Top News Stories

Former President Donald J. Trump’s headline-grabbing June 2025 calendar—spanning a Fort Bragg readiness demonstration on June 10, an elaborate U.S. Army semiquincentennial parade in Washington, D.C., on June 14 (which also marks his 79th birthday), and attendance at the G7 Summit in Kananaskis, Canada, from June 15–17—has provoked intense scrutiny over the boundaries between personal political ambition and constitutional governance (Hindustan Times). Critics contend that, although veteran leaders frequently attend military events, the convergence of Trump’s birthday, lavish military pageantry, and use of Department of Defense (DoD) assets raises potential conflicts with statutory limits on political activity by former executive figures.

On June 3, 2025, the Nasdaq Composite advanced despite the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) revising down its 2025 U.S. growth forecast (The Wall Street Journal, 2025). This juxtaposition raises critical questions about the interplay between financial market performance and underlying economic fundamentals. At issue is whether stock market indices truly reflect long-term economic health or if they instead signal investor optimism in the face of policy uncertainties. Observers must consider not only corporate earnings and Federal Reserve monetary policy but also the legal framework governing trade, fiscal stimulus, and regulatory oversight.

On March 10, 2025, The Wall Street Journal reported that high‐level envoys from the United States and China engaged in exploratory discussions to arrange a bilateral summit between President Donald J. Trump and President Xi Jinping in mid‐June (Wall Street Journal, March 10, 2025). At stake are deeply entrenched legal, constitutional, and policy tensions involving trade sanctions, national security prerogatives, and Congress’s oversight role. This developing episode raises core questions under the U.S. Constitution—specifically, the President’s power to negotiate foreign agreements in light of statutory constraints and Congressional authority over tariffs and commerce (U.S. Const. art. II; Trade Act of 1974 § 151).

Standoff with Xi Jinping: On June 4, 2025, former President Donald J. Trump publicly described Chinese President Xi Jinping as “very tough” and “hard to make a deal with,” after accusing Beijing of breaching tariff agreements reached in Geneva earlier that week (Reuters, June 4, 2025). This public exchange highlights the enduring tension between executive ambition and statutory constraints in U.S. trade policy. At issue is whether a president can unilaterally impose or threaten tariff increases against a major trading partner without explicit congressional authorization or meaningful judicial review. The U.S. Constitution vests Congress with the power “to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations” (U.S. Const. art. I, sec. 8), yet successive administrations—both Republican and Democratic—have invoked broad executive statutes to shape tariff policy. The Geneva understandings, negotiated informally by Treasury and Trade representatives, lacked formal congressional approval; Trump’s willingness to call out Xi raises questions about the legality of enforcing those commitments, and whether judicial relief is available to Chinese entities affected by U.S. tariffs.