AFP USA

Turkey on Friday proposed hosting a summit with the leaders of Russia, Ukraine and the United States as it strives to broker an elusive deal to end Russia’s three-year invasion — an invitation swiftly dismissed by the Kremlin.Moscow said it was sending a team of negotiators to Istanbul for a second round of direct talks with Ukraine on Monday — though Kyiv has yet to confirm if it will attend.Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who has fostered warm relations with both Volodymyr Zelensky and Vladimir Putin, has become a key mediator amid Donald Trump’s push for a deal to end the over three-year war.”We sincerely think that it is possible to cap the first and second direct Istanbul talks with a meeting between Mr. Trump, Mr. Putin and Mr. Zelensky, under the direction of Mr. Erdogan,” Turkey’s Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan said during a visit to Kyiv.The Kremlin pushed back against the idea of a face-to-face meeting involving Putin and Zelensky.”First, results must be achieved through direct negotiations between the two countries,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters.Fidan met Ukraine’s Foreign Minister Andriy Sybiga in Kyiv and was due to meet Zelensky later in the day.He held talks with Putin in Moscow earlier this week. Ukraine has said it is open to further negotiations, but has not confirmed it will be in Istanbul on Monday.At talks in Istanbul on May 16 — the first in over three years — the sides agree to swap documents outlining possible roadmaps to peace.The Kremlin repeated Friday that it would hand over its version at the talks on Monday, but Kyiv is pressuring Moscow to send a copy in advance.- ‘Disregard for diplomacy’ -Ukraine has for more than two months been urging Russia to agree to a full, unconditional and immediate 30-day ceasefire — an idea first proposed by Trump.Putin has repeatedly rejected those calls, despite pressure from Washington and Europe, while the Russian army has intensified its advances in eastern Ukraine.  He has said that a ceasefire is possible as a result of negotiations, but that talks should focus on the “root causes” of the war.Moscow typically uses that language to refer to a mix of sweeping demands that have at times included limiting Ukraine’s military, banning it from joining NATO, massive territorial concessions and the toppling of Zelensky.Kyiv and the West have rejected those calls and cast Russia’s assault as nothing but an imperial-style land grab.Russia’s invasion in February 2022 triggered the biggest European conflict since World War II.Tens of thousands have been killed, swathes of eastern and southern Ukraine destroyed and millions forced to flee their homes.Trump has been growing increasingly frustrated at both Zelensky and Putin for not having struck a deal yet.At a UN Security Council meeting Thursday a US diplomat reaffirmed that Washington could pull back from peace efforts if it does not see progress soon.Despite the sides having held their first peace talks in more than three years, there has been little sign of movement towards a possible compromise agreement.At the talks earlier in May, Ukraine said Russia threatened to accelerate its ground offensive into new regions and made a host of maximalist demands, including that Kyiv cede territory still under its control.Along with its European allies, Ukraine has been ramping up pressure on Trump to hit Moscow with fresh sanctions — a step he has so far not taken.”Talks of pauses in pressure or easing of sanctions are perceived in Moscow as a political victory –- and only encourage further attacks and continued disregard for diplomacy,” Zelensky said Friday on social media.Russia has meanwhile been pressing its advance on the battlefield, with its forces on Friday claiming to have captured another village in the northeastern Kharkiv region.

US President Donald Trump celebrated a temporary reprieve for his aggressive tariff strategy on Thursday, 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 barred most of the tariffs announced since Trump took office, ruling on Wednesday 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.US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said trade talks were “a bit stalled” and suggested Trump get involved personally with his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping in order to iron out tariffs between the world’s two biggest economies.”I think that given the magnitude of the talks, given the complexity, that this is going to require both leaders to weigh in with each other,” Bessent told Fox News after the ruling from the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, known as an administrative stay.Washington and Beijing agreed this month to pause reciprocal tariffs for 90 days, a surprise de-escalation in their bitter trade war following talks between top officials in Geneva.Trump has moved to reconfigure US trade ties with the world since returning to the presidency in January, using levies to force foreign governments to the negotiating table.However, the stop-start tariff rollout on both allies and adversaries has roiled markets and snarled supply chains.The White House had been given 10 days to halt affected tariffs before Thursday’s decision from the appeals court.The Trump administration called the block “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 were 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 identifying 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 that have since been paused.The US trade court’s ruling quashed those blanket duties, along with others that Trump imposed on Canada, Mexico and China separately using emergency powers.However, 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.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.”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/cms/pbt

A second former assistant to Sean “Diddy” Combs testified Thursday in the music mogul’s federal trial, alledging he committed acts of violence against her and others, including sexual assault.Appearing under the pseudonym Mia to protect her identity, the assistant addressed jurors on the stand in the federal trial of the once-famed rapper, producer and entrepreneur who faces racketeering and sex trafficking charges that could put him in prison for life.Combs’s case revolves around his relationship with his former girlfriend, singer Casandra “Cassie” Ventura, who earlier in the trial detailed years of alleged abuse and coercive, drug-fueled sex marathons known as “freak-offs.”- ‘He’s going to kill me’ -Mia said she was close to the “Diddy-Cassie” couple and recalled several episodes of violence.She sounded breathless at times as she told the court about seeing Ventura with “busted lips,” “bruises” and “a black eye.”Combs would tell Mia to “go take care of her,” referring to Ventura, adding that “we were not allowed” to go out until her injuries healed enough to conceal.The prosecutors asked Mia about an incident during a holiday trip she took with the couple in 2012.One night, she said she was woken up by Ventura running into her room, “screaming for help.”She recalled Ventura had said: “He’s gonna kill me,” referring to Combs.”We started pushing furniture in front of the door,” Mia said, describing how Combs was “screaming and banging” on the other side.The former assistant, like previous witnesses, said hotel rooms would be prepared for the “freak-offs” and she would be responsible for the clean-up.Working for the hip-hop mogul could be exciting, she said, but was often degrading.”He treated me sometimes like his best friend, a working partner, sometimes I was a worthless piece of crap,” Mia said.- ‘I just froze’ -She also accused Combs of violent acts against her.”He has thrown things at me. He has thrown me against the wall. He has thrown me into a pool. He has thrown an ice bucket on my head. He has slammed my arm into a door,” she said.”He has also sexually assaulted me.” She said Combs subjected her to “sporadic” instances of sexual violence, including at the artist’s 40th birthday party at the Plaza Hotel in New York and his private residence in Los Angeles.”I just froze, I didn’t react, terrified and confused,” Mia said about one of the assaults.”He was the boss or the king, very powerful person,” she said.”This is years and years before social media, Me Too, or any sort of example where someone had stood up successfully to someone in power such as him,” she added.Mia said the rapper held sway over the police, describing how she herself was pulled over one day in LA for speeding.But when she called Combs and handed the phone to the female officer, “she started laughing and saying like ‘oh my God, Puff Daddy, I love you,’… and then she let me go.”Mia’s testimony is scheduled to continue on Friday.

From a delicate 13th-century clay figure to self-portraits by photographer Samuel Fosso, New York’s Metropolitan Museum reopens its African art collection on Saturday, exploring the “complexity” of the past and looking to the present. After a four-year renovation with a $70 million price tag, the reopening of the Michael C. Rockefeller Wing comes amid heated debate over the representation of cultural diversity in Western museums and the return of works to their countries of origin.The reopening should be “an opportunity to recognize that the achievements of artists in this part of the world (sub-Saharan Africa) are equal to those of other major world traditions,” Alisa LaGamma, the Met’s curator for African art, told AFP.In a spacious gallery bathed in light, visitors are greeted by a monumental Dogon sculpture — “a heroic figure, likely a priest,” LaGamma explained.Next to it sits a clay sculpture of a curled body from the ancient city of Djenne-Djenno, in present-day Mali, which is believed to be one of the oldest pieces in the collection, dating back to the 13th century.- ‘Complex history’ -The exhibit does not present the works of sub-Saharan Africa as a single unit, but in chapters to better distinguish between the various cultures.”We don’t want people to oversimplify their understanding of an incredibly complex history,” LaGamma said.”There are over 170 different cultures represented among the 500 works of African art on display,” she pointed out.”That gives you a sense of how many different stories there are to tell in this presentation.”The museum wing, which also displays arts of Oceania and the “ancient Americas” — prior to European colonization — opened in 1982 after former Republican vice president and philanthropist Nelson Rockefeller donated his monumental collection. It is named for his son.”This is a collection that was formed essentially following independence in a lot of what were new nations across sub-Saharan Africa,” LaGamma said.”It doesn’t have necessarily the heavy weight of a collection that was formed under colonialism,” she said, hinting at the pressure faced by many museums to respond to questions about the origins of works on display. – ‘African Spirits’ -A third of the works shown here were newly acquired. The museum was thus able to benefit from a donation of thousands of photographs from the renowned Arthur Walther collection.Among the vast trove of pieces donated is a 2008 series of self-portraits entitled “African Spirits” by Fosso, a Cameroonian-Nigerian photographer.Among Africa’s leading photographers, Fosso poses as major figures in African independence and civil rights struggles, from Congolese independence leader and first prime minister Patrice Lumumba, to Nelson Mandela and Malcolm X.Through around a dozen films directed by Ethiopian-American artist Sosena Solomon, visitors can also explore iconic cultural sites across the continent, like Tsodilo rock paintings in Botswana, the rock-hewn churches of Lalibela and Tigray in Ethiopia, and the tombs of Buganda kings at Kasubi in Uganda.”In an art museum like this, it is important that rock paintings should be reflected,” said Phillip Segadika, chief curator for archeology and monuments at Botswana’s national museum, in residence at the Met to participate in the project.”It tells us that what we are seeing today, whether it’s in European art, medieval art, whatever — it has a history, it also has an antiquity.”

President Donald Trump made no pretense at hiding his irritation this week when he was asked by a reporter about “TACO” — an acronym that has been gaining traction among Wall Street traders who believe that “Trump Always Chickens Out.” The so-called “TACO Theory” was coined by Robert Armstrong, a Financial Times writer seeking to underline the US president’s tendency to backtrack on policies when they start to roil the markets. Investors have come to realize that the US administration “does not have a very high tolerance for market and economic pressure and will be quick to back off when tariffs cause pain,” the journalist concluded.”This is the TACO Theory: Trump Always Chickens Out.”Armstrong was writing earlier this month, after stocks had just rebounded sharply on Trump’s announcement of a pause in massive tariffs imposed on the rest of the world by the Republican leader. Worsening the whiplash, Trump announced last week that tariffs of 50 percent on imports from the European Union would come into force on June 1 — but two days later declared a pause until July 9. – ‘It’s called negotiation’ -At the heart of Trump’s flip-flops is an acute sensitivity for the ups and downs of market trading that he honed as a brash New York property developer and business magnate in the 1980s. During his first term in office, a sharp reaction on Wall Street could sometimes be the only way to change the billionaire’s mind. Beyond the columns of the Financial Times, the “TACO Theory” is having a viral moment, and has entered the lexicon of investors who see it as more than just a snarky in-joke, according to analysts. “TACO trading strategy gets attention again,” blared the headline on a podcast released Monday by John Hardy, head of macroeconomic strategy at Danish investment bank Saxo.  The phrase eventually found its way back to the 78-year-old president, who furiously denied on Wednesday that he was backing down in the face of stock market turmoil. “I chicken out? I’ve never heard that… don’t ever say what you said, that’s a nasty question,” the mercurial tycoon thundered, rounding in the journalist who had asked for his take on the expression. Far from caving, Trump said he was merely engaging in the high-stakes cut and thrust of international dealmaking, he snarled — adding, with a sardonic edge: “It’s called negotiation.”For Steve Sosnick of Interactive Brokers, the TACO Theory is a “nonpolitical way of the markets calling the administration’s bluff.”- Reaction -Sam Burns, an analyst at Mill Street Research, told AFP he has noticed a new equanimity in Wall Street’s reaction to each new tariff announcement, with traders’ responses initially “much larger and more direct.”Where they once convulsed markets, Trump’s tariff talk now tends to be viewed as “easily reversible or not reliable,” said Burns, and investors are accordingly more willing to ignore the instinct to act rashly.This new calm was evident among traders at the New York Stock Exchange who held steady in the face of Trump’s EU tariff threats, and again when they did not overreact to successive court rulings blocking and then temporarily reinstating most of the tariffs. But Hardy, the Saxo analyst, warns that the vagaries of Trump’s day-to-day announcements should not distract from the protectionist bent of his broader political outlook. “Trump might ‘chicken out’ at times,” Hardy wrote in a recent commentary on Saxo’s website.”But the underlying policy moves are for real, and a deadly serious shift in US economic statecraft and industrial policy that is a response to massive instabilities that have been growing for years.”

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.