California hit with fresh setback in failed gender secrecy case costing taxpayers millions
California was dealt another blow in a lawsuit over gender secrecy policies in schools when a federal judge ordered the state this week to pay the plaintiffs in the case $4.5 million in taxpayer-funded legal fees. Judge Roger Benitez, an appointee of President George W. Bush, scolded state lawyers in his order for what he said was an “unusual” spree of court motions that forced the parents and teachers who brought the lawsuit to respond to California’s “litigation intransigence.” The lawsuit challenged California’s SAFETY Act, which blocked schools from requiring staff to notify parents if a student sought to change their gender identity or pronouns. The Supreme Court rejected the policy in March and jurisdictions with similar policies have subsequently been hit with legal threats to repeal them. Benitez also tacked on added financial penalties, in addition to the legal fees reimbursement, to reach the $4.5 million figure because the case concerned a “very important subject,” he said. NJ SCHOOL DISTRICT’S SECRETIVE TRANSGENDER POLICY FACES LEGAL THREAT FOR BUCKING SUPREME COURT “State public education policies impinged on families’ right to the free exercise of religion under the First Amendment. The policies also rejected and subverted the federal constitutional rights of California parents to guide the health and well-being of their school-age children,” Benitez wrote. “Such concerns intrude among the most important areas of family life in America’s history and tradition.” The lawsuit, brought against California Attorney General Rob Bonta, had argued that the state imposed an unconstitutional policy on schools that blocked teachers and staff from informing parents if their child wanted to change their gender. CALIFORNIA SCHOOL DISTRICT LETS STUDENTS CHANGE NAMES AND GENDER IDENTITY IN SECRET FROM PARENTS The Supreme Court sided with the parents in a 6-3 emergency order, saying California’s policy, which blocked what critics described as schools’ “forced outing” of students, was likely unconstitutional. The Thomas More Society, a conservative legal group, represented the plaintiffs in the case and recently warned a school district in New Jersey that it would begin legal action if the school district did not repeal a similar policy on transgender students. “This is just the beginning,” Peter Breen, Thomas More Society executive vice president, told Fox News Digital of its warning to the Westwood Regional School Board. “This is not an end, but a beginning, our big win in the Supreme Court. We are already fielding requests from other parents across the country, and we anticipate sending a lot more demand letters, unfortunately.” Fox News Digital reached out to Bonta’s office for comment.
Trump administration accused of violating court order by sharing Medicaid data with ICE
More than a dozen Democratic-led states are accusing the Trump administration of violating a federal court order by sharing Medicaid data with Immigration and Customs Enforcement, asking a judge to enforce the ruling. The states’ complaint asks the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to enforce its existing injunction blocking HHS from sharing Medicaid data with ICE. “The Trump Administration appears to be defying a direct court order blocking it from sharing the personal, sensitive data of individuals including U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents. It’s invasive — and deeply troubling,” said California Attorney General Bonta, who led the coalition of 22 states. “When Californians signed up for Medi-Cal, they did so with the understanding that their data would not be used for purposes unrelated to administering this program. I urge the court to enforce its earlier order and make clear that these guardrails exist for anyone who is lawfully residing in the United States.” The complaint stems from a lawsuit spearheaded by California in July 2025 against the Trump administration. The lawsuit accused Health and Human Services of violating federal law through its “mass transfer of sensitive Medicaid data” of both lawful permanent and temporary residents. The lawsuit also argued that the sharing of the personal information will likely create a “chilling effect on individuals’ willingness to enroll in Medicaid programs” for which they are legally eligible. SECOND FEDERAL JUDGE BLOCKS IRS FROM SHARING ADDRESSES WITH ICE A federal judge ruled last December that the Trump administration is not allowed to collect the personal information of lawful permanent residents or citizens, but that it can continue to collect basic information from individuals such as addresses, birthdates and immigration status for residents with temporary status. However, the scope of data that can be collected is limited and cannot include sensitive health information. The attorneys general accuse Health and Human Services of sharing “a large and complex” set of data on Medicaid recipients with ICE, which is in violation of a federal court ruling allowing the exchange of limited personal information but excluding the information of legal permanent residents. The complaint also accuses the Trump administration of failing to share its criteria for determining if a resident is being “lawfully present.” CATO Institute Senior Legal Fellow Dan Greenberg told Fox News Digital there is “a strong possibility” that HHS and ICE violated the district court’s order. LETITIA JAMES SUES HHS OVER TYING FEDERAL FUNDS TO TRANSGENDER POLICY “The reason this is a strong possibility is that DHHS communications apparently indicate that it shared a ‘large and complex’ dataset of Medicaid recipients with ICE,” Greenberg said. “That phrase suggests that the dataset that was shared with ICE may have included information that is outside the scope of the court order. That is a question of fact: that is why the states are now asking the court to compel the federal government to explain just what was shared and how it is now being used.” Greenberg also pointed out that the Transformed Medicaid Statistical Information System database does not “appear to have any simple or direct way to identify/single out immigrants who are undocumented,” making “information-sharing that complies with that court order difficult or impossible.” “The TMSIS identifies people who are only eligible for emergency Medicaid services, but the problem is that this class of people includes both undocumented and lawfully present immigrants,” Greenberg said. “In short, it is as if the court order said that only some of the information in one particular file should be disclosed, but there is reason to believe that DHHS decided that — because they can’t figure out how to separate out this particular type of information – they may have handed over the whole filing cabinet.” In addition to California, attorneys general of Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin, and the governor of Kentucky signed on to the complaint. Fox News Digital reached out to the White House and Health and Human Services for comment.
NY House GOP launches pressure campaign on Hochul to scrap climate law over soaring energy costs
New York House Republicans are ramping up a pressure campaign against Gov. Kathy Hochul, D-N.Y., citing her failure to combat rising utility costs in the Empire State. The group of lawmakers, led by Rep. Mike Lawler, R-N.Y., is calling on Hochul to scrap the state’s 2019 climate law that they blame for “skyrocketing” energy prices. “Utility bills are at the center of the affordability crisis with New York,” the lawmakers wrote in a letter to Hochul Thursday, citing a study that found electricity prices in New York were the sixth highest in the nation in December and 59% higher than the national average. “Given these significant cost burdens, we strongly urge that the CLCPA [Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act] be repealed.” FROM ‘JUMP ON A BUS’ TO TAX CRACKDOWNS: BLUE STATES CHASE WEALTHY RESIDENTS FLEEING TO RED HAVENS The letter comes as Hochul, who is up for re-election in November and appears to be branding herself as a pragmatist on affordability issues, has acknowledged the “cataclysmic” costs for households and businesses if the law is implemented on schedule. That acknowledgment comes despite her long-standing support for the law, which passed under former Gov. Andrew Cuomo, D-N.Y. “Put simply, something has got to give,” Hochul wrote in an op-ed in March. “[T]he undeniable fact is we cannot meet the Climate Act’s 2030 targets without imposing new and additional crushing costs on New York businesses and residents.” A Feb. 26 memo released by the Hochul administration found that households would pay $4,000 in additional energy costs per year if the state penalizes oil and gas producers as called for by the law. It also found the climate mandate would increase gas prices by $2.23 a gallon. However, she has stopped short of backing a full repeal. In March, Hochul proposed delaying enforcement targets while keeping the law’s 2050 target of net-zero emissions in place. Republicans, who see an opening to go on offense on affordability issues in deep-blue states, have ripped the governor’s efforts to move the enforcement goalposts while keeping the law in place. “The basic fact is this: the 2019 Climate Law was based on faulty assumptions and was enacted using wishful thinking instead of hard facts,” the GOP lawmakers wrote. “It is time to inform the citizens of our state about the realities of the 2019 Climate Law and acknowledge that its goals are unattainable, its costs are too high, and it is overall destructive to our state’s economy.” TRUMP FLIPS DEMS’ ‘AFFORDABILITY’ SCRIPT, TURNING BUZZWORD INTO MAGA MATERIAL AS MAMDANI VISIT LOOMS The debate over New York’s climate law comes as Democrats across the country are walking back aggressive environmental and climate policies amid surging electric bills and growing voter concern about the cost of living. “It is essential that the implementation of the energy transition move forward on an affordable and practical basis to protect ratepayers from skyrocketing energy costs,” the GOP lawmakers wrote. The group is also demanding that Hochul provide “immediate relief” to New Yorkers by redirecting several billion dollars in unspent ratepayer-collected funds back to residents facing high electric bills as utility bill credits. More than 60% of New Yorkers said keeping energy costs affordable is more important than lowering greenhouse gas emissions, according to an April 2025 Siena College poll. Hochul’s office fired back at House Republicans in a statement to Fox News Digital, accusing the New York delegation of supporting policies that drive up costs. “While New York Republicans in Congress continue to bend the knee to President Trump, axing clean energy projects and killing jobs in their own districts, Governor Hochul is taking a realistic approach to clean energy progress,” Hochul spokesperson Emma Wallner said. “The Governor is laser-focused on bringing down energy costs for families, but congressional Republicans refuse to offer tangible solutions and are only making life harder — and more expensive — for their constituents.”
FBI warns foreign apps could collect Americans’ data — even from people who never downloaded them
Your personal data could be collected and stored overseas — even if you never download a foreign-developed app yourself — according to a new FBI alert warning about the risks tied to popular mobile platforms. That means information like your name, email address or phone number could be pulled from someone else’s contact list and potentially stored abroad if a friend or family member grants an app access to their device. The warning comes after years of scrutiny over TikTok’s ties to China, but the FBI alert suggests the concerns extend beyond any single platform to a broader range of foreign-developed apps. In a public service announcement, the FBI said many widely used apps developed overseas, particularly those tied to China, may access extensive data once permissions are granted, including address books containing information on both users and non-users. 5 SIMPLE TECH TIPS TO IMPROVE DIGITAL PRIVACY The bureau also warned that some apps may continue collecting data in the background after access is granted and, in certain cases, store that information on servers in countries where local laws could allow government access. “Developer companies can store collected data on users’ private information and address books, such as names, e-mail addresses, user IDs, physical addresses, and phone numbers of their stored contacts,” the FBI said. “The app can persistently collect data and users’ private information throughout the device, not just within the app or while the app is active.” CHINESE HACKERS REPORTEDLY BREACHED PHONES AT ‘HEART OF DOWNING STREET’ IN GLOBAL SPY CAMPAIGN The FBI did not name specific companies, but the warning could apply to a range of widely used apps developed by Chinese firms — including video-editing platform CapCut, shopping apps like Temu and SHEIN, and social media platforms such as Lemon8 — several of which rank among the most downloaded apps in the United States. U.S. officials have long warned that data collected by Chinese-linked platforms could be used to build detailed profiles of Americans, map personal and professional networks, and potentially support intelligence-gathering efforts, particularly if accessed under China’s national security laws. The FBI added that apps operating in China are subject to the country’s national security laws, which could allow the government to access user data. The FBI also pointed to possible warning signs that an app may be collecting more data than expected, including unusual battery drain, spikes in data usage, or unauthorized account activity after installation — indicators that could suggest background data collection or other suspicious behavior. The bureau urged users to limit unnecessary data sharing, download apps only from official app stores, and regularly review permissions granted to mobile platforms. The bureau also warned that apps obtained from third-party sites may carry malware designed to gain unauthorized access to personal data. Years of scrutiny over TikTok, culminated in a 2026 deal that forced its Chinese parent company to relinquish control of U.S. operations to an American-led group in order to address fears over data access and national security. The FBI’s latest warning suggests those risks may extend beyond a single platform to a broader range of foreign-developed apps used by millions of Americans. The Chinese embassy could not immediately be reached for comment.
Illegal immigrants will no longer get in-state tuition in Kentucky after federal ruling
Illegal immigrants will no longer receive in-state tuition at Kentucky’s public colleges after a federal judge ruled the policy violated U.S. law and permanently blocked its enforcement. The ruling, issued by U.S. District Judge Gregory F. Van Tatenhove, hands a win to the Trump administration and Kentucky Attorney General Russell Coleman after they challenged the policy as giving benefits to those in the country illegally that federal law does not allow. The decision forces Kentucky’s higher education system to end the discounted rates after a months-long legal fight. The lawsuit argued the policy violated federal law, which states that, “an alien who is not lawfully present in the United States shall not be eligible on the basis of residence within a state for any post-secondary education benefit unless a citizen or national of the United States is eligible for such a benefit … without regard to whether the citizen or national is such a resident.” TRUMP’S JUSTICE DEPARTMENT MOVES TO BLOCK BLUE STATE FROM GIVING FINANCIAL AID TO ILLEGALS On Wednesday, Coleman celebrated the ruling by Tatenhove, who wrote that the Kentucky education regulation violated the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause and “permanently enjoins the Kentucky Council on Postsecondary Education… from enforcing [it].” “Federal law is clear: illegal immigrants don’t get preferential treatment at Kentucky’s public universities, and Kentucky taxpayers certainly shouldn’t be footing the bill. As Kentucky’s chief law officer, I was proud to join the Trump Administration to make sure our Commonwealth is upholding federal law and fundamental fairness for American citizens,” Coleman exclusively told Fox News Digital. “We’ll continue focusing on helping Kentucky students reach for their full potential.” In August, Bondi’s lawsuit led Kentucky officials to forge a consent decree, or legal agreement, instead of fighting to defend the policy. OVER 100 CALIFORNIA COLLEGES ACCUSED OF DISCRIMINATING AGAINST US-BORN STUDENTS IN NEW DOJ COMPLAINT The DOJ originally named Kentucky Gov. Andrew Beshear as the defendant, but Beshear’s office previously told Fox News Digital that Kentucky’s KCPE education agency is independent of his office. While Coleman and others celebrated that development as potentially ending the policy, a court found the judiciary still needed to act on the constitutionality of the law, according to the first page of Van Tatenhove’s ruling. “Here, despite the [education] council’s agreement with the United States that its regulation is preempted, it continues to enforce the regulation. As such, a justiciable controversy remains present,” Van Tatenhove wrote. In his 22-page decision, Van Tatenhove wrote that his ruling was “precipitat[ed]” in part by a February 2025 executive order “ending taxpayer subsidization of open borders.” After the consent decree was forged in late August, a student advocacy group attempted to intervene, and the court allowed it but rejected its arguments in favor of the policy. The ruling also said that states do have the right to extend certain benefits to illegal immigrants but must do so through law and not agency-based regulations. Fox News Digital reached out to Beshear for comment.
FBI notified Congress last week of China-linked hack deemed ‘major incident’
FBI officials recently reached out to members of Congress to alert them to a cyber hack classified as a “major incident.” Fox News is told that China is the culprit and that the breach could pose a threat to national security. The FBI made this designation last week when notifying several members of Congress. SWALWELL THREATENS FBI WITH LEGAL ACTION AS PATEL REPORTEDLY WEIGHS ‘FANG FANG’ FILES RELEASE FOX News has reached out to the FBI for comment. The FBI ruled that the incident met the major incident criteria under federal law, the outlet reported, citing an unidentified congressional aide and two unidentified American officials. FBI WARNS OF ZONING PERMIT SCAM EMAILS Congress was notified about the decision earlier this week, the outlet reported, citing the aide. Politico reported that in a March notice to Congress, the federal law enforcement agency informed lawmakers that hackers appeared to breach an FBI system by “leveraging a commercial Internet Service Provider’s vendor infrastructure,” which it characterized as reflective of the group’s “sophisticated tactics.” FBI EMAIL HACK SHOWS WHY YOU MUST LOCK DOWN YOUR TECH The outlet reported that the notice indicated that the “affected” system included “returns from legal process, such as pen register and trap and trace surveillance returns, and personally identifiable information pertaining to subjects of FBI investigations.”
Trump elevates immigration fight at Supreme Court, turning up heat on Democrats ahead of midterms
President Donald Trump‘s presence at the Supreme Court this week may not sway the justices, who appeared skeptical of the president’s push to curb birthright citizenship for undocumented immigrants. But Trump’s historic appearance — no sitting president has attended oral arguments at the high court before — showcased the president’s great interest in his landmark effort to upend more than a century of legal precedent that allowed automatic citizenship to those born in the U.S. And the president’s presence at the Supreme Court may pack a political punch by energizing MAGA voters ahead of the midterm elections, when Republicans will be defending their fragile House and Senate majorities. INSIDE THE SUPREME COURT: HOW TRUMP HEARD BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP ARGUMENTS “Immigration is the issue that has most defined Donald Trump during his time as a national political figure, and his record on border security remains one of the core accomplishments of his second term,” longtime Republican strategist Colin Reed told Fox News Digital. Reed emphasized that “even if the Supreme Court does not side with his perspective in this particular case, the president is making clear that he is not abandoning his commitment to the broader issue.” TRUMP MAKES HISTORIC APPEARANCE AT THE SUPREME COURT On his first day back in the White House last year, Trump signed an executive order which declared that children born in the U.S. to undocumented immigrants or those on limited-duration visas would no longer be granted U.S. citizenship. But the order never took effect, after it was quickly hit with a slew of lawsuits and was subsequently blocked by federal judges from coast to coast who argued it violated long-standing legal precedent. The president on Wednesday stayed quiet until after he left the court, and after the arguments in the case concluded, before taking to social media to write, “We are the only Country in the World STUPID enough to allow ‘Birthright’ Citizenship!” Most Americans appear to disagree. Sixty-nine percent of voters support birthright citizenship for children born in the United States to illegal immigrants, according to a Fox News national poll conducted March 20-23. EXPERTS FLAG ‘DISAPPOINTING’ QUESTIONS FROM JUSTICES IN BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP CASE But there’s a wide partisan divide, with 91% of Democrats and three-quarters of independents but only 44% of Republicans supporting birthright citizenship in such cases. A majority of Republicans questioned in the poll, 55%, disagreed. And among self-described MAGA Republicans, opposition edged up to 60%. “Combating illegal immigration has always been President Trump’s strongest issue, and he’s made our borders more secure than they’ve ever been. He’s obviously fighting a lot of battles and birthright citizenship is one of them,” seasoned Republican communicator Tim Murtaugh told Fox News Digital. Murtaugh, a veteran of Trump’s 2020 and 2024 presidential campaigns, said “the president’s attendance at the oral arguments shows how much he cares about the issue, and draws a far brighter spotlight onto the illogic of birthright citizenship than would otherwise have happened if he hadn’t shown up.” And Murtaugh sees the issue putting Democrats on defense in the midterms. “It’s possible that the court will say that Congress must address the issue. If so, this would be highly relevant in the midterm elections because Democrats are very much going to be put on the defensive for their support of illegal aliens and lawlessness,” Murtaugh argued. Immigration and border security were winning issues for Trump and Republicans and helped fuel their sweeping victories in the 2024 elections, when they won back the White House and the Senate and defended their House majority. But in the wake of political backlash earlier this year over Trump’s unprecedented illegal immigration crackdown, polling on the issue raises warning signs for Republicans and suggests immigration may come back to take a bite out of the GOP in the midterms. “Let’s be clear: Ending birthright citizenship is central to Trump’s broader radical agenda to target immigrant families,” Democratic National Committee Chair Ken Martin charged. “If Trump gets his way, overturning birthright citizenship will create chaos in our communities.” Fox News’ Ashley Oliver and Victoria Balara contributed to this story.
‘We didn’t cave’: Thune highlights Schumer, Dems’ losses in DHS funding deal
As a Homeland Security shutdown drags on, the top Senate Republican says Democrats are getting “zero” of the reforms they demanded. Congressional Democrats have taken victory laps, viewing the outcome as a key win in their push for reforms to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP). They have also accused congressional Republicans of caving to their demands. While the Senate’s Department of Homeland Security (DHS) deal includes funding for ICE and much of CBP, it does not include the structural reforms Democrats spent the last 48 days pushing. SENATE PASSES BILL TO FUND MOST OF DHS AFTER HOUSE GOP CAVES When asked whether Republicans gave in, Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., told Fox News’ “America’s Newsroom,” “No, we didn’t cave.” “I mean, ultimately, what the Democrats did, you could say… this was all about ‘reforms,’ restrictions on ICE and CBP agents and what they could or couldn’t do,” Thune said. “They got none of that. They got zero of the reforms they were advocating for.” Thune was responding to accusations from Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., who argued that “House Republicans caved” after backing down from their push for a 60-day funding extension for the agency. HOUSE CONSERVATIVES RAGE AGAINST SENATE DHS SHUTDOWN DEAL Schumer argued that divisions in the GOP “derailed a bipartisan agreement” and said Democrats were clear in their objectives to “fund critical security, protect Americans, and provide no blank check for reckless ICE and Border Patrol enforcement.” “We were united, held the line, and refused to let Republican chaos win,” Schumer said. Thune countered, “In the end, this was all about their left-wing base demanding that no funding be provided.” HOUSE GOP RAMS THROUGH NEW DHS FUNDING PLAN WITH SHUTDOWN FAR FROM OVER “The good news for us is we saw this coming, and we pre-funded this last summer, so ICE and CBP are funded through the end of the fiscal year. Then we’ll add to those accounts and make sure they’re funded in future years,” Thune said. Republicans, now with the backing of President Donald Trump, are eyeing the budget reconciliation process to fund immigration enforcement operations for the foreseeable future. It’s a tricky maneuver that would require full buy-in from Senate Republicans. Trump lauded Republicans, including Thune and House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., who originally torpedoed the Senate deal, for coming together to reopen most of DHS. He also noted that he would soon sign an executive order to pay, “ALL of the incredible employees at the Department of Homeland Security,” which comes as the funding plan currently wouldn’t pay immigration enforcement support staff. “Republicans are UNIFIED, and moving forward on a plan that will reload funding for our FANTASTIC Border Patrol and Immigration Enforcement Officers,” Trump said on Truth Social. In the meantime, the shutdown is still ongoing. The Senate’s redo of its funding plan Thursday morning sets up another vote in the House, where there is still significant resistance among some hardline Republicans, and the House is not expected to return to Washington, D.C., until April 13.
Conservative group urges crackdown on hidden campus crime with gov’t filing to expose the true scope
FIRST ON FOX: A conservative legal group is calling on the federal government to overhaul how crime data is reported on college campuses, arguing that parents and students are being left in the dark about safety risks. America First Legal (AFL) filed a supplemental petition on Thursday with the U.S. Department of Education, urging officials to create a centralized, publicly accessible database of campus crime logs nationwide. The reason, AFL argues, is gaps in the Clery Act where schools are already required to maintain daily crime logs documenting reported incidents, but that information is scattered, inconsistent and often hard to access. “AFL’s petition today brings a new level of accountability to college campuses,” Emily Percival, senior counsel at America First Legal, said in a press release. SIGN UP TO GET THE CAMPUS RADICALS NEWSLETTER “Parents, students, and policymakers deserve the truth in real-time about the safety of college and university campuses. Today’s action is another step toward shining the light on the dangers that have festered at our academic institutions.” The petition also calls for a new “Political and Religious Violence Transparency Report,” which would document incidents involving threats, assaults and harassment tied to political or religious beliefs, as well as the university’s response. AFL is also pushing for penalties for schools that fail to comply, including fines of up to $71,545 per violation. The proposal comes as colleges nationwide have faced a surge in high-profile incidents involving protests turning violent, clashes between rival groups and reports of intimidation targeting students over political and religious views. LA UNITED SCHOOL DISTRICT SCANDAL LEADS TO CHARGES AS $22M SCHEME ALLEGEDLY DRAINED FUNDS MEANT FOR STUDENTS From disruptive demonstrations that have led to arrests and property damage, to allegations of targeted harassment, campus shootings and assaults tied to ideological disputes, campus tensions have increasingly spilled into violence, prompting lawmakers and watchdog groups to question whether universities are fully disclosing the scope of the problem. AFL argues current reporting rules under the Clery Act allow schools to obscure the true scope of campus disorder, particularly when it comes to protest-related violence. The AFL has previously cited some examples of egregious behavior on college campuses, including the protest that broke out at the University of California at Berkeley during a Turning Point USA event, which led to multiple arrests as demonstrators attempted to breach police barricades. The unrest that unfolded at UC Berkeley prompted the U.S. Department of Justice to launch an investigation. Major schools like the University of Michigan and Columbia University dealt with hostile environments during protests that addressed the war in Gaza. Because of protests causing safety and discrimination concerns for Jewish students, the Trump administration put a freeze on federal funding at some of these schools. Fox News Digital’s Joshua Q. Nelson contributed to this report.
FLASHBACK: Trump’s ‘Liberation Day’ tariffs hit one-year mark as economists split on fallout
A year ago today, President Donald Trump announced a sweeping new round of global tariffs, escalating trade tensions with key allies and adversaries alike, raising fresh concerns about the outlook for the U.S. and global economy. The “Liberation Day” tariffs were introduced as a broad set of import taxes that Trump said would correct long-standing trade imbalances and reduce U.S. reliance on foreign goods. In the months that followed, markets experienced bouts of volatility as businesses and investors adjusted to the shifting trade landscape. Policymakers and economists, meanwhile, debated the longer-term impact on growth, inflation and global trade flows. Many economists warned of potential consequences, including higher prices, slower growth and rising uncertainty for businesses and investors. TRUMP SAYS US WOULD BE ‘DESTROYED’ WITHOUT TARIFF REVENUE But not everyone agreed. “Trump proved 12 Nobel Prize economists wrong,” economist Stephen Moore told Fox News Digital. “Inflation didn’t rise. Why? Because the tax cuts, deregulation and ‘drill, baby, drill’ policies lowered prices and offset the tariffs,” added Moore, a former Trump adviser and co-founder of the free-market advocacy group Unleash Prosperity. But Moore’s view was not widely shared. Here’s a look back at what other economists said at the time. Former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers called the ‘Liberation Day’ tariffs “masochistic,” saying they were the worst levy the U.S. had imposed in decades. “Never before has an hour of Presidential rhetoric cost so many people so much,” Summers wrote on X. “The best estimate of the loss from tariff policy is now closer to $30 trillion or $300,000 per family of four.” Paul Krugman, a Nobel Prize–winning economist, said Trump had “gone full-on crazy” in the hours after the “Liberation Day” tariffs were announced. “If you had any hopes that Trump would step back from the brink, this announcement, between the very high tariff rates and the complete falsehoods about what other countries do, should kill them,” Krugman, a former MIT and Princeton University professor, wrote in his Substack newsletter. Christine Lagarde, president of the European Central Bank, warned that the tariffs would be “negative the world over,” in an interview with Ireland’s Newstalk. She said Trump’s trade policy would weigh on global growth and carry broad consequences. “It will not be good for the global economy, and it will not be good for those who impose the tariffs or those who retaliate,” Lagarde said. Economist Joseph Stiglitz said Trump’s tariff threats have made the U.S. “a scary place to invest” and could unleash stagflation. Stagflation refers to a combination of slow economic growth and rising prices. Stiglitz, a Columbia University professor and former World Bank economist, warned in an interview with The Guardian that he does not see a strong economic outlook ahead. “I cannot see a really robust economy,” said Joseph Stiglitz, former chair of President Bill Clinton’s Council of Economic Advisers. “I see the global economy suffering greatly from the uncertainty that Trump poses.” He also said the inflation triggered by the tariffs is moving in the wrong direction and that the only thing the Trump administration will succeed in doing is “to crater the economy.” Jared Bernstein, the former White House chief economist under President Joe Biden, said the U.S. is a “large, dominant economy” that is relatively closed, meaning it relies less on trade than most countries. “That means, as Trump has argued, we can hurt other countries more than they can hurt us,” Bernstein said. “But he hasn’t offered a clear rationale for why we should start a trade war with traditionally reliable partners like Canada, Mexico, Japan, and Europe.” Bernstein said Trump may reverse course if mounting economic pressures—such as higher inflation, slower growth, falling stock prices and rising recession risks—intensify from the tariffs. “So far, that may have been the approach in Trump’s first term; it doesn’t appear to be the approach this time around,” he said. Allianz chief economic adviser Mohamed El-Erian called for clarity from the White House. “If we get clarity on this, this is an economy that can adjust,” he told FOX Business. El-Erian, the former CEO of bond giant PIMCO, wrote on X that “the price action in global financial markets in the immediate aftermath of the U.S. tariff announcement points to major worries about global economic growth.” Bill Gross, the co-founder of Pacific Investment Management Co., known as Pimco, said the latest round of tariffs is “similar to going off the gold standard in 1971″—an “epic” shift that markets won’t quickly recover from. “It’s not something where you can time a market bottom quickly,” Gross told CNBC. “It’s something we’re going to have to live with as long as President Trump maintains this stance.” Gross, dubbed the “Bond King,” added that he does not expect Trump to reverse course. “To be very blunt, President Trump is a macho male, and this macho male is not going to back down tomorrow simply because the Nasdaq is down 5%,” he said.