Amid rural Louisiana’s crawfish farms, towering pine trees and cafes serving po’boys, nearly 7,000 people are waiting at immigration detention centers to learn whether they will be expelled from the United States.

If President Donald Trump’s administration has its way, the capacity to hold tens of thousands more migrants will soon be added around the country as the U.S. seeks an explosive expansion of what is already the world’s largest immigration detention system.

Trump’s effort to conduct mass deportations as promised in the 2024 campaign represents a potential bonanza for private prison companies and a challenge to the government agencies responsible for the orderly expulsion of immigrants. Some critics say the administration’s plans also include a deliberate attempt to isolate detainees by locking them up and holding court proceedings far from their attorneys and support systems.

The acting director of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, Todd Lyons, said at a border security conference in Phoenix last week that the agency needs “to get better at treating this like a business” and suggested the nation’s deportation system could function “like Amazon, trying to get your product delivered in 24 hours.”

“So trying to figure out how to do that with human beings and trying to get them pretty much all over the globe is really something for us,” Lyons said.

This month, ICE invited companies to bid on contracts to operate detention centers at sites around the country for up to $45 billion as the agency begins to scale up from its current budget for about 41,000 beds to 100,000 beds.

The money isn’t yet there, but contracts are already being awarded. The House narrowly approved a broad spending bill that includes $175 billion for immigration enforcement, about 22 times ICE’s annual budget. The agency’s 100-plus detention centers nationwide currently hold about 46,000 people, causing overcrowding in locations including Miami.

ICE last week awarded a contract worth up to $3.85 billion to Deployed Resources LLC to operate a detention camp at the Fort Bliss Army base in Texas. The little-known company is shifting its business from Border Patrol tent encampments for people arriving in the United States — most of which are now closed — to ICE facilities for people being deported.

The Geo Group Inc. got a contract for 1,000 beds in Newark, New Jersey, valued at $1 billion over 15 years and another for 1,800 beds in Baldwin, Michigan. CoreCivic Inc., won a contract to house 2,400 people in families with young children in Dilley, Texas, for five years.

The stock market has rewarded both of these private corrections companies. Geo’s stock price has soared 94% since Trump was elected. Shares of CoreCivic have surged 62%.

President Donald Trump said Thursday he is in “no rush” to reach any trade deals because he views tariffs as making the United States wealthy. But he suggested while meeting with Italian Premier Giorgia Meloni that it would be easy to find an agreement with the European Union and others.

Trump played down the likelihood of an accelerated timeline to wrap up deals, saying other countries “want to make deals more than I do.”

“We’re in no rush,” said Trump, hinting he has leverage because other countries want access to U.S. consumers.

Even though Trump has a warm relationship with Meloni, she was unable in their meeting to change his mind on tariffs.

“No, tariffs are making us rich. We were losing a lot of money under Biden,” Trump said of his predecessor, Democrat Joe Biden. “And now that whole tide is turned.”

Trump is convinced that his devotion to tariffs will yield unprecedented wealth for his country even as the stock market has dropped, interest on U.S. debt has risen and CEOs are warning of price increases and job losses in what increasingly looks like a threat to the existing structure of the world economy.

A bond market panic was enough for Trump to partially pull back on his tariffs, causing him to pause his 20% import taxes on the EU for 90 days and charge a baseline 10% instead. Meloni’s visit showed the challenge faced even by leaders who enjoy a rapport with Trump.

After they met, Trump told reporters that trade talks were easier than other business negotiations such as mergers. He said he had spoken with Chinese officials about tariffs “a lot” and the amount of his import taxes could be influenced by China approving a sale of the social media site TikTok. He also seemed to contradict his previous statement Thursday morning about being in no rush to make trade deals “over the next three or four weeks.”

Even then, Trump showed no interest in fully severing his tariffs. “Tariff negotiations are actually simpler than everyone has said,” Trump said. “A number of people are going to pay that number or they’re going to decide to go elsewhere if there is such a place. There really is no elsewhere.”

Meloni had, in a sense, been “knighted” to represent the EU at a critical juncture in the fast-evolving trade war that has stoked recession fears. The U.S. administration has belittled its European counterparts for not doing enough on national security while threatening their economies with tariffs, sparking deep uncertainty about the future of the trans-Atlantic alliance.

She sought to portray the U.S. and Europe as natural allies in Western civilization and said it was important to “try to sit down and find solution” to tensions over trade and national security.

The EU is defending what it calls “the most important commercial relationship in the world,’’ with annual trade with the U.S. totaling 1.6 trillion euros ($1.8 trillion). It was unclear, based on Meloni’s public interactions with Trump, whether the premier has a clear understanding of what Trump wants as part of an agreement.

His administration has said its tariffs would enable trade negotiations that would box out China, the world’s dominant manufacturer. But Trump maintains that rivals and allies alike have taken advantage of the U.S. on trade, a position that has frustrated long-standing partners and raised concerns about whether Trump is a trustworthy dealmaker.

Trump tried to push back against claims that his tariffs are harming the economy, saying that gasoline and egg prices are already dropping. The president blamed the Federal Reserve for interest rates rising on U.S. debt. Rates largely increased because investors were worried about Trump’s tariff plans and they became less willing to buy Treasury notes, while the central bank has held steady on its own benchmark rates because of economic uncertainty.

Hong Kong’s government on Monday defended its immigration procedures after a British member of parliament was denied entry to the Chinese city last week, an incident that has prompted concerns among U.K. officials.

Wera Hobhouse, a member of the Liberal Democratic Party representing Bath, on Sunday wrote on the social media platform Bluesky that authorities gave her no explanation for what she described as a “cruel and upsetting blow.” She noted that she was the first British MP to face such a situation upon arrival in the former British colony since it returned to Chinese rule in 1997.

Hobhouse had told British media that she flew to Hong Kong to visit her newborn grandchild. She is also a member of the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China that has scrutinized Beijing’s human rights record.

The Hong Kong government, in a statement released late Monday, maintained that its immigration officers are duty-bound to question individuals to ascertain the purpose of any visit.

“The person concerned knows best what he or she has done. It will be unhelpful to the person’s case if the person refuses to answer questions put to him or her for that purpose,” the statement read. The government added that it would not comment on individual cases.

The statement also said that Chief Secretary Eric Chan discussed the matter with the U.K. Minister for Trade Policy and Economic Security Douglas Alexander earlier on Monday during the British official’s visit to Hong Kong.

In Beijing, Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson Lin Jian emphasized that immigration affairs fall within the scope of national sovereignty and the city’s government has the right to handle individual immigration cases according to the law.

The British government also issued a statement on Monday about Hobhouse’s entry denial last Thursday. It stated that Alexander had raised its concerns with senior Chinese and Hong Kong counterparts and demanded an explanation during his visit to the city and mainland China.

“Unjustified restrictions on the freedom of movement for U.K. citizens into Hong Kong only serves to further undermine Hong Kong’s international reputation and the important people-to-people connections between the U.K. and Hong Kong,” it said.

It added that the U.K. Foreign Secretary David Lammy made clear that it would be unacceptable for any member of parliament to be denied entry for simply expressing their views.

The U.K. Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that a woman is someone born biologically female, excluding transgender people from the legal definition in a long-running dispute between a feminist group and the Scottish government.

Several women’s groups that supported the appeal celebrated outside court and hailed it as a major victory in their effort to protect spaces designated for women.

“Everyone knows what sex is and you can’t change it,” said Susan Smith, co-director of For Women Scotland, which brought the case. “It’s common sense, basic common sense and the fact that we have been down a rabbit hole where people have tried to deny science and to deny reality and hopefully this will now see us back to reality.”

Five judges ruled unanimously that the U.K. Equality Act means trans women can be excluded from some groups and single-sex spaces, such as changing rooms, homeless shelters, swimming areas and medical or counseling services provided only to women.

The ruling means that a transgender person with a certificate that recognizes them as female should not be considered a woman for equality purposes.

The ruling brings some clarity in the U.K. to a contentious issue that has polarized politics in some other countries, particularly the U.S. Republican-controlled states over the last four years have been banning gender-affirming care for minors, barring transgender women and girls from sports competitions that align with their gender and restricting which public bathrooms transgender people can use.

Since returning to office in January, President Donald Trump has signed orders to define the sexes as only male and female and has tried to kick transgender service members out of the military, block federal spending on gender-affirming car e for those under 19 and block their sports participation nationally. His efforts are being challenged in court.

Justice Patrick Hodge said the British ruling “does not remove protection from trans people,” who are still protected from discrimination under U.K. law.

The case stems from a 2018 law passed by the Scottish Parliament saying 50% of the membership of the boards of Scottish public bodies should be women. Transgender women with gender recognition certificates were to be included in meeting the quota.

“Interpreting ‘sex’ as certificated sex would cut across the definitions of ‘man’ and ‘woman’ ... and, thus, the protected characteristic of sex in an incoherent way,” Hodge said. “It would create heterogeneous groupings.”

The campaign group Scottish Trans said it was “shocked and disappointed” by the ruling, saying it would undermine legal protections for transgender people enshrined in the 2004 Gender Recognition Act.

Maggie Chapman, a Green Party lawmaker in the Scottish Parliament, said the ruling was “deeply concerning” for human rights and “a huge blow to some of the most marginalized people in our society.”

“Trans people have been cynically targeted and demonized by politicians and large parts of the media for far too long,” she said. “This has contributed to attacks on longstanding rights and attempts to erase their existence altogether.”

Groups that had challenged the Scottish government uncorked a bottle of champagne outside the court and sang, “women’s rights are human rights.”

“The court has given us the right answer: the protected characteristic of sex — male and female — refers to reality, not to paperwork,” said Maya Forstater of the group Sex Matters. In 2022, an employment tribunal ruled that she had been the victim of discrimination when she lost out on a job after posting gender-critical views online.

The federal government says it’s freezing more than $2.2 billion in grants and $60 million in contracts to Harvard University, after the institution said it would defy the Trump administration’s demands to limit activism on campus.

The hold on Harvard’s funding marks the seventh time President Donald Trump’s administration has taken the step at one of the nation’s most elite colleges, in an attempt to force compliance with Trump’s political agenda. Six of the seven schools are in the Ivy League.

It sets the stage for a showdown between the federal government and America’s oldest and wealthiest university. With an endowment of more than $50 billion, Harvard is perhaps the best positioned university to push back on the administration’s pressure campaign.

In a letter to Harvard Friday, Trump’s administration had called for broad government and leadership reforms at the university, as well as changes to its admissions policies. It also demanded the university audit views of diversity on campus, and stop recognizing some student clubs.

The federal government said almost $9 billion in grants and contracts in total were at risk if Harvard did not comply.

On Monday, Harvard President Alan Garber said the university would not bend to the government’s demands.

“The University will not surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights,” Garber said in a letter to the Harvard community. “No government — regardless of which party is in power — should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue.”

Hours later, the government froze billions in Harvard’s federal funding.

The first university targeted by the Trump administration was Columbia, which acquiesced to the government’s demands under the threat of billions of dollars in cuts. The administration also has paused federal funding for the University of Pennsylvania, Brown, Princeton, Cornell and Northwestern.

Trump’s administration has normalized the extraordinary step of withholding federal money to pressure major academic institutions to comply with the president’s political agenda and to influence campus policy. The administration has argued universities allowed antisemitism to go unchecked at campus protests last year against Israel’s war in Gaza.

Harvard, Garber said, already has made extensive reforms to address antisemitism. He said many of the government’s demands don’t relate to antisemitism, but instead are an attempt to regulate the “intellectual conditions” at Harvard.

Withholding federal funding from Harvard, one of the nation’s top research universities in science and medicine, “risks not only the health and well-being of millions of individuals but also the economic security and vitality of our nation.” It also violates the university’s First Amendment rights and exceeds the government’s authority under Title VI, which prohibits discrimination against students based on their race, color or national origin, Garber said.

The government’s demands included that Harvard institute what it called “merit-based” admissions and hiring policies and conduct an audit of the study body, faculty and leadership on their views about diversity. The administration also called for a ban on face masks at Harvard — an apparent target of pro-Palestinian campus protesters — and pressured the university to stop recognizing or funding “any student group or club that endorses or promotes criminal activity, illegal violence, or illegal harassment.”

Harvard’s defiance, the federal antisemitism task force said Monday, “reinforces the troubling entitlement mindset that is endemic in our nation’s most prestigious universities and colleges — that federal investment does not come with the responsibility to uphold civil rights laws.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled for the Food and Drug Administration in its crackdown on sweet-flavored vaping products following a surge in teen electronic cigarette use.

But the justices’ unanimous decision throwing out a federal appeals court ruling is not the final word in the case, and the FDA could change its approach now that President Donald Trump has promised to “save” vaping.

The high court ruled that the FDA, during President Joe Biden’s administration, did not violate federal law when it denied an application from Dallas-based company Triton Distribution to sell e-juices like “Jimmy The Juice Man in Peachy Strawberry” and “Suicide Bunny Mother’s Milk and Cookies.” The products are heated by an e-cigarette to create an inhalable aerosol.

Yolonda Richardson, president and CEO of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, called the decision “a major victory for the health of America’s kids and efforts to protect them from the flavored e-cigarettes that have fueled a youth nicotine addiction crisis.”

The FDA has rejected applications for more than a million nicotine products formulated to taste like fruit, dessert or candy because their makers couldn’t show that flavored vapes had a net public benefit, as required by law.

It has approved some tobacco-flavored vapes, and recently it allowed its first menthol-flavored e-cigarettes for adult smokers after the company provided data showing the product was more helpful in quitting.

But the conservative 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Triton, agreeing that the FDA changed its standards with little warning in violation of federal law.

While mainly ruling for the FDA on Wednesday, the Supreme Court noted that the agency had said the company’s marketing plan would be an important factor in evaluating its application. But it ultimately did not consider the marketing plan, Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the court.

Attorney Eric Heyer, who represented the company, expressed disappointment with the ruling but said Triton believes “in the great harm reduction potential” of the products and plans to continue litigation.

The appeals court was ordered to consider if the failure to do so is an important mistake that might still lead to a decision in Triton’s favor.

A former Conservative lawmaker and 14 others have been charged with cheating when placing bets on the timing of Britain’s general election last year, the Gambling Commission said Monday.

Craig Williams was one of several people who had been investigated for cashing in on insider knowledge on the date then-Prime Minister Rishi Sunak would call the election. Other members of the Conservative Party that controlled government at the time and a police officer were among those facing charges that carry a potential two-year prison term, if convicted.

It’s legal for politicians to wager on elections, but the investigation was about whether they used inside information to gain an unfair advantage. One of the popular bets at the time was to wager on the date the prime minister would call an election.

At the time, the conventional wisdom was that Sunak would call an election in the fall, but he surprised people in May when he set the election date for July 4th. The announcement was a disaster as Sunak was drenched in pouring rain outside his residence and word quickly spread that a handful of people with connections to the party had placed suspiciously timed bets.

The vote six weeks later ended up being a bloodbath for Conservatives, as the Labour Party, led by Prime Minister Keir Starmer, swept them out of office for the first time in 14 years.

Williams, who was Sunak’s parliamentary private secretary and running for reelection, had disclosed he placed a 100-pound ($131) bet on a July election days before the date had been announced.

“I committed an error of judgment, not an offense, and I want to reiterate my apology directly to you,” he said in a video posted on social media in June.

In the election, Williams lost his seat representing an area of Wales, finishing third.

Others facing charges included Russell George, a Conservative in the Welsh parliament, Nick Mason, a former chief data officer for the Tories and Thomas James, the director of the Welsh Conservatives.

Anthony Lee, a former Conservative campaign director, was also charged alongside his wife, Laura Saunders, who ran unsuccessfully for a seat in Parliament representing an area of southwest England.

George was suspended by the Conservative Party after news of the criminal case.

Meta Platforms Inc. faces a historic antitrust trial beginning Monday that could force the tech giant to break off Instagram and WhatsApp, startups it bought more than a decade ago that have since grown into social media powerhouses.

The looming antitrust trial will be the first big test of President Donald Trump’s Federal Trade Commission’s ability to challenge Big Tech. The lawsuit was filed against Meta — then called Facebook — in 2020, during Trump’s first term. It claims the company bought Instagram and WhatsApp to squash competition and establish an illegal monopoly in the social media market.

Meta, the FTC argues, has maintained a monopoly by pursuing CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s strategy, “expressed in 2008: ‘It is better to buy than compete.’ True to that maxim, Facebook has systematically tracked potential rivals and acquired companies that it viewed as serious competitive threats.”

Facebook also enacted policies designed to make it difficult for smaller rivals to enter the market and “neutralize perceived competitive threats,” the FTC says in its complaint, just as the world shifted its attention to mobile devices from desktop computers.

“Unable to maintain its monopoly by fairly competing, the company’s executives addressed the existential threat by buying up new innovators that were succeeding where Facebook failed,” the FTC says.

Facebook bought Instagram — then a scrappy photo-sharing app with no ads and a small cult following — in 2012. The $1 billion cash and stock purchase price was eye-popping at the time, though the deal’s value fell to $750 million after Facebook’s stock price dipped following its initial public offering in May 2012.

Ecuadorian voters weary of crime reelected President Daniel Noboa, a conservative young millionaire with a divisive no-holds-barred crimefighting record, by a wide margin Sunday, but his opponent vowed to seek a recount over what she described as “grotesque” electoral fraud.

Figures released by Ecuador’s National Electoral Council showed Noboa receiving 55.8% of the vote with more than 92% of ballots counted, while leftist lawyer Luisa González earned 44%. Council president Diana Atamaint said those results showed an “irreversible trend” in favor of Noboa.

The win gives Noboa four years to fulfill the promises he first made in 2023, when he stunned voters by winning a snap election and a 16-month presidency despite his limited political experience.

“Ecuador is changing... and that path will mean our children will live better lives than we did,” Noboa told supporters during a brief speech in which he also criticized his opponent’s fraud allegations.

“I find it embarrassing that with an 11- or 12-point difference, they come out to question the will of the Ecuadorians,” Noboa added. “Ecuadorians have already spoken, now we have to get to work.”

Noboa, heir to a fortune built on the banana trade, is expected to continue applying some of his no-holds-barred crimefighting strategies that part of the electorate finds appealing but which have tested the limits of laws and norms of governing.

González’s defeat marks the third consecutive time that the party of Rafael Correa, the country’s most influential president this century, failed to return to the presidency. She told supporters that her campaign “does not recognize the results presented by the “(National Electoral Council),” arguing among other issues that pre-election polls showed her ahead of Noboa.

The candidates advanced to Sunday’s contest after getting the most votes in February’s first-round election. Noboa led González by about 17,000 votes that time.

China is reaching out to other nations as the U.S. layers on more tariffs in what appears to be an attempt to form a united front to compel Washington to retreat. Days into the effort, it’s meeting only partial success with many countries unwilling to ally with the main target of President Donald Trump’s trade war.

Facing the cratering of global markets, Trump on Wednesday backed off his tariffs on most nations for 90 days, saying countries were lining up to negotiate more favorable conditions.

China has refused to seek talks, saying it would “fight to the end” in a tariff war, prompting Trump to further jack up the tax rate on Chinese imports to 125%. China has retaliated with tariffs on U.S. goods of 84%, which took effect Thursday.

Trump’s move was seemingly an attempt to narrow what had been an unprecedented trade war between the U.S. and most of the world to a showdown between the U.S. and China.

“A just cause receives support from many,” Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lin Jian said at a daily briefing on Thursday. “The U.S. cannot win the support of the people and will end in failure.”

China has thus far focused on Europe, with a phone call between Premier Li Qiang and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen “sending a positive message to the outside world.”

“China is willing to work with the EU to jointly implement the important consensus reached by the leaders of China and the EU, strengthen communication and exchanges, and deepen China-EU trade, investment and industrial cooperation,” the official Xinhua News Agency reported.

That was followed by a video conference between Chinese Commerce Minister Wang Wentao and EU Commissioner for Trade and Economic Security Šefčović on Tuesday to discuss the U.S. “reciprocal tariffs.”

Wang said the tariffs “seriously infringe upon the legitimate interests of all countries, seriously violate WTO rules, seriously damage the rules-based multilateral trading system, and seriously impact the stability of the global economic order,” Xinhua said.

“It is a typical act of unilateralism, protectionism and economic bullying,” Wang said quoted as saying. “China is willing to resolve differences through consultation and negotiation, but if the U.S. insists on its own way, China will fight to the end,” Wang said.

Wang has also spoken with the 10-member Association of Southeast Asian Nations, while Li, the premier, has met with business leaders. China has “already made a full evaluation and is prepared to deal with all kinds of uncertainties, and will introduce incremental policies according to the needs of the situation,” Xinhua quoted Li as saying.

In Hong Kong, the spokesperson for the local office of China’s Foreign Ministry reiterated Beijing’s unwillingness to negotiate with the U.S. under current conditions.

“We must solemnly tell the U.S.: a tariff-wielding barbarian who attempts to force countries to call and beg for mercy can never expect that call from China,” Huang Jingrui wrote in an op-ed appearing in the South China Morning Post.

If the U.S. is truly sincere about starting a dialogue with China, it should “immediately rectify its wrong practices and adopt the right attitude of equality, respect and mutual benefit,” Huang wrote.

Despite their unhappiness with Washington, not all countries are interested in linking up with China, especially those with a history of disputes with Beijing.

“We speak for ourselves, and Australia’s position is that free and fair trade is a good thing,” Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese told reporters. “We engage with all countries, but we stand up for Australia’s national interest and we stand on our own two feet.”

China imposed a series of official and unofficial trade barriers against Australia in 2020 after the government angered Beijing by calling for an independent inquiry into the COVID-19 pandemic.

India has also reportedly turned down a Chinese call for cooperation, and Russia, typically seen as China’s closest geopolitical partner, has been left out of the Trump tariffs altogether. Taiwanese Foreign Minister Lin Chia-lung said on Wednesday that his government is preparing for talks on tariffs with the U.S.

The U.S. imposed a 32% tariff on imports from Taiwan, a close trading and security partner. Taiwan produces most of the high-performing computer chips craved by the U.S. and others and has long enjoyed a trade surplus with Washington.

Yet, Southeast Asian nations such as Vietnam and Cambodia find themselves in a particular bind. They benefited when factories moved to their countries from China due to rising costs. They are being hit by punishing tariffs but have few buyers outside the U.S. and are already operating on razor-thin margins.

Trump had previously denied contemplating a pause, but the drama over his tariffs will continue as the administration prepares to engage in country-by-country negotiations. Meanwhile, tariffs will be 10% for the countries where the larger ones were paused.

The Supreme Court on Monday allowed the Trump administration to use an 18th century wartime law to deport Venezuelan migrants, but said they must get a court hearing before they are taken from the United States.

In a bitterly divided decision, the court said the administration must give Venezuelans who it claims are gang members “reasonable time” to go to court.

But the conservative majority said the legal challenges must take place in Texas, instead of a Washington courtroom.

The court’s action appears to bar the administration from immediately resuming the flights that last month carried hundreds of migrants to a notorious prison in El Salvador. The flights came soon after President Donald Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act for the first time since World War II to justify the deportations under a presidential proclamation calling the Tren de Aragua gang an invading force.

The majority said nothing about those flights, which took off without providing the hearing the justices now say is necessary.

In dissent, the three liberal justices said the administration has sought to avoid judicial review in this case and the court “now rewards the government for its behavior.” Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined portions of the dissent.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor said it would be harder for people to challenge deportations individually, wherever they are being held, and noted that the administration has also said in another case before the court that it’s unable to return people who have been deported to the El Salvador prison by mistake.

“We, as a Nation and a court of law, should be better than this,” she wrote.

The justices acted on the administration’s emergency appeal after the federal appeals court in Washington left in place an order temporarily prohibiting deportations of the migrants accused of being gang members under the rarely used Alien Enemies Act.

“For all the rhetoric of the dissents,” the court wrote in an unsigned opinion, the high court order confirms “that the detainees subject to removal orders under the AEA are entitled to notice and an opportunity to challenge their removal.”

The case has become a flashpoint amid escalating tension between the White House and the federal courts. It’s the second time in less than a week that a majority of conservative justices has handed Trump at least a partial victory in an emergency appeal after lower courts had blocked parts of his agenda.

Several other cases are pending, including over Trump’s plan to deny citizenship to U.S.-born children of parents who are in the country illegally.

Trump praised the court for its action Monday.

“The Supreme Court has upheld the Rule of Law in our Nation by allowing a President, whoever that may be, to be able to secure our Borders, and protect our families and our Country, itself. A GREAT DAY FOR JUSTICE IN AMERICA!” Trump wrote on his Truth Social site.

Attorneys from the American Civil Liberties Union filed the lawsuit on behalf of five Venezuelan noncitizens who were being held in Texas, hours after the proclamation was made public and as immigration authorities were shepherding hundreds of migrants to waiting airplanes.

ACLU attorney Lee Gelernt said the “critical point” of the high court’s ruling was that people must be allowed due process to challenge their removal. “That is an important victory,” he said.

Boasberg imposed a temporary halt on deportations and also ordered planeloads of Venezuelan immigrants to return to the U.S. That did not happen. The judge held a hearing last week over whether the government defied his order to turn the planes around. The administration has invoked a “ state secrets privilege ” and refused to give Boasberg any additional information about the deportations.

Trump and his allies have called for impeaching Boasberg. In a rare statement, Chief Justice John Roberts said “impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision.”

China said Tuesday it would “fight to the end” and take countermeasures against the United States to safeguard its own interests after President Donald Trump threatened an additional 50% tariff on Chinese imports.

The Commerce Ministry said the U.S.‘s imposition of “so-called ‘reciprocal tariffs’” on China is “completely groundless and is a typical unilateral bullying practice.”

China, the world’s second-largest economy, has announced retaliatory tariffs and the ministry hinted in its latest statement that more may be coming.

“The countermeasures China has taken are aimed at safeguarding its sovereignty, security and development interests, and maintaining the normal international trade order. They are completely legitimate,” the ministry said.

“The U.S. threat to escalate tariffs on China is a mistake on top of a mistake and once again exposes the blackmailing nature of the U.S. China will never accept this. If the U.S. insists on its own way, China will fight to the end,” it added.

Trump’s threat Monday of additional tariffs on China raised fresh concerns that his drive to rebalance the global economy could intensify a financially destructive trade war. Stock markets from Tokyo to New York have become more unstable as the tariff war worsens.

Trump’s threat came after China said it would retaliate against U.S. tariffs he announced last week.

“If China does not withdraw its 34% increase above their already long term trading abuses by tomorrow, April 8th, 2025, the United States will impose ADDITIONAL Tariffs on China of 50%, effective April 9th,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. “Additionally, all talks with China concerning their requested meetings with us will be terminated!”

If Trump implements his new tariffs on Chinese products, U.S. tariffs on Chinese goods would reach a combined 104%. The new taxes would be on top of the 20% tariffs announced as punishment for fentanyl trafficking and his separate 34% tariffs announced last week. Not only could that increase prices for American consumers, it could also give China an incentive to flood other countries with cheaper goods and seek deeper relationships with other trading partners, particularly the European Union.

On the streets of Beijing, people said they found it hard to keep track of all the announcements, but expressed belief in their country’s ability to weather the storm.

“Trump says one thing today and another tomorrow. Anyway, he just wants benefits, so he can say whatever he wants,” said Wu Qi, 37, who works in construction.

Others were less sanguine. Paul Wang, 30, who sells stainless accessories, including necklaces, bracelets, and tongue studs to Europe, said the European market was now more important after the extra U.S. 50% tariffs and he would be watching to see which other firms in his field would be competing in that space.

Jessi Huang and Yang Aijia, whose companies import chemicals from the U.S., said the tariffs, including potential Chinese retribution, could force them to close up shop. China still has a range of options to strike back at the Washington, experts said, including suspending cooperation on combating fentanyl, placing higher quotas on agricultural products and going after the U.S. trade in services in China such as finance and law firms.

U.S. total goods trade with China was an estimated $582 billion in 2024, making it the top trader in goods with the U.S. The 2024 deficit with China in goods and services trade was between $263 billion and $295 billion.

Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lin Jian appeared to give short shrift to talk of dialogue with the Trump administration.