Court did not direct Trump to issue refunds on his illegal tariffs, but demand for them is growing
As a miffed Donald Trump pointed out in his remarks earlier, the US supreme court did not explicitly address the question of whether or not his administration is now required to issue refunds to American importers who have already paid the tariffs the court held to be illegal.
“We’ve taken in hundreds of billions of dollars,” Trump noted. “What happens to all the money that we took in? It wasn’t discussed. Wouldn’t you think they would have put one sentence in there saying that keep the money or don’t keep the money?”
Critics of the president’s tariffs immediately argued that refunds are, in fact necessary.
The governor of Illinois, Democrat JB Pritzker, sent a letter to the president demanding “a refund of $1,700 for every family in Illinois”, or $8.7bn, with a mocked up invoice that described Trump’s account as “Past Due – Delinquent”.
“America’s working families deserve a refund,” Pritzker said in a social media video. “Cut the check, Donald.”
The Nobel-winning economist Paul Krugman made the same point in more erudite language on his Substack, noting that the ruling was “scathing and said clearly that Trump’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act was a usurpation of taxation authority that belongs to Congress: “We are therefore skeptical that in IEEPA — and IEEPA alone — Congress hid a delegation of its birth-right power to tax”.
“Trump announced that he would immediately use another little-known legal route — Section 122 — to impose immediate 10 percent tariffs across the board. Section 122 tariffs can only last 150 days, but he claimed that during that stretch he would find ways to use other authorities to maintain high tariffs,” Krugman added. “I don’t see, by the way, how such alternatives would obviate the need to refund the tariffs already collected. If you seized money without constitutional authority, finding other revenue sources going forward doesn’t make the original seizure legal.”
An analysis from the Penn-Wharton Budget Model suggests that “reversing the IEEPA tariffs will generate up to $175 billion in refunds.”
“The decision does not explicitly order immediate refunds,” experts at the president’s alma mater wrote. “However, the decision that the tariffs were collected illegally has opened the door to refund claims. Importers generally have 180 days after goods are “liquidated” to protest and request refunds from U.S. Customs and Border Protection.”
In remarks to the Economic Club of Dallas, Trump’s treasury secretary, Scott Bessent, responded to a question about the upcoming “food fight” over the approximately $175 billion in tariff revenue already collected under the tariffs by saying: “I got a feeling the American people won’t see it.”
Many experts have suggested that Bessent is correct that American consumers who paid higher prices for imported goods are not likely to see refunds, which would go to the import firms that paid the taxes.
Updated
Here's a recap of the day so far
In a stunning rebuke against the Trump administration’s economic policy, the supreme court ruled many of the president’s sweeping tariffs illegal. In a 6-3 decision, the court held that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) – a 1977 statute which grants the president authority to regulate or prohibit certain international transactions during a national emergency – does not authorize Donald Trump to unilaterally impose the tariffs. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh dissented.
Trump, incensed but determined, assailed the ruling at an impromptu press conference. The president called the decision “deeply disappointing” and said he was “ashamed” of the justices who ruled against his use of IEEPA. He hurled insults at them while speaking to reporters, calling them “fools and lap dogs”, “very unpatriotic and disloyal to our constitution” and even made baseless claims that they were being swayed by “foreign interests”. In contrast, he praised the conservative justices who dissented, highlighting justice Brett Kavanaugh’s written opinion.
The president quickly announced that that he would impose 10% global tariffs under Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act. This statute allows the president impose levies for up to 150 days, before requiring congressional approval to extend them. He also stressed that the national‑security tariffs and those tied to “unreasonable” trade practices from other countries will stay in place.
When it comes to the refunds from the now-invalidated tarriffs already paid under IEEPA, Trump railed against the lack of guidance in the court’s ruling today. “What happens to all the money that we took in? It wasn’t discussed,” he told reporters. “Wouldn’t you think they would have put one sentence in there saying that keep the money or don’t keep the money … I guess it has to get litigated for the next two years.”
Lawmakers generally responded along party lines. Democrats welcomed the court’s decision, while many Republicans said they respected the ruling but would work with the administration to keep the tariffs in place. Trump, for his part, didn’t say whether he regretted nominating Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett to the bench after the sided with liberal justices today. Instead, he said their concurrence was “an embarrassment to their families”.
Updated
After Trump’s press conference today, Democratic senator Elizabeth Warren rebuked the president’s plan to use another statute to implement a 10% global tariff moving forward.
“Donald Trump illegally stole money from the American people. He should give it back to them,” she said. “Instead Trump is scheming up new ways to force Americans to pay even more.”
Updated
In a post on social media, vice-president JD Vance said the supreme court had effectively concluded that Congress “despite giving the president the ability to ‘regulate imports,’ didn’t actually mean it”.
Vance blasted the ruling – which found the administration’s use of IEEPA to justify its sweeping tariffs unconstitutional – as “lawlessness from the Court, plain and simple”. He argued the “only effect” would be to make it harder for the president to “protect American industries and supply chain resiliency.”
Throughout his press conference, Trump oscillated between railing against today’s supreme court ruling, and assuring reporters that his alternative avenues to implementing tariffs would result in getting the US “more money”.
“The process takes a little more time,” Trump said. “Great certainty has been brought back to the economy of the United States … we have the hottest country in the world. We’re going to keep it that way.”
An important note about today’s impromptu news conference – where Donald Trump assailed the supreme court’s ruling that struck down many of his tariffs. The president used the moment to underscore how deeply he prizes loyalty from the judiciary.
He blasted the justices who invalidated his use of IEEPA to impose sweeping levies as “fools and lap dogs”, while singling out the three conservative dissenters – Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh – for praise.
Trump highlighted Kavanaugh’s dissent, which argued that other legal pathways remain for a president to impose tariffs. Trump announced that he plans to pursue some of those options.
“I’m so proud of him,” the president said of Kavanaugh, whom he nominated in his first term, while lauding the justice’s “genius and his great ability”.
Donald Trump didn’t say whether he regretted nominating Neil Gorsuch or Amy Coney Barrett to the supreme court, after they concurred that the president’s use of IEEPA to justify global tariffs is illegal in today’s ruling.
“I think the decision was terrible,” Trump said. “I think it’s an embarrassment to their families, if you want to know the truth, the two of them.”
Trump says that supreme court justices who ruled against sweeping tariffs are 'barely' invited to State of the Union
Donald Trump said today that the six supreme court justices who ruled agains his global tariffs under IEEPA are “barely” invited to next week’s State of the Union address at the US Capitol.
“Honestly, I couldn’t care less if they come,” the president said.
Donald Trump didn’t add any substantial evidence for his claims that justices on the supreme court who ruled against his IEEPA tariffs today are being “swayed by foreign interests”.
He didn’t name specific foreign actors, but claimed they have “undue influence” over some of the jurists.
“Whether it’s through fear or respect or friendships, I don’t know, but I know some of the people that were involved on the other side, and I don’t like them. I think they’re real slime balls,” Trump added.
When asked whether he plans to extend the 10% global tariffs indefinitely, Donald Trump seemed to completely ignore the framework of Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act – which he’s using to implement the duties.
“We have a right to do pretty much what we want to do,” he said, ignoring the statute’s requirement for the administration to receive congressional approval for tariffs beyond 150 days.
Updated
On the, perhaps, multibillion question of refunds for tariffs implemented under IEEPA, Trump railed against the fact that the supreme court did not issue a remedy in today’s ruling.
“We’ve taken in hundreds of billions of dollars,” Trump said. “What happens to all the money that we took in? It wasn’t discussed. Wouldn’t you think they would have put one sentence in there saying that keep the money or don’t keep the money … I guess it has to get litigated for the next two years.”
He called the decision “totally defective”.
Updated
Trump also announced that all national security tariffs under Section 232 of the 1962 Trade Expansion Act and existing tariffs under Section 301 of the 1974 Trade Act remain in place and in full effect.
Trump announces 10% global tariffs under different statute
Following on from my last post, Donald Trump announced that he would impose 10% global tariffs under Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act. This lets the president impose tariffs up to 15% for up to 150 days. These levies would, however, require Congress’s approval to extend beyond the deadline.
Trump also said he would use Section 301 to open investigations to “protect our country from unfair trading practices of other countries and companies”.
Donald Trump insisted that “other alternatives will now be used to replace the ones that the court incorrectly rejected”.
He calls these “great alternatives could be more money”.
A reminder that the court only invalidated the tarriffs implemented under IEEPA, but there are other statutes – as we reported earlier – the president can use to maintain duties on countries.
Trump lambasts liberal justices on supreme court, says they're being 'swayed by foreign interests' without providing evidence
In his remarks today, Trump lambasted the liberal supreme court justices today, as well as those who concurred with the opinion that the use of IEEPA was illegal.
“The Democrats on the court are thrilled,” Trump said. “They’re against anything that makes America strong, healthy and great again. They also are a frankly, disgrace to our nation, those justices.”
He went on to criticize “certain” members of the court, which would include justices he nominated to the bench – such as Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett.
“They’re very unpatriotic and disloyal to our constitution,” Trump added. “It’s my opinion that the court has been swayed by foreign interests and a political movement that is far smaller than people would ever think,” he said without citing any evidence for his claims.
Updated
Donald Trump says supreme court ruling on tariffs is 'deeply disappointing', chides 'certain members' of the court
Donald Trump is now speaking to reporters in the White House press briefing room. He kicked off his remarks by saying that the supreme court’s ruling today, invalidating many of his tariffs, was “deeply disappointing”.
He said he was “ashamed of certain members of the court” – namely the six justices who said that the president’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to justify his global tariffs was illegal.
“I’d like to thank and congratulate justices Thomas, Alito and Kavanaugh for their strength and wisdom and love of our country … very proud of those justices,” he said of the jurists who dissented.
Updated
Chuck Grassley – the senator who chairs the influential judiciary committee – noted in a statement today that he was “one of the only sitting members of Congress” during the passage of the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).
Today, the supreme court said that Donald Trump’s use of IEEPA to justify his global tariffs was illegal.
Grassley called Trump “a very skilled negotiator” following the court’s ruling earlier today. “I want him to continue to be successful in expanding market access,” the Iowa lawmaker added. “I urge the Trump administration to keep negotiating, while also working with Congress to secure longer-term enforcement measures.”
Updated
Republican House speaker Mike Johnson said that “no one can deny” that Donald Trump’s use of sweeping global tariffs “has brought in billions of dollars and created immense leverage for America’s trade strategy”. The top GOP lawmaker in the House said that Congress and the Trump White House would determine the “best path forward in the coming weeks”.
Updated
Nancy Pelosi, the former House speaker, also welcomed the decision, slamming Trump’s tariffs as “reckless, unconstitutional and costly” and “an abuse of executive power that unlawfully taxed millions of Americans”.
She said on X:
Trump’s sweeping tariffs were reckless, unconstitutional and costly for America’s working families. Today, the Supreme Court rightfully struck them down, upholding the Constitution and rejecting an abuse of executive power that unlawfully taxed millions of Americans. The Court was clear. Tariffs cannot be enacted without the explicit authorization of Congress.
Another Republican senator, Susan Collins, of Maine, has welcomed the supreme court’s ruling. She said on X:
Today’s Supreme Court ruling reaffirms that only Congress has the constitutional authority to impose tariffs, and the President can only do so under a clear and limited delegation of authority from Congress. My votes against the President unilaterally imposing tariffs on Canada reflected the same conclusion as well as my belief that these tariffs often harm Maine’s economy and consumers.
Trump to hold press briefing following supreme court tariff rebuke
Donald Trump is due to hold a press briefing at 12.45pm ET in what will be his first public remarks since the supreme court ruled against the legality of his sweeping global tariffs.
The only response we’ve had from the president so far is a comment he reportedly made at this morning’s White House breakfast meeting with US governors. According to CNN he called the decision a “disgrace”.
We’ll bring you all the key lines from the briefing once it gets under way.
Republican senator John Curtis, from Utah, welcomed the supreme court’s ruling and, while not calling explicitly for refunds for consumers and small businesses, he also raises the question of “what happens to the revenue already collected”.
In a post on X he said:
Today’s ruling affirms, despite all the noise of the moment, that the Founders’ system of checks and balances remains strong nearly 250 years later. Several questions remain unanswered, including what happens to the revenue already collected and how the Administration may use alternative authorities to impose tariffs. Looking ahead, it is critical that we provide the clarity and predictability businesses need.
California governor Gavin Newsom has also responded on X:
Even Donald Trump’s Supreme Court agrees: His tax on the American people is illegal. A huge win for families and small businesses across the country who have been suffering under this man’s ego.
In a subsequent post, he added:
Issue an immediate refund to all Americans for your illegal tax. Now.
However, as Shrai noted earlier, Elizabeth Warren has made the point that there is “no legal mechanism for consumers and many small businesses to recoup the money they have already paid”. She said:
Giant corporations with their armies of lawyers and lobbyists can sue for tariff refunds, then just pocket the money for themselves. It’s one more example of how the game is rigged.
Any refunds from the federal government should end up in the pockets of the millions of Americans and small businesses that were illegally cheated out of their hard-earned money by Donald Trump.
Updated
Democratic senator Tim Kaine has not minced his words in his response to the supreme court’s ruling that Trump illegally used executive power when he imposed his sweeping global tariffs.
In a post on X, the Virginia senator wrote:
We told Trump his tariffs were illegal, dumb, and harmful to families, farms, and small businesses. Americans don’t want tariffs, they want lower costs. Go back to square 1 and focus on US – not overseas invasions!
Updated
Dave Townsend, a lead attorney at Dorsey & Whitney who represents the US and foreign clients in trade litigation and disputes, said that it was “hard to overstate” the scale of the IEEPA tariffs as “they touch virtually every industry in one way or another”.
“Never in US history have tariffs been imposed by the executive branch so broadly. And likewise never in US history has a court invalidated tariffs on such a grand scale,” he added.
On the key question of refunds for those subjected to the now-invalidated IEEPA tariffs, Townsend noted that there are more than 2,000 lawsuits have already been brought seeking refunds, “but this is a small fraction” of US importers that may be entitled to them. A reminder that while that litigation was on pause during the supreme court’s deliberation, legal experts say we could now see a “groundswell” of claims following today’s ruling.
“The United States has said in litigation that more than 300,000 US importers have paid IEEPA tariffs. There are various ways that the refunds could be issued, and the supreme court did not say how the process should work,” Townsend said.
Updated
Mike Pence welcomes supreme court ruling as 'a sigh of relief' for families and businesses
Mike Pence, the former vice-president during Donald Trump’s first administration, welcomed the supreme court’s decision that the president’s global tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) are illegal.
“Our Supreme Court has reaffirmed that the Constitution grants Congress – not the President – the power to tax,” Pence said in a statement. “With this decision, American families and businesses can breathe a sigh of relief.”
Senator Rand Paul – a Republican who often bucks his party in Congress – welcomed the supreme court’s ruling today.
“The Supreme Court makes plain what should have been obvious: ‘The power to impose tariffs is ‘very clearly a branch of the power to tax’,” he wrote on social media, referring to the court’s decision that Trump could not use the IEEPA and side-step Congress to implement the sweeping global tariffs.
Updated
Stephan Becker at Pillsbury notes that the big question is what happens next to the tariffs that are invalidated by the supreme court’s ruling today.
“The administration will be keen to maintain the special bilateral agreements it previously struck with countries such as the UK in exchange for reducing tariffs,” Becker said.
He noted that the “broad speculation” is that Donald Trump would try to use the “previously obscure” Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act, which lets the President impose tariffs up to 15% for up to 150 days to address balance of payments problems. These levies would, however, require Congress’s approval to extend beyond the deadline.
“This would allow the administration to quickly impose replacement tariffs while it takes the required procedural steps to impose tariffs under the other statutes,” Becker added.
Updated
'A win for the wallets of every American consumer': Schumer praises supreme court tariffs ruling
The Senate’s top Democrat, Chuck Schumer, has said the supreme court’s ruling that many of the president’s global tariffs are illegal is “a win for the wallets of every American consumer”.
The administration’s “chaotic and illegal tariff tax made life more expensive and our economy more unstable”, Schumer said. “Families paid more. Small businesses and farmers got squeezed. Markets swung wildly.”
Joining the chorus of lawmakers heralding the court’s decision today, Schumer called on Donald Trump to “end this reckless trade war for good and finally give families and small businesses the relief they deserve”.
Updated
Reporting on international trade
Donald Trump is unlikely to abandon his tariff strategy on account of the supreme court ruling, say legal experts.
Basil Woodd-Walker, disputes and investigations partner at global law firm Simmons & Simmon said he can just switch focus from the blanket “liberation day” reciprocal tariffs he opposed on dozens of countries to sectoral tariffs.
“Most commentators had expected the supreme court to strike down Trump’s IEEPA tariffs. But President Trump has made it clear that he is not going to abandon his international trade policy, and will find other ways to implement it,” he said. “The US administration may pivot to other tariff regimes or trade barriers to replace the lost income.”
As my colleague, Lisa O’Carroll, reported earlier the supreme court’s ruling has certainly not ended the entirety of administration’s tariffs.
Stephan Becker – leading international trade attorney at Pillsbury in Washington DC – underscores that while today’s decision invalidates many of the tariffs under IEEPA, other levies have been imposed under other legal authorities that expressly grant Donald Trump the ability to do so. He notes that these include Section 232 of the 1962 Trade Expansion Act and Section 301 of the 1974 Trade Act.
The former authorizes the imposition of tariffs for national security reasons, while the latter allows duties to compel other countries to change policies unfair to US exports.
“Those existing tariffs will not be affected by the Court’s decision. To put it simply, tariffs will remain a central element of the administration’s foreign policy even after today’s judgment,” Becker said.
Reporting on international trade
A spokesperson for Downing Street, said it was also assessing the implications of the US supreme court ruling on tariffs.
“The UK government is working with the US to understand how the overturning of Donald Trump’s tariffs by the Superme Court will affect the UK but expects our privileged trading poisiton with the US to continue.”
The UK was the first to strike a tariff deal with the US with 10% blanket tariffs on imports from Britain, compared to 15% inclusive in the EU.
Trump reportedly calls supreme court tariff decision a 'disgrace'
Donald Trump reportedly said the supreme court’s decision was a “disgrace” at a White House breakfast meeting with US governors, according to CNN’s Kaitlan Collins. He also told those gathered that he has a backup plan.
The president has yet to put out an official statement, or comment on social media.
Updated
Reporting on international trade
The EU has said it is analysing the supreme court ruling while continuing its drive to work towards reducing the tariffs the US imposed on European exports.
The EU agreed a blanket 15% tariff rate with the US at Trump’s Scottish golf course last July but 50% tariffs are still imposed on steel.
“We take note of the ruling by the US Supreme Court and are analysing it carefully.
“We remain in close contact with the US administration as we seek clarity on the steps they intend to take in response to this ruling.
“Businesses on both sides of the Atlantic depend on stability and predictability in the trading relationship. We therefore continue to advocate for low tariffs and to work towards reducing them,” it said.
Updated
Reporting on international trade
The supreme court ruling drives a coach and horses through Donald Trump’s “liberation day” tariffs last April – which led to trade deals with 20 countries including the UK, EU, China and other countries including Vietnam, Switzerland and Lesotha, a country Trump said “nobody had ever heard of”.
While the supreme court has ruled that Trump did not have authority to impose these tariffs unilaterally, it does not mean the end of the road of tariffs from the US president.
He may continue to impose tariffs on grounds of national security.
The 25% steel tariffs on the UK and 50% on the EU along with punitive extra tariffs on produces that contain an element of steel, known as steel derivatives may well. be justified as part of Trump’s section 232 investigations.
They have been deployed to justify tariffs on products that are deemed at threat to the US’ national security.
The court ruled that the Trump administration’s interpretation of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose tariffs intruded on the powers of Congress and violated a legal principle called the “major questions” doctrine.
Lawmakers react to supreme court ruling against Trump's tariffs
We’re starting to see members of Congress react to the supreme court ruling that many of Donald Trump’s global tariffs are illegal.
Democratic senator Elizabeth Warren, said that no decision can “undo the massive damage that the Trump tariffs have done to small businesses, to American supply chains, and especially to American families forced to pay higher prices on everything from groceries to housing”.
She added that there is “no legal mechanism for consumers and many small businesses to recoup the money they have already paid”.
“Giant corporations with their armies of lawyers and lobbyists can sue for tariff refunds, then just pocket the money for themselves. It’s one more example of how the game is rigged,” said Warren, who is the ranking member on the Senate banking committee. “Any refunds from the federal government should end up in the pockets of the millions of Americans and small businesses that were illegally cheated out of their hard-earned money by Donald Trump.”
One note, the ruling on Trump’s tariffs is the only decision we can expect from the supreme court today.
In the court’s ruling today, chief justice John Roberts wrote:
When Congress has delegated its tariff powers, it has done so in explicit terms and subject to strict limits.
Against that backdrop of clear and limited delegations, the Government reads IEEPA to give the President power to unilaterally impose unbounded tariffs and change them at will. That view would represent a transformative expansion of the President’s authority over tariff policy.
Updated
Supreme court rules against Trump's sweeping global tariffs
The supreme court has issued a sharp rebuke against the Trump administration and ruled against the legality of the president’s sweeping global tariffs.
In a 6-3 decision, the court holds that International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) – a 1977 statute which grants the president authority to regulate or prohibit certain international transactions during a national emergency – does not authorize the president to impose the tariffs.
Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Brett Kavanaugh dissented.
Supreme court issues decision in highly anticipated case on Trump's sweeping tariffs
The court has issued a decision in a case challenging the legality of Donald Trump’s sweeping global tariffs. We’ll bring you the latest as we parse through the opinion.
According to reporters at the supreme court, one box of opinions has been brought out.
Typically, this means we can expect two decisions from the court.
Supreme court could also rule on the future of Voting Rights Act
Another eagerly anticipated decision from the supreme court is the future of section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The justices are poised to make a decision on whether to keep the provision, which prohibits electoral maps that dilute the voting power of minority groups, in tact.
Lawyers for the state of Louisiana, a group of “non-African American voters” and the Trump administration say that the court needs to do away with the 2024 state map. If the court agrees, it would ultimately set a precedent that makes it considerably harder to bring redistricting lawsuits on the basis of race.
Supreme court could issue decision on legality of Trump’s global tariffs today
We’re keeping a close eye on the supreme court today, and a possible decision on the legality of Donald Trump’s sweeping global tariffs.
A reminder, the justices will decide whether the administration lawfully relied on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) – a 1977 statute which grants the president authority to regulate or prohibit certain international transactions during a national emergency – to justify the tariffs.
A reminder that the word “tariff” isn’t actually included in the law, and Congress is typically the branch of government which has the power to implement taxes.
We’ll bring you the latest lines as we get them.
US economic growth slowed in Q4 2025
Growth in the US economy has slowed sharply, new data shows.
US gross domestic product (GDP) increased at an annual rate of 1.4% in the fourth quarter of 2025, the US Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) has reported – the equivalent of expanding by 0.35% in the quarter.
The BEA says:
The contributors to the increase in real GDP in the fourth quarter were increases in consumer spending and investment.
These movements were partly offset by decreases in government spending and exports. Imports, which are a subtraction in the calculation of GDP, decreased.
That’s down from annualised growth of 4.4% in the third quarter of last year, and may be a sign that the US government shutdown at the end of last year hit growth.
My colleague, Graeme Wearden, is covering the latest developments on GDP figures:
Updated
Donald Trump is in Washington today. We’re expected to hear from him at 9.45am when he hosts a working breakfast for several US governors in the State Room of the White House. It’s part of two events traditionally hosted at the White House, which includes a dinner on Saturday, as part of the National Governors Association’s (NGA) annual conference.
The NGA normally facilitates the bipartisan events, but backed out after claiming that Trump initially invited only Republican governors to the weekend’s events at the White House, as part of the conference’s itinerary.
However, Trump said that the NGA chair, governor Kevin Stitt of Oklahoma, had “incorrectly stated” the president’s position over the “very exclusive” breakfast meeting and dinner. Trump added that he invited all governors bar Democrats Wes Moore of Maryland and Jared Polis of Colorado – who he feels “are not worthy of being there” amid ongoing feuds with the leaders.
Several other Democratic governors have since pulled out of the events at the White House in response to the move.
The Trump administration announced on Friday it will roll back air regulations for power plants limiting mercury and hazardous air toxics at an event in Kentucky, a move it says will boost baseload energy but that public health groups say will harm public health for the US’s most vulnerable groups.
Donald Trump’s EPA has said that easing the pollution standards for coal plants would alleviate costs for utilities that run older coal plants at a time when demand for power is soaring amid the expansion of data centers used for artificial intelligence, Reuters reported.
But environmental groups have said that weakening standards for mercury, a neurotoxin that can impair babies’ brain development, and other air toxics will lead to higher health-related costs.
The Biden-era Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, which updated standards set in 2012 under the Obama administration, had still been in force after the supreme court declined to put the rules on hold after a group of mostly Republican states and industry groups led a legal challenge to suspend it.
Updated
A rookie congressional candidate in a nine-way Texas primary has received the imprimatur of wealthy hard-right donors including tech billionaire Peter Thiel, Claremont Institute board chair Thomas Klingenstein and Charles Haywood, who once expressed a desire to be a “warlord”, according to new Federal Election Commission filings showing early donations to his campaign.
In a recent candidate forum, Jace Yarbrough unapologetically staked out a series of extremist positions, saying that critics may call his approach to politics “bigoted and backward and oppressive and Nazi-ish”, but that he is “past trying to placate that in any way, shape or form”.
Following the flood of donations in December, Yarbrough was endorsed by Donald Trump on Truth Social.
Yarbrough’s remaining donors include others with ties to the Claremont Institute and the secretive far-right Society for American Civic Renewal (SACR), including Nate Fischer, a venture capitalist with documented links to JD Vance; and Andrew Beck, Claremont’s vice-president for communications and an admitted SACR member.
Current and former employees of Beck-founded agency Beck & Stone are also among the donors.
John Bellamy Foster, professor of sociology at the University of Oregon, said: “Jace Yarbrough is among the most militant figures in the Maga political movement in the United States, and a major recipient of Maga-billionaire donations in his run for a congressional seat in North Texas.”
Foster added: “If it can be said that there is a neofascist political movement in the United States, Yarbrough is certainly one of its chief would-be ‘lawgivers’.”
Updated
Rubio to meet UK foreign minister amid tensions over joint air base
Secretary of state Marco Rubio will meet with Britain’s foreign minister Yvette Cooper today, after Donald Trump renewed his criticism of London for ceding sovereignty of the Chagos Islands, which is home to a US-UK air base.
Last year British prime minister Keir Starmer agreed a deal to transfer sovereignty of the Indian Ocean islands to Mauritius, while keeping control of one – Diego Garcia – through a 99-year lease that preserved US operations at the base.
Washington last year gave its blessing to the agreement, but Trump has since changed his mind several times. In January, Trump described it as an act of “great stupidity“, but earlier this month said he understood the deal was the best Starmer could make, before then renewing his criticism this week.
The Diego Garcia base has recently been used for operations in the Middle East against Yemen’s Houthis and in humanitarian aid to Gaza.
Although on Tuesday Rubio’s state department said it backed the Chagos accord, the next day Trump said Britain was making a big mistake.
“DO NOT GIVE AWAY DIEGO GARCIA!” Trump wrote in a post on Truth Social, saying the base could be called upon in any future military operation to “eradicate a potential attack” from Iran.
Under the conditions for using the joint base, Britain would need to agree in advance to any operations out of Diego Garcia.
Updated
Second carrier strike group heads for region as US weighs up early attack
Experts say there are already sufficient US military assets in the Middle East to begin an aerial bombing campaign against Iran, potentially in conjunction with Israel, though it is less clear what this would achieve.
The USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier and other warships in a strike group have been in the Arabian Sea for nearly a month, with nine squadrons of aircraft including F-35 Lightning IIs and F/A-18 Super Hornets.
A second carrier strike group, led by the USS Gerald R Ford, was last confirmed to be in the Atlantic west of Morocco on Tuesday. It is expected to head through the strait of Gibraltar and towards the eastern Mediterranean, a voyage of several days.
The Ford, the world’s largest aircraft carrier, sailed from the Caribbean Sea, where last month the warship was involved in the seizure of Venezuela’s Nicolás Maduro from a fortified compound in a night raid.
Together, the carrier strike groups could generate “several hundred strike sorties a day for a few weeks, an intensity greater than during the 12-days war”, said Matthew Savill, the director of military sciences at the Royal United Services Institute.
Even without the Ford, planes flying from the Lincoln could fly 125 or more bombing missions a day, giving the US the means to start attacking government and military sites in Iran in an aerial campaign if Trump chooses to attack.
Aviation experts have tracked a large movement of military planes to the Middle East as the US ramps up pressure on Iran. Six E-3 Sentry Awacs, critical for real-time command and control operations, are now deployed at Prince Sultan airbase in Saudi Arabia, having been moved from the US and Japan.
Read the full story here:
Updated
Trump weighing up an early, limited strike, reports say, after giving Iran two week deadline
Hello and welcome to the US politics live blog. I’m Tom Ambrose and I’ll be bringing you all the latest news lines over the next few hours.
We start with reports that Donald Trump is considering an early strike to force the Iranians to the negotiating table. An early strike could likely target specific government buildings or military sites and may be limited enough so as not to provoke a full-scale retaliation from Iran, according to the Wall Street Journal.
One unnamed official told the Journal that aides had also discussed large-scale operations, which could involve increasingly larger strikes with an eventual aim of ending the Iranian regime’s nuclear work or the collapse of the government.
The reports come after Trump publicly told Iran that it has “10 to 15 days” to cut a deal over its nuclear program, as the US continues its vast military build up in the region.
“We’re either going to get a deal, or it’s going to be unfortunate for them,” Trump told reporters on board Air Force One yesterday.
He added that negotiations could be allowed to continue for another 10 to 15 days, a deadline the president described as “pretty much” the “maximum”.
“I would think that would be enough time,” Trump said.
The US has kept the option of military action against Iran on the table, as it continues to amass the greatest buildup of forces since the Iraq invasion 23 years ago, Bloomberg reported.
It has moved two aircraft carriers, fighter jets and refueling tankers in the region since the start of the year, giving the US the option of a sustained campaign last several days in co-operation with Israel.
In other developments:
Donald Trump, who is definitely not mad that his more popular predecessor Barack Obama got a lot of attention for saying last weekend that aliens “are real, but I haven’t seen them”, announced that he is directing the defense department and other agencies to release whatever files they have on the search for alien life.
Sky Roberts, the brother of the late Virginia Giuffre, told CNN that Trump “is potentially implicated” by the Epstein files, “and he may have to answer some questions”. The US president has denied any wrongdoing and yesterday claimed he was “exonerated” by the Epstein filed.
The English far-right activist Tommy Robinson, who was repeatedly denied entry to the US in the past, spent Thursday in Washington DC, meeting people close to Trump according to images and video posted on his social media accounts.
FBI director Kash Patel has jetted off to Italy to watch the men’s ice hockey medal matches, sticking taxpayers with a bill as high as $75,000, according to multiple reports.
The husband of Trump’s labor secretary, Lori Chavez-DeRemer, has reportedly been barred from the labor department’s headquarters in Washington DC after at least two female staff members accused him of sexually assaulting them, the New York Times reports.
Trump told supporters in Georgia that there had been less media coverage of the cost-of-living crisis in the past weeks “Because I’ve won, I’ve won affordability.”
Updated
