Trump signs sweeping package of tax breaks and spending cuts into law, achieving long-sought Republican priorities
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Miami Herald
44 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
Trump says he will start talks with China on TikTok deal
President Donald Trump late Friday said that the United States 'pretty much has a deal' for an American company to acquire the U.S. branch of TikTok, adding that he intended to restart talks next week with China to approve the deal. 'We're going to start Monday or Tuesday talking to China,' Trump told reporters traveling on Air Force One on Friday night as it headed to Bedminster, New Jersey. 'We think we probably have to get it approved by China. Not definitely, but probably.' He added, 'I think the deal is good for China, and it's good for us. It's money, it's a lot of money.' Trump did not say who the potential buyer was. The president said earlier in the week that he had found a buyer for the U.S. branch of TikTok, the popular Chinese-owned video app that faces a ban adopted by Congress over national security concerns. A 2024 law required that the app effectively be banned in the United States unless its parent company, ByteDance, sold it to a non-Chinese company. Congress was concerned that sensitive user data could end up in the hands of the Chinese government. It was not clear if the deal would comply with some of the requirements Congress adopted for a sale of TikTok, particularly if ByteDance chose not to share the app's algorithm with the U.S. buyers. Private equity firms have been hesitant to invest in a deal without some form of indemnification. Trump has declined to enforce the law banning the app, which was passed by large bipartisan majorities and unanimously upheld by the Supreme Court. Shortly after being sworn in, Trump issued an executive order directing the Justice Department to suspend enforcement of the TikTok ban and has since repeatedly extended it. Attorney General Pam Bondi has told tech companies that Trump has the constitutional power to effectively set aside laws. This article originally appeared in The New York Times. Copyright 2025
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
The Supreme Court stripped judges of a powerful tool to fight Trump's autocracy. Congress must give it back.
But now they can't. Based on the Supreme Court's reading of a 1789 law, lower courts can now only take such action on specific cases before them, meaning that even clear-cut violations of the law could continue against those without the wherewithal to go to court. Advertisement Congress can and must correct this mistake. Lawmakers should pass legislation that protects judges' ability to provide robust equitable remedies when people's rights are threatened by legally or constitutionally dubious administration actions. Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up Now, it's true that there have been problems with universal injunctions, and judges have sometimes misused them. But the court's ruling took a sledgehammer to a system that should have been fixed by Congress with a scalpel. And in the case of Trump, the ruling opens the door for him to strip birthright citizenship from American-born babies, continue whisking migrants to countries foreign to them with little notice and without due process, and engage in other actions that threaten people's rights and freedoms. Advertisement The court's 6-3 ideologically split opinion, authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, was based on the majority's interpretation of the Judiciary Act of 1789. The justices considered if the statute authorizes broad preliminary injunctions like that issued by Boston-based US District Court Justice Brian Murphy, which paused Trump's executive order to deny birthright citizenship to children born to some migrants. 'The answer is no,' Barrett wrote for the majority. Instead, the court held, challengers of the policy who have standing to bring suit can only obtain such preliminary relief for themselves. '[P]rohibiting enforcement of the Executive Order against the child of an individual pregnant plaintiff will give that plaintiff complete relief: Her child will not be denied citizenship,' Barrett wrote. 'And extending the injunction to cover everyone similarly situated would not render her relief any more complete.' This is untenable, and will only lead to a cruel game of judicial whack-a-mole that fails to provide adequate protection to those most imperiled by these policies. The onus should not fall on those who are targeted by these policies to fend for themselves. It should fall on the administration to show that it is acting in a lawful way. The court did just the opposite, holding that it is the administration that will likely suffer irreparable harm if courts dare to exercise their authority as a check on the executive. The overuse of universal injunctions has been an issue of increasing bipartisan concern, particularly since the Obama administration. In the last two decades, both the number of executive orders issued and the number of temporary injections blocking them have steadily ballooned. But the number of executive orders Trump has issued in his second term is without historical precedent, even exceeding Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who issued a flurry of edicts in an effort to implement his New Deal agenda. Advertisement And many of Trump's orders are based on strained legal or constitutional arguments, such as the administration's claim that the 14th Amendment's birthright citizenship protection only extended to children of enslaved people, that the Alien Enemies Act allows migrants to be deported without due process, or that the Immigration and Nationality Act allows the government to send migrants to countries where they've never been and to which they have no connection. Judges must have the ability to decide when relief extending beyond named plaintiffs is warranted. Should there be limits on that power? Yes, and Congress can include them in its bill. It can also underscore that states can still seek statewide relief from policies they can demonstrate harm all of their residents, and ease the process for class actions to be formed at the earliest stages of litigation to give relief to groups of people who demonstrate a need for protection. Judges handling the flurry of Trump-related litigation need more tools, not fewer. It's lawmakers' duty to give those tools to them. The Supreme Court must also swiftly take up and decide the constitutional and legal questions presented by Trump's orders. The justices could have rejected the Trump administration's erroneously limited reading of the 14th Amendment's birthright citizenship protections, but opted instead to leave that question for another day. But given the risks of the order, there is no time like the present. And in the meantime, federal judges must do all they can to help challengers who will be harmed by Trump's policies. The Supreme Court did not tie judges' hands completely when it comes to equitable relief. Quick certification of class actions and swiftly granting relief to states that demonstrate the peril to their residents are among the arrows still in judges' quivers. They must use them. Advertisement We are not as bound or doomed by history as the Supreme Court's justices believe. The public needs to demand that members of the legislative and judiciary branches stand up and reclaim their powers to check a president who believes he is above the law and the Constitution. Editorials represent the views of the Boston Globe Editorial Board. Follow us
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Idorsia Ltd's (VTX:IDIA) 15% gain last week benefited both retail investors who own 48% as well as insiders
Idorsia's significant retail investors ownership suggests that the key decisions are influenced by shareholders from the larger public A total of 11 investors have a majority stake in the company with 50% ownership Insider ownership in Idorsia is 28% Trump has pledged to "unleash" American oil and gas and these 15 US stocks have developments that are poised to benefit. A look at the shareholders of Idorsia Ltd (VTX:IDIA) can tell us which group is most powerful. We can see that retail investors own the lion's share in the company with 48% ownership. That is, the group stands to benefit the most if the stock rises (or lose the most if there is a downturn). Following a 15% increase in the stock price last week, retail investors profited the most, but insiders who own 28% stock also stood to gain from the increase. Let's take a closer look to see what the different types of shareholders can tell us about Idorsia. See our latest analysis for Idorsia Institutional investors commonly compare their own returns to the returns of a commonly followed index. So they generally do consider buying larger companies that are included in the relevant benchmark index. Idorsia already has institutions on the share registry. Indeed, they own a respectable stake in the company. This implies the analysts working for those institutions have looked at the stock and they like it. But just like anyone else, they could be wrong. It is not uncommon to see a big share price drop if two large institutional investors try to sell out of a stock at the same time. So it is worth checking the past earnings trajectory of Idorsia, (below). Of course, keep in mind that there are other factors to consider, too. We note that hedge funds don't have a meaningful investment in Idorsia. Our data shows that Jean-Paul Clozel is the largest shareholder with 19% of shares outstanding. Idorsia Pharmaceuticals Ltd. is the second largest shareholder owning 11% of common stock, and Martine Clozel holds about 6.3% of the company stock. After doing some more digging, we found that the top 11 have the combined ownership of 50% in the company, suggesting that no single shareholder has significant control over the company. While it makes sense to study institutional ownership data for a company, it also makes sense to study analyst sentiments to know which way the wind is blowing. There is a little analyst coverage of the stock, but not much. So there is room for it to gain more coverage. While the precise definition of an insider can be subjective, almost everyone considers board members to be insiders. Company management run the business, but the CEO will answer to the board, even if he or she is a member of it. Insider ownership is positive when it signals leadership are thinking like the true owners of the company. However, high insider ownership can also give immense power to a small group within the company. This can be negative in some circumstances. It seems insiders own a significant proportion of Idorsia Ltd. It has a market capitalization of just CHF473m, and insiders have CHF134m worth of shares in their own names. We would say this shows alignment with shareholders, but it is worth noting that the company is still quite small; some insiders may have founded the business. You can click here to see if those insiders have been buying or selling. With a 48% ownership, the general public, mostly comprising of individual investors, have some degree of sway over Idorsia. While this group can't necessarily call the shots, it can certainly have a real influence on how the company is run. It seems that Private Companies own 11%, of the Idorsia stock. It might be worth looking deeper into this. If related parties, such as insiders, have an interest in one of these private companies, that should be disclosed in the annual report. Private companies may also have a strategic interest in the company. I find it very interesting to look at who exactly owns a company. But to truly gain insight, we need to consider other information, too. Be aware that Idorsia is showing 4 warning signs in our investment analysis , and 3 of those are significant... If you are like me, you may want to think about whether this company will grow or shrink. Luckily, you can check this free report showing analyst forecasts for its future. NB: Figures in this article are calculated using data from the last twelve months, which refer to the 12-month period ending on the last date of the month the financial statement is dated. This may not be consistent with full year annual report figures. — Investing narratives with Fair Values Suncorp's Next Chapter: Insurance-Only and Ready to Grow By Robbo – Community Contributor Fair Value Estimated: A$22.83 · 0.1% Overvalued Thyssenkrupp Nucera Will Achieve Double-Digit Profits by 2030 Boosted by Hydrogen Growth By Chris1 – Community Contributor Fair Value Estimated: €14.40 · 0.3% Overvalued Tesla's Nvidia Moment – The AI & Robotics Inflection Point By BlackGoat – Community Contributor Fair Value Estimated: $359.72 · 0.1% Overvalued View more featured narratives — Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? Get in touch with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team (at) article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. We provide commentary based on historical data and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended to be financial advice. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned.
