Federal trade court blocks Trump from imposing sweeping tariffs under emergency powers law
WASHINGTON — A federal trade court on Wednesday blocked President Trump from imposing sweeping tariffs on imports under an emergency-powers law.
The ruling from a three-judge panel came after several lawsuits arguing Trump has exceeded his authority, left U.S. trade policy dependent on his whims and unleashed economic chaos.
At least seven lawsuits are challenging the levies, the centerpiece of Trump's trade policy.
Tariffs must typically be approved by Congress, but Trump has says he has the power to act because the country's trade deficits amount to a national emergency. He imposed tariffs on most of the countries in the world at one point, sending markets reeling.
The plaintiffs argue that the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not authorize the use of tariffs.
Even if it did, they say, the trade deficit does not meet the law's requirement that an emergency be triggered only by an 'unusual and extraordinary threat.' The U.S. has run a trade deficit with the rest of the world for 49 consecutive years.
Whitehurst writes for the Associated Press.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNN
9 minutes ago
- CNN
Can Protestors Manufacture a Tipping Point? - The Assignment with Audie Cornish - Podcast on CNN Audio
Protest Noise 00:00:00 No more deportation! Just us go! Audie Cornish 00:00:05 It's been about a full week of protests and demonstrations against the ongoing immigration raids in L.A. Protestors 00:00:11 Get the f*** out of here! You guys are bad people! Period! Audie Cornish 00:00:17 'All of this ahead of President Trump's planned military parade on the streets of Washington, D.C. This weekend. It's the largest military parade the city's seen in decades, complete with dozens of tanks, about 7,000 soldiers, and a price tag potentially in the tens of millions of dollars. Now this celebration falls on the Army's 250th birthday and the president's birthday. No surprise, it's an event that's also drawn its share of opposition. In fact, in cities across the country, organizers are planning a No Kings protest. It's being billed as a nationwide day of defiance and the biggest single-day anti-Trump protest since the start of his second term. President Donald Trump 00:01:01 And we're going to be celebrating big on Saturday. We're going have a lot of... And if there's any protest that wants to come out, they will be met with very big force. By the way, for those people that want to protest, they're going be met very big force. And I haven't even heard about a protest. But, you know, this is people that hate our country. But they will met with a very heavy force. Audie Cornish 00:01:22 Now organizers started working on this long before the response to ICE out in LA, but I wanted to talk to them about what they're thinking now. Leah Greenberg 00:01:32 'We are working very closely with our folks to make sure that people are really trained and careful around security, around safety, around de-escalation, clear on non-violent principles. We want people to bring their kids. We want to bring people to their dogs. We want create, in these moments, a sense of community and support and care for each other. Audie Cornish 00:01:52 'Leah Greenberg is a co-founder and co-executive director of the progressive group, The Indivisible Project. How are they preparing? Are they changing their strategy in light of President Trump's willingness to use military force on US soil? I'm Audie Cornish, and this is The Assignment. Audie Cornish 00:02:14 'So just for people to understand, Indivisible has been around for a few years now, going back to the first Trump administration. Can you talk about, just so we have a sense of a tiny bit of that history, because I understand that in your mind, you had just experienced the kind of Tea Party protests, you were a legislative staffer, and all of a sudden you have this right-wing populist movement that spawned not just protests then, but senators and lawmakers and energy that politically we all live with now. What was it that you saw then that struck you? Leah Greenberg 00:02:55 'Well, so my husband, who's also my co-executive director at Invisible Night, we were congressional staffers during the early Obama years, which meant that we saw both the triumphs, like passing the Affordable Care Act, and the real frustrations of a legislative agenda that was bogged down by ferocious local opposition led by this movement of the Tea Party. And we got a lot of up close and personal interactions with those folks as congressional staffors. In 2016, when Donald Trump was elected and when we were suddenly watching everything that we had ever worked on and on the verge of being swept away by this incoming administration, as we were watching this rise of white Christian nationalism and authoritarianism, and as we are frankly seeing a democratic party that did not seem prepared to deal with any of it, we kind of like went back to those lessons. We were seeing this massive surge of people looking for answers for what to do. We were getting asked by previously non-political friends, like, how do I organize? Can I do this? Can I to that? And we decided that we were gonna take the lessons that we had learned from our own interactions with the Tea Party from their model. We were gonna to take out the racism and the bigotry and the violence, and we were going to turn it into a how to guide for people all over the country who are trying to figure out what is my power? How do I organized? How do make my voice heard to stop this? Audie Cornish 00:04:14 Trump menace. What is it that was specific about what the tea party air quotes had done? Because it also, I remember covering it, it started chaotically. Despite everyone's sort of determination that, oh the Koch brothers had astroturfed this and this was somehow a movement that was just like completely planned, in a lot of ways it wasn't. It was a coalition of fractious smaller groups that came together or maybe were backed by donors. But it was messy at first and it came together into something. What was it that you experienced that you wanted to replicate? Well, I first, I think... Leah Greenberg 00:04:50 'Absolutely right about that. It was messy and it was organic. I think that the lessons are actually capable of being adapted from either side. The Tea Party took much of their own organizing theory from Saul Alinsky, right? So we see the kind of like original left-wing community organizing getting repurposed by the Tea Party in their own theory of how to organize locally and then kind of pulling from what we had seen about how they operated. Audie Cornish 00:05:15 The reason why I'm asking that is because over the last decade or two, there were Occupy Wall Street, there was the Black Lives Matter mass movement, never mind the prior few years of backlashes that were city to city to policing. There have been all kinds of progressive street protest movements in the last few years and arguably none have been as successful as the Tea Party. Even indivisible, out raise the Tea Party, you know, and fundraising for a time, like, I don't have an Occupy Wall Street Senator, so to speak, you know, I don t have, there isn't a Ted Cruz and a Mike Lee or any of those folks that have permeated the politics. And so I'm trying to understand, based on what you learned from them, what do you think a movement should look like? And what do you consider success? Leah Greenberg 00:06:10 So what I tell people when I'm trying to recruit is that Indivisible is a movement for people who understand that politics is too important to be left up to the politicians and understand that when we come together and when we understand our own power, then we actually have far more than we think. Audie Cornish 00:06:25 And you tell them, if we do this, and if you do this with me, this is what we can achieve. What is the this? Leah Greenberg 00:06:33 What we can achieve is going to change based on the moment, right? We were born out of a moment of reaction. And so the initial conversation that we had with our folks, the initial guide we had that went viral and led to the formation of thousands of invisible groups was really about how you organize sustainable local infrastructure and then deploy a set of tactics that are designed to use leverage in relation to your elected officials right? Audie Cornish 00:06:55 So how you get people to leave their house, get together in groups, and take concrete, measurable action. Leah Greenberg 00:07:02 That's right. That's gonna change over time, right? Once you got communities of people together who are in motion, they found a ton of other things to do that were not in the original Indivisible Guide, right. Audie Cornish 00:07:13 And they had their own goals and their own ideas. Leah Greenberg 00:07:16 Absolutely, absolutely. And so, and we think that's good, right, because fundamentally, you know, we're not gonna get to scale on the kind of collective people power that we need in this country via nonprofits funded by grants, right we actually need to have. Audie Cornish 00:07:30 'Right, but the Tea Party found a way to focus, so that's what I'm asking about, finding a way to focus when you have lots of little groups. Sometimes, as a reporter, when I'm covering an organized protest, not a riot or a response, I notice there are so many different signs for so many different things. And as a result, sometimes you're not sure what you're looking at. You have a vague sense that it's left and left-leaning, but you're like, I don't know what they want in this moment. Leah Greenberg 00:07:59 You know, that can be a challenge. And especially in a moment like this, when just quite candidly, I could spend the rest of the conversation here just listing the number of harms and horrors that people are experiencing as a result of this administration. And so it is definitely one of the challenges around how do you maintain clarity about the core meta story that you are telling? Audie Cornish 00:08:20 Core meta story. Say that again. What value is that? The core meta story? Leah Greenberg 00:08:26 Well, I mean, humans understand the world through stories and frames much more than they understand it through policy positions, right? The right wing has a core story. It is the bad government is more focused on delivering for an other, sometimes a racialized other, sometimes a gender or sexuality based other, but some kind of other group than they are on you and they are hurting you in order to give benefits for immigrants for. Like trans people for people, right? This is the core story that the right wing uses and they plug everything that they're doing into some version of that story in order to distract from the fact that they are, in fact, a political movement dedicated to extracting wealth from the government to deliver it back to their donors. Now, on the left, like that core story can get harder to tell, right, like we are trying to construct something. Right now. Audie Cornish 00:09:17 Right now, I mean honestly, what is it? Leah Greenberg 00:09:20 'What it is right now. Well, the core story that we want people to understand right now, and I'm going to be clear, this is about the moment that we are in, not about the long-term and aspirational vision that we collectively need to build together, is this administration, this regime, they are out of control. They are wrecking the things that we care about, whether that is our services, whether that are our rights, whether it is the things that may give us the ability to live safe and healthy and dignified lives in this country. And they are doing it to benefit themselves. It's those three pieces, right? That they are seizing power for themselves, they are taking the things that we care about and they're doing it all to benefit themself. And that they know that this is not popular, they know this is the kind of stuff that will get checked in a democratic and accountable society. And so they're knocking out the checks and the balances that would normally stop someone from seizing power, implementing policies that hurt people and doing it benefit themselves Audie Cornish 00:10:15 'What's interesting to me is that, that story you've just told is not different from the story you might've told during the first Trump administration. In the second Trump administration, they're just taking everything further. So there's a lot to unpack there. Number one, second Trump Administration. Despite your organizing, despite your fundraising, despite the spread of sort of an anti-Trump non-profit infrastructure. He came to power again with the support of swing voters. And number two, the things you are now asking people to turn out for, they've heard and have been hearing for a long time. So what do you feel that you learned from the first time around? Leah Greenberg 00:11:01 We understood our job as the folks who were building this grassroots infrastructure, who were organizing. What we wanted to do was build the kind of popular opposition that would get Donald Trump out of office and then achieve the kind systemic reforms and accountability that would prevent him from getting back into power. And our movement was really aligned on the fact that we collectively were not, you know, our end goal was not getting him out. It was actually getting voting rights. It was getting structural democracy reform. It was seeing accountability for the perpetrators of January 6th. We were not the only deciders on what got on the agenda and how it moved. Audie Cornish 00:11:39 In the Biden years. But as a protest, go back to that list, because those things didn't come to pass in a lot of way, right? The voting rights thing you brought up, but even January 6, as all of them have now been pardoned. Yeah, it sounds like you identified specifically the things that didn't really pan out, if they were your even personal goals for the organization. Leah Greenberg 00:12:02 Well, I would say they were collectible movement goals. I think that there was actually a very clear thread that we were pulling out from across people who were organizing throughout this time that they got activated by Donald Trump, but they recognized very quickly that Donald Trump was a symptom, not a cause, right? That he was a manifestation of broader political forces around polarization, around kind of the longer term struggle for democracy in this country. And so there was there was broad support for a kind of like we actually can't just get him out We have to like fix the system in ways that makes democracy deliver for other people Audie Cornish 00:12:36 The reason why I'm asking all of these questions is because for a time when I was covering the South, the story that I sort of came to understand about the civil rights movement, the black civil rights movements of the late 60s and the moment when that became more multiracial is there were moments where protests could turn violent. There were moments when nonviolent protests was met with violence and that that was The goal, right? Before we had viral moments, we had people say to the Children's March in Birmingham, you may have to put yourself in harm's way so people understand what, quote unquote, we are dealing with here with segregationists in the South. You're going to be harmed doing that. I don't know if people are prepared to do all that today. And so what does that mean? For inviting people out into the streets to protest, like this weekend, when all week they've been watching on the news, a government that is prepared to respond violently. Leah Greenberg 00:13:48 'Well, it's a question we take enormously seriously, and also it's the question where we understand the answer cannot be to simply go along in advance, right? You know, we've got about 1900 events around the country. We have been doing intensive safety and deescalation training, both for hosts and making trainings available for attendees, including traditional know your rights, but also more intensive around, you know, how do you handle various kinds of scenarios? And escalations in the event of law enforcement, in the even of counter protests, in the events of agitators. We take those responsibilities to prepare people to have these events enormously seriously. And so we're in regular contact and support with the organizers of these events all over the country. Now, what I would say in terms of, how do you talk to people about risk in this moment is we can't, we're not gonna tell people that there's no risk. We're not going to tell people there's not reason to be concerned. And what we are going to say is that we are collectively going to be more powerful together. We are collectively going to embrace that commitment to nonviolence, right? We understand that it's gonna be really, really important for us collectively to show up in a nonviolent, as a non-violent movement. And we are working very closely with our folks to make sure that people are really trained and careful around security, around safety, around deescalation, clear on nonviolent principles. And we think that's a really important part of creating the conditions for bringing out as many people as possible. Audie Cornish 00:15:17 'I'm talking with Leah Greenberg. She's a co-founder and co-executive director of the progressive group, The Indivisible Project. Audie Cornish 00:15:25 I know that there are a lot of progressive activists who look at the choices that the Biden administration made when they came to office and were frustrated, right? Like that they somehow didn't carry forward some of the energy that had been in the streets. What's one thing you regret or you wish you did differently during that time? Leah Greenberg 00:15:47 'Yeah, I've thought about this a lot, and I have a really simple answer, which is that I think that after January 6th, everyone should have recognized that the most important thing that we could do was meaningful accountability for perpetrators and that that would require some political capital. That would require some reprioritization that- Audie Cornish 00:16:09 The average person, what do you mean by that? Because we know investigators went after them. Leah Greenberg 00:16:13 So what is it that you regret? So I think that there were decisions that we made as an advocacy community to prioritize the legislative agenda, right? We needed to go full force campaigning for a stimulus and relief package. We needed it to go, full force fighting for voting rights and structural Marx reform, full force for the Build Back Better package. And there was kind of a perception, I think for many folks, that the kind of political capital required to go. Fast on prosecutions and to really prioritize them in a way that the Merrick Garland Justice Department didn't, to prioritize a meaningful effort at a second impeachment, et cetera, that those were distractions from the ability to move key policy priorities. And I think that— Audie Cornish 00:16:52 So people said, let the law enforcement guys deal with January 6th. We don't need to spend time Leah Greenberg 00:17:00 Yeah, I mean, I think I think that collectively, you know, and again, oh, and I say this, I mean, me, I means everybody who made decisions about what we were talking to activists about and I mean democratic leadership. I think collectively, we needed to recognize that part of how you pull a democracy out of this, this descent into authoritarianism is you actually create some meaningful consequences for people who have attempted a violent coup. And the fact that we didn't do that. Created the conditions for Donald Trump to slink off, kind of lick his wounds for a little while, and for his movement to regroup and to reassert itself. And so fundamentally, I think it's a lesson that we all collectively have to take about the balance of what is necessary to ultimately pull out of a democratic backslide. Audie Cornish 00:17:49 That's interesting in the context of the way the administration is now using the word insurrectionist to describe people in L.A. on the street, right? Yeah, in a way you're saying that that word doesn't have the same consequences it might have. Leah Greenberg 00:18:04 Well, I think there's an enormously painful irony to the fact that Donald Trump, when asked to call out any kind of support for people who were under attack in the Capitol on January 6th, was notably unwilling to do so compared to his willingness to send in the National Guard over the objections of literally everybody in California in order to instigate his preferred brand of manufactured chaos. Audie Cornish 00:18:29 But I want to follow up on your idea, because you just said something I'd never heard before, which is you said we, as a movement, you use your political capital on legislation, big legislative goals, and not punishing and accountability for the actions of folks out of that movement on January 6th, and that maybe that would have been a more valuable place to spend your time. Am I hearing that correctly? Leah Greenberg 00:18:57 'I think there were certainly prosecutions of some of the people who were actually in the mob on January 6th. There was not a high level prioritization of accountability for the senior leadership who egged that on and who refused to intervene. When we look at what is the theory of the case around how democracies emerged from period of authoritarianism. Part of it has to be accountability for the people who have broken the law, who have attempted to seize power extra-legally. And there was a decision, and I think it's relatively similar to the decisions that were made after the Bush administration around Guantanamo too, there was the decision to kind of turn the page and move forward and not to prioritize the kind of accountability that would have meaningfully shifted the political landscape as of 2023, as of 2024. Audie Cornish 00:19:54 So what do you wish you did differently? Leah Greenberg 00:19:56 I wish I had said that at the time. I wish that we had collectively as a broader movement been willing to say, we can't simply turn a page. We actually have to address what just happened. People, these are the things that have happened and we can simply keep moving. Audie Cornish 00:20:12 To me, it seems like you're in a new landscape. You're in the landscape where more people have actually turned out to protest in a lot of ways in some cities. They've had that experience maybe in the last seven, eight years in some major cities. So why would they do it again? What is it that you're telling them now? One of the reasons why they may be feeling dispirited is not just because of the opposition, so to speak, not just of how the government is reacting, but because they actually feel like there was no significant change on the issues they cared about from those past protests. Leah Greenberg 00:20:48 'Yeah, so here's how I would talk about it. I'm going to say, I'm gonna do two versions of this, right? Okay, so I think we have a short-term crisis, which is that there is a would-be authoritarian who's rapidly running through every page of the authoritarian playbook, and we have to halt the democratic collapse that we are seeing. And then I think, we have longer-term crises, which is we have have a democracy that actually delivers for people in a way that they are invested in it because they experience it as something that is making their life better. That was not a test that this democracy passed in 2024, right? We know that we lost folks, not because they were like all in on Donald Trump. He has his core base, but we lost some set of folks who were simply so frustrated with the status quo, who had experienced the last four years as not what they needed, not what their, not making their own personal lives better, and who did not experience appeals to institutions or appeals to kind of abstract ideas about protecting democracy as relevant to. Or as more persuasive, then simply it's time for a change. And so we have a long-term challenge, which is about how do you actually break through that level of cynicism, and that's gotta be involved like actually having the systems and the structures for democracy that can deliver for people meaningfully in a way that they feel in their lives. Audie Cornish 00:22:01 It sounds like you're needing the people who might most believe in that era of invincibility to break that spell themselves. Or is it your visibility that helps break that spell, that helps make people feel less like, well, this is how things are. Leah Greenberg 00:22:19 'I think it's going to be a lot of things, right? Like breaking the aura of inevitability involves a thousand acts of individual courage or organizing or non-cooperation, right. It looks like people showing up to protest Elon Musk's actions at Tesla dealerships. It looks like students at Georgetown organizing a spreadsheet of big law collaborators and saying clear of these people. It looks like a boycott of Target for being one of the core corporations that threw out its DEI policies, in order to do the administration's bidding, it's going to look like a bunch of different societal, individual, and organized reactions that collectively create the conditions for courage across our country. It's going involve a lot of people doing something that the regime does not want them to do or not doing something it wants them to do. We won't even know the names of everybody who has done that across government, across institutions, across our own movements, but that is what it ultimately takes to start to build back conditions to recover democratic function. Audie Cornish 00:23:25 What are your hopes for the Monday after this weekend? What would you like to see, and do you see this moment as a turning point? Leah Greenberg 00:23:35 I would like us to get a surprising number of people in a surprising number of places out and I think it's worth noting that we've seen obviously very, very large protests in, in blue states and cities, but we're also seeing really significant turnout in places that you or I would think of like as quite red and quite conservative. I would for this to be understood as a moment in which Donald Trump attempted to send tanks to Washington DC, attempted to deploy troops to California and was collectively and roundly rejected by Americans for his fascist theatrics, for his attempts to harm our communities. I would like us to collectively harness the kind of political opposition that forces them to back off what they are doing to our immigrant communities and our immigrant neighbors. We want them to recognize that they have to back down from what they're doing. And then we wanna continue to build the conditions for courage across our society so that we mount that broader pushback against authoritarianism. Audie Cornish 00:24:38 'That was Leah Greenberg, co-founder and co-executive director of The Indivisible Project. They are organizing No King's Day protests this upcoming weekend. 00:24:52 The Assignment is a production of CNN Audio. This episode was produced by Grace Walker and Lori Galarreta with assistance from Jesse Remedios and Madeleine Thompson. Our senior producer is Matt Martinez. Dan Dzula is our technical director, and Steve Lickteig is executive producer of CNN audio. We had support from Dan Bloom, Haley Thomas, Alex Manassari, Robert Mathers, Jon Dionora, Leni Steinhardt, Jamus Anderus, Nichole Pesaru, and Lisa Namerow.
16 minutes ago
Trump's mass deportations leave Democrats more ready to fight back
WASHINGTON -- California Gov. Gavin Newsom looked straight into the camera and staked out a clear choice for his Democratic Party. The governor positioned himself as not only a leader of the opposition to President Donald Trump's mass deportation agenda, but a de facto champion of the immigrants now being rounded up in California and across the country. Many of them, he said in the video address, were not hardened criminals, but hard-working people scooped up at a Home Depot lot or a garment factory, and detained by masked agents assisted by National Guard troops. It's a politically charged position for the party to take, after watching voter discontent with illegal immigration fuel Trump's return to the White House. It leaves Democrats deciding how strongly to align with that message in the face of blistering criticism from Republicans who are pouring billions of dollars into supporting Trump's strict immigration campaign. Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer of New York said Wednesday he's proud of Newsom, 'he's refusing to be intimidated by Donald Trump.' From the streets of Los Angeles to the halls of Congress, the debate over Trump's mass deportation agenda is forcing the U.S. to reckon with core values as a nation of immigrants, but also its long-standing practice of allowing migrants to live and work in the U.S. in a gray zone while not granting them full legal status. More than 11 million immigrants are in the U.S. without proper approval, with millions more having arrived with temporary protections. As Trump's administration promises to round up some 3,000 immigrants a day and deport 1 million a year, the political stakes are shifting in real time. The president rode to the White House with his promise of mass deportations — rally crowds echoed his campaign promise to 'build the wall.' But Americans are watching as Trump deploys the National Guard and active U.S. Marines to Los Angeles, while pockets of demonstrations erupt in other cities nationwide, including after agents raided a meat processing plant in Omaha, Nebraska Joel Payne, a Democratic strategist, said the country's mood appears to be somewhere between then-President Barack Obama's assertion that America is 'a nation of immigrants, we're also a nation of laws' and Trump's 'more aggressive' deportation approach. 'Democrats still have some work to do to be consistently trustworthy messengers on the issue,' he said. At the same time, he said, Trump's actions as a 'chaos agent' on immigration when there's already unrest over his trade wars and economic uncertainty, risk overreaching if the upheaval begins to sow havoc in the lives of Americans. Republicans have been relentless in their attacks on Democrats, portraying the situation in Los Angeles, which has been largely confined to a small area downtown, in highly charged terms as 'riots,' in a preview of campaign ads to come. Police said more than 200 people were detained for failing to disperse on Tuesday, and 17 others for violating the 8 p.m. curfew over part of Los Angeles. Police arrested several more people for possessing a firearm, assaulting a police officer and other violations. Two people have been charged for allegedly throwing Molotov cocktails toward police during LA protests. House Speaker Mike Johnson said Newsom should be 'tarred and feathered' for his leadership in the state, which he called 'a safe haven to violent criminal illegal aliens.' At a private meeting of House Republicans this week with White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, Rep. Richard Hudson, the chairman of the GOP's campaign arm, framed the situation as Democrats supporting rioting and chaos while Republicans stand for law and order. 'Violent insurrectionists turned areas of Los Angeles into lawless hellscapes over the weekend,' wrote Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., earlier this week in the Wall Street Journal, suggesting it may be time to send in military troops. 'The American people elected Donald Trump and a Republican Congress to secure our border and deport violent illegal aliens. That's exactly what the president is doing.' But not all rank-and-file Republicans are on board with such a heavy-handed approach. GOP Rep, David Valadao, who represents California's agriculture regions in the Central Valley, said on social media he remains 'concerned about ongoing ICE operations throughout CA' and was urging the administration 'to prioritize the removal of known criminals over the hardworking people who have lived peacefully in the Valley for years.' Heading into the 2026 midterm election season, with control of the House and Senate at stake, it's a repeat of past political battles, as Congress has failed repeatedly to pass major immigration law changes. The politics have shifted dramatically from the Obama era, when his administration took executive action to protect young immigrants known as Dreamers under the landmark Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. Those days, lawmakers were considering proposals to beef up border security as part of a broader package that would also create legal pathways, including for citizenship, for immigrants who have lived in the country for years and paid taxes, some filling roles in jobs Americans won't always take. With Trump's return to the Oval Office, the debate has turned toward aggressively removing immigrants, including millions who were allowed to legally enter the U.S. during the Biden administration, as they await their immigration hearings and proceedings. 'This anniversary should be a reminder,' said Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., at a Wednesday event at the U.S. Capitol championing DACA's 13th year, even as protections are at risk under Trump's administration. 'Immigration has many faces.' Despite their challenges in last year's election, Democrats feel more emboldened to resist Trump's actions than even just a few months ago, but the political conversation has nonetheless shifted in Trump's direction. While Democrats are unified against Trump's big tax breaks bill, with its $150 billion for new detention facilities, deportation flights and 10,000 new Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, they talk more openly about beefing up border security and detaining the most dangerous criminal elements. Rep. Suzan DelBene, D-Wash., chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, points to the example of Democratic Rep. Tom Suozzi, who won a special election in New York last year when he addressed potential changes to the immigration system head-on. At one point, he crashed a GOP opponent's news conference with his own. 'Trump said he was going to go after the worst of the worst, but he has ignored the laws, ignored due process, ignored the courts — and the American people reject that,' she told The Associated Press. 'People want a president and a government that is going to fight for the issues that matter most to them, fight to move our country forward,' she said. 'They want a Congress that is going to be a coequal branch of government and a check on this president.'
Business Upturn
18 minutes ago
- Business Upturn
Significant efficacy benefit of IMBRUVICA® (ibrutinib) plus venetoclax versus acalabrutinib plus venetoclax in frontline treatment of patients with chronic lymphocytic leukaemia suggested by indirect treatment comparison
Cross-study findings indicate significant clinical benefit of frontline fixed-duration ibrutinib plus venetoclax with improved likelihood of undetectable minimal residual disease and progression-free survival versus acalabrutinib plus venetoclax 1 Phase 2 CAPTIVATE long-term follow-up data further supports sustained efficacy and safety profile of fixed-duration ibrutinib plus venetoclax treatment in patients receiving frontline treatment for chronic lymphocytic leukaemia 2 Beerse, Belgium, June 12, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Janssen-Cilag International NV, a Johnson & Johnson company, today announced new data from a matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) analysis assessing the efficacy of IMBRUVICA® (ibrutinib) in combination with venetoclax (I+V) vs acalabrutinib in combination with venetoclax (A+V) as fixed-duration (FD) treatments for adults with previously untreated chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL).1 The data were featured in a poster presentation at the 30th European Hematology Association (EHA) Congress (Poster presentation #PF587) and reported that the I+V regimen yielded significantly better efficacy when compared to the A+V regimen.1 Patients treated with I+V were more likely to achieve disease clearance, as measured by undetectable minimal residual disease (uMRD) three months after the end of treatment (EOT+3), from both peripheral blood (PB) and bone marrow (BM).1 In addition to this, progression-free survival (PFS) significantly favoured I+V compared to A+V.1 'In the absence of head-to-head trials, clinicians need reliable tools to effectively compare treatment options and make the best possible choices for their patients,' said Talha Munir, M.D., Consultant in Clinical Haematology at St James's Hospital, Leeds, United Kingdom.* 'The matching-adjusted indirect comparison data presented at EHA suggests that ibrutinib plus venetoclax may offer meaningful clinical advantages over acalabrutinib plus venetoclax with patients more likely to achieve higher rates of undetectable minimal residual disease, three months after treatment. This may translate into more time in remission and longer progression-free survival – outcomes that matter deeply to both patients and the healthcare professionals who treat them.' Patients who met the AMPLIFY inclusion criteria from both the Phase 3 GLOW (NCT03462719) and Phase 2 CAPTIVATE (NCT02910583) studies were included in this analysis, and, after matching and balancing the treatment cohorts, comparative analyses between the trials suggested that I+V significantly reduced the risk of progression or death by 47 percent when compared to patients treated with A+V (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.53; 95 percent confidence interval [CI]: 0.33-0.85; p =0.0085).1,3,4,5 The results also suggested that patients treated with I+V were almost twice (95 percent CI: 1.47-2.41; p <0.0001) and 2.4 times (95 percent CI: 1.78-3.12; p <0.0001) more likely to achieve uMRD than A+V at EOT+3, in PB and BM, respectively.1 The GLOW and CAPTIVATE FD cohorts were based on individual patient-level data with a median follow-up of approximately 4.5 years, while the A+V cohort used aggregate level data from the AMPLIFY study with a median follow-up of approximately 3.4 years.1 Results from final analysis of CAPTIVATE Long-term follow-up results from the Phase 2 CAPTIVATE study data were presented as a poster at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) 2025 Annual Meeting (Poster presentation #219) and will also be presented as an encore oral presentation at EHA 2025 (Oral presentation #S156).6 The data reinforced the durable clinical benefit of frontline I+V.2 Phase 2 CAPTIVATE results demonstrated patients in the I+V FD cohort displayed a clinically meaningful PFS and overall survival (OS) vs the MRD-guided cohort.2 After a median follow-up of 68.9 months, the 5.5-year PFS and OS rates for all treated patients were 66 percent (95 percent CI: 58-72) and 97 percent (95 percent CI: 93-99), respectively.2 Additionally, the 5.5 year PFS rate in patients who achieved uMRD in the PB at the EOT was 71 percent (95 percent CI: 60-80).2 Furthermore, 1-year PFS and OS rates from the start of retreatment (with single-agent ibrutinib or FD I+V) were both 100 percent, whilst 2-year PFS and OS rates from the start of retreatment were 91 percent and 96 percent, respectively.2 No new safety signals were observed during the CAPTIVATE study since the previous follow-up, with COVID-19, diarrhoea and hypertension being the most frequently reported adverse events (AEs).2 In the total pooled CAPTIVATE population, 32 percent (n=64/202) of patients had progressive disease following 5.5 years of follow-up.2 Of the 53 patients with available samples, none had acquired resistance-associated mutations in BTK or PLCG2 .2 'The final analysis of CAPTIVATE highlights how ibrutinib continues to raise the bar in the treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukaemia, with durable minimal residual disease response, extended treatment-free intervals, and a tolerable safety profile,' said Ester in't Groen, EMEA Therapeutic Area Head Haematology, Johnson & Johnson Innovative Medicine. 'With the longest follow-up of any oral fixed-dose regimen, ibrutinib is setting a new standard for what patients and clinicians can expect from targeted therapies. We remain committed to advancing science in complex blood cancers and improving outcomes across the cancer care landscape.' 'The updates presented at EHA add to the growing body of evidence in support of ibrutinib, the most extensively studied Bruton's tyrosine kinase inhibitor, as the standard of care in the frontline treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukaemia,' said Jessica Vermeulen, Vice President, Lymphoma & Leukemia Disease Area Stronghold Leader, Johnson & Johnson Innovative Medicine. 'Offering patients not only more time, but also the option for treatment-free remissions continues to be our goal and we are proud of the incredible contribution ibrutinib has made since its first European approval in 2014.' About the MAIC analysis The objective of this analysis was to compare the progression-free survival (PFS) and undetectable minimal residual disease (uMRD) data from the fixed-duration (FD) ibrutinib + venetoclax (I+V) cohorts from the Phase 3 GLOW (NCT03462719) and Phase 2 CAPTIVATE (NCT02910583) studies against the Phase 3 AMPLIFY (NCT03836261) data.1 In absence of prospective head-to-head trials investigating different Bruton's tyrosine kinase inhibitors (BTKis) plus B-cell lymphoma 2 (Bcl-2) strategies, this study utilised matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) to obtain useful insights on comparative efficacy.1 Individual patient data from the FD I+V cohorts of the GLOW and CAPTIVATE studies were pooled and compared to aggregate published Intent-to-Treat (ITT) data of the acalabrutinib plus venetoclax (A+V) arm of the AMPLIFY study.1,3,4,5 A MAIC was performed following method published by Signorovitch et al. and guidelines from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE).1,7 Patients who did not meet the inclusion criteria of AMPLIFY were excluded from the I+V pooled cohort to establish the I+V patient population for analysis.1 The remaining I+V patients were then reweighted so that the average baseline characteristics of the pooled I+V cohort matched those of the A+V patients in AMPLIFY.1 The reweighted outcomes from I+V were then compared to the reported outcomes for A+V using indirect treatment comparison.1 Relative effects were quantified using relative risk (RR) and hazard ratios (HR) with 95 percent confidence intervals.1 There are potential sources of bias that cannot be accounted for in MAIC, that should be considered when interpreting such data. Specifically, in this comparison, the measurement of progression was stricter in GLOW and CAPTIVATE, requiring computer or magnetic imaging regardless of suspected progression and the median follow-up was longer in I+V population.1 Both may have biased the PFS results in favour of A+V.1 Additionally, AMPLIFY reported multicolour flow cytometry use but with no details on the number of colours and comparability is assumed with the 8-colour assay used in I+V studies.1 As in any non-randomised comparison there may be additional unreported clinically important prognostic patient baseline characteristics which cannot be accounted for.1 For example, Cumulative Illness Rating Scale score data was not collected in CAPTIVATE and therefore could not be used in matching.1 About CAPTIVATE The Phase 2 CAPTIVATE study ( NCT02910583 ) evaluated previously untreated adult patients with chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL), who were 70 years or younger, including patients with high-risk disease, in two cohorts with combined median age of 60 years: a minimal residual disease (MRD)-guided cohort (n=43) and an FD cohort (n=159; median age).2,4,8 Patients in the FD cohort received three cycles of ibrutinib lead-in followed by 12 cycles of I+V (oral ibrutinib [420 mg/d]; oral venetoclax [five-week ramp-up to 400 mg/d]) and the primary endpoint was complete response rate.4 In the MRD cohort, after completion of three cycles ibrutinib lead-in followed by 12 cycles I+V, patients with confirmed uMRD were randomly assigned to double-blind treatment with placebo, or continuous ibrutinib.4 The primary endpoint was one-year disease-free survival.4 About the GLOW study The GLOW study ( NCT03462719 ) is a randomised, open-label, Phase 3 trial that evaluated the efficacy and safety of frontline, FD I+V versus chlorambucil plus obinutuzumab in adult patients with CLL who are (a) ≥65 years old, or (b) 18-64 years old with a Cumulative Illness Rating Scale score of greater than six or creatinine clearance less than 70 mL/min, who had active disease requiring treatment per the International Workshop on CLL criteria.3 About ibrutinib Ibrutinib is a once-daily oral medication that is jointly developed and commercialised by Janssen Biotech, Inc. and Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie company.9 Ibrutinib blocks the Bruton's tyrosine kinase (BTK) protein, which is needed by normal and abnormal B-cells, including specific cancer cells, to multiply and spread.10 By blocking BTK, ibrutinib may help move abnormal B-cells out of their nourishing environments and inhibits their proliferation.11 Ibrutinib is approved in more than 100 countries and has been used to treat more than 325,000 patients worldwide.12 There are more than 50 company-sponsored clinical trials, including 18 Phase 3 studies, over 11 years evaluating the efficacy and safety of ibrutinib.10,13 In October 2021, ibrutinib was added to the World Health Organization's Model Lists of Essential Medicines (EML), which refers to medicines that address global health priorities and which should be available and affordable for all.14 Ibrutinib was first approved by the European Commission (EC) in 2014, and approved indications to date include:10 As a single agent or in combination with rituximab or obinutuzumab or venetoclax for the treatment of adult patients with previously untreated CLL As a single agent or in combination with bendamustine and rituximab (BR) for the treatment of adult patients with CLL who have received at least one prior therapy As a single agent for the treatment of adult patients with relapsed or refractory (RR) mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) As a single agent for the treatment of adult patients with Waldenström's macroglobulinaemia (WM) who have received at least one prior therapy, or in first line treatment for patients unsuitable for chemo-immunotherapy. In combination with rituximab for the treatment of adult patients with WM For a full list of adverse events and information on dosage and administration, contraindications and other precautions when using ibrutinib please refer to the Summary of Product Characteristics . About Chronic Lymphocytic Leukaemia CLL is typically a slow-growing blood cancer of the white blood cells.15 The overall incidence of CLL in Europe is approximately 4.92 cases per 100,000 persons per year and it is about 1.5 times more common in men than in women (based on individuals diagnosed 2000-2002).16 CLL is predominantly a disease of the elderly, with a median age of 72 years at diagnosis.17 While patient outcomes have dramatically improved in the last few decades, the disease is still characterised by consecutive episodes of disease progression and the need for therapy.18 Patients are often prescribed multiple lines of therapy as they relapse or become resistant to treatments.19 About Johnson & Johnson At Johnson & Johnson, we believe health is everything. Our strength in healthcare innovation empowers us to build a world where complex diseases are prevented, treated, and cured, where treatments are smarter and less invasive, and solutions are personal. Through our expertise in Innovative Medicine and MedTech, we are uniquely positioned to innovate across the full spectrum of healthcare solutions today to deliver the breakthroughs of tomorrow, and profoundly impact health for humanity. Learn more at . Follow us at . Janssen-Cilag International NV, Janssen Pharmaceutica NV, Janssen-Cilag Limited, Janssen Biotech, Inc., and Janssen Research & Development, LLC are Johnson & Johnson companies. Cautions Concerning Forward-Looking Statements This press release contains 'forward-looking statements' as defined in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 regarding product development and the potential benefits and treatment impact of daratumumab. The reader is cautioned not to rely on these forward-looking statements. These statements are based on current expectations of future events. If underlying assumptions prove inaccurate or known or unknown risks or uncertainties materialise, actual results could vary materially from the expectations and projections of Johnson & Johnson. Risks and uncertainties include, but are not limited to: challenges and uncertainties inherent in product research and development, including the uncertainty of clinical success and of obtaining regulatory approvals; uncertainty of commercial success; competition, including technological advances, new products and patents attained by competitors; challenges to patents; changes in behaviour and spending patterns of purchasers of health care products and services; changes to applicable laws and regulations, including global health care reforms; and trends toward health care cost containment. A further list and descriptions of these risks, uncertainties and other factors can be found in Johnson & Johnson's most recent Annual Report on Form 10-K, including in the sections captioned 'Cautionary Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements' and 'Item 1A. Risk Factors,' and in Johnson & Johnson's subsequent Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q and other filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Copies of these filings are available online at or on request from Johnson & Johnson. Johnson & Johnson does not undertake to update any forward-looking statement as a result of new information or future events or developments. *Talha Munir, M.D., Consultant in Clinical Haematology at St James's Hospital, Leeds, United Kingdom, has provided consulting, advisory, and speaking services to Janssen-Cilag International NV; he has not been paid for any media work. 1 Munir T, et al., Cross-Study Comparison of Ibrutinib in Combination with Venetoclax (I+V) vs Acalabrutinib in Combination with Venetoclax (A+V) in Subjects with Previously Untreated Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL). Poster presentation at 2025 European Hematology Association (EHA) Congress; June 12–15, 2025. [Poster PF587]. 2 Ghia P, et al. Final Analysis of Fixed-Duration Ibrutinib + Venetoclax for Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL)/Small Lymphocytic Lymphoma (SLL) in the Phase 2 CAPTIVATE Study. Oral presentation at 2025 European Hematology Association (EHA) Congress; June 12–15, 2025. [Oral S156]. 3 A Study of the Combination of Ibrutinib Plus Venetoclax Versus Chlorambucil Plus Obinutuzumab for the First-line Treatment of Participants With Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL)/Small Lymphocytic Lymphoma (SLL) (GLOW). Available at: Last accessed: June 2025. 4 Ibrutinib Plus Venetoclax in Subjects With Treatment-naive Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia /Small Lymphocytic Lymphoma (CLL/SLL) (CAPTIVATE). Available at: Last accessed: June 2025. 5 Study of Acalabrutinib (ACP-196) in Combination With Venetoclax (ABT-199), With and Without Obinutuzumab (GA101) Versus Chemoimmunotherapy for Previously Untreated CLL (AMPLIFY). Available at: Last accessed: June 2025. 6 Ghia P, et al. Final Analysis of Fixed-Duration Ibrutinib + Venetoclax for Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia/Small Lymphocytic Lymphoma in the Phase 2 CAPTIVATE Study. Poster presentation at 2025 American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Annual Meeting; May 30–June 3, 2025. [Poster #219]. 7 Signorovitch JE, et al. Matching-adjusted Indirect Comparisons: A New Tool for Timely Comparative Effectiveness Research. Value Health, 2012; 15: 940-947. 8 Jacobs R, et al., Outcomes in High-risk Subgroups After Fixed-Duration Ibrutinib + Venetoclax for Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia/Small Lymphocytic Lymphoma: Up To 5.5 years of Follow-up in the Phase 2 CAPTIVATE Study. Poster presentation at 2024 European Hematology Association (EHA) Hybrid Congress; June 13–16, 2024. [Poster P675]. 9 European Medicines Agency. IMBRUVICA Summary of Product Characteristics. April 2025. Available at: Last accessed: June 2025. 10 Turetsky A, et al. Single cell Imaging of Bruton's tyrosine kinase using an Irreversible Inhibitor. Sci Rep. 2014; 4: 4782. 11 de Rooij MF, et al. The Clinically Active BTK Inhibitor PCI-32765 targets B-cell Receptor- and Chemokine-controlled Adhesion and Migration in Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia. Blood. 2012; 119(11): 2590-2594. 12 J&J Data on File (RF-465355). Patients Treated on Imbruvica Worldwide. May 2025. 13 Pollyea DA, et al. A Phase I Dose Escalation Study of the Btk Inhibitor PCI-32765 in Relapsed and Refractory B Cell Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma and Use of a Novel Fluorescent Probe Pharmacodynamic Assay. Blood. 2009; 114(22): 3713. 14 World Health Organization. WHO Prioritizes Access to Diabetes and Cancer Treatments in New Essential Medicines Lists. Available at: Last accessed: June 2025. 15 American Cancer Society. What is Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia? Available at: Last accessed: June 2025. 16 Sant M, et al. Incidence of Hematologic Malignancies in Europe by Morphologic Subtype: Results of the HAEMACARE project. Blood. 2010; 116:3724–34. 17 Eichhorst B, et al. Chronic Lymphocytic Leukaemia: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for Diagnosis, Treatment and Follow-up Ann Oncol. 2021; 32(1): 23-33. 18 Moreno C. Standard Treatment Approaches for Relapsed/refractory Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia after Frontline Chemoimmunotherapy. Hematology Am Soc Hematol Educ Program. 2020; 2020: 33-40. 19 Bewarder M, et al. Current Treatment Options in CLL. Cancers (Basel). 2021;13(10): 2468. CP-523458 June 2025 Disclaimer: The above press release comes to you under an arrangement with GlobeNewswire. Business Upturn takes no editorial responsibility for the same.
