WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump still has options to keep taxing imports aggressively even after the Supreme Court struck down the tariffs he imposed last year on nearly every country on earth.

The Justices didn’t buy the president’s sweeping claims of authority to impose tariffs as he sees fit. But Trump can re-use tariff powers he deployed in his first term and can reach for others, including one that dates back to the Great Depression.

“Their decision is incorrect,” Trump said Friday, calling the Supreme Court justices who ruled against his tariffs “fools and lapdogs” during a press conference. “But it doesn’t matter because we have very powerful alternatives.”

Indeed, the president has already said he will impose a 10% global tariff under a trade law that allows such duties for 150 days. After that, they can only be extended by Congress.

Trump also said he would use a range of other laws and regulations to impose new tariffs, though most of those statutes would require a legal process before duties could be imposed. And he pointed to his ability to use licenses to restrain imports, but offered few details.

Trump had claimed nearly boundless authority to impose tariffs under 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). But opponents argued before the Supreme Court that that power wasn’t necessary because Congress delegated tariff power to the White House in several other statutes — though it carefully limited the ways the president could use the authority.

Tariffs have been a cornerstone of Trump’s foreign and economic policy in his second term, with double-digit “reciprocal” tariffs imposed on most countries, which he has justified by declaring America’s longstanding trade deficits a national emergency.

The average U.S. tariff has gone from 2.5% when Trump returned to the White House in January to nearly 17% a year later, the highest since 1934, according to calculations by Yale University’s Budget Lab.

The president acted alone even though the U.S. Constitution specifically gives the power to tax – and impose tariffs – to Congress.

“The Good News is that there are methods, practices, Statutes, and other Authorities, as recognized by the entire Court and Congress, that are even stronger than the IEEPA TARIFFS, available to me as President of the United States of America,” Trump posted on his social media site.

Countering unfair trade practices

The United States has long had a handy cudgel to wallop countries it accuses of engaging in “unjustifiable,” “unreasonable” or “discriminatory” trade practices. That is Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974.

And Trump has made aggressive use of it himself — especially against China. In his first term, he cited Section 301 to impose sweeping tariffs on Chinese imports in a dispute over the sharp-elbowed tactics that Beijing was using to challenge America’s technological dominance. The U.S. is also using 301 powers to counter what it calls unfair Chinese practices in the shipbuilding industry.

There are no limits on the size of Section 301 tariffs. They expire after four years but can be extended.

But the administration’s trade representative must conduct an investigation and typically hold a public hearing before imposing 301 tariffs. On Friday, Trump also said the administration would initiate several more Section 301 investigations.

Experts have said Section 301 is useful in taking on China. But it has drawbacks when it comes to dealing with the smaller countries that Trump has hammered with reciprocal tariffs.

“Undertaking dozens and dozens of 301 investigations of all of those countries is a laborious process,” Veroneau said.

Targeting trade deficits

In striking down Trump’s reciprocal tariffs in May, the U.S. Court of International Trade ruled that the president couldn’t use emergency powers to combat trade deficits.

That is partly because Congress had specifically given the White House limited authority to address the problem in another statute: Section 122, also of the Trade Act of 1974. That allows the president to impose tariffs of up to 15% for up to 150 days in response to unbalanced trade. The administration doesn’t even have to conduct an investigation beforehand.

But Section 122 authority has never been used to apply tariffs, and there is some uncertainty about how it would work.

Protecting national security

In both of his terms, Trump has made aggressive use of his power — under Section 232 of Trade Expansion Act of 1962 — to impose tariffs on imports that he deems a threat to national security.

In 2018, he slapped tariffs on foreign steel and aluminum, levies he’s expanded since returning to the White House. He also plastered Section 232 tariffs on autos, auto parts, copper, lumber.

In September, the president even levied Section 232 tariffs on kitchen cabinets, bathroom vanities and upholstered furniture.

Section 232 tariffs are not limited by law but do require an investigation by the U.S. Commerce Department. It’s the administration itself that does the investigating – also true for Section 301 cases — “so they have a lot of control over the outcome,” Veroneau said.

Reviving Depression-era tariffs

Nearly a century ago, with the U.S. and world economies in collapse, Congress passed the Tariff Act of 1930, imposing hefty taxes on imports. Known as the Smoot-Hawley tariffs (for their congressional sponsors), these levies have been widely condemned by economists and historians for limiting world commerce and making the Great Depression worse. They also got a memorable pop culture shoutout in the 1986 movie “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off.”

Section 338 of the law authorizes the president to impose tariffs of up to 50% on imports from countries that have discriminated against U.S. businesses. No investigation is required, and there’s no limit on how long the tariffs can stay in place.

Those tariffs have never been imposed — U.S. trade negotiators traditionally have favored Section 301 sanctions instead — though the United States used the threat of them as a bargaining chip in trade talks in the 1930s.

In September, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told Reuters that the administration was considering Section 338 as a Plan B if the Supreme Court ruled against Trump’s use of emergency powers tariffs.

____

Associated Press Staff Writer Lindsay Whitehurst contributed to this story.

Eric Dane, known for his roles on “Grey’s Anatomy” and “Euphoria,” died this week from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis at age 53.

The fatal nervous system disease, also known as Lou Gehrig’s disease, killed Dane less than a year after he announced his diagnosis.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, ALS is rare. In 2022, there were nearly 33,000 estimated cases, say researchers, who project that cases will rise to more than 36,000 by 2030.

The disease is slightly more common in men than in women and tends to strike in midlife, between the ages of 40 and 60.

Here’s what to know.

What is ALS?

It affects nerve cells in the brain and spinal cord, causing loss of muscle control and getting worse over time.

ALS causes nerve cells in the upper and lower parts of the body to stop working and die. Nerves no longer trigger specific muscles, eventually leading to paralysis. People with ALS may develop problems with mobility, speaking, swallowing and breathing.

The exact cause of the disease is unknown, and Mayo Clinic experts said a small number of cases are inherited.

It’s called Lou Gehrig’s disease after the Hall of Fame New York Yankees player. Gehrig was diagnosed with ALS in 1939 on his 36th birthday, died in 1941 and was the face of ALS for decades.

What are some signs of ALS?

Experts say the first symptoms are often subtle. The disease may begin with muscle twitching and weakness in an arm or leg.

Over time, muscles stop acting and reacting correctly, said experts at University of California San Francisco Health. People may lose strength and coordination in their arms and legs; feet and ankles may become weak; and muscles in the arms, shoulders and tongue may cramp or twitch. Swallowing and speaking may become difficult and fatigue may set in.

The ability to think, see, hear, smell, taste and touch are usually not affected, UCSF experts said.

Eventually, muscles used for breathing may become paralyzed. Patients may be unable to swallow and inhale food or saliva. Most people with ALS die of respiratory failure.

How is ALS diagnosed and treated?

The disease is difficult to diagnose because there’s no test or procedure to confirm it. Generally, doctors will perform a physical exam, lab tests and imaging of the brain and spinal cord.

A doctor may interpret certain things as signs of ALS, including an unusual flexing of the toes, diminished fine motor coordination, painful muscle cramps, twitching and spasticity, a type of stiffness causing jerky movements.

There’s no known cure for ALS, but the drug riluzole has been approved for treatment. According to the Mayo Clinic, it may extend survival in the early stages of the disease or extend the time until a breathing tube is needed.

Another much-debated drug, Relyvrio, was pulled from the U.S. market by Amylyx Pharmaceuticals in 2024. Its development had been financed, in part, by the ALS Association, the major beneficiary of the 2014 “ ice bucket challenge ” viral phenomenon.

Other medications are sometimes prescribed to help control symptoms.

Choking is common as ALS progresses, so patients may need feeding tubes. People may also use braces, wheelchairs, speech synthesizers or computer-based communication systems.

After the onset of the disease, experts say patients may survive from two years to a decade. Most people live from two to five years after symptoms develop, and about a fifth live more than five years after they are diagnosed.

___

The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Department of Science Education and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content.

WASHINGTON (AP) — There’s little that Donald Trump has cherished more in his second term than tariffs, a symbol of his imperious approach to the presidency. He has raised and lowered them at will, rewriting the rules of global commerce and daring anyone to stop him.

Now that may be over, the victim of a stunning rebuke from the Supreme Court on Friday. After more than a year of expanding his power, Trump had run into a rare limit.

It was a loss that Trump couldn’t quite accept, and the president claimed he would use other laws to impose alternative tariffs. He even said that the end of this particular legal battle would bring “great certainty” to the economy.

But if anything, Friday opened a new chapter in Trump’s ongoing tariffs drama and raised urgent questions about his ability to make good on his promises of an economic revival. The ruling will most likely prolong chaos over international trade through the midterm elections, with much unknown about Trump’s next steps and whether roughly $175 billion in import taxes that the Supreme Court struck down will be refunded.

The president chose, as he often does, to scorn the patriotism of those who disagree with him.

He said the ruling was “deeply disappointing” and “ridiculous,” adding that he was “absolutely ashamed” of the six Supreme Court justices who ruled against him “for not having the courage to do what’s right for our country.”

Trump described the justices as “fools and lapdogs” who are “very unpatriotic and disloyal to our Constitution.”

The president said on social media Friday night that he had signed an executive order enabling him to bypass Congress and impose a 10% tax on imports from around the world. The government would begin national security investigations in order to charge new tariffs on specific products as well. The 10% tariffs are legally capped at 150 days, but Trump brushed off a question about the limit by saying “we have a right to do pretty much what we want to do.”

All of that means Trump’s tariff timelines are likely to collide with the midterm elections for control of the House and Senate.

Tariffs have been politically unpopular

Trump learned of the Supreme Court’s decision during a private meeting with governors in the morning when he was handed a note, according to two people with knowledge of the president’s reaction who spoke on the condition of anonymity. They said he called it “a disgrace.”

Another person, who was briefed on the conversation, disclosed that Trump said he has “to do something about these courts.”

The meeting with the governors ended shortly thereafter.

Looming over Trump’s legal debacle has been voters’ frustration with the tariffs, which have been linked to higher prices and a slowdown in hiring.

The president has consistently misrepresented his tariffs, claiming despite evidence to the contrary that foreign governments would pay them and that the revenues would be sufficient to pay down the national debt and give taxpayers a dividend check.

After Trump announced worldwide tariffs last April, an AP-NORC poll found that 76% of Americans said the policies would increase the cost of consumer goods — a worrisome sign for a president elected on the promise of addressing years of inflation.

Another poll, conducted in January, said about 6 in 10 Americans said Trump had gone too far in imposing new tariffs on other countries.

Trump used tariffs to reshape Republican trade agenda

Trump’s aggressive use of tariffs had left many Republican lawmakers uneasy, publicly and privately, forcing them to defend what were essentially tax increases on the American public and businesses.

At various points during Trump’s second term, at least seven senators from the president’s party have voiced their concerns. Earlier this month, six House Republicans joined with Democrats to vote for a resolution against Trump’s tariffs on Canada.

Indeed, free trade had long been a central plank of the Republican Party before Trump’s rise to power.

Kentucky Sen. Mitch McConnell described Trump’s assertion that he can bypass Congress to implement tariffs as “illegal” in a statement praising the Supreme Court’s decision.

“Congress’ role in trade policy, as I have warned repeatedly, is not an inconvenience to avoid,” the former top Senate Republican said. “If the executive would like to enact trade policies that impact American producers and consumers, its path forward is crystal clear: convince their representatives under Article 1” of the Constitution.

Former Vice President Mike Pence, who served during Trump’s first term, cheered the ruling.

“American families and American businesses pay American tariffs — not foreign countries,” Pence wrote on social media. “With this decision, American families and businesses can breathe a sigh of relief.”

Democrats were quick to seize on the Supreme Court ruling to say Trump broke the law and middle-class families suffered as a result.

Rep. Suzan DelBene, D-Wash., said Trump “is not a king” and his “tariffs were always illegal.”

“Republicans in Congress could have easily ended this economic crisis by standing up for their communities,” said DelBene, chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. “Instead, they chose to bend the knee to Trump while families, small businesses and farmers suffered from higher prices.”

Tariffs were central to Trump’s economic pitch

Trump has claimed that his tariffs were the difference between national prosperity and deep poverty, a pitch he made Thursday to voters in the swing state of Georgia.

The president used the word “tariff” 28 times in his speech at a Georgia steel company, Coosa Steel, which credited the import taxes as making its products more competitive with goods from China.

“Without tariffs, this country would be in such trouble right now,” Trump insisted.

Trump also complained that he had to justify his use of tariffs to the Supreme Court.

“I have to wait for this decision. I’ve been waiting forever, forever, and the language is clear that I have the right to do it as president,” he said. “I have the right to put tariffs on for national security purposes, countries that have been ripping us off for years.”

By a 6-3 vote, the high court said no.

___

Associated Press writer Steven Sloan contributed to this report.

I made the switch from Sainsbury’s to Lidl for one simple food item after comparing taste, freshness and price.

Advertisement

Whilst I conduct most of my shopping at Sainsbury’s for convenience, there are certain food items I favour collecting from other supermarkets. Marks and Spencer is always my destination for chicken breasts, Caesar sauce and salad.

Regarding fruit and vegetables, Sainsbury’s generally stocks good-quality produce at a fair price.

However, after purchasing multiple packs of one essential fruit from Sainsbury’s and Lidl, the latter proved tastier and even stayed fresh several days beyond the best-before date. The fruit in question is pomegranate seeds, the pre-packaged variety.

Fruit plays a vital role in my weekly grocery shopping, and it’s essential to select good-quality fruit, as it can deteriorate quite rapidly.

Whilst there are numerous different storage tips to help keep fruit fresh for an extended period, you’re better off purchasing it as fresh as possible.

I didn’t anticipate such excellent quality from budget supermarket Lidl, as previously I’ve discovered fruits like blackberries and raspberries have been mouldy in the store.

The packaged pomegranate seeds from Lidl are sweet, juicy and full of flavour, more so than Sainsbury’s.

Ensure our latest lifestyle and travel stories always appear at the top of your Google Search by making us a Preferred Source. Click here to activate or add us as your Preferred Source in your Google search settings.

Advertisement

I also find that the pomegranate from Lidl tastes good a couple of days after the best-before date stated on the packaging.

As well as the quality and taste, pomegranate seeds are more affordable at Lidl than they are at Sainsbury’s. At Sainsbury’s, they retail for £1.50 for an 80g pot and £2.65 for a 240g pot.

Lidl only stock a 200g pot of pomegranate seeds, and they retail for just £1.39.

As a regular Sainsbury’s shopper, I switched to Lidl for one simple item that’s sweeter, juicier and better value for money.

Whilst Sainsbury’s is my usual port of call for the weekly shop, there are certain food items I make a beeline for elsewhere. For chicken breasts, Caesar dressing and salad, it’s got to be Marks and Spencer.

When it comes to fruit and veg, Sainsbury’s generally offers decent quality at a fair price.

However, after comparing packs of one particular fruit from both Sainsbury’s and Lidl, the latter came out on top for taste and freshness, even several days past its best-before date.

The fruit in question? Pre-packaged pomegranate seeds. Fruit is a staple of my weekly grocery haul, and it’s crucial to choose high-quality produce as it can go off rather quickly.

Advertisement

There are plenty of tricks for prolonging the life of your fruit, but you’re always better off buying as fresh as possible.

I was pleasantly surprised by the quality on offer at budget supermarket Lidl, especially given previous experiences with mouldy blackberries and raspberries on their shelves.

The pre-packaged pomegranate seeds from Lidl are sweet, juicy and packed with flavour, far surpassing those from Sainsbury’s.

Ensure our latest stories always appear at the top of your Google Search by making us a Preferred Source. Click here to activate or add us as your Preferred Source in your Google search settings.

What’s more, I’ve found that Lidl’s pomegranate still tastes great a couple of days beyond the best-before date printed on the pack.

Not only do they win on quality and taste, but Lidl’s pomegranate seeds also come in cheaper than Sainsbury’s. Whilst Sainsbury’s charges £1.50 for an 80g pot and £2.65 for a 240g pot.

Lidl sells a 200g pot of pomegranate seeds for just £1.39.

And it will take place in a matter of days.

Excited? Well, after this latest season, we definitely are.

Revealing what fans can expect, a show insider revealed to The Sun: “Last year’s Married at First Sight U.K. may be over, but there’s still unfinished business between the experiment’s couples.

“In this dramatic, emotional reunion special, familiar faces return for a dinner party at which some celebrate romance, while others are forced to face old tensions.

“One husband confronts his ex-wife over a shocking revelation, while a former bride finds herself at the eye of the storm, as she’s pulled into the centre of another couple’s conflict, sparking a fiery showdown.

“Secrets spill and alliances shift in a night that proves truth always finds its way to the table.”

When is the MAFS UK 2026 reunion?

The series last aired in October last year.

This special episode will take place on March 1 at 9pm, per reports.

Like the main series, the one-off episode will be available to watch on E4 and the Channel 4 website.

Recommended reading:

Married at First Sight expert Mel Schilling leaves show

Line of Duty revisits storyline that caused ‘genuine anger’ for viewers in new series

When Britain’s Got Talent returns with first auditions as new judge joins the panel

It’s set to have a runtime of 90 minutes.

Sarah and Dean, Divarni and Julia-Ruth, Maeve and Joe, Steven and Nelly, Anita and Paul, Rebecca and Bailey, Ashley and Grace, Keye and Davide, Abi and John, Leisha and Reiss, April and Leo, and Leigh and Leah all tied the knot, to varying degrees of success.

All of them, each receiving advice – and not particularly listening to – from experts Mel Schilling, Charlene Douglas and Paul C Brunson.

Many fans are keen to know whether these contestants make it to Final Vows and are still in a relationship. Well, you’ll just have to wait.

Police said more than 4,000 people had applied for their latest student officer recruitment campaign, with 65.6% from a Protestant background, 26.7% from a Catholic background and 7.7% undetermined

Any return to 50:50 recruitment to the police force in Northern Ireland would be a “mistake”, DUP leader Gavin Robinson has said.

In his weekly email to party members, Mr Robinson also said there had been an “absence of sustained and wholehearted leadership” from republicans to challenge barriers to Catholics joining the PSNI.

New PSNI recruitment figures this week showed that the percentage of new Catholic applicants to join the force was at its lowest in more than a decade.

Police said more than 4,000 people had applied for their latest student officer recruitment campaign, with 65.6% from a Protestant background, 26.7% from a Catholic background and 7.7% undetermined.

That prompted fresh concerns about representation within the force.

Between 2001 and 2011, there was a 50:50 recruitment initiative which meant there was one Catholic recruit for every one person from a Protestant or other background.

Mr Robinson said there had been a “predictable” call for the return of 50:50 since the latest recruitment figures were released.

He said: “That would be a mistake. It would reintroduce discrimination and undermine merit. Representation cannot be built by excluding capable applicants from other backgrounds.”

Mr Robinson said Catholic applicants should be praised.

He added: “They strengthen policing, and they strengthen our society. Those republicans who wish to see more Catholics join the police must also be prepared to face the legacy of decades spent distancing themselves from policing.

“You cannot question the legitimacy of the police for a generation and then express surprise when recruitment reflects that history.

“Until that contradiction is confronted, claims of support will continue to be met with scepticism.”

Mr Robinson said “chill factors still existed for Catholic applicants to the police in Northern Ireland”.

He added: “Pretending otherwise helps no-one. But acknowledging that reality cannot be where the discussion stops. For too long, there has been an absence of sustained and wholehearted leadership within republicanism to challenge those barriers directly.

“It was an appalling abdication of leadership that it was 20 years after the PSNI was formed before Sinn Fein ’s leadership attended a passing-out parade or a recruitment event. The time for tokenism is over. Leadership on policing requires consistency and visibility.”

Sinn Fein MLA and Policing Board member Linda Dillon said it is “imperative” that the PSNI is representative of society.

She said: “For this reason the PSNI need to listen to young people from a Catholic, nationalist, republican background to identify the barriers preventing them from joining them.

“Sinn Fein opposed the decision to withdraw 50:50 recruitment, its removal has negatively impacted on the recruitment and retention of officers, specifically from the Catholic/nationalist community.

“The political mishandling by the British government in failing to implement legacy arrangements under the Stormont House Agreement has also had a negative effect.

“The PSNI must strive to deliver a modern and representative policing structure, across all levels of the police service, including specialist units, that is as diverse as the community it serves and commands maximum public confidence.”

To ensure you don’t miss out on all the latest from Belfast Live, be sure to make us your preferred source on Google.