Donald Trump

DONALD Trump’s luxury “sky Palace” gifted to him by Qatar will cost a few billion dollars, says the President of Emirates airline.

The US government now faces a “Herculean task” to transform the huge Boeing 747-8 into a new Air Force One fit for a president, warns Sir Tim Clark.

9

9

9

9

President Trump, 78, sparked concerns earlier this month with his willingness to accept the plush flying mansion from the Qatari royal family.

The giant gift, worth an estimated $400m (£300m), has raised several ethical questions about if the US leader should be allowed to accept such expensive goods from other states.

But despite the controversy, Trump gladly took the 13-year-old mega jet back to Washington with him.

He now plans to make it part of his Air Force One fleet alongside two other Boeing 747-200 jumbo jets.

They have been operational since 1990 but are now said to be not up to scratch compared to modern planes such as Qatar‘s 747-8.

In order for it to become a fully fledged member of the president’s aviation arsenal however, it will need to go through some serious work.

It would have to be kitted out with top-tier communications and security tech before ever ferrying around Trump.

And significant retrofitting and clearance from security officials would be required.

Sir Tim, president of Emirates, told Piers Morgan Uncensored that President Trump’s flashy plans may cost a “couple of billion dollars”.

He explained to Piers: “I think you’re talking a couple of billion dollars to start with.

“Just roll back a little bit and look at what it takes for us to convert our 777s – from the old to the new – because we haven’t got the Boeing’s coming in at the pace we want them so we’re having to reconfigure all of them.”

The top aviation boss said trying to fix up all the jets as an airline has been an extremely tough task.

Tim admitted to “pulling his hair out” over the regulators and the tiny tweaks that have to be made to modernise a plane of that size and stature.

And he believes the US government will face an even trickier – and much more expensive – battle to get the gifted plane ready for presidential trips.

He said: “It’s a Herculean task, make no mistake about it.

“Whether President Trump will adapt fully, this present from Qatar, to an Air Force One I doubt it, but he’ll certainly get a lot of it done.”

Aviation specialist Jeff Wise also told The Sun that he expects the Air Force One replacement to take years and need billions of dollars pumped into the project to make the jet viable.

Trump’s Air Force One jets currently in use come with dozens of specialised security features.

9

9

9

These include armoured glass and plating, on board flares to confuse enemy missiles, mirror-ball defences and even an electric jamming system.

Another unique yet needed element is an electromagnetic shield for nuclear explosions.

This has to be on a presidential plane as the leader of Washington can actually launch a nuke from the aircraft.

But the new Qatari jet lacks most of these security features.

Instead, the lavish aeroplane boasts a luxurious interior, featuring spacious suites and rooms with ornate interior decoration.

It also has glittering gold-coloured furnishings and hallways that echo Trump’s well-know interior design preferences.

The president is believed to have spent an hour inspecting the plan when when it was parked at West Palm Beach International Airport back in February.

The luxury Boeing was once even listed for a whopping $400 million, according to the Business Jet Traveler.

During his first stint in office, Trump had ordered two new Air Force One jumbo jets from Boeing to replace the pair that have been in service since George H. W. Bush’s presidency.

But the Boeing contract has faced delays, and reports suggest the new plans would not be ready until after Trump leaves the Oval Office.

Fears Trump’s new Air Force One replacement is vulnerable to devastating HACKS – or worse

By Chief Foreign Reporter, Katie Davis

A LAVISH jumbo jet Donald Trump plans to receive from Qatar will be vulnerable to hacking, an expert has warned.

The Boeing 747 – dubbed a “palace in the sky” – could even be blasted out the sky, aviation specialist Jeff Wise believes.

He fears Trump may bypass necessary measures to save time and money – which could therefore invite hacking or a devastating assassination attempt.

Wise told The Sun: “This Air Force One would be a major intelligence target for any adversary nation or even our allies, because allies love to spy on each other.

“The United States is being given this albatross that they are going to have to spend billions of dollars on to fix up for the personal use of Trump.

“If your job is to protect the President of the United States or if your job is to protect the secrets of the United States, then this is a massive headache for you.

“This is a plane that does not have secure communications and the anti-missiles defence systems that a normal Air Force One has. It’s just wide open.

“This is an administration that is completely irresponsible in the way they use their personal devices. They’re using these off-brand apps to communicate. It’s just a hacker’s dream.”

Wise continued: “I would say an increasing number of people would like to target Air Force One. 

“America’s list of enemies is growing longer and longer as we become an increasingly horrible nation, from the Houthis to the Iranians to the Russians.”

9

9

During Trump’s tour of Gulf states in May, the US president was eager to talk about the deals he’d made and the investments he’d secured, but do the numbers add up and how many of the agreements touted were actually a result of his visit?

May 30 (UPI) — The Federal Reserve chair, Jerome Powell, has told President Donald Trump that monetary policy will not be influenced by politics.

Powell and Trump had a meeting Thursday as the president has been pressuring the central bank to lower interest rates.

A statement published by the Reserve following the meeting said that Powell and Trump discussed economic issues, including growth, employment and inflation.

What Powell did not discuss was his expectation for monetary policy, according to the sternly worded statement, “except to stress that the path of policy will depend entirely on incoming economic information and what that means for the outlook.”

“Chairman Powell said that he and his colleagues on the [Federal Open Market Committee] will set monetary policy, as required by law, to support maximum employment and stable prices and will make those decisions based solely on careful, objective and non-political analysis,” the statement said.

The meeting was held at Trump’s invitation, it added.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt confirmed during a press conference Thursday that Trump saw the statement and that it was “correct.”

“However, the president did say that he believes the Fed chair is making a mistake by not lowering interest rates, which is putting us at an economic disadvantage to China and other countries,” she said.

The announcement comes as the Trump administration has been seeking to influence Powell and the Fed to lower interest rates.

The Fed has steadily cut the interest rate from a high of 5.5% since the summer of 2024 but has maintained a lending rate of between 4.25% and 4.5% throughout the Trump administration due to uncertainty over the president’s ever-changing tariff policies.

The Fed issued its most recent hold on the interest rate earlier this month over concerns about tariff-related inflation and slower economic growth.

“Uncertainty about the economic outlook has increased further,” the Fed said in its May 7 statement.

Trump has repeatedly lashed out at the Fed and Powell.

On May 2, he took to his Truth Social platform to broadcast “THE FED SHOULD LOWER ITS RATE!!!” As a reason, he pointed to a recent drop in gas prices.

After the Fed maintained its interest rate hold about a week later, Trump called Powell “a FOOL, who doesn’t have a clue.”

By Tina Teng

Published on
30/05/2025 – 8:03 GMT+2

ADVERTISEMENT

A Federal appeals court temporarily blocked a ruling from the Court of International Trade that barred most of the Trump administration’s sweeping tariffs on global trading partners. The legal development reignited uncertainty, sparking renewed selloffs in US stock markets and dragged the US dollar sharply lower from its intraday high.

The decision provides the White House with additional time to defend the legality of the president’s efforts to reshape global trade relations. Federal officials signalled that the same level of import levies could be reintroduced under alternative legal authorities, although enacting tariffs via other sections of the Trade Act could take several months.

“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,” Peter Navarro, Trump’s top trade adviser, said on Thursday.

Trump had invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose the so-called reciprocal tariffs announced in early April. However, on Wednesday, the trade court ruled that the president does not have the authority to impose such broad levies under the IEEPA.

“America cannot function if President Trump — or any other president, for that matter — has their sensitive diplomatic or trade negotiations railroaded by activist judges,” said White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt. “Ultimately, the Supreme Court must put an end to this for the sake of our Constitution and our country.”

Wall Street pares early gains

The US stock markets initially jumped on the original court ruling, alongside positive quarterly earnings results from Nvidia. However, major indices gave up early gains despite a higher close on Thursday. During Friday’s Asian session, US stock futures continued to fall as risk-off sentiment prevailed.

As of 4 am CEST, Dow Jones Industrial Average futures were down 0.08%, while the S&P 500 and Nasdaq 100 futures both declined 0.26%.

European markets are also expected to open lower, according to futures pricing. The Euro Stoxx 50 was down 0.19%, and Germany’s DAX slipped 0.15%. German equities extended losses for a second consecutive day on Thursday, following a record high on Tuesday. Investors will be closely watching the progress of US-EU trade talks, though the legal battle surrounding the Trump administration’s tariffs is adding complexity to the outlook.

Asian equity markets also traded mostly lower on Friday. Hong Kong’s Hang Seng Index fell 1.4%, Japan’s Nikkei 225 lost 1.39%, and South Korea’s Kospi dropped 0.61%. Australia’s ASX 200 was flat as of 3:10 am CEST.

The US dollar tumbles as haven assets rise

The latest court developments have once again dented investor confidence in US assets, particularly the dollar. Yields on US government bonds initially jumped to 4.5% but later pulled back to 4.42% as Treasury prices came under renewed pressure.

Meanwhile, haven assets have rallied. Gold jumped, and the euro, the Swiss franc, and the Japanese yen all strengthened significantly. The euro rebounded sharply from an intraday low against the dollar on Thursday after the tariff ruling was paused. The EUR/USD pair fell as low as 1.1210 before surging to 1.1353 as of 3:11 am CEST on Friday. Gold futures also swung higher, climbing to $3,321 per ounce from an intraday low of $3,269 on Thursday.

May 29 (UPI) — The Trump administration announced plans Thursday to overhaul the Department of State, saying the federal agency has grown too big and costly while producing too few results.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio said in a statement that he has submitted the reorganization plan to Congress — a report that includes feedback from lawmakers, government bureaus and employees.

He first announced plans for the reorganization in April, calling his department “bloated, bureaucratic and unable to perform its essential diplomatic mission in this new era of great power competition.”

The report submitted to Congress, obtained by Politico, would reduce the State Department’s domestic workforce by 3,448 jobs, including recent reductions in positions and voluntary exits under the Trump administration’s deferred resignation program.

It also calls for the elimination of most offices under the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, which champions American values abroad, including the rule of law and individual rights.

Positions to be created under the plan align with the Trump administration’s conservative reshaping of the federal government, including a deputy assistant secretary of state for Democracy and Western values, as well as a so-called Natural Rights Office that will “ground the department’s values-based diplomacy in traditional Western conceptions of core freedoms,” according to an international state Department notification to lawmakers states cited by Politico.

“Over the past quarter century, the domestic operations of the State Department have grown exponentially, resulting in more bureaucracy, higher costs and fewer results for the American people,” Rubio said Wednesday.

“The reorganization plan will result in a more agile Department, better equipped to promote America’s interests and keep Americans safe across the world.”

It was unclear how Congress would react to the proposal, but House and Senate Democrats on the foreign relations committees quickly rejected the plan as being detrimental to U.S. interests abroad.

They said it “hands over” Afghan allies who worked with the U.S. military to the Taliban, guts programs to protect people who protect democracy, fires thousands of employees without cause and moves foreign assistance programs to entities with no experience with managing them.

“We welcome reforms where needed but they must be done with a scalpel, not a chainsaw,” Rep. Gregory Meeks, D-N.Y., ranking member of the U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee, and Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., ranking member of the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said in a statement.

“Taken together, these moves significantly undercut America’s role in the world and open the door for adversaries to threaten our safety and prosperity,” she said.

The overhaul comes as the Trump administration seeks to reshape and downsize the federal government in an effort to consolidate more power under President Donald Trump.

They’ve long been hedging their bets.
But Southeast Asian nations are caught in the dispute between the United States and China.
The trade-dependent countries are under threat from Trump’s tariffs, too.
They face a delicate balancing act between economic survival and strategic neutrality.
The message was clear at the Association of Southeast Asian Nations – ASEAN’s recent summit in the Malaysian capital Kuala Lumpur.
Member countries are recalibrating their economic partnerships to insulate their economies.
That includes a push to deepen trade ties with China and Gulf countries.

Why is the price of Japanese rice rocketing?

Plus, should older people work longer?

It is the latest move by the Trump administration in a campaign against US universities and international students: a decision to revoke the visas of Chinese students, who number in the hundreds of thousands in the United States.

The US secretary of state has also announced the suspension of interviews for new student visa applicants – and an increase in the vetting of their social media postings.

With China being the second-biggest source of international students in the US after India, the reduction in revenues for American schools and universities is expected to be heavy.

US President Donald Trump has already cut funding to Harvard University.

How are academia and research likely to be affected in the US – and around the world?

Presenter:

James Bays

Guests:

Clay Harmon – Executive director of the Association of International Enrollment Management

Alexandra Miller – Immigration lawyer and senior adviser to Vecina, a non-profit group advocating for immigrant justice

Josef Gregory Mahoney – Professor of politics and international relations, East China Normal University

Washington, DC – For Anson, hearing the news that Chinese student visas were the latest target of US President Donald Trump’s administration was “heartbreaking”.

The Chinese graduate student, who is studying foreign service at Georgetown University, told Al Jazeera that he feels uncertain about the future of students like himself after US Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced the US would begin to “aggressively revoke visas for Chinese students, including those with connections to the Chinese Communist Party or studying in critical fields”.

“There is definitely a degree of uncertainty and anxiety observed amongst us,” Anson said, asking that only his first name be used.

The Trump administration has offered little further clarity on which students would be affected, with some observers seeing the two-sentence announcement, which also vowed to “revise visa criteria to enhance scrutiny” for future visa applicants from China and Hong Kong, as intentionally vague.

While 23-year-old Anson said he understood the US government had concerns about foreign influence and national security when it came to China, he was confused as to why the Trump administration’s new policy was potentially so wide reaching.

Most students from his homeland, he said, were just like the other more than one million students who study every year in the US, a country that is known both for its educational opportunities and for its “inclusivity and broad demographics”.

“It is heartbreaking for many of us to see a country built by immigrants becoming more xenophobic and hostile to the rest of the world,” he said, adding that he and other Chinese students in the US were still trying to decipher the policy shift.

‘Greater and greater suspicion’

It is not the first time the Trump administration has taken aim at Chinese students, with the US Department of Justice in 2018, during Trump’s first term, launching the so-called “China Initiative” with the stated aim of combatting “trade secret theft, hacking, and economic espionage”.

An MIT analysis instead showed the programme focused predominantly on researchers and academics of Chinese descent, in what critics said amounted to “racial profiling and fear mongering”. It was discontinued in February 2022 by the administration of former US President Joe Biden.

Since then, there has only been “greater and greater suspicion in the US, almost on a bipartisan basis, of various aspects of Chinese technology, actions by Beijing around the world, and now these concerns about surveillance and spying within the US”, according to Kyle Chan, a researcher on China at Princeton University.

That included a Republican-led congressional report in September 2024 that claimed hundreds of millions of US tax dollars – funneled through US-China partnerships at universities – helped Beijing develop critical technologies, including those related to semiconductors, artificial intelligence, hypersonic weapons, and nuclear capabilities.

But Chan, while acknowledging “genuine security concerns” exist, said the broad announcement from the Trump administration did not appear to actually address those concerns.

Instead, it has sent “shock waves of fear throughout university campuses across the country”, he said.

That uncertainty has been compounded by Trump’s recent pressure campaigns on US universities, which most recently involved a since-blocked revocation of Harvard University’s ability to enrol international students.

“I think the vagueness is part of the [Trump administration’s] strategy, because it is not about a concrete policy,” Chan told Al Jazeera. “I don’t think it’s really, at the end of the day, about national security and trying to find the few individuals who may pose a genuine risk.”

Instead, he saw the move as aimed at Trump’s political audience, those sitting at an “overlap between people who are very anxious about immigrants in general, and people who are very anxious about China”.

‘Tremendous disruption’

The administration has offered little clarity on the scope of the visa revocations, or how it will define students with “connections to the Chinese Communist Party or studying in critical fields”.

Speaking to reporters on Thursday, State Department spokeswoman Tammy Bruce gave few further specifics, saying only that the department “will continue to use every tool in our tool chest to make sure that we know who it is who wants to come into this country and if they should be allowed to come in”.

“The United States, I further can say here, will not tolerate the CCP’s exploitation of US universities or theft of US research, intellectual property or technologies to grow its military power, conduct intelligence collection or repress voices of opposition,” she said.

Despite the dearth of clarity, the eventual shape of the policy will determine just how “disruptive” it could be, according to Cole McFaul, a research analyst at the Center for Security and Emerging Technology at Georgetown University.

He pointed to “real concerns about research security and about illicit IP [intellectual property] transfer” when it comes to Beijing, noting there have been a handful of documented cases of such activity in recent years.

“My hope is that this is a targeted action based on evidence and an accurate assessment of risk that takes into account the costs and the benefits,” McFaul said.

“My worry is that this will lead to broad-based, large-scale revocations of visas for Chinese students operating in STEM subjects,” he said, referencing the abbreviation for science, technology, engineering and mathematics.

McFaul noted that about 80 percent of the estimated 277,000 Chinese students who study in the US annually are in STEM subjects, in what he described as “an enormously important talent pipeline from China to the United States for the past 40 years”.

A vast majority of Chinese PhDs in STEM subjects – also about 80 percent – tend to stay in the US after their studies, in what McFaul described as another major benefit to the US.

“The question is, what counts as someone who’s working in a critical technology? Are life sciences critical? I would say ‘yes’. Are the physical sciences critical? I’d say ‘yes’. Is computer science critical? Is engineering critical?” McFaul said.

“So there’s a world where the vast majority of Chinese students are disallowed from studying in the United States, which would be an enormous loss and tremendous disruption for the United States science and technology ecosystem,” he said.

‘Generating unnecessary fear’

As the policy remains foggy, Chinese students in the US said they are monitoring the often fickle winds of the Trump administration.

Su, a 23-year-old applied analytics graduate student at Columbia University, said she swiftly changed her plans to travel home to China this summer amid the uncertainty.

“I was afraid if I go back to China, I won’t be able to come back to the US for when classes begin,” said Su, who asked to only use her last name given the “sensitive” situation.

“When Trump announces something, we never know if it’s going to be effective or not,” she told Al Jazeera. “It’s always changing”.

Deng, a graduate student at Georgetown who also asked that his full name not be used, said he broadly agreed that reforms were needed to address issues related to Chinese influence in US academia.

Those included intimidation of political dissidents, the spread of nationalist propaganda, and “oligarchy corruption”, he said.

But, in an email to Al Jazeera, he said the administration’s approach was misguided.

“The current measures not only do not achieve such goals,” he said, “but [are] also generating unnecessary fear even among the Chinese student communities that have long been fully committed to the development and enrichment of US society.”

May 29 (UPI) — The United States ambassador’s residence in Damascus, Syria, re-opened Thursday after being closed for 13 years, presaging a warming of relations between the two countries.

Tom Barrack, the current U.S. ambassador to Turkey, has also been appointed special envoy to Syria, and raised a U.S. flag outside the residence to inaugurate it, according to the Syrian run news agency SANA.

“Tom understands there is great potential in working with Syria to stop Radicalism, improve Relations, and secure Peace in the Middle East,” a statement from the State Department on X said. “Together, we will make America and the world, SAFE AGAIN!”

Barrack met with Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa to witness the signing of an agreement with Middle Eastern countries aimed at developing a $7 billion, 5,000 megawatt energy project that would revitalize Syria’s aging and worn electricity grid and use it as the backbone of the new power project.

The new energy project could supply Syria with 50% of its electricity needs, according to a statement from Qatari-based UCC Holding, which is among the partners in the project.

In a further sign of warming relations between the United States and the Middle East, President Donald Trump met earlier this month with al-Sharaa in Riyadh, a move that prompted the United States to begin walking back sanctions imposed on Syria during the repressive regime of Bahsar al-Assad.

During the reopening of the ambassador’s residence Thursday, Barrack called lifting the sanctions a “bold move,” and said it comes with “no conditions, no requirements.”

Barrack credited Trump for “your bold vision, empowering a historically rich region, long oppressed, to reclaim its destiny through self-determination.”

By contrast, about six out of 10 LGBTQ adults said gay and lesbian people are generally accepted in the US. 

A new poll by the Pew Research Centre has found that transgender people experience less social acceptance in the United States than those who are lesbian, gay or bisexual, according to LGBTQ adults.

About six out of 10 LGBTQ adult participants in the poll said there is “a great deal” or “a fair amount” of social acceptance in the US for gay and lesbian people, according to “The Experiences of LGBTQ Americans Today” report released on Thursday.

Only about one in 10 said the same for non-binary and transgender people — and about half said there was “not much” or no acceptance at all for transgender people.

The survey of 3,959 LGBTQ adults was conducted in January, after US President Donald Trump’s election, but just before his return to office when he set into motion a series of policies that question transgender people’s existence and their place in society.

On his first day in office, Trump signed an executive order calling on the government to recognise people as male or female based on the “biological truth” of their future cells at conception, rejecting evidence and scientific arguments that gender is a spectrum.

Since then, Trump has barred transgender women and girls from taking part in female sports competitions, pushed transgender service members from the military and tried to block federal funding for gender-affirming care for transgender people under age 19.

A poll conducted by the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research in May found that about half of US adults approve of the way Trump is handling transgender issues.

Transgender people are less likely than gay or lesbian adults to say they are accepted by all their family members, according to the Pew poll. The majority of LGBTQ people said their siblings and friends accepted them, though the rates were slightly higher among gay or lesbian people.

About half of gay and lesbian people said their parents did, compared with about one-third of transgender people. Only about one in 10 transgender people reported feeling accepted by their extended family, compared with about three in 10 for gay or lesbian people.

According to the Pew poll, about two-thirds of LGBTQ adults said the landmark US Supreme Court ruling that legalised same-sex marriage nationally on June 26, 2015, increased acceptance of same-sex couples “a lot more” or “somewhat more”.

The Supreme Court is expected to rule in the coming weeks on whether Tennessee can enforce a ban on gender-affirming care for minors in what is seen as a major case for the transgender community.

Billionaire and Tesla chief Elon Musk has stepped down from his role as head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), in which he was charged with reducing federal spending, as he nears the maximum limit for his tenure as a special government adviser.

His departure comes just after his first major public disagreement with President Donald Trump over the administration’s much-touted tax-and-spending budget bill, which was passed by the Republican-controlled US House of Representatives on May 22 by a single vote.

In a post on X on Wednesday, Musk said his time with the administration had “come to an end”.

“I would like to thank President Donald Trump for the opportunity to reduce wasteful spending,” the SpaceX founder wrote.

As my scheduled time as a Special Government Employee comes to an end, I would like to thank President @realDonaldTrump for the opportunity to reduce wasteful spending.

The @DOGE mission will only strengthen over time as it becomes a way of life throughout the government.

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) May 29, 2025

Musk, who was appointed by Trump to lead DOGE, has seen his tenure in the White House marred by controversy, in particular sparked by his attempt to dismantle the US Agency for International Development (USAID), an agency dedicated to distributing foreign aid.

With Musk’s departure, what will become of DOGE? And what legacy does the Tesla CEO leave behind?

How long was Musk at DOGE?

Musk’s term as a “special government employee” in the Trump administration meant he was only entitled to serve for 130 days in any 365-day period, and is barred from using government roles for any monetary gain.

Musk’s term has lasted just over four months, a few days short of the maximum legal limit.

In late April, Musk said he would soon shift his focus back to his own business enterprises and that his “time allocation” at DOGE would “drop significantly” starting in May.

However, Musk did note that he would spend “a day or two per week on government matters for as long as the President would like me to do so, as long as it is useful”.

Why does Musk disagree with Trump’s tax-and-spending bill?

In a clip from an interview with news channel CBS’s Sunday Morning programme, released on Tuesday, Musk revealed he was “disappointed to see the massive spending bill”.

According to him, the wide-ranging budget bill, also known as the “One Big Beautiful Bill”, increases the budget deficit and undermines his work at DOGE.

“I think a bill can be big or it can be beautiful. But I don’t know if it can be both. My personal opinion,” Musk told journalist David Pogue.

On Wednesday, Trump staunchly defended the bill. “We will be negotiating that bill, and I’m not happy about certain aspects of it, but I’m thrilled by other aspects of it,” Trump told reporters at the White House. “That’s the way they go.”

The budget bill spans more than a thousand pages and outlines various domestic policy goals favoured by the Trump administration.

Among its provisions are measures that extend tax cuts introduced during Trump’s first presidential term in 2017. The bill also boosts funding for Trump’s proposed “mass deportation” initiative and for security along the US-Mexico border.

The disagreement over the tax-and-spending bill was one of several challenges Musk has encountered during his time at the White House.

What else has Musk disagreed with the Trump administration about?

Musk ran afoul of several Trump officials during his stint at the White House, including the president’s chief trade adviser, Peter Navarro, whom he called a “moron” over Trump’s sweeping increase in trade tariffs across the globe. Musk has also stated publicly that he would be more in favour of “predictable tariff structures”, in addition to “free trade and lower tariffs”.

In April, the SpaceX founder expressed hopes for “a zero-tariff situation” between the US and Europe. Instead, Trump has threatened to impose a 50 percent tariff on imported goods from the European Union unless the two sides can agree to a trade deal. 

What will happen to DOGE now?

Trump established DOGE by executive order the day he was sworn into office on January 20. With Musk’s departure, it’s unclear what fate awaits the agency, as Trump has yet to appoint anyone to replace him.

Musk was given a mandate to reduce federal funding, which included downsizing the government’s workforce, terminating government contracts and attempting to close down entire agencies. In February, he and Trump both claimed they had unearthed billions of dollars worth of fraud related to diversity and climate schemes within the government. This was proved to be largely untrue or misleading.

In his post on Wednesday, Musk said: “The DOGE mission will only strengthen over time as it becomes a way of life throughout the government.”

However, Colleen Graffy, a former US diplomat and professor of law at Pepperdine University in California, said DOGE’s future was on shaky ground. “The power of DOGE came from the world’s richest man, Musk, having the ear of the world’s most powerful person, Trump,” she told Al Jazeera. “DOGE will likely struggle along for a while, but without Musk, and with pending court cases against it, its days are numbered. It would be a poisoned chalice appointment for anyone to take. Trump’s tax cuts will dwarf any savings.”

What will Musk’s DOGE legacy be?

Musk’s role in the Trump administration has sparked a large amount of controversy.

He has overseen major reductions in the number of federal employees and the dismantling of multiple government-funded programmes – moves that have drawn widespread criticism.

“Elon Musk’s DOGE was like one of his rockets exploding soon after liftoff, thereby demonstrating how not to do things,” Graffy told Al Jazeera.

“The difference is that for one, the learning experience is paid in money; for the other, the price is paid in human lives,” she added.

A major point of criticism directed at Trump and Musk centred on their decision to severely scale back USAID’s operations.

By late February, the main offices of the agency in Washington, DC, had been essentially shut down.

Following the dismissal of roughly 1,600 employees and the placement of approximately 4,700 more on leave, staff were given just 15 minutes to gather their belongings and exit the building.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio later revealed that 83 percent of all contracts managed by USAID had been closed.

In March, a federal judge in Maryland stated that DOGE had “likely violated” the US Constitution by attempting to dismantle the agency. The judge authorised a temporary injunction to stop DOGE from proceeding with USAID-related staff reductions, building closures, contract terminations, or the destruction of USAID materials.

Lisa Gilbert, co-president of Public Citizen, a consumer rights advocacy group, described DOGE as a “mantra of destruction”.

“The legacy of Elon Musk is lost livelihoods for critical government employees, hindered American education, loss of funding for scientists and the violation of Americans’ personal privacy, all in the service of corrupt tech-bro billionaire special interests,” she told Al Jazeera.

“The carnage is even more horrifying internationally, as Musk’s chainsaw will lead to the pointless and needless deaths of likely millions of people in the developing world.”

Max Yoeli, senior research fellow in the US and the Americas Programme at Chatham House, said Musk’s brief tenure has “irrevocably altered US government”.

“DOGE’s weakening of state capacity and disruption of America’s research and development ecosystem pose lasting risks to US economic prospects and resilience, even as courts still grapple with legal issues his approach raised,” Yoeli told Al Jazeera.

A United States trade court has ruled that President Donald Trump’s global reciprocal tariffs are illegal, finding that the president overstepped his authority by imposing the import levies last month. Wednesday’s ruling could throw Trump’s sweeping trade policies into disarray, experts say.

The Court of International Trade in New York ruled that an emergency law invoked by Trump during his “Liberation Day” announcement in April does not give him unilateral authority to impose certain tariffs. Instead, the court ruled, that power resides with Congress.

It also extended this ruling to previous tariffs levied earlier this year on Canada, Mexico and China over the fentanyl opioid crisis as well as security at the US border.

Trump has consistently promised Americans that his tariffs will draw manufacturing jobs back to the US, and shrink the country’s $1.2 trillion goods trade deficit with the rest of the world.

He has argued that the US’s large trade deficits with other countries amount to a national emergency, particularly regarding China, giving him the right to invoke emergency measures. But the court disputed that, arguing the US has run a trade deficit with the rest of the world for 49 years.

“The court does not pass upon the wisdom or likely effectiveness of the President’s use of tariffs as leverage,” a three-judge panel said in the decision to issue a permanent injunction on the blanket tariff orders issued by Trump since January.

“That use is impermissible not because it is unwise or ineffective, but because [federal law] does not allow it.”

On April 9, Trump imposed a 10 percent across-the-board tariff on all imports, plus higher reciprocal rates for countries with which the US has large trade deficits. He later paused or lowered those, but kept the 10 percent baseline tariff in place.

Wednesday’s ruling, if it stands, would blow a hole through Trump’s strategy to use tariffs to wring concessions from trading partners, experts say. It also creates uncertainty around trade negotiations and agreements with the European Union and China, as well as other countries.

But the Trump administration, some experts say, might explore new ways to impose tariffs even if it loses the current case.

What has the court ruled?

The three-judge panel was ruling on a lawsuit filed by the nonpartisan Liberty Justice Center on behalf of five small businesses which import goods from countries targeted by the duties. To date, at least seven lawsuits have been filed challenging Trump’s trade policies.

On Wednesday, the court invalidated all of Trump’s tariffs since January which were rooted in the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a 1977 law meant to address “unusual and extraordinary” threats during a national emergency.

“The Worldwide and Retaliatory Tariff Orders exceed any authority granted to the President by IEEPA to regulate importation by means of tariffs,” the court ruling stated.

The judgement affects levies imposed on April 2, including the baseline 10 percent tariff and higher, so-called “reciprocal” duties on many countries, but not the sectoral tariffs that Trump had imposed earlier.

The ruling left in place any tariffs that Trump issued using his Section 232 powers from the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, including his 25 percent tax on most imported vehicles and parts, as well as on all foreign-made steel and aluminium.

The judges gave the government 10 days to carry out the necessary administrative moves to remove the affected tariffs.

How has the Trump administration responded to the ruling?

Minutes after the announcement of the ruling, the Trump administration filed a notice of appeal and questioned the authority of the court.

In a statement issued on Wednesday, White House spokesperson Kush Desai said US trade deficits with other countries constituted “a national emergency that has decimated American communities … and weakened our defence industrial base”.

“It is not for unelected judges to decide how to properly address a national emergency,” Desai added.

Stephen Miller, the White House deputy chief of staff for policy, also hit out at the ruling with a post on X claiming “the judicial coup is out of control”.

The Justice Department, which is headed by US Attorney General Pam Bondi, a Trump appointee, said the lawsuits should be dismissed because only Congress, not private businesses, can challenge a national emergency declared by the president under the IEEPA.

How have world markets responded?

Financial markets responded positively to the ruling, with the US dollar rising in value against the euro, yen and Swiss franc.

In Europe, the German Dax rallied by 0.9 percent at the start of trading on Thursday, while the UK’s FTSE 100 index of shares ticked up by 0.1 percent.

Stocks in Asia also climbed on Thursday, while the price of Brent crude – the global price benchmark for Atlantic basin crude oils – climbed 81 cents, or 1.25 percent, to $65.71 a barrel.

Most economists agree that eliminating Trump’s tariffs would improve prospects for the world’s major economies.

What steps could the Trump administration take now?

The Trump administration has 10 days to complete the process of halting tariffs, although the introduction of most reciprocal tariffs has been shelved until later in the summer anyway.

It’s not yet clear if the White House will respond by suspending its emergency powers after July 9, when the reciprocal tariffs pause is set to end.

For now, the trade court ruling will most likely be appealed at the US Court of Appeals in Washington, DC, and — if needed — after that, the US Supreme Court. It is unclear how long this process could take.

Meanwhile, Trump can still unilaterally launch import taxes of 15 percent for 150 days on nations with which the US runs large trade deficits, in line with Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974.

The White House may also begin to explore other laws to enable it to force through Trump’s trade policies.

According to Mona Paulsen, assistant professor in international economic law at the London School of Economics, “Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930 could be option”.

This would allow Trump to raise duties up to 50 percent above existing charges on imports from countries that “discriminate against US commerce”.

“Rather than wipe out Trump’s trade plans, I think yesterday’s ruling will see the White House use more and more ambiguous trade laws,” Paulsen told Al Jazeera.

How does the ruling affect new trade deals?

The trade deal that Trump reached with the United Kingdom on May 8 has been thrown into doubt following the trade court ruling.

That agreement, which has not yet been finalised, imposed a 10 percent tariff only on all imports from the UK.

“A lot of governments will wait and see what happens now,” said Paulsen, suggesting that trade partners may now have a stronger hand in negotiations with the US.

United States President Donald Trump commuted the federal drugs-and-extortion sentence of former Chicago gang leader, Larry Hoover, on Wednesday. Hoover has been serving multiple life sentences following both state and federal convictions over the past five decades.

For his federal conviction, Hoover is currently being held at the ADX Florence prison, a federal prison formally known as the United States Penitentiary Administrative Maximum Facility, in Florence, Colorado.

Commuting a sentence means reducing its length or severity, or ending it entirely. The US president has the power to commute federal sentences, but not state sentences.

Here is what we know.

Who is Larry Hoover and why was his sentence commuted?

Hoover, 74, is the cofounder of Gangster Disciples, one of Chicago’s most powerful gangs.

In a two-page order issued on Wednesday, the Trump administration commuted his federal sentence, considering it served “with no further fines, restitution, probation or other conditions” and ordering his immediate release, according to a copy of the document from Hoover’s legal team seen by The Chicago Tribune.

Hoover’s lawyers said the order was a vindication of their attempts to have their client’s sentence reduced.

Lawyers Jennifer Bonjean and Justin Moore said in a statement: “The Courts have demonstrated a complete unwillingness to consider Mr Hoover’s considerable growth and complete rehabilitation. Despite the Court’s unwillingness to do the right thing, Mr Hoover has been able to keep his voice alive through the incredible work of many advocates and supporters. Thankfully, Mr Hoover’s pleas were heard by President Trump who took action to deliver justice for Mr Hoover.”

Lobbying for Hoover’s pardon has mounted since Trump appointed Alice Johnson as his “pardon tsar” in February this year. Johnson was a non-violent drug offender and was sentenced to life in prison in a drug conspiracy case, but was pardoned by Trump in 2020.

What was Hoover convicted of?

Hoover has been convicted on both state charges and federal charges. A federal crime is a violation of the US Constitution, possibly spanning multiple states, while a state crime is one that breaks a state law.

He was convicted in 1973 on state charges in Illinois for the murder of 19-year-old drug dealer William “Pooky” Young and sentenced to 200 years in prison.

Online state prison records show that Hoover was an inmate at Dixon Correctional Center in western Illinois from 1974. He was accused of continuing to direct the Gangster Disciples from behind bars.

In 1997, Hoover was convicted on federal charges of extortion, federal drug conspiracy and continuing to engage in a criminal enterprise. Hoover has spent nearly three decades in solitary confinement at ADX Florence, a maximum security prison in Colorado, according to his lawyers.

What crimes has the Gangster Disciples gang been involved in?

According to court documents, Hoover was one of the leaders of the gang between 1970 and 1995. The documents state that under Hoover, the Gangster Disciples sold “great quantities of cocaine, heroin, and other drugs in Chicago”.

As of 1995, the gang was believed to have 30,000 members in Chicago and had spread to at least 35 other states, according to an article published by the US Department of Justice that year.

However, little is publicly known about the activities of the Gangster Disciples in recent years.

What are the conditions in the ADX Florence prison?

ADX Florence in Colorado is a super-max prison, or an administrative maximum (ADX) prison, a control unit prison with the highest level of security.

The prison opened in 1994. Prisoners are held in solitary confinement in 12-by-7ft (3.6-by-2 metre) cells with thick concrete walls, and cannot see each other. Inmates sleep on a thin mattress atop a concrete slab. The cells also have a sink, toilet and automated shower.

Prisoners may have access to televisions, books or arts-and-crafts materials. Human interaction is very limited in ADX prisons.

Is Larry Hoover free to leave prison now?

No, Hoover is still serving his 200-year state sentence following the 1973 Illinois murder conviction.

It is not known if or when Hoover might be moved to another prison – such as the Dixon Correctional Center, a medium-security prison in Illinois that opened in 1983 – now that his federal conviction has been commuted, to serve out his state convictions. In the past, Illinois Department of Corrections officials have suggested that Hoover complete his state sentence in federal prison, citing security concerns.

Is Hoover eligible for parole?

The online records at Dixon Correctional Center say that Hoover will not be eligible for parole until October 2062, when he will be 111 years old. It is not clear whether his parole date can be advanced.

Presidential clemency is reserved for federal crimes, and not state crimes, according to the US Congress website, so Trump cannot intervene. The power to commute state crimes rests in the hands of the governor of the state. The governor of Illinois is Democrat JB Pritzker, who has so far not spoken about Hoover, nor of any plans to grant him clemency.

What role have public figures played in this case?

Performer Ye, formerly known as Kanye West, has long advocated for the pardon of Hoover. In 2018, during Trump’s first term, Ye requested Trump pardon Hoover. On Ye’s 2021 album, Donda, a track called “Jesus Lord” features a vocal snippet from Hoover’s son, Larry Hoover Jr, thanking Ye for bringing up his father’s case in the Oval Office. “Free my father, Mr Larry Hoover Sr,” the junior Hoover is heard saying.

Rapper Drake also advocated for Hoover’s freedom. In 2021, Ye and Drake set personal tensions aside and collaborated on a “Free Hoover” concert in Los Angeles.

“WORDS CAN’T EXPRESS MY GRATITUDE FOR OUR DEVOTED ENDURING PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP FOR FREEING LARRY HOOVER,” Ye posted on X after the commutation order.

WORDS CAN’T EXPRESS MY GRATITUDE FOR OUR DEVOTED ENDURING PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP FOR FREEING LARRY HOOVER

— ye (@kanyewest) May 28, 2025

Why is Trump pardoning people now?

The exact reasoning for Hoover’s commutation is unclear. However, it comes amid a spree of commutations and pardons granted by Trump.

On Wednesday, Trump issued a pardon for former Republican Congressman Michael Grimm, who was convicted of tax fraud in 2015 and sentenced to several months in prison.

On Tuesday, the president pardoned reality television couple Todd and Julie Chrisley, who were convicted of tax evasion and defrauding banks of at least $30m in 2022. Todd Chrisley received a 12-year prison sentence, while his wife was sentenced to seven years.

Panel of judges finds the president overstepped his authority by imposing across-the-board duties on imports from trading partners.

A United States trade court has ruled that President Donald Trump exceeded his authority when he imposed blanket tariffs on imports from US trading partners, issuing a permanent injunction that immediately halts the tariffs and demands a government response within 10 days.

The Court of International Trade, based in New York, said the US Constitution grants Congress exclusive authority to regulate commerce with other countries that is not overridden by the president’s emergency powers to safeguard the US economy.

“The court does not pass upon the wisdom or likely effectiveness of the President’s use of tariffs as leverage,” a three-judge panel wrote on Wednesday. “That use is impermissible not because it is unwise or ineffective, but because [federal law] does not allow it.”

The ruling, if it stands, could derail Trump’s global trade strategy to use steep tariffs to wring concessions from trading partners. It creates deep uncertainty around multiple simultaneous negotiations with the European Union, China and many other countries.

The court struck down Trump’s tariff orders issued since January under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a statute meant for addressing rare and extraordinary national emergencies. Tariffs introduced under other laws, such as those targeting specific industries like steel, autos and aluminium, were not addressed in this ruling.

The Trump administration swiftly filed an appeal, disputing the court’s jurisdiction. A White House spokesperson insisted trade imbalances posed a national crisis. “It is not for unelected judges to decide how to properly address a national emergency,” said Kush Desai, the White House deputy press secretary, defending Trump’s executive actions as necessary to protect US industry and security.

Al Jazeera’s Mike Hanna, reporting from Washington, noted the court’s impartiality. “This particular court cannot be accused of being an activist one, as Trump and his followers have accused other courts that have ruled against him,” Hanna said. “One of the judges was appointed by Trump himself, another by former President Barack Obama and the third by the former Republican President Ronald Reagan.”

The Court of International Trade handles matters relating to customs and trade law. Its rulings can be challenged in the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and eventually taken to the Supreme Court.

Financial analyst Robert Scott told Al Jazeera the tariffs failed to deliver tangible results even in Trump’s first term. “Most of those tariffs did not see the US trade position improve,” he said. “US trade deficits continued to grow and China’s exports to the world kept rising. They simply rerouted goods through other countries.”

The ruling came in a pair of lawsuits, one filed by the nonpartisan Liberty Justice Center on behalf of five small US businesses that import goods from countries targeted by the duties, and the other by 12 US states.

The companies, which range from a New York wine and spirits importer to a Virginia-based maker of educational kits and musical instruments, have said the tariffs will hurt their ability to do business.

“There is no question here of narrowly tailored relief; if the challenged Tariff Orders are unlawful as to Plaintiffs they are unlawful as to all,” the judges wrote in their decision.

At least five other legal challenges to the tariffs are pending.

May 29 (UPI) — President Donald Trump on Wednesday issued several more pardons, including those for his political allies: former U.S. House member Michael Grimm of New York and ex-Connecticut Gov. John Rowland.

Trump has largely circumvented the process run through the Department of Justice. Trump’s new pardon attorney Ed Martin last week reviewed commutation applications for the president to consider, a source told CNN.

A pardon ends the legal consequences of a criminal conviction and a commutation reduces the sentence.

Grimm, a member of the U.S. House from 2011-2015, served seven months in prison after being convicted of tax evasion in 2014.

He attempted to win back his House seat in 2018 but lost in the Republican primary.

Grimm, 55, who worked for Newsmax from 2022-2024, was paralyzed in a fall from a horse during a polo competition last year.

After the State of the Union in 2014, Grimm threatened to break a reporter in half “like a boy” when questioned about his campaign finances. He also threatened to throw the reporter off a balcony at the Capitol.

Rowland, a Republican governor in Connecticut from 1996-2004, was convicted twice in federal criminal cases. He resigned as governor after the first offense of election fraud and obstruction of justice. Then, he was sentenced to a 30-month prison term in 2015 for his illegal involvement in two congressional campaigns.

Also pardoned was another Republican, Jeremy Hutchinson, a former Arkansas state senator, who was sentenced to 46 months in prison for accepting election bribes and tax fraud in 2014.

Hutchinson is the son of former Sen. Tim Hutchinson and nephew of former Gov. Asa Hutchinson.

Imaad Zuberi, who donated $900,000 to Trump’s first inaugural committee and was also a donor on fundraising committees for Democrats Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, had his sentence commuted on Wednesday.

In 2021, he was sentenced to 12 years in prison for falsifying records to conceal work as a foreign agent while lobbying high-level U.S. government officials and obstructing a federal investigation of the inaugural fund.

Trump also Wednesday commuted the sentences of eight others, a White House official said.

Larry Hoover, the co-founder of Chicago’s Gangster Disciples street gang, was serving six life prison sentences in the federal supermax facility in Florence, Colo., after a 1997 conviction. He ran a criminal enterprise from jail.

Hoover, who is now 74, had been seeking a commutation under the First Step Act, which Trump signed into law in 2018. U.S. District Judge Harry Leinenweber denied Hoover’s request, calling him “one of the most notorious criminals in Illinois history.”

But he won’t get out of a prison yet because he is also serving a sentence of up to 200 years on Illinois state murder charges. Trump can’t give clemency to those convicted on state charges.

An entertainer and a former athlete were also pardoned.

Rapper Kentrell Gaulden, who goes by NBA YoungBoy, was convicted in a federal gun crimes case last year. He was released from prison and won’t need to serve probation.

Charles “Duke” Tanner, a former professional boxer, was sentenced to life in prison for drug conspiracy in 2006. Trump commuted his sentence during his first term.

US president says Harvard must ‘show us their list’ of foreign students to make sure they are not ‘troublemakers’.

United States President Donald Trump has intensified his dispute with Harvard University, saying the college should cap foreign enrolments and share information with the government about its international students.

“Harvard has to show us their lists. They have foreign students, almost 31 percent of their students. We want to know where those students come from. Are they troublemakers? What countries do they come from?” Trump told reporters at the White House on Wednesday. According to university enrolment data, foreign students make up 27 percent of Harvard’s student body.

“I think they should have a cap of maybe around 15 percent, not 31 percent,” Trump said, adding that he wants universities to accept “people who are going to love our country”.

The Trump administration has sought to pressure Harvard into compliance on a number of demands, including greater control over the university’s curricula, information about foreign students and further steps to crack down on pro-Palestine student activism, which the administration has characterised as anti-Semitic.

“Harvard has got to behave themselves. Harvard is treating our country with great disrespect, and all they’re doing is getting in deeper and deeper,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office.

The university has resisted what it says is an effort to erode its independence from the government and commitment to academic freedom.

The Trump administration has severed grants worth billions of dollars to Harvard and announced that it would revoke Harvard’s ability to enrol international students entirely. The Department of Homeland Security said that order was a response to Harvard “fostering violence, antisemitism, and coordinating with the Chinese Communist Party”.

The university said in a statement at the time that the order was part of a “series of government actions to retaliate against Harvard for our refusal to surrender our academic independence and to submit to the federal government’s illegal assertion of control over our curriculum, our faculty, and our student body”.

The university swiftly challenged the order in court, and it was temporarily blocked by a judge on Friday.

Patricia McGuire, president of Trinity Washington University, said on Wednesday that Trump’s actions against foreign enrolment at US universities “makes no sense”.

“It’s so irrational because higher education is one of the top US exports to the world and the international students who come to this country enrich American universities immensely and take their knowledge back to all of their countries around the globe for the improvement of their countries and their populations,” McGuire told Al Jazeera from Washington, DC.

However, McGuire said Trump’s actions are consistent with “an administration that has literally snatched students off the street and taken them to detention centres”, referring to Tufts University student Rumeysa Ozturk, who was forcibly taken into custody by masked federal agents in broad daylight on a street near her Massachusetts home in March.

This month, a court ordered the release of the 30-year-old Turkish doctoral student from the custody of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency.

“This is, in my view, completely anti-American values, and I think many academics are horrified by the fact that students are now being censored for their viewpoints,” McGuire said.

May 28 (UPI) — A three-judge panel on Wednesday struck down President Donald Trump‘s unilateral tariffs, including 10% imposed on most U.S. trading partners, calling them “contrary to law.”

Despite several lawsuits filed in different courts, this is the first time a federal court has blocked them.

The New York-based Court of International Trade, in a 49-page opinion, said the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not give him the “unlimited” power to levy across-the-board tariffs.

The Trump administration can appeal the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and, ultimately, the Supreme Court.

White House spokesperson Kush Desai said the U.S. trade deficits with other countries have “created a national emergency that has decimated American communities.”

“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 spokesperson Kush Desai said in a statement to CBS News.

The judges’ decision was based on two cases brought by a group of small businesses and 12 Democratic state attorneys general.

The judges were appointed by three presidents: Gary Katzmann by Barack Obama, Timothy Reif by Donald Trump and Jane Restani by Ronald Reagan.

“The President’s assertion of tariff-making authority in the instant case, unbounded as it is by any limitation in duration or scope, exceeds any tariff authority delegated to the President under IEEPA,” the judge wrote. “The Worldwide and Retaliatory tariffs are thus ultra vires and contrary to law.”

Separate tariffs against China, Canada and Mexico “do not deal with the threats set forth in those orders,” the court also found. These went into effect on March 4.

Trump imposed a 25% tariff against Canadian and Mexican goods, except for items compliant with the United States-Mexico-Canada, and 10% for energy and potash from the U.S. northern neighbor. China was hit with a 30% tariff.

The 10% duties went into effect on April 5.

The president has the right to impose tariffs, based on a 1970s court decision involving the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917, which preceded the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.

The judges said the president’s tariffs do not meet the limited condition of an “unusual and extraordinary threat” that would allow him to act alone without approval by Congress.

“Because of the Constitution’s express allocation of the tariff power to Congress, we do not read IEEPA to delegate an unbounded tariff authority to the President,” they wrote. “We instead read IEEPA’s provisions to impose meaningful limits on any such authority it confers,” the ruling said.

Earlier this month, T. Kent Wetherell II, a district judge in Florida nominated by Trump, said the president has the authority on his own to impose tariffs, but opted to transfer the case to the Court of International Trade.

Several lawsuits have been filed since Trump announced the tariffs on April 2 as “Liberation Day.”

Trump also announced on April 2 plans for harsher tariffs against the so-called worst offenders but one week later he paused them for 90 days until July. They include ones against America’s greatest allies: 26% against India, 25% against South Korea, 24% against Japan and 20% against the 27 members of the European Union.

Trump also had announced a 125% tariff on top of 30% against China but he suspended that. He also excluded tariffs on electronic products in China but last week threatened a 25% one on Apple products not made in the United States.

Last week Trump suggested 50% tariffs on the EU by June but paused them until July 9 on Sunday.

The tariffs have rattled U.S. stocks.

BREAKINGBREAKING,

Musk announced the news on X, where he declared his controversial government cost-cutting measures a victory.

Tech billionaire Elon Musk has announced that he is leaving the administration of United States President Donald Trump, where he led a months-long project to cut costs in the federal government.

“As my scheduled time as a Special Government Employee comes to an end, I would like to thank President @realDonaldTrump for the opportunity to reduce wasteful spending,” he wrote on the social media platform on Wednesday evening.

“The @DOGE mission will only strengthen over time as it becomes a way of life throughout the government,” Musk said, referring to the Department of Government Efficiency, which he was a top figure in.

An unnamed White House official confirmed the news with the Associated Press.

Musk’s departure comes just days after he publicly expressed concerns about Trump’s flagship “big, beautiful bill”– a 1,000-page piece of legislation that extends the president’s 2017 tax cuts while adding work requirements for food assistance and Medicaid.

The bill also allocates spending for some of Trump’s signature projects, like building a wall between the US and Mexico and raising funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

The “big, beautiful bill” passed in the House of Representatives last week and will next be discussed by the Senate.

As my scheduled time as a Special Government Employee comes to an end, I would like to thank President @realDonaldTrump for the opportunity to reduce wasteful spending.

The @DOGE mission will only strengthen over time as it becomes a way of life throughout the government.

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) May 29, 2025

“I was disappointed to see the massive spending bill, frankly, which increases the budget deficit, not just decreases it, and undermines the work that the DOGE team is doing,” Musk told the news programme CBS Sunday Morning, using an acronym for the “Department of Government Efficiency.”

The billionaire joined the Trump Administration in January with the promise of slashing at least $1tril from the US federal budget, although the DOGE website shows that it has only achieved around $175bn in savings, or $1,088.96 per US taxpayer.

If passed in its current format, Trump’s spending bill would cancel out DOGE’s work because it is expected to raise the US deficit by $3.9tril by 2034, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

“I think a bill can be big, or it can be beautiful, but I don’t know if it can be both. My personal opinion,” Musk told CBS.

DONALD Trump’s sweeping global tariffs are now at risk after a court has said he doesn’t have the power to impose the levies himself.

A US federal court in New York on Wednesday blocked most of the import taxes from going into effect, ruling that the president had overstepped his authority.

4

4

4

The Court of International Trade ruling is a big setback for Trump, who has sought to reshape global trade and put America first by using its economic heft to cut deals.

Trump has started a global trade war with nearly every country by instituting a minimum 10 per tariff on their exports into the US.

He also slapped a 25 per cent tariff on Mexico and Canada, saying he needed to levies to stop the flow of illegal immigrants and the horror drug Fentanyl.

The court’s order could spell an end to Trump’s international trade war as it bars Trump’s most sweeping tariffs, effectively erasing most of the trade restrictions Trump has announced since taking office.

But Trump is likely to appeal and take the fight all the way to the Supreme Court.

White House spokesman Kush Desai said: “Foreign countries’ nonreciprocal treatment of the Unites States has fueled America’s historic and persistent trade deficits.

“These deficits have created a national emergency that has decimated American communities, left our workers behind, and weakened our defense industrial base – facts that the court did not dispute.

“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.”

The ruling does not state that tariffs themselves are illegal, but that the executive branch does not have the authority to impose them without Congress.

The president used a 1977 federal economic emergency law to justify a range of levies.

The three-judge panel wrote in an unsigned opinion: “The question in the two cases before the court is whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (“IEEPA”) delegates these powers to the president in the form of authority to impose unlimited tariffs on goods from nearly every country in the world.

“The court does not read IEEPA to confer such unbounded authority and sets aside the challenged tariffs imposed thereunder.”

One of Trump’s key aides, Stephen Miller, attacked the ruling in a post on social media saying: “The judicial coup is out of control.”

Trump memorably held up a board showing rates he was about to set individual trading partners in the White House’s Rose Garden when he announced the tariffs as part of a “liberation day”.

China was clobbered with 34 per cent tariffs, Vietnam 46 per cent, Thailand 36 per cent and Cambodia 49 per cent.

Tariffs on China were eventually increased to a whopping 145 per cent as Trump sought to begin negotiations.

The ten per cent on Britain was at the bottom of the sliding scale devised by Trump’s officials.

Markets were thrown into turmoil but calmed after he paused the larger tariffs for 90 days.

He also suspended some of the higher duties pending negotiations with individual countries and blocs.

Britain has signed a new trade deal with Trump following the imposition of the tariffs – how that will be affected is not yet clear.

4

DEVELOPING STORYDEVELOPING STORY,

The US will also ‘enhance scrutiny of all future visa applications’ from China and Hong Kong, the State Department said.

The United States will “aggressively revoke” the visas of Chinese students studying in the US, Secretary of State Marco Rubio has announced, as the Trump administration continues its crackdown on foreign students enrolled at higher education institutions in the country.

Rubio announced the shock move both in a post on X, as well as a statement published late on Wednesday titled “New Visa Policies Put America First, Not China”.

“Under President Trump’s leadership, the US State Department will work with the 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,” the statement said.

“We will also revise visa criteria to enhance scrutiny of all future visa applications from the People’s Republic of China and Hong Kong,” it added.

Rubio’s announcement added to the uncertainty for international students in the US, who have faced intensifying scrutiny over recent months amid the administration’s wider assault on higher education institutions.

On Tuesday, the White House also temporarily suspended the processing of visas for foreign students, ordering embassies and consulates not to allow any additional student or exchange visas “until further guidance is issued”.

The State Department also said it plans to “issue guidance on expanded social media vetting for all such applications”.