ReportWire

Tag: Business

  • Police are finding suspects based on their online searches as courts weigh privacy concerns

    [ad_1]

    HARRISBURG, Pa. — Criminal investigators hoping to develop suspects in difficult cases have been asking Google to reveal who searched for specific information online, seeking “reverse keyword” warrants that critics warn threaten the privacy of innocent people.

    Unlike traditional search warrants that target a known suspect or location, keyword warrants work backward by identifying internet addresses where searches were made in a certain window of time for particular terms, such as a street address where a crime occurred or a phrase like “pipe bomb.”

    Police have used the method to investigate a series of bombings in Texas, the assassination of a Brazilian politician and a fatal arson in Colorado.

    It’s not a wild guess by investigators to conclude that people are using Google searches in all manner of crimes, as the company’s search engine has become the main gateway to the internet and users’ daily lives increasingly leave online traces. The potential value to investigators of the data Google collects is obvious in cases with no suspect, such as the search for Nancy Guthrie’s kidnapper.

    The legal tension between the need to solve crimes quickly and the U.S. Constitution’s Fourth Amendment protections against overly broad searches was at the heart of a recent Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision that upheld the use of a reverse keyword warrant in a rape investigation.

    Privacy advocates see it as giving police “unfettered access to the thoughts, feelings, concerns and secrets of countless people,” according to an amicus brief filed in the Pennsylvania appeal by the American Civil Liberties Union, the Internet Archive and several library organizations.

    In response to written questions about the warrants, Google provided an emailed statement: “Our processes for handling law enforcement requests are designed to protect users’ privacy while meeting our legal obligations. We review all legal demands for legal validity, and we push back against those that are overbroad or improper, including objecting to some entirely.”

    Pennsylvania State Police were stymied in their investigation into the violent rape of a woman in 2016 on a remote cul-de-sac outside Milton, a small community in the center of the state. With no clear leads, police obtained a warrant directing Google to disclose accounts that searched for the victim’s name or address over the week when she was attacked.

    More than a year later, Google reported two searches for the woman’s address were made a few hours before the assault from a specific IP address, a numeric designation that lists where a phone or computer lives on the internet.

    That led them to the home of a state prison guard named John Edward Kurtz.

    Police then conducted surveillance and collected a cigarette butt he discarded that matched DNA recovered from the victim, according to court records. He confessed to the rape and attacks involving four other women over a five-year period, and was convicted in 2020. Now 51, he’s been sentenced to 59 to 280 years.

    Kurtz’s attorneys argued police lacked probable cause to obtain the information and impinged on his privacy rights.

    The state Supreme Court rejected those claims late last year but split on the reasons why. Three justices said Kurtz should not have expected his Google searches to be private, while three more said police had probable cause to look for anyone who searched the victim’s address before the attack. But a dissenting justice said probable cause requires more than just a “bald hunch” and guessing that a perpetrator would have used Google.

    Kurtz lawyer Douglas Taglieri made the same point in a court filing, but conceded, “It was a good guess.”

    Julia Skinner, a prosecutor in the case, said reverse keyword searches are much more effective when there are specific and even unusual terms that can narrow results, such as a distinctive name or an address. They are also particularly effective when crimes appear to have been planned out beforehand, she said.

    “I don’t think they’re used super frequently, because what you need to target has to be so specific,” she said. There were 57 searches returned in the Kurtz case, but many of them were first responders trying to locate the home in the immediate aftermath of the crime, Skinner said.

    In the similar case in Colorado, police sought the IP addresses of anyone who searched over a 15-day period for the address of a home where a deadly arson occurred. Authorities got IP addresses for 61 searches made by eight accounts, ultimately helping identify three teenage suspects.

    The Colorado Supreme Court ruled in 2023 that although the keyword warrant was constitutionally defective for not specifying an “individualized probable cause,” the evidence could be used because police had acted in good faith about what was known about the law at the time.

    “If dystopian problems emerge, as some fear, the courts stand ready to hear argument regarding how we should rein in law enforcement’s use of rapidly advancing technology,” the majority of Colorado justices ruled.

    Courts have long permitted investigators to seek things like bank records or phone logs. However, civil liberties groups say extending those powers to online keywords turns every search user into a suspect.

    It’s unclear how many keyword warrants are issued every year — Google does not break down the total number of warrants it receives by type, according to the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the Pennsylvania Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in a January 2024 brief.

    The two groups said police working on the bombings in Austin, Texas, sought anyone who searched for terms such as “low explosives” and “pipe bomb.” And in Brazil, investigators trying to solve the 2018 assassination in Rio de Janeiro of the politician Marielle Franco asked for those who searched for Franco’s name and the street where she lived. A Brazilian high court is expected to decide soon on the legality of those search disclosures.

    Reverse keyword warrants are distinct from “geofence” warrants, where criminal investigators seek information about who was in a given area at a particular time. The U.S. Supreme Court said last month it will rule on that method’s constitutionality.

    For many people, their Google search history contains some of their most personal thoughts, from health issues and political beliefs to financial decisions and spending patterns. Google is introducing more artificial intelligence into its search engine, seemingly a way to learn even more about users.

    “What could be more embarrassing,” asked University of Pennsylvania law professor and civil rights lawyer David Rudovsky, if every Google search “was now out there, gone viral?”

    Google warns users personal information can be shared outside the company when it has a “good-faith belief that disclosure of the information is reasonably necessary” to respond to applicable laws, regulations, legal processes or an “enforceable government request.”

    In the Kurtz case, Pennsylvania Justice David Wecht drew a distinction between Kurtz deciding to search for the victim’s name on Google and a 2018 U.S. Supreme Court decision that limited the use of broad collections of cellphone location data.

    “A user who wants to keep such material private has options,” Wecht wrote. “That user does not have to click on Google.”

    ___

    AP Technology Writer Michael Liedtke in San Francisco and writer Mauricio Savarese in Sao Paulo, Brazil, contributed.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Robotaxis are coming to London. The city’s famed black cab drivers are skeptical

    [ad_1]

    LONDON — The Ford Mustang Mach-E cruises down a London road choked with traffic, using its onboard AI system to avoid jaywalkers and cyclists, and navigate roadwork as it drives to its destination.

    The autonomous vehicle from British startup Wayve Technologies is on a test run ahead of the U.K. government’s robotaxi trials set to launch in the spring. Tech companies including U.S. company Waymo and China’s Baidu also plan to take part in the pilot program, making London the latest arena in the global robotaxi competition.

    While self-driving cabs aren’t new, London’s ancient road layout and busy streetscapes could pose special challenges for the technology.

    There’s also skepticism from London’s famed black cab drivers, who must pass a grueling training course known as “The Knowledge,” which requires memorizing hundreds of routes and takes years to complete. They’ve previously opposed technology that’s disrupted their industry, and protested the arrival of Uber.

    Self-driving taxis are “a solution looking for a problem,” said Steven McNamara, general secretary of the Licensed Taxi Drivers’ Association, which represents black cabbies.

    He doubts that robotaxis would have any advantage on London’s road network, which is laid out in a convoluted spiderweb that dates back to Roman times — unlike the grid layout in American cities like San Francisco and Phoenix where Waymo operates.

    The British capital is notorious for being one of the world’s most congested cities and its streets are already clogged with other modes of transport, including private cars, buses, motor scooters, bicycles and electric rental bikes.

    McNamara and many others have noted that robotaxis face another challenge from pedestrians crossing the streets. While jaywalking is illegal in the United States and many other countries, it’s not an offense in Britain.

    “It’s virtually impossible to drive anywhere (in London) without somebody walking in front of you,” McNamara said. In London, with a population of nearly 10 million, he wondered “how these cars are going to deal with those volumes of people?”

    The robotaxi companies say there’s room for the new technology.

    “I think Londoners are going to love autonomous driving. It’s going to be another choice alongside the Tube, cycling, walking, “said Wayve CEO Alex Kendall in a recent interview at the company’s workshop.

    Wayve is teaming up with Uber for the taxi trials, which are part of Britain’s move to adopt national regulations for self-driving vehicles. The nation is seeking to position itself as a world leader in the technology.

    Chinese tech company Baidu is also teaming up with Uber, as well as its ride-hailing rival Lyft, to operate its Apollo Go autonomous vehicle service in the London pilot.

    Waymo, owned by Google parent Alphabet, will also take part and plans to launch a London passenger service by the third quarter of 2026, company representatives told reporters last month.

    Waymo officials sought to ease concerns that the company would suddenly flood London streets with robotaxis, noting that it has operated 1,000 total vehicles in San Francisco since going into full service in 2024.

    “We’re not here to replace anyone,” Waymo spokesman Ethan Teicher said. “We’re here to add another option for people who will choose to take black cabs or other modes of transportation when it suits them and choose to take Waymo, when it makes sense.”

    Waymo’s self-driving Jaguar I-Pace sedans have been spotted doing test runs around London. Wayve’s Ford Mustang Mach-E vehicles have also been doing road tests with human backup drivers sitting behind the wheel, ready to intervene if needed.

    On a recent demo ride for The Associated Press, Wayve’s Ford steered automatically through a three-mile (five kilometer) loop in North London without any problems.

    Cruising down a straight and open stretch of road, the car maintained a steady pace of 19 miles (30 kilometers) per hour, a tick under the speed limit.

    A traffic light changed as the car approached, forcing it to brake firmly and lightly jolting the passengers forward — the only moment that the driving was less than smooth.

    Kendall said Wayve takes a different approach from traditional self-driving technology. It doesn’t rely on “high definition” maps and “hand-coded” safety systems rules written by programmers anticipating every scenario.

    Instead, it uses an AI trained on millions of hours of data gathered by its cars to learn and understand how the world works.

    “This is the key thing for self-driving, because every time you drive on the road, you’re going to experience something different,” Kendall said. “You can’t rely on a self-driving car being told how to behave in every scenario it encounters.”

    He said Wayve is positioning itself as a technology company providing hardware and software that can be added to any vehicle to make it autonomous. It signed a deal with Nissan in December to build self-driving cars that will go on sale in Japan and North America by 2027.

    Kendall wouldn’t reveal any more specific details about the robotaxi service it will operate in collaboration with Uber, such as pricing.

    Waymo, which has its own app to hail rides, will have “competitive” prices and fares will be in line with the market, officials said last month, while adding that it is often able to “demand more premium pricing.”

    Experts say there’s a role for robotaxis in Britain, but it might be a niche one.

    They’re best poised to fill gaps in Britain’s public transport network, such as serving villages that have lost bus services connecting them to bigger towns and cities because of budget cuts, said Kevin Vincent, director of the Centre for Connected and Autonomous Automotive Research at Coventry University.

    There will still be demand for human drivers, especially from out-of-town visitors and tourists, he said.

    If you find a “cab driver who knows the area, you can ask him questions. You feel confident and comfortable you’re going where you need to go,” which is a service that won’t be easily replaced in the short term, Vincent said.

    Self-driving taxis can’t replicate the human touch, said Frank O’Beirne, who has been driving black cabs for 14 years.

    For example, one of his recent fares was a pair of blind passengers going to touristy Leicester Square. He ended up parking at a cab rank and walking them across the street to their destination, a Chinese restaurant that turned out to be in the basement of a casino.

    “They would never have found that, ever, (on their own),” said O’Beirne. “There’s nothing like us. I can’t see the space where autonomous taxis can operate, really.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Supreme Court Decision Against Trump’s Tariffs Raises Uncertainty, but Markets Stay Calm

    [ad_1]

    BANGKOK (AP) — The Supreme Court’s ruling against U.S. President Donald Trump’s tariffs has countries like China and South Korea watching for Washington’s next steps, while financial markets took the news in stride.

    The decision announced Friday could potentially disrupt arrangements worked out in trade negotiations since Trump announced sweeping tariffs on dozens of countries in April 2025.

    China’s Commerce Ministry said it was conducting a “comprehensive assessment of ” the ruling against the tariffs Trump imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA.

    “China urges the United States to lift the unilateral tariffs imposed on trading partners,” an unnamed ministry spokesman said in a statement.

    The statement reiterated Beijing’s stance that there are no winners in a trade war and that the measures Trump had announced “not only violate international economic and trade rules but also contravene domestic laws of the United States, and are not in the interests of any party,” the official Xinhua News Agency cited the spokesperson as saying.

    Trump responded to the Supreme Court decision by proposing a new 10% global tariff under an alternative law, Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act, and later increased it to 15%.

    For China and some other countries in Asia that were subject to higher import duties on their exports, that could potentially bring some relief. But for others such as Japan, the United Kingdom and other U.S. allies, tariffs could rise.

    The U.S. plans to stand by its trade deals and expects its partners to do the same, U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said in a CBS News interview Sunday.

    “The deals were not premised on whether or not the emergency tariff litigation would rise or fall,” said Greer, Trump’s top trade negotiator. “I haven’t heard anyone yet come to me and say the deal’s off. They want to see how this plays out.”

    Uncertainty may worsen if the Trump administration continues imposing new tariffs under alternative laws, South Korea’s trade minister, Kim Jung-kwan, said Monday.

    The South Koreans have agreed to hold “amicable” discussions with U.S. officials in order to minimize any negative impact on South Korean companies, he said. Major South Korean exports such as autos and steel are subject to tariffs under other trade laws.

    “Given the uncertainty over future U.S. tariff measures, the public and private sectors must work together to strengthen our companies’ export competitiveness and diversify their markets,” Kim said.

    U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent also said Sunday that he believed trading partners would abide by existing deals and that tariff revenues will remain steady.

    “Tariff revenues will be unchanged this year and will be unchanged in the future,” Bessent said in a Fox News interview, pointing to the new 15% global tariffs Trump has said he wants as a replacement.

    The administration would defer to the courts on whether to give companies refunds for the import taxes already collected under the tariffs now declared unlawful, Bessent said.

    “It’s out of our hands and we will follow the court’s orders,” he said.

    U.S. futures sank early Monday, with the contract for the S&P 500 down 0.6% and that for the Dow Jones Industrial Average falling 0.5%. Oil prices fell and the U.S. dollar weakened against the Japanese yen and the euro.

    But share prices in Asia mostly advanced, with Hong Kong’s Hang Seng gaining 2.4%.

    Kim Tong-hyung in Seoul, South Korea, contributed.

    Copyright 2026 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

    Photos You Should See – Feb. 2026

    [ad_2]

    Associated Press

    Source link

  • Businesses in Plant City helps others as Florida Strawberry Festival kicks off

    [ad_1]

    PLANT CITY, Fla. — Strawberry season is a big deal in Plant City, which is known as the winter strawberry capital of the world. With the season comes the Florida Strawberry Festival, drawing in thousands of visitors, many of whom turn into repeat customers for local businesses.

    What You Need To Know

    • It draws more than 600,000 people to the city each year
    • It is foot traffic that affects local businesses like RAOK boutique


    It’s out with the old and in with the new at RAOK boutique in Plant City, as the staff prepares to launch its latest strawberry-themed collection.

    “This is our twelfth year,” said Brigitte Hodge.

    She is one of the owners and has strong roots in the community, and she has seen firsthand the effect the festival has each year.

    “It supports the farmers in the community and actually just our small town,” she said.

    For her business, that support often means an increase in foot traffic. Hannah Benton is a co-owner of the boutique.

    She said that the months after Christmas can be slow for retailers, making strawberry season a welcome boost.

    “This is not typically the busy season, so I feel that strawberry is just a wonderful fill-in,” she said.

    The tradition has grown to include everything strawberry, from candles and jewelry to t-shirts.

    And the effect goes beyond just one store. Raok works with more than 10 local businesses to bring their collections to market.

    “We work with local printers to bring it to life, so you’re supporting three small businesses with the purchase of one tee,” Hannah said.

    One of those partners is Cap and Cole. Owner Ashlynn Hotchkiss said that she has printed more than 50 shirts for Raok this year.

    Those partnerships can lead to more business long after the festival ends.

    “Somebody sees that, and they’re like, ‘Oh, Cap and Cole, she did their shirts, maybe they’ll do our shirts for this, this, and this,’ not necessarily just the festival,” Hotchkiss explained.

    Cap and Cole was founded in 2023. Ashlynn says she’s been able to connect with more people and print all designs in-house.

    For these business owners, it’s about working together during a season that brings new faces and new opportunities to town.

    “We all benefit from it,” said Brigitte.

    A busy month ahead, one many local businesses say feels like a second Christmas.

    The Florida Strawberry Festival kicks off Feb. 26 and runs through March 8.

    [ad_2]

    Lizbeth Gutierrez

    Source link

  • US futures fall while Asian markets are mostly higher after the Supreme Court nixes Trump’s tariffs

    [ad_1]

    BANGKOK — U.S. futures fell and most Asian markets climbed Monday after the Supreme Court struck down most of President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariffs.

    Tokyo’s markets were closed for a holiday.

    Hong Kong led regional gains as its Hang Seng index surged 2.2% to 27,003.47. But the Shanghai Composite index lost 1.3% to 4,082.07.

    In South Korea, the Kospi gained 1.1% to 5,873.07.

    Australia’s S&P/ASX 200 shed 0.4% to 9,041.00.

    Taiwan’s Taiex jumped 1.4%.

    The mixed reactions are “highlighting the winners-and-losers effect of shifts in tariff policy that has just delivered a boost to countries who previously had a comparatively bad deal,” Benjamin Picton of Rabobank said in a commentary.

    “U.S. tariff policy will continue to be a source of uncertainty for markets as traders attempt to price in the implications of what is still a movable feast,” he wrote.

    The future for the S&P 500 lost 0.7% and that for the Dow Jones Industrial Average dropped 0.6%. The future for the Nasdaq composite index was down 0.8%.

    On Friday, Wall Street kept calm after the Supreme Court’s ruling against Trump’s sweeping tariffs, which had triggered panic in financial markets when they were announced last year.

    The S&P 500 rose 0.7% to 6,909.51. It had been flipping between small gains and losses before the court’s ruling, following discouraging reports showing slowing growth for the U.S. economy and faster inflation.

    The Dow Jones Industrial Average added 0.5% to 49,625.97. The Nasdaq composite rose 0.9% to 22,886.07.

    Tariffs also aren’t going away, even with the Supreme Court’s ruling. Trump in the afternoon said he would use other avenues to put taxes on imports from other countries after calling the court’s decision terrible.

    “Just so you understand, we have tariffs, we just have them in a different way,” Trump told reporters in an afternoon briefing. He said he would sign an executive order to impose a 10% global tariff under a law that could limit it to 150 days. He later raised that to 15%.

    The president also said he’s exploring other tariffs through other avenues, ones that would require an investigation through the Commerce Department.

    The reaction has been tentative given persisting uncertainties over what Trump will do.

    On Wall Street, Akamai Technologies dropped 14.1% for one of the market’s sharpest losses. The cybersecurity and cloud computing company reported stronger results for the end of 2025 than analysts expected, but it gave a profit forecast for the upcoming year that fell short of estimates.

    Akamai plans to spend a bigger percentage of its revenue this upcoming year on equipment and other investments. It’s the latest potential indicator of how shortages of computer memory created by the AI boom are affecting customers throughout the economy.

    Discouraging reports showing slowing U.S. economic growth and accelerating inflation drew a relatively muted response from investors.

    The reports underscore the tricky situation the Federal Reserve faces as it sets interest rates, but did not change traders’ expectations much for what the Fed will ultimately do. Traders are still betting that the Fed will lower rates at least twice this year, according to data from CME Group.

    Lower interest rates would give the economy and investment prices a boost, but they also risk worsening inflation. Fed officials said at their last meeting that they want to see inflation fall further before they would support cutting rates further.

    In other dealings early Monday, U.S. benchmark crude oil lost 53 cents to $65.95 per barrel. Brent crude, the international standard, gave up 51 cents to $70.79 per barrel.

    The U.S. dollar slipped to 154.11 Japanese yen f rom 154.99 yen. The euro rose to $1.1828 from $1.1780.

    The price of gold rose 1.9%, while the price of silver was up 5.5%.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • US futures fall while Asian markets are mostly higher after the Supreme Court nixes Trump’s tariffs

    [ad_1]

    BANGKOK — U.S. futures fell and most Asian markets climbed Monday after the Supreme Court struck down most of President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariffs.

    Tokyo’s markets were closed for a holiday.

    Hong Kong led regional gains as its Hang Seng index surged 2.2% to 27,003.47. But the Shanghai Composite index lost 1.3% to 4,082.07.

    In South Korea, the Kospi gained 1.1% to 5,873.07.

    Australia’s S&P/ASX 200 shed 0.4% to 9,041.00.

    Taiwan’s Taiex jumped 1.4%.

    The mixed reactions are “highlighting the winners-and-losers effect of shifts in tariff policy that has just delivered a boost to countries who previously had a comparatively bad deal,” Benjamin Picton of Rabobank said in a commentary.

    “U.S. tariff policy will continue to be a source of uncertainty for markets as traders attempt to price in the implications of what is still a movable feast,” he wrote.

    The future for the S&P 500 lost 0.7% and that for the Dow Jones Industrial Average dropped 0.6%. The future for the Nasdaq composite index was down 0.8%.

    On Friday, Wall Street kept calm after the Supreme Court’s ruling against Trump’s sweeping tariffs, which had triggered panic in financial markets when they were announced last year.

    The S&P 500 rose 0.7% to 6,909.51. It had been flipping between small gains and losses before the court’s ruling, following discouraging reports showing slowing growth for the U.S. economy and faster inflation.

    The Dow Jones Industrial Average added 0.5% to 49,625.97. The Nasdaq composite rose 0.9% to 22,886.07.

    Tariffs also aren’t going away, even with the Supreme Court’s ruling. Trump in the afternoon said he would use other avenues to put taxes on imports from other countries after calling the court’s decision terrible.

    “Just so you understand, we have tariffs, we just have them in a different way,” Trump told reporters in an afternoon briefing. He said he would sign an executive order to impose a 10% global tariff under a law that could limit it to 150 days. He later raised that to 15%.

    The president also said he’s exploring other tariffs through other avenues, ones that would require an investigation through the Commerce Department.

    The reaction has been tentative given persisting uncertainties over what Trump will do.

    On Wall Street, Akamai Technologies dropped 14.1% for one of the market’s sharpest losses. The cybersecurity and cloud computing company reported stronger results for the end of 2025 than analysts expected, but it gave a profit forecast for the upcoming year that fell short of estimates.

    Akamai plans to spend a bigger percentage of its revenue this upcoming year on equipment and other investments. It’s the latest potential indicator of how shortages of computer memory created by the AI boom are affecting customers throughout the economy.

    Discouraging reports showing slowing U.S. economic growth and accelerating inflation drew a relatively muted response from investors.

    The reports underscore the tricky situation the Federal Reserve faces as it sets interest rates, but did not change traders’ expectations much for what the Fed will ultimately do. Traders are still betting that the Fed will lower rates at least twice this year, according to data from CME Group.

    Lower interest rates would give the economy and investment prices a boost, but they also risk worsening inflation. Fed officials said at their last meeting that they want to see inflation fall further before they would support cutting rates further.

    In other dealings early Monday, U.S. benchmark crude oil lost 53 cents to $65.95 per barrel. Brent crude, the international standard, gave up 51 cents to $70.79 per barrel.

    The U.S. dollar slipped to 154.11 Japanese yen f rom 154.99 yen. The euro rose to $1.1828 from $1.1780.

    The price of gold rose 1.9%, while the price of silver was up 5.5%.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • It’s a quiet box office weekend as ‘GOAT’ edges ‘Wuthering Heights’

    [ad_1]

    It was a battle of the holdovers at the North American box office this weekend, with the family friendly film “GOAT” edging out the R-rated “Wuthering Heights.”

    Sony Pictures Animation’s “GOAT” took in $17 million, while Warner Bros.’ “Wuthering Heights” earned $14.2 million, according to studio estimates Sunday. Both films are in their second weekend.

    Overall, it was a quiet weekend at movie theaters around the country, with new offerings all opening under $10 million. Those results applied to the faith-based sequel “I Can Only Imagine 2,” the Glen Powell black comedy “How to Make a Killing” and the horror film “Psycho Killer,” which currently has a 0% rating on Rotten Tomatoes. One bright spot in theaters was Baz Luhrmann’s immersive documentary “EPiC: Elvis Presley in Concert,” which earned $3.3 million from only 325 locations in its limited IMAX release. That film expands to nationwide distribution on Feb. 27.

    “GOAT” dropped a slim 38% in its second weekend in theaters, which the studio attributed to positive word-of-mouth. The Stephen Curry-produced movie, about a small goat with big sports dreams (voiced by “Stranger Things’” Caleb McLaughlin) has made over $58.3 million. Globally, its running total is at $102.3 million.

    “Wuthering Heights” meanwhile fell 57% from its opening last weekend, bringing its domestic total to $60 million. Internationally it added another $26.3 million, pushing its global total to $151.7 million against an $80 million production budget. The movie’s top international market continues to be the U.K., where it has made $22.5 million alone.

    Third place for the weekend went to Lionsgate and Kingdom Story’s “I Can Only Imagine 2,” a follow-up to the 2018 Dennis Quaid movie that made $86 million against a $7 million budget. The sequel opened with $8 million, a far cry from the first film’s $17 million launch, though that was in line with expectations. It did score a rare A+ CinemaScore.

    Amazon and MGM’s “Crime 101” fell 59% in its second weekend, bringing in $5.8 million to take fourth place. The Chris Hemsworth and Mark Ruffalo heist thriller has now made $24.7 million against a reported $90 million budget. “Send Help” rounded out the top five with $4.5 million.

    “How to Make a Killing” landed in sixth place with $3.6 million. A24 released the StudioCanal movie in 1,600 North American theaters. The film, loosely inspired by “Kind Hearts and Coronets,” stars Powell as a man who, in a quest to acquire a $28 billion inheritance, decides to kill off his family members. Directed by John Patton Ford (“Emily the Criminal”), “How to Make a Killing” was not well-received by critics: it’s sitting at a “rotten” 47% on Rotten Tomatoes.

    “Pyscho Killer,” released by 20th Century Studios, fared much worse and opened outside of the top 10. The horror-thriller written by Andrew Kevin Walker ( “Seven” ) and directed by Gavin Polone (a notable television and film producer in his directorial debut) tanked in its first weekend in theaters with $1.6 million in ticket sales from 1,110 theaters. Audiences were not any happier with it than critics; According to PostTrak, only 31% of ticket buyers would “definitely recommend” it.

    With final domestic figures being released Monday, this list factors in the estimated ticket sales for Friday through Sunday at U.S. and Canadian theaters, according to Comscore:

    1. “GOAT,” $17 million.

    2. “Wuthering Heights,” $14.2 million.

    3. “I Can Only Imagine 2,” $8 million.

    4. “Crime 101,” $5.8 million.

    5. “Send Help,” $4.5 million.

    6. “How to Make a Killing,” $3.6 million.

    7. “EPiC: Elvis Presley in Concert,” $3.3 million.

    8. “Solo Mio,” $2.6 million.

    9. “Zootopia 2,” $2.3 million.

    10. “Avatar: Fire and Ash,” $1.8 million.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Why adults pursuing career growth or personal interests are the ‘new majority’ student

    [ad_1]

    FLAGSTAFF, Ariz. — Interested in starting a business, learning about artificial intelligence or exploring a new hobby? There’s a class for that.

    Millions of U.S. adults enroll in credit and non-credit college courses to earn professional certificates, learn new skills or to pursue academic degrees. Some older students are seeking career advancement, higher pay and job security, while others want to explore their personal interests or try new things.

    “They might have kids, they might be working full-time, they might be older non-traditional students,” said Eric Deschamps, the director of continuing education at Northern Arizona University in Flagstaff, Arizona. But returning to school “opens doors to education for students that might not have those doors open to them otherwise.”

    Older students, many of whom bring years of work and life experience to their studies, often are juggling courses with full-time jobs, caregiving and other family responsibilities. It is a challenging balancing act but can also sharpen priorities and provide a sense of fulfillment.

    Here’s what experts have to say about returning to school, what to consider beforehand and how to balance coursework with work and personal commitments.

    UCLA Extension, the continuing education division of the University of California, Los Angeles, offers more than 90 certificate and specialization programs, from interior design, early childhood education and accounting to photography, paralegal studies and music production. Individual courses cover a wide range of topics, including retirement planning, writing novels, the business of athletes and artists, and the ancient Japanese art of ikebana, or flower arranging.

    About 33,500 students — nearly half of them older than 35 — were enrolled during the last academic year. UCLA reported a full-time enrollment of about 32,600 degree-seeking undergraduate students during the same period.

    “I prefer calling our (adult) learners not only continuous, but the new majority student. These are learners who tend to already be employed, often supporting a family, looking for up-skilling or sometimes a career change,” Traci Fordham, UCLA’s interim associate dean for academic programs and learning innovation, said.

    Higher education experts say some adults take classes for professional development as economic concerns, technological advances and other workforce changes create a sense of job insecurity.

    “A great example of that is artificial intelligence. These new technologies are coming out pretty quickly and for folks that got a degree, even just 5 or 10 years ago, their knowledge might be a little bit outdated,” Deschamps said.

    Adults interested in becoming students again may want to assess their time and budgets, and weigh the potential benefits and consequences, including the financial impact, the potential for burnout and rewards of education that may take a while materialize, academic advisors say.

    Deschamps suggests asking where you want to be in 5 or 10 years and how the training and knowledge received through an additional class or certificate can help get you there. For example, if you want to start a microbrewery, learning to brew your own beer or launching a business will help. If a promotion or career change is the goal, training for a new job, refreshing skills or understanding a different industry may help show you are qualified.

    Schools like UCLA and Northern Arizona University are working to make continuing education courses accessible by keeping the cost low in comparison to degree-track classes and offering financial assistance. A variety of learning environments usually are offered — in-person and online classes, accelerated and self-paced instruction — to help adults integrate schoolwork with their home and work lives.

    Katie Swavely, assistant director for academic advising and student success at UCLA, started at community college before transferring to UCLA to study anthropology. She said it took her 10 years after graduating to go back for her master’s degree in counseling with a focus on academic advising. Swavely completed that degree in 2020 and credits access to the program through employer-sponsored tuition assistance from her job at the time.

    “I felt like in so many ways I didn’t really know who I was or what I wanted to do other than just pay the bills and survive,” said Swavely, who is married and has two children. “It was hard. And I thought about quitting many times. We had to budget to the extreme and find additional ways to make it work.”

    She added: “There are questions of how are we going to make it work and do we have the money. As a parent, sacrifices are there all the time. You make those judgment calls every day. But making sure that you’re investing in yourself. There’s always gonna be reasons why it’s not today, not this month, not this year, but it’s also OK to just jump in and go for it and see how it works out.”

    As an avid book lover, Swavely now wants to take a book editing course and hopes to continue her education and enroll in that through the university soon.

    Some experts say one of the main barriers to returning to school is psychological. There might be concerns that their writing skills are rusty and that they don’t know enough math or technology, bringing up feelings of uncertainty or failure.

    “I think this is tied to access. Many of our learners, not all of them, haven’t imagined themselves in any kind of higher education, post-secondary education environment,” Fordham said.

    Swavely said it was important for her to build a support network and take advantage of the counseling and advising options that were available to her as a student.

    She encourages adults who are furthering their educations to spend time “finding your community.” Having people around who helped build up her confidence at home and during classes got her through graduate school, Swavely said. She also suggests setting boundaries and giving yourself grace when you need need help.

    “The biggest piece of advice is for people to realize you’re never too old to learn,” she said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Ruling Against Trump’s Tariffs Creates New Uncertainty in US Trade Relations With China

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court decision striking down President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariffs has added a wrinkle to already complicated U.S.-China relations, with both countries navigating shifting ground to avoid an all-out trade war that would disrupt the global economy while still jostling for a position of strength in negotiations.

    Friday’s court ruling would seem to strengthen China’s hand, but analysts predict that Beijing will be cautious in exploiting the advantage, knowing that Trump has other ways of levying taxes. Both sides also want to maintain a fragile trade truce and stabilize ties ahead of Trump’s highly anticipated trip to Beijing.

    “It will give China a moral boost in their negotiations with Trump’s team ahead of the summit, but they are prepared for the scenario that nothing actually changes in reality,” said Sun Yun, director of the China program at the Stimson Center, a Washington-based think tank.

    Furious about the defeat, Trump said first he was imposing a temporary 10% global tariff before raising it to 15% as well as pursuing alternative paths for import duties. He made the case for tariffs by pointing to China, which poses the biggest challenge to U.S. economic, technological and military dominance.

    “China had hundreds of billions of dollars in surpluses with the United States. They rebuilt China. They rebuilt the army. We built China’s army by allowing that to happen,” Trump told reporters Friday. “I have a great relationship with President Xi, but he respects our country now.”

    The White House has confirmed that Trump will travel to China on March 31 through April 2 to meet President Xi Jinping.


    China is looking beyond tariffs

    Xi is unlikely to “flaunt or brandish” the Supreme Court ruling forcefully when meeting Trump, likely choosing instead to try to strengthen his rapport with the U.S. president, said Ali Wyne, a senior research and advocacy adviser focused on U.S. policy toward China at the International Crisis Group.

    The more that Xi can do that, “the more likely it is that the fragile trade truce between the United States and China will take hold in earnest and that Trump will be amenable to security concessions that give China greater freedom of maneuver in Asia,” Wyne said.

    Asked for comment on the implications of the court ruling, Chinese Embassy spokesperson Liu Pengyu said only that tariff and trade wars serve neither country’s interest. He called for Beijing and Washington to work together to “provide greater certainty and stability for China-U.S. economic and trade cooperation and the global economy.”

    “I would expect most Asian partners to proceed cautiously, with existing agreements largely holding as both sides work through the implications in the coming weeks,” said Dan Kritenbrink, a partner at The Asia Group who served as assistant secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific affairs in the Biden administration.

    Shortly after Trump returned to the White House early last year, he invoked an emergency powers law and slapped 20% tariffs on Chinese goods over what he said was Beijing’s failure to stem the flow of chemicals that can be used to make fentanyl.

    Trump later invoked the same emergency authority to impose sweeping reciprocal tariffs on many countries, including 34% on China. Beijing retaliated, and the tariffs temporarily soared to triple digits before both sides climbed down.

    After several rounds of trade talks and a summit between Trump and Xi in South Korea in October, the two countries agreed to a one-year truce with a 10% baseline tariff. Trump also slashed the so-called fentanyl tariff to 10%, while Beijing resumed its cooperation in restricting the export of more substances that could be used to make the opioid.

    Wendy Cutler, vice president of the Asia Society Policy Institute, said she suspected the Trump administration could roll out a Plan B quickly. The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative has an active investigation into China’s compliance with a previous trade agreement and that could be the administration’s backup plan, she said. If China is found not to be fulfilling its obligations under the agreement, the U.S. government is allowed under a trade law to impose tariffs.

    Rep. Ro Khanna, the top Democrat on the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party, urged the administration to come up with a new, tougher strategy that “holds China accountable for its unfair trade practices and leverages the collective power of our allies and partners.”

    Gabriel Wildau, a managing director focused on political risk analysis in China at the consultancy Teneo, said Trump has already shown his willingness to use other legal authorities to impose tariffs on China, as he did during his first term, and Beijing probably assumes that the tariffs could be maintained or re-created “with only modest difficulty.”

    “But Beijing also holds out hope that they can persuade Trump to lower this tariff in exchange for purchase guarantees or other concessions,” Wildau said.

    Copyright 2026 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

    Photos You Should See – Feb. 2026

    [ad_2]

    Associated Press

    Source link

  • NYC nursing walkout ends as last striking nurses approve new contract

    [ad_1]

    NEW YORK — Nurses at a big New York hospital system approved a new contract Saturday, voting to end a major nursing strike after more than a month.

    More than 4,000 nurses in the privately run NewYork-Presbyterian system went on strike Jan. 12. They are now due to start returning to work in the coming week. The union, called the New York State Nurses Association, said 93% of its members at NewYork-Presbyterian voted to ratify the three-year contract.

    Two other big private hospital systems, Montefiore and Mount Sinai, ended their nurses’ walkout earlier this month by inking contract agreements with the same union.

    “We are so happy with the wins we achieved, and now the fight to enforce these contracts and hold our employers accountable begins,” union President Nancy Hagans said in a statement Saturday.

    NewYork-Presbyterian said that it looked forward to its nurses’ return and that the contract “reflects our respect for our nurses and the critical role they play as part of our exceptional care teams.”

    Both sides had said Friday that they had reached a tentative deal. Union members voted on it Friday and Saturday.

    Provisions included staffing improvements, raises topping 12% over three years and safeguards on the use of artificial intelligence, according to the union.

    The union has said the strike initially involved about 15,000 nurses overall at Montefiore, Mount Sinai and NewYork-Presbyterian. It affected only some facilities within the three systems and didn’t involve any city-run hospitals.

    During the strike, Montefiore, Mount Sinai and NewYork-Presbyterian brought on thousands of temporary nurses, transferred some patients and canceled some procedures. The hospitals insisted they were smoothly delivering care, including complex surgeries. But some vulnerable patients and their families said some routine tasks took longer.

    The strikers complained of unmanageable workloads and accused the hospitals of trying to chip away at health benefits. The hospitals contested those claims and said the union’s demands were exorbitant.

    Nurses at some Mount Sinai and Montefiore hospitals also walked out in 2023. That strike ended in three days.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Global leaders and businesses react to more U.S. tariff swings

    [ad_1]

    SEOUL — Governments and companies around the world scrambled Saturday to determine the impact of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that struck down most of President Trump’s sweeping tariffs and his response with a new round of import taxes.

    The latest twist in the U.S. tariff roller-coaster ride, launched when Trump returned to office 13 months ago and upended dozens of trading relationships with the world’s biggest economy, roiled trade officials from Mexico to South Korea to South America and beyond.

    South Korea’s Trade Ministry called for an emergency meeting Saturday to understand the new landscape. Some specific exports to the U.S., like automobiles and steel, aren’t affected by the U.S. high court decision. Those that are affected will probably now be covered by a new tariff imposed by an executive order Trump signed Friday. Trump announced Saturday morning that he would raise that 10% tariff to 15%.

    In Paris, French President Emmanuel Macron hailed the checks and balances in the United States, praising the “rule of law” during a visit to a Paris agricultural fair: “It’s a good thing to have powers and counter-powers in democracies. We should welcome that.”

    But he cautioned against any triumphalism.

    Officials were going over the language of bilateral or multilateral deals struck with the U.S. in recent months, even as they braced for new swings and Trump’s swift announcement of new tariffs.

    “I note that President Trump, a few hours ago, said he had reworked some measures to introduce new tariffs, more limited ones, but applying to everyone,” Macron said. “So we’ll look closely at the exact consequences, what can be done, and we will adapt.”

    Mexico braces, adapts

    Mexico’s secretary of the economy, Marcelo Ebrard, urged “prudence” Friday in the aftermath of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling. “We have to see where this is going,” Ebrard told reporters. “We have to see what measures [Washington] is going to take to figure out how it is going to affect our country. “

    Amid widespread concern about tariffs in Mexico — the United States’ major commercial partner, with almost $1 trillion in annual two-way trade — Ebrard cautioned: “I tell you to put yourselves in zen mode. As tranquil as possible.”

    Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum, when asked about the tariffs, said, “We’ll review the resolution carefully and then gladly give our opinion.”

    Ebrard said he plans to travel to the United States next week to clarify matters.

    Last year, Ebrard noted, Mexico managed to stave off Trump’s threats to impose a 25% across-the-board levy on all Mexican imports.

    However, Mexico has been pushing back against Trump administration tariffs on imports of vehicles, steel and aluminum, among other products.

    Among other impacts, the Supreme Court voided so-called fentanyl tariffs on Mexico, China and Canada. The Trump administration said it imposed those levies to force the three nations to crack down on trafficking of the deadly synthetic opioid.

    About 85% of Mexican exports to the United States are exempt from tariffs because of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement. The accord extended a mostly free-trade regimen among the three nations, replacing the North American Free Trade Agreement.

    The three-way pact is scheduled for joint review starting July 1. That date marks six years since the agreement was signed during the first Trump presidential term.

    In Ciudad Juárez, Mexico, along the Texas border, Sergio Bermúdez, head of an industrial parks company, discussed Trump’s plan for a new tariff. Trump, he said, “says a lot of things, and many of them aren’t true. All of the businesses I know are analyzing, trying to figure out how it’s going to affect them.”

    The impact could be felt especially in Juarez: Much of its economy depends on factories producing goods to export to consumers in the U.S., the result of decades of free trade between the U.S. and Mexico.

    The policy swoons in the United States over the last year have made many global business leaders cautious, as they struggle to forecast and see investment take a hit.

    CEO Alan Russell of Tecma, which helps American businesses set up operations in Mexico, has seen his job grow increasingly complicated over the last year — his company’s workload has surged as much as fourfold as it grapples with new import requirements. He worries the last U.S. moves will only make things more difficult.

    “We wake up every day with new challenges. That word ‘uncertainty’ has been the greatest enemy,” said Russell, who is American. “The difficult part has been not being clear what the rules are today or what they’re going to be tomorrow.”

    A ‘good decision’

    Swissmem, a top technology industry association in Switzerland, hailed the Supreme Court ruling as “good decision,” writing on X that its exports to the U.S. fell 18% in the fourth quarter alone — a period when Switzerland was facing much higher U.S. tariffs than most neighboring countries in Europe.

    “The high tariffs have severely damaged the tech industry,” Swissmem President Martin Hirzel said on X, while acknowledging the dust is far from settled. “However, today’s ruling doesn’t win anything yet.”

    Times staff writer Patrick J. McDonnell in Mexico City contributed to this report, as did Associated Press writers Tong-Hyung Kim in Seoul and Megan Janetsky in Mexico City. AP writers MarĂ­a Verza and Fabiola SĂĄnchez in Mexico City, Samuel Petrequin in London and Jamey Keaten in Lyon, France, also contributed.

    [ad_2]

    Times staff and wire reports

    Source link

  • Social media can be addictive even for adults, but there are ways to cut back

    [ad_1]

    Social media addiction has been compared to casinos, opioids and cigarettes.

    While there’s some debate among experts about the line between overuse and addiction, and whether social media can cause the latter, there is no doubt that many people feel like they can’t escape the pull of Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat and other platforms.

    The companies that designed your favorite apps have an incentive to keep you glued to them so they can serve up ads that make them billions of dollars in revenue. Resisting the pull of the endless scroll, the dopamine hits from short-form videos and the ego boost and validation that come from likes and positive interactions, can seem like an unfair fight. For some people, “rage-bait,” gloomy news and arguing with internet strangers also have an irresistible draw.

    Much of the concern around social media addiction has focused on children. But adults are also susceptible to using social media so much that it starts affecting their day-to-day lives.

    Dr. Anna Lembke, a psychiatrist and the medical director of addiction medicine at Stanford University’s School of Medicine, defines addiction as “the continued compulsive use of a substance or behavior despite harm to self or others.”

    During her testimony at a landmark social media harms trial in Los Angeles, Lembke said that what makes social media platforms so addictive is the “24/7, really limitless, frictionless access” people have to them.

    Some researchers question whether addiction is the appropriate term to describe heavy use of social media, arguing that a person must be experiencing identifiable symptoms. These include strong, sometimes uncontrollable urges and withdrawal to qualify as addiction.

    Social media addiction is not recognized as an official disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, which is the standard reference psychiatrists and other mental health practitioners use to assess and treat patients. That’s partly because there is no widespread consensus on what constitutes social media addiction and whether underlying mental health issues contribute to problematic use.

    But just because there is no official agreement on the issue doesn’t mean excessive social media use can’t be harmful, some experts say.

    “For me, the biggest signpost is how does the person feel about the ‘amount,’ and how viewing it makes them feel,” said Dr. Laurel Williams, professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Baylor College of Medicine. “If what they discover is they view it so much that they are missing out on other things they may enjoy or things that they need to attend to, this is problematic use. Additionally, if you leave feeling overwhelmed, drained, sad, anxious, angry regularly, this use is not good for you.”

    In other words, is your use of social media affecting other parts of your life? Are you putting off chores, work, hobbies or time with friends and family? Have you tried to cut back your time but realized you were unable to? Do you feel bad about your social media use?

    Ofir Turel, a professor of information systems management at the University of Melbourne who has studied social media use for years, said there was “no agreement” over the term social media addiction, and he doesn’t “expect agreement soon.”

    “It’s obvious that we have an issue,” Turel said. “You don’t have to call it an addiction, but there is an issue and we need, as a society, to start thinking about it.”

    Before setting limits on scrolling, it’s helpful to understand how social media feeds and advertising work to draw in users, Williams said.

    “Think of social media as a company trying to get you to stay with them and buy something — have the mindset that this is information that I don’t need to act on and may not be true,” she added. “Get alternate sources of information. Always understand the more you see something, anyone can start to believe it is true.”

    Ian A. Anderson, a postdoctoral scholar at California Institute of Technology, suggests making small, meaningful changes to stop you from opening your social media app of choice. Moving the app’s place on your phone or turning off notifications are “light touch interventions,” but more involved options, like not bringing your phone into the bedroom or other places where you tend to use it, could also help, Anderson said.

    Tech tools can also help to cut back on tech overuse. Both iPhones and Android devices have onboard controls to help regulate screen time.

    Apple’s Screen Time controls are found in the iPhone’s settings menu. Users can set overall Downtime, which shuts off all phone activity during a set period of their choice.

    The controls also let users put a blanket restriction on certain categories of apps, such as social, games or entertainment or zero in on a specific app, by limiting the time that can be spent on it.

    The downside is that the limits aren’t hard to get around. It’s more of a nudge than a red line that you can’t cross. If you try to open an app with a limit, you’ll get a screen menu offering one more minute, a reminder after 15 minutes, or to completely ignore it.

    If a light touch isn’t working, more drastic steps might be necessary. Some users swear by turning their phones to gray-scale to make it less appealing to dopamine-seeking brains. On iPhones, adjust the color filter in your settings. For Android, turn on Bedtime Mode or tweak the color correction setting. Downgrading to a simpler phone, such as an old-school flip phone, could also help curb social media compulsions.

    Some startups, figuring that people might prefer a tangible barrier, offer hardware solutions that introduce physical friction between you and an app. Unpluq, for instance, is a yellow tag that you have to hold up to your phone in order to access blocked apps. Brick and Blok are two different products that work along the same lines — they’re squarish pieces of plastic that you have to tap or scan with your phone to unlock an app.

    If that’s not enough of an obstacle, you could stash away your phone entirely. There are various phone lockboxes and cases available, some of them designed so parents can lock up their teenagers’ phones when they’re supposed to be sleeping, but there’s no rule that says only teenagers can use them.

    Yondr, which makes portable phone locking pouches used at concerts or in schools, also sells a home phone box.

    If all else fails, it may be a good idea to look for deeper reasons for feeling addicted to social media. Maybe it’s a symptom of underlying problems like anxiety, stress, loneliness, depression or low self-esteem. If you think that’s the case, it could be worth exploring therapy that is becoming more widely available.

    “For people struggling to stay away — see if you can get a friend group to collaborate with you on it. Make it a group effort. Just don’t post about it! The more spaces become phone free, the more we may see a lessened desire to be ‘on,’” Williams said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Hungary Says It Will Block a Key EU Loan to Ukraine Until Russian Oil Shipments Resume

    [ad_1]

    BUDAPEST, Hungary (AP) — Hungary will block a planned 90-billion-euro ($106-billion) European Union loan to Ukraine until the flow of Russian oil through the Druzhba pipeline resumes, Hungary’s foreign minister said.

    Russian oil shipments to Hungary and Slovakia have been interrupted since Jan. 27, after Ukrainian officials said a Russian drone attack damaged the Druzhba pipeline, which carries Russian crude across Ukrainian territory and into Central Europe.

    Hungary and Slovakia, which have both received a temporary exemption from an EU policy prohibiting imports of Russian oil, have accused Ukraine — without providing evidence — of deliberately holding up supplies.

    In a video posted on social media Friday evening, Foreign Minister Péter Szijjártó accused Ukraine of “blackmailing” Hungary by failing to restart oil shipments. He said his government would block a massive interest-free loan the EU approved in December to help Kyiv to meet its military and economic needs for the next two years.

    “We will not give in to this blackmail. We do not support Ukraine’s war, we will not pay for it,” Szijjártó said. “As long as Ukraine blocks the resumption of oil supplies to Hungary, Hungary will block European Union decisions that are important and favorable for Ukraine.”

    Hungary’s decision to block the key funding for Ukraine came two days after it suspended shipments of diesel to its embattled neighbor until oil flows through the Druzhba were resumed, and only days before the fourth anniversary of Russia’s full-scale invasion.

    Nearly every country in Europe has significantly reduced or entirely ceased Russian energy imports since Moscow launched its war in Ukraine on Feb. 24, 2022. Yet Hungary — an EU and NATO member — has maintained and even increased its supply of Russian oil and gas.

    Hungary’s nationalist Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has long argued Russian fossil fuels are indispensable for its economy and that switching to energy sourced from elsewhere would cause an immediate economic collapse — an argument some experts dispute.

    Widely seen as the Kremlin’s biggest advocate in the EU, Orbán has vigorously opposed the bloc’s efforts to sanction Moscow over its invasion, and blasted attempts to hit Russia’s energy revenues that help finance the war. His government has frequently threatened to veto EU efforts to assist Ukraine.

    Not all of the EU’s 27 countries agreed to take part in the 90-billion-euro loan package for Ukraine. Hungary, Slovakia and the Czech Republic opposed the plan, but a deal was reached in which they did not block the loan and were promised protection from any financial fallout.

    Copyright 2026 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

    Photos You Should See – Feb. 2026

    [ad_2]

    Associated Press

    Source link

  • Murky outlook for businesses after tariff ruling prompts countermoves by Trump

    [ad_1]

    NEW YORK — Businesses face a new wave of uncertainty after the Supreme Court struck down tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump under an emergency powers law and Trump vowed to work around the ruling to keep his tariffs in place.

    The Trump administration says its tariffs help boost American manufacturers and reduce the trade gap. But many U.S. businesses have had to raise prices and adjust in other ways to offset higher costs spurred by the tariffs.

    It remains to be seen how much relief businesses and consumers will actually get from Friday’s ruling. Within hours of the court’s decision, Trump pledged to use a different law to impose a 10% tariff on all imports that would last 150 days, and to explore other ways to impose additional tariffs on countries he says engage in unfair trade practices.

    “Any boost to the economy from lowering tariffs in the near-term is likely to be partly offset by a prolonged period of uncertainty,” said Michael Pearce, an economist at Oxford Economics. “With the administration likely to rebuild tariffs through other, more durable, means, the overall tariffs rate may yet end up settling close to current levels.”

    Efforts to claw back the estimated $133 billion to $175 billion of previously collected tariffs now deemed illegal are bound to be complicated, and will likely favor larger companies with more resources. Consumers hoping for a refund are unlikely to be compensated.

    With Trump’s unyielding position on tariffs, many business are braced for years of court battles.

    Basic Fun, a Florida-based maker of toys such as Lincoln Logs and Tonka trucks, last week joined a slew of other businesses in a lawsuit seeking to claw back tariffs paid to the government.

    While company CEO Jay Foreman is concerned about any new tariffs Trump may impose, he doesn’t think they will affect toys. Still, he said, “I do worry about some type of perpetual fight over this, at least for the next three years.”

    The new 10% tariff Trump announced Friday immediately raised questions for Daniel Posner, the owner of Grapes The Wine Co., in White Plains, New York. Since wine shipments take about two weeks to cross the Atlantic, he wonders if a shipment arriving Monday will be affected.

    “We’re reactive to what’s become a very unstable situation,” Posner said.

    Ron Kurnik owns Superior Coffee Roasting Co. in Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan, across the border from Canada. In addition to U.S. tariffs, Kurnik faced retaliatory tariffs from Canada for much of last year when he exported his coffee.

    “It’s like a nightmare we just want to wake up from,” said Kurnik, whose company has raised prices by 6% twice since the tariffs went into effect. While he’s pleased with the Supreme Court’s ruling, he doesn’t think he will ever see a refund.

    A wide array of industries, including retail, tech and the agricultural sector, used the Supreme Court ruling as an opportunity to remind Trump of how his trade policies have affected their businesses.

    The Business Roundtable, a group that lobbies on behalf of more than 200 U.S. companies, released a statement encouraging the administration to limit the focus of tariffs going forward to specific unfair trade practices and national security concerns.

    In the retail industry, stores of all stripes have embraced different ways to offset the effects of tariffs — from absorbing some of the costs themselves, to cutting expenses and diversifying their supply network. Still, they have had to pass on some price increases at a time when shoppers have been particularly sensitive to inflationary pressures.

    Dave French, executive vice president of government relations for The National Retail Federation, the nation’s largest retail industry trade group, said he hoped lower courts would ensure “a seamless process” to refund tariffs. That issue wasn’t addressed in Friday’s ruling.

    For the technology sector, Trump’s tariffs caused major headaches. Many of its products are either built overseas or depend on imports of key components. The Computer & Communications Industry Association, which represents a spectrum of technology companies employing more than 1.6 million people, expressed hope that the decision will ease the trade tensions.

    “With this decision behind us, we look forward to bringing more stability to trade policy,” said Jonathan McHale, the association’s vice president for digital trade.

    Farmers, who have been stung by higher prices for equipment and fertilizer since the tariffs went into effect, and reduced demand for their exports, also spoke out.

    “We strongly encourage the president to avoid using any other available authorities to impose tariffs on agricultural inputs that would further increase costs,” said American Farm Bureau Federation President Zippy Duvall.

    The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act did not give the president authority to tax imports, a power that belongs to Congress. But the decision only affects tariffs imposed under that law, so some industries will see no relief at all.

    The decision leaves in effect tariffs on steel, upholstered furniture, kitchen cabinets and bathroom vanities, according to the Home Furnishings Association, which represents 15,000 furniture stores in North America.

    At Revolution Brewing in Chicago, the aluminum they use for cans costs as much as the ingredients that go inside them because of tariffs Trump has placed on metals that are not affected by the Supreme Court ruling. While the cans are made in Chicago, the aluminum comes from Canada, said Josh Deth, managing partner at the brewery.

    Tariffs have been just one challenge for his business, which is also affected by volatile barley prices and a slowdown in demand for craft beer.

    “Everything kind of adds up,” he said. “The beverage industry needs relief here. We’re getting crushed by the prices of aluminum.”

    Italian winemakers hard-hit by the tariffs greeted the Supreme Court decision with skepticism, warning that the decision may just deepen uncertainty around trade with the U.S.

    The U.S. is Italy’s largest wine market, with sales having tripled in value over the past 20 years. New tariffs on the EU, which the Trump administration initially threatened would be 200%, had sent fear throughout the industry, which remained even after the U.S. reduced, delayed and negotiated down.

    “There is a more than likely risk that tariffs will be reimposed through alternative legal channels, compounded by the uncertainty this ruling may generate in commercial relations between Europe and the United States,” said Lamberto Frescobaldi, president of UIV, a trade association that represents more than 800 winemakers.

    Elsewhere in Europe, initial reaction focused on renewed upheaval and confusion regarding costs facing businesses exporting to the US.

    Trump’s tariffs could hit pharmaceuticals, chemicals and auto parts, said Carsten Brzeski, an economist at ING bank. “Europe should not be mistaken, this ruling will not bring relief,” he said. “The legal authority may be different, but the economic impact could be identical or worse.”

    ___

    Anne D’Innocenzio in New York; Dee-Ann Durbin in Detroit; Michael Liedtke in San Francisco; David McHugh in Frankfurt, Germany; Jonathan Matisse in Nashville, Tennessee; Adrian Sainz in Memphis, Tennessee; and Nicole Winfield in Rome contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • US audit finds gaps in the FAA’s oversight of United Airlines maintenance

    [ad_1]

    The ability of federal safety regulators to oversee airplane maintenance at United Airlines has been hindered by inadequate staffing, high employee turnover and the improper use of virtual inspections instead of on-site reviews in some cases, according to a government watchdog audit released Friday.

    The U.S. Transportation Department’s inspector general said the Federal Aviation Administration lacks sufficient staffing and workforce planning to effectively monitor United’s large fleet. Past audits by the government watchdog also highlighted FAA challenges overseeing other airline maintenance programs, including at American Airlines, Southwest Airlines and Allegiant Air.

    The FAA declined to comment on the findings but referred The Associated Press to a letter it sent the inspector general’s office that was included in the audit report. In it, the FAA said it agreed with most of the recommendations and was taking steps to address them by the end of the year.

    “FAA will implement a more systemic approach to strengthen inspector capacity and will take other measures to ensure that staffing levels remain sufficient to meet surveillance requirements,” the letter said.

    The recommendations included a reevaluation of staffing rules, an independent workplace survey of inspector workloads and office culture, and improved training on accessing and using United’s safety data — a current gap that the report said currently keeps inspectors from fully evaluating maintenance issues and safety risk trends.

    In a statement to AP, United said it works closely with the FAA on a daily basis in addition to employing its own internal safety management system.

    “United has long advocated in favor of providing the FAA with the resources it needs for its important work,” the carrier said.

    The inspector general’s office said the audit was conducted between May 2024 and December 2025, amid a series of maintenance-linked incidents at United.

    It found that the FAA sometimes had its personnel conduct inspections “virtually” when it lacked staffing or funding for travel even though agency policy requires postponing reviews that can’t be done on site. Doing the work remotely can create safety risks because inspectors may miss or misidentify maintenance problems, the reported stated.

    “Inspectors we spoke with stated that their front-line managers instructed them to perform inspections virtually rather than postponing inspections,” the report said.

    The audit also found that ongoing staffing shortages at the FAA inspection offices tasked with United’s oversight have resulted in fewer inspections being conducted, limited surveillance of the carrier’s maintenance operations and an “overall loss of institutional knowledge.”

    In March 2024, passengers had to be evacuated from a United plane that rolled off a runway after landing in Houston. The next day, a United jetliner bound for Japan lost a tire while taking off from San Francisco but later landed safely in Los Angeles.

    In December 2025, a United flight experienced an engine failure during takeoff from Dulles International Airport before safely returning to the airport.

    ___

    Associated Press writer Josh Funk contributed.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Warren Buffett’s Final Berkshire Bet Brings Him Back to Newspapers

    [ad_1]

    Warren Buffett closed his career with a $351 million New York Times investment, backing one of the last thriving newspaper businesses in a digital era. Daniel Suchnik/WireImage

    It’s only fitting that one of Warren Buffett’s final investments before retirement circles back to the business that first taught him how to make money. In the last quarter of 2025, Berkshire Hathaway bought a $351 million stake (more than 5.1 million shares) in The New York Times Company, according to a regulatory filing this week. The bet speaks to longstanding ties between the newspaper industry and Buffett, who worked as a paperboy in the 1940s.

    Today, Berkshire is known for its long-term investments in insurance, energy and tech. But it was once a prominent media investor before Buffett retreated as digital advertising upended the business. But The New York Times has emerged as one of the industry’s rare success stories. The company added 450,000 new digital subscribers during the October-December quarter and lifted quarterly revenue by more than 10 percent year over year to $802 million. Last year, the company made $344 million in profit.

    Buffett, 95, officially stepped down as Berkshire’s CEO at the end of 2025, handing the reins to his successor, Greg Abel. In many ways, the new stake is a nod to Buffett’s roots. As a teenager living in Washington, D.C., he woke before 5 a.m. to deliver copies of papers, including The Washington Post. His route included six senators and a Supreme Court justice. Showing early signs of the dealmaker he would become, Buffett expanded his territory, eventually delivering some 500,000 papers. The hustle was so lucrative that he filed his first federal income tax return at age 14 after earning more than $500 in 1944.

    His affection for newspapers carried into his tenure at Berkshire, where he invested heavily in media companies such as The Washington Post and even established an annual newspaper-tossing contest at Berkshire’s shareholder meeting.

    Man holding newspaper pictured in crowd of peopleMan holding newspaper pictured in crowd of people
    Warren Buffett takes part in a newspaper-throwing contest during the annual Berkshire Hathaway shareholder meeting in 2015. Photo by Hannes Breusted/picture alliance via Getty Images

    But that love affair frayed as the internet eroded newspapers’ advertising dominance. At a 2010 Berkshire conference, Buffett remarked that it “blows your mind” how quickly the business had unraveled.

    He began pulling back soon after,  stepping down from The Washington Post’s board in 2011. Berkshire, which was at one point the paper’s largest investor, swapped its 28 percent stake in Graham Holdings Co., the Post’s then-parent company, for a Miami television station in 2014. The move followed Jeff Bezos’ $250 million acquisition of the paper a year earlier.

    By the end of the 2010s, Berkshire had exited the newspaper business entirely, selling a portfolio of 30 local publications to Lee Enterprises for $140 million in cash. The group included titles such as Buffalo News, the Omaha World-Herald and Tulsa World.

    “The world was changed hugely, and it did it gradually,” Buffett said of the industry’s decline in a 2019 interview with Yahoo Finance. “It went from monopoly to franchise to competitive to… toast.” Even then, he predicted that major publishers such as The New York Times might endure. As for the rest: “They’re going to disappear.”

    The New York Times has indeed thrived, in part thanks to an aggressive expansion into games, recipes and video. Others have struggled. Under Bezos’ ownership, The Washington Post has wrestled with declining advertising revenue and subscriptions. These troubles came to a head earlier this month, when roughly one-third of the newsroom was laid off, with cuts hitting sports, books, international and metro coverage particularly hard. The Los Angeles Times, owned by biotech entrepreneur Patrick Soon-Shiong, has faced similar turbulence, including a newsroom reduction of more than 20 percent in 2024.

    Buffett’s vote of confidence has further buoyed The New York Times. Its stock surged to an all-time high this week after Berkshire disclosed its stake, capping a 12-month run in which shares climbed 57 percent.

    Warren Buffett’s Final Berkshire Bet Brings Him Back to Newspapers

    [ad_2]

    Alexandra Tremayne-Pengelly

    Source link

  • You can give old batteries a new life by safely recycling them

    [ad_1]

    NEW YORK — When household batteries die, it’s hard to know what to do with them. So they get shoved into a junk drawer or sheepishly thrown into the trash.

    But dead batteries aren’t quite finished. They can leak heavy metals like cadmium and nickel into soil and water once they reach the landfill. Some of them can also overheat and cause fires in garbage trucks and recycling centers.

    The good news is, safely disposing of your batteries takes just a few steps. They’ll get shipped to recycling centers that break down their contents to make new things.

    Battery recycling processes could use some fine-tuning, but it’s still a simple and responsible way to get rid of them.

    Recycling old batteries “keeps you safe, keeps the waste industry safe, keeps the first responders safe and responsibly sees that battery reach a proper end of life,” said Michael Hoffman, president of the National Waste and Recycling Association.

    Batteries keep things running in our homes, powering everything from alarm clocks and TV remotes to gaming controllers. Millions are bought and used every year in the U.S., according to the Environmental Protection Agency.

    They leave their stamp on the environment at nearly every stage of their life span.

    Many of the materials used to make batteries — elements like lithium and nickel — are mined. Over half the world’s cobalt reserves are in Congo.

    Once mined, those materials are shipped around to be refined, fashioned into a battery and packaged for sale. All the ships, trucks and planes moving them add to batteries’ carbon footprint. Making the batteries can release carbon emissions and pollution into the air and atmosphere, too.

    Though household batteries are far smaller than the big ones that power EVs and electric bicycles, there are a lot more of them and it’s worth figuring out how to get rid of them.

    “One person’s single battery is not necessarily a lot,” said environmental scientist Jennifer Sun with Harvard University. “But everyone uses many batteries.”

    To begin, wrangle your old batteries and figure out what kind they are. Batteries “come in all shapes and sizes, but what’s inside differs,” said materials scientist Matthew Bergschneider of the University of Texas at Dallas.

    Alkaline and zinc-carbon batteries are generally single-use and come in AA, AAA and more. These can be safely thrown in the household trash in most places, but the EPA still recommends recycling them so that their materials can be made into something new.

    Lithium-ion batteries — commonly found in things like power tools and cordless vacuums — are a risk to cause fires and leak toxic gases in garbage trucks and landfills. A lot of rechargeable batteries are lithium-ion, but more single-use batteries are being made this way too.

    Be sure to look up battery disposal laws for your area: Places like New York, Vermont and Washington, D.C. have special rules about throwing away household or rechargeable batteries.

    Once you’ve corralled your batteries, tape their ends or put them in plastic bags to avoid the possibility of sparking. Then, take them to a drop-off location. How easy or hard this is depends on where you live.

    Many hardware and office supplies stores accept old batteries. Look into city and state drop-off programs or search by ZIP code using The Battery Network, a nonprofit geared toward safe battery recycling.

    Have a location in your home to collect the batteries over time and then “at some point, hopefully among all the other things that we all have in our lives, you can find a convenient drop-off location,” said Todd Ellis of The Battery Network.

    If your batteries look swollen, cracked or are leaking, don’t drop them off. You’ll need to get in touch with your local hazardous waste removal agency to figure out how to turn them in.

    Once batteries are dropped off at a collection site, they’re sorted by type and taken to a recycling facility where they’re broken down into their essential components — like cobalt, nickel or aluminum. Some bits can be used to make new batteries or other things. Nickel, for example, can be used to make stainless steel products and alkaline batteries can be turned into sunscreen.

    Safely recycling a battery doesn’t cancel out the environmental cost of making it. But it does give the battery’s components their best chance at becoming something new.

    “You continue to recycle and you don’t have to go back to the Earth to mine,” said public health expert Oladele Ogunseitan, who studies electronic waste at the University of California, Irvine.

    Good battery habits are also good for us. It protects against old or damaged batteries leaking toxic compounds into our cabinets and junk drawers.

    “I think it’s one of the simplest and most controllable actions that we can take to reduce our impact,” said Sun, the Harvard scientist.

    ___

    The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Department of Science Education and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Supreme Court strikes down Trump’s sweeping tariffs, upending central plank of economic agenda

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court struck down President Donald Trump’s far-reaching global tariffs on Friday, handing him a significant loss on an issue crucial to his economic agenda.

    The decision centers on tariffs imposed under an emergency powers law, including the sweeping “reciprocal” tariffs he levied on nearly every other country.

    Trump cancels tariff threat over Greenland, says NATO agreed to ‘framework’ of future Arctic deal

    It’s the first major piece of Trump’s broad agenda to come squarely before the nation’s highest court, which he helped shape with the appointments of three conservative jurists in his first term.

    The Republican president has been vocal about the case, calling it one of the most important in U.S. history and saying a ruling against him would be an economic body blow to the country. But legal opposition crossed the political spectrum, including libertarian and pro-business groups that are typically aligned with the GOP. Polling has found tariffs aren’t broadly popular with the public, amid wider voter concern about affordability.

    The Supreme Court ruling comes despite a series of short-term wins on the court’s emergency docket that have allowed Trump to push ahead with extraordinary flexes of executive power on issues ranging from high-profile firings to major federal funding cuts.

    The tariffs decision doesn’t stop Trump from imposing duties under other laws. While those have more limitations on the speed and severity of Trump’s actions, top administration officials have said they expect to keep the tariff framework in place under other authorities.

    The Constitution gives Congress the power to levy tariffs. But the Trump administration argued that a 1977 law allowing the president to regulate importation during emergencies also allows him to set tariffs. Other presidents have used the law dozens of times, often to impose sanctions, but Trump was the first president to invoke it for import taxes.

    Argentina and US sign a major trade deal to slash tariffs and boost a political alliance

    Trump set what he called “reciprocal” tariffs on most countries in April 2025 to address trade deficits that he declared a national emergency. Those came after he imposed duties on Canada, China and Mexico, ostensibly to address a drug trafficking emergency.

    A series of lawsuits followed, including a case from a dozen largely Democratic-leaning states and others from small businesses selling everything from plumbing supplies to educational toys to women’s cycling apparel.

    The challengers argued the emergency powers law doesn’t even mention tariffs and Trump’s use of it fails several legal tests, including one that doomed then-President Joe Biden’s $500 billion student loan forgiveness program.

    The economic impact of Trump’s tariffs has been estimated at some $3 trillion over the next decade, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The Treasury has collected more than $133 billion from the import taxes the president has imposed under the emergency powers law, federal data from December shows. Many companies, including the big-box warehouse chain Costco, have already lined up in court to demand refunds.

    [ad_2]

    Lindsay Whitehurst

    Source link

  • US Economy Grows at 1.4% Rate in the Fourth Quarter, Slower Than Economists Expected

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON (AP) — America’s gross domestic product — the nation’s output of goods and services — increased at an 1.4% annual rate in the fourth quarter, the Commerce Department reported Friday, down from 4.4% in the July-September quarter and 3.8% in the quarter before that.

    A downturn in government and consumer spending contributed to the slowdown in fourth-quarter growth, the government said. Consumer spending rose just 2.2%, a significant slowdown from the third quarter’s healthy 3.5% gain.

    The report underscores an odd aspect of the U.S. economy: It is growing steadily, but without creating many jobs. Growth was a fairly healthy 2.2% in 2025, yet a government report last week showed that employers added less than 200,000 jobs last year — the fewest since COVID struck in 2020.

    Economists point to several possible reasons for the gap: The Trump administration’s crackdown on immigration has sharply slowed population growth, reducing the number of people available to take jobs. It’s one reason that the unemployment rate rose only slightly — to 4.3% from 4% — last year, even with the nearly non-existent hiring.

    Some businesses may also be holding back on adding jobs out of uncertainty about whether artificial intelligence will enable them to produce more without finding new employees. And the cost of tariffs has reduced many companies’ profits, possibly leading them to cut back on hiring.

    The economy is also unusual right now because growth is solid, inflation has slowed a bit, and unemployment is low, but surveys show that Americans are generally gloomy about the economy. In January, a measure of consumer confidence fell to its lowest level since 2014, yet consumers have kept spending, propelling growth.

    Some of that spending may be disproportionately driven by upper-income consumers, in a phenomenon known as the “K-shaped” economy. Yet data from many large banks suggests lower-income consumers are still raising their spending, even if by not as much.

    Copyright 2026 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

    Photos You Should See – Feb. 2026

    [ad_2]

    Associated Press

    Source link

  • Trump says he’ll enact additional 10% tariff after Supreme Court decision

    [ad_1]

    Hours after the Supreme Court struck down many of President Donald Trump’s far-reaching tariffs in a 6-3 decision, the president said Friday he plans to sign an excecutive order imposing 10% global import duties “over and above our normal tariffs already being charged,” citing a different statute. 

    What You Need To Know

    • Hours after the Supreme Court struck down many of President Donald Trump’s far-reaching tariffs in a 6-3 decision, the president said he planned to impose a 10% global import duties through another statute

    • The country’s top court issued its long-awaited decision Friday, ruling the president does not have the authority to impose sweeping tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, passed in 1977

    • “We claim no special competence in matters of economics or foreign affairs. We claim only, as we must, the limited role assigned to us by Article III of the Constitution. Fulfilling that role, we hold that IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion

    • Justices Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson all sided with Roberts in invalidating many of Trump’s import taxes levied on U.S. global trading partners; yhree justices –– Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito –– dissented from the majority opinion

    During a news conference at the White House after the ruling, Trump quoted Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s dissenting opinion as the president justified pressing on with his tariffs. “Although I firmly disagree with the Court’s holding today, the decision might not substantially constrain a President’s ability to order tariffs going forward,” Kavanaugh wrote.

    The country’s top court issued its long-awaited decision Friday, ruling the president does not have the authority to impose sweeping tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, passed in 1977.

    “IEEPA’s grant of authority to ‘regulate . . . importation’ falls short. IEEPA contains no reference to tariffs or duties,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion. “The Government points to no statute in which Congress used the word ‘regulate’ to authorize taxation. And until now no President has read IEEPA to confer such power.” 

    Justices Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson sided with Roberts in invalidating many of Trump’s import taxes levied on U.S. global trading partners. Three justices –– Kavanaugh, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito –– dissented from the majority opinion.

    “We claim no special competence in matters of economics or foreign affairs. We claim only, as we must, the limited role assigned to us by Article III of the Constitution. Fulfilling that role, we hold that IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs,” the opinion concluded.

    In his news conference, Trump called the ruling “deeply disappointing” and condemned the Supreme Court majority who struck down the IEEPA duties, accusing the justices of being “swayed by foreign interests and a political movement that is far smaller than people would ever think.”

    Trump pledged to employ “very powerful alternatives.”

    “We’ll take in more money, and we’ll be a lot stronger for it,” he said. “We’re taking in hundreds of billions of dollars. We’ll continue to do so.”

    Separate tariffs that Trump had previously imposed, including ones on goods such as aluminum, steel, lumber and automobiles through Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act, were not part of the case considered by the Supreme Court and still remain in place. During his remarks Friday, the president also highlighted several additional methods to levy tariffs, including Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which permits import duties of up to 15% to be imposed for 150 days. 

    “I can do anything I want with IEEPA, anything. I just can’t charge anybody for it,” he said. “It’s ridiculous.”

    In November, the nation’s top court heard oral arguments for a consolidated challenge from several Democratic-led states and a handful of small businesses over the president’s “Liberation Day” tariffs, as well as ones he levied on China, Mexico and Canada over what his administration described as “the flow of contraband drugs like fentanyl to the United States.” 

    In both, Trump contended that the situations constituted national emergencies and relied on IEEPA as the justification for imposing tariffs. 

    During nearly three hours of oral arguments before the justices late last year, attorneys for the plaintiffs insisted that only Congress has the power to tax and argued that tariffs are not included in the scope of IEEPA. They were followed by U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer, who contended that tariffs fell under the president’s authority to “regulate foreign commerce.”

    Liberal and some conservative justices at the time seemed to express skepticism about the Trump administration’s arguments.

    One of the plaintiffs in the case –– Rick Woldenberg, CEO of Learning Resources and hand2mind –– praised the ruling in a statement Friday.

    “With today’s decision, we will continue to pursue our mission through innovation, investment, and hard work supporting educators, families, and children around the world, without the burden of unlawful tariffs,” Woldenberg wrote.

    What will happen with the tariffs that have been paid?

    Barrett had asked during oral arguments about logistics of giving refunds to importers if the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and remarked that the process may be “a mess.”

    During that exchange, Neal Katyal, who was representing small-business plaintiffs, contended that only the companies that were party to the suit would be entitled to receive their money back, and other businesses would have to individually seek repayment.

    To protect their right to request refunds, retail giant Costco and hundreds of other businesses have launched legal challenges. 

    It was not immediately clear from the ruling what would happen, regarding potential refunds.

    Kavanaugh in his dissent Friday echoed Barrett’s comments, writing that the U.S. “may be required to refund billions of dollars to importers who paid the IEEPA tariffs, even though some importers may have already passed on costs to consumers or others.” 

    “As was acknowledged at oral argument, the refund process is likely to be a ‘mess,’” Kavanaugh contended, adding that the Supreme Court’s ruling could also “generate uncertainty” about trade agreements Trump reached with other countries to lower the import duties. 

    On Friday, Trump criticized the Supreme Court majority for not addressing the issue in its opinion, suggesting that the refunds will be subject to a lengthy legal fight.

    “We’ll end up being in court for the next five years,” the president said.

    A coalition of roughly 800 small businesses, We Pay the Tariffs, called on the federal government to expeditiously refund tariff payments to U.S. companies. 

    “But a legal victory is meaningless without actual relief for the businesses that paid these tariffs,” the group wrote in a statement. “The administration’s only responsible course of action now is to establish a fast, efficient, and automatic refund process that returns tariff money to the businesses that paid it.” 

    Customs and Border Protection estimated in December it collected more than $200 billion from new tariffs last year. Of that figure, approximately $133.5 billion was brought in from IEEPA import duties through Dec. 14, 2025, but that number is believed to have ticked up in the weeks since. Reuters reported Friday that more than $175 billion in tariffs may need to be refunded if the Supreme Court rules against Trump, citing an estimate from Penn-Wharton Budget Model economists.

    Trump had previously speculated that the amount would be even higher.

    “The actual numbers that we would have to pay back if, for any reason, the Supreme Court were to rule against the United States of America on Tariffs, would be many Hundreds of Billions of Dollars,” he said Jan. 12 on social media. 

    In a statement, the Committee For a Responsible Federal Budget called on lawmakers to address the lost tariff revenue.

    “With the national debt already the size of the entire U.S. economy and interest on the debt costing more than $1 trillion this year, this is very bad news,” the nonpartisan think tank wrote. “Congress should work quickly to fill that hole.”

    Before Trump’s tariffs took effect last year, the U.S. saw a surge of imports of foreign goods in the first few months. The trade-gap then narrowed for most of the rest of the year, the Commerce Department reported Thursday. 

    But, while the overall trade deficit of goods and services fell to $901 billion last year, the gap between the amount of goods imported versus exported rose to a record-high $1.24 trillion in 2025, the report found, meaning the U.S. ultimately brought in more foreign products than American exporters sent overseas.

    [ad_2]

    Christina Santucci

    Source link