Court rules Trump's tariffs can stay in effect while appeal proceeds
President Donald Trump walks down the stairs of Air Force One upon his arrival at Joint Base Andrews, Md., Tuesday, June 10, 2025. (AP Photo/Luis M. Alvarez)
WASHINGTON — U.S. President Donald Trump's tariffs on most countries around the world can remain in place while a federal appeals court decides on their future.
The U.S. Court of International Trade ruled the duties were unlawful last month.
The lower court ruled that Trump's use of an emergency powers law to impose his 'Liberation Day' reciprocal tariffs exceeded his authority and his fentanyl-related tariffs against Canada didn't target the issue.
The decision blocked the devastating duties but the Trump administration filed emergency motion to stay the trade court's ruling soon after.
The U.S. Court of Appeals decision tonight keeps in place the Trump administration's request to pause the trade court's ruling until there is a full hearing.
That means countries around the world, including Canada, continue to be slapped with Trump's tariffs.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 10, 2025.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CBC
32 minutes ago
- CBC
Weight of traditional knowledge discussed at public hearing for Diavik's water licence
A handful of Indigenous governments want to see more criteria enshrined in the conditions of Diavik diamond mine's new water licence, to determine that water will be safe for cultural uses. The Wek'èezhìi Land and Water Board (WLWB) is holding a public hearing about the company's application for a 10-year water licence renewal, at the cultural centre in Behchokǫ, N.W.T.,̀ this week. The Tłı̨chǫ government, the Yellowknives Dene First Nation, the Łutsel K'e Dene First Nation and the Deninu Kųę́ First Nation are all participating in the hearing, along with representatives of the federal and territorial governments and an environmental monitoring board. Violet Camsell-Blondin, who presented Wednesday morning on behalf of the Tłı̨chǫ government, told the hearing that both Western science and Indigenous traditional knowledge should be used to assess the water of Lac de Gras, the tundra lake in which Diavik operates, about 300 kilometres northeast of Yellowknife. "Cultural use criteria should not have a lower status or less clout in measuring successful closure and influencing the return of security deposits," she said. The WLWB has already required Diavik to incorporate traditional knowledge and cultural use criteria in its plans – but the Tłı̨chǫ, the Łutsel K'e Dene and the Yellowknives Dene want it to have the same weight as scientific monitoring and for it to be tied to the return of security deposits. What are cultural use criteria? An amendment to Diavik's current water licence required that cultural use criteria be developed for dumping processed kimberlite back into the open pits which will eventually, as part of closure, be filled with water and reconnected to Lac de Gras. A letter from the Tłı̨chǫ government to the board during that amendment process a few years ago describes cultural use criteria as the clarity, temperature, colour, smell and taste of the water, as well as whatever unnatural material might be in it. Diavik held workshops with Indigenous partners to establish that criteria and summarized in a report afterwards that healthy water would look clear, feel cold, smell clean, taste fresh and sound alive. "A lot of times science will say the water is good, you could drink it, but they won't drink it," said Patrick Simon, a Deninu Kųę́ First Nation councillor participating in the hearing, adding that scientists also use numbers that are hard to understand to communicate that water is safe. "If I told you, as an Indigenous person, the water is good, you can drink it, I will not only drink it but I'll show you the freshness of the water and the vibrancy, the clarity and even the feeling …. When we're around bad water it don't feel good. When we're around good healthy water, we feel alive, we feel connected. It's part of us." Simon said cultural use criteria will help Indigenous people decide whether they want to drink the water and harvest the animals in and around Lac de Gras once Diavik has closed. 'Flexibility should be maintained,' Diavik says A decision for the WLWB to make, once the hearing is over, is whether traditional knowledge and more cultural use criteria should be enshrined in the conditions of the licence – or whether those will be discussed further as part of the mine's closure plan. Diavik has expressed preference for the latter, stating in its presentation this week that it "strongly recommends that flexibility should be maintained" by discussing cultural use criteria through the final closure and reclamation plan and not establishing "fixed" licence conditions. Diavik is already in the process of creating a traditional knowledge monitoring program with its Indigenous partners that'll be submitted to the land and water board for approval. "Adding licence conditions might restrict the program that's in development. [The program] that really, at the end of the day, communities are developing for us," said Sean Sinclair, Diavik's manager of closure. "Potentially putting that in a box through licence conditions … we don't think it would necessarily be helpful and that it could be more flexibly managed through the closure plan." In a letter to the board ahead of the hearing, Diavik also said that there's uncertainty about how cultural use criteria would be evaluated for regulatory compliance. Diavik is trying to set itself apart from a history of abandoned mines in the N.W.T by closing responsibly. Its existing water licence expires at the end of the year, and it needs another one to wrap up production in March 2026, carry out closure, and start initial post-closure monitoring up until 2035. The hearing wraps up in Behchokǫ̀ on Wednesday.
Globe and Mail
32 minutes ago
- Globe and Mail
Could Investing $10,000 in Markel Make You a Millionaire?
Turning a $10,000 investment into $1 million or more would mean a 100X result. But it isn't as far-fetched as it might seem, and you don't necessarily need to invest in volatile high-tech companies to make it happen. One of my favorite candidates to be a millionaire-making stock in my own portfolio is insurance company Markel (NYSE: MKL), which does things much differently than its insurance industry peers. In fact, Markel's business model often draws comparisons to an early stage Berkshire Hathaway (NYSE: BRK.A)(NYSE: BRK.B), and to say that Berkshire has been a millionaire maker would be a major understatement. Where to invest $1,000 right now? Our analyst team just revealed what they believe are the 10 best stocks to buy right now. Continue » With that in mind, here's a brief overview of Markel's business model, why the stock could be a good value today, and how it could turn $10,000 into a million-dollar investment simply by continuing to execute on its time-tested growth strategy. Markel in a nutshell If you aren't familiar with Markel, here's a quick overview of its business. There are three main components. At its core, Markel is an insurance company. It mainly operates in specialty insurance (the excess and surplus, or E&S lines, in insurance terms) and reinsurance. These are types of insurance that can be rather difficult, but that have enormous profit potential. In addition, Markel invests some of its float in the stock market, similar to Berkshire Hathaway. As of the latest information, Markel owned about $11.3 billion worth of stocks (and the largest holding happens to be Berkshire). The company's equity investments have delivered 12.8% annualized returns over the past five years. Finally, Markel Ventures is the company's division that acquires entire businesses. Unlike Berkshire, which needs to buy massive companies to move the needle, Markel has the luxury that it can invest a meaningful amount of money in early stage businesses with lots of growth potential. Just to name a few examples, Markel Ventures owns a luxury handbag maker, a houseplant company, a homebuilder, and several others. Last year, Markel Ventures generated $5.1 billion in revenue. This isn't exactly Berkshire's business model, but it's a pretty similar one. And it follows one of Warren Buffett's top rules for conglomerate building: Be willing to own minority shares of businesses (common stocks) while pursuing opportunistic ways to own entire companies as well. Over the 60-year period that Warren Buffett has run Berkshire Hathaway, this has resulted in a total return of more than 5,500,000%. To say that this is a time-tested model would be an understatement. A 'baby Berkshire' at a discount Markel recently announced a strategic review of its business due to lackluster profitability in its insurance business and generally subpar stock performance. Just to name a few things that have already been done, Markel decided to pull the plug on several unprofitable insurance lines and has already decided that improving the technology capabilities of its insurance business needs to be a priority. According to management, Markel's intrinsic value has grown at an 18% annualized rate over the past five years. But its stock price has only grown at a 9% rate. Management estimates a $2,610 per-share intrinsic value for the business, and the stock trades for about $1,935 as I'm writing this. That's a big valuation gap. Management also announced a $2 billion stock buyback program along with the review and said that this will be a near-term focus of capital deployment. So, the company believes its stock price doesn't reflect the business' value and is putting its money where its mouth is. Could Markel make you a millionaire? The short answer is yes. But it's unlikely to happen quickly. Markel is designed to be a long-term compounder that can produce returns that are superior to the overall stock market. Over long periods, the S&P 500 has produced total returns of about 10% annualized, and in the modern era (since Warren Buffett has been running the company), Berkshire Hathaway has produced 19.9% annualized returns. So, assuming that Markel successfully beats the S&P over the long term, here's how long it could take to turn a $10,000 investment into $1 million: Long-Term Annualized Total Return Years to Turn $10k Into $1 Million 12% 42 14% 36 16% 32 18% 29 20% 26 Data source: Author's own calculations. Years are rounded to the nearest whole number. Now, I don't necessarily think Markel, or any other company, will produce Berkshire-like returns over a 60-year period. But I do believe that with Markel's strategy, it's entirely possible to significantly outpace the market. In short, the most likely scenario (which would still be very impressive) would be one of the first few rows in the chart. For context, since it went public in 1986, Markel has delivered 15% annualized returns, so there is real-world evidence that the company can beat the market. Of course, this assumes that you invest $10,000 once. The best way to approach a stock like Markel or Berkshire Hathaway (or most other compounding-focused stocks for that matter) is to invest incrementally over time. But the point is that even with a single investment, a stock with steady market-beating returns can have massive wealth-building potential over time. Should you invest $1,000 in Markel Group right now? Before you buy stock in Markel Group, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the 10 best stocks for investors to buy now… and Markel Group wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $649,102!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $882,344!* Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor 's total average return is996% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to174%for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join Stock Advisor. See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of June 9, 2025
Winnipeg Free Press
38 minutes ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
House will vote on Trump's request to cut funding for NPR, PBS and foreign aid
WASHINGTON (AP) — House Republicans are moving to cut about $9.4 billion in spending already approved by Congress as President Donald Trump's administration looks to follow through on work by the Department of Government Efficiency when it was overseen by Elon Musk. The package to be voted on Thursday targets foreign aid programs and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which provides money for National Public Radio and the Public Broadcasting Service, as well as thousands of public radio and television stations around the country. Republicans are characterizing the spending as wasteful and unnecessary, but Democrats say the rescissions are hurting the United States' standing in the world. 'Cruelty is the point,' Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York said of the proposed spending cuts. The Trump administration is employing a tool rarely used in recent years that allows the president to transmit a request to Congress to cancel previously appropriated funds. That triggers a 45-day clock in which the funds are frozen pending congressional action. If Congress fails to act within that period, then the spending stands. The benefit for the administration of a formal rescissions request is that passage requires only a simple majority in the 100-member Senate instead of the 60 votes usually required to get spending bills through that chamber. So, if they stay united, Republicans will be able to pass the measure without any Democratic votes. The administration is likening the first rescissions package to a test case and says more could be on the way if Congress goes along. Republicans, sensitive to concerns that Trump's sweeping tax and immigration bill would increase future federal deficits, are anxious to demonstrate spending discipline, though the cuts in the package amount to just a sliver of the spending approved by Congress each year. They are betting the cuts prove popular with constituents who align with Trump's 'America first' ideology as well as those who view NPR and PBS as having a liberal bias. In all, the package contains 21 proposed rescissions. Approval would claw back about $900 million from $10 billion that Congress has approved for global health programs. That includes canceling $500 million for activities related to infectious diseases and child and maternal health and another $400 million to address the global HIV epidemic. The Trump administration is also looking to cancel $800 million, or a quarter of the amount Congress approved, for a program that provides emergency shelter, water and sanitation, and family reunification for those forced to flee their own country. About 45% of the savings sought by the White House would come from two programs designed to boost the economies, democratic institutions and civil societies in developing countries. The Republican president has also asked lawmakers to rescind nearly $1.1 billion from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which represents the full amount it's slated to receive during the next two budget years. About two-thirds of the money gets distributed to more than 1,500 locally owned public radio and television stations. Nearly half of those stations serve rural areas of the country. The association representing local public television stations warns that many of them would be forced to close if the Republican measure passes. Those stations provide emergency alerts, free educational programming and high school sports coverage and highlight hometown heroes. Advocacy groups that serve the world's poorest people are also sounding the alarm and urging lawmakers to vote no. 'We are already seeing women, children and families left without food, clean water and critical services after earlier aid cuts, and aid organizations can barely keep up with rising needs,' said Abby Maxman, president and CEO of Oxfam America, a poverty-fighting organization. Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., said the foreign aid is a tool that prevents conflict and promotes stability but the measure before the House takes that tool away. 'These cuts will lead to the deaths of hundreds of thousands, devastating the most vulnerable in the world,' McGovern said. 'And at a time when China and Russia and Iran are working overtime to challenge American influence.' Republicans disparaged the foreign aid spending and sought to link it to programs they said DOGE had uncovered. Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, said taxpayer dollars had gone to such things as targeting climate change, promoting pottery classes and strengthening diversity, equity and inclusion programs. Other Republicans cited similar examples they said DOGE had revealed. 'Yet, my friends on the other side of the aisle would like you to believe, seriously, that if you don't use your taxpayer dollars to fund this absurd list of projects and thousands of others I didn't even list, that somehow people will die and our global standing in the world will crumble,' Roy said. 'Well, let's just reject this now.'
