Latest news with #Congress.The
Economic Times
29-05-2025
- Business
- Economic Times
Trump tariffs blocked by court — but the US President can still reimpose them with these 2 laws
A federal court struck down President Trump's tariffs, citing overreach. But the White House plans to appeal and reassert duties using alternative laws from 1962 and 1974, signaling no retreat in Trump's 'America First' trade agenda. Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tariff Defeat in Court, but Not the Endgame Two Laws, Two Paths to Reimposing Trump Tariffs Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Trump's Potential Strategy: Fast Strike, Follow-Up Fix Legal Appeals and Other Options on the Table No Retreat on Tariffs Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads FAQs What happened to Trump's recent tariffs? Does this mean the tariffs are gone for good? U.S. President Donald Trump's ambitious trade agenda faced a judicial blow this week when a federal court struck down key portions of his recently enacted tariffs. However, legal experts and White House officials believe that Trump still retains potent tools to reimpose duties, drawing on two longstanding laws passed in 1962 and 1974. Despite the setback, the administration is signaling a two-pronged approach: challenge the ruling in higher courts while simultaneously exploring alternative statutory authorities to keep tariffs in place, per Yahoo Finance's Wednesday, the U.S. Court of International Trade invalidated Trump's tariffs on the grounds that they exceeded presidential authority under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The next day, another federal judge in Washington issued a narrower ruling, limiting its effect to the plaintiffs involved but reinforcing the legal headwinds facing the former trade officials say this won't halt Trump's broader trade plans. Greta Peisch, a former general counsel in the Biden administration, remarked during a Thursday interview that "the president can find other authorities to reassert these policies" and called the ruling 'only the first step in litigation', as quoted in a report by Yahoo Finance the IEEPA path remains closed, two older statutes offer viable alternatives. The first is Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which grants the president the authority to impose temporary tariffs for balance-of-payments purposes. This mechanism allows for quick action—tariffs can be imposed within days—but they are limited to 15% and expire after 150 days unless extended by second, more durable approach involves Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 and Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. These allow the president to impose duties following investigations into threats to national or economic security. While effective, these tools are slower to implement due to legal requirements such as public consultations and detailed analysts anticipate that Trump may deploy a combination of both routes. The immediate-term solution would be using the 1974 balance-of-payments authority to avoid any tariff gap, as per Yahoo Finance's the administration could initiate Section 232 or Section 301 investigations for a longer-term solution—especially for strategic sectors like semiconductors, pharmaceuticals, and Treyz of Veda Partners noted that while the 1974 authority offers speed, its limitations are 'clear and temporary.' Section 301, the authority Trump previously used to impose tariffs on Chinese imports during his first term, may ultimately serve as the administration's preferred parallel with these moves, the White House has announced it will appeal the court's decision and may escalate the matter to the Supreme Court. Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt confirmed that the administration is exploring 'both legal and executive options,' and cited Section 232 as a pathway already under tools include Section 201 of the 1974 Trade Act and even a rarely used provision from the 1930 Tariff Act. Additionally, new legislative efforts—dubbed the 'big, beautiful bill' by Trump—could empower the administration further by rewriting tax codes to target 'discriminatory foreign countries.'For now, the administration has 10 days to halt tariff collections, but it is taking swift legal steps to delay enforcement and ensure the continuity of its trade agenda.A defiant White House continues to frame the issue as a constitutional and economic imperative. 'President Trump pledged to put America First,' said spokesperson Kush Desai, 'and the administration is committed to using every lever of executive power to restore American greatness.'While courts may have delivered a blow, the Trump tariffs could return—this time through the same legal machinery that Congress has handed presidents over the last half-century.A federal court invalidated key portions of them, ruling they exceeded presidential authority under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).No. The administration plans to appeal the decision and explore other legal avenues to reimpose tariffs.
India Today
26-05-2025
- Politics
- India Today
Why Congress is opposing name tweaks for sports facilities in Uttarakhand
The Uttarakhand government has revised the names of four major sports facilities in the state, triggering sharp political criticism from the Opposition Maharana Pratap Sports College and Rajiv Gandhi International Stadium in Dehradun will now come under the umbrella of the 'Rajat Jayanti Sports Complex'. In Haldwani, the Indira Gandhi Sports Infrastructure will be under 'Manaskhand Sports Complex', Manoj Sarkar Stadium in Rudrapur will fall under the 'Shivalik Sports Complex', and Haridwar's Vandana Kataria Hockey Stadium will be part of the 'Yogasthali Sports Complex'.advertisementWhile the BJP government has clarified that these are administrative integrations and not renaming, the Congress has accused it of deliberately erasing names linked to national icons and regional athletes. The controversy comes after the Pushkar Singh Dhami government, last month, embarked on a renaming spree, changing the names of several towns, villages and roads in multiple districts. The changes primarily affected areas with historical or perceived Islamic names, with the new names associated with Hindu or nationalist Congress has strongly opposed the renaming of sports facilities and warned of protests if the decision is not rolled back. At a press conference in Dehradun, Suryakant Dhasmana, senior vice-president (organisation and administration) of the party's state unit, said the decision was prejudiced. Dhasmana said the Congress condemned the move and demanded that the government restore the original names. He alleged that the BJP government's decision reflected a bias against names associated with Congress mentality has not only targeted the names of great Congress icons but also ended up insulting figures like Maharana Pratap and sportspersons like Manoj Sarkar and Vandana Kataria, whose names were part of these stadiums. This is unacceptable,' he said the State Congress Committee would meet the governor to register its protest and organise demonstrations at the affected stadiums. Dhasmana also said it was the Congress government that built and developed sports infrastructure across Uttarakhand while the BJP's only contribution had been to change the names of those Negi, state president of the Congress social media department, launched a sharp attack on the government, saying that for the BJP, development now meant only changing names. He accused the government of misleading the public while ignoring the actual condition of sports facilities. Calling it a matter of 'honour', Negi warned that if the decision was not withdrawn, the Congress would launch a statewide protest targeting the sports minister and the chief sports minister Rekha Arya countered that no existing stadium had been renamed. She said the government had only integrated multiple sports facilities across Dehradun, Haridwar, Udham Singh Nagar and Haldwani under broader complexes for administrative and developmental names already in use—such as the Manoj Sarkar Stadium in Rudrapur—will remain unchanged. The newly developed facilities in the same area, like the multipurpose hall or cycling velodrome, will also retain their individual names. But collectively, these facilities will now come under the Shivalik Sports Complex,' she she explained that the Rajiv Gandhi International Cricket Stadium and Maharana Pratap Sports College in Dehradun's Raipur area will continue with their existing names while the entire Raipur campus will be integrated and known as the Rajat Jayanti Sports same applies to the Indira Gandhi International Cricket Stadium in Gaulapar and the Vandana Kataria Hockey Stadium in Roshanabad, Haridwar. 'So, if anyone claims that the old names are being replaced, that is completely incorrect,' Arya the move continues to be seen by the Opposition and political observers as a continuation of the BJP's broader strategy to reshape the state's public identity along ideological lines. While the earlier renaming of towns, villages, and roads was openly projected as a cultural correction, critics argue that the naming of sports complexes is a more subtle grouping existing facilities under umbrella names like Rajat Jayanti Sports Complex or Manaskhand Sports Complex, the government is not technically erasing individual names but is creating a larger identity that overshadows them, particularly those linked to Congress leaders such as Indira Gandhi and Rajiv is pointed out that this method allows the government to avoid direct accusations of rewriting history while still advancing its ideological goals. By branding the entire campus or area under a new name, references to individual Congress-linked institutions become less prominent in public usage, signage and instance, while the Rajiv Gandhi International Stadium may still officially exist, its presence is now enveloped within the Rajat Jayanti Sports Complex, diluting the visibility and recall of the original name. This allows the BJP to defend itself on technical grounds, arguing that no renaming has occurred, while still achieving a symbolic shift in public perception and to India Today Magazine
Time of India
07-05-2025
- Automotive
- Time of India
17 states sue Trump administration over withholding $3.3 billion Electric Vehicle infrastructure money
AP Seventeen US states are taking legal action against President Donald Trump's administration, accusing it of unlawfully withholding billions of dollars meant for building electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure, reported AFP. The lawsuit, announced on Wednesday, claims the federal government has no authority to stop states from using funds already allocated by funding — $5 billion spread over five years — was approved under President Joe Biden as part of the 2021 Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. Of this, roughly $3.3 billion had already been made available to states before the Trump administration issued a directive in February asking them to stop using the lawsuit is led by California Attorney General Rob Bonta, alongside counterparts in Colorado and Washington. Bonta criticised the decision as a political move to favour the oil industry, calling it "illegal" and harmful to climate states had already begun using the funds, with some reimbursed for their EV charging projects. Others, like New York, claim large sums are currently frozen — in New York's case, about $120 million of the $175 million lawsuit reflects growing resistance to the Trump administration's broader efforts to roll back climate policies. These include pulling out of the Paris Agreement, reversing Biden's EV targets, and supporting fossil fuel Governor Gavin Newsom called the funding freeze "illegal" and warned it could cost thousands of jobs and push innovation to other countries. He urged the president to honour the bipartisan law instead of politicising clean energy.
Yahoo
25-04-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Trump administration proposes getting rid of crisis hotline serving LGBTQ+ youth
WASHINGTON () — The Trump administration currently has plans to eliminate the 988 suicide and crisis prevention hotline, which specifically serves members of the LGBTQ+ community. DC mayor reveals part of FY26 budget, some childcare programs fully funded According to a leaked draft of the federal budget, the program, which launched in 2022, is funded through the Department of Health and Human Services. It could end as soon as Oct. 1 if it's approved by Trevor Project, which offers help through 988, said the hotline has provided life-saving services to more than 1.2-million crisis is one of the top causes of death among young people aged Project CEO Jaymes Black said in a statement that ending the 988 suicide and crisis lifeline program will put the lives of LGBTQ+ youth at risk. The Human Rights Campaign warned that the deep cuts to HHS in staffing and funding will also negatively impact programs aimed at HIV and STI prevention and access to HIV PrEP medications. 'We have seen an unconscionable amount of tax on LGBTQ+ health at all levels,' said Matthew Rose, senior public policy advocate for the Human Rights Campaign. 'Nothing like this has ever existed in any other administration before, and we are here to say that we won't stand for it. And that our people, our lives and our communities matter and that what they're doing does nothing to advance anything they say, what they want to make happen.' Black said regardless of federal funding, The Trevor Project will remain available 24/7 for anyone in need just as they 'always have.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
BBC News
06-03-2025
- Politics
- BBC News
Democrat Al Green censured over Trump speech disruption
US Congress has voted to censure Texas Democrat Al Green, who was ejected from the House chamber on Tuesday after disrupting President Donald Trump's address to the a long-serving member of the Democratic party, was punished for heckling and waving his cane at Trump during the president's joint session of resolution, which said Green's behaviour was "a breach of proper conduct", passed by 224 to 198 votes. Ten Democrats voted to censure the vote was held, Green was ordered to stand in the well of the House chamber while the resolution was read out loud. The culmination of the vote resulted in a shouting match between Republicans and Democrats in the and fellow Democrats began singing "We Shall Overcome," which appeared to frustrate some Republicans on the floor, leading to a shouting match. Republican Dan Meuser at one point told Democrat Ayanna Pressley, "Al was wrong," leading Pressley to respond: "your members do the same thing," according to The of the vote, Green suggested in a social media post his censure was expected and imminent. "During the 10:00 hour ET, Congressman Al Green will be censured this morning for standing up to President Trump," Green wrote on fellow Democrats had attempted to block the vote to censure the 77-year-old, with some arguing his decision to stand, wave his cane and heckle Trump was a legitimate act of measure was introduced by Congressman Dan Newhouse, a Republican from Washington, who said the decision to call for Green to be censured was not an easy one. "We cannot ignore the wilful disruption intended to stop a proceeding," Newhouse said Wednesday. "Without decorum, without respect, what do we got? What do we have, truly?"On Tuesday, just minutes into Trump's address, Green stood up and shouted, "Mr President, you don't have a mandate!" referring to Medicaid Speaker Mike Johnson told Green to take his seat and "maintain decorum," but Green refused. Johnson then ordered his removal from the is a fierce critic of President Trump, and called for the impeachment of the president during his first term in office.A censure is a formal statement of disapproval that requires a majority vote in the House to pass. It does not remove a member from Congress. Censures are relatively rare occurrences, though in recent years they have become more common. Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib, a Michigan Democrat, was censured in 2023 for comments she made over the Israel-Gaza in 2023, now former Congressman Jamaal Bowman, was censured for falsely pulling a fire alarm while Congress was in members of the House have been censured in total.
