US appeals court sides with Argentina, keeps YPF share turnover on hold

The headquarters of Argentina's state energy company YPF is seen in Buenos Aires

By Jonathan Stempel

Fri, August 15, 2025 

NEW YORK (Reuters) -A U.S. appeals court on Friday granted Argentina's request to put on temporary hold a judge's order that it turn over its 51% stake in oil and gas company YPF to partially satisfy a $16.1 billion judgment won by two investors.

In a brief order, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan stayed U.S. District Judge Loretta Preska's June 30 turnover order while Argentina appeals.

Friday's order provides a reprieve for Argentine President Javier Milei's government, which warned of irreparable harm and economic instability if it gave up its stake in YPF, the country's largest energy company.

Argentina is separately appealing the $16.1 billion judgment, which Preska awarded in September 2023 to Petersen Energia Inversora and Eton Park Capital Management.

The investors are represented by litigation funder Burford Capital, which would share in their damages.

Lawyers for Petersen and Eton Park did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Friday's order did not provide reasons for the stay, which should last at least a few months. Argentina's next legal filing related to YPF is due on September 25, court records show.

The dispute stemmed from Argentina's 2012 decision to seize the YPF stake from Spain's Repsol without making a tender offer to minority shareholders.

Argentina had argued that the YPF shares were immune from turnover under the federal Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.

The U.S. government sided with Argentina, saying a resolution of the dispute should not be rushed and potentially interfere with relations between the countries.

Lawyers for the investors countered that a commercial activity exception to immunity, together with Argentina's "many years" of evasion, justified a turnover.

In her June 30 order, Preska said Argentina's control over the YPF shares triggered the exception, and the country could not simply invoke its own laws to prevent a turnover.

A spokesperson for the Argentine government said the country welcomed Friday's order, and confident the $16.1 billion damages award would also be overturned.

(Reporting by Jonathan Stempel in New York; Editing by Leslie Adler, Edmund Klamann and Marguerita Choy)

A New Zealand mother and her 6-year-old son released from US immigration custody after being detained for weeks

Hanna Park, 

CNN
Sat, August 16, 2025



Sarah Shaw and her 6-year-old son have spent over three weeks in US immigration detention. CNN obscured portions of this photo to protect the identity of minors. - Courtesy Victoria Besancon


A Washington state mother and her 6-year-old son have been released after spending more than three weeks in US immigration detention due to a brief trip to Canada and a small paperwork mistake, her attorney told CNN on Saturday.

Sarah Shaw, a New Zealand citizen who has lived legally in the US since she arrived in 2021, was detained at the Blaine, Washington, Customs and Border Protection checkpoint when returning home after dropping her two oldest children off at the Vancouver airport for a flight to visit their grandparents in New Zealand.

Shaw, 33, chose the flight out of Vancouver because it was direct and she didn’t want her children to have to navigate a layover alone, her attorney Minda Thorward, told CNN

But Shaw didn’t realize the travel permit that allowed her to exit and re-enter the US had expired. That’s when Shaw and her son, whose immigration documents were valid, were taken into custody by CBP.

Shaw tried to get a humanitarian parole, which would have allowed her to enter the US and return home, but she was denied, her attorney said.

Shaw then asked if her boyfriend or a friend could pick up her son since his documents were up to date, but she was again denied, Thorward said.

They were transported to the South Texas Family Residential Center in Dilley, Texas, roughly 2,000 miles from their home.

Shaw’s detention is among the latest examples of the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown, which, despite pledges to focus on violent criminals, has also swept up lawful residents like Shaw.

Shaw arrived in the US as a tourist in 2021 and married a citizen that year. Shortly after, the marriage ended, and she filed an I-360 petition in April 2022, her lawyer told CNN. Her application remains under review after multiple delays.

Shaw had been living in the US under a “combo card,” a dual document that serves as both a work permit and travel document. She secured the permit through her job working for Washington state, her lawyer said.

When it came time to renew both parts of the combo card, Shaw paid to have the work permit renewed, but didn’t renew the travel permit “because she didn’t have any plans for travel at that time and it’s expensive,” Thorward said.

In June, Shaw received confirmation of her work permit renewal, but mistakenly believed it also extended her travel authorization – a “minor administrative paperwork error” – according to her lawyer.

“She had completely re-established herself. She had a full-time job, an apartment, adopted a dog, a new boyfriend, and the kids were in school and doing great,” Thorward said. “She made a mistake, but she has no previous convictions – none. This is a very clean case.”

Immigrants walk through the ICE South Texas Family Residential Center , in Dilley, Texas on August 23, 2019. - Eric Gay/AP/File

Shaw previously told Thorward the Department of Homeland Security said she may be released on Friday, but Thorward said she hadn’t received any direct updates from authorities. CNN has reached out to Immigration and Customs Enforcement regarding Shaw’s case.

New Zealand’s foreign affairs ministry said it was in contact with Shaw but declined to provide further details for privacy reasons.

Set to begin a master’s program in psychology this month at Northwest University, Shaw was worried about whether she would be released from detention in time, her lawyer said.

Thorward said border officials had the discretion to grant Shaw humanitarian parole rather than detaining her.

“It was not necessary, inappropriate and inhumane (to detain Shaw and her son),” Thorward said. “She’s lawfully in the country. She’s been doing everything in good faith.”

In a statement to CNN, a CBP spokesperson said that individuals with expired parole trying to re-enter the US would be detained in compliance with immigration laws.

“If they are accompanied by a minor, CBP will follow all protocols to keep families together or arrange care with a legal guardian,” a spokesperson said.
A facility for migrant families

A friend of Shaw’s, Victoria Besancon, told CNN Shaw has spent three weeks in a cramped detention facility, feeling “incredibly isolated.”

“Each room contains 5 to 6 bunk beds, and rooms are locked from 8 p.m. to 8 a.m.,” Besancon told CNN, adding that she has been able to phone Shaw daily and recently video chat.

Besancon said they were among the few English speakers in the facility.

Shaw’s son has been “very sad he lost his summer vacation to being locked in the facility.” Shaw has used commissary funds to buy him ice cream and colored pencils to make him feel at home.

“There’s not a lot for kids to do. Maybe some coloring books. There’s no time for them to be outside,” Thorward said, adding detainees were left sweltering in the South Texas heat, where summer temperatures can reach up to 97 degrees.

The South Texas Family Residential Center, one of the largest of its kind in the US, primarily houses migrant women and children. After closing last year, it reopened in March under an agreement between a private prison operator and ICE, with a capacity to detain up to 2,400 people.

Other mothers who have been detained with their children at family migrant facilities have similarly described their experiences as traumatic and said they will have lasting psychological effect on children.

ICE says the detention centers are safe. On its website, the agency includes a list of safety and health standards for family residential centers.

The Dilley facility is “retrofitted for families,” an ICE spokesperson said. “This includes medical, dental, and mental health intake screening” and access to medical care.

CNN’s Lex Harvey and Todd Symons contributed to this report.

Is it legal for CBP to search your cell phone at the U.S. border?

Electronic device searches at the border are raising serious privacy concerns, especially for international travelers arriving in the U.S.


Caleb Harmon-Marshall
Creator of Gate Access•
Fri, April 18, 2025 




Imagine just landing from an international flight, exhausted, ready to start your visit or return home. As you reach customs, a U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officer asks to see your phone. Not just a glance, they want to go through your messages, photos and even social media apps. You pause because you think to yourself, "there's no way this can be legal."

Surprisingly, yes. Under current U.S. policy, CBP officers are allowed to search your electronic devices, including smartphones, laptops and tablets, without a warrant when you enter the country. And while it’s rare, it does happen. In fact, some high-profile incidents have sparked growing concern and confusion about what rights travelers really have when crossing the border.

So what’s really going on here?

The legal loophole at the border

The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. But, according to the federal government, the border is different. Courts have long held that routine searches at U.S. entry points don't require a warrant, and that includes digital devices. CBP says it has the authority to inspect electronics as a matter of national security.

That means your phone, your photos, emails, texts, DMs, cloud storage and even deleted content can be accessed and reviewed if CBP deems it necessary. Travelers aren’t always warned in advance, and refusal to comply could result in denied entry, device seizure or further detention.

Real travelers, real stories

This isn’t just hypothetical. A recent case involved a French scientist who was reportedly denied entry to the U.S. at Houston’s airport. Why? CBP found messages on his phone criticizing President Trump’s science policies. In another incident, a physician returning to the U.S. from Lebanon on a valid work visa was held at Boston Logan Airport because of photos on her phone showing a Hezbollah funeral.

These are extreme examples, but they underscore a growing trend that border agents are paying closer attention to what’s on our screens.

Immigration attorneys are taking notice, too. Elissa Taub, a partner at the law firm Siskind Susser, advises her clients to be extra cautious about what’s stored on their devices. “I've told my clients to make sure they haven't unintentionally saved photos to their phone that might be controversial,” she told Newsweek. “Be very careful about your actions online in WhatsApp, Telegram or group chats. If CBP holds you up, they might ask to see everything — and there's not much you can do to stop it.”

How often does this happen?

The good news: not very often. According to CBP, fewer than 0.01% of international travelers were subjected to electronic searches in fiscal year 2024. So, statistically, the chances of this happening are extremely low.

But it’s still a possibility — especially if you're a visa holder, visiting from a flagged country or if something in your travel profile triggers a secondary inspection. Sometimes it's random. Other times, it's based on a hunch, a red flag in your travel history or simply the discretion of the officer.

What happens if they take your device?

CBP has the authority to copy data from your phone and store it for up to 15 years. Yeah, you read that right. This includes photos, messages, contact lists, downloads and app content. While the agency claims to have “robust privacy safeguards,” critics like the ACLU warn that sensitive data could be at risk.

The ACLU has argued for years that these practices violate constitutional protections. But so far, courts have largely sided with the government, citing national security interests and the special legal environment that surrounds U.S. borders.
What you can do to protect yourself

If you're concerned about privacy while traveling internationally, consider taking some proactive steps:

Travel light — digitally. Bring only the data you need. Consider using a secondary device or wiping your phone before your trip and restoring it later via secure cloud backup.

Use strong passwords and encryption. Although CBP can ask for your passcode, encryption adds a layer of delay or deterrence.

Log out of social media apps. Some travelers even delete social media before crossing borders and reinstall afterward.

Back up everything beforehand. In the rare event that your device is seized, you won’t lose your files forever.

The bigger picture

Nations like New Zealand, Germany and the UK have issued travel advisories pointing to increased scrutiny at U.S. borders, and immigration lawyers are warning clients: Think twice before reentering the U.S. with data that could be misinterpreted or taken out of context.

This isn’t about hiding illegal activity; it’s about understanding how your digital footprint could affect your travel experience, especially when laws are still catching up to modern technology.

Final thoughts

We're in crazy times. The fact that CBP can legally search your phone without a warrant should raise eyebrows, especially as more of our lives are stored on our devices. While the chances are low, the consequences can be significant. Whether you're a visitor, visa holder or U.S. citizen, it's worth knowing your rights — and traveling smart.

After all, in today’s world, your phone says more about you than your passport ever could.

Yahoo CreatorCaleb Harmon-MarshallCreator of Gate AccessTravel writer, creator, and flight rights advocate dedicated to empowering travelers with the knowledge they need to navigate travel challenges confidently and make informed decisions.
Follow

Gate Acces

Mexico, Guatemala and Belize to create tri-national nature reserve to protect Mayan jungle

SONIA PÉREZ D. and MEGAN JANETSKY
Fri, August 15, 2025 



A Maya Train car arrives at a station in Campeche, Mexico, Thursday, Aug. 14, 2025. (AP Photo/Martin Zetina)ASSOCIATED PRESS

Passengers pass through a hallway to board the Maya Train in Mérida, Mexico, Thursday, Aug. 14, 2025. (AP Photo/Martin Zetina)ASSOCIATED PRESS

Guatemalan president Bernardo Arévalo looks on while Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum shakes hands with Belize Prime Minister Minister Johnny Briceño, in Calakmul, Campeche state, Mexico, Friday, Aug. 15, 2025. (AP Photo/Martin Zetina)ASSOCIATED PRESS

Guatemalan President Bernardo Arévalo, from left, Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum and Belize Prime Minister Minister Johnny Briceño hold a joint press conference in Calakmul, Campeche state, Mexico, Friday, Aug. 15, 2025. (AP Photo/Martin Zetina)ASSOCIATED PRESS

Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum talks to reporters during a joint press conference, in Calakmul, Campeche state, Mexico, Friday, Aug. 15, 2025. (AP Photo/Martin Zetina)ASSOCIATED PRESS


GUATEMALA CITY (AP) — The leaders of Mexico, Guatemala and Belize announced on Friday that they were creating a tri-national nature reserve to protect the Mayan rain forest following a meeting during which they also discussed expanding a Mexican train line criticized for slicing through jungle habitat.

The nature reserve would stretch across jungled areas of southern Mexico and northern parts of the two Central American nations, encompassing more than 14 million acres (5.7 million hectares). Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum called the move “historic” and said it would create the second biggest nature reserve in Latin America, behind the Amazon rain forest.

“This is one of Earth’s lungs, a living space for thousands of species with an invaluable cultural legacy that we should preserve with our eyes on the future,” Sheinbaum said, standing side-by-side with Guatemalan President Bernardo Arévalo and Belize Prime Minister Johnny Briceño.

The announcement was met with cautious celebration by environmental groups like Mexico-based Selvame, who have sharply criticized the Mexican government and Sheinbaum's allies in recent years for environmental destruction wrought by megaprojects like a controversial train line, known as the Maya Train.

The group said in statement that the reserve was a “monumental step for conservation" but that it hoped that the reserve was more than just “symbolic.”

“We’re in a race against the clock. Real estate and construction companies are invading the jungle, polluting our ecosystems, and endangering both the water we consume, and the communities that depend on it,” the group wrote.

It called on Sheinbaum’s government to put an effective monitoring system in place to “stop any destructive activities.”

At the same time, the leaders also discussed a proposal by Mexico to expand the very train line those environmental groups have long fought from southern Mexico to Guatemala and Belize. The thousand-mile train currently runs in a rough loop around Mexico’s Yucatan peninsula, and was created with the purpose of connecting Mexico’s popular Caribbean resorts with remote jungle and Mayan archaeological sites in rural areas.

However, it has fueled controversy and legal battles as it sliced through swathes of jungle and damaged a delicate cave system in Mexico that serves as the area’s main source of water. In a span of four years, authorities cut down approximately 7 million trees, according to government figures.

Sheinbaum’s mentor and predecessor former President Andrés Manuel López Obrador fast-tracked the train project without detailed environmental studies. The populist repeatedly ignored orders from judges to stop construction due to environmental concerns and publicly attacked environmentalists warning about damage done to fragile ecosystems.

López Obrador first proposed the idea of expanding the train to Guatemala, and Sheinbaum has continued to push for the project. On Friday, she said the extension would usher in development in rural areas with few economic opportunities.

But Arévalo was already on record saying Guatemala’s laws would not allow it to be built through protected jungle in the north of the country.

The Guatemalan leader said on Friday he sees the economic potential of the project to the jungle region but remained adamant that the construction should not come with the kind of environmental damage that it inflicted in Mexico.

“Connecting the Maya Train with Guatemala and eventually with Belize is a vision we share,” Arévalo said. But “I’ve made it very clear at all times that the Maya Train will not pass through any protected area.”

He said there would also have to be careful environmental studies and the two presidents looked at an alternative proposal that would have the train loop instead of directly cut through the jungles of Guatemala and Belize.

It remained unclear how the train’s potential route would be affected by the new protected area.

——

Janetsky reported from Mexico City.

While AI wipes out entry-level roles, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman says it’s actually ‘the most exciting time to be starting out one’s career’

Jessica Coacci
Fri, August 15, 2025

FORTUNE


Denied thousands of roles postgraduation? Don’t fret, it’s the best time to start—according to OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, at least.


Billionaire OpenAI CEO Sam Altman has a message for new Gen Z graduates struggling to gain a footing in the entry-level job market: “This is probably the most exciting time to be starting out one’s career, maybe ever.” But as the class of 2025 scrolls through LinkedIn for new postings, they’re facing a tougher reality—AI has stolen most of their opportunities to kick-start their nine-to-fives.

In what seems like a dumpster fire of an early career job market for Gen Z—filled with ghost jobs and AI agents—Sam Altman said it’s actually “the most exciting time to be starting out one’s career, maybe ever.”

“I think that [a] 25-year-old in Mumbai can probably do more than any previous 25-year-old in history could,” Altman said on an episode of the People by WTF podcast with Nikhil Kamath.

“I felt the same way when I was 25, and the tools then were not as amazing as the tools we have now … A 25-year-old then could do things that no 25-year-old in history before would have been able to, and now that’s happening in a huge way.”

But Gen Z isn’t experiencing the same exciting job market as Altman describes. Entry-level positions are decreasing for ambitious, fresh-faced graduates, as employers expect rookies to come in fully skilled. ChatGPT and AI agents are taking over junior staffers’ beginner skills that Gen Zers use to kick-start their journey up the corporate ladder, and the dream of landing a six-figure tech job after college is becoming a distant reality. Some Gen Zers are even seeking their first jobs at Chipotle instead.

As a result of skyrocketing tuition costs and a depressing white-collar job market, Gen Z’s situation is so dire that 4.3 million young people are now NEETs: not in education, employment, or training.
Altman even says he’s envious of Gen Z’s career options today

Even though many young job-seekers are in despair, the tech leader said he’s envious of young people because his early career jobs will look “boring” by comparison. Comparatively, he said, Gen Z will be exploring the solar system and lock down jobs with sky-high salaries.


“If I were 22 right now and graduating college, I would feel like the luckiest kid in all of history,” he added.

The billionaire cofounder compared the current AI revolution to how computers changed the world of work when he was growing up.

“People are now limited only by the quality and creativity of their ideas,” the OpenAI CEO said, adding that advances in AI are transforming programming, accelerating scientific discovery, and enabling entirely new kinds of software.

But still, in a job market where the first rung of the ladder is disappearing thanks to AI, Altman’s optimism is a reminder that Gen Z’s success will be determined by how they integrate the tools into their next role.
The split of tech founders on AI

Altman isn’t alone in his optimism about AI. Billionaire Microsoft cofounder Bill Gates said using AI to improve productivity in the workplace could open up more jobs in the future, despite there being some career “dislocation” for entry-level graduates.

In addition, AMD CEO Lisa Su doesn’t believe AI is out to cause massive job losses, but admits anxiety around the technology’s innovation is a natural feeling.

On the flip side, other tech leaders have warned of AI’s threat to entry-level roles and the white-collar job market altogether. Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei said AI could wipe out roughly 50% of all entry-level white-collar jobs within five years, causing unemployment to spike as high as 20%.

LinkedIn’s chief economic opportunity officer Aneesh Raman also echoed that sentiment. Raman said that AI is increasingly threatening the types of jobs that historically have served as stepping stones for young workers who are just beginning their careers.

“While the technology sector is feeling the first waves of change, reflecting AI’s mass adoption in this field, the erosion of traditional entry-level tasks is expected to play out in fields like finance, travel, food, and professional services, too,” he said.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

We still aren’t sure what’s going on with tariffs and inflation — or what will happen next

Jason Ma
Sun, August 17, 2025 

Recent economic data continue to give mixed signals on how much tariffs are affecting prices, leaving Wall Street conflicted on who is paying for what. While companies may be absorbing much of the tariff costs for now, it’s not clear how much longer they can keep it up and how much consumers will be able to shoulder later.

Months after President Donald Trump launched his trade war, economic data continue to give mixed signals on how much tariffs are affecting prices in the U.S.

While the consumer price index has ticked higher, it has also consistently come in below forecasts, though the latest reading on producer prices surprised to the upside.

Certain sectors heavily exposed to tariffs have seen spikes, but July data showed less upward price pressure on some goods prices and more pressure on some services.

“Despite this firmness, the tariff pass-through effect on consumer prices arguably has been less bad than expected so far,” JPMorgan economists led by Michael Feroli said in a note on Friday.

According to the bank, one potential explanation for the muted inflation numbers is that firms are eating the tariff cost at the expense of their profit margins, which are currently wide by historical standards and can accommodate the added costs without harming capital or operating budgets.

Other explanations include the delayed effects of duties on prices as companies draw down pre-tariff inventories, the seasonality of prices as inflation during the summer tends to be softer than in the winter, and tariff costs being passed though more via services rather than goods, JPMorgan added.

A pet supplies retail store in Manhattan on August 12.

Yet another explanation could be that the tariff rates importers are actually paying are far below the headline numbers. A recent Barclays report found that the weighted-average levy in May was just 9% versus the bank’s estimate for 12%.

That’s because demand shifted away from countries with higher tariffs while more than half of U.S. imports that month were duty-free. Despite higher rates on Canada, for example, they don’t apply to goods covered under the U.S.-Mexico-Canada trade agreement.

“The real surprise in the U.S. economy’s resilience lies not in its reaction to tariffs but that the rise in the effective tariff rate has been more modest than commonly thought,” the report said.

To be sure, Barclays said the weighted-average rate has edged up to 10% today and predicted it will eventually settle at around 15%, as more products like pharmaceuticals are expected to get hit with levies and as loopholes close.
Businesses vs. consumers

Citi Research still doesn’t see much evidence of broad-based price pressure from tariffs and attributed the recent uptick in services to one-time anomalies, such as the 5.8% jump in portfolio management fees due to the rally in asset prices.

Citi also doesn’t expect consumers to get hit with big price hikes in the future, even as more levies are expected to roll out.

“Softer demand means firms will have difficulty passing tariff costs on to consumers,” chief US economist Andrew Hollenhorst said in a note. “While some firms might still attempt to slowly increase prices in coming months, the experience so far suggests these increases will be modest in size. This should reduce concerns about upside risk to inflation and increase concerns that decreased profit margins will cause firms to pullback on hiring.”

By contrast, Goldman Sachs predicted consumers will pay most of the tariff costs. As of June, they had absorbed 22%, but that figure should jump to 67% by October if the pattern seen in early rounds of Trump’s trade actions continues.

For businesses, the burden will shrink from 64% down to 8%, while foreign suppliers will see an uptick from 14% to 25% of the tariff impact.

Unraveling the mystery over what tariffs are doing—or not doing—to inflation has major implications for the Federal Reserve, which is trying to balance both sides of its dual mandate.

Tariffs have kept inflation stubbornly above the Fed’s 2% target, causing policymakers to hold off on rate cuts. But weakness in jobs data have raised alarms on employment, fueling demands for easing.

“The evidence so far is that almost all of the costs of tariffs are being born by domestic firms,” Citi’s Hollenhorst wrote. “The lack of pass-through should reduce lingering Fed official inflation concerns and allow for a series of rate cuts beginning in September. If anything markets are underpricing the potential for faster and/or deeper cuts.”

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

Trump’s DOJ Seems Awfully Nervous About the Tariff Lawsuits

Matt Ford
Fri, August 15, 2025 



The most interesting lawsuit against the Trump administration right now, in my view, is V.O.S. Selections v. Trump. A group of small businesses is challenging the president’s authority to levy tariffs via the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1974, or IEEPA. They argue that President Donald Trump’s sweeping restrictions on nearly every imported good go far beyond what Congress had authorized in the law.

The U.S. Court of International Trade sided with the businesses in May and ruled that the tariffs were blatantly unlawful. “Regardless of whether the court views the President’s actions through the nondelegation doctrine, through the major questions doctrine, or simply with separation of powers in mind, any interpretation of IEEPA that delegates unlimited tariff authority is unconstitutional,” the court explained in an unsigned opinion.

The Trump administration swiftly appealed the ruling to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, which reviews decisions from the specialized federal trial courts. (The government can continue to collect the tariffs while the lawsuit unfolds.) Now it appears that the Justice Department is openly afraid that it might lose the case and bring down the central pillar of Trump’s economic agenda—such as it is.

One rather clear sign of nerves is that Solicitor General D. John Sauer, the third-highest-ranking official in the Justice Department, sent an unusual letter to the Federal Circuit panel reviewing the case earlier this week. It was styled as a Rule 28(j) letter, which is used by litigants to update the court and the other parties about “pertinent and significant authorities” that they learn about after filing their briefs that could be relevant to the litigation.

This type of letter is most commonly used to formally notify courts about legislative changes or new judicial rulings by an appeals court that might be relevant. It is not meant to be used to simply fire off esprit de l’escalier–type arguments after briefs have been filed and oral arguments have been heard. But that appears to be how the solicitor general used it.

“On July 27, after stating his intention to impose IEEPA tariffs, President Trump announced the largest trade agreement in history with the 27-nation European Union, America’s most significant trading partner,” Sauer wrote, citing contemporary news reports. “President Trump entered historic agreements with Indonesia, the Philippines, and Japan on July 22; and with the United Kingdom on May 8.”

If the panel rules against the administration on the tariffs’ legality, Sauer argued, then it should stay its ruling pending the Supreme Court’s review. “Suddenly revoking” that power would have “catastrophic consequences” for national security and the economy, he claimed.



“The President believes that our country would not be able to pay back the trillions of dollars that other countries have already committed to pay, which could lead to financial ruin,” Sauer wrote. “Other tariff authorities that the President could potentially use are short-term, not nearly as powerful, and would render America captive to the abuses that it has endured from far more aggressive countries.”

This argument, though reflective of the administration’s views on trade, is misleading. When the United States levies a tariff on imported goods, other countries do not “pay” them. The person or company that imports the goods pays the tariff. The costs incurred by paying these tariffs can then be offset by raising prices for U.S. consumers, who indirectly bear the brunt of tariffs. The exporting countries don’t directly pay a cent.

Sauer’s claim that other countries “committed” to pay “trillions of dollars” in tariffs and that paying it back to them would lead to “financial ruin” is also nonsensical. Even setting aside the “other countries” part, the U.S. has not collected “trillions” of dollars in tariff revenue. The Treasury said that it collected $28 billion in customs and excise taxes in the month of July. The U.S. collected between $7 billion and $8 billion before Trump took office, so the actual revenue from Trump’s tariffs is likely smaller.

It is possible that Sauer is referring to what the White House described as hundreds of billions of dollars in new investment into the United States from the other countries with which it struck deals. In July, for example, the U.S. announced a trade deal where the EU would “purchase $750 billion in U.S. energy and make new investments of $600 billion in the United States, all by 2028.” Those numbers come a little closer to the “trillions” that Sauer described.


Advertisement


These investments are still not relevant to the court’s decision-making process in this case because they aren’t revenue derived from the tariffs in question. Courts are not obligated to indulge in the creative accounting that the administration is using to justify its own policies to the public. The EU’s own fact sheet on the deal also says that the $750 billion is for “replacing Russian gas and oil on the EU market,” meaning that it likely would have happened anyway. And that $600 billion investment? “EU companies have expressed interest in investing” that money in the United States over the next few years, which is about as speculative as it gets. The EU itself said that the “political agreement” it reached with Trump is “is not legally binding”—a downside of not using the “other tariff authorities” that Sauer derided.

Sauer went on to frame the overall situation in stark terms. “There is no substitute for the tariffs and deals that President Trump has made,” he told the court. “One year ago, the United States was a dead country, and now, because of the trillions of dollars being paid by countries that have so badly abused us, America is a strong, financially viable, and respected country again. If the United States were forced to pay back the trillions of dollars committed to us, America could go from strength to failure the moment such an incorrect decision took effect.”

This is not a legal argument. What Sauer appears to be suggesting is that the court would be responsible for any negative economic consequences that should befall the country if it rules against the tariffs’ legality. That is doubtful on the merits. Most indicators suggest that the country is heading for a recession thanks to the uncertainty and higher costs from Trump’s tariffs, and the major stock indices fell by more than 10 percent when he announced the “Liberation Day” tariffs in April. If anything, the markets would experience a modest boom if Trump’s tariffs could no longer be collected.

It is also an argument unworthy of a high-ranking Justice Department official, let alone the solicitor general. Striking down the tariffs would not seriously harm the U.S. economy (if it harmed it at all), but it would be highly embarrassing for Trump, who has made them the centerpiece of his second-term economic agenda. Sauer nonetheless continued by warning of an apocalyptic (and highly unlikely) economic meltdown if the tariffs are blocked.

“If the United States were forced to unwind these historic agreements, the President believes that a forced dissolution of the agreements could lead to a 1929-style result,” he claimed. “In such a scenario, people would be forced from their homes, millions of jobs would be eliminated, hard-working Americans would lose their savings, and even Social Security and Medicare could be threatened. In short, the economic consequences would be ruinous, instead of unprecedented success.”

You do not need to be an economist to know that a Great Depression won’t happen if the Federal Circuit strikes down tariffs that did not exist six months ago, or if other countries later back out of “trade agreements” that did not exist six weeks ago. The global economy simply does not work like that. The most cynical interpretation of this letter is that the Trump administration thinks that a recession is imminent and that the Federal Circuit will strike down the tariffs, and it is trying to preemptively blame the former on the latter.

The plaintiffs’ response was short and curt. Perhaps the lawyers who drafted it knew the judges would see Sauer’s pseudo-intimidation tactics for what they are. Michael McConnell, the lead lawyer, noted that its contents were “improper” for a Rule 23(j) letter because the government “already cited the same events at argument.” Indeed, the oral arguments took place on July 31, a few days after the EU “trade agreement” was announced. McConnell disagreed about the need for a stay at all and argued for it to be a narrow one if granted because the plaintiffs “face imminent and ongoing irreparable harm to their businesses from the challenged tariffs.”

“If the Court is inclined to consider the substance of the letter, there is no basis for its declaration that there is ‘no substitute’ for ‘the tariffs and deals that President Trump has made,’” he continued. “Even without IEEPA, the president can obtain ex ante authority to enter into trade agreements, see 19 U.S.C. § 4202(a), or submit agreements for congressional approval, including via fast-track procedures, as prior presidents have done, see 19 U.S.C. § 4501 (implementing the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement).”

In other words, Trump can (and did, during his first term) pursue his trade agenda through the lawful mechanisms that Congress intentionally created to give presidents flexibility when negotiating with other countries. What he cannot do is use IEEPA to arbitrarily enforce massive tariffs on most of the American economy; not even to coerce U.S. trading partners into what appear to be largely performative trade negotiations.

It is characteristic of the Justice Department’s overall decline that Sauer thought this letter would be a reasonable thing to send to federal judges. It also shows how Trump’s thuggish approach to governance—in levying tariffs on close U.S. allies, in extorting law firms and universities, in sending troops into Democratic-led cities, in meddling with media company mergers, and more—is permeating throughout the entire executive branch.

More than anything else, it shows how scared the Justice Department is (and the Trump appointees who staff it are) that Trump might lose this case. Even if one sets aside the propriety of this letter, a solicitor general who was confident in the strength of their argument and the validity of the executive branch’s actions would not stoop so low as to telling federal judges that it will blame them for any negative consequences of their ruling. Like all bullying tactics, this one comes from a place of fear, not strength.

Vermont fund raises $250K to expand immigrant legal defense

Beth McDermott, 

Reporter assisted by AI

The Burlington Free Press
Fri, August 15, 2025 


The Vermont Immigration Legal Defense Fund has raised $250,000 since its launch in May, according to a community announcement.

The fund has already made its first grant of $100,000 to the Vermont Asylum Assistance Project, according to the announcement.

VILDF was established to bolster legal representation and support for immigrants in Vermont. With a record number of immigration detentions and removals taking place in Vermont and across the country, the need for legal representation has been overwhelming the small number of Vermont attorneys with expertise in immigration law.

The Vermont Asylum Assistance Project plans to use the funds from this award to expand urgently needed legal services for immigrants facing removal proceedings across the state.

Vermont Asylum Assistance Project executive director Jill Martin Diaz, an immigration lawyer, speaks during a Jan. 30 press conference about rising Immigration and Customs Enforcement activity in Vermont after Trump signed a slew of executive orders pushing for mass migrant deportations. Seen with U.S. Rep. Becca Balint (center) and former Lt. Gov. Molly Gray (left) of Vermont Afghan Alliance.

“Every Vermonter benefits when we protect our Constitutional freedoms, and the right to due process is not fully realized unless our neighbors have legal representation,” Mike Pieciak, state treasurer, said. “This first award is a galvanizing investment in VAAP’s ability to ensure our neighbors, friends, and community members truly enjoy America's promise of liberty and justice for all.”

“Vermont is leading the way in showing how we can come together to acknowledge human dignity and real public safety,” Kesha Ram Hinsdale, senator, said. “This award is an investment in the greatest needs our system faces to uphold the rights to which every person in our state is entitled.”
Three priorities for the Vermont Asylum Assistance Project

The infusion of funds allows VAAP to act immediately on three priority fronts.

VAAP plans to welcome its inaugural director of operations and legal assistant/paralegal who will lead efforts to streamline and strengthen the integration of pro bono and full-time volunteer attorneys into its legal services model, allowing its growing team of lawyers to focus more on legal work and client service. This strategic addition ensures coordinated support for volunteers working alongside paid staff on active VAAP cases.

VAAP is preparing to recruit three to five rural legal support workers, legal or paralegal advocates who will bring legal information, screenings, and services directly to community-based organizations spanning Vermont’s underserved geographies. Working in close partnership with trusted local institutions, these workers will act as bridges between the law and the community, ensuring culturally and linguistically responsive access to legal pathways. Rooted in lived experience and place-based relationships, this cohort will expand VAAP’s reach beyond traditional legal hubs—meeting immigrant communities where they are and reducing barriers to representation. By embedding legal capacity within rural CBOs, this initiative furthers VAAP's vision of a decentralized, community-anchored model for immigration justice across the state.

More: What the Winooski superintendent of schools said about his detention by ICE in Texas

VAAP will deploy “boots-on-the-ground” intake and screening teams at the Northwest State Correctional Facility in Swanton and the Chittenden Regional Correctional Facility in South Burlington. Regular presence inside the facilities will help identify individuals who would otherwise navigate removal proceedings alone.

“With VILDF’s timely support, we can move forward with confidence to hire the staff essential to addressing Vermont’s acute legal access gaps statewide,” Jill Martin Diaz, VAAP executive director, said. “We know that life-altering decisions to detain and deport people are happening too quickly and too often in error, not only devastating individuals and families, but also threatening constitutional rights and civil liberties for all. Access to counsel isn’t a luxury—it’s the bare minimum for a fair shot at justice.”

State Treasurer Mike Pieciak and Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale founded VILDF with a group of trusted colleagues in May 2025. VILDF seeks to raise $1,000,000 to strengthen immigration legal defense in Vermont.

The state has a small group of dedicated immigration legal service providers, including the Vermont Law and Graduate School, the Vermont Asylum Assistance Project, the Association of Africans Living in Vermont, and several independent pro bono attorneys. Addressing the growing unmet need for immigrant legal defense depends on the capacity of these entities to grow.

VAAP is a legal services and technical assistance provider that exists to raise Vermont non-citizens’ awareness of and access to critical immigration legal help and support. It achieves its mission through statewide direct service delivery, pro bono coordination, technical assistance, community education, and administrative and legislative advocacy. Serving as a bridge between immigrant service providers and regulators across the state and region, VAAP educates the public on immigration issues and advocates for policies and practices that advance immigrants’ rights, according to the announcement.

For more information, please see https://www.vermontlegaldefensefund.com and https://www.vaapvt.org.

This story was created by reporter Beth McDermott, bmcdermott1@gannett.com, with the assistance of Artificial Intelligence (AI). Journalists were involved in every step of the information gathering, review, editing and publishing process. Learn more at cm.usatoday.com/ethical-conduct.

This article originally appeared on Burlington Free Press: Vermont expands immigrant legal help—here’s what’s changing

Syria’s Sharaa hopes for Kurdish deal to prevent conflict

Suleiman Al-Khalidi
Sun, August 17, 2025 


Signing ceremony of a memorandum of understanding for investment in Syria

AMMAN (Reuters) -Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa has expressed hope that his country would avoid military conflict with U.S.-backed Kurdish forces if efforts to integrate their autonomous administration in northeast Syria into the state structure collapse.

In remarks late on Saturday to senior figures from Idlib, where he has mustered loyalist forces, Sharaa said Kurdish leaders had signalled readiness to move forward with a landmark deal in March to bring their Kurdish-run areas under state authority.

But their actions on the ground suggested otherwise, he told the publicised forum.

“At times on the ground there are signals opposite to what they say in the negotiations,” Sharaa said.

Turkey and Washington, the main powers backing the deal to integrate Syria's oil-rich northeast into the state, wanted to resolve the issue peacefully, Sharaa said.

"These parties are pushing for a solution peacefully. I hope we don't enter into a dispute. I am hopeful in a few months we will resolve it," he said.

The collapse of follow-up talks since the March deal has escalated tensions in the region, triggering fresh clashes this month between government troops and the Kurdish-led, U.S.-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF).


The SDF, which controls parts of northeast Syria where Arabs form a majority, has recently fortified extensive tunnel networks along the frontlines. Many tribal Arabs accuse the SDF of discriminatory policies - claims Kurdish officials deny.

CONCERN OVER MAJOR ESCALATION

Turkey-backed rebels have also reinforced their positions amid concerns over a potential large-scale escalation in hostilities, officials say.

Ankara has warned of military action against the SDF, whichit considers a terrorist organisation and has targeted in pastcross-border operations. It expects the Syrian government toaddress its security concerns but says it reserves the right tomount an offensive if needed.

U.S. envoy for Syria, Tom Barrack - an advocate for a strong, unified Syrian state - voiced concern last month over Kurdish delays in implementing the March deal, urging faster progress.

Authorities in Damascus reacted earlier this month angrily to a recent SDF conference calling for greater decentralisation and which demanded a review of a constitutional declaration it said discriminated against minorities, a move officials said threatened Syria’s territorial integrity.

Syrian officials said any military push against the SDF would rely on Turkish-backed factions operating in northern Syria, adding that Ankara has grown impatient with what it sees as Kurdish foot-dragging.

Sharaa said those who sought partition were “dreaming” and insisted the country would not give up any stretch of territory. He also criticised Druze groups seeking support from Isrel in their confrontation with Damascus.

Thousands joined a large Druze protest in Sweida on Saturday, demanding self-determination, hoisting Israeli flags and praising Israel for a military intervention that forced Syrian forces to retreat after hundreds of people were killed last month.

Sharaa acknowledged that “violations” had been committed by security forces and army personnel in Sweida, but said Druze militias had also perpetrated crimes.

(Reporting by Suleiman Al-Khalidi; editing by Clelia Oziel)



Sharaa's nightmare is on the verge of realization, and a push could topple his regime

DR. YARON FRIEDMAN
Sun, August 17, 2025 

JERUSALEM POST

Leader of new Syrian administration, Ahmed al Sharaa and Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan (not seen) watch the view of Damascus on Mount Qasioun following their meeting in Damascus, Syria on December 22, 2024

 (photo credit: Murat Gok/Anadolu via Getty Images)

Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa is in a difficult predicament: he wants complete control over all of Syria but has lost the trust of the minorities.

Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa hoped that everything in Syria would go according to his original plan. He waited in the Idlib province (northwest of the country) under Turkish protection for about nine years since the civil war, and in late 2024, he took advantage of the war in Ukraine and Hezbollah's war against Israel to overthrow the Assad regime in a matter of days, with Russia and Iran's hands tied.

The next step was to take control of all Syria, which seemed like an easy task since, unlike Assad and the top officials of the previous regime—who were from the Alawite minority—Sharia law represents the majority Sunni sect, making up about 70% of the population. So, what's the problem?

Sharaa's men were not content with mere control; they sought revenge. Immediately after seizing power in Damascus in December 2024, massacres against the Alawite community in Sahel (Latakia, Tartus, and Baniyas provinces) began to multiply, culminating in the "Black March." Next in line were the Druze.

In April, Sharaa's men carried out a massacre of Druze in the suburbs of Damascus. The massacre resumed, with greater intensity, in July in the southern province of Sweida. This time, the killings only stopped after the intervention of the IDF.

Senior officials of the new regime repeatedly stated that they had not given orders to carry out these acts and even pledged to prosecute the rebels.

A drone view shows the predominantly Druze city of Sweida, following deadly clashes between Druze fighters, Sunni Bedouin tribes and government forces, in Syria July 25, 2025. (credit: REUTERS/KHALIL ASHAWI/FILE PHOTO)More

But the picture is pretty clear – Sharaa is unable to control the bearded savages he brought with him from Idlib province.

Moreover, if he does punish the criminals, he will severely harm the jihadist camp most loyal to his regime. While the Alawites unanimously oppose Sharaa's rule, the Druze camp appears to be divided. The camp represented by Sheikh Laith al-Balaut believes in talks with Sharaa, out of the perception that the Druze have no choice but to take control of the new Syria. This camp is supported by the Druze in Lebanon, led by Walid Jumblatt, and prefers to maintain ongoing contact with the regime in Damascus.

On the other hand, there is the camp led by Sheikh Hikmat al-Hajri, who, like the Alawite position, completely rejects the option of accepting Sharaa rule. This camp is supported by the Druze in Israel. From al-Hajri's perspective, Sharaa represents a dangerous jihadist movement that sees the Druze (and Alawites) as infidels. There is a lot of truth in this view. The Salafi ideology of most of the people of Sharaa is indeed based on the writings of the Hanbali jurist (the strictest school of thought in Sunni Islam) Ibn Taymiyyah from the 14th century, who ruled that the Alawites (then called Nusayris) and the Druze are infidel sects who have left the fold of Islam and, as traitors, their punishment is death.

The Kurds observe and learn

Although the Kurdish community is largely Sunni, it has a bitter past as a persecuted minority. Furthermore, the Kurds have fought more than any other group against ISIS in Syria and Iraq, and the people of Sharaa remind them of the monsters of the Islamic State.

Indeed, ideologically, the differences between ISIS and the al-Nusra Front (al-Qaeda in Syria) led by Sharaa are not great. In addition, the Kurds are very suspicious of the regime in Damascus, mainly due to its close ties with their main enemy – Turkey, led by President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

At the end of February, Sharaa was still very optimistic about the Kurdish issue. On the 24th-25th of the month, the "Syrian National Dialogue Conference" was held in Damascus, with the participation of most of the country's ethnic groups. The conference supposedly heralded a new Syria of tolerance and inter-ethnic reconciliation. On March 10, Sharaa even met with Mazloum Abdi, the commander of the Kurdish Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF).

The two parties agreed on the integration of the large Kurdish force (more than a hundred thousand fighters) into the new Syrian army. However, in practice, the implementation of the agreement was delayed and appeared to have been frozen.

The horrific events in the Alawite and Druze regions greatly deterred the Kurds. They watched as the Alawites (the soldiers of the previous regime) handed over their weapons and saw the shortage of weapons that the Druze militias suffered from, and they understood very well the significance of handing over weapons or giving up the independence that the Kurds currently enjoy in the north of the country.

The apparent relationship between the regime in Damascus and the Kurds was shattered in August, following the holding of the "Al-Hasakah Conference" in the Kurdish province, attended by Abdi and senior Kurdish officials, Druze leader Hikmat al-Hajri, and the head of the Syrian Alawite Council, Sheikh Ghazal Ghazal.

The conference was also attended by other minorities who now feel threatened: Christians of various denominations, Turkmens, Armenians, Circassians, and more. The participants' goal was to arouse international sympathy and also to maintain joint pressure on Damascus, regarding the existence of a democratic, egalitarian, and liberal Syria.

The main idea of the conference was decentralization. This meant that Syria would exist as a federation, in which each sect would maintain autonomy under loose control from Damascus. This is the nightmare of the Sharaa regime, which sees it as effectively the disintegration of Syria into regions – Druze in the south, Alawite in the west, and Kurdish in the north.

In practice, this means that the regime in Damascus will only have direct control over about 60% of the country.

Syrian Foreign Minister Asad al-Sheibani was quick to reject the conference's demands outright, emphasizing that all sects in Syria will exist solely under the framework of a united Syria.

A difficult predicament in Syria

Sharaa is now in a difficult predicament: he wants complete control over all of Syria, but in the six months of his rule, he has lost the trust of the minorities.

Arab countries that support the Syrian regime accuse Israel of trying to disintegrate Syria in order to weaken it, as is clearly reflected in the Arab media. Turkey hopes to use the new government in Damascus as a protectorate, which will allow it to strategically control Syria politically.

The principality of Qatar, which hopes to gain a significant share of economic control over Syria, is also concerned about the situation. Al Jazeera commentator Ramadan Bursa recently published an editorial titled "Syria faces a very dangerous situation."

In his article, he explained that a federation is not suitable for a weak and unstable regime like Syria, and that a federal regime can only exist in rich, stable, and successful countries like the US, Britain, and Germany. Bursa warns that a federal regime is very dangerous for Syria's future, and could lead to its weakening and even disintegration.

The regime in Damascus is now on a collision course with all minorities. While the Alawites are defenseless, the Druze are backed by Israel, and the Kurds constitute a large, armed force that still enjoys a kind of American patronage.

Albanese claims Hamas should be understood as a 'political force,' not 'fighters'

SHE IS CORRECT

DANIELLE GREYMAN-KENNARD
Sat, August 16, 2025

JERUSALEM POST

BREATHLESS ZIONIST OUTRAGE AND LIES

Francesca Albanese, UN Special Rapporteur for Palestine, at an Emergency Conference of States, hosted by Colombia and South Africa, to discuss measures against Israel, in Bogota, Colombia, July 15, 2025; illustrative. (photo credit: REUTERS/LUISA GONZALEZ)More


Francesca Albanese asserted that Hamas should not be thought of as "cut-throats, people armed to the teeth or fighters,” because "it's not like that."

United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territories Francesca Albanese defended Hamas’s rule over the Gaza Strip in an address earlier this week, shared on social media by UN Watch on Friday.

The controversial UN figure, who has frequently been accused of antisemitism and anti-Israel bias, claimed in Italian that she didn’t think people understood what Hamas really is: “a political force.”

“Hamas is a political force that won the elections in 2005, whether we like it or not,” she claimed. “Those were called the most democratic elections.”

Albanese also stressed that Hamas had organized and constructed much of Gaza’s public services, including schools and hospitals. She did not comment on the repeated evidence that Hamas had operated much of its terror operations from within or underneath these civilian structures, as evidenced throughout the Israel-Hamas war by the IDF on numerous occasions.

“It is critical that you understand that when you think of Hamas, you should not necessarily think of cut-throats, people armed to the teeth or fighters,” she told the crowd. “It’s not like that.”

A room with blood stains inside a tunnel underneath the European Hospital in Khan Younis at the Gaza Strip, where Israeli military said the body of Hamas Gaza chief Mohammed Sinwar was found among others, amid the ongoing ground operation of the IDF against Hamas, June 8, 2025. credit: REUTERS/Ronen Zvulun

Throughout the war, Albanese has levied accusations of genocide, war crimes and apartheid against Israel. Earlier this week, she told the Guardian that she believed countries should end trade with Israel and embargo all weapons sales.

“The occupation is profitable, and so is the genocide, and this is shocking, but it is to be known in order to be seen and to be stopped,” she claimed. “The power is not just with the prime ministers or with the governments. The power is with us, and we can start choosing through our wallet.”

“Antisemitism and discrimination against Jews as Jews is gross,” Albanese claimed in an interview with The Guardian in December. “But frankly I couldn’t care less if Israel were run by Jews, Muslims, Christians or atheists… All I want is for Israel to conduct itself in line with international law.”

While Hamas began the current war with its October 7, 2023, massacre, breaching an existing ceasefire with its invasion into southern Israel, Albanese told the Guardian that the Palestinian side of the struggle had “ already won the legitimacy battle.”

“Everyone knows what Israel has done to them for the past 77 years,” she said. “They’ve already made history – and not through violence as some try to portray them – but with their perseverance and principles and trust in the justice system, which has not been their ally.”

Francesca Albanese’s history of controversy

Following the October 7 massacre, Albanese wrote that “violence must be put in context” and that the attack occurred in response to Israeli “aggression.”

Hamas murdered over 1,200 people during the attack, including children and foreign nationals. During their rampage through southern Israel, the terror group abducted over 250 people, including civilian women and children and foreign nationals.

The terror group used acts of sexual violence and torture both on the day of the massacre and as they continue to hold Israeli nationals captive, according to testimonies from released hostages and the autopsy results of hostages returned to Israel.
US pushes back against Albanese

In a 2014 Facebook post, she claimed, “America is subjugated by the Jewish Lobby,” according to a UN Watch report titled ‘Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing: Why Democracies Should Sanction UN Rapporteur Francesca Albanese.’

US Secretary of State Marco Rubioimposed sanctions on Albanese last month over her efforts to have the International Criminal Court take action against US and Israeli officials, companies, and executives.

“Albanese’s campaign of political and economic warfare against the United States and Israel will no longer be tolerated,” Rubio said.

The Trump administration has also called on the UN to remove Albanese from her position, alleging “virulent antisemitism and support for terrorism,” according to a letter obtained by The Washington Free Beacon.

Jerusalem Post Staff contributed to this report.