INTERNACIONAL
Padilla cuffed, McIver indicted: Can Congress come back from the brink?
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
You have lots of places to choose from to get your message out to the press if you’re House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La.
It’s best to get your message out succinctly, clearly and free of interference.
So when Johnson decided to boast about the House making good on the first bill to codify DOGE cuts and slash $9.4 billion from USAID and public broadcasting, he stepped just outside the House chamber and into a throng of reporters gathered by the Will Rogers Statue.
«Republicans will continue to deliver real accountability and restore fiscal discipline,» said Johnson.
REPORTER’S NOTEBOOK: GOP LAWMAKERS PREPARE TO SLASH $9.1B FROM USAID, NPR AND PBS IN RARE VOTE
But the Will Rogers Statue area is a major thoroughfare in the Capitol. At the moment Johnson spoke Thursday, dozens of House Democrats were headed toward the office of Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D. They were demanding answers about why federal agents tossed Sen. Alex Padilla, D-Calif., to the ground and handcuffed him during a press conference in Los Angeles with Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem.
When Johnson finished talking about reeling in the money for public broadcasting and USAID, reporters only wanted to ask about Padilla.
Yours truly included.
Despite all the talk of Republican spending cuts, there was only one thing on the minds of reporters in the halls of Congress on Thursday: what had just happened to Sen. Alex Padilla, D-Calif. (AP Photo/Etienne Laurent)
«Did the federal agents go too far,» I asked. «Was that a bridge too far?»
A long line of angry House Democrats squeezed past Johnson in the Will Rogers corridor. But because Johnson chose to speak in such a heavily-trafficked locale, Democrats hectored Johnson as they marched to the Senate.
«Yes it was!» shouted an unidentified Democrat as she strode past the scrum, answering my question for Johnson.
DEMOCRAT SENATOR FORCIBLY REMOVED AFTER CRASHING DHS SECRETARY NOEM’S PRESS CONFERENCE
But Johnson immediately pivoted to what Padilla did, standing up at Noem’s press conference to holler questions at her from the back of the room.
«It was wildly inappropriate,» said Johnson of Padilla as he spoke to the Capitol press corps. «You don’t charge a sitting cabinet secretary…»
«That’s a lie!» shouted another unidentified Democrat.
«A lie!» yelled someone else.
Rep. Sam Liccardo, D-Calif., was among the members of Congress who appeared to heckle House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La. (Dai Sugano/MediaNews Group/The Mercury News via Getty Images)
Rep. Sam Liccardo, D-Calif., stopped to snarl something at the Speaker. But it was impossible to hear over the din.
«He was acting like a senator,» charged Rep. Dan Goldman, D-N.Y. «Why don’t you stand up for Congress!»
«Can you respond to these people heckling you Mr. Speaker?» I asked.
«I’m not going to respond to that,» replied Johnson.
The Capitol was pulsing at this point. The crush of House Democrats barged into the office of Thune, who was at the White House.
Lucky him.
REPORTER’S NOTEBOOK: HOW THE HOUSE IS TECHNICALLY DONE WITH THE ‘BIG, BEAUTIFUL BILL’
The Democrats then trooped back across the Rotunda and poured into Johnson’s office.
«When the Speaker of the House refers to a sitting Member of the U.S. Senate who simply tried to exercise his First Amendment rights as acting like a thug, we’re very concerned about that,» said Congressional Hispanic Caucus Chairman Adriano Espaillat, D-N.Y. «Both the Speaker and Leader Thune should step up to the moment and preserve the institution of Congress, which are a balance in democracy and important balance in democracy.»
One lawmaker who didn’t join the angry Democratic mob was Rep. Madeleine Dean, D-Pa. Dean stood apprehensively just beyond the wall of reporters and outside the invisible bubble created by Johnson’s security detail. When Johnson concluded speaking, Dean tried to pierce the security ring to have a civil conversation with the Speaker.
Johnson’s talks of spending cuts were quickly dashed by reporters demanding an explanation about Padilla. (Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)
«Mike! Mike!» said Dean, trying to capture Johnson’s attention. «It’s Madeline.»
Johnson finally realized that «Madeleine» wasn’t some reporter trying to squeeze in an extra question for the Speaker. But someone he obviously knew. A fellow lawmaker. Someone from across the aisle with whom he must have a friendship and working relationship.
Johnson and Dean spoke in hushed tones as they walked quietly across Statuary Hall. Some in the press corps followed, trying to divine what they were saying. This wasn’t an offstage chat back in the Speaker’s Suite or on a private telephone call. But it went down in a very public part of the U.S. Capitol.
TRUMP’S SPENDING BILL HEADS TO SENATE WHERE REPUBLICANS PLAN STRATEGIC ADJUSTMENTS TO KEY PROVISIONS
The conversation continued as the duo stopped adjacent to the «British Steps» near the Speaker’s Office. Dean clenched both of her hands into fists as she and the Speaker were about to part ways. She lightly touched Johnson on the right arm as he ducked into the Speaker’s Office.
«Thank you, sir,» said Dean.
«What were you speaking to the Speaker about?» I asked the Congresswoman.
«I just want to keep that to myself,» answered Dean. «But the one thing I wanted to say is that it’s up to the President to turn the temperature down. Everyone is inflamed. And agitated. But it starts with the President. He said ‘I’m talking to the President,’» said Dean.
Rep. Madeleine Dean, D-Pa., told me «it’s up to the President to turn the temperature down» after a quiet conversation with Johnson in Statuary Hall. (Andrew Harrer/Pool via Reuters)
But other Republicans may have tried to dial up the temperature by blasting Padilla.
Padilla left Washington earlier in the week to be in LA during the riots. The senator was supposed to start at first base for the Democrats in the Congressional Baseball Game on Wednesday night.
Republicans charged that Padilla should have stayed moored in Washington.
«He has a responsibility to show up at work not to go make a spectacle,» said Senate Majority Whip John Barrasso, R-Wyo.
POWER PLAYERS OR BASEBALL PLAYERS? THE HISTORY BEHIND THE CONGRESSIONAL BASEBALL GAME
«The fact that he’s in California and not in D.C. while the Senate is voting means he’s not as concerned about doing his job here,» said Senate Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-La.
Scalise conceded he had gone home to Louisiana when hurricanes threatened the state. He argued that he «wouldn’t go back home to try to stir angst against the federal agents that were coming and help us get back on our feet.»
Outraged Democrats thundered on the Senate floor, railing against the plight of Padilla.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., called Padilla’s plight «despicable» and «disgusting.» (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)
«This is the stuff of dictatorships. It is actually happening,» said Sen. Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii.
«It’s despicable. It’s disgusting. It is so un-American,» said Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.
«I think it’s unprecedented,» said Sen. Mark Kelly, D-Ariz. «It’s obnoxious, and it’s rather escalatory.»
But the outrage wasn’t limited to Democrats.
US ATTORNEY ALINA HABBA ANNOUNCES REP. MCIVER HIT WITH FEDERAL CHARGES OVER NEWARK ICE CLASH
«I’ve seen that one clip. It’s horrible. It is shocking at every level. And it’s not the America I know,» said Sen. Lisa Murkowski,» R-Alaska.
The band of Democrats who ran over to Thune’s office never did find him. But by nightfall, Thune said he spoke to Padilla, Senate Sergeant at Arms Jennifer Hemingway and tried to contact Noem.
«We want to get the full scope of what happened,» said Thune.
This falls against the backdrop of the feds charging Rep. LaMonica McIver, D-N.J., for assaulting federal agents at a Newark detention facility earlier this spring. These episodes have shaken Congress.
Lawmakers wonder what would happen if the shoe were on the other foot. And despite the partisan chasms, they’re all lawmakers. They know that if something like this can happen to Padilla, well, they could be next.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
Confidence and trust are waning.
«I remain hopeful that Leader Thune and other Republicans can walk us back from the brink,» said Schatz. «But I am not so sure anymore.»
INTERNACIONAL
India y Brasil firmaron un memorándum sobre minerales críticos y tierras raras en Nueva Delhi
India y Brasil firmaron este sábado un acuerdo sobre minerales críticos y tierras raras, según anunció el primer ministro indio, Narendra Modi, tras mantener conversaciones en Nueva Delhi con el presidente brasileño, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva.
Modi calificó el acuerdo como “un paso importante hacia la construcción de cadenas de suministro resilientes”. Ambos mandatarios mantuvieron conversaciones en busca de un fortalecimiento en la cooperación del sector estratégico.
Brasil posee la segunda mayor reserva mundial de estos elementos, esenciales en industrias que van desde vehículos eléctricos y paneles solares hasta teléfonos inteligentes, motores a reacción y misiles guiados.
India busca reducir su dependencia de China, principal exportador global de tierras raras, por lo que impulsó la producción interna, el reciclaje y la búsqueda de nuevos proveedores. En este contexto, la alianza con Brasil adquiere especial relevancia.
Lula llegó a Nueva Delhi acompañado por una delegación de ministros y líderes empresariales para participar en una cumbre mundial. El sábado recibió una bienvenida ceremonial y rindió homenaje a Mahatma Gandhi antes de reunirse con Modi. Los funcionarios confirmaron que ambos líderes firmaron un memorando sobre minerales críticos y analizaron iniciativas para incrementar los lazos comerciales.
India ya figura como el décimo mayor mercado para las exportaciones brasileñas, con un comercio bilateral que superará los USD 15.000 millones en 2025. Ambos países se han fijado como objetivo alcanzar los USD 20.000 millones en 2030.
Ante el dominio de China en la producción de tierras raras, varias naciones buscan diversificar sus fuentes. Rishabh Jain, del Consejo de Energía, Medio Ambiente y Agua de Delhi, señaló que la cooperación de India con Brasil en minerales críticos complementa acuerdos recientes con Estados Unidos, Francia y la Unión Europea.
Si bien estas alianzas otorgan acceso a tecnología avanzada y capacidades de procesamiento, “las alianzas del Sur Global son fundamentales para asegurar un acceso diversificado a recursos locales y dar forma a las reglas emergentes del comercio global”, afirmó Jain.
Se esperaba que el primer ministro indio y el presidente brasileño también abordaran en sus conversaciones los obstáculos económicos mundiales y las tensiones en los sistemas comerciales multilaterales, especialmente tras verse ambos países afectados por los aranceles estadounidenses en 2025, lo que llevó a los dos líderes a pedir una cooperación más estrecha.
Desde entonces, Washington se ha comprometido a reducir los gravámenes sobre productos indios en virtud de un acuerdo comercial anunciado a principios de este mes.
“Lula y Modi tendrán ocasión de intercambiar puntos de vista sobre la situación mundial y, en particular, sobre los desafíos que atraviesa el multilateralismo y el comercio internacional”, afirmó Susan Kleebank, secretaria para Asia y el Pacífico de la Cancillería brasileña.
Brasil es el mayor socio de India en América Latina. Entre las principales exportaciones brasileñas hacia India destacan el azúcar, el petróleo, los aceites vegetales, el algodón y el mineral de hierro, cuya demanda se ha incrementado debido al rápido desarrollo de las infraestructuras y el crecimiento industrial de India, que podría convertirse en la cuarta economía mundial.
Empresas brasileñas también se están expandiendo en India. En enero, el grupo Adani y Embraer firmaron un acuerdo para la fabricación de helicópteros.
Durante la cumbre sobre inteligencia artificial AI Impact en Nueva Delhi, Lula reclamó la creación de un programa de gobernanza mundial multilateral e inclusivo para la IA. Tras su visita a India, el presidente brasileño viajará a Corea del Sur, donde se reunirá con el presidente Lee Jae-myung y participará en un foro de negocios Brasil-Corea del Sur.
(Con información de AFP)
INTERNACIONAL
Supreme Court kills Trump’s ‘Liberation Day’ tariffs — but 4 other laws could resurrect them
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
The Supreme Court rebuked President Trump’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose sweeping «Liberation Day» tariffs, ruling that the Constitution gives Congress — not the president — authority over tariffs.
But the decision may not be the final word. From the Trade Expansion Act to the Trade Act of 1974 and even Depression-era statutes, multiple legal avenues remain that could allow Trump to reassert aggressive trade powers.
In a 6-3 decision led by George W. Bush-appointed Chief Justice John Roberts, the court ruled that the «framers gave [tariff] power to Congress alone, notwithstanding the obvious foreign affairs implications of tariffs.»
George H.W. Bush-appointed Justice Clarence Thomas, Trump-appointed Justice Brett Kavanaugh and George W. Bush-appointed Justice Samuel Alito dissented.
SUPREME COURT PREPARES TO CONFRONT MONUMENTAL CASE OVER TRUMP EXECUTIVE POWER AND TARIFF AUTHORITY
A protester holds a sign as the U.S. Supreme Court hears arguments on President Trump’s tariffs on Wednesday, November 5, 2025. (Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)
On «Liberation Day» in 2025, Trump cited the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), drafted by former Rep. Jonathan Brewster-Bingham, D-N.Y., to declare an emergency situation in which foreign countries were «ripping off» the U.S.
With that avenue now closed by Roberts, Trump could try to use the same national security rationale to invoke the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, which in part allows the Commerce Department to impose tariffs on «article[s]… imported… in such quantities or under such circumstances as to threaten or impair the national security.»
Unlike the IEEPA, the JFK-era law has been tested in the courts, and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick has since built on his predecessor Wilbur Ross’ 2018 steel and aluminum tariffs imposed under the act, adding 407 more imports to the tariff list on the grounds that they are «derivative» of the two approved metals.
TRUMP’S OWN SCOTUS PICKS COULD WIND UP HURTING HIM ON TARIFFS
President Donald Trump shows off non-reciprocal tariff examples. (Mandel Ngan/Getty Images)
During his 2025 confirmation hearing, Lutnick voiced support for a «country by country, macro» approach to tariffs and agreed with the president that the U.S. is «treated horribly by the global trading environment.»
While tariffs imposed under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act are not immediate and require the Commerce Department to conduct a formal investigation, the law provides a court-tested avenue for the president.
In the wake of Friday’s ruling, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., and others celebrated the court’s affirmation that Trump cannot use «emergency powers to enact taxes,» but Congress has previously approved another avenue to impose tariffs.
Then-Rep. Albert Ullman, D-Ore., crafted a bill signed by President Gerald Ford that expressly gave presidents broader authority to impose tariffs: the Trade Act of 1974.
A federal appeals court in September ruled against thousands of companies that challenged tariffs on China imposed under Section 301 of the Trade Act.
6 HOUSE REPUBLICANS DEFY TRUMP ON KEY AGENDA ITEM IN DEM-PUSHED VOTE
In this case, U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer, a Trump appointee, could seek retaliatory tariffs against countries with unfair trade barriers, according to Global Policy Watch.
An investigation, including negotiations with the targeted countries, would then ensue, and Greer could ultimately be cleared to impose trade restrictions if the probe finds that the U.S. is being denied trade agreement benefits or that such a deal is unjustifiable.
However, in most cases, imposed tariffs sunset after four years, according to reports.
In Trump’s favor, it could be argued that the same reasoning Roberts used to strike down the IEEPA authority could backfire on tariff opponents because the 1974 law explicitly gives the executive branch trade-restriction authority.
Another section of the Ford-signed law could also be used to unilaterally impose tariffs.
Section 122, the «Balance of Payments» portion of the law, allows Trump to temporarily enforce tariffs or import quotas in certain situations.
A president may impose tariff duties of up to 15% for 150 days against all or certain countries if they are found to be «maintain[ing] unjustifiable or unreasonable restrictions on U.S. commerce,» according to the Retail Industry Leaders Association.
«This authority is intended to give the executive branch flexibility to respond quickly to trade practices that may harm U.S. economic interests or to correct significant balance-of-payments deficits,» the trade group said in a June report.
However, reports show Section 122 has not been tested in court as extensively, which could lead to lawsuits and legal uncertainty.
SUPREME COURT RULES ON TRUMP TARIFFS IN MAJOR TEST OF EXECUTIVE BRANCH POWERS
Another potential policy option for Trump is one that drew sharp criticism when President Herbert Hoover signed it against the advice of economists early in the Great Depression.
The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930, named for Republican Sen. Reed Smoot of Utah and Rep. Willis Hawley of Oregon, imposed tariffs on tens of thousands of imports in hopes of protecting American producers facing dire economic conditions.
Hawley’s great-granddaughter, Carey Cezar of Baltimore, told NBC News in 2025 that she voted for Kamala Harris and opposed Trump’s tariffs after her ancestor’s name resurfaced in public discourse.
Other critics of Smoot-Hawley say it is a key reason the Depression was so dire and expansive.
However, the law still provides a mechanism for the Commerce Department to determine when a good is being «dumped» on U.S. consumers or whether a foreign country is unfairly subsidizing an export to the U.S., and to respond with tariffs.
Additionally, while Trump has imposed tariffs largely on a country-by-country basis, Smoot-Hawley requires that levies be applied on a product-by-product basis.
BESSENT WARNS OF ‘GIGANTIC LOSS’ IF SUPREME COURT STRIPS TRUMP’S EMERGENCY TARIFF POWERS
Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court John Roberts speaks during a lecture to the Georgetown Law School graduating class of 2025, in Washington, May 12, 2025. (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta, File)
A fifth avenue that is largely unreachable by Trump is the Fordney-McCumber Tariff Act of 1922.
Sen. Porter McCumber, R-N.D., and Rep. Joseph Fordney, R-Mich., passed a bill allowing Republican President Warren Harding to impose much higher tariffs than were standard at the time, in hopes of protecting U.S. farmers from a sharp decline in revenue following World War I.
In one of the first contemporary rebukes of protectionism, Fordney-McCumber was criticized for permitting tariffs as high as 50% on countries, including allies, which opponents said had the unintended consequence of hurting America’s ability to service its war debts.
Fordney-McCumber was eventually superseded by Smoot-Hawley, and any remaining provisions are considered obsolete following the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act, signed by President Franklin Roosevelt to undo some of Congress’ trade restrictions.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
The RTAA shifted tariff authority from Congress to the president, granting authority for bilateral negotiations aimed at lowering tariffs at the time.
That dynamic, often called «reciprocity,» is being used in the Trump era not to lower tariffs but to raise them.
donald trump,protectionism,supreme court,law,trade
INTERNACIONAL
Más preocupación por Nahuel Gallo en Venezuela: denuncian una trampa en la Ley de Amnistía con las fechas y hay malestar entre los familiares
Organismos de derechos humanos y familiares de presos políticos denuncian que la Ley de Amnistía aprobada por la dictadura de Venezuela tiene un recorte arbitrario con las fechas, dentro del período de 28 años que abarca. Sostiene que deja excluidos a 400 detenidos, entre los que figura el gendarme argentino Nahuel Gallo.
Este jueves, la Asamblea Nacional controlada por el chavismo aprobó la Ley de Amnistía, 20 días después de que la anunciara la presidenta encargada Delcy Rodríguez
Si bien Delcy Rodríguez, quien juró en el cargo dos días después de la captura del dictador Nicolás Maduro, había anticipado que la amnistía abarcaría desde 1999 hasta 2026, el texto especifica solo 12 dentro de esos 27 años, por lo que deja por fuera a cientos de detenidos.
Los organismos de derechos humanos remarcan que en la letra chica de la ley, por cómo fueron elegidos los meses, hay 15 años entero de los 28 que quedaron afuera. «Es una selección indebida y bastante arbitraria de momentos y de meses en específico», cuestionó Gonzalo Himiob, vice de Foro Penal, una de las organizaciones civiles más prestigiosas del país y que monitorea la situación de los presos en Venezuela.
En la conferencia de prensa de la ONG en Caracas, donde también estaban familiares de los detenidos, Alfredo Romero, presidente del Foro Penal, aseguró que Nahuel Gallo «en ningún lado de la amnistía está incluido» y destacó la presencial de la suegra del gendarme en la conferencia.
«La amnistía es un instrumento muy pequeño, con muchas restricciones, pero es un logro», destacó Romero, quien igualmente enfatizó que no se podrá alcanzar la reconciliación y la reunificación del país, «sin que como condición previa se liberen todos los presos políticos».
Gallo fue detenido el 8 de diciembre de 2024, y el artículo 6 de la ley determina para ese año la amnistía sólo para «los hechos de violencia por motivos políticos acaecidos en el marco de las elecciones presidenciales de julio de 2024».
Según cifras de la ONG, en Venezuela «hay más de 11.000 personas con medidas restrictivas a su libertad que estuvieron encarceladas» y son numerosos los mayores de 70 años presos, pese a que la legislación contempla medidas sustitutivas de libertad basadas en el principio humanitario.
Los grupos humanitarios también pidieron en una rueda de prensa que se desmantele “el sistema represivo” que dio pie a las encarcelaciones. Y, por otro lado, advirtieron también que el futuro de muchos de los potenciales beneficiarios de la amnistía esta «todavía amenazado por la persecución política» como consecuencia que la ley está sujeta a «una excesiva discrecionalidad».
Consideraron además un despropósito que sean “los mismos jueces y fiscales que han acusado a personas injustamente, arbitrariamente”, los encargados de “interpretar la ley para otorgar beneficios”, en lugar de designar “jueces ad hoc” para ese fin.
«Hasta que esto no cambie, vamos a tener todavía la amenaza en un futuro de que incluso aquellos que van a ser amnistiados puedan ser nuevamente encarcelados», insistió Romero.
En tanto, la ONG Justicia, Encuentro y Perdón (JEP) expresó en un comunicado que todas sus “preocupaciones y advertencias respecto al proyecto de ley de amnistía se confirman ante un texto que, tal como señalamos oportunamente, resulta revictimizante, excluyente y, en lo absoluto, garantiza la liberación plena de todos los presos políticos».
«Hemos sostenido y reiteramos que la liberación de todas las personas detenidas por razones políticas depende de una genuina y verdadera voluntad política, que debe verificarse en la aplicación efectiva de la Constitución y las leyes nacionales, sin interpretaciones restrictivas ni decisiones discrecionales», enfatizó JEP.
El gobierno de Rodríguez anunció el 8 de enero que liberaría a un número significativo de prisioneros. Voceros del gobierno han dicho que han sido liberados casi 900 reclusos desde diciembre, aunque el Foro Penal hasta el miércoles registraba la liberación de 448 personas por motivos políticos.
Con información de la Agencia AP
Semana financiera: las acciones repuntaron y el dólar profundizó su caída, con el trasfondo del debate por la reforma laboral
Uruguay será testeo del primer rival argentino en el Mundial
Patricia Bullrich: “La Justicia no puede interponerse sobre la voluntad de los legisladores”
El ambicioso plan de incentivos de la Reforma Laboral para revivir el empleo registrado
Roberto Baradel se sumó al paro docente contra el Gobierno de Axel Kicillof
La famosa vedette que confesó que extraña su época de trabajar como «gato»: “Es una cosa hermosa que te hagan regalos”
Reforma laboral bomba: menos indemnización, más horas y despidos más fáciles — el cambio que puede sacudir el empleo en Argentina
Ayuda Escolar Anual: a cuánto asciende, donde se tramita y quien puede cobrarla
Escándalo en MasterChef: una famosa abandonó a los gritos y acusando que está todo arreglado
Del himno peronista de Kelly Olmos al exabrupto de Agustina Propato: las perlitas del debate por la reforma laboral
ECONOMIA3 días agoAyuda Escolar Anual: a cuánto asciende, donde se tramita y quien puede cobrarla
- CHIMENTOS1 día ago
Escándalo en MasterChef: una famosa abandonó a los gritos y acusando que está todo arreglado
- POLITICA1 día ago
Del himno peronista de Kelly Olmos al exabrupto de Agustina Propato: las perlitas del debate por la reforma laboral
