&w=3840&q=100)
WHCA slams White House for excluding WSJ from Scotland trip over coverage
In an on-the-record statement, WHCA said, "This attempt by the White House to punish a media outlet whose coverage it does not like is deeply troubling, and it defies the First Amendment. Government retaliation against news outlets based on the content of their reporting should concern all who value free speech and an independent media."
WHCA President Weijia Jiang assured colleagues that upon learning about the decision, she directly communicated that the WHCA "strongly objects and finds the move unacceptable." She added that efforts are underway to clarify whether this removal is a one-time action or if the White House plans to exclude the Wall Street Journal from all pool rotations, which could impact planning for many media outlets. "As of this writing, that remains unclear. I will share updates as I receive them," she said. Jiang also encouraged members to reach out with any questions or concerns.
The move follows The Journal's publication of a Thursday article revealing a lewd birthday note sent to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein in 2003. The note included a drawing of a nude woman and ended with the message, "Happy Birthday, and may every day be another wonderful secret," according to The Washington Post. The paper was allegedly signed by Trump. The White House described the drawing and letter as fake and said it had pressured The Journal not to publish the article.
Following the publication, a lawsuit was filed against The Journal's publisher, Dow Jones, its parent company, News Corp, CEO Robert Thomson, Rupert Murdoch, and two Journal reporters, The Washington Post reported.
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said on Monday, "Thirteen diverse outlets will participate in the press pool to cover the President's trip to Scotland. Due to The Wall Street Journal's fake and defamatory conduct, they will not be one of the 13 outlets on board," according to The Washington Post.
A Wall Street Journal spokeswoman declined to comment, while Dow Jones defended its reporting last week, stating, "We have full confidence in the rigour and accuracy of our reporting, and will vigorously defend against any lawsuit," as per The Washington Post.
The press pool, comprising journalists from various outlets who travel with the President and serve as the eyes and ears of the broader White House press corps, has faced increasing pressure from the Trump administration. This includes the administration taking over the role of deciding which publications may participate, a shift previously managed by the Correspondents' Association, as noted by The Washington Post.
Earlier, the White House had also barred The Associated Press from the press pool over its refusal to use the administration's preferred name change for the Gulf of Mexico, highlighting ongoing tensions with certain media outlets, The Washington Post added.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
11 minutes ago
- First Post
The US has taken in $125 billion in tariffs in 2025. Here's why experts are worried
US President Donald Trump shocked many when he announced 'reciprocal tariffs' on US trading partners in April. The declaration, which came on 'Liberation Day', sent tremors through the world markets. The US in 2025 has taken in $125.6 billion in tariffs thus far – a massive increase from 2024 when tariffs generated $79 billion over the entire year. So why are experts worried? read more The US is raking it in from tariffs. US President Donald Trump shocked many when he announced 'reciprocal tariffs' on US trading partners including China and India in April. The declaration, which came on 'Liberation Day', sent tremors through the world markets. Trump has been obsessed with tariffs since his first term. He has mused about tariffs paying down the federal debt and even potentially replacing income tax. But how much money is America taking in from tariffs? STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Let's take a closer look: What do we know? As of July 29, America has taken in $125.6 billion in tariffs. The data show tariffs have been steadily climbing the entire year. In January, tariff revenues were at around $8 billion. In April, the levies had generated $16.3 billion. By June, tariffs added another $26.6 billion to the kitty. In July, that figure increased by another $28 billion. That's a massive increase from 2024 when America took in $79 billion in tariffs over the entire year. In 2022, tariffs were at $98 billion. The Yale University Budget Lab has said that the average tariff rate on imported goods currently stands at 18.2 per cent. This is the highest rate since 1934. Before Trump returned to office, that figure was at 2.4 per cent. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has predicted that tariffs could generate over $300 billion in revenue. While this seems like a good thing, it is American companies who are having to pay the costs to the government. Businesses will also likely pass on the escalating costs to the consumer, who could experience sticker shock. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has predicted that tariffs could generate over $300 billion in revenue. Reuters Experts say Trump's tariffs will inevitably cause prices to rise. According to the Federal Reserve, inflation ought to be at two per cent. Inflation was at 2.7 per cent in January, 2.4 per cent in May and 3 per cent in June. They say a number of firms stockpiling products has thus far resulted in consumers having to avoid shelling out extra. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD But they say there are signs that the US customer will soon start paying the price for Trump's tariffs. From major appliances to sports equipment and toys, many products that Trump has levied tariffs on have witnessed price increases. While some in the administration have argued that tariffs could eventually replace income tax, this is still far short of the $2.4 trillion income tax the federal government took in last year. Trump tears up post WW-II playbook Since his return to the White House US President Donald Trump tore up the US post-WWII economic policy playbook of favouring free trade, slapping tariffs on trading partners and on certain products like steel. The US has subsequently reached deals with a number of countries that will see considerably higher tariffs apply than were in place, but for the most part also considerably lower than the highest rates that Trump threatened to impose. Trump said Thursday that sweeping tariffs he has imposed on nations around the world were making the country 'great & rich again' as governments raced to strike deals with Washington less than 24 hours before an August 1 deadline. 'ONE YEAR AGO, AMERICA WAS A DEAD COUNTRY, NOW IT IS THE 'HOTTEST' COUNTRY ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD,' he wrote on his Truth Social platform. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The deals that the US reached with trading partners will also go into effect on August one, as will a 50 percent levy on copper imports. For around 80 countries, including the 27 members of the European Union, rates of between 11 and 50 percent are set to come into force.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
11 minutes ago
- Business Standard
Judges grill Trump over use of emergency powers for 'reciprocal tariffs'
US appeals court judges sharply questioned on Thursday whether President Donald Trump's tariffs were justified by the president's emergency powers, after a lower court said he exceeded his authority with sweeping levies on imported goods. The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, D.C., is considering the legality of "reciprocal" tariffs that Trump imposed on a broad range of US trading partners in April, as well as tariffs imposed in February against China, Canada and Mexico. In hearing arguments in two cases brought by five small US businesses and 12 Democratic-led US states, judges pressed government lawyer Brett Shumate to explain how the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a 1977 law historically used for sanctioning enemies or freezing their assets, gave Trump the power to impose tariffs. Trump is the first president to use IEEPA to impose tariffs. "IEEPA doesn't even say tariffs, doesn't even mention them," one of the judges said. Shumate said that the law allows for "extraordinary" authority in an emergency, including the ability to stop imports completely. He said IEEPA authorizes tariffs because it allows a president to "regulate" imports in a crisis. The states and businesses challenging the tariffs argued that they are not permissible under IEEPA and that the US Constitution grants Congress, and not the president, authority over tariffs and other taxes. Neal Katyal, a lawyer for the businesses, said the government's justification for the tariffs amounted to "a breathtaking claim to power that no president has asserted in years." The arguments - one day before Trump plans to increase tariff rates on imported goods from nearly all US trading partners - mark the first test before a US appeals court of the scope of his tariff authority. The president has made tariffs a central instrument of his foreign policy, wielding them aggressively in his second term as leverage in trade negotiations and to push back against what he has called unfair practices. Trump has said the April tariffs were a response to persistent US trade imbalances and declining US manufacturing power. He said the tariffs against China, Canada and Mexico were appropriate because those countries were not doing enough to stop illegal fentanyl from crossing US borders. The countries have denied that claim. Shumate cited a 1975 appeals court decision that authorized President Richard Nixon's across-the board surcharge of 10% on imported merchandise to slow inflation. But that decision added that the president did not have authority to impose "whatever tariff rates he deems desirable." Shumate also said that courts cannot review a president's actions under IEEPA or impose additional limits that are not included in the law. Several judges said that the argument would essentially allow one law, IEEPA, to overwrite all other US laws related to tariffs and imports. The case is being heard by a panel of all of the court's active judges, eight appointed by Democratic presidents and three appointed by former Republican presidents. The timing of the court's decision is uncertain, and the losing side will likely appeal quickly to the US Supreme Court. TRADE NEGOTIATIONS Tariffs are starting to build into a significant revenue source for the federal government, with customs duties in June quadrupling to about $27 billion, a record, and through June have topped $100 billion for the current fiscal year. That income could be crucial to offset lost revenue from Trump's tax bill passed into law earlier this month. But economists say the duties threaten to raise prices for US consumers and reduce corporate profits. Trump's on-again, off-again tariff threats have roiled financial markets and disrupted US companies' ability to manage supply chains, production, staffing and prices. On May 28, a three-judge panel of the US Court of International Trade sided with the Democratic states and small businesses that challenged Trump. It said that the IEEPA did not authorize tariffs related to longstanding trade deficits. The Federal Circuit has allowed the tariffs to remain in place while it considers the administration's appeal. The case will have no impact on tariffs levied under more traditional legal authority, such as duties on steel and aluminum imports. The president recently announced trade deals that set tariff rates on goods from the European Union and Japan, following smaller trade agreements with Britain, Indonesia and Vietnam. Trump's Department of Justice has argued that limiting the president's tariff authority could undermine ongoing trade negotiations, while other Trump officials have said that negotiations have continued with little change after the initial setback in court. Trump has set an August 1 date for higher tariffs on countries that don't negotiate new trade deals. There are at least seven other lawsuits challenging Trump's invocation of IEEPA, including cases brought by other small businesses and California. A federal judge in Washington, D.C., ruled against Trump in one of those cases, and no judge has yet backed Trump's claim of unlimited emergency tariff authority.
Mint
11 minutes ago
- Mint
Ready to act if Russia and Ukraine don't strike peace deal by August 8: US tells UN Security Council
The United States on Thursday (July 31) told the United Nations Security Council that President Donald Trump has made it clear he expects a peace deal to end Russia's war in Ukraine to be reached by August 8. The US further stated that that both Russia and Ukraine must negotiate a ceasefire and a 'durable peace' before the deadline. 'Both Russia and Ukraine must negotiate a ceasefire and durable peace. It is time to make a deal. President Trump has made clear this must be done by August 8. The United States is prepared to implement additional measures to secure peace,' senior US diplomat John Kelley told the 15-member council. Trump has sharply reduced his self-imposed timeline for Russian President Vladimir Putin to agree to a ceasefire in Ukraine, lowering the deadline from 50 days to 'about 10 or 12 days.' Speaking during a press appearance alongside UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer on July 28, Trump said he no longer sees the point in waiting due to the lack of progress on peace efforts. 'I'm going to make a new deadline, of about 10, 10 or 12 days from today. There's no reason for waiting,' Trump said. 'It was 50 days, I wanted to be generous, but we just don't see any progress being made.' The comments mark a notable shift in Trump's approach to Putin, with whom he has previously claimed a good rapport. The shortened deadline signals a harder line as the war in Ukraine grinds on with mounting casualties and little sign of a diplomatic breakthrough. Earlier this month, Trump set a 50-day deadline for Russia to halt its aggression in Ukraine, warning of severe economic consequences if it failed to comply. He threatened to impose 100% tariffs on countries purchasing Russian exports like oil — a move aimed at choking off revenue that helps Moscow evade international sanctions. The US and its allies consider such purchases a form of indirect support for Russia's war effort. In unusually blunt remarks, Trump earlier voiced his growing frustration with the Russian president, citing repeated violations of previous understandings and deadly attacks in Ukraine. 'I'm disappointed in President Putin — very disappointed in him,' Trump said. 'We thought we had that settled numerous times, and then President Putin goes out and starts launching rockets into some city like Kyiv and kills a lot of people in a nursing home or whatever.' 'That's not the way to do it. So we'll see what happens with that.'
