House Democrats seek access to Jeffrey Epstein's "birthday book" said to include letter from Trump
In a letter to the representatives of Epstein's estate on Friday, Rep. Ro Khanna and House Oversight Ranking Democrat Rep. Robert Garcia, both of California, said the request comes amid Mr. Trump's "desperate attempts to quell public interest in the release of files" related to the disgraced financier.
"Recent public reporting indicates that the Estate of Jeffrey Epstein is in possession of a document commonly referred to as 'the birthday book,' compiled by Ghislaine Maxwell in 2003 in celebration of Mr. Epstein's 50th birthday, which has clear relevance to this case," they wrote in a letter.
"The book is relevant for ongoing congressional oversight of the Department of Justice's handling of the Epstein investigation and prosecution, as well as the Trump Administration's decision to declassify and release only a handful of documents from its Epstein files while withholding others from the public," the letter stated.
The Democratic lawmakers requested a "complete, unredacted copy" of the alleged birthday book no later than Aug. 10. The House Oversight Committee is pursuing its own inquiry into the Epstein saga and has separately issued a subpoena for Maxwell, the financier's imprisoned accomplice and former girlfriend, to sit for a deposition the following day, on Aug. 11.
Epstein, 66, who leveraged his wealth to make connections with many high-profile figures in the U.S. and abroad, was found dead in his cell at the Metropolitan Correctional Center in New York City on Aug. 10, 2019, while awaiting trial on federal sex trafficking charges.
Earlier this month, the Wall Street Journal published a story that claimed a letter signed by Mr. Trump was included in the book along with letters from other friends and acquaintances of Epstein. The president has denied the report, calling the letter a "FAKE."
Last week, Mr. Trump filed a libel lawsuit against the Wall Street Journal, the reporters who wrote the story, and its owner, Rupert Murdoch, alleging the paper's claims were "false, defamatory, unsubstantiated, and disparaging." The lawsuit, which also accuses the Journal of "clear journalistic failures," includes two counts of defamation, each seeking at least $10 billion.
A Dow Jones spokesperson said in a statement: "We have full confidence in the rigor and accuracy of our reporting, and will vigorously defend against any lawsuit."
Mr. Trump has previously acknowledged a past friendship with Epstein years ago but has said they had a "falling out."
The Trump administration has been facing increased pressure to disclose more details on Epstein, who was convicted of soliciting prostitution from a minor in a Florida state court in 2008 under a controversial plea deal that allowed him to serve only 13 months in jail. Last week, Mr. Trump ordered Attorney General Pam Bondi to seek the release of grand jury testimony related to Epstein. One of the Justice Department's requests to unseal grand jury transcripts has been denied.
The order from Mr. Trump came after the Justice Department and FBI released a memo stating that Epstein did not have an incriminating "client list," did not try to blackmail any prominent figures, and died by suicide. The memo drew backlash from across the political spectrum, including from some fervent Trump backers, in part because Bondi and other administration figures had promised to release much more information on Epstein.
Meanwhile, Todd Blanche, the second-highest-ranking Justice Department official, met with Maxwell at the U.S. attorney's office in Tallahassee, Florida, to discuss Epstein over 1 ½ days of interviews. Her lawyer said, "She didn't hold anything back."
Maxwell is serving a 20-year sentence at a low-security federal prison in Tallahassee after being convicted three years ago of helping Epstein sexually abuse underage girls.
On Friday, Mr. Trump ducked questions about a possible pardon for Maxwell, telling reporters after landing in Scotland, "I don't know anything about the conversation" between Maxwell and Blanche.
"A lot of people are asking me about pardons. Obviously, this is no time to be talking about pardons," the president said.
Before his trip, reporters kept asking Mr. Trump about the Epstein case.
"People should really focus on how well the country is doing," he insisted. He shut down another question by saying, "I don't want to talk about that."Joe Walsh,
Kathryn Watson,
Melissa Quinn and
Jacob Rosen
contributed to this report.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
a minute ago
- Forbes
The Trump Administration Looks To Claw Back $7 Billion In Energy Grants: Who's Impacted And How To Still Go Green
Editorial Note: We earn a commission from partner links on Forbes Advisor. Commissions do not affect our editors' opinions or evaluations. The Trump administration is attempting to claw back $7 billion in grants given to low- and moderate-income households for residential solar panels. The abjuration, coupled with the scheduled end of the residential clean energy tax credit by year's end, signed into law through The One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), will eliminate energy tax benefits for homeowners. However, homeowners still have limited time to max out their benefits as the ink dries on the legislation. The Environmental Protection Agency could terminate the funds awarded to needy households for solar panels under the $7 billion grant program as early as this week, as reported by Reuters on Tuesday. The grants, part of President Biden's 2022 Inflation Reduction Act, were awarded through the Solar for All program to 60 nonprofit groups, Native American tribes and state agencies to deliver solar to over 900,000 households. As part of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, the awards were projected to save these households over $350 million annually on electricity bills. Recipients were selected based on need, including the Mandan, Hidatsa and Arikara Nation tribes, who received $135.6 million. The undertakings aimed to deploy 15 solar systems at the homes of Native elders. A 2023 U.S. Department of Energy report found that an estimated 16,805 tribal homes had no access to electricity. This includes an estimated 21% of homes on the Navajo Reservation—or 14,063 households— and 35% of homes on the Hopi Reservation—or 878 homes—that do not have power. Energy tax credits that benefited American homeowners are also coming to an end. The OBBBA, signed into law on July 4, eliminates the residential clean energy tax credit established under the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 at year's end, rushing its originally scheduled 2034 termination. The tax credit allowed homeowners investing in residential renewable energy, including solar panels, wind, geothermal and biomass installations, to deduct 30% of the cost from their taxes, with no income limits. Under the OBBBA, homeowners have until December 31, 2025, to take advantage of the credit. Homeowners can find a silver lining by acting now. The residential clean energy credit remains redeemable through the end of 2025, giving homeowners some time to install solar panels and still take advantage of the tax benefit. The process of installing solar panels varies from state to state, but getting a permit for installation—the longest part of the process—can range from weeks to months, according to Forme Solar Electric. The full process, from receiving a quote to powering your home, can take anywhere from three weeks to several months. In California, the process takes an estimated 45 days from the time a contract is signed. The benefits of going solar, however, are long-lasting. A Stanford study found that about 60% of families could cut electricity costs by an average of 15% by installing a solar-battery system, taking into account the annual cost of operation. Stanford's findings also revealed that 63% of U.S households could weather local or regional blackouts with solar systems, which can meet about half of a household's electricity needs on top of reducing electricity bills. With the residential clean energy tax credit, homeowners could save thousands now and even more down the road. For example, with the current 30% tax break, solar installers can receive a $12,000 credit on a $30,000 solar array with $10,000 of residential battery packs. The Stanford study's lead author, Tao Sun, a postdoctoral scholar at the Stanford Sustainable Systems Lab, advised homeowners not to give up on renewable energy after the credit moratorium. 'Homeowners can still access tax credits indirectly after 2025 through leasing arrangements or power purchase agreements,' Sun said. 'These indirect benefits will continue until 2027 for solar and 2033 for batteries.' Read more: How Much Do Solar Panels Cost In 2025? Current homeowners and renewable energy adopters may consider using home equity loans or home equity lines of credit (HELOCs) to fund their energy projects. A HELOC is a variable-rate second mortgage that lets you borrow against your home's value using a revolving line of credit. HELOCs use your property as collateral for your payments, which means your lender can seize your property if repayments aren't made. Like credit cards, HELOCs grant users a line of credit, and applicants don't have to take all the money out at once. They only pay interest on what they borrow, with variable interest rates that rise and fall with the market. HELOC interest rates are typically lower than the rates you'd find on personal loans or credit cards, usually ranging from 8% to 10%. HELOC interest payments are also tax-deductible in instances of home improvement, which renewable energy panels may fall under. Forbes Advisor's HELOC calculator can help you estimate your borrowing potential given your credit score, home value, mortgage balance, loan amount and location. Remember that using a HELOC requires budgeting for monthly payments and may include several fees, like appraisal, application and closing fees. Be sure to shop around and compare the best HELOCS offering low APRs to find the best deal for your energy investment.
Forbes
a minute ago
- Forbes
Faster Capabilities For Warfighters With Dual Defense Acquisition
Re-Imagining Acquisition Reform As the Second Trump Administration prepares the defining document for defense strategy, its National Defense Strategy, there is no problem more important than acquisition reform since this determines how fast capabilities get to our warfighters. Strategies to deter and confront adversaries are hollow without delivering the hard power of new and more voluminous warfighting capabilities. Over the last decade there have been numerous acquisition reforms including the creation of the Adaptive Acquisition Framework (in the first Trump Administration) and the increasing use of Other Transaction Authority instead of the Federal Acquisition Regulations. The Second Trump Administration has accelerated this pace of reform with four Presidential Executive Orders and the Secretary of Defense's 'Software Acquisition Pathway' directive. Congress is also directing further reform included in the SPEED and FoRGED Acts which emphasize using commercial technology where possible. While all these reforms are headed in the right direction, the major drawback is the 'one-size-fits-all'approach for all types of acquisition. With the complexity of buying multi-billion dollar ships as well as software and low-cost drones, a single acquisition system may be the obstacle to delivering capabilities at the pace warfighters need. Why should we use the same process to specify all of what's required on an aircraft carrier with a 50- year service life that we use to buy attritable drones? The highest impact reform would be to create a second acquisition system: complementing the current system for large defense platforms, this second system could operate in parallel with a much faster cycle time for any items the commercial world can supply without bespoke military Technological Advantage Historically, the United States has maintained decisive military advantage due, in large part, to superior technology capability through technology DoD invented or helped create. Today, the U.S. military is increasingly drawing upon commercial technologies like AI, cyber, space and unmanned systems which are being developed by companies outside the traditional defense industrial base in Silicon Valley and other innovation hubs. Former Secretary of Defense Ash Carter foresaw the need to re-connect the military to Silicon Valley when he created the Defense Innovation Unit, Defense Innovation Board and the Defense Digital Service a decade ago. Further, as we incorporate the lessons of recent conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East, there is a growing awareness that the U.S. needs more than its large platforms (ships, tanks, planes) to be effective including commercial capabilities such as lower-cost, higher-volume unmanned systems, AI-based software capability and space-based platforms. This high/low mix or 'hedge strategy' makes our military stronger through an increased breadth of capabilities which is easier to scale rapidly and more interoperable with allies. The DoD procurement system, which is actually the combination of three interdependent processes of requirements, acquisition, and budgeting, has historically delivered new capabilities in 7 to 27 years—clearly not fast or agile enough to deliver capabilities warfighters need to address rapidly evolving threats made possible through new Importance of Commercial Technology Given its increasing importance, not having an effective approach to rapidly adopt commercial technology is a glaring weakness for DoD. Technologies such as advanced communications, AI software, unmanned systems, satellite imagery, and many others can be rapidly purchased from credible commercial vendors to deliver novel capabilities at a fraction of the cost of dedicated defense technologies just as SpaceX demonstrated by revolutionizing launch capability. To modernize faster, DoD requires an order of magnitude increase in its adoption of commercial technologies. Commercial technologies have non-trivial differences from strictly defense technologies. First, commercial technologies are produced in massive unit volumes—sometimes in the millions—often led by the global consumer market as is the case with small drones. Second, in addition to larger volumes, commercial technologies evolve at a much faster speed than defense technologies with products refreshed on 12-18 month cycles instead of decades. As a result, DoD needs to move much faster in assessing and fielding these technologies. Third, commercial technologies such as AI software or commercial satellite imagery are not Service-specific. We do not need special versions for the Navy or the Air Force (even though at DoD, we often try to create these) and, in fact, creating special versions by Service makes it more difficult and costly for commercial suppliers to do business with DoD. Fourth, and maybe most relevant, since DoD does not control the global diffusion of these technologies, slow adoption creates an asymmetric disadvantage for the if our adversaries adopt more rapidly. These differences are extremely relevant for future conflicts where our adversaries effectively employ commercial technologies. For example, when U.S. troops were stationed in Mosul, ISIS sent small drones, purchased on e-commerce platforms like Amazon, with grenades to kill American soldiers. Countries such as Azerbaijan and Ukraine quickly adapted commercial technology in new ways to gain an edge on the battlefield. Azerbaijan decisively won the Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict against Armenia due to its use of commercial drones. More recently, the Ukrainians are effectively employing small aerial drones to destroy Russian tanks and maritime drones to destroy Russian capital ships. DoD must add new capabilities like these in one to two years rather than the historical timeframe of one to two decades; however, this will not happen if we remain rooted in a half-century old acquisition process suited only to defense-specific technologies. DoD must reform its sequentially-oriented requirements, acquisition, and budgeting processes to adapt to an environment where industry is leading technology development. The current sequential process lags commercial product cycles and delivers technology several generations behind, which is the equivalent of supplying flip phones and fax machines to our Fast Follower Paradigm: Envisioning a Parallel Acquisition System For commercial technologies that DoD does not invent or specify, DoD must become a Fast Follower to gain rapid access to these technologies to maintain technological parity with adversaries. DoD should create a parallel acquisition system that modifies the three elements comprising today's acquisition system: first, requirements, where commercial technology negates the need for the time-consuming process of detailed specification of solutions; second, acquisition, where new adaptive acquisition frameworks (for urgent capability or middle tier) can be adapted for commercial technology and OTAs can be used instead of the FAR; and, third, budgeting, where new commercial solutions enter the market on a faster cycle than the three-year defense budget cycle and much faster than the refresh rate of traditional defense technologies which can be decades or more for major platforms. Therefore, key tenets of a Fast Follower paradigm include: 1. Eliminating the requirements process for commercial technologies and replacing it with simple approvals of the need for a capability. We do not need to develop detailed specifications for products the commercial market already builds; in fact, such specifications will limit both creative problem solving and the number of suppliers competing for defense contracts. Additionally, the verification and validation processes to ensure the requirements are complete and accurate are also unnecessary. Lastly, the operational test and evaluation process—necessary for uniquely military items—is also unnecessary as long as there is a test plan included as part of the prototyping process. Eliminating the requirements, validation, certification and unique testing processes can save years in delivering capability to warfighters. 2. Applying the best practices of commercial procurement which means applying to the maximum extent non-consortia Other Transaction Authority through Commercial Solutions Openings. CSOs maximize competition while minimizing the opportunity costs for participating vendors. The CSO is simply a structured competition for solutions to a military problem which includes objective criteria for a vendor down-selection process followed by testing solutions in a military environment and, finally, placing chosen vendors on a prototyping contract. CSOs can translate classified problem sets to unclassified challenges and require as little as a five-page white paper or slide deck which encourages more vendors to compete. One additional key feature of CSOs is the ability to incorporate warfighter feedback through testing competing solutions. Real-time feedback has a direct analog to the commercial world where companies test beta versions with end users and iterate based on feedback to develop a solution that meets customer needs; this is the essence of agile development. Within the military, that feedback should leverage expertise from Combatant Commands since these organizations are literally on the front lines and face the most pressing operational needs. The Defense Innovation Unit exclusively applies these CSO practices with the aim of placing companies on contract within 90 days; this fast and vendor-friendly process attracts, on average, more than 50 vendors for each competition. With an OTA, if a vendor successfully prototypes a solution, there is no required re-compete at the end of the prototyping period, so DoD can immediately scale the solution. Using a CSO instead of a FAR-based contract can save years in the process and, by incorporating warfighter feedback, ensure that new technologies are deployed instead of collecting dust in warehouses. 3. Providing a consistent demand signal for the market by budgeting for a capability rather than a requirement. Different from a program of record, which reflects a rigid requirement and often a single vendor, a capability of record signals the need for ongoing capability, such as for small drones. With continuity in budgeting, DoD can assess technology on a more continuous basis, choose the best vendor at a point in time, and refresh that capability with a frequency that matches commercial product cycles. Vendors would see a consistent demand—which would encourage investment in productive capacity—and likely expand the choice of solutions to better compete. Today, almost all of the buying offices at DoD are housed within one of the Service branches—Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force or Space Force. DoD may need to create non-Service-specific buying offices since it is not clear where in DoD non-Service-specific technologies like small drones or AI software should be assessed and procured. The current situation where each Service buys its own versions of commercial items splinters demand into different products which, in turn, offsets DoD's volume-based buying power. Instead, DoD could establish a center of expertise for each of these commercially-oriented technologies and budget for these so that the buying office is not dependent on the Services for budgets. The Special Competitive Studies Project has suggested one approach for this in creating a Joint Warfare and Innovation Command to oversee these non-Service-specific buying offices and ensure adherence to a set of principles including speed to assess and procure rapidly, refresh rates of technology consistent with technology product life cycles, and satisfying the needs of the Combatant Commands and Services' unique missions. Buying based on capabilities—rather than requirements—allows DoD to adapt to rapidly evolving threats and procure solutions that were not even available when the budget was created three years earlier. Further, consistency of the demand signal would be enhanced with budgets for multi-year procurement. This is similar to the idea of budgeting for a portfolio of capabilities which was recommended by the PPBE Reform Commission with the key difference being the capability of record provides for consistency in demand signalling whereas the objective of the portfolio approach is to enable flexibility to move funds within the portfolio. A Fast Follower paradigm has several key benefits: maximizing competition of solutions from multiple vendors; reducing costs by leveraging higher volumes of the commercial market; increasing speed and transparency of the acquisition process; and minimizing the opportunity cost for vendors to encourage participation in future competitions. In fact, a Fast Follower approach is a common sense adaptation of how technology is adopted in the commercial world. Much of what DoD buys beyond the large defense platforms could use this parallel system: commercial items plus any items where solutions already exist in the market and do not require government-paid internal R&D to develop a solution to evaluate. This allows DoD to leverage the ten-fold increase in defense tech investment by venture capital both for commercial items and even for non-commercial items like munitions and military easily could DoD implement this parallel acquisition system? Almost immediately since it requires no new authorities from Congress, and only a change in internal processes. OTAs already provide the legal authority to contract differently, CSOs already form a blueprint for managing the process, and DoD could budget for these joint capabilities (non-Service-specific capabilities) in the next budgeting cycle. Congress has already shown the way with the broad categories for appropriated funds in the recently passed Reconciliation (or Big Beautiful) Bill when it allocated funds for broad categories like unmanned systems. Conclusion Maintaining the U.S. military's technological superiority requires not only developing unique defense technologies like hypersonics and directed energy, but also following fast the innovations of our vibrant commercial technology sector in AI, unmanned systems, space-based platforms, and other technologies. Creating a parallel acquisition system for items that do not require military-unique specifications and where solutions already exist in the market is well within the existing authorities of the Department of Defense. Only the will to act prevents us from optimizing for speed and cost in acquiring much of what warfighters need. The U.S. innovation ecosystem is the envy of the world and the military can better leverage this system by reimagining a parallel acquisition system that moves at commercial speed. Continuing to deploy a one-size-fits-all approach for defense acquisition guarantees fewer choices and delivers last-generation capabilities for warfighters at high cost. As the military increasingly makes use of commercial technologies, the divergence in outcomes from what today's warfighters need with historical acquisition becomes wider and increasingly dangerous.
a minute ago
What US consumers can expect from new tariffs on imported goods
American businesses and consumers soon will have a better idea of how President Donald Trump's foreign trade agenda might affect them now that the United States has imposed higher tariffs on products from dozens of countries. It's been nearly 100 years since the nation had an overall import tax rate as high as the one set Thursday. But the individual impact on business costs and consumer prices could vary as much as the tariffs applied to goods of nearly 70 U.S. trading partners, from complicated economies like the European Union to the small African nation of Lesotho. Exports from a majority of them are getting taxed at 15%. For a handful of countries in Asia, the rate is 19%. Products from the rest are subject to taxes of 20% to 50%. Meanwhile, a 55% tariff on Chinese-made goods is scheduled to take effect next week if a U.S.-China trade deal is not agreed on before then. Businesses in the U.S. and abroad have been dealing in various ways since February with Trump's fluctuating tariffs on specific products and countries. Many automakers appeared to have absorbed the costs for now. But recent government data indicated that retail prices for groceries, furniture and appliances started creeping up in June. Because tariffs are a tax on imports, economists have expected U.S. consumers to foot at least part of the bill eventually. The country-specific round enforced Thursday, together with the president's earlier tariffs on specific sectors such as automobiles and steel, will increase prices 1.8% in the short term, the Budget Lab at Yale estimated. That's the equivalent of a $2,400 loss of income per U.S. household, according to the non-partisan policy research center The projections were based on an analysis of duties implemented this year through Wednesday, as well as a doubling of the levy on items made in India that Trump said would be implemented near the end of August. "Retailers have been able to hold the line on pricing so far, but the new increased tariffs will significantly raise costs for U.S. retailers, manufacturers and consumers,' Jonathan Gold, Jon Gold, vice president of supply chain and customs policy at the National Retail Federation trade group, said in an emailed statement to The Associated Press. Here's what to know about the tariffs and where U.S. consumers are most likely to notice effects: Trump unveiled sweeping import taxes on goods coming into the U.S. from 66 countries, the European Union, Taiwan and the Falkland Islands in April. He said the 'reciprocal' tariffs were meant to boost domestic manufacturing and restore fairness to global trade. The president paused the country-specific tariffs a week later but applied a 10% tax to most imports. In early July, he began notifying countries that their exports would be subject to higher tariffs on Aug. 1 unless they reached trade deals. A week ago, he pushed the start date to Thursday. In the meantime, Trump announced a 35% tariff on imports from Canada, but delayed action on Mexico while negotiations continued. However, a free trade agreement reached with Mexico and Canada during Trump's first term shields most of those countries' products from punishing duties. The president also ordered a 50% tariff on goods from Brazil. This week, he signed an executive order to take India's tariff rate from 25% to 50% for its purchases of Russian oil. The timing gives India and Russia a chance to negotiate with the Trump administration. Other duties not specific to countries remain in place, such as a 50% tariff on imported aluminum and steel announced in June. Trump also threatened 100% tariffs on computer chips that aren't made in the U.S. The administration has said tariffs are still coming on imported pharmaceutical drugs. The U.S. Commerce Department reported on July 31 that prices rose 2.6% in June, up from an annual pace of 2.4% in May. Earlier in July, the government reported that its primary inflation measure, the Consumer Price Index, also ticked higher in June as the cost of furniture, toys and other frequently imported items increased. Shoppers should be prepared to pay more for clothes and shoes because the combined tariffs 'disproportionately affect clothing and textiles,' according to the Budget Lab at Yale. It estimates that shoe prices will go up 39% temporarily and stay 19% above where they are now. For apparel, the Budget Lab put the comparable figures at 37% and 18%. Overall, Americans face an average tax of 18.6% for imported products, the highest rate since 1933, the research center said. The tariffs will almost certainly result in higher food prices, according to an analysis by the nonpartisan Tax Foundation. The U.S. simply doesn't make enough of some products, like bananas or coffee, to satisfy demand. Fish, beer and liquor are also likely to get more expensive, the foundation said. The U.S. Wine Trade Alliance and other alcohol industry trade groups sent a letter to Trump that warned a 15% tariff on European wines and spirits could result in more than 25,000 American job losses and cost the industry nearly $2 billion in lost sales. 'Mr. President, we need toasts, not tariffs, as we head into the most important season for our industry,' read the letter dated Wednesday. Wine distributors and retailers avoided price increases before now by accelerating shipments from France and other EU countries earlier in the year. But with the EU's tariff rate raised to 15% on Thursday, customers may see European wines costing 30% more in September, U.S. Wine Trade Alliance President Ben Aneff said. Some automakers already raised prices to counteract tariffs. Luxury sports car maker Ferrari said last week it was waiting for more details of Trump's trade deal with the EU before scaling back a 10% surcharge it put on most vehicles in the U.S. For the most part, automakers waited for details instead of passing on tariff costs to consumers. But that could change. General Motors said on July 22 that the impact of the tariffs could get more pronounced in the third quarter of the year. GM has estimated the tariffs will cost it $4 billion to $5 billion this year. Toyota reported Thursday a 37% drop in profits in the April-June quarter, cutting its full-year earnings forecasts largely because of Trump's tariffs. Even with so many new tariffs kicking in, the tariff situation remains fluid. Trump's use of an emergency powers law to implement tariffs is being challenged in the courts. The case is expected to wind up before the U.S. Supreme Court. Moreover, the tariffs on goods from China haven't been finalized. Consumers may start seeing more effects when the administration ends a tax exemption for small parcels sent from other countries. Trump last week signed an order to suspend the 'de minimis" exemption that has allowed shipments valued at $800 or less to enter the U.S. duty-free. International e-commerce companies have widely used the rule to avoid paying customs charges. Trump withdrew the exemption in early April for goods shipped from China and Hong Kong tariff-free. It is now set to be eliminated for low-value packages from every country on Aug. 29.
