“The Supreme Court..unanimously agreed that alleged members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua have a due process right to challenge President Donald Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) to summarily deport them. At the same time, the majority lifted a temporary restraining order (TRO) that blocked those deportations, saying Venezuelans detained under the AEA must file habeas corpus petitions in Texas, where they are being held, rather than seeking relief in the District of Columbia under the Administrative Procedure Act.”
“Unlike every other department and agency within the federal government, the CFPB is not funded via congressional appropriations. Instead, its funding flows directly from the Federal Reserve. Each year, the White House submits a budget to the Federal Reserve, and the central bank hands over the necessary amount—$729.4 million last year, in case you were wondering.
For a long time after the CFPB was created in 2010, there were serious questions about the constitutionality of that structure. That finally got resolved last year, when the Supreme Court ruled that Congress was within its powers to hand off the purse strings. So, funding the CFPB via the Federal Reserve is not unconstitutional—it’s just unorthodox and foolish.
Here’s where the hubris enters the story. When Warren and Obama created the CFPB, they designed that unorthodox funding structure specifically to prevent a future Republican-led Congress from trying to defund the bureau. Remember, this was in the age when Republicans were running around the country telling voters they intended to repeal Obamacare too. By isolating the CFPB from Congress’ budgetary powers, Warren was trying to make it invulnerable to attack.
Instead, she simply gave it a fatal flaw.
Earlier this week, the Trump administration submitted its CFPB funding request to the Federal Reserve. It asked for…$0.
“Pursuant to the Consumer Financial Protection Act, I have notified the Federal Reserve that CFPB will not be taking its next draw of unappropriated funding because it is not ‘reasonably necessary’ to carry out its duties,” wrote Russ Vought, director of the White House’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB), wrote on X on Saturday night. “The Bureau’s current balance of $711.6 million is in fact excessive in the current fiscal environment. This spigot, long contributing to CFPB’s unaccountability, is now being turned off.”
That appears to be the end of the CFPB, at least until a Democrat returns to the White House. Trump will need an act of Congress if he seriously wants to abolish the Department of Education, for example, and even minor spending cuts being made across the executive branch will eventually need congressional or legal consent to be permanent. But there should be no serious questions about whether the president can unilaterally defund the CFBP. Congress has no role to play in that fight.”
“Slovakia has a population of just 5.4 million, yet it is one of Europe’s leading car manufacturers, heavily reliant on auto production and exports to the U.S. Home to five major car manufacturers and more than 350 local suppliers, Slovakia is not only the second-largest E.U. exporter of vehicles to the U.S., but also the biggest car producer per capita in the world.
Slovakia manufactures and exports higher-end SUVs from brands like Audi, Volkswagen, Porsche, Range Rover, and—starting in 2026—Volvo. With SUVs accounting for 46 percent of total annual auto sales in the U.S., the tariffs are likely to hurt models that are especially popular among American consumers.
According to the National Bank of Slovakia, the Slovak economy “would decrease cumulatively by nearly 3 percent” due to the new tariffs, and “would also mean the loss of 20,000 jobs.” The bank projects that Slovakia’s economy will “suffer the most in 2026, when its growth would barely stay above zero” and that by 2027, the automotive tariffs alone could reduce gross domestic product by 0.3 to 0.5 percentage points. The bank’s governor referred to the prospects of a 25 percent car tariff impact as a “small Armageddon.””
“”The trade war is now turning into a direct confrontation between the US and China … we could again be seeing escalation and de-escalation at the same time, pulling markets in different directions,” Rabobank analysts said.
And though a wider trade war is on hiatus, risks remain to the health of the US economy, and Trump’s move is “merely the end of the beginning,” according to JPMorgan.
Other parts of the president’s trade-policy overhaul are still in effect, including a 10% baseline tariff on most trading partners, 25% duties on steel and aluminum imports, and 25% duties on auto imports. Those elements could still lead to consequences analysts have warned about, such as rising prices and slower economic growth.”
“U.S. egg prices increased again last month to reach a new record-high of $6.23 per dozen despite President Donald Trump’s predictions, a drop in wholesale prices and no egg farms having bird flu outbreaks.”
“Amid recent travel advisories warning those coming to the U.S. plus strengthened immigration enforcement, many international travelers are starting to turn away from the U.S. as a destination. Between January and March 2025, foreign arrivals dropped by around 4.4% from those first three months last year, according to data from the National Travel and Tourism Office. In a March year-over-year comparison, that reduction doubles to almost 10%.”
…
“Some fear for their safety over what could happen when trying to enter the nation’s borders. Others are angered at recent policies, like the trade wars, and rhetoric, refusing to spend their dollars in the U.S. A decline in overseas visitors could have significant long-term consequences for the economy, with travel and tourism one of the country’s leading industries, contributing 2.5% to the GDP”
“The Trump administration is canceling funding for the U.S. Global Change Research Program, the entity that produces the federal government’s signature climate change study, according to three federal officials familiar with the move.
The move, which had been widely expected, is a potentially fatal blow to the National Climate Assessment, the study that Congress mandated under the Global Change Research Act of 1990 be issued every four years to ensure the government understands the threats that rising temperatures pose and what is driving climate changes. The report is the U.S. government’s most comprehensive look at climate change and serves as a crucial guide to state and community efforts to prepare for the effects.”