Latest news with #BrettShumate
Yahoo
02-08-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
DOJ reaches $9.8 million settlement with Illumina over cyber whistleblower claims
This story was originally published on Cybersecurity Dive. To receive daily news and insights, subscribe to our free daily Cybersecurity Dive newsletter. The Department of Justice on Thursday announced a $9.8 million settlement with Illumina over allegations that the company sold genomic-sequencing systems with software vulnerabilities to federal agencies for multiple years. Between 2016 and 2023, the government said, the company sold the systems without having an adequate security program and knowingly failed to incorporate cybersecurity into its product design process. According to prosecutors' complaint, Illumina is the dominant company in the global market, with a share of roughly 80%. 'Companies that sell products to the federal government will be held accountable for failing to adhere to cybersecurity standards and protecting against cybersecurity risks,' Assistant Attorney General Brett Shumate of the DOJ's Civil Division said in a statement. 'This settlement underscores the importance of cybersecurity in handling genetic information and the department's commitment to ensuring that federal contractors adhere to requirements to protect sensitive information from cyber threats,' he added. Illumina denied the allegations that it knowingly sold defective products, and the agreement states that the company is not making any admissions related to those claims. The Food and Drug Administration in 2023 issued a warning about a vulnerability in Illumina software that could allow an attacker to change settings on the device or even take it over remotely. In 2022, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency warned about a flaw in Illumina's Local Run Manager software that could allow an attacker to remotely alter test results. The company later patched the flaw. The case involved a whistleblower — Erica Lenore, a former director of platform management at Illumina — who provided the government with details about the company's alleged noncompliance. Lenore will receive $1.9 million from the settlement. Illumina said while it disagrees with the allegations from the government, it decided to settle the matter due to the 'uncertainty, expense and distraction' of litigating the case. The company noted the claims related to software issues, which Illumina says it successfully remediated from 2022 to 2024. 'Government agencies, including the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), are important customers and Illumina values these relationships,' the company said in a statement. 'Illumina takes data security seriously and has invested significantly in its programs to align with cybersecurity best practices for the development and deployment of our products. DOJ also reached a $1.75 million settlement with defense contractor Aero Turbine Inc. and private equity firm Galant Capital Partners, over claims they failed to meet cybersecurity standards related to an Air Force contract. The DOJ did credit them for voluntarily coming forward to cooperate in the case. (Updates with comments from company) Recommended Reading US government plays catchup on phishing-resistant MFA Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Associated Press
01-08-2025
- Business
- Associated Press
Appellate judges question Trump's authority to impose tariffs without Congress
WASHINGTON (AP) — Appellate court judges expressed broad skepticism Thursday over President Donald Trump's legal rationale for his most expansive round of tariffs. Members of the 11-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington appeared unconvinced by the Trump administration's insistence that the president could impose tariffs without congressional approval, and it hammered its invocation of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to do so. 'IEEPA doesn't even mention the word 'tariffs' anywhere,' Circuit Judge Jimmie Reyna said, in a sign of the panel's incredulity to a government attorney's arguments. Brett Shumate, the attorney representing the Trump administration, acknowledged in the 99-minute hearing 'no president has ever read IEEPA this way' but contended it was nonetheless lawful. The 1977 law, signed by President Jimmy Carter, allows the president to seize assets and block transactions during a national emergency. It was first used during the Iran hostage crisis and has since been invoked for a range of global unrest, from the 9/11 attacks to the Syrian civil war. In sharp exchanges with Shumate, appellate judges questioned that contention, asking whether the law extended to tariffs at all and, if so, whether the levies matched the threat the administration identified. 'If the president says there's a problem with our military readiness,' Chief Circuit Judge Kimberly Moore posited, 'and he puts a 20% tax on coffee, that doesn't seem to necessarily deal with (it).' Shumate said Congress' passage of IEEPA gave the president 'broad and flexible' power to respond to an emergency, but that 'the president is not asking for unbounded authority.' But an attorney for the plaintiffs, Neal Katyal, characterized Trump's maneuver as a 'breathtaking' power grab that amounted to saying 'the president can do whatever he wants, whenever he wants, for as long as he wants so long as he declares an emergency.' No ruling was issued from the bench. Regardless of what decision the judges' deliberations bring, the case is widely expected to reach the U.S. Supreme Court. Trump weighed in on the case on his Truth Social platform, posting: 'To all of my great lawyers who have fought so hard to save our Country, good luck in America's big case today. If our Country was not able to protect itself by using TARIFFS AGAINST TARIFFS, WE WOULD BE 'DEAD,' WITH NO CHANCE OF SURVIVAL OR SUCCESS. Thank you for your attention to this matter!'' In filings in the case, the Trump administration insists that 'a national emergency exists' necessitating its trade policy. A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of International Trade, a specialized federal court in New York, was unconvinced, however, ruling in May that Trump exceeded his powers. The issue now rests with the appeals judges. The challenge strikes at just one batch of import taxes from an administration that has unleashed a bevy of them and could be poised to unveil more on Friday. The case centers on Trump's so-called 'Liberation Day' tariffs of April 2 that imposed new levies on nearly every country. But it doesn't cover other tariffs, including those on foreign steel, aluminum and autos, nor ones imposed on China during Trump's first term, and continued by President Joe Biden. The case is one of at least seven lawsuits charging that Trump overstepped his authority through the use of tariffs on other nations. The plaintiffs include 12 U.S. states and five businesses, including a wine importer, a company selling pipes and plumbing goods, and a maker of fishing gear. The U.S. Constitution gives Congress the authority to impose taxes — including tariffs — but over decades, lawmakers have ceded power over trade policy to the White House. Trump has made the most of the power vacuum, raising the average U.S. tariff to more than 18%, the highest rate since 1934, according to the Budget Lab at Yale University. The attorney general for one of the states suing Trump sounded confident after the hearing, arguing that the judges 'didn't buy'' the Trump administration's arguments. 'You would definitely rather be in our shoes going forward,'' Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield said. Rayfield said that Trump's tariffs — which are paid by importers in the United States who often try to pass along the higher costs to their customers — amount to one of the largest tax increases in American history. 'This was done all by one human being sitting in the Oval Office,' he said.
The Guardian
01-08-2025
- Business
- The Guardian
Trump's tariffs face skepticism in court hours before latest round is set to kick in
Donald Trump's global tariffs faced significant skepticism in a federal appeals court on Thursday, as judges investigated whether the president had overstretched his powers just hours before the latest sweeping round of duties is set to kick in. The full 11-strong bench of the US court of appeals for the federal circuit in Washington DC is considering whether Trump exceeded his authority in imposing 'reciprocal' tariffs on a large number of US trading partners. Judges repeatedly asked if Trump was justified in relying on emergency powers to effectively tear up the US tariff schedule without consulting Congress. Businesses challenging his strategy accused the White House of engineering a 'breathtaking' attempt to force it through, unlike any trade move attempted by a US administration in two centuries. The 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which Trump has used to invoke emergency powers and enforce many of his tariffs, 'doesn't even say 'tariffs'', one of the judges noted. 'Doesn't even mention them.' In May a three-judge panel of the court of international trade blocked the import duties on grounds that Trump's use of IEEPA was unjustified. The appeals court has stayed that ruling pending the outcome of Thursday's hearing. 'The government uses IEEPA all the time,' said Brett Shumate, assistant attorney general in the justice department's civil division, representing the administration, to the court. He conceded, however, that it was the first IEEPA had been used to implement tariffs. The US trade deficit – the gap between what it imports to and exports from the world – has 'reached a tipping point', claimed Shumate, enabling Trump to take emergency action. 'It's affecting our military readiness,' he said. 'It's affecting our domestic manufacturing capability.' But Neal Katyal, a lawyer representing businesses challenging the tariffs, argued that Trump was laying a 'breathtaking claim to power that no president has asserted in 200 years'. The administration is effectively saying 'that our federal courts are powerless; that the president can do whatever he wants, whenever he wants, for as long he wants – so long as he declares an emergency', Katyal argued. Trump posted about the hearing on his Truth Social platform on Thursday, calling it 'America's big case'. He said: 'If our Country was not able to protect itself by using TARIFFS AGAINST TARIFFS, WE WOULD BE 'DEAD,' WITH NO CHANCE OF SURVIVAL OR SUCCESS.' 'Now the tide has completely turned, and America has successfully countered this onslaught of Tariffs used against it,' the president claimed. 'ONE YEAR AGO, AMERICA WAS A DEAD COUNTRY, NOW IT IS THE 'HOTTEST' COUNTRY ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD.' The challenge to Trump's use of emergency powers has been brought by five small businesses acting alongside 12 Democratic-controlled states. They argue that the IEEPA was designed to address 'unusual and extraordinary' threats arising in national emergencies, and that the reason for the tariffs do not meet that standard. The small businesses are being represented by a libertarian public interest law firm, the Liberty Justice Center. The non-profit is supported by billionaire rightwing donors including Robert Mercer and Richard Uihlein, who, paradoxically, have also been major backers of Trump's presidential campaigns.
Axios
31-07-2025
- Business
- Axios
Appeals court judges question trade emergency behind Trump tariffs
Appeals court judges on Thursday appeared wary of the Trump administration's argument that global trade imbalances amounted to a national emergency. Why it matters: It is among the high-stakes legal questions threatening the sweeping tariffs at the center of Trump's economic agenda. The big picture: Trump has leaned on untested powers to impose tariffs across much of the globe. Those powers faced legal scrutiny on Thursday, just one day before he's set to lean on them to impose higher tariffs. What they're saying: The judges pushed Justice Department lawyers on the Trump administration's declaration of a national emergency over trade deficits that have been persistent for years. The judges questioned whether the administration can lean on a law that does not mention tariffs at all to impose them. "If the president says there's a problem with our military readiness and he puts a 20% tax on coffee," that would not deal with the emergency, one judge said. Details: The White House says the tariffs are covered under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The law says the president can regulate economic transactions "to deal with any unusual and extraordinary threat" that amounts to a national emergency. The White House says that U.S. trade deficits are among the national emergencies justifying its global tariff policies. The intrigue: " A dissatisfaction with the limits in IEEPA itself is not a license for the court to impose its own limitations," Brett Shumate, an assistant attorney general at the Justice Department, argued. Shumate argued that the trade deficit has "reached a tipping point" and the tariffs give the "president leverage to address the emergency." The other side: A group of small businesses sued the Trump administration over the tariffs. The judges pushed Neal Katyal, who argued on behalf of the plaintiffs, to clarify why the powers to regulate granted in IEEPA did not cover the imposition of tariffs. "If this argument is true, every single time you and I sell a stock, the SEC can tax it,"Katyal, a former top DOJ official during the Obama administration, argued. Context: Thursday's hearing comes after the Court of International Trade ruled in May that Trump overreached when imposing the tariffs. The bottom line: Trump's global tariffs have unleashed a bout of economic uncertainty.
Wall Street Journal
31-07-2025
- Politics
- Wall Street Journal
Trump's Tariffs Questioned by Appeals Court
WASHINGTON—Federal appeals judges on Thursday grilled a Trump administration lawyer over the White House's use of emergency powers to impose worldwide tariffs, pushing back against the president's claims that a 1977 law addressing economic emergencies gives him the ability to rewrite the tariff schedule. Justice Department attorney Brett Shumate told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that in granting the president the power to 'regulate' imports during national emergencies, Congress included the power to impose tariffs as he saw fit. But several members of the court cited both statutes and court precedents suggesting that lawmakers had allowed at most only small adjustments to congressionally set tariffs in response to discrete threats.
