Trump is tough on the world stage. And it pays dividends.

Now China handed Trump a huge win that proved everyone wrong.

Trump’s Diplomatic Triumph in U.S.-China Trade Talks

President Donald Trump showcased his deal-making prowess in a productive 90-minute phone call with Chinese President Xi Jinping on Thursday, navigating complex trade tensions to secure a positive outcome for both nations.

The conversation, which Trump described as “very good” on Truth Social, underscores his administration’s commitment to strengthening America’s economic position while fostering diplomatic ties with Beijing.

“I just concluded a very good phone call with President Xi, of China, discussing some of the intricacies of our recently made, and agreed to, Trade Deal,” Trump wrote, adding, “The call lasted approximately one and a half hours, and resulted in a very positive conclusion for both Countries.” This call marks a significant step forward in resolving recent trade disputes, reinforcing Trump’s leadership on the global stage.

Resolving Trade Deal Challenges with China

The discussion, which Trump said focused “almost entirely” on trade, came after a turbulent week in U.S.-China relations.

On Friday, Trump accused China of failing to uphold a May trade agreement, posting on Truth Social, “The bad news is that China, perhaps not surprisingly to some, HAS TOTALLY VIOLATED ITS AGREEMENT WITH US. So much for being Mr. NICE GUY!”

U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer echoed this sentiment, telling CNBC, “The United States did exactly what it was supposed to do, and the Chinese are slow-rolling their compliance, which is completely unacceptable and has to be addressed.”

The agreement had reduced U.S. tariffs on Chinese imports from 145% to 30% and Chinese tariffs on U.S. imports from 125% to 10%, but China’s delay in lifting non-tariff barriers sparked friction.

Despite these challenges, Trump’s Thursday call with Xi yielded progress, with the president announcing during an Oval Office press briefing alongside German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, “We had a very good talk, and we’ve straightened out any complexity, and it’s very complex stuff, and we straightened it out. I think we’re in very good shape with China and the trade deal.”

Strengthening Ties and Strategic Vetting

Beyond trade, the call opened avenues for diplomacy, with Xi inviting Trump and First Lady Melania Trump to visit China, an invitation Trump reciprocated to Xi and his wife, Peng Liyuan.

This exchange highlights Trump’s ability to balance tough economic negotiations with gestures of goodwill, even as his administration intensifies scrutiny of national security concerns, including cracking down on Chinese student visas. Addressing this issue, Trump clarified his stance on Thursday, saying, “We want to have foreign students, but we want them to be checked.”

His measured approach ensures robust vetting while keeping America open to global talent, aligning with his broader agenda to protect U.S. interests.

With the trade deal’s complexities resolved, Trump confidently stated, “We have a deal with China, as you know, but we were straightening out some of the points… I would say we have a deal, and we’re going to just make sure that everybody understands what the deal is,” cementing his vision for a fair and prosperous U.S.-China economic relationship.

Trump has been in and out of court for years. But he’s finally been given some relief.

And now a federal judge sided with Trump in a massive ruling Democrats weren’t expecting.

Trump Secures Court Victory Over DNC Lawsuit

In a notable win for President Donald Trump, a federal judge on Tuesday dismissed a lawsuit from the Democratic National Committee (DNC) that claimed his executive orders jeopardized the independence of the Federal Election Commission (FEC).

The ruling, delivered by U.S. District Judge Amir Ali, a Biden appointee, marks a rare judicial triumph for the Trump administration, which has faced numerous legal challenges since taking office.

The decision reinforces the administration’s authority to implement executive actions without immediate judicial interference, spotlighting the DNC’s failure to meet the legal threshold for their claims.

Judge Rejects DNC’s Speculative Claims

Judge Ali’s ruling centered on the DNC’s inability to prove “concrete and imminent injury” required for a preliminary injunction.

The lawsuit, filed just 10 days after Trump signed the “Ensuring Accountability for All Agencies” executive order on February 18, 2025, alleged that the order threatened the FEC’s independence by potentially allowing the executive branch to influence campaign regulations.

Ali stated, “The possibility that the president and attorney general would take the extraordinary step of issuing a directive to the FEC or its Commissioners purporting to bind their interpretation of FECA is not sufficiently concrete and imminent to create Article III injury.”

He further noted that no evidence suggested the Trump administration had taken steps to alter or undermine the FEC’s role in interpreting federal election law, dismissing the DNC’s concerns as overly speculative.

Implications for FEC Independence and Future Challenges

The DNC’s lawsuit argued that the FEC, as an independent regulatory agency, must remain free from executive overreach to maintain the integrity of election oversight.

The party warned that the credibility of the regulatory system would be “fatally undermined if the party controlling the White House can unilaterally structure campaign rules and adjudicate disputes to disadvantage its electoral competitors.”

However, Ali’s ruling emphasized the lack of tangible actions by the Trump administration to encroach on the FEC’s autonomy. He left the door open for future litigation, stating, “This Court’s doors are open to the parties if changed circumstances show concrete action or impact on the FEC’s or its Commissioners’ independence.”

For now, the dismissal bolsters Trump’s efforts to streamline federal agency operations, aligning with his broader agenda to enhance executive oversight while facing opposition from Democrats wary of potential abuses of power.

Activist judges are getting out of hand. And now they’re flexing their muscle.

Because this federal judge hit Trump with a massive setback for the most ridiculous reason imaginable.

Federal Judge Blocks Trump’s Order on Transgender Prison Procedures

In a significant setback for President Donald Trump’s agenda, U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth in Washington, D.C., issued a sweeping injunction on Tuesday, halting the administration’s executive order to end taxpayer-funded transgender procedures for federal prisoners.

The ruling, which grants class-action status to a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), underscores the ongoing judicial resistance to Trump’s policies.

The ACLU’s lawsuit, initially brought on behalf of three transgender-identifying inmates, now represents over 1,000 prisoners seeking to maintain access to taxpayer-funded clothing, hormones, and other gender-affirming treatments.

Judicial Overreach or Legitimate Concern?

Judge Lamberth’s 36-page ruling criticized the Trump administration’s approach, arguing that neither the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) nor the executive order provided sufficient justification for treating gender-affirming care differently from other mental health interventions.

“In light of the plaintiffs’ largely personal motives for undergoing gender-affirming care, neither the BOP nor the Executive Order provides any serious explanation as to why the treatment modalities covered by the Executive Order or implementing memoranda should be handled differently than any other mental health intervention,” Lamberth wrote.

He further noted, “[N]othing in the thin record before the Court suggests that either the BOP or the President consciously took stock of — much less studied — the potentially debilitating effects that the new policies could have on transgender inmates before the implementing memoranda came into force.” Critics of the ruling argue it exemplifies judicial overreach, as the decision extends far beyond the original scope of the case, impacting federal prison policy nationwide.

Trump’s Bold Stance on Biological Reality

President Trump, who has prioritized restoring clarity to federal policies on gender, issued an executive order on January 20, 2025, affirming that the administration recognizes only two genders—male and female—based on biological reality.

The order explicitly directed, “The Attorney General shall ensure that the Bureau of Prisons revises its policies concerning medical care to be consistent with this order, and shall ensure that no Federal funds are expended for any medical procedure, treatment, or drug for the purpose of conforming an inmate’s appearance to that of the opposite s*x.”

This directive aligns with Trump’s broader campaign to reject what he calls “ideologues who deny the biological reality of s*x,” aiming to protect taxpayer resources and ensure prison policies prioritize safety and fairness, particularly for female inmates.

White House Defends Women’s Safety

The White House swiftly responded to the ruling, highlighting its potential risks to female prisoners.

A statement reported by Fox News declared, “The decision allowing transgender women, aka MEN, in women’s prisons fundamentally makes women less safe and ignores the biological truth that there are only two genders. The Trump administration looks forward to ultimate victory on this issue in court.”

Supporters of Trump’s policy argue that allowing biological males in women’s facilities, under the guise of gender-affirming care, compromises the safety and privacy of female inmates. The administration’s stance reflects a commitment to restoring common-sense policies that prioritize biological distinctions and protect vulnerable populations in federal custody.

Courts as a Battleground for Trump’s Agenda

The ruling marks another instance of federal courts challenging Trump’s policy initiatives, a trend that has become a significant hurdle for his administration.

Just last week, a court intervened in the administration’s efforts to curb new international student enrollments at Harvard University, temporarily blocking the Department of Homeland Security’s actions.

These judicial setbacks highlight the courts’ role as a battleground for opponents of Trump’s agenda, with groups like the ACLU leveraging lawsuits to stall or reverse his policies. Despite these challenges, the Trump administration remains steadfast, with officials expressing confidence in overturning Lamberth’s ruling on appeal, signaling a continued fight to implement their vision for federal prison policy and beyond.

The FBI under Biden was weaponized beyond recognition. But this is truly staggering.

And now an unprecedented FBI bombshell could send dozens to jail.

FBI’s Anti-Catholic Memo Reached Over 1,000 Employees Nationwide

A whistleblower’s leak exposed an FBI memo from the Richmond field office, circulated to over 1,000 employees across multiple field offices, targeting traditional Catholics as potential threats.

Documents obtained by Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-IA, reveal the memo’s broad dissemination before it ever reached the public.

Grassley’s findings, announced in a June 3, 2025, press release, highlight the FBI’s reliance on questionable sources and biased terminology in its scrutiny of Catholic communities.

Multiple Field Offices and Biased Sources Fueled the Controversy

Grassley uncovered that the Richmond memo was not an isolated effort. The FBI’s Louisville, Portland, and Milwaukee field offices were consulted during its creation, gathering data on Catholic traditionalist groups.

The memo included a slide presentation labeling “Radical Traditionalist Catholics” (RTCs) with “core concepts” like “conservative family values/roles” and comparing their beliefs to “Islamist ideology.”

Additionally, Grassley revealed the FBI produced at least 13 other documents and five attachments using anti-Catholic language, drawing from the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), a group criticized for its far-left bias.

A second anti-Catholic memo, intended for agency-wide distribution, was drafted but shelved after public backlash over the initial leak.

Calls for Accountability and First Amendment Concerns

CatholicVote Cofounder Joshua Mercer condemned the FBI’s actions as a “frontal assault on the First Amendment,” noting that the agency’s efforts involved monitoring Catholic churches, schools, and dioceses as “potential domestic terrorists.”

Mercer highlighted that the FBI’s coordination spanned at least four field offices, including Los Angeles, and relied on the SPLC, which he called an “anti-Catholic hate group.”

Grassley’s June 2, 2025, letter to FBI Director Kash Patel criticized former Director Christopher Wray’s misleading testimony, which downplayed the memo as a “single product” that was “withdrawn.”

Grassley revealed a second draft report, a Strategic Perspective Executive Analytic Report (SPEAR), was circulated internally but deleted after public outcry.

Patel, who vowed during his January 2025 confirmation hearing to address this misconduct, faces calls from Grassley and CatholicVote to identify those responsible, recover deleted files, and halt any ongoing surveillance of Catholics.

The Left is having a rough go of it. And it’s only getting worse.

Now AOC and Ilhan Omar were dragged out of hiding for this utterly humiliating reason.

Progressive Democrats’ Response to Boulder Attack Raises Questions

In the wake of a horrific antisemitic terrorist attack in Boulder, Colorado, where an Egyptian national set fire to peaceful protesters demanding the return of Israeli hostages, progressive Democrats issued statements condemning the violence.

However, their responses come amid scrutiny of their past actions and the broader Democratic Party’s approach to issues like immigration and national security, which critics argue may have contributed to such incidents.

Selective Outrage or Genuine Condemnation?

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., a potential 2028 presidential contender, posted on X: “I am horrified by last night’s horrific attack in Boulder. My heart is with the victims and our Jewish communities across the country. Antisemitism is on the rise here at home, and we have a moral responsibility to confront and stop it everywhere it exists.”

Yet, critics point to her party’s lenient border policies as a potential factor in enabling such attacks.

Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., who was removed from the House Foreign Affairs Committee in 2023 and faced a censure resolution in 2024 for alleged antisemitic remarks, stated, “I’m holding the victims and families in Boulder, Colorado in my heart. Violence against anyone is never acceptable.”

Similarly, Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., censured in 2023 for anti-Israel comments, said, “The violent attack in Boulder is horrific. My heart goes out to all of the victims and their families.” Some question the sincerity of these statements, given their controversial histories.

Newer Democrats like Rep. Greg Casar, D-Texas, and Rep. Delia C. Ramirez, D-Ill., both elected in 2022, also decried the attack. Casar wrote, “I am horrified by the antisemitic attack in Boulder, Colorado. My thoughts are with the victims, their families, and Jewish communities across the country.”

Ramirez added, “Yesterday’s antisemitic attack against those in Boulder, CO calling for the safe return of hostages is deplorable and heartbreaking,” while linking violence in Gaza to domestic incidents—a stance critics argue muddies the waters.

Political Context and Missed Opportunities

Rep. Maxwell Frost, D-Fla., the first Gen-Z congressman, admitted regret for not supporting a 2023 resolution condemning antisemitism on college campuses, stating, “I’m horrified to hear about the antisemitic attack in Boulder, just weeks after the shooting of two Israeli embassy officials in DC.”

Rep. Ayanna Pressley, D-Mass., called the attack “horrifying and unacceptable,” but pivoted to criticize President Trump’s deportation policies, saying, “Donald Trump wants to sow fear & chaos in our communities so we feel alone & defeated — but we won’t let him.”

Critics argue this deflects from the failures of Democratic policies, like lax vetting of immigrants, which allowed the attacker—a 45-year-old Egyptian whose visa expired in March—to remain in the country.

Meanwhile, Rep. Summer Lee, D-Pa., has remained silent on the attack, with her office offering no comment, raising questions about the consistency of the “Squad’s” response to antisemitism.

The Left requires absolute conformity. There is no room for differing opinions.

And now a Leading Democrat Senator caused a massive rift after breaking ranks with the Democrat Party.

Defying Party Norms with Bold Convictions

Sen. John Fetterman, Pennsylvania’s Democratic trailblazer, continues to forge a distinctive path in the Senate by fearlessly challenging his party’s conventions.

In a recent Fox News forum moderated by Shannon Bream alongside Republican Sen. Dave McCormick, Fetterman highlighted his readiness to collaborate across the aisle on complex issues like Iran nuclear talks and rare earth minerals agreements with Ukraine.

He acknowledged the challenges of his approach, stating, “That’s part of the bipartisanship where, you know, it’s getting more and more kind of, punitive to just agree with some of these things in the middle of the party right now.”

His alignment with certain Trump policies and his subtle critique of Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer’s approach to the government funding fight earlier this year emphasize his independent spirit.

Standing Firm on Israel and Border Security

Fetterman’s resolute positions on Israel and immigration distinguish him from many Democrats.

Condemning a recent attack in Boulder, Colorado, he criticized his party for faltering on antisemitism, asserting, “For me, that moral clarity, it’s really firmly on Israel. I refuse to allow to try to turn Israel into a pariah state, and that’s right in the middle of that.”

On immigration, he endorses substantial Republican-backed investments, including over $150 billion for Trump’s border wall, ICE, and new detention facilities.

“That’s a mistake that our party made, and that’s the border,” he said. “I absolutely support those kinds of investments to make our border secure as well.”

Fetterman also highlighted the Biden administration’s lenient border policies, stating, “We can all agree that’s wrong,” while affirming that his pro-immigration values remain steadfast despite clashing with his party’s base.

Embracing Leadership Amid Criticism

Fetterman’s bold bipartisanship has sparked scrutiny, with reports of erratic behavior, missed votes, and staff departures prompting the Philadelphia Inquirer to suggest he “step aside.”

Rejecting these as a “smear,” Fetterman linked the criticism to his stances on Israel, the border, and his cross-party efforts, saying, “It’s just part of a smear, and it’s just not accurate.” His commitment to principled leadership shone through when addressing the government funding showdown, where he opposed Schumer’s push for a shutdown.

“I refuse to ever shut our government down,” he said. “And when we have that opportunity in September to do that, I will still be there, and … I’ll take the beating, because that’s, I think, what defines leadership.”

Fetterman’s dedication to finding common ground, particularly on fiscal responsibility and border security, reflects his resolve to lead despite political pushback.

Joe Biden did plenty of damage to this country. But this may be the most egregious thing.

Now James Comer teed up a court showdown over this key Biden policy.

Unveiling the Autopen Controversy: A Challenge to Biden’s Legacy

The autopen scandal revolves around allegations that former President Joe Biden may not have personally signed key executive orders during his final days in office, with an autopen—a machine that replicates a signature—used instead, potentially without his full knowledge or authorization.

This raises questions about the legality and validity of those orders, particularly as they were designed to cement Biden’s policies and hinder the incoming Trump administration.

The House Oversight Committee, led by Rep. James Comer (R-KY), is investigating whether Biden was aware of or cognitively capable of authorizing the autopen’s use, or if aides acted independently, possibly under external influence.

The probe has sparked debate about the integrity of Biden’s late-term actions, with Comer suggesting that any misuse of the autopen could lead to the orders being struck down in court, easing the path for Trump’s agenda.

Autopen Allegations Threaten Biden’s Executive Orders

Rep. James Comer (R-KY), spearheading the House Oversight Committee’s probe, has cast doubt on the legitimacy of former President Joe Biden’s final executive orders, hinting that they could be invalidated if evidence shows Biden was unaware of their autopen signatures.

“If we uncover proof that Joe Biden was in the dark about these orders being signed in his name, they’re likely to be tossed out in court,” Comer declared on Fox News’s Sunday Morning Futures.

The investigation zeros in on whether Biden, in his waning days as president, had the mental acuity to greenlight the use of an autopen—a device that can replicate a signature with proper authorization—or if his aides overstepped, potentially undermining the legal standing of those orders.

Biden’s Aides Under Scrutiny for Autopen Use

At the heart of the investigation are five former Biden aides, now facing intense scrutiny over their role in deploying the autopen for executive orders meant to “Trump-proof” the administration’s policies.

Comer’s committee is digging into whether these aides acted on Biden’s direct orders or if they were following someone else’s directives, raising concerns about unchecked power within the Biden White House.

“Each of these aides has lawyered up, and their attorneys are already engaging with us,” Comer noted, signaling that the probe is heating up.

He hasn’t ruled out issuing subpoenas for high-profile figures like Biden himself, former first lady Jill Biden, or former chief of staff Ron Klain to get answers, with an update on the investigation expected soon.

Record-Breaking Pardons Fuel the Controversy

A significant portion of Biden’s last-minute executive orders involved an unprecedented wave of clemency, with over 4,200 pardons, commutations, and clemencies issued in his final days—setting a presidential record.

These actions, Comer argues, were part of a broader effort to lock in Biden’s agenda and obstruct the incoming Trump administration.

“These orders were crafted to make it harder for Trump to execute his plans,” Comer said, emphasizing that any evidence of improper autopen use could render them legally vulnerable.

The scale of these pardons has only intensified the committee’s resolve to determine whether Biden was fully aware of the actions taken in his name, casting a shadow over his administration’s final chapter.

The world stage is a dangerous place. Political threats are backed up with force.

And now Trump was completely blindsided by a shocking betrayal by this foreign leader.

Ukraine’s Bold Drone Strike Catches Trump Admin Off Guard

Ukraine’s audacious drone strikes deep inside Russia, obliterating dozens of nuclear “doomsday” bombers and other aircraft, were executed without prior notice to the Trump administration, according to CBS and Axios.

The covert operation, planned for over a year, involved smuggling drones into Russia to target strategic assets like TU-95 “Bear” nuclear bombers and A-50 “Mainstay” jets, as reported by the Kyiv Independent.

While the attack showcased Ukraine’s tactical prowess, the lack of communication with the White House raises questions about coordination with President Trump, who has been tirelessly pushing for peace in the region.

The White House, focused on diplomacy, did not respond to requests for comment on Sunday.

Trump’s Push for Peace Amid Zelensky Tensions

President Trump, spotted enjoying a golf outing with Bryson DeChambeau in Virginia on Sunday, has been vocal about his strained relationship with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

Their public clash on February 28, where Trump bluntly stated Ukraine has “no cards” to play against Russia, underscores his frustration with Zelensky’s approach.

Trump’s candid social media posts have pointedly blamed both Zelensky and Putin for prolonging the war, emphasizing, “This isn’t my war. This is Biden’s war, Zelensky’s war, and Putin’s war. This isn’t Trump’s war.”

His focus on brokering a ceasefire—already accepted by Ukraine but not Russia—highlights his commitment to ending the conflict, even as Ukraine’s surprise attack might complicate his diplomatic efforts.

Trump’s Restraint Contrasts with Congressional Push for Sanctions

As Russia intensifies its brutal assaults on Ukrainian cities like Kyiv, Trump has publicly condemned Vladimir Putin’s “absolutely CRAZY” actions, warning that Putin is “playing with fire” by resisting peace talks.

Despite this, Trump’s measured approach—avoiding new sanctions during delicate negotiations—reflects his strategic focus on de-escalation.

Meanwhile, bipartisan voices in Congress, including Senators Lindsey Graham and Richard Blumenthal, are pushing for tougher sanctions and more military aid to Ukraine, which has already received $66.9 billion in U.S. military support and over $175 billion in total aid since 2022.

Biden has been tucked away God knows where. But now he’s telling all.

And Joe Biden broke his silence to issue a direct and violent threat.

Dodging Serious Questions with Jokes

At a Memorial Day event in Delaware, Joe Biden sarcastically addressed accusations of cognitive decline raised in the book “Original Sin: President Biden’s Decline, Its Cover-up, and His Disastrous Choice to Run Again,” released May 20, 2025, by CNN’s Jake Tapper and Axios’ Alex Thompson.

“You can see that I’m mentally incompetent, I can’t walk,” Biden quipped to reporters, adding, “And I could beat the hell out of both of them,” seemingly targeting the authors.

The book alleges Biden struggled to form coherent sentences for campaign ads, relied on heavily scripted cabinet meetings, and that his team orchestrated a cover-up to conceal his deteriorating mental faculties.

These claims are bolstered by leaked audio from an October 2023 interview with former Special Counsel Robert Hur, where Biden slurred words and appeared to forget the year his son died, raising further doubts about his competence.

Biden’s Team Defends a Questionable Record

Biden’s camp has scrambled to counter the damaging narrative laid out in “Original Sin.” A spokesperson told Fox News Digital, “There is nothing in this book that shows Joe Biden failed to do his job, as the authors have alleged, nor did they prove their allegation that there was a cover up or conspiracy.”

They added, “Nowhere do they show that our national security was threatened or where the President wasn’t otherwise engaged in the important matters of the Presidency. In fact, Joe Biden was an effective President who led our country with empathy and skill.”

However, these defenses ring hollow against mounting evidence from multiple books this year detailing Biden’s mental struggles, which critics argue compromised his leadership and endangered national interests during his presidency.

Health Concerns Overshadow Memorial Day Tribute

Biden’s appearance at the Delaware Commission of Veteran Affairs’ Memorial Day event was meant to honor fallen service members, but his health and past performance took center stage. He revealed on May 18, 2025, an “aggressive form” of prostate cancer, stating, “My expectation is we’re going to be able to beat this,” while undergoing treatment with a pill.

During the event, he said, “We come together and remember the debt we owe to the American military,” and noted, “The military is a solid spine, the spine of our nation. Our troops, our veterans, our military families, and our Gold Star families in particular. Only around 1% of all Americans defend 99% of us — 1%. Just 1% of Americans risk the ultimate sacrifice. We owe them so much more than we can ever repay them.”

Yet, the gravity of his tribute was overshadowed by ongoing questions about his mental and physical capacity, fueled by reports that his administration may have hidden the extent of his decline.

Biden’s attempt to deflect serious allegations with humor and his team’s defensive posture do little to quell concerns about his mental fitness, casting a shadow over his Memorial Day tribute and raising questions about his legacy as president.

There is a paradigm shift underway. And it’s all coming to a head.

Now a China-America showdown is heating up after a desperate call for reinforcements.

Navigating a Stalled U.S.-China Trade Dialogue

Following a 90-day tariff truce agreed upon earlier this month in Switzerland, discussions for a lasting trade agreement between the U.S. and China have slowed.

“I would say that they are a bit stalled,” Bessent said during an interview with Fox News “Special Report” host Bret Baier.

He expressed optimism about future progress, noting, “I believe that we will be having more talks with them in the next few weeks, and I believe we may at some point have a call between the president and party chair [Xi Jinping].”

Bessent emphasized the complexity of the negotiations, stating, “I think that, given the magnitude of the talks, given the complexity – this is going to require both leaders to weigh in with each other.” He added, “They have a very good relationship, and I am confident that the Chinese will come to the table when President Trump makes his preferences known.”

The truce reduced U.S. tariffs on most Chinese goods from 145% to 30% and China’s tariffs from 125% to 10%, with a mechanism for continued talks toward a permanent deal, as confirmed by the White House.

Advancing Trade Agreements with Other Nations

While U.S.-China talks have slowed, Bessent highlighted significant progress in negotiations with other countries. “There are a couple of very large deals that are close. A couple of them are more complicated,” he told Baier.

He pointed to the European Union’s rapid response to President Trump’s recent tariff threats as a sign of momentum, noting, “And as we saw with the president’s threat of 50% tariffs last Friday, the EU came to the table very quickly over the weekend – so now we’ve got the EU in motion also.”

Bessent also mentioned an upcoming meeting, stating, “As a matter of fact, I have a very large Japanese delegation coming to my office first thing tomorrow morning.”

These developments suggest the Trump administration is actively pursuing multiple trade agreements to strengthen global economic ties, even as challenges persist with China.

Overcoming Legal Hurdles in Tariff Policy

On Wednesday, May 28, 2025, the Court of International Trade ruled that President Trump exceeded his authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act by imposing a 10% flat duty on dozens of countries, alongside 25% tariffs on Canada and Mexico and 20% on China, in response to illegal fentanyl trafficking.

However, a federal appeals court stayed the ruling on Thursday, allowing the White House to appeal. Bessent downplayed the impact of the legal dispute on ongoing trade negotiations, stating, “We’ve seen no change in [US trading partner] attitude in the past 48 hours.”

He emphasized continued engagement with international partners, particularly noting the scheduled Japanese delegation visit, signaling that trade discussions remain robust despite the court’s decision.

The Trump administration’s trade strategy continues to balance challenges with China, legal disputes, and promising negotiations with other global partners, aiming to reshape U.S. economic relationships.

The Left can’t catch a break. And it’s only getting worse.

Now an appeals court slapped Democrats with a devastating loss they never saw coming.

Trump’s Tariff Vision Faces Judicial Pushback

President Trump’s aggressive tariff policies, aimed at leveling the playing field for American workers, hit a judicial roadblock when the Manhattan-based Court of International Trade ruled that he overstepped his authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.

The court blocked 6.7 percentage points of the levies, including a 10% duty on dozens of countries, 25% tariffs on Canada and Mexico, and 20% on China to combat illegal fentanyl trafficking, giving the White House 10 days to roll them back.

However, on Thursday, a full 11-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a stay, preserving Trump’s tariffs pending a White House appeal.

White House trade adviser Peter Navarro dismissed concerns about the pause, stating, “The pause will not affect the negotiations in any way if people out there in the world simply look at the court decision.” He emphasized Trump’s authority, noting, “The court was clear, as I said, that [the] President has broad authority to impose tariffs.” This resilience underscores Trump’s determination to maintain pressure on trading partners, reinforcing his America-first trade stance.

Defending Executive Power and Economic Strategy

The White House swiftly condemned the lower court’s ruling as an overreach, with press secretary Karoline Leavitt accusing the judges of “brazenly abus[ing] their judicial power to usurp the authority of President Trump to stop him from carrying out the mandate that the American people gave him.”

She warned that the decision was “threatening to undermine the credibility of the United States on the world stage” and affirmed that “the administration has already filed an emergency motion for a stay pending appeal and an immediate administrative stay to strike down this egregious decision.”

Leavitt called on the Supreme Court to intervene, stating, “Ultimately, the Supreme Court must put an end to this for the sake of our Constitution and our country.” White House spokesman Kush Desai echoed this sentiment, arguing that unfair trade practices have “decimated American communities, left our workers behind and weakened our defense industrial base – facts that the court did not dispute.”

Trump’s team remains confident, with Navarro noting that countries are already responding, saying, “This morning, we were getting plenty of phone calls from countries saying, ‘We saw the rule,’ and so what we’re going to continue to [do is] negotiate in good faith.” This defiance highlights Trump’s unwavering commitment to using tariffs as a tool to restore economic strength.

Market Resilience and Alternative Paths Forward

Despite the judicial back-and-forth, Wall Street remained unfazed, with the Dow Jones Industrial Average climbing 117 points, the Nasdaq gaining nearly 75 points, and the S&P 500 rising over 23 points on Thursday.

Analysts like Morgan Stanley’s Michael Zezas suggested Trump’s tariffs are far from defeated, noting, “The tariff levels that we had yesterday are probably going to be the tariff levels that we have tomorrow, because there are so many different authorities the administration can reach into to put it back together.” He added that Trump’s power to “raise and escalate — it might be a little bit slower moving, but it is still there.”

Goldman Sachs’ Alec Phillips called the ruling “a setback for the administration’s tariff plans and increases uncertainty but might not change the final outcome for most major US trading partners,” predicting that “for now, we expect the Trump administration will find other ways to impose tariffs.”

The administration signaled reluctance to pivot immediately to alternative methods, with National Economic Council director Kevin Hassett telling Fox Business Network, “There are different approaches that would take a couple of months, but we’re not planning to pursue those right now because we’re very, very confident that this really is incorrect.”

Despite warnings from economists about potential inflation—evidenced by price hikes like Samsung DU7200 TVs rising to $427 from $400 and Xbox Series X jumping to $600 from $500—Phillips noted that the tariffs’ projected $200 billion in annual revenue, close to the deficit increase from a recent Republican tax bill, remains viable.

Capital markets analyst Adam Kobeissi estimated that $10 billion in tariff revenue has been collected since Trump’s April 2 “Liberation Day” announcement, underscoring the policy’s tangible impact.

The war in Ukraine is a meat grinder. And it’s only going to get worse if something doesn’t change.

Now Donald Trump handed Vladimir Putin a sobering ultimatum that left everyone holding their breath.

Trump’s Ultimatum to Putin

President Trump is applying intense pressure on Vladimir Putin to demonstrate genuine commitment to ending the war in Ukraine.

Speaking to reporters in the Oval Office on Wednesday, Trump issued a clear deadline, stating, “We’re going to find out whether or not he’s tapping us along or not, and if he is, we’ll respond a little bit differently, but it will take about a week and a half to two weeks.”

His skepticism about Putin’s intentions was evident when asked if he believed the Russian leader wanted peace, responding, “I can’t tell you that, but I’ll let you know in about two weeks.”

Trump’s frustration stems from recent Russian aggression, including a barrage of missile and drone attacks, which he condemned, saying, “When I see rockets being shot into cities, that’s no good. We aren’t going to allow it.”

This firm stance underscores Trump’s determination to hold Putin accountable, positioning him as a leader unwilling to tolerate delays or deception in the pursuit of peace.

Moscow’s Mixed Signals and Military Moves

Despite Trump’s efforts to broker a ceasefire, the Kremlin’s response has been evasive. On Thursday, spokesman Dmitry Peskov stated that Putin has no plans to speak with Trump, even as Russian forces captured three more villages in eastern Ukraine.

This battlefield push contrasts sharply with Putin’s claim last week that he’d agreed to work with Kyiv on a memorandum to establish a peace accord, including the timing of a ceasefire.

Russia insists it is drafting its version of the memorandum but offered no timeline, raising doubts about its sincerity.

Ukraine’s foreign ministry spokesman, Heorhii Tykhyi, criticized this delay on X, writing, “The Russians’ fear of sending their ‘memorandum’ to Ukraine suggests that it is likely filled with unrealistic ultimatums, and they are afraid of revealing that they are stalling the peace process.”

Trump’s growing impatience with Putin, whom he recently accused of having “gone absolutely CRAZY” and “playing with fire” by refusing to engage in peace talks, highlights the Kremlin’s apparent reluctance to match Trump’s diplomatic urgency with concrete action.

A Test of Trump’s Diplomatic Resolve

Trump’s recent interactions with Putin reveal both his optimism for a deal and his readiness to confront obstruction.

After a two-hour conversation with the Russian leader last week, Trump believed he had secured an agreement to kickstart ceasefire negotiations immediately, only to be met with Russia’s most severe military assault on Ukraine to date.

This betrayal prompted Trump to express that he was “very disappointed” with Moscow’s actions, reinforcing his earlier warning that Putin was “playing with fire” by stonewalling peace efforts.

Trump’s approach blends tough rhetoric with a commitment to diplomacy, aiming to prevent further escalation while keeping pressure on Russia.

His proactive stance contrasts with the Kremlin’s vague promises and Ukraine’s concerns about unrealistic demands in the memorandum.

As Trump awaits Russia’s next move within his tight timeline, his leadership in navigating this crisis could prove pivotal in determining whether diplomacy prevails or the conflict deepens.