Top News Stories

U.S. manufacturing activity contracted for the third consecutive month in May 2025, as measured by the Institute for Supply Management (ISM) index at 48.5 percent—below the 50-percent threshold that signals contraction (). This downturn reflects persistent headwinds from tariffs imposed under Section 232 (national security) and Section 301 (unfair trade practices), which have elevated input costs and stoked supply-chain disruptions. The core issue transcends mere economic metrics: it implicates constitutional questions about executive authority to unilaterally impose broad trade barriers versus Congress’s role in regulating commerce under Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. Moreover, these tariffs raise potential conflicts with U.S. obligations under the World Trade Organization (WTO) and bilateral agreements, as affected trading partners have filed formal disputes ().

In early June 2025, the Wall Street Journal reported the United States’ decision to impose an additional 25 percent tariff on Chinese semiconductors and electronics, citing persistent concerns over intellectual property theft, forced technology transfer, and threats to national security (Wall Street Journal, June 2 2025). This latest escalation in U.S.–China trade tensions revives debates over the scope of executive authority in trade policy and the proper balance between domestic injury and foreign relations. At its core, the dispute raises questions under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. § 2411), which grants the president broad powers to counter “unfair” foreign trade practices. Moreover, as technology has become integral to both economic competitiveness and military readiness, policymakers argue that semiconductors constitute “dual‐use” goods subject to enhanced scrutiny under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. § 1701 et seq.).

In a development that has reignited the national debate over reproductive rights and access to healthcare, at least 20 Planned Parenthood clinics across the United States have closed their doors amid mounting political and financial pressures. These closures, reported on June 2, 2025, by The Guardian, represent more than an administrative retraction—they serve as a harbinger of intensifying battles over constitutional liberties, state sovereignty, and the stratification of healthcare access across socioeconomic and geographic lines.

On May 30, 2025, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) abruptly rescinded more than $3.7 billion in federal grants allocated to 24 Clean‐Energy Grants and decarbonization demonstration projects. These awards, originally approved under the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (Public Law 117‐58), funded initiatives ranging from carbon capture and utilization to large‐scale hydrogen production. Energy Secretary Chris Wright justified the cancellations by stating that these projects “failed to advance the energy needs of the American people” and that many lacked sufficient technical readiness or economic viability. Shares of leading clean‐energy firms, including Plug Power and Sunrun, plunged in response, signaling investor anxiety over the executive’s authority to undo congressional appropriations.