Podcasts about International trade

Section 301 of the U-S Trade Act of 1974 is a broad tool which authorizes the sitting U.S. President to negotiate trade agreements, reduce tariffs, and combat unfair foreign trade practices. In mid-March, the U.S. Trade Representative's office put Taiwan on two 301-related lists: one for failing to take action over structural excess capacity, and the other, for failing to take action over accusations of false labor. International Trade attorney James Ransdell explains the regulation, and how it is being used against traditional U-S allies today. Hosted by I.C.R.T's Hope Ngo. -- Hosting provided by SoundOn

This Day in Legal History: Butler ActOn March 13, 1925, the Tennessee General Assembly approved the Butler Act, a statute that made it unlawful for public school teachers to present any theory that denied the biblical account of human creation. The law specifically prohibited teaching that humans evolved from lower forms of life, reflecting growing tensions between scientific ideas and religious beliefs in early twentieth-century America. Tennessee lawmakers framed the statute as a way to protect traditional moral values in public education. Critics, however, immediately argued that the law restricted academic freedom and undermined the teaching of modern science.The controversy quickly escalated when a young teacher, John T. Scopes, agreed to challenge the statute. Scopes was charged with violating the Butler Act after he allowed evolution to be discussed in his classroom. His prosecution led to the famous 1925 Scopes “Monkey” Trial in Dayton, Tennessee. The trial drew national attention and featured two of the era's most prominent legal figures: Clarence Darrow for the defense and William Jennings Bryan for the prosecution. Their courtroom clash turned the case into a dramatic public debate over science, religion, and the role of government in shaping school curricula.Although Scopes was ultimately convicted and fined $100, the trial exposed deep cultural divisions within the United States. Media coverage portrayed the proceedings as a symbolic struggle between modern scientific thinking and religious fundamentalism. Over time, the Butler Act came to be seen by many as an example of government overreach into education and intellectual inquiry. Tennessee formally repealed the statute in 1967, decades after the trial had become a lasting symbol of the conflict between science and law.Federal Circuit Judge Pauline Newman has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review her ongoing challenge to a suspension imposed by her fellow judges. In a petition filed Thursday, the 98-year-old judge argues that the D.C. Circuit wrongly ruled that courts cannot review many challenges to judicial suspension orders under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act. Newman contends that the statute should allow review when suspension decisions violate the law or the Constitution. Her petition claims the lower court misinterpreted the law by blocking challenges to actions that exceed the authority granted under the statute. Newman argues that her suspension effectively removes her from the bench without impeachment, which she says undermines constitutional protections for judicial independence and lifetime tenure.The Federal Circuit's judicial council first suspended Newman in 2023 after concerns that potential mental or physical health issues made her unable to perform judicial duties. The suspension followed her refusal to undergo medical evaluations requested by her colleagues and was characterized as serious misconduct. Although the suspension was initially set for one year, it has been renewed twice. Newman appealed through the internal judicial review process, but a national committee of judges upheld the suspension in 2024. She also challenged the suspension in federal court, arguing that parts of the judicial discipline law are unconstitutional. Both a district court and the D.C. Circuit dismissed the case, relying on a statutory provision stating that disciplinary orders under the act are final and not subject to judicial review. Newman now asks the Supreme Court to clarify whether courts may still review suspension orders that allegedly exceed legal or constitutional limits.Judge Newman Takes Suspension Battle To Supreme Court - Law36098-year-old judge asks US Supreme Court to hear case over her suspension | ReutersThe U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) has begun the process of developing regulations for prediction markets, issuing an advance notice of proposed rulemaking and asking the public for input on how the industry should be governed. The agency said the move is intended to support innovation while ensuring prediction markets operate within the framework of the Commodity Exchange Act. Interest in regulation has grown as more companies apply to register as designated contract markets, with many applications coming from prediction market platforms. These platforms allow users to trade on the outcomes of events such as sports games, elections, and entertainment awards.The CFTC is seeking feedback on several issues, including whether margin trading should be allowed, what types of event contracts might be harmful to the public interest, and whether individuals with insider knowledge should be restricted from trading on certain outcomes. At the same time, the agency released staff guidance reminding platforms to avoid contracts that could be easily manipulated, such as those tied to specific player injuries or actions by a single referee. The guidance also explains that platforms can list new contracts through a self-certification process, although the CFTC can intervene if it believes a contract violates the law.The regulatory effort comes amid ongoing legal disputes about who has authority over prediction markets. The CFTC maintains that it has exclusive jurisdiction, while several states have attempted to regulate or restrict these platforms under gambling laws. Meanwhile, members of Congress have introduced legislation that would ban certain types of event contracts, including those related to violence or death, and strengthen rules against insider trading on prediction markets.CFTC Proposes Prediction Markets Rule - Law360CFTC Seeks Public Comment on Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Relating to Prediction MarketsThe Trump administration has filed a lawsuit against California seeking to block the state's Advanced Clean Cars I (ACC I) regulations, arguing that the rules unlawfully interfere with federal authority over vehicle fuel economy standards. The lawsuit, brought by the U.S. Department of Justice and the Department of Transportation, targets California rules adopted in 2012 that require automakers to sell increasing numbers of low-emission and zero-emission vehicles. Federal officials claim the regulations effectively force manufacturers to meet stricter nationwide standards and function as a quota system for electric vehicles.According to the complaint, California cannot impose its own limits on vehicle emissions because the federal Energy Policy and Conservation Act gives the federal government authority to set fuel-economy standards through the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. The administration argues that California's requirements could increase vehicle prices, reduce consumer choice, and disrupt the national auto market. Federal officials also say Congress revoked certain Clean Air Act waivers in 2025 that previously allowed California to enforce some emissions rules.California leaders strongly dispute the lawsuit and say the state is defending policies designed to reduce pollution and expand access to cleaner vehicles. State officials argue the federal government is attempting to undermine California's environmental regulations and its efforts to lead the transition to cleaner transportation. The lawsuit is part of a broader series of legal disputes between the federal government and California over vehicle emissions standards and electric-vehicle mandates.Feds Sue To Stop California's ‘Illegal' EV Regulations - Law360U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) told a federal court that it is making progress on a system to refund about $166 billion in tariffs that were ruled unlawful. According to a court filing, the agency's four-part refund system is between 40% and 80% complete, with the review portion the most developed and the mass-processing component the least finished. The system will include an online portal where importers and brokers can submit claims for reimbursement.The filing was submitted to the U.S. Court of International Trade in response to an order from a judge directing the government to begin refunding tariffs after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down most of the tariffs in February. The Court's decision invalidated tariffs collected since February 2024 but did not explain how refunds should be handled. CBP previously suggested building a new system to process claims rather than using its existing process, and officials say the new portal could begin accepting applications as soon as mid-April.More than 330,000 importers paid the tariffs on roughly 53 million shipments, though only about 21,000 importers are currently registered to receive refunds. Refunds will go only to the companies that originally paid the tariffs, and there is no legal requirement that businesses pass the money on to consumers. Some companies, including FedEx, have said they will reimburse customers, while Costco indicated it may lower prices using the refunded funds. Meanwhile, new legal disputes are emerging as businesses and states challenge additional tariffs imposed after the Supreme Court ruling.US customs agency says building system for tariff refunds is 40% to 80% complete | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

STREAM THE MAKING OF THE JOHN BATCHELOR SHOW3-12-261910 BRUSSELS CITY HALL HOTEL DE VILLEThis transcript captures the preparatory and live segments of the *John Batchelor Show*, where the host and his guests navigate the complexities of modern technology and international trade. The discussion begins with an analysis of artificial intelligence, weighing its potential to boost productivity against concerns regarding reliability, job displacement, and the necessity of human oversight. The dialogue then transitions to the Trump administration's tariff policies, which guest Richard Epstein criticizes as economically damaging and legally problematic due to the procedural uncertainty they create for businesses. Woven throughout the exchange are reflections on geopolitical instability, specifically focusing on the escalating conflict in the Middle East and its impact on global supply chains. Ultimately, the source highlights a shared sense of technological and political turbulence that defines the contemporary era. (1)

The Trump Administration has told a federal judge that they can't refund the money it took illegally from the American people by taxing them illegally through unconstitutional tariffs because it will take 4 Million Hours to process the more than 53 million refunds totaling more than 170 billion dollars, and they just can't spare the personnel! Popok reports on what Judge Eaton in the Court of International Trade could order next, like forcing Trump to hire 4,000 people to work to get all the refunds returned in the next few months, as Trump tries to deny Americans their money until years after he leaves office. Check out The Popok Firm at: https://thepopokfirm.com Subscribe:  @LegalAFMTN  Visit https://meidasplus.com for more! Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcast Legal AF: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-af MissTrial: https://meidasnews.com/tag/miss-trial The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcast Cult Conversations: The Influence Continuum with Dr. Steve Hassan: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan The Weekend Show: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show The Ken Harbaugh Show: https://meidasnews.com/tag/the-ken-harbaugh-show Majority 54: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54 On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

For more on the impact of this Simon McKeever,Chief Executive of the Irish Exporters Association and we get reaction from Duncan Smith, Labour TD for the Dublin Fingal East.

The recent ruling by the U.S. Court of International Trade has profound implications for the furniture industry, as it potentially paves the way for approximately 300,000 companies to receive refunds for previously paid tariffs now deemed illegal. This decision could result in a staggering $130 billion in refunds, escalating to approximately $175 billion when interest is considered. Such a financial reprieve arrives amidst a landscape marked by evolving sourcing strategies and significant challenges in domestic manufacturing, exemplified by Prepack Furniture's impending closure of its North Carolina facility, which will displace around 200 workers. Furthermore, the retail sector continues to navigate a complex environment characterized by mixed performance metrics, as some retailers report gains in foot traffic while others experience declines. As we delve into these developments, we shall explore how these multifaceted dynamics are reshaping the operational frameworks of furniture retailers, manufacturers, and suppliers alike.Takeaways:The recent ruling by the U.S. court on tariffs could potentially result in substantial refunds for approximately 300,000 companies, including those in the furniture sector.With the closure of Prepack Furniture's manufacturing facility in North Carolina, the industry faces ongoing challenges due to rising production costs and global competition.Retailers are increasingly employing localized marketing strategies to enhance customer engagement and loyalty, demonstrating the importance of understanding regional consumer preferences.Kohl's performance in the fourth quarter illustrates the complexities of inventory management, as they reported a decline in net sales despite an increase in profitability.The evolving sourcing strategies within the furniture industry reveal a shift towards diversification, with companies increasingly relying on manufacturing hubs in Vietnam and India.Overall consumer spending remains resilient, yet the furniture sector must navigate ongoing supply chain disruptions and geopolitical uncertainties to maintain growth.

On this episode of the Trade Guys, Bill and Scott dive into the impacts of the Iran Conflict on world trade, especially for energy markets. Bill then gives an update on the Court of International Trade's efforts to implement the Supreme Court's IEEPA decision. They conclude by unpacking an escalating trade war between Ecuador and Colombia. 

This Day in Legal History: The AmistadOn March 9, 1841, the U.S. Supreme Court decided United States v. The Amistad, ruling that a group of Africans who had seized control of the Spanish ship La Amistad were free individuals who had been illegally enslaved. The case began after the captives, led by Sengbe Pieh—often called Cinqué—revolted against the ship's crew while being transported from Cuba in 1839. They had originally been kidnapped in West Africa and sold into slavery in violation of international agreements banning the transatlantic slave trade. After the revolt, the ship was intercepted near Long Island and the Africans were taken into U.S. custody. Spanish officials demanded that the United States return both the ship and the captives to Cuba. The U.S. government supported Spain's request, arguing that the captives were property under Spanish law.Abolitionists rallied to the Africans' defense and secured legal representation for them in American courts. The case eventually reached the Supreme Court, where former President John Quincy Adams joined the legal team arguing for the captives' freedom. Adams delivered a lengthy and passionate argument emphasizing natural rights and the illegality of the slave trade that had brought the Africans to Cuba. Writing for the majority, Justice Joseph Story concluded that the captives had been unlawfully enslaved and were therefore not property. Because they were free individuals, the Court held that they had the legal right to resist their captivity and fight for their liberty. The Court ordered that the Africans be released rather than returned to Spanish authorities.The ruling was celebrated by abolitionists as an important moral and legal victory in the fight against slavery. Although it did not end slavery in the United States, the decision demonstrated that courts could recognize limits on the slave trade and acknowledge the legal claims of enslaved people.Thirteen major U.S. book publishers have filed a copyright lawsuit against Anna's Archive, a website they describe as one of the largest “shadow libraries” distributing pirated books and academic papers. The publishers—including HarperCollins, Wiley, McGraw Hill, and Cengage—filed the complaint in federal court in New York, alleging that the site hosts more than 63 million books and 95 million research papers without authorization. According to the lawsuit, Anna's Archive allows users to download these materials directly or through torrent networks, making copyrighted works widely available for free. The publishers claim the site openly presents itself as a pirate platform and intentionally violates copyright law.The complaint also alleges that Anna's Archive was created in 2022 after copying entire collections from other illegal book repositories and has continued expanding its database. The publishers say the site operates anonymously and frequently changes domain names across different countries to avoid enforcement efforts. They further claim the platform targets artificial intelligence developers by offering large datasets of books and papers. While free users can access files slowly, the complaint states that faster downloads are available to users who make donations through untraceable methods like cryptocurrency or gift cards. The publishers allege that these donations can reach roughly $200,000 for high-speed bulk access. In response, the plaintiffs are asking the court to shut down the site and award statutory damages of up to $150,000 for each infringed work.The lawsuit follows a separate case brought by Atlantic Recording Corp., which earlier obtained a preliminary injunction preventing Anna's Archive from distributing millions of music files allegedly copied from Spotify. That case resulted in a default after the site failed to respond to the complaint. However, the publishers argue that the earlier injunction does not cover books, allowing the alleged book piracy to continue. The Association of American Publishers has publicly supported the lawsuit, describing the scale of digital piracy as extremely large and urging legal action to stop the operation.Publishers Sue ‘Shadow Library' For ‘Staggering' Book Piracy - Law360Companies that operate in California are facing uncertainty as the state moves forward with major climate disclosure laws while a federal appeals court considers whether the rules should be blocked. The laws—California Senate Bills 253 and 261—require large companies doing business in the state to disclose information about greenhouse gas emissions and climate-related financial risks. In late February, the California Air Resources Board approved initial regulations explaining how the reporting system will be administered and how companies will pay implementation fees. At the same time, the Ninth Circuit has temporarily blocked enforcement of S.B. 261 and is reviewing a request from business groups to halt both laws entirely.Because of this parallel regulatory and legal process, many companies are unsure whether they should invest heavily in compliance or wait for the courts to rule. S.B. 253 applies to companies with more than $1 billion in annual revenue and requires reporting of Scope 1, Scope 2, and Scope 3 greenhouse gas emissions, which include direct emissions, energy-related emissions, and emissions from supply chains. S.B. 261 applies to companies with more than $500 million in revenue and requires disclosure of climate-related financial risks and mitigation strategies. Attorneys say collecting this data could be difficult, especially for companies that only have limited operations in California or that must gather information from suppliers and partners in other regions.The reporting requirements could also affect businesses outside California because companies subject to the law may need emissions data from their partners and vendors. Regulators have begun setting deadlines for initial reporting, including an August deadline for certain emissions data, but many details about how the system will function remain unresolved. Meanwhile, business groups including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce argue the laws violate the First Amendment by forcing companies to speak on controversial issues related to climate change. With rulemaking still underway and litigation ongoing, companies are left trying to prepare for possible compliance while waiting to see whether the courts ultimately uphold or invalidate the laws.Companies In Limbo Over Calif. Climate Disclosure Laws' Fate - Law360In a major California bellwether trial over claims that social media harms children's mental health, the plaintiff has finished presenting her case against Instagram and YouTube. The plaintiff, a 20-year-old referred to as Kaley G.M. to protect her identity, alleges that features on the platforms contributed to anxiety, depression, and body dysmorphia she experienced as a minor. Her attorney, Mark Lanier, chose not to call Kaley's mother to testify live, instead presenting a brief portion of her deposition to the jury. The decision appeared partly influenced by strict time limits imposed by the judge during the trial. In the deposition testimony, the mother acknowledged she had little knowledge of her daughter's social media use and did not monitor her phone because she viewed it similarly to a household landline.Defense attorneys have argued that Kaley's mental health problems were caused by difficulties at home rather than the platforms themselves. Evidence introduced at trial suggested the plaintiff had conflicts with her mother, including allegations of neglect, verbal abuse, and limited supervision of internet use. The defense also pointed to bullying and other personal issues as alternative explanations for the plaintiff's struggles. Meanwhile, a former Meta employee testified that internal company information suggested Instagram could be addictive and harmful to young users, although defense lawyers challenged his credibility and the extent of his involvement with safety issues.The plaintiff's final expert witness discussed ways social media companies could design safer platforms for children. After the plaintiff rested, Meta began presenting its defense with testimony from school administrators connected to the plaintiff. The case is the first bellwether trial among thousands of similar lawsuits consolidated in California, with outcomes potentially shaping settlement negotiations and future trials. TikTok and Snap previously settled with this plaintiff, but the broader litigation against social media companies continues.Meta, Google Begin Defense As Mental Harm Plaintiff Rests - Law360 UKThe U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agency told a federal trade court that it expects to create a system within about 45 days to process refunds for tariffs that were previously imposed under President Donald Trump and later ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court. The tariffs generated roughly $166 billion in payments from about 330,000 importers, and the Court's decision did not specify how those funds should be returned. As a result, government lawyers and a judge from the U.S. Court of International Trade are working to establish a practical process for issuing refunds.Under the proposed plan, importers would submit a declaration through CBP's electronic system detailing the tariffs they paid. The agency would verify the information and then issue a single payment from the Treasury Department to each importer, including interest. Officials say this approach would avoid forcing businesses to file individual lawsuits to recover their money. The judge overseeing the matter recently modified an earlier order that required immediate refunds, acknowledging that the agency needs time to build a workable system.CBP explained that its current administrative system cannot automatically process refunds on the massive scale required. Importers paid tariffs on more than 53 million shipments, and manually reviewing each transaction could require millions of hours of labor. Several large companies, including affiliates of Nintendo and CVS, have already filed lawsuits seeking repayment, though the government hopes a broader refund system will resolve claims more efficiently.Business groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have supported the proposal, saying it could simplify the process for smaller companies. However, officials noted that relatively few importers have registered for the electronic refund system created earlier this year. The court continues to oversee the development of the refund process through a test case that could guide how payments are returned to all affected businesses.US customs agency expects tariff refund system to be ready in 45 days | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

The gaming industry is facing its most significant legal week of 2026. First, we break down the U.S. government's move against Tencent Games—the Shenzhen-based giant behind League of Legends and Riot Games—citing the same data privacy concerns that led to the TikTok divestiture. Then, we dive into Nintendo's blockbuster lawsuit against the U.S. Court of International Trade. Following the February 20th Supreme Court ruling striking down IEEPA-authorized tariffs, Nintendo is demanding a full refund, with interest, for billions in "unlawful" duties paid on Switch 2 accessories and hardware. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Linktree: ⁠⁠https://linktr.ee/Analytic⁠⁠Join The Normandy For Ad-Free NME, Additional Bonus Audio And Visual Content For All Things Nme+! Join Here:⁠⁠ ⁠⁠https://ow.ly/msoH50WCu0K⁠⁠The Nintendo Lawsuit Against U.S. Government Over Tariffs (2026) is heating up as Nintendo of America files suit on March 6, 2026, in the United States Court of International Trade. In this segment of Notorious Mass Effect, Analytic Dreamz dives into the high-profile case where Nintendo demands a full refund—with interest—of tariffs paid under now-invalidated policies imposed by the Trump administration starting February 1, 2025.The tariffs, enacted via executive orders under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), targeted imports from numerous countries, including key Nintendo manufacturing hubs like Vietnam and Cambodia. The Supreme Court ruled on February 20, 2026, in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump that IEEPA does not authorize such tariffs, deeming them unlawful and triggering over 380 similar corporate lawsuits (with thousands more including prior cases) from companies like Costco, Toyota, and GoPro seeking refunds on billions collected—estimates range from $166 billion to over $200 billion in total duties.Nintendo claims substantial harm from these "unlawful trade measures," citing impacts like delayed U.S. pre-orders for the Nintendo Switch 2 (originally set to begin April 9, 2025, but postponed due to tariff uncertainty) and price hikes on the original Switch and some Switch 2 peripherals in 2025 to offset costs. The suit names agencies including the U.S. Department of the Treasury, Homeland Security, Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Commerce, and the U.S. Trade Representative, plus officials like Scott Bessent and Kristi Noem.Refunds face delays: CBP cites manpower shortages, outdated systems, and massive volume, though a new processing system is expected in about 45 days. A federal judge has ordered reimbursements to begin, but logistical hurdles persist amid broader industry fallout, including potential future pressures like global RAM shortages.Analytic Dreamz breaks down the timeline, Supreme Court ruling, Nintendo's financial arguments, and what refunds could mean for console pricing across gaming—potentially stabilizing or lowering costs for Switch 2, PlayStation, Xbox, and hardware in 2026–2027 if the wave of litigation succeeds.Support this podcast at — https://redcircle.com/analytic-dreamz-notorious-mass-effect/exclusive-contentPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

店頭に並ぶ任天堂の商品【ワシントン時事】任天堂の米子会社は６日、相互関税などの還付を求め、米国際貿易裁判所に提訴した。 Japanese game giant Nintendo Co.'s U.S. subsidiary filed a lawsuit with the U.S. Court of International Trade on Friday, seeking a refund of duties paid under the U.S. government's reciprocal tariff policy, which was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Japanese game giant Nintendo Co.'s U.S. subsidiary filed a lawsuit with the U.S. Court of International Trade on Friday, seeking a refund of duties paid under the U.S. government's reciprocal tariff policy, which was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court.

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.serioustrouble.showThis week Ken and Josh discuss how The Trump Administration surprised observers by withdrawing its efforts to appeal its losses against all four law firms that challenged its legal orders against them. Then, it surprised observers again by changing its mind and asking to appeal the cases after all. We discuss why, whether you're allowed to do that, and what happens to the nine firms that didn't fight when the other firms win.We also look at a strange letter from the Department of Justice to state bar associations, telling them they'll have to pause investigations into DOJ lawyers, or else. It's unclear what authority DOJ thinks it has here, but they may be upset about a Florida Bar investigation into Lindsey Halligan. And we talk about news that DOJ tried to come up with a way to do a criminal prosecution related to President Biden's autopen, but didn't.That's for all listeners. Paying subscribers get a whole lot more this week:* You'd think, now that the IEEPA tariffs have been thrown out, customs would stop charging them to importers. You'd be wrong! The customs bureau keeps finalizing tariff payments including the now-barred IEEPA charges — in a filing issued after we taped, they argued their computers won't let them stop — but Judge Richard Eaton from the U.S. Court of International Trade has told them to cut the crap and refund taxpayers' money. Ken and I discuss how this episode might affect the next round of tariff litigation over the new legal authorities the administration is leaning on to replace IEEPA.* There's Administrative Procedure Act news! Judge Lewis Liman says the Trump Department of Transportation can't end New York's congestion pricing program, in an order that Ken calls “149 pages of pain.” One of the issues? As often happens with APA cases, the DOT said New York couldn't challenge its move because they hadn't actually imposed a “final” agency action. Unfortunately for DOT, President Trump last February tweeted a picture of himself wearing a crown and declaring “CONGESTION PRICING IS DEAD,” which sounded pretty final to Liman.* We have an update on West Virginia judges resisting the Trump administration on ICE.* We look at why Tom Goldstein couldn't save his own ass in court, discuss the superseding indictment with a whopping 39 defendants in the St. Paul ICE Church protest case, and we discuss the prosecution in Alabama of a woman who dressed up as a giant penis for a No Kings protest. Local prosecutors argue, among other claims, that she sought to mislead officers as to her identity by saying her name was “Antifa,” and that her huge penis costume was so distracting that it constituted a criminal traffic hazard.Upgrade your subscription to receive all of our episodes at serioustrouble.show.

Within just weeks of the President's imposition of a 10% global tariff under Sec. 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, two dozen states have filed suit challenging the lawfulness of the tariffs at the U.S. Court of International Trade.  For more information, listen to Today's Two Minutes in Trade.  

Host: Cindy Allen Show: Simply Trade – Cindy's Version Published: March 6, 2026 Length: ~13 minutes Presented by: Global Training Center Ready For It? CBP's IEEPA Refund Proposal Drops—Here's What's Next Cindy Allen, CEO of TradeForce Multiplier, dives into the latest trade developments through Taylor Swift's “Ready For It?”—perfect for the “let the games begin” drama unfolding in IEEPA refund hearings. From DHS shakeups and Section 122 lawsuits to CBP's just‑filed refund blueprint, Cindy unpacks the mechanics, open questions, and what importers/brokers should do now.​ What You'll Learn in This Episode DHS leadership change Secretary Noem removed; scuttlebutt suggests more exits at DHS/CBP headquarters. New nominee: Oklahoma senator with broad congressional/President support (not yet formal).​ Section 122 tariff challenges 24 states sue in Court of International Trade, arguing Section 122 doesn't meet “imbalance of payments” requirement for universal tariffs. Commerce Secretary Besant hints at 15% rate hikes for specific industries, potentially violating Section 122's uniform application rule—no movement yet (as of Friday afternoon).​ USMCA signals Congress supports extension, but President has final say. Discussions on trilateral vs. bilateral (U.S.–Canada, U.S.–Mexico); some push for 1‑year extension to renegotiate post‑tariff chaos.​ Global disruptions Iran war halts Strait of Hormuz traffic, backing up oil tankers and vessels reliant on that fuel—broad transportation ripple effects.​ USTR advisory opportunity Nominations open for 4 USTR trade advisory groups (separate from COAC)—check Federal Register notices. Chance to influence policy, build government/industry relationships.​ Why “Ready For It?” Cindy channels Taylor Swift's “Ready For It?” for the IEEPA refund “dating game” between DOJ, CBP, and CIT: Federal Circuit rejected government's 90‑day delay request, remanded immediately to CIT. CIT hearing (March 4) was “entertaining” bickering—judge ruled no suit needed for non‑final entries and ordered CBP to liquidate without IEEPA duties. CIT conference (March 6, closed): CBP filed a refund proposal.​ CBP's IEEPA Refund Proposal Breakdown How it would work: Importers file ACE declaration with Excel list of affected entries. ACE runs validations, auto‑recalculates IEEPA refund. CBP verifies declaration accuracy. ACE auto‑liquidates; CBP certifies; Treasury issues refunds (as normal). Estimated 45 days for CBP programming.​ Open questions: Entry updates: ACE is system of record—will underlying entry summaries be corrected? (Critical for protests, PSCs, reconciliation, drawback.) Broker involvement: ABI required? Broker systems need programming? Push/pull updates? Reconciliation: How handled in bulk process? PSC/audit impact: Can filers still correct misclassifications post‑bulk liquidation? (Protests harder than PSC.) Liquidation halt: CBP questions authority to pause during 45‑day programming (hundreds of thousands liquidated March 6).​ Key Takeaways CIT has jurisdiction; expect CBP proposal review/dialogue—trade associations pushing entry updates. Programming delays + ABI sync = potential months before refunds flow. Liquidation is automatic unless stopped—monitor your entries closely. “Let the games begin”—are you ready for the IEEPA refund process?​ Credits Host: Cindy Allen Producer: Annik Sobing  Listen & Subscribe Simply Trade main page: https://simplytrade.podbean.com​ Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/simply-trade/id1640329690​ Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/09m199JO6fuNumbcrHTkGq​ Amazon Music: https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/8de7d7fa-38e0-41b2-bad3-b8a3c5dc4cda/simply-trade​ Connect with Simply Trade Podcast page: https://www.globaltrainingcenter.com/simply-trade-podcast​ LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/showcase/simply-trade-podcast​ YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@SimplyTradePod​ Join the Trade Geeks Community Trade Geeks (by Global Training Center): https://globaltrainingcenter.com/trade-geeks/  

This Day in Legal History: FDR Declares Bank HolidayOn March 6, 1933, just two days after taking office, President Franklin D. Roosevelt declared a nationwide bank holiday in response to the escalating financial panic of the Great Depression. At the time, banks across the country were collapsing as frightened depositors rushed to withdraw their savings. The closures threatened to completely destabilize the American financial system. Roosevelt used emergency executive authority to temporarily shut down the nation's banks in order to stop the flood of withdrawals. The pause allowed federal officials to inspect financial institutions and determine which were stable enough to reopen.Although the order began as an executive action, Congress quickly moved to support the president's efforts. On March 9, lawmakers passed the Emergency Banking Act, which retroactively approved Roosevelt's bank holiday and expanded federal oversight of banks. The law allowed only financially sound banks to resume operations and provided additional confidence to depositors. In the days that followed, many banks reopened under stricter supervision, and public trust gradually returned to the banking system. Roosevelt reinforced this confidence through his first “fireside chat,” explaining the reforms directly to the American public.Legal challenges later tested the government's authority to take such sweeping action during a crisis. Courts ultimately upheld many emergency financial measures adopted during the early New Deal period. These rulings helped establish the principle that the federal government has broader power to respond to national economic emergencies. The bank holiday of March 6, 1933, therefore became an important early example of how executive initiative and congressional support can combine to address a national crisis.An insurer has filed a lawsuit accusing OpenAI of engaging in the unauthorized practice of law after its AI chatbot allegedly provided faulty legal assistance to a disability benefits recipient. According to the complaint, Nippon Life Insurance Co. of America had settled a long-term disability dispute with Graciela Dela Torre in January 2024. About a year later, she questioned the agreement and asked her attorney about reopening the case due to alleged documentation problems. When her lawyer explained that the settlement was final, Dela Torre consulted ChatGPT, asking whether her attorney had dismissed her concerns.The insurer claims the chatbot suggested that her attorney had invalidated her feelings and deflected responsibility. After receiving that response, Dela Torre fired her lawyer and attempted to reopen the case on her own. The lawsuit alleges that ChatGPT generated legal arguments asserting that her former counsel had pressured her into signing a blank signature page. She filed a motion based on those arguments, which Nippon says violated the settlement agreement releasing the company from future claims.According to the complaint, Dela Torre then submitted numerous additional filings drafted with the chatbot's help, including more than twenty motions and other court documents. The court rejected her attempt to reopen the case and upheld the settlement as valid. Despite that ruling, she allegedly used ChatGPT again to prepare a new lawsuit asserting claims such as fraudulent misrepresentation and interference with disability benefits. Nippon says she has filed dozens of motions that serve no legitimate legal purpose, forcing the company to spend significant time responding. The insurer is now seeking damages and an injunction preventing OpenAI from providing legal assistance to Dela Torre, while OpenAI has dismissed the claims as meritless.OpenAI Practices Law Without A License, Insurer Alleges - Law360A coalition of 24 states has filed a lawsuit challenging new global tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump. The case was brought in the U.S. Court of International Trade and seeks to block tariffs introduced on February 20 under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. The states argue the administration rushed to impose the tariffs only hours after the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated an earlier set of trade measures that had been issued under a different statute. According to the complaint, the new tariffs were an attempt to revive similar trade restrictions using a separate legal authority.The policy first imposed a 10% tariff on imports worldwide and was raised to the statute's maximum 15% the following day. The administration justified the move by claiming it was necessary to address serious U.S. balance-of-payments deficits. However, the states argue that such deficits do not actually exist and that the government selectively relied on negative data while ignoring overall positive financial inflows. They claim this misuse of the statute mirrors the earlier tariffs that the Supreme Court struck down.The lawsuit also argues that the tariffs violate the Constitution because the authority to impose taxes and duties belongs to Congress. The Supreme Court recently emphasized this principle when it ruled against the administration's earlier tariff policy. According to the states, Section 122 was originally enacted to address problems tied to an outdated international currency system that no longer exists today. Because the statutory conditions cannot be met, the coalition argues the president's tariffs are unlawful. The states are asking the court to invalidate the measures before they remain in effect through the summer.Two Dozen States Sue Trump to Halt New Global Tariffs - Law360Twenty-four US states file lawsuit to stop Trump's latest global tariffs | ReutersA federal trade judge is meeting privately with government lawyers to determine how the United States will refund billions of dollars in tariffs that courts recently ruled unconstitutional. Judge Richard Eaton of the U.S. Court of International Trade scheduled the closed-door meeting as a settlement conference to discuss a practical process for returning money to importers. The tariffs at issue were a major part of President Donald Trump's trade policy but were struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in February for exceeding presidential authority. Because the Court did not provide guidance on how refunds should be handled, lower courts are now working to establish a workable procedure.The scale of the refunds could be enormous, potentially reaching $175 billion and affecting more than 300,000 importers. Government attorneys have warned that processing the reimbursements will be unusually complex because it may involve manual review of tens of millions of tariff payments. Many of the affected importers are small businesses concerned about the cost and administrative burden of seeking repayment. Judge Eaton has indicated that he wants a system that avoids forcing companies to file individual lawsuits.The issue arose in a case filed by Atmus Filtration Inc., which claims it paid $11 million in unlawful tariffs. Eaton recently ordered U.S. Customs and Border Protection to begin using its internal processes to refund tariffs not only to Atmus but potentially to all affected importers. The upcoming conference is expected to focus on how the agency can efficiently review roughly 79 million shipments and distribute refunds. Attorneys involved in related cases believe the meeting could lead to a standardized process that allows most businesses to receive reimbursements without extended litigation.Exclusive: US judge to meet parties on Trump-tariff refunds in closed-door ‘settlement conference' | ReutersA federal appeals court has ruled that President Donald Trump has the authority to suspend refugee admissions to the United States, reversing most of a lower court decision that had blocked the policy. The ruling came from a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The judges concluded that federal law gives the president broad power to restrict the entry of foreign nationals when he believes it serves national interests. As a result, the panel allowed Trump's halt of the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program to remain in place.The policy was introduced shortly after Trump took office in 2025 and paused the admission of refugees while the administration reviewed whether the program ensured proper assimilation. Refugees, their family members, and several resettlement organizations filed a class action lawsuit challenging the move. A federal judge in Seattle had previously issued injunctions blocking the suspension and related actions. However, the Ninth Circuit determined that most of those rulings exceeded the district court's authority.Writing for the panel, Judge Jay Bybee acknowledged that the decision could have serious real-world consequences for thousands of refugees who had already completed years of vetting and were awaiting resettlement. Despite those concerns, the court emphasized that Congress granted the president sweeping authority over immigration entry decisions. The judges said policy judgments about refugee admissions belong to the executive branch rather than the courts.The panel did leave some portions of the lower court's order in place. It upheld injunctions that prevent the government from cutting services to refugees who have already been admitted to the United States and from terminating certain agreements with refugee support organizations. One judge dissented in part, arguing that the district court's injunctions should have been entirely overturned.Trump can suspend refugee admissions, US appeals court rules | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Strategy, Resilience and Growth: Canada–EU Trade Next Steps under CETACanada and the European Union are no longer just trading partners—they are strategic allies in a world where supply chains, security, and climate policy are increasingly intertwined and driven by shifting geopolitics. Two‑way trade in goods and services has surged to more than €123 billion (about $162 billion CAD) a year, a more than 70% increase since CETA's provisional application, underscoring how central the EU has become to Canada's diversification strategy. At Davos, Prime Minister Mark Carney set a new bar for that strategy, calling for Canada to “double our non‑U.S. exports” and to “move from reliance to resilience” by building a denser web of partnerships that are economically and politically sustainable.On March 5, join The Empire Club of Canada for an evening conversation at the heart of this pivot. The program featured remarks from Maroš Šefčovič, European Commissioner for Trade, and The Honourable Maninder Sidhu, Canada's Minister of International Trade, each offering their perspective on the future of Canada–EU cooperation under CETA. Their speeches will be followed by a joint fireside chat that examines how the two partners can secure critical supply chains, respond to geopolitical shocks, align climate and trade policies and keep markets open while protecting Canadian and European workers.   The fireside chat was moderated by Arlene Dickinson, General Managing Partner, District Venture Capital — legendary entrepreneur, venture capitalist, and “Dragon” on CBC's Dragon's Den.The evening asked what a mature, strategic Canada–EU partnership should look like and what it will take to turn today's $162‑billion‑plus relationship into a resilient platform for the next decade—one that strengthens democratic alliances, and keeps both economies competitive in an era when, as Prime Minister Carney warned, “the old order is not coming back.” Join us for an Empire Nights program that brings the strategic choices and critical next steps for a future-oriented Canada-EU trade partnership into sharp focus.

Comprehensive coverage of the day's news with a focus on war and peace; social, environmental and economic justice. Trump admin touts military success of Iran war, amid growing friction among allies and chaos for humanitarian aid; House rejects War Powers Resolution to limit president's power to go to war; California among states suing Administration in Court of International Trade over Trump tariffs; Judge rules companies entitled to refunds after SCOTUS ends Trump's tariffs; California youth lawsuit against EPA says it fails to protect them from climate change; Trump fires Homeland Security Secretary Noem after numerous scandals; March 5 is International Day for Disarmament and Non-Proliferation Awareness, UN chief Guterres says it's time to invest in the architecture of peace, not the tools of war The post Trump admin touts Iran war as UN describes chaos for humanitarian aid; House rejects resolution limiting president's war powers – March 5, 2026 appeared first on KPFA.

① How does China's annual government work report chart the course of the country for this year and the next five years? (00:52) ② China's foreign minister says Beijing will send its special Middle East envoy to regional countries to mediate in the Iran conflict. What has prompted China to make the decision? (24:59) ③ The US Court of International Trade has ordered the US Customs and Border Protection to process refunds on illegal tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump. Is it realistic to expect the Trump administration to do that? (36:27) ④ The European Commission has proposed a controversial industrial act to prioritize “Made in EU” goods in public support and procurement. Why is the proposed act criticized as a misguided and protectionist approach? (46:58)

When President Trump declared a national emergency and imposed sweeping tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), businesses challenged the move, arguing the president did not have authority under that statute to impose tariffs. The Supreme Court recently agreed.  On this episode of Stanford Legal, co-host Professor Pamela Karlan sits down with international trade expert Alan Sykes, professor of law and Warren Christopher Professor in the Practice of International Law and Diplomacy, to unpack the Court's 6–3 decision. Sykes is a leading expert on the application of economics to legal problems and the author of the book The Law and Economics of International Trade Agreements. At the heart of the case, Sykes explains, was the question of whether a statute that allows the president to “regulate importation” can be stretched to authorize taxes on imports. The majority said no, emphasizing that the Constitution assigns the taxing power to Congress, and that if Congress intended to hand that power over, it would have said so clearly. The conversation explores the statutory arguments, the role of the Major Questions Doctrine, and the unusual alignments among the justices. But the ruling raises as many questions as it answers, Sykes notes. What happens to billions in tariffs already collected? Do international trade deals struck in the shadow of these tariffs still stand? And with other statutory tools available is this really the end of the tariff saga, or just the next chapter? Links: Alan O. Sykes >>> Stanford Law page The Law and Economics of International Trade Agreements >>> Stanford Law page Connect: Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast Website Stanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn Page Rich Ford >>>  Twitter/X Pam Karlan >>> Stanford Law School Page Diego Zambrano >>> Stanford Law School Page Stanford Law School >>> Twitter/X Stanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X (00:00:00) Tariffs and IEEPA (00:10:53) Statutory text and the history of tariffs (00:13:54) “Regulate importation” and the Major Questions Doctrine (00:17:56) Liquidation Timing, finality, and the 314‑day rule (00:19:11) The Court of International Trade (00:29:53) From IEEPA to Section 122 and what's next under Section 301 Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

The China Council for the Promotion of International Trade says the country's business environment continued to improve last year.

John is joined by Dennis H. Hranitzky, partner in Quinn Emanuel's Salt Lake City office, and Fritz Scanlon, of counsel in Quinn Emanuel's Washington, D.C. office. They discuss the recent Supreme Court decision invalidating all tariffs President Trump imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). IEEPA tariffs had generated an estimated $160 billion in revenue and were central to the administration's tariff policy.The administration justified these tariffs based on declared national emergencies, including fentanyl trafficking and persistent trade deficits. The Court did not rule on whether those circumstances constituted true emergencies. Instead, the Court held that the tariffs were invalid because the Constitution assigns all taxing authority to Congress, and the IEEPA did not expressly grant the President the power to impose tariffs.In response to the Supreme Court's ruling, the administration has now turned to other statutes, including Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which allows temporary tariffs of up to 15 per cent for 150 days to address balance-of-payments concerns. Other tools, such as Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, permit product-specific tariffs tied to national security findings, but require administrative investigations and procedural safeguards. These mechanisms provide less unilateral flexibility than IEEPA had afforded.John, Dennis, and Fritz also discuss the prospects for companies obtaining refunds through litigation. Importers who directly paid the invalidated tariffs appear to have strong claims for reimbursement, primarily through the U.S. Court of International Trade in New York, which has exclusive jurisdiction over tariff disputes. A two-year statute of limitations generally applies. While companies' right to obtain refunds is viewed as legally solid, delays are anticipated through procedural defenses and litigation tactics. Additional complexity arises for downstream purchasers who indirectly bore tariff costs; their recovery prospects will likely depend heavily on contractual allocation of tariff liability and other fact-specific circumstances.Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Hosts: Lalo Solorzano & Andy Shiles Episode Length: ~ 44 min. Published: February 25, 2026 Episode Summary The Supreme Court has ruled on the use of IEEPA tariffs — and the trade community immediately started asking the same question: Now what? In this episode of Simply Trade, Lalo and Andy break down what the SCOTUS decision really means (and just as importantly, what it does not mean). They walk through the operational, financial, and compliance implications for importers, including refund strategies, protests, PSC filings, and what role the Court of International Trade may still play. This is not a political conversation — it's a practical one. If you're an importer, broker, trade attorney, or compliance leader trying to understand next steps, this episode gives you the strategic roadmap. Key Discussion Points What the Supreme Court actually ruled on regarding IEEPA What this decision does not affect (Section 232, 301, etc.) Whether importers should file PSCs, protests, or wait The role of the Court of International Trade (CIT) Refund timing and cash flow implications The possibility of alternative tariff authorities (including Section 122) Why internal data analysis is critical right now How compliance programs can prepare for future shifts Why This Matters For companies that paid duties under IEEPA authority, this decision could mean: Significant refund opportunities Strategic filing decisions Litigation exposure Executive-level reporting requirements Reassessment of long-term sourcing strategy But acting too quickly — or without data — could create unnecessary risk. Lalo and Andy emphasize that now is the time for: Data gathering Executive briefings Controlled decision-making Clear documentation A strong compliance foundation Practical Takeaways Don't assume automatic refunds — process matters. Evaluate PSC vs. protest options carefully. Monitor CIT developments closely. Keep leadership informed with quantified impact analysis. Use this moment to strengthen your compliance framework. Resources U.S. Supreme Court: Supreme Court Decision on IEEPA U.S. Court of International Trade: https://www.cit.uscourts.gov Global Training Center: https://www.globaltrainingcenter.com Trade Geeks Community: https://globaltrainingcenter.com/portal/ Credits

Host: Annik Sobing Guest: Scott Sorenson (CEO at CITTA Brokerage Company)  Published: February 2026 Length: ~25–30 minutes Presented by: Global Training Center IEEPA Tariffs Struck Down: What Importers Can Do Now (and What They Still Can't) In this Simply Trade Roundup, Annik talks with Scott Sorenson, CEO of SIDA Brokerage, about the Supreme Court's decision that the president exceeded his authority by using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose broad, revenue‑raising tariffs—and what that actually means for importers on the ground. They unpack which tariffs are impacted, what stays in place, key timing details, the refund question, and how duty drawback fits into all of it.​ What You'll Learn in This Episode What the Supreme Court actually decided Why the Court held that tariffs are fundamentally a tax, and that power belongs to Congress unless clearly delegated by statute. How the ruling targets IEEPA‑based tariffs, not all tariffs.​ Which tariffs are affected—and which are not Impacted: The 2025 “drug trafficking” (fentanyl) tariffs on Mexico, Canada, and China (25% under an emergency declaration). The later “reciprocal” tariffs, also imposed under IEEPA, with rates starting at 10% and going higher based on perceived trade imbalances. Not impacted: Section 232 (steel/aluminum) and Section 301 tariffs introduced in Trump's first term (2018–2019), which remain in place and were not struck down.​ Key timing: when IEEPA tariffs actually stop CBP will stop collecting IEEPA tariffs on goods entered for consumption or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption on or after 12:00 a.m. Eastern, February 24, 2026. Goods entering or withdrawn before that time (including February 23) are still being charged IEEPA duties, despite the Court's ruling—creating a frustrating “limbo” day for importers.​ The big unknown: refunds on IEEPA duties It is still unclear whether, and how, importers can obtain refunds of IEEPA tariffs already paid. Many trade attorneys are advising against simple protests and instead suggesting participation in, or filing of, Court of International Trade lawsuits as the likely avenue—though eligibility and timelines remain unsettled. Open questions include whether only parties that joined lawsuits before the Supreme Court decision will qualify, and how any refund mechanism would practically work given estimates of over 100 billion dollars collected.​ New 15% global tariff under Section 122 Following the ruling, President Trump announced a 10% global tariff, then quickly raised it to 15%, on top of all existing non‑IEEPA tariffs. This measure relies on Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act, which allows the president to impose tariffs for up to 150 days. Scott expects this to serve as a bridge while the administration seeks a longer‑term, more permanent tariff framework—possibly through new legislation or other authorities.​ Duty drawback: where it fits and where it doesn't Duty drawback basics: refunds of duties/tariffs on imported goods that are later exported or destroyed, a program that has existed for nearly 250 years and has become more critical as tariffs have risen. Inconsistencies across programs: Fentanyl/“drug trafficking” IEEPA tariffs were explicitly ineligible for drawback. Reciprocal IEEPA tariffs were eligible. Section 232 tariffs are not eligible; Section 301 tariffs are. For the new Section 122 15% tariffs, eligibility will likely depend on whether they are explicitly excluded in future guidance. Historically, exclusions have been clearly spelled out, so silence may mean eligibility.​ Drawback vs. potential IEEPA refunds Drawback is separate from any Supreme Court‑related IEEPA refund mechanism. Importers that already claimed drawback on IEEPA‑burdened goods and later receive a broader IEEPA refund would need to avoid double dipping—likely refunding drawback amounts if they also get a full tariff refund via litigation/settlement. For importers that don't export, drawback isn't an option, so any recovery depends entirely on whatever refund path, if any, emerges for IEEPA tariffs.​ Should you start or expand a drawback program now? Scott's answer: yes, especially if you export. Reasons: Tariff volatility is likely to continue, and the administration has signaled interest in more and longer‑term tariffs. Drawback is one of the few mitigation tools that works retroactively, not just going forward. Setting up a drawback program and getting CBP approval takes time; starting now puts you closer to the front of the line for future refunds.​ Key Takeaways The Supreme Court has ended IEEPA's use as a broad revenue tool, but IEEPA tariffs are only stopping prospectively as of February 24, and refund mechanics for the past year remain unresolved.​ Section 232 and 301 tariffs are untouched and remain fully in force; the tariff landscape is far from “back to normal.”​ A new 15% Section 122 global tariff is already in play and may evolve into something more permanent, so importers should plan for continued elevated duty costs.​ Duty drawback remains a powerful, underused mitigation strategy—especially given the uncertainty around IEEPA refunds and future tariffs.​ Presented by: Global Training Center​ Listen & Subscribe Simply Trade main page: https://simplytrade.podbean.com​ Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/simply-trade/id1640329690​ Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/09m199JO6fuNumbcrHTkGq​ Amazon Music: https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/8de7d7fa-38e0-41b2-bad3-b8a3c5dc4cda/simply-trade​ Connect with Simply Trade Podcast page: https://www.globaltrainingcenter.com/simply-trade-podcast​ LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/showcase/simply-trade-podcast​ YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@SimplyTradePod​ Join the Trade Geeks Community Trade Geeks (by Global Training Center): https://globaltrainingcenter.com/trade-geeks/

Kemi Badenoch is the Conservative MP for North West Essex and the Leader of the Opposition. Since winning her seat in 2017, she has held cabinet positions as Minister of State for Equalities under Boris Johnson and Secretary of State for International Trade under Liz Truss and Rishi Sunak. She became leader of the Conservative Party in 2024 after Rishi Sunak's resignation and is the first black person to lead a political party in Britain. Her Nigerian parents came to Britain for medical treatment and Kemi was born in a private hospital in Wimbledon in January 1980. Her parents returned with their newborn daughter, and she was brought up in Nigeria in an affluent suburb of Lagos. After a series of military coups and economic downturns, her family, along with many other middle-class families in Nigeria saw their wealth decline and Kemi was sent to London to study for her A levels.Instead of following her parents into medicine, she chose to pursue Computer Systems Engineering and went to Sussex University. A well-paid career in IT followed and she joined the Conservative Party aged twenty-five where she also met her husband, Hamish. Her first attempt at becoming an MP was in 2010 in Dame Tessa Jowell's former constituency of Dulwich and West Norwood constituency in London. She finished third behind the Labour and Liberal Democrat candidates.In 2017, she was selected for the Saffron Walden seat and became an MP.She lives in London with her husband and three children and divides her time between Westminster and her constituency of North West Essex.DISC ONE: The Story of Tonight - Lin-Manuel Miranda, Okieriete Onaodowan, Daveed Diggs, Original Broadway Cast of Hamilton DISC TWO: Don't Stop 'Til You Get Enough - Michael Jackson DISC THREE: Wonderful World - Sam Cooke DISC FOUR: Be Still - Aled Jones and English Session Orchestra DISC FIVE: Everybody's Free (To Wear Sunscreen) - Baz Luhrmann DISC SIX: Love is All Around - Wet Wet Wet DISC SEVEN: Carry You Home – Alex Warren DISC EIGHT: Dear Theodosia - Leslie Odom Jr., Lin-Manuel Miranda BOOK CHOICE: Vanity Fair by William Makepeace Thackeray LUXURY ITEM: The Marvel Movie Collection with a solar-powered DVD player CASTAWAY'S FAVOURITE: Don't Stop 'Til You Get Enough - Michael Jackson Presenter: Lauren Laverne Producer: Sarah TaylorDesert Island Discs has cast many politicians away to the island over the years including Sir Keir Starmer, Nicola Sturgeon, Sir Vince Cable, Theresa May, Ed Miliband, Boris Johnson and Margaret Thatcher.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta reacts to the Supreme Court decision striking down President Donald Trump's tariffs, describing the ruling as expected and affirming. Bonta highlights that the Court's ruling allows for retroactive relief, meaning businesses and importers who paid these tariffs can seek refunds through the Court of International Trade. He speaks on "Bloomberg The Close."See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Donald Trump calls the US Supreme Court's decision to strike down his sweeping tariffs "deeply disappointing" as he announces a new 10% levy on global imports.In this special programme we take a closer look at that Supreme Court ruling, with reaction from businesses and global trade experts...and from the toy company which took on President Trump to win the case. And will companies have a fighting chance of gaining compensation for the money they feel they have lost due to tariffs? We hear from one lawyer in Washington D.C who leads an International Trade department.(Picture: U.S. President Donald Trump, holds a press briefing at the White House, following the Supreme Court's ruling, in Washington, D.C., U.S., February 20, 2026.Credit Reuters/Kevin Lamarque).

pWotD Episode 3215: Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor Welcome to popular Wiki of the Day, spotlighting Wikipedia's most visited pages, giving you a peek into what the world is curious about today.With 497,997 views on Thursday, 19 February 2026 our article of the day is Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor.Andrew Albert Christian Edward Mountbatten-Windsor (born 19 February 1960), formerly Prince Andrew, Duke of York, is a member of the House of Windsor. He is the third child and second son of Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, and a younger brother of King Charles III. Andrew was born second in the line of succession to the British throne and is eighth as of 2026.Andrew served in the Royal Navy from 1979 to 2001. He saw active duty as a helicopter pilot during the Falklands War. He later became a helicopter instructor and commanded a warship. He married Sarah Ferguson in 1986, and was created Duke of York on their wedding day. They had two daughters, Beatrice and Eugenie, before separating in 1992 and divorcing in 1996. From 2001 to 2011, Andrew served as the UK's Special Representative for International Trade and Investment, but resigned following scrutiny of his expenses and associations with controversial figures. He continued to undertake official duties on behalf of Elizabeth II until 2019.Andrew had a long‑standing association with Jeffrey Epstein, the American convicted sex offender, which has attracted widespread criticism. In 2014, alleged Epstein abuse victim Virginia Giuffre said that she had been sex-trafficked to Andrew by Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, after previously telling the Daily Mail in 2011 that she had no sexual contact with him. Andrew denied any wrongdoing, and in 2022 settled a civil lawsuit with Giuffre in the United States without admission of liability. In the same year, Elizabeth II removed his military affiliations and patronages, and he ceased using the style "Royal Highness". In 2025, Charles III removed Andrew's remaining royal styles and honours, and restricted his use of titles and peerages. He vacated Royal Lodge, part of the Crown Estate, and relocated to private accommodation on the Sandringham estate. Following the release of the Epstein files in 2026, Andrew was arrested on suspicion of misconduct in public office and was later released under investigation.This recording reflects the Wikipedia text as of 03:59 UTC on Friday, 20 February 2026.For the full current version of the article, see Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor on Wikipedia.This podcast uses content from Wikipedia under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License.Visit our archives at wikioftheday.com and subscribe to stay updated on new episodes.Follow us on Bluesky at @wikioftheday.com.Also check out Curmudgeon's Corner, a current events podcast.Until next time, I'm neural Justin.

Kevin Hincks, reporting from the Cboe Global Markets, breaks down the latest snapshot of the labor market with this week's jobless claims. He adds commentary on International Trade in Goods and Services as well as the Philly Fed Manufacturing Index. Kevin has his eyes on the commodity space, with crude oil on his radar amid ongoing tensions in the Middle East. He believes the energy markets should continue to be watched closely as crude oil has risen more than 5% this week.======== Schwab Network ========Empowering every investor and trader, every market day.Options involve risks and are not suitable for all investors. Before trading, read the Options Disclosure Document. http://bit.ly/2v9tH6DSubscribe to the Market Minute newsletter - https://schwabnetwork.com/subscribeDownload the iOS app - https://apps.apple.com/us/app/schwab-network/id1460719185Download the Amazon Fire Tv App - https://www.amazon.com/TD-Ameritrade-Network/dp/B07KRD76C7Watch on Sling - https://watch.sling.com/1/asset/191928615bd8d47686f94682aefaa007/watchWatch on Vizio - https://www.vizio.com/en/watchfreeplus-exploreWatch on DistroTV - https://www.distro.tv/live/schwab-network/Follow us on X – https://twitter.com/schwabnetworkFollow us on Facebook – https://www.facebook.com/schwabnetworkFollow us on LinkedIn - https://www.linkedin.com/company/schwab-network/About Schwab Network - https://schwabnetwork.com/about

In this episode, Peter Swartz, Co-Founder and Chief Science Officer at Altana, reveals how the company's AI-powered supply chain knowledge graph has helped stop hundreds of millions of dollars in forced labor goods from crossing borders and contributed to some of the largest counter-narcotics seizures in investigators' careers. Peter shares the real-world impact Altana is making across both the public and private sectors.Peter breaks down how Altana's multi-tier supply chain visibility works to trace forced labor cotton through global networks, how dual-use chemicals are being diverted into fentanyl production, and how the platform helps governments and enterprises collaborate to avoid billions of dollars in trade disruptions while saving hundreds of millions in tariff fees.Key Topics Covered- How Altana blocked hundreds of millions of dollars in forced labor goods at U.S. borders- The role of AI knowledge graphs in mapping multi-tier global supply chains- How Altana supports CBP enforcement of the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act- Product passports and how they expedite legitimate goods through customs- The difference between forced labor entering legit supply chains vs. legit goods entering illicit ones- How logistics companies use Altana to prevent their networks from being misused- Proactive vs. reactive approaches to supply chain risk using probabilistic AI models- Scenario modeling for geopolitical disruptions including Taiwan and global conflicts- Saving billions in supply chain disruptions and hundreds of millions in tariff feesEpisode Timestamps00:00 - Introduction and overview of Altana's real-world impact00:41 - Understanding forced labor as a multi-tier supply chain problem03:09 - Hundreds of millions in forced labor goods stopped at borders03:45 - How the AI knowledge graph maps global supply chain connections04:15 - Working with CBP on the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act04:35 - Product passports and expediting goods through customs04:51 - Counter-narcotics and the dual-use chemical problem05:45 - Helping logistics companies stop network misuse06:27 - From alert to action and the system handoff process06:49 - Responsible AI and the role of human-in-the-loop decisions07:33 - Proactive vs. reactive supply chain intelligence08:08 - Scenario modeling for geopolitical disruptions and resiliencyAbout Peter SwartzPeter Swartz is Co-Founder and Chief Science Officer at Altana. He has spoken on global trade, supply chains, and machine learning at the World Trade Organization, the World Customs Organization, the U.S. Court of International Trade, and the National Academies of Medicine. Previously, Peter was Head of Data Science at Panjiva, listed as one of Fast Company's most innovative data science companies in 2018 and later acquired by S&P Global. He holds patents in machine learning and global trade, and completed his education at Yale, MIT, and EPFL.About AltanaAltana is the world's first Value Chain Management System, providing AI-powered supply chain intelligence to governments, enterprises, and logistics providers. The platform is built on a proprietary knowledge graph comprising more than 2.8 billion shipments, tracking over 500 million companies and 850 million facilities globally. Altana covers more than 50% of global trade, making it the most comprehensive and accurate supply chain map available.Resources Mentioned- Altana Atlas platform and AI knowledge graph- U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)- Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA)- Product passports for cross-border compliance- Altana's disruption and tariff scenario modeling toolsPeter's Socials:LinkedIn — https://www.linkedin.com/in/pgswartz/Partner LinksBook Enterprise Training — https://www.upscaile.com/

Jann Arden welcomes Canadian politician Chrystia Freeland to the show. The discussion covers Freeland's motivations for entering politics and running for Prime Minister, her experiences negotiating with Donald Trump, the challenges of public service, and the importance of pushing issues such as housing and food insecurity to the forefront. Prompted by Caitlin, Freeland gives us a 'pep talk,' emphasizing the need for Canadians to recognize their strengths and the importance of collaboration in leadership. They also touch on defense spending, the role of women in politics and the importance of self-care amidst the pressures of public life. More About Chrystia Freeland: Chrystia was first elected as the Member of Parliament for Toronto Centre in 2013. She was elected as Member of Parliament for University—Rosedale in 2015 and re-elected in 2019 and 2021. ​From 2015 to 2017, Chrystia served as Minister of International Trade, overseeing the successful negotiation of free trade with the European Union. From January, 2017, to November, 2019, she served as Minister of Foreign Affairs, leading the successful renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). ​ In November, 2019, Chrystia was appointed Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, where she helped lead Canada's united response to the COVID-19 pandemic. She was appointed Minister of Finance in August, 2020 becoming the first woman in Canadian history to hold the position. ​ An esteemed journalist and author, Chrystia was born in Peace River, Alberta. She was educated at Harvard University before continuing her studies on a Rhodes Scholarship at the University of Oxford. Leave us a voicenote! ⁠https://jannardenpod.com/voicemail/⁠ Get access to bonus content and more on Patreon: ⁠https://patreon.com/JannArdenPod⁠ Connect with us: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠www.jannardenpod.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠www.instagram.com/jannardenpod⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠www.facebook.com/jannardenpod⁠ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

I never thought I'd be glued to my screen watching court battles unfold like episodes of some high-stakes drama, but here we are in mid-February 2026, and the Supreme Court is buzzing with cases tied straight to President Donald Trump's administration. Just last Friday, February 13th, a Republican member of Congress, along with a group of New York voters and state election officials, rushed to the U.S. Supreme Court begging them to let New York stick with its current congressional map for the 2026 elections. See, a state court had blocked it, calling it unfair, but these folks argued it should hold up to avoid chaos at the polls. SCOTUSblog reports the justices ordered the challengers to respond by Thursday afternoon, so eyes are on Washington for a quick ruling that could reshape House seats in the Empire State.Shifting gears to the immigration front, the Supreme Court has a blockbuster looming: oral arguments set for April 1st on President Trump's executive order aiming to end birthright citizenship for almost everyone born on U.S. soil. That's the 14th Amendment guarantee under fire, and SCOTUSblog's Amy Howe broke down a stack of amicus briefs backing the administration, from legal scholars to states like Texas and Florida arguing it's time to reinterpret the old rule. Challengers are gearing up too, promising a fight over what "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" really means—could redefine American identity overnight.Over in Boston's federal court, the Justice Department slapped Harvard University with a lawsuit on Friday, accusing them of stonewalling documents for over ten months. The Trump team wants proof that Harvard's complying with the Supreme Court's 2023 ban on affirmative action in admissions, post-Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard. The Hill quotes a Harvard spokesperson firing back, calling it retaliatory overreach since the university won't surrender its independence. This one's personal—admissions data could expose if elite schools are dodging the ruling.Meanwhile, environmentalists are rallying after the administration axed the EPA's 2009 endangerment finding, the bedrock that justified greenhouse gas regs since greenhouse gases were deemed a public health threat. The New York Times says it's primed for Supreme Court showdowns, leaning on recent wins like curbing agency power in cases such as West Virginia v. EPA. Groups like the Sierra Club are suing, fearing a loss could kneecap future climate rules.Tariffs are heating up too—President Trump nominated White House lawyer Kara Westercamp to the U.S. Court of International Trade last Thursday, a spot that might rule on refunds if SCOTUS guts some duties. Politico notes giants like Costco and Toyota are suing Customs and Border Protection to freeze liquidation of their payments, buying time before refunds vanish. Business Insider lists more Fortune 500 players piling in, with deadlines ticking.And don't sleep on the judicial shuffle: Ballotpedia's February vacancy count shows President Trump with 39 Article III nominations since January 20th, 27 confirmed—including 21 district judges—outrunning averages. Fresh picks like Anna St. John for Louisiana's Eastern District and Chris Wolfe for Texas Western are Senate-bound.It's a whirlwind of lawsuits testing Trump's agenda from New York maps to Harvard halls, climate battlegrounds to border walls. With SCOTUS possibly dropping opinions this Friday at 10 a.m. Eastern, or next week on the 24th and 25th, the justices hold the gavel.Thanks for tuning in, listeners. Come back next week for more, and this has been a Quiet Please production—for more, check out Quiet Please Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

In this episode of Current Account, Clay is joined by Chris Padilla, Senior Advisor at Brunswick Group and former U.S. Under Secretary of Commerce for International Trade, to revisit U.S. trade policy. After a turbulent 2025 marked by sweeping tariffs, new negotiation frameworks, and significant legal uncertainty, trade may feel quieter entering 2026, but remains a central priority for the Trump administration. Drawing on his years of government and corporate experience, Chris offers perspective on the issues likely to dominate trade policy this year, from the durability of recent agreements with China, the EU, Japan, and Korea to the broader geopolitical shifts driven by tariff realignments and new partnerships. The conversation also covers the ongoing U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) review, an area of heightened uncertainty as political tensions rise among member countries. Clay and Chris discuss how the process could unfold, whether renewal or restructuring is more realistic, and what the implications may be for North American supply chains. They also examine the pending Supreme Court decision on the Trump administration's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose tariffs - an outcome with major consequences for U.S. trade strategy. This IIF Podcast was hosted by Clay Lowery, Executive Vice President, Research and Policy, with production and research contributions from Christian Klein, Digital Graphics and Production Associate and Miranda Silverman, Senior Program Assistant.

Sean Syverson, Swing Barrel Brewing, joins Afternoons Live with Tyler Axness to discuss a recent meeting with Senator Amy Klobuchar where they discussed the impacts of international trade policy on small businesses.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is Episode 2 of our sub-series "Environmental Issues along the Belt and Road."The series considers the complexities of Chinese actors' impacts on the environment, extractive activities, and role in driving sustainability solutions from the sands of the Mekong River to lithium mines in Argentina. Since 2012, China has invested roughly US$4 billion in 12 nickel projects across Southeast Asia, with a major focus on Indonesia, which supplies 16% of global nickel production. In South America, Chile, Bolivia, and Argentina— known as the Lithium Triangle—together hold over 54% of the world's lithium reserves beneath their salt flats as of 2024, and China is the only country to have signed agreements with all three. In this episode, we explore what makes minerals “critical” to the energy transition, how China's long-term industrial strategy and geopolitical struggles has (re)shaped global critical mineral supply chains, and, through cases of Indonesian nickel and lithium in Argentina, how stakeholders in producer countries navigate trade-offs between economic development, sovereignty, & environmental and social impacts.We interview 4 experts: Dr. Jing Li is a professor at Simon Fraser University's Beedie School of Business and holds the Canada Research Chair in Global Investment Strategy. She also serves as the Co-Director of the Jack Austin Center for Asia Pacific Business Studies. Her research explores international investment strategies, joint ventures, emerging market firms, innovation in emerging economies, & the behavior and performance of state-owned enterprises. Related reading here, here & here.Dr. Anastasia Ufimtseva is the Senior Program Manager for International Trade and Investment at the Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada. She holds a Ph.D. in Global Governance from the Balsillie School of International Affairs at Wilfrid Laurier University, with a specialization in international political economy. Her research explores global energy governance, trade & investment, the political economy of natural resources, & international development, with a focus on Asia. Related reading here & here. Muhammad Habib Abiyan Dzakwan (Zahwan) is a researcher at the Department of International Relations, CSIS Indonesia. He holds an MA in International Economics and General International Relations from SAIS, Johns Hopkins University. His research areas cover sustainable development, critical minerals, & emerging technologies. Related reading here, here & here. Thanks for listening! Follow us on BlueSky @beltandroadpod.blsk.social

Host: Cindy Allen Show: Simply Trade – Cindy's Version Published: February 13, 2026 Length: ~15 minutes Presented by: Global Training Center State of Grace: Tariffs, First Sale Under Fire, and a Glimmer of Stability In this episode of Cindy's Version, Cindy Allen, CEO of TradeForce Multiplier, walks through another busy week in global trade and ties it to Taylor Swift's “State of Grace”—focusing on the idea that, despite the shock of recent policy shifts, this is still a “worthwhile fight” for trade professionals. From new trade deals to challenges against tariff policy and first sale threats, Cindy explains what's changing and where there are signs of hope.​ What You'll Learn in This Episode New trade deals and tariff shifts A U.S.–Taiwan deal capping total tariffs at 15% (either limiting MFN above 15% or applying 15% where MFN is lower). Details emerging on agreements with Guatemala, El Salvador, Argentina, and an India deal rolling back some reciprocal tariffs tied to India's Russian oil purchases.​ Where to find official text and specifics: USTR's website.​ Border infrastructure and electronic bonds The administration's threat to block the opening of the long‑planned Gordie Howe Bridge between Detroit and Ontario over funding/ownership disputes, and why Canada and Michigan intend to proceed regardless. How this new public crossing will compete with the privately owned Ambassador Bridge for billions in daily cross‑border trade.​ CBP's move to mandate electronic surety bond filing for all bonds, formalizing what many brokers, importers, and sureties already do—and why Cindy strongly supports it.​ Section 232 guidance softens (slightly) New CBP guidance on 232 tariffs for steel, aluminum, and copper, dialing back earlier aggressive interpretations. Trade groups have received written clarification allowing certain labor/overhead costs to be prorated into steel/aluminum values instead of fully loaded, even as petitioners continue to argue that none of those costs should be included. Why importers should review the latest guidance carefully, track affected entries, and monitor the ongoing Court of International Trade challenge.​ USMCA and IEPA signals from Capitol Hill Senate Finance Committee signaling support for extending USMCA, seeking stability before any renegotiation, while the administration is rumored to prefer separate bilateral deals with Canada and Mexico.​ The House vote to end IEPA duties on Canada for certain non‑USMCA goods—a positive step toward predictability, though the bill still must clear the Senate and avoid a presidential veto.​ First sale under threat Introduction of a bill to eliminate first sale, driven by some of the same groups that pushed to curtail de minimis and oppose duty‑reducing mechanisms generally. Why this is significant: many large importers rely on first sale, provide extensive upstream data to CBP, and enable deeper supply‑chain visibility and risk management. Trade associations have already begun weighing in to defend first sale; Cindy flags this as a fight to watch closely.​ EU deal conditions and a big auto bill The EU moving its U.S. tariff deal through lawmakers but adding elements like sunset deadlines and “security triggers” that go beyond earlier negotiating language.​ Ford announcing an expected 900 million dollar 232‑related tariff hit after previously anticipated automotive offsets were disallowed for several months—raising questions about how other automakers will fare and whether Ford might push back through protests or litigation.​ Global trade up, U.S. trade down Conference insights from Manifest: global trade volumes are rising overall, but trade into the U.S. is declining, as exporters pivot to other markets they perceive as less costly and less complex. This trend aligns with a surge in trade deals worldwide that do not include the U.S.​ Why “State of Grace”? Cindy connects the week's developments to Taylor Swift's “State of Grace,” highlighting the line: “I never saw you coming and I'll never be the same. This is a state of grace, this is a worthwhile fight.” She uses this to frame: How studies now confirm what many suspected—U.S. consumers have already paid roughly 1,000 dollars more due to tariffs, with an additional 1,300 dollars expected in the coming year. How tariffs are hitting companies and rural communities: constrained exports for U.S. agriculture, rising small‑farm bankruptcies, and knock‑on impacts to local economies. Research showing that about 90% of tariff costs are passed from suppliers to U.S. importers, then to consumers, and even to manufacturers who never import directly but rely on tariff‑burdened inputs.​ Despite this, she sees reasons for cautious optimism: Companies challenging IEPA and 232 in court. Large players like Ford publicly quantifying tariff impacts. Congress beginning to reassert its constitutional role over tariffs and question security‑based justifications used as broad economic tools. Early, coordinated pushback against eliminating first sale—stronger than what was seen around de minimis.​ For Cindy, these developments suggest the industry may be entering a state of grace—a moment where data, legal challenges, and coordinated advocacy start to rebalance the conversation and make the fight for smarter trade policy worth it.​ Credits Host: Cindy Allen Producer: Annik Sobing Presented by: Global Training Center Sponsor: PAX AI ​ Listen & Subscribe Simply Trade main page: https://simplytrade.podbean.com​ Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/simply-trade/id1640329690​ Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/09m199JO6fuNumbcrHTkGq​ Amazon Music: https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/8de7d7fa-38e0-41b2-bad3-b8a3c5dc4cda/simply-trade​ Connect with Simply Trade Podcast page: https://www.globaltrainingcenter.com/simply-trade-podcast​ LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/showcase/simply-trade-podcast​ YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@SimplyTradePod​ Join the Trade Geeks Community Trade Geeks (by Global Training Center): https://globaltrainingcenter.com/trade-geeks/

This Day in Legal History: Bruno Hauptmann ConvictedOn February 13, 1935, a New Jersey jury convicted Bruno Hauptmann of kidnapping and murdering the infant son of famed aviator Charles Lindbergh. The crime had transfixed the nation for nearly three years and was widely labeled the “Crime of the Century.” The child was taken from the Lindbergh home in 1932, and despite a ransom payment, was later found dead. Public outrage was immediate and intense, with newspapers covering nearly every development in the investigation and trial.Hauptmann's prosecution relied heavily on circumstantial evidence, including ransom notes and expert testimony linking his handwriting to those notes. The government also introduced evidence tying marked ransom bills to Hauptmann's possession. The trial raised early concerns about the reliability of forensic handwriting analysis and the influence of media attention on jury impartiality. Critics then and now have questioned whether the intense publicity compromised due process protections.The case also reshaped federal criminal law. In response to the kidnapping, Congress enacted the Lindbergh Law, formally known as the Federal Kidnapping Act. The statute made it a federal offense to transport a kidnapping victim across state lines, expanding federal jurisdiction over what had traditionally been a state crime. That shift reflected a broader trend during the early twentieth century toward increased federal involvement in criminal enforcement.Today, the Hauptmann conviction remains a staple in criminal law courses, not only for its tragic facts but also for its lasting procedural and constitutional implications.Goldman Sachs' chief legal officer, Kathy Ruemmler, resigned after newly released Justice Department documents detailed her past communications with Jeffrey Epstein. CEO David Solomon announced that he accepted her resignation, which will take effect on June 30. Ruemmler said the media attention surrounding her prior legal work had become a distraction. The disclosures showed she exchanged numerous emails with Epstein between 2014 and 2019 and received gifts from him, including luxury items. Some emails revealed that she advised Epstein on how to respond to press inquiries about his treatment by prosecutors.The documents also noted that Epstein attempted to contact her by phone on the night of his 2019 arrest on sex trafficking charges. Ruemmler stated that she knew Epstein only in her capacity as a defense attorney and denied any knowledge of ongoing criminal conduct. Before joining Goldman, she led the white-collar defense practice at Latham & Watkins and previously served as White House counsel during the Obama administration.The broader document release has drawn attention to Epstein's connections within major financial institutions, including UBS and JPMorgan. Ruemmler's departure marks one of the most prominent banking exits linked to the renewed scrutiny of Epstein's network.Top Goldman Sachs lawyer Ruemmler resigns after Epstein disclosures | ReutersA federal judge in Minnesota ruled that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement improperly interfered with detainees' access to their attorneys during a recent enforcement operation. U.S. District Judge Nancy Brasel found that ICE's practices during “Operation Metro Surge” effectively denied thousands of people meaningful legal access. The order requires ICE to stop quickly transferring detainees out of Minnesota and to permit attorney visits and confidential phone calls. The ruling will remain in effect for 14 days while the case proceeds.The class action lawsuit was filed on January 27 on behalf of noncitizen detainees. According to the court, many individuals were moved out of state without notice, making it difficult or impossible for lawyers to locate them. In some instances, detainees were transferred so often that ICE itself lost track of their whereabouts. Judge Brasel concluded that while ICE did not formally deny the right to counsel, its actions in practice severely limited that right.The court also cited evidence that detainees were given limited phone access, sometimes sharing a small number of phones among dozens of people, with calls occurring in nonprivate settings. One asylum seeker with a valid work permit was held for 18 days despite a court order requiring his earlier release and was transferred across multiple states without explanation. The judge rejected ICE's claim that it lacked sufficient resources, noting that the agency had committed substantial personnel and funding to the enforcement effort.ICE blocked detainees' access to lawyers in Minnesota, judge finds | ReutersPresident Donald Trump announced four new judicial nominations, including a White House attorney selected for a seat on the U.S. Court of International Trade. The nominee, Kara Westercamp, currently serves as associate counsel in the White House and previously worked at the Justice Department. If confirmed, she would join a nine-member court that handles disputes involving U.S. trade laws, including challenges to tariffs. Her nomination comes as numerous companies contest Trump's sweeping global tariffs and seek refunds on duties already paid.Retailers and manufacturers such as Costco, Goodyear, and Revlon have filed lawsuits arguing that the tariffs exceed presidential authority. Earlier rulings from the trade court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit blocked most of the tariffs, and the U.S. Supreme Court is now reviewing the matter. Trump has publicly criticized the earlier decisions.In addition to Westercamp, Trump nominated Katie Lane to a federal district court in Montana, Sheria Clarke to a district court seat in South Carolina, and federal prosecutor Evan Rikhye to a 10-year term on the District Court of the Virgin Islands. All nominees must be confirmed by the Senate.Trump nominates White House lawyer to court hearing tariff cases | ReutersFormer CNN anchor Don Lemon is scheduled to appear in federal court in Minnesota to enter a plea related to charges stemming from his coverage of a protest at a St. Paul church. The protest targeted President Donald Trump's immigration enforcement surge in the state. Lemon, now an independent journalist, livestreamed the January 18 demonstration, which disrupted a worship service at Cities Church.Federal prosecutors charged him with conspiring to violate civil rights and with obstructing access to a house of worship under a statute also used in cases involving abortion clinic protests. His attorney argues that the prosecution infringes on Lemon's First Amendment rights and characterizes the case as an attack on press freedom. Trump publicly supported the charges, while Attorney General Pam Bondi stated that authorities would protect the right to worship without interference.The protest occurred during broader demonstrations against federal immigration actions in Minnesota, where thousands had gathered to oppose the crackdown. Lemon was seen on video speaking with activists before and during the disruption and interviewing participants and congregants inside the church. Another journalist, Georgia Fort, faces similar charges and has denied wrongdoing, stating she was reporting rather than participating.Journalist Don Lemon to enter plea in Minnesota ICE protest case | ReutersThis week's closing theme is by Johann Sebastian Bach.Bach stands as one of the central figures of the Baroque era, revered for the structural clarity and spiritual depth of his music. Born in 1685 into a long line of musicians, Bach spent much of his career serving as a church organist and cantor in German cities such as Arnstadt, Weimar, and Leipzig. Though not widely celebrated outside musical circles during his lifetime, his reputation has since grown to near-mythic status. His compositions balance intellectual precision with emotional resonance, blending intricate counterpoint with lyrical expression.This week's closing theme is his Cello Suite No. 1 in G major, BWV 1007, likely composed around 1720 during his tenure in Köthen. The suite opens with one of the most recognizable preludes in all of classical music, built from flowing arpeggios that unfold with quiet inevitability. Written for unaccompanied cello, the piece demonstrates Bach's ability to imply harmony and depth through a single melodic line. The suite follows the traditional Baroque dance structure, moving from Prelude through Allemande, Courante, Sarabande, Menuets, and Gigue.For many listeners, the Prelude evokes clarity, order, and calm—qualities that make it a fitting close to the week. Its simplicity is deceptive; beneath the surface lies careful architecture and subtle harmonic movement. The work fell into relative obscurity until the twentieth century, when cellist Pablo Casals famously revived it and brought it to concert stages worldwide. Today, it remains a cornerstone of the cello repertoire and a touchstone of Baroque artistry. As a closing theme, it offers both reflection and renewal, ending not with flourish but with quiet confidence.Without further ado, Johann Sebastian Bach's Cello Suite No. 1 in G major, BWV 1007–enjoy! This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Spring Festival, China isn't just welcoming the Year of the Horse. It's welcoming the world. Foreign flight bookings are up more than 400 percent, with visitors flooding in from Russia, Europe, and even Argentina. Why now? What's driving this surge? Visas, social media, or something deeper? And as more foreigners come to China to experience the holiday, is Spring Festival becoming a global cultural event. Host Tu Yun joins Helen Han, Co-founder and Secretary General, the Beijing Club for International Dialogue, Dr. Zhou Mi, Senior Research Fellow, the Chinese Academy of International Trade and Economic Cooperation, and Mike Bastin, China observer and Senior Lecturer, the University of Southampton to break down the boom and what it means for China and for travelers from around the world.

Ethiopia: UN rights chief issues alert over ‘precarious' situation in Tigray In Sudan, sick and starving children are ‘wasting away': UNICEF, WHOCrypto is in but Least Developed Countries are missing out: UNCTAD

Recorded live from the Actsplore This Building Influence workshop in Kuala Lumpur, we sat down with Prof Dr Ong Kian Ming and Zalina Jamaluddin to unpack how we can lead with impact -  through intention, curiosity, and the courage to act before you feel “ready.”Together, we explored:What influence really means and why it mattersHow to lead and create impact before you have the titleBuilding trust with sceptical stakeholders and competing interestsThe role of networks and social capital in amplifying influenceProf Dr Ong Kian Ming is the Executive Director of RGE and an Adjunct Professor at Taylor's University. Prior to this, he served as Malaysia's Deputy Minister of International Trade and Industry (2018–2020) and was a two-term Member of Parliament. Today, he continues to advise businesses, industry bodies, and think tanks alongside his academic and executive roles.Zalina Jamaluddin is the Head of Decarbonisation at Hibiscus Petroleum Berhad. With over 20 years of experience across the private and public sectors, she has held senior roles at ExxonMobil and Talisman Energy, was a founding member and Vice President of the Malaysia Petroleum Resources Corporation (MPRC), and currently serves as Vice Chairman of the Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE).To everyone who joined us live at the Building Influence workshop  - thank you for showing up with such openness, curiosity, and energy. We're truly grateful you chose to kick-start 2026 with us. And to those tuning in now, we hope this conversation sparks a reminder that influence doesn't begin with a title; it begins with how you choose to show up, right where you are.

Hey folks, imagine this: it's early 2026, and I'm glued to my screen in my Washington D.C. apartment, coffee going cold as the Supreme Court ramps up for what could be the biggest clash yet with President Donald Trump. Just days ago, on January 28th, News4JAX aired a riveting breakdown on Politics & Power, hosted by Bruce Hamilton alongside a constitutional law scholar, dissecting how Chief Justice John Roberts subtly defended the court's independence in his end-of-2025 year-end report. Roberts leaned hard on history over politics, but they warned 2026 is the real showdown—cases testing if Trump can unilaterally rewrite citizenship laws, slap massive tariffs worldwide, and even fire Federal Reserve governors like Lisa Cook.Let me take you back a bit. Trump's second term kicked off January 20, 2025, and he hit the ground running with executive orders that shook everything up. By February and April, he'd unleashed tariffs on imports from nearly every country—10 to 50 percent reciprocal hits, tweaking them for toys from China or steel from Europe. Two Illinois companies, Learning Resources, Inc., and hand2mind, Inc., weren't having it. They sued in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, claiming the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, doesn't give the president carte blanche for unlimited tariffs. The district court sided with them in May, issuing a preliminary injunction. The Court of International Trade echoed that without the injunction, and by August, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit shot down Trump's appeal. Boom—the Supreme Court grabbed it for expedited review, hearing oral arguments on November 5, 2025, right in the thick of their term that started October 6.SCOTUSblog's been all over it, noting the justices are in winter recess now, not back on the bench until February 20. That's when we might get the tariffs ruling—unless they drop it early like they did with Trump v. Anderson in 2024, zipping out a decision before Super Tuesday primaries. Trump's fighting tooth and nail, calling the stakes massive for America's economy.But tariffs are just the appetizer. There's Trump v. Barbara, straight from Oyez, challenging Executive Order No. 14,160 that aims to gut birthright citizenship—can he really end it by fiat? Then there's the Lisa Cook drama. Trump tried firing the Federal Reserve Governor over alleged mortgage fraud, claiming dual primary residences in D.C. and Atlanta. Lower courts blocked it, saying no full hearing yet, and the Supreme Court agreed across ideologies: Cook stays put until it's sorted. The Ninth Circuit's National TPS Alliance v. Noem ruling ties in too—Trump's team, with Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem confirmed January 25, 2025, moved fast to vacate Haiti's Temporary Protected Status extension set to expire August 2025.And don't get me started on Kilmar Orega or those nationwide injunctions Trump hates—judges in far-off districts halting his policies for the whole U.S. without everyone getting a say. Britannica lists these as marquee 2025-26 term battles: Learning Resources v. Trump, plus Chiles v. Salazar, Louisiana v. Callais, Little v. Hecox—all probing separation of powers. Experts on that News4JAX show predict Trump might lose big on delegation doctrine; Congress, not the president, sets agency rules. It's midterm election year, Trump's termed out, politically weaker—courts historically push back harder then. The Supreme Court's legitimacy hangs in the balance, walking that tightrope between executive muscle and judicial check.Whew, listeners, what a whirlwind these past days. From tariff showdowns to citizenship overhauls, Trump's vision collides head-on with the robes in black. Thanks for tuning in—come back next week for more. This has been a Quiet Please production, and for more, check out Quiet Please Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

Maksud Hossain is an experienced entrepreneur who has worked across multiple countries in Africa and the Middle East. He has extensive experience in IT, Telecommunications, and International Trade. Drawing from his hands-on experience in various African countries, he shares valuable insights into the business opportunities available for Bangladeshi entrepreneurs in Africa.In today's episode, you will learn:1.How you can establish your own business in Africa2.Which sectors currently offer the greatest opportunities in Africa3.How Maksud has successfully been doing business in Africa for years4.How Rwanda has achieved such remarkable development in just a few yearsThis episode is a must-watch for anyone interested in international business, exploring new markets, or learning more about Africa.

Host: Cindy Allen Show: Simply Trade – Cindy's Version Published: January 30, 2026 Length: ~13 minutes Presented by: Global Training Center Exile: Is the U.S. Being Traded Around? In this week's Cindy's Version, Cindy Allen, CEO of TradeForce Multiplier, unpacks one of the busiest weeks we've seen in international trade—and frames it all through the lens of Taylor Swift's song “Exile.” From fresh tariff threats to shifting alliances and possible government shutdowns, Cindy explains why it's starting to feel like the United States is watching global trade move on without us.​ What You'll Learn in This Episode: New U.S. tariff threats tied to Cuban oil Announcement of tariffs on countries that sell or buy oil from Cuba and why this may largely hit usual suspects like Venezuela and Russia.​ Trade partners going “around” the U.S. How the UK's outreach to China and Canada's new deal with China signal a trend of countries pursuing their own economic interests directly with Beijing.​ Canada under pressure—again Trump's 100% tariff threat on Canadian goods over the China deal and the newer threat to decertify Canadian-made jets until Gulfstream aircraft are certified in Canada—and why both moves raise legal and practical questions.​ Shifting tariff landscapes Guatemala and El Salvador trade deals and expected rate ranges. Possible hike back to 25% on South Korean goods if their trade deal isn't approved. Potential rollback of the 25% tariff on India tied to Russian oil purchases.​ 232 duties and a big valuation court fight Why CBP centers are informally pushing an “all-in” cost model (materials, labor, manufacturing) for steel, aluminum, and now copper derivatives—and how that conflicts with the 232 declaration language. The new Court of International Trade case challenging that interpretation and what it could mean for importers paying 232 on components. Why many companies are considering filing protests now to preserve their rights pending the outcome—and why you need to talk to your own counsel.​ ACE refunds are coming—ready or not Electronic refunds are set to go live February 6. What importers need to do with their brokers and 4811 setup, and why brokers must confirm their own information is on file in ACE. The big question: what happens to refunds if the setup is incomplete?​ EU deal on pause Why the EU is putting its U.S. deal “on hold” and how that could trigger a return to higher tariffs if the U.S. responds like it has with South Korea.​ Hill updates: express couriers and DHS funding A new bill proposal for simplified declarations on express shipments under 600 dollars, and what it could mean if you use or compete with express couriers. The looming DHS/CBP funding issue, the likelihood of a shutdown, and what a shutdown typically means for cargo processing versus outreach and meetings.​ Why “Exile”? Cindy connects the week's news to “Exile,” focusing on the line, “You were my town, now I'm in exile seeing you out.” She explores how U.S. policy is driven by a belief that the country has been taken advantage of and needs to re-shore manufacturing and secure critical sectors, while much of the world sees it as a pullback from free trade and trade facilitation that once underpinned global stability.​ By contrasting these two perspectives—like the two voices in the song—Cindy argues the U.S. risks finding itself “in exile” as trade partners build new frameworks around us, and warns that we've “seen this film before” in history with outcomes that weren't ideal.​ Key Takeaways: Expect more volatility in tariffs and trade relationships as the U.S. pushes assertive trade tools and partners seek alternative paths.​ Importers dealing with 232 duties on steel, aluminum, and copper inputs should closely watch the new court case and coordinate with counsel on protest strategy.​ ACE electronic refunds are an opportunity and a risk—data and 4811 setups must be right to avoid missing money you're owed.​ Even in a shutdown, cargo should keep moving, but engagement with CBP and DHS will be limited.​ Strategically, the U.S. may be drifting into a kind of trade “exile”—and it's critical for companies to understand both the domestic narrative and how the rest of the world is reacting. --------  Presented by: Global Training Center​ Listen & Subscribe Simply Trade main page: https://simplytrade.podbean.com​ Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/simply-trade/id1640329690​ Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/09m199JO6fuNumbcrHTkGq​ Amazon Music: https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/8de7d7fa-38e0-41b2-bad3-b8a3c5dc4cda/simply-trade​ Connect with Simply Trade Podcast page: https://www.globaltrainingcenter.com/simply-trade-podcast​ LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/showcase/simply-trade-podcast​ YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@SimplyTradePod​ Join the Trade Geeks Community Trade Geeks (by Global Training Center): https://globaltrainingcenter.com/trade-geeks/ ​

Keir Starmer held talks with the Chinese leader Xi Jinping this week and proclaimed Britain should have a more ‘sophisticated' relationship with China. Pippa Crerar, who was with the prime minister on the trip, tells Kiran Stacey what all this means. Help support our independent journalism at theguardian.com/politicspod

This week, we address a broad set of developments shaping the macro landscape: Japan's government bond strains, the weakening dollar, the state of the housing market, rising inflation risks, a fall in the consumer savings rate, and the key takeaways from the January FOMC press conference. We also revisit the latest GDP report, highlighting a notable anomaly - an outsized contribution from gold exports in the third quarter - that we argued was unlikely to persist. That view was promptly borne out. This morning's release of the Census Bureau's International Trade in Goods and Services for November showed a sharp decline in gold exports and a widening trade deficit. As in prior episodes, our outlook for the economy and equity markets remains firmly negative.

Stephen Grootes speaks to Ayabonga Cawe, Chief Commissioner at the International Trade and Administration Commission of South Africa (Itac) about South Africa’s consideration of antidumping duties on Chinese and Indian vehicle imports, amid a sharp rise in imported cars, stagnant localisation levels and growing pressure on local manufacturers, component producers and jobs. In other interviews, Dr. Sifiso Falala, President of African Credit Rating Association speaks about the launch of the African Credit Rating Agency and how it could reshape the assessment of the continent’s creditworthiness. The Money Show is a podcast hosted by well-known journalist and radio presenter, Stephen Grootes. He explores the latest economic trends, business developments, investment opportunities, and personal finance strategies. Each episode features engaging conversations with top newsmakers, industry experts, financial advisors, entrepreneurs, and politicians, offering you thought-provoking insights to navigate the ever-changing financial landscape.    Thank you for listening to a podcast from The Money Show Listen live Primedia+ weekdays from 18:00 and 20:00 (SA Time) to The Money Show with Stephen Grootes broadcast on 702 https://buff.ly/gk3y0Kj and CapeTalk https://buff.ly/NnFM3Nk For more from the show, go to https://buff.ly/7QpH0jY or find all the catch-up podcasts here https://buff.ly/PlhvUVe Subscribe to The Money Show Daily Newsletter and the Weekly Business Wrap here https://buff.ly/v5mfetc The Money Show is brought to you by Absa     Follow us on social media   702 on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TalkRadio702 702 on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@talkradio702 702 on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/talkradio702/ 702 on X: https://x.com/CapeTalk 702 on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@radio702   CapeTalk on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/CapeTalk CapeTalk on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@capetalk CapeTalk on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ CapeTalk on X: https://x.com/Radio702 See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

At the beginning of Donald Trump's trip to Davos, the US president's plans for Greenland were vague, and a worry to European leaders. By the end of the day, military force was off the table and threats of tariffs dropped. This is just one example of what it has been like to follow Trump 2.0 in the last year. This week, Jonathan Freedland speaks to Ashley Parker of the Atlantic about why she thinks Americans are suffering from a new politically induced condition and why the midterms in November might be the perfect remedy

In this episode, Wendy sits down with Mike Hubbard, Director of International Trade at the Economic Development Partnership of North Carolina, for a practical, story-driven look at what actually makes exporting work.  Mike breaks down how their team helps companies move from “we should sell overseas” to a real plan: covering compliance, market research, cultural training, distributor introductions, trade missions, and even grants that can reimburse costs like translation. Along the way, he shares vivid examples: a small home furnishings company that won business in the Middle East because she localized a simple postcard and website into Arabic, why “clunky” machine translation can quietly push buyers away, and how smart market selection (like targeting the UK and South Africa before Canada/Mexico for a medical device) can unlock growth faster than you'd expect. You'll learn: How to build an export strategy that isn't “go to a trade show and hope”—including the core pieces Mike insists on: compliance, market intelligence, and a written market entry plan. Why translation and cultural adaptation are revenue levers (not “nice-to-haves”)—with real examples of how localized materials signal seriousness and reduce friction for buyers. How to pick the right first markets and avoid expensive dead ends—especially when regulations, certifications, labeling rules, and relationship-based selling vary wildly by country.

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Holger Gorg, Professor of International Trade at the Kiel Institute for the World Economy, analyses the impact of a trade war between Europe and the United States, as tensions continue over Greenland.