Relief

WASHINGTON — For a few hours on Friday, congressional Republicans seemed to get some relief from one of the largest points of friction they have had with the Trump administration. It didn’t last.

The Supreme Court struck down a significant portion of President Trump’s global tariff regime, ruling that the power to impose taxes lies with Congress. Many Republicans greeted the Friday morning decision with measured statements, some even praising it, and GOP leaders said they would work with Trump on tariffs going forward.

But by the afternoon, the president made clear he had no intention of working with Congress and would continue to go it alone by imposing a new global import tax. He set the new tax at 10% in an executive order, announcing Saturday he planned to hike it to 15%.

Trump is enacting the new tariff under a law that restricts the import taxes to 150 days and has never been invoked this way before. Though that decision is likely to have major implications for the global economy, it might also ensure that Republicans will have to keep answering for Trump’s tariffs for months to come, especially as the midterm elections near. Opinion polls have shown most Americans oppose Trump’s tariff policy.

“I have the right to do tariffs, and I’ve always had the right to do tariffs,” Trump said at a news conference Friday, contending that he doesn’t need Congress’ approval.

Tariffs have been one of the only areas where the Republican-controlled Congress has broken with Trump. Both the House and Senate at various points had passed resolutions intended to rein in the tariffs imposed on key trade partners such as Canada. It’s also one of the few issues about which Republican lawmakers, who came of age in a party that largely championed free trade, have voiced criticism of Trump’s economic policies.

“The empty merits of sweeping trade wars with America’s friends were evident long before today’s decision,” Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), the former longtime Senate Republican leader, said in a statement Friday, noting that tariffs raise the prices of homes and disrupt other industries important to his home state.

Democrats’ approach

Democrats, looking to win back control of Congress, intend to make McConnell’s point their own. At a news conference Friday, Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer said Trump’s new tariffs “will still raise people’s costs and they will hurt the American people as much as his old tariffs did.”

Schumer challenged Republicans to stop Trump from imposing the new global tariff. Democrats on Friday also called for refunds to be sent to U.S. consumers for the tariffs struck down by the Supreme Court.

“The American people paid for these tariffs and the American people should get their money back,” Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said on social media.

The remarks underscored one of the Democrats’ central messages for the midterm campaign: that Trump has failed to make the cost of living more affordable and has inflamed prices with tariffs.

Small and midsize U.S. businesses have had to absorb the import taxes by passing them along to customers in the form of higher prices, employing fewer workers or accepting lower profits, according to an analysis by the JPMorganChase Institute.

Will Congress act?

The Supreme Court decision Friday made it clear that a majority of justices believe that Congress alone is granted authority under the Constitution to levy tariffs. Yet Trump quickly signed an executive order citing the Trade Act of 1974, which grants the president the power to impose temporary import taxes when there are “large and serious United States balance-of-payments deficits” or other international payment problems.

The law limits the tax to 150 days without congressional approval to extend it. The authority has never been used and therefore never tested in court.

Republicans at times have warned Trump about the potential economic fallout of his tariff plans. Yet before his “Liberation Day” of global tariffs last April, GOP congressional leaders declined to directly defy the president.

Some GOP lawmakers cheered on the new tariff policy, highlighting a generational divide among Republicans, with a mostly younger group fiercely backing Trump’s strategy. Rather than heed traditional free trade doctrine, they argue for “America First” protectionism, which they argue will revive U.S. manufacturing.

Republican Sen. Bernie Moreno, an Ohio freshman, slammed the Supreme Court’s ruling on Friday and called for GOP lawmakers to “codify the tariffs that had made our country the hottest country on Earth!”

A few Republican opponents of the tariffs, meanwhile, openly cheered the Supreme Court’s decision. Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.), a critic of the administration who is not seeking reelection, said on social media that “Congress must stand on its own two feet, take tough votes and defend its authorities.”

Bacon predicted there would be more Republican resistance coming. He and a few other GOP members were instrumental this month in forcing a House vote on Trump’s tariffs on Canada. As that measure passed, Trump vowed political retribution for any Republican who voted to oppose his tariff plans.

Groves writes for the Associated Press. AP writers Matt Brown, Joey Cappelletti and Lisa Mascaro contributed to this report.

Published on 20/02/2026 – 12:34 GMT+1•Updated
12:35

European steel shipments to the US declined 30% between June and December 2025 compared with the same period a year earlier, according to recent Eurostat data compiled by Eurofer, the Brussels-based industry group.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

The decline underscores the impact of the US’s 50% tariffs on EU steel, even after the EU and US signed a trade agreement in July 2025 agreeing a blanket 15% US tariff on EU goods. Steel was carved out of that deal and talks to ease duties remain stuck.

“A 30% drop in steel exports to the US within just six months is a clear signal that the blunt 50% tariffs imposed by the US government on EU steel are damaging our industry,” Eurofer Director general Axel Eggert said.

“The US decision to include EU downstream steel products, such as machinery, will have another huge negative impact on us and our European customers,” he added.

Washington imposed 50% tariffs on EU steel and aluminium in June 2025 and extended the measures to more than 400 steel and aluminium products in August.

Steel talks tied to EU-US trade deal enforcement

The US has framed the tariffs as a shield against Chinese overcapacity flooding global markets, including Europe.

With Chinese exports increasingly redirected from the US to the EU, the European Commission proposed on 7 October 2025 to halve the volume of steel allowed into the bloc duty-free and to levy a 50% tariff on imports exceeding a quota of 18.3 million tons a year.

The proposal steel needs to be adopted by the EU legislator. Meanwhile Brussels itself hopes to reopen talks with the White House to secure lower duties on EU steel.

But US negotiators have linked any resumption of discussions to the implementation of last summer’s EU-US trade deal, struck by Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and President Donald Trump. Under that pact, the EU agreed to cut its tariffs on US goods to zero while accepting 15% duties on its exports to the US.

With the EU legislative process still requiring approval from lawmakers and member states, Washington’s patience is wearing thin. Tensions could rise further after EU lawmakers introduced amendments that may complicate talks with capitals.

The European Parliament is expected to vote on the deal in March, paving the way for negotiations with member states.

The talks stalled on the European side after the US threatened to annex Greenland militarily from Denmark in January. Although the US has softened its language, it led to delays. The administration’s continuous lobbying for less stringent rules when it comes to digital legislation in Europe has also added obstacles to the talks.

Iran’s atomic energy chief says Tehran is open to diluting its highly enriched uranium if the United States ends sanctions, signalling flexibility on a key demand by the US.

Mohammad Eslami made the comments to reporters on Monday, saying the prospects of Iran diluting its 60-percent-enriched uranium, a threshold close to weapons grade, would hinge on “whether all sanctions would be lifted in return”, according to Iran’s state-run IRNA news agency.

Eslami did not specify whether Iran expected the removal of all sanctions or specifically those imposed by the US.

Diluting uranium means mixing it with blend material to reduce its enrichment level. According to the United Nations nuclear watchdog, Iran is the only state without nuclear weapons enriching uranium to 60 percent.

US President Donald Trump has repeatedly called for Iran to be subject to a total ban on enrichment, a condition unacceptable to Tehran and far less favourable than a now-defunct nuclear agreement reached with world powers in 2015.

Iran maintains it has a right to a civilian nuclear programme under the provisions of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, to which it and 190 other countries are signatories.

Eslami made his comments on uranium enrichment as the head of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, Ali Larijani, prepares to head on Tuesday to Oman, which has been hosting mediated negotiations between the US and Iran.

Al Jazeera’s Ali Hashem, reporting from Tehran, said Larijani, one of the most senior officials in Iran’s government, is likely to convey messages related to the ongoing talks.

Trump said talks with Iran would continue this week.

Negotiations ‘very serious’

Both the US and Iran have given mixed signals about their progress in the negotiations. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said Iran is “very serious in negotiations” and is eager to “achieve results”. However, he said, “There is a wall of mistrust towards the United States, which stems from America’s own behaviour.”

Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian said the ongoing negotiations are an “important opportunity to reach a fair and balanced solution”, IRNA reported. He stressed that “Iran seeks guarantees for its nuclear rights” and the lifting of “unjust sanctions”, the agency added.

Trump, for his part, praised the latest round of talks on Friday as “very good” but continued to warn of “steep consequences” for Iran if it does not strike a deal.

“They want to make a deal as they should want to make a deal,” the US president said. “They know the consequences if they don’t.”

Before the two sides agreed to talks, Trump had repeatedly threatened Iran with a “far worse” attack than the US strikes on three Iranian nuclear facilities during June’s 12-day Israel-Iran war. He has escalated the pressure by deploying an aircraft carrier and accompanying warships to the Middle East.

Trump is expected on Wednesday to meet with visiting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who is pushing the US to take a hardline stance in its negotiations with Iran, demanding not just concessions on its nuclear programme but also on its ballistic missiles and regional alliances.

Andreas Krieg, an associate professor in security studies at King’s College London, said the US and Iran appear to be “pivoting closer to a deal” than they were several weeks ago, even though there’s still a high risk of conflict.

“The [US] ‘armada’, as Trump calls it, is still in the area, so we still have that coercion going against the [Iranian] regime by the Americans,” Krieg told Al Jazeera. “But it seems to be fruitful in the way that the pressure works, and the Iranians have to make concessions.”

He added: “All the messaging from the Gulf countries – from Qatar, from Oman – from everyone involved, including from the Americans, has been very positive. And the Iranians’ feedback themselves was very positive.

“I think the problem that we have right now is how do we translate this momentum that we have right now on a strategic framework into the nitty-gritty of the details.”

Not long after Pacific Palisades and Altadena had burned, Gov. Gavin Newsom summoned reporters and television cameras to Dodger Stadium. Newsom stepped behind a podium dropped within a stadium parking lot, with a commanding view of Los Angeles as the backdrop.

He was there to unveil LA Rises, a signature initiative under which the private sector and philanthropists could unite to help Southern California rebuild and recover.

The most valuable player that day: Mark Walter, the Dodgers’ chairman and controlling owner. The big announcement: Walter and two of his associated charities — his family foundation and the Dodgers’ foundation — would contribute up to $100 million as “an initial commitment” to LA Rises.

“We should clap for that,” Dodgers co-owner Magic Johnson told the assembled media. “A hundred million dollars, that’s an outstanding thing.”

One year later, Newsom’s initiative has struggled to distinguish itself amid a panoply of wildfire relief efforts. LA Rises has delivered $20 million to date, including $7.8 million from Walter’s family foundation, according to Newsom’s office.

“If it’s a number of 20 million after one year, after such a severe occurrence, and with Los Angeles having the giving capacity to meet that goal, I would have expected to hear that there had been more commitments, at a minimum,” said Casey Rogers, founder of Santa Barbara-based Telea Insights, which advises philanthropists and leaders of nonprofit organizations.

“Maybe not all of those commitments would have been paid. Maybe they would have been commitments over a number of years. But it would have been closer to the goal.”

Walter stands by his pledge, Dodgers president Stan Kasten said. A representative of Newsom’s office said Walter’s pledge did not come with a timeline.

“I know we haven’t spent the full 100 yet,” Kasten said, “but this is a long-term commitment.”

Rather than solicit large donations up front and determine how to use the money later, LA Rises prefers to identify “impactful opportunities for investment” as they arise and then “coordinate financial support from a variety of private, public and philanthropic donors, including the Walter Family Foundation,” said Dee Dee Myers, director of Newsom’s office of business and economic development.

Of the Walter foundation contributions, $5 million went toward grants for impacted small business, workers and nonprofits, with $2.8 million to Pasadena City College for modernizing and expanding technical education programs to train workers that can help rebuild their own communities.

LA Rises also funded programs that include day camps and mental health intervention to children affected by the fires; streamlined architectural planning and permits for survivors wishing to rebuild; and support for Habitat for Humanity in building new homes and rebuilding damaged ones.

“The administration is incredibly grateful for any philanthropic dollars that have gone towards the rebuilding efforts in Los Angeles,” Myers said.

The competition for those dollars is fierce. The Milken Institute reported that private giving toward wildfire relief — from individuals, corporations and other entities — hit nearly $1 billion last year.

“I know there has been a lot of money that has been paid to various programs,” Kasten said, “and there has also been some rethinking about how LA Rises is deployed and what foundational money from the Dodgers is used for. We continue to work hard with a lot of groups on that tragedy.

“There are talks ongoing about a variety of programs and a variety of ways of funding things. We are still very involved with this, both with LA Rises and other entities.”

Kasten did not rule out Walter shifting some or all of his remaining funding commitment to an organization outside LA Rises.

“I don’t know exactly what entity we will be formally engaged with — or doing it separately — but we’re absolutely committed to helping out those programs that need that kind of help,” he said. “We’ve done a lot of it already, and we can do a lot more.”

The Los Angeles City Council on Tuesday signed off on a plan to give financial relief to Palisades fire victims who are seeking to rebuild, endorsing it nearly 10 months after Mayor Karen Bass first announced it.

On a 15-0 vote, the council instructed the city’s lawyers to draft an ordinance that would spare the owners of homes, duplexes, condominium units, apartment complexes and commercial buildings from having to pay the permit fees that are typically charged by the Department of Building and Safety during the recovery.

Forfeiting those fees is expected to cost as much as $90 million over three years, according to Matt Szabo, the city’s top budget analyst.

The vote came at a time of heightened anxiety over the pace of the city’s decisions on the recovery among fire victims. Bart Young, whose home was destroyed in the fire, told council members his insurance company will cover only half the cost of rebuilding.

“I’m living on Social Security. I’ve lost everything,” he said. “I’m not asking for special treatment. I’m asking for something fair and with some compassion.”

The ordinance must come back for another council vote later this year. Councilmember Traci Park, who pushed for the financial relief, described the vote as a “meaningful step forward in the recovery process.”

“Waiving these fees isn’t the end of a long road, but it removes a real barrier for families trying to rebuild — and it brings us closer to getting people home,” she said in a statement.

Bass announced her support for the permit fee waivers in April as part of her State of the City address. Soon afterward, she signed a pair of emergency orders instructing city building officials to suspend those fees while the council works out the details of a new permit relief program.

That effort stalled, with some on the council saying they feared the relief program would pull funding away from core city services. In October, the council’s budget committee took steps to scale back the relief program.

That move sparked outrage among Palisades fire victims, who demanded that the council reverse course. Last month, Szabo reworked the numbers, concluding that the city was financially capable of covering all types of buildings, not just single-family homes and duplexes.

Fire victims have spent several months voicing frustration over the pace of the recovery and the city’s role in that effort.

Last week, the council declined to put a measure on the June 2 ballot that would spare fire victims from paying the city’s so-called mansion tax — which is levied on property sales of $5.3 million and up — if they choose to put their burned-out properties on the market.

Bass and other elected officials have not released a package of consulting reports on the recovery that were due to the city in mid-November from AECOM, the global engineering firm.

AECOM is on track to receive $5 million to produce reports on the rebuilding of city infrastructure, fire protection and traffic management during the recovery. The council voted in December to instruct city agencies to produce those reports within 30 days.

Bass spokesperson Paige Sterling said the AECOM reports are being reviewed by the city attorney’s office and will be released by the end of next week. The mayor, for her part, said Monday that the city has “expedited the entire rebuilding process without compromising safety.”

More than 480 rebuilding projects are currently under construction in the Palisades, out of about 5,600, the mayor’s team said. Permits have been issued for more than 800 separate addresses, according to the city’s online tracker.

The council’s vote coincides with growing antagonism between the Trump administration and state and local elected officials over the recovery.

Last week, President Trump signed an executive order saying wildfire victims should not have to deal with “unnecessary, duplicative, or obstructive” permitting requirements when rebuilding their homes. On Tuesday, the county supervisors authorized their lawyers to take legal action to block the order if necessary.

Lee Zeldin, Trump’s administrator for the federal Environmental Protection Agency, is scheduled to meet Wednesday with Bass and LA. County Supervisor Kathryn Barger in Pacific Palisades to discuss the pace of the recovery. He is also set to hold a news conference with Palisades residents to discuss the roadblocks they are facing in the rebuilding effort.

Khan Younis, Gaza – The headlines read that Israel has finally reopened the Rafah crossing between Gaza and Egypt, allowing injured Palestinians desperate for medical aid to leave.

However, the reality is that on the first day of the opening, on Monday, Israel only allowed five patients to exit Gaza via the crossing, forcing hundreds, if not thousands, of others to wait.

Mohammed Abu Mostafa is one of the lucky five. The 17-year-old travelled on Monday with his mother, Randa, to southern Gaza’s Khan Younis, and then on to Rafah, which has been closed by Israel for two years as it waged its genocidal war on Gaza, killing more than 70,000 Palestinians.

Randa told Al Jazeera that she had received a phone call on Monday morning informing her that Mohammed had been included in the first list of wounded patients scheduled to travel, and that they were instructed to head immediately to the Red Crescent Hospital in Khan Younis.

The reopening of Rafah, Gaza’s only land crossing that does not go through Israel, has been much touted as evidence of the progress of the second phase of the United States-backed Gaza “ceasefire” deal.

But events on Monday revealed a different reality, marked by strict security restrictions, complex procedures, and limited numbers being allowed to cross, falling far short of expectations and the scale of Gaza’s accumulated humanitarian needs.

Each of the five patients being allowed to leave was accompanied by two people as per Israeli orders, bringing the total number of travellers to 15, according to information provided to Gaza’s health authorities.

Mohammad Abu Salmiya, the director of Gaza’s al-Shifa Medical Complex, told Al Jazeera that this was the only group that departed, despite prior plans with the World Health Organization (WHO) – the body overseeing coordination between Egypt and Israel – for the departure of 50 patients daily.

Egyptian official sources have told Al Jazeera that 50 Palestinians were also permitted to return to Gaza via the Rafah crossing, though no information is yet available on whether they have actually reached the Palestinian side.

Ismail al-Thawabta, the director of Gaza’s Government Media Office, highlighted just how low these numbers are compared with the approximately 22,000 people needing to leave Gaza for treatment abroad. Meanwhile, about 80,000 Palestinians who left Gaza during the war want to return, he said.

Eye injury

Mohammed was injured in an Israeli air attack a year and a half ago, near where his family had been displaced in al-Mawasi, Khan Younis, Randa said. He sustained a direct injury to his eye, severely affecting his optic nerve and ability to see.

“My son has been suffering immensely since his injury. Day after day, his condition kept worsening, and there is no treatment available for him in Gaza,” Randa said, while waiting in the hospital courtyard alongside other patients and their relatives.

Despite her joy at finally being able to accompany her son on his journey, Randa feels a sense of anguish at having to leave four of her six children behind, as she was only permitted to take one child as a second companion.

“What matters to me now is that my son regains his sight and can see again with his own eyes. That is my only concern at the moment,” Randa said.

“I also hope to return to Gaza soon after my son recovers, that the blockade will be lifted, and that all patients will be able to travel, just like my son.”

Israeli restrictions

In the Red Crescent Hospital courtyard, dozens of patients on travel waiting lists expressed frustration over the first-day restrictions at Rafah.

Several patients, including those with amputations, gathered at the hospital, hoping to be permitted to travel to Egypt for treatment.

Despite patients and their families arriving early in the morning with high hopes, Israeli authorities refused to permit more than five patients to leave, leading to widespread dissatisfaction with the complex mechanisms accompanying the crossing’s partial reopening.

The multi-stage security procedure of Palestinians moving through the Rafah crossing begins with the preparation of daily lists of candidates for travel, which are then referred to the Israeli side for pre-travel security screening.

No one is allowed to pass through the crossing or enter it without explicit Israeli approval. The European Union Border Assistance Mission deployed to Rafah is limited to monitoring the process and verifying identities.

Arrivals in Gaza, after initial identity verification at the crossing under European supervision, are subject to additional inspection procedures at checkpoints located in areas under Israeli military control.

Raed al-Nims, the Gaza Red Crescent’s head of media, told Al Jazeera that the organisation was still waiting for updates regarding the transfer of more patients for treatment through the crossing.

He added that a group of patients was successfully transferred to Israel on Monday through the Kerem Abu Salem crossing, in coordination with the WHO.

Desperate need

Ibrahim Abu Thuraya was also one of the five patients allowed to leave Gaza on Monday.

Ibrahim was injured in the early months of the war, sustaining wounds that led to the amputation of his left hand and an injury to his left eye, where shrapnel is still embedded.

“Day after day, my eye condition is deteriorating, and I feel severe pain, especially since the shrapnel is lodged behind it and there are no medical capabilities in Gaza to deal with it,” he said from Khan Younis, before he travelled to Rafah. “Doctors told me that I need to travel abroad.”

Ibrahim was informed on Monday morning by the WHO and Gaza’s Ministry of Health that he had been approved for travel. He will be accompanied by his wife, Samar, and their son.

“I have suffered greatly for two full years just to be able to leave for treatment, and there are thousands of wounded like me,” he said. “I hope the crossing will be opened permanently.”