Newsom speaks on court decision, says Trump's tariffs are ‘unlawful'
(FOX40.COM) — California Gov. Gavin Newsom stated after a federal court ruled on Wednesday that President Donald J. Trump exceeded his use of emergency powers to enact broad-sweeping tariffs that hurt states, consumers, and businesses.
On April 16, Gov. Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta filed a lawsuit arguing that President Trump does not have the authority to 'unilaterally' impose tariffs through the International Economic Emergency Powers Act.
Gov. Newsom and AG Bonta seek injunction to stop Trump tariffs
'Like we said when we filed our lawsuit: These tariffs are illegal, full stop. The court agreed today that Donald Trump overstepped his authority with his unlawful tariffs, which have created chaos and hurt American families and businesses.'
Governor Gavin Newsom
The decision that was made on Wednesday was issued as part of a separate lawsuit that was filed by private parties and other states, but it aligns with the arguments made by California, according to Newsom's administration.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
24 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - Marco Rubio declares war on the global censors
Winston Churchill once warned that 'appeasement is feeding the crocodile, hoping he will eat you last.' When it comes to the crocodile of censorship, history is strewn with defenders who later became digestives. Censorship produces an insatiable appetite for greater and greater speech limits, and today's censorship supporters often become tomorrow's censored subjects. This week, Secretary of State Marco Rubio stopped feeding the crocodile. On May 28, 2025, Rubio shocked many of our allies by issuing a new visa restriction policy that bars foreign nationals deemed 'responsible for censorship of protected expression' in the U.S. The new policy follows a major address by Vice President J.D. Vance in Munich challenging our European allies to end their systematic attacks on free speech. Vance declared, 'If you are running in fear of your own voters, there is nothing America can do for you. Nor, for that matter, is there anything that you can do for the American people that elected me and elected President Trump.' At the time, I called the speech 'Churchillian' in drawing a bright line for the free world. Rubio's action is no less impressive and even more impactful. Europe has faced no consequences for its aggressive efforts at transnational censorship. Indeed, this should not be a fight for the administration alone. Congress should explore reciprocal penalties for foreign governments targeting American companies or citizens for engaging in protected speech. After Vance spoke in Munich, I spoke in Berlin at the World Forum, where European leaders gathered in one of the most strikingly anti-free speech conferences I have attended. This year's forum embraced the slogan 'A New World Order with European Values.' That 'new world order' is based on an aggressive anti-free speech platform that has been enforced for years by the European Union. At the heart of this effort is the Digital Services Act, a draconian law that allows for sweeping censorship and speech prosecutions. Most importantly, it has been used by the EU to threaten American corporations for their failure to censor Americans and others on social media sites. After the World Forum, I returned home to warn that this is now an existential war over a right that defines us as a people —the very 'Indispensable Right' identified by Justice Louis Brandeis, which is essential for every other right in the Constitution. The irony was crushing. I wrote about how this nation has fought to protect our rights in world wars, yet many in Congress simply shrug or even support the effort as other countries move to make Americans censor other Americans. What was most unnerving about Berlin was how Americans have encouraged Europeans to target their fellow citizens. At the forum was Hillary Clinton who, after Elon Musk purchased Twitter on a pledge to dismantle its massive censorship system, called upon the EU to use the Digital Services Act to force him to resume censorship. Other Americans have appeared before the EU to call upon it to oppose the U.S. Nina Jankowicz, the former head of President Joe Biden's infamous Disinformation Governance Board, has recently returned to he EU to rally other nations to oppose what she described as 'the autocracy, the United States of America.' She warned that the Digital Services Act was under attack, and that the EU had to fight and beat the U.S.: 'Do not capitulate. Hold the line.' Former European Commissioner for Internal Markets and Services Thierry Breton even threatened Musk for interviewing Trump before our last presidential election. He told Musk that he was being 'monitored' in conducting any interview with now-President Trump. The EU is doubling down on these efforts, including threatening Musk with prosecution and massive confiscatory fines if he does not resume censoring users of X. The penalties are expected to exceed $1 billion. Other countries are following suit. Brazilian Supreme Court Judge Alexandre de Moraes shut down X in his entire country over Musk's refusal to remove political posts. These countries could remotely control speech within the U.S., forcing companies like X to meet the lowest common denominator set by the EU and anti-free speech groups. There are free speech concerns even in such measures designed to protect free speech. This policy should be confined to government officials, particularly EU officials, who are actively seeking to export European censorship systems worldwide. It should not extend to academics or individuals who are part of the growing anti-free speech movement. Free speech itself can counter those voices. These are the same voices that we have heard throughout history, often using the very same terms and claims to silence others. However, Rubio showed Europe that the U.S. would not simply stand by as European censors determined what Americans could say, read, or watch. As the EU threatens companies like X with billion-dollar fines, it is time for the U.S. to treat this as an attack on our citizens from abroad. Franklin Delano Roosevelt put it simply during World War II: 'No man can tame a tiger into a kitten by stroking it.' It is time to get serious about the European threat to free speech. And Rubio is doing just that — finally imposing real consequences for censorship. We are not going to defeat censors by yelling at them. Speech alone clearly does not impress them. Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and the author of 'The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
24 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - Defunding Energy Star will harm small businesses and US competitiveness
The recent announcement by the administration to defund the Energy Star program is an alarming development for small and mid-size businesses that have relied on its benchmarks for over 30 years. From a purely business perspective, the elimination of Energy Star isn't merely about labels on appliances; it directly impacts operational costs, performance consistency and market competitiveness. The Energy Star program stands as a remarkably successful example of a public-private partnership that delivers substantial, measurable benefits to American consumers and businesses and the environment. Energy Star has long provided clear and reliable standards that have enabled small businesses to make informed investments in energy-efficient products. This clarity translates into direct financial savings, reducing energy expenses by up to 30 percent according to the Environmental Protection Agency's own data. Especially for small businesses operating on tight margins, these savings aren't trivial — they represent critical capital that can be reinvested into core business activities such as product development, hiring additional employees or expanding market reach. Beyond immediate cost reductions, Energy Star has established an essential standardization in measuring and reporting appliance and equipment performance. Small business owners have relied on these standards to make purchases confidently, knowing they are investing in products that perform efficiently and reliably over their lifespan. Without the program, businesses face increased uncertainty, leading to potentially costly investments in substandard products that fail to deliver the promised efficiency and reliability. Consumer trust, a crucial component of market competitiveness for all businesses, is also at risk. The label is widely recognized and trusted by a majority of American households, signaling verified quality and efficiency. Its absence would likely result in an influx of misleading performance claims and unverified efficiency assertions, damaging consumer confidence and creating a competitive environment where cutting corners becomes commonplace. This race to the bottom ultimately harms businesses committed to genuine quality and performance standards. Moreover, from an economic standpoint, the return on investment provided by the program speaks for itself — every federal dollar spent on the program results in approximately $350 in cost savings for businesses and consumers alike. Small businesses particularly benefit from these savings, which enhance profitability, improve cash flow and bolster overall economic resilience. The decision to defund Energy Star appears driven less by fiscal prudence and more by an ideological stance against terms like 'climate change' and 'sustainability.' However, dismissing these concepts as mere political rhetoric overlooks the substantial and proven economic benefits they offer businesses and consumers. Efficiency and sustainability are practical, financially responsible strategies that reduce operational costs, strengthen consumer confidence and enhance long-term business viability. Ultimately, maintaining funding for Energy Star isn't about ideological debates, it's a smart business decision that helps American businesses and consumers. Preserving a program that has demonstrably reduced costs, standardized performance and protected consumer trust should be a straightforward choice for any administration committed to the economic health and competitiveness of American small businesses. Michael Green is a senior advisor on climate and energy policy at the American Sustainable Business Network. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
35 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Former Hedge Fund Manager Says Dojo Is Elon's Way of ‘Bypassing the Usual Channels'
BALTIMORE, May 31, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Elon Musk didn't just build a chip to run AI. He built a new way to control the entire pipeline. In a recent brief from former hedge fund manager Enrique Abeyta, Dojo isn't just a technical upgrade — it's Musk's escape hatch from legacy control systems. And it may soon be at the center of the largest autonomous rollout in modern history. A Break From the Supply Chain Cartel For years, Tesla relied on Nvidia to power its AI systems — but as demand spiked and chips got scarce, Musk made a move most CEOs wouldn't dare: he designed his own. Dojo is now running on a chip built in-house, specifically for visual AI. According to early benchmarks, it's 6x more powerful than Nvidia's most popular processor. That move doesn't just save money or boost speed. It cuts out a dependency that nearly every other tech company is still shackled to. Abeyta sees this as a signal: 'When Musk builds his own supply chain, it's not just vertical integration — it's vertical domination.' The Platform Is the Point What Dojo does is important — it powers Tesla's AI. But what it represents is bigger. It's a fully internalized loop: Tesla cars collect data, feed it into Dojo, and train the system to operate without human assistance. On June 1st, Tesla is expected to launch its first robotaxi — no pedals, no steering wheel, no human interface. This isn't just about autonomy on the road. It's about autonomy from the traditional tech stack — the one dominated by chipmakers, infrastructure vendors, and external dependencies Infrastructure, Not Innovation Dojo marks a new phase in AI — where the software is trained not in labs, but in the wild. Where the hardware isn't licensed — it's owned. Abeyta sees this as a power play, not a product launch. One that positions Musk to dominate the coming wave of machine-led logistics, mobility, and national systems. And with the U.S. government recently issuing new executive orders designed to remove restrictions on American AI development, the timing isn't accidental. Core partners involved with Dojo's development are now expected to receive billions in federal support. About Enrique Abeyta Enrique Abeyta is a former hedge fund manager with more than 25 years of experience tracking major capital shifts, industrial transformations, and strategic infrastructure plays. He managed nearly $4 billion in institutional assets and now leads Breaking Profits, a research platform focused on uncovering where real power is moving — before it hits the headlines. Media Contact:Derek WarrenPublic Relations ManagerParadigm Press GroupEmail: dwarren@ while retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data
