Top News Stories

On May 28, 2025, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) delivered a landmark ruling invalidating the broad “Liberation Day” tariffs that President Donald J. Trump had imposed without congressional approval. The court held that the president “exceeded any authority … to regulate importation by means of tariffs” under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), concluding that “Because of the Constitution’s express allocation of the tariff power to Congress … we do not read IEEPA to delegate an unbounded tariff authority to the President.” This decision strikes at the core of longstanding tensions over separation of powers, national emergency authorities, and the evolving scope of executive discretion in U.S. trade policy.

In May 2025, the Conference Board’s Consumer Confidence Index leaped to 98.0 from April’s revised 85.7, marking its largest one-month gain since 2011 (98.0 versus 85.7). This surge followed the May 12, 2025, temporary “truce” in the U.S.-China tariff war, when both nations agreed to roll back certain punitive levies and resume high-level negotiations. The rebound ended a five-month slide during which the Index had plunged to near five-year lows, reflecting widespread anxiety about escalating trade restrictions and their inflationary impact.

Elon Musk's departure from the Trump administration after a 130-day tenure as head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) marks a significant moment in the intersection of technology, governance, and policy. Appointed as a "special government employee," Musk's role was to spearhead efforts to streamline federal operations and reduce government spending. His tenure was characterized by aggressive cost-cutting measures, high-profile public appearances, and controversial policy decisions.

The prospect of a renewed U.S.–Iran nuclear agreement has rekindled deep-seated anxieties within Israel, a nation long attuned to the existential stakes of Tehran’s nuclear ambitions. At the heart of the current impasse are U.S. negotiators seeking at least a “framework” that parallels the interim 2013 deal preceding the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), while Iranian officials insist on preserving their uranium-enrichment capability as a sovereign right. For Israel, however, any arrangement that falls short of a complete cessation of enrichment—or one that merely delays sunset clauses—poses an unacceptable strategic risk. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has repeatedly warned that “a bad deal is actually worse than no deal,” casting doubt on diplomatic assurances without enforceable constraints on enrichment capacity and tallies of nuclear-weapons–usable material.

Explore the 60-day Gaza ceasefire proposal's legal, political, and humanitarian impacts. Discover how it may reshape U.S. policy and global ceasefire law. The ongoing Gaza conflict, reignited by Hamas’s cross-border attack on Israel on October 7, 2023, has evolved into one of the most protracted and devastating confrontations in recent Middle East history. As of May 30, 2025, over 54,000 Palestinian lives have been lost, and more than 200 hostages remain in captivity, while Israel seeks to secure its citizens’ release and ensure its security. In response, the United States has unveiled a comprehensive 60-day ceasefire proposal aimed at facilitating the exchange of hostages for prisoners and the remains of fallen combatants. Under this plan, Israel would pause military operations and gradually redeploy its forces, while Hamas would release 28 living Israeli hostages in return for 1,236 Palestinian prisoners and the remains of 180 Palestinians, with the promise of a permanent ceasefire upon the fulfillment of all stages. Crucially, immediate humanitarian aid—including up to 600 trucks daily—would flow into Gaza via United Nations and Red Crescent channels to stem famine and deliver essential services.

On May 30, 2025, a federal appeals court delivered a dramatic reprieve to President Trump’s tariffs, temporarily reinstating duties that a lower court had struck down as exceeding presidential authority. Originally imposed on April 2, 2025, under broad proclamations of “national emergencies,” these tariffs ranged from 10 percent on Chinese imports to 25 percent on select Mexican and Canadian goods. The underlying legal conflict spotlights deep tensions between executive power and judicial oversight, raising fundamental questions about separation of powers in trade policy.