legality

Oct. 17 (UPI) — The federal shutdown will last at least a few more days as the Senate expects to hold no votes until Monday. Meanwhile, lawmakers are questioning the legality of how the Trump administration plans to pay the military.

Senate Republican leader John Thune of South Dakota sent senators home for the weekend, so the government will stay closed. The Senate will return at 3 p.m. Monday.

Three Democrats have voted for the Republican bills to reopen the government, but five more are needed to reach the 60 votes needed to pass the stopgap funding bill.

Meanwhile, some Republican senators are questioning the legality of President Donald Trump‘s move to shift Defense Department funds to pay for military paychecks during the shutdown.

They say they’re glad the service members are getting paid, but aren’t sure where the funds are coming from and whether the money shift is legal.

Normally, the White House would need to ask Congress to reappropriate federal funding, then the Appropriations Committee must approve it before moving funds around.

Senators interviewed by The Hill say they aren’t aware of any requests. Trump ordered Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth to use “all available funds” to ensure troops got their paychecks.

“That’s a concern of not just appropriators, it seems broader than that,” an unnamed Republican senator told The Hill.

The lawmaker said Republican colleagues have asked the administration for more information about exactly which funds are getting shifted and what legal authority the White House is using to justify its action.

Senate Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, said she wants more information from the White House.

“We’ve been given two different explanations. One, is that it’s unobligated balances. One, is that it’s taken from certain research and technology programs. But we don’t have the specifics. We have asked for the specifics,” Collins said.

Alaska’s Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski said: “I get that they say for the military pay for this pay period it comes out of … research and development technology [fund] but where? Is that taking it from projects that we have already identified? Maybe something’s really important to me. Where’s it coming from? We haven’t seen that,” she said.

On Wednesday, Trump signed a memo expanding his administration’s authority to repurpose unspent funds to pay service members during the shutdown.

Rep. Jim Himes, D-Conn., said Trump’s reallocation of funds was, “probably not legal.” On Face the Nation on Sunday, he said the “White House’s understanding of United States law” was “pretty tentative to say the best.”

The Supreme Court has scheduled to hear the case in November, lightning fast by its typical standards.

The United States Supreme Court has granted an unusually quick hearing on whether President Donald Trump has the power to impose sweeping tariffs under federal law.

The justices said on Tuesday that they will hear arguments in November, which is lightning fast by the typical standards of the nation’s highest court.

The small businesses and states that challenged the tariffs in court also agreed to the accelerated timetable. They say Trump illegally used emergency powers to set import taxes on goods from almost every country in the world, nearly driving their businesses to bankruptcy.

The justices also agreed to hear a separate challenge to Trump’s tariffs brought by a family-owned toy company, Learning Resources.

Two lower courts have found that most of the tariffs were illegally imposed, though a 7-4 appeals court has left them in place for now.

The levies are part of a trade war instigated by Trump since he returned to the presidency in January, which has alienated trading partners, increased volatility in financial markets and driven global economic uncertainty.

Trump has made tariffs a key foreign policy tool, using them to renegotiate trade deals, extract concessions and exert political pressure on countries. Revenue from tariffs totalled $159bn by late August, more than double what it was at the same point a year earlier.

The Trump administration asked the justices to intervene quickly, arguing the law gives him the power to regulate imports and that the country would be on “the brink of economic catastrophe” if the president were barred from exercising unilateral tariff authority.

The case will come before a court that has been reluctant to check Trump’s extraordinary flex of executive power. One big question is whether the justices’ own expansive view of presidential authority allows for Trump’s tariffs without the explicit approval of Congress, which the US Constitution endows with the power to levy tariffs.

Three of the justices on the conservative-majority court were nominated by Trump in his first term.

Impact on trade negotiations

US Solicitor General D John Sauer has argued that the lower court rulings are already impacting those trade negotiations. Treasury might take a hit by having to refund some of the import taxes it has collected, Trump administration officials have said. A ruling against the tariffs could even hamper the nation’s ability to reduce the flow of fentanyl and efforts to end Russia’s war against Ukraine, Sauer argued.

The administration did win over four appeals court judges who found the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, lets the president regulate importation during emergencies without explicit limitations. In recent decades, Congress has ceded some tariff authority to the president, and Trump has made the most of the power vacuum.

The case involves two sets of import taxes, both of which Trump justified by declaring a national emergency: the tariffs first announced in April and the ones from February on imports from Canada, China and Mexico.

It does not include his levies on foreign steel, aluminium and autos, or the tariffs Trump imposed on China in his first term that were kept by former President Joe Biden, a Democrat.

Trump can impose tariffs under other laws, but those have more limitations on the speed and severity with which he could act.

New York Yankees manager Aaron Boone questioned the legality of a bat used by Houston Astros outfielder Taylor Trammell during Thursday’s series finale.

Down by five runs in the bottom of the ninth inning, Houston mounted a comeback by starting off the inning with a single by catcher Victor Caratini and a double off the wall by Trammell. After the at-bat, Boone asked the umpires to check the bat used by the 27-year-old because of its “discoloration.”

Rule 3.02(c) by Major League Baseball bans the usage of a “colored bat in a professional game” unless approved by the league.

The crew chief, Adrian Johnson, took the bat and called a review to verify the legality of the discoloration on barrel.

After the review, the bat was confiscated by the umpires, authenticated and sent to the league office to be inspected, according to Astros manager Joe Espada.

“The bat was worn down a little bit,” Espada said. “He uses that bat all the time and I guess they thought it was an illegal bat.

“I thought it was … whatever,” he added.

Boone said they noticed the color of the bat earlier in the series and brought it up to the league officials on Thursday.

“You’re not allowed to do anything to your bat,” Boone said after the game. “I’m not saying he was … we noticed it and the league thought it maybe it was illegal too.”

After the game, the outfielder remained confused.

“I feel kind of defensive right now, more so a test of my character, like I’m going to willingly do that,” Trammell said. “Just kind of lost on that thing, and if anyone knows me, knows I’m never going to cheat or anything like that.”

Trammell, who played a couple of games for the Yankees last season, stayed on second base. The Astros later scored a run on a single by designated hitter Yordan Alvarez but the Yankees held on to win the game 8-4.

Oral arguments over United States President Donald Trump’s power to impose tariffs have kicked off before a US appeals court after a lower court ruled he had exceeded his authority by imposing sweeping new levies on imported goods.

The appeals court judges on Thursday sharply questioned whether what Trump calls his “reciprocal” tariffs, announced in April, were justified by the president’s claim of emergency powers.

A panel of all the court’s active judges – eight appointed by Democratic presidents and three appointed by Republican presidents – is hearing arguments in two cases brought by five small US businesses and 12 Democratic-led US states.

The judges on the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, DC, pressed government lawyer Brett Shumate to explain how the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a 1977 law historically used for sanctioning enemies or freezing their assets, gave Trump the power to impose tariffs.

Trump is the first president to use IEEPA to impose tariffs.

The judges frequently interrupted Shumate, peppering him with a flurry of challenges to his arguments.

“IEEPA doesn’t even say tariffs, doesn’t even mention them,” one of the judges said.

Shumate said the law allows for “extraordinary” authority in an emergency, including the ability to stop imports completely. He said IEEPA authorises tariffs because it allows a president to “regulate” imports in a crisis.

The states and businesses challenging the tariffs argued they are not permissible under IEEPA and the US Constitution grants Congress, and not the president, authority over tariffs and other taxes.

Neal Katyal, a lawyer for the businesses, said the government’s argument that the word “regulate” includes the power to tax would be a vast expansion of presidential power.

Tariffs are starting to build into a significant revenue source for the federal government as customs duties in June quadrupled to about $27bn, a record, and through June have topped $100bn for the current fiscal year, which ends on September 30. That income could be crucial to offset lost revenue from extended tax cuts in a Trump-supported bill that passed and became law this month.

“Tariffs are making America GREAT & RICH Again,” Trump wrote in a social media post on Thursday. “To all of my great lawyers who have fought so hard to save our Country, good luck in America’s big case today.”

But economists said the duties threaten to raise prices for US consumers and reduce corporate profits. Trump’s on-again, off-again tariff threats have roiled financial markets and disrupted US companies’ ability to manage supply chains, production, staffing and prices.

Dan Rayfield, the attorney general of Oregon, one of the states challenging the levies, said the tariffs are a “regressive tax” that is making household items more expensive.

Since Trump began imposing his wave of tariffs, companies ranging from carmaker Stellantis to American Airlines, temporarily suspended financial guidance for investors, which has since started again but has been revised down. Companies across multiple industries, including Procter and Gamble, the world’s largest consumer goods brand, announced this week that it would need to raise prices on a quarter of its goods.

The president has made tariffs a central instrument of his foreign policy, wielding them aggressively in his second term as leverage in trade negotiations and to push back against what he has called unfair practices.

Pressure outside trade

Trump has said the April tariffs, which he placed on most countries, are a response to persistent US trade imbalances and declining US manufacturing power. However, in recent weeks, he’s used them to increase pressure on nontrade issues.

He hit Brazil with 50 percent tariffs over the prosecution of former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, a key Trump ally who is on trial for an alleged coup attempt after he lost the 2022 presidential election.

Trump also threatened Canada over its move to recognise a Palestinian state, saying a trade deal will now be “very hard”.

He said tariffs against China, Canada and Mexico were appropriate because those countries were not doing enough to stop fentanyl from crossing US  borders. The countries have denied that claim.

On May 28, a three-judge panel of the US Court of International Trade sided with the Democratic states and small businesses that are challenging Trump.

It said IEEPA, a law intended to address “unusual and extraordinary” threats during national emergencies, did not authorise tariffs related to longstanding trade deficits. The appeals court has allowed the tariffs to remain in place while it considers the administration’s appeal. The timing of the court’s decision is uncertain, and the losing side will likely appeal quickly to the US Supreme Court.

The case will have no impact on tariffs levied under more traditional legal authorities, such as duties on steel and aluminium. The president recently announced trade deals that set tariff rates on goods from the European Union and Japan after smaller trade agreements with Britain, Indonesia and Vietnam.

Trump’s Department of Justice has argued that limiting the president’s tariff authority could undermine ongoing trade negotiations while other Trump officials have said negotiations have continued with little change after the initial setback in court. Trump has set a deadline of Friday for higher tariffs on countries that don’t negotiate new trade deals.

There are at least seven other lawsuits challenging Trump’s invocation of IEEPA, including cases brought by other small businesses and California.

Washington, DC – As United States President Donald Trump lauded what he called the “spectacular military success” of the strikes he authorised against Iran, Democrats were quick to accuse him of overstepping his authority.

Numerous critics accused Trump late on Saturday of violating the US Constitution by launching military attacks against Iran’s nuclear sites without the approval of Congress.

“Trump said he would end wars; now he has dragged America into one,” Senator Christopher Van Hollen Junior said in a statement.

“His actions are a clear violation of our Constitution – ignoring the requirement that only the Congress has the authority to declare war.”

In the lead up to the US attacks, legislators from both main parties have pushed measures to compel Trump to approach Congress before launching any strikes.

The US Constitution gives Congress the authority to declare war or authorise the use of force for specific purposes.

Trump’s “Make America Great Again” (MAGA) base has also been vehement in its opposition to the US joining Israel’s war. It has pointed out that Trump won the election on the promise not to commit Washington to yet another war in the Middle East. They want Trump to focus on domestic issues, particularly the economy.

‘Grounds for impeachment’

Lawmakers’ authority over the military was further enshrined in the War Powers Resolution of 1973, which curbed the president’s war-making powers.

Progressive Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said Trump violated the constitution and the War Powers Resolution.

“He has impulsively risked launching a war that may ensnare us for generations. It is absolutely and clearly grounds for impeachment,” she said.

The president is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces, so he can order attacks, but his decisions must be within the guidelines of what is authorised by Congress.

However, the president can order the military in the case of a “sudden attack” or to respond to emergencies.

Several Democrats were quick to note that Iran’s nuclear facilities, which have been operating for years, did not pose an imminent threat to the US.

The US intelligence community confirmed in an assessment in March that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon.

Trump has increasingly relied on executive powers in governing domestically, and now he appears to be sidelining Congress in his foreign policy.

But with Republicans in control of the Senate and the House of Representatives, lawmakers have few tools to influence his military decision. Impeachment is almost out of the question.

President Trump sending U.S. troops to bomb Iran without the consent of Congress is a blatant violation of our Constitution. pic.twitter.com/pqzAeS4K19

— Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib (@RepRashida) June 22, 2025

No legal justification for strikes

Lawmakers have introduced bills under the War Powers Resolution to ban attacks on Iran without the approval of Congress, but Trump is likely to veto the proposals if they pass.

Congress could overturn the veto with two-thirds majorities in the House and the Senate, but Trump’s strikes have enough support to make that outcome unlikely.

The US president has not provided a legal justification for the strikes, but he is likely to argue that he was responding to an urgent situation or cite an existing military authorisation.

In the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks in 2001, Congress passed a law allowing then-President George W Bush to launch what would become the global “war on terror”.

Millions of people have been killed and societies devastated due to the US wars on Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, among others, waged as part of the so-called “war on terror”. It has also cost trillions of dollars and the lives of thousands of US soldiers.

In 2002, lawmakers approved another authorisation to allow the invasion of Iraq a year later.

These laws, known as the Authorisation for Use of Military Force (AUMF), remain in place, and previous presidents have invoked them to justify attacks that were not specifically approved by Congress.

Brian Finucane, a senior adviser with the US programme of the International Crisis Group and former State Department lawyer, said the attack on Iran is “patently illegal”.

“Even under the prevailing executive branch doctrine, this is likely to constitute ‘war’ requiring congressional authorization,” he wrote in a social media post.

Statement from Rep. Ilhan Omar on U.S. Bombing of Iran:

“The strikes on Iran, ordered by President Trump and executed without congressional authorization, mark a dangerous and reckless escalation of an already volatile conflict in the Middle East.

“Military strikes will not…

— Rep. Ilhan Omar (@Ilhan) June 22, 2025

Key progressive Senator Bernie Sanders was speaking at a rally in Oklahoma when Trump announced the attack.

As Sanders told the crowd about the US strikes, attendees started chanting: “No more war!”

“It is so grossly unconstitutional,” he said. “All of you know that the only entity that can take this country to war is the US Congress; the president does not have that right.”

Former Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said lawmakers will be “demanding answers” from the administration.

“Tonight, the President ignored the Constitution by unilaterally engaging our military without Congressional authorization,” she said in a social media post.

At a major United Nations conference focused on international criminal law, world experts came together to raise a powerful warning: children are facing growing threats in the digital world. The 34th Session of the UN Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice (CCPCJ) brought attention to how modern technologies, while often beneficial, are also being used to harm and exploit the most vulnerable members of society—our children.

The International Institute for Middle East and Balkan Studies (IFIMES), an organization in special consultative status with the UN (EcoSoc) that works on international policy issues, shared its recent findings during the session. Their presentation focused on how online platforms, digital tools, and artificial intelligence (AI) are increasingly being used by criminals to target and exploit minors around the world. The institute’s “Global Mini Study on Technology and Abuse,” postulated and supervised by its mission head, Prof. Anis H. Bajrektarevic, highlighted how widespread and serious this issue has become.

According to IFIMES, digital child exploitation is not just a distant or rare problem. It is happening now, in real-time, on the same apps and platforms that children use for learning, playing, and socializing. From social media and messaging apps to online games and video platforms, digital spaces have become hunting grounds for people who wish to do harm.

Having all this in mind, the institute decided to conduct its own global, interdisciplinary, cross-sectional, and multi-spatial program on ‘Understanding AI and Robotics.’ With the consortium of its global partners and under the supervision of Philipe Reinisch, Dr. Ing. (SR4.0 CEO), IFIMES starts its first 8-week course on 22 May. 

A Worrying Trend

The Global Mini Study presented by IFIMES shows how technology is playing a double role in today’s world. On one hand, it unites both individuals and communities, supports education, and provides endless opportunities to learn. On the other hand, it can be used in harmful ways—especially when it comes to children and those most vulnerable.

The study compiled research from many parts of the world, including Europe, Asia, Africa, Latin America, and diaspora communities. It found that criminals are using advanced digital tools to reach and recruit children. One of the most disturbing developments is the use of AI-generated images and videos, also known as “deepfakes.” These can make it look like a child is involved in something they were never a part of and have become a tactic to scare, control, and exploit children into doing things against their will.

Encrypted messaging apps and hidden online communities—sometimes called the “dark web”—are also being used to carry out these crimes in secret. This makes it harder for law enforcement and child protection agencies to track and stop the abuse.

Why It Matters:

During the UN session, IFIMES highlighted astonishing estimates that 55 million people are trafficked each year worldwide. While trafficking is not a new phenomenon, the internet has added new ways for it to expand and develop. While children from all backgrounds are at risk, those who are already vulnerable—such as kids who have been displaced by war, natural disasters, or poverty—face even greater danger. Without strong social supports, digital literacy, or parental guidance, they can become easy targets and increasingly vulnerable.

These crimes are not just happening in hidden corners of the internet. They are taking place in the everyday digital lives of millions of children, often without the knowledge of parents, teachers, or caregivers. Predators can strike through something as common as a chat message or a friend request.

Gaps in Protection

Although there are international agreements in place—such as the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child—IFIMES argues that real-world protections still lack proper checks and balances. Many countries have signed important treaties that say they will protect children, but implementation often falls short.

Some countries have well-elaborated legislation and also its enforcement to keep minors safe online, but others lack the resources or political will to enforce these protections. In many cases, laws are outdated and don’t consider newer technologies like generative AI, encrypted messaging, or the borderless nature of these crimes. This leaves children exposed and governments playing catch-up.

Four Key Global Challenges

IFIMES identified four major trends that explain why digital child exploitation is such a growing problem:

1. Technology as a Double-Edged Sword: The same tools that help educate and connect children are also being used to harm them. Algorithms that keep people engaged can also expose them to traffickers looking to enact harm.
2. Legal and Policy Gaps: Despite efforts, many legal systems are not ready to handle the complexity of online crimes. International cooperation is limited, and the international community lacks proper checks and balances to monitor, evaluate, and protect children from exploitation online.
3. Vulnerable Children at Greater Risk: Children who are displaced by war or disasters often lack adult supervision or stable environments. Without access to safety nets or digital education, they become easy targets online.
4. Need for Global Partnerships: Governments cannot solve this issue alone. IFIMES stresses the need for collaboration among tech companies, schools, civil society, and international organizations to create safer online environments.

What Needs to Be Done

To respond to these challenges, IFIMES Director Prof. Zijad Becirovic is calling for stronger global cooperation and new ideas to better protect everyone (particularly minors) in the digital world. The organization recommends

• Clear Rules for Data Use: Children’s personal data must be handled carefully. Governments and companies should follow rules about how they collect and use this information.
• Holding Platforms Accountable: Social media and major tech companies should take responsibility for what happens on their platforms. There must be accountability for gaps in protection.
• AI That Respects Children’s Rights: As AI becomes more common, it’s important to set rules and regulations that protect children from misuse, such as fake images and online threats.
• Cross-Sector Collaboration: Solutions should involve everyone and be horizontal—from government agencies and police to tech developers, teachers, parents, and youth themselves. Long-lasting solutions will come from a global response.

A Call for Urgent Action

“This is a global emergency,” said Jenna Ellis, IFIMES Information Officer, speaking on behalf of the institute’s director, Prof. Zijad Becirovic. “We must take immediate steps to make the digital world safer for children. This means new laws, better education, stronger partnerships, and a shared sense of responsibility.”

The session at the UN ended with a clear message: online child exploitation is not just a legal issue; it’s a moral and generational issue, and it is everyone’s responsibility to find a solution. Children everywhere deserve to be safe—not just in their homes and schools in the digital spaces they use every day, and we must commit to monitoring, evaluation, and capacity building at all levels. The global response must be uniform and supported by all sectors and states—public, private, individual, or corporate. Collaboration is not an option when it comes to finding universal and lasting solutions.

IFIMES is committed to sharing its findings with countries and organizations around the world and is offering support to any group that wants to act. The institute hopes that this global effort will grow into a powerful movement that protects children and ensures that technology becomes a force for good—not harm—and is there to support all sectors and individuals involved in resolution along the way.