Trumps

WASHINGTON — President Trump is set to deliver a high-stakes State of the Union address on Tuesday night at 6 p.m. Pacific time before a joint session of Congress in the U.S. Capitol.

The president is expected to emphasize economic issues, an immigration crackdown that has been central to his agenda, and tariffs in the wake of a recent legal setback to his trade agenda.

Here is what to know about the event:

How to watch

The remarks will be shown live on major broadcast networks and cable news channels. Another way to watch live is through the public affairs network C-SPAN. The White House will stream the address on its website.

What to expect in the speech

Trump is expected to focus on his immigration crackdown and his promises to go after what he says is government “waste, fraud and abuse,” as previewed in two White House videos on Monday.

One year back in office, Trump has led an aggressive deportation campaign that has involved violent arrests, troops in American cities and an uptick in detentions. The tactics used by federal immigration agents have raised concerns among lawmakers in the aftermath of the fatal shooting of two U.S. citizens in Minneapolis. Those concerns are central to ongoing standoff over funding for the Department of Homeland Security.

It will also be worth watching how Trump talks about future efforts to target waste and abuse in public spending, an effort that has often roped in blue states like California.

Who will deliver responses?

Democrats have picked Gov. Abigail Spanberger of Virginia and Sen. Alex Padilla of California to deliver the Democratic responses to Trump’s speech.

Spanberger will give her remarks in English, while Padilla will deliver the Spanish-language response.

Padilla’s remarks will be live-streamed here.

The White House is set to impose a 15 percent tariff through Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 after the US Supreme Court ruled against Donald Trump’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977.

United States President Donald Trump has ramped up tariff threats following last week’s US Supreme Court decision that ruled that Trump’s sweeping global tariffs, imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, were unlawful.

On Monday, Trump said that any countries that wanted to “play games” after the high court’s ruling would be hit “with a much higher tariff ” in a post on his social media platform Truth Social.

In a separate post on the platform, Trump claimed that he does not need the approval of the US Congress for tariffs.

“As President, I do not have to go back to Congress to get approval of Tariffs . It has already been gotten, in many forms, a long time ago! They were also just reaffirmed by the ridiculous and poorly crafted supreme court decision!” Trump said in the post.

Trump does have some authority to impose other tariffs, but they are much more limited.

Following the court’s 6–3 decision on Friday, the president said he would introduce a 10 percent tariff, raising it to 15 percent by Saturday under Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act, the maximum limit under the statute that enables the White House to impose tariffs for 150 days.

The statute only requires a presidential declaration and does not require further investigation. Section 122 is only temporary; the tariffs would then expire unless Congress extends them.

Trump’s tariffs are overwhelmingly unpopular. A new Washington Post-ABC News-Ipsos poll found that 64 percent of Americans disapprove of the president’s handling of tariffs.

Looming uncertainty

Experts warn that Trump’s newly imposed tariffs will fuel further economic uncertainty.

“What we do know is that it would continue to require all those parties affected to continue to live in uncertainty and, as many have already pointed out, such uncertainty is not good for our economy and has negative impacts on American consumers,” Max Kulyk, partner and CEO of Chicory Wealth, a private wealth advisory firm, told Al Jazeera.

“It’s impossible to plan. You hear that tariffs are off, and you are considering how to get refunds. Then a few hours later, it’s 10 percent. Then it’s 15 percent the next day…. Not having that stable framework is hurtful for activity, hiring, investment,” Gregory Daco, chief economist at EY-Parthenon, told the Reuters news agency.

Gold, which is considered a safe investment in times of economic uncertainty, surged by 2 percent on Monday, hitting a three-week high as tariff pressures remain unclear.

US markets are also taking a hit. The tech-heavy Nasdaq is down 1.1 percent in midday trading. The S&P 500 is also down by 1 percent, and the Dow Jones Industrial Average slumped by 1.5 percent since the market opened on Monday.

Stalling trade deals

Trump’s erratic approach has also deterred movement on looming trade deals.

On Monday, the European Parliament opted to postpone voting on a trade deal with the US. It is the second time the bloc has pushed back the vote. The first was in protest against Trump’s unsolicited attempts to acquire Greenland.

The assembly had been considering removing several European Union import duties on US goods. Committee chair Bernd Lange said the new temporary US tariff could mean increased levies for some EU exports, and no one knew what would happen after they expire in 150 days. EU lawmakers will reconvene on March 4 to assess if the US has clarified the situation and confirmed its commitment to last year’s deal.

U.S. trade policy uncertainty has sent shockwaves through global markets, as President Donald Trump moved to impose a 15% tariff following the Supreme Court of the United States ruling invalidating his emergency trade levies. Investors reacted quickly, rotating out of risk assets and the dollar, while seeking shelter in gold, silver, and safe-haven currencies. The turbulence highlights the fragility of global investor confidence when policy reversals collide with high-stakes geopolitical and economic risks.

Wall Street and Currency Volatility

U.S. stock futures fell sharply, with S&P 500 futures down 0.5% and Nasdaq futures slipping 0.6%. The dollar weakened across major pairs, losing 0.21% versus the yen and 0.34% against the Swiss franc, while the euro gained 0.23%. European equities also reflected caution: the STOXX 600 fell 0.19%, Germany’s DAX slid 0.36%, and Britain’s FTSE 100 edged down 0.1%.

Asian markets, however, were mixed. The MSCI Asia index excluding Japan rose 0.83%, while Hong Kong’s Hang Seng surged 2.53% on expectations of lower tariffs for China. Japan’s Nikkei futures fell 0.4% ahead of a holiday, highlighting regional divergence driven by perceived winners and losers in U.S. tariff policy.

Safe-Haven Assets Rally

Amid the uncertainty, investors sought protection in gold and silver, which climbed 0.6% and 2% respectively. Safe-haven currencies, including the Japanese yen and Swiss franc, appreciated as risk-off sentiment grew. Government bonds saw slight gains, with the U.S. 10-year Treasury yield dipping to 4.077%, reflecting flight-to-quality buying. Brent crude prices fell 1.1% to $70.97 a barrel, reversing gains from earlier geopolitical risk sentiment linked to U.S.-Iran tensions.

Tariff Confusion and Its Economic Implications

Trump’s latest tariffs add layers of ambiguity. While the Supreme Court struck down his emergency powers, the new 15% levy relies on Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act, an untested statute. Questions remain over timing, exclusions, and applicability by country. Some nations, including the UK and Australia, had lower tariffs under prior rules, while many Asian exporters faced higher duties. The Yale Budget Lab estimates the average effective tariff rate at 13.7% following the announcement, down from 16% pre-ruling, with the 15% rate potentially dropping to 9.1% after 150 days.

“This circular process of tariff announcements, legal challenges, and revisions is creating profound uncertainty for markets,” said Rodrigo Catril, senior FX strategist at NAB.

Market Sentiment and Investor Behavior

The episode reflects broader structural concerns about U.S. trade policy’s unpredictability. Investors are no longer just reacting to tariffs themselves, but to the instability and volatility of policy enforcement. The uncertainty affects supply chains, corporate earnings forecasts, and capital allocation decisions. Nvidia’s upcoming earnings, for example, are being closely watched, given the company’s 8% weighting in the S&P 500, demonstrating how trade policy shocks can amplify market sensitivity to specific corporate results.

Analytical Outlook

Trump’s oscillating trade policy highlights a critical tension between political objectives and market stability. While tariffs are framed as instruments to advance domestic economic priorities, the resulting unpredictability imposes systemic costs: currency swings, equity market volatility, and flight to safe assets. The mixed regional responses Asian equities partially rallying, European markets cautious underscore how interconnected global trade and finance are, and how unevenly shocks are absorbed.

In essence, this episode illustrates a modern economic paradox: protective trade measures intended to strengthen domestic interests can, in practice, destabilize markets worldwide. Investors now must hedge not only against tariffs themselves but also against the policy volatility that accompanies them a scenario likely to persist as long as U.S. trade decisions are made unilaterally and unpredictably.

Trump’s approach has transformed trade from a predictable framework into a high-stakes, reactive arena, forcing global markets to continuously recalibrate. The lesson is clear: in today’s interconnected financial system, the cost of policy uncertainty often outweighs the intended protectionist benefit.

With information from Reuters.

Washington, DC – President Donald Trump has long been fixated on how voting in the United States is administered, claiming without evidence that his 2020 presidential election loss was the result of malfeasance.

Fast forward more than five years, and Trump is set to be in office for one of the most consequential midterm races in recent times.

It is unclear how the US president might involve himself in the midterms, which will determine whether his Republican Party maintains control over both the House of Representatives and the Senate.

The results will decide whether Trump can continue to enact his agenda with relative ease or if he will face congressional pushback at every turn.

The Republican leader’s approach so far appears to be twofold, according to Michael Traugott, a political scientist and professor emeritus at the University of Michigan.

On one hand, Trump has embarked on a messaging campaign to cast doubt on any results that seem unfavourable.

“Part of what the Trump administration is doing is trying to create the impression of fraud and mismanagement in local elections so that they can argue eventually that some outcomes are not legitimate or real or should be discounted,” Traugott told Al Jazeera.

On the other hand, Trump also appears to be conducting a stress test of pre-existing election law, to see how much the federal government can intervene.

“There are actions that he could take or try to take, which would likely be stopped in the courts,” Traugott said.

“The behaviour in the Trump administration is to appeal, appeal, appeal, until it gets to the Supreme Court,” he added. “I imagine that would be their strategy.”

Calls to ‘nationalise’ election administration

Trump has been explicit about his desire to assert more federal control over the election, saying in early February that “Republicans ought to nationalise the voting”.

He pointed to what he described as “horrible corruption on elections” in some parts of the US.

The US Constitution assigns states the power to determine the “times, places and manner” of elections for federal office.

Congress, meanwhile, has the ability to “make or alter” rules related to voting through legislation or, in extreme cases, constitutional amendments.

“It’s important to remember that, in the United States, we don’t really have national elections. We have a series of state and local elections that are held more or less on the same day,” Traugott explained.

The president, meanwhile, has no constitutional role in how elections are administered, beyond signing any legislation Congress passes.

Still, it is possible for a president to leverage executive branch agencies that interact with state election administration. Trump too has explicitly blurred the lines between federal and state power.

In the Oval Office on February 3, he told reporters, “A state is an agent for the federal government in elections. I don’t know why the federal government doesn’t do them anyway.”

His statements were swiftly condemned by voting rights groups.

The League of Women Voters, a voting rights group founded in 1920, called Trump’s remarks a “calculated effort to dismantle the integrity of the electoral system as we know it”.

“Time and again, the President’s claims of widespread fraud have been disproven by nonpartisan election officials, the courts, and the Department of Justice,” it added.

Despite Trump’s claims, voter fraud is exceedingly rare in the US, and any isolated instances typically have little effect on election outcomes.

Even the Heritage Foundation, the conservative think tank behind the Trump-aligned Project 2025, has documented an inconsequential rate of voter fraud in its catalogue of cases running back to 1982.

An analysis from the centre-left Brookings Institution found that fraudulent votes failed to amount to one ten-thousandth of a percentage point of the ballots cast in states where elections tend to be the closest.

For example, Arizona is a perennial battleground in presidential elections, but it has seen just 36 reported cases of voter fraud since 1982, out of more than 42 million ballots cast. That put the percentage of fraud at 0.0000845, according to the analysis.

Department of Justice pushes boundaries

Nevertheless, the Trump administration has heaped pressure on the Department of Justice to increase its probes into alleged voter fraud.

The attorney general has demanded that 47 states and Washington, DC, a federal district, hand over their complete voter registration lists, according to a tally from the Brennan Center for Justice, a nonpartisan policy group.

Eleven states have complied or agreed to comply. The Trump administration has launched lawsuits against the 20 others that refused.

The Department of Justice has also stepped up its cooperation with the Department of Homeland Security to identify non-citizen voters.

Some critics have even accused the Justice Department of deploying coercive tactics to fulfil its demands for state voter information.

On January 24, for instance, US Attorney General Pam Bondi wrote a letter to Minnesota Governor Tim Walz suggesting three “common sense solutions” to “restore the rule of law” in the state.

One of those proposals was to allow the Justice Department to “access voter rolls”.

Bondi’s remarks came after a federal immigration crackdown in Minnesota had turned deadly, resulting in two on-camera shootings of US citizens.

While her letter did not directly offer a quid pro quo – access to the rolls in exchange for ending the crackdown – critics said the message it sent was clear. Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes, for instance, called the letter tantamount to “blackmail”.

But four days later, on January 28, the Justice Department went even further, seizing voting records and ballots in a raid on an election facility in Fulton County, Georgia.

The state has been a sore point for Trump: Georgia voted for a Democratic presidential candidate for the first time in more than two decades during the 2020 race.

At the time, Trump infamously pressured Georgia’s secretary of state to “find more votes” following his loss. He has spread rumours about fraud in Georgia’s election system ever since.

Local officials condemned the January raid as a “flagrant constitutional violation”, saying in a lawsuit that an affidavit submitted by the FBI to obtain a search warrant relied on hypotheticals.

In other words, it failed to establish probable cause that any crime had occurred, Fulton County officials argued.

That affidavit also revealed the investigation was the direct result of a referral from Kurt Olsen, who was appointed to a White House role as Trump’s head of election security in October.

Before entering the White House, Olsen led unsuccessful legal challenges to the 2020 election results, in what Trump dubbed the “Stop the Steal” campaign.

Fulton County officials noted “multiple courts have sanctioned Olsen for his unsubstantiated, speculative claims about elections”.

What is Tulsi Gabbard’s role?

The apparent role of Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence, in the election investigations has also raised questions.

Gabbard was present at the Fulton County raid, with Trump later telling reporters that she was “working very hard on trying to keep the election safe”.

Who authorised her presence, however, was the subject of contradictory statements from the Trump administration.

Gabbard said she had been sent on behalf of Trump, even though the president attempted to distance himself from the raid. The Justice Department later said Bondi had requested Gabbard’s presence. Gabbard finally said both Trump and Bondi had asked her to attend.

Whatever the case, Traugott, the political scientist, said that her presence at the scene was highly unusual.

“The director of national intelligence has been associated with observation and information gathering from foreign countries, not from domestic entities,” Traugott explained. “So historically, this is without precedent”.

In a statement, Senator Mark Warner of Virginia said he was concerned that Gabbard had exceeded the powers of her office. He said the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, where he is vice chairman, had not been briefed on any “foreign intelligence nexus” related to the Fulton County raid.

Either Gabbard was flouting her responsibility to keep the committee informed, Warner said, or she is “injecting the nonpartisan intelligence community she is supposed to be leading into a domestic political stunt designed to legitimize conspiracy theories that undermine our democracy”.

Gabbard, who is expected to testify before the Senate committee in March, responded in early February that she had been acting under her “broad statutory authority to coordinate, integrate, and analyse intelligence related to election security”.

She maintained her office would “not irresponsibly share incomplete intelligence assessments concerning foreign or other malign interference in US elections”.

Voter ID law

But it’s not just executive agencies like the Department of Justice and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence pushing Trump’s agenda for the midterm races.

Experts say Trump has been angling to use the Republican majorities in Congress to pass restrictive voter laws ahead of November’s election.

Trump has supported a bill, dubbed the SAVE Act, which would require citizens to provide more documentation – such as a passport or a birth certificate – when registering to vote, as well as photo identification when casting a ballot.

Rights groups have long argued that such requirements would disenfranchise some voters who lack access to such materials. As of 2023, the US State Department reported that only 48 percent of US citizens had a valid passport.

The bill would also require states to provide voter lists to the Department of Homeland Security to identify and remove non-citizens, raising concerns about voter privacy.

The legislation, which has been passed by the House, is likely to face an uphill battle in the Senate. It is already illegal for non-citizens to vote.

Even without the legislation, though, Trump has threatened to sign an executive order requiring local election organisers to require voter identification before distributing ballots.

Trump already signed a similar order last March seeking to impose new rules on elections, including voter ID requirements, reviews of electronic voting machines and restrictions on how long votes can be counted.

Nearly all of the provisions have since been blocked by federal judges. The most recent ruling by US District Judge John Chun related to restrictions like tying federal election funding to “proof of citizenship” requirements.

“In granting this relief,” Chun wrote in his decision, “the Court seeks to restore the proper balance of power among the Executive Branch, the states, and Congress envisioned by the Framers.”

US President Donald Trump has announced a 15 percent across-the-board tariff on all imports.

The move comes just a day after he set tariffs at 10 percent, enraged by a Supreme Court ruling that struck down much of his tariff regime.

Governments across the world, including those that already struck tariff deals with the United States, will be analysing the new policy.

What will the implications be for them? And how is the global economy reacting to Trump’s latest decision?

Presenter: Tom McRae

Guests:

Deborah Elms – head of trade policy, Hinrich Foundation

Rebecca Christie – senior fellow, Bruegel think tank

Garima Kapoor – deputy head of research, Elara Securities

US President Donald Trump writes on Truth Social that a ‘great hospital boat’ is going to Greenland as he mocks its healthcare system.

Greenland said “no thanks” to US President Donald Trump’s plan to send a hospital ship to the Arctic island after he repeatedly threatened to seize the Danish autonomous territory for “national security” reasons.

Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen said in a post on Facebook on Sunday that Trump’s proposal to send the US medical vessel had been “noted”.

“But we have a public healthcare system where treatment is free for citizens. It is a deliberate choice,” Nielsen said, reiterating Greenland remained open to dialogue and cooperation.

“But talk to us instead of just making more or less random outbursts on social media,” he added.

The historically strong bilateral ties after World War II between NATO allies Denmark and the United States have come under severe strain in recent months as Trump ratcheted up talk of a possible US takeover of the mineral-rich and strategically located Arctic island.

Danish Defence Minister Troels Lund Poulsen told Danish broadcaster DR that the population of Greenland “receives the healthcare it needs”.

“They receive it either in Greenland or, if they require specialised treatment, they receive it in Denmark,” he said. “It’s not as if there’s a need for a special healthcare initiative in Greenland.”

On Saturday, Trump said in a post on his Truth Social account – with an AI-generated image of the US Navy vessel the USNS Mercy – that it was on its way to Greenland to treat those being medically neglected.

“We are going to send a great hospital boat to Greenland to take care of the many people who are sick, and not being taken care of there. It’s on the way!!!” Trump wrote.

Trump has repeatedly expressed his interest in the US taking control of Greenland, citing it as a way to secure US national security. However, Greenland and Europe rejected the US desire to take the Arctic island and have upheld Greenlandic sovereignty.

Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen said she was “happy to live in a country where access to healthcare is free and equal for all”.

Greenland is a place “where insurance or wealth does not determine whether one receives dignified treatment,” she added in an apparent criticism of the US healthcare system, which is not universal.

Threats to take Greenland ebbed after Trump struck a “framework” deal with NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte in January to ensure greater US influence.

BREAKINGBREAKING,

The incident in Florida took place on Sunday when US President Donald Trump was in Washington, DC.

The United States Secret Service ⁠says its agents have shot and killed a man who attempted to break into a secure perimeter at President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida.

The man, in his 20s, appeared to be armed with a shotgun and fuel can, according to the Secret Service’s communications chief Anthony Guglielmi. He was shot at about 1:30am Sunday morning (06:30 GMT).

Trump was in Washington, DC, not Mar-a-Lago, when the incident took place. No other individuals under Secret Service protection were present, said the agency.

Guglielmi said Secret Service agents and a deputy from the Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office confronted the armed individual, whose identity has not yet been disclosed, after he approached Mar-a-Lago’s north gate. The individual was pronounced dead after being shot by law enforcement officials.

“The incident, including the individual’s background, actions, potential motive and the use of force, is under investigation by the FBI, the US Secret Service and the Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office,” said Guglielmi.

This is a breaking news story…

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.

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.

US President Donald Trump’s tariff regime has been ruled unlawful by the Supreme Court, removing a central policy plank of his second term.

Trump’s promised replacement tariffs will take effect within days.

What is the impact of the court’s ruling? And how will it play out internationally?

Presenter: Tom McRae

Guests:

Melanie Brusseler – US programme director at the think tank Common Wealth

James Davis – founder and president of Touchdown Strategies and Republican adviser

Claire Finkelstein – Algernon Biddle professor of law and philosophy, University of Pennsylvania

“The United States, after all, is not at war with every nation in the world.” The US Supreme Court has struck down Donald Trump’s use of a national emergency declaration to impose sweeping global tariffs. Al Jazeera’s Mike Hanna explains the court’s reasoning.

Feb. 20 (UPI) — The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Friday that President Donald Trump does not have the unilateral authority to impose tariffs.

The 6-3 decision struck down some of the broad tariffs Trump has imposed across the world from the Executive Branch. Chief Justice John Roberts said the president “must identify clear congressional authorization” to use the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose tariffs.

The decision came down in a lawsuit with several small businesses and Democratic attorneys general sued the Trump administration over improperly imposing tariffs. The plaintiffs argued that Trump was using the tariffs to raise revenue, a responsibility that falls under the scope of U.S. Congress, not the president.

While the Justice Department claimed that Trump was using tariffs to regulate foreign goods, Trump often said the tariffs were bringing in substantial revenue to the federal government.

Tariffs that Trump imposed using other laws will remain in place, such as tariffs on steel and aluminum.

Roberts added that the Trump administration has not provided any statutory support to its claim that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act applies to tariffs.

“We hold that the IEEPA does not authorize the president to impose tariffs,” Roberts wrote in the majority opinion.

Justices Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh and Samuel Alito, all conservative justices, dissented.

Friday’s decision is the first in which a legal challenge to Trump’s second-term policies received a full hearing and resolution from the U.S. Supreme Court.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Friday that President Trump’s sweeping worldwide tariffs are illegal and cannot stand without the approval of Congress.

The 6-3 decision deals Trump his most significant defeat at the Supreme Court.

Last year, the justices issued temporary orders to block several of his initiatives, but Friday’s ruling is the first to hold that the president overstepped his legal authority.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., speaking for the court, said Congress has the power to impose taxes and tariffs, and lawmakers did not do so in an emergency law that does not mention tariffs.

“The President asserts the extraordinary power to unilaterally impose tariffs of unlimited amount, duration, and scope. In light of the breadth, history, and constitutional context of that asserted authority, he must identify clear congressional authorization to exercise it,” he wrote.

“And until now no President has read the International Emergency Economics Act to confer such power. We claim no special competence in matters of economics or foreign affairs. We claim only, as we must, the limited role assigned to us by Article III of the Constitution. Fulfilling that role, we hold that IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs,” Roberts wrote.

Justice Neil M. Gorsuch in a concurring opinion stressed the role of Congress.

“The Constitution lodges the Nation’s lawmaking powers in Congress alone,” he said.

Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito and Brett M. Kavanaugh dissented.

Trump claimed his new and ever-shifting tariffs would bring in trillions of dollars in revenue for the government and encourage more manufacturing in the United States.

But manufacturing employment has gone down over the past year, in part because American companies have been hurt by higher costs for parts that they import.

Critics said the new taxes hurt small businesses in particular and raised prices for American consumers.

The justices focused on the president’s claimed legal authority to impose tariffs as responses to an international economic emergency.

Several owners of small businesses sued last year to challenge Trump’s import taxes as illegal and disruptive.

Learning Resources, an Illinois company which sells educational toys for children, said it would have to raise its prices by 70% because most of its toys were manufactured in Asia.

A separate suit was filed by a New York wine importer and Terry Precision Cycling, which sells cycling apparel for women.

Both suits won in lower courts. Judges said the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 cited by Trump did not mention tariffs and had not been used before to impose such import taxes.

The law said the president in response to a national emergency may deal with an “unusual and extraordinary threat” by freezing assets or sanctioning a foreign country or otherwise regulating trade.

Trump said the nation’s long-standing trade deficit was an emergency and tariffs were an appropriate regulation.

While rejecting Trump’s claims, the lower courts left his tariffs in place while the administration appealed its case to the Supreme Court.

Feb. 19 (UPI) — The Commission of Fine Arts has unanimously approved plans for President Donald Trump‘s almost 90,000-square-foot White House ballroom plans, the first hurdle in starting the building project.

The commission, whose members were all appointed by Trump, including his executive assistant, Chamberlain Harris, 26. The original architect of the ballroom recused himself from the vote. Trump fired all the previous members in October.

But now, the project must win approval from the National Capital Planning Commission, which could vote on March 5.

“This is a facility that is desperately needed for over 150 years, and it’s beautiful,” The Washington Post reported Commission Chair Rodney Mims Cook Jr. said.

But the CFA’s secretary said comments have been negative.

“In two decades of casework here, I’ve never seen as much public engagement on this. We’ve literally gotten, in the past week or so, more than 2,000 various messages,” said Thomas Luebke, CFA secretary, CBS News reported. “The vast, vast majority is negative, in general.”

Trump initially said the construction would cost $200 million and would be funded by private donations. He later said the project could cost twice that amount, but donors would pay for it. Officials from the National Trust for Historic Preservation challenged the construction in federal court and sought an injunction to stop the build. The judge refused the injunction but ordered the administration to undergo a review process.

The Capital Planning Commission is led by Will Scharf, a White House staff secretary appointed by Trump. Two other White House officials — James Blair and Stuart Levenbach — are also on the commission.

Luebke read a summary of the comments to commissioners, CBS reported. He cited demolition without permits or oversight, a scale that will “dwarf the White House,” lack of transparency in funding and contracts and a “fundamental miscarriage of democratic principles.”

“The ballroom seems to shout power,” one commenter wrote, Luebke said.

Harris responded, “This is sort of like the greatest country in the world. It’s the greatest house in the world and we want it to be the greatest ballroom in the world.”

The public comments, Luebke said, were “overwhelmingly in opposition — over 99%.”

WASHINGTON — In another era, the scene would have been unremarkable. But in President Trump’s Washington, it’s become increasingly rare.

Sitting side by side on stage were Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt, a Republican, and Maryland Gov. Wes Moore, a Democrat. They traded jokes and compliments instead of insults and accusations, a brief interlude of cordiality in a cacophony of conflict.

Stitt and Moore are the leaders of the National Governors Association, one of a vanishing few bipartisan institutions left in American politics. But it may be hard for the organization, which is holding its annual conference this week, to maintain its reputation as a refuge from polarization.

Trump has broken with custom by declining to invite all governors to the traditional White House meeting and dinner. He has called Stitt, the NGA’s chair, a “RINO,” short for Republican in name only, and continued to feud with Moore, the group’s vice chair, by blaming him for a sewage spill involving a federally regulated pipeline.

The break with tradition reflects Trump’s broader approach to his second term. He has taken a confrontational stance toward some states, withholding federal funds or deploying troops over the objections of local officials.

With the Republican-controlled Congress unwilling to limit Trump’s ambitions, several governors have increasingly cast themselves as a counterweight to the White House.

“Presidents aren’t supposed to do this stuff,” Utah Gov. Spencer Cox said about the expansion of executive power in recent administrations. “Congress needs to get their act together. And stop performing for TikTok and actually start doing stuff. That’s the flaw we’re dealing with right now.”

Cox, a Republican, said “it is up to the states to hold the line.”

Moore echoed that sentiment in an interview with The Associated Press.

“People are paying attention to how governors are moving, because I think governors have a unique way to move in this moment that other people just don’t,” he said.

Still, governors struck an optimistic tone in panels and interviews Wednesday. Stitt said the conference is “bigger than one dinner at the White House.” Moore predicted “this is going to be a very productive three days for the governors.”

“Here’s a Republican and Democrat governor from different states that literally agree on probably 80% of the things. And the things we disagree on we can have honest conversations on,” Stitt said while sitting beside Moore.

Tensions over the guest list for White House events underscored the uncertainty surrounding the week. During the back-and-forth, Trump feuded with Stitt and said Moore and Colorado Gov. Jared Polis were not invited because they “are not worthy of being there.”

Whether the bipartisan tone struck Wednesday evening can endure through the week — and beyond — remains an open question.

“We can have disagreements. In business, I always want people around me arguing with me and pushing me because that’s where the best ideas come from,” said Stitt. “We need to all have these exchange of ideas.”

Cappelletti and Sloan write for the Associated Press.

One of the U.S. Air Force’s C-32A VIP aircraft has re-emerged wearing a new red, white, and blue paint scheme. The same livery has recently been appearing on other U.S. government executive jets, and is nearly identical to one President Donald Trump had previously chosen for the future VC-25B Air Force Ones. The C-32As are commonly referred to as “Air Force Twos,” a callsign used when they carry the Vice President, but they are often used to transport the President, as well as other high-level officials and diplomats.

The C-32A with the new paint job was caught flying from Majors Airport in Greenville, Texas, yesterday by an aircraft spotter who goes by the handle @tt_33_operator on Instagram. The aircraft was using the callsign Vader 20 at the time. Online flight tracking data shows that the jet is serial number 99-0003. The Air Force’s Boeing 757-based C-32s are regular visitors to Majors Airport, home of L3Harris’ Mission Integration plant, which is a hub for conversions, upgrades, and other work related to large special mission aircraft.

The jet’s new paint scheme is white over dark blue, separated by red and gold cheat lines. The livery also includes a large American flag, depicted blowing in the wind, on the side of the tail. The flag has the same general style as the one on the tail of Trump’s personal 757, also commonly called “Trump Force One.” “United States of America” is in large lettering and a standard U.S. military ‘stars-and-bars’ insignia is also painted on the side of the fuselage of the C-32A. There is no readily visible serial number, which is in keeping with a policy that Air Mobility Command (AMC) enacted under President Joe Biden’s administration, ostensibly intended to improve operational security.

99-0003 has been at Majors Airport since at least last December, according to available tracking data. Spotters caught the aircraft arriving in Greenville on December 8, at which time it was wearing the blue, white and gold scheme typically seen on Air Force C-32s. Earlier this month, it was sighted completely stripped of paint.

The Air Force currently has some eight C-32As in its inventory. The service also operates a fleet of more secretive C-32B Gatekeeper personnel transports, which have overall white paint schemes.

TWZ has reached out to the Air Force for more information about the new livery on 99-0003 and what plans there might be now for applying it to the rest of the C-32 fleet or other aircraft.

For decades now, the Air Force’s C-32As have worn the same white-over-blue paint scheme, which is also found on Boeing 737-based C-40 Clippers. Other business jet-based executive aircraft the service operates wear similar liveries.

The typical C-32A livery shares distinct similarities with the one currently worn by the Boeing 747-based VC-25A Air Force One aircraft, but there are differences. The famed Air Force One scheme dates back to President John F. Kennedy’s administration, and was created with the help of legendary designer Raymond Loewy at the urging of First Lady Jacqueline Kennedy.

In 2019, during his first term in office, President Trump unveiled a new red, white, and blue scheme for the forthcoming VC-25B Air Force One aircraft. As already noted, the scheme is essentially the same as the one now seen on 99-0003.

President Biden subsequently reversed that decision, with the Air Force rolling out new renders of the VC-25B wearing a version of the Kennedy-era livery in 2023. In August 2025, following Trump’s re-election, the Air Force told Inside Defense it was “implementing a new livery requirement for VC-25B,” but did not elaborate.

There are certainly growing signs that the red, white, and blue livery that has now emerged on an Air Force C-32 is becoming a standard for executive jets across the U.S. government. The first aircraft to appear with this paint scheme was a 737 Boeing Business Jet (BBJ) with a luxurious interior and clear ties to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Details about that jet, which carries the civil registration number N471US, and has been flying around the United States and to destinations abroad since December, remain limited.

The U.S. Coast Guard, which falls under the purview of DHS, has now received the first of two modified Gulfstream 700 (G700) jets wearing this livery, as well. Also known as Long Range Command and Control Aircraft (LRCCA), the G700s provide VIP transport for the Secretary of Homeland Security (currently Kristi Noem), as well as other senior DHS and Coast Guard officials. The aircraft also fit into continuity of government plans in place to ensure U.S. authorities can keep functioning in the event of a host of different severe contingency scenarios, including major hostile attacks and devastating natural disasters. The Coast Guard already operates two LRCCA jets based on older, out-of-production Gulfstream models, which it says are becoming increasingly difficult to sustain. Older Gulfstream types are still in widespread service elsewhere across the U.S. government, including with the Air Force.

Separate from any deliberations over paint schemes, the Air Force has similarly been exploring various options for ultimately replacing the C-32As in recent years. The very last 757 rolled off Boeing’s production line in 2004, and the type has been in declining use by airlines and other operators globally, which has impacts on residual supply chains.

The Air Force had previously considered rolling a C-32 replacement effort into work on successors for the E-4B Nightwatch and E-6B Mercury command and control aircraft, but subsequently decided against that course of action. The Boeing 747-based E-4Bs are now set to be succeeded by E-4C Survivable Airdrop Operations Centers (SAOC) converted from newer 747-8i airframes, which could also take over some of the roles now performed by the E-6B. The E-4s and E-6s are commonly referred to as ‘doomsday planes’ because of the role they could play in launching nuclear strikes.

A proposed plan to augment the C-32 fleet with additional “large commercial derivative aircraft” was also put forward in the past. Most recently, the Air Force has laid out the possibility of supplanting its C-32s, as well as at least a portion of its C-40s, with a single common platform. Doing so would offer a way to simplify executive airlift operations compared to how things stand now with the two fleets of different narrow-body airliner types.

In the meantime, the Air Force has continued to upgrade its C-32 fleet, including making critical improvements to the jets’ secure communications capabilities and installing new interiors. You can read more about the latter, specifically, here.

There has been a surge of new executive aircraft developments under the current Trump administration, in general. This has been particularly visible in the acquisition of additional 747s in relation to the much-delayed VC-25B program. This includes the purchase of second-hand 747s from German flag carrier Lufthansa to provide training support and as sources of spare parts for the future VC-25Bs. The Air Force is also repurposing a highly-modified ex-Qatari VVIP 747-8i, ostensibly gifted to the U.S. government, as what is now being called a VC-25 bridge aircraft. TWZ has previously raised significant questions about the feasibility of using that aircraft in the Air Force One role.

Time will tell what the future may hold now for the Air Force’s C-32s, but at least one of the jets is now flying with a new paint scheme that is seeing growing use across the U.S. government. By the time the VC-25Bs enter service, they will likely be surrounded by identically painted executive airlift aircraft.

Update: 4:25 PM EST –

The U.S. Air Force has now confirmed that other C-32As are set to receive the new red, white, and blue paint scheme, and that this livery will also be applied to the future VC-25Bs and the ex-Qatari 747-8i.

“The Air Force is implementing a new paint scheme requirement (red, white, gold and dark blue) for VC-25B as well as the additional executive airlift fleet, which will include the new 747-8i and four C-32 aircraft,” a spokesperson for the service told TWZ. “The C-32s will be painted during regularly scheduled maintenance. The first C-32 has been painted and is expected to be delivered to the Air Force in the next few months.”

CBS News had first reported these details, citing anonymous sources, earlier today, following the publication of our initial story.

Special thanks again to @tt_33_operator for sharing the pictures of the C-32A wearing the new paint scheme.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

Feb. 16 (UPI) — Ryan Routh, who was convicted of attempting to kill then-former President Donald Trump, has filed an appeal of his life sentence and his conviction.

Routh, 60, was convicted of hiding in the bushes at Trump International Golf Club in West Palm Beach in September 2024. He pointed a military-grade SKS rifle toward Trump, who was then a candidate running for his second term, and a Secret Service agent.

He defended himself in the trial that ended in September. When the verdict was read, he stabbed himself in the neck with a pen.

Routh was given an attorney for the sentencing portion of his trial. That attorney, Martin L. Roth, filed a notice Friday with the U.S. Court of Appeals stating that Routh will fight the conviction and his sentence, ordered Feb. 4. Routh was sentenced to life plus seven years.

He was convicted in October of all five charges of attempting to assassinate a major presidential candidate, assaulting a federal officer, possession of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence, being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition, and possessing a firearm with an obliterated serial number.

Secret Service agent Robert Fercano testified that Routh hid behind a shrub-covered fence near the sixth hole of the course, aiming an AK-style weapon at Trump. Routh was found with a handwritten note that stated his intention to kill Trump.

Routh argued that he had a right to peacefully protest at the golf course.

“This is as far [from] peaceful assembly as you can imagine,” Assistant U.S. Attorney John Shipley responded. “Peaceful protest is one thing. An assassination attempt is another.”

Prosecutors said in a court filing that Routh deserved a life sentence.

“Routh’s crimes undeniably warrant a life sentence — he took steps over the course of months to assassinate a major presidential candidate, demonstrated the will to kill anybody in the way, and has since expressed neither regret nor remorse to his victims.”

Routh’s attorney argued that his conviction was faulty.

“Defendant recognizes that he was found guilty by the jury but asserts that the jury was misled by his inability to effectively confront witnesses, use exhibits, or affirmatively introduce impeachment evidence designed to prove his lack of intent to cause injury to anyone,” Roth wrote.

Feb. 16 (UPI) — U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio reiterated President Donald Trump‘s support for Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán on Monday ahead of what is expected to be a close election.

Rubio said during a news conference with Orbán in Budapest that Trump is “deeply committed” to his success, adding that it is key to the United States’ interests in Central Europe.

“That person-to-person connection that you’ve established with the president has made all the difference in the world in building this relationship,” Rubio said.

Trump has endorsed Orbán, who has transformed Hungary’s government into what he calls an “illiberal state.” Orbán has peeled away at Hungary’s system of checks and balances, moving closer to an autocratic government.

Orbán has also maintained close ties to Russia, relying on Russian energy. The United States has granted Hungary a one-year exemption from U.S. sanctions for continuing to use Russian oil and gas because of Orbán’s relationship with Trump.

“If you have financial struggles, if you face things that are impediments to growth, if you face things that threaten the stability of your country, I know that President Trump would be very interested because of your relationship with him and because of the importance of this country to us,” Rubio told Orbán.

Orbán is being challenged in Hungary’s election by Peter Magyar, a former member of his Fidesz party.

During his comments on Monday, Orbán said the United States has agreed to 17 “investments” in Hungary since Trump took office.

Two golfers in Washington, D.C., have sued the federal government to try to prevent the Trump administration from overhauling a more than 100-year-old public golf course, accusing the administration of violating environmental laws and polluting a park that is on the National Register of Historic Places.

The suit, which also claims the administration is violating a congressional act governing the property, is the latest in a series of legal battles challenging President Trump’s extraordinary efforts to put his mark on public spaces in the nation’s capital, including the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, which he ordered closed for renovation.

At the end of last year, a group of preservationists filed a similar lawsuit seeking to prevent the administration from demolishing the East Wing of the White House in order to build a ballroom — a project estimated to cost $400 million.

Trump, an avid golfer, also plans to renovate a military golf course just outside Washington that has been used for decades by past presidents.

The complaint filed against the Department of the Interior on Friday says that the Trump administration’s reconstruction of East Potomac Park — which includes the East Potomac Golf Course — would violate the congressional act that created the park in 1897. The act established the park for the “recreation and the pleasure of the people.”

The golf course has been recognized on the National Register of Historic Places in part for its efforts to racially integrate in the 1940s. Municipal golf courses make up only 18% of courses in America.

“East Potomac Golf Links is a testament to what’s possible with public land and why public spaces matter,” said Washington resident and plaintiff Dave Roberts. “It deserves better than becoming a dumping ground for waste and yet another private playground for the privileged and powerful.”

The lawsuit came after the Trump administration in December ended a lease agreement the nonprofit National Links Trust held for East Potomac and two other golf courses in Washington. The Interior Department said it did so because the nonprofit hadn’t implemented required capital improvements and failed to meet the terms of the lease.

The Interior Department press office said in an email Friday that it doesn’t comment on pending litigation, but that it would “ensure these courses are safe, beautiful, open, affordable, enjoyable and accessible for people visiting the greatest capital city in the world which is in line with President Trump’s agenda.”

The White House also didn’t respond to an emailed request for comment Friday evening.

Construction on the East Potomac course has already begun, according to the lawsuit. In October, the National Park Service began dumping debris from the demolition of the East Wing of the White House onto the golf course, the complaint said, raising concerns that the materials could contain contaminants that could pollute the air.

As a result, the plaintiffs argued, the administration also violated the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 by failing to consider the harmful environmental impacts of the project.

The National Links Trust said in December it was “devastated” by the decision to terminate the lease and defended its management of the courses.

The trust said that $8.5 million had gone toward capital improvements at the courses and that rounds played and revenue had more than doubled in its tenure managing the courses. It also said the termination of the lease jeopardized hundreds of local jobs.

The nonprofit has agreed to keep managing the courses for the time being, but long-term renovations will stop.

The first 18 holes of the East Potomac Park Golf Course were built from 1918 to 1923.

Riddle writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Audrey McAvoy in Honolulu contributed to this report.

SACRAMENTO — Gov. Gavin Newsom told world leaders Friday that President Trump’s retreat from efforts to combat climate change would decimate the U.S. automobile industry and surrender the future economic viability to China and other nations embracing the transition to renewable energy.

Newsom, appearing at the Munich Security Conference in Germany, urged diplomats, business leaders and policy advocates to forcefully stand up to Trump’s global bullying and loyalty to the oil and coal industry. The California governor said the Trump administration’s massive rollbacks on environmental protection will be short-lived.

“Donald Trump is temporary. He’ll be gone in three years,” Newsom said during a Friday morning panel discussion on climate action. “California is a stable and reliable partner in this space.”

Newsom’s comments came in the wake of the Trump administration’s repeal of the endangerment finding and all federal vehicle emissions regulations. The endangerment finding is the U.S. government’s 2009 affirmation that planet-heating pollution poses a threat to human health and the environment.

Environmental Protection Agency administrator Lee Zeldin said the finding has been regulatory overreach, placing heavy burdens on auto manufacturers, restricting consumer choice and resulting in higher costs for Americans. Its repeal marked the “single largest act of deregulation in the history of the United States of America,” he said.

Scientists and experts were quick to condemn the action, saying it contradicts established science and will put more people in harm’s way. Independent researchers around the world have long concluded that greenhouse gases released by the burning of gasoline, diesel and other fossil fuels are warming the planet and worsening weather disasters.

The move will also threaten the U.S.’s position as a leader in the global clean energy transition, with nations such as China pulling ahead on electric vehicle production and investments in renewables such as solar, batteries and wind, experts said.

Newsom’s trip to Germany is just his latest international jaunt in recent months as he positions himself to lead the Democratic Party’s opposition to Trump and the Republican-led Congress, and to seed a possible run for the White House in 2028. Last month Newsom traveled to the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, and in November to the U.N. climate summit in Belém, Brazil — mocking and condemning Trump’s policies on Greenland, international trade and the environment.

When asked how he would restore the world’s confidence in the United States if he were to become president, Newsom sidestepped. Instead he offered a campaign-like soliloquy on California’s success on fostering Tesla and the nation’s other top electric vehicle manufactures as well as being a magnet for industries spending billions of dollars on research and development for the global transition away from carbon-based economies.

The purpose of the Munich conference was to open a dialogue among world leaders on global security, military, economic and environmental. Along with Friday’s discussion on climate action, Newsom is scheduled to appear at a livestreamed forum on transatlantic cooperation Saturday.

Andrew Forrest, executive chairman of the Australia-based mining company giant Fortescue, said during a panel Friday his company is proof that even the largest energy-consuming companies in the world can thrive without relying on the carbon-based fuels that have driven industries for more than a century. Fortescue, which buys diesel fuel from countries across the world, will transition to a “green grid” this decade, saving the company a billion dollars a year, he said.

“The science is absolutely clear, but so is the economics. I am, and my company Fortescue is, the industrial-grade proof that going renewable is great economics, great business, and if you desert it, then in the end, you’ll be sorted out by your shareholders or by your voters at the ballot box,” Forrest said.

Newsom said California has also shown the world what can be done with innovative government policies that embrace electric vehicles and the transition to a non-carbon-based economy, and continues to do so despite the attacks and regressive mandates being imposed by the Trump administration.

“This is about economic prosperity and competitiveness, and that’s why I’m so infuriated with what Donald Trump has done,” Newsom said. “Remember, Tesla exists for one reason — California’s regulatory market, which created the incentives and the structure and the certainty that allowed Elon Musk and others to invest and build that capacity. We are not walking away from that.”

California has led the nation in the push toward EVs. For more than 50 years, the state enjoyed unique authority from the EPA to set stricter tailpipe emission standards than the federal government, considered critical to the state’s efforts to address its notorious smog and air-quality issues. The authority, which the Trump administration has moved to rescind, was also the basis for California’s plan to ban the sale of new gasoline-powered cars by 2035.

The administration again targeted electric vehicles in its announcement on Thursday.

“The forced transition to electric vehicles is eliminated,” Zeldin said. “No longer will automakers be pressured to shift their fleets toward electric vehicles, vehicles that are still sitting unsold on dealer lots all across America.”

But the efforts to shut down the energy transition may be too little, too late, said Hannah Safford, former director of transportation and resilience at the White House Climate Policy Office under the Biden administration.

“Electric cars make more economic sense for people, more models are becoming available, and the administration can’t necessarily stop that from happening,” said Safford, who is now associate director for climate and environment at the Federation of American Scientists.

Still, some automakers and trade groups supported the EPA’s decision, as did fossil fuel industry groups and those geared toward free markets and regulatory reform. Among them were the Independent Petroleum Assn. of America, which praised the administration for its “efforts to reform and streamline regulations governing greenhouse gas emissions.”

Ford, which has invested in electric vehicles and recently completed a prototype of a $30,000 electric truck, said in a statement to The Times that it appreciated EPA’s move “to address the imbalance between current emissions standards and consumer choice.”

Toyota, meanwhile, deferred to a statement from Alliance for Automotive Innovation president John Bozzella, who said similarly that “automotive emissions regulations finalized in the previous administration are extremely challenging for automakers to achieve given the current marketplace demand for EVs.”

The Trump administration has unveiled a sweeping set of regulatory proposals that would substantially change health plan offerings on the Affordable Care Act marketplace next year, aiming, it says, to provide more choice and lower premiums.

But it also proposes sharply raising some annual out-of-pocket costs — to more than $27,600 for one type of coverage — and could cause up to 2 million people to drop insurance.

The changes come as affordability is a key concern for many Americans, some of whom are struggling to pay their ACA premiums since the Republican-led Congress allowed enhanced subsidies expired at the end of last year. Initial enrollment numbers for this year fell by more than 1 million.

Healthcare coverage and affordability have become politically potent issues in the run-up to November’s midterm elections.

The proposed changes are part of a 577-page rule that addresses a broad swath of standards, including benefit packages, out-of-pocket costs and healthcare provider networks. Insurers refer to these standards when setting premium rates for the coming year.

After a comment period, the rule will be finalized this spring.

It “puts patients, taxpayers, and states first by lowering costs and reinforcing accountability for taxpayer dollars,” Mehmet Oz, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services administrator, said in a news release Monday.

One way it would do so focuses heavily on a type of coverage — catastrophic plans — that last year attracted about only 20,000 policyholders, according to the proposal, although other estimates put it closer to 54,000.

“This proposal reads like the administration has found their next big thing in the catastrophic plans,” said Katie Keith, director of the Health Policy and the Law Initiative at the O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law at Georgetown University Law Center.

Such plans have very high annual out-of-pocket costs for the policyholder but often lower premiums than other ACA coverage options. Formerly restricted to those under age 30 or facing certain hardships, the Trump administration allowed older people who lost subsidy eligibility to enroll in them this year. It is not known how many people did so.

The payment rule cements this move by making anyone eligible if their income is below the poverty line ($15,650 for 2026) or if they’re earning more than 2½ times that amount but lost access to an ACA subsidy that lowered their out-of-pocket costs. It also notes that a person meeting these standards would be eligible in any state — an important point because this coverage is now available in only 36 states and the District of Columbia.

In addition, the proposal would require out-of-pocket maximums on such plans to hit $15,600 a year for an individual and $27,600 for a family, Keith wrote this week in Health Affairs. (The current out-of-pocket max for catastrophic plans is $10,600 for an individual plan and $21,200 for family coverage.) Not counting preventive care and three covered primary care doctor visits, that spending target must be met before a policy’s other coverage kicks in.

In the rule, the administration wrote that the proposed changes would help differentiate catastrophic from “bronze” plans, the next level up, and, possibly, spur more enrollment in the former. Currently, the proposal said, there may not be a significant difference if premiums are similar. Raising the out-of-pocket maximum for catastrophic plans to those levels would create that difference, the proposal said.

“When there is such a clear difference, the healthier consumers that are generally eligible and best suited to enroll in catastrophic plans are more motivated to select a catastrophic plan in lieu of a bronze plan,” the proposal noted.

However, ACA subsidies cannot be used toward catastrophic premiums, which could limit shoppers’ interest.

Enrollment in bronze plans, which have an average annual deductible of $7,500, has doubled since 2018 to about 5.4 million last year. This year, that number likely will be higher. Some states’ sign-up data indicate a shift toward bronze as consumers left higher-premium “silver,” “gold” or “platinum” plans following the expiration of more generous subsidies at the end of last year.

The proposal also would allow insurers to offer bronze plans with cost-sharing rates that exceed what the ACA law currently allows, but only if that insurer also sells other bronze plans with lower cost-sharing levels.

In what it calls a “novel” approach, the proposal would allow insurers to offer multiyear catastrophic plans, in which people could stay enrolled for up to 10 years, and their out-of-pocket maximums would vary over that time. Costs might be higher, for example, in the early years, then fall the longer the policy is in place. The proposal specifically asks for comments on how such a plan could be structured and what effect multiyear plans might have on the overall market.

“As we understand it thus far, insurers could offer the policy for one year or for consecutive years, up to 10 years,” said Zach Sherman, managing director for coverage policy and program design at Health Management Associates, a health policy consulting firm that does work for states and insurance plans. “But the details on how that would work, we are still unpacking.”

Matthew Fiedler, senior fellow with the Center on Health Policy at the Brookings Institution, said the proposed rule included a lot of provisions that could “expose enrollees to much higher out-of-pocket costs.”

In addition to the planned changes to bronze and catastrophic plans, he points to another provision that would allow plans to be sold on the ACA exchange that have no set healthcare provider networks. In other words, the insurer has not contracted with specific doctors and hospitals to accept their coverage. Instead, such plans would pay medical providers a set amount toward medical services, possibly a flat fee or a percentage of what Medicare pays, for example.

The rule says insurers would need to ensure “access to a range of providers” willing to accept such amounts as payment in full. Policyholders might be on the hook for unexpected expenses, however, if a clinician or facility doesn’t agree and charges the patient the difference.

Because the rule is so sweeping — with many other parts — it is expected to draw hundreds if not thousands of comments between now and early March.

Pennsylvania insurance broker Joshua Brooker said one change he would like to see is requiring insurers that sell the very high out-of-pocket catastrophic plans to offer other catastrophic plans with lower annual maximums.

Overall, though, a wider range of options might appeal to people on both ends of the income scale, he said.

Some wealthier enrollees, especially those who no longer qualify for any ACA premium subsidies, would prefer a lower premium like those expected in catastrophic plans, and could just pay the bills up to that max, he said.

“They’re more worried about the half-million-dollar heart attack,” Brooker said. It’s tougher for people below the poverty level, who don’t qualify for ACA subsidies and, in 10 states, often don’t qualify for Medicaid. So they’re likely to go uninsured. At least a catastrophic plan, he said, might let them get some preventive care coverage and cap their exposure if they end up in a hospital. From there, they might qualify for charity care at the hospital to cover out-of-pocket costs.

Overall, “putting more options on the market doesn’t hurt, as long as it is disclosed properly and the consumer understands it,” he said.

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF — the independent source for health policy research, polling, and journalism.