Browse articles by month.
3227 articles
President Donald Trump indicated he is contemplating limited military strikes against Iran to incentivize negotiations for a new nuclear deal, raising concerns about potential escalation.
President Donald Trump increased the global tariff rate from 10% to 15% shortly after establishing a new 10% tariff, reversing a recent trade deal with the UK and affecting other major partners like the EU and Japan. The move follows a Supreme Court ruling that invalidated previous tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, leading Trump to impose new tariffs under the 1974 Trade Act. Experts suggest this increase results in an effective tariff of around 14.5%, with further investigations planned that could lead to additional tariffs, contributing to ongoing trade uncertainties.
President Trump announced that he will increase his global tariffs to 15%, up from 10% following a Supreme Court ruling that invalidated certain tariffs. He stated that the decision prompted him to bypass Congress and impose the higher tariffs, which are scheduled to take effect starting February 24 under the Trade Act of 1974. The Yale Budget Lab estimates that these tariffs could cost the average American household $1,315 annually, and Trump criticized the Supreme Court justices who opposed him.
The US Supreme Court ruled that Donald Trump's tariffs imposed under the 1977 law exceeded presidential authority, impacting the legal basis of certain tariffs. In response, Trump signed an executive order imposing a 15 percent global tariff under the Section 122 of the US Trade Act of 1974, raising it from 10 percent, which may affect existing trade agreements with countries such as the UK, China, India, and others. While some trade deals may remain in force, the ruling introduces uncertainty about future tariffs and the stability of current trade arrangements. Countries engaged in trade agreements with the US are awaiting further clarification on how the legal developments will influence their trade relations.
President Donald Trump increased global tariffs from 10% to 15% following a Supreme Court ruling that invalidated his earlier tariffs, prompting criticism from both Democrats and Republicans. Trump justified the hike by citing a review of the court's decision and his perception of unfair trade practices, while critics argued it would raise costs for Americans and questioned the legality of the move. The ruling was seen by some as a reinforcement of the constitutional separation of powers.
The article states that the average monthly rent in the U.S. in 2026 is $1,698, reflecting a 2.91% increase since Donald Trump took office. It also claims that Karoline Leavitt lied again this week, though it does not specify the nature of the falsehood.
President Trump signed a proclamation imposing a 10% global tariff on all nations, utilizing Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 for the first time to replace previous tariffs overturned by the Supreme Court. The move could signal the beginning of a series of new tariffs aimed at restructuring existing trade levies, with the administration also continuing to suspend duty-free treatment for low-value imports. Trump indicated that other trade law provisions might be used to enforce additional tariffs, including those previously applied to China and steel and aluminum.
Following a Supreme Court ruling that invalidated most of President Trump's tariffs as unconstitutional, Trump announced he would implement alternative tariffs, raising the global import tariff to 15% under a different legal authority. He signed an executive order lowering tariffs to 10% on nearly all non-U.S. countries outside of the U.S., which will take effect soon, while indicating plans to impose new tariffs at the 15% maximum limit. The court's decision, based on the conclusion that Congress, not the president, has authority to impose tariffs, was met with strong criticism from Trump, who labeled the ruling "deeply disappointing" and vowed to pursue other legal avenues and investigations.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that Donald Trump's tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) were illegal, as the law does not authorize such unilateral tariff measures. In response, Trump announced he would implement a new 10% global tariff using Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which allows tariffs for up to 150 days, and criticized the court for its decision. Critics and officials argued that refunds of the illegally collected tariffs are necessary, but the court's ruling did not explicitly order refunds, leading to calls for claims to be filed. Trump condemned the ruling and pledged to pursue alternative legal pathways to impose tariffs, while also criticizing the justices who ruled against him.
U.S. President Donald Trump criticized the Supreme Court's ruling on tariffs, calling it "deeply disappointing" and expressing shame over certain aspects. The article does not specify details of the ruling or Trump's specific responses beyond these statements.
The article argues that the proposed Save America Act, which would require voters to present proof of citizenship, is unnecessary and potentially restrictive, as voter fraud and noncitizen voting are not significant issues in the U.S. The author contends that the bill aims to suppress voter turnout to secure political advantage for President Trump and his allies, reflecting a lack of commitment to democratic principles and an unwillingness to persuade voters.
CNN's Sara Sidner questioned border czar Tom Homan about alleged dishonesty within the Department of Homeland Security, especially regarding incidents involving immigration agents. Homan stated that agents found to have lied under oath would face investigation and possible criminal charges but deferred to officials like Kristi Noem and the CBP regarding specific cases, including that of Border Patrol commander Greg Bovino. Sidner highlighted conflicting claims by Kristi Noem about a shooting involving Alex Pretti, which video evidence contradicted, raising concerns about potential dishonesty within the agency.