superintendent of public instruction, as well as the California Interscholastic Federation and the Jurupa Unified School District, comes one day after President Donald Trump threatened to withhold federal funding from California over a transgender athlete's participation in an upcoming sporting event. “Title IX exists to protect women and girls in education. It is perverse to allow males to compete against girls, invade their private spaces, and take their trophies,” Harmeet Dhillon, who runs the department's Civil Rights division, said in a statement. “This Division will aggressively defend women's hard-fought rights to equal educational opportunities.” At the same time, the DOJ also filed a statement of interest in a federal lawsuit brought on behalf of high school girls who argue that they should not have to compete with transgender athletes. A 20-year-old Venezuelan man who was enrolled in a New York City high school that caters to older migrant students is in ICE detention. This makes him one of the first known students in a US public school system to be targeted by Donald Trump's immigration crackdown. He was detained last Wednesday at a Manhattan court where a judge dismissed his immigration proceedings making the young man vulnerable to detention and possible removal from the US. The Department of Homeland Security referred to Dylan as an “illegal alien,” in a social media post yesterday, and insisted he entered the US illegally. CNN has reached out to US Customs and Border Protection for comment. Miller is working “full time” for Musk, one of the sources said. Another said she has been helping arrange Musk's interviews that are unrelated to his time in government. Like several other White House advisers including Musk himself, Miller was a “Special Government Employee” which allows private sector figures to simultaneously work for the federal government but with restrictions on how many days per year can be spent on government work although that time can be extended. CNN's Kristen Holmes and Alayna Treene contributed reporting to this post. The Trump administration has effectively cut off some American companies from selling goods to China, a Commerce Department spokesperson told CNN today. In some cases, Commerce has suspended existing export licenses or imposed additional license requirements while the review is pending.”

While organizers claim it will celebrate the “Age of Patriots,” the conference's main effect will be to lend powerful political cover to Communist China's favored European collaborator, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán. But any American patriot should also judge very skeptically a leader who has sold out his country's sovereignty in supplication to Russian President Vladimir Putin, and in utterly groveling service to the Chinese Communist Party. That service is priceless to Xi in that it greatly disrupts EU efforts to impose consequences on Beijing for its endemic espionage, vast export dumping, threats to EU politicians and member states, imperial ambitions in the Pacific, and its grotesque human rights abuses. So devoted is Orbán to Xi that he has even granted the Chinese intelligence services free rein to conduct aggressive surveillance operations on his soil, including against Americans. CPAC doesn't appear to care much about this dynamic. Indeed, there is a very striking incongruence between what CPAC says about China at its events in Washington and what CPAC says about China at its events in Budapest. A CPAC panel event in Washington last year declared that the United States should guide its policy toward Beijing on a simple basis: “We Win, They Lose.” In contrast, CPAC will feature major addresses from Xi's top collaborators in Orbán's government. As they listen, American conservatives should remember that while the prime minister pretends to be a friend to President Donald Trump, he perpetually undermines Trump's effort to check the aggression of America's greatest adversary. He says that China, not the U.S., “determines the course of world economic and world political processes.” Another major CPAC Budapest appearance will come via Foreign Minister Péter Szijjártó. Last year, Szijjártó publicly adopted the exact opposite approach to that of the Trump administration when he pledged to Beijing that he would “enhance cooperation efficiency, oppose protectionism and insist on resolving trade frictions through dialogue and consultation.” If this seems like shameless deference to Beijing's agenda, that's because it's supposed to be. Explaining why CPAC Budapest 2025 matters, Miklós Szánthó, the head of the Hungarian government-aligned Center for Fundamental Rights, stated that “citizens defending their homeland cannot afford complacency. After all, Xi and his apparatchiks must surely revel in the ease with which Orbán has sold out his homeland to Beijing. CPAC Budapest attendees will discuss nationalism and traditional values this week. While their generous attendance honorariums might make them feel good, these Americans are lending cover to a primary ally of their nation's greatest adversary, one that is preparing to kill tens of thousands of Americans in a defining battle in the Pacific.

Five former aides to President Joe Biden are facing the threat of subpoena ahead of a Thursday evening deadline to comply with a widening autopen investigation launched by House Republicans. House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer (R-KY) is leading the investigation into whether Biden personally approved controversial last-minute executive actions, especially a series of preemptive pardons, using a mechanical signature device known as an autopen. His delegation of authority has fueled GOP claims that unelected officials effectively ran the presidency behind the scenes amid new claims of a White House cover-up into Biden's mental acuity. “The American people deserve to know who was calling the shots,” Comer said last week, adding that his committee stands ready to escalate if cooperation isn't forthcoming. While the autopen has long been legal, Republicans argue it becomes constitutionally questionable if the president didn't authorize its use personally. A Biden spokesperson has previously pushed back on reporting about his mental acuity, telling the press that “evidence of aging is not evidence of mental incapacity.” “We expect all witnesses to fully comply with the Committee's investigation. GOP investigators believe Bernal may have exercised decision-making powers reserved for the president, especially amid mounting concerns over Biden's health. Neera Tanden – As Biden's former domestic policy adviser, Tanden was involved in shaping executive actions and clemency policy. House investigators want to know whether she played a role in directing or endorsing actions the president may not have authorized himself. Her proximity to internal processes makes her a key figure in understanding how executive orders and pardons were reviewed, finalized, and signed, and whether she was “running interference” for Biden to “minimize signs of how age has taken a toll” on the former president, according to a letter sent by the committee. Dr. Kevin O'Connor – Biden's longtime physician, O'Connor is being asked to explain his February 2024 memo declaring the president “fit to successfully execute the duties of the Presidency,” even as internal reports and a subsequent cancer diagnosis have fueled Republican claims of a cover-up. The committee's investigation is focused on the 32 clemency warrants issued using an autopen out of 57 total pardons and commutations during Biden's presidency. Many were signed in bulk between Jan. 16 and Jan. 19, just before Donald Trump's inauguration, raising questions about whether Biden approved them or whether aides acted without explicit direction. Brosnan also said those who received preemptive pardons, including Hunter and James Biden, should be considered for testimony. “They're certainly eligible to be deposed in this situation, and they cannot assert the Fifth Amendment for these pardons,” he added. Though not yet subpoenaed, other former Biden insiders have been floated as possible witnesses: Ron Klain, who served as Biden's chief of staff from 2021 to 2023, oversaw internal policy coordination and likely had insight into the president's capabilities and awareness after he briefly returned to his side for his 2024 election debate preparation last June.Mike Donilon, Biden's senior adviser and longtime confidant, shaped the president's public messaging and may have known about the inner circle's handling of key decisions.Anita Dunn, another senior adviser, worked closely with both Joe and Jill Biden and has been mentioned in media reports as a central player in managing Biden's appearances and communication strategy.Bob Bauer, Biden's personal attorney and former White House counsel, may have reviewed the legal processes behind the pardons, particularly those issued preemptively.Karine Jean-Pierre, as press secretary, may have knowledge of how Biden's health and executive actions were portrayed publicly and discussed internally.Jill Biden, the first lady, has been described as a “chief denier” of the president's decline and a key voice in pushing for his reelection, raising questions about her influence on internal decision-making.Hunter Biden, whose sweeping 11-year pardon is among the most controversial, is likely to draw scrutiny over the circumstances of its issuance. If they do not confirm cooperation by Thursday evening, Comer and his staff are prepared to escalate. “We're continuing our investigation to expose the truth,” Comer said earlier this month.

A one-two punch from the United States risks shattering the already fragile trade war truce between Washington and Beijing, with Chinese tech companies and students both dealt shock blows by the Trump administration Wednesday night. Viewed from within China, things had been looking up after the world's two largest economies agreed to dramatically roll back steep tariffs – a conciliatory step in a trade war that had threatened the entire global trading system. Long-delayed shipping containers began leaving Chinese ports, destined for the US. Chinese media celebrated the agreement as a national victory, while top officials adopted an upbeat tone in describing cooperation between the two superpower rivals. But the two jabs from Washington on Wednesday will have far-reaching effects across China, angering families and authorities alike. The first hit came in a Financial Times report on Wednesday that said moves by US President Donald Trump had effectively cut off some American companies from selling software used to design semiconductors to China. A Siemens spokesperson later told CNN that the US government on Friday informed the industry about new export controls on chip designing software to China and Chinese military end users globally. These small chips - which power our smartphones, computers, automobiles and home appliances - have been at the fore of the US-China tech battle in recent years. The Biden administration had blocked China from accessing US-made semiconductors, and earlier this month, Washington warned companies against using AI chips made by Chinese tech giant Huawei. The obstacles were infuriating for Beijing, especially since it has poured tens of billions of dollars into its semiconductor industry, aiming to boost production at home and become less reliant on the US and other countries. Chinese families save for years and spend exorbitant amounts of money to send their kids abroad, with students attending cram schools or hiring tutors to polish their applications. Rubio's announcement jeopardizes all of that – with students now facing potential deportation in the middle of their hard-won education. Related article Trump administration will ‘aggressively revoke' Chinese student visas in major escalation with Beijing Given China is a one-party state that reaches deep into nearly every aspect of society, it can be difficult or impossible for many students to disprove any claims that they're connected to the Communist Party – especially if the State Department defines that term loosely. Candy, a statistics student at the University of Michigan, who did not want to give her full name, said she feared her visa would be canceled before she graduates. “Ending up with only a high school diploma is something I dread,” she said from China, where she's visiting family. “I pray to make it through my undergraduate study safely and smoothly.” Experts say many Chinese students and families now worry about safety, racism and discrimination, and immigration difficulties in the US – especially as more competitive higher education options open in other countries, including in China itself. Trump's crackdown could see more Chinese scholars, including some of the brightest minds in their fields, return to their home country – or choose to stay in the first place, rejecting a US education for a Chinese degree instead. And these researchers – including key leaders in technological fields – could be the key to China catching up with, or surpassing the US – the very thing many Trump officials are trying to prevent. Wednesday did bring one bit of good news for China; a federal court blocked Trump from imposing most of his global tariffs, including the current 30% tariffs on China.

If this decision stands on appeal, it's a big loss for Trump that will make it difficult for his trade war to continue. A federal court ruled on Wednesday evening that the massive tariffs President Donald Trump imposed shortly after beginning his second term are illegal. The US Court of International Trade's decision in two consolidated cases — known as V.O.S. Selections v. United States and Oregon v. Department of Homeland Security — is quite broad. It argues that the Constitution places fairly strict limits on Congress's ability to empower the president to impose tariffs in the first place — limits that Trump surpassed — and it reads several federal trade laws to place rigid constraints on Trump's ability to continue his trade war. Selections case, although he might still be able to impose more modest tariffs that are more limited in scope and duration. Selections unanimously agreed that the Trump's tariffs, as they stand now, are illegal in an unsigned opinion. The panel included judges appointed by Presidents Ronald Reagan, Barack Obama, and Trump himself. Trump primarily relied on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA) when he imposed his tariffs. That statute permits the president to “regulate…transactions involving, any property in which any foreign country or a national thereof has any interest,” but this power “may only be exercised to deal with an unusual and extraordinary threat with respect to which a national emergency has been declared.” The trade court's first significant holding is that, although a federal appeals court has held that this power to “regulate” foreign transactions sometimes permits the president to impose tariffs, this statute cannot be read to give Trump “unlimited tariff authority.” That is, the IEEPA does not give Trump the power he claims to impose tariffs of any amount, upon any nation, for any duration. Significantly, the trade court, based in New York City, concludes that the statute cannot be read to give Trump unchecked authority over tariffs because, if Congress had intended to give Trump that power, then the statute would violate the Constitution's separation of powers because Congress cannot simply give away its full authority over tariffs to the president. Among other things, the court points to a line of Supreme Court decisions establishing that Congress may only delegate authority to the president if it lays “down by legislative act an intelligible principle to which the person or body authorized to fix such [tariff] rates is directed to conform.” So, if the president's authority over tariffs is as broad as Trump claims, the statute is unconstitutional because it does not provide sufficient instructions on when or how that authority may be used. But, as the trade court explains, there is a separate federal law — Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 — which governs the president's power to impose tariffs in response to trade deficits. This statute only permits the president to impose tariff rates of 15 percent or lower, and those tariffs may only remain in effect for 150 days. So, while he could potentially reimpose some tariffs under this law, they would expire after five months. The court's third significant holding arises out of IEEPA's language stating that any tariffs imposed under this statute must “deal with an unusual and extraordinary threat.” Trump justified some of his tariffs by claiming that they will help deter the importation of illegal drugs into the United States, but the trade court concludes that these tariffs don't actually do anything to “deal with” the threat of drug trafficking — and thus they are illegal. Trump's lawyers argued that the tariffs will help reduce illegal drug trafficking because other nations will crack down on drug dealers in order to be rid of the tariffs, but the court rejects the argument that the tariffs can be justified because they pressure other nations to shift their domestic policies. “[H]owever sound this might be as a diplomatic strategy, it does not comfortably meet the statutory definition of ‘deal[ing] with' the cited emergency,” the court argues, adding that “it is hard to conceive of any IEEPA power that could not be justified on the same ground of ‘pressure. Selections opinion notes, the Constitution provides that “all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.” So, if these tariffs cannot lawfully be imposed on one person, the same rule must apply to all persons. These higher courts could potentially reveal fairly soon whether they think the tariffs are legal. In an order accompanying the trade court's decision, the court announces that “within 10 calendar days necessary administrative orders to effectuate the permanent injunction shall issue.” So, if no higher court steps in, Trump's tariffs will cease to exist very soon. So, while higher courts will need to weigh in before we know if the tariffs will survive, we may know what the justices think about Trump's tariffs very soon. The real cost of forcing foreign students away from elite universities like Harvard. In his latest move, Trump is attacking the people who have helped bail out American higher education. The HHS secretary is tampering with vaccine recommendations. The new political divide splitting young Americans in half.