skepticism

WASHINGTON — President Trump’s signature plan to impose import taxes on products coming from countries around the world ran into sharp skepticism at the Supreme Court on Wednesday.

Most of the justices, conservative and liberal, questioned whether the president acting on his own has the power to set large tariffs as a weapon of international trade.

Instead, they voiced the traditional view that the Constitution gives Congress the power to raise taxes, duties and tariffs.

Trump and his lawyers rely on an emergency powers act adopted on a voice vote by Congress in 1977. That measure authorizes sanctions and embargoes, but does not mention “tariffs, duties” or other means of revenue-raising.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said he doubted that law could be read so broadly.

The emergency powers law “had never before been used to justify tariffs,” he told D. John Sauer, Trump’s solicitor general. “No one has argued that it does until this particular case.”

Congress has authorized tariffs in other laws, he said, but not this one. Yet, it is “being used for a power to impose tariffs on any product from any country for — in any amount on any product from any country for — in any amount for any length of time.”

Moreover, the Constitution says Congress has the lead role on taxes and tariffs. “The imposition of taxes on Americans … has always been a core power of Congress,” he said.

The tariffs case heard Wednesday is the first major challenge to Trump’s presidential power to be heard by the court. It is also a test of whether the court’s conservative majority is willing to set legal limits on Trump’s executive authority.

Trump has touted these import taxes as crucial to reviving American manufacturing.

But owners of small businesses, farmers and economists are among the critics who say the on-again, off-again import taxes are disrupting business and damaging the economy.

Two lower courts ruled for small-business owners and said Trump had exceeded his authority.

The Supreme Court agreed to hear the appeal on a fast-track basis with the aim of ruling in a few months.

In defense of the president and his “Liberation Day” tariffs, Trump’s lawyers argued these import duties involve the president’s power over foreign affairs. They are “regulatory tariffs,” not taxes that raise revenue, he said.

Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan disagreed.

“It’s a congressional power, not a presidential power, to tax,” Sotomayor said. “You want to say tariffs are not taxes, but that’s exactly what they are.”

Imposing a tariff “is a taxing power which is delegated by the Constitution to Congress,” Kagan said.

Justice Neil M. Gorsuch may hold the deciding vote, and he said he was wary of upholding broad claims of presidential power that rely on old and vague laws.

The court’s conservative majority, including Gorsuch, struck down several far-reaching Biden administration regulations on climate change and student forgiveness because they were not clearly authorized by Congress.

Both Roberts and Gorsuch said the same theory may apply here. Gorsuch said he was skeptical of the claim that the president had the power to impose taxes based on his belief that the nation faces a global emergency.

In the future, “could the President impose a 50% tariff on gas-powered cars and auto parts to deal with the unusual and extraordinary threat from abroad of climate change?” he asked.

Yes, Sauer replied, “It’s very likely that could be done.”

Congress had the lawmaking power, Gorsuch said, and presidents should not feel free to take away the taxing power “from the people’s representatives.”

Justice Amy Coney Barrett said she was struggling to understand what Congress meant in the emergency powers law when it said the president may “regulate” importation.

She agreed that the law did not mention taxes and tariffs that would raise revenue, but some judges then saw it as allowing the authority to impose duties or tariffs.

Justices Brett M. Kavanaugh and Samuel A. Alito Jr. appeared to be leaning against the challenge to the president’s tariffs.

Kavanaugh pointed to a round of tariffs imposed by President Nixon in 1971, and he said Congress later adopted its emergency powers act without clearly rejecting that authority.

A former White House lawyer, Kavanaugh said it would be unusual for the president to have the full power to bar imports from certain countries, but not the lesser power to impose tariffs.

Since Trump returned to the White House in January, the court’s six Republican appointees have voted repeatedly to set aside orders from judges who had temporarily blocked the president’s policies and initiatives.

Although they have not explained most of their temporary emergency rulings, the conservatives have said the president has broad executive authority over federal agencies and on matters of foreign affairs.

But Wednesday, the justices did not sound split along the usual ideological lines.

The court’s ruling is not likely to be the final word on tariffs, however. Several other past laws allow the president to impose temporary tariffs for reasons of national security.

Sept. 26 (UPI) — United Kingdom citizens and permanent residents will get digital ID cards that will make it easier to access health care, welfare, child care and other public services, the government said.

U.K Prime Minister Keir Starmer introduced the plan. But ID cards have been a contentious issue in the U.K. since the end of World War II. Civil rights campaigners argue it infringes personal liberty and puts people’s information at risk.

An online petition on the parliamentary website saying the government should not introduce digital ID cards has gained nearly 900,000 signatures, The Guardian reported. More than 600,000 of them have been added since Thursday.

Petitions with more than 100,000 names get a debate in parliament, but it almost never changes the government’s decisions.

The ID will make it easier to hire workers, according to the Recruitment and Employment Confederation’s Neil Carberry.

“We use digital ID every day, from paying on our phones to travel and event tickets,” The Guardian reported Carberry said in a statement. “There is no reason that the state should fall behind.

“By providing ID documents it already supplies digitally, the government can unlock faster job starts, and lower administration burdens in our labor market — as well as a faster, more accurate benefits system. This gives us a more fluent and dynamic job market — just what you need to achieve economic growth.”

One U.K. official said using the ID cards isn’t mandatory, but, Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy said, “It will be compulsory if you want to work in this country, so you’ll have to show that to be able to prove that you have the right to work.”

She said it will help prevent people from working illegally.

“The problem with national insurance numbers is that they’re not linked to anything else. So they’re not linked, for example, to photo ID, so you can’t verify that the person in front of you is actually the person whose national insurance number that you’re looking at, and we’ve seen a real rise in the amount of identity theft and people losing documents and then finding that their identity has been stolen,” Nandy said.

Tory leader Kemi Badenock said that the IDs announcement is a desperate gimmick that will do nothing to stop the [immigration] boats. There are arguments for and against digital ID, but mandating its use would be a very serious step that requires a proper national debate.”

Former Prime Minister Tony Blair tried to create biometric ID cards, but strong opposition made him abandon the idea.

Lord Palmerston’s maxim that “We have no eternal allies nor perpetual enemies. “Our interests are eternal and perpetual,” aptly describes the rapidly changing nature of India-China relations. Border strife has been the norm between the two nations for decades, shaping their strategic stances. However, October 2024 saw a minor thaw in relations, with New Delhi and Beijing coming to terms with a major agreement on patrolling protocols along the disputed LAC. This breakthrough led to a series of high-level diplomatic engagements in a carefully measured but pragmatic manner. More importantly, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Chinese President Xi Jinping engaged in direct bilateral talks at the BRICS Summit in Kazan, which was followed by a defense ministers’ conversation during the ASEAN Defense Ministers’ Meeting in November. The momentum then carried over into December in the form of the revival of the India–China Special Representatives Meeting, one of the important strategic platforms that had been asleep for five years. Although these developments do not eliminate deeply ingrained strategic distrust, they demonstrate a realist convergence; both nations are putting national interests ahead of ideological or historical animosities, embracing engagement rather than isolation as a way to manage competition and maintain regional stability.

In August 2025, Mr. Wang Yi, China’s Foreign Affairs Minister, visited India after three years for the improvement of the relationship between the two nuclear and emerging regional states. During his stay in India, Wang Yi co-chaired the 24th round of the Special Representatives’ Dialogue on the Boundary Question between India and China with the National Security Advisor, Ajit Doval. He also had bilateral discussions with Minister of External Affairs S. Jaishankar and met Prime Minister Modi. His visit after the 2020 Galwan clashes between India and China primarily concentrated on bilateral issues like border stabilization, economic cooperation, and regional security.

Therefore, Mr. Wang Yi’s visit to India marks a recalibration of ties based on a healthy and stable India-China relationship that serves the long-term interests of both countries.Secondly, the visit preceded PM Modi’s trip to the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit in Tianjin, his first visit in seven years, thereby laying the groundwork for stronger bilateral engagements. Thirdly, the visit came at a crucial time, as both countries face pressure from shifting US trade orientations, resulting in a push for pragmatic recalibration of ties and a strategic embrace on both sides.

However, during the month of February 2025, the Indian government ordered the erasure of 119 Chinese applications from the Google Play Store and, by June, announced a five-year tariff on imports of Chinese industrial inputs, which read as putting up a false facade of resistance against Beijing. However, the most compelling contrast comes from the diplomatic posture of India; calling for normalization with China while acting tough on them quite literally sounded like shouting at a neighbor while still borrowing sugar from them. Abandonment by America becomes evident for Modi; therefore, his choice of dialogue with Beijing reinforces both strategic weakness and duplicitous diplomacy. After many years during which warnings on Chinese expansionism were issued, the border may remain tense, but New Delhi seems determined to maintain good relations with China. This very decision of shaking hands underscored India’s inability to match China on political, strategic, and economic fronts. Meanwhile, Wang Yi’s parallel visits to Pakistan and Afghanistan highlight Beijing’s much broader regional priorities, reminding New Delhi just how far it is from being at the very center of China’s diplomacy.

The SCO Summit in Beijing saw the attendance of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who sought to mend ties between China and India after a period of tension; however, unresolved grievances cast serious doubts on the sustainability of this rapprochement. In the short term, ties may improve, since India has realized how great the necessity for cooperation with China has become in pushing its economic ambitions. This necessity to engage China more aggressively is driven especially in light of strained relations with the US under Trump’s steep tariffs. However, deep sensitivities on sovereignty and territorial integrity argue against any form of a sustainable relationship with China, beginning at the Sino-Indian border conflict and continuing through Arunachal Pradesh and Kashmir to China’s stance on Tibet. Mutual suspicion over regional engagements also exists, fueled by Beijing’s relations with Pakistan and New Delhi’s burgeoning naval cooperation in Asia. Contrasting language in the Modi–Xi meeting readouts, with India stressing a “multi-polar Asia” while China glossed over it, further reflects differing perspectives on the regional order. Through the stopover of Modi in Japan before going to Beijing and participation in the SCO Summit while skipping China’s Victory Day celebrations, it shows India’s cautious attempts to consolidate strategic autonomy, moving closer to both China and Russia while not disturbing the US or the West. If there is not any forward movement on the substantive disputes, the tensions will resurface in time, making any sustainable rapprochement between India and China again very unlikely, even if large-scale conflict does not seem to be a strong possibility.

In short, India and China may converge temporarily out of pragmatism, but without resolving core disputes, trust will remain elusive. New Delhi’s balancing act between Beijing, Washington, and Moscow highlights both its ambitions and vulnerabilities. Lasting peace requires more than symbolic summits—it demands substantive compromises on sovereignty, security, and regional influence. Until then, rapprochement will remain fragile, an uneasy truce rather than a genuine transformation.

BALTIMORE — A judge on Wednesday questioned why it was necessary for the Trump administration to sue Maryland’s entire federal bench over an order that paused the immediate deportation of migrants challenging their removals.

U.S. District Judge Thomas Cullen didn’t issue a ruling following a hearing in federal court in Baltimore, but he expressed skepticism about the administration’s extraordinary legal maneuver, which attorneys for the Maryland judges called completely unprecedented.

Cullen serves in the Western District of Virginia, but he was tapped to oversee the Baltimore case because all of Maryland’s 15 federal judges are named as defendants, a highly unusual circumstance that reflects the Republican administration’s aggressive response to courts that slow or stop its policies.

At issue in the lawsuit is an order signed by Chief Maryland District Judge George L. Russell III that prevents the administration from immediately deporting any immigrants seeking review of their detention in a Maryland federal court. The order blocks their removal until 4 p.m. on the second business day after their habeas corpus petition is filed.

The Justice Department, which filed the lawsuit in June, says the automatic pause impedes President Trump’s authority to enforce immigration laws.

But attorneys for the Maryland judges argue that the suit was intended to limit the power of the judiciary to review certain immigration proceedings while the administration pursues a mass deportation agenda.

“The executive branch seeks to bring suit in the name of the United States against a co-equal branch of government,” said Paul Clement, a prominent conservative lawyer who served as Republican President George W. Bush’s solicitor general. “There really is no precursor for this suit.”

Clement listed several other avenues the administration could have taken to challenge the order, such as filing an appeal in an individual habeas case.

Cullen also asked the government’s lawyers whether they had considered that alternative, which he said could have been more expeditious than suing all the judges. He also questioned what would happen if the administration accelerated its current approach and sued a federal appellate bench, or even the Supreme Court.

“I think you probably picked up on the fact that I have some skepticism,” Cullen told Justice Department attorney Elizabeth Themins Hedges when she stood to present the Trump administration’s case.

Hedges denied that the case would “open the floodgates” to similar lawsuits. She said the government is simply seeking relief from a legal roadblock preventing effective immigration enforcement.

“The United States is a plaintiff here because the United States is being harmed,” she said.

Cullen, who was nominated to the federal bench by Trump in 2019, said he would issue a ruling by Labor Day on whether to dismiss the lawsuit. If allowed to proceed, he could also grant the government’s request for a preliminary injunction that would block the Maryland federal bench from following the conditions of the chief judge’s order.

The automatic pause in deportation proceedings sought to maintain existing conditions and the potential jurisdiction of the court, ensure immigrant petitioners are able to participate in court proceedings and access attorneys and give the government “fulsome opportunity to brief and present arguments in its defense,” according to the order.

Russell also said the court had received an influx of habeas petitions after hours that “resulted in hurried and frustrating hearings in that obtaining clear and concrete information about the location and status of the petitioners is elusive.” Habeas petitions allow people to challenge their detention by the government.

The administration accused Maryland judges of prioritizing a regular schedule, saying in court documents that “a sense of frustration and a desire for greater convenience do not give Defendants license to flout the law.”

Among the judges named in the lawsuit is Paula Xinis, who found the administration illegally deported Kilmar Abrego Garcia to El Salvador in March — a case that quickly became a flashpoint in Trump’s immigration crackdown. Abrego Garcia was held in a notorious Salvadoran megaprison, where he claims to have been beaten and tortured.

The administration later brought Abrego Garcia back to the U.S. and charged him with human smuggling in Tennessee. His attorneys characterized the charge as an attempt to justify his erroneous deportation. Xinis recently prohibited the administration from taking Abrego Garcia into immediate immigration custody if he’s released from jail pending trial.

Skene writes for the Associated Press.

Amid heated public debates over the growing use of artificial intelligence in everyday life, the Latin Grammy-winning pop star Camilo warns humanity against an over-reliance on one particular AI platform: ChatGPT.

On June 25, the Colombian singer-songwriter released the Trooko-produced electro-pop single, “Maldito ChatGPT,” which playfully critiques the role of artificial intelligence in human affairs. In his lyrics, he consults the ChatGPT bot for advice on how to resolve his relationship woes. “You’re not for me, that’s what ChatGPT told me, it knows me better than I know myself.”

The new music video — directed by Camilo’s spouse, Evaluna Montaner, and Sebastian Andrade — is just as critical of this “smart” technology. Set in a dimly-lit office with Post-it notes and paper scattered about the cubical, the visuals pay homage to the aesthetics of the 1999 cult comedy film “Office Space.”

Camilo, dressed in full office wear (save for his feet) agonizes over his relationship, feeling powerless to make a decision whether to stay. He shakes a Magic 8 ball, flips through a finger fortune teller and pulls petals from a daisy. Finally, an undefined robot voice affirms that the differences between Camilo and his lover are clear, and might cause issues in the long run. “You deserve a relationship where you feel full compatibility,” says the robot voice.

When asked how he feels, Camilo wraps the song with: “Like absolute crap, dude. How else am I supposed to feel?”

“Maldito ChatGPT” is a welcome response to the increasing use of AI on people’s personal lives. The ChatGPT platform now offers a specialized bot for relationship advice, which offers mixed results for humans; an early study by MIT’s Media Lab has linked frequent use of ChatGPT to an increase in loneliness and emotional dependence, though the results have not yet been peer-reviewed.

The platform has also raised ethical questions recently in the news. Earlier this month, CBS News interviewed an American man who proposed to an AI chatbot that he programmed for flirty responses — despite living with his very human partner and their 2-year-old child. Meanwhile, educators have expressed concerns about their students using ChatGPT to complete assignments, thus hindering their ability to develop core skills. Meanwhile, OpenAI, ChatGPT’s parent company, has become so influential among humans that it secured a $200-million contract with the Department of Defense to aid in “national security missions.”

As humans continue to engage with these innovative AI tools without any guardrails, outsourcing matters of the heart to technology gives Camilo the most pause. “In the midst of everything that seems calculated, choosing from the heart remains a radical act,” said Camilo in a public statement.

“We live surrounded by quick answers,” he further elaborated on Instagram. “By formulas designed to avoid failure. By technologies that predict and know everything. By ideas about what love is supposed to look like,” he explained. “There’s something that doesn’t fit into any logic. Or any checklist,” Camilo added. “Love isn’t a casting call. Love is something you feel. And nothing — and no one — can ever feel it for us.”