Пятнадцать байтов на стек от конца

Authored by Alex Wu via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

After the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Feb. 20 that President Donald Trump’s global tariffs implemented under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) were unlawful, analysts told The Epoch Times that it won’t affect U.S. trade relations with China, as there are other legal options for the Trump administration to impose levies.

By a vote of 6–3, the court ruled that IEEPA does not authorize the president to impose tariffs, including retaliatory tariffs and fentanyl-related tariffs targeting China, Canada, and Mexico.

In his dissent, Justice Brett Kavanaugh noted that “the decision might not substantially constrain a President’s ability to order tariffs going forward.”

“That is because numerous other federal statutes authorize the President to impose tariffs and might justify most (if not all) of the tariffs at issue in this case. … Those statutes include, for example, the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (Section 232); the Trade Act of 1974 (Sections 122, 201, and 301); and the Tariff Act of 1930 (Section 338),” he wrote.

Trump raised global tariffs to 10 percent, effective on Feb. 24, after the Feb. 20 ruling under a separate trade law, Section 122. The president increased it to 15 percent the next day, effective for 150 days.

Impact on Trade With China

The United States and China reached a one-year trade truce in 2025 to de-escalate trade tensions, in which the United States reduced tariffs on goods related to fentanyl issues from 20 percent to 10 percent while China reduced tariffs on U.S. agricultural products and pledged to increase purchases of U.S. soybeans and energy.

This month, Chinese Communist Party (CCP) leader Xi Jinping promised to purchase more American soybeans and agricultural products in a phone call with Trump.

Frank Xie, ​​a professor at the Aiken School of Business at the University of South Carolina, told The Epoch Times that the Supreme Court’s ruling did not overturn all of Trump’s tariffs, but rather prevented Trump from invoking IEEPA to impose tariffs.

“There are other legal tools that allow Trump to continue raising tariffs, so the tariff war will continue, along with tariff penalties against China. Negotiations with China will also continue, and China will likely continue to purchase U.S. soybeans,” he said.

“Actually, the ruling doesn’t change much for either the CCP or the U.S. government. Judging from Trump adding additional ... global tariffs immediately afterwards, the tariff war is accelerating,” he said.

U.S.-based independent economist Davy J. Wong told The Epoch Times that the Supreme Court’s ruling may prompt China to reduce or postpone purchases, but it is unlikely to publicly renege on its commitments.

“This is because China’s purchases of U.S. agricultural products have long been driven by both economic and political motives. Now, Beijing can use the instability of the rules as a pretext to adjust the pace of imports and diversify sources, particularly shifting towards supplies from Brazil and South America,” he said.

“However, China’s feed system has a rigid demand for protein raw materials, and the United States remains an important supplementary source.”

U.S.-based China affairs commentator Wang He noted that Trump agreed to visit China in April per Xi’s invitation during their phone call, and “it has special significance for Xi Jinping to maintain relations with the United States and with Trump,” given the current domestic political tension Xi’s facing due to his purge of top military generals.

Wang said it means that the trade truce between China and the United States will continue, and China won’t dare to renege on its commitments to continue purchasing American agricultural products.

However, Wang noted that the CCP will continue to promote diversification of foreign trade.

“Because the United States and China are currently decoupling, regardless of the Supreme Court’s ruling, this fundamental trend of decoupling is unchangeable. This trend is unaffected by tariff rulings. The CCP will simply use this to its advantage, to pressure Trump in negotiations. The CCP will try to rally more countries to counter the United States,” he said.

Wong said the Chinese economy remains highly dependent on external demand and manufacturing exports, especially from the United States.

So, the CCP will exert pressure in specific areas, such as rare-earth and key-materials export controls, while avoiding a complete trade rupture with the United States, he added.

Wong concluded that the Supreme Court’s ruling does not change the structural reality of Sino-U.S. trade competition.

“China’s purchases from the U.S. will be more strategic, and U.S. economic constraints on China will become more institutionalized. Both sides prefer competition within a controllable scope rather than a complete decoupling.”

Luo Ya and Reuters contributed to this report.

Authored by Rob Sabo via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Tesla Motors avoided a 30-day suspension of its dealer and manufacturer licenses from the California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) by removing the term “autopilot” from its vehicle marketing efforts in California.

According to a statement issued by the California DMV on Feb. 17, Tesla had marketed its full self-driving feature as essentially an autonomous driving feature. Although full self-driving is a hands-free feature, Tesla owners still need to actively supervise the operation of their vehicles.

The DMV said Tesla had been marketing its advanced driver assistance system (ADAS) as a full driver-free autopilot feature since 2021 by including terms such as “autopilot” and “full self-driving capability” in marketing collateral and on its website.

“The system is designed to be able to conduct short and long-distance trips with no action required by the person in the driver’s seat,” Tesla’s website formerly said. The California DMV stated that drivers should be present and supervise the self-driving feature.

“Vehicles equipped with those ADAS features could not at the time of those advertisements, and cannot now, operate as autonomous vehicles,” the DMV wrote.

According to the California DMV, Tesla removed that language from its website and marketing efforts in December 2025. The DMV had initiated accusations of false advertisement against Tesla’s dealer and manufacturer licenses in November 2023.

The California Office of Administrative Hearings heard the case last July and made a proposed decision on Nov. 20, 2025. Tesla was given 60 days to address and remedy the issue of the suspension of its licenses in the state for 30 days. Tesla subsequently rebranded the feature as “full self-driving (supervised)” to clarify that drivers still need to oversee the driving process.

“The DMV is committed to safety throughout all California’s roadways and communities,” DMV Director Steve Gordon said. “The department is pleased that Tesla took the required action to remain in compliance with the State of California’s consumer protections.”

“California has zero tolerance for misleading advertising that puts safety at risk,” the DMV added. “When companies make false claims about vehicle capabilities, they endanger lives, and the state will hold them accountable.”

Days earlier, Tesla CEO Elon Musk said in a post on X on Feb. 13 that Tesla would no longer offer full self-driving on vehicles sold after Feb. 14. In order to get the feature, Tesla owners now need to pay a $99 monthly subscription.

Tesla had included basic autopilot for close to seven years on its vehicles that included two features, traffic-aware cruise control (TACC) to match the speed of traffic, and autosteer, which centers vehicles inside a travel lane.

New vehicles now come standard with just TACC, and Tesla owners will have to pay a monthly fee for the full self-driving feature. Previously, Tesla owners could opt for a one-time payment to have the full self-driving included on their vehicles at the time of purchase.

Reaching 10 million paid full self-driving subscriptions is one of many performance milestones required in Musk’s $1 trillion compensation package.

It's no secret that Netflix is a devout propaganda platform for the political left.  Some critics would argue that the sudden and disturbing surge in woke ideology injected into streaming entertainment started with Netflix and shows like Orange Is The New Black, "Dear White People" and Jessica Jones.  No one remembers such content anymore because it's forgettable tripe, but Netflix was definitely at the helm of the of far-left programming trend just as the Obama Administration was coming to a close.

In fact, multiple prominent Democrats from the Obama regime ended up working closely with Netflix, either as lobbyists or as members of the corporate board.  Barack and Michelle even signed an ongoing production deal with the company in 2018. 

Ferial Govashiri, former Personal Secretary to President Obama in the White House, joined Netflix in a senior role as Chief of Staff to the Chief Content Officer.

Perry Apelbaum, a longtime Democratic lawyer/staffer from the House Judiciary Committee is now a lobbyist for Netflix.

A high percentage of Netflix's lobbyists (around 70%) have prior government experience and most are Democratic-leaning.  Leadership figures like co-CEO Ted Sarandos and executive chairman Reed Hastings have hosted fundraisers or donated heavily to Democrat candidates (Kamala Harris, Gavin Newsom, Obama, Clinton, Biden, etc). 

Finally, there's Obama-era national security adviser Susan Rice, who is still closely tied to the Obamas and is currently a member of the Netflix board.  

Donald Trump has warned Netflix to remove Susan Rice from its board or “face the consequences”, while the streaming platform is locked in a corporate battle to take control of Warner Bros Discovery (WBD).  In comments posted on his Truth Social platform, the US president described Rice – who served as national security adviser to Barack Obama, UN ambassador and White House adviser under Joe Biden – as a “political hack."  

He said in an interview with NBC News that the justice department would handle the takeover of WBD, having insisted previously he would be involved in reviewing the deal. Any takeover of WBD will have to be approved by federal regulators.

The underlying concern, of course, is that the Netflix acquisition of WBD would result in a far-left super-conglomerate with substantial resources that could be used to saturate entertainment media with the DNC agenda.  To be clear, there is no such thing as a conservative counter-programming corporation in the media space.  Warner Bros. was essentially collapsing under the weight of it's own woke failures when a bidding war between Paramount and Netflix was launched. 

That said, a merger could very well result in yet another Disney; a monstrosity of a company controlling a huge catalog of IPs with agents of the Democrat Party basically steering the ship (Disney is loaded with DNC elites from the Clinton Admin, Obama Admin and Biden Admin). 

The deal requires DOJ approval under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act (Anti-Trust scrutiny). The DOJ opened a probe in early 2026, examining Netflix's business practices for potential "monopolistic" effects on content creation, distribution, and theaters. 

Reports indicate the DOJ may soon announce intent to block it, citing anticompetitive leverage over filmmakers under the Sherman Act.  As President, Trump can direct or influence DOJ leadership (e.g., via appointees) to sue and halt the merger, meaning he does have the power to disrupt the deal should Netflix refuse to remove Susan Rice.  

We are starting to finally see the beginning of a series of high-profile resignations following the Justice Department’s latest release of millions of pages tied to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

The documents—emails, financial records, and photographs—name figures from politics, finance, diplomacy, academia, and the arts. Although inclusion in the files is not evidence of wrongdoing, the renewed scrutiny has prompted several prominent leaders to step down, as was documented by Time yesterday. 

As we've covered individually, those who have resigned include Thomas Pritzker, Kathy Ruemmler, Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem, Brad Karp, Mona Juul, Peter Mandelson, Miroslav Lajcak, Jack Lang, and David A. Ross. In many instances, the records describe years of contact with Epstein, sometimes extending beyond his 2008 guilty plea for soliciting prostitution from a minor, intensifying public and political pressure.

Thomas Pritzker resigned as executive chairman of Hyatt Hotels after emails showed he remained in contact with Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell beyond Epstein’s conviction.

Some messages referenced plans to meet, including for dinners. Pritzker said he exercised “terrible judgment” in maintaining the relationships and expressed deep regret, while authorities have not accused him of misconduct.

Kathy Ruemmler stepped down as chief legal officer of Goldman Sachs after emails suggested a friendly relationship with Epstein years after his plea deal, including correspondence referencing gifts.

Ruemmler, who previously served as White House counsel under President Barack Obama, has said she never represented Epstein and was unaware of his crimes. She later described him as a “monster” and said she regretted ever knowing him.

Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem resigned as chairman and CEO of DP World after correspondence indicated a lengthy friendship with Epstein that continued for years.

Some emails released by the Justice Department included personal exchanges that drew scrutiny. Authorities have not accused him of wrongdoing, and the company did not cite Epstein in announcing his departure.

Brad Karp left his post as chairman of Paul, Weiss after emails revealed an extended relationship with Epstein, including exchanges in which he praised a draft legal motion related to Epstein’s 2008 plea agreement.

Karp said the controversy had become a distraction to the firm, where he had served for decades, and denied any misconduct. The firm has said it never represented Epstein.

Several diplomats and cultural figures also stepped down. Mona Juul resigned from her role as a Norwegian ambassador after reports highlighted her past contact with Epstein and scrutiny over a will that allegedly left money to her children.

Norway’s foreign ministry said the situation raised concerns about judgment, though Juul has denied wrongdoing.

Peter Mandelson stepped down from the U.K. Labour Party after bank records and emails in the files showed financial transfers and correspondence with Epstein dating back to the early 2000s.

He had previously lost a diplomatic post after earlier disclosures about the relationship. Mandelson has said he did nothing criminal.

Miroslav Lajcak resigned as Slovakia’s national security adviser after text messages and emails showed exchanges with Epstein on a range of topics.

Lajcak said he stepped aside to spare the government political fallout and has denied any improper conduct.

In France, Jack Lang resigned as head of the Arab World Institute amid an investigation into alleged financial links between his family and entities associated with Epstein.

Lang, a former culture minister, has denied the allegations and said he was stepping down in the institution’s interest.

In New York, David A. Ross stepped down as a department chair at the School of Visual Arts after emails revealed continued communication with Epstein following his conviction, including exchanges about provocative artistic ideas.

Ross said he regretted being “taken in” by Epstein and expressed concern for the victims, while denying wrongdoing.

The latest release has reignited global attention on Epstein’s network, underscoring how associations—whether social, financial, or professional—continue to carry reputational and professional consequences years after his death in 2019.