World news

Subterms

    More stories

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Adams denies being offered Trump job in exchange for quitting mayoral race

      by

      Eric Adams, the embattled mayor of New York, has denied having conversations with Donald Trump about being given a government job in exchange for dropping his re-election campaign.Politico reported on Wednesday that Adams has been offered a position at the US Department of Housing and Urban Development, citing a person with direct knowledge of the offer. The mayor met with the president’s team during his visit to Florida on Monday, according to the person.The New York Times also reported that advisers to Donald Trump “have discussed the possibility” of giving Adams a position, in an attempt to thwart Zohran Mamdani, the 33-year-old Democratic socialist who is currently the frontrunner to be elected mayor in November.According to the Times, “intermediaries” for Trump have spoken to “associates” of Adams about leaving the race. Adams, who has proved to be deeply unpopular among New York Democratic voters and is running as an independent candidate, is trailing Mamdani in the polls, and is draining support from former governor Andrew Cuomo, also running as an independent.There is a suggestion that if Adams, a centrist Democrat, and the Republican candidate, Curtis Sliwa, were to drop out of the race, Cuomo could consolidate enough support to challenge Mamdani. The New York Times reported that there have been talks in the Trump administration about also finding a job for Sliwa to get him out of the race.“Mayor Adams has made it clear that he will not respond to every rumor that comes up,” said Todd Shapiro, a spokesperson for Adams, told the Guardian.“He has had no discussions with, nor has he met with, President Donald Trump regarding the mayoral race. The mayor is fully committed to winning this election, with millions of New Yorkers preparing to cast their votes.“His record is clear: crime is down, jobs are up, and he has consistently stood up for working families. Mayor Adams is focused on building on that progress and earning four more years to continue delivering for the people of New York.”Sliwa told Politico he had not spoken to the White House and would not want a job anyway.“I have not been contacted by the White House, and I’m not interested in a job with the White House,” he said in a statement.“My focus is right here in New York. I’m the only candidate on a major party line who can defeat Mamdani, and I’m committed to carrying this fight through to election day. The people of New York City deserve a mayor who truly cares.”Mamdani, meanwhile, has been keen to underline his rivals’ associations with Trump, who is deeply unpopular in true-blue New York City.“Today’s news confirms it: Cuomo is Trump’s choice for Mayor. The White House is considering jobs for Adams and Sliwa to clear the field,” he wrote on X. “New Yorkers are sick of corrupt politics and backroom deals. No matter who’s running, we will deliver a better future on November 4.”On Tuesday a poll found Adams with 9% of the vote in the election – Mamdani was at 42%, Cuomo 26%, and Sliwa 17%. More

    • 150 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      DC mayor Bowser signs order aligning city with Trump’s federal police takeover

      by

      Washington DC’s mayor, Muriel Bowser, appeared to bow to Donald Trump’s military occupation of the nation’s capital on Tuesday, signing an executive order that formalizes cooperation with federal forces even as residents push back against the city’s takeover.The Tuesday order establishes the “Safe and Beautiful Emergency Operations Center” – borrowing from Trump’s own branding – to institutionalize collaboration between city officials and various federal agencies including the FBI.On Wednesday, Bowser pushed back against accusations that she’s willing to continue Trump’s federal takeover.“I want the message to be clear to the Congress, we have a framework to request or use federal resources in our city,” Bowser told reporters during a press conference. “We don’t need a presidential emergency.”The comments come as Trump’s 30-day takeover is set to expire on 10 September.“Let me tell you, without equivocation, that the mayor’s order does not extend the Trump emergency,” she added. “In fact, it does the exact opposite. What it does is lays out a framework for how we will exit the emergency. The emergency ends on September 10.”The Pentagon previously said the national guard troops deployed to Washington will remain “until law and order is restored”. The more than 2,000 troops could stay through December to continue service member benefits, according to a senior official who spoke to CNN on condition of anonymity, although the mission may not last until then.Bowser’s executive order mandates that federal officers adhere to transparent policing practices, requiring them to avoid wearing masks, display clear agency identification, and provide proper identification during arrests and public encounters.But DC residents have criticized Bowser for opting for collaboration with the federal government over resistance. Polling from late August shows only 17-20% of residents support the federalized policing or armed national guard presence. Troops have been visibly patrolling tourist areas, metro stations and transit hubs rather than high-crime neighborhoods, and some unarmed troops have been assigned beautification tasks such as trash collection rather than crime-fighting duties.In a statement on Wednesday, Todd A Cox, the Legal Defense Fund associate director counsel, called Bowser’s decision “alarming, misguided, and profoundly disappointing”.“An increased presence of armed federal law enforcement officers in the District will not make our communities safer,” he said. “Safety for DC residents must include protection from police violence, yet the mayor’s decision subjects DC residents to an increased risk of it. Evidence has shown that this tactic is not only ineffective but actively harmful, disproportionately targeting Black communities, escalating tensions and undermining public safety.”Washington residents have organized a resistance to fill the void left by the muted local government response. Free DC, a grassroots coalition that has campaigned for home rule since the 1990s, has soared as a central organizing force – staging nightly “noise protests” with pots and pans at curfew and launching an “Adopt a Curfew Zone” program to protect the most heavily patrolled neighborhoods from what they describe as federal occupation meant to strip the district of its autonomy. The organization gained tens of thousands of new followers on Instagram over the last few weeks.Grand juries – composed of DC residents – have also refused to indict defendants in at least six cases, nullifying federal prosecutions through community defiance, including the case of the infamous “sandwich guy” who threw his Subway snack at an officer and was later tracked down and arrested. Residents in neglected neighborhoods such as Congress Heights have also condemned the military deployment’s focus on protecting tourists while ignoring their communities, instead pushing for local investment.A federal judge this week ruled that Trump’s similar national guard deployment to Los Angeles violated the Posse Comitatus Act, which restricts military involvement in civilian law enforcement, potentially undermining the legal foundation for the DC operation.Trump has so far claimed substantial results from the operation, posting on Truth Social that “Carjacking in DC is down 87%” and that “ALL other categories of crime are likewise down massively” along with 1,599 arrests and 165 illegal weapons seized as of 1 September, according to the attorney general, Pam Bondi. On Tuesday he called DC a model for other states and in an Oval Office meeting said he would be “honored” to take a call from the Illinois governor, JB Pritzker, to send national guard troops to his state.“I would love to have Governor Pritzker call me,” Trump said. “I’d gain respect for him and say we do have a problem, and we’d love to send in the troops because, you know what, the people they have to be protected.” More

    • 113 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      US appeals court reinstates FTC commissioner fired by Trump

      by

      A divided US appeals court on Tuesday allowed US Federal Trade Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter, a Democrat, to resume her role at the agency, as Donald Trump tries to remove her from office.In a 2-1 decision, the District of Columbia circuit court of appeals allowed a lower court decision in favor of Slaughter to take effect, rejecting the Trump administration’s request to delay the ruling during its appeal.The court said that FTC commissioners may not be fired by a president without cause, saying that the law on this point has been clear for nearly a century.“The government is not likely to succeed on appeal because any ruling in its favor from this court would have to defy binding, on-point, and repeatedly preserved supreme court precedent,” two judges wrote in the majority opinion.A third judge, Trump appointee Neomi Rao, dissented, saying that federal courts likely have no authority “to order the reinstatement of an officer removed by the president”.Slaughter said on Tuesday that she was heartened by the ruling and that Trump is “not above the law”.“I’m very eager to get back first thing tomorrow to the work I was entrusted to do on behalf of the American people,” Slaughter said in an emailed statement.The White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment.The FTC enforces consumer protection and antitrust laws.Trump had appointed Slaughter to her first term on the FTC in 2018. Joe Biden designated her as the FTC’s acting chair in January 2021, and Biden appointed her to a second term in 2023, which is to end in September 2029.A federal judge ruled in July that the Trump administration’s attempt to remove Slaughter did not comply with removal protections in federal law.Under the FTC’s bipartisan structure, no more than three of the five commissioners can come from the same party. Congress placed restrictions on the hiring and firing of commissioners in an effort to insulate the agency from partisan politics.Trump fired the two Democratic commissioners on the FTC in March, in a major test for the independence of regulatory agencies.The dispute over Trump’s firing of Slaughter and fellow commissioner Alvaro Bedoya will likely end up before the supreme court, which ruled 90 years ago that FTC commissioners may be dismissed only for good cause, such as neglecting their duties. Bedoya formally resigned in June to take another job and is not part of the case. More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      US conducts ‘lethal strike’ against drug boat from Venezuela, Rubio says

      by

      The US military has conducted “a lethal strike” against an alleged “drug vessel” from Venezuela, the secretary of state, Marco Rubio, has announced amid growing tensions between Washington and Caracas.Donald Trump trailed the announcement during an address at the White House on Tuesday afternoon, telling reporters the US had “just, over the last few minutes, literally shot out … a drug-carrying boat”.“And there’s more where that came from. We have a lot of drugs pouring into our country,” the US president added. “We took it out,” he said of the boat.Shortly after, Rubio offered further details of the incident on social media, tweeting that the military had “conducted a strike in the southern Caribbean against a drug vessel which had departed from Venezuela and was being operated by a designated narco-terrorist organization”.It was not immediately clear what kind of vessel had been targeted, or, crucially, if the incident had taken place inside the South American country’s territorial waters.“Everything is hinging on where this strike took place,” said Geoff Ramsey, a senior fellow on Venezuela and Colombia from the Atlantic Council’s Latin America Centre.“If this strike took place in Venezuelan waters, I think that will trigger a massive escalation from the Venezuelan side. However, from what I’ve heard … this took place in international waters, and that suggests that ultimately this is about drug interdiction.”Ramsey added: “This is a target-rich environment, after all. There are plenty of go-fast boats transporting cocaine through the southern Caribbean, and I think ultimately Washington is more interested in signalling than in actually engaging in any kind of military action inside Venezuela territory.”Even so, the development will add to fears over a possible military clash between Venezuelan and US troops after the US sent war ships and marines into the Caribbean last month as part of what Trump allies touted as an attempt to force Venezuela’s authoritarian leader, Nicolás Maduro, from power.Officially, Trump’s naval buildup is part of US efforts to combat Latin American drug traffickers, including a Venezuelan group called the Cartel de los Soles (Cartel of the Suns) which Trump officials accuse Maduro of leading.Last month the US announced a $50m reward for Maduro’s capture – twice the bounty once offered for Osama bin Laden. In July, Trump signed a secret directive greenlighting military force against Latin American cartels considered terrorist organizations, including the Venezuelan group.Republican party hawks and Trump allies have celebrated those moves as proof the White House is determined to end Maduro’s 12-year rule. “Your days are seriously numbered,” Trump’s former national security adviser Michael Flynn, declared recently, encouraging Maduro to flee to Moscow.Maduro’s allies have also claimed that a regime-change operation is afoot, with Maduro himself this week warning that White House hardliners were seeking to lead Trump into “a terrible war” that would harm the entire region.“Mr President Donald Trump, you need to take care because Marco Rubio wants to stain your hands with blood – with South American, Caribbean blood [and] Venezuelan blood. They want to lead you into a bloodbath … with a massacre against the people of Venezuela,” Maduro said.But many experts are skeptical the US is planning a military intervention. “The idea of there being an invasion, I don’t believe to be true,” James Story, the US’s top diplomat for Venezuela from 2018 to 2023, said last week. He said Trump generally opposed “meddling militarily in the affairs of other countries”.Ramsey agreed. ”This is not a deployment focused on regime change. This may be an attempt to signal to disaffected elements of the military in Venezuela that now is the time to rise up against Maduro. But we’ve seen that approach be tried and ​fail repeatedly over ​the last 25 years.”Ramsey said the tough talk belied the fact that Trump had actually relaxed its stance towards Venezuela. Sanctions had been softened in recent weeks. The Trump administration was “actively coordinating with ​the Maduro regime on deportation flights”, about two of which are landing at Venezuela’s main international airport each week.​Ramsey believed that the military mobilization was partly an attempt “to throw some red meat to a part of Trump’s base that has been dissatisfied with the reality of sanctions relief” and what it perceived as his soft policy towards Maduro. More

    • 138 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      US reportedly suspends visa approvals for nearly all Palestinian passport holders

      by

      The United States has suspended visa approvals for nearly everyone who holds a Palestinian passport, the New York Times reported on Sunday.The restrictions go beyond those Donald Trump’s administration had previously announced on visitors from Gaza. They would prevent Palestinians from traveling to the United States for medical treatment, attending college and business travel, the newspaper reported, citing unidentified officials.The state department said two weeks ago that it was halting all visitor visas for individuals from Gaza while it conducts “a full and thorough” review, a move that has been condemned by pro-Palestinian groups.On Friday, the US began denying and revoking visas from members of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and Palestinian Authority (PA) in advance of the UN assembly meeting in September, the state department confirmed.Under an agreement as host of the UN in New York, the US is not supposed to refuse visas for officials heading to the world body for the general assembly, but the state department said it was complying with the agreement by allowing the Palestinian mission to attend.“The Trump administration has been clear: it is in our national security interests to hold the PLO and PA accountable for not complying with their commitments, and for undermining the prospects for peace,” the state department said in a statement.The new measure further aligns the Trump administration with Israel’s rightwing government, which adamantly rejects a Palestinian state.Jason Burke contributed reporting More

    • 88 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      Has Trump succeeded in normalising American autocracy?

      by

      When it comes to the rise of autocracy in America, Justice Potter Stewart’s famous pronouncement on pornography might be particularly appropriate at the moment: “I know it when I see it.”The cult of personality was apparent as Donald Trump’s cabinet convened on Wednesday in a marathon session that could have embarrassed even a seasoned strongman, providing for three hours and 17 minutes of fawning television coverage.There was Steve Witkoff, the president’s top envoy and negotiator, standing up in the increasingly gilded Cabinet Room, offering praise that could have made even Vladimir Putin blush. “There’s only one thing I wish for – that the Nobel committee finally gets its act together and realizes that you are the single finest candidate since this Nobel award was ever talked about,” he said to applause from secretaries of state, defense and other top cabinet officials.Or was it Stephen Miller on Fox News in effect criminalising the opposition to Trump and calling Chicago a “killing field” despite controverting facts. “The Democrat party is not a political party, it is a domestic extremist organisation,” he said in a strident tone, claiming that the party was devoted “exclusively to the defence of hardened criminals, gangbangers and illegal alien killers and terrorists”.Was it the president calling, on social media, for the arrest of a wealthy financier and his son for their support for civil society? “George Soros, and his wonderful Radical Left son, should be charged with RICO because of their support of Violent Protests, and much more, all throughout the United States of America,” he wrote on Truth Social.Or perhaps it was the revocation of Secret Service protection for his electoral rival Kamala Harris, or the FBI raid on the home of John Bolton, his former national security adviser, who has become an outspoken critic of the president’s national security agenda. Or was it in the commonplace nature of a raid outside an elementary school in Mt Pleasant in Washington DC, where police staked out a school with a large Spanish-speaking population in what became just another immigration raid in America.Some activists and observers have sounded the alarm: authoritarianism of the kind that Americans are used to condemning abroad has become increasingly normal in the United States.Don Moynihan, a political scientist and professor at the University of Michigan, wrote this week that “today, America is a competitive authoritarian system, with a rapidly increasing emphasis on the authoritarian part.”The checklist to consolidate power, he wrote, includes efforts to control the government bureaucracy, the military, internal security, the legal system, civil society, higher education, the media and elections. The pursuit of those aims had been “systematic”, he wrote.Abdelrahman ElGendy has watched this process with a feeling of grim recognition. ElGendy spent six years in prison in his native Egypt on political charges, but fled to the US in order to work on a memoir he is set to release next year.In April, however, he packed his things and left the US following the detention of the Columbia graduate Mahmoud Khalil. ElGendy’s lawyers warned him that he could face a similar fate after his personal details were posted on a website used to target opponents of Israel’s war in Gaza.Since then, he has watched from abroad as the situation has worsened.“I haven’t second-guessed leaving the US. In fact I feel very grateful that I made the choice that I did before things got even worse,” he said. “I left Egypt to escape political persecution … The reason I left the US is because I started to recognize those same patterns forming around me. And since leaving it’s only gone downhill.”View image in fullscreenWhen Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice) began carrying out large-scale raids and he was identified online as a potential target, he said he found himself once again waiting to be taken away at any moment.“I don’t think political incarceration is the most important characteristic of authoritarianism, it’s more the constant threat of it that matters most,” he said. “What really sustains authoritarianism is that quiet knowledge that the prison door is always within reach … that shadow is what shapes behavior.”From Russia to Turkey, and Hungary to El Salvador, activists, observers and political scientists have watched the quick consolidation of power by the Trump administration as it has followed a familiar pattern of autocratic rollout.Washington has found common cause with some of the world’s harshest authoritarian regimes such Russia and El Salvador. This week, the US deported nearly 50 Russians, according to activists, including some who probably requested political asylum in the United States. Hundreds of migrants and even citizens have been deported to prisons in El Salvador.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion“Sometimes I almost feel it’s like ‘I told you so,’” said Noah Bullock, the chief executive of Cristosal, a leading human rights group in El Salvador which was forced to leave the country last month after 25 years of documenting abuses of power.“With the Ice crackdown and the creation of this massive law enforcement agency that only obeys the president – there are no good historical references where that works out well.”“One of the things that I see happening that hits me really close is when these security or police forces begin to look at the whole population as enemies,” he added, comparing it to El Salvador where they had been “trained to see the population as a threat”.The winner-take-all dynamics of the Trump administration, which has claimed a historic mandate despite winning among the thinnest majorities in a generation, have made this a particularly fraught moment. Along with the federal takeover of police forces, the other commonly cited danger is the Republican gerrymandering effort in Texas and resulting fightback in California, as well as other efforts to diminish voter turnout ahead of the 2026 midterm and 2028 presidential elections.Some activists insist it is not too late to turn back. Stacey Abrams, the former Georgia gubernatorial candidate, and Kim Lane Scheppele, a professor of sociology and international affairs at Princeton University, wrote this week that “We Can Stop the Rise of American Autocracy”.Citing Hungary and Venezuela as examples, they wrote that “we cannot be lulled into believing that this is like anything we’ve seen before and can therefore be solved by simply waiting for the midterm elections. The antidote to Trump’s American breed of autocracy is understanding the severity of the threat at hand.”But others see the trend toward authoritarianism as merely an acceleration of the direction of US politics even before Trump.“That assumes that the United States was a functioning healthy democracy that slipped … and that’s just not the case in my opinion,” said ElGendy.“When a democracy is designed with this capacity for authoritarianism you’re never more than one election away from its reappearance. That’s not an accident, that’s a design flaw.” More

    • 138 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      Publications aimed at LGBTQ+ audiences face discrimination from advertisers, editors warn

      by

      Publications aimed at LGBTQ+ and other diverse audiences are facing “good old-fashioned discrimination” as advertisers avoid them after political attacks on diversity and inclusion campaigns, editors have said.Senior figures at publications aimed at the gay community and other minority groups said a previous “gold rush” to work with such titles was over.There has been a backlash in the US over corporate diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts in the past 18 months, which has led to some big names rolling back their plans.Tag Warner, the chief executive of Gay Times, said his publication, which had been growing digitally in the US, had lost 80% of its advertisers in the past year. It has also lost in excess of £5m in expected advertiser revenue.Warner, who has led the outlet since 2019, said his title’s growth had been accompanied by an enthusiasm from brands to embrace LGBTQ+ audiences. He blames an anti-DEI drive in the US for the dramatic shift.“I know that media and marketing is also going through a challenging year anyway, but when we’re thinking about other organisations that don’t talk to diverse themes, they’re not nearly as impacted as we are,” he said. “This is just good old-fashioned discrimination. Because discrimination doesn’t have to make business sense. Discrimination doesn’t have to be logical. Discrimination is discrimination.“We’re really experiencing the impact of what happens when voices that are pressuring organisations to give in to less inclusive perspectives start winning. Then it creates this massive behavioural shift in brands and organisations.”Nafisa Bakkar, the co-founder of Amaliah, a publication aimed at “amplifying the voices of Muslim women”, said there had been a “change in mood” among brands and advertisers. “There was this DNI [diversity and inclusion] gold rush,” she said. “It is, I would say, well and truly over.“We work with a lot of UK advertisers, but I would say that the US has a lot more emphasis on what they would call ‘brand safety’, which I think is a code word for ‘we don’t want to rock the boat’. I would say there is a lot more focus on this element.”Ibrahim Kamara, the founder of the youth platform GUAP, which has a large black and ethnically diverse audience, said he had detected a “relative difference” from 2020 in approaches from brands.He and others cited the economic pressures on advertisers generally in recent years. However, he said the “hype and the PR around wanting to support and connect with diverse audiences” had also subsided.“The thing that most people within these kind of spaces can probably agree on is that the energy and the PR is very different now,” he said. “It was almost a badge of honour to be able to say that you’re supporting certain communities. Now, I’ve seen that lots of the diversity and inclusion people that were hired around that period have probably lost their jobs. It doesn’t have the same PR effect any more.”Warner said the anti-DEI impact pre-dated the return of Donald Trump to the White House. Figures such as the conservative pundit Robby Starbuck have been engaged in a long-running anti-DEI campaign, pressuring firms to drop their diversity efforts. However, Warner said Trump’s arrival “gave everyone, I think, permission to be honest about it”.Not all publications in the sector have been hit in the same way as Gay Times. Companies with business models less reliant on US advertising, as well as some big players with long-established relationships, said they had managed to negotiate the changing political environment.“Brands are nervous, that’s for sure, or careful – or a combination of both,” said Darren Styles, the managing director of Stream Publishing, which publishes Attitude magazine. “They’re aware it can be a lightning rod for a vocal minority. But our experience is that most people are holding their ground, if not doubling down.”Styles also said he was not complacent, however, given the rise of Nigel Farage’s Reform party in the UK and its lack of historical support for the LGBTQ+ community.“I’m not incautious about the future,” he said. “Who knows what next year will bring, because that narrative is not going away. Obviously, there’s the rise of Reform in the polls.“[Farage] is quite clearly not an ally to our community and he’s expressed disdain in the past at the awards we’ve given out to people in the trans community. So it is a worry as political momentum gains around there. But I think broadly, consumers in the UK are a bit more capable of thinking for themselves.”Mark Berryhill, the chief executive of equalpride, which publishes prominent US titles like Out and The Advocate, said some brands and agencies “may have been a little bit more cautious than they have been in the past”. However, he said it had so far meant deals had taken longer to be completed, in a tough economic climate.He said the political headwinds made it more important to highlight that working with such titles was simply a sound business decision. “We’ve tried to do a better job in this political climate of just selling the importance of our buying power,” he said. “Everybody’s cautious and I don’t think it’s just LGBTQ. I think they’re cautious in general right now with their work with minority owned companies.“The one thing that maybe this whole controversy has helped us with a little bit is to really make brands realise it’s a business decision. It’s not just a charity or something you should do because you feel guilty.“You should do it because it’s the right thing to support LGBTQ journalism. We’re small. We need to get the word out. We have important stories to tell. But it’s also a good business decision. The more we show that side, certain brands will come along.” 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