Top News Stories

Federal Reserve Independence: On May 29, 2025, The Guardian reported mounting political pressures on the U.S. Federal Reserve as key legislators and even former Presidents openly challenged its rate-setting decisions, raising fundamental questions about the central bank’s independence (The Guardian, 2025). At stake is not simply the Fed’s autonomy but the integrity of monetary policy, the credibility of inflation targeting, and ultimately the stability of the U.S. financial system. This article argues that the current tension between elected officials and the Fed embodies a deeper constitutional and institutional struggle: Can an independent agency withstand democratic accountability without undermining its mandate?

The U.S. Court of International Trade recently struck down the broad “Liberation Day” tariffs imposed by the Trump administration under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), concluding that the president had exceeded his statutory authority (Trump v. United States, No. 25‐CIT‐00123). Yet, rather than marking the end of an aggressive tariff regime, this ruling appears to have catalyzed an evolution in the administration’s trade approach. In the days following the decision, senior officials signaled a pivot toward invoking alternative legal authorities—namely Sections 232 and 301 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930, and Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974—to sustain and potentially broaden U.S. import levies.

On 29 May 2025, twenty-two young Americans filed Held v. United States in federal district court, alleging that President Trump’s series of Fossil-Fuel Orders trample their constitutional guarantees to life and liberty (Our Children’s Trust). The suit centers on three directives: a “national energy emergency,” a mandate to “unleash American energy,” and an order to reinvigorate coal production. Plaintiffs aged seven to twenty-five—hailing from climate-vulnerable states including Montana, Hawaii, Oregon, California, and Florida—argue that by boosting oil, gas, and coal output and suppressing renewable energy research, the administration flagrantly ignores statutory environmental protections and inflicts a “state-created danger” upon future generations.

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.