President Donald Trump on Saturday ripped into Walmart, saying on social media that the retail giant should eat the additional costs created by his tariffs.

As Trump has jacked up import taxes, he has tried to assure a skeptical public that foreign producers would pay for those taxes and that retailers and automakers would absorb the additional expenses. Most economic analyses are deeply skeptical of those claims and have warned that the trade penalties would worsen inflation. Walmart warned on Thursday that everything from bananas to children’s car seats could increase in price.

Trump, in his Truth Social post, lashed out at the retailer, which employs 1.6 million people in the United States. He said the company, based in Bentonville, Arkansas, should sacrifice its profits for the sake of his economic agenda that he says will eventually lead to more domestic jobs in manufacturing.

“Walmart should STOP trying to blame Tariffs as the reason for raising prices throughout the chain,” Trump posted. “Walmart made BILLIONS OF DOLLARS last year, far more than expected. Between Walmart and China they should, as is said, “EAT THE TARIFFS,” and not charge valued customers ANYTHING. I’ll be watching, and so will your customers!!!”

The posting by the Republican president reflected the increasingly awkward series of choices that many major American companies face as a result of his tariffs, from deteriorating sales to the possibility of incurring Trump’s wrath. Trump has similarly warned domestic automakers to not raise their prices, even though outside analyses say his tariffs would raise production costs.

So far, those tariffs have darkened the mood of an otherwise resilient U.S. economy. The preliminary reading of the University of Michigan survey of consumer sentiment on Friday slipped to its second lowest measure on record, with roughly 75% of respondents “spontaneously” mentioning tariffs as they largely expected inflation to accelerate.

In April, Walmart CEO Doug McMillon was among the retail executives who met with Trump at the White House to discuss tariffs. But the Trump administration went forward despite warnings and has attacked other companies such as Amazon and Apple that are struggling with the disruptions to their supply chains.

Walmart chief financial officer John David Rainey said he thinks $350 car seats made in China will soon cost an additional $100, a 29% price increase.

“We’re wired to keep prices low, but there’s a limit to what we can bear, or any retailer for that matter,” he told The Associated Press on Thursday after the company reported strong first-quarter sales.

The administration recently ratcheted down its 145% tariffs on China to 30% for a 90-day period. Trump has placed tariffs as high as 25% on Mexico and Canada due to illegal immigration and drug trafficking, harming the relationship with America’s two largest trading partners.

There is a universal baseline tariff of 10% on most countries as Trump promises to reach trade deals in the coming weeks after having shocked the financial markets in early April by charging higher import taxes based on trade deficits with other countries. Trump insists he intends to preserve the tariffs as a revenue source and that a framework agreement with the United Kingdom would largely keep the 10% tariff rate in place.

Trump has also placed import taxes on autos, steel and aluminum and plans to do so on pharmaceutical drugs, among other products.

The tariffs and Trump’s own reversals on how much he should charge have generated uncertainty across the U.S. economy, such that Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell has held the central bank’s benchmark rates steady until there is more clarity. Powell has warned that tariffs can both hurt growth and raise prices.

On Saturday, Trump repeated his calls for Powell to cut the benchmark rates. That could cause inflation to accelerate, but the president has maintained that inflationary pressures have largely disappeared from the economy.

Two major law firms asked separate judges Wednesday to permanently block President Donald Trump’s executive orders that were meant to punish them and harm their business operations.

The firms — Perkins Coie and WilmerHale — say the orders are unconstitutional assaults on the legal profession threaten their relationships with clients and retaliate against them based on their past legal representations or their association with particular attorneys whom Trump perceives as his adversaries.

Courts last month temporarily halted enforcement of key provisions of both orders, but the firms asked in court Wednesday for the edicts to be struck down in their entirety and for judges to issue rulings in their favor. Another firm, Jenner & Block, is scheduled to make similar arguments next week and a fourth, Susman Godfrey, is set to make its case next month.

“The entire executive order is retaliatory,” Dane Butswinkas, a lawyer who presented arguments on behalf of Perkins Coie, told a judge.

U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell did not immediately rule on the firm’s request, but she repeatedly expressed deep unease over the executive order, signaling that she was inclined to side with Perkins Coie.

She grilled a Justice Department lawyer over the government’s plans to suspend the security clearances of lawyers at the firm and asked him to respond to the suggestion that the blacklisting of disfavored law firms was similar to the “Red Scare” panic over communism decades ago. And she pressed him to explain why the Trump administration was forcing firms to disavow the use of diversity, equity and inclusion considerations in their hiring practices.

The spate of executive orders taking aim at some of the country’s most elite and prominent law firms are part of a wide-ranging retribution campaign by Trump designed to reshape civil society and extract concessions from powerful institutions. The actions have forced targeted entities, whether law firms or universities, to decide whether to push back and risk further incurring the administration’s ire or to agree to concessions in hopes of averting sanctions. Some firms have challenged the orders in court, but others have proactively reached settlements.

The executive actions have generally imposed the same sanctions against the law firms, including ordering that security clearances of attorneys be suspended, that federal contracts be terminated and that lawyers be barred from accessing federal buildings.

Even as he’s vowed to push the United States ahead in artificial intelligence research, President Donald Trump’s threats to alter federal government contracts with chipmakers and slap new tariffs on the semiconductor industry may put new speed bumps in front of the tech industry.

Since taking office, Trump has said he would place tariffs on foreign production of computer chips and semiconductors in order to return chip manufacturing to the U.S. The president and Republican lawmakers have also threatened to end the CHIPS and Science Act, a sweeping Biden administration-era law that also sought to boost domestic production.

But economic experts have warned that Trump’s dual-pronged approach could slow, or potentially harm, the administration’s goal of ensuring that the U.S. maintains a competitive edge in artificial intelligence research.

Saikat Chaudhuri, an expert on corporate growth and innovation at U.C. Berkeley’s Haas School of Business, called Trump’s derision of the CHIPS Act surprising because one of the biggest bottlenecks for the advancement of AI has been chip production. Most countries, Chaudhuri said, are trying to encourage chip production and the import of chips at favorable rates.

“We have seen what the shortage has done in everything from AI to even cars,” he said. “In the pandemic, cars had to do with fewer or less powerful chips in order to just deal with the supply constraints.”

The Biden administration helped shepherd in the law following supply disruptions that occurred after the start of the COVID-19 pandemic — when a shortage of chips stalled factory assembly lines and fueled inflation — threatened to plunge the U.S. economy into recession. When pushing for the investment, lawmakers also said they were concerned about efforts by China to control Taiwan, which accounts for more than 90% of advanced computer chip production.

As of August 2024, the CHIPS and Science Act had provided $30 billion in support for 23 projects in 15 states that would add 115,000 manufacturing and construction jobs, according to the Commerce Department. That funding helped to draw in private capital and would enable the U.S. to produce 30% of the world’s most advanced computer chips, up from 0% when the Biden-Harris administration succeeded Trump’s first term.

The administration promised tens of billions of dollars to support the construction of U.S. chip foundries and reduce reliance on Asian suppliers, which Washington sees as a security weakness. In August, the Commerce Department pledged to provide up to $6.6 billion so that Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. could expand the facilities it is already building in Arizona and better ensure that the most advanced microchips are produced domestically for the first time.

But Trump has said he believes that companies entering into those contracts with the federal government, such as TSMC, “didn’t need money” in order to prioritize chipmaking in the U.S.

“They needed an incentive. And the incentive is going to be they’re not going to want to pay at 25, 50 or even 100% tax,” Trump said. TSMC held board meetings for the first time in the U.S. last week. Trump has signaled that if companies want to avoid tariffs they have to build their plants in the U.S. — without help from the government. Taiwan also dispatched two senior economic affairs officials to Washington to meet with the Trump administration in a bid to potentially fend off a 100% tariff Trump has threatened to impose on chips.

If the Trump administration does levy tariffs, Chaudhuri said, one immediate concern is that prices of goods that use semiconductors and chips will rise because the higher costs associated with tariffs are typically passed to consumers.

Find a variety of information and useful content from blogs in all 50 states of the United States. WebPromo started with the idea of ​​creating a Korean portal website where Koreans living in the United States can easily find the information they need!

There are several Korean community sites in the United States, but it was difficult to find a Korean portal that covered all regions of the United States.

Based on the Korean blog community and business service platform in the United States, we are creating a community where we can share abundant information and communicate together.

What you can find on WebPromo!

Korean business information easily found anywhere in the country
Search for various useful information for daily life
Purchase convenient services and products

Powerful promotional effect: Effectively promote your business with Google search
Secure competitive edge: Stay one step ahead of others with the latest information and various functions

Easily find reliable Korean businesses near your residence through Smart Business Directory.

The oil and gas industry is grappling with a growing number of lawsuits claiming the sector misled the public about its role in climate change. States like California, Colorado, and New Jersey are suing for billions in damages linked to wildfires, sea-level rise, and severe weather. This legal wave reflects an increasing use of courts to drive climate action globally.

Hawaii's Supreme Court allowed a lawsuit filed by Honolulu against major companies, including Sunoco, Shell, Chevron, ExxonMobil, and BP, to proceed. These corporations, many based in Texas, argue that emissions are a national issue requiring federal jurisdiction, where they have historically succeeded in dismissing such cases. Their Supreme Court appeal was declined, leaving the matter in state court.

The companies’ legal team emphasized the case's high stakes, warning that these lawsuits could undermine a critical national industry. The American Enterprise Institute echoed these concerns, suggesting the cases might empower activists to act as de facto energy regulators.

The Biden administration supported the lawsuit remaining in state court, though it noted that companies might ultimately prevail. In contrast, the incoming Trump administration is expected to adopt policies favoring the fossil fuel industry and opposing stringent environmental laws.

Honolulu claims the companies engaged in deceptive marketing under state laws, a matter the city argues falls within state jurisdiction. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court's track record on environmental regulations under its conservative majority includes limiting the EPA’s authority in cases like the regulation of power plant emissions.

Justice Samuel Alito recused himself from the appeal, likely due to his financial ties to the companies involved. This marks another high-profile climate case amidst increasing scrutiny of corporate responsibility for environmental impacts.

A looming TikTok ban could affect the millions of small businesses that use the short-video social media app to help them grow their business.

Desiree Hill, owner of Crown’s Corner Mechanic in Conyers, Georgia, started her business solo as a mobile mechanic. Sharing videos of her work on TikTok helped spread the word and she became so popular she was able to open a 9,000 square foot brick and mortar shop with five employees 18 months ago.

“Every day I get at least two to three customers that have seen me on TikTok, watched my videos and wanted to become a customer,” she said.

Though TikTok has been around only since 2016, small business owners use the platform in a variety of ways, from growing a customer base to advertising and marketing, as well as selling goods directly from the site.

According to TikTok’s own estimates, small businesses on TikTok would lose more than $1 billion in revenue in a single month if the ban goes into effect.

The Justice Department ordered the app’s China-based parent company, ByteDance, to sell TikTok or face a U.S. ban by Jan. 19, citing security concerns. The Supreme Court will take up the matter in January. President-elect Donald Trump, who takes office Jan. 20, has asked the Supreme Court for a delay.

If a ban does occur, small businesses will have to migrate to other platforms to find their customers. Instagram Reels, SnapChat and YouTube Shorts are alternatives. The good news is brands likely already have a presence there. But it may be harder to reach teens that have made TikTok their preferred social media app.

Another alternative is to build a strong database of customers that opt in to providing contact emails or phone numbers. That lets owners reach out directly to customers with promotions and other marketing messages.

But Crown Corner Mechanic’s Hill said she is worried that other sites may not have the reach that TikTok does. She has a presence on YouTube, Instagram and Facebook, but it’s not the same, she said.

“I am worried because there is no preparation for this,” she said. “It holds such a significant place in regards to my customer base and how I reach customers that if I lose TikTok, I will lose a large part of my business or I will lose my ability to grow anymore.”

Crystal Lister is the owner of Mommy and Me: The Listers, in Cypress, Texas, which offers interactive workshops about STEM education. She’s working on pivoting to YouTube for videos and Instagram Reels for teasers to direct people to YouTube, but said TikTok is easier.

“It is going to be a challenge if TikTok is banned because we’re losing kind of all the functionality you want — the ability for a video creation, the ability to spread the word via social media,” she said. “So we’ll have to use many other platforms to supplement what TikTok did in one.”

The founder and former CEO of the failed cryptocurrency lending platform Celsius Network could face decades in prison after pleading guilty Tuesday to federal fraud charges, admitting that he misled customers about the business.

Alexander Mashinsky, 58, of Manhattan, entered the plea in New York federal court to commodities and securities fraud.

He admitted illegally manipulating the price of Celsius’s proprietary crypto token while secretly selling his own tokens at inflated prices to pocket about $48 million before Celsius collapsed into bankruptcy in 2022.

In court, he admitted that in 2021 he publicly suggested there was regulatory consent for the company’s moves because he knew that customers “would find false comfort” with that.

And he said that in 2019, he was selling the crypto tokens even though he told the public that he was not. He said he knew customers would draw false comfort from that too.

“I accept full responsibility for my actions,” Mashinsky said of crimes that stretched from 2018 to 2022 as the company pitched itself to customers as a modern-day bank where they could safely deposit crypto assets and earn interest.

U.S. Attorney Damian Williams said in a release that Mashinsky “orchestrated one of the biggest frauds in the crypto industry” as his company’s assets purportedly grew to about $25 billion at its peak, making it one of the largest crypto platforms in the world.

He said Mashinsky used catchy slogans like “Unbank Yourself” to entice prospective customers with a pledge that their money would be as safe in crypto accounts as money would be in a bank. Meanwhile, prosecutors said, Mashinsky and co-conspirators used customer deposits to fund market purchases of the Celsius token to prop up its value.

Machinsky made tens of millions of dollars selling his own CEL tokens at artificially high prices, leaving his customers “holding the bag when the company went bankrupt,” Williams said.

An indictment alleged that Mashinsky promoted Celsius through media interviews, his social media accounts and Celsius’ website, along with a weekly “Ask Mashinsky Anything” session broadcast that was posted to Celsius’ website and a YouTube channel.

Celsius employees from multiple departments who noticed false and misleading statements in the sessions warned Mashinsky, but they were ignored, the indictment said.

A plea agreement Mashinsky made with prosecutors calls for him to be sentenced to up to 30 years in prison and to forfeit over $48 million, which is the amount of money he allegedly made by selling his company’s token.

Sentencing was scheduled for April 8.

Stubbornly high warranty expenses and lagging cost-cutting efforts are holding back Ford Motor Co.'s profits this year, causing the company to lower its full-year earnings guidance.

That pushed the company’s stock price down 6% in trading after Monday’s closing bell.

The Dearborn, Michigan, automaker, which reported third-quarter earnings Monday, said its net profit tumbled nearly 26% as it took $1 billion in accounting charges to write down assets for a canceled three-row electric SUV.

Ford said it made $892 million from July through September, compared with $1.2 billion it made a year earlier.

But excluding the one-time items, the company made an adjusted pretax profit of $2.6 billion, or 49 cents per share. That beat analyst estimates of 46 cents, according to FactSet.

Revenue rose 5.5% to $46.2 billion, also beating Wall Street predictions. Ford reduced its full-year pretax income guidance to $10 billion, at the low end of the $10 billion to $12 billion it expected at the end of the second quarter, spooking investors.

“Cost, especially warranty, has held back our earnings power, but as we bend that curve, there is significant financial upside for investors,” CEO Jim Farley told analysts on a conference call.

Chief Financial Officer John Lawler said warranty costs were slightly below the third quarter of last year, but still high. The company wouldn’t give numbers until it files its quarterly report with securities regulators on Tuesday but said costs will be higher than a year ago.

Ford reported $800 million of increased warranty costs for the second quarter of this year.

Farley has been trying to get a handle on warranty costs for the past four years. In October of 2020, he said the company was working to cut quality-related repairs after glitch-prone small-car transmissions hit the automaker’s bottom line.

Ford has said that it has a $7 billion cost gap with competitors, and Lawler said Monday it has made progress on that figure. The problem is competitors, which he did not identify, are cutting costs too. “We’ve taken cost out, but we’re not doing it at a pace faster than our competition,” he told analysts.

Ford has removed $2 billion in material, freight and labor costs this year, but that was offset by warranties and inflation at its Turkish joint venture, he said.
He said Ford is focused on reducing warranty and other costs, which will show up in later quarters.

The company’s plans are working, as evidenced by 10 straight quarters of revenue growth, Lawler said.

Farley said Ford has restructured its operations in Europe, South America, India and China, which collectively lost $2.2 billion in 2018 but together are profitable now. For instance, China, including exports, has contributed over $600 million to pretax earnings this year, Farley said.

The Supreme Court on Monday rejected an appeal from Martin Shkreli, who was once dubbed “Pharma Bro” after jacking up the price of a lifesaving drug.

Shkreli appealed an order to return $64.6 million in profits he and his former company reaped after monopolizing the market for the medication and drastically increasing its price. His lawyers argued that the money went to his company rather than him personally.

The justices did not explain their reasoning, as is typical, and there were no noted dissents.

Prosecutors, though, said the company had agreed in a settlement to pay $40 million, and because Shkreli masterminded the scheme he should bear responsibility for repaying profits.

New York Attorney General Letitia James applauded the court’s action upholding the order, which also included a lifetime ban on Shkreli working in the pharmaceutical industry.

“This win reinforces how our state’s tough anti-fraud laws help protect New Yorkers and ensure bad actors cannot abuse their power, wealth, or influence,” she said in a statement.

Thomas Huff, a lawyer for Shkreli, said the decision was disappointing. But he also said the high court could yet overturn a lower court decision that made the $64 million penalty order possible even though Shkreli hadn’t personally gotten the money.

“If and when the Supreme Court does so, Mr. Shkreli will have a strong argument for modifying the order accordingly,” he said.

Shkreli was also ordered to forfeit the Wu-Tang Clan’s “Once Upon a Time in Shaolin,” the unreleased work that has been called the world’s rarest musical album. The multiplatinum hip-hop group put a single copy of the album up for auction in 2015, on the condition that it not be put to commercial use.

Shkreli was convicted of lying to investors and cheating them out of millions of dollars in two failed hedge funds he operated. Shkreli was CEO of Turing Pharmaceuticals — later Vyera — when it raised the price of Daraprim from $13.50 to $750 per pill after obtaining exclusive rights to the decades-old drug in 2015. It treats a rare parasitic disease that strikes pregnant women, cancer patients and AIDS patients.

He defended the decision as capitalism at work, saying insurance and other programs ensured that people who need Daraprim would ultimately get it. But the move sparked outrage, from the medical community to Congress.

Shkreli was released from prison in 2022 after serving much of a seven-year sentence.

In the high-stakes showdown between the world’s richest man and a Brazilian Supreme Court justice, Elon Musk blinked.

Musk’s social media site X has complied with Alexandre de Moraes’ orders and requested its service be reestablished in the country, two sources said Thursday.

X complied with orders to block certain accounts from the platform, name an official legal representative in Brazil, and pay fines imposed for not complying with earlier court orders, his lawyers said in a petition filed Thursday, according to the sources, who are familiar with the document. The sources spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly about the matter.

On Saturday, de Moraes ordered the platform to submit additional documentation about its legal representative for court review, which the sources said has been done.

X was blocked on Aug. 30 in the highly online country of 213 million people, where it was one of X’s biggest markets, with more than 20 million users. De Moraes ordered the shutdown after sparring with Musk for months over free speech, far-right accounts and misinformation. The company said at the time that de Moraes’ efforts to block certain accounts were illegal moves to censor “political opponents” and that it would not comply. Musk called the judge an enemy of free speech and a criminal. But de Moraes’ decisions have been repeatedly upheld by his peers — including his nationwide block of X.

In a twist, X’s new representative is the same person who held the position before X shuttered its office in Brazil, according to the company’s public filing with the Sao Paulo commercial registry. That happened after de Moraes threatened to arrest the person, Rachel de Oliveira Villa Nova Conceição, if X did not comply with orders to block accounts.

In an apparent effort to avoid her getting blamed for potential violations of Brazilian law — and risk arrest — a clause has been written into the representation agreement that any action on the part of X that will result in obligations for her requires prior instruction in writing from the company, according to the company’s filing at the registry.

It’s still early to know whether the feud between X and Brazil’s top court is over, said ⁠Bruna Santos, a lawyer and global campaigns manager at nonprofit Digital Action. However, the platform’s decision to appoint a representative indicates the company has entered “a state of good-faith cooperation with Brazilian authorities.”

And the fact that Brazilian users migrated in droves to rival platforms BlueSky and Threads may have played into X’s backstep, Santos added.

One month after a judge declared Google’s search engine an illegal monopoly, the tech giant faces another antitrust lawsuit that threatens to break up the company, this time over its advertising technology.

The Justice Department, joined by a coalition of states, and Google each made opening statements Monday to a federal judge who will decide whether Google holds a monopoly over online advertising technology.

The regulators contend that Google built, acquired and maintains a monopoly over the technology that matches online publishers to advertisers. Dominance over the software on both the buy side and the sell side of the transaction enables Google to keep as much as 36 cents on the dollar when it brokers sales between publishers and advertisers, the government contends in court papers.

They allege that Google also controls the ad exchange market, which matches the buy side to the sell side.

“It’s worth saying the quiet part out loud,” Justice Department lawyer Julia Tarver Wood said during her opening statement. “One monopoly is bad enough. But a trifecta of monopolies is what we have here.”

Google says the government’s case is based on an internet of yesteryear, when desktop computers ruled and internet users carefully typed precise World Wide Web addresses into URL fields. Advertisers now are more likely to turn to social media companies like TikTok or streaming TV services like Peacock to reach audiences.

In her opening statement, Google lawyer Karen Dunn likened the government’s case to a “time capsule with with a Blackberry, an iPod and a Blockbuster video card.”

Dunn said Supreme Court precedents warn judges about “the serious risk of error or unintended consequences” when dealing with rapidly emerging technology and considering whether antitrust law requires intervention. She also warned that any action taken against Google won’t benefit small businesses but will simply allow other tech behemoths like Amazon, Microsoft and TikTok to fill the void.

According to Google’s annual reports, revenue has actually declined in recent years for Google Networks, the division of the Mountain View, California-based tech giant that includes such services as AdSense and Google Ad Manager that are at the heart of the case, from $31.7 billion in 2021 to $31.3 billion in 2023,

The trial that began Monday in Alexandria, Virginia, over the alleged ad tech monopoly was initially going to be a jury trial, but Google maneuvered to force a bench trial, writing a check to the federal government for more than $2 million to moot the only claim brought by the government that required a jury.

The case will now be decided by U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema, who was appointed to the bench by former President Bill Clinton and is best known for high-profile terrorism trials including that of Sept. 11 defendant Zacarias Moussaoui. Brinkema, though, also has experience with highly technical civil trials, working in a courthouse that sees an outsize number of patent infringement cases.

The Virginia case comes on the heels of a major defeat for Google over its search engine, which generates the majority of the company’s $307 billion in annual revenue. A judge in the District of Columbia declared the search engine a monopoly, maintained in part by tens of billions of dollars Google pays each year to companies like Apple to lock in Google as the default search engine presented to consumers when they buy iPhones and other gadgets.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday kept on hold the latest multibillion-dollar plan from the Biden administration that would have lowered payments for millions of borrowers, while lawsuits make their way through lower courts.

The justices rejected an administration request to put most of it back into effect. It was blocked by the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

In an unsigned order, the court said it expects the appeals court to issue a fuller decision on the plan “with appropriate dispatch.”

The Education Department is seeking to provide a faster path to loan cancellation, and reduce monthly income-based repayments from 10% to 5% of a borrower’s discretionary income. The plan also wouldn’t require borrowers to make payments if they earn less than 225% of the federal poverty line — $32,800 a year for a single person.

Last year, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority rejected an earlier plan that would have wiped away more than $400 billion in student loan debt.

Cost estimates of the new SAVE plan vary. The Republican-led states challenging the plan peg the cost at $475 billion over 10 years. The administration cites a Congressional Budget Office estimate of $276 billion.

Two separate legal challenges to the SAVE plan have been making their way through federal courts. In June, judges in Kansas and Missouri issued separate rulings that blocked much of the administration’s plan. Debt that already had been forgiven under the plan was unaffected.

The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling that allowed the department to proceed with a provision allowing for lower monthly payments. Republican-led states had asked the high court to undo that ruling.

But after the 8th Circuit blocked the entire plan, the states had no need for the Supreme Court to intervene, the justices noted in a separate order issued Wednesday.

The Justice Department had suggested the Supreme Court could take up the legal fight over the new plan now, as it did with the earlier debt forgiveness plan. But the justices declined to do so.

“This is a recipe for chaos across the student loan system,” said Mike Pierce, executive director of the Student Borrower Protection Center, an advocacy group.

“No court has decided on the merits here, but despite all of that borrowers are left in this limbo state where their rights don’t exist for them,” Pierce said.

Eight million people were already enrolled in the SAVE program when it was paused by the lower court, and more than 10 million more people are looking for ways to afford monthly payments, he said.

Sheng Li, litigation counsel with the New Civil Liberties Alliance, a legal group funded by conservative donors, applauded the order. “There was no basis to lift the injunction because the Department of Education’s newest loan-cancellation program is just as unlawful as the one the Court struck down a year ago,” he said in a statement.