ruling

Vietnamese elect members of parliament from a list of candidates ⁠almost exclusively fielded by the governing party.

Voters in Vietnam are casting their ballots for members of the National Assembly, the country’s top legislative body, which serves mainly to ratify decisions by the governing Communist Party.

Nearly 93 percent of the 864 parliamentary candidates in Sunday’s election are Communist Party members, while 7.5 percent are independents, according to the national election council, down from 8.5 percent in 2021.

The five-yearly elections in the tightly controlled one-party state will see more than 73 million voters elect 500 members of the National Assembly and representatives for local councils.

The Communist Party, which has ruled the Southeast Asian nation of 100 million people unopposed for decades, holds 97 percent of the parliamentary seats.

Voters expressed hope their representatives would continue modernising Vietnam, whose booming economy is undergoing major reforms introduced by top leader To Lam.

Red-and-yellow banners fluttered from lampposts and traffic lights in the capital, Hanoi, where well-dressed senior citizens were some of the first to vote.

“I do expect top leaders after this election will make major changes to make our country better,” Nguyen Thi Kim, 73, told the AFP news agency at a polling station set up in a community room of a high-rise residential block in Hanoi.

But in a country where major policies and projects are decided by senior cadres, many citizens feel lukewarm about elections. “I don’t think who wins will have any impact on my life,” said a woman, who gave her name as Huyen, in Hanoi.

Most polling stations are scheduled to close at 7pm (12:00 GMT), with results expected on March 23, parliament Chairman Tran Thanh Man told local media.

The opening plenary session of the National Assembly is scheduled for early April, when ⁠lawmakers are expected to approve the state’s top leaders previously nominated by the party, including the president and the prime minister.

The party confirmed Lam as its general secretary, Vietnam’s most powerful position, during ⁠its five-yearly congress in January, when it also selected the 19 members of ⁠the Politburo, its top decision-making body.

After voting on Sunday morning in Hanoi, Lam said on live television that the election aimed “to choose the most prestigious people to continue leading the country to more development”.

First-time voter Nguyen Kim Chi, 18, said she cast her ballot in the capital for “all the young” candidates.

“I know top positions are already set,” she added, “but I still hope my votes count.”

March 6 (Asia Today) — A South Korean court has suspended a disciplinary penalty against lawmaker Bae Hyun-jin, intensifying internal criticism of People Power Party leader Jang Dong-hyuk and prompting calls for accountability within the main opposition party.

The court granted Bae’s request for an injunction blocking the party’s decision to suspend her membership rights for one year. The ruling effectively halted the punishment while the broader legal dispute proceeds.

The decision has fueled criticism of Jang’s leadership and sparked demands for the resignation of Yoon Min-woo, head of the party’s ethics committee that imposed the discipline.

Speaking on SBS radio Thursday, Bae sharply criticized the party leadership.

“Even if he had ten mouths, he would have nothing to say,” she said of Jang, accusing him of using the ethics committee to purge members who do not align with his political stance.

She also called on the party leader to apologize to members and the public.

Former party leader Han Dong-hoon also criticized the leadership in a Facebook post, saying the court ruling suggested the disciplinary move had raised constitutional concerns.

Han accused the leadership faction supporting former President Yoon Suk Yeol of remaining silent after the court decision and criticized what he described as attempts to shift responsibility to the ethics committee leadership.

Rep. Park Jeong-hoon, another party lawmaker, also condemned the move in a social media post, arguing that using the ethics committee to target political rivals had pushed the party toward what he called a constitutional crisis.

Rep. Cho Eun-hee, a member of a younger lawmakers’ group within the party called Alternative and Future, urged ethics committee chair Yoon to step down, saying the case showed the committee had operated in an arbitrary and biased manner.

Jang has not publicly commented on the court decision.

Party chief spokesperson Park Sung-hoon told reporters that Jang is currently focused on economic issues and preparations for upcoming local elections and has no plans to address the matter.

He also said the party is not considering additional legal action related to the court ruling.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260306010001731

March 4 (Asia Today) — A series of legislative proposals by South Korea’s ruling Democratic Party has sparked debate over judicial independence, as critics argue the measures could affect ongoing criminal cases involving President Lee Jae-myung.

The legislation includes proposals to expand the Supreme Court, introduce constitutional review of court rulings and abolish the crime of breach of trust. Legal experts say the bills, combined with calls to drop certain prosecutions, raise concerns that lawmakers could influence judicial proceedings.

Five criminal cases involving Lee are currently paused while he serves as president. As the National Assembly moves forward with legal revisions, some members of the legal community warn the changes could intersect with those trials.

National Assembly inquiry targets prosecution investigations

According to political sources, the Democratic Party has launched a parliamentary committee seeking a national investigation into what it calls politically motivated prosecutions under the previous administration.

The committee plans to examine several high-profile cases involving political figures, including the Daejang-dong development case and allegations involving transfers of funds to North Korea.

Party officials have also urged prosecutors to withdraw indictments in cases involving Lee.

The move has prompted criticism from legal observers who say the National Assembly should not interfere in criminal proceedings.

Judicial reform bills move quickly through parliament

The Democratic Party has advanced three major judicial reform bills in recent weeks.

The legislation would expand the number of Supreme Court justices from 14 to 26, allow the Constitutional Court to review final court rulings through a judicial complaint system and introduce a new criminal offense for officials who deliberately misapply the law in judicial decisions or investigations.

Supporters say the reforms are aimed at addressing structural issues within the judiciary.

However, some legal analysts say the proposals could alter the balance of power within the court system and influence the legal environment surrounding ongoing cases.

Breach of trust law could affect corruption cases

Another proposal under discussion involves abolishing the criminal offense of breach of trust, which has been used in several major corruption investigations.

If the law were repealed, legal experts say it could affect cases related to development projects in Daejang-dong and Baekhyeon-dong as well as allegations involving misuse of a provincial government corporate credit card.

Under South Korean law, when a criminal statute is repealed after an alleged offense, courts may dismiss charges related to that statute.

Concerns raised over separation of powers

Some lawyers say the pace and scope of the legislative initiatives raise broader concerns about the balance between the legislative and judicial branches.

“The outcome of trials should be determined in court,” one attorney who previously served as a senior prosecutor said. “If lawmakers change laws in ways that directly affect ongoing cases, it raises questions about the separation of powers.”

Supporters of the legislation argue the reforms are necessary to improve accountability within the justice system.

Debate over the proposals is expected to continue as the National Assembly reviews the measures during the current parliamentary session.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260305010001168

Feb. 27 (UPI) — Britain’s Green Party won the Gorton and Denton byelection in southeast Manchester with a more than 4,000-seat majority, beating the ruling Labour Party into third place, and 12 points clear of Reform UK.

The Greens’ new Member of Parliament, Hannah Spencer, a plumber from a neighboring suburb of Manchester, produced a convincing win in Thursday’s poll, overturning the 13,000-seat majority won in the 2024 general election by the previous Labour holder of the seat who is standing down due to ill-health.

Spencer won 14,980 seats, or 40.7% of the vote, Reform’s Matt Goodwin, 10,578 and Labour’s Angeliki Stogia trailing in third place with 9,364. The Conservative Party’s candidate came in a distant fourth with just 706 votes. Turnout was 47.6%.

The win, a first for the Green Party in a byelection, takes the party’s contingent in the House of Commons to five.

Speaking in the early hours of Friday after the results were announced, 34-year-old Spencer vowed to “fight” for the people of Gorton and Denton “who feel left behind and isolated.”

“There is an appetite here for change, and there are people across this constituency and much further beyond who are rejecting the old political parties and who are coming together to fight for something better, but who are doing it positively and in a really hopeful way.”

Spencer said her victory proved there was “no longer any such thing as a safe seat” and that there was “no part of the country where the Green Party cannot win.”

Asked if the Greens’ intention was to “eviscerate” Labour, Party leader Zack Polanski said that taking a seat Labour had held for more than 100 years showed it was “beginning already.”

“If we see a swing like this at the next general election, there will be a tidal wave of new Green MPs. This is an existential crisis for the Labour Party,” he said.

Labour’s second-straight loss of a byelection with Prime Minister Keir Starmer at the helm, and with local elections just around the corner in May, could prove highly consequential for his future.

Speaking to reporters Friday, a defiant Starmer rejected any suggestion he might be considering his position, saying he would never quit.

“I came into politics late in life to fight for change for those people who need it. I will keep on fighting for those people for as long as I’ve got breath in my body,” he said.

Starmer played down the loss saying that while it was “very disappointing,” voters often took out frustrations on sitting administrations in mid way through their terms.

However, Strathclyde University Politics Professor John Curtice said the Green Party was now challenging Labour’s stranglehold on the left of British politics in a way that would cause the parliamentary wing of the party to seriously question whether Starmer was still the right person to lead the country.

Reform UK chairman David Bull, telling the BBC he was “absolutely thrilled” with his party’s performance,” echoed that analysis.

“Keir Starmer is in big trouble now — it is not a matter of if he leaves office, it’s when he leaves.”

Party leader, MP Nigel Farage, warned the Greens’ win would embolden the radical left and said opposition Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch should apologize for leading the party to the worst result in its history.

“Roll on the elections on May 7. It will be goodbye Starmer and goodbye to the Tory [Conservative] party,” he wrote on X.

Badenoch, who is Black, called on Starmer to quit immediately.

“Our country is not broken, but this byelection showed that Labour, Reform and the Greens are trying very hard to break it. Labour trying to buy people off with more and more benefits spending, Reform telling people you can’t be British if you’re not white. The Greens running a nasty, sectarian campaign while simultaneously wanting to legalize crack-cocaine,” she wrote in a statement.

“The result shows Keir Starmer’s premiership is finished. He lost authority a long time ago, a mere hostage at the mercy of a divided Labour Party that cannot decide who to replace him with. He has lost the support of his MPs and the country. He is in office but not in power. If had any integrity he would go,” said Badenoch.

Feb. 25 (UPI) — The Supreme Court‘s ruling to limit President Donald Trump‘s use of emergency powers to impose tariffs is forcing the administration to look to different statutory authorities to carry out its trade policy.

On Friday, the Supreme Court ruled that the president could not use the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to generate revenue through tariffs. While this caused Trump to seek another avenue to impose tariffs, landing on a global 15% rate through Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, his plans to use tariffs to negotiate trade deals have not changed.

The decision impacts a great deal of the tariffs Trump has enacted during his second term, Purba Mukerji, professor of economics at Connecticut College, told UPI. She said he has been using the IEEPA to give himself “flexibility” in trade negotiations since returning to the White House.

Trump expressed disappointment in the high court’s decision on Friday but Mukerji said it was expected by economists and is unlikely to disrupt the president’s broader economic policy. Tariffs on steel and aluminum, as well as those that target certain sectors, are likely to remain in place.

U.S. markets have not strongly reacted to the Supreme Court ruling in either direction. The Dow Jones Industrial Average fell by less than a point on Monday, only to rebound on Tuesday. The S&P 500 followed a similar path.

The yield on 10-year U.S. Treasury notes has reflected some uncertainty, though concerns about AI displacing workers, global tensions and broader trade concerns may be factors as well.

“For the business leaders who make decisions, for importers and exporters and foreign countries that are dealing with us in their trade negotiations, this is not a surprise,” Mukerji said. “So I don’t think there will be any long-lasting consequences of this particular Supreme Court ruling, except to put the whole trade negotiations and trade policy on much firmer footing.”

Consumers hoping to see prices come down are unlikely to see significant changes from the ruling either, Mukerji added.

“As far as consumer prices go, I am encouraged by the fact that we didn’t see the rise in consumer prices that was expected in all sectors coming out of tariffs,” she said. “I don’t expect that to be coming down in the future. I don’t think much will change on the ground.”

A study by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York published earlier this month reports that 94% of Trump’s tariffs imposed last year were paid by U.S. entities and consumers during the first eight months of 2025.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection reported in December that it had collected $200 billion in tariff revenue. The largest portion of tariffs collected was on imports from China, a report by the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond said. The report is based on data from the U.S. Treasury Department and Census Bureau.

We Pay The Tariffs, a coalition of more than 800 small businesses, is circulating a petition to call for the federal government to refund businesses due to the tariffs being ruled unlawful.

“A legal victory is meaningless without actual relief for the businesses that paid these tariffs,” Dan Anthony, executive director of the organization, said in a statement. “The administration’s only responsible course of action now is to establish a fast, efficient and automatic refund process that returns tariff money to the businesses that paid it.”

It remains unclear what will happen to the revenue the court ruled has been unlawfully collected. The Supreme Court did not address refunds for tariffs paid.

Mukerji said reimbursing collected tariffs poses some practical challenges. She explained that while the United States maintains a database of who has paid what tariffs, it often shows a delivery company, like FedEx, as the entity that made the payment, not the importer who in reality incurred the costs.

“So you kind of have to reimburse FedEx, who then turns around and reimburses the importer,” she said. “That is a mess because then we depend on the account keeping, say by FedEx, so it becomes more complicated there.”

There is also a matter of fairness as some wholesalers pass the costs of tariffs on to retailers, who then pass them on to consumers, Mukerji said.

Following the court’s decision, U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said the Trump administration will look to Section 122, as well as Section 301 of the Trade Act and Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 tariff authorities to pursue “virtually unchanged tariff revenue” this year.

These statutes notably do not require congressional approval to impose tariffs like the Supreme Court affirmed the IEEPA did.

Section 122 gives the president the authority to impose a maximum 15% tariff for up to 150 days. Tariffs imposed under this authority would remain in effect into July at the latest.

Section 301 of the Trade Act gives the president the authority to impose tariffs in response to unfair trade practices, theft of intellectual property and discriminatory policies by trade partners. An investigation by the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative must be completed to determine if there is a violation and allow for the use of Section 301 authority.

Trump’s broad tariffs on China were issued in 2018 under the authority of Section 301.

Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act allows the president to impose tariffs and other trade restrictions on imports if they are determined to threaten national security. This must be preceded by an investigation by the Commerce Department into the potential of a threat.

Trump used Section 232 to place tariffs on steel and aluminum during his first term.

While President Joe Biden peeled back on many of Trump’s policies when he came into office, he kept some trade policies like these largely intact and reinforced them through investigations.

For Section 301 tariffs, Biden allowed the required four-year review to continue throughout his term, ultimately raising tariffs on electric vehicles from China as well as some semiconductors, critical minerals and other sectors.

For Section 232 tariffs, Biden kept Trump’s tariff framework largely in place and continued to use the national security justification to keep tariffs as a point of negotiations.

“Biden actually made them stronger,” Mukerji said. “Most of them continued under Biden and they were extended and made even stronger. So these trade policies now have the strength of a solid foundation. These stand on the shoulders of investigations so they have this lasting power.”

The Supreme Court’s decision has caused some ongoing negotiations to shift or pause.

Earlier this week, a planned meeting with India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi in Washington, D.C., was put on hold. The sides were planning to meet for three days to discuss an interim trade deal that would likely go into effect in April.

The European Union’s parliament canceled a vote to ratify a trade deal with the United States on Monday in response to the Supreme Court decision and Trump’s subsequent new tariffs.

“A deal is a deal,” the European Commission said in a statement on Saturday. “As the United States’ largest trading partner, the EU expects the U.S. to honor its commitments set out in the Joint Statement — just as the EU stands by its commitments.”

With the Supreme Court’s decision, the Trump administration and future administrations definitively have one less tool to use when imposing tariffs. The ruling does not mark an end to Trump’s tariff plans. It only clarifies his authority to impose tariffs. Meanwhile, the president is left to negotiate trade deals under greater scrutiny.

Feb. 23 (Asia Today) — South Korea’s government said Sunday it would maintain round-the-clock market monitoring after the Supreme Court of the United States ruled reciprocal tariffs invalid, adding that the immediate impact on global markets appeared limited.

U.S. and European equities rose on the day of the ruling, while the dollar index remained stable, officials said. Still, Seoul warned that trade uncertainty persists amid signals from Washington about possible new tariff measures and the continuation of sector-specific duties.

First Vice Minister of Economy and Finance Lee Hyung-il chaired an emergency market review meeting in Seoul attended by officials from the central bank and financial regulators.

Participants said global markets reacted calmly on Thursday, when the U.S. court issued its decision. The S&P 500 rose 0.69%, while the Euro Stoxx 50 gained 1.18%. The dollar index fell 0.2%, and yields on 10-year and two-year U.S. Treasury notes each climbed 2 basis points.

Officials said improved risk appetite contributed to broadly stable trading conditions.

However, they cautioned that policy uncertainty remains after the U.S. government signaled it could impose a 10% tariff on goods from all countries, with a possible increase to 15% the following day. Ongoing geopolitical tensions in the Middle East and Ukraine were also cited as potential risks.

The government said it would continue operating a 24-hour joint monitoring system among relevant agencies and strengthen coordination to respond quickly if volatility increases.

Separately, officials noted that tariffs on automobiles and steel imposed under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act remain in place, and that a new investigation under Section 301 of the Trade Act has been launched.

Participants agreed to closely track follow-up measures by Washington and responses from major trading partners, and to work to ensure that South Korea’s export conditions to the United States are not adversely affected.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260223010006557

Feb. 23 (UPI) — A meeting on trade negotiations between the United States and India this week has been postponed in light of Friday’s Supreme Court ruling on President Donald Trump‘s tariffs.

Officials representing the United States and India were scheduled to meet for three days in Washington, D.C., to discuss their interim trade deal but the meeting has been delayed, CNBC, the BBC and Hindustan Times reported.

India’s top trade negotiator, Darpan Jain, was slated to travel to the United States for the meeting.

India is under a 25% reciprocal tariff imposed by the United States. It was expected to be reduced to 18% as part of an interim agreement between the countries earlier this month. The sides have continued to discuss future trade plans virtually since reaching the interim deal.

The United States and India were slated to finalize the interim agreement in March with it likely to go into effect in April. The framework for the agreement noted that any changes to the deal would allow the other country to “modify its commitments.”

On Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Trump improperly applied the Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose a swath of tariffs. With those tariffs ruled unlawful, Trump announced a 15% global tariff, citing Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which allows a president to impose temporary tariffs.

The act allows for the president to impose tariffs of up to 15% for 150 days.

The Trump administration continues to consider new plans to continue with its tariff policy, exploring other legal routes, U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said in a social media post.

“We will immediately shift to other proven authorities — Actions 232, 301, and 122 — to keep our tariff strategy strong,” Bessent wrote.

Feb. 22 (Asia Today) — Major Japanese newspapers welcomed a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that struck down President Donald Trump’s reciprocal tariffs as illegal, but they diverged on whether Tokyo should reconsider its large-scale investment in the United States.

The court ruled Thursday that Trump’s tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act violated Congress’s constitutional authority to levy taxes. As a result, Japan’s 15% reciprocal tariff lost its legal effect.

Trump, however, invoked Section 122 of the Trade Act and issued an executive order imposing an additional 10% tariff on all imports beginning Monday.

The conservative Yomiuri Shimbun said the ruling effectively curbed the “weaponization” of tariffs and could force Trump to recalibrate his deal-focused diplomacy. Citing Edward Fishman of the Council on Foreign Relations, the paper said using emergency economic powers to impose tariffs has now become “virtually impossible.”

The conservative Sankei Shimbun also welcomed the decision as a check on indiscriminate high tariffs on allies. However, it warned of “new turbulence” in U.S.-Japan trade ties as Trump moves forward with fresh duties under other trade provisions.

In a Feb. 22 editorial, Sankei urged the government of Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi to safeguard national interests at a planned summit in March. The paper called for reaffirming Japan’s $550 billion investment package in the United States, preventing additional unfavorable conditions and clarifying tariff refund procedures for Japanese firms.

William Cho, deputy director for Japan at the Hudson Institute, told Sankei in an interview that renegotiating the investment agreement in light of the court ruling would be unwise, describing projects such as natural gas power generation as both economic and political in nature.

By contrast, the liberal Asahi Shimbun characterized the ruling as a victory for the separation of powers, saying even a conservative Supreme Court had reaffirmed constitutional limits on executive authority. The paper urged Trump to withdraw tariff measures immediately and restore free trade principles, while calling on Tokyo to review the $550 billion investment deal.

The Mainichi Shimbun criticized what it described as Trump’s expansive legal interpretation of presidential authority and warned that continued reliance on Section 122 could undermine the premise of Japan’s 80 trillion yen investment plan.

Despite differing views on investment policy, the four major dailies – Yomiuri, Sankei, Asahi and Mainichi – described the ruling as a welcome brake on high tariffs.

On investment strategy, however, the dominant view expressed by Yomiuri and Sankei favors maintaining and managing U.S. investments in line with national interests, a stance that mirrors the Japanese government’s position.

Economy, Trade and Industry Minister Ryosei Akazawa recently reaffirmed that there is no change to the $550 billion investment agreement during talks with U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick. A government official also said Japan’s overall investment plan remains intact.

With Takaichi planning a March visit to Washington and Trump expected to visit China around the same time, Japanese media are closely watching how Tokyo balances national interests within the evolving U.S.-Japan-China dynamic.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260222010006426

Feb. 20 (Asia Today) — Japan’s ruling Liberal Democratic Party has approved a draft proposal calling for a significant expansion of lethal weapons exports, including scrapping existing limits that restrict overseas transfers to non-combat equipment.

The draft, endorsed Wednesday by the party’s Security Affairs Committee, seeks to revise operational guidelines under Japan’s Three Principles on Defense Equipment Transfer.

At the center of the proposal is the abolition of the so-called “five categories” rule, which currently limits arms exports to non-combat purposes such as rescue, transport, surveillance and mine clearance.

Under the draft, exports of weapons with lethal capability would in principle be permitted.

Kojiro Onodera, head of the committee, told reporters after the meeting that Japan’s security environment is “growing increasingly severe” and said expanding defense exports is necessary to strengthen coordination with allies and like-minded countries.

The party plans to finalize its recommendations next week and submit them to the government in early March.

Exports would be limited to countries that have signed defense equipment and technology transfer agreements with Japan. Media reports have cited between 10 and 17 partner countries, including the United States and Australia.

Decisions on lethal weapons exports would be subject to review by the prime minister and relevant Cabinet ministers at the National Security Council. Non-lethal items such as body armor and helmets would be handled at the working level within the government, with possible post-reporting to the Diet rather than requiring formal Cabinet approval in each case.

The draft also calls for allowing finished products developed through international joint programs to be exported to third countries beyond the original partner nations. Current rules restrict such transfers largely to the next-generation fighter program jointly pursued by Japan, Britain and Italy.

Another sensitive issue is exports to countries involved in armed conflict. The existing principles prohibit transfers to parties engaged in conflict, allowing only limited non-lethal support to countries such as Ukraine.

The draft would maintain a general ban on exports to countries actively engaged in combat but allow exceptions in “special circumstances” when Japan’s security interests are at stake.

Japanese media outlets including Asahi, Mainichi and Sankei described the move as accelerating Japan’s shift toward a more active defense export policy.

The push reflects efforts to revitalize Japan’s defense industry and deepen security ties with partner nations. Critics, however, have raised concerns that easing restrictions could weaken parliamentary oversight and increase the risk of arms proliferation.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260220010005980

United States President Donald Trump has doubled down on his new global tariffs, raising them from 10 to 15 percent, days after the Supreme Court struck down his sweeping levies on imports.

The move on Saturday came as businesses and governments around the world sought repayment for the estimated $133bn that Washington has already collected.

In a post on his Truth Social platform, Trump announced the raise “effective immediately” and said the move was based on a review of the “ridiculous, poorly written and extraordinarily anti-American decision” issued by the Supreme Court on Friday.

By a six-to-three vote, the court had ruled that it was unconstitutional for Trump to unilaterally set and change tariffs, because the power to tax lies with the US Congress.

The court’s decision struck down tariffs that Trump had imposed on nearly every country using an emergency powers law, known as the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).

Trump railed against the majority justices as “fools and lapdogs” in a news conference after the ruling, calling them an “embarrassment to their families”. He quickly signed an executive order – resting on a different statute, Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 – to impose the blanket 10 percent tariff, starting on Tuesday.

The 15 percent hike announced on Saturday is the highest rate allowed under that law.

However, those tariffs are limited to 150 days unless they are extended by Congress. No president has previously invoked Section 122, and its use could lead to further legal challenges.

It was not immediately clear whether an updated executive order was forthcoming.

The White House said the Section 122 tariffs include exemptions for certain products, including critical minerals, metals and energy products, according to the Reuters news agency.

Lawsuits

Trump wrote on Saturday that his administration will continue to work on issuing other permissible tariffs.

“During the next short number of months, the Trump Administration will determine and issue the new and legally permissible Tariffs, which will continue our extraordinarily successful process of Making America Great Again,” he said.

The president has already said his administration intends to rely on two other statutes that permit import taxes on specific products or countries based on investigations into national ‌security or unfair trade practices.

Tariffs have been central to Trump’s economic agenda, which he has used as a tool to address a range of goals – from reviving domestic manufacturing to pressuring other nations to crack down on drug trafficking, and pushing warring countries toward peace.

He has also wielded tariffs, or the threat of them, as leverage to extract trade concessions from foreign governments.

Federal data shows the US Treasury had collected more than $133bn from the import taxes the president has imposed under the emergency powers law as of December.

Since the Supreme Court’s ruling, more than a thousand lawsuits have been filed by importers in the US to seek refunds, and more cases are on the way.

While legally sound, the path forward for such claims is not straightforward, especially for smaller firms, said John Diamond, director of the Center for Tax and Budget Policy at Rice University.

“It’s pretty clear that they will win in court, but it’ll take some time,” Diamond said. “Once we get the court orders in effect, I don’t think those refunds will be all that messy for larger firms. Smaller firms are going to have a much more difficult time getting through the process.”

But foreign governments are managing “the real mess”, Diamond said.

“What do you do if you’re Taiwan, or Great Britain, and you have this existing trade deal, but now it’s kind of been turned upside down?”

The US-Taiwan trade deal lowers the general tariff on Taiwanese goods from 20 percent to 15 percent, the same level as Asian trade partners South Korea and Japan, in exchange for Taipei agreeing to buy about $85bn of US energy, aircraft and equipment.

The US-United Kingdom deal imposes a 10 percent tariff on imports of most UK goods, and reduces higher tariffs on imports of UK cars, steel and aluminium.

‘Pickpocketing the American people’

After ⁠the Supreme Court’s decision, Trump’s trade representative, Jamieson Greer, told Fox News on Friday that those countries must honour their agreements ⁠even if they call for higher rates than the Section 122 tariffs.

Exports to the US from countries such as Malaysia and Cambodia would continue to be taxed at their negotiated rates of 19 percent, even though the universal rate is lower, Greer said.

Indonesia’s chief negotiator for US tariffs, Airlangga Hartarto, said the trade deal between the countries that set US tariffs at 19 percent, which was signed on Friday, remains in force despite the court decision.

The ‌ruling could spell good news for countries like Brazil, which has not negotiated a deal with Washington to lower its 40 percent tariff rate but could now see its tariff rate drop to 15 percent, at least temporarily.

Governments around the world have reacted to the Supreme Court decision – as well as Trump’s subsequent tariff announcement – with a mix of cautious optimism, trepidation and frustration.

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said he would coordinate a joint European stance before talks with Trump in early March, while Hong Kong’s secretary for financial services and the Treasury, Christopher Hiu, described the situation surrounding Trump’s new tariff moves as a “fiasco”.

With the November midterm elections in the US looming, Trump’s approval rating on his handling of the economy has steadily declined during his year in office.

A Reuters/Ipsos poll that closed on Monday showed 34 percent of ‌respondents ‌saying they approved of Trump’s handling of the economy, while 57 percent said they did not approve.

Democrats, who need to flip only three Republican-held seats in the US House of Representatives in November to win a majority, have blamed Trump’s tariffs for exacerbating the rising cost of living.

They were quick to condemn Trump’s new tariff threat on Saturday.

Democrats on the House Ways and Means Committee accused Trump of “pickpocketing the American people” with his newly announced higher tariff.

“A little over 24 hours after his tariffs were ruled illegal, he’s doing anything he can to make sure he can still jack up your costs,” they wrote on social media.

California Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom, a Trump nemesis, added that “he [Trump] does not care about you”.

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.

NEW ORLEANS — A U.S. appeals court has cleared the way for a Louisiana law requiring poster-sized displays of the Ten Commandments in public school classrooms to take effect.

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals voted 12 to 6 to lift a block that a lower court first placed on the law in 2024. In the opinion released Friday, the court said it was too early to make a judgment call on the constitutionality of the law.

That’s partly because it’s not yet clear how prominently schools may display the religious text, whether teachers will refer to the Ten Commandments during classes or if other texts like the Mayflower Compact or the Declaration of Independence will also be displayed, the majority opinion said.

Without those sorts of details, the panel decided that it did not have enough information to weigh any 1st Amendment issues that might arise from the law. In other words, there aren’t enough facts available to “permit judicial judgment rather than speculation,” the majority wrote in the opinion.

In a concurring opinion, Circuit Judge James Ho, an appointee of President Trump, wrote that the law “is not just constitutional — it affirms our nation’s highest and most noble traditions.”

The six judges who voted against the decision wrote a series of dissents, with some arguing that the law exposes children to government-endorsed religion in a place they are required to be, presenting a clear constitutional burden.

Circuit Judge James L. Dennis, an appointee of President Clinton, wrote that the law “is precisely the kind of establishment the Framers anticipated and sought to prevent.”

The ruling is the result of the court’s choice to rehear the case with all judges present after three of them ruled in June that the Louisiana law was unconstitutional. The reversal comes from one of the nation’s most conservative appeals courts, and one that’s known for propelling Republican policies to a similarly conservative U.S. Supreme Court.

Republican Gov. Jeff Landry celebrated the ruling Friday, declaring, “Common sense is making a comeback!”

The ACLU of Louisiana, one of several groups representing plaintiffs, pledged to explore all legal pathways to continue fighting the law.

Arkansas has a similar law that has been challenged in federal court. And a Texas law took effect on Sept. 1, marking the widest reaching attempt in the nation to hang the Ten Commandments in public schools.

Some Texas school districts were barred from posting them after federal judges issued injunctions in two cases challenging the law, but they have already gone up in many classrooms across the state as districts paid to have the posters printed themselves or accepted donations.

The laws are among pushes by Republicans, including Trump, to incorporate religion into public school classrooms. Critics say doing so violates the separation of church and state, while backers say the Ten Commandments are historical and part of the foundation of U.S. law.

Joseph Davis, an attorney representing Louisiana in the case, applauded the court for upholding the nation’s “time-honored tradition of recognizing faith in the public square.”

Families from a variety of religious backgrounds, including Christianity, Judaism and Hinduism, have challenged the laws, as have clergy members and nonreligious families.

The Freedom From Religion Foundation, another group involved in the challenge, called the ruling “extremely disappointing” and said the law will force families “into a game of constitutional whack-a-mole” where they will have to separately challenge each school district’s displays.

Louisiana Atty. Gen. Liz Murrill said after the ruling that she had sent schools several correct examples of the required poster.

In 1980, the Supreme Court ruled that a similar Kentucky law violated the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which says Congress can “make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” The court found that the law had no secular purpose but served a plainly religious purpose.

And in 2005, the Supreme Court held that such displays in a pair of Kentucky courthouses violated the Constitution. At the same time, the court upheld a Ten Commandments marker on the grounds of the Texas state Capitol in Austin.

Schoenbaum and Boone write for the Associated Press.

President Trump calls Supreme Court justices an ’embarrassment to their families’ in 45-minute address to the media.

United States President Donald Trump and his vice president, JD Vance, have launched personal attacks on the justices of the US Supreme Court and their families, after the country’s top court struck down trade tariffs imposed by the White House.

In a 45-minute address to reporters at the White House, the US president heaped criticism on the six justices who ruled against his signature tariff policy in the 6-3 decision by the court on Friday, including Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, whom Trump appointed to the court during his first term.

“I think it’s an embarrassment to their families, you wanna know the truth, the two of them,” Trump said, referring to Justices Gorsuch and Barrett.

“I’m ashamed of certain members of the court – absolutely ashamed – for not having the courage to do what’s right for our country,” Trump added.

Shockingly, Trump also claimed that the Supreme Court “has been swayed by foreign interests”, without providing any evidence.

Trump then warmly praised the three members of the court who dissented in the ruling.

“I’d like to thank and congratulate Justices [Clarence] Thomas, [Samuel] Alito, and [Brett] Kavanaugh for their strength and wisdom and love of our country, which is, right now, very proud of those justices,” Trump said.

“When you read the dissenting opinions, there’s no way that anyone can argue against them,” he said.

Vice President Vance also sharply criticised the justices for their ruling, accusing them of “lawlessness” in a post on X.

“Today, the Supreme Court decided that Congress, despite giving the president the ability to ‘regulate imports’, didn’t actually mean it,” Vance wrote in a post on X.

“This is lawlessness from the Court, plain and simple,” said Vance, whose political profile rose to prominence after writing a memoir about his time at Yale Law School.

Trump and Vance’s comments mark a rare rebuke of the nine-member Supreme Court, which currently has six members appointed by Trump’s Republican Party and has often ruled in favour of his administration’s policies.

The United States Supreme Court ruling against the administration of US President Donald Trump’s sweeping global tariffs has left a question unanswered on what is the refund process for the funds collected over the past several months through the tariffs that had been imposed on most US trading partners .

In a 6–3 decision issued on Friday, Chief Justice John Roberts upheld a lower court ruling that found the president’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) exceeded his authority.

The high court did not specify how the federal government would refund the estimated $175bn collected under the tariffs. In his dissent, Justice Brett Kavanaugh warned that issuing refunds would present practical challenges and said it would be “a mess”.

The case will now return to the Court of International Trade to oversee the refund process.

More than 1,000 lawsuits have already been filed by importers in the trade court seeking refunds, and a wave of new cases is expected. Legal experts say the administration will likely require importers to apply for refunds individually. That process could disproportionately burden smaller businesses affected by the tariffs.

“The government is probably not going to voluntarily pay back the money it unlawfully took. Rather, the government is going to make everyone request a refund through different procedures by filing formal protests. They’re going to delay things procedurally as long as they can. Hiring lawyers and going through these procedures costs money and time,” Greg Shaffer, a law professor at Georgetown University, told Al Jazeera.

“I imagine the largest companies, who have been prepared for this eventuality, will eventually get their money back. But smaller importers, it’s a cost-benefit analysis where they might shrug their shoulders and say it’s not worth going through the hassle to get the unlawfully imposed taxes paid back to them.”

Trump’s path forward

Despite Friday’s ruling, other sweeping levies remain in place. Trump had invoked Section 232 of the 1962 Trade Expansion Act to impose sector-specific tariffs on steel and aluminium, cars, copper, lumber, and other products, such as kitchen cabinets, worldwide.

On Friday, Trump said he would impose a 10 percent global tariff for 150 days to replace some of his emergency duties that were struck down. The order would be made under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, and the duties would be over and above tariffs that are currently in place, Trump said.

The statute allows the president to impose duties of up to 15 percent for up to 150 days on any and all countries related to “large and serious” balance of payments issues. It does not require investigations or impose other procedural limits.

The president also has other legal avenues available to continue taxing imports aggressively.

“Our trading partners were well aware of the risks the President faced in using IEEPA as the basis for reciprocal and other tariffs. Nevertheless, they chose to conclude deals with Washington, convinced by Washington that other statutes would be utilised to keep the tariffs in place,” Wendy Cutler, vice president of the Asia Society Policy Institute, told Al Jazeera in a statement.

“With respect to China, USTR [United States trade representative] still has an active Section 301 investigation on China’s compliance with the Phase One agreement, which could be a major feature of the back-up plan for Beijing.”

The president is expected to travel to Beijing next month to meet his Chinese counterpart, Xi Jinping, to discuss trade.

“The two main options include Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, the traditional mechanism for imposing tariffs in response to unfair trade practices by other countries. It requires an investigation and a report, but ultimately gives the president considerable discretion to impose tariffs. It has been used in the past and will likely be the most frequently used measure going forward,” Shaffer, the law professor, said.

He noted, however, that the administration’s tariff options could not be applied retroactively, meaning any new tariffs would apply only to future imports rather than covering duties already paid.

Raj Bhala, professor of law at The University of Kansas School of Law, argues there are remedies at the president’s disposal in addition to Section 122. Bhala said that Trump could use Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (also known as the Smoot-Hawley Act). That allows the president to impose a 50 percent tariff to challenge discriminatory trade practices from other countries.

“Each option involves procedural hurdles,” Bhala said.

Congressional pressure

Roberts wrote that the president must “point to clear congressional authorization” to impose tariffs. The ruling has increased pressure on both Trump’s allies and critics in Congress to clarify the scope of executive trade authority.

“What a fantastic ruling for a feckless branch of government. While its current tendency is to abdicate, the court has told Congress to do its job,” a former official in the White House Office of Management and Budget told Al Jazeera in response to the decision.

“Congress must either act with specific legislation, or declare war, which would grant the President the emergency powers to levy tariffs.”

“Congress and the Administration will determine the best path forward in the coming weeks,” House Speaker Mike Johnson said in a post on the social media platform X.

Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer, by contrast, welcomed the ruling, saying it will “finally give families and small businesses the relief they deserve” and that Trump should end “this reckless trade war for good.”

But how that money will get paid back, and if it was already spent, will require Congress to step in.

“If it has been spent, the money will have to be reallocated by Congress. Congress will have to determine how much is owed to importers, pass a law to fund it, and create a mechanism for repayment. There’s also the question of who is entitled to it. Is it only the importer, or does it extend to the end consumer? Where does the line stop?” Babak Hafezi, professor of international business at American University, told Al Jazeera.

“This is not something that will be fixed in 24 hours. It will most likely take years, possibly even a decade, to resolve all the issues this less-than-a-year-old law has imposed on Americans.”

WASHINGTON — President Trump on Friday lashed out at Supreme Court justices who struck down his tariffs agenda, calling them “fools” who made a “terrible, defective decision” that he plans to circumvent by imposing new levies in a different way.

In a defiant appearance at the White House, Trump told reporters that his administration will impose new tariffs by using alternative legal means. He cast the ruling as a technical, not permanent setback, for his trade policy, insisting that the “end result is going to get us more money.”

The president said he would instead impose an across-the-board 10% tariff on imports on global trade partners through an executive order.

The sharp response underscores how central tariffs have been to Trump’s economic and political identity. He portrayed the ruling as another example of institutional resistance to his “America First” agenda and pledged to continue fighting to hold on to his trade authority despite the ruling from the nation’s highest court.

Trump, however, said the ruling was “deeply disappointing” and called the justices who voted against his policy — including Justices Neil M. Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, whom he nominated to the court — “fools” and “lap dogs.”

“I am ashamed of certain members of the court,” Trump told reporters. “Absolutely ashamed for not having the courage to do what’s right for our country.”

For years, Trump has insisted his tariffs policy is making the United States wealthier and giving his administration leverage to force better trade deals, even though the economic burden has often fallen on U.S. companies and consumers. On the campaign trail, he has turned to them again and again, casting sweeping levies as the economic engine for his administration’s second-term agenda.

Now, in the heat of an election year, the court’s decision scrambles that message.

The ruling from the nation’s highest court is a rude awakening for Trump at a time when his trade policies have already caused fractures among some Republicans and public polling shows a majority of Americans are increasingly concerned with the state of the economy.

Ahead of the November elections, Republicans have urged Trump to stay focused on an economic message to help them keep control of Congress. The president tried to do that on Thursday, telling a crowd in northwest Georgia that “without tariffs, this country would be in so much trouble.”

As Trump attacked the court, Democrats across the country celebrated the ruling — with some arguing there should be a mechanism in place to allow Americans to recoup money lost by the president’s trade policy.

“No Supreme Court decision can undo the massive damage that Trump’s chaotic tariffs have caused,” Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) wrote in a post on X. “The American people paid for these tariffs and the American people should get their money back.”

California Gov. Gavin Newsom called Trump’s tariffs an “illegal cash grab that drove up prices, hurt working families and wrecked longstanding global alliances.”

“Every dollar your administration unlawfully took needs to be immediately refunded — with interest,” Newsom, who is eyeing a 2028 presidential bid, wrote in a post on X addressed to Trump.

The president’s signature economic policy has long languished in the polls, and by a wide margin. Six in 10 Americans surveyed in a Pew Research poll this month said they do not support the tariff increases. Of that group, about 40% strongly disapproved. Just 37% surveyed said they supported the measures — 13% of whom expressed strong approval.

A majority of voters have opposed the policy since April, when Trump unveiled the far-reaching trade agenda, according to Pew.

The court decision lands as more than a policy setback to Trump’ s economic agenda.

It is also a rebuke of the governing style embraced by the president that has often treated Congress less as a partner and more as a body that can be bypassed by executive authority.

Trump has long tested the bounds of his executive authority, particularly on foreign policies, where he has heavily leaned on emergency and national security powers to impose tariffs and acts of war without congressional approval. In the court ruling, even some of his allies drew a bright line through that approach.

Gorsuch sided with the court’s liberals in striking down the tariffs policy. He wrote that while “it can be tempting to bypass Congress when some pressing problems arise,” the legislative branch should be taken into account with major policies, particularly those involving taxes and tariffs.

“In all, the legislative process helps ensure each of us has a stake in the laws that govern us and in the Nation’s future,” Gorsuch wrote. “For some today, the weight of those virtues is apparent. For others, it may not seem so obvious.”

He added: “But if history is any guide, the tables will turn and the day will come when those disappointed by today’s result will appreciate the legislative process for the bulwark of liberty it is.”

Trump said the court ruling prompted him to use his trade powers in different ways.

In December, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent asserted has the administration can replicate the tariff structure, or a similar structure, through alternative legal methods in the 1974 Trade Act and 1962 Trade Expansion Act.

“Now the court has given me the unquestioned right to ban all sort of things from coming into our country, to destroy foreign countries,” Trump said, as he lamented the court constraining his ability to “charge a fee.”

“How crazy is that?” Trump said.

Feb. 18 (UPI) — Tesla will stop using the term “Autopilot” in marketing of its vehicles in California, the state’s Department of Motor Vehicles announced.

In December, a judge ruled that the company was using deceptive wording in its marketing of the cars in California and recommended a suspension of sales and manufacturing in the state. But the DMV allowed the company 60 days to change its wording.

Autopilot is Tesla’s driver-assistance mode, and its self-driving setting is called Full Self-Driving. The DMV argued that both terms mislead customers and distort the abilities of the driver-assistance systems.

Tesla had changed the self-driving system to be called “Full Self-Driving (Supervised)” to indicate that drivers must still monitor the system. But it stayed with “Autopilot,” prompting the DMV to refer the case to the California Office of Administrative Hearings.

The judge ruled with the DMV and recommended the suspension. But the DMV gave the company the grace period.

“Since then, Tesla took corrective action and has stopped using the misleading term ‘Autopilot’ in the marketing of its electric vehicles in California,” the DMV said in a press release Tuesday. “Tesla had previously modified its use of the term ‘Full Self-Driving’ to clarify that driver supervision is required. By taking this prescribed action, Tesla will avoid having its dealer and manufacturer licenses suspended in the state for 30 days by the DMV.”

But Tesla went a step further and changed its driver-assistance plan altogether. It discontinued the former Autopilot mode and now requires owners to pay for an FSD Supervised subscription. Until last week, owners paid a one-time fee of $8,000 for FSD. Now, they pay a $99 monthly fee. CEO Elon Musk has said the fee will increase as FSD Supervised improves, TechCrunch reported.

California is Tesla’s biggest market, with about 30% of its sales. Tesla recently announced that its Fremont, Calif., factory will begin making its Optimus humanoid robots by the end of 2027. It discontinued its Model S and X cars, previously manufactured there.

Feb. 15 (Asia Today) — South Korea’s ruling and opposition parties continued trading barbs over real estate policy during the Lunar New Year holiday, clashing over multi-home ownership among lawmakers and President Lee Jae-myung’s personal property.

The liberal Democratic Party of Korea stepped up criticism of lawmakers from the conservative People Power Party, saying 42 PPP legislators own multiple homes.

In a written briefing Sunday, Democratic Party floor spokesperson Kim Hyun-jung said PPP members were “keeping silent about their own multiple properties” while criticizing Lee, who owns one home.

She said PPP leader Jang Dong-hyuk owns six houses and accused the party of defending what she described as “unearned real estate income.”

The PPP rejected the criticism as exaggerated and politically motivated.

Chief floor spokesperson Choi Eun-seok said the Democratic Party was “blowing out of proportion” the fact that some PPP lawmakers own multiple homes in an attempt to portray the entire party as defenders of windfall profits.

“Compete with real policies, not divisive tactics,” Choi said.

The PPP also renewed calls for Lee to sell his Bundang apartment, after the president described it as “a home to return to after retirement.” Party officials argued that Lee’s position reflects a double standard that limits citizens’ property rights while making exceptions for himself.

Senior spokesperson Choi Bo-yoon said a policy that “pressures the public while making exceptions for the president” would neither stabilize housing prices nor restore trust.

The exchange comes as Lee has posted a series of social media messages targeting multi-home ownership, keeping real estate policy at the center of political debate.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260215010005201