News – Page 432 – 105.7 WDNY

New Orleans jail escape: Reward for tips leading to arrest of 2 remaining fugitives increases to $50,000

May 29, 2025 by WDNY Radio

New Orleans jail escape: Reward for tips leading to arrest of 2 remaining fugitives increases to ,000

New Orleans jail escape: Reward for tips leading to arrest of 2 remaining fugitives increases to $50,000 — Louisiana State Police

(NEW ORLEANS, La) — The reward for the arrest of the two remaining inmates who broke out of a New Orleans jail this month has more than doubled to $50,000, authorities announced on Thursday, as police said they believe they are closing in on the “dangerous” fugitives.

Antoine Massey and Derrick Groves are among 10 inmates who escaped from the Orleans Justice Center on May 16, according to Louisiana State Police.

In the nearly two weeks since, eight of the inmates have been captured, but Massey and Groves remain on the run, police said.

There are now rewards totalling $50,000 per inmate for tips leading to their arrest, according to Louisiana State Police Superintendent Col Robert Hodges. That includes rewards being offered from the Crimestoppers of Greater New Orleans, the FBI and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, he said.

Hodges said police have “some strong leads” about where the remaining two fugitives are, though they still need tips because of the men’s movement.

“We’re confident that we are closing in on the remaining two escapees, and that we should have them in custody soon,” he said during a press briefing on Thursday. “We’re resilient, and although they’re going to get tired and frustrated as they try to move around Louisiana or move around the metropolitan area, they know the walls are closing in.”

Authorities urged anyone with information on the whereabouts of the two fugitives to reach out while acknowledging that may be difficult.

“We understand, along with our law enforcement partners, that some of you might be reporting a friend, a loved one, a relative, and albeit not easy, it is critical to your safety and the safety of the public that you report that,” Walter Martin, chief deputy U.S. marshal for the Eastern District of Louisiana, said during the briefing.

Martin vowed to recapture the “dangerous inmates.” One of them, Groves, was recently convicted of two counts of second-degree murder in a 2018 Mardi Gras Day shooting and faces a sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole, prosecutors said. Unrelated to that case, he also subsequently pleaded guilty to two counts of manslaughter, online court records show.

Hodges warned that anyone who helps the remaining fugitives will be arrested and prosecuted.

“Now is the time to make the right choice,” he said.

Crimestoppers of Greater New Orleans President and CEO Darlene Cusanza said Thursday the organization has received nearly 700 tips related to the inmates’ escape, resulting in the arrest of three of them. One inmate was arrested within 30 minutes of receiving the tip, she said. Three tipsters will be paid $10,000, she said.

The 10 inmates escaped from the Orleans Justice Center in the early morning hours of May 16 after climbing through a hole behind a toilet. Their disappearance was not noticed for several hours and touched off a massive manhunt.

Over a dozen people have been arrested on suspicion of helping the escapees, including another inmate in the jail and a jail maintenance worker who is accused of shutting off water to the toilet allowing escapees to remove it.

Three of the 10 inmates who escaped were apprehended in New Orleans within the first 24 hours of the jailbreak. The others were captured in the following days, including in Baton Rouge and two in Texas.

The eight captured inmates have been transported to a secure state facility in Louisiana, Hodges said.

Second court blocks Trump tariffs as ‘unlawful’

May 29, 2025 by WDNY Radio

(WASHINGTON) — The Trump administration is urging the New York-based Court of International Trade to delay its order blocking President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariffs, warning that enforcement of the ruling will cause a “foreign policy disaster scenario.”

In an opinion on Wednesday, the three-judge panel struck down Trump’s global tariffs as “contrary to law.”

The judges found that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act — which Trump used to enact his tariffs — does not give him the “unlimited” power to levy tariffs like the president has in recent months.

“The President’s assertion of tariff-making authority in the instant case, unbounded as it is by any limitation in duration or scope, exceeds any tariff authority delegated to the President under IEEPA. The Worldwide and Retaliatory tariffs are thus ultra vires and contrary to law,” the judges wrote.

According to the judges, Congress, not the president, has the authority to impose tariffs under most circumstances, and Trump’s tariffs do not meet the limited condition of an “unusual and extraordinary threat” that would allow him to act alone.

On Thursday, a second federal court determined that Trump’s global were “unlawful.”

U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras said in an order the International Economic Emergency Economic Powers Act does not give the president the power to impose most of his recent tariffs.

Notably, the decision from Contreras – an Obama appointee – only restricts the Trump administration’s ability to collect tariffs from the two companies that filed the lawsuit, Learning Resources, Inc., and hand2mind, Inc.

The Department of Justice on Thursday requested a stay to Wednesday’s ruling, saying it’s needed “to avoid immediate irreparable harm to United States foreign policy and national security.”

“It is critical, for the country’s national security and the President’s conduct of ongoing, delicate diplomatic efforts, that the Court stay its judgment. The harm to the conduct of foreign affairs from the relief ordered by the Court could not be greater,” lawyers with the Department of Justice argued.

According to the administration, the court order would strip the president of leverage in trade negotiations, imperil the trade deals already reached, and make the country vulnerable to countries that “feel a renewed boldness to take advantage of” the current situation.

Responding to the ruling, White House spokesman Kush Desai evoked the trade deficit and said, “It is not for unelected judges to decide how to properly address a national emergency,” adding that that the administration is committed to using “every lever of executive power to address this crisis.”

The Trump administration had quickly filed a notice of appeal to challenge Wednesday’s decision.

The case now heads to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit where they could ask for a stay of the order.

The Court of International Trade issued the decision across two cases — one filed by a group of small businesses and another filed by 12 Democratic attorneys general.

Nevada Attorney General Aaron Ford called the ruling “a win for the rule of law and for Nevadans’ pocketbooks.”

“I am extremely pleased with the court’s decision to strike down these tariffs; they were both unlawful and economically destructive,” he said. “The president had no legal authority to impose these tariffs, and his unlawful actions would have caused billions of dollars of damage to the American economy.”

Since Trump announced sweeping tariffs on more than 50 countries in April, his administration has faced half a dozen lawsuits challenging the president’s ability to impose tariffs without the approval of Congress.

New York Attorney General Letitia James called the decision a “major victory for our efforts to uphold the law and protect New Yorkers from illegal policies that threaten American jobs and economy.”

“The law is clear: no president has the power to single-handedly raise taxes whenever they like. These tariffs are a massive tax hike on working families and American businesses that would have led to more inflation, economic damage to businesses of all sizes, and job losses across the country if allowed to continue,” James’ statement continued.

Lawyers for the small businesses alleged that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act — which Trump invoked to impose the tariffs — does not give the president the right to issue “across-the-board worldwide tariffs,” and that Trump’s justification for the tariffs was invalid.

“His claimed emergency is a figment of his own imagination,” the lawsuit said. “Trade deficits, which have persisted for decades without causing economic harm, are not an emergency.”

During a hearing earlier this month, a group of three judges — who were appointed by presidents Obama, Trump and Reagan — pushed a lawyer for the small businesses to provide a legal basis to override the tariffs. While a different court in the 1970s determined that the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917 — the law that preceded the International Emergency Economic Powers Act — gave the president the right to impose tariffs, no court has weighed whether the president can impose tariffs unilaterally under the IEEPA.

During a May 13 hearing, Jeffrey Schwab, a lawyer from the conservative Liberty Justice Center representing the plaintiffs, argued that Trump’s purported emergency to justify the tariffs is far short of what is required under the law.

“I’m asking this court to be an umpire and call a strike; you’re asking me, well, where’s the strike zone? Is it at the knees or slightly below the knees?” Schwab argued. “I’m saying it’s a wild pitch and it’s on the other side of the batter and hits the backstop, so we don’t need to debate that.”

The ruling marks the first time a federal court has issued a ruling on the legality of Trump’s tariffs. In May, a federal judge in Florida nominated by Trump suggested the president has the authority to unilaterally impose tariffs, but opted to transfer the case to the Court of International Trade.

-ABC News’ Hannah Demissie contributed to this report.

Supreme Court limits environmental impact studies, expediting infrastructure projects

May 29, 2025 by WDNY Radio

(WASHINGTON) — The Supreme Court on Thursday put new limits on the scope of federally mandated environmental impact statements for major transportation and energy projects, clearing the way for a proposed rail line linking Utah and Colorado and for more expeditious approvals of similar construction programs nationwide.

The decision in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County was 8-0. (Justice Neil Gorsuch recused from the case but did not explain his decision.)

The dispute, the first of its kind in 20 years to reach the court, focused on the purpose of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, which requires federal agencies to study the significant environmental effects of a project and identify alternatives to mitigate any harms.

The law, known as NEPA, has been the basis of major litigation by groups opposed to particular projects, which frequently sue to block construction by alleging that the impact study was incomplete or inaccurate.

Industry groups have long complained about years, even decades, of costly delays to get projects completed.

Acknowledging those concerns, Justice Brett Kavanaugh writing for the majority said use of NEPA to stymie energy and infrastructure programs has gotten out of hand and needs to be curtailed.

“A 1970 legislative acorn has grown over the years into a judicial oak that has hindered infrastructure development under the guise of just a little more process,” Kavanaugh wrote. “A course correction of sorts is appropriate to bring judicial review under NEPA back in line with the statutory text and common sense. “

Kavanaugh said the law imposed merely a “modest procedural requirement,” related only to the project at hand, not a mandatory study of possible upstream or downstream impacts far afield from actual construction.

The proposed 88-mile railway at the heart of the case, linking the oil-rich Uinta Basin of Utah with the national rail network in Colorado, has undergone years of environmental study. Its impact statement exceeds 3,600 pages of analysis.

Environmental groups challenged the study, however, saying it failed to consider secondary impacts of exporting millions of gallons of oil to refineries along the Gulf, such as the risk of oil spills in the Colorado River, pollution in the Gulf and greenhouse gas contributions to climate change. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit agreed.

The groups told the Supreme Court that approving the railway could also mean heightened risk of oil spills, train spark-induced wildfires and enhanced greenhouse gas emissions nationwide.

Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser, who opposes the railway project, lamented the high court decision in a statement, saying the court had approved a “risky scheme to transport waxy crude oil along the Colorado River, right alongside our most critical water resource and posing major risks to Colorado’s Western Slope communities.”

The Seven County Infrastructure Coalition, which supports the railway, said those downstream risks are too far afield and beyond the scope of the law and that the project has fallen victim of bureaucratic red tape.

“The effects from a separate project may be factually foreseeable, but that does not mean that those effects are relevant to the agency’s decision making process or that it is reasonable to hold the agency responsible for those effects,” Kavanaugh wrote. “In those circumstances, the causal chain is too attenuated.”

The opinion said judges should show “deference” to the agency officials preparing the environmental impact statement.

Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson concurred with the judgment but wrote separately to explain their reasoning.

Proponents of the rail line, who have pitched it as an economic boon for the country, say it will help extract hundreds of thousands of gallons of waxy crude oil and drive down energy prices for consumers.

“The Supreme Court has issued an important corrective to the current judicial approach to the National Environmental Policy Act,” said University of Minnesota Law School professor James Coleman, who specializes in energy and transportation law, “demanding more deference from courts for the agencies performing judicial review and explaining why it is inappropriate to demand agencies to consider the upstream and downstream effects of energy transport projects.”

Harvard student fears visa loss as Trump administration targets international enrollment

May 29, 2025 by WDNY Radio

(BOSTON) — A Harvard graduate student has described a “devastating” atmosphere of uncertainty on campus as the Trump administration appears to intensify its efforts to restrict international students at the prestigious university.

“It’s definitely been a roller-coaster ride,” said Fangzhou Jiang, who has one semester remaining in his master’s program at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government. “Over the last week, everybody was really panicking about whether they should stay in the United States or depart immediately.”

A federal judge in Boston announced Thursday she would issue a preliminary injunction blocking the Trump administration’s attempts to prevent Harvard from enrolling international students.

The ruling marks a temporary victory for the university in its ongoing confrontation with the White House, which has launched multiple actions against the institution.

The acting director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement issued a letter Thursday giving the school 30 days to challenge the administration’s revocation of the certification to enroll international students.

The Trump administration has already frozen more than $3 billion in federal funding to Harvard and plans to cancel remaining federal contracts worth an estimated $100 million. President Donald Trump has also expressed interest in revoking the university’s tax-exempt status.

Tensions escalated further Wednesday when Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced officials would begin to “aggressively revoke” the visas of some Chinese students, sparking fresh concerns among the international student community.

“Everybody is wondering about the plan for next year—whether we should take a leave of absence, whether we should go back home and finish our semester online, or wait for more guidance,” Jiang said, who serves as vice president of student government on family affairs.

For Harvard, where international students comprise more than a quarter of the student body, according to the university, the impact could be significant. Jiang emphasized that international students play crucial roles on campus, from conducting academic research to facilitating cultural exchanges.

“Removing international students from Harvard will really not make Harvard the Harvard it has been for the last 400 years,” Jiang said. “It’s going to impact the amount of perspectives Harvard has. It will definitely weaken Harvard’s international influence and reputation. It is definitely not in the best interest of American higher education or the United States as a nation.”

Jiang said that while the university has committed to protecting international students through legal actions and other means, specific guidance for the upcoming academic year is unclear. Based on experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic, Jiang remains optimistic that online learning options could provide a solution if necessary.

“The school has committed to protecting international students in whatever capacity,” Jiang said. “I remain confident that the university will be able to provide measures to help us finish our education at Harvard.”

Harvard University did not immediately respond to ABC News’ request for comment.

Trump’s Air Force One deal with Qatar not finalized, being reviewed by prospective legal teams: Sources

May 29, 2025 by WDNY Radio

(WASHINGTON) — Despite previous claims from the Department of Defense that the United States has officially accepted the luxury Boeing 747-8 jumbo jet from Qatar, the United States and Qatar have not yet finalized the details of the agreement, which are still being reviewed by the prospective legal teams, according to a White House official and sources familiar with the discussions.

A White House official stated that the White House’s legal team is currently finalizing the details of the gift, working on a memorandum of understanding — or MOU — between the United States and Qatar. The Washington Post first reported the news.

The plane from Qatar is currently in the United States, according to sources familiar with the matter as well as President Donald Trump, who confirmed the plane was here. However, Qatar wants to clarify the details surrounding the transfer, specifically emphasizing that the Trump administration was responsible for initiating the discussions about the donation of the luxury jet to the U.S. government, sources familiar with the negotiations said.

“As the President has said, this will be a sovereign-to-sovereign gift to the US Air Force,” White House spokesperson Anna Kelly said in a statement.

As ABC News first reported earlier this month, the aircraft is expected to be available for use by Trump as the new Air Force One until shortly before he leaves office, at which time the ownership of the plane is expected to be transferred to the Trump presidential library foundation, sources familiar with the matter told ABC News.

Last week, chief Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell said that the Pentagon had officially accepted the luxury jet from Qatar.

“The secretary of defense has accepted a Boeing 747 from Qatar in accordance with all federal rules and regulations,” said Parnell, adding that the Department of Defense would “work to ensure proper security measures and functional-mission requirements are considered for an aircraft used to transport the president of the United States.”

The Trump administration’s plan to accept the luxury jet donated by the Qatari government to use as Air Force One has raised significant security concerns, according to intelligence experts and government officials.

Democratic lawmakers have expressed concerns that the plane could pose significant security risks and potentially grant a foreign nation access to sensitive systems and communications, raising counterintelligence issues. Conversely, Republican lawmakers have questioned the president’s decision to accept a gift from a foreign nation, also raising intelligence concerns.

“Any building or vehicle or airplane that the president is located is a high-value target for foreign intelligence services who want to gather as much information about the president,” said John Cohen, an ABC News contributor and former acting Homeland Security official.

For his part, Trump said “it would be stupid” not to accept the free plane and has called the gift from Qatar a “very nice gesture.”

“I would never be one to turn down that kind of an offer,” Trump said earlier this month. “I mean, I could be a stupid person and say, ‘No, we don’t want a free, very expensive airplane.’ But it was, I thought it was a great gesture.”

Iowa cold case cracked more than 40 years after young man was killed following DNA breakthrough

May 29, 2025 by WDNY Radio

(WALKER, Iowa) — More than 40 years after a 24-year-old man was killed in rural Iowa, a suspect has now been arrested in connection to his murder through DNA research, according to the Linn County Sheriff’s Department.

Michael Schappert, 64, was arrested on Wednesday for the 1983 murder of Ronald Lee Novak, who was brutally killed on Dec. 23, 1983, in rural Walker, Iowa, officials announced on Wednesday.

At the time of the incident, a friend of Novak found him “deceased in an unheated room in his home” after “what appeared to be an apparent robbery and/or burglary,” officials said in a press release.

Novak had been beaten, shot in the chest and was found with his hands bound behind his back, officials said. At the time, the medical examiner ruled that Novak “died from a combination of those injuries, shock and hypothermia,” officials said.

Over the course of the last 10 to 12 years, investigators have tested DNA on Novak’s clothing and a hammer believed to have been used in the attack. The testing eventually led to the identification of Schappert as the suspect, Linn County Attorney Nick Maybanks said during a press conference on Wednesday.

Officials said genetic genealogy — the process of taking unknown DNA and identifying it by comparing it to family members who voluntarily submitted their DNA samples to a database — “assisted in Schappert’s identification.” Through testing, investigators were able to narrow the DNA down to three brothers, and did further testing to allow them to determine it was Schappert.

The investigation revealed that Schappert, who now lives in Fairview, Oregon, and others “likely went to Novak’s home with the intent to rob him of money and marijuana,” officials said. The investigation still remains open as officials said they believe at least one more suspect was involved in Novak’s murder.

“By naming a suspect, it may cause other people to now come forward that maybe weren’t willing to do so previously, or maybe this has jogged their memory some 41 years later,” Linn County Sheriff Brian Gardner said during the press conference.

Patti Wilson, Novak’s sister, told reporters on Wednesday that the investigation has been “a long ride” for the family and she “didn’t know if I would ever see this day come.”

“You start to give up hope that there will be an answer. I wanted it so bad. We look forward to the trial,” Wilson said.

Wilson said her brother was “a little elusive” and they are not sure who he was spending time with when he died, but she said the family did not recognize Schappert.

“We recognize the pain and trauma that Mr. Novak’s loved ones have endured for more than 40 years while his murder went unsolved. It takes strength to endure such hardship and to remain hopeful that someday the person or persons responsible would be caught and brought to justice,” Gardner said in a statement.

Schappert has been charged with first-degree murder and is currently being held in the Multnomah County Detention Center in Portland, Oregon, “pending an extradition hearing to be returned to Linn County, Iowa,” officials said.

It was not immediately clear whether Schappert has retained an attorney to speak on his behalf.

Officials said anyone with more information related to the investigation or additional potential suspects related to this case should contact the Linn County Sheriff’s Office.

Stocks mixed after court blocks some of Trump’s tariffs

May 29, 2025 by WDNY Radio

(NEW YORK) — Stocks were mixed on Thursday after a panel of federal judges blocked President Donald Trump from slapping some of his far-reaching tariffs on China and other major U.S. trading partners.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average fell 25 points, or 0.06%, while the S&P 500 increased 0.3%. The tech-heavy Nasdaq climbed 0.6%

The ruling from the U.S. Court of International Trade late Wednesday marked a major blow for Trump’s tariff policy, invalidating levies on dozens of countries unveiled in a Rose Garden ceremony that Trump had dubbed “Liberation Day.”

Trump later paused those so-called “reciprocal tariffs” for 90 days, embarking on trade negotiations with the target nations that remain ongoing.

A separate set of tariffs focused on Mexico and Canada over their alleged role in the fentanyl trade fell victim to the court’s decision. The ruling also invalidated a 10% tariff imposed on goods from nearly all countries.

The Trump administration appealed the ruling within minutes, leaving the ultimate fate of the tariffs unclear.

The ruling centered on Trump’s unprecedented invocation of the International Economic Emergency Powers Act as a legal justification for tariffs.

The 1977 law allows the president to stop all transactions with a foreign adversary that poses a threat, including the use of tools like sanctions and trade embargoes. But the measure does not explicitly permit tariffs, putting Trump in untested legal territory.

The ruling afforded the Trump administration as many as 10 days to halt the tariffs.

Even before the court’s decision, Trump had rolled back some of the levies at issue.

A trade agreement between the U.S. and China earlier this month slashed tit-for-tat tariffs between the world’s two largest economies and triggered a surge in the stock market. Within days, Wall Street firms softened their forecasts of a recession.

The U.S.-China accord came weeks after the White House paused the reciprocal tariffs. Trump eased duties on some goods from Mexico and Canada.

The ruling did not impact sector-specific tariffs used under separate legal statutes, including levies targeting autos, steel and aluminum.

Trump administration backtracks on Harvard foreign student policy

May 29, 2025 by WDNY Radio

(CAMBRIDGE, Mass.) — Ahead of a federal hearing over Harvard University’s ability to enroll international students, the acting director of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement issued a letter Thursday giving the school 30 days to challenge the administration’s revocation of that certification.

The letter formally notifies the school that its Student and Exchange Visitor Program certification would be withdrawn — but backtracks from the administration’s earlier stance by giving Harvard 30 days to achieve compliance.

“Your school has 30 calendar days from the date of service of this Notice to submit written representations under oath and supported by documentary evidence, setting forth the reasons why SEVP should not withdraw your school’s certification,” the notice said. “If SEVP certification is withdrawn, your school will then no longer be approved to enroll or continue to educate nonimmigrant students.”

The notice comes one week after Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem announced she had ordered the termination of the school’s SEVP certification.

“As a result of your refusal to comply with multiple requests to provide the Department of Homeland Security pertinent information while perpetuating an unsafe campus environment that is hostile to Jewish students, promotes pro-Hamas sympathies, and employs racist ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion’ policies, you have lost this privilege,” Noem wrote last week in a letter to the university.

As thousands of Harvard University students and their families gather this morning for commencement, a federal judge is set to hear arguments over whether to extend an order blocking the Trump administration from stripping Harvard of its SEVP certification.

In an escalation of Trump’s recent attacks on Harvard, the Department of Homeland Security last week revoked the school’s Student and Exchange Visitor Program certification, throwing the status of the school’s nearly 7,000 international students into immediate uncertainty.

Harvard quickly sued to block the policy, arguing the students have become “pawns in the government’s escalating campaign of retaliation” — and a federal judge on Friday granted a temporary order that barred the Trump administration from revoking the school’s SEVP certification.

U.S. District Allison Burroughs, an Obama appointee, granted the temporary order within hours of Harvard filing its lawsuit, writing that the school was likely to suffer “immediate and irreparable injury” if the policy was enacted. Harvard’s lawyers have argued that nearly every one of its international students would have to transfer or drop out if the Trump administration carries out the revocation.

“With the stroke of a pen, the government has sought to erase a quarter of Harvard’s student body, international students who contribute significantly to the University and its mission,” their lawsuit said.

Arguing that the Trump administration actions are part of a “campaign to coerce Harvard into surrendering its First Amendment rights,” Harvard has alleged that the SEVP revocation is unlawful because it violates the school’s free speech rights; that the policy is arbitrary and therefore violates the Administrative Procedure Act; and that the policy runs roughshod over the school’s due process protections because it was not given the opportunity to respond to the revocation.

“The surrounding events, and Defendants’ express statements, make clear that the Department of Homeland Security took these actions not for any valid reason, but purely as punishment for Harvard’s speech, its perceived viewpoint, and its refusal to surrender its academic independence or relinquish its constitutional rights,” the lawsuit argued.

“It is the latest act by the government in clear retaliation for Harvard exercising its First Amendment rights to reject the government’s demands to control Harvard’s governance, curriculum, and the ‘ideology’ of its faculty and students,” said the suit.

DHS officials have said that the revocation was necessary because Harvard failed to turn over information about international students — including disciplinary records — as requested by the Trump administration.

“It is a privilege, not a right, for universities to enroll foreign students and benefit from their higher tuition payments to help pad their multibillion-dollar endowments. Harvard had plenty of opportunity to do the right thing. It refused.’ DHS Secretary Kristi Noem said in a statement last week.

Harvard is also fighting the Trump administration’s attempt to freeze more $2.2 billion in grants and $60 million in contracts to the school. Harvard filed a separate lawsuit to challenge the funding freeze in April, and the next hearing in that case is set for July.

Trump has continued to ratchet up the pressure on the school over the last two months, threatening to revoke the school’s tax-exempt status, directing his administration to cancel contracts with the school, and continuing to demand information on international students. Speaking to reporters on Wednesday, Trump suggested that Harvard should cap the number of international students to 15% of the school’s total student body.

“We have people who want to go to Harvard and other schools, they can’t get in because we have foreign students there. But I want to make sure that the foreign students are people that can love our country,” Trump said.

Stocks climb after court blocks some of Trump’s tariffs

May 29, 2025 by WDNY Radio

(NEW YORK) — Stocks surged at the open of trading on Thursday after a panel of federal judges blocked President Donald Trump from slapping some of his far-reaching tariffs on China and other major U.S. trading partners.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average jumped 55 points, or 0.1%, while the S&P 500 increased 0.8%. The tech-heavy Nasdaq climbed 1.4%

Trump later paused those so-called “reciprocal tariffs” for 90 days, embarking on trade negotiations with the target nations that remain ongoing.

A separate set of tariffs focused on Mexico and Canada over their alleged role in the fentanyl trade also fell victim to the court’s ruling.

The Trump administration appealed the ruling within minutes, leaving the ultimate fate of the tariffs unclear.

The ruling centered on Trump’s unprecedented invocation of the International Economic Emergency Powers Act as a legal justification for tariffs.

The ruling afforded the Trump administration as many as 10 days to halt the tariffs.

Even before the court’s decision, Trump had rolled back some of the levies at issue.

The U.S.-China accord came weeks after the White House paused the reciprocal tariffs. Trump eased duties on some goods from Mexico and Canada.

The ruling did not impact sector-specific tariffs used under separate legal statutes, including levies targeting autos, steel and aluminum.

DNI Tulsi Gabbard leading US delegation to major security summit in Singapore

May 29, 2025 by WDNY Radio

(NEW YORK) — Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard is leading a U.S. delegation to Singapore this week to attend the Shangri-La Dialogue, Asia’s premier security summit, another signal of the Trump administration’s intensified focus on the Indo-Pacific region.

The summit will convene more than 550 delegates from 40 nations, including military, intelligence, business and security leaders, from across the Asia-Pacific, Europe and North America, a source familiar with plans told ABC News.

Gabbard will be joined by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth at the 22nd annual summit, hosted by the International Institute for Strategic Studies, which runs from May 30 to June 2 in Singapore.

Gabbard is expected to “discuss major security challenges” with leaders, a source familiar with Gabbard’s plans told ABC News. This year’s U.S. delegation includes higher-level representation than in previous years, the source added.

The Shangri-La Dialogue is considered Asia’s top defense summit, comparable to the Raisina Dialogue and the Munich Security Conference, both of which Gabbard attended earlier this year.

This trip marks Gabbard’s second trip to Asia in recent weeks, seemingly reinforcing the Trump administration’s renewed focus on the region.

Shortly after her confirmation, Gabbard traveled to India and met with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi ahead of President Donald Trump’s bilateral meeting with Modi in February.

Her relationship with Modi spans more than a decade, dating back to 2013 when she became the first Hindu member of Congress. They met again during her 2014 visit to India at Modi’s invitation.

Earlier this year, Gabbard accepted an invitation from Modi to speak at the Raisina Dialogue in New Delhi, a multilateral conference on geopolitics and geoeconomics, but, before returning to Washington, D.C., Gabbard made stops in Japan, Thailand and France. Her diplomatic tour began in Honolulu, Hawaii — her hometown — where she represented the state in Congress for eight years.

While in Hawaii, Gabbard met with intelligence community partners and visited United States Indo-Pacific Command (INDOPACOM) headquarters in Honolulu.

In Singapore this week, she will hold bilateral meetings with regional leaders to “explore opportunities to chart a path that advances mutual interests of security, peace, and prosperity in the region,” according to a source familiar with the agenda.

Long before taking the helm of the intelligence community, Gabbard was already on the ground in Southeast Asia and, in 2019 while she was running for president, she paused her campaign for two weeks to serve on active duty with the U.S. Army National Guard in Jakarta, Indonesia, becoming the first candidate in modern history to do so.

Now, as director of national intelligence, her return to the region marks a shift from military service to high-stakes diplomacy, an evolution that underscores not only her long-standing personal and strategic ties to the Indo-Pacific, but also hints the administration’s broader efforts to elevate U.S. engagement in the region.

+ More