icon-show

Now Playing

The Paul Finebaum Show

FM Talk 1065

  • College Pick Em 2024
  • Hear Dr. Bill Williams' Forecast

    twice an hour on FMTalk1065

Three Big Things

1 2 3
  • Trump Boosts New Global Tariff to 15% After Supreme Court Setback

    WASHINGTON—President Trump said he would increase to 15% a global tariff that will replace many of the duties ruled illegal by the Supreme Court.

    In a social-media post on Saturday, the president said the new level, up from 10%, would take effect immediately. He said his decision to increase the tariff rate was the result of a “thorough, detailed, and complete review of the ridiculous, poorly written, and extraordinarily anti-American” Supreme Court ruling.

    On Friday the Supreme Court overturned most of Trump’s second-term tariffs, rejecting the administration’s argument that a 1977 law, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, implicitly authorized the tariffs. Later that day, Trump denounced the ruling and immediately reinstated a 10% global tariff under a different authority—Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974.

    Section 122 allows for tariffs of up to 15% for 150 days. After that period, Trump has said those levies will be replaced with a longer-lasting tariff authority—Section 301 of the Trade Act. That provision would allow for more permanent levies, but requires monthslong investigations before tariffs can be imposed, which Trump hinted at in his Saturday post.

    “During the next short number of months, the Trump Administration will determine and issue the new and legally permissible Tariffs, which will continue our extraordinarily successful process of Making America Great Again,” Trump posted.

    The 6-3 decision issued on Friday, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, removed a diplomatic tool that Trump aggressively wielded to remake U.S. trade deals and collect tens of billions of dollars from companies importing foreign goods. It is unclear whether the U.S. will pay that money back to countries and businesses that saw prices increase. The court didn’t say refunds were necessary.

    The court’s silence on the issue prompted companies to scramble to assert their rights, while a defiant Trump warned that he had no plans to retreat. On Friday, he said he was “ashamed of certain members of the court, absolutely ashamed, for not having the courage to do what’s right for our country.”

    Raising the global tariff from 10% to 15% would align those levies with the terms of major trade agreements that Trump completed with other nations, using Ieepa levies as leverage. Agreements with the European Union, Japan and South Korea that Trump struck in 2025 apply tariffs of 15% to most of the goods from those countries.

    The White House didn’t immediately release any presidential action to increase the tariffs from Trump’s Friday order. That action exempted a number of goods from the global tariffs, including many agricultural goods, products that comply with the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement and a separate deal with Central American nations. Products that are covered by national security tariffs—such as those on steel, aluminum and automobiles—are also not affected by the new global tariffs.

    Section 122 was originally devised to handle balance of payment issues in currency markets. Some scholars argue it was rendered obsolete when the U.S. abandoned the gold standard and adopted a system of floating exchange rates. It has never before been used for tariffs, but it remains unclear whether any company or organization will challenge the temporary levies. 

    The Trump administration hasn’t yet outlined which countries it will target with the longer-lasting Section 301 tariffs, but the U.S. Trade Representative’s office will have to complete separate investigations for each nation. Those investigations typically take a year or more to complete.

    Trump on Friday said the probes would be finished in five months—a nod to the 150-day limit on his new global tariffs. Economies that have been the subject of Section 301 probes in the past, such as the European Union or Vietnam, could also see expedited investigations because USTR could call on past evidence.


    Read More : Trump Boosts New Global Tariff to 15% After Supreme Court Setback - WSJ

  • Prine's lawsuit against Mobile officials escalates with new claims of destroyed evidence

    MOBILE, Ala. (NBC 15) — Former Mobile Police Chief Paul Prine's legal fight with Mobile city officials is intensifying. New court filings this week accuse two high ranking city officials of destroying evidence in the civil case and accuse the city of illegally paying defense fees for an attorney who produced a scathing report of Prine's leadership that was publicly released. Prine, who is now running for Mobile County Sheriff, claims the report was defamatory.

    "They told a lot of lies about him that weren't true, and he wants the public to know that. And so far, the public doesn't. Number two, he wants to be compensated from these people for the lies they told about him. He lost his job. He hadn't found another job since. He's applied for jobs," said Prine's attorney Tom Benton.

    The latest filings accuse former Chief of Staff James Barber and former Public Safety Director Rob Lasky, who serve in different roles under the new Cheriogotis administration, of destroying evidence in the case. Benton is asking the judge to sanction them. Benton attached an exhibit, he says shows a text exchange between Barber and Lasky. In it, Benton says Lasky texts a screen shot of a document and writes "FYI That should have come to me first and does not even resemble my conversation with Paul." Benton then points to Barber's reply, "Make sure you reach out to Kevin and tell him to shred that document."

    "What is that document?" asked NBC 15's Andrea Ramey.

    "I really can't tell because they shredded it, and you really can't tell from looking at the text message, but it has something to do with Paul Prine," replied Benton.

    NBC 15 News reached out to Barber, Lasky, and their attorney for comment.

    "My clients, Sandy Stimpson, James Barber and Rob Lasky, categorically deny destroying any evidence in this case or otherwise acting improperly," attorney Marshall Gardner wrote NBC 15 News in an email.

    Until now, Prine has sued people individually, but this week, the city of Mobile was added as a defendant in an amended complaint. Benton says that's because when the city hired former U.S. Attorney Kenyen Brown in 2024 to lead an independent investigation of the police department's use of force incidents, the city agreed to cover any resulting legal expenses. Brown's final report was highly critical of Prine and is the basis for Prine's civil lawsuit.

    "They're paying a law firm a bunch of money, I don't know how much, but they're paying this law firm to defend Kenyen Brown for the wrongful conduct he did against city, which is both illegal in Alabama and it's unethical, and that's why we filed a lawsuit to stop that," said Benton.

    We reached out to the mayor's office for comment about these accusations and asked how much the city has spent thus far in legal fees to defend Prine's lawsuit. We were told "no comment."

    Prine's lawsuit against Mobile officials escalates with new claims of destroyed evidence

  • Fisher’s arrest incites Big Creek Lake legislation

    The battle to reopen Big Creek Lake to boaters and fishers continues in Montgomery, with two pieces of legislation introduced by a Mobile County lawmaker heading for votes in the coming days.

    Read more : Fisher’s arrest incites Big Creek Lake legislation | Alabama | lagniappemobile.com

M Mon Monday
T Tue Tuesday
W Wed Wednesday
T Thur Thursday
F Fri Friday
S Sat Saturday
S Sun Sunday