NBA YoungBoy to Michael Grimm: Full list of pardons issued by Donald Trump
US President Donald Trump on Wednesday issued a slew of pardons and commutations, including rapper NBA YoungBoy.
John G. Rowland - Fmr Gov. of CT
Kentrell Gaulden 'NBA YoungBoy'
Michael Grimm, fmr NY Rep
Kevin Eric Baisden
Mark C. Bashaw
Todd & Julie Chrisley
Tanner Mansell & John Moore
Commutations:
Michael Harris
Larry Hoover
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
35 minutes ago
- Indian Express
The pause on tariffs, and now a stay: where does this leave Trump's disruptive trade agenda
Hours after US President Donald Trump's sweeping tariffs on goods imported into America from almost every nation was ruled illegal by the US Court of International Trade, an appeals court – the Federal Circuit Court in Washington, DC that has jurisdiction over the trade court – on Thursday temporarily halted the decision, reinstating the levies for now. Its order said that it would grant the Trump administration's request for an immediate administrative stay, and gave the plaintiffs — a group of 12 states and five US-based companies — until June 5 to respond to the administration. Judicial Process As the Trump administration's appeal works its way through the American courts, what is clear is that this case will probably end up at the US Supreme Court at some point in the near future. The three judge panel at the US Court of International Trade, which included one Trump appointee, had ruled unanimously that the statute the White House used, known as the International Emergency Economic Powers Act or IEEPA – does not grant the American President the authority to impose tariffs with a really wide scope as were levied through Trump's reciprocal tariffs on practically all major trading partners of the US. They said in the ruling that the emergency economic powers legislation (IEEPA) does not give 'unbounded tariff authority' to the President, and that the statute can only be used for unusual and extraordinary threats. Trade deficit, they said, does not really fit that definition. At the same time, there are sector specific tariffs that the Trump administration slapped on steel, aluminum, cars and car parts etc, under a different statute known as Section 232, which could be used in the near future for things such as semiconductors and pharmaceuticals too. Those were all imposed citing national security reasons, and were distinct from the tariffs under IEEPA. Those can all stay in place for the moment, and there is a chance that the Trump administration would now use provisions such as Section 232 to impose such sector-specific tariffs on countries, especially if the Federal Circuit court were to also rule against the IEEPA levies. What needs to be kept in mind is that apart from this case at the International Trade Court filed by the dozen other states and some small businesses, there is another high-profile case in California from the Democrat Governor Gavin Newsom arguing that Trump's trade tariffs were illegal. This, according to legal experts, is the case to watch out for. Ensuing Uncertainty In the meantime, what is unclear is whether business should ultimately plan for relief if the trade court's ruling stands, or whether the tariffs might stick. That raises the real question about whether the so-called reciprocal tariffs due in July will ever come into effect, whether the 10 per cent universal tariff can stay, whether the US Congress will come to the president's rescue, and what the final judgement of the Supreme Court will be. This course will decide whether nations need to negotiate for deals with the US. And during the appeals process, the Trump administration could seek alternate routes to deploy additional tariffs, according to experts. This could add to the uncertainties. The earlier ruling halting the imposition of the levies serves to undermine ongoing attempts by the US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent to negotiate trade deals with other countries, including India. The UK is looking somewhat imprudent in having already rushed into a trade deal with the US, which retains the 10 per cent base rate that was part of Trump's original plan. This is despite the US have a trade surplus with the UK. Others such as Japan and the European Union were already holding back, after seeing the Trump administration beat a retreat amid an upheaval in the US government borrowing rates. The legal uncertainty is a further reason for countries to wait and watch. With negotiators from the US set to arrive in New Delhi for trade talks on June 5-6, officials in the Ministry of Commerce and Industry said they are 'studying the implications' of the US Court of International Trade's Wednesday ruling. Trump had on April 2 announced a steep 26 per cent reciprocal tariff on India, despite New Delhi agreeing to commence negotiations with Washington on a trade deal. The tariffs were paused till July 8, and the Indian government is keen to sign an interim trade deal before that. The legal developments, though, could warrant a recalibration now. Legal experts are of the view that the Trump administration could have a weak case, especially when it comes to the question of law on IEEPA. Constitutionally, in America, trade policy is the domain of the US Congress and the chairs of the Trade committees of the House and Senate (branches of the Ways and Means Committee) are typically very powerful positions. President Trump bypassed all of that by proclaiming a variety of national emergencies. While he has some scope to act in actual emergencies, under powers ceded by the US COngress to the White House over the decades, these two specific cases contend that the sweeping use of these powers to announce permanent tariff changes was illegal and unconstitutional. That could hold water. The Court of International Trade ruling appears rather robust from that perspective, and also emboldens California's similar case. For now, it would be prudent to expect other negotiators around the world to put their feet up and wait, while the White House tries to prove the legality of the very basis of its global trade onslaught. Anil Sasi is National Business Editor with the Indian Express and writes on business and finance issues. He has worked with The Hindu Business Line and Business Standard and is an alumnus of Delhi University. ... Read More
Mint
41 minutes ago
- Mint
Trump's tariffs: Turfed out but raring to return
In a move that sets back US President Donald Trump's idiosyncratic plan to make America 'great again,' but could possibly slow down or arrest America's descent as a democracy, a court has ruled against the 'reciprocal' tariffs announced by him on 2 April, dubbed 'Liberation Day.' The power to levy such tariffs is held by the US Congress rather than its president, ruled the court, giving the White House 10 days to reverse import duties announced under the International Economic Emergency Powers Act (IEEPA). Also Read: Democracy could be the greatest casualty of Trump's war While this law grants the president power to 'regulate' imports, it does not mention 'tariffs.' Given the significance of these tariff measures and their 'unbounded' nature, the court held as invalid the assumed delegation of Congress authority to the White House under that law. In other words, the tariff orders had exceeded his authority. US stock market index futures jumped after the ruling, but it is premature to conclude that Trump's tariff tantrums are behind us. This is so for three reasons. One, as the US Court of International Trade's order is being appealed by the administration, it could be overturned either by a federal appeals court or the Supreme Court. Two, Trump's team might look for another statute to back his trade barriers. And, three, he could try pressuring lawmakers to enact his agenda and thereby secure it from judicial interdiction. Also Read: The many dangers that democracy confronts today Although aimed at external threats, the IEEPA adopted in 1977 was partly designed to curb and specify the emergency powers granted to the US president under prior laws like its Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917, which had been used by presidents to assume sweeping authority. In 1973, a Senate investigation had found various emergencies declared since 1933 still in force, which led to legislative efforts to constrain the White House. The IEEPA has hitherto been used to slam hostile countries with sanctions and confiscate foreign assets. Trump has been the first US leader to use this law to erect steep trade barriers against countries alleged to have put the country at threat by selling it more goods than buying US wares. Of the three judges who unanimously ruled against tariffs under the IEEPA, one had been appointed by Trump himself, a second by Obama and the senior-most by Reagan. It is difficult to pin their opinion on any partisan bias. The court also struck down tariffs imposed on countries for their alleged role in America's opioid crisis, citing a weak link between this action and its ability to deal with this declared emergency, but did not invalidate America's 25% duty on steel, aluminium, automobiles and auto parts levied under the US Trade Expansion Act. Under this law, tariffs can be imposed if the commerce secretary determines that specified imports threaten national security. Also Read: A trade arrangement that leaves out the US could trump Trump's tariffs It is conceivable that the Trump administration will seek to invoke such laws to re-impose levies should its appeal be rejected. However, it might be difficult to argue that garments from Asia pose a threat while clothes from Mexico do not. The win-win economic logic of trade should also make it hard to cast imports from specific countries as perilous, although political postures that feed on economic anxieties can colour popular views of what is good or bad for a country. Whichever way the legal battle goes, this week's court order on tariffs can be taken as a win for due process, even if uncertainty and volatility persist. Global growth is still at risk. Yet, at least on paper, an institutional commitment to the rule of law could relieve the world.
Deccan Herald
41 minutes ago
- Deccan Herald
Musk aiming to send uncrewed Starship to Mars by end of 2026
Musk presented a detailed Starship development timeline in a video posted online by his Los Angeles area-based rocket company, SpaceX, a day after saying he was departing the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump as head of a tumultuous campaign to slash government bureaucracy.
