Tariffs

Subterms

    More stories

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      US supreme court to decide on legality of Trump’s sweeping global tariffs

      by

      The US supreme court agreed on Tuesday to decide the legality of Donald Trump’s sweeping global tariffs, setting up a major test of one of the Republican president’s boldest assertions of executive power that has been central to his economic and trade agenda.The justices took up the justice department’s appeal of a lower court’s ruling that Trump overstepped his authority in imposing most of his tariffs under a federal law meant for emergencies. The court swiftly acted after the administration last week asked it to review the case, which involves trillions of dollars in customs duties over the next decade.The court, which begins its next nine-month term on 6 October, placed the case on a fast track, scheduling oral arguments for the first week of November.The justices also agreed to hear a separate challenge to Trump’s tariffs brought by a family-owned toy company, Learning Resources.The US court of appeals for the federal circuit in Washington ruled on 29 August that Trump overreached in invoking a 1977 law known as the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose the tariffs, undercutting a major priority for the president in his second term. The tariffs, however, remain in effect during the appeal to the supreme court.The levies are part of a trade war instigated by Trump since he returned to the presidency in January that has alienated trading partners, increased volatility in financial markets and fueled global economic uncertainty.Trump has made tariffs a key foreign policy tool, using them to renegotiate trade deals, extract concessions and exert political pressure on other countries.Trump in April invoked the 1977 law in imposing tariffs on goods imported from individual countries to address trade deficits, as well as separate tariffs announced in February as economic leverage on China, Canada and Mexico to curb the trafficking of fentanyl and illicit drugs into the US.The law gives the president power to deal with “an unusual and extraordinary threat” amid a national emergency. It historically had been used for imposing sanctions on enemies or freezing their assets. Prior to Trump, the law had never been used to impose tariffs.Trump’s Department of Justice has argued that the law allows tariffs under emergency provisions that authorize a president to “regulate” imports.
      “The stakes in this case could not be higher,” the justice department said in a filing. Denying Trump‘s tariff power “would expose our nation to trade retaliation without effective defenses and thrust America back to the brink of economic catastrophe”, it added.Trump has said that if he loses the case the US might have to unwind trade deals, causing the country to “suffer so greatly”.The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office reported in August that the increased duties on imports from foreign countries could reduce the US national deficit by $4tn over the next decade. More

    • 125 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      US treasury secretary denies Trump tariffs are tax on Americans

      by

      US treasury secretary Scott Bessent has refused to acknowledge that the sweeping trade tariffs imposed by Donald Trump around the world are taxes on Americans.In a new interview on Sunday with NBC host Kristen Welker, Bessent, a former billionaire hedge fund manager, dismissed concerns from major American companies including John Deere, Nike and Black and Decker who have all said that Trump’s tariffs policy will cost them billions of dollars annually.Addressing Welker, Bessent said: “You’re taking these from earnings calls, and on earnings calls, they have to give the draconian scenario. There aren’t companies coming out and saying, ‘Oh, because of the tariffs, we’re doing this.’”He went on to add: “If things are so bad, why was the GDP 3.3%? Why is the stock market at a new high? Because, you know, with President Trump, we care both about big companies and small companies.”As concerns continue to grow over American companies trying to pass on the cost of US tariffs on to everyday Americans, Welker asked: “Do you acknowledge that these tariffs are attacks on American consumers?” To which Bessent replied: “No, I don’t.”Bessent’s latest interview follows a ruling by a federal appeals court which found that Trump had overstepped his presidential authority when he imposed sweeping tariffs on dozens of countries earlier this year that sent shockwaves across global markets.The tariffs established a 10% baseline for nearly all of the US’s trading partners. Trump also imposed so-called “reciprocal” tariffs imposed on countries that he accused of unfairly treating the US in trade. Lesotho, a south African nation of 2.3 million people faced a 50% tariff, while Trump also imposed a 10% tariff on a group of uninhabited islands home to penguins near Antarctica.In response to the federal appeals court’s decision, the Trump administration has recently asked the US supreme court to overturn the ruling.Speaking on whether the Trump administration would be prepared to offer rebates if the supreme court rules against the administration, Bessent said: “We would have to give a refund on about half the tariffs which would be terrible for the treasury… There’s no ‘be prepared.’ If the court says it, we’d have to do it.”Nevertheless, Bessent remained confident that the conservative-majority supreme court would side with the Trump administration, saying: “I am confident that we will win at the supreme court. But there are numerous other avenues that we can take. They diminish president Trump’s negotiating position … This isn’t about the dollars. This is about balance. The dollars are an after amount.”Bessent’s comments also came on the heels of newly released data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics which revealed that in August, 12,000 manufacturing jobs were lost, marking a total loss of 42,000 jobs since April when Trump made his tariff announcement.“Are these numbers proof that the tariffs are failing to produce the manufacturing jobs that President Trump promised?” Welker asked Bessent, to which he replied: “It’s been a couple of months. And with the manufacturing sector … we can’t snap our fingers and have factories built.”Bessent went on to add that he believes “by the fourth quarter, we’re going to see a substantial acceleration”.In addition to a decline in manufacturing employment since April, job openings and hires have fallen by 76,000 and 18,000, respectively, according to the Center for American Progress.According to economists, Trump’s tariffs are expected to cost American households $2,400 annually while wage growth among manufacturing workers remain stagnant under the tariffs.In August, manufacturing workers earned an hourly average of $35.50, marking only a 10-cent increase from July, the center reported. More

    • 163 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      Donald Trump maelstrom likely to leave US economic model unrecognisable | Heather Stewart

      by

      Donald Trump observed blithely last week that if his cherished tariff regime is struck down by the US supreme court, he may need to “unwind” some of the trade deals struck since he declared “liberation day” in April.It was a reminder, as if it were needed, that nothing about Trump’s economic policy is set in stone. Not only does the ageing president alter his demands on a whim, but it is unclear to what extent he has the power to make them stick.Yet even if the “reciprocal” tariffs first announced on 2 April are rolled back, they are only one aspect of a much wider assault on the last vestiges of what was once known as the “Washington consensus”.To name just a few of Trump’s recent interventions, he has taken a 10% government stake in the US tech company Intel, demanded 15% of the revenue of Nvidia’s chip sales to China and suggested the chief executive of Goldman Sachs should go.This at the same as taking a sledgehammer to Federal Reserve independence by lobbing insults at the chair, Jerome Powell, and trying to sack Lisa Cook from the central bank’s board.The head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics was removed by Trump after a run of poor jobs data; the chief of the National Labor Relations Board, Jennifer Abruzzo, was fired, too.The tech bros who back Trump loathe the NLRB for its role in upholding workers’ rights – mandating unionisation ballots at Amazon warehouses, for example.Trump’s approach is simultaneously systematic, in its determination to smash existing norms, and utterly chaotic. It is hard to categorise: corporate America is being unleashed – through the wilful destruction of environmental and labour standards, for example – and brought to heel.The leftwing senator Bernie Sanders welcomed Trump’s efforts to take a stake in Intel in exchange for government grants, for example – something he advocated in the Guardian back in 2022 – while some Republicans have condemned the approach as (heaven forbid) “socialism”.Partly because it coincides with the AI-fuelled stock boom that has propelled the value of tech companies into the stratosphere, the market response to this torching of the status quo has so far been modest.Whatever emerges from another three and a half years of this maelstrom is likely to be unrecognisable as the US economic model of recent decades.Its destruction has not happened overnight. The days were already long gone when the US, as the world’s undisputed economic superpower, could export free market, financialised capitalism worldwide.After the 2008 crash, the conditions for which were created in Wall Street boardrooms, any moral or practical claim the US had to offer an economic example to other nations evaporated.As the turmoil rippled out through the global economy, and the US government responded by bailing out large chunks of its financial sector, the lie of laissez-faire was laid bare.The crisis exposed the risks of turbocharged capitalism to countries outside the US, too – not least in the former Soviet bloc – that had been advised to adopt the model wholesale.As Ivan Krastev and Stephen Holmes put it in their compelling polemic The Light that Failed, “confidence that the political economy of the west was a model for the future of mankind had been linked to the belief that western elites knew what they were doing. Suddenly it was obvious that they didn’t.”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionBack home in the US, meanwhile – as in the UK – the perception that banks had been bailed out, while the galaxy brains behind the crisis got off scot-free, sowed the seeds of a corrosive sense of injustice.Similarly, even before the crash, the idea that ever-expanding free trade brings economic benefits was bumping up against the fact that even if that is true in aggregate, for workers across the US rust belt, just as in the UK’s former manufacturing heartlands, it brought deindustrialisation and unemployment.This was fertile ground for Trump’s populist economic message. His first-term China tariffs were, with hindsight, a relatively modest stab at, as he saw it, tilting the playing field back towards the US.Joe Biden did not unwind those tariffs, which went with the grain of geopolitics, as any hopes that economic liberalisation would bring China into the fold of democracies were sadly dashed, and President Xi’s regime took on an increasingly authoritarian bent.Biden also took a muscular approach to the state’s role in the economy, with the billions in grants and loans distributed under the Inflation Reduction Act linked to national priorities of cutting carbon emissions and creating jobs.So the idea that before Trump arrived on the scene, free market US capitalism was motoring along unchallenged is misleading, but the pace at which he is crushing its remaining norms is extraordinary.There is ample ground for legitimate disagreement here: taxpayer stakes in strategic companies are much more common in European economies, for example. Trump may be laying down tracks that future US governments with different priorities could follow.Given that it is so unclear even what kind of economy he is groping towards, the overriding sense for the moment is of radical uncertainty. Friday’s weak US payrolls data, with the unemployment rate close to a four-year high, suggested companies may be responding with caution.Investors appear to have decided to avert their eyes for now, buoyed up by the prospect of Fed rate cuts, and the mega returns of the tech companies. However, with every chaotic week that passes, the risks must increase – and as the UK has learned in the wake of the Liz Truss debacle, economic credibility is quicker to lose than to rebuild. More

    • 163 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Postal traffic into US plunges by more than 80% after Trump ends exemption

      by

      Postal traffic into the United States plunged by more than 80% after the Trump administration ended a tariff exemption for low-cost imports, the United Nations postal agency said Saturday.The Universal Postal Union says it has started rolling out new measures that can help postal operators around the world calculate and collect duties, or taxes, after the US eliminated the so-called “de minimis exemption” for lower-value parcels.Eighty-eight postal operators have told the UPU that they have suspended some or all postal service to the United States until a solution is implemented with regard to US-bound parcels valued at $800 or less, which had been the cutoff for imported goods to escape customs charges.“The global network saw postal traffic to the US come to a near-halt after the implementation of the new rules on Aug 29, 2025, which for the first time placed the burden of customs duty collection and remittance on transportation carriers or US Customs and Border Protection agency-approved qualified parties,” the UPU said in a statement.The UPU said information exchanged among postal operators through its electronic network showed traffic from its 192 member countries – nearly all the world countries – had fallen 81% on 29 August, compared with a week earlier.The agency, based in Bern, Switzerland, said the “major operational disruptions” have occurred because airlines and other carriers indicated they weren’t willing or able to collect such duties, and foreign postal operators had not established a link to CBP-qualified companies.Before the measure took effect, the postal union sent a letter to the US secretary of state Marco Rubio to express concerns about its impact.The de minimis exemption has existed in some form since 1938, and the administration says it has become a loophole that foreign businesses exploit to evade tariffs and that criminals use to get drugs into the US.Purchases that previously entered the US without needing to clear customs now require vetting and are subject to their origin country’s applicable tariff rate, which can range from 10% to 50%.While the change applies to the products of every country, US residents will not have to pay duties on incoming gifts valued at up to $100, or on up to $200 worth of personal souvenirs from trips abroad, according to the White House.The UPU said its members had not been given enough time or guidance to comply with the procedures outlined in the executive order Donald Trump signed on 30 July to eliminate the duty-free eligibility of low-value goods. More

    • 125 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump asks US supreme court to overturn trade tariffs ruling

      by

      Donald Trump has asked the US supreme court to overturn a lower court decision that most of his sweeping trade tariffs were illegal.The US president filed a petition late on Wednesday to ask for a review of last week’s federal appeals court ruling in Washington DC, which centred on his “liberation day” border taxes introduced on 2 April, which imposed levies of between 10% and 50% on most US imports, sending shock waves through global trade and markets.The court found in a 7-4 ruling last Friday that Trump had overstepped his presidential powers when he invoked a 1977 law designed to address national emergencies to justify his “reciprocal” tariffs.The decision was the biggest blow yet to Trump’s tariff policies, but the levies were left in place until 14 October – giving the administration time to ask the supreme court to review the decision.Trump has now appealed and the supreme court is expected to review the case, although the justices must still agree to do so. The administration asked for that decision to be made by 10 September.The appeal calls for an accelerated schedule with arguments being heard by 10 November, according to filings seen by Bloomberg. Justices could then rule by the end of the year.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe ruling that the tariffs were unlawful upheld a previous decision by the US Court of International Trade.The federal appeals court said last Friday that US law “bestows significant authority on the president to undertake a number of actions in response to a declared national emergency, but none of these actions explicitly include the power to impose tariffs, duties, or the like, or the power to tax”.It said many of Trump’s steep tariffs were “unbounded in scope, amount and duration”, the ruling added, and “assert an expansive authority that is beyond the express limitations” of the law his administration has leaned on.A defeat for Trump’s levies would at least halve the current average US effective tariff rate of 16.3%, and could force the country to pay back tens of billions of dollars, according to Chris Kennedy, an analyst at Bloomberg Economics. It could also derail the preliminary trade deals the president has struck with some countries, including the UK and the European Union.Tariffs typically need to be approved by Congress, but Trump claimed he has the right to impose tariffs on trading partners under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which in some circumstances grants the president authority to regulate or prohibit international transactions during a national emergency.Earlier this week, the US clothing brand Levi’s said that “rising anti-Americanism as a consequence of the Trump tariffs and governmental policies” could drive British shoppers away from its denim. Other brands, such as Tesla, have also suffered in Europe and in Canada, while protests against US goods have led to a slump in sales of Jack Daniel’s whiskey. More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Here’s what to know about the court ruling striking down Trump’s tariffs

      by

      Donald Trump suffered the biggest defeat yet to his tariff policies on Friday, as a federal appeals court ruled he had overstepped his presidential powers when he enacted punitive financial measures against almost every country in the world.In a 7-4 ruling, the Washington DC court said that while US law “bestows significant authority on the president to undertake a number of actions in response to a declared national emergency”, none of those actions allow for the imposition of tariffs or taxes.It means the ultimate ruling on the legality of Trump’s tariffs, which were famously based on spurious economic science and rocked the global economy when he announced them in April, will probably be made by the US supreme court.Here’s what to know.Which tariffs did the court knock down?The decision centers on the tariffs Trump introduced on 2 April, on what he called “liberation day”. The tariffs set a 10% baseline on virtually all of the US’s trading partners and so-called “reciprocal” tariffs on countries he argued have unfairly treated the US. Lesotho, a country of 2.3 million people in southern Africa, was hit with a 50% tariff, while Trump also announced a tariff of 10% on a group of uninhabited islands populated by penguins.The ruling voided all those tariffs, with the judges finding the president’s measures “unbounded in scope, amount and duration”. They said the tariffs “assert an expansive authority that is beyond the express limitations” of the law his administration used to pass them.Tariffs typically need to be approved by Congress, but Trump claimed he has the right to impose tariffs on trading partners under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which in some circumstances grants the president authority to regulate or prohibit international transactions during a national emergency.The court ruled: “It seems unlikely that Congress intended, in enacting IEEPA, to depart from its past practice and grant the president unlimited authority to impose tariffs.”Trump invoked the same law in February to impose tariffs on Canada, Mexico and China, claiming that the flow of undocumented immigrants and drugs across the US border amounted to a national emergency, and that the three countries needed to do more to stop it.Are the tariffs gone now?No. The court largely upheld a May decision by a federal trade court in New York that ruled Trump’s tariffs were illegal. But Friday’s ruling tossed out a part of that ruling that would have struck down the tariffs immediately.The court said the ruling would not take effect until 14 October. That allows the Trump administration time to appeal to the majority-conservative US supreme court, which will have the ultimate say on whether Trump has the legal right, as president, to upend US trade policy.What does this mean for Trump’s trade agenda?The government has argued that if Trump’s tariffs are struck down, it might have to refund some of the import taxes that it has collected, which would deliver a financial blow to the US treasury.Revenue from tariffs totaled $159bn by July, more than double what it was at the same point last year. The justice department warned in a legal filing this month that revoking the tariffs could mean “financial ruin” for the United States.The ruling could also put Trump on shaky ground in trying to impose tariffs going forward. The president does have alternative laws for imposing import tariffs, but they would limit the speed and severity with which he could act.In its decision in May, the trade court said that Trump has more limited power to impose tariffs to address trade deficits under another statute, the Trade Act of 1974. But that law restricts tariffs to 15% and to just 150 days on countries with which the United States runs big trade deficits.How has Trump respondedHe’s not happy. Trump spent Friday evening reposting dozens of social media posts that were critical of the court’s decision. In a post on his own social media site, Trump claimed, as he tends to do when judges rule against him, that the decision was made by a “highly partisan appeals court”.“If these Tariffs ever went away, it would be a total disaster for the Country,” Trump wrote. He added: “If allowed to stand, this Decision would literally destroy the United States of America.”Trump claimed “tariffs are the best tool to help our workers”, despite their costs being typically borne by everyday Americans. The tariffs have triggered economic and political uncertainty across the world and stoked fears of rising inflation. More

    • 113 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Most of Trump’s tariffs are illegal, federal court rules

      by

      Donald Trump overstepped his presidential powers with most of his globe-rattling tariff policies, a federal appeals court in Washington DC ruled on Friday.US law “bestows significant authority on the president to undertake a number of actions in response to a declared national emergency, but none of these actions explicitly include the power to impose tariffs, duties, or the like, or the power to tax”, the court said in the 7-4 ruling.Many of Trump’s steep tariffs are “are unbounded in scope, amount and duration”, the ruling added, and “assert an expansive authority that is beyond the express limitations” of the law his administration has leant on.The court’s decision is the biggest blow yet to Trump’s tariff policies and will likely mean the supreme court will have to rule on whether he has the legal right as president to upend US trade policy. The court said the ruling would not take effect until 14 October.“ALL TARIFFS ARE STILL IN EFFECT!” Trump wrote on social media, moments after the ruling came down, after the stock markets closed ahead of a three-day weekend in the US. In a lengthy post, he accused the appeals court of political bias.“If allowed to stand, this Decision would literally destroy the United States of America,” he continued. “At the start of this Labor Day weekend, we should all remember that TARIFFS are the best tool to help our Workers, and support Companies that produce great MADE IN AMERICA products.”The ruling voided Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs that set a 10% baseline on virtually all of the US’s trading partners and his so-called “reciprocal” tariffs on countries he has argued have unfairly treated the US.Trump has claimed he has the right to impose tariffs on trading partners under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which in some circumstances grants the president authority to regulate or prohibit international transactions during a national emergency.The Trump administration has cited various national emergencies – including US trade deficits with trading partners, fentanyl trafficking, and immigration – as the reasons for the actions.But a group of small businesses has challenged the administration’s arguments, arguing they are “devastating small businesses across the country”.And on Friday, the appellate court ruled: “It seems unlikely that Congress intended, in enacting IEEPA, to depart from its past practice and grant the president unlimited authority to impose tariffs.”The ruling also said the US law “neither mentions tariffs (or any of its synonyms) nor has procedural safeguards that contain clear limits on the president’s power to impose tariffs”.Earlier on Friday, Bloomberg reported that the administration, worried the court might invalidate the tariffs immediately, filed statements by Scott Bessent, the treasury secretary, Howard Lutnick, the commerce secretary, and Marco Rubio, the secretary of state, warning that such a decision would be a “dangerous diplomatic embarrassment” for the US.In a statement, White House spokesman Kush Desai said that Trump “lawfully exercised the tariff powers granted to him by Congress to defend our national and economic security from foreign threats”.He said: “The president’s tariffs remain in effect, and we look forward to ultimate victory on this matter.”William Reinsch, a former senior commerce department official now with the Center on Strategic and International Studies, told Reuters that the Trump administration had been bracing for this ruling. He said: “It’s common knowledge the administration has been anticipating this outcome and is preparing a Plan B, presumably to keep the tariffs in place via other statutes.”The US trade court heard the case – VOS Selections Inc v Trump – in May, and ruled that the tariffs “exceed any authority granted to the president”. But the court agreed to a temporary pause in the decision pending an appeal hearing.The US court of appeals for the federal circuit in Washington DC heard oral arguments about the case on 31 July. Judges expressed skepticism about the administration’s arguments at the hearing. The IEEPA “doesn’t even say ‘tariffs’”, one of the judges noted. “Doesn’t even mention them.”In its ruling, the appeals court noted there were “numerous statutes” that do delegate the power to impose tariffs, in which “clear and precise terms” are used to this make clear.When Congress wants to delegate such authority, it typically “does so explicitly, either by using unequivocal terms like tariff and duty, or via an overall structure which makes clear that Congress is referring to tariffs”, the court added.It said: “The absence of any such tariff language in IEEPA contrasts with statutes where Congress has affirmatively granted such power and included clear limits on that power.”Trump’s tariffs have triggered economic and political uncertainty across the world and stoked fears of rising inflation. More

    • 300 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      DC mayor says she ‘greatly appreciates’ Trump’s surge of federal officers but adds there is ‘break in trust’ with residents – as it happened

      by

      “We greatly appreciate the surge of officers that enhance what MPD has been able to do in this city,” Bowser says.She cites police data which shows there has been an 87% reduction in carjackings in DC over the last 20 days, compared to the same period last year.Boswer then says she spoke with Donald Trump today, and that she was “reminded” of their first meeting after his re-election earlier this year.“We discussed shared priorities for the district,” Bowser adds. “I was reminded that the president’s interest in cities predates his time in office, and his knowledge of DC had significantly increased from the first time he was in the White House.”Susan Monarez, the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, is being ousted from the position less than a month after being sworn in, the Washington Post reported on Wednesday, citing multiple Trump administration officials familiar with the matter.The Washington Post did not cite a reason for the departure. Citing several anonymous CDC employees, the newspaper reported that Monarez on Friday canceled an agency-wide call that had been scheduled for Monday. The Department of Health and Human Services did not immediately provide comment.Monarez, a federal government scientist, was confirmed by the Senate on 29 July and sworn in by Robert F Kennedy Jr two day later. Her departure comes after a police officer was killed in a shooting at the CDC.

      Donald Trump has ordered the American flag to be flown at half-staff at the White House and across federal buildings until 31 August, following the mass shooting at a Catholic school in Minneapolis which killed two children and injured 17 people. My colleagues are tracking the latest developments here.

      Earlier, DC’s mayor, Muriel Bowser, held a press conference to discuss the federal takeover of the DC police. The mayor balanced deference towards Trump with occasional bursts of defiance. Bowser said that while she “greatly appreciates” the impact of the federal law enforcement surge on district crime (pointing to the substantial decrease in carjackings compared to this time last year), there was ultimately a “break in trust” between officers and local residents. “We know having masked Ice agents in the community has not worked, and national guard from other states has not been an efficient use of those resources,” she added.

      Bowser said she has a “courtesy meeting” with the president today, where they did not discuss any of his plans to extend the federal takeover beyond 30 days (a move that would require congressional approval). The mayor did say that Trump’s “knowledge of DC” appeared to have “significantly increased” from the first term in office. She declined to offer any details about her “substantive” conversation with attorney general Pam Bondi and White House chief of staff Susie Wiles.

      Bowser offered glimpses of pushback against the administration when taking questions from reporters. She said was was “devastated” to hear that immigrants in DC are living in fear of being arrested by Ice agents, and claimed that if the Metropolitan police department had more officers –a recurring plea from DC government – local law enforcement wouldn’t require any federal intervention.

      Staying in the nation’s capital, The US transportation secretary, Sean Duffy, said that his department is taking back control of Union Station from Amtrak –the railroad company that receives federal subsidies and has managed the daily operations of the DC transportation hub for over a year. At a launch event for a new fleet of high-speed trains today, Duffy said that the station has been “neglected for decades”. He added that reclaiming station management “will help make this city safe and beautiful at a fraction of the cost.”

      Meanwhile, Kevin Hassett, the director of the White House National Economic Council, said on CNN today that Donald Trump hasn’t “made a final call” on when he plans to nominate a replacement for Lisa Cook – the Federal Reserve governor he moved to fire this week. Hassett’s comment came after Trump suggested at the cabinet meeting on Tuesday that he had a candidate in mind. Cook has not been charged with a crime, and is expected to file a lawsuit challenging her attempted firing.

      Meanwhile, a federal judge ruled Wednesday that Kilmar Ábrego García cannot be deported again until at least early October. Judge Paula Xinis has set a hearing for 6 October on the administration’s plans to deport Ábrego. His lawyers also said their client wants to seek asylum in the US, for fear of torture and persecution if deported to Uganda.
      California Republicans are proposing a “two-state solution” for the Golden State.James Gallagher, the top Republican in the California assembly, unveiled a resolution on Wednesday that would split the state in two – their response to the Democrats’ attempt to redraw the congressional boundaries in the state, itself a response to a Republican-led redistricting effort in Texas.The provocatively named proposal – adopting a phrase more often used in reference to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict – is a political nonstarter. But it underscores the new messaging Republicans in the state plan to use to rally opposition to the ballot initiative in November.Gallagher argued that the redistricting push would further “silence rural voices and rig the political system against them forever” in California.“I have come to see that the only way we can obtain proper attention is by pursuing our own statehood. With this measure, we will begin the first step of that process,” he said.The Republican plan would divide California vertically, splitting the deep-blue slice of the coast from the more rural and red inland. According to Gallagher, it would create a state with a population of more than 10 million people – making it one of the 10 most populous states in the US.“Whether you are from the north state, Central valley, or the Inland Empire, life has become harder and completely unaffordable,” the Republican leader explained. “We have been overlooked for far too long, and now they are trying to rip away what little representation we have left.”The referendum, led by the state’s Democratic governor, Gavin Newsom, will ask voters to approve a gerrymander aimed at securing five more Democratic House seats in California to offset the five new Republican-heavy districts created by the Texas legislature.“We will not be subject to a state that deprives us of a fair voice,” he said. “Gavin, let my people go.”Florida’s immigration jail known as “Alligator Alcatraz” will probably be empty of detainees within days, a state official has said, indicating compliance with a judge’s order last week that the facility must close.The Republican governor Ron DeSantis’s administration appealed the order by federal court judge Kathleen Williams that the tented detention camp in the Florida Everglades, which attracted criticism for its harsh conditions, must be dismantled within 60 days.But in an email reported Wednesday by the Associated Press, Kevin Guthrie, executive director of the Florida department of emergency management, which operates the jail on behalf of the federal government, appeared to confirm it would be shuttered.“We are probably going to be down to 0 individuals within a few days,” Guthrie wrote to Mario Rojzman, a Miami Beach rabbi who has been helping to arrange chaplaincy services.Representatives for Rojzman confirmed the authenticity of the memo to the news agency. Guthrie’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.The Miami Herald had previously reported that hundreds of detainees were moved from “Alligator Alcatraz” to other immigration facilities in the state in advance of Williams’s’ ruling.Donald Trump has ordered the American flag to be flown at half-staff at the White House and across federal buildings until 31 August, following the mass shooting at a Catholic school in Minneapolis which killed two children and injured 17 people.A reminder that my colleagues are bringing you the latest developments from Minneapolis.Grand jurors have rebuffed federal prosecutors by refusing to approve a criminal indictment against a man who allegedly threw a sandwich at a law enforcement agent in protest against Donald Trump’s deployment of armed troops on the streets of Washington DC.It is the second time in recent days that a grand jury had declined to vote to indict a person accused of assaulting a federal officer and signaled strong public objection to Trump’s decision to send national guard troops and federal agents onto the streets of the US capital, purportedly to crack down on violent crime.The case of Sean Charles Dunn, who was accused of hurling the sub-style sandwich, became a cause celebre after video of the episode went viral on social media.Dunn, 37, a former justice department paralegal, was initially charged on 13 August after being accused of throwing a sandwich at a Customs and Border Protection officer who was patrolling an area of Washington’s north-west district known for its bars and restaurants with other agents.The DC mayor said officials will “answer any questions” that are posed to local government, when it comes to the House oversight committee’s investigation into allegations of manipulated DC crime statistics.On Monday, Republican congressman James Comer, who chairs the committee, asked the DC police chief, Pamela Smith, for transcribed interviews with the seven commanders of DC’s patrol districts.Bowser also confirmed today that there was no update on the internal Metropolitan police department investigation – after local reports of a former DC commander facing accusations from the police union of falsifying data.Earlier, Bowser said that she was “devastated” by immigrants in DC living fear during the surge of federal law enforcement in the nation’s capital.
      I think you know very clearly how I feel about our nation needing comprehensive immigration reform, about Congress establishing a pathway to citizenship for hardworking people who came to this country for a better life, and who are not criminals, who are law abiding. And I think when that question is finally answered, that’s the only way to deal with this fear, or to deal with these agencies going after law-abiding people.
      Bowser is now addressing a direct question from a reporter about whether she pushed back in her meeting with the president, particularly when it comes to the anger from DC residents at the federal law enforcement presence in the district, and the use of masks covering the faces of agents.She characterizes her discussion with Trump as a “courtesy meeting”, but says that she had a “substantive” conversation with the US attorney general, Pam Bondi, and Trump’s chief of staff, Susie Wiles, but declined to discuss the details of her meeting.Boswer confirms that the Metropolitan police department is “supporting the ask” of the administration to assist Ice agents with immigration enforcement efforts.A notable exchange at this press conference. A reporter asked how Bowser can be sure that MPD officers wouldn’t have made all the arrests illustrated today on those charts without the additional federal law enforcement.“Let me put it this way, if there were 500 additional MPD officers…that same activity, arrests and gun recovery would have likely been made,” Bowser said, underscoring the city’s aim to increase the number of local police.Bowser also just said that when she spoke to the president earlier today, they didn’t talk about his possible plan to try to extend the federal takeover of the DC police beyond 30 days. A reminder: Trump would need congressional approval for an extension, according to section 740 of the DC Home Rule Act.Reporters are now asking questions, and the mayor says the number of cited arrests (more than 1,500) represents a combined number – from both the Metropolitan police department (MPD) and federal law enforcement.However, she says this number might not include all federal arrests.The DC mayor says that despite statistics that show a reduction in crime, the “break in trust” between police and the local community is “not working”. She says this is particularly apparent between federal law enforcement and DC locals.“We know having masked Ice agents in the community has not worked, and national guard from other states has not been an efficient use of those resources,” she adds.A short while ago, Muriel Bowser said that her office “will be supportive” of Donald Trump’s $2bn “beautification” request to Congress.“We greatly appreciate the surge of officers that enhance what MPD has been able to do in this city,” Bowser says.She cites police data which shows there has been an 87% reduction in carjackings in DC over the last 20 days, compared to the same period last year.Boswer then says she spoke with Donald Trump today, and that she was “reminded” of their first meeting after his re-election earlier this year.“We discussed shared priorities for the district,” Bowser adds. “I was reminded that the president’s interest in cities predates his time in office, and his knowledge of DC had significantly increased from the first time he was in the White House.”The deputy mayor for public safety and justice, Lindsey Appiah, is now talking about the hiring push for the DC police department. “We continue to do that work to stabilize, and to increase our for strength to what we believe is where we need to be – 3,800 to 4,000 officers,” she says.Bowser is now speaking, and says she’s providing a “situational update” on the surge of federal law enforcement in DC.“I always want to remind people give you a quick little primer of who we are in Washington, DC,” Bowser adds. “We function as a city, county and state…We pay federal taxes. In fact, we pay more per capita than most places, and we get back less.”The pre-amble that Boswer is giving seems to be a pointed refresher on what the limited rights and representation of the district.The mayor of DC, Muriel Bowser, is about to hold a press conference to give an update on the federal takeover of law enforcement in the nation’s capital. More