AFP USA

Elon Musk stormed into US politics as President Donald Trump’s chainsaw-brandishing sidekick. Four turbulent months later it’s the tech tycoon himself on the chopping block.Trump hailed Musk as “terrific” as he announced that they would hold a joint press conference on Friday as the South African-born magnate leaves the so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).”This will be his last day, but not really, because he will, always, be with us, helping all the way,” Trump said on his Truth Social network on Thursday.But the warm words could not hide the open frustrations that Musk, the world’s richest man, had expressed in recent weeks about his controversial cost-cutting role for the world’s most powerful man.Once a fixture at the Republican president’s side, dressed in t-shirts and MAGA baseball caps, Musk had shown growing disillusionment with the obstacles faced by DOGE even as it cut a brutal swath through the US bureaucracy.He leaves far short of his original goal of saving $2 trillion dollars, with The Atlantic magazine calculating he saved just one thousandth of that, despite tens of thousands of people losing their jobs.Instead he will focus on his Space X and Tesla businesses, as well as his goal of colonizing Mars.- Rocket-like rise -It was all very different at first, as the 53-year-old Musk rose through Trump’s orbit as rapidly as one of his rockets — though they have been known to blow up now and again. Musk was the biggest donor to Trump’s 2024 election campaign and the pair bonded over right-wing politics and a desire to root out what they believed was a wasteful “deep state.”DOGE was jokingly named after a “memecoin,” but it was no joke. Young tech wizards who slept in the White House complex shuttered whole government departments. Foreign countries found their aid cut off.A shades-wearing Musk brandished a chainsaw at a conservative event, boasting of how easy it was to save money, and separately made what appeared to be a Nazi salute. Soon the man critics dubbed the “co-president” was constantly at Trump’s side.The tycoon appeared with his young son X on his shoulders during his first press conference in the Oval Office. He attended cabinet meetings. He and Trump rode on Air Force One and Marine One together. They watched cage fights together.Many wondered how long two such big egos could coexist.But Trump himself remained publicly loyal to the man he called a “genius.”One day, the president even turned the White House into a pop-up Tesla dealership after protesters targeted Musk’s electric car business.- ‘Got into fights’ -Yet the socially awkward tech magnate also struggled to get a grip on the realities of US politics.The beginning of the end “started (in) mid-March when there were several meetings in the Oval Office and in the cabinet room where basically Elon Musk got into fights,” Elaine Kamarck of the Brookings Institution told AFP.One shouting match with Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent could reportedly be heard throughout the West Wing. Musk publicly called Trump’s trade advisor Peter Navarro “dumber than a sack of bricks.” Nor did Musk’s autocratic style and Silicon Valley creed of “move fast and break things” work well in Washington.The impact on Musk’s businesses also began to hit home. A series of Space X launches ended in fiery failures, while Tesla shareholders fumed.Musk started musing about stepping back, saying that “DOGE is a way of life, like Buddhism” that would carry on without him.Finally, Musk showed the first signs of distance from Trump himself, saying he was “disappointed” in Trump’s recent mega spending bill. Musk also said he would pull back from spending time on politics.The end came, appropriately, in a post by Musk on Wednesday on the X network, which he bought and then turned into a megaphone for his right-wing politics.But Musk’s departure might not be the end of the story, said Kamarck.”I think they genuinely like each other and I think Musk has a lot of money that he can contribute to campaigns if he is so moved. I think there will be a continued relation,” she said. 

Bernard “Bernie” Kerik, who rose to national prominence after leading the New York police department through the September 11 terror attacks, died Thursday. He was 69.FBI Director Kash Patel announced Kerik’s death on X, saying he passed away “after a private battle with illness.”Lauding Kerik, Patel called him “a warrior, a patriot and one of the most courageous public servants this country has ever known.”Kerik was the tough-talking head of the New York police when Osama bin Laden’s hijackers struck the World Trade Center towers with commercial passenger jets in September 2001. In the traumatic days and weeks after the attack, Kerik, with his squat, muscular build, balding head and black moustache, became a familiar face to Americans across the country, as he helped then-mayor Rudy Giuliani guide New York through the crisis.He’d served as Police Commissioner for less than a year when his life and career were altered forever by the terror attacks that killed nearly 2,750 people, including 23 NYPD officers.When Giuliani’s second term ended shortly after the attacks, Kerik left office with him and continued their decades-long friendship and professional allegiance.Kerik’s rough upbringing was detailed in a memoir, “The Lost Son: A Life in Pursuit.” Born in New Jersey to an alcoholic prostitute, he was abandoned by his mother and brought up by his father, and had a troubled childhood.Early on his career took him around the world, with a spell on a military police posting in South Korea and working as a security consultant for the Saudi royal family in Saudi Arabia. He later joined the New York Police Department, where he worked undercover in the narcotics division and helped bust 60 members of the notorious Colombian Cali drug cartel.After leaving the Police Commissioner role post-9/11, Kerik stayed active in Republican politics, taking on a tour of duty to Iraq to help train their law enforcement in 2003 for former president George W. Bush.He suffered another fall from grace after pleading guilty in 2009 to felonies, including tax fraud.He admitted to accepting $255,000 worth of renovations to his apartment from a construction firm — suspected of having mob ties — angling for government contracts.His plea helped him avoid a maximum potential sentence of up to 61 years behind bars. Instead, he was sentenced to four years in prison. He was released in 2013. Kerik received a presidential pardon in 2020, during President Donald Trump’s first term.He later teamed up with Giuliani to investigate debunked allegations of election fraud following Trump’s 2020 loss, and was among those subpoenaed by lawmakers over accusations of plotting to overturn the election in the January 6, 2021 attacks on the US Capitol.

On the campaign trail last year, then-candidate Donald Trump proposed handing US residency cards automatically to international students when they earn diplomas, bemoaning that they were leaving to form successful companies in China and India.Now back at the White House, Trump’s message has changed drastically.Hoping to crush an academic establishment he sees as his enemy, Trump has launched unprecedented actions against international students that experts warn are likely to decrease enrollment and could trigger a brain drain of top talent.In a matter of days, the Trump administration has sought to bar all foreign students from Harvard University, one of most prestigious US institutions, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio has vowed to “aggressively” revoke visas to students from China, long the top source of students to the United States although recently eclipsed by India.Rubio has already yanked thousands of visas, largely over students’ involvement in activism critical of Israel’s offensive in Gaza but also over minor traffic violations and other infractions.”The US, historically, has a reputation around the world of having a very open atmosphere for scientific and technical research, and that draws a lot of people, especially people from countries that don’t necessarily have that kind of openness,” said Phoebe Sengers, a professor in information science and science and technology studies at Cornell University.She said it’s certain the number of international students will “plummet in the coming years.””The challenge with that is that students who would come here don’t just disappear. They will stay in their home countries or go to other countries where they can get a technical education, and they’re going to be building businesses in those countries and competing directly with our firms,” she said.- Universities as ‘enemy’ -US universities have long been reputed to be among the world’s best, and among the most expensive to attend.International students who pay full tuition are vital sources of revenue, as are federal research grants, which the Trump administration is also slashing.The State Department has justified its crackdown by pointing to “theft” of US technology by China, and Trump has spoken of making more spots for US-born students.But Trump’s inner circle has long made clear its intentions to battle universities — whose often left-leaning faculties, high costs and selectivity make them perfect foils for a presidency centered on countering elites and foreigners.Vice President JD Vance stated in no uncertain terms his hope to destroy the power of academe in a 2021 speech entitled, “The universities are the enemy.”Yet Vance himself rose from poverty to power through Yale Law School, one of the country’s most elite institutions.Universities have an outsized influence on the economy, with international students directly contributing $50 billion to the US economy in 2023, according to the US Commerce Department.Many top US entrepreneurs are immigrants who came as students, including Trump’s ally Elon Musk, with around half of the Fortune 500 companies founded by immigrants or their children.Krishna Bista, a professor at Morgan State University who studies international student mobility, said the tone set by the Trump administration “could deter even the most qualified applicants” from the United States.”It’s not just a visa issue — it affects students’ sense of safety, belonging and academic freedom,” he said.”Other nations are building policies to recruit talent — it’s irrational for the US to push it away.”The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology recently offered fast-track admissions to Harvard students whom Trump wants to force to transfer. – Growing competition -The United States across administrations has wooed international students, although the number also declined following the September 11, 2001 attacks due to greater curbs of all visas.A world-record 1.1 million international students studied in the United States in the 2023-24 academic year, according to a State Department-backed report of the Institute of International Education.But international students on average make up just under six percent of the US university population — far below Britain, the second top destination for international students, where the figure is 25 percent.The opportunity to change course may have already slipped away. “Even if everything was turned around tomorrow, our reputation as an open and welcoming society has already taken significant damage,” Sengers said.”It would take a concerted effort to bring things back to where they were four months ago.”

US President Donald Trump on Thursday celebrated a temporary reprieve for his aggressive tariff strategy, with an appeals court preserving his sweeping import duties on China and other trading partners — for now.The short-term relief will allow the appeals process to proceed, after the US Court of International Trade on Wednesday barred most of the tariffs announced since Trump took office, ruling that he had overstepped his authority.Welcoming the latest twist in his legal skirmishes over his trade policies, Trump lashed out at the Manhattan-based trade court, calling it “horrible” and saying its blockade should be “quickly and decisively” reversed for good.”Backroom ‘hustlers’ must not be allowed to destroy our Nation!” Trump said in a long rant on his Truth Social platform in which he again painted himself as a target of a biased judicial system.Since returning to the presidency in January, Trump has moved to reconfigure US trade ties with the world while using levies to force foreign governments to the negotiating table.But the stop-start tariff rollout, impacting both allies and adversaries, has roiled markets and snarled supply chains.Prior to Thursday’s decision from the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, known as an administrative stay, the White House was given 10 days to halt affected tariffs.The Trump administration called the ruling “blatantly wrong,” expressing confidence that the decision would be overturned on appeal.White House spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt told reporters that the judges “brazenly abused their judicial power to usurp the authority of President Trump.”Leavitt said the Supreme Court “must put an end” to the tariff challenge, while stressing that Trump had other legal means to impose levies.A separate ruling by a federal district judge in the US capital found some Trump levies unlawful as well, giving the administration 14 days to appeal.- ‘Hiccups’ -Kevin Hassett, director of the National Economic Council, told Fox Business that “hiccups” sparked by the decisions of “activist judges” would not affect talks with trading partners, adding that three deals are close to finalization.Trump’s trade advisor Peter Navarro told reporters after the appellate stay that the administration had earlier received “plenty of phone calls from countries” who said they would continue to “negotiate in good faith,” without naming those nations.Trump’s import levies are aimed partly at punishing economies that sell more to the United States than they buy.The president has argued that trade deficits and the threat posed by drug smuggling constituted a “national emergency” that justified the widespread tariffs — a notion the Court of International Trade ruled against.Trump unveiled sweeping duties on nearly all trading partners in April, at a baseline 10 percent — plus steeper levies on dozens of economies including China and the European Union, which have since been paused.The US trade court’s ruling quashed these blanket duties, along with those that Trump imposed on Canada, Mexico and China separately using emergency powers.But it left intact 25 percent duties on imported autos, steel and aluminum.Beijing — which was hit by additional 145 percent tariffs before they were temporarily reduced to make space for negotiations — reacted to the trade court decision by saying Washington should scrap the levies.”China urges the United States to heed the rational voices from the international community and domestic stakeholders and fully cancel the wrongful unilateral tariff measures,” said commerce ministry spokeswoman He Yongqian.Asian markets rallied Thursday, US indexes closed higher while Europe closed slightly down.- ‘Extraordinary threat’ -The trade court was ruling in two separate cases — brought by businesses and a coalition of state governments — arguing that the president had violated Congress’s power of the purse.The judges said the cases rested on whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA) delegates such powers to the president “in the form of authority to impose unlimited tariffs on goods from nearly every country in the world.”The judges stated that any interpretation of the IEEPA that “delegates unlimited tariff authority is unconstitutional.”Trump warned on Truth Social that if he were forced to defer to Congress on tariffs, Washington’s politicians “would sit around D.C. for weeks, and even months” while preventing him from protecting the country from “Economic and Financial harm.”Analysts at London-based research group Capital Economics said the case may end up with the Supreme Court, but would likely not mark the end of the tariff war.burs-ft/nl

The White House downplayed questions about its flagship report on children’s health, but edited the document Thursday after authors listed in the paper confirmed it cited studies that do not exist.The highly anticipated “Make America Healthy Again” (MAHA) report was released on May 22 by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and the presidential commission tasked with assessing drivers of childhood chronic disease.But authors and publishers of at least four studies listed in the original document told AFP they or their organizations were credited with papers they did not write — or that never existed.White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt described the mishaps as “formatting issues” during a press briefing Thursday.”It does not negate the substance of the report,” said Leavitt, who expressed confidence in Kennedy and his team, and insisted that their work was “backed on good science.”- ‘Totally fabricated’ -The errors were first reported Thursday by NOTUS, a US digital news website affiliated with the nonprofit Allbritton Journalism Institute.Noah Kreski, a Columbia University researcher listed as an author of a paper on adolescent anxiety and depression during the Covid-19 pandemic, told AFP the paper is “not one of our studies” and “doesn’t appear to be a study that exists at all.”The initial citation included a link that purported to send users to an article in the peer-reviewed medical journal JAMA Pediatrics, but it was broken. Jim Michalski, a spokesman for JAMA Network, said it “was not published in JAMA Pediatrics or in any JAMA Network journal.”Columbia University epidemiologist Katherine Keyes, who was also listed as an author of the supposed JAMA study, told AFP she does research on the topic but does not know where the statistics credited to her came from, and that she “did not write that paper.”Guohua Li, another Columbia University professor apparently named in the citation, said the reference is “totally fabricated” and that he does not even know Kreski.AFP also spoke with Harold Farber, pediatrics professor at Baylor College of Medicine, who said the paper attributed to him “does not exist” nor had he ever collaborated with the co-authors credited in the original MAHA report.Similarly, Brian McNeill, spokesperson for Virginia Commonwealth University, confirmed that professor Robert Findling did not author a paper the report says he wrote about advertising of psychotropic medications for youth.A fourth paper on ADHD medication was also not published in the journal Pediatrics in 2008 as claimed, according to the journal’s publisher, the American Academy of Pediatrics.- ‘Rife with misinformation’ -The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) declined to comment, referring AFP’s questions to the White House.At her briefing, Leavitt declined to answer how the report was produced and whether artificial intelligence tools may have been used to craft it, directing those questions back to HHS.All of the citations investigated by AFP were replaced with links to real sources in the updated version, though in one case, purported research was supplanted by an article from The New York Times.The Democratic National Committee on Thursday blasted the report as “rife with misinformation,” accusing Kennedy’s agency of “justifying its policy priorities with studies and sources that do not exist.”Kennedy was approved as health secretary earlier this year despite widespread alarm from the medical community over his history of promoting vaccine misinformation and denying scientific facts.Since taking office, he has ordered the National Institutes of Health to probe the causes of autism — a condition he has long falsely tied to the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine.The report’s chronic disease references appear to nod to that same disproven theory, discredited by numerous studies since the idea first aired in a late 1990s paper based on falsified data.It also criticizes the “over-medicalization” of children, citing surging prescriptions of psychiatric drugs and antibiotics, and blaming “corporate capture” for skewing scientific research.

A US federal appeals court has temporarily halted a ruling that found many of President Donald Trump’s tariffs illegal, but the chance it could ultimately back the original decision looms over the White House.What is in the US Court of International Trade’s original ruling — which the Trump administration is appealing — and what options does the administration have?- Which tariffs were affected? -The three-judge trade court ruled Wednesday that Trump overstepped his authority in imposing blanket tariffs by invoking emergency economic powers.The judgment — although temporarily halted — affected levies unveiled on April 2, which involve a 10-percent tariff on most trading partners and higher rates on dozens of economies including China and the European Union. These higher levels are currently suspended while negotiations take place.The ruling also applies to tariffs imposed on Canada, Mexico and China over their alleged roles in allowing an influx of drugs into the United States.But it left intact sector-specific levies like those on steel, aluminum and auto imports.- Why a pause? -The ruling by the little-known court, which has nationwide jurisdiction over tariff and trade disputes, initially gave the White House 10 days to complete the process of unwinding the levies.But the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Thursday granted a temporary stay “until further notice” while the Trump administration’s appeals process plays out.This means the tariffs can remain in effect for now, while a longer-term outcome is yet to be determined.National Economic Council director Kevin Hassett told Fox News the administration is “very pleased with the ruling,” dubbing it a victory.- What are Trump’s alternatives? -The appeals court could eventually uphold the trade court’s original decision to block Trump’s sweeping tariffs.The president, however, has other means to reinstate his tariff agenda, said Thibault Denamiel, a fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.These include Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, “which is intended to deal with a balance of payments emergency but does not require a formal investigation,” Denamiel told AFP.The authority restricts tariffs to 15 percent and they can only last 150 days.But it is among the policy levers that Trump could pull as he seeks a “bridge” towards more lasting actions, said KPMG chief economist Diane Swonk.Another option is Section 338 of the Trade Act of 1930, allowing the administration to impose tariffs of up to 50 percent on countries that discriminate against the United States, Denamiel said.- Does this affect trade talks? -The US trade court’s ruling did not remove the threat of US tariffs for Europe or end the need for negotiations, said Andrew Kenningham, chief Europe economist at Capital Economics.This is because the threat of reciprocal tariffs remains if the White House wins its appeal, he said.Trump could also turn to sector-specific means as he did in his first term or seek congressional approval for tariffs, though this is less likely, Kenningham said.It is not clear if negotiations will lose steam, Swonk added, given that the administration wants to leverage the threat of tariffs “very aggressively.”Even if the original ruling is eventually upheld, US officials could still buy time to exert pressure on other economies including the European Union and China.- What about the broader economy? -The court process “introduces greater ambiguity around the future direction of US trade policy,” especially because the appeal is ongoing, said EY chief economist Gregory Daco.”This legal development amplifies longer-lasting uncertainty for businesses navigating cross-border supply chains,” he added in a note.US stocks closed higher Thursday, but economic fallout has already occurred in recent months with Trump’s see-sawing approach to unveiling tariffs and pausing them selectively.Financial markets have been roiled by policy shifts, and shipping halts due to high tariffs bring disruptions that cannot be cleared overnight, analysts said.”The fate of the economy remains precarious even if we avert a recession,” Swonk said on social media.

Thousands of Harvard students in crimson-fringed gowns celebrated their graduation Thursday, as a judge extended a temporary block on Donald Trump’s bid to prevent the prestigious university from enrolling international scholars.Trump has made Harvard the central target of his campaign against elite US universities, which he has also threatened with funding freezes over what he says is liberal bias and anti-Semitism.Judge Allison Burroughs said she would later issue a preliminary injunction that “gives some protection” to international students while the sides argue over the legality of Trump’s stance.”Our students are terrified and we’re (already) having people transfer” to other universities, Harvard’s lawyer Ian Gershengorn said during the hearing in Boston. In an eleventh-hour filing ahead of the hearing, the Trump administration issued a formal notice of intent to withdraw Harvard’s ability to enroll foreign students — kickstarting the process.The filing gave Harvard 30 days to produce evidence showing why it should not be blocked from hosting and enrolling foreign students — who make up 27 percent of Harvard’s student body.Burroughs had already temporarily paused the policy, extending that pause Thursday pending the new injunction.She said she would seek to determine whether the actions of Trump’s officials had “a retaliatory motive.”A law professor present in the packed court said the Trump administration was prolonging the suffering of students.”Harvard is in this purgatory. What is an international student to do?” said the Harvard Law School graduate, who declined to be named.- ‘Pride and approval’ -There also remained “this specter of other actions” the government could take to block Harvard having international students, she added.The Ivy League institution has continually drawn Trump’s ire while publicly rejecting his administration’s repeated demands to give up control of recruitment, curricula and research choices.”Harvard is treating our country with great disrespect, and all they’re doing is getting in deeper and deeper,” Trump said Wednesday.Harvard president Alan Garber got a huge cheer Thursday when he mentioned international students attending the graduation with their families, saying it was “as it should be” — but Garber did not mention the Trump fight directly. He received a standing ovation, which one student told AFP was “revealing of the community’s pride and approval.”Garber has led the legal fightback in US academia after Trump targeted several prestigious universities — including Columbia, which made sweeping concessions to the administration, hoping to claw back $400 million of withdrawn federal grants.He has acknowledged that Harvard does have issues with anti-Semitism and that it has struggled to ensure that a variety of views can be safely heard on campus.Graduating student Uzma Farheen, from India, obtained a Master of public health and said the day was one of “love for the global community.””We stand united to powerfully represent what Harvard stands for — truth, integrity, and inclusion,” she told AFP.Ahead of the ceremony, at which stage and screen star Rita Moreno was awarded an honorary degree, members of the Harvard band in crimson blazers filed through the narrow streets of Cambridge.In front of a huge stage, hundreds of students assembled to hear speeches, including one entirely in Latin, in a grassy precinct that was closed off to the public for security.Many students from the Harvard Kennedy School of Government carried inflatable plastic globes at the ceremony to symbolize the international makeup of the school’s student body.”In the last two months it’s been very difficult, I’ve been feeling a lot of vulnerability,” said one such student, Lorena Mejia, 36, who graduated with a Master in Public Administration and proudly wore robes identifying her as a Colombian.

At least four of the studies cited in a flagship White House report on children’s health do not exist, authors listed in the document told AFP Thursday, casting doubt on the paper outlining US Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s agenda.The highly anticipated “Make America Healthy Again” (MAHA) report was released on May 22 by the presidential commission tasked with assessing drivers of childhood chronic disease.But it includes broken citation links and credits authors with papers they say they did not write.White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt described the mishaps as “formatting issues” during a press briefing Thursday and said the report will be updated to address them.”It does not negate the substance of the report,” said Leavitt, who expressed confidence in Kennedy and his team, and insisted that their work was “backed on good science.”The errors were first reported Thursday by NOTUS, a US digital news website affiliated with the nonprofit Allbritton Journalism Institute.Noah Kreski, a Columbia University researcher listed as an author of a paper on adolescent anxiety and depression during the Covid-19 pandemic, told AFP the citation is “not one of our studies” and “doesn’t appear to be a study that exists at all.”The citation includes a link that purports to send users to an article in the peer-reviewed medical journal JAMA, but which is broken. Jim Michalski, a spokesman for JAMA Network, said it “was not published in JAMA Pediatrics or in any JAMA Network journal.”Columbia University epidemiologist Katherine Keyes, who was also listed as an author of the supposed JAMA study, told AFP she does research on the topic but does not know where the statistics credited to her came from, and that she “did not write that paper.””I would be happy to send this information to the MAHA committee to correct the report, although I have not yet received information on where to reach them.”- ‘Totally fabricated’ -Guohua Li, another Columbia University professor apparently named in the citation, said the reference is “totally fabricated” and that he does not even know Kreski.AFP also spoke with Harold Farber, pediatrics professor at Baylor College of Medicine, who said the paper attributed to him “does not exist” nor had he ever collaborated with the co-authors credited in the MAHA report.Similarly, Brian McNeill, spokesperson for Virginia Commonwealth University, confirmed that professor Robert Findling did not author a paper the report says he wrote about advertising of psychotropic medications for youth.A fourth paper on ADHD medication was also not published in the journal Pediatrics in 2008 as claimed in the MAHA report, according to Alex Hulvalchick, media relations specialist for the journal’s publisher, the American Academy of Pediatrics.- ‘Rife with misinformation’ -The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) declined to comment, referring AFP’s questions to the White House.At her briefing, Leavitt declined to answer how the report was produced and whether artificial intelligence tools may have been used to craft it, directing those questions back to HHS.The Democratic National Committee blasted the report as “rife with misinformation” in a Thursday press release, saying Kennedy’s agency “is justifying its policy priorities with studies and sources that do not exist.”Kennedy was approved as health secretary earlier this year despite widespread alarm from the medical community over his history of promoting vaccine misinformation and denying scientific facts. Since taking office, he has ordered the National Institutes of Health to probe the causes of autism — a condition he has long falsely tied to the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine.The report’s chronic disease references appear to nod to that same disproven theory, discredited by numerous studies since the idea first aired in a late 1990s paper based on falsified data.It also criticizes the “over-medicalization” of children, citing surging prescriptions of psychiatric drugs and antibiotics, and blaming “corporate capture” for skewing scientific research.

The White House on Thursday blasted a federal court’s decision to block many of President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariffs — and said it could take the matter to the Supreme Court.Since returning to the presidency in January, Trump has moved to reconfigure US trade ties with the world while using tariffs to force foreign governments to the negotiating table.But the stop-start rollout of levies, impacting both allies and adversaries, has roiled markets and snarled supply chains.The three-judge Court of International Trade ruled Wednesday that Trump had overstepped his authority, and barred most of the tariffs announced since he took office.The court gave the administration 10 days to complete the process of halting affected tariffs.The White House called the ruling “blatantly wrong,” filing an appeal and expressing confidence that the decision would be overturned.White House spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt told reporters that the judges “brazenly abused their judicial power to usurp the authority of President Trump.”In a court filing, the Justice Department called for an immediate administrative halt on the decision pending the appeal, saying the administration plans to seek emergency relief from the Supreme Court as soon as Friday.Leavitt said the Supreme Court “must put an end” to the tariff challenge, though stressing that Trump has other legal means to impose levies.- ‘Nothing’s really changed’ -Trump’s trade advisor Peter Navarro said on Bloomberg Television: “Nothing’s really changed.”Kevin Hassett, director of the National Economic Council, told Fox Business that although officials have other options that would “take a couple of months” to implement, they are not planning to pursue these right now.He insisted that “hiccups” sparked by the decisions of “activist judges” would not affect negotiations with other trading partners, adding that three deals are close to finalization.Trump’s import levies — aimed at punishing economies that sell more to the United States than they buy — have roiled global markets.The president has argued that trade deficits and the threat posed by drug smuggling constituted a “national emergency” that justified the widespread tariffs — which the court ruled against.- China: ‘cancel the wrongful’ tariffs -Trump unveiled sweeping import duties on nearly all trading partners in April, at a baseline 10 percent — plus steeper levies on dozens of economies including China and the EU, which have since been paused.The US court’s ruling also quashes duties that Trump imposed on Canada, Mexico and China separately using emergency powers.But it leaves intact 25 percent duties on imported autos, steel and aluminum.Beijing — which was hit by additional 145 percent tariffs before they were temporarily reduced to make space for negotiations — reacted to the court ruling by saying Washington should scrap the levies.”China urges the United States to heed the rational voices from the international community and domestic stakeholders and fully cancel the wrongful unilateral tariff measures,” said commerce ministry spokeswoman He Yongqian.Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney said his government welcomed the court decision, but warned trade ties were still “profoundly and adversely threatened” by sector-specific levies.Asian markets rallied Thursday but US indexes were mixed and Europe closed slightly down.- ‘Extraordinary threat’ -The federal trade court was ruling in two separate cases — brought by businesses and a coalition of state governments — arguing that the president had violated Congress’s power of the purse.The judges said the cases rested on whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA) delegates such powers to the president “in the form of authority to impose unlimited tariffs on goods from nearly every country in the world.”The judges stated that any interpretation of the IEEPA that “delegates unlimited tariff authority is unconstitutional.”Analysts at London-based research group Capital Economics said the case may end up with the Supreme Court, but would likely not mark the end of the tariff war.burs-bys/sst

A US judge on Thursday sentenced a former Goldman Sachs banker central to the 1MDB scandal to two years in prison after prosecutors argued for leniency due to his cooperation.Timothy Leissner, a key architect of the massive bribery and kickback scheme involving a Malaysian sovereign wealth fund, will begin serving a 24-month sentence in September, according to a spokesman for the US Department of Justice.Leissner, who previously pleaded guilty to US bribery and money laundering counts, faced a maximum sentence of 25 years. The 1MDB conspiracy involved billions of dollars that were raised to support energy and infrastructure projects but were instead pilfered or used to purchase yachts, jewelry and other luxury items.The case resulted in “the only criminal case filed against Goldman Sachs in its 156-year history,” the firm said in a filing to the court that endorsed a tough sentence.But prosecutors argued for leniency, citing Leissner’s “extraordinary” assistance to the probe after federal agents ambushed the defendant in June 2018 after he deplaned an international flight in Washington.The government’s brief cited “marathon meetings” with Leissner in which he turned over electronic devices and “displayed remarkable recall and spoke with precision about what he knew about the scheme,” which included repeatedly lying to colleagues at Goldman about his actions, the Justice Department said.Leissner testified against Ng Chong Hwa, or “Roger Ng,” another former Goldman banker, at a New York trial in February 2022. Ng has been sentenced to 10 years after being found guilty, but has yet to begin his sentence, the Justice Department said.Leissner also provided details that led to US charges against Low Taek Jho, a Malaysian financier known as “Jho Low” who remains at large.In a letter to the court, Leissner, 55, called his crime “terrible” and expressed regret at time lost with children and ageing parents.”I have had to publicly face the fact that I helped steal billions of dollars not just from individuals, but from an entire nation,” Leissner said.But Goldman Sachs dismissed Leissner’s cooperation.”Whatever personal and professional consequences Mr. Leissner may himself have experienced in recent years, those consequences are a natural and direct result of his brazen and audacious criminal conduct, not his cooperation,” Goldman said.