The U.S. Senate voted to advance a resolution aimed at ending the national emergency powers used by President Donald Trump to impose steep tariffs on Canadian goods. The resolution was led by Tim Kaine (D‑Va.) and joined by four Republican senators—Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, Mitch McConnell and Rand Paul—alongside all Senate Democrats.
The effort was a direct challenge to President Trump’s trade policy. The tariffs—imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA)—were justified by the administration as a response to Canadian practices, including alleged lax controls on fentanyl trafficking and trade imbalances.
Senator Rand Paul argued the emergency powers were misused: “Emergencies are like war, famine, tornado; not liking someone’s tariffs is not an emergency.” Senator McConnell called the tariffs “bad policy” that would hurt American workers and undermine allies.
Despite the Senate vote, the resolution faces low odds of becoming law. The House has previously blocked similar measures until early next year, and the President is expected to veto any resolution that would curtail his tariff powers.
A newly discovered manuscript by Dr. Seuss, titled Sing the 50 United States!, will be released on June 2, 2026, just weeks before the United States marks its 250th anniversary. The patriotic children’s book features the Cat in the Hat traveling across all 50 states, using rhyme and rhythm to introduce young readers to U.S. geography and civic identity.
The unpublished manuscript was found in the archives of the Geisel Library at the University of California, San Diego. Accompanying the text were early sketches and notes from Dr. Seuss, which will be used to guide the final illustrations. Publisher Random House has selected artist Tom Brannon, a longtime illustrator of Seuss-based works, to complete the visuals in keeping with the author’s signature style. The initial print run is set at 500,000 copies.
The book is structured as a state-by-state tour through the United States, led by the Cat in the Hat, and includes a fold-out illustrated map. It is designed to help children memorize all 50 states through poetic storytelling. Educators and parents are expected to welcome the book as a resource for teaching American geography and promoting national unity through engaging, family-friendly content.
The release is timed to coincide with America’s semiquincentennial. Supporters of the book say its message of national togetherness, presented through one of the most beloved American literary voices, is especially meaningful in today’s fractured cultural landscape. At a time when basic knowledge of U.S. history and geography is declining, the book aims to foster a deeper appreciation for the country’s heritage.
Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Barack Obama (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
A new book by Jonathan Karl titled Retribution claims that former President Barack Obama privately blasted former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for her swift public endorsement of Vice President Kamala Harris as the 2024 Democratic presidential nominee. The reported outburst came soon after President Joe Biden announced his withdrawal from the race, prompting Pelosi’s endorsement less than 24 hours later.
According to the book, Obama and Pelosi had allegedly agreed to refrain from early endorsements to preserve an open nomination process. The report claims that Obama viewed Harris as unfit to beat Donald Trump and was frustrated that Pelosi appeared to act unilaterally.
In the end, Obama did endorse Harris, but not until several days after Biden’s withdrawal—a delay that reportedly deepened his concerns about the party’s direction.
This revelation sheds light on deepening fractures within Democratic leadership during a pivotal election cycle. Obama’s reported frustration with Pelosi’s decision reveals a lack of unity and strategic coordination at the top of the party, particularly as Democrats faced the challenge of replacing President Biden mid-race.
Senator Josh Hawley (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta)
A bipartisan group of U.S. senators has introduced the GUARD Act to ban minors from using AI-powered chatbots, citing growing concerns that these tools are contributing to teen suicides, grooming, and violent behavior. The legislation, sponsored by Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) and Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), would impose sweeping regulations on chatbot developers and hold companies liable for content harmful to children.
The proposed legislation would prohibit the use of AI companion chatbots by anyone under the age of 18. To enforce the ban, companies would be required to implement strict age-verification methods, such as government-issued ID checks or facial recognition. Additionally, chatbots would be mandated to clearly disclose that they are not human or licensed professionals.
The bill also establishes civil and criminal penalties for companies that fail to prevent minors from accessing these tools or that produce content encouraging self-harm, sexual exploitation, or violence. Lawmakers said the bill is in response to a series of troubling incidents reported by parents, including a case where a 14-year-old boy took his own life after being allegedly groomed by an AI chatbot.
Parents have testified that AI bots on platforms like ChatGPT and Character.AI have engaged minors in explicit conversations, offered suicide advice, and even encouraged sexual relationships with the bots themselves. Critics argue these AI tools can create the illusion of empathy while reinforcing dangerous behavior, particularly among vulnerable teens.
The Nonhuman Rights Project (NhRP) sought a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of seven chimpanzees housed at the DeYoung Family Zoo, LLC in Michigan, arguing the animals’ confinement was unlawful. A three‑judge panel of the Michigan Court of Appeals rejected the petition, ruling the chimpanzees are not “persons” under law and so are ineligible for habeas relief.
In its opinion, the court noted the long‑standing common‑law principle that animals are treated as property and that extending habeas protections to non‑human species would lack a clear stopping point. “On the face of the complaint, the chimpanzees … are not eligible for habeas relief,” wrote Judge Matthew Ackerman.
The case began when NhRP filed a 109‑page complaint in 2023 on behalf of the chimpanzees, alleging inadequate social interaction and year‑round indoor confinement. The chimpanzees were held at the DeYoung Family Zoo in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula.
Supporters of NhRP pointed to expert declarations—including from noted primatologists—that the chimpanzees faced cognitive‑and‑behavioral harm in the zoo’s conditions. The court however rejected the argument that this triggered a legal obligation to treat them like persons capable of seeking liberty via habeas.
Stanford Law School website on computer screen (American Faith Media)
Applications to law and business schools are rising sharply among young professionals while white‑collar hiring remains sluggish. Observers say the uptick reflects a response to hiring freezes, layoffs, and the increasing impact of automation across traditional professional careers.
According to data cited by Fortune, applications to American Bar Association‑accredited law schools have jumped by approximately 33 % year‑over‑year. Meanwhile, MBA and other graduate‑management programs are seeing a more modest but still meaningful increase, estimated at around 7 % in one account.
Experts attribute the trend to a confluence of pressures: entry‑level hiring standards have risen, many traditional pathways in business and law are impacted by generative‑AI tools replacing routine tasks, and a certain economic uncertainty is prompting young workers to return to classrooms rather than entering a stagnant job market.
Colgate University will now offer tuition-free aid and no-loan financial packages to students from families earning up to $175,000 annually. The policy significantly expands the school’s existing financial aid model, positioning Colgate among a growing list of private universities seeking to offset rising college costs with donor-supported tuition programs.
Under the updated “Colgate Commitment,” students from families earning $80,000 or less will receive full tuition coverage. Families earning between $80,000 and $125,000 will pay approximately 5% of their income, while those earning between $125,000 and $175,000 will contribute roughly 10%, all without federal student loans. The initiative applies to U.S. citizens and permanent residents and is part of Colgate’s pledge to meet 100% of demonstrated financial need.
University officials say the goal is to alleviate debt burdens and increase accessibility to a Colgate education for middle-income families who often fall through the cracks of traditional aid structures. The expansion relies heavily on donor contributions and endowment growth, which fund the no-loan pledge in place of federally subsidized student loans.
While the university touts the program as a way to support economic mobility, it also raises questions about cost-shifting and long-term sustainability. As tuition rates at elite private institutions continue to rise, critics note that such financial aid models may indirectly incentivize high sticker prices while relying on selective aid for certain income brackets.
Authorities in Colombia are investigating the assassination of a leading conservative presidential candidate, with growing evidence pointing to involvement by the Marxist-Leninist terror group FARC. The killing has shaken Colombia’s political landscape and raised fears of renewed political violence from left-wing insurgents ahead of national elections.
The candidate, whose name has not been officially released pending notification of family, was reportedly ambushed while traveling in a rural region previously controlled by FARC militants. Early reports indicate the attack bore the hallmarks of FARC’s guerrilla tactics, including use of roadside explosives and targeted gunfire. The region has seen increasing activity by FARC dissident factions since peace accords were signed in 2016.
The slain candidate was widely viewed as the frontrunner in Colombia’s upcoming presidential race and had campaigned on a strong anti-communist platform, pledging to reestablish security in rural areas and crack down on narcoterrorism. His support among rural farmers, military veterans, and the Christian community made him a direct ideological threat to resurgent FARC networks.
While no group has formally claimed responsibility, government officials and military intelligence sources believe the attack was politically motivated and likely executed by FARC dissidents seeking to eliminate a vocal opponent and disrupt democratic stability.
The killing has drawn condemnation from conservative leaders across Latin America and the United States. Several have urged the Colombian government to act swiftly in identifying and eliminating FARC cells that have rearmed and returned to terrorism after rejecting the peace process.
The attack also reignites debate over the 2016 peace deal, which critics say was too lenient and allowed violent elements of FARC to regroup under the guise of political legitimacy. Many rural Colombians argue that the peace process failed to disarm FARC completely and has left large parts of the country vulnerable to guerrilla control.
President Trump has previously criticized U.S. support for lenient peace agreements with communist insurgencies, calling for stronger anti-terror efforts in the Western Hemisphere. This latest political assassination may renew calls for more aggressive policies to combat Latin America’s growing leftist insurgency threats.
President Donald Trump announced Wednesday that he and South Korean President Lee Jae-myung have “pretty much finalized” a major bilateral trade agreement, setting the stage for a new era of economic and strategic partnership between the two nations.
Speaking during a meeting at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit in Gyeongju, South Korea, Trump confirmed that the deal’s key components are agreed upon. “We made our deal,” he told reporters. “We came to a conclusion on a lot of very important items.”
To commemorate the moment, President Lee awarded Trump South Korea’s highest civilian honor — the Grand Order of Mugunghwa — making him the first American president to receive it. Lee also gifted Trump a replica royal crown, a symbolic nod to the strong relationship and a gesture that rankled Trump’s critics back home.
The agreement includes a sweeping $350 billion South Korean investment in the United States. The funds will be divided between a $200 billion general investment package, disbursed over a decade, and a more urgent $150 billion initiative focused on revitalizing the American shipbuilding industry.
Trump has made restoring U.S. shipbuilding capacity a top economic priority, especially in light of Chinese dominance and recent sanctions Beijing imposed on South Korean firm Hanwha Ocean for supporting U.S. ports.
Tariff reductions are also a key feature of the deal. The reciprocal tariff rate between the two nations will be lowered from 25% to 15%. South Korea had been lobbying for a reduction in U.S. auto tariffs, arguing they were higher than those faced by Japanese and European competitors.
Additional trade adjustments include granting most-favored nation status to pharmaceuticals and lumber, exemptions on certain airplane parts and natural resources, and equalized treatment for South Korean semiconductors in line with Taiwanese imports.
Kim Yong-beom, an aide to President Lee, emphasized that the deal will reduce uncertainty and create a favorable climate for Korean firms entering the U.S. market. A formal fact sheet outlining the full agreement is expected to be released in the coming days.
To prevent sudden policy reversals, the deal will include a framework based on “commercial rationality,” ensuring that neither side imposes unrealistic investment expectations on the other.
A coalition of top economists has filed a legal brief with the U.S. Supreme Court arguing that President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariff strategy will worsen — not reduce — the U.S. trade deficit, directly undermining the emergency justification behind the tariffs.
The brief, filed as part of an ongoing legal battle over Trump’s authority to impose near-universal tariffs, claims that the president’s economic rationale lacks foundation. Trump has said the tariffs are needed to address an ongoing trade deficit crisis, calling it a national emergency. But the economists, including former Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke and Nobel laureate Roger Myerson, counter that trade deficits are normal and not inherently dangerous.
“Trade deficits do not constitute a national emergency,” the attorneys for the economists wrote. “There is no known tipping point that transforms a persistent trade deficit into a national security catastrophe.”
Trump has stated that the tariffs he imposed — dubbed “reciprocal tariffs” — generated $20 trillion in pledged foreign investment. But the economists argue that such investments will naturally increase imports, thereby raising the trade deficit.
“When the United States receives $1 trillion in foreign investments, it receives $1 trillion in imports,” the brief states. “Increasing net foreign investment in the U.S. means increasing the U.S. trade deficit.”
The economists also targeted the legal foundation for the tariffs, warning that the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act — the law Trump invoked to declare a trade emergency — does not give the president the authority to restructure the entire U.S. trade system. The 76-word statute doesn’t even mention tariffs, they note.
The brief accuses the administration of violating the “major questions doctrine,” which requires clear congressional approval for sweeping economic changes. The economists argue that Trump’s tariffs have massive national impact — including on tax revenue, prices, and economic structure — and therefore cannot be justified under vague statutory authority.
An August Congressional Budget Office report estimated Trump’s tariffs could generate $4 trillion over the next decade, but also warned of higher consumer prices and decreased purchasing power for American families.
Despite the criticisms, Trump remains firm, warning that trade deficits threaten long-term U.S. economic security. He declared a national emergency in April to justify the tariffs, though many of those rates have since been suspended or modified.
The economists’ brief may shape how the Supreme Court views the case, which could determine the future limits of presidential power over trade policy.
