ruling

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

Cable seen by Al Jazeera says the US ‘strongly objects’ to the island nation seeking support for ICJ’s landmark climate ruling.

The United States is urging governments to pressure Vanuatu to withdraw a United Nations draft resolution supporting a landmark International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruling that countries have a legal obligation to act on climate change.

A US State Department cable seen by Al Jazeera on Saturday says that the Trump administration “strongly objects” to the proposed resolution being circulated by the Pacific island nation of Vanuatu in support of last year’s ruling by the ICJ – the UN’s top court.

The Associated Press news agency, which also reported on the cable, said that it was circulated to all US embassies and consulates this week, shortly after Vanuatu announced it was putting forward the draft UN resolution for consideration.

“We are strongly urging Vanuatu to immediately withdraw its draft resolution and cease attempting to wield the Court’s Advisory Opinion as a basis for creating an avenue to pursue any misguided claims of international legal obligations,” a copy of the cable seen by Al Jazeera states.

The ICJ’s 15 judges considered tens of thousands of pages of written submissions and two weeks of oral arguments during the court’s biggest-ever case, before delivering their verdict last year that states have a legal obligation to act on the “existential threat” of climate change.

The ICJ case took place after Vanuatu won the support of 132 countries in the UN General Assembly, which can request opinions from The Hague-based court.

It also came as the Trump administration has sought to undo US action on climate change, both at home and at the UN.

The US cable claims that Vanuatu’s proposed UN resolution in support of the ICJ opinion was based on “speculative climate models to fabricate purported legal obligations that seek to assign blame and encourage baseless claims”.

Louis Charbonneau, Human Rights Watch’s director at the UN, urged support for Vanuatu’s draft resolution on Friday, saying “governments should live up to their obligation” to protect human rights around the world by protecting the environment.

“Responsible governments shouldn’t allow themselves to be bullied by those that reject the global scientific consensus and continue to support reliance on harmful fossil fuels,” he said.

Vanuatu’s UN Ambassador Odo Tevi, who said his country wants a vote on the resolution by the end of March, has stressed that it would ensure that the clarity in the ICJ ruling “strengthens global climate action and multilateral cooperation”.

An article in Vanuatu’s Daily Post newspaper said that the draft resolution has been endorsed by countries including Barbados, Burkina Faso, Colombia, Jamaica, Kenya, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, the Netherlands, Palau, the Philippines, Singapore and Sierra Leone.

Many of these countries are already experiencing the worsening effects of climate change, including increasingly severe storms.

Trump, who has promised to “drill, baby drill” for oil in his second term, has withdrawn the US from UN climate bodies, including the UN’s top climate change treaty body, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

Trump has also threatened to impose sanctions on diplomats who voted for a levy on polluting shipping fuels at the International Maritime Organization (IMO).

A federal judge on Monday struck down a new California law that banned federal immigration agents and other law enforcement officers from wearing masks in the state, but an effort already is underway to revive the statute.

U.S. District Judge Christina A. Snyder in Los Angeles ruled that the No Secret Police Act does not apply equally to all law enforcement officers because it excludes state law enforcement, and therefore “unlawfully discriminates against federal officers.”

But, Snyder said, the ban does not impede federal officers from performing their federal functions, indicating that a revised law that remedies that discrimination may be constitutional.

State Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), the author of the legislation, on Monday proposed a new prohibition on mask-wearing by all law enforcement officers in California, a change he argued would bring the ban into compliance with Snyder’s ruling.

Wiener said he will immediately file his updated bill in order to unmask U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and other federal agents conducting unconstitutional enforcement in the state as soon as possible.

“We will unmask these thugs and hold them accountable. Full stop,” Wiener said, calling Snyder’s ruling a “huge win.”

Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi, who sued California to block the law from taking effect, cast the ruling in starkly different terms, as a win for the federal government and immigration agents doing a difficult job under intense scrutiny.

“ANOTHER key court victory thanks to our outstanding [Justice Department] attorneys,” Bondi wrote on X.

“Following our arguments, a district court in California BLOCKED the enforcement of a law that would have banned federal agents from wearing masks to protect their identities,” Bondi wrote. “These federal agents are harassed, doxxed, obstructed, and attacked on a regular basis just for doing their jobs.”

Wiener helped push two new California laws last year — the No Secret Police Act and the No Vigilantes Act — in the wake of intense and aggressive immigration enforcement by masked ICE and other federal agents in California and around the country.

The No Secret Police Act banned local law enforcement officers, officers from other states and federal law enforcement personnel from wearing masks except in specific circumstances — such as in tactical, SWAT or undercover operations. It did not apply those restrictions on California’s state law enforcement officers.

The No Vigilantes Act required any law enforcement officer operating in California to visibly display identification, including the name of their agency and their name or badge number, except in undercover and other specific scenarios.

Gov. Gavin Newsom signed the measures into law in September, though the state agreed to not enforce the measures against federal agents in the state while the Justice Department’s challenge was heard in court.

In her ruling Monday, Snyder blocked only the ban on masking by federal agents, and on seemingly narrow grounds.

Snyder said that the court “finds that federal officers can perform their federal functions without wearing masks. However, because the No Secret Police Act, as presently enacted, does not apply equally to all law enforcement officers in the state, it unlawfully discriminates against federal officers.”

“Because such discrimination violates the Supremacy Clause, the Court is constrained to enjoin the facial covering prohibition,” she wrote.

Weiner said it was “hard to overstate how important this ruling is for our efforts to ensure full accountability for ICE and Border Patrol’s terror campaign.”

Wiener said he and colleagues had crafted the No Secret Police Act in consultation with constitutional law experts, but had “removed state police from the bill” based on conversations with Newsom’s office.

“Now that the Court has made clear that state officers must be included, I am immediately introducing new legislation to include state officers,” Wiener said. “I will do everything in my power to expedite passage of this adjustment to the No Secret Police Act.”

He said ICE and Customs and Border Protection officers were “covering their faces to maximize their terror campaign and to insulate themselves from accountability. We won’t let them get away with it.”

Wiener is also pushing new legislation — called the No Kings Act — that would allow people in California to sue federal agents for violating their rights. Democrats in Congress are also demanding that immigration agents stop wearing masks as a condition for extending Department of Homeland Security funding.

In response to Wiener’s suggestion that he had removed state officers from the bill based on conversations with the governor’s office, Newsom’s office posted on X that Wiener “rejected our proposed fixes to his bill” and “chose a different approach, and today the court found his approach unlawful.”

In a separate statement, Newsom hailed Snyder’s upholding the identification requirement for officers as “a clear win for the rule of law.”

“No badge and no name mean no accountability. California will keep standing up for civil rights and our democracy.”

Bondi said her office would continue defending federal agents from such state action.

“We will continue fighting and winning in court for President Trump’s law-and-order agenda — and we will ALWAYS have the backs of our great federal law enforcement officers,” she said.

MINNEAPOLIS — A federal judge says she won’t halt the immigration enforcement surge in Minnesota as a lawsuit over it proceeds.

Judge Katherine M. Menendez on Saturday denied a preliminary injunction sought in a lawsuit filed this month by state Atty. Gen. Keith Ellison and the mayors of Minneapolis and St. Paul.

It argued that the Department of Homeland Security is violating constitutional protections. The lawsuit sought a quick order to halt the enforcement action or limit its scope. Lawyers with the U.S. Department of Justice have called the lawsuit “legally frivolous.”

The ruling on the injunction focused on the argument by Minnesota officials that the federal government is violating the Constitution’s 10th Amendment, which limits the federal government’s powers to infringe on the sovereignty of states. In her ruling, the judge relied heavily on whether that argument was likely to ultimately succeed in court.

The federal government argued that the surge, which it calls Operation Metro Surge, is necessary in its effort to take criminal immigrants off the streets and because federal efforts have been hindered by state and local “sanctuary laws and policies.” State and local officials argued that the surge is political retaliation after the federal government’s initial attempts to withhold federal funding to try to force immigration cooperation failed.

“Because there is evidence supporting both sides’ arguments as to motivation and the relative merits of each side’s competing positions are unclear, the Court is reluctant to find that the likelihood-of-success factor weighs sufficiently in favor of granting a preliminary injunction,” the judge said in the ruling.

U.S. Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi lauded the ruling Saturday on social media, calling it “another HUGE” legal win for the Justice Department.

Federal officers have fatally shot two people on the streets of Minneapolis, Renee Good on Jan. 7 and Alex Pretti on Jan. 24.

Danish company will replace Hong Kong-based firm, CK Hutchison, after Trump claimed strategic waterway was controlled by China.

Danish firm Maersk will temporarily operate two ports on the Panama Canal after a court ruled that contracts given to a Hong Kong firm were unconstitutional.

The Panama Maritime Authority (AMP) announced the changes on Friday, a day after the Central American country’s Supreme Court invalidated port contracts held by Hong Kong-based firm CK Hutchison.

The court ruling followed repeated threats from United States President Donald Trump that his country would seek to take over the waterway he claimed was effectively being controlled by China.

According to the court ruling that annulled the deal, CK Hutchison’s contract to operate the ports had “disproportionate bias” towards the Hong Kong-based company.

On Friday, the AMP said port operator APM Terminals, part of the Maersk Group, would take over as the “temporary administrator” of the Balboa and Cristobal ports on either end of the canal.

Maersk takes over from the Panama Ports Company (PPC) – a subsidiary of CK Hutchison Holdings – which has managed the ports since 1997 under a concession renewed in 2021 for 25 years.

The canal, an artificial waterway, handles about 40 percent of US container shipping traffic and 5 percent of world trade. It has been controlled by Panama since 1999, when the US, which funded the building of the canal between 1904 and 1914, ceded control.

Washington on Friday welcomed the decision, but China’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Guo Jiakun said Beijing “will take all measures necessary to firmly protect the legitimate and lawful rights and interests of Chinese companies”.

For its part, PPC said the ruling “lacks legal basis and endangers … the welfare and stability of thousands of Panamanian families” who depend on its operations.

Tens of thousands of workers dug the 82km- (51-mile-) passageway that became the Panama Canal, allowing ships to pass from the Pacific Ocean to the Atlantic without having to travel around the northernmost or southernmost ends of the Americas.

Panama has always denied Chinese control of the canal, which is used mainly by the US and China.

Jordan Chiles might be able to keep the bronze medal she won, then was stripped of, at the 2024 Paris Olympics after all.

On Jan. 23, Swiss Federal Supreme Court sent the U.S. gymnast’s case back to the Court of Arbitration for Sport to re-examine the matter “on the basis of an audio-visual recording” that could provide evidence in Chiles’ favor, the court said Thursday in a news release.

“The Federal Supreme Court acknowledged that this new evidence may justify a modification of the contested award,” Switzerland’s highest court stated. “It referred the case back to the CAS for it to re-examine the situation, taking this new evidence into account.”

Chiles initially was deemed the fifth-place finisher in the women’s floor exercise final on Aug. 5, 2024, but was bumped up to third place after a judging inquiry placed by U.S. coach Cecile Landi gave Chiles an extra tenth of a point.

The decision resulted in a viral moment on the medal stand, as Chiles and U.S. teammate and silver medalist Simone Biles bowed to gold medalist Rebeca Andrade of Brazil.

Days later, however, the CAS ruled that Landi’s inquiry was registered four seconds too late and that Chiles’ original score of 13.666 should be restored. That decision knocked the UCLA star back down to fifth place.

Chiles, with the support of the United States Olympic and Paralympic Committee and USA Gymnastics, filed an appeal of that ruling with Switzerland’s Supreme Court in September 2024. Her appeal maintains that the CAS had refused to allow video evidence she feels would show that Landi’s inquiry was filed within the required time frame.

In its Thursday statement, the Swiss court acknowledged that the video could “lead to a modification of the contested award in favour of the applicants, since the CAS could consider, in the light of this audio-visual sequence, that the verbal inquiry made on behalf of Jordan Chiles had been made before the expiry of the regulatory one-minute time limit.

“The Federal Supreme Court therefore partially overturns the contested award and refers the case back to the CAS for a new ruling, taking into account the probative value of the audio-visual recording in question.”

In a statement emailed to The Times on Thursday, the CAS agreed with the Swiss court’s ruling that “new evidence provided by the athlete after the CAS decision justifies a re-examination of the appeal.”

“During the Olympic Games, CAS renders sporting decisions in a demanding time frame,” the statement read. “CAS cannot reopen a closed procedure without the agreement of all Parties. Following the [Swiss Supreme Court’s] decision, CAS can now ensure a thorough judicial review of the new evidence that has since been made available.”

Maurice M. Suh, one of the attorneys representing Chiles, issued a statement Thursday praising the decision.

“We are delighted that the Swiss Federal Supreme Court has righted a wrong and given Jordan the chance she deserves to reclaim her bronze medal,” Suh said. “… We appreciate that Jordan will receive a full and fair opportunity to defend her bronze medal. She is ready to fight vigorously, and we look forward to helping her achieve that result.”

Court gives Israeli government until March to justify ban on foreign media from Gaza

Israel’s Supreme Court has postponed a decision on whether to allow foreign journalists independent access to Gaza, in the latest delay of a legal battle that has stretched over a year.

The court granted the government until March 31 to respond to the petition filed by the Foreign Press Association, despite state attorneys failing to provide detailed justifications beyond citing security risks.

The decision extends a policy that has barred foreign correspondents from entering Gaza to report on conditions there, unless reporters are prepared to embed with the Israeli army.

At the hearing on Wednesday, justices appeared frustrated with the government’s explanations for maintaining the blanket ban on independent press access, which has remained in place since Israel launched its genocidal war against the Palestinian people of Gaza following the Hamas-led attack on October 7, 2023.

A ceasefire took effect in October 2025, though Israel has continued carrying out attacks, which have killed more than 400 people.

Justice Ruth Ronen rejected the state’s arguments, insisting that “it is not enough to cite ‘security risks’ without providing details” and noting there had been “a very significant change on the ground” since the ceasefire.

The FPA’s legal team was barred from attending or accessing the material presented to the judges.

The FPA, which represents 370 journalists from 130 media outlets, said it was “deeply disappointed that the Israeli Supreme Court has once again postponed ruling on our petition for free, independent press access to Gaza.”

“All the more concerning is that the court appears to have been swayed by the state’s classified security arguments,” the FPA added, calling the closed-door process one that “offers no opportunity for us to rebut these arguments and clears the way for the continued arbitrary and open-ended closure of Gaza to foreign journalists.”

This marks the ninth extension granted to the government since the petition was filed in September 2024.

Just days earlier, on January 25, Israel extended its shutdown of Al Jazeera’s operations for another 90 days, citing national security threats the network denies.

US plan for Gaza demilitarisation

The postponement comes as mediators continue to press for progress in the US-backed plan to end Israel’s war on Gaza.

At the UN Security Council, the United States said it had unveiled plans for an “internationally funded buyback” programme to disarm Hamas as part of Gaza’s demilitarisation, which is a key element in the second phase of the US-backed plan.

US Ambassador to the UN Mike Waltz told the Security Council on Wednesday that “international, independent monitors will supervise a process of demilitarisation of Gaza to include placing weapons permanently beyond use through an agreed process of decommissioning”, supported by the buyback scheme.

Hamas still controls just under half of the territory in Gaza beyond the Yellow Line, where Israeli forces remain present.

The second phase of the US plan will also require the Israeli army to withdraw, though Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu said demilitarisation would have to come before any further progress on the ceasefire.

Two Hamas officials told the Reuters news agency this ‌week that neither the United States nor the mediators presented the Palestinian group with any detailed or concrete disarmament proposal.

Jan. 26 (UPI) — With one week to go before presidential elections scheduled for Sunday, Feb. 1, Costa Rica closed its campaign season amid a polarized political climate and with the ruling party leading most opinion polls.

In recent weeks, multiple surveys have shown Laura Fernández Delgado, candidate of the ruling Partido Pueblo Soberano, holding first place with support levels close to 40%. That figure would be enough for the former cabinet minister to secure a first-round victory.

However, polls also point to high voter indecision, estimated at around 45%, in a context marked by political fragmentation and an unusually large field of candidates, local newspaper El Observador reported.

A recent survey by the Centro de Investigación y Estudios Políticos (CIEP) of the Universidad de Costa Rica places Fernández at 30% support, still well ahead of the remaining 19 candidates competing for the presidency.

Second place is held by Álvaro Ramos of the Partido Liberación Nacional, who polls below 8%. Most other candidates register less than 2.3% support.

Fernández, 39, has campaigned on a continuity platform, seeking to capitalize on the popularity of President Rodrigo Chaves, who is expected to leave office with approval ratings near 60%. His support has been driven in part by a confrontational style and rhetoric against traditional politics and established elites.

Chaves, who is constitutionally barred from seeking re-election, has governed amid persistent political tension and frequent institutional clashes. His administration has been characterized by sharp rhetoric, public disputes with other branches of government and a governing style that emphasizes direct communication and political confrontation.

The elections follow a dispute with the Tribunal Supremo Electoral, which in October 2025 asked the Legislative Assembly to lift the president’s immunity to investigate alleged violations of electoral rules, including his participation in campaign activities.

Public security has emerged as one of the dominant themes throughout the campaign, reflecting growing concern among voters over rising violent crime and the expanding influence of organized crime in several regions of the country, according to daily La Nación.

During debates organized by media outlets and universities, candidates broadly agreed that addressing insecurity requires more than law enforcement alone. Proposals have emphasized criminal intelligence, increased police presence, improved coordination among state institutions and the recovery of territories affected by organized crime.

According to CIEP, two out of three Costa Ricans believe the country’s security situation is worse than a year ago. Long viewed as one of Central America’s safest nations, Costa Rica is facing an unprecedented security crisis.

Organized crime, fueled largely by drug trafficking, has expanded its presence in neighborhoods in southern San Jose, as well as in the provinces of Limón and Puntarenas. In 2024, Costa Rica recorded a homicide rate of 16.6 per 100,000 inhabitants, ranking eighth highest in Latin America, surpassing Guatemala and approaching levels reported in Mexico.