Economy

Mexico says tariffs make ‘no sense’ as Canada seeks negotiations to remove the levies ongoing.

In a move that has reignited trade tensions with key allies, United States President Donald Trump has doubled tariffs on steel and aluminium imports.

The new rates, which came into effect early on Wednesday, raise duties from 25 percent to 50 percent. Trump says the measure is designed to bolster the struggling US metals sector.

“We started at 25 and then, after studying the data more, realised that it was a big help, but more help is needed. And so that is why the 50 [percent tariff] is starting tomorrow,” said White House economic adviser Kevin Hassett during a steel industry event in Washington on Tuesday.

The executive order applies to all trading partners except the United Kingdom, which has reached a provisional trade deal with Washington during a 90-day pause on broader tariffs.

British exports will continue to face a 25 percent rate until at least July 9.

Allies seek exemptions

The hike is expected to weigh heavily on Canada and Mexico, two of the US’s closest economic allies and among the largest suppliers of steel. Census Bureau data shows Canada alone exports more aluminium to the US than the rest of the top 10 countries combined. Almost half of the US aluminium consumption is imported.

Canada’s Prime Minister Mark Carney’s office confirmed that “intensive and live negotiations” were ongoing to remove the tariffs.

Mexico’s Economy Minister Marcelo Ebrard slammed the decision as irrational, noting the imbalance in steel trade between the two nations.

“It makes no sense for the United States to levy a tariff on a product in which you have a surplus,” he said, adding that Mexico would seek an exemption.

The European Union criticised the decision, saying it “strongly regrets” the move and warned it could take retaliatory action, accusing Washington of undermining attempts at a negotiated settlement.

OECD chief economist Alvaro Pereira told the AFP news agency that the tariffs have already dampened global trade, investment and consumption, and that the US will bear the brunt of the fallout.

While several of Trump’s tariff measures face legal scrutiny, they remain in force during the appeals process.

WASHINGTON — A majority of U.S. journalists who followed the 1992 presidential campaign believe President Bush’s candidacy was damaged by press coverage of his record and of the economy, according to a survey released Saturday.

Only a small percentage of print and broadcast journalists think the campaign of President-elect Bill Clinton was similarly harmed by media coverage. In fact, more than one in three said coverage benefited the Arkansas governor.

Most journalists interviewed believe the press treated Bush fairly. He was harmed, they said, not by media bias but by accurate reporting on his performance in office and on the nation’s economy.

These are the principal findings of a special survey of more than 250 top- and middle-level journalists conducted by the Times Mirror Center for the People and the Press. The survey was conducted in the final weeks of the election campaign.

Four in five journalists surveyed rated press performance in the 1992 campaign as good or excellent, saying it generally was better than the coverage in 1988.

Public opinion surveys conducted throughout the campaign showed most Americans also gave positive ratings to media coverage, although by a smaller margin. Nearly six in 10 people surveyed gave the press good or excellent marks. More than one in three, however, judged the performance as fair or poor.

The Times Mirror survey found the media judging the impact of its coverage differently at the end of the campaign than it had in an initial survey last May, during the final stages of the presidential primary battles.

The earlier polling found most journalists–slightly more than 50%–believed campaign coverage was having a “neutral effect” on Bush’s campaign as he turned back the challenge of conservative commentator Patrick J. Buchanan.

At that time, 64% thought Clinton was being hurt by media coverage during his struggle with the so-called “character” problems that beset his primary campaign.

The latest poll also found that journalists gave the industry high marks for specific aspects of campaign coverage. Overall, more than 70% gave ratings of good or excellent to coverage of Clinton’s Vietnam draft status, the candidates’ positions on issues and the economy.

The press gave itself a somewhat lower grade for coverage of independent candidate Ross Perot, with 63% rating it as good or excellent. The survey said one senior editor summed up the attitude of many by saying: “We were all on the verge of carrying very critical stories about his temperament and his personal life when he pulled out. Since he re-entered, we’ve treated him as an eccentric.”

The coverage of Bush’s role in the Iran-Contra scandal received the harshest judgment by journalists. More than 70% of respondents said the coverage was only fair or poor, with only 24% rating it as good. A television executive said only the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post had “done a good job of explaining this issue.”

The survey said a large number of journalists cited the emergence of talk shows this year as a chastening sign that politics can work well “without the press as interlocutor.”

However, critics of this new phenomenon “took aim at the cheerleading-like atmosphere” of some talk show political interviews, saying too many questions were soft, with no follow-up questions, the poll reported.

Billionaire Elon Musk has renewed his criticisms of United States President Donald Trump’s signature budget bill, calling it a “disgusting abomination” in a series of social media posts.

On Tuesday, just days after leaving his post in the Trump administration, Musk offered yet another broadside against the legislation, known as the One Big Beautiful Bill.

“I’m sorry, but I just can’t stand it anymore. This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination,” Musk wrote. “Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong. You know it.”

His subsequent posts laid out the reasoning for his opposition, suggesting that the spending and tax cuts proposed in the bill would balloon the US national debt.

“It will massively increase the already gigantic budget deficit to $2.5 trillion (!!!) and burden America citizens with crushingly unsustainable debt,” Musk said in one post. In another, he wrote, “Congress is making America bankrupt.”

The bill would extend tax cuts established in 2017, during Trump’s first term, and funnel more funds to his administration’s priorities, including $46.5bn for the construction of barriers at the US border with Mexico.

But to accomplish those goals, critics have pointed out that the legislation would lift the cap on the national debt by $4 trillion. It would also limit access to social safety-net programmes like Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), known colloquially as food stamps.

The Congressional Budget Office, a nonpartisan bureau that provides research to Congress, estimates that the bill will result in a $698bn reduction in Medicaid subsidies and $267bn less in funding for SNAP.

Those trade-offs have spurred concern on both sides of the aisle, with Democrats and some Republicans expressing fears that their constituents may lose their access to vital government services.

Fiscal conservatives, meanwhile, have baulked at the increase to the national debt.

In an early-morning vote on May 22, the House of Representatives narrowly passed the One Big Beautiful Bill by a tight vote of 215 to 214. Republicans hold a 220-seat majority in the 435-member chamber, but several members were either absent or voted “present”.

Only two Republicans — Thomas Massie of Kentucky and Warren Davidson of Ohio — broke with party ranks to vote against the bill. The House’s 212 Democrats all voted against it as well, in a unified show of opposition.

That sent the bill to the Senate, where Republicans likewise hold a razor-thin majority. Senators are expected to weigh the bill in the coming days.

But following Musk’s criticisms of the One Big Beautiful Bill, Massie chimed in to applaud the billionaire for his frank criticism.

“He’s right,” Massie wrote in a brief post, to which Musk responded that his opposition was rooted in “simple math”.

Musk also called on voters to “fire all politicians who betrayed the American people” during the 2026 midterm elections — referencing what he considered wasteful spending.

Until last week, Musk had served as a special government employee in the second Trump administration, helping to lead the newly created Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) since the president’s inauguration in January. In that advisory role, Musk was tasked with identifying and eliminating “waste” in the federal bureaucracy.

His and DOGE’s efforts to slash the federal workforce, yank contracts and shutter government agencies, however, made them both a target for widespread criticism and lawsuits. Opponents accused Musk of engaging in conflicts of interest, including by attacking watchdog groups like the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

Federal law generally prohibits special government employees from serving for more than 130 days in a year, and Musk ended his tumultuous tenure in the Trump administration with an Oval Office sendoff last week.

Trump presented the billionaire with a decorative key to the White House and called his work transformational, crediting Musk with ushering in “a colossal change in the old ways of doing business in Washington”.

But in the lead-up to that goodbye, Musk appeared in previews for the TV show CBS Sunday Morning denouncing the One Big Beautiful Bill. He described its provisions as contrary to the spirit of DOGE’s spending cuts.

“I was, like, disappointed to see the massive spending bill, frankly, which increases the budget deficit, not decreases it, and undermines the work that the DOGE team is doing,” Musk told CBS.

“I think a bill can be big or it can be beautiful,” he added. “I don’t know if it could be both. My personal opinion.”

Those comments fuelled rumours of a widening rift between Trump and Musk, who had been one of the president’s most prominent donors and proxies during his 2024 re-election campaign.

Still, the Trump administration has brushed aside reports of tensions between the two men. Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, for instance, shrugged off a question about Musk’s latest fusillade from her podium at the White House briefing room.

“ Look, the president already knows where Elon Musk stood on this bill. It doesn’t change the president’s opinion,” she said. “This is one big, beautiful bill, and he’s sticking to it.”

Leavitt did, however, blast Republican senators who opposed the legislation for “not having their facts together”.

One of those senators is Rand Paul of Kentucky, who voiced his support for Musk’s dissent against the bill on Tuesday.

“I agree with Elon. We have both seen the massive waste in government spending and we know another $5 trillion in debt is a huge mistake,” Paul wrote. “We can and must do better.”

Trump, however, lashed out against Paul on social media and defended his budget bill, calling it a “WINNER”.

“Rand votes NO on everything, but never has any practical or constructive ideas. His ideas are actually crazy (losers!). The people of Kentucky can’t stand him,” Trump said. “This is a BIG GROWTH BILL!”

Orders tumble by 3.7 percent after a rise in March when businesses increased purchases in anticipation of tariffs.

Orders from United States factories have tumbled in April after a surge in March when businesses had front-loaded purchases in anticipation of tariffs.

New orders for US manufactured goods dropped by 3.7 percent on a monthly basis, worse than economists had expected, according to Census Bureau data released on Tuesday.

Economists polled by the Reuters news agency expected a 3.1 percent drop. Dow Jones forecast a 3.3 percent drop. On an annual basis, however, factory orders rose by 2 percent.

April’s report is in sharp contrast to the 3.4 percent increase in March, which topped five straight months of increases.

Manufacturing, which accounts for 10.2 percent of the US economy, has been put under pressure by President Donald Trump’s aggressive tariffs. Trump sees the tariffs as a tool to raise revenue to offset his promised extension of tax cuts and to revive a long-declining industrial base, a feat that economists argued was impossible in the short term because of labour shortages and other structural issues.

Hardest hit sectors

Orders in the transportation sector fell 17.1 percent, led by a sharp drop in the commercial aircraft sector. Aircraft orders fell by 51.5 percent in April. Orders for motor vehicles, parts and trailers dropped 0.7 percent.

Electrical equipment, appliances and component manufacturing fell by 0.3 percent. But manufacturing for computers and other electronic products actually grew by 1 percent.

Machinery orders also rose 0.6 percent. Excluding transportation, which led the surge in March orders, orders fell 0.5 percent, matching March’s decline of non-transportation goods.

The government also reported that orders for nondefence capital goods excluding aircraft, a measure of business spending plans on equipment, decreased 1.5 percent in April rather than 1.3 percent as estimated last month.

Shipments of these so-called core capital goods fell by an unrevised 0.1 percent, or $1.8bn.

An Institute for Supply Management survey showed manufacturing contracted for a third straight month in May and suppliers took the longest time in nearly three years to deliver inputs to factories.

Seoul, South Korea – After six hours of emergency martial law, hundreds of days of protests, violence at a Seoul court and the eventual impeachment of President Yoon Suk-yeol, South Korea is now hours away from choosing a new leader in the hope of restoring stability to an unsettled nation.

From 6am to 8pm on Tuesday (21:00 to 11:00 GMT), South Koreans will vote for one of five presidential candidates in a race led largely by the opposition Democratic Party’s Lee Jae-myung. He is followed in the polls by the governing People Power Party candidate Kim Moon-soo.

The election – involving 44.39 million eligible voters – is expected to see either of these two top contenders replace Yoon. The expelled former president last week attended his fifth court hearing where he faces charges of leading an insurrection and abusing power due to his failed imposition of martial law on December 3.

If convicted, Yoon could face a maximum penalty of life in prison or even the death sentence.

Participation in the election is predicted to be at an all-time high amid the political turmoil resulting from the brief imposition of military rule, which still resonates in every corner of society and has sharply divided the country along political lines. There are those who still support Yoon and those who vehemently oppose his martial law decision.

The Democratic Party’s Lee is currently the clear frontrunner, with Gallup Korea’s latest poll on May 28 placing his support at 49 percent, compared with People Power Party Kim’s 36 percent, as the favourite to win.

Early voting, which ended on Friday, had the second-highest voter turnout in the country’s history, at 34.74 percent, while overseas voting from 118 countries reached a record high of 79.5 percent.

Lee Jae-myung’s second chance

In the last presidential election in 2022, Yoon narrowly edged out Lee in the closest presidential contest in South Korea’s history.

After his crushing defeat in 2022 to a voting margin of just 0.73 percentage points, Lee now has another chance at the top office, and to redeem his political reputation.

About a month ago, South Korea’s Supreme Court determined that Lee had spread falsehoods during his 2022 presidential bid in violation of election law.

In addition to surviving a series of bribery charges during his tenure as mayor of Seongnam and governor of Gyeonggi Province, which he claimed were politically motivated, Lee also survived a stabbing attack to his neck during a news conference in Busan last year.

Fortunately for Lee, the courts have agreed to postpone further hearings of his ongoing trials until after the election.

On the campaign trail this time around, Lee addressed his supporters from behind bulletproof glass, with snipers positioned on rooftops, scanning the crowds for potential threats, as counterterrorism units patrolled on foot.

Lee has also been joined on his campaign by conservative lawmakers, his former opponents, who have publicly supported his run for office numerous times during the past month, seeing him as a path back to political stability.

People Power Party candidate Kim was served an especially hard blow when his parliamentary colleague, Kim Sang-wook, defected from the party in early May to join Lee’s Democratic Party.

According to polling data from South Korea’s leading media outlet Hankyoreh, only 55 percent of conservative voters who supported Yoon in the 2022 election said they would back the People Power Party’s Kim this time around.

While such shifts represent the crisis that the mainstream conservative party is facing after the political fallout from Yoon’s botched martial law plan and removal from office, it also testifies to Lee’s appeal to both moderate and conservative voters.

Future president faces ‘heavy burden’

“The events of the martial law, insurrection attempt and impeachment process have dealt a heavy blow to our democracy,” said Lim Woon-taek, a sociology professor at Keimyung University and a former member of the Presidential Commission on Policy Planning.

“So, the new president will receive a heavy burden when assuming the president’s seat,” Lim told Al Jazeera.

Youth unemployment, social inequality and climate change have also become pressing issues that Yoon’s administration failed to tackle.

According to recent research, South Korea’s non-regular workers, including contract employees and part-timers, accounted for 38 percent of all wage and salary workers last year.

Lee has promised to champion business-friendly policies, and concentrate on investment in research and development and artificial intelligence, while refraining from focusing on divisive social issues such as the gender wars.

His stance has shifted considerably from his time moving up the political ranks when he promoted left-wing ideas, such as a universal basic income.

Events on the night of the declaration of martial law on December 3, also helped cement Lee’s image as a political freedom fighter. A former human rights lawyer, Lee was livestreamed scaling the walls of the National Assembly as the military surrounded the compound, where he rallied fellow legislators to vote and strike down Yoon’s decision to mobilise the military.

Among Lee’s most central campaign pledges has been his promise to bring to justice those involved in Yoon’s martial law scheme and tighten controls on a future president’s ability to do the same. Lee also wants to see a constitutional amendment that would allow presidents to serve two four-year terms, a change from the current single-term five years.

While Lee’s closest challenger, Kim, has agreed on such policies and made sure to distance himself from Yoon, the former labour-activist-turned-hardline-conservative has also said the former president’s impeachment went too far.

Trump, tariffs and South Korea’s new direction

The election also unfolds as United States President Donald Trump has proposed a series of tariffs on key South Korean exports such as steel, semiconductors and automobiles.

In the face of those threats, Lee has promised to stimulate demand and growth, while Kim has promised to ease business regulations. Kim also emphasised his plan to hold an immediate summit meeting with Trump to discuss the tariffs.

Lee, on the other hand, has promised a more pragmatic foreign policy agenda which would maintain relations with the US administration but also prioritise “national interests”, such as bridging closer relations with neighbouring China and Russia.

On North Korea, Lee is determined to ease tensions that have risen to unprecedented heights in recent years, while Kim has pledged to build up the country’s military capability to counter Pyongyang, and wants stronger security support from the US.

Lee has also promised to relocate the National Assembly and the presidential office from Seoul to Sejong City, which would be designated as the country’s new administrative capital, continuing a process of city-planning rebalancing that has met a series of setbacks in recent years.

Another major issue that Keimyung University’s Lim hopes the future leader will focus more on is the climate situation.

“Our country is considered a climate villain, and we will face future restrictions in our exports if we don’t address the immediate effects of not keeping limits on the amount of our hazardous outputs,” Lim said.

“The future of our country will really rest on this one question: whether the next president will draw out such issues like the previous administration or face the public sphere and head straight into the main issues that are deteriorating our society.”

The results of Tuesday’s vote are expected to emerge either late on Tuesday or in the early hours of Wednesday morning.

In the 2022 election, Yoon was proclaimed the winner at 4:40am the morning after election day.

With Lee the clear frontrunner in this election, the outcome could be evident as early as Tuesday night.

But enhanced surveillance at polling stations this year due to concerns raised about counting errors may be a factor in slowing down any early announcement of the country’s next president.

United States President Donald Trump has announced his administration is raising tariffs on steel imports from 25 percent to 50 percent.

Speaking to steelworkers and supporters at a rally outside Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Trump framed his latest tariff increase as a boon to the domestic manufacturing industry.

“We’re going to bring it from 25 percent to 50 percent, the tariffs on steel into the United States of America, which will even further secure the steel industry in the United States,” Trump told the crowd. “Nobody’s going to get around that.”

How that tariff increase would affect the free-trade deal with Canada and Mexico – or a separate trade deal struck earlier this month with the United Kingdom – remains unclear.

Also left ambiguous was the nature of a deal struck between Nippon Steel, the largest steel producer in Japan, and the domestic company US Steel. Still, Trump played up the partnership between the two companies as a “blockbuster agreement”.

“ There’s never been a $14bn investment in the history of the steel industry in the United States of America,” Trump said of the deal.

A tariff hike on steel

Friday’s rally was a return to the site of many election-season campaign events for Trump and his team.

In 2024, Trump hinged his pitch for re-election on an appeal to working-class voters, including those in the Rust Belt region, a manufacturing hub that has declined in the face of the shifting industry trends and greater overseas competition.

Key swing states like Pennsylvania and Michigan are located in the region, and they leaned Republican on election day, helping to propel Trump to a second term as president.

Trump, in turn, has framed his “America First” agenda as a policy platform designed to bolster the domestic manufacturing industry. Tariffs and other protectionist policies have played a prominent part in that agenda.

In March, for instance, Trump announced an initial slate of 25-percent tariffs on steel and aluminium, causing major trading partners like Canada to respond with retaliatory measures.

The following month, he also imposed a blanket 10-percent tariff on nearly all trade partners as well as higher country-specific import taxes. Those were quickly paused amid economic shockwaves and widespread criticism, while the 10-percent tariff remained in place.

Trump has argued that the tariffs are a vital negotiating tool to encourage greater investment in the US economy.

But economists have warned that attempting a “hard reset” of the global economy – through dramatic tax hikes like tariffs – will likely blow back on US consumers, raising prices.

Rachel Ziemba, a senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security, said the latest tariff hike on steel also signals that negotiating trade deals with Trump may result in “limited benefits”, given the sudden shifts in his policies.

Further, Friday’s announcement signals that Trump is likely to continue doubling down on tariffs, she said.

“The challenge is that hiking the steel tariffs may be good for steel workers, but it is bad for manufacturing and the energy sector, among others. So overall, it is not great for the US economy and adds uncertainty to the macro outlook,” Ziemba explained.

Trump’s tariff policies have also faced legal challenges in the US, where businesses, interest groups and states have all filed lawsuits to stop the tax hikes on imports.

On Thursday, for instance, a federal court briefly ruled that Trump had illegally exercised emergency powers to impose his sweeping slate of international tariffs, only for an appeals court to temporarily pause that ruling a few hours later.

A deal with Nippon Steel

Before the tariff hike was announced, Friday’s rally in Pittsburgh was expected to focus on Nippon Steel’s proposed acquisition of US Steel, the second largest steel producer in the country.

“We’re here today to celebrate a blockbuster agreement that will ensure this storied American company stays an American company,” Trump said at the outset of his speech.

But the merger between Nippon Steel and US Steel had been controversial, and it was largely opposed by labour unions.

Upon returning to the White House in January, Trump initially said he would block the acquisition, mirroring a similar position taken by his predecessor, former US President Joe Biden.

However, he has since pivoted his stance and backed the deal. Last week, he announced an agreement that he said would grant Nippon only “partial ownership” over US Steel.

Speaking on Friday, Trump said the new deal would include Nippon making a “$14bn commitment to the future” of US Steel, although he did not provide details about how the ownership agreement would play out.

“Oh, you’re gonna be happy,” Trump told the crowd of steelworkers. “There’s a lot of money coming your way.”

The Republican leader also waxed poetic about the history of steel in the US, describing it as the backbone of the country’s economy.

“The city of Pittsburgh used to produce more steel than most entire countries could produce, and it wasn’t even close,” he said, adding: “If you don’t have steel, you don’t have a country.”

For its part, US Steel has not publicly communicated any details of a revamped deal to investors. Nippon, meanwhile, issued a statement approving the proposed “partnership”, but it also has not disclosed terms of the arrangement.

The acquisition has split union workers, although the national United Steelworkers Union has been one of its leading opponents.

In a statement prior to the rally, the union questioned whether the new arrangement makes “any meaningful change” from the initial proposal.

“Nippon has maintained consistently that it would only invest in US Steel’s facilities if it owned the company outright,” the union said in a statement, which noted firmer details had not yet been released.

“We’ve seen nothing in the reporting over the past few days suggesting that Nippon has walked back from this position.”

The rally on Friday comes as Trump has sought to reassure his base of voters following a tumultuous start to his second term.

Critics point out that steel prices have risen in the US by roughly 16 percent since Trump took office, and his Republican Party faces potentially punishing congressional elections in 2026.

The lawsuit came three days after a similar case by NPR, which also saw its funds cut.

PBS has filed a lawsuit against United States President Donald Trump and other administration officials to block his order stripping federal funding from the 330-station public television system, three days after NPR did the same for its radio network.

In its lawsuit filed on Friday, PBS relied on similar arguments, saying Trump was overstepping his authority and engaging in “viewpoint discrimination” because of his claim that PBS’s news coverage is biassed against conservatives.

“PBS disputes those charged assertions in the strongest possible terms,” lawyer Z W Julius Chen wrote in the suit, filed in US District Court in Washington, DC. “But regardless of any policy disagreements over the role of public television, our Constitution and laws forbid the President from serving as the arbiter of the content of PBS’s programming, including by attempting to defund PBS.”

It was the latest of many legal actions taken against the administration for its moves, including several by media organisations impacted by Trump’s orders.

PBS was joined as a plaintiff by one of its stations, Lakeland PBS, which serves rural areas in northern and central Minnesota. Trump’s order is an “existential threat” to the station, the lawsuit said.

A PBS spokesman said that “after careful deliberation, PBS reached the conclusion that it was necessary to take legal action to safeguard public television’s editorial independence, and to protect the autonomy of PBS member stations”.

‘Lawful authority’

Through an executive order earlier this month, Trump told the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and federal agencies to stop funding the two systems. Through the corporation alone, PBS is receiving $325m this year, most of which goes directly to individual stations.

The White House deputy press secretary, Harrison Fields, said the Corporation for Public Broadcasting is creating media to support a particular political party on the taxpayers’ dime.

“Therefore, the President is exercising his lawful authority to limit funding to NPR and PBS,” Fields said. “The President was elected with a mandate to ensure efficient use of taxpayer dollars, and he will continue to use his lawful authority to achieve that objective.”

PBS, which makes much of the programming used by the stations, said it gets 22 percent of its revenue directly from the feds. Sixty-one percent of PBS’s budget is funded through individual station dues, and the stations raise the bulk of that money through the government.

Interrupting ‘a rich tapestry of programming’

Trump’s order “would have profound impacts on the ability of PBS and PBS member stations to provide a rich tapestry of programming to all Americans”, Chen wrote.

PBS said the US Department of Education has cancelled a $78m grant to the system for educational programming, used to make children’s shows like Sesame Street, Clifford the Big Red Dog and Reading Rainbow.

For Minnesota residents, the order threatens the Lakeland Learns education programme and Lakeland News, described in the lawsuit as the only television programme in the region providing local news, weather and sports.

Besides Trump, the lawsuit names other administration officials as defendants, including Education Secretary Linda McMahon, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem. PBS says its technology is used as a backup for the nationwide wireless emergency alert system.

The administration has fought with several media organisations. Government-run news services like Voice of America and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty are struggling for their lives. The Associated Press has battled with the White House over press access, and the Federal Communications Commission is investigating television news divisions.

United States President Donald Trump has bid goodbye to Elon Musk at a White House event marking the billionaire’s departure from his role in government.

Speaking from the Oval Office on Friday, Trump showered Musk with praise for his work as the head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), an initiative to reduce federal bureaucracy and spending.

“ I just want to say that Elon has worked tirelessly helping lead the most sweeping and consequential government reform programme in generations,” Trump said.

He credited Musk with delivering “a colossal change in the old ways of doing business in Washington” and called Musk’s service “without comparison in modern history”.

Still, the president also assured reporters that DOGE would continue its work even after Musk is gone.

“With Elon’s guidance, [DOGE is] helping to detect fraud, slash waste and modernise broken and outdated systems,” Trump said.

The joint appearance comes as the two men seek to downplay reports of a growing rift, particularly after Musk criticised Trump’s signature budget bill on CBS News. It also coincides with the publication of a New York Times report alleging that Musk has struggled with increasing drug use and personal turmoil behind the scenes.

Musk declined to comment on the Times report during his Oval Office appearance. He also avoided remarking on speculation that his departure was connected to tumbling sales at his car company, Tesla.

Instead, he pointed out that, as a special government employee, he cannot work in the Trump administration for a period exceeding 130 days without facing stricter disclosure and ethics requirements.

He also focused on promoting his work with DOGE and criticising those on the political left who would impede Trump’s agenda.

“This is not the end of DOGE, but really at the beginning,” Musk said, clad in a black T-shirt emblazoned with the phrase “The Dogefather”, written in the style of the gangster film The Godfather. “The DOGE team will only grow stronger over time.”

Trump, meanwhile, emphasised that his relationship with the billionaire – a prominent backer of his 2024 re-election campaign – would continue.

“Elon’s really not leaving. He’s going to be back and forth, I think,” Trump said.

Unclear accounting

Despite White House claims about its efficacy, the extent of DOGE’s cost-savings has remained foggy.

As of Friday, the panel claimed it had achieved an estimated $175bn in savings, made up of “asset sales, contract/lease cancellations and renegotiations, fraud and improper payment deletion, grant cancellations, interest savings, programmatic changes, regulatory savings, and workforce reductions”.

But DOGE’s transparency and methodology have been repeatedly questioned. The only accounting made available to the public adds up to less than half of the claimed figure.

An analysis published on Friday by the news agency Reuters also suggests the actual sum is much lower. Using US Treasury summaries, Reuters found that only $19bn in federal spending had been cut, though it noted that some savings may require more time to be reflected in the Treasury Department’s data.

Regardless, all of those figures fall far short of the goal of $2 trillion saved that Musk initially set out to achieve.

When asked about the discrepancy on Friday, Musk maintained that $1 trillion in savings remained a long-term goal.

“I’m confident that over time, we’ll see a trillion dollars of savings, a reduction – a trillion dollars of waste and fraud reduction,” he said.

But critics have questioned if DOGE will continue with the same verve following Musk’s departure.

Musk and DOGE have long been lightning rods for public criticism, as they implemented sweeping changes to the federal government. Since Trump started his second term as president in January, organisations like the US Agency for International Development (USAID) have seen their funding cut and their staffing slashed.

As a result, employees, contractors, labour groups and state officials have sued to block DOGE’s efforts, with varying levels of success.

Behind the scenes, there have also been reports that Musk clashed with members of Trump’s cabinet, who may seek relief from cuts to their departments after Musk’s exit.

Musk’s foray into government has caused blowback for his companies as well, with protests at Tesla dealerships spreading across the country. Profits plunged 71 percent at Tesla in the first three months of the year, with shareholders calling for Musk to return to work.

When asked by a reporter if Musk’s time in government was “worth it”, he was circumspect. He explained that he felt DOGE had become seen as a “boogeyman”, blamed for any effort to overhaul the federal government.

But he reaffirmed his commitment to being a “friend and adviser to the president” and said the experience was worthwhile.

“I think it was. I think [it] was an important thing,” he added. “I think it was a necessary thing, and I think it will have a good effect in the future.”

Google has been back in federal court to fend off the United States Department of Justice’s attempt to topple its internet empire at the same time it is navigating a pivotal shift to artificial intelligence (AI) that could undercut its power.

On Friday, the legal and technological threats facing Google were among the key issues being dissected during the closing arguments of a legal proceeding that will determine the changes imposed upon the company in the wake of its dominant search engine being declared an illegal monopoly by US District Judge Amit Mehta last year.

Brandishing evidence presented during a recent three-week stretch of hearings, Justice Department lawyers are attempting to persuade Mehta to order a radical shake-up that includes a ban on Google paying to lock its search engine in as the default on smart devices and an order requiring the company to sell its Chrome browser.

Google lawyers say only minor concessions are needed, especially as the upheaval triggered by advances in artificial intelligence already are reshaping the search landscape, as alternative, conversational search options are rolling out from AI startups that are hoping to use the Department of Justice’s four-and-half-year-old case to gain the upper hand in the next technological frontier.

Mehta used Friday’s hearing to ask probing and pointed questions to lawyers for both sides while hinting that he was seeking a middle ground between the two camps’ proposed remedies.

“We’re not looking to kneecap Google,” the judge said, adding that the goal was to “kickstart” competitors’ ability to challenge the search giant’s dominance.

After the daylong closing arguments, Mehta will spend much of the next several months mulling a decision that he plans to issue before Labor Day in the US (September 1). Google has already promised to appeal the ruling that branded its search engine as a monopoly, a step it cannot take until the judge orders a remedy.

AI an inflection point

While both sides of this showdown agree that AI is an inflection point for the industry’s future, they have disparate views on how the shift will affect Google.

The Justice Department contends that AI technology by itself will not rein in Google’s power, arguing additional legal restraints must be slapped on a search engine that’s the main reason its parent company, Alphabet Inc, is valued at $2 trillion.

Mehta indicated in court Friday that he was still undecided on how much AI’s potential to shake up the search market should be incorporated in his forthcoming ruling. “This is what I’ve been struggling with,” Mehta said early in the hearing.

Justice prosecutor David Dahlquist urged the judge to issue forward-thinking remedies that would “pry open” the search market to competition and not allow Google to use its search monopoly to unfairly benefit itself in the AI race.

Google has already been deploying AI to transform its search engine into an answer engine, an effort that has so far helped maintain its perch as the internet’s main gateway despite inroads being made by alternatives from the likes of OpenAI and Perplexity.

The Justice Department contends a divestiture of the Chrome browser that Google CEO Sundar Pichai helped build nearly 20 years ago would be among the most effective countermeasures against Google continuing to amass massive volumes of browser traffic and personal data that could be leveraged to retain its dominance in the AI era.

Executives from both OpenAI and Perplexity testified last month that they would be eager bidders for the Chrome browser if Mehta orders its sale.

Google’s lawyer John Schmidtlein said on Friday that AI companies should “get to work” on their own products rather than try to persuade the court to give them unfair access to Google’s innovations.

The debate over Google’s fate also has pulled in opinions from Apple, mobile app developers, legal scholars and startups.

Apple, which collects more than $20bn annually to make Google the default search engine on the iPhone and its other devices, filed briefs arguing against the Justice Department’s proposed 10-year ban on such lucrative lock-in agreements.

Apple told the judge that prohibiting the contracts would deprive the company of money that it funnels into its own research, and that the ban might make Google even more powerful because the company would be able to hold onto its money while consumers would end up choosing its search engine anyway. The Cupertino, California, company also told the judge a ban would not compel it to build its own search engine to compete against Google.

In other filings, a group of legal scholars said the Justice Department’s proposed divestiture of Chrome would be an improper penalty that would inject unwarranted government interference in a company’s business.

Meanwhile, former Federal Trade Commission officials James Cooper and Andrew Stivers warned that another proposal, which would require Google to share its data with rival search engines, “does not account for the expectations users have developed over time regarding the privacy, security, and stewardship” of their personal information.

The App Association, a group that represents mostly small software developers, also advised Mehta not to adopt the Justice Department’s proposed changes because of the ripple effects they would have across the tech industry.

Hobbling Google in the way the Justice Department envisions would make it more difficult for startups to realise their goal of being acquired, the App Association wrote. “Developers will be overcome by uncertainty” if Google is torn apart, the group argues.

They’ve long been hedging their bets.
But Southeast Asian nations are caught in the dispute between the United States and China.
The trade-dependent countries are under threat from Trump’s tariffs, too.
They face a delicate balancing act between economic survival and strategic neutrality.
The message was clear at the Association of Southeast Asian Nations – ASEAN’s recent summit in the Malaysian capital Kuala Lumpur.
Member countries are recalibrating their economic partnerships to insulate their economies.
That includes a push to deepen trade ties with China and Gulf countries.

Why is the price of Japanese rice rocketing?

Plus, should older people work longer?

A federal appeals court has temporarily reinstated (PDF) US President Donald Trump’s tariffs a day after a trade court ruled that it exceeded the authorities granted to the president.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington temporarily blocked the lower court’s decision on Thursday, but provided no reasoning for the decision, only giving the plaintiffs until June 5th to respond.

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit granted an emergency motion from the Trump administration arguing that a halt is “critical for the country’s national security”.

The White House has applauded the move.

“You can assume, even if we lose tariff cases, we will find another way,” trade adviser Peter Navarro said.

Wednesday’s surprise ruling by the US Court of International Trade had threatened to halt or delay Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs on most US trading partners, as well as import levies on goods from Canada, Mexico and China related to his accusation that the three countries were facilitating the flow of fentanyl into the US.

The International Court of Trade said tariffs issued under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which is typically used to address issues of national emergencies rather than addressing the national debt, were considered overreach.

Experts said the IEEPA, which was passed in 1977, is narrow in scope and targets specific countries, US-designated “terrorist organisations”, or gang activity pegged to specific instances. The US, for example, used the law to seize property belonging to the government of Iran during the hostage crisis in 1979 and the property of drug traffickers in Colombia in 1995.

“The 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act doesn’t say anything at all about tariffs,” Bruce Fain, a former US associate deputy attorney general under Ronald Reagan, told Al Jazeera.

Fein added that there is a statute, the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, which allows tariffs in the event of a national emergency. However, he said, it requires a study by the commerce secretary and can only be imposed on a product-by-product basis.

‘Product-by-product’

Despite the appeal court’s reprieve, Wednesday’s decision has been viewed as a blow to the administration’s economic agenda that has thus far led to declining consumer confidence and the US losing its top credit rating.

Experts believe that, ultimately, the tariffs will not last.

Posting on X, formerly known as Twitter, on Thursday, lawyer Peter Harrell, a fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, wrote that, if the trade court’s decision “is upheld, importers should eventually be able to get a refund of [IEEPA] tariffs paid to date. But the government will probably seek to avoid paying refunds until appeals are exhausted.″

“The power to decide the level of tariffs resides with Congress. The IEEPA doesn’t even mention raising tariffs. And it was actually passed in order to narrow the president’s authority. Now the president is using it to rewrite the tariff schedule for the whole world,” Greg Schaffer, professor of international law at Georgetown Law School, told Al Jazeera.

The US trade court did not weigh in on tariffs put in place by other laws, such as the Trade Expansion Act – the law used to justify tariffs on steel, aluminium, and automobiles.

There are additional targets for similar narrow tariffs, such as pharmaceuticals from China. In April, the White House announced that the US Department of Commerce launched an investigation to see if the US reliance on China for active ingredients in key medications posed a national security threat, thus warranting tariffs.

“This is not an issue of whether the president can impose tariffs,” said Fein, the former associate deputy attorney general. “He can under the 1962 act after there’s a study and after showing that it’s not arbitrary and capricious and that it’s a product-by-product, not a country-by-country approach.”

“If he doesn’t like that, he can ask Congress to amend the statute.”

Panel of judges finds the president overstepped his authority by imposing across-the-board duties on imports from trading partners.

A United States trade court has ruled that President Donald Trump exceeded his authority when he imposed blanket tariffs on imports from US trading partners, issuing a permanent injunction that immediately halts the tariffs and demands a government response within 10 days.

The Court of International Trade, based in New York, said the US Constitution grants Congress exclusive authority to regulate commerce with other countries that is not overridden by the president’s emergency powers to safeguard the US economy.

“The court does not pass upon the wisdom or likely effectiveness of the President’s use of tariffs as leverage,” a three-judge panel wrote on Wednesday. “That use is impermissible not because it is unwise or ineffective, but because [federal law] does not allow it.”

The ruling, if it stands, could derail Trump’s global trade strategy to use steep tariffs to wring concessions from trading partners. It creates deep uncertainty around multiple simultaneous negotiations with the European Union, China and many other countries.

The court struck down Trump’s tariff orders issued since January under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a statute meant for addressing rare and extraordinary national emergencies. Tariffs introduced under other laws, such as those targeting specific industries like steel, autos and aluminium, were not addressed in this ruling.

The Trump administration swiftly filed an appeal, disputing the court’s jurisdiction. A White House spokesperson insisted trade imbalances posed a national crisis. “It is not for unelected judges to decide how to properly address a national emergency,” said Kush Desai, the White House deputy press secretary, defending Trump’s executive actions as necessary to protect US industry and security.

Al Jazeera’s Mike Hanna, reporting from Washington, noted the court’s impartiality. “This particular court cannot be accused of being an activist one, as Trump and his followers have accused other courts that have ruled against him,” Hanna said. “One of the judges was appointed by Trump himself, another by former President Barack Obama and the third by the former Republican President Ronald Reagan.”

The Court of International Trade handles matters relating to customs and trade law. Its rulings can be challenged in the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and eventually taken to the Supreme Court.

Financial analyst Robert Scott told Al Jazeera the tariffs failed to deliver tangible results even in Trump’s first term. “Most of those tariffs did not see the US trade position improve,” he said. “US trade deficits continued to grow and China’s exports to the world kept rising. They simply rerouted goods through other countries.”

The ruling came in a pair of lawsuits, one filed by the nonpartisan Liberty Justice Center on behalf of five small US businesses that import goods from countries targeted by the duties, and the other by 12 US states.

The companies, which range from a New York wine and spirits importer to a Virginia-based maker of educational kits and musical instruments, have said the tariffs will hurt their ability to do business.

“There is no question here of narrowly tailored relief; if the challenged Tariff Orders are unlawful as to Plaintiffs they are unlawful as to all,” the judges wrote in their decision.

At least five other legal challenges to the tariffs are pending.

US electronic design automation software makers were told via letters to stop supplies to China, the FT reported.

United States President Donald Trump’s administration has ordered US firms that offer software used to design semiconductors to stop selling their services to Chinese groups, the Financial Times has reported, citing people familiar with the move.

Electronic design automation software makers, which include Cadence, Synopsys and Siemens EDA, were told via letters from the US Commerce Department to stop supplying their tech, the report, which was published on Wednesday, said.

A spokesperson for the Commerce Department declined to comment on the letters but said it is reviewing exports of strategic significance to China, while noting that, “in some cases, Commerce has suspended existing export licenses or imposed additional license requirements while the review is pending”.

Shares of Cadence, which declined to comment, closed down by 10.7 percent, while shares of Synopsys fell by 9.6 percent.

Synopsys CEO Sassine Ghazi said in a call with analysts that the company had not received a letter, nor had it heard from the Commerce Department’s Bureau of Industry (BIS) and Security, which enforces export controls.

“We are aware of the reporting and speculations, but Synopsys has not received a notice from BIS. So, our guidance that we are reiterating for the full year, reflects our current understanding of BIS export restrictions as well as our expectations for year-over-year decline in China. We have not received a letter,” Ghazi said.

After the market closed, Synopsys reaffirmed its revenue forecast for 2025. Its shares and those of Cadence bounced back 3.5 percent in trading after the close.

Siemens EDA did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The software of these firms is used to design both high-end processors as well as simpler products.

While the scope of the policy change described in the report was not immediately clear, any move to strip the software makers of their Chinese customers could deal a blow to their bottom line and to their Chinese chip design customers, which heavily rely on top-of-the-line US software.

“They are the true choke point,” said a former Commerce Department official, who added that rules restricting the export of EDA tools to China have been under consideration since the first Trump administration, but were ruled out as too aggressive.

Synopsys relies on China for about 16 percent of its annual revenue, while China accounts for about 12 percent of annual revenue for Cadence.

Synopsys, which partners with chip companies such as Nvidia, Qualcomm and Intel, provides software and hardware used for designing advanced processors.

Praise follows conflict of interest concerns after Trump launches his own coin and hosts a dinner for his investors.

United States Vice President JD Vance has urged the domestic cryptocurrency industry to remain involved in US politics, highlighting the close ties of President Donald Trump’s administration to a deep-pocketed industry.

Speaking at a Bitcoin conference in Las Vegas, Nevada, on Wednesday, Vance urged cryptocurrency executives and enthusiasts to keep pressure on the US Congress to pass pro-crypto legislation supported by the White House

“We have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to unleash innovation and use it to improve the lives of countless American citizens,” Vance said in his address. “But if we fail to create regulatory clarity now, we risk chasing this $3 trillion industry offshore in search of a friendly jurisdiction.”

Vance made the speech after Trump promised to make the US the “crypto capital of the planet” when he addressed the same Bitcoin conference in Nashville, Tennessee, last year in the middle of the presidential campaign. The crypto industry, which felt unfairly attacked by former President Joe Biden’s administration, spent heavily to help Trump and pro-cryptocurrency lawmakers win election.

Vance praised how quickly the crypto industry was able to organise and influence US politics during last year’s elections, giving special credit to Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss, the billionaire founders of the crypto exchange Gemini.

“You chose to speak up, and you chose to get involved, and I believe you changed the direct trajectory of our country because of it,” Vance told the crowd gathered at the Venetian Hotel.

Vance hailed cryptocurrencies as a hedge that can help conservative populists protect themselves against what he called bad politicians, overly aggressive regulators and unethical elites. He predicted continued assimilation of the digital currencies into the financial mainstream and said it was strategically important for the US to be a world leader in the industry, noting that the Chinese government is hostile to crypto.

As president, Trump has established a Bitcoin reserve for the federal government and pardoned Ross Ulbricht, the founder of Silk Road, a black market website that was key to the early growth of Bitcoin.

Trump has also put outspoken crypto backers in his administration, which has undone or paused several enforcement actions taken against large cryptocurrency companies

Several other Trump officials are speakers at the Bitcoin conference, as are his sons Don Jr and Eric.

Conflict of interest

The president and his family’s use of cryptocurrencies as a platform to make money has drawn criticism from Democrats and even crypto enthusiasts as corrupt and unseemly.

The Trump family holds about a 60 percent stake in a crypto project called World Liberty Financial, which recently launched its own stablecoin, a fast-growing form of cryptocurrency whose value is often tied to the US dollar. This month, the US Senate advanced legislation that would create a federal framework to regulate stablecoins, a bill that Vance said the Trump administration wants passed into law quickly.

Trump’s media company announced on Tuesday that it was raising $2.5bn to buy Bitcoin, the world’s oldest and most popular cryptocurrency.

The president and first lady Melania Trump have also launched their own meme coins. Last week, Donald Trump rewarded investors in his coin. About 220 of the biggest investors in the $TRUMP were invited to Trump’s luxury golf club in northern Virginia.

United States President Donald Trump has brushed aside criticism of his wide-ranging budget bill — known as the One Big Beautiful Bill — from a high-profile source, government adviser Elon Musk.

On Wednesday, at a swearing-in ceremony in the Oval Office, Trump faced questions about Musk’s comments, which suggested the bill would balloon the national debt.

The Republican leader responded with a degree of ambivalence, though he staunchly defended the bill’s tax cuts.

“We will be negotiating that bill, and I’m not happy about certain aspects of it, but I’m thrilled by other aspects of it,” Trump said. “That’s the way they go.”

The budget bill clocks in at over a thousand pages, and it contains a range of domestic policy priorities for the Trump administration.

That includes legislation cementing some of the tax cuts Trump championed during his first term as president, in 2017. It would also increase the funds available for Trump’s “mass deportation” effort and heightened security along the US-Mexico border.

Some $46.5bn, for instance, would be earmarked to renew construction of the southern border wall and other barriers, another hallmark of Trump’s first term in office.

But to pay for those tax cuts and policy priorities, the bill proposes measures that remain controversial on both sides of the political spectrum.

One provision, for instance, would increase the federal debt limit by $4 trillion. Others would impose strict work requirements on programmes like Medicaid — a government health insurance for low-income Americans — and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), sometimes known as food stamps.

Those work requirements are expected to bar thousands of people from accessing those safety-net programmes, allowing for cost savings. But critics fear those barriers will drive some families deeper into poverty.

In a preview of an interview with the TV show CBS Sunday Morning, Musk expressed frustration with the sheer cost of the bill, echoing criticism from fiscal conservatives.

He also accused the “Big Beautiful Bill” of setting back the progress he made as leader of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), a task force Trump established to pare back “wasteful” spending.

“I was, like, disappointed to see the massive spending bill, frankly, which increases the budget deficit, not decrease it, and undermines the work that the DOGE team is doing,” Musk told CBS, dressed in an “Occupy Mars” T-shirt.

“I think a bill can be big or it can be beautiful,” he added. “I don’t know if it could be both. My personal opinion.”

This is not the first time that Musk has spoken out against a US budget bill. In December, under former President Joe Biden, Musk rallied public outrage against another piece of budget legislation that weighed in at over a thousand pages, calling on Congress to “kill the bill“.

Musk’s latest comments, however, signal a potentially widening fracture between himself and the Trump White House.

Up until recently, Musk, a billionaire thought to be the world’s richest man, has played a prominent role in Trump’s government. He even helped him secure a second term as president.

In 2024, Musk endorsed Trump’s re-election effort, joined him on the campaign trail and donated hundreds of millions of dollars to the Republican leader and his political allies.

For his part, Trump returned Musk’s warm embrace. Days after he won a second term as president, Trump announced that Musk would join his incoming administration as head of DOGE.

But Musk’s role in the White House has remained ambiguous, and highly controversial. Though Musk is a regular presence at presidential cabinet meetings, he has not had to undergo a Senate confirmation hearing.

The White House has described him as a “special government employee”, a temporary role given to consultants from business fields. Normally, those employees can only work with the government for 130 days per year, and they are barred from using their government roles for financial gain.

But critics have argued that the length of Musk’s tenure at the White House has not been clearly established and that he has indeed leveraged his position for personal profit. In March, for instance, Trump held a news conference to show off models from Musk’s car company Tesla.

Musk’s other business ventures, including the rocket company SpaceX and the satellite communications firm Starlink, have also raised conflict-of-interest questions, given that they are competitors for government contracts.

Media reports have indicated that there have been behind-the-scenes clashes between Musk and other members of the Trump White House that may have cooled relations between the president and his billionaire backer. But Trump has so far avoided criticising Musk publicly.

On Wednesday, for instance, Trump pivoted from the question about Musk’s comments to attacking Democratic members of Congress, who refuse to back his signature budget bill.

“ Remember, we have zero Democrat votes because they’re bad people,” Trump said. “There’s something wrong with them.”

A version of the budget bill narrowly passed the House of Representatives last week. Currently, it is being considered by the Senate. But with a 53-seat majority in the 100-person chamber, Senate Republicans can only afford to lose three votes if they hope to pass the bill.

Trump renewed his call for party unity on Wednesday, despite concerns from his fellow Republicans.

“We have to get a lot of votes,” Trump said. “We need to get a lot of support, and we have a lot of support.”

Some Republicans have voiced opposition to the increase in the national debt. Others fear the effects that Medicaid restrictions might have on their constituents.

Trump himself has said he opposes any cuts to Medicaid. But he has tried to frame the bill’s tax cuts as a boon to lower-income people, though critics point out those cuts are poised to deliver the biggest savings to the wealthy.

“We’ll have the lowest tax rate we’ve ever had in the history of our country,” Trump said. “Tremendous amounts of benefits are going to the middle-income people of our country, low- and middle-income people of our country.”

Avelo Airlines, a struggling, Houston, Texas-based budget carrier, has faced weeks of backlash after taking a contract with the United States government to use its planes to deport migrants, the first commercial airline to do so.

Avelo, which started the deportation flights in mid-May, defended the move in an April 3 letter to employees, saying its partnership with the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency is “too valuable not to pursue”.

Founded in 2021, the airline has been in financial turmoil and was projected to have only about $2m in cash on hand by June, the trade publication Airline Observer reported last month. An Avelo spokesperson told Al Jazeera that that reporting is outdated.

The airline has not disclosed the terms of the deal with ICE but is said to be using three of its Boeing 737 aircraft for the flights. Avelo has 20 aircraft in its fleet.

At the beginning of 2024, Avelo reported its first profitable quarter since its founding but hasn’t released any financial results since then. Because it is not a publicly traded company, Avelo is not legally obligated to regularly disclose its financial status to the public.

Avelo’s deal was brokered through a third-party contractor, CSI Aviation, which received $262.9m in federal contracts, mostly through ICE, for the 2025 fiscal year. While CSI Aviation did not confirm to Al Jazeera the specifics of its deal with Avelo, federal spending records show the company was awarded a new contract in March and received $97.5m in April when the Avelo flights were announced.

April’s contract marks the biggest for CSI Aviation since it began receiving federal contracts in 2008. Until now, CSI Aviation’s highest payouts had come more frequently during Democratic administrations. In October under former President Joe Biden, the federal government paid out more than $75m to CSI Aviation.

CEO Andrew Levy has said Avelo operated similar flights under the Biden administration but the public outcry against Avelo this time is because of how Republican President Donald Trump’s administration has conducted deportations.

“In the past, the deportees were afforded due process,” aviation journalist and New Hampshire state lawmaker Seth Miller said. “[They were] not snatched off the street, moved multiple times to evade the judicial process and put on planes before they could appeal. In the past, they were returned to their country of origin, not a third country. In the past, they were not shipped to a labour camp from which no one is ever released.”

“These are, to me, not the same deportations as in the past, and any company signing on in April 2025 to operate those flights knows that,” Miller told Al Jazeera.

The US government has awarded CSI Aviation $165m for deportation charter flights so far in the current year until August 31, and that could be extended to February 26. The data does not specify how much goes to each subcontractor. However, the March 1 $165m contract was modified on March 25 with an additional $33.7m tacked onto it just days before Avelo announced its deal.

Al Jazeera was unable to confirm the specific dollar amount for the Avelo contract.

CSI Aviation did not respond to Al Jazeera’s request for comment.

Avelo, led by Levy – an industry veteran who previously served as CEO of another US-based budget airline, Allegiant, and as chief financial officer for United Airlines – has stood by the deal despite the public outcry.

“We realize this is a sensitive and complicated topic. After significant deliberations, we determined that charter flying will provide us with the stability to continue expanding our core scheduled passenger service and keep our more than 1,100 Crewmembers employed for years to come,” Levy said in a statement to Al Jazeera, comments the company had also provided to other publications.

Connecticut Attorney General William Tong pressed the airline for the terms of the deal. Avelo responded by instructing Tong to file a  Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. FOIA requests typically take several months to process. Connecticut is home to one of Avelo’s biggest hubs in New Haven.

Avelo declined Al Jazeera’s request for information on the terms of its agreement with CSI Aviation, saying in an email that it was not “authorised to share the details of the contract”.

Al Jazeera has submitted a FOIA request for the contract terms. ICE denied our expedited request for the contract terms, saying our request lacked “an urgency to inform the public about an actual or alleged federal government activity, if made by a person primarily engaged in disseminating information”. The phone number ICE gave to challenge the request through its public liaison did not work when called.

“For reasons of operational security, US Immigration and Customs Enforcement does not release information about future removal flights or schedules in advance. However, the removal of illegal aliens who are unlawfully present in the United States is a core responsibility of ICE and is regularly carried out by ICE Air Operations,” a spokesperson for ICE told Al Jazeera.

Several lawmakers, including Senator Alex Padilla of California and Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, have voiced concerns over these flights.

“Given the Trump Administration’s mission to indiscriminately deport our nation’s immigrants – without due process, in violation of the Constitution and federal immigration law, and, in some cases, in defiance of court orders – it is deeply disturbing that Avelo has determined that its partnership with ICE is ‘too valuable not to pursue,’” Padilla’s office said in a news release.

Flight attendants have also raised safety concerns, saying there is no safe plan in the event of an emergency and it is only a matter of time before a tragic incident occurs.

As first reported by ProPublica, ICE Air detainees have soiled themselves because they did not have access to bathrooms while being transported to prisons without due process.

ICE has denied allegations that detainees lacked access to bathrooms during flights.

Are financiers concerned?

Avelo’s largest investor is Morgan Stanley Tactical Value, whose managing director, Tom Cahill, sits on Avelo’s board. Morgan Stanley’s fund invested an undisclosed amount in the airline’s Series A funding round, the first major investment stage for a company.

That round raised $125m in January 2020, weeks before the COVID-19 pandemic was declared a US and global emergency. A subsequent Series B round in 2022 brought in an additional $42m, $30m of which came from Morgan Stanley.

Morgan Stanley Tactical Value remains Avelo’s largest shareholder. Cahill, who has been with Morgan Stanley since 1990, has not publicly commented on the deal. He did not respond to Al Jazeera’s request for comment. Morgan Stanley declined to comment.

Avelo has also hired Jefferies Financial Group, an investment bank and financial services company, to raise additional capital in a new investment round, reportedly aiming to raise $100m, according to the Airline Observer, information that Avelo said is outdated.

Jefferies did not respond to Al Jazeera’s request for comment.

A public image problem

Avelo’s involvement in the deportation programme has sparked intense public backlash. Upon the launch of the flights, protests erupted at airports in Burbank, California; Mesa, Arizona; and New Haven, Connecticut.

A Change.org petition calling for a boycott of the airline has garnered more than 38,000 signatures. Avelo did not comment on the petition.

“From a reputational perspective, someone in a boardroom somewhere made the decision that the hit to reputation wasn’t as important as staying alive,” said Hannah Mooney Mack, an independent strategic communications consultant.

Miller has taken action to raise awareness about the airline’s recent contract, funding two billboards near Tweed New Haven Airport that criticise Avelo’s participation in deportation flights. The signs read: “Does your vacation support their deportation? Just say AvelNO!”

“I love almost all of the things that aviation does in helping bring people together and connect communities and things like that. This is decidedly not that. And it rubbed me the wrong way,” the congressman told Al Jazeera.

“I certainly understand that from a financial perspective there may be a need. I happen to disagree with it from a moral perspective and think it’s abhorrent.”

Miller said he spent $7,000 on the billboards and 96 people contributed to the effort. Avelo reportedly convinced billboard operator Lamar Advertising to take down the ads, citing copyright concerns. Miller has since sued Avelo on First Amendment grounds. He said he’s fighting because he thinks people need to know about Avelo’s contract.

“I don’t like that this is happening, and I think other people should not fly Avelo as long as they are running these deportation flights.”

Many of the world’s poorest countries are due to make record debt repayments to China in 2025 on loans extended a decade ago, at the peak of Beijing’s Belt and Road Initiative, a report by the Sydney-based Lowy Institute think tank has found.

Under the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), a state-backed infrastructure investment programme launched in 2013, Beijing lent billions of dollars to build ports, highways and railroads to connect Asia, Africa and the Americas.

But new lending is drying up. In 2025, debt repayments owed to China by developing countries will amount to $35bn. Of that, $22bn is set to be paid by 75 of the world’s poorest countries, putting health and education spending at risk, Lowy concluded.

“For the rest of this decade, China will be more debt collector than banker to the developing world,” said Riley Duke, the report’s author.

“Developing countries are grappling with a tidal wave of debt repayments and interest costs to China,” Duke said.

What did the report say?

China’s BRI, the biggest multilateral development programme ever undertaken by a single country, is one of President Xi Jinping’s hallmark foreign policy initiatives.

It focuses primarily on developing country infrastructure projects like power plants, roads and ports, which struggle to receive financial backing from Western financial institutions.

The BRI has turned China into the largest global supplier of bilateral loans, peaking at about $50bn in 2016 – more than all Western creditors combined.

According to the Lowy report, however, paying off these debts is now jeopardising public spending.

“Pressure from Chinese state lending, along with surging repayments to a range of international private creditors, is putting enormous financial strain on developing economies.”

High debt servicing costs can suffocate spending on public services like education and healthcare, and limit their ability to respond to economic and climate shocks.

The 46 least developed countries (LDCs) spent a significant share – about 20 percent – of their tax revenues on external public debt in 2023. Lowy’s report implies this will increase even more this year.

For context, Germany used 8.4 percent of its budget to repay debt in 2023.

Lowy also raised questions about whether China will use these debts for “geopolitical leverage” in the Global South, especially with Washington slashing foreign aid under President Donald Trump.

“As Beijing shifts into the role of debt collector, Western governments remain internally focused, with aid declining and multilateral support waning,” the report said.

While Chinese lending is also beginning to slow down across the developing world, the report said there were two areas that seemed to be bucking the trend.

The first was in nations such as Honduras, Burkina Faso and Solomon Islands, which received massive new loans after switching diplomatic recognition from Taiwan to China.

The other was in countries such as Indonesia and Brazil, where China has signed new loan deals to secure critical minerals and metals for electric batteries.

How has China responded?

Beijing’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said it was “not aware of the specifics” of the report but that “China’s investment and financing cooperation with developing countries abides by international conventions”.

Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning said “a small number of countries” sought to blame Beijing for miring developing nations in debt but that “falsehoods cannot cover up the truth”.

For years, the BRI has been criticised by Western commentators as a way for Beijing to entrap countries with unserviceable debt.

An often-cited example is the Hambantota port – located along vital east-west international shipping routes – in southern Sri Lanka.

Unable to repay a $1.4bn loan for the port’s construction, Colombo was forced to lease the facility to a Chinese firm for 99 years in 2017.

China’s government has denied accusations it deliberately creates debt traps, and recipient nations have also pushed back, saying China was often a more reliable partner than the West and offered crucial loans when others refused.

Still, China publishes little data on its BRI scheme, and the Lowy Institute said its estimates, based on World Bank data, may underestimate the full scale of China’s lending.

In 2021, AidData – a US-based international development research lab – estimated that China was owed a “hidden debt” of about $385bn.

Does the Lowy report lack ‘context’?

Challenging the “debt-trap” narrative, the Rhodium consulting group looked at 38 Chinese debt renegotiations with 24 developing countries in 2019 and concluded that Beijing’s leverage was limited, with many of the renegotiations resolved in favour of the borrower.

According to Rhodium, developing countries had restructured roughly $50bn of Chinese loans in the decade before its 2019 study was published, with loan extensions, cheaper financing and debt forgiveness the most frequent outcomes.

Elsewhere, a 2020 study by the China Africa Research Initiative at Johns Hopkins University found that, between 2000 and 2019, China cancelled $3.4bn of debt in Africa and a further $15bn was refinanced. No assets were seized.

Meanwhile, many developing countries remain in hock to Western institutions.

In 2022, the Debt Justice Group estimated that African governments owed three times more to private financial groups than to China, charging double the interest in the process.

“Developing country debt to China is less than what is owed to both private bondholders and multilateral development banks (MDBs),” says Kevin Gallagher, director of the Boston University Global Development Policy Center.

“So, Lowy’s focus on China lacks context. The truth is, even if you remove China from the creditor picture, lots of poor countries would still be in debt distress,” Gallagher told Al Jazeera.

Following the COVID-19 pandemic and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, inflation prompted the United States Federal Reserve, as well as other leading central banks, to hike interest rates.

Attracted to higher yields in the US, investors withdrew their funds from developing country financial assets, raising yield costs and depreciating currencies. Debt repayment costs soared.

Global interest rates have since come down slightly. But according to the UN, developing country borrowing costs are, on average, two to four times higher than in the US and six to 12 times higher than in Germany.

“A crucial aspect about Chinese lending,” said Gallagher, “is that it tends to be long-term and growth enhancing. That’s precisely why a lot of it is focused on infrastructure investment. Western lenders tend to get in and out faster and charge higher rates.”

Labour prosecutors allege that workers were brought to Brazil illegally and toiled in ‘slavery-like conditions’.

Brazilian labour prosecutors have filed a lawsuit against the Chinese auto manufacturer BYD and two contractors over allegations of illegally trafficking labourers to live and work under conditions “analogous to slavery”.

On Tuesday, the prosecutors, charged with enforcing labour laws, said in a statement that they would seek 257 million reais ($45m) in damages from BYD as well as contractors China JinJiang Construction Brazil and Tecmonta Equipamentos Inteligentes.

They accused the three companies of trafficking Chinese workers to build a BYD plant in Camacari, in the northeastern state of Bahia. There, the prosecutors allege that the companies subjected the workers to “extremely degrading” conditions.

“In December last year, 220 Chinese workers were found to be in conditions analogous to slavery and victims of international human trafficking,” the statement said.

The damages the prosecutors are seeking amount to a penalty of 50,000 reais ($8,867) per violation, multiplied by the number of workers affected, in addition to moral damages.

The lawsuit is the result of a police raid in December 2024, during which authorities say they “rescued” 163 Chinese workers from Jinjiang and 57 from Tecmonta.

The prosecutors say the workers were victims of international human trafficking and were brought to Brazil with visas that did not fit their jobs.

They also allege that conditions at the construction site left the labourers almost totally dependent on their employers, by withholding up to 70 percent of their wages and imposing high contract termination costs. Some of the workers even had their passports taken away, limiting their ability to leave, according to the prosecutors.

The lawsuit also describes meagre living conditions, including some beds without mattresses.

“In one dormitory, only one toilet was identified for use by 31 people, forcing workers to wake up around 4am to wash themselves before starting their workday,” the prosecutors’ statement notes.

Brazil is the largest market for BYD outside China. The Chinese auto giant has said that it is committed to human rights, is cooperating with authorities and will respond to the lawsuit in court.

A spokesman for the company said in December that allegations of poor working conditions were part of an effort to “smear” China and Chinese companies.

But the Brazilian labour prosecutors rejected the notion that their lawsuit was based on anti-Chinese sentiment.

“Our lawsuit is very well-founded, with a substantial amount of evidence provided during the investigation process,” deputy labour prosecutor Fabio Leal said in an interview.

He stated that the workers, who have all returned to China, would receive any payments related to the lawsuit there, with the companies in Brazil responsible for providing proof of payment.

The ruling comes as US Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy is set to pause federal funds to New York state.

New York City has won a temporary reprieve in its legal battle against the administration of US President Donald Trump, which had threatened to withhold federal funding from New York state unless the city ended its congestion pricing programme.

United States District Judge Lewis Liman held the hearing on the matter on Tuesday and granted a temporary restraining order that will allow the programme to keep running until at least June 9 as the administration and state-level officials battle over the future of congestion pricing.

A day earlier, US Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy said he believed the federal government would withhold government approvals in the state, which would have frozen contracts for highway and transit projects.

Congestion pricing is likely to move forward indefinitely despite the federal administration’s objections because the Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) – New York City’s mass transit system, which is operated as a state-level agency – “showed a likelihood of success”, according to the judge.

The courts said this is because the plan was already reviewed by state, local and federal agencies, according to the New York Times newspaper.

“Congestion relief is perfectly legal and thoroughly vetted. Opponents exhausted all plausible arguments against the programme, and now the increasingly outlandish theories are falling flat, too,” Danny Pearlstein, policy and communications director for the Riders Alliance, a transportation advocacy group, told Al Jazeera.

New York Governor Kathy Hochul called the judge’s decision “a massive victory” for New York commuters.

“So here’s the deal: Secretary Duffy can issue as many letters and social media posts as he wants, but a court has blocked the Trump Administration from retaliating against New York for reducing traffic and investing in transit … Congestion pricing is legal, it’s working and we’re keeping the cameras on,” the governor’s office said in a statement.

“It’s really upsetting that it came to this point to begin with. We should not be in a position where the federal government is trying to stop New York state from enacting its own policy and trying to blackmail New York state when it doesn’t follow their [the US Department of Transportation’s] lead,” Alexa Sledge, communications director for the advocacy group Transportation Alternatives, told Al Jazeera.

New York state launched the programme in January. Drivers have to pay congestion pricing tolls of $9 per day for driving during peak times in parts of Manhattan. The state made the programme in an effort to cut congestion in the nation’s most populous city as well as raise funds for NYC’s mass transit system.

“New York state should be able to make their own laws, and they should be able to run their own streets. And so hopefully, this can be the end of this,” Sledge said.

Meeting its goals

Since the programme began earlier this year, it has fulfilled many of its goals. Within a month of congestion pricing, subway ridership increased by six percent, and bus ridership by nine percent. Traffic decreased by 11 percent.

In March, the MTA forecasted that congestion pricing would bring in $500m in revenue for the system, which will fund a swath of new transit-system projects including station upgrades and zero-emissions buses. At the time, a Siena College poll found that 42 percent of New Yorkers wanted to keep the programme, while 35 percent wanted to get rid of it.

Neither the MTA nor the US Department of Transportation was immediately available for comment.

Law to take effect on January 1 has support of social media companies, but Apple and Google oppose it.

Texas Governor Greg Abbott has signed into law a bill requiring Apple and Alphabet’s Google to verify the age of users of their app stores, putting the second most populous state in the United States at the centre of a debate over whether and how to regulate smartphone use by children and teenagers.

The bill was signed into law on Tuesday.

The law, which goes into effect on January 1, requires parental consent to download apps or make in-app purchases for users aged below 18. Utah was the first US state to pass a similar law this year, and US lawmakers have also introduced a federal bill.

Another Texas bill, passed in the state’s House of Representatives and awaiting a Senate vote, would restrict social media apps to users over the age of 18.

Wide support

Age limits and parental consent for social media apps are among the few areas of wide US consensus. A Pew Research poll in 2023 indicated that 81 percent of Americans support requiring parental consent for children to create social media accounts and 71 percent supported age verification before using social media.

The effect of social media on children’s mental health has become a growing global concern. Dozens of US states have sued Meta Platforms, and the US surgeon general has issued an advisory on safeguards for children. Australia last year banned social media for children under 16, with other countries such as Norway also considering new rules.

How to implement age restrictions has caused a conflict between Meta, the owner of Instagram and Facebook, and Apple and Google, which own the two dominant US app stores.

Meta and the social media companies Snap and X applauded the passage of the bill.

“Parents want a one-stop shop to verify their child’s age and grant permission for them to download apps in a privacy-preserving way. The app store is the best place for it, and more than one-third of US states have introduced bills recognising the central role app stores play,” the companies said.

Kathleen Farley, vice president of litigation for the Chamber of Progress, a group backed by Apple and Alphabet, said the Texas law is likely to face legal challenges on First Amendment grounds.

“A big path for challenge is that it burdens adult speech in attempting to regulate children’s speech,” Farley told the Reuters news agency in an interview on Tuesday. “I would say there are arguments that this is a content-based regulation singling out digital communication.”

Child online safety groups that backed the Texas bill have also long argued for app store age verification, saying it is the only way to give parents effective control over children’s use of technology.

“The problem is that self-regulation in the digital marketplace has failed, where app stores have just prioritised the profit over safety and rights of children and families,” Casey Stefanski, executive director for the Digital Childhood Alliance, told Reuters.

Apple and Google opposed the Texas bill, saying it imposes blanket requirements to share age data with all apps, even when those apps are uncontroversial.

“If enacted, app marketplaces will be required to collect and keep sensitive personal identifying information for every Texan who wants to download an app, even if it’s an app that simply provides weather updates or sports scores,” Apple said in a statement.

Google and Apple each have their own proposal that involves sharing age range data only with apps that require it, rather than all apps.

“We see a role for legislation here,” Kareem Ghanem, senior director of government affairs and public policy at Google, told Reuters.

“It’s just got to be done in the right way, and it’s got to hold the feet of [Meta CEO Mark] Zuckerberg and the social media companies to the fire because it’s the harm to kids and teens on those sites that’s really inspired people to take a closer look here and see how we can all do better.”