More smoke.......

Trump accuses China of 'violating' tariff truce

Jonathan Josephs, Amy Walker

US President Donald Trump has accused China of violating a two-week-old truce on tariffs - a sign trade tensions between the world's two largest economies could again escalate.

Washington and Beijing agreed to temporarily lower tit-for-tat tariffs after talks in Geneva earlier this month.

Trump said on Friday in a Truth Social post that tariffs had left China in "grave economic danger", before the countries had made a "fast deal".

However he said China had "totally violated its agreement with us", without explaining how.

US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer later said China had not been removing non-tariff barriers in the way that had been agreed. Beijing is yet to respond to the claims.

Greer told TV network CNBC that China was yet to properly roll back other trade restrictions it had levied on the US.

He said when China responded to the US's tariffs with its own, they also put in place countermeasures such as putting some US companies on blacklists and restricting the flow of rare earth materials.

"They removed the tariff like we did but some of the countermeasures they've slowed on," Ambassador Greer said.

He added the US had been closely watching China to make sure it would comply with the deal and they were "very concerned" with the progress.

Greer said: "The United States did exactly what it was supposed to do and the Chinese are slow-rolling their compliance which is completely unacceptable and has to be addressed".

Beijing is yet to respond to the assertions. On Friday, its foreign ministry had declined to respond to comments made by US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent that trade talks with China had become "a bit stalled".

Bessent told Fox News on Thursday: "I think that given the magnitude of the talks, given the complexity, that this is going to require [leaders of both the countries] to weigh in with each other."

Trump's global tariff regime was dealt a blow on Wednesday following a ruling that he had exceeded his authority. His plans have been temporarily reinstated after the White House appealed the decision.

His administration this week also moved to "aggressively" revoke the visas of Chinese students studying in the US, of which there are an estimated 280,000.

In mid-May, Washington and Beijing had agreed to reduce tariffs imposed on each other's imports in a deal where both nations cancelled some tariffs altogether and suspended others for 90 days.

Bessent said talks on a further deal had lost momentum, but stressed they were continuing.

"I believe that we will be having more talks with [China] in the next few weeks and I believe we may at some point have a call between the president and [Chinese President Xi Jinping]," Bessent said on Thursday.

He added the pair had "a very good relationship" and he was "confident that the Chinese will come to the table when President Trump makes his preferences known".

Under the deal struck earlier this month, the US lowered tariffs imposed on goods from China from 145% to 30%.

China's retaliatory tariffs on US goods dropped from 125% to 10%.

The US President has argued imposing tariffs on foreign goods would encourage US consumers to buy more American-made goods, bringing back manufacturing jobs while increase the amount of tax revenue raised.

They have been used by the Trump administration as leverage in negotiations as it seeks to reduce trade deficits with other nations.

A delegation from Japan are continuing trade talks with their US counterparts in Washington on Friday.

Bessent said "a couple" of US trade deals were "very close", but "a couple of them are more complicated".

Trump's tariff regime remains in the balance following the decision by the US Court of International Trade, which ruled that Trump had overstepped his power by imposing the duties.

Some analysts believe it will mean countries will be less likely to rush to secure trade deals with the US.

A federal appeals court has granted a bid from the White House to temporarily suspend the lower court's order, which Trump described as "horrific".

"Hopefully, the Supreme Court will reverse this horrible, Country [sic] threatening decision, QUICKLY and DECISIVELY," he wrote on his Truth Social platform.

Not Funny

 

Economic fear

‘Inflection point’: Economic fears mount as Trump tariffs are snarled in court

The fear is that Trump will bristle at both adverse court rulings and perceptions on Wall Street that he’s ready to bail on his protectionist agenda.

By Sam Sutton, Daniel Desrochers and Adam Cancryn

With President Donald Trump’s tariffs entangled in the courts, industry leaders are warning that continued confusion over his trade agenda could drag down an economy that was already in danger of slumping.

They are urging Trump to abandon an aggressive policy that has been marked by chaos and reversals, and instead focus on delivering tangible, lasting deals that will allow businesses to plan ahead. A federal court on Wednesday froze the tariffs, but an appeals court on Thursday reinstated them for now, only fueling the sense of disarray.

“One of the things that the administration has to offer is a guarantee of certainty with respect to current and potential future tariffs,” National Foreign Trade Council President Jake Colvin, who advocates for U.S. companies on global commerce, said after the Wednesday decision by a trade court. “The court’s ruling... is an inflection point that provides an opportunity for the administration to turn even more towards deal-making.”

The potential policy blowup comes at an especially vulnerable time for the economy. The Conference Board reported Thursday that confidence among top CEOs cratered during the second quarter at its fastest pace in almost 50 years. The government said the economy contracted during the first quarter as businesses rushed to get ahead of higher import costs and consumer spending slowed. And corporate profits fell.

Colvin is not the only executive who’s alarmed. National Association of Home Builders Chair Buddy Hughes said the “fluidity” of the administration’s tariff policy has harmed housing affordability and that the administration needs to seek deals that will roll back tariff rates. Jonathan Gold of the National Retail Federation said his members need a “rapid resolution” of the tariff process to meet the needs of their customers.

The fear is that Trump will bristle at both adverse court rulings and growing perceptions on Wall Street that he’ll “chicken out” on his protectionist agenda. If he reapplies the tariffs using alternative legal authority, which is one option, it would likely cause businesses and investors to pull back — raising the specter of a recession.

“What this does is just add another layer of uncertainty on top of what was already an uncertain situation,” said Andrew Hollenhorst, the U.S. chief economist at Citi.

For now, Trump’s team is showing no signs of pulling back. In the immediate aftermath of the Wednesday court ruling, White House aides dismissed speculation that the president might significantly alter his strategy, insisting they still had multiple pathways available to impose steep tariffs across key parts of the economy.

Senior trade officials spoke with representatives from several nations to signal they expected to continue negotiations, said one White House official, though it remained unclear whether the court ruling would complicate efforts to clinch a handful of trade agreements in the next few weeks. Economic aides at the White House and across the administration planned to deliver the same message to business executives and groups inquiring about whether this might prompt a pivot.

“The negotiations are still ongoing and that hasn’t changed,” said the official, who was granted anonymity to discuss internal deliberations. “We’re committed to these policies.”

Kevin Hassett, who leads the president’s National Economic Council, told reporters that he was “not that worried about the uncertainty.”

“We’ve had really strong jobs numbers, we had an explosion of capital spending in the first quarter,” Hassett said. “I don’t think there’s a heck of a lot of uncertainty.”

It’s not simply the policies themselves that have stoked the anxieties of corporate leaders. The U.S. Court of International Trade’s decision to temporarily strike down most of Trump’s levies on imports increased the number of potential outcomes that business leaders may have to reckon with in the coming months. In addition to tracking the administration’s progress on trade negotiations with dozens of foreign governments, they have to plan for the possibility that Trump will use alternative legal authority to impose a different set of tariffs should the courts nullify the current regime.

Hollenhorst, along with analysts at Goldman Sachs, has already notified clients that Trump could still impose tariffs of up to 15 percent for up to 150 days. Alternatively, the administration could impose additional sectoral tariffs under Section 232 of the 1962 Trade Expansion Act.

That could result in “yo-yo” tariff rates that are ultimately more damaging than the import duties themselves, said James Egelhof, the chief U.S. economist and managing director at BNP Paribas. Prior to Wednesday night’s ruling, there was a sense that the administration was beginning to moderate on some of its most protectionist stances. The détente with China, along with Trump’s punt on planned 50 percent levies against the European Union, had been favorably received by markets and corporate leaders.

There’s a possibility that Wednesday’s court ruling could cause “the administration to feel that it needs to take more aggressive or provocative action to re-establish credibility,” Egelhof said. “That could increase uncertainty, it could diminish investment, and it could prolong the period of tariff uncertainty beyond the summer.”

Importers, wary of the on-and-off-again nature of the tariffs, have been cautious about moving products that face high levies, like imports from China.

Gene Seroka, the executive director of the Port of Los Angeles, said that even in the hours after the tariffs were paused by the International Trade Court ruling, importers were not racing to get their product onto ships.

“It just layers in more complexity into an already challenging international trade situation,” Seroka said.

It takes several weeks to get a product manufactured in China to U.S. ports, and decisions about whether to produce the good – and when to ship it – have been guided by the high tariff rates. Many businesses paused shipments from China during 145 percent tariffs, only to resume with key products when those tariffs were slightly lowered.

Many businesses are hoping the courts will help move the complex U.S. tariff agenda into a more certain place, eliminating questions over whether the levies will remain in place.

“Although it’s still uncertain, I think this is headed in the right direction,” said Pedro Casas Alatriste, the executive vice president and CEO of the American Chamber of Commerce in Mexico. “What companies don’t like are the changes in the rules of the game. Once the rules are settled, the businesses can make decisions.”

Attempting to leak classified documents

Intelligence agency employee accused of attempting to leak classified documents out of frustration with Trump

The FBI says he sought to share the material with an unspecified friendly foreign country.

By Ali Bianco

An employee of the Defense Intelligence Agency is accused of attempting to share classified material with a foreign government out of frustration with President Donald Trump, the Department of Justice said Thursday.

Nathan Villas Laatsch, who worked in IT for the military intelligence service, offered to share classified material with an unspecified “friendly foreign government,” according to court documents and an announcement by the DOJ.

“The recent actions of the current administration are extremely disturbing to me,” he said in the email, according to an FBI affidavit filed with the court. “I do not agree or align with the values of this administration and intend to act to support the values that the United States at one time stood for.”

The FBI obtained the email and set up an operation to communicate with Laatsch while posing as representatives of the foreign country. “Good afternoon, I received your message and share your concerns,” the FBI responded, according to special agent Matthew T. Johnson’s affidavit.

Laatsch worked in the DIA’s Insider Threat Division, a unit devoted to detecting employees who might be disclosing or prone to disclose sensitive information.

He was arrested Thursday by the FBI in northern Virginia after the undercover agent received material from him at a pre-arranged location, according to the DOJ. The DIA employee allegedly told authorities he was requesting citizenship in the foreign country because of conditions in the U.S.

“I’ve given a lot of thought to this before any outreach, and despite the risks, the calculus has not changed,” the documents quoted him as writing. “I do not see the trajectory of things changing, and do not think it is appropriate or right to do nothing when I am in this position.”

The FBI Washington Field Office is investigating the case, and Laatsch is scheduled to make an initial court appearance in Alexandria, Virginia on Friday.

“This case underscores the persistent risk of insider threats,” FBI Director Kash Patel wrote on X. “The FBI remains steadfast in protecting our national security and thanks our law enforcement partners for their critical support.”

Imports plunge

Imports plunge in early sign of Trump tariff impact

The numbers suggest that Trump’s policies are chipping away at the global trade deficit, which the president views as a key problem for the US economy.

By Victoria Guida

Imports plummeted in April as companies adjusted to President Donald Trump’s sweeping new tariff regime, in an early signal of how his global trade war is unfolding in the U.S. economy.

The monthly trade deficit last month was nearly half its size in March, according to an advance estimate from the Commerce Department, driven by a nearly 20 percent drop in imports.

That decrease came after companies and households drove the deficit to a record high in March as they scrambled to make purchases before Trump’s new levies kicked in. Consumers also pulled back on spending in April, and inflation continued to cool. The Federal Reserve’s preferred price gauge now stands only a touch above the central bank’s 2 percent target.

The numbers are a sign that Trump’s policies may be chipping away at the global trade deficit, which the president views as a key problem for the U.S. economy. And tariffs were not yet pushing prices higher for consumers in April, in a boon for Trump.

“I would argue this is exactly what the administration laid out, and this is so far what is playing out,” Joe LaVorgna, the chief economist at SMBC Nikko Securities and a former Trump economic adviser, said on CNBC.

Though the drop-off in spending could be an indication that the economy is slowing, taken together, the data “ultimately is not a warning sign for now, especially because wage growth was solid,” said Kevin Gordon, a senior investment strategist at Charles Schwab. “For now, it’s a voluntary constraining of the budget on the part of the consumer.”

It’s too early to know where the trade deficit will settle over the long term. In May, the administration deescalated tensions with China, and there could be some recovery in commerce between the two countries as a result. Long-term tariff rates are also uncertain.

Similarly, economists expect some tariff costs to begin showing up in official inflation data in the coming months. For now, the early effects have mostly shown up in gloomy business confidence reports and shrinking profit margins for producers.

Cancel legal status

Supreme Court allows Trump administration to cancel legal status for half-million immigrants

The administration can now cancel a Biden-era humanitarian program that allowed immigrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela to live and work in the U.S. legally.

By Josh Gerstein

The Supreme Court has given the Trump administration the go-ahead to begin deporting about a half million immigrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela who entered the U.S. legally under “humanitarian parole” programs implemented during the Biden administration.

The high court’s one-paragraph order — which contained no explanation of the court’s reasoning — lifts an earlier ruling from a district judge who had blocked the administration’s mass cancellation of the programs.

The immigrants who entered through the programs will now lose their permits to work in the U.S. and are at risk of imminent deportation, although many are expected to apply for asylum or similar protections.

Two Democratic-appointed justices — Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson — dissented.

The majority’s decision to allow the administration to cancel the programs while legal challenges were still pending will “facilitate needless human suffering” and will unleash “devastation” on the affected immigrants, Jackson wrote in an eight-page dissent joined by Sotomayor.

In March, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem revoked the legal status of immigrants in the so-called CHNV parole programs and gave participants 30 days to leave the U.S. However, a federal judge in Boston blocked Noem’s move the following month, concluding that “en masse” termination of the groups’ immigration status was likely illegal and that officials could only end individuals’ parole grants early on a case-by-case basis.

The high court’s decision could result in a total of about one million immigrants losing their legal status because the Trump administration may take the ruling as a green light to move quickly to end similar parole programs for citizens of Ukraine, Afghanistan and other countries.

 

Think he was set up

Kristi Noem said a migrant threatened to kill Trump. Investigators think he was set up

By Whitney Wild and Holmes Lybrand

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem posted a stunning allegation on Wednesday: A undocumented migrant sent a letter threatening to kill President Donald Trump, promising to “self deport” after the assassination.

“Thanks to our ICE officers, this illegal alien who threatened to assassinate President Trump is behind bars,” Noem wrote in a social media post that included the letter and a picture of the man arrested. DHS also sent out a press release.

The story was picked up by multiple news outlets. The president’s allies used it to highlight what they see as the dangers of undocumented migrants and the work of the administration to boot them out of the country.

The problem: Investigators believe the migrant was a victim of a setup.

Law enforcement believes the man, Ramon Morales Reyes, 54, never wrote the letter, which was sent to an Immigration and Customs Enforcement office and other law enforcement agencies, several sources familiar with the matter told CNN.

Instead, investigators suspect the letter was intended to benefit a separate individual who is currently awaiting trial in a robbery and assault case in which Reyes is a victim. They do not consider the threat to be credible.

In investigating the case, agents believe the person may have been involved in sending these letters, claiming to be from Reyes, in an attempt to have Reyes deported before the case could go to trial, sources said.

A high-level law enforcement official who was briefed on the case told CNN that law enforcement determined Reyes did not write the letter when they interviewed him regarding the threat. Federal officials asked for a handwriting sample from Reyes and determined his handwriting and the threatening letter didn’t match.

Further, a source told CNN law enforcement reviewed jail calls made by a person they believe played a role in penning the letters. The source said the person asked about specific addresses, one of which received the letter.

“We are tired of this president messing with us Mexicans,” the letter says, adding later, “I will self deport myself back to Mexico but not before I use my 30 yard 6 to shoot your precious president in the head,” possibly at a rally.

The Milwaukee Police Department told CNN on Thursday it is “investigating an identity theft and victim intimidation incident related to this incident” but could not provide details as the investigation is ongoing and “no one has been criminally charged at this time.”

Jeffrey J. Altenburg, chief deputy district attorney for the Milwaukee district attorney’s office, said in an email the matter is under investigation.

CNN has attempted to reach attorneys for each person involved in these cases, including Reyes, who is currently being held in a county jail in Wisconsin. Reyes has not been charged with threatening Trump.

The Secret Service referred an inquiry about the alleged threat to DHS.

Asked about the arrest and allegations of a threat against the president, a senior Homeland Security official told CNN: “The investigation into the threat is ongoing. Over the course of the investigation, this individual was determined to be in the country illegally and that he had a criminal record. He will remain in custody.”

A spokesperson for the US Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Wisconsin told CNN they have “no charged matter involving this individual,” and declined to comment further.

“Morales entered the U.S. illegally at least nine times between 1998-2005,” DHS said in its original press release on Reyes’ arrest. “His criminal record includes arrests for felony hit and run, criminal damage to property and disorderly conduct with a domestic abuse modifier.”

The department would not comment on whether they still believed Reyes was the author of the letter.

The incident comes amid a heightened environment of threats against Trump and officials as well as increased pressure on ICE to ramp up deportation numbers.

In her post, Noem wrote that the alleged threat came “less than two weeks after former FBI Director Comey called for the President’s assassination.” (James Comey has denied the post was meant as a threat or at all associated with violence.)

“All politicians and members of the media should take notice of these repeated attempts on President Trump’s life and tone down their rhetoric,” the secretary added.

On May 21, an ICE field intelligence officer received a handwritten letter in the mail from Ramon Morales Reyes, in which he promised to self-deport after he used his gun to shoot President Trump in the head at one of his rallies. 

Court pauses ruling

Appeals court pauses ruling that blocked Trump’s tariffs

By Dan Berman and Ramishah Maruf

A federal appeals court has paused Wednesday night’s ruling from the Court of International Trade that blocked President Donald Trump’s tariffs.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s ruling restores Trump’s ability to levy tariffs using the emergency powers he declared earlier this year. The appeals court also ordered that both sides provide written arguments on the question of the blocking of Trump’s tariffs, to be filed by early next month.

The pause adds to the confusion and uncertainty swirling around Trump’s tariffs, which have been a key pillar of his economic policy.

The Court of International Trade ruled Wednesday that Trump did not have the authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose sweeping tariffs.

The Trump administration immediately appealed the decision, setting the course for a legal battle over the economic policy that Trump promises will re-focus the American economy on manufacturing but that could raise prices for small businesses and consumers.

Peter Navarro, President Donald Trump’s top trade adviser, told reporters that while the pause was not a surprise, the administration is pursuing “all strategic options.”

“We will hear, within the next day or two, at a minimum, from the United States Trade Representative on how we will respond to all of this. We will respond forcefully, and we think we have a very good case with respect to this,” Navarro added.

Navarro suggested that the administration is looking at its other tools to impose tariffs, in addition to appealing the case through the courts.

“I can assure the American people that the Trump tariff agenda is alive, well, healthy and will be implemented to protect you, to save your jobs and your factories and to stop shipping foreign wealth, our wealth, into foreign hands,” he said.

The Liberty Justice Center, which represented several companies suing to stop the tariffs, said in a statement Thursday that the decision by the appeals court “is merely a procedural step as the court considers the government’s request for a longer stay pending appeal.”

“We are confident the Federal Circuit will ultimately deny the government’s motion shortly thereafter, recognizing the irreparable harm these tariffs inflict on our clients,” Jeffrey Schwab, senior counsel at Liberty Justice Center said in the statement.

A whirlwind of decisions

The two rulings – halting the tariffs, then staying that decision – came in under 24 hours, a whirlwind that adds to the chaos around Trump’s economic policy.

On Wednesday evening, the USCIT judges blocked all tariffs invoked under IEEPA – the “Liberation Day” tariffs Trump announced on April 2 and also the tariffs placed earlier this year against China, Mexico and Canada, designed to combat fentanyl coming into the United States. Notably, the order does not include the 25% tariffs on autos, auto parts, steel or aluminum, which were under a different law, Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act.

USCIT unanimously came to a summary judgement on two separate cases in one opinion. One was a lawsuit was filed in April by the Liberty Justice Center, a libertarian legal advocacy group representing wine-seller VOS Selections and four other small businesses. The other was filed by twelve Democratic states brought against the government over tariffs. The court also ordered a window of 10 calendar days for the administration to roll back the tariffs in question.

The Trump administration appealed that same day, just hours after the decision. On Thursday, the administration threatened to take the case to the Supreme Court if it was not granted a stay by either the appeals court or the USCIT.

And at a press briefing early Thursday afternoon, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt lambased the CIT’s decision, calling the three-judge panel “activist judges,” though it includes a judge appointed by Trump during his first term. The CIT’s ruling, she said, was an effort to “brazenly (abuse) their judicial power to usurp Trump’s authority.”

The appeals court granted the stay later on Thursday afternoon, setting a deadline of June 5 for the plaintiffs to respond and June 9 for the government to reply.

Also on Thursday, in a separate lawsuit, US District Court Judge Rudolph Contreras ruled that two American family-owned toy companies, Learning Resources and hand2mind, would be irreparably harmed by Trump’s tariffs, and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act that Trump cited contains no provision for tariffs.

While Contreras issued a preliminary injunction protecting the two companies, the judge paused it for two weeks, expecting an appeal. The Trump administration has quickly appealed Contreras’ ruling to the US DC Circuit Court of Appeals.

 

More insanity.....

Trump administration cancels plans to develop a bird flu vaccine

Rob Stein

The federal government announced Wednesday that it is canceling a contract to develop a vaccine to protect people against flu viruses that could cause pandemics, including the bird flu virus that's been spreading among dairy cows in the U.S., citing concerns about the safety of the mRNA technology being used.

The Department of Health and Human Services said it is terminating a $766 million contract with the vaccine company Moderna to develop an mRNA vaccine to protect people against flu strains with pandemic potential, including the H5N1 bird flu virus that's been raising fears.

"After a rigorous review, we concluded that continued investment in Moderna's H5N1 mRNA vaccine was not scientifically or ethically justifiable," HHS Communications Director Andrew Nixon said in a statement.

"This is not simply about efficacy — it's about safety, integrity, and trust. The reality is that mRNA technology remains under-tested, and we are not going to spend taxpayer dollars repeating the mistakes of the last administration, which concealed legitimate safety concerns from the public," Nixon said.

He added that "the move signals a shift in federal vaccine funding priorities toward platforms with better-established safety profiles and transparent data practices. HHS remains committed to advancing pandemic preparedness through technologies that are evidence-based, ethically grounded, and publicly accountable." The official did not provide any additional details.

Jennifer Nuzzo, the director of Brown University's Pandemic Center, said the decision was "disappointing, but unsurprising given the politically-motivated, evidence-free rhetoric that tries to paint mRNA vaccines as being dangerous."

"While there are other means of making flu vaccines in a pandemic, they are slower and some rely on eggs, which may be in short supply," Nuzzo added in an email. "What we learned clearly during the last influenza pandemic is there are only a few companies in the world that make flu vaccines, which means in a pandemic there won't be enough to go around. If the U.S. wants to make sure it can get enough vaccines for every American who wants them during a pandemic, it should invest in multiple types of vaccines instead of putting all of our eggs in one basket."

The cancellation comes even though Moderna says a study involving 300 healthy adults had produced "positive interim" results and the company "had previously expected to advance the program to late-stage development."

"While the termination of funding from HHS adds uncertainty, we are pleased by the robust immune response and safety profile observed in this interim analysis of the Phase 1/2 study of our H5 avian flu vaccine and we will explore alternative paths forward for the program," Stéphane Bancel, Moderna's chief executive officer, said in a statement. "These clinical data in pandemic influenza underscore the critical role mRNA technology has played as a countermeasure to emerging health threats."

The administration's move drew sharp criticism from outside experts.

"This decision puts the lives and health of the American people at risk," said Dr. Ashish Jha, the dean of the Brown School of Public Health, who served as President Biden's COVID-19 response coordinator.

"Bird Flu is a well known threat and the virus has continued to evolve. If the virus develops the ability to spread from person to person, we could see a large number of people get sick and die from this infection," Jha said. "The program to develop the next generation of vaccines was essential to protecting Americans. The attack by the Administration on the mRNA vaccine platform is absurd."

Michael Osterholm, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota, agreed.

"This decision will make our country far less prepared to respond to the next influenza pandemic," he said in an email. "This is a dangerous course to follow."

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the H5N1 flu virus has spread to 41 dairy herds and 24 poultry farms and culling operations, and caused 70 human cases. While the virus has had a high mortality rate in other countries, so far H5N1 has only caused one death in the U.S. and has not shown any signs of spreading easily from one person to another. But infectious disease experts are concerned that the more the virus spreads, the greater the chance it could mutate into a form that would spread from person to person, which would increase the risk of a pandemic.

What could go wrong????

Israel announces major expansion of settlements in occupied West Bank

David Gritten, Yolande Knell

Israeli ministers say 22 new Jewish settlements have been approved in the occupied West Bank - the biggest expansion in decades.

Several already exist as outposts, built without government authorisation, but will now be made legal under Israeli law. Others are completely new, according to Defence Minister Israel Katz and Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich.

Settlements - which are widely seen as illegal under international law, though Israel disputes this - are one of the most contentious issues between Israel and the Palestinians.

Katz said the move "prevents the establishment of a Palestinian state that would endanger Israel", while the Palestinian presidency called it a "dangerous escalation".

The Israeli anti-settlement watchdog Peace Now called it "the most extensive move of its kind" in more than 30 years and warned that it would "dramatically reshape the West Bank and entrench the occupation even further".

Israel has built about 160 settlements housing some 700,000 Jews since it occupied the West Bank and East Jerusalem - land Palestinians want, along with Gaza, for their hoped-for future state - in the 1967 Middle East war. An estimated 3.3 million Palestinians live alongside them.

Successive Israeli governments have allowed settlements to grow. However, expansion has risen sharply since Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu returned to power in late 2022 at the head of a right-wing, pro-settler coalition, as well as the start of the Gaza war, triggered by Hamas's 7 October 2023 attack on Israel.

On Thursday, Israel Katz and Bezalel Smotrich - an ultranationalist leader and settler who has control over planning in the West Bank - officially confirmed a decision that is believed to have been taken by the government two weeks ago.

A statement said they had approved 22 new settlements, the "renewal of settlement in northern Samaria [northern West Bank], and reinforcement of the eastern axis of the State of Israel".

It did not include information about the exact location of the new settlements, but maps being circulated suggest they will be across the length and width of the West Bank.

Katz and Smotrich did highlight what they described as the "historic return" to Homesh and Sa-Nur, two settlements deep in the northern West Bank which were evacuated at the same time as Israel withdrew its troops and settlers from Gaza in 2005.

Two years ago, a group of settlers established a Jewish religious school and an unauthorised outpost at Homesh, which Peace Now said would be among 12 made legal under Israeli law.

Nine of the settlements would be completely new, according to the watchdog. They include Mount Ebal, just to the south of Homesh and near the city of Nablus, and Beit Horon North, west of Ramallah, where it said construction had already begun in recent days.

The last of the settlements, Nofei Prat, was currently officially considered a "neighbourhood" of another settlement near East Jerusalem, Kfar Adumim, and would now be recognised as independent, Peace Now added.

Katz said the decision was a "strategic move that prevents the establishment of a Palestinian state that would endanger Israel, and serves as a buffer against our enemies."

"This is a Zionist, security, and national response - and a clear decision on the future of the country," he added.

Smotrich called it a "once-in-a-generation decision" and declared: "Next step sovereignty!"

But a spokesperson for Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas - who governs parts of the West Bank not under full Israeli control - called it a "dangerous escalation" and accused Israel of continuing to drag the region into a "cycle of violence and instability".

"This extremist Israeli government is trying by all means to prevent the establishment of an independent Palestinian state," Nabil Abu Rudeineh told Reuters news agency.

Lior Amihai, director of Peace Now, said: "The Israeli government no longer pretends otherwise: the annexation of the occupied territories and expansion of settlements is its central goal."

Elisha Ben Kimon, an Israeli journalist with the popular Ynet news site who covers the West Bank and settlements, told the BBC's Newshour programme that 70% to 80% of ministers wanted to declare the formal annexation of the West Bank.

"I think that Israel is a few steps from declaring this area as Israeli territory. They believe that this period will never be coming back, this is one opportunity that they don't want to slip from their hands - that's why they're doing this now," Mr Ben Kimon told the BBC's Newshour programme.

Israel effectively annexed East Jerusalem in 1980, in a move not recognised by the vast majority of the international community.

This latest step is a blow to renewed efforts to revive momentum on a two-state solution to the decades-old Israel-Palestinian conflict - the internationally approved formula for peace that would see the creation of an independent Palestinian state alongside Israel - with a French-Saudi summit planned at the UN's headquarters in New York next month.

Jordan's foreign ministry condemned what it called a "flagrant violation of international law" that "undermines prospects for peace by entrenching the occupation".

UK Foreign Office Minister Hamish Falconer said the move was "a deliberate obstacle to Palestinian statehood".

Since taking office, the current Israeli government has decided to establish a total of 49 new settlements and begun the legalisation process for seven unauthorised outposts which will be recognised as "neighbourhoods" of existing settlements, according to Peace Now.

Last year, the UN's top court issued an advisory opinion that said "Israel's continued presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory is unlawful". The International Court of Justice (ICJ) also said Israeli settlements "have been established and are being maintained in violation of international law", and that Israel should "evacuate all settlers".

Netanyahu said at the time that the court had made a "decision of lies" and insisted that "the Jewish people are not occupiers in their own land".

Aggressively revoke

Trump administration to 'aggressively' revoke visas of Chinese students

Sakshi Venkatraman

President Donald Trump's administration says it will "aggressively" revoke the visas of Chinese students studying in the US.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the move would include "those with connections to the Chinese Communist Party or studying in critical fields".

Relations between Beijing and Washington have plummeted in recent months as a tit-for-tat trade war erupted between the two superpowers sparked by Trump's tariffs.

There were an estimated 280,000 Chinese students studying in the US last year. It is not clear how many of them could be affected by the latest move.

China said it "firmly opposes" the move, and urged the US to pursue more constructive relations.

As part of the plan, criteria will also be revised to "enhance scrutiny" of future visa applicants from China and Hong Kong, Rubio added in his statement on Wednesday.

Chinese nationals used to account for the bulk of international students enrolled at American universities, though that has recently changed.

From pandemic-era restrictions to worsening relations between the two countries, their number has dropped in recent years, according to US state department data.

On Monday, Rubio, who is America's top diplomat, also ordered US embassies around the world to stop scheduling appointments for student visas as the state department prepares to expand social media vetting of such applicants.

That move, too, was opposed by China.

Department of Homeland Security to aggressively revoke visas for Chinese students, including those with connections to the Chinese Communist Party or studying in critical fields.

"We will also revise visa criteria to enhance scrutiny of all future visa applications from the People's Republic of China and Hong Kong."

The Trump administration has already moved to deport a number of foreign students, while revoking thousands of visas for others. Many of these actions have been blocked by the courts.

It has also frozen hundreds of millions of dollars in funding for universities. The president sees some of America's most elite institutions, such as Harvard, as too liberal and accuses them of failing to combat antisemitism on campus.

Many US universities rely on foreign students for a significant chunk of their funding - as those scholars often pay higher tuition fees.

Some told the BBC they wished they had never opted to study in the US.

"I already regret it," said a 22-year-old master's student from Shanghai, who did not want to be named for fear of jeopardising a visa to study at the University of Pennsylvania.

Beijing has not yet responded to the US move to revoke the visas of Chinese students specifically.

But China responded earlier on Wednesday to the Trump administration's move to cancel student visa appointments globally.

"We urge the US side to earnestly safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of international students, including those from China," an official was quoted as saying.

An official memo, reviewed by the BBC's US partner CBS News, on Tuesday instructed US embassies across the world to remove all open appointments for students seeking visas, but to keep already-scheduled appointments in place.

Last week, a judge temporarily blocked the Trump administration's attempt to strip Harvard of its ability to enrol international students.

The ruling came after America's oldest university filed a lawsuit against the administration. The White House accused the judge hearing the case of having a "liberal agenda".

On Wednesday, Harvard said in a court filing that revoking its certification to host international students could inflict irreparable harm on the university.

In a declaration filed with the court motion, Harvard international office director Maureen Martin said the move was causing "significant emotional distress" for students and scholars.

She wrote that students were skipping graduation ceremonies, cancelling international travel and in some cases seeking transfer to other colleges.

Some had also reported fears of being forced to return to countries where they face active conflict or political persecution, according to the court filing.

Killed in explosion

Russian military figure killed in explosion deep inside the country, authorities say

By Kosta Gak, Anna Chernova and Rob Picheta

A Russian deputy governor and prominent veteran of Moscow’s war in Ukraine was killed in an explosion in southern Russia early on Thursday, authorities said.

Zaur Aleksandrovich Gurtsiev, 29, died alongside another man in the blast on a street in Stavropol, which investigators said “committed using a homemade explosive device.”

“As part of the investigation, the scene of the incident is being inspected, examinations are being ordered, and the necessary investigative actions are being carried out to establish all the circumstances of the incident,” Russia’s Investigative Committee said in a Thursday statement.

Video footage circulated online and on state media appears the show the moment of the blast, which occurs just as Gurtsiev meets the other man in a darkened street, near a row of parked cars.

After the blast, the footage seemingly shows Gurtsiev lying on the ground, while the second man is rocked back by the explosion.

The man who died in the explosion in Stavropol along with Gurtsiev rented an apartment in a building near the scene of the incident, emergency services told state media outlet TASS.

Gurtsiev had taken part in the “Time of Heroes” program set up by President Vladimir Putin, used to promote veterans of Russia’s war in Ukraine to official positions in the government. His appointment as deputy regional governor was announced personally by Putin.

According to the Time of Heroes website, “Gurtsiev, despite his relatively young age, led the air part of the operation to liberate Mariupol.”

“He introduced his developments in the technology of targeting missiles, which allowed them to increase their accuracy and effectiveness many times over, including hitting the Azov supply base.”

Russian forces seized control of the port city of Mariupol in 2022 following a brutal 86-day siege – one of the deadliest and most destructive battles since Moscow launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine more than three years ago.

According to United Nations estimates, 90% of residential buildings were damaged or destroyed in Mariupol during Russian attacks, and around 350,000 people out of the pre-war population of about 430,000 were forced to flee.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said in an interview earlier this year that 20,000 civilians are believed to have been killed, though the death toll cannot be independently verified. Ukrainian officials accused Moscow of trying to cover up evidence of civilian casualties, a claim the Kremlin denies.

Gurtsiev is the latest in a number of Russian military figures to have been killed inside the country over the past year, a period in which the ramifications of Moscow’s war have increasingly been felt domestically.

Last month Russian authorities charged a “Ukrainian special services agent” with terrorism, after he was detained in connection with a car explosion that killed Russian General Yaroslav Moskalik, the deputy head of the Main Operations Directorate of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces.

And in February Armen Sarkisyan, the founder of a pro-Russian militia group in eastern Ukraine – described by authorities in Kyiv as a “criminal mastermind” – died following a bombing in central Moscow. The bombing took place in an upmarket residential complex in the capital city, state media outlet TASS reported at the time.

Just what we need....

Supreme Court limits environmental review of major infrastructure projects

By John Fritze

The Supreme Court on Thursday limited the scope of environmental reviews of major infrastructure projects in a decision that could speed up approvals of highways, airports and pipelines.

The decision is the latest setback for environmentalists at the conservative Supreme Court, which has in recent years shut down regulations intended to protect wetlands, for instance, and reduce air pollution wafting across state lines. President Donald Trump repeatedly slammed the government’s environmental review process as too cumbersome.

The National Environmental Policy Act, signed by President Richard Nixon, is considered one of the foundational environmental laws formed at the beginning of the modern environmental movement.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote the opinion for the court and there were no dissents. Ultimately, both liberal and conservative justices agreed with the bottom line decision.

Kavanaugh wrote that the environmental question at issue in the case – an 88-mile railway that would carry waxy crude oil from the Uinta Basin in Utah to existing rail networks – was “not close.”

“Courts should afford substantial deference and should not micromanage those agency choices so long as they fall within a broad zone of reasonableness,” Kavanaugh wrote.

“Simply stated, NEPA is a procedural cross-check, not a substantive roadblock,” he later added. “The goal of the law is to inform agency decisionmaking, not to paralyze it.”

Justice Neil Gorsuch, a conservative, recused himself from the case. He did not explain his decision to back away from the appeal but the move came after Democrats on Capitol Hill argued that Denver-based billionaire Philip Anschutz, a longtime ally of Gorsuch, had a financial interest in the outcome of the case.

The court’s three liberals – Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson – agreed with the outcome of the case but had different reasoning. Writing for the three, Sotomayor said that such environmental reviews conducted by federal agencies should be limited to their own expertise. The Surface Transportation Board, which conducted the review in this case, is primarily focused on transportation projects, not oil refining.

“Under NEPA, agencies must consider the environmental impacts for which their decisions would be responsible,” Sotomayor wrote. “Here, the board correctly determined it would not be responsible for the consequences of oil production upstream or downstream from the railway because it could not lawfully consider those consequences as part of the approval process.”

Railway to carry crude oil from Utah

The case centered on an 88-mile railway that would carry waxy crude oil from the Uinta Basin in Utah to existing rail networks, making it easier for the oil and gas industry to move that product to refineries in other parts of the country.

The Surface Transportation Board conducted an environmental review of the railway, as required by law, but environmentalists said that review should have been more extensive and considered the downstream impacts of the railway. In other words, they said the review should have contemplated the impact of more crude oil being refined.

The Biden administration defended the federal agency’s less robust review. In that sense, the Biden and Trump administrations were aligned.

During his first term, Trump frequently slammed environmental studies under NEPA as too cumbersome and time-consuming.

“These endless delays waste money, keep projects from breaking ground and deny jobs to our nation’s incredible workers. From day one, my administration has made fixing this regulatory nightmare a top priority,” Trump said at the White House in 2020.

Congress approved changes to the law last year that, in many cases, require those reviews to be limited to 150 pages – rather than allowing the studies to run thousands of pages long. That was an argument the rail line’s supporters raised during arguments: It’s not clear how an agency could consider all of the downstream effects in an 150-page document.

Eagle County, Colorado, and several environmental groups sued over the review, arguing that the more limited exploration of possible environmental impacts would actually have nationwide significance.

“This case is bigger than the Uinta Basin railway,” Sam Sankar, vice president of programs for Earthjustice, which is representing some of the plaintiffs, told CNN in December. “The fossil fuel industry and its allies are making radical arguments that would blind the public to obvious health consequences of government decisions. The court should stick with settled law instead. If it doesn’t, communities will pay the price.”

Thought it had a truce

China thought it had a truce with the US. Then Trump dropped two bombshells

Analysis by Steven Jiang and Jessie Yeung

A one-two punch from the United States risks shattering the already fragile trade war truce between Washington and Beijing, with Chinese tech companies and students both dealt shock blows by the Trump administration Wednesday night.

Viewed from within China, things had been looking up after the world’s two largest economies agreed to dramatically roll back steep tariffs – a conciliatory step in a trade war that had threatened the entire global trading system.

Factories started whirring again. Long-delayed shipping containers began leaving Chinese ports, destined for the US. Chinese media celebrated the agreement as a national victory, while top officials adopted an upbeat tone in describing cooperation between the two superpower rivals.

But the two jabs from Washington on Wednesday will have far-reaching effects across China, angering families and authorities alike. They also throw into question the future of US-China trade talks; the temporary truce only lasts 90 days, and the clock is ticking to reach a longer-term agreement.

The first hit came in a Financial Times report on Wednesday that said moves by US President Donald Trump had effectively cut off some American companies from selling software used to design semiconductors to China.

A Siemens spokesperson later told CNN that the US government on Friday informed the industry about new export controls on chip designing software to China and Chinese military end users globally.

These small chips - which power our smartphones, computers, automobiles and home appliances - have been at the fore of the US-China tech battle in recent years. The Biden administration had blocked China from accessing US-made semiconductors, and earlier this month, Washington warned companies against using AI chips made by Chinese tech giant Huawei.

The obstacles were infuriating for Beijing, especially since it has poured tens of billions of dollars into its semiconductor industry, aiming to boost production at home and become less reliant on the US and other countries.

Liu Pengyu, a spokesperson for the Chinese Embassy in the US, declined to comment on the reported chip software move but accused the US of “overstretching the concept of national security, abusing export controls, and maliciously blocking and suppressing China” in a statement to CNN.

But it was the second blow from the White House that landed right in the living rooms of Chinese families, with US State Secretary Marco Rubio saying the US will “aggressively revoke visas for Chinese students” – especially those in critical fields or with connections to the Chinese Communist Party.

It’s hard to overstate the impact. There were more than 270,000 Chinese students in the US in 2024, and even more before the pandemic. While some hail from China’s political and business elites, many also come from middle-class families.

The path to the US is attractive, but arduous. Chinese families save for years and spend exorbitant amounts of money to send their kids abroad, with students attending cram schools or hiring tutors to polish their applications. Rubio’s announcement jeopardizes all of that – with students now facing potential deportation in the middle of their hard-won education.

Given China is a one-party state that reaches deep into nearly every aspect of society, it can be difficult or impossible for many students to disprove any claims that they’re connected to the Communist Party – especially if the State Department defines that term loosely.

A spokesperson for China’s foreign ministry said on Thursday it “strongly opposes” the move, accusing the US of “unjustly” revoking visas “under the pretext of ideology and national security.”

Candy, a statistics student at the University of Michigan, who did not want to give her full name, said she feared her visa would be canceled before she graduates.

“Ending up with only a high school diploma is something I dread,” she said from China, where she’s visiting family. “I pray to make it through my undergraduate study safely and smoothly.”

“When I first heard the news, I wanted to curse Trump.”

While the visa threat comes as a shock, some argue the targeting of students may in fact be a boon to China in the end.

The number of Chinese students in the US had been declining in recent years, partly because of significant shifts in both policy and public perception. Experts say many Chinese students and families now worry about safety, racism and discrimination, and immigration difficulties in the US – especially as more competitive higher education options open in other countries, including in China itself.

Trump’s crackdown could see more Chinese scholars, including some of the brightest minds in their fields, return to their home country – or choose to stay in the first place, rejecting a US education for a Chinese degree instead.

And these researchers – including key leaders in technological fields – could be the key to China catching up with, or surpassing the US – the very thing many Trump officials are trying to prevent.

Wednesday did bring one bit of good news for China; a federal court blocked Trump from imposing most of his global tariffs, including the current 30% tariffs on China. But the administration immediately appealed the decision, leaving the status of those tariffs – and the trade war – up in the air.

Cock blocked.........

US court blocks Trump from imposing the bulk of his tariffs

By Ramishah Maruf and David Goldman

A federal court on Wednesday ruled that President Donald Trump overstepped his authority to impose sweeping tariffs that have raised the cost of imports for everyone from giant businesses to everyday Americans.

But the administration immediately appealed the decision on Wednesday night, leaving the situation uncertain for consumers and companies and potentially prolonging the battle over whether Trump’s import duties will stand – and possibly reshape the global economy.

A three-judge panel at the US Court of International Trade, a relatively low-profile court in Manhattan, stopped Trump’s global tariffs that he imposed citing emergency economic powers, including the “Liberation Day” tariffs he announced on April 2. It also prevents Trump from enforcing his tariffs placed earlier this year against China, Mexico and Canada, designed to combat fentanyl coming into the United States.

The court ruled in favor of a permanent injunction, potentially grinding Trump’s global tariffs to a halt before “deals” with most other trading partners have even been reached. The court ordered a window of 10 calendar days for administrative orders “to effectuate the permanent injunction.” That means the bulk – but not all – of Trump’s tariffs would be put in a standstill if the ruling holds up in appeal and, potentially, with the Supreme Court.

The order halts Trump’s 30% tariffs on China, his 25% tariffs on some goods imported from Mexico and Canada, and the 10% universal tariffs on most goods coming into the United States. It does not, however, affect the 25% tariffs on autos, auto parts, steel or aluminum, which were subject to Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act – a different law than the one Trump cited for his broader trade actions.

Stock futures surged on the ruling. Dow futures rose nearly 500 points, or 1.1%. The broader S&P 500 futures were up 1.4%, and Nasdaq futures were 1.6% higher in afterhours trading.

The lawsuit was filed by the libertarian legal advocacy group Liberty Justice Center in April and represented wine-seller VOS Selections and four other small businesses that claimed they had been severely harmed by the tariffs. The panel came to a unanimous decision, publishing an opinion on the VOS suit and also one by twelve Democratic states brought against the Trump tariffs.

“We won – the state of Oregon and state plaintiffs also won,” Ilya Somin, a law professor at Scalia Law School, George Mason University and plaintiff lawyer, said to CNN immediately after the ruling. “The opinion rules that entire system of liberation day and other IEEPA (International Emergency Economic Powers Act) tariffs is illegal and barred by permanent injunction.”

Declaring a national economic emergency

On April 2, Trump announced his “reciprocal” tariffs, imposing significant levies on imports from some of America’s closest trading allies – though he soon after implemented a 90-day pause on April 9. He left in place “universal” 10% tariffs on most goods coming into the United States.

Trump implemented these tariffs without Congress by invoking the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which gives the president the authority to act in response to unusual and extraordinary threats. But the law does not include any mention of tariffs as a potential action the president can take once IEEPA is invoked.

Trump also cited IEEPA in his 20% tariffs on China and 25% tariffs on many goods from Mexico and Canada designed to target fentanyl trafficking into the United States.

But the Trump administration has not met that criteria for an emergency, the plaintiffs alleged. The lawsuit also alleges IEEPA doesn’t give the president the power to enact tariffs in the first place, and even if it was interpreted to, it “would be an unconstitutional delegation of Congress’s power to impose tariffs,” according to a statement.

The court concurred in its ruling that Trump lacked the authority to impose those tariffs even after declaring a national emergency.

“IEEPA does not authorize any of the worldwide, retaliatory, or trafficking tariff orders,” the panel of judges said in their order Wednesday. “The worldwide and retaliatory tariff orders exceed any authority granted to the President by IEEPA to regulate importation by means of tariffs. The trafficking tariffs fail because they do not deal with the threats set forth in those orders.”

‘Surprising and spectacular’ decision

White House spokesperson Kush Desai said in a statement that: “It is not for unelected judges to decide how to properly address a national emergency. President Trump pledged to put America First, and the Administration is committed to using every lever of executive power to address this crisis and restore American Greatness.”

White House deputy chief of staff for policy Stephen Miller was blunter, posting on X that “The judicial coup is out of control” in response to the news.

Gary Clyde Hufbauer, a nonresident senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, called it a “surprising and spectacular decision.”

“The reason it’s a surprise is that if you look at past cases where plaintiffs have tried to challenge the presidential use of extraordinary authority under various laws, the plaintiffs have always lost against the government,” Hufbauer said in an interview with CNN.

“All the president had to do was say, ‘national security,’ or ‘national emergency.’ Those are magic words.”

The decision could help small businesses across America, many of which had been struggling with the jump in costs from tariffs.

“This is potentially – with that word choice underscored – a significant policy pivot point should it hold up for both the economy and the quiet majority inside Congress that does not support current trade policy,” Joe Brusuelas, RSM US chief economist, wrote in an email to CNN Business. “In particular, this would provide a huge relief for small and medium sized firms that neither have the margins nor the financial depth to absorb the tariffs on a sustained basis.”

The plaintiffs are hopeful they can gain some certainty for their businesses, Jeffrey Schwab, lead attorney for the Liberty Justice Center, told CNN’s Kaitlan Collins Wednesday.

“They’re hopeful that these will be upheld by the appellate court so that they can continue their businesses with the certainty of what’s going to happen rather than the uncertainty of not knowing what the tariff rate is at any given time and whether it will change,” Schwab said.

“Obviously this is a very important case, not only because of the tremendous economic impact that it has on everybody, but particularly business and our businesses, but also because of the tremendous power grab that the administration is claiming here,” Schwab continued. “He can’t just assert unlimited authority to tariff whenever he wants.”

Potentially headed to the Supreme Court

The Department of Justice lawyers argued that the tariffs are a political question – meaning it’s something that the courts can’t decide.

But the plaintiffs noted IEEPA makes no mention of tariffs.

“If starting the biggest trade war since the Great Depression based on a law that doesn’t even mention tariffs is not an unconstitutional usurpation of legislative power, I don’t know what is,” Somin said in April.

Separately, and using similar arguments, twelve Democratic states sued the administration in the same court for “illegally imposing” tax hikes on Americans through the tariffs.

“We brought this case because the Constitution doesn’t give any president unchecked authority to upend the economy. This ruling reaffirms that our laws matter, and that trade decisions can’t be made on the president’s whim,” Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield said in a statement Wednesday.

The judges on the Manhattan panel were each appointed by a different president. Judge Jane Restani was appointed to the US Court of International Trade by President Ronald Reagan. Judge Gary Katzmann was appointed to the court by President Barack Obama. Judge Timothy Reif was appointed by President Trump.

The immediate higher court is the federal circuit, though it could potentially go right to the Supreme Court.

The United States Court of International Trade is a federal court in Manhattan that handles disputes over customs and international trade laws.

Not make any changes to Harvard's student visa program

Judge says she will order DHS and State Department to not make any changes to Harvard's student visa program indefinitely

By Danya Gainor, Andy Rose, Katelyn Polantz, Devan Cole, Danny Freeman and Sabrina Shulman

US District Court Judge Allison Burroughs says she will order the Department of Homeland Security and State Department to not make any changes to Harvard’s student visa program indefinitely.

While the Trump administration has tried to defuse the situation heading into a crucial court hearing for Harvard University’s international student population, the judge is moving forward with putting in place a firm court order – a preliminary injunction – after previously stepping in on an emergency basis last week to stop the Trump administration’s revocation of Harvard’s student visa program.

Burroughs said, “I want to maintain the status quo,” to allow Harvard to continue hosting international students on visas at this time.

The details are still being hashed out in court.

Burroughs has told Harvard’s lawyers and the Justice Department lawyers to work out an agreement to stop the revocation of the student visa program for the time being.

“It doesn’t need to be draconian, but I want to make sure it’s worded in such a way that nothing changes,” she said.

Harvard’s lead lawyer Ian Gershengorn said he wants to make sure there are no “shenanigans” once the court order is in place.

The judge also has expressed concern that potential Harvard students abroad have been unable to get visas from some US embassies abroad since last week, according to Harvard’s sworn statements.

The Justice Department has said this morning the case may be moot because of the administration’s latest procedural move to delay consequence for Harvard, the judge indicated Harvard’s First Amendment claims may still need to be resolved in court.

The university says it is being unfairly retaliated against. The Justice Department now says that’s not true, and they will allow for additional administrative proceedings with the university over the student visa program.

Standing ovation

Harvard president gets a minute-long standing ovation as the commencement program starts

From CNN's Andy Rose

Harvard President Alan Garber received warm applause from the faculty and graduating class at today’s commencement celebration.

Garber, who has been the public face of Harvard’s legal fight against the Trump administration, was applauded for a full minute after giving an enthusiastic “Welcome!” to the audience.

Garber was loudly applauded again after making an indirect reference to the university’s legal pushback against the White House’s effort to make it impossible for Harvard to accept international students.

“Members of the Class of 2025, from down the street, across the country and around the world … just as it should be,” Garber said.

Graduates, he added, should be prepared to “expand our thinking and change our minds in the process.”

“My hope for you, members of the Class of 2025, is that you stay comfortable being uncomfortable,” Garber said.

Small protests

Small protests form as Harvard Yard fills with beaming graduating seniors

From CNN's Danny Freeman in Cambridge, Massachusetts

Harvard was bursting with activity Thursday morning as thousands packed into historic Harvard Yard for commencement – all while the school’s ongoing battle with the Trump administration loomed over the day.

Beaming graduating seniors were decked out in caps and gowns as family members in suits and spring dresses swarmed to celebrate their loves ones.

Meanwhile, outside the campus’ main gates, two dozen or so pro-Palestinian protesters gathered amid lines into the commencement event. Older protesters who did not appear to be students held signs reading, “Gaza must have food and water,” and “Ceasefire Now.”

A smaller group of pro-Israel counterprotesters also stood outside the gates, with some among them arguing with some of pro-Palestinian protesters. Despite the crush of people filling the streets of Cambridge, all was relatively calm leading up to commencement.

Praises leaders

In speech at Harvard, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar praises leaders for standing up to government

From CNN's Andy Rose

Basketball legend and social activist Kareem Abdul-Jabbar came out in strong defense of Harvard University and its leadership during a speech Wednesday on campus.

“When a tyrannical administration tried to bully and threaten Harvard to give up their academic freedom and destroy free speech, (Harvard President) Dr. Alan Garber rejected the illegal and immoral pressures the way Rosa Parks defied the entire weight of systemic racism in 1955,” Abdul-Jabbar said, according to The Harvard Gazette, the school’s official publication.

Abdul-Jabbar – who is being awarded an honorary degree Thursday by the university – was the keynote speaker at Class Day, an event for underclassmen held a day before the university’s main commencement exercises.

“After seeing so many cowering billionaires, media moguls, law firms, politicians, and other universities bend their knees to an administration that is systematically strip-mining the U.S. Constitution, it is inspiring to me to see Harvard University take a stand for freedom,” said Abdul-Jabbar.

International students

Some international students at Harvard are worried about attending graduation, school tells court

From CNN's Katelyn Polantz

The Trump administration has thrown the lives of the university’s 7,000 international students into distress and disarray, with some afraid of attending commencement this week, Harvard’s director of immigration services spelled out yesterday in a new court filing.

Some US students are even reconsidering enrolling this fall because of the Trump administration’s actions, Maureen Martin wrote in her sworn statement.

Harvard’s faculty and administration are being “inundated with questions” from concerned students, and international students are so distressed their mental health has been affected, she wrote.

“Some are afraid to attend their own graduation ceremonies this week out of fear that some immigration-related action will be taken against them,” Martin wrote. “Some have cancelled upcoming international travel plans to conduct academic research or see their families in light of the risk that they might not be admitted back into the United States.”

Martin’s declaration in court highlights the competitive disadvantage the Trump administration’s recent actions against the university have caused. A judge has temporarily blocked the State Department and Department of Homeland Security from rescinding Harvard’s ability to host international students.

Yet some of the damage is already done, the school says.

International students set to come to Harvard for future semesters are reconsidering, including at least one medical school and one law student, Martin added, as are at least three US students who want to study where international students also can be. Others have had trouble getting student visas to the US at embassies abroad in recent days.

Entire economic agenda thrown into the toilet..........

Tariffs, and Trump’s entire economic agenda, were just thrown into chaos

Analysis by David Goldman, Phil Mattingly and Matt Egan

A US federal court’s ruling late Wednesday against President Donald Trump’s authority to levy some of his most sweeping tariffs may have also dealt a serious blow to the president’s entire economic agenda.

Trump’s core economic policy has been his historic tariffs, but the administration has described its aggressive trade actions as just one leg of a three-legged stool. Built on tariffs, spending cuts and tax cuts, Trump’s economic agenda relies on all three components to stand strong.

But a three-judge panel at the US Court of International Trade blocked Trump’s global tariffs, which he imposed citing emergency economic powers. Those trade actions include the “Liberation Day” tariffs, 10% universal tariffs and the tariffs aimed at preventing fentanyl from entering the United States.

The three-legged economic stool just lost a leg, at least for now. The court, in its ruling, noted Trump has alternate, if imperfect, tools at his disposal to impose tariffs — tools that multiple White House officials told CNN they are considering and that economists widely expect the administration to make use of in the coming days. The Trump administration has appealed and plans to take the case all the way to the Supreme Court if need be, even as it hopes for an emergency stay, the officials said.

There is no sense that the court ruling will lead the administration to change course. Between appeals and alternatives, Trump will probably double-down on his trade efforts, according to allies inside and outside the White House. “The courts are a pretty obvious foil across the board and we haven’t backed down on anything else so far,” one official said.

But the historically massive scope of Trump’s tariff policy was nevertheless thrown into doubt by the court’s ruling. And uncertainty surrounding the tariffs, Trump’s whole economic policy plan could come crashing down.

Trump’s tariffs have persuaded dozens of US trading partners to come to the table to make deals. In theory, those trade deals could open up foreign markets to more US goods, benefitting US manufacturers and farmers.

White House officials expressed significant concern about what the ruling means for the administration’s ongoing bilateral talks, including two agreements that two senior White House advisers said were close to being announced as soon as this week. Officials started making calls to counterparts Wednesday night to emphasize that, in their minds, nothing had changed and that process and urgency should be maintained.

But trading partners may want to hang back to assess the situation before resuming negotiations.

“It’s clear they don’t want to lose any momentum, but it’s not exactly obvious why everyone wouldn’t take a beat to figure out what this all means,” one diplomat involved in his country’s talks told CNN.

One former senior administration was blunter about the impact of the decision.

“This blows a hole in their entire strategy at the absolute worst time,” the former official told CNN.

Tariff revenue is key to Trump’s plan

Revenue from Trump’s tariffs, meanwhile, could, at least in part, help pay for Trump’s and congressional Republicans’ massively expensive tax cuts, which could boost economic growth and add certainty for financial markets by raising the debt ceiling. Trump’s deregulation and spending cuts, particularly via the Department of Government Efficiency, could also reduce the government’s costs and negate some of the impact of the tax cuts on the surging federal debt.

Because of its fragile construction, Trump’s plan to usher in a new economic Golden Age has plenty of naysayers, including most mainstream economists, who argue that the administration lacks the discipline, authority and political support to make it happen. The on-again, off-again trade policy, legal battles over DOGE and intraparty standoffs on the “Big, Beautiful Bill” serve as evidence.

Elon Musk, one of Trump’s biggest financial backers who was the public face of Trump’s DOGE team, criticized the bill this week, saying the legislation’s massive additions to America’s debt effectively undermined the cost-cutting group’s efforts. Now, with the potential for no tariff component to Trump’s agenda, Republican deficit hawks in Congress may not support Trump’s tax cuts. Many were already extremely nervous about the bill’s nearly $4 trillion price tag — with around $1 trillion in unpopular cuts to Medicaid.

“Increased revenues from tariffs (approximately $150 billion per year) could have helped offset some of the deficit from the reconciliation package,” Aniket Shah, head of sustainability and transition strategy at Jefferies, wrote in a note to clients Wednesday.

With the legal outcome now uncertain, Shah said, Trump and Republicans may be forced to settle for reduced tax cuts or increased spending cuts to advance the House-approved bill through the reconciliation process with the Senate.

“Let’s not forget that one justification behind current trade tensions was not only the US trade balance deficit but also the search for additional government revenues,” said Inga Fechner, senior economist at ING, in a note to clients. “The lack of which would further fuel the current debt (un-)sustainability debate.”

Alternate strategies

There are more questions than answers at this point.

“It does raise questions about how the administration will respond and how this affects, if at all, the tax package going through Congress,” noted Keith Lerner, co-chief investment officer at Truist Advisory Services.

White House National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett said Wednesday on Fox Business News that the administration is so confident it will win the appeal that it is not pursuing alternative measures for now. But if need be, “there are three or four other ways to do it,” he said.

“There are different approaches that would take a couple of months to put these in place and using procedures that have been approved in the past,” he added.

The administration’s alternate pathways to imposing its tariffs and avoid legal scrutiny could include using Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act, which was unaffected by the court’s ruling. Trump has levied 25% tariffs on steel, aluminum, autos and auto parts using Section 232 authority. Trump has also threatened lumber, pharmaceutical and semiconductor tariffs under Section 232.

Among the other options for the Trump administration are imposing tariffs under Sections 122 and 301 of the Trade Expansion Act, policies that are far more limited than the emergency powers Trump claimed — illegally, according to Wednesday’s court ruling — gave him the ability to impose sweeping tariffs on almost every good imported to the United States.

Trump could somewhat easily replace his 10% universal tariff with something similar under his Section 122 authority, according to Goldman Sachs Managing Director Alec Phillips. Those tariffs require no investigations, so they could be imposed fairly quickly. However, they can be implemented for a maximum of 150 days.

Section 301 allows the president to conduct investigations on trading partners and impose tariffs at the conclusion of the probe. But Phillips notes that could take some time to implement.

“Regardless of the outcome, the ruling is likely to shift the focus toward tariffs imposed under other trade laws and acts, such as Section 232 and Section 301,” Fechner said. “These statutes require more extensive investigations but ultimately still allow the president to act unilaterally.”

More uncertainty

Even as the administration scrambles to adjust its trade policy and as its appeal makes its way through the legal system — perhaps to the Supreme Court — Wednesday’s ruling could undermine Trump’s much-sought trade deals with foreign partners.

Those deals have been sparse, even with just over a month to go in the three-month pause of Trump’s “reciprocal” tariffs. The administration has announced frameworks of deals with only the UK and China.

“We believe one reason bilateral negotiations had stalled was that US trading partners may have anticipated this outcome,” said Shah. “Will they now view trade negotiations as a matter to be resolved by the courts, or will they re-engage with the US on trade policy?”

The setback for Trump’s agenda, however, may be temporary. For businesses, the court’s ruling provides little certainty — particularly because of the administration’s appeal.

“If anything, the ruling supercharges the uncertainty already facing businesses and consumers, because it’s the first hint of a possibility that … tariffs could be eliminated entirely,” said the Yale Budget Lab’s Ernie Tedeschi. “But even if they were, the Administration could try to raise tariffs using other authorities. The potential outcomes just got much more uncertain in both directions — lower or higher tariffs.”

As this administration has proven, the only consistency in its trade policy is the president’s ability to keep America’s trading partners on their toes.

“It’s not over,” said Gary Clyde Hufbauer, a nonresident senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics. “You give a kind of Whac-a-Mole flavor to this whole story.”