trump

President Donald Trump has said he will raise global tariffs on imported goods to 15 percent after the United States Supreme Court struck down his previous trade measures.

The president announced his decision on Saturday, revising an earlier decision to impose a new 10 percent worldwide tariff after the Supreme Court ruling, which triggered immediate concern and responses from governments and markets.

The US top court’s ruling and Trump’s new tariffs have left countries grappling with the legal and economic fallout, raising questions about ongoing agreements, tariff reductions, and the legality of past duties.

Governments are now evaluating how the new levy will affect key industries, investment plans, and trade negotiations, while analysts warn that uncertainty could persist until legal and trade frameworks are clarified.

South Korea

In South Korea, one of the US’s closest allies, the presidential office, Blue House, has released a statement, saying the government will review the trade deal and make decisions in the national interest, casting a question mark over the agreement signed in November last year, which lowered tariffs from 25 to 15 percent in exchange for $350bn in cash and investments from South Korea in the US.

“For major South Korean companies in chemicals, pharmaceuticals, and semiconductors, the Supreme Court ruling has been positive: Even if Trump introduces the new 10 percent tariffs under Section 122, they would still pay a lower rate,” said Jack Barton, an Al Jazeera correspondent in Seoul.

“However, exporters of automobiles, more than half of which go to the US, remain subject to the 25 percent tariff, and steel exports are still hit with 50 percent duties under Section 232, which was not affected by the ruling.”

The South Korean government is expected to move cautiously. Exports account for 85 percent of South Korea’s gross domestic product, with the US as the second-largest market.

“Officials have indicated that rapid changes could jeopardise major agreements, including a recent multibillion-dollar shipbuilding deal with the US and other investments,” said Barton.

“While no definitive policy statement has been made yet, the Blue House has said that the trade deal will be under careful review and changes are likely.”

India

India has faced some of the highest US tariffs under Trump’s previous use of emergency trade powers. The president first imposed a 25 percent levy on Indian imports and later added another 25 percent on the country’s purchases of Russian oil, bringing the total to 50 percent.

Earlier this month, the US and India reached a framework trade deal. Trump said Prime Minister Narendra Modi agreed to stop buying Russian oil and that US tariffs would be lowered to 18 percent for India’s top exports to the US, including clothing, pharmaceuticals, precious stones, and textiles. Meanwhile, India said it will eliminate or reduce tariffs on all US industrial goods and a range of agricultural products.

According to political economist MK Venu, founding editor of Indian publication, The Wire, “Critics have argued New Delhi should have waited for the US Supreme Court decision before finalising the interim trade deal and even trade analysts previously connected with the government have maintained it would have been wiser to wait for the court verdict.”

Venu added that Trump was eager to finalise the trade deal, which includes a commitment to buy $500bn worth of new imports in defence, energy, and artificial intelligence (AI) from the US over the next five years.

While India, he said, welcomed the reduction of tariffs to 18 percent and the removal of penal duties on Russian imports, uncertainty remains over negotiations, as the Supreme Court ruling affects the legal basis of past tariffs.

“The Indian trade delegation is likely to wait for the final outcome of the Supreme Court verdict before proceeding with further negotiations, and countries around the world are expected to follow the court’s ruling rather than rush into trade agreements under legislation deemed unconstitutional,” he said.

China

China has reacted in a muted way to the Supreme Court ruling, with much of the country still on the Lunar New Year break.

Al Jazeera’s Rob McBride, reporting from Beijing, said, “The Chinese embassy in Washington has issued a blanket statement, noting that trade wars benefit nobody, and that the decision is likely to be broadly welcomed in China, which has long been a primary target of Trump’s tariff policies.”

Since last April, he said, China has faced multiple layers of tariffs, including 10 percent on chemicals used in fentanyl production exported to the US and 100 percent on electric vehicles.

Analysts have estimated that the overall tariff level, about 36 percent, could now fall to about 21 percent, providing some relief to an economy already under strain from the COVID-19 pandemic, a prolonged property market crisis, and declining exports.

Shipments from China to the US have reportedly fallen by roughly a fifth over the past year.

“Beijing has sought to offset losses in the US market by strengthening trade ties with Southeast Asian nations and pursuing agreements with the European Union,” McBride said.

“The Supreme Court ruling may also create a more favourable atmosphere ahead of a planned state visit by Trump in early April, when he is expected to meet President Xi Jinping, potentially opening space for a reset in relations between the world’s two largest economies.”

Canada

Canada has welcomed the US Supreme Court’s decision but has pointed out that there are still some challenges ahead.

Regional leaders across the country, including those of British Columbia and Ontario, have signalled that the ruling is a positive step, according to Al Jazeera’s Ian Wood, reporting from Toronto.

However, Minister for Canada-US trade Dominic LeBlanc has said that significant work remains, as Section 232 tariffs on steel, aluminium, softwood lumber, and automobiles have remained in place.

Meanwhile, Ontario’s Premier Doug Ford has added that while optimism has grown, tension has persisted over what Donald Trump will do next, Wood said.

Mexico

Mexico’s president, Claudia Sheinbaum, said her government would be carefully reviewing the Supreme Court’s decision to assess its scope and the extent to which Mexico might be affected.

“The reality is that despite all we’ve heard over the last year about tariffs or the threat of tariffs, Mexico has actually ended up in quite a privileged, even competitive position, especially when compared to other countries,” said Al Jazeera’s Julia Gliano, reporting from Mexico City.

“We have to remember Mexico is the US’s largest trading partner, and the two countries, along with Canada, share a vast trading agreement that shields most products from the so-called reciprocal tariffs that President Trump announced.

“There were also punitive tariffs related to fentanyl and illegal immigration along the US border, which Mexico had managed to suspend while negotiations continued on those matters. Now the tariffs that Mexico has been subjected to on steel, aluminium, and car parts are not affected by today’s decision.”

So, the government here in Mexico, she said, is now standing by to see what the Trump administration comes up with next as it reels from today’s decision by the Supreme Court.

France

French President Emmanuel Macron hailed “the existence of checks and balances in democracies” after the Supreme Court’s decision, telling reporters at an event in the capital that his country wanted to continue exporting “under the fairest rules possible and not be subject to unilateral decisions”.

The country’s finance minister, Nicolas Forissier, told UK newspaper The Financial Times that the EU has the tools to hit back at the US over its tariff policy, suggesting a more combative approach.

Germany

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said he expected the tariff burden on his country’s economy to be lower after the US Supreme Court ruling, raising the prospect of German companies recouping billions in refunds.

Flagging an upcoming visit to Washington, Merz told Germany’s ARD broadcaster that he would present a “coordinated European position” on the matter, pointing out that tariff policy is determined by the European Union rather than individual member states.

Finance Minister Lars Klingbeil said Europe was strengthening its independence and sovereignty, building new trade relationships worldwide and concluding free trade agreements.

Limits of Trump’s tariff powers

A senior legal scholar told Al Jazeera that the US Supreme Court ruling marks a key moment in the legal battle over Trump’s tariffs, focusing on constitutional limits rather than economics.

Frank Bowman, professor emeritus at the University of Missouri School of Law, told Al Jazeera that the court has for the first time confronted what he called Trump’s broader challenge to the rule of law.

“This is a ruling that is important in several respects. The first, more broadly, is that this is the first time in the last year that the Supreme Court has stepped in and attempted to do something about Donald Trump’s generalised attack on the rule of law in the United States.

“And make no mistake, although tariffs certainly are about economics, what Trump has done over the last year is essentially to defy the law. And the Supreme Court happily decided that they had had enough and that they would say no. So, they’re not ruling on economic policy. They made a decision that the president simply exceeded his constitutional authority.”

NEW YORK — JPMorgan Chase acknowledged for the first time that it closed the bank accounts of Donald Trump and several of his businesses in the aftermath of the Jan. 6, 2021, attacks on the U.S. Capitol, the latest development in a legal saga between the president and the nation’s biggest bank over the issue known as “debanking.”

The acknowledgment came in a court filing submitted this week in Trump’s lawsuit against the bank and its leader, Jamie Dimon. The president sued for $5 billion, alleging that his accounts were closed for political reasons, disrupting his business operations.

“In February 2021, JPMorgan informed Plaintiffs that certain accounts maintained with JPMorgan’s CB and PB would be closed,” JPMorgan’s former chief administrative officer Dan Wilkening wrote in the court filing. The “PB” and “CB” stands for JPMorgan’s private bank and commercial bank.

Until now, JPMorgan has never admitted it closed the president’s accounts in writing after Jan. 6. The bank would only speak hypothetically about when the bank closes accounts and its reasons for closing accounts, citing bank privacy laws.

A spokeswoman for the bank declined to comment beyond what the bank said in its legal filings.

Trump originally sued JPMorgan in Florida state court, where the president’s primary residence is now located. The filings this week are part of an effort by JPMorgan Chase to have the case moved from state to federal court and to have the jurisdiction of the case moved to New York, which is where the bank accounts were located and where Trump kept much of his business operations until recently.

Trump originally accused the bank of trade libel and violating state and federal unfair and deceptive trade practices.

In the original lawsuit, Trump said he tried to raise the issue personally with Dimon after the bank sent him notices that JPMorgan would close his accounts, and that Dimon assured Trump he would figure out what was happening. The lawsuit alleges Dimon failed to follow up with Trump.

Further, Trump’s lawyers allege that JPMorgan placed the president and his companies on a reputational “blacklist” that both JPMorgan and other banks use to keep clients from opening accounts with them in the future. The blacklist has yet to be defined by the president’s lawyers.

“If and when Plaintiffs explain what they mean by this ‘blacklist,’ JPMorgan will respond accordingly,” the bank’s lawyers said in a filing.

JPMorgan has previously said that although it regrets that Trump felt the need to sue the bank, the lawsuit has no merit.

The issue of debanking is at the center of the case. Debanking occurs when a bank closes the accounts of a customer or refuses to do business with a customer in the form of loans or other services. Once a relatively obscure issue in finance, debanking has become a politically charged issue in recent years, with conservative politicians arguing that banks have discriminated against them and their affiliated interests.

“In a devastating concession that proves President Trump’s entire claim, JPMorgan Chase admitted to unlawfully and intentionally de-banking President Trump, his family, and his businesses, causing overwhelming financial harm,” the president’s lawyers said in a statement. “President Trump is standing up for all those wrongly debanked by JPMorgan Chase and its cohorts, and will see this case to a just and proper conclusion.”

Debanking first became a national issue when conservatives accused the Obama administration of pressuring banks to stop extending services to gun stores and payday lenders under “Operation Choke Point.”

Trump and other conservative figures have alleged that banks cut them off from their accounts under the umbrella term of “reputational risk” after the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. Trump was impeached on a charge of inciting insurrection on Jan. 6, though not convicted in the Senate; and he was criminally indicted for his role in the riot and his attempt to overturn his 2020 election defeat, but that case was dismissed after he won the 2024 election.

Since Trump came back into office, the president’s banking regulators have moved to stop any banks from using “reputational risk” as a reason for denying service to customers.

This is not the first lawsuit Trump has filed against a big bank alleging that he was debanked. The Trump Organization sued credit card giant Capital One in March 2025 for similar reasons and allegations. The case is ongoing.

Sweet writes for the Associated Press.

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.

Feb. 21 (UPI) — President Donald Trump approved an emergency declaration that will mobilize the Federal Emergency Management Agency to assist in the clean-up of millions of gallons of sewage in the Potomac River.

The declaration comes five weeks after nearly 250 million gallons of sewage spilled into the river after a sewage line collapsed.

The Potomac River runs between Maryland, Virginia and Washington, D.C.

“The President’s action authorizes FEMA to coordinate all disaster relief efforts to alleviate the hardship and suffering caused by the emergency on the local population and to provide appropriate assistance to save lives, to protect property, public health and safety and to lessen or avert the threat of a catastrophe,” FEMA said in a press release.

The spill started when the Potomac Interceptor, a 72-inch in diameter pipe that carries up to 60 million gallons of wastewater per day from Maryland and Virginia to a treatment plant in Washington, D.C., ruptured on Jan. 19, spilling 243 million gallons of untreated wastewater into the river.

DC Water, which operates the pipe, installed a temporary bypass on Jan. 24, stopping more wastewater from leaking into the river.

Washington, D.C., Mayor Muriel Bowser on Feb. 18 formally declared a major disaster in the District and directly requested that Trump mobilize FEMA to help with cleaning up the waterway as work starts on a permanent fix, which could take as long as 10 months to complete.

On Feb. 16, Trump said that he would send FEMA to assist with the clean-up and, with his approval of Bowser’s declaration, the agency will now be mobilized to provide equipment and resources necessary.

WASHINGTON — President Trump said Saturday that he was raising the global tariff he wants to impose to 15%, up from 10% he had announced a day earlier after the Supreme Court declared most of his tariffs to be illegal.

Trump said in a social media post that he was making the decision “Based on a thorough, detailed, and complete review of the ridiculous, poorly written, and extraordinarily anti-American decision on Tariffs issued yesterday.”

After the court ruled he didn’t have the emergency power to impose many sweeping tariffs, Trump signed an executive order Friday night that would allow him to bypass Congress and impose a 10% tax on imports from around the world. The catch is that those tariffs would be limited to 150 days unless Congress agrees to extend them.

Trump’s post, significantly ratcheting up a global tax on imports to the U.S. yet again, was the latest sign that despite the court’s check, the Republican president was intent on continuing to wield in an unpredictable manner his favorite tool for the economy and to apply global pressure. Trump’s shifting announcements over the last year that he was raising and sometimes lowering import taxes with little notice jolted markets and rattled nations.

Saturday’s announcement seemed to be a sign that Trump intends to use the temporary global tariffs to continue that pattern.

“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,” Trump wrote in his post.

Under the order Trump signed Friday night, the 10% tariff was scheduled to take effect starting Feb. 24. The White House did not immediately respond to a message inquiring when the president would sign an updated order.

In addition to the temporary tariffs that Trump wants to set at 15%, the president said Friday that he was also pursuing tariffs through other sections of federal law that require investigation by the Commerce Department.

Trump leveled pointed personal attacks on the Supreme Court justices who ruled against him in a 6-3 vote, two of whom he appointed during his first term, Justices Neil M. Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett. Trump, at a news conference Friday, said of the court majority: “I think it’s an embarrassment to their families.”

He was still seething Friday night, complaining on social media about Gorsuch, Barrett and Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., who wrote the majority opinion.

On Saturday morning, Trump issued another post declaring that his “new hero” was Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, whom he also appointed and who wrote a 63-page dissent. He also praised Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr., who joined Kavanaugh in the minority.

The president said of the three dissenting justices: “There is no doubt in anyone’s mind that they want to, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!”

Price writes for the Associated Press.

Good morning, and welcome to L.A. on the Record — our City Hall newsletter. It’s Noah Goldberg, with an assist from David Zahniser and Sandra McDonald, giving you the latest on city and county government.

There was a brief discussion on the L.A. City Council floor, with hardly any disagreement, before a motion brought by Councilmember Monica Rodriguez passed on Tuesday.

Rodriguez wants to allow city officials to enter hillside properties in “Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones,” even without an owner’s permission, to clear hazardous materials and homeless encampments. The goal is to stop encampment fires that could grow into wildfires.

Councilmembers Hugo Soto-Martínez and Ysabel Jurado voted against the proposed change to the city’s municipal code, citing details they wanted addressed, but said they agreed with its spirit.

A third councilmember, Eunisses Hernandez, also voted against the measure, though she did not speak during the meeting.

The political implications of the seemingly routine vote could play out more bitterly over the next several months as Soto-Martínez and Hernandez, both members of the council’s four-person “progressive bloc,” run for reelection in their districts, which include fire-prone hillsides.

The proposal could become another wedge issue on homelessness for the two members, just as the city’s controversial anti-encampment law, Municipal Code section 41.18, was in the 2022 election.

That year, it was Soto-Martínez and Hernandez who were running against incumbents and took a progressive stance against 41.18, which allows council members to designate areas near schools, libraries, senior centers and other sensitive areas as no-camping zones. The two said they believed the law was ineffective at solving homelessness, merely shuffling people around without addressing the root issues.

Now, as the two council members defend their seats, Rodriguez’s proposal has already spurred similar attacks from would-be incumbent-busters.

Maria Lou Calanche, a nonprofit leader seeking to unseat Hernandez in District 1, lives in a “Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone” at the bottom of a hill by Debs Park. The area is full of dry brush, and Calanche said in an interview that parts of the park catch fire every summer.

“The council district has a lot of hillside property and open space. Debs Park has encampments in it that have not been cleared and that’s public property,” said Calanche, who formerly served on the city Police Commission. “I’m concerned that the current council member puts ideology over the safety of the citizens and residents.”

Calanche said she would consider highlighting Hernandez’s “no” vote on campaign mailers.

“This is such a simple way to make a difference,” Calanche said. “It just seems incredible they would not be supportive.”

Hernandez said she is open to supporting Rodriguez’s proposal but that it fails to define the type of hazard that would allow city officials to enter private property without permission.

“When you expand government authority without tight definitions and guardrails, you end up with inconsistent enforcement and expensive lawsuits,” she said in a statement.

She said she hopes to work with the city attorney’s office, Fire Department and others to make sure the policy is “precise, intentional, legally sound and actually focused on reducing fire risk.”

In District 13, Dylan Kendall, a nonprofit founder and entrepreneur who is running against Soto-Martínez, said she supports the “common-sense” proposal and that her opponent’s vote was “irresponsible.”

The district, which stretches from Hollywood to Atwater Village, includes high fire-risk areas like Elysian Heights and parts of Silver Lake.

“We know what [firefighters are] seeing on the ground: encampments on or adjacent to private property with exposed wiring, pressurized fuel canisters and dense vegetation, and a maze of legal questions about who controls the site when they respond to a call,” she said in a statement. “If a private owner cannot or will not remove combustible materials and encampments that clearly increase wildfire risk, the city should be able to step in, clear the danger.”

Before Tuesday’s vote, Soto-Martínez said he would have supported the proposal had it included a definition of what exactly a fire hazard is, making the same point that Hernandez later did.

Soto-Martínez had supported Rodriguez’s initial proposal at the council’s Public Safety Committee, which was to ask for a report on what municipal code changes would be needed.

But on Tuesday, Rodriguez amended her motion to go straight to the city attorney’s office to change the municipal code. She said she wanted to accelerate the change because of the importance of preventing encampment fires.

Soto-Martínez also expressed an underlying concern that echoed his earlier statements about 41.18, which he fiercely opposed.

“What I don’t want to see is this being used as a tool to push homeless folks from one side of the street to the other side of the street,” he said.

Notably, Councilmember Nithya Raman, who is running for mayor against incumbent Karen Bass, voted in favor of Rodriguez’s motion.

“The problem that this motion is identifying — gaining permission to access private property in Very High Fire Severity Zones — is one that needs to be resolved to ensure that we are mitigating the risk for a serious fire to our fullest capacity,” Raman, who opposed 41.18 and is a member of the council’s progressive bloc along with Jurado, said in a statement.

Former Councilmember Mike Bonin, who runs the Pat Brown Institute for Public Affairs at Cal State LA, said the hillside encampment issue is less clear-cut than 41.18 but could still prove to be divisive.

“This is the kind of thing political consultants salivate over,” he said. “It’s an example of taking an issue that even from the council debate seemed to appreciate the shades of gray and making it black and white.”

State of play

— KARATE KAREN: Bass said at a rally in Leimert Park on Sunday that she is ready to fight off a challenge from Raman, invoking her training in karate to remind Angelenos that she is not too nice to battle. “I was trained to fight physically,” she said, stooping into a bow. “But if you know the martial arts, you know to bow before you kill somebody. You know to smile to throw them off.”

The mayor said she was joking, adding, “But seriously, we know how to fight and we know how to organize.”

— SCHOOL LAYOFFS: The Los Angeles Unified School District board — confronted with deficit spending and a forecast of insolvency in three years — narrowly voted to send out 3,200 notices of possible layoffs. The move, which is ultimately expected to result in 657 job cuts, is strongly opposed by labor unions as unnecessary and harmful to students.

— UCLA AX: UCLA fired its chief financial officer, Stephen Agostini, saying he inaccurately described the school’s budget deficit. The termination comes after Agostini told the school newspaper, the Daily Bruin, that “financial management flaws and failures” predating his arrival led to a $425-million deficit. The school claimed his comments were inaccurate.

— PRESSURE ON WASSERMAN: Casey Wasserman faced more calls to step down as chair of the 2028 Los Angeles Olympics over racy emails with convicted sex Ghislaine Maxwell from decades ago. Bass, along with some gubernatorial candidates, was among those joining the chorus.

“My opinion is that he should step down,” Bass said in a CNN interview.

— STRICTLY BUSINESS: A coalition of business and hotel industry leaders submitted more than 79,000 signatures in support of a measure to repeal the gross receipts tax on L.A. businesses. The measure, proposed for the November ballot, would punch an $800-million hole in the city budget if approved by voters.

— WRITE IT RIGHT: Angelenos hoping to write arguments for or against three city ballot measures — dealing with cannabis and hotel taxes — can apply by Friday with the office of Council President Marqueece Harris-Dawson. The arguments will be published in the Voter Information Pamphlet mailed out before the June 2 election.

— PUSHING FOR PARK: The union that represents rank-and-file police officers is putting $278,000 into efforts to reelect Councilmember Traci Park, according to a filing submitted to the city’s Ethics Commission. The money from the Los Angeles Police Protective League will go toward polling and canvassers in Park’s coastal district.

— SLAP ON THE WRIST: City Council candidate Jose Ugarte, who is running to replace his boss Curren Price in District 9, has agreed to pay $25,000 for committing a city ethics violation. Ugarte admitted that on his financial interest forms, he failed to disclose a consulting firm he owns and income he made. He has called it a “clerical reporting error.”

QUICK HITS

• Where is Inside Safe? The mayor’s signature program was in Skid Row in Councilmember Ysabel Jurado’s district providing assistance to homeless people during the heavy rains this week.
• On the docket next week: The Charter Reform Commission will meet Thursday to address City Council expansion, ranked choice voting, mayoral powers and more.

Stay in touch

That’s it for this week! Send your questions, comments and gossip to LAontheRecord@latimes.com. Did a friend forward you this email? Sign up here to get it in your inbox every Saturday morning.

Tehran, Iran – The Iranian government has again blamed “terrorists” for the killings of thousands during last month’s nationwide protests after United States President Donald Trump and human rights experts weighed in.

Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said on Saturday that the government has released a list of 3,117 people, whom he described as “victims of recent terrorist operation”, including about 200 security personnel.

“If anyone disputes accuracy of our data, please share any evidence,” the diplomat, who has previously stated that 690 people on the list were “terrorists” armed and funded by the US and Israel, wrote on X.

Araghchi’s comments come hours after the US president told reporters that 32,000 people were killed during the protests, adding that “the people of Iran have lived in hell” under the theocratic establishment.

The Iranian foreign minister has also been speaking with multiple US media outlets to advocate for a “fair” agreement with Washington over Iran’s nuclear programme.

The threat of war looms increasingly large over the country and potentially the region, with Serbia on Saturday becoming the latest country to call on all its citizens to immediately leave Iran.

‘Majority of those killed are ordinary people’

Mai Sato, United Nations special rapporteur on human rights in Iran, has said more than 20,000 civilians may have been killed, but information remains limited amid heavy internet filtering by the state, six weeks after a nationwide communications blackout was imposed.

The US-based HRANA says it has documented more than 7,000 people killed during the nationwide protests, and is investigating nearly 12,000 more cases.

Sato was among 30 special rapporteurs and international human rights experts who signed a joint statement on Friday calling on Iranian authorities to fully disclose the fate and whereabouts of tens of thousands arrested, forcibly disappeared or missing in the aftermath of the nationwide protests, and to halt all related death sentences and executions.

“The true scale of the violent crackdown on Iranian protesters remains impossible to determine at this point,” the experts said. “The discrepancy between official figures and grassroots estimates only deepens the anguish of families searching for their loved ones and displays a profound disregard for human rights and accountability.”

The international experts added that “the vast majority of those detained or killed are ordinary people, including children, from all provinces and diverse ethnic and religious backgrounds, as well as Afghan nationals”, in addition to lawyers representing protesters, medical professionals who treated the wounded, journalists and writers, artists and human rights defenders.

Iranian state media were accused of regularly broadcasting what the experts said are “widely regarded as forced confessions”.

The latest such incident came on Saturday, when the official Mizan news agency of the Iranian judiciary released footage from a court session for three men who said they regret setting fire to motorcycles, a mosque and copies of the Quran in Tehran during the unrest.

Also on Saturday, some students in Tehran and across the country returned to university campuses for the first time, as authorities kept universities closed and took some classes and exams online in the aftermath of the protests.

In Tehran’s Sharif University, one of the most prestigious in the country, students clashed after two separate demonstrations. Videos circulating online showed students shouting “dishonourables” at a group of paramilitary Basij students affiliated with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), who chanted back in favour of the establishment.

The clashes come amid a heightened security atmosphere in Iranian schools and university dormitories. Teachers and schools in a number of cities near the capital went on strike last week to protest the killing of at least 230 children and teenagers, as well as increased presence of security forces in classrooms.

Families dance in defiant grief

The Iranian government held mourning events on Tuesday and Wednesday in Tehran, with some officials in attendance.

Culture Minister Reza Salehi-Amiri announced on Saturday that the government has decided to call the upcoming ceremonies around Newroz, the new Iranian year starting in late March, an exercise in “unity and empathy” with the aim of “getting past the grief” of thousands killed.

But numerous families have been holding defiant commemoration events of their own over the past week to mark 40 days since the killing of their loved ones during the anti-establishment protests.

Footage from many ceremonies across the country this week showed family members, and large crowds gathered to support them, proudly holding up images of those killed and celebrating their shortened lives.

Many chose to clap, play traditional drums and cymbals, and even dance in symbolic shows of resistance and defiance that heavily clash with religious rituals favoured by the theocratic state.

“May your pen break, O fate, if you do not write about that which befell us,” the father of Abolfazl MirAeez, a 33-year-old killed in the city of Gorgan in the northern province of Golestan, told crowds gathered at a ceremony on Thursday.

“My son was neither a rioter, nor an embezzler nor an aghazadeh [child of an elite]. He was the son of a farmer.”

The most prestigious board ever put together.

That is how the president of the United States, a man convicted of fraud, described his new team focused on international relations. A team that does not include representatives from our closest neighbors — Mexico and Canada — but did save room for leaders accused of war crimes by the International Criminal Court.

Now, we do not know whether President Trump created his “Board of Peace,” which this week held its first meeting, specifically to undermine the authority of the United Nations. But we do know that the president has pledged $10 billion in tax dollars to the board’s mission while still owing the U.N. half that amount in back payments. We do not know whether Trump, who is indefinitely the leader of this peace board, intends to relinquish that power after he leaves the White House. But we do know he is still trying to overturn the results of the 2020 election. Whether the “Board of Peace” is the most prestigious panel ever assembled is debatable. What is not debatable is that it was conceived by an adjudicated sexual abuser who is referenced in the released Epstein files some 38,000 times.

That is not my take.

That is simply what is happening.

Which is why the president encourages his supporters to ban books and reject journalism. He doesn’t want voters to pay attention. He doesn’t want voters to understand his actions.

Ten years ago this month — after his Nevada caucus victory speech — Trump said, “I love the poorly educated.” And his reliance on this base is why, over the past decade, he and other conservatives have purposely misconstrued the term “woke” as a catch-all slur toward progressive and far-left policies. It used to mean “aware” and “informed.” The term was not born out of modern politics but rather the need to understand the history of the social economic systems we all are living in. The alternative is to be blindly led by an unscrupulous leader most concerned with his own well being.

Being “woke” is why the Boston Tea Party happened in 1773; it is why Thomas Paine published “Common Sense” in 1776; it is why Republicans formed the Wide Awakes to help get Abraham Lincoln elected in 1860. When voters understand the context in which decisions are made, we are better equipped to address shortcomings at the ballot box and in our daily lives.

Trump’s self-proclaimed love for the poorly educated has nothing to do with progressive policies or college degrees and everything to do with whom he can convince to believe him. And by making “woke” an insult, Trump and other conservatives have politicized the very tool necessary to help the country fulfill its promise: information.

This threat is the reason his administration attacks, and even arrests, journalists; the reason he refers to reports he doesn’t like as “fake news”; the reason he fired the labor statistics chief after an unflattering jobs report last year. He’s waging a war on information.

The reason 2025 marked the worst nonrecession year for job growth since 2003 isn’t that the country was “woke.” It’s because of shortcomings in leadership.

When Trump returned to the White House, he made lowering the U.S. trade deficit a key component to his economic policy. In 2024, the deficit was $903.5 billion. In 2025, it was $901.5 billion — and America’s families paid $230 billion more for goods because of his yo-yo tariff policies.

He told his supporters that other nations would be paying for the tariffs he enacted — obvious nonsense to anyone who attended a day of Econ 101. And we know that as a result of his reckless and ignorant policies, farmers in particular suffered. It’s not clear whether that financial burden was a consideration when the Supreme Court on Friday declared the president’s sweeping tariffs to be illegal. What we do know is before Trump entered politics, his businesses filed for bankruptcy six times — so perhaps he was never the economic savant he claimed to be.

Just as the saga of the Epstein files reveals he is not the protector of women and young girls that he claimed to be.

Just as his recent attacks on the 1st, 2nd, 4th and 14th Amendments show he was never the defender of the Constitution he took an oath to be.

Acknowledging the laundry list of untruths tied to his promises and presidency is not political or a symptom of “Trump Derangement Syndrome.” It’s simply having information: the one thing that helps voters understand why things are the way they are. The one thing the president hopes his supporters never wake up to see for themselves.

YouTube: @LZGrandersonShow

The three-day trip, at Beijing’s invitation, comes more than eight years after Trump’s first visit to China during his first stint as president.

Donald Trump will travel to China from March 31 to April 2, the White House has said, in what will be the first official visit to Beijing by a United States president since Trump’s last trip there in 2017.

The dates, confirmed by a White House official on Friday, come as Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping have respectively described “excellent” and “good communication” between the two countries in recent months.

“That’s going to be a wild one,” Trump said on Thursday of the planned trip.

“We have to put on the biggest display you’ve ever had in the history of China,” Trump said.

The announcement of Trump’s China visit came shortly before the US Supreme Court on Friday struck down the tariffs that Trump had imposed on countries around the world, in a tactic the US president has openly used to influence other countries to support his policies.

Tariffs will likely be on the agenda in Beijing, as will China’s response to the US’s trade threats, including no longer buying soybeans, previously the top US export to China.

Beijing has already hosted a number of other Western leaders in recent months, including Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, who touted new trade deals and a lifting of Canada’s ban on buying Chinese-made electric cars during his visit.

China’s increasing global exports of electric vehicles come as Beijing has invested heavily in new technologies and renewable energy in recent years, potentially further setting it apart from the US, where Trump is doubling down on fossil fuels.

Washington also continues to provide weapons sales and other support to Taiwan, which Beijing has promised to unify with mainland China.

This will be Trump’s first trip to China since the COVID-19 pandemic, which the then-US president labelled as the “Chinese virus”. Trump then downplayed the virus’s potential consequences in the US, where more than one million people died during the pandemic.

Since reopening its borders in January 2023, following strict self-imposed isolation during the pandemic, China has seemingly increased its efforts to engage with the outside world in recent months.

In addition to hosting Western politicians, China has also opened its doors to popular US live streamers such as Hasan Piker and Darren Watkins Jr, also known as Speed, while also attracting US citizens to its social media apps.

Caracas, February 20, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) – The Trump administration is forcing all royalty, tax, and dividend payments from Venezuelan oil production be paid into accounts managed by Washington.

The mandate reinforces the White House’s control over Venezuelan crude export revenues in the wake of the January 3 military strikes and kidnapping of President Nicolás Maduro, as well as a naval blockade imposed in December.

The US Treasury Department updated its FAQ section on February 18 to clarify conditions on recently issued sanctions waivers allowing expanded participation in Venezuela’s oil sector to Western corporations.

Under the licenses, only “routine payments of local taxes, permits, and fees” to Venezuelan authorities are permitted.

“Other payments, including royalties, fixed per-barrel production levies, or federal taxes to blocked persons, such as the Venezuelan government or (state oil company) PDVSA, must be made into the Foreign Government Deposit Fund,” the text read.

The acting Rodríguez administration has yet to comment on the new restrictions. 

Since January, Washington has imposed control over Venezuelan crude exports, with proceeds deposited in a US-administered account in Qatar. US Energy Secretary Chris Wright announced recently that funds will now be deposited directly in a US Treasury account. Senior administration officials have stated that the arrangement gives the White House “leverage” to condition Venezuelan government policies, while Secretary of State Marco Rubio stated that Caracas must submit a “budget request” to access its own oil revenues.

At least US $500 million, out of an initial deal estimated at $2 billion, have been returned to Venezuela and offered by banks in foreign exchange auctions. Venezuelan authorities have also reported the import of medicines and medical equipment from US manufacturers using “unblocked funds.”

On Thursday, the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) issued General License 50A allowing select firms to conduct transactions and operations related to hydrocarbon projects with PDVSA or any other Venezuelan public entity. The document mirrors General License 50 issued on February 13 but added French firm Maurel & Prom to a list including BP, Chevron, Eni, Repsol, and Shell.

Maurel & Prom’s main project in the Caribbean nation is a minority stake in the Petroregional del Lago joint venture, which currently produces 21,000 barrels per day (bpd). The company’s executives recently held a meeting with Acting President Delcy Rodríguez as part of Caracas’ efforts to secure foreign investment.

In recent weeks, the Trump administration has issued several licenses to boost US and European involvement in the Venezuelan energy sector, with imports of diluents, inputs and technology now allowed. General License 49, issued on February 13, demands that companies apply for a special license before striking production and investment deals with Venezuela.

The US Treasury issued sanctions waivers while maintaining existing coercive measures against the Venezuelan oil industry in place, including financial sanctions against PDVSA. The licenses likewise block any transactions with companies from Cuba, China, Iran, North Korea, and Russia.

The selective flexibilization of sanctions followed the Venezuelan National Assembly’s approval of a pro-business overhaul of the country’s Hydrocarbon Law. The reform grants private corporations expanded control over operations and sales, while opening the possibility for disputes to be taken to external arbitration.

The reformed law also allows the Venezuelan executive to arbitrarily reduce royalties and a new “integrated tax,” capped at 30 and 15 percent, respectively. The executive is likewise entitled to grant reductions to the 50 percent income tax set for the oil industry if deemed necessary for projects to be “internationally competitive.”

According to US-set conditions and the reformed law, minority partners such as Repsol are authorized to sell crude from Venezuelan joint ventures before depositing the owed royalty and tax amounts, as well as dividends belonging to PDVSA, to US Treasury-designated accounts.

The initial crude sales as part of the Trump-imposed arrangement were conducted via commodity traders Vitol and Trafigura, which lifted cargoes at Venezuelan ports before re-selling them to final customers. However, according to Reuters, US-based refiners including Phillips66 and CITGO are looking to secure crude directly from Venezuela to maximize profits.

CITGO, a subsidiary of PDVSA, is close to being taken over by vulture fund Elliott Management following a court-mandated auction to satisfy creditor claims against the South American country. The company has been managed by boards appointed by the US-backed Venezuelan opposition since 2019.

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.

President Trump has long spread conspiracy theories about voting designed to explain away his 2020 election loss to Democrat Joe Biden. Now that he’s president again, Trump has stocked his administration with those who have promoted his falsehoods and in some cases helped him try to overturn his loss.

Those election conspiracists now holding official power range from the attorney general to lawyers filing lawsuits for the Justice Department. Kurt Olsen, a lawyer who unsuccessfully pushed the Justice Department in 2020 to back the president’s false claims, is now leading a sweeping probe of the vote from that election.

The most dramatic action from that mandate was the seizure in late January of ballots and 2020 election records from Fulton County in Georgia, a Democratic stronghold that includes Atlanta. The county has long been a target of election conspiracy theorists aligned with Trump, and the affidavit for the search warrant shows the action was based on 2020 claims that in many cases had been thoroughly investigated.

Election officials across the country, especially those in states controlled politically by Democrats, are bracing for more turmoil during this year’s elections, when control of Congress is on the line.

“The election denial movement is now embedded across our federal government, which makes it more powerful than ever,” said Joanna Lydgate, chief executive of States United Democracy Center, which tracks those who promote election conspiracy theories. “Trump and his allies are trying to use all of the powers of the federal government to undermine elections, with an eye to the upcoming midterms.”

Trump has remade the federal government as an arm of his own personal will, and his attorney general, Pam Bondi — who helped try to overturn Trump’s 2020 loss — has declared that everyone working at the Justice Department needs to carry out the president’s demands. Even with all the issues facing him in his second term, from persistent concerns about the economy to his immigration crackdown, Trump continues to push the false claim that he won the 2020 presidential election.

Some of the people who populate his administration are, like Bondi, longtime supporters who continued to help Trump even as he sought to overturn an election. Some played minor roles in supporting the false claims about the 2020 presidential election. Still others have pushed conspiracy theories, often fantastical or debunked, that have helped persuade millions of Republicans that Trump had the 2020 election stolen from him.

Riccardi writes for the Associated Press.

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.

It was an extraordinary media moment: CBS late-night host Stephen Colbert on Tuesday publicly blasted his own employer over its handling of his interview with Democratic U.S. Senate candidate James Talarico of Texas.

Colbert contended that his own network prevented him from airing the interview in an effort to appease the Trump administration, which CBS has denied. He chose instead to put the sit-down with the Texas state legislator on YouTube, which is not regulated by the FCC.

The standoff not only highlighted the simmering tensions inside CBS with the late-night host, it also marked the latest flash point in the ongoing clash between the Trump administration and leading media and entertainment figures — including other late-night hosts Seth Meyers and Jimmy Kimmel — who have been openly critical of the president’s policies.

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr has been leading the charge, aggressively attempting to wield the long dormant equal time rules forcing broadcast TV stations to offer equal time to opposing candidates as a means of influencing the legacy media companies who President Trump believes treats him unfairly.

Carr contends the effort is a long overdue corrective to combat what he and Trump believe is liberal bias in broadcast network news coverage. He has even threatened to pull TV station licenses if programmers don’t get in line.

Last fall, he warned ABC that it could lose its TV station licenses after Kimmel made remarks on his program about slain right-wing activist Charlie Kirk that upset conservatives. Two major TV station groups pulled the program and the network suspended Kimmel‘s program for a week.

But experts say the efforts — along with the recent arrest of former CNN journalist Don Lemon over civil rights charges — pose a threat to constitutionally protected freedom of speech and would likely face court challenges.

“We don’t want the government trying to make decisions as to what counts as political speech and what doesn’t and what counts as fairness and what doesn’t,” media consultant Michael Harrison told The Times last month.

Some experts are also skeptical that Carr will ever make good on those threats through greater enforcement of the equal time provision.

Andrew Jay Schwartzman, a public interest communications attorney, said Carr is using his bully pulpit at the FCC to intimidate “a timorous broadcasting industry.”

“The Late Show with Stephen Colbert “ on July 23, 2024.

(Scott Kowalchyk / CBS)

“It’s just all bluster,” said Schwartzman. “Broadcasters are more interested in short-term regulatory relief from the FCC, and in the case of [CBS parent] Paramount, getting approval of a possible Warner Bros. Discovery deal.”

CBS cited financial losses as the reason for the cancellation of Colbert’s show, which ends in May, just two months before CBS parent Paramount Global closed its merger deal with Skydance Media, which required regulatory approval from the Trump administration. Paramount also has been attempting a hostile bid for Warner Bros. Discovery.

Paramount also drew scrutiny over its controversial decision to pay $16 million to settle Trump’s legal salvo against “60 Minutes” over the editing of an interview with his 2024 opponent, then-Vice President Kamala Harris. Most legal analysts viewed the case as frivolous.

Jeffrey McCall, a communications professor at DePauw University, said he understands why CBS did not want to invite FCC scrutiny.

“CBS could have other matters in front of the FCC,” McCall said. “So, I don’t blame CBS for trying to tell Colbert like, ‘hey, back off.’”

But McCall added that he sees no reason for the FCC to end or curtail the exemption daytime and late-night television talk shows have from laws requiring stations to offer equal broadcast opportunities to political candidates.

“They have a lot to do otherwise and I’m just not sure this is worth their trouble,” he said.

The equal time rules were devised at a time when consumers had a limited number of media options. Broadcast TV is no longer dominant in the era of streaming as evidenced by how the Talarico interview drew 8 million views on YouTube — more than three times the typical TV audience for Colbert’s “Late Show.”

Schwartzman noted that equal time provision cases are typically resolved quickly, as the rule only applies during an election campaign.

If Talarico’s interview had aired on TV and his opponents requested time, CBS would have to accommodate them ahead of the Texas primary election on March 3. (The network would not have been required to give time to Republican candidates).

CBS could have fulfilled the request by providing time on its affiliated stations in Texas. The opposing candidates did not have to appear on Colbert’s show.

“The remedy is you have to give them airtime,” Schwartzman said. “That’s all.”

CBS wanted Colbert to steer clear of Talarico because the FCC previously announced it is “investigating” ABC over the candidate’s appearance on “The View,” according to a network executive not authorized to discuss the matter publicly. Talarico was on the daytime talk show Feb. 2, which has led to the FCC launching an “enforcement action” on the matter.

Representatives from CBS and ABC declined comment.

Appearing Wednesday on Fox News Channel’s “The Ingraham Angle,” Carr brushed off accusations by Democrats that he was using the rule to silence their candidates.

“What we’re doing now is simply applying the law on the books,” Carr said.

When host Laura Ingraham noted that if CBS had aired the Talarico interview, it would have meant free airtime for Tarico’s primary opponent and high-profile Trump critic Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas), Carr replied, “Ironically, yes.”

But Schwartzman noted that if the FCC punished a network for ignoring the rule, the move would likely be challenged in court and take years to resolve. Even if the policy were violated, that would not be enough to get a station license pulled.

“A single violation or even a couple of violations of FCC policy are meaningless,” Schwartzman said. “You have to demonstrate a pattern of violations.”

Carr has also publicly supported Nexstar Media Group’s proposed $6.2-billion merger with Tegna, which would require the government to lift the ownership cap that limits TV station owners to coverage of 39% of the U.S. with their outlets.

Not surprisingly, the merger has the support of Trump, who is pals with top Nexstar executive Sean Compton, who oversees its cable channel NewsNation.

“We need more competition against THE ENEMY, the Fake News National TV Networks,” Trump wrote Feb. 7 on Truth Social. “Letting Good Deals get done like Nexstar — Tegna will help knock out the Fake News because there will be more competition, and at a higher and more sophisticated level.”

How Nexstar could take on the broadcast networks is a mystery. Nexstar is highly dependent on its affiliations with ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox due to their contracts with the NFL, which provide the stations with their highest-rated programming. Those network affiliations also give Nexstar leverage in its negotiations to get carriage on cable and satellite providers.

WASHINGTON — Immigrant advocates fear a Trump administration proposal released Friday amounts to an indefinite pause on new work permits for asylum seekers.

The draft regulation from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services would halt the acceptance of work permit applications when average processing times at the agency exceed 180 days.

The regulation also would extend the time asylum seekers must wait before becoming eligible to apply for a work permit, lengthening the period from 150 days to 365 days.

The proposal says USCIS expects that new work permit applications for asylum seekers “would be paused for an extended period, possibly many years.”

Conchita Cruz, co-executive director of the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project, said the regulation would be catastrophic for asylum seekers, their families and U.S. communities.

“Forcing individuals who are working and living in the United States legally out of their jobs is not only cruel, but it is bad policy,” she said. “If this regulation goes into effect, it will hurt U.S. families, businesses and the U.S. economy.”

The proposed regulation change comes amid broad efforts by the Trump administration to end humanitarian benefits and restrict legal immigration.

For example, Homeland Security has sought to terminate Temporary Protected Status benefits that provided work permits and deportation protection to hundreds of thousands of immigrants. And in a memo released this week, the agency said agents are authorized to detain refugees who have not yet filed applications for lawful permanent residence after their first year in the U.S.

Under the first Trump administration, agency officials in 2020 similarly proposed increasing the employment eligibility waiting period to one year.

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

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

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

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

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

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

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

Steel talks tied to EU-US trade deal enforcement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

US President Donald Trump has warned Iran it has 10 to 15 days to reach a deal over its nuclear program, or “really bad things” will happen. Iran’s envoy to the United Nations said Tehran will respond “decisively” to any military aggression.