Latest news with #InternationalEmergencyEconomicPowersActof1977
Yahoo
a day ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Trump's Angry New Tirade over Tariff Ruling Accidentally Says Too Much
President Donald Trump's angry, unhinged rant on Truth Social over this week's judicial ruling against his tariffs is getting attention for its fury at Leonard Leo, the mastermind of the conservative takeover of the courts. Trump blamed the Federalist Society—which Leo championed—for the ruling, in which two judges appointed by GOP presidents, including Trump himself, found that his tariffs dramatically overstepped his presidential authority. That's absurd: The judge that Trump appointed to the three-judge U.S. Court of International Trade—which issued the ruling—has protectionist sympathies, yet even he saw the tariffs as illegal. What's more, the Federalist Society—and Leo—have helped shape today's Supreme Court, which enabled Trump to evade accountability for his insurrection, making his 2024 victory possible. But I'd like to highlight something else in Trump's tirade, because it constitutes an actual argument on his part about his exercise of unilateral power on tariffs. Trump said this: The horrific decision stated that I would have to get the approval of Congress for these Tariffs. In other words, hundreds of politicians would sit around D.C. for weeks, and even months, trying to come to a conclusion as to what to charge other Countries that are treating us unfairly. If allowed to stand, this would completely destroy Presidential Power — The Presidency would never be the same! 'Under this decision, Trillions of Dollars would be lost by our Country,' Trump fumed. 'The President of the United States must be allowed to protect America against those that are doing it Economic and Financial harm.' Here Trump derides the very idea that Congress should have a good deal of authority over the levying of tariffs. Trump claims this can't apply in the case of his new tariffs, because it prevents him from acting to protect the country in an emergency. In this case, that emergency is the one Trump has invoked—our trade deficits—to appropriate for to himself virtually unlimited power to levy sweeping taxes on products imported from all over the world. This is what the court ruled illegal (though the tariffs can proceed for now). It found that the relevant statute—the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977, or IEEPA—doesn't afford Trump this authority at all. The statute doesn't mention 'tariffs' as a remedy for emergencies, and it requires that emergencies pose an 'extraordinary and unusual threat,' which trade deficits simply do not. But that aside, in saying all this, Trump is openly declaring that he should have the power to circumvent Congress in levying these tariffs to address emergencies. Yet as Trump himself demonstrates here, in claiming this authority, he's invoking an emergency that is not real. Trillions of dollars are not being 'lost' by our country due to trade deficits, as his rant proclaims. That is not how trade deficits work, and they certainly do not constitute 'emergencies.' As Trump's tirade plainly shows, he made up the 'emergency' to grant himself extraordinarily sweeping authorities. All this demonstrates exactly why we want Trump to subject himself to Congress' directives in the first place. The key point to understand here is that Congress did delegate the president some powers over trade, but it circumscribed those powers. The IEEPA gave the president some authorities to act on economic emergencies. But Trump acted outside those authorities. As the ruling puts it, the statute 'only' allows Trump to 'deal with an unusual and extraordinary threat,' but 'not' for 'any other purpose,' and Trump's tariffs 'do not meet that condition.' They do not address an 'unusual and extraordinary threat' at all. In his rant, Trump explicitly equates these lawful limits imposed on his powers by Congress—and upheld by judges—with the total destruction of presidential authority. Letting this ruling stand, he rages, would 'completely destroy Presidential Power.' In other words, preserving presidential power by definition means not accepting such lawful limits on it. 'Congress did not intend to set up a trade dictator where all tariff rates can be changed on a whim by simply declaring a national emergency,' Dartmouth professor Douglas Irwin, the author of many books about trade, told me. The broader aim here is obvious, and even Trump-appointed judges are taking note of it. There's the current ruling on tariffs joined by a Trump appointee. And another federal judge picked by Trump recently blocked his deportations under the 1798 Alien Enemies Act by sharply contesting his claim that we're under 'invasion' by a hostile foreign power, as the statute requires. This ruling said that letting Trump 'unilaterally define' when an invasion is underway simply by decree—without regard to facts—thus justifying suspension of due process would 'remove all limitations' to Trump's authority. To which top Trump adviser Stephen Miller in effect replied: You're damn right. That's exactly what we want: You see, Trump can suspend habeus corpus if we're under invasion, which he can simply make true by decree. Judges should 'do the right thing' by affirmatively ratifying that power, or be warned: Trump just might assume it for himself. What's really at issue here is whether Trump can simply pull 'emergencies' out of his rear to assume dictatorial powers for himself. The court is saying, No, you can't. Trump's rant basically says: Yes, I can. The real reason Trump and his minions are raging at the courts is that they want that latter proposition to be the controlling one—which, not incidentally, would make great strides toward making his power to tyrannize over us quasi-absolute. That is their project, and they're not even hiding it anymore. The only question at this point is whether they succeed—or whether we stop them.
Yahoo
a day ago
- Business
- Yahoo
A Victory for Separation of Powers
Wednesday's unanimous ruling against President Donald Trump's expansive 'Liberation Day' tariffs by the United States Court of International Trade wasn't merely a victory for the businesses and consumers opposed to the policy. The decision was much more than that: a victory for the constitutional system of separation of powers—and, even more broadly, for the rule of law in America. The decision came in a case filed by the Liberty Justice Center and me on behalf of five American businesses harmed by the tariffs, and it also covers a similar case filed by 12 states led by Oregon. Our suit challenged Trump's attempted use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 to impose 10 percent Liberation Day tariffs on imports from almost every nation in the world, plus additional 'reciprocal' tariffs on many more countries. We argue that the IEEPA doesn't grant Trump the virtually unlimited tariff authority he claims, and that, if it did, it would be unconstitutional. Earlier, the president also used IEEPA to impose 25 percent tariffs on Canada and Mexico, plus additional tariffs on China, under the pretext that they would somehow curtail importation of fentanyl into the United States. (Our case challenged only the Liberation Day tariffs, while the Oregon case also targeted the fentanyl ones.) In combination, the IEEPA tariffs kicked off the biggest trade war since the Great Depression. The Tax Foundation estimated that Trump's IEEPA tariffs would have imposed some $1.4 trillion to $2.2 trillion in tax increases on Americans over the next decade. They also would have severely slowed economic growth, inflicted grave harm on many businesses—including our clients, who depend on imports—and raised prices on consumers. Fortunately, the court ruled that Trump does not have the 'unbounded authority' he claims 'to impose unlimited tariffs on goods from nearly every country.' The British overthrew King Charles I in part because he tried to impose 'ship money' taxes without legislative authorization. The president of the United States is no king, and he does not have the power to impose taxes in the form of tariffs whenever he feels like it. The court's decision upholds this fundamental principle of the Anglo-American constitutional tradition. The IEEPA doesn't even mention tariffs as one of the emergency powers it grants the president. No previous president ever used it to impose them. In addition, the law can be invoked only to address a 'national emergency' that amounts to an 'unusual and extraordinary threat' to America's economy or national security. The administration claimed that the president has unlimited discretion to decide what qualifies as an 'emergency' and an 'unusual and extraordinary threat.' Thus, the Liberation Day tariffs were supposedly justified by the existence of trade deficits with various countries, even though such deficits have persisted for decades; there is nothing 'unusual' about them; and, as most economists recognize, they are not a threat at all. As Judge Jane A. Restani put it during oral argument, the administration's approach would allow the president to impose sweeping tariffs for virtually any 'crazy' reason, such as a peanut-butter shortage. [Conor Friedersdorf: Striking down Trump's tariffs isn't a judicial coup] The court ruled that the 'IEEPA requires more than just the fact of a presidential finding or declaration,' because 'it does not grant IEEPA authority to the President simply when he 'finds' or 'determines' that an unusual and extraordinary threat exists.' Otherwise, he would have virtually unlimited tariff authority, which the Congress that enacted the IEEPA carefully sought to prevent. The court also emphasized that 'the Constitution assigns Congress the exclusive powers to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises' and to 'regulate Commerce with foreign Nations.' For that reason, 'any interpretation of IEEPA that delegates unlimited tariff authority is unconstitutional.' It would 'constitute an improper abdication of legislative power to another branch of government.' The Supreme Court has been relatively lax in enforcing what is called the 'nondelegation doctrine,' which limits the extent to which congressional authority can be delegated to the executive. But both conservative and liberal justices have held that there must be at least some limits to delegation. And if anything qualifies as excessive delegation, it would be a transfer of unlimited power to impose tariffs amounting to trillions of dollars in tax increases. The court ruling also cites the 'major-questions doctrine,' which requires Congress to 'speak clearly' when authorizing the executive to make 'decisions of vast economic and political significance.' According to the major-questions doctrine, if the law isn't clear, courts must reject the executive's assertions of power. If Trump's sweeping use of the IEEPA is not a major question, nothing is. The magnitude of the IEEPA tariffs exceeds that of any of the measures ruled to be 'major questions' by the Supreme Court. Not even President Joe Biden's $400 billion student-loan-forgiveness plan (which the Court in my view rightly invalidated under the doctrine) compares. And, as the Court of International Trade decision explains, it is anything but clear that the IEEPA grants Trump the immense authority he claims; indeed, it clearly does not. The nondelegation and major-questions doctrines are related, but distinct. The former categorically bans excessive delegations of legislative power to the executive because they undermine the constitutional separation of powers, while the latter merely requires that broad delegations be clearly indicated by Congress. In combination, they aim to constrain executive power grabs, such as that attempted here by Trump. In addition to vindicating constitutional principles, the decision is a win for the rule of law. Major legal rules should be clearly stated, and not instantly changeable at one person's whim. That is what differentiates the rule of law from the 'rule of men.' Trump's claim to unlimited tariff authority and his repeated gyrations in imposing and lifting tariffs are a blatant affront to this principle. After imposing the Liberation Day tariffs, he soon suspended them for certain electronic goods, struck an ad hoc temporary deal to suspend some tariffs on China, and then proceeded to threaten new tariffs on such products as foreign-produced movies and Apple iPhones. Such one-man rule wreaks havoc on the rule of law—to say nothing of the stable legal environment that investors and businesses need to make plans. The court's ruling imposes a nationwide permanent injunction blocking the IEEPA tariffs, thus granting relief to all Americans, not just our clients. Still, the litigation is not over. The administration appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, asking it to stay the injunction in the meantime. Yesterday, that court granted a brief 'administrative stay' that delays the ruling for a few days as the parties litigate the issue of whether a longer stay should be granted. The case may yet reach the Supreme Court. A second decision against Trump's IEEPA tariffs was issued yesterday by Judge Rudolph Contreras of the federal District Court for the District of Columbia. Unlike the Court of International Trade ruling, it applies only to tariffs imposed against the two toy manufacturers that brought the case. But notably, Contreras concluded that the IEEPA doesn't grant the president the power to impose tariffs at all, thereby going further than the Wednesday decision did. If the law did grant the sweeping authority claimed by Trump, Contreras—like the Court of International Trade panel—noted, that would be an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power, and 'render IEEPA unconstitutional.' While the impact of the district-court ruling is very limited, it further bolsters the case against Trump's tariffs. The legal fight over the IEEPA tariffs will continue. But these decisions make me guardedly optimistic. The Court of International Trade ruling was joined by judges appointed by both Republican and Democratic presidents, including one (Timothy M. Reif) appointed by Trump. Judge Restani was appointed by Ronald Reagan, and the third judge who joined the decision, Gary S. Katzmann, was appointed by Barack Obama. This shows that the legal case against these sorts of sweeping, unilaterally imposed tariffs cuts across liberal-conservative lines. The nondelegation and major-questions doctrines on which our case—and this decision—are largely based have been championed by conservative Supreme Court justices. Americans across the political spectrum have an interest in preventing the president from wielding monarchical powers, undermining the Constitution, and starting ruinous trade wars. It's good to see that courts seem to agree. Article originally published at The Atlantic
Miami Herald
a day ago
- Automotive
- Miami Herald
Major automaker considers tariff move that customers will hate
Many industries were able to breathe a sigh of relief after the U.S. Court of International Trade ruled 3-0 that President Donald Trump's Liberation Day tariffs exceeded the authorities granted him under the Constitution. But the automotive industry wasn't one of them. The automotive industry is one of the few whose 25% duties remain unchanged by Wednesday's ruling. Related: Ford CEO Jim Farley has a strong take on tariffs This is because the court ruled that the universal reciprocal tariffs he implemented exceeded what he could do under the emergency powers he invoked on April 2 to justify them. However, Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 gives the president the authority to tax the imports of products deemed to threaten or impair the national security of the U.S. While this authority is granted only after the Commerce Department investigates that specific industry, the Commerce Department, like all executive branch departments, answers to the White House. Moreover, the two lawsuits prompting Wednesday's ruling, one filed by five small businesses and the other by 12 different states, only challenged the president's authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977, not Section 232. So tariffs issued under that provision, like auto tariffs, are not affected by the ruling. Also, late Thursday, an appeals court stayed the ITC court's ruling, so tariffs are definitely here to stay for now. In light of this fact, at least one foreign car company may be reaching its breaking point. Image source: Bloomberg/Getty Images Korean automaker Hyundai could soon announce across-the-board price increases to combat the 25% duties being placed on auto imports. Hyundai is considering a 1% price increase to the suggested retail price of every model in its lineup starting as soon as next week, Bloomberg reported, citing sources familiar with the company's thinking. To avoid raising prices even more, the company will also likely raise shipping charges for supplies like floor mats and roof rails that are installed before the vehicles arrive at dealerships. Related: Another Japanese automaker takes drastic action on tariffs While the company officially said the move has nothing to do with tariffs, Bloomberg's sources said otherwise. Trump has been hard on companies that defy him and raise prices in response to tariffs. He has openly criticized Walmart recently, telling the company to "eat the tariffs" instead of passing the cost along to customers. He notified the company that he would "be watching" to make sure they didn't raise prices. Other auto companies, such as Ford and Toyota, have recently used language similar to Hyundai's to justify raising prices, saying that the move is consistent with their normal seasonal price adjustments. Hyundai is the third-largest auto importer in the U.S., importing 1.1 million cars from overseas last year. Toyota and, oddly enough, America's own General Motors, were the top auto importers last year, importing 1.2 million vehicles each. The auto industry is in a tough spot. Domestic producers have publicly cheered the tariffs, since they give them a leg up against the competition, which doesn't have the same production footprint in the U.S. But behind the scenes, they also face a ton of pressure on their bottom lines. Ford, GM, Stellantis, and others have all already pulled their guidance for the year due to a lack of visibility. Ford says tariffs will wipe $1.5 billion from its EBITDA. General Motors says tariffs could cost it $5 billion in EBITDA. Stellantis imported 564,000 vehicles last year, well ahead of Ford's 420,000 imports. Both imported fewer than half of the vehicles GM did last year. "Last year, we assembled over 300,000 more vehicles in the U.S. than our closest competitor. That includes 100% of all our full-size trucks," Ford CEO Jim Farley said during the company's last earnings call. "In this new with the largest U.S. footprint will have a big advantage, and boy, is that true for Ford," he added. "It puts us in the pole position." Related: Toyota moves production of popular US sedan to Britain The Arena Media Brands, LLC THESTREET is a registered trademark of TheStreet, Inc.
Atlantic
a day ago
- Business
- Atlantic
A Victory for Separation of Powers
Wednesday's unanimous ruling against President Donald Trump's expansive 'Liberation Day' tariffs by the United States Court of International Trade wasn't merely a victory for the businesses and consumers opposed to the policy. The decision was much more than that: a victory for the constitutional system of separation of powers—and, even more broadly, for the rule of law in America. The decision came in a case filed by the Liberty Justice Center and me on behalf of five American businesses harmed by the tariffs, and it also covers a similar case filed by 12 states led by Oregon. Our suit challenged Trump's attempted use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 to impose 10 percent Liberation Day tariffs on imports from almost every nation in the world, plus additional 'reciprocal' tariffs on many more countries. We argue that the IEEPA doesn't grant Trump the virtually unlimited tariff authority he claims, and that, if it did, it would be unconstitutional. Earlier, the president also used IEEPA to impose 25 percent tariffs on Canada and Mexico, plus additional tariffs on China, under the pretext that they would somehow curtail importation of fentanyl into the United States. (Our case challenged only the Liberation Day tariffs, while the Oregon case also targeted the fentanyl ones.) In combination, the IEEPA tariffs kicked off the biggest trade war since the Great Depression. The Tax Foundation estimated that Trump's IEEPA tariffs would have imposed some $1.4 trillion to $2.2 trillion in tax increases on Americans over the next decade. They also would have severely slowed economic growth, inflicted grave harm on many businesses—including our clients, who depend on imports—and raised prices on consumers. Fortunately, the court ruled that Trump does not have the 'unbounded authority' he claims 'to impose unlimited tariffs on goods from nearly every country.' The British overthrew King Charles I in part because he tried to impose 'ship money' taxes without legislative authorization. The president of the United States is no king, and he does not have the power to impose taxes in the form of tariffs whenever he feels like it. The court's decision upholds this fundamental principle of the Anglo-American constitutional tradition. The IEEPA doesn't even mention tariffs as one of the emergency powers it grants the president. No previous president ever used it to impose them. In addition, the law can be invoked only to address a 'national emergency' that amounts to an 'unusual and extraordinary threat' to America's economy or national security. The administration claimed that the president has unlimited discretion to decide what qualifies as an 'emergency' and an 'unusual and extraordinary threat.' Thus, the Liberation Day tariffs were supposedly justified by the existence of trade deficits with various countries, even though such deficits have persisted for decades; there is nothing 'unusual' about them; and, as most economists recognize, they are not a threat at all. As Judge Jane A. Restani put it during oral argument, the administration's approach would allow the president to impose sweeping tariffs for virtually any 'crazy' reason, such as a peanut-butter shortage. The court ruled that the 'IEEPA requires more than just the fact of a presidential finding or declaration,' because 'it does not grant IEEPA authority to the President simply when he 'finds' or 'determines' that an unusual and extraordinary threat exists.' Otherwise, he would have virtually unlimited tariff authority, which the Congress that enacted the IEEPA carefully sought to prevent. The court also emphasized that 'the Constitution assigns Congress the exclusive powers to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises' and to 'regulate Commerce with foreign Nations.' For that reason, 'any interpretation of IEEPA that delegates unlimited tariff authority is unconstitutional.' It would 'constitute an improper abdication of legislative power to another branch of government.' The Supreme Court has been relatively lax in enforcing what is called the 'nondelegation doctrine,' which limits the extent to which congressional authority can be delegated to the executive. But both conservative and liberal justices have held that there must be at least some limits to delegation. And if anything qualifies as excessive delegation, it would be a transfer of unlimited power to impose tariffs amounting to trillions of dollars in tax increases. The court ruling also cites the 'major-questions doctrine,' which requires Congress to 'speak clearly' when authorizing the executive to make 'decisions of vast economic and political significance.' According to the major-questions doctrine, if the law isn't clear, courts must reject the executive's assertions of power. If Trump's sweeping use of the IEEPA is not a major question, nothing is. The magnitude of the IEEPA tariffs exceeds that of any of the measures ruled to be 'major questions' by the Supreme Court. Not even President Joe Biden's $400 billion student-loan-forgiveness plan (which the Court in my view rightly invalidated under the doctrine) compares. And, as the Court of International Trade decision explains, it is anything but clear that the IEEPA grants Trump the immense authority he claims; indeed, it clearly does not. The nondelegation and major-questions doctrines are related, but distinct. The former categorically bans excessive delegations of legislative power to the executive because they undermine the constitutional separation of powers, while the latter merely requires that broad delegations be clearly indicated by Congress. In combination, they aim to constrain executive power grabs, such as that attempted here by Trump. In addition to vindicating constitutional principles, the decision is a win for the rule of law. Major legal rules should be clearly stated, and not instantly changeable at one person's whim. That is what differentiates the rule of law from the 'rule of men.' Trump's claim to unlimited tariff authority and his repeated gyrations in imposing and lifting tariffs are a blatant affront to this principle. After imposing the Liberation Day tariffs, he soon suspended them for certain electronic goods, struck an ad hoc temporary deal to suspend some tariffs on China, and then proceeded to threaten new tariffs on such products as foreign-produced movies and Apple iPhones. Such one-man rule wreaks havoc on the rule of law—to say nothing of the stable legal environment that investors and businesses need to make plans. The court's ruling imposes a nationwide permanent injunction blocking the IEEPA tariffs, thus granting relief to all Americans, not just our clients. Still, the litigation is not over. The administration appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, asking it to stay the injunction in the meantime. Yesterday, that court granted a brief 'administrative stay' that delays the ruling for a few days as the parties litigate the issue of whether a longer stay should be granted. The case may yet reach the Supreme Court. A second decision against Trump's IEEPA tariffs was issued yesterday by Judge Rudolph Contreras of the federal District Court for the District of Columbia. Unlike the Court of International Trade ruling, it applies only to tariffs imposed against the two toy manufacturers that brought the case. But notably, Contreras concluded that the IEEPA doesn't grant the president the power to impose tariffs at all, thereby going further than the Wednesday decision did. If the law did grant the sweeping authority claimed by Trump, Contreras—like the Court of International Trade panel—noted, that would be an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power, and 'render IEEPA unconstitutional.' While the impact of the district-court ruling is very limited, it further bolsters the case against Trump's tariffs. The legal fight over the IEEPA tariffs will continue. But these decisions make me guardedly optimistic. The Court of International Trade ruling was joined by judges appointed by both Republican and Democratic presidents, including one (Timothy M. Reif) appointed by Trump. Judge Restani was appointed by Ronald Reagan, and the third judge who joined the decision, Gary S. Katzmann, was appointed by Barack Obama. This shows that the legal case against these sorts of sweeping, unilaterally imposed tariffs cuts across liberal-conservative lines. The nondelegation and major-questions doctrines on which our case—and this decision—are largely based have been championed by conservative Supreme Court justices. Americans across the political spectrum have an interest in preventing the president from wielding monarchical powers, undermining the Constitution, and starting ruinous trade wars. It's good to see that courts seem to agree.
USA Today
2 days ago
- Business
- USA Today
Trade whiplash
Trade whiplash Good morning!🙋🏼♀️ I'm Nicole Fallert. Ask a friend if they can spell "éclaircissement." Close out the week with Friday's news: An appeals court allowed President Donald Trump to keep tariffs while an appeal plays out. Former government workers are running for public office — and winning. A Swiss glacier collapsed in a dramatic display of the impact of climate change. Illinois toys and Trump's tariff reprieve The Trump administration won temporary reprieve Thursday after an appeals court ruled the White House can keep up tariffs while challenging a court order that had blocked them. Trade whiplash: The quick reversal came a day after the United States Court of International Trade invalidated Trump's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 to impose tariffs. The administration quickly appealed and won a short-term break. Trump attacked the judges who blocked his tariffs, a ruling later temporarily paused on appeal, and blamed a conservative legal group for giving him bad advice on judicial picks. Trump attacked the judges who blocked his tariffs, a ruling later temporarily paused on appeal, and blamed a conservative legal group for giving him bad advice on judicial picks. No tariff on Spike the Fine Motor Hedgehog: Adding to the mix, a second federal court blocked Trump tariffs Thursday — this time for Illinois companies that import Spike, among other kids' toys. Adding to the mix, a second federal court blocked Trump tariffs Thursday — this time for Illinois companies that import Spike, among other kids' toys. White House officials have vowed to keep pressing the issue in court. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters the Trump administration expects the U.S. Supreme Court to resolve the issue. Former federal workers are running for public office Itir Cole tried to take some time off after quitting her job with the federal government early in the Trump administration. Then her husband mentioned offhand that there was an open seat on her New Jersey town's governing body. No one else like her was running, so she did — and won her mid-May race by 49 votes. Cole is among a flood of federal workers looking to run for public office. Many say they want to continue serving Americans after leaving the government either voluntarily or through mass layoffs, as Trump dramatically downsizes the federal workforce. More news to know now What's the weather today? Check your local forecast here. Trump temporarily backs down on Harvard international student ban A Boston federal judge said at a hearing Thursday that she planned to issue a preliminary injunction that blocks the Department of Homeland Security from revoking Harvard's ability to enroll foreign exchange students. The comments from U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs came as the Trump administration attempted to walk back its May 22 directive that immediately revoked Harvard's participation in a federal exchange student program. Students from around the world attended commencement at the Ivy League on the same day as the hearing. The White House wants women to have more babies. They're ignoring part of the problem — men. America's birth rate has been on a steady decline since 2007, and pronatalists − both in and outside the White House − are determined to raise it. But when partners struggle to conceive, the burden is rarely distributed evenly between men and women. Fertility experts say we're missing a key component of the conversation – male infertility. Experts say male and female infertility factors often coexist, yet a high number of men do not undergo testing before their female partner begins IVF. Advocates say characterizing fertility solely as a woman's issue is part of a 'broader cultural misunderstanding." Today's talkers How understaffed is air traffic control at your airport? Air traffic controller staffing has been a major issue for the Federal Aviation Administration for years. As a result, it's been a major issue for travelers, too, even if it's not always as top of mind for the average passenger when there are delays. According to Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy, the FAA is short about 3,000 air traffic controllers nationwide, but those shortages aren't spread evenly throughout the system. This map shows the disparity between staffing in different facilities across the country. Photo of the day: Swiss glacier collapses, burying village Reuters reports that 90% of Blatten, Switzerland, is engulfed by ice, mud and rock after a glacier collapsed on a nearby mountain. These photos capture how the disaster unfolded.
