
U.S. reliance on copper imports is a 'vulnerability,' says former Commerce Sec. Carlos Gutierrez

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


CNBC
3 hours ago
- CNBC
DraftKings CEO says gambling tax provision in Trump's megabill 'doesn't make sense'
In a Wednesday interview with CNBC's Jim Cramer, DraftKings CEO Jason Robins questioned a new tax provision related to gambling in President Donald Trump's megabill, calling it a "very strange change." "I do think it's something that doesn't makes sense," he said. "If you can't deduct all your losses, you know, how does that make sense that you pay income tax on something that's not actually income." Preciously, gamblers could deduct all their losses from their winnings so that they are only paying taxes on net winnings. But the new rule makes it so that gamblers can only deduct 90% of their losses from their winnings. For example, if someone wins $1,000 but also loses $1,000, they would only be able to deduct $900 and would have to pay taxes on $100 of winnings. Robins said he believes the change was made as part of a "technicality" to follow the Byrd rule, which bans "extraneous" matters — usually anything unrelated to federal revenue or spending — in the budget reconciliation process. He said there has been some "appetite" to change the new provision, adding that DraftKings is working with members of Congress to do so. DraftKings posted a strong quarter Wednesday after close, and shares jumped more than 3% in extended trading. The sports betting company said this quarter set revenue, net income and EBITDA records, with management attributing the success to "continued healthy customer engagement, efficient acquisition of new customers, higher structural Sportsbook hold percentage, and sportsbook-friendly outcomes." Robins offered a sanguine outlook on widespread legalization of sports betting, saying he thinks progress has been made across the board. He suggested the practice will eventually be allowed in most states, including large markets like California and Texas. Online sports betting is currently legal in 34 states, according to the latest information on the American Gaming Association website. "I can't imagine a world where you can, you know, bet in 30, 40 plus states, and California is not one of them, and Texas is not one of them," Robins said. Click here to download Jim Cramer's Guide to Investing at no cost to help you build long-term wealth and invest


CNBC
5 hours ago
- CNBC
CNBC Markets Now: August 6, 2025
CNBC Markets Now provides a look at the day's market moves with commentary and analysis from Michael Santoli, CNBC Senior Markets Commentator.


Newsweek
6 hours ago
- Newsweek
Supreme Court 'Likely' to Deal Blow to Key Trump Policy: Ex-GOP Speaker
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Former House Speaker Paul Ryan said Wednesday that he believes the Supreme Court is "more than likely" to strike down the use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), the law President Donald Trump has leveraged to impose sweeping tariffs, if the case reaches the High Court. Newsweek filed a contact request form for comment with Solamere Capital, where Ryan is a partner. Why It Matters Trump has repeatedly announced, imposed, paused and reinstated a slew of tariffs at varying rates on U.S. trading partners to curb immigration, drug trafficking, and reduce trade deficits. Trump's tariffs have caused the market to both slump and spike. Economists have warned that the tariffs, which are effectively a tax imposed on imported goods, will inevitably lead to increased costs for Americans. Trump has defended his policies, saying the tariffs will cause "some little pain" upfront but in the long term will be "worth the price that must be paid." The tariffs are currently under review by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which heard oral arguments at the end of July. At issue in the case is Trump's use of the 1977 IEEPA to impose tariffs without seeking congressional approval or conducting investigations first. The law gives presidents broad power to impose economic sanctions during national emergencies, but Trump is the first president to use it to impose tariffs. Then-House Speaker Paul Ryan and President Donald Trump at a meeting with Republican lawmakers at the White House on September 5, 2018. Then-House Speaker Paul Ryan and President Donald Trump at a meeting with Republican lawmakers at the White House on September 5, 2018. AP Photo/Evan Vucci What To Know Ryan, who served as House speaker from 2015 to early January 2019 and chaired the House Ways and Means Committee, told CNBC that he does not believe that tariffs are going to result in a settled, predictable market, noting that the "uncertainty" of tariffs is one of the biggest policy points right now. Since retiring from Congress, Ryan has been a vocal Trump critic. "It's more than likely that the Supreme Court knocks out IEEPA, the law that's being used for these tariffs, which doesn't have the word 'tariff' in it," he told CNBC. "Then, the president is going to have to go to other laws to justify tariffs—232, 201, 301. There's a bunch of laws, and those are harder laws to operate with." He called out the tariff policy as being based on Trump's "whims and opinions," and later noted that "tariffs are the wrong way to go. It makes you unproductive, it lowers living standards, it's bad for our short-term politics, bad long-term economics." In May, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of International Trade sided with the states and businesses that challenged Trump, ruling that Trump's April 2 "reciprocal" tariffs "exceed any authority granted to the President'' under IEEPA. In the case of the tariffs on Canada, China and Mexico, the trade court ruled that the tariffs did not meet IEEPA's requirement that they "deal with'' the problem they were supposed to address. The Trump administration appealed the court's ruling, and the Federal Circuit has allowed the tariffs to remain in place while it considers the appeal. The case comes as the latest jobs report showed that the U.S. labor market has slowed over the past few months, with unemployment inching upward and prior job gains revised to be weaker than expected. U.S. employers added 73,000 jobs in July, far fewer than expected, while unemployment moved to 4.2 percent from 4.1 percent. The Bureau of Labor Statistics wrote on Friday that "Revisions for May and June were larger than normal," adding that "With these revisions, employment in May and June combined is 258,000 lower than previously reported." Trump reacted to the disappointing news by firing Dr. Erika McEntarfer, the Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, whom he accused of manipulating the reports for "political purposes." What People Are Saying Judge Timothy Dyk said last week about the IEEPA case: "It's just hard for me to see that Congress intended to give the president in IEEPA the wholesale authority to throw out the tariff schedule that Congress has adopted after years of careful work and revise every one of these tariff rates." President Donald Trump wrote on Truth Social on Thursday: "Tariffs are making America GREAT & RICH Again. They were successfully used against the USA for decades and, coupled with really dumb, pathetic, and crooked politicians, we're having a devastating impact on the future, and even the survival, of our country. Now the tide has completely turned, and America has successfully countered this onslaught of Tariffs used against it." What Happens Next It's unclear when the appeals court will issue a ruling, but the losing side is expected to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.