50% tariffs on steel and aluminum imports are in effect. Here's what that could mean
US tariffs on steel and aluminum just doubled to 50%. CNN's Matt Egan breaks down what products could get more expensive and why the manufacturing industry is worried these tariffs could lead to job losses.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
15 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Why Aren't We Electing Skiers as Politicians?
Looking to the outdoors–out the proverbial window–Hornsby long ago told us to watch out for the back room boys that say the smoke is going to blow away. Look out for the men who say it's okay, sitting in a building far prescient, his words are as pressing as ever for anyone concerned with the preservation of our world outside of golf cart paths and boys club boardrooms. Miles from any BLM office, and at a remarkably troubling clip, a paradigm shift in environmental government policy is in not hard to wonder if those spearheading this movement–namely President Donald Trump and his on-again, off-again friend Elon Musk–spend any time outside, let alone in the wilderness. How else can you explain their approach to government? Marooned and protected in the urban ballast of Mar-a-Lago and Starbase, they take their DOGE axe to the federal budget, ostensibly cutting waste. To what end? Amidst an historic drought, federal firefighting crews have seen their ranks decimated by DOGE cuts, then, in the confusion, departments have asked some of those employees to return. Thousands of forest service workers have been furloughed, while the wanton use of tariffs has caused massive uncertainty in the outdoor industry. All of this theorized by some to be just the beginning in a long strategy to diminish our public lands to the point of fallowness that they will be unmissed as they come under the scythe of industry. While that ultimate end remains conjecture, the last few months have been a shocking counterpoint to what had become a comfortable status quo for the outdoorsperson–that stewardship of public lands and the conservation of wilderness for posterity was not only a given, but permanent. That feels as fraught as ever in a new administration that eschews not only decorum, but anything resembling an ethos of Trump is not alone. While the Republican-backed behemoth funding measure–the hyperbolically titled One Big Beautiful Bill that is in front of Congress now–at first had some of its teeth pointed at claiming public lands removed, the Senate decided to actually increase the amount of land for sale, further threatening protection for clean water, clean energy, and the what can we do in such a time? My take: be it city council, state legislature, even the White House, we need to elect outdoors people to office. We need skiers, hunters, wildland firefighters, dog park users, e-bike riders–anyone who prioritizes the beauty of our natural world–in it's more than that. We have to build our coalition. Millions in this country, billions the world over, still don't have the ability to take part in the overly gatekept outdoor world. If the public lands and the pursuit of happiness outdoors stand a chance at longevity against current headwinds, it is in a democratized outdoor culture. And as it stands now, the outdoor lifestyle is mostly enjoyed by a certain few with the means to take part–an oligarchy of sorts. Sound familiar? Many are working to change this, but this work remains yet unfinished. Building our ranks can seem counterintuitive. Trailheads are packed post-Covid, and our mountain towns have become busier than ever even as local voting blocs have been pushed out by buyers from cities who could afford second homes. But the more folks who have a stake–the more middle-class voters who can remain in mountain towns, the less NIMBY our approach to those with means who do come–the better chance we stand at coming together, influencing policy, and protecting what is to many of us our greatest wilds are eminently worthy of protection. Out there, where a cell phone tower can't ping you, one finds solidarity not only with nature, but themselves and others. Running in Couloir's October 1997 issue, the late ski guide and writer Alan Bard poignantly spoke to the power of beautiful, wild places. 'It becomes important then, in fact essential, to savor and share these places and feelings,' he wrote. 'When we travel far afield to ski, we often find not just some intoxicatingly remote landscape but the convoluted topography of our own souls.' Today, bound by smartphones and online echo chambers, the world desperately needs the grounding power of the before us have long taken to promulgating an outdoors ethos, or have even lobbied in Washington for stronger protections for the natural world. Summer camps nationwide have for decades taught the next generation the power and poise that one can learn from being self-sufficient in the wilderness. Edward Abbey–though insensitive, problematic, and now overly-worshiped by a gear-heavy, Instagram-bound outdoor culture he would have abhorred–himself took a more philosophical if extreme route, endlessly writing on the wilds while fantasizing how Karo syrup and a little sand might work together to diminish a bulldozer's engine. Perhaps, in a few hearty souls, Hayduke indeed there's Protect Our Winters (POW), arguably the best-known, most professional advocacy group in all the outdoor canon. A bonafide lobbying outfit, POW and their affiliates have even testified before Congress, working from inside the establishment for the benefit of not only climate change awareness, but a slew of other pressing environmental issues. The groundwork is there. What remains is the mobilization of the outdoor culture at a large enough scale to propel our rank to office. And people are looking for an alternative to the staid political status quo. In the wake of his spat with Trump, Musk polled X users, asking if a new party should emerge out of this schism. Of the millions who responded, 80 percent did so in the what about a movement borne not out of a rivalry between oligarchs, but on inclusion, humanity, nature, and a shared belief in the transcendence of those tenets?That would be something to rally around. Why Aren't We Electing Skiers as Politicians? first appeared on Powder on Jun 17, 2025
Yahoo
15 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Appeals court allows Trump to keep National Guard deployed, for now
A federal appeals court panel late Thursday allowed President Trump to keep the National Guard deployed in Los Angeles, for now. The three-judge 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel unanimously extended its pause of a judge's order finding Trump's deployment illegal and forcing him to return control of the troops to California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D). 'We emphasize, however, that our decision addresses only the facts before us. And although we hold that the President likely has authority to federalize the National Guard, nothing in our decision addresses the nature of the activities in which the federalized National Guard may engage,' the appeals panel wrote in its unsigned, 38-page decision. The panel said it disagreed with the administration that Trump's decision isn't reviewable by the courts, but the judges acknowledged they must be 'highly deferential.' 'Affording the President that deference, we conclude that it is likely that the President lawfully exercised his statutory authority,' the opinion reads. Trump has sent in thousands of National Guard troops to protect immigration officers in the wake of recent protests in Los Angeles, which at times have devolved into violence. The move quickly sparked a lawsuit from Newsom and the state's attorney general. Though the 9th Circuit's decision marks a victory for Trump in the legal battle, it may be short-lived. U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer, who issued last week's decision invalidating the deployment, is set to hold a hearing Friday on whether to issue an indefinite injunction. Breyer is an appointee of former President Clinton and the brother of retired Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer. In deploying the troops, Trump cited a statute that allows him to federalize the National Guard whenever there is a rebellion or when he cannot execute federal laws with regular forces. The appeals panel said Thursday it agreed the latter trigger was likely met, so it didn't need to reach the question of whether there was a rebellion. 'Plaintiffs' own submissions state that some protesters threw objects, including Molotov cocktails, and vandalized property. According to the declarations submitted by Defendants, those activities significantly impeded the ability of federal officers to execute the laws,' the opinion reads. The three-judge appeals panel comprised two Trump-nominated judges, Mark Bennett and Eric Miller, and Judge Jennifer Sung, an appointee of former President Biden. The 9th Circuit also rejected Newsom's argument Trump failed a statutory requirement to issue his deployment order 'through' the governor. Newsom contended it established a requirement that he consent, but the appeals panel said notifying the adjutant general of the California National Guard was likely sufficient. The panel stressed the statute 'does not give governors any veto power over the President's federalization decision.' 'The court rightly rejected Trump's claim that he can do whatever he wants with the National Guard and not have to explain himself to a court. The president is not a king and not above the law,' Newsom said in a statement. 'We will press forward with our challenge to President Trump's authoritarian use of U.S. military soldiers against citizens,' he continued. Updated June 20 at 8:30 a.m. EDT Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
15 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Appeals court sides with Trump on National Guard deployment in LA
The Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals has sided with President Donald Trump after California Governor Gavin Newsom sued his administration for deploying 4,000 National Guard troops during mass anti-ICE protests in Los Angeles that erupted earlier this month. 'We conclude that it is likely that the president lawfully exercised his statutory authority' by deploying the Guard, the appeals court wrote in a ruling late Thursday. The judges cited a federal law allowing the federalization of the Guard when 'the president is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.' Additionally, the judges wrote that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth notifying the Adjutant General of the California National Guard, 'likely satisfied the statute's procedural requirement that federalization orders be issued 'through' the Governor.' The appeals court order indefinitely blocks a previous order from U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer. Breyer ruled last Thursday that Trump's actions 'were illegal—both exceeding the scope of his statutory authority and violating the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.' 'He must therefore return control of the California National Guard to the Governor of the State of California forthwith,' the judge wrote. The Trump administration quickly appealed Breyer's order, prompting the appeals court to temporarily pause the ruling the same night Breyer handed it down. During a previous hearing before Breyer, an attorney for California claimed the Trump administration was attempting a 'dangerous expansion of executive power' with its deployment of the Guard. Trump's team argued that the president rightfully used his powers as commander-in-chief of the armed forces, and it communicated its orders to the state official responsible for the Guard. At one point in the hearing, Breyer suggested political leaders making decisions without checks and balances were more like the king against whom the 13 colonies revolted during the American Revolution. 'That's the difference between a Constitutional government and King George,' Breyer said, per Politico. 'It's not that a leader can simply say something and it becomes it.' The Independent's Alex Woodward contributed reporting.
