AFP USA

US President Donald Trump said Friday he can now push through a raft of controversial policies after the Supreme Court handed him a “giant win” by curbing the ability of lone judges to block his powers nationwide.In a 6-3 ruling stemming from Trump’s bid to end birthright citizenship, the court said nationwide injunctions issued by individual district court judges likely exceed their authority.”This was a tremendous win,” Trump told reporters in a hastily arranged press conference at the White House. “I want to just thank again the Supreme Court for this ruling.”Trump said he would now proceed with “so many policies” that had been “wrongly” blocked, including his bid to end birthright citizenship, and stopping funding for transgender people and “sanctuary cities”  for migrants.US Attorney General Pam Bondi, standing alongside Trump at the podium, said the ruling would stop “rogue judges striking down President Trump’s policies across the entire nation.”Democrats swiftly blasted the decision, saying it would embolden Trump as he pushes the boundaries of presidential power in his second term.Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer called it a “terrifying step toward authoritarianism.”Trump however rejected concerns about the concentration of power in the White House.”This is really the opposite of that,” Trump said. “This really brings back the Constitution.”Trump separately hailed a “great ruling” by the Supreme Court to let parents opt their children out of LGBTQ-themed lessons at public schools.The Supreme Court did not rule on the constitutionality of Trump’s executive order seeking to end automatic citizenship for children born on US soil.But the broader decision on the scope of judicial rulings removes a big roadblock to Trump’s often highly contested policy agenda and has far-reaching ramifications for the ability of the judiciary to rein in Trump or future US presidents.Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship is just one of a number of his moves that have been blocked by judges around the country — both Democratic and Republican appointees – since he took office in January.Courts have, for example, blocked or slowed down his hardline immigration crackdown, firing of federal employees, efforts to end diversity programs and punitive actions against law firms and universities.- ‘No right is safe’ -Past presidents have also complained about national injunctions shackling their agenda, but such orders have sharply risen under Trump, who saw more in his first two months than Democrat Joe Biden did during his first three years in office.Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a Trump appointee, authored the majority opinion joined by the other five conservative justices.”Federal courts do not exercise general oversight of the Executive Branch,” wrote Barrett, who has previously been a frequent target of Trump loyalists over previous decisions that went against the president.The Supreme Court’s three liberal justices dissented, with Justice Sonia Sotomayor saying “no right is safe in the new legal regime the Court creates.”Trump’s initial reaction to the ruling came in a post on Truth Social, welcomed it as a “GIANT WIN.”The case was ostensibly about Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship, which was deemed unconstitutional by courts in Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington state.But it actually focused on whether a single federal district court judge has the right to issue a nationwide block to a presidential decree with a universal injunction.The issue has become a rallying cry for Trump and his Republican allies, who accuse the judiciary of impeding his agenda against the will of voters.Steven Schwinn, a law professor at the University of Illinois Chicago, told AFP that the court’s ruling “sharply undermines the power of federal courts to rein in lawless actions by the government.”Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship decrees that children born to parents in the United States illegally or on temporary visas would not automatically become citizens.Trump said that the policy “was meant for the babies of slaves,” dating back to the US Civil War era in the mid 1800s.

The US Supreme Court on Friday ruled 6-3 to let parents opt their children out of LGBTQ-themed lessons at public schools, a move critics warn threatens the future of secular education by opening the door to broad religious objections.The justices reviewed an appeal brought by Christian and Muslim parents against a Maryland public school district that, in 2022, added books tackling prejudice and exploring gender identity to its elementary curriculum.President Donald Trump, who has made fighting “woke ideology” a hallmark of his second term, hailed the outcome as a “great ruling for parents.””They lost control of the schools and they lost control of their child, and this is a tremendous victory for parents,” he said at a White House press conference.The court found that the Montgomery County parents were likely to prevail in their claim that blocking them from opting out “unconstitutionally burdens” their religious freedom.”For many people of faith, there are few religious acts more important than the religious education of their children,” wrote Justice Samuel Alito for the majority.He said the books in question “are designed to present certain values and beliefs as things to be celebrated, and certain contrary values and beliefs as things to be rejected.”Alito cited specific texts including “Uncle Bobby’s Wedding,” which celebrates gay marriage, and “Born Ready: The True Story of a Boy Named Penelope,” about a transgender boy.The right-wing Heritage Foundation, which authored the blueprint for Trump’s second term, also praised the ruling as “a resounding victory for parents across America, affirming their fundamental right to guide their children’s moral and religious upbringing.”- Evolution next? -In dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor — joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson  — defended public schools as places where “children of all faiths and backgrounds” gain exposure to a pluralistic society.”That experience is critical to our Nation’s civic vitality,” she wrote. “Yet it will become a mere memory if children must be insulated from exposure to ideas and concepts that may conflict with their parents’ religious beliefs.”She warned of a slippery slope: “Books expressing implicit support for patriotism, women’s rights, interfaith marriage, consumption of meat, immodest dress, and countless other topics may conflict with sincerely held religious beliefs and thus trigger stringent judicial review under the majority’s test.”The ruling could even reopen settled legal ground on how schools teach evolution and other scientific topics, said Daniel Mach, a legal expert with the American Civil Liberties Union.”The issue had come up many times in lower courts, including where parents claimed a religious right to opt out of biology lessons on evolution,” he told AFP. “In each of those cases, the courts rejected the claim, but now with today’s decision, the door has been bashed open to invite all manner of objections.”Mach warned that schools may now choose to self-censor rather than navigate a patchwork of opt-outs in anticipation of lawsuits.

A divided US Supreme Court handed President Donald Trump a major victory on Friday by curbing the power of lone federal judges to block executive actions.In a 6-3 ruling stemming from Trump’s bid to end birthright citizenship, the court said nationwide injunctions issued by district court judges “likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has granted to federal courts.”The top court did not rule on the constitutionality of Trump’s executive order seeking to end automatic citizenship for children born on American soil.But the broader decision on the scope of judicial rulings removes a big roadblock to Trump’s often highly controversial policy agenda and has far-reaching ramifications for the ability of the judiciary to rein in Trump or future American presidents.Trump celebrated by telling reporters he had “a whole list” of policies he could now proceed on without opposition in the courts.Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship is just one of a number of his moves that have been blocked by judges around the country — both Democratic and Republican appointees – since he took office in January.Courts have, for example, blocked or slowed down his hardline immigration crackdown, firing of federal employees, efforts to end diversity programs and punitive actions against law firms and universities.Past presidents have also complained about national injunctions shackling their agenda, but such orders have sharply risen under Trump, who saw more in his first two months than Democrat Joe Biden did during his first three years in office.Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a Trump appointee who authored the majority opinion joined by the other five conservative justices, said “the universal injunction was conspicuously nonexistent for most of our Nation’s history.””Federal courts do not exercise general oversight of the Executive Branch,” Barrett wrote.”When a court concludes that the Executive Branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too,” she said.The three liberal justices dissented with Justice Sonia Sotomayor saying “no right is safe in the new legal regime the Court creates.””The Court’s decision is nothing less than an open invitation for the Government to bypass the Constitution,” Sotomayor said.”The Executive Branch can now enforce policies that flout settled law and violate countless individuals’ constitutional rights, and the federal courts will be hamstrung to stop its actions fully,” she said.- ‘GIANT WIN’ -Trump, in a post on Truth Social, welcomed the ruling as a “GIANT WIN.”The case was ostensibly about Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship, which was deemed unconstitutional by courts in Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington state.But it actually focused on whether a single federal district court judge has the right to issue a nationwide block to a presidential decree with a universal injunction.The issue has become a rallying cry for Trump and his Republican allies, who accuse the judiciary of impeding his agenda against the will of voters.Steven Schwinn, a law professor at the University of Illinois Chicago, said the court’s ruling “sharply undermines the power of federal courts to rein-in lawless actions by the government.””The ruling will likely create a patchwork of birthright citizenship rights,” Schwinn told AFP, where it is recognized in some locations for people who have successfully sued and not recognized for people who have not sued.”This patchwork approach to individual rights is inconsistent with our history and tradition of federal rights in the United States and is inconsistent with the rule of law,” he said.The Trump administration had asked the Supreme Court to restrict the application of a district court’s injunction solely to the parties who brought the case and the district where the judge presides.Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship decrees that children born to parents in the United States illegally or on temporary visas would not automatically become citizens.The three lower courts ruled that to be a violation of the 14th Amendment, which states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”

The US Federal Reserve’s preferred measure of inflation edged up in May while spending weakened, government data showed Friday, with policymakers monitoring the effects of President Donald Trump’s tariffs in the coming months.The personal consumption expenditures (PCE) price index climbed 2.3 percent last month from a year ago, the Commerce Department said in a report.This was in line with analyst expectations and a slight acceleration from April’s 2.2 percent increase.But excluding the volatile food and energy sectors, the PCE price index was up 2.7 percent, rising from April’s 2.6 percent uptick, the report showed.But consumer spending declined, after Trump’s fresh tariffs in April dragged on consumer sentiment. PCE dropped by 0.1 percent from the preceding month, reversing an earlier rise.While Trump has imposed sweeping tariffs on most US trading partners since returning to the White House in January — alongside higher rates on imports of steel, aluminum and autos — these have had a muted effect so far on inflation.This is partly because he held off or postponed some of his harshest salvos, while businesses are still running through inventory they stockpiled in anticipation of the levies.But central bank officials have said they expect to learn more about the impact of tariffs over the summer, meaning they will be scrutinizing data in the coming months.- ‘Clear weakening’ -“The experience of the limited range of tariffs introduced in 2018 suggests that pass-through to consumer prices is intense three-to-six months after their implementation,” warned economists Samuel Tombs and Oliver Allen of Pantheon Macroeconomics in a note.They also flagged weakness in consumer spending, in part due to a pullback in autos after buyers rushed to get ahead of tariffs.But spending on services was tepid even after excluding volatile components, they said.”There has also been a clear weakening in discretionary services spending, notably in travel and hospitality,” said Michael Pearce, deputy chief US economist at Oxford Economics, in a note.This reflects “the chilling effect of the plunge in consumer sentiment,” he added.Between April and May, the PCE price index was up 0.1 percent, the Commerce Department report showed.As a July deadline approaches for higher tariff rates to kick in on dozens of economies, all eyes are also on whether countries can reach lasting trade deals with Washington to ease the effects of tariffs.For now, despite the slowing in economic growth, Pearce said risks that inflation could increase will keep the Fed on hold with interest rates “until much later in the year.”

Magazine legend Anna Wintour stepped down as editor of US Vogue on Thursday after 37 years during which she was often hailed as the single most influential figure in the fashion world.Wintour, 75, was famous for making Vogue’s front covers an authoritative statement on contemporary fashion, and for her total control over the glamorous pages inside.She will no longer run day-to-day editing of the fashion bible, but magazine group owner Conde Nast was quick to scotch suggestions of retirement.She will continue to hold senior roles at the group and remain Vogue’s global editorial director.British-born Wintour came to public renown as the inspiration for “The Devil Wears Prada,” a hit 2003 novel and 2006 movie, for which Meryl Streep earned an Oscar nomination for her role as tyrannical magazine editor Miranda Priestly.Wintour announced at a staff meeting in New York that US Vogue would seek a new head of editorial content.In remarks reported by the New York Times, she called it “a “pivotal decision” but stressed she would not be moving out of her office.”I’ll be turning all my attention to global leadership and working with our team of brilliant editors around the world.”- Fashion flagship -Wintour was made a British dame in 2017 and in February this year became a companion of honour — an elite recognition.At the ceremony in London in February, Wintour removed her trademark sunglasses to receive the award and said she had told King Charles III that she had no plans to stop working.Wintour, who was raised in the UK by a British father and an American mother, reigned over Vogue in the heyday of glossy magazines.US Vogue was a staid title when she took it over in 1988 and transformed it into a powerhouse that set trends — and often make or break designers, celebrities and brands.She took the title to a global audience, with huge budgets to spend on models, design, photographs and journalism funded by lavish advertisements and high subscription rates.Vogue remains fashion’s flagship magazine but, like many print publications, has struggled to adapt to the digital era.Known to some as “Nuclear Wintour” for her decisive leadership, such as axing work without discussion, she was also a fixture in the front row at catwalk shows with her unchanging bob haircut.A 2015 documentary “The September Issue” about the monthly magazine featured her ice queen image and steely ambition but also revealed a warmer human side.Wintour has for many years also run the Met Gala, an extravagant Manhattan charity event that attracts an A-list of dressed-up stars from the worlds of fashion, film, politics and sports.She is a fanatical tennis player and fan — frequently appearing at Grand Slam finals — and a major fundraiser for Democrat politicians including Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.Joe Biden awarded her the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the top US honor, before leaving office in January.As Conde Nast’s chief content officer, she will continue to oversee publications including Vogue, Wired, Vanity Fair, GQ, Conde Nast Traveler and Glamour.For many years, Wintour declined to comment on “The Devil Wears Prada,” which was written by one of her former assistants, Lauren Weisberger.But when it was turned into a musical and opened in London in 2024, she told the BBC that it was “for the audience and for the people I work with to decide if there are any similarities between me and Miranda Priestly.”Explaining her sunglasses, she told the outlet that “they help me see and they help me not see. They help me be seen and not be seen. They are a prop, I would say.”

China confirmed on Friday details on the framework of a trade deal with the United States, saying Washington would lift “restrictive measures” while Beijing would “review and approve” items under export controls.The two sides agreed after talks in Geneva in May to temporarily lower steep tit-for-tat tariffs on each other’s products.China also committed to easing some non-tariff countermeasures but US officials later accused Beijing of violating the pact and slow-walking export licence approvals for rare earths.They eventually agreed on a framework to move forward with their Geneva consensus following talks in London this month.A White House official also told AFP on Thursday that President Donald Trump’s administration and China had “agreed to an additional understanding for a framework to implement the Geneva agreement”.That clarification came after Trump told an event that Washington had “just signed” a deal relating to trade with China, without providing further details.Beijing confirmed on Friday that an agreement had been reached.”It is hoped that the United States and China will meet each other halfway,” a spokesperson for the commerce ministry said in a statement.It said both sides had “further confirmed the details of the framework”.Under the deal, China “will review and approve applications for the export control items that meet the requirements in accordance with the law”.”The US side will correspondingly cancel a series of restrictive measures against China,” the commerce ministry said.A top priority for Washington in talks with Beijing had been ensuring the supply of the rare earths essential for products including electric vehicles, hard drives and national defence equipment.China, which dominates global production of the elements, began requiring export licences in early April, a move widely viewed as a response to blistering tariffs imposed by Trump.Separately on Thursday, the White House also indicated that Washington could extend a July deadline when steeper tariffs affecting dozens of economies are due to kick in.Trump imposed a sweeping 10 percent levy on most trading partners this year but also unveiled — then halted — higher rates on dozens of economies while negotiations took place.That pause is set to expire July 9.

Amazon tycoon Jeff Bezos and Lauren Sanchez are expected to tie the knot Friday at a sumptuous, secluded ceremony attended by celebrity friends on an island in Venice’s lagoon.The tech magnate, 61, and his fiancee, 55, kicked off a three-day wedding celebration Thursday with guests including Kim and Khloe Kardashian, Oprah Winfrey and Orlando Bloom.Venice, home to the oldest film festival in the world, is used to VIPs whizzing around in speed boats, and happily hosted the star-studded nuptials of Hollywood actor George Clooney in 2014.But Bezos — one of the world’s richest men and founder of a company regularly scrutinised for how it treats its workers — is different.And the festivities have sparked protests from environmentalists and locals who accuse authorities of pandering to the super rich while the city drowns under tourists.Bezos and former news anchor and entertainment reporter Sanchez are staying at the Aman hotel, a luxury 16th-century palazzo on the Grand Canal with a view of the Rialto bridge.They will exchange vows at a black-tie ceremony on the island of San Giorgio Maggiore, according to Italian media reports.The wedding itself is expected to take place in a vast open-air amphitheatre on the island, which sits across from St Mark’s Square.The newlyweds will then be serenaded by Matteo Bocelli, the son of famed opera singer Andrea Bocelli, the reports said.Sanchez is alleged to have prepared 27 outfits to wear during the festivities.Italian designer Domenico Dolce — half of the duo Dolce & Gabbana — was seen leaving the Aman hotel on Thursday, possibly following a fitting.- ‘Enchanted’ -Wedding guests snapped by paparazzi as they hopped into boats included Jordan’s Queen Rania, US football player Tom Brady, American fashion designer Spencer Antle, singer Usher, and Ivanka Trump — the daughter of US President Donald Trump.The guests reportedly lunched together Thursday in the gardens of Villa Baslini, on the islet of San Giovanni Evangelista.The celebrations are set to end Saturday with a party likely at the Arsenale, a vast shipyard complex dating back to when the city was a naval powerhouse.Bezos and Sanchez are donating three million euros ($3.5 million) to the city, according to Veneto’s regional president Luca Zaia, and are employing historic Venetian artisans.Venice’s oldest pastry maker Rosa Salva is baking 19th-century “fishermen’s biscuits” for party bags which will also contain something by Laguna B, renowned for its handblown Murano glass.Trump and her family visited a glass-blowing workshop on the small island of Murano on Wednesday, according to the owner.”They were amazed and enchanted by the magic of glass,” Massimiliano Schiavon told the Corriere della Sera, adding that the family had had a go at blowing their own.Some locals say the A-list guests and their entourages bring good business but critics have accused billionaire Bezos of using the UNESCO site as his personal playground.And environmental activists have also pointed to the carbon footprint of the mega yachts and dozens of private jets bringing the rich and famous to the canal city.At least 95 private planes requested permission to land at Venice’s Marco Polo airport for the wedding, the Corriere della Sera said.

Sean “Diddy” Combs’s lawyers will deliver their closing arguments in his defense Friday, one day after the prosecution spent nearly five hours detailing a “climate of fear” they say he created as the alleged head of a decades-long criminal ring.Defense attorney Marc Agnifilo is expected to take the floor for Combs, the 55-year-old music mogul who faces upwards of life in prison if convicted on charges including racketeering and sex trafficking.Combs, who was once one of the most powerful figures in music and entertainment, denies all charges.He opted against testifying on his own behalf, a common strategy of defense teams who are not required to prove innocence, only to cast doubt on government allegations of guilt.For nearly five hours on Thursday US attorney Christy Slavik methodically walked the jury through the charges, weaving the thousands of phone, financial, travel and audiovisual records along with nearly seven weeks of testimony into an intelligible narrative.She told them Combs “counted on silence and shame to keep his crimes hidden.””Up until today, the defendant was able to get away with these crimes because of his money, his power, his influence. That stops now,” she said.In explaining the most serious charge of racketeering, the prosecution said Combs led a criminal enteprise of “loyal lieutanants” and “foot soldiers” who “existed to serve his needs.”Core to the prosecution’s racketeering argument is that high-level employees including his chief-of-staff and security guards — none of whom testified — were well-aware of his crimes, and helped him carry them out.”He became more powerful and more dangerous because of the support of his inner circle and his businesses,” Slavik said. – Consent or coercion? -As they did in opening statements, his defense is expected to insist that while some of his relationships included domestic violence, they didn’t involve the sex trafficking he’s accused of.The prosecution showed examples they say are “crystal clear” evidence of trafficking that included coercion into drug-addled sex with paid escorts under threat of reputational, physical or financial harm.But it’s anticipated the defense will say the alleged victims were simply adult women making adult choices.Both the women involved in the sex trafficking charges — the singer Casandra Ventura and a woman who testified under the pseudonym Jane — were in long-term relationships with Combs, and the defense team said in opening statements the sex was consensual, if unorthodox.Jurors were shown many phone records that included messages of affection and desire from both women — but prosecutor Slavik said taking those words literally, and in isolation, doesn’t paint the whole picture.Throughout her arguments she referenced testimony from a forensic psychologist who explained to jurors how victims become ensnared by their abusers.And in one powerful moment she asked jurors to put themselves in the shoes of Ventura, who testified of harrowing physical abuse for years under Combs.”Imagine the terror of never knowing when the next hit might come,” Slavik said. “Now imagine trying to say no to that person.” Government witnesses also included former assistants and other employees, as well as escorts, friends and family of Ventura, and a hotel security guard who said he was bribed with $100,000 in a paper bag.The defense opted against calling witnesses, including Combs himself, a strategy that’s not uncommon.The obligation to prove guilt lies on prosecutors, and unless jurors decide they have done so, the defendant is presumed innocent.It’s possible the defense believes they cast enough doubt on the prosecution’s arguments during their extensive questioning of the 34 people US attorneys brought in.After closing arguments wrap, judge Arun Subramanian will instruct jurors on how they are to apply the law to the evidence during their deliberations.

The US Supreme Court is scheduled to issue its final rulings on Friday ahead of its summer break.These are the major outstanding cases:- Birthright citizenship -The case is ostensibly about Donald Trump’s bid to scrap birthright citizenship but it actually turns on the broader question of whether federal judges have the right to issue nationwide blocks to presidential decrees.It is perhaps the most significant of the remaining cases since it could have far-reaching ramifications for the ability of the judiciary to rein in Trump or future US presidents.Trump’s executive order ending automatic citizenship for children born on American soil has been paused by district courts in Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington that deemed it unconstitutional.But the question before the Supreme Court is whether a single district court can freeze an executive branch move with a universal injunction.The Trump administration is asking the Supreme Court to restrict the application of a district court’s injunction solely to the parties who brought the case and the district where the judge presides.Whatever the nine justices decide, the actual question of whether Trump can legally end birthright citizenship is expected to be back in front of the top court before long.- Porn site age verification -The case — Free Speech Coalition vs Paxton — involves a Texas law requiring pornographic websites to verify visitors’ ages, part of a growing effort to limit access by minors to online sexual content.Texas is one of nearly 20 states to institute such a requirement, which critics argue violates First Amendment free speech rights.A district court sided with a challenge by an adult entertainment industry trade group, the Free Speech Coalition, saying the law restricted access by adults to constitutionally protected content.But a conservative-dominated appeals court upheld the age verification requirement, prompting the trade group to take its case to the Supreme Court, where conservatives have a 6-3 supermajority.- Students and LGBTQ-themed content -This religious rights case examines whether parents have the right to pull their children from public school classes when books containing LGBTQ-related content are read or discussed.The schools, in a Maryland county, had offered parents the chance to opt out of classes featuring books aimed at combating prejudice and discussing gender identity and homosexuality, but later retracted the option.Parents are suing because the opt-outs were canceled. They say the schools’ inclusive curriculum choices infringe on their Christian and Muslim faiths and First Amendment rights. Court precedent has generally established that exposing students to ideas contrary to religion does not constitute coercion.- Voting rights -This case is a challenge by a group of white voters to a congressional map adopted last year by the state legislature of Louisiana creating a second Black majority district.African-Americans make up one-third of the population of Louisiana, which has six congressional districts, and they generally vote Democratic.Opponents of the redrawn map argue that using race to design congressional maps is racial gerrymandering prohibited by the Constitution.The eventual Supreme Court ruling could have an impact on whether Democrats or Republicans control the House of Representatives in the 2026 midterm elections.

The White House signaled trade progress with China on Thursday, with an official saying both sides have reached an understanding on issues including expediting rare earth shipments to the United States.After talks in Geneva in May, Washington and Beijing had agreed to temporarily lower steep tit-for-tat tariffs on each other’s products.China also committed to easing some non-tariff countermeasures, but US officials later accused Beijing of violating the pact and slow-walking export license approvals for rare earths.Both sides eventually agreed on a framework to move forward with their Geneva consensus following talks in London this month.On Thursday, a White House official told AFP that President Donald Trump’s administration and China have “agreed to an additional understanding for a framework to implement the Geneva agreement.”This clarification came after Trump told an event that Washington had “just signed” a deal relating to trade with China, without providing further details.Asked about Trump’s remarks on Bloomberg TV, US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick referred to the London negotiations, saying the framework deal — which needed top-level approval — has now been “signed and sealed.”Separately on Thursday, the White House also indicated that Washington could extend a July deadline when steeper tariffs impacting dozens of economies are due to kick in.While Trump imposed a sweeping 10 percent levy on most trading partners this year, he unveiled — then halted — higher rates on dozens of economies while negotiations took place.That pause is set to expire July 9.Asked if there were plans to further the pause, Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters: “Perhaps it could be extended, but that’s a decision for the president to make.””The deadline is not critical,” she said. “The president can simply provide these countries with a deal if they refuse to make us one by the deadline.”This means Trump can “pick a reciprocal tariff rate that he believes is advantageous for the United States,” she said.Lutnick told Bloomberg TV that Washington will announce some deals in the next week or so.”Those who have deals will have deals, and everybody else who’s been negotiating with us, they’ll get a response from us,” he said.”July 9 will go forward. And as the president said, if people want to come back and negotiate further, they’re entitled to, but that tariff rate will be set, and off we’ll go,” Lutnick added.On the progress of trade negotiations, Leavitt added that US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer is “working very hard” and has had “good and productive discussions with many of our key trading partners.”