powers

The U.S. Supreme Court’s skeptical questioning of former President Donald Trump’s global tariffs has fueled speculation that his trade measures may be struck down, potentially upending the already fragile trade landscape.

The case centers on Trump’s use of the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose sweeping tariffs on imports. The law grants presidents broad authority to regulate trade during national emergencies but makes no mention of tariffs, raising constitutional questions about the limits of executive power.

During oral arguments on Wednesday, justices across the ideological spectrum except Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas appeared doubtful that Trump had legal authority to levy such blanket global tariffs.

Trade experts now warn that if the court invalidates Trump’s tariff policy, it could trigger a new wave of economic uncertainty, as the administration is expected to pivot quickly to other trade laws to reimpose duties.

Why It Matters

The outcome of this case could reshape U.S. trade policy for years. Businesses have paid over $100 billion in IEEPA-related tariffs since 2025, and a ruling against Trump could open a complex refund battle or force the White House to seek alternative legal pathways for its protectionist agenda.

Corporate leaders, already weary of erratic trade shifts, say a ruling either way offers little stability. “Even if it goes against IEEPA, the uncertainty still continues,” said David Young of the Conference Board, who briefed dozens of CEOs after the hearing.

Trump Administration: Faces potential legal defeat but can pivot to Section 232 (Trade Expansion Act of 1962) or Section 122 (Trade Act of 1974), both of which allow temporary or national security-based tariffs.

U.S. Supreme Court: Balancing presidential powers with statutory limits on trade actions.

Businesses & Importers: Risk being caught in regulatory limbo over refunds and future duties.

Federal Reserve: Monitoring potential economic fallout from prolonged trade instability.

Refunds Could Get “Messy”

Justice Amy Coney Barrett raised concerns about how refund claims would be handled if the tariffs are ruled illegal, calling it “a mess” for courts to manage.
Lawyer Neal Katyal, representing five small businesses challenging the tariffs, said only those firms would automatically receive refunds, while others must file administrative protests a process that could take up to a year.

Customs lawyer Joseph Spraragen added that if the court orders refunds, the Customs and Border Protection’s automated system could process them, but he warned, “The administration is not going to be eager to just roll over and give refunds.”

Economic and Policy Repercussions

Analysts expect the administration to rely on alternative statutes if IEEPA tariffs are overturned. However, implementing new duties under those laws could be slow and bureaucratic, potentially delaying trade certainty until 2026.

Natixis economist Christopher Hodge said such a ruling would be only a “temporary setback” for Trump’s trade agenda, predicting renewed tariff rounds or trade negotiations in the coming year.

Meanwhile, Federal Reserve Governor Stephen Miran warned the uncertainty could act as a drag on economic growth, though it might also prompt looser monetary policy if trade instability dampens business confidence.

What’s Next

A Supreme Court ruling is expected in early 2026, leaving companies in limbo over the future of U.S. tariff policy.
If Trump’s powers under IEEPA are curtailed, analysts expect a new wave of trade maneuvers potentially invoking national security provisions to maintain his “America First” economic approach, prolonging the climate of global trade unpredictability.

With information from Reuters.

WASHINGTON — Dick Cheney was the public face of the George W. Bush administration’s boundary-pushing approach to surveillance and intelligence collection in the years after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

An unabashed proponent of broad executive power in the name of national security, Cheney placed himself at the center of a polarizing public debate over detention, interrogation and spying that endures two decades later.

“I do think the security state that we have today is very much a product of our reactions to Sept. 11, and obviously Vice President Cheney was right smack-dab in the middle of how that reaction was operationalized from the White House,” said Stephen Vladeck, a Georgetown University law professor.

Prominent booster of the Patriot Act

Cheney was arguably the administration’s most prominent booster of the Patriot Act, the law enacted nearly unanimously after 9/11 that granted the U.S. government sweeping surveillance powers.

He also championed a National Security Agency warrantless wiretapping program aimed at intercepting international communications of suspected terrorists in the U.S., despite concerns over its legality from some administration figures.

If such an authority had been in place before Sept. 11, Cheney once asserted, it could have led the U.S. “to pick up on two of the hijackers who flew a jet into the Pentagon.”

Law enforcement and intelligence agencies still retain key tools to confront potential terrorists and spies that came into prominence after the attacks, including national security letters that permit the FBI to order companies to turn over information about customers.

But courts also have questioned the legal justification of the government’s surveillance apparatus, and a Republican Party that once solidly stood behind Cheney’s national security worldview has grown significantly more fractured.

The bipartisan consensus on expanded surveillance powers after Sept. 11 has given way to increased skepticism, especially among some Republicans who believe spy agencies used those powers to undermine President Trump while investigating ties between Russia and his 2016 campaign.

Congress in 2020 let expire three provisions of the Patriot Act that the FBI and Justice Department had said were essential for national security, including one that permits investigators to surveil subjects without establishing that they’re acting on behalf of an international terror organization.

A program known as Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which permits the U.S. government to collect without a warrant the communications of non-Americans located outside the country for the purpose of gathering foreign intelligence, was reauthorized last year — but only after significant negotiations.

“I think for someone like Vice President Cheney, expanding those authorities wasn’t an incidental objective — it was a core objective,” Vladeck said. “And I think the Republican Party today does not view those kinds of issues — counterterrorism policy, government surveillance authorities — as anywhere near the kind of political issues that the Bush administration did.”

As an architect of the U.S. invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, Cheney pushed spy agencies to find evidence to justify military action.

Along with others in the administration, Cheney claimed Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was developing weapons of mass destruction and had ties to al-Qaida. They used that to sell the war to members of Congress and the American people, though it was later debunked.

The faulty intelligence used to justify the invasion of Iraq is held up as a significant failure by America’s spy services and a demonstration of what can happen when leaders use intelligence for political ends.

The government’s arguments for war fueled a distrust among many Americans that still resonates with some in Trump’s administration.

“For decades, our foreign policy has been trapped in a counterproductive and endless cycle of regime change or nation building,” Tulsi Gabbard, the director of the Office of National Intelligence, said in the Middle East last week.

Many lawmakers who voted to support using force in 2003 say they have come to regret it.

“It was a mistake to rely upon the Bush administration for telling the truth,” Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., said on the invasion’s 20th anniversary.

Expanded war powers

Trump has long criticized Cheney, but he’s relying on a legal doctrine popularized during Cheney’s time in office to justify deadly strikes on alleged drug-running boats in Latin America.

The Trump administration says the U.S. is engaged in “armed conflict” with drug cartels and has declared them unlawful combatants.

“These narco-terrorists have killed more Americans than Al-Qaeda, and they will be treated the same,” Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said Oct. 28 on social media. ”We will track them, we will network them, and then, we will hunt and kill them.”

After 9/11, the Bush-Cheney administration authorized the U.S. military to attack enemy combatants acting on behalf of terror organizations. That prompted questions about the legality of killing or detaining people without prosecution.

Cheney’s involvement in boosting executive power and surveillance and “cooking the books of the raw intelligence” has echoes in today’s strikes, said Jim Ludes, a former national security analyst who directs the Pell Center for International Relations and Public Policy at Salve Regina University.

“You think about his legacy and some of it is very troubling. Some of it is maybe what the moment demanded,” Ludes said. “But it’s a complicated legacy.“

Vladeck noted an enduring legacy of the Bush-Cheney administration was “to blur if not entirely collapse lines between civilian reactions to threats and military ones.”

He pointed to designating foreign terrorist organizations, a tool that predated the Sept. 11 attacks but became more prevalent in the years that followed. Trump has used the label for several drug cartels.

Contemporary conflicts inside the government

Protecting the homeland from espionage, terrorism and other threats is a complicated endeavor spread across the government. When Cheney was vice president, for instance, agencies like the Department of Homeland Security and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, or ODNI, were established.

As was the case then, the division of labor can still be disputed, with a recent crack surfacing between Director Kash Patel’s FBI and the intelligence community led by Gabbard.

The FBI said in a letter to lawmakers that it “vigorously disagrees” with a legislative proposal that it said would remove the bureau as the government’s lead counterintelligence agency and replace it with a counterintelligence center under ODNI.

“The cumulative effect,” the FBI warned in the letter obtained by The Associated Press, “would be putting decision-making with employees who aren’t actively involved in CI operations, knowledgeable of the intricacies of CI threats, or positioned to develop coherent and tailored mitigation strategies.”

That would be to the detriment of national security, the FBI said.

Spokespeople for the agencies later issued a statement saying they are working together with Congress to strengthen counterintelligence efforts.

Tucker and Klepper write for the Associated Press.

Netflix on Tuesday said its third-quarter revenue jumped 17% to $11.5 billion, powered by the hit animated film “KPop Demon Hunters.”

The Los Gatos-based streamer reported a net income of $2.5 billion during the third quarter, up 8% from the same period a year ago but well below the $3 billion analysts had projected, according to FactSet.

Revenue was in line with analyst estimates and was boosted by increased subscriptions, pricing adjustments and more ad revenue.

The company said it incurred a $619-million expense related to a dispute with Brazilian tax authorities.

“Absent this expense, we would have exceeded our Q3’25 operating margin forecast,” Netflix said in a letter to shareholders on Tuesday. “We don’t expect this matter to have a material impact on future results.”

Netflix shares, which closed Tuesday at $1,241.35, fell 5% in after-hours trading.

As it continues to dominate the streaming market with more than 301 million subscribers, Netflix has been investing in a diverse slate of content, including new movies rolling out in the fourth quarter such as Guillermo del Toro’s “Frankenstein,” as well as the final season of sci-fi hit “Stranger Things” and family-friendly games for the TV such as Boggle.

“KPop Demon Hunters” has garnered more than 325 million views in its first 91 days on the service. The movie, about a trio of powerful singers who hunt demons, was released in June.

It bested 2021 action film “Red Notice,” which had been previously its most watched film in its first 91 days on Netflix with 230.9 million views.

On Tuesday, Netflix also announced a licensing deal with toymakers Hasbro Inc. and Mattel Inc. to make toys including dolls, action figures, youth electronics and other items related to “KPop Demon Hunters.”

Popular TV shows launched in the third quarter include the second season of the Addams family spinoff series “Wednesday” and the second season of drama “My Life With the Walter Boys.”

“When you have a hit the size of ‘KPop Demon Hunters,’ it stirs the imagination of where you can take this,” said Ted Sarandos, co-chief executive of Netflix, in an earnings presentation.

He said the film benefited from Netflix’s platform, allowing superfans to repeat view it and make it appealing for audiences to watch in theaters as well. “We believe this film, ‘KPop Demon Hunters,’ actually worked because it was released on Netflix first,” Sarandos added.

The company said in the fourth quarter it expects revenue to grow another 17% due to growth in subscriptions, pricing and ad revenue.

For the full year, Netflix is forecasting revenue of $45.1 billion, up 16%, and said it is on track to more than double it ad revenue in 2025.

Like other entertainment companies, Netflix has been taking steps to diversify its business in a challenging landscape, as production costs for TV and movies increases and studios consolidate.

“With entertainment industry employment becoming more precarious, Netflix is slyly pivoting its content strategy to rely more on live sports, YouTubers, creators and podcasters,” said Ross Benes, a senior analyst with research firm Emarketer in a statement.

But some investors still remain skeptical about the future of subscription streaming services, as the technology behind video generation tools powered by AI get more sophisticated, making it easier to replicate visual effects and customize content to viewers.

“Netflix’s core lay-back easy-to-watch scripted content is potentially most at risk by the emergence of generative AI compared to peers,” said John Conca, analyst with investment research firm Third Bridge. “Netflix will need to channel its earlier days and find a way to remain nimble, even though it’s now the 800-pound gorilla in this space to deal with this threat.”

On Tuesday, Netflix said it is using generative AI to improve the quality of its recommendations and content discovery on its platform. Creators on Netflix are also using AI tools for their projects, including filmmakers for comedy “Happy Gilmore 2” using generative AI and volumetric capture technology to de-age characters.

If you TikTok on any particular night and you can watch America arguing with itself. Most teenagers scroll through protest videos, culture-war debates, and endless outrage while rival nations quietly observe something far more consequential – the erosion of the attention of the American youth.

Think of two children, one spends an entire day watching protest clips and debating identity issues online. The other spends that same time learning robotics or coding. A decade later, only one of them is shaping the technologies that define the future. Multiply this very difference by millions and the picture becomes clear. This is how foreign countries can gain a subtle but powerful advantage by encouraging distraction.

While American youth is drawn into ideological skirmishes, China is building artificial intelligence laboratories, investing heavily in space technology, and cultivating discipline among its students. Russia, though economically weaker, still benefits by showcasing American confusion to its own citizens. By pointing to social division and cultural chaos, it strengthens the illusion that its own model offers stability. The battlefield today is not military; it is psychological.

The New Frontline of Power

I believe that the most contested territory of the 21^st century is not land or trade routes but attention. Data may have been the ‘New Oil’ but Attention and the ability to capture and control it is the ‘New Data’. If you control the minds, you control the country. Young Americans live in a constant world of images, arguments, and notifications that shape how they see their nation and their ideological beliefs. They are politically aware but emotionally exhausted.

Several Surveys by the Pew Research Centre show that nearly half of American teenagers believe social media has a mostly negative effect on their generation, and about 1 in 5 say it has harmed their mental health in one way or another. What began as a tool for connection, has become an arena for reactivity, chaos and following social media trends. News is consumed not to understand but to respond.

America’s openness which has been its defining strength, has become a point of vulnerability. During the 2016 election, Russian operatives deliberately amplified such issues online, pushing both liberal and conservative extremes to deepen mistrust and cause diversity. The aim was not persuasion but polarization. It was a targeted attack on the people of America.

TikTok on the other hand, which is China’s most successful global export is designed to capture attention through endless entertainment, while its domestic version, Douyin, restricts usage for minors and promotes educational and patriotic content. The Chinese youth are trained to create and compete, while American youth are taught, unconsciously, to scroll. Why is Douyin used in China and not TikTok? Why isn’t conventional social media banned in China? What does China know about these social debates that it wants to control the flow of media and western ideologies into their country? One should question what Is really happening

The Economics of Distraction

Attention is now a form of economic power. Nations that focus their youth on innovation and competence will dominate the coming century. Those that reward distraction will decline.

The Center for Strategic and International Studies reports that China graduates more than one million engineers each year, nearly four times the number produced in the United States. When a country’s young population spends more time debating cultural issues than mastering scientific ones, it weakens its long-term competitiveness.

Political consequences follow. Polarization has become both symptom and strategy. Congress spends increasing time performing ideological battles instead of solving practical problems. Rivals interpret this as evidence that democracy can be paralyzed by its own openness, and citizens begin to lose confidence in their institutions.

The Algorithmic Advantage

Algorithms have become invisible editors of public life. They decide what people see, what they feel, and eventually what they believe. A Wall Street Journal investigation found that TikTok’s recommendation system can guide users toward extreme or divisive content within minutes of signing up. Douyin, in contrast, enforces time limits for minors and promotes academic material.

The difference in design reveals a difference in philosophy. American platforms optimize for engagement. Chinese platforms optimize priamrily for control. Both shape human behaviour, but only one leaves its users fragmented and fatigued.

Every moment of outrage online generates data, engagement, and profit. The more polarized the conversation, the stronger the business model. That is the genius of this weapon, it destabilizes societies while appearing voluntary. It is a quiet killer of growth, it is the quiet killer of a bright future. Why? Because it changes the nature of the populus to focus on ideological differences, to argue and debate on that rather than focusing on innovation, growth and developing. The American Citizen has become vulnerable to these power plays.

The Psychological Toll

This constant exposure to ideological battles leaves deep psychological marks. A few studies link sustained online conflict to higher anxiety, moral fatigue, and declining trust in authority. People become more skeptical yet also more suggestible, believing less but reacting more quickly.

The youth, despite being more digitally focused, remain more adaptable in belief than older generations. The real danger here, is not what they believe but that they begin to doubt whether anyone can be trusted to tell the truth. When the trust has evaporated, societies become easier to manipulate and it gets much harder for the country to unite and focus on growth and development.

Building Cognitive Resilience

Safeguarding democracy today requires much more than merely armies and technology, rather it requires citizens who can think clearly in an environment designed to distract them. The solution lies in resilience, not censorship or media control. Lets discuss some points that can be adopted to fight this battle

Teach Media Literacy: Schools should help students understand how algorithms shape their perceptions and emotions. Research shows that even brief digital literacy training reduces belief in false information.

Make algorithms transparent: Tech platforms should disclose what content they prioritize and why. Independent audits can reveal manipulation before it spreads.

Rebuild Offline Living: Communities that meet face-to-face build empathy that online arguments cannot. Dialogue, Community building and local participation restore the sense of shared purpose that social media erodes.

Expose Interference very Quickly: Governments should publicly reveal foreign manipulation as soon as it is detected. Transparency disarms propaganda faster than denial.

The Human Cost and the National Risk

Beneath this jargon is a human story. It is the that teenager that watches TikTok before bed and wakes up anxious without knowing the reason for that very anxiety. It is the citizen who cannot trust any sources of news. It is the slow disintegration of focus and faith in the conventional media and the American government.

Many foreign powers have learned that it is cheaper to just divide America than try to defeat it using any Economic or Military power because they sure are too strong on that front controlling the one of the most globally traded currency and one of the strongest Military powers in the world. Their weapon is distraction, which is engineered with precision and amplified through emotion.

The remedy is not to close society but to strengthen it. Attention in itself needs to be treated as a civic skill, something to be trained and protected. The ability to pause, reflect and filter out unimportant and hate-causing content is America’s last line of defence.

The next great contest between open and closed societies will not be fought on a battlefield but in the minds of the populus deciding whether to react or to think. If America’s strength once came from its freedom to speak, its survival now depends on its willingness to listen and act be aware of what is really happening.

The walk-on took his place next to USC’s quarterback, the last man standing in a battered backfield. In the midst of a bruising Big Ten battle with Michigan, where brawn and ball control were at a premium, both of the Trojans’ top two running backs had already been carted up the Coliseum tunnel. Two of their top linemen, meanwhile, started Saturday in street clothes. The circumstances were anything but ideal for a team whose season hung in the balance.

King Miller, though, was already familiar with beating long odds. Not long ago, the redshirt freshman was buried on the depth chart, a preferred walk-on from Calabasas High without any obvious path to playing time at USC.

But that was before Saturday, before Miller saw a crease in the Michigan defense, before he took off on a breakaway, game-changing run that broke open the game and eventually lifted USC to a statement-making, 31-13 win over No. 15 Michigan.

It was a resounding victory for the Trojans, given how poorly they’d played in their loss to Illinois two weeks earlier, and for Lincoln Riley, who was just 3-11 against ranked teams prior to Saturday.

That the win came behind a back who pays his own way at USC only made it all the more impressive.

Miller had just two carries for 10 yards to his name, when Waymond Jordan, the Trojans’ leading rusher, hopped off the field in the second quarter, unable to put any weight on his foot. His next 16 carries, though, would go for 148 yards.

His outburst began with that breakaway early in the third quarter, as Miller slipped through a hole and took off, stutter-stepping his way past one Michigan defender and into the open field. Miller ultimately was tackled, only to punch in a touchdown two plays later.

USC tight end Walker Lyons makes a first-down gesture after catching a pass in the first half of the Trojans’ win over Michigan at the Coliseum on Saturday night.

(Gina Ferazzi/Los Angeles Times)

The score gave USC a 21-7 lead that it would never relinquish. But Miller wasn’t done with his breakout performance. He sprinted away for a similar, 47-yard gain on the very next drive.

The most encouraging developments came on defense, where USC bounced back from a disastrous defeat at Illinois to dominate Michigan and its standout freshman quarterback Bryce Underwood. After weeks of their secondary being picked apart, the Trojans held Underwood to just 207 yards on 15-of-24 passing. It was similarly stifling against the run, holding Michigan’s top rushing attack to a meager 3.5 yards per carry.

There were other positive signs Saturday too. For one, USC committed just three penalties, a season low.

Its offense, outside of Miller, has seen better days. Quarterback Jayden Maiava threw a bad interception in the red zone, when USC could have put the game away in the third quarter. Still, he finished with 265 yards and two touchdowns.

But this was the star walk-on’s night, begging the question: How long will it take USC to offer him a scholarship?

USC quarterback Jayden Maiava passes in front of Michigan defensive end Derrick Moore in the first half.

(Gina Ferazzi / Los Angeles Times)

Before Miller burst onto the scene, it wasn’t clear how USC would look coming off the Illinois loss. But USC wasted no time asserting itself.

The Trojans marched down the field with ease on their opening possession. Jordan touched the ball six times, and Maiava completed all five of his passes, capping a seamless 11-play drive by hitting a wide open Ja’Kobi Lane in the end zone on a two-yard slant.

USC kept rolling on its next drive, until disaster struck and the momentum suddenly shifted. Just as the Trojans crossed into the red zone, threatening to bust the game open, tight end Lake McRee caught a pass over the middle and was popped by Michigan defensive back Jyaire Hill, who jarred the ball loose. The Wolverines recovered.

USC managed to withstand Michigan’s initial response, stopping an 11-play drive with a well-timed safety blitz on third down that pushed the Wolverines out of field-goal range. But a 14-play followup proved too much for the Trojans’ defense, which couldn’t stop Michigan’s ground game and gave up a tying touchdown to receiver Donaven McCulley.

With three minutes remaining in the half — and Michigan set to receive the third-quarter kick — USC finally kicked into high gear. It faced just one third down as it marched the length of the field. But with precious seconds ticking away, Maiava looked to the end zone where he found Makai Lemon, who leaped skyward to snag the pass between two defenders, then held on as he landed on his back for the go-ahead score.

USC, however, paid a price for that final scoring drive before the half. Jordan, the Trojans’ leading rusher, hopped off the field after a single carry, unable to put weight on his foot. He was eventually carted off the field, joining Eli Sanders, the Trojans’ other top back, who left the game in the first quarter.

But Miller seamlessly stepped into that void in the second half. He ripped off one big run, then another, sprinting his way into Trojan infamy in the midst of a statement victory.

USC wide receiver Ja’Kobi Lane celebrates after scoring a on a touchdown reception in the first quarter against Michigan.

(Gina Ferazzi / Los Angeles Times)