Connect with us

News

White House moves to overturn ruling that Trump’s tariffs are illegal

Published

on

White House moves to overturn ruling that Trump’s tariffs are illegal

Unlock the White House Watch newsletter for free

The White House has vowed to fight a court ruling that Donald Trump’s “liberation day” tariff scheme is illegal, with top trade adviser Peter Navarro saying “nothing has changed” in the president’s drive to strike deals with other countries.

The US Court of International Trade ruled late on Wednesday that Trump did not have the authority to use the emergency economic powers legislation that he cited when he imposed sweeping global tariffs last month.

The administration moved quickly to appeal against the ruling, threatening to go to the Supreme Court if necessary to try and overturn the decision.

Advertisement

The Department of Justice on Thursday asked the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington to intervene and said it would turn to the Supreme Court as soon as Friday if it did not step in.

“Absent at least interim relief from this court, the United States plans
to seek emergency relief from the Supreme Court tomorrow to avoid the irreparable national security and economic harms at stake,” the administration said.

The administration immediately asked the trade court for a stay, or a hold, on its initial ruling, which gave the White House 10 days to comply with its order.

The White House said it was “confident” the trade court’s ruling would be overturned on appeal.

But Trump’s top trade and economic advisers insisted there were other ways for the president to pursue his global trade war — and that negotiations for deals with other nations would carry on.

Advertisement

“We think we have a strong case. Yes, we will immediately appeal and try to stay the ruling,” Navarro, the chief architect of Trump’s trade wars, told Bloomberg on Thursday morning.

Navarro said the trade court ruling showed the administration could also use different legal bases to impose a baseline 10 per cent tariff and higher “reciprocal” duties on many countries.

“So nothing has really changed here in that sense . . . We are still, as we speak, having countries call us and tell us they want a deal,” he added. “These deals are going to happen.”

The ruling by the Court of International Trade comes as the Trump administration is pushing to make trade deals with dozens of countries.

Wall Street analysts suggested the court ruling would slow down, but not derail, the White House’s plans. US stocks rose after the decision but the rally moderated, with the S&P 500 index up 0.3 per cent and the tech-heavy Nasdaq Composite rising 0.6 per cent in early-afternoon trading.

Advertisement

“The administration is likely to either successfully appeal the ruling or to use other authority . . . to keep tariff rates high and revenue substantial,” Citi analysts wrote in a note on Thursday. “For now, the ruling will complicate and potentially delay trade negotiations.”

Goldman Sachs president John Waldron told a conference in New York on Thursday that he still expected the US government to increase tariffs on most countries.

“I think we’re going to go towards a 10 per cent universal baseline tariff with individualised, targeted tariffs on top with individual countries,” he said.

Kevin Hassett, director of the National Economic Council, also insisted that the Trump administration would be able to press ahead with its plans.

“Trump does always win these negotiations because we are right. We are right that America has been mishandled by other governments, that our tariffs are taking them to the table, and they are coming in with massive concessions, opening up their markets to our products and lowering their tariffs on us,” he told Fox Business.

Advertisement

“These activist judges are trying to slow down something right in the middle of really important negotiations.”

Hassett said there were “different approaches” that the administration could take to impose tariffs if required, but added: “We’re not planning to pursue those right now because we’re very, very confident that this really is incorrect.”

Additional reporting by Joe Miller in Washington and Martin Arnold in New York

News

Rep. Ilhan Omar rushed by man on stage and sprayed with liquid at town hall event

Published

on

Rep. Ilhan Omar rushed by man on stage and sprayed with liquid at town hall event

A man is tackled after spraying an unknown substance at US Representative Ilhan Omar (D-MN) (L) during a town hall she was hosting in Minneapolis, Minnesota, on January 27, 2026. (Photo by Octavio JONES / AFP via Getty Images)

OCTAVIO JONES/AFP via Getty Images/AFP


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

OCTAVIO JONES/AFP via Getty Images/AFP

Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., was rushed by a man during a town hall event Tuesday night and sprayed with a liquid via a syringe.

Footage from the event shows a man approaching Omar at her lectern as she is delivering remarks and spraying an unknown substance in her direction, before swiftly being tackled by security. Omar called on Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to resign or face impeachment immediately before the assault.

Noem has faced criticism from lawmakers on both sides of the aisle in the aftermath of the fatal shooting of 37-year-old intensive care nurse Alex Pretti by federal officers in Minneapolis Saturday.

Advertisement

Omar’s staff can be heard urging her to step away and get “checked out,” with others nearby saying the substance smelled bad.

“We will continue,” Omar responded. “These f******* a**holes are not going to get away with it.”

A statement from Omar’s office released after the event said the individual who approached and sprayed the congresswoman is now in custody.

“The Congresswoman is okay,” the statement read. “She continued with her town hall because she doesn’t let bullies win.”

A syringe lays on the ground after a man, left, approached Representative Ilhan Omar, a Democrat from Minnesota, during a town hall event in Minneapolis, Minnesota, US, on Tuesday, Jan. 27, 2026. The man was apprehended after spraying unknown substance according the to Associated Press. Photographer: Angelina Katsanis/Bloomberg via Getty Images

A syringe lays on the ground after a man, left, approached Representative Ilhan Omar, a Democrat from Minnesota, during a town hall event in Minneapolis, Minnesota, US, on Tuesday, Jan. 27, 2026. The man was apprehended after spraying an unknown substance according to the Associated Press. Photographer: Angelina Katsanis/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Bloomberg/Bloomberg via Getty Images/Bloomberg

Advertisement


hide caption

toggle caption

Bloomberg/Bloomberg via Getty Images/Bloomberg

Advertisement

Omar followed up with a statement on social media saying she will not be intimidated.

Advertisement

As Omar continued her remarks at the town hall, she said: “We are Minnesota strong and we will stay resilient in the face of whatever they might throw at us.”

Just three days ago, fellow Democrat Rep. Maxwell Frost of Florida said he was assaulted at the Sundance Festival by a man “who told me that Trump was going to deport me before he punched me in the face.”

Threats against Congressional lawmakers have been rising. Last year, there was an increase in security funding in the wake of growing concerns about political violence in the country.

According to the U.S. Capitol Police, the number of threat assessment cases has increased for the third year in a row. In 2025, the USCP investigated 14,938 “concerning statements, behaviors, and communications” directed towards congressional lawmakers, their families and staff. That figure represents a nearly 58% increase from 2024.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Video: F.A.A. Ignored Safety Concerns Prior to Collision Over Potomac, N.T.S.B. Says

Published

on

Video: F.A.A. Ignored Safety Concerns Prior to Collision Over Potomac, N.T.S.B. Says

new video loaded: F.A.A. Ignored Safety Concerns Prior to Collision Over Potomac, N.T.S.B. Says

transcript

transcript

F.A.A. Ignored Safety Concerns Prior to Collision Over Potomac, N.T.S.B. Says

The National Transportation Safety Board said that a “multitude of errors” led to the collision between a military helicopter and a commercial jet, killing 67 people last January.

“I imagine there will be some difficult moments today for all of us as we try to provide answers to how a multitude of errors led to this tragedy.” “We have an entire tower who took it upon themselves to try to raise concerns over and over and over and over again, only to get squashed by management and everybody above them within F.A.A. Were they set up for failure?” “They were not adequately prepared to do the jobs they were assigned to do.”

Advertisement
The National Transportation Safety Board said that a “multitude of errors” led to the collision between a military helicopter and a commercial jet, killing 67 people last January.

By Meg Felling

January 27, 2026

Continue Reading

News

Families of killed men file first U.S. federal lawsuit over drug boat strikes

Published

on

Families of killed men file first U.S. federal lawsuit over drug boat strikes

President Trump speaks as U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth looks on during a meeting of his Cabinet at the White House in December 2025.

Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

Relatives of two Trinidadian men killed in an airstrike last October are suing the U.S. government for wrongful death and for carrying out extrajudicial killings.

The case, filed in Massachusetts, is the first lawsuit over the strikes to land in a U.S. federal court since the Trump administration launched a campaign to target vessels off the coast of Venezuela. The American government has carried out three dozen such strikes since September, killing more than 100 people.

Among them are Chad Joseph, 26, and Rishi Samaroo, 41, who relatives say died in what President Trump described as “a lethal kinetic strike” on Oct. 14, 2025. The president posted a short video that day on social media that shows a missile targeting a ship, which erupts in flame.

Advertisement

“This is killing for sport, it’s killing for theater and it’s utterly lawless,” said Baher Azmy, legal director of the Center for Constitutional Rights. “We need a court of law to rein in this administration and provide some accountability to the families.”

The White House and Pentagon justify the strikes as part of a broader push to stop the flow of illegal drugs into the U.S. The Pentagon declined to comment on the lawsuit, saying it doesn’t comment on ongoing litigation.

But the new lawsuit described Joseph and Samaroo as fishermen doing farm work in Venezuela, with no ties to the drug trade. Court papers said they were headed home to family members when the strike occurred and now are presumed dead.

Neither man “presented a concrete, specific, and imminent threat of death or serious physical injury to the United States or anyone at all, and means other than lethal force could have reasonably been employed to neutralize any lesser threat,” according to the lawsuit.

Advertisement

Lenore Burnley, the mother of Chad Joseph, and Sallycar Korasingh, the sister of Rishi Samaroo, are the plaintiffs in the case.

Their court papers allege violations of the Death on the High Seas Act, a 1920 law that makes the U.S. government liable if its agents engage in negligence that results in wrongful death more than 3 miles off American shores. A second claim alleges violations of the Alien Tort Statute, which allows foreign citizens to sue over human rights violations such as deaths that occurred outside an armed conflict, with no judicial process.

The American Civil Liberties Union, the Center for Constitutional Rights, and Jonathan Hafetz at Seton Hall University School of Law are representing the plaintiffs.

“In seeking justice for the senseless killing of their loved ones, our clients are bravely demanding accountability for their devastating losses and standing up against the administration’s assault on the rule of law,” said Brett Max Kaufman, senior counsel at the ACLU.

U.S. lawmakers have raised questions about the legal basis for the strikes for months but the administration has persisted.

Advertisement

—NPR’s Quil Lawrence contributed to this report.

Continue Reading

Trending