1 month ago
2
PULSE POINTS:
❓What Happened: A little-known federal court has blocked President Donald J. Trump’s ability to impose and collect trade tariffs connected to his April 2 “Liberation Day” announcement.
👥 Who’s Involved: President Trump and a three-judge panel on the United States Court of International Trade.
Your free, daily feed from The National Pulse.
📍 Where & When: The ruling was handed down late Wednesday on May 28, 2025.
💬 Key Quote: “The Worldwide and Retaliatory Tariff Orders exceed any authority granted to the President by IEEPA to regulate importation by means of tariffs. The Trafficking Tariffs fail because they do not deal with the threats set forth in those orders,” the court order reads.
⚠️ Impact: The ruling effectively ends the trade duties unless the order is set aside by a Federal Circuit court as litigation proceeds.
IN FULL:
The United States Court of International Trade handed down a ruling enjoining President Donald J. Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs, which include his reciprocal tariffs—mostly paused—and the 10 percent global tariff. According to the court—which operated as an internal Treasury Department board until being elevated to an Article III federal court by Congress in 1956—President Trump’s national emergency claim exceeds his Article II authority as the chief executive.
An emergency declaration citing the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) underpins the “Liberation Day” tariffs, which Trump announced on April 2. This declaration cites the need to end the continued flow of fentanyl from China, through Canada and Mexico, into the United States as a national emergency, among other issues.
“The Worldwide and Retaliatory Tariff Orders exceed any authority granted to the President by IEEPA to regulate importation by means of tariffs. The Trafficking Tariffs fail because they do not deal with the threats set forth in those orders,” the court order reads, continuing: “This conclusion entitles Plaintiffs to judgment as a matter of law; as the court further finds no genuine dispute as to any material fact, summary judgment will enter against the United States. The challenged Tariff Orders will be vacated and their operation permanently enjoined.”
“There is no question here of narrowly tailored relief; if the challenged Tariff Orders are unlawful as to Plaintiffs, they are unlawful as to all,” the three-judge panel added.
According to White House sources, the ruling will be swiftly appealed to the Federal Circuit and the U.S. Supreme Court.
PULSE POINTS:
❓What Happened: The Trump administration announced a visa ban targeting British officials involved in censoring American citizens, warning that foreign actors who trample free speech rights will no longer be welcome in the United States.
👤Who’s Involved: U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, British media regulator Ofcom, Metropolitan Police Commissioner Mark Rowley, and Lucy Connolly, a British mother imprisoned for a social media post.
Your free, daily feed from The National Pulse.
🧾Key Quote: “We will not tolerate encroachments upon American sovereignty, especially when such encroachments undermine the exercise of our fundamental right to free speech,” said Rubio.
⚠️Fallout: British officials were blindsided by the announcement and are scrambling for answers from the White House, as pro-censorship authorities face mounting scrutiny from Washington.
📌Significance: The move marks a sharp escalation in the Trump administration’s effort to push back against globalist speech controls and defend the First Amendment from foreign interference.
IN FULL:
British government officials involved in censoring American citizens could soon be barred from setting foot in the United States under a sweeping new measure from the Trump administration. Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced the visa restrictions on Wednesday, directly targeting foreign bureaucrats and regulators deemed “complicit in censoring” Americans online.
The policy appears to be aimed at Ofcom, the British government media regulator responsible for enforcing the controversial Online Safety Act—a law that critics say enables sweeping censorship and punishes American tech companies with massive fines. Under the legislation, platforms that fail to remove so-called “harmful content” face penalties of up to £18 million (~$24.4 million) or 10 percent of annual revenue, placing U.S.-based firms in the crosshairs of British law.
“For too long, Americans have been fined, harassed, and even charged by foreign authorities for exercising their free speech rights,” Rubio said. “It is unacceptable for foreign officials to issue or threaten arrest warrants on U.S. citizens or U.S. residents for social media posts on American platforms while physically present on U.S. soil.”
The Trump administration has taken particular offense at the British government’s attempts to impose extra-territorial censorship, with Rubio adding: “It is… unacceptable for foreign officials to demand that American tech platforms adopt global content moderation policies or engage in censorship activity that reaches beyond their authority and into the United States.”
The announcement reportedly caught British officials off guard, with diplomats urgently seeking clarity from Washington. The warning comes just days after it was reported that the White House is actively “monitoring” the case of Lucy Connolly, a British mother sentenced to 31 months in prison for a social media post about a mass stabbing targeting young girls in Southport, England, perpetrated by the son of two African asylum seekers.
That case drew international concern after British officials threatened to prosecute or extradite Americans who violated their hate speech laws online. “We will throw the full force of the law at people,” warned Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley at the time. “Whether you’re in this country committing crimes on the streets or committing crimes from further afield online, we will come after you.”
In response, U.S. State Department officials from the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor traveled to London in March. The diplomats reportedly met with pro-life activists—imprisoned for as little as silently praying inside their heads near abortionist clinics under laws restricting freedom of expression and religion.
The Vice President has taken a personal interest in censorship in Britain and Europe more broadly, warning during a speech in Germany, “In Britain and across Europe, free speech, I fear, is in retreat.”
show less
English (US) ·