rules

New York City, United States – Since the recent termination of the nearly decade-old trade rule called “de minimis,” United States consumers and businesses have been exposed to slower shipping, destroyed packages and steep tariff fees on international goods – foreshadowing what could make for a chaotic holiday shopping season.

For major international carrier UPS, navigating the latest regulatory changes has proved more fraught than for its competitors FedEx and DHL.

Matthew Wasserbach, brokerage manager for Express Customs Clearance in New York, a firm that assists importers with documentation, tariff classifications, valuation, and other federal requirements, has witnessed the fallout as UPS customers seek his firm’s assistance to clear packages entering the US.

“Over the last few months, we’ve been seeing a lot of UPS shipments, in particular, becoming stuck and being lost or disposed of … This all stems from the ending of the de minimis,” said Wasserbach. “Their [UPS’s] whole business model changed once the de minimis was ended. And they just didn’t have the capacity to do the clearance … a lot of people are expecting to receive international packages, and they’re just never gonna get them.”

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

Suspending tariff exemptions

Since 2016, the de minimis trade exemption determined that packages worth $800 or less were not subject to taxes and tariffs. According to US Customs and Border Protection (CBP), the number of shipments entering the US claiming the exemption increased by more than 600 percent from 139 million shipments in 2015 to more than one billion in 2023.

In August, this all changed. President Donald Trump signed an executive order suspending de minimis treatment for all countries, spiralling US imports into a new landscape of paperwork and processes, subject to duties and tariffs based on their place of origin.

Just a month after de minimis ended, while shipping products with UPS, Tezumi Tea, an online Japanese tea and teaware company that sells its products online and through meetups in New York City, fell victim to the tariff backlog at US customs. Tezumi lost roughly 150kg (330lbs) of matcha, totalling about $13,000.

“We responded by increasing buffers in our supply planning across the dozen farms that we partner with,” said Ryan Snowden, a cofounder of Tezumi. “Even with those adjustments, the loss had a severe effect on a number of our cafe customers who suddenly needed to switch to another matcha blend.”

Now, UPS is no longer accepting shipments from Japan, and Tezumi has switched to shipping supplies through alternate carriers such as DHL and FedEx.

Disposing shipments

Wasserbach has witnessed similar instances of UPS losing imports.

“When a UPS package goes uncleared, it’s just basically sitting in a UPS facility, uncleared for a certain period of time,” said Wasserbach. “Then UPS indicates in their tracking that they’re disposing of the shipments without making, really, any effort, from what I’ve seen, to contact either the sender or the receiver, to get information they need to do to get the clearance.”

Wasserbach shared email chains with Al Jazeera from UPS customers who looped in his firm to their customs clearance UPS debacles.

In one exchange, UPS customer Stephan Niznik responded to a notice from the UPS Alternate Broker Team that their packages had been “destroyed”.

“The tracking says on multiple instances that UPS attempted to contact the sender (me), but this is false; aside from a request for more information on September 5 (which I responded to immediately), UPS never attempted to contact me,” wrote Niznik. “It is absolutely disgraceful that my package was mishandled – clothes and children’s toys were destroyed at the hands of UPS.”

In another email chain, UPS told customer Chenying Li that their package was released following an email from Express Customs Clearance stating that the shipment was cleared.

A week later, Li’s package was still showing as “Pending Release”, and when they asked for an update on the shipment, UPS responded, “At this time we are unable to provide an ETA,  as volume is currently backed up and awaiting delivery due to the De Minimis impact.”

‘Impose additional pressure’

In addition to the customs backlog, Virginia Tech associate professor David Bieri says cost prevention may provide one explanation for UPS choosing to dispose of packages rejected by US customs rather than return the shipments to senders.

“All these additional rules and regulations impose additional pressure on already relatively tight margins for these companies – UPS, FedEx, DHL and so forth,” said Bieri. “They need to make money, and sometimes it’s easier not to fulfil a service than to take on the additional cost of customs clearance and making sure that it gets to its final destination.”

Bieri added that UPS resorting to package disposal may indicate that they believe themselves to be in “a sufficiently strong monopolistic position that they can do such horrible practice – unilateral nonfulfillment of contract”.

Wasserbach told Al Jazeera that “with FedEx and DHL shipments, we aren’t seeing these problems”.

When asked whether FedEx has disposed of packages stuck in customs, a spokesperson wrote, “If paperwork is not complete and/or rejected by US Customs and Border Protection, FedEx actively works with senders to update paperwork to resubmit to CBP or return shipments to senders. In some cases, shippers can request that packages be disposed of if they would prefer not to pay to return to sender. In those rare cases, recipients are notified at the direction of the shipper. This is not a common practice. We remain business as usual.”

Final cost of delivery at your doorstep

But FedEx and DHL are encountering some of the same challenges as UPS. Since August, when de minimis ended and small packages were suddenly subject to taxes and tariffs, anyone who ordered from abroad was susceptible to unexpected fees on imported goods.

Without de minimis protecting packages worth $800 and less from import fees, the consumer essentially becomes the importer.

“You might order something you find a bargain abroad, and you don’t pay attention to where things are shipped from … and it might be shipped from China, and you might be in for a rude awakening once that thing arrives at your door,” said Beiri. “You paid the price and thought that this was it. But your deliverer is saying, no, actually, we’re passing that cost on to you. Because you’re acting as the importer.”

These fees could cost equal to or more than the item you ordered itself. “You’ve got to pay extra attention to small prints,” said Beiri.

With looming costs and lost packages on the horizon, Beiri says shoppers will likely make “substitution questions” – are you renovating or are you going on vacation? Are you splashing on Christmas gifts, or are you treating yourself to dining out?

“I think these are interesting times of having to make choices and asking yourself what can we do given that we have an affordability crisis, rent, insurance, making ends meet,” said Beiri. “That’s what’s currently going on.”

In order to better handle evolving trade policy, Wasserbach says that UPS will likely aim to hire a massive number of entry writers to assist with necessary documentation for legal transportation of goods across international borders. However, now that it is the busiest time of year in terms of delivering people their Christmas shopping, Wasserbach doubts an influx of hiring could make much of a difference, given the amount of training required.

The company’s revenue has already taken a hit on account of Trump’s policies. Tariffs on China and the elimination of the de minimis rule saw imports from China, UPS’s most profitable route, drop reportedly 35 percent earlier this year.

“I would assume it’s gonna get better next year,” said Wasserbach. “But as for solving this problem before Christmas, I don’t think that that’s gonna happen.”

Dec. 19 (UPI) — A Paris court denied an effort by the French government to suspend the fashion website Shein from operating in the country after it was found to be selling “childlike” sex dolls.

The court called the three-month suspension “disproportionate,” but said the site must implement strong age-verification protocols to sell any “sexual products that could constitute pornographic content.” It said the fine for each breach would be $11,700.

The action was taken after the sex dolls and weapons were discovered by France’s consumer watchdog in November, causing an uproar in France.

Shein, based in Singapore, issued a statement on Nov. 4 saying it had removed the dolls and permanently banned “all seller accounts linked to illegal or non-compliant sex-doll products.”

The court noted that the company removed the items and that the issue was only for a small number of the hundreds of thousands of items on the site.

A Shein spokesperson told Euro News that the platform will not reopen in France right away. It’s doing an internal audit to find weaknesses in its marketplace operations.

Paris senator Marie-Claire Carrère-Gée of the conservative Les Républicains party told Euro News that “the issue with Shein or Temu goes far beyond these specific products. It is an entire business model that violates consumer rights, destroys our companies and jobs, and tramples on human rights, including environmental protection.”

The Paris prosecutor’s office has begun a criminal investigation and assigned it to France’s Office for the Protection of Minors. It includes other online retailers, including AliExpress, Temu, Wish and eBay.

The company opened its first-ever brick-and-mortar store in Paris on Nov. 5, soon after the controversy began. The store opened to chaos, as shoppers lined up to get in and protesters shouted at them, “Shame!”

The European Commission has requested information from Shein but hasn’t launched an investigation. It has begun investigating AliExpress and Temu.

The new rule is based on the Wet Bulb Globe Temperature (WBGT), which measures heat stress in direct sunlight. It involves observing temperature, humidity, wind speed, sun angle, and cloud cover.

If the WBGT reaches 30.1C or higher during the first two sets of a best-of-three match, either player can request a break of 10 minutes to cool off.

Under the supervision of ATP medical staff, players can hydrate, change clothing, shower and receive coaching.

Play will be suspended when the WBGT exceeds 32.2C.

“The new heat rule provides a structured, medically supported approach to managing extreme heat, with the objective of safeguarding player health, while also improving conditions for spectators, officials, ball persons and tournament staff,” the statement added.

Spain holidays could look a little different for Brits as the country is set to introduce a strict new ban on smoking in a host of public spaces including beaches and bar terraces

Brits planning Spain holidays should take note of some strict new rules being proposed by the country’s authorities.

The Spanish government has approved new legislation which includes a ban on smoking and vaping in a wide range of outdoor spaces, including beaches and bar terraces.

There has already been a country-wide ban on smoking and vaping indoors, while a number of holiday hotspots already have fines in place for people who smoke on its beaches. Although e-cigarettes are legal to use and purchase across Spain, many beaches enforce strict no-vaping rules under local public health policies.

In Barcelona, all city beaches have been smoke- and vape-free since 2022, while various beaches across the Balearic Islands – specifically in Mallorca, Ibiza and Menorca – are marked as smoke-free, and that includes e-cigarettes.

READ MORE: Jet2 launching new flights to beach hotspot with 27C March weather

In Tenerife, Lanzarote, Gran Canaria, local councils have designated popular beaches as clean-air zones where vaping is banned, with on-the-spot fines for rule-breakers ranging from €30 to €2,000 (£26 to £1,730) depending on whether the culprit is a first-time offender.

Now those rules could get stricter as the Spanish government is introducing a bill to ban smoking on beaches, bar and restaurant terraces, bus stops and sports stadiums, reports Majorca Daily Bulletin. The rules would also see smoking banned in public swimming pools, stations and playgrounds, as well as events such as outdoor shows and festivals.

The rules won’t just apply to cigarettes, but also to the likes of e-cigarettes, nicotine pouches, herbal products, shisha pipes and devices used to heat tobacco.

READ MORE: 7 essential passport checks to carry out before you start booking holidays in 2026READ MORE: Brits flying over Christmas should take note of airline rules on presents and crackers

It’s worth noting that the proposal has passed but isn’t yet formally law, and there isn’t a set date when the rules will come into force. However, Brits who are heading to Spain should check the latest travel advice for the country before they travel, as it’s expected that the rules will come into play within the coming months.

The move comes after Spain’s health ministry confirmed that tobacco claims the lives of around 140 people a day in the country, with approximately 30 per cent of cancer tumours directly linked to factors that are a result of tobacco use.

The legislation also includes a ban on advertising, sponsoring or promoting any of the products, as part of a wider effort to also deter younger generations from vaping and smoking.

Meanwhile, a citizens’ association has called for the government to go one step further and introduce protections against secondhand smoke entering homes through windows and ventilation from neighbouring properties.

If you are travelling to Spain, you may also want to double check your passport before booking a holiday. Following Brexit, UK passport holders must have passports with a “date of issue” within 10 years of their arrival date AND the document must still be valid for at least three months beyond the planned departure date from the Schengen area.

Have you got a travel story to share? Email us at webtravel@reachplc.com

Twenty states had challenged the end of the programme, meant to make localities more resilient to natural disasters.

A federal judge has said the administration of United States President Donald Trump acted unlawfully in ending a programme aimed at helping communities become more resilient to natural disasters.

The Trump administration had targeted the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) programme as part of a wider effort to overhaul the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).

But on Thursday, US District Judge Richard Stearns ruled that the administration lacked the authority to end the grant programme. The decision came in response to a lawsuit filed by 20 states, the majority led by Democrats.

Stearns said the administration’s action amounted to an “unlawful executive encroachment on the prerogative of Congress to appropriate funds for a specific and compelling purpose”.

“The BRIC program is designed to protect against natural disasters and save lives,” Stearns wrote, adding that the “imminence of disasters is not deterred by bureaucratic obstruction”.

Stearns had previously blocked FEMA from diverting more than $4bn allocated to BRIC to other purposes.

Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell was among the plaintiffs praising the decision.

“Today’s court order will undoubtedly save lives by preventing the federal government from terminating funding that helps communities prepare for and mitigate the impacts of natural disasters,” she said in a statement.

BRIC is the largest resiliency programme offered by FEMA, designed to reduce disaster-related risks and bolster efforts to recover quickly.

The programme is emblematic of efforts under FEMA to take preventive measures to prepare for natural disasters, as climate change fuels more extreme weather across the country.

According to the lawsuit, FEMA approved about $4.5bn in grants for nearly 2,000 projects, primarily in coastal states, over the last four years.

Upon taking office for his second term, Trump initially pledged to do away with FEMA, with the agency sitting at the crossroads of the president’s climate change denialism and his pledge to end federal waste.

Trump has since softened on his position amid pushback from both Republican and Democratic state lawmakers. He has said he plans to reform the agency instead.

In November, acting FEMA head David Richardson stepped down from his post. That came amid internal pushback over Richardson’s lack of experience and cuts to the agency.

In a letter in August, nearly 200 FEMA staffers warned the cuts risked compounding future disasters to a devastating degree.

Upon taking on the role in May, Richardson threatened he would “run right over” anyone who resisted changes to the agency.

A federal judge ruled Wednesday that the Trump administration must immediately end the deployment of the National Guard in Los Angeles, the latest legal blow to the president’s embattled efforts to police American streets with armed soldiers.

Senior U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer said in his ruling that command of the remaining 300 federalized National Guard troops must return to Gov. Gavin Newsom, who sued the administration in June after it commandeered thousands of troops to quell protests over immigration enforcement in Los Angeles.

On June 12, Breyer ruled that deployment illegal — a decision that was challenged and ultimately reversed by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. The court said the esoteric statute Trump invoked to wrest command of the Guard from the governor afforded him “a great level of deference” to determine whether a rebellion was underway in Los Angeles, as the Justice Department claimed at the time.

The same sequence repeated this autumn in Oregon, where 200 California Guard troops were sent to help quash demonstrations outside an ICE facility.

Unlike in California, the Oregon decision was vacated amid claims the Justice Department inflated the number of federal protective personnel it said were detailed to Portland and misrepresented other facts to the court.

The decision is now under review by a larger panel of the 9th Circuit, while the Supreme Court weighs an almost identical challenge to the deployment in Illinois.

In both cases, conservative judicial appointees have signaled skepticism about the president’s authority to order boots on the ground, and to keep troops federalized indefinitely.

“States are not only owed protection by the federal government, they are owed protection from it,” Judge Jay Bybee wrote in a lengthy filing Tuesday in support of the 9th Circuit review. “There is no greater threat to the sovereignty of the states than an assertion of federal control over their domestic affairs.”

The “domestic violence” clause of the Constitution was part of a careful compromise between its framers allowing the president to deploy armed soldiers against citizens “only as a last resort,” the judge argued. The president should be compelled to provide some proof of his claims and the states should be empowered to test it — “particularly in the face of contrary evidence.”

That position earned him a sharp rebuke from the court’s newest member, Trump appointee Judge Eric Tung, who echoed the administration’s claim that its deployments were “unreviewable” by the courts.

A demonstrator interacts with U.S. Marines and National Guard troops standing in line at the entrance of the Metropolitan Detention Center following federal immigration operations in July.

(Etienne Laurent / AFP via Getty Images)

Their exchange reflects a deepening rift on the 9th Circuit, once the most liberal appellate division in the United States.

Trump remade the 9th Circuit in his first term, naming 10 judges to the bench. Those picks were largely curated by Leonard Leo of the libertarian-leaning Federalist Society.

But Leo has since lost favor to Tung’s longtime friend Mike Davis of the Article III Project, whose recommendations tack well to the right of his predecessor, experts said.

Still, infighting on the appellate bench is far from the only hurdle facing Trump’s domestic deployments.

In October, the Supreme Court ordered both the administration and the state of Illinois to address a theory by Georgetown University law professor Martin S. Lederman, who argued the statute only allows presidents to federalize the National Guard after they send in the army.

“If the court wants to rule against Trump on this, that’s the least offensive way,” said Eric J. Segall, a professor at Georgia State College of Law. “It’s a way to avoid all factual determinations for the moment.”

But such a ruling could open the door to even more aggressive military action in the future, he and others warn.

“If the Supreme Court comes in and says, ‘you have to use the active duty military before you can use the National Guard,’ it has the effect of saying everything that happened until now [was illegal],” said David Janovsky from the Project on Government Oversight. “But then you have the prospect of more active duty troops getting deployed.”

Congress, too, is taking a fine-toothed comb to Trump’s troop cases. The Senate Armed Services Committee is set to hear testimony Thursday from military top brass about repeated domestic deployments.

“Across the United States, Donald Trump has illegally deployed our nation’s servicemembers into American cities under unclear and false pretexts and despite the costs to our military and civil rights,” Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.) said in a statement announcing the hearing. “The American people and our troops deserve answers.”

Meanwhile, the Trump administration has continued to broaden its claims of executive power in court.

In recent weeks, Department of Justice lawyers have argued that, once federalized, state Guard troops would remain under the president’s command in perpetuity. Breyer called that position “contrary to law” in his ruling Wednesday.

“Defendants’ argument for a president to hold unchecked power to control state troops would wholly upend the federalism that is at the heart of our system of government,” Breyer wrote.

California leaders cheered Wednesday’s ruling as a turning point in what until now has been an uphill legal battle to constrain the president’s use of state troops. The order was set to take effect on Monday, though it was all but certain to be appealed to the 9th Circuit.

“The President deployed these brave men and women against their own communities, removing them from essential public safety operations,” Newsom said in a statement Wednesday morning. “We look forward to all National Guard servicemembers being returned to state service.”

Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta called it “a good day for our democracy and the strength of the rule of law.”

Still, some legal scholars and civil liberties experts warn repeated deployments — and the slogging court battles that attend them — could inure the public to further politicization of the military around the midterms.

“The sense of normalization is probably part of the plan here,” Janovsky said. “Having troops trained for war on the streets of American cities puts everyone at more risk. The more we normalize the blurring of those lines, the higher the risk that troops will be used for inappropriate purposes against the American people.”

Times staff writers Kevin Rector and Jenny Jarvie contributed to this report.

BOSTON — A federal judge has allowed a Tufts University student from Turkey to resume research and teaching while she deals with the consequences of having her visa revoked by the Trump administration, leading to six weeks of detention.

The arrest of Rümeysa Öztürk, a doctoral student studying children’s relationship to social media, was among the first as the Trump administration began targeting foreign-born students and activists involved in pro-Palestinian advocacy. She had co-authored an op-ed criticizing her university’s response to Israel and the war in Gaza. Caught on video in March outside her Somerville residence, immigration enforcement officers took her away in an unmarked vehicle.

Öztürk has been out of a Louisiana immigrant detention center since May and back on the Tufts campus. But she’s been unable to teach or participate in research as part of her studies because of the termination of her record in the government’s database of foreign students studying temporarily in the United States.

In her ruling Monday, Chief U.S. District Judge Denise J. Casper wrote that Öztürk is likely to succeed on claims that the termination was “arbitrary and capricious, contrary to law and in violation of the First Amendment.”

Government argued that termination was legal

The government’s lawyers unsuccessfully argued that the Boston federal court lacked jurisdiction and that Öztürk’s Student and Exchange Visitor Information System record, or SEVIS record, was terminated legally after her visa was revoked, making her eligible for removal proceedings.

“There’s no statute or regulation that’s been violated by the termination of the SEVIS record in this case,” Assistant U.S. Atty. Mark Sauter said during a hearing last week. The Associated Press sent an email Tuesday seeking comment from Sauter on whether the government plans to appeal.

In a statement, Öztürk, who plans to graduate next year, said while she is grateful for the court’s decision, she feels “a great deal of grief” for the education she has been “arbitrarily denied as a scholar and a woman in my final year of doctoral studies.”

“I hope one day we can create a world where everyone uses education to learn, connect, civically engage and benefit others — rather than criminalize and punish those whose opinions differ from our own,” said Öztürk, who is still challenging her arrest and detention.

The then-30-year-old was one of four students who wrote the opinion piece in the campus newspaper. It criticized the university’s response to student activists demanding that Tufts “acknowledge the Palestinian genocide,” disclose its investments and divest from companies with ties to Israel.

Öztürk, who is Muslim, was meeting friends in March for iftar, a meal that breaks a fast at sunset during the month of Ramadan, according to her lawyer, Mahsa Khanbabai. Her student visa had been revoked several days earlier, but she was not informed of that, her lawyers said. The government asserted that terminating her SEVIS record two hours after her arrest was a proper way of informing Tufts University about her visa revocation.

A State Department memo said Öztürk’s visa was revoked following an assessment that her actions “‘may undermine U.S. foreign policy by creating a hostile environment for Jewish students and indicating support for a designated terrorist organization’ including co-authoring an op-ed that found common cause with an organization that was later temporarily banned from campus.”

Öztürk running out of time to pursue teaching, research goals

Without her SEVIS status reinstated, Öztürk said she couldn’t qualify as a paid research assistant and couldn’t fully reintegrate into academic life at Tufts.

“We have a strange kind of legal gaslighting here, where the government claims it’s just a tinkering in a database, but this is really something that has a daily impact on Ms. Öztürk’s life,” her attorney, Adriana Lafaille of the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, said in court.

“We are running out of time to make this right. Each day that goes by is a day that she is being prevented from doing the work that she loves in the graduate program that she came here to be part of. Each day that this happens is a day that the government is allowed to continue to punish her for her protected speech.”

Öztürk, meanwhile, has maintained a full course load and fulfilled all requirements to maintain her lawful student status, which the government hasn’t terminated, her lawyer said.

Record created to collect information on international students

SEVIS is mandated by Congress in the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 and administered by the director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement “to collect information relating to nonimmigrant foreign students” and “use such information to carry out the enforcement functions of” ICE.

According to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, when a SEVIS record is terminated, a student loses all on- and off-campus employment authorization and allows ICE agents to investigate to “confirm the departure of the student.”

Willingham and McCormack write for the Associated Press. McCormack reported from Concord, N.H.