{"id":42702,"date":"2026-08-04T03:41:07","date_gmt":"2026-08-04T01:41:07","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/kaizen-blog.org\/?p=42702"},"modified":"2026-08-04T05:12:22","modified_gmt":"2026-08-04T03:12:22","slug":"04-august-2026-kurznachrichten","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/kaizen-blog.org\/en\/04-august-2026-kurznachrichten\/","title":{"rendered":"August 4, 2026 \u2013 Short News"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>\n\n\n\n

25 States Sue Trump Over New Tariffs<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n

The next battle over Donald Trump's tariff policy is once again headed to court. A coalition of 25 states has filed a lawsuit against the administration, accusing it of using its latest import tariffs merely to replace the duties the Supreme Court ruled unlawful in February. The tariffs, ranging from 10 to 12.5 percent, affect imports from 59 countries and the European Union. The administration argues they are justified because those countries have not done enough to stop goods produced with forced labor. New York Attorney General Letitia James, however, calls them an unlawful attempt to once again burden families and businesses with higher import taxes after Trump had already lost before the Supreme Court. Following that defeat, the administration was forced to refund billions of dollars to importers before Trump turned to temporary worldwide 10 percent tariffs that expired at the end of July. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The states joining the lawsuit are Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Maryland, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Virginia, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The White House is now relying on Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, which authorizes measures against unfair trade practices. This is the same legal authority that survived court challenges during Trump's first term when tariffs were imposed on China. The plaintiffs nevertheless argue that this latest attempt is unlawful. Two similar lawsuits filed by small businesses are already pending. They argue that the administration has neither presented sufficient evidence against each individual country nor explained why these tariffs would eliminate the alleged forced labor problem. Once again, the question is whether Trump has placed his trade policy on legally sustainable ground this time or is simply continuing the same policy under a different statutory heading.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Blanche Kills $1.8 Billion Fund - Trump's Tax Immunity Stays Alive<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Todd Blanche has officially rescinded the controversial $1.8 billion fund for Donald Trump's political allies, thereby removing the decisive opposition from Republican senators. His confirmation as the new attorney general is therefore considered likely. But the actual point of contention remains. The agreement intended to retroactively shield Trump, his sons Eric and Donald Jr., as well as the Trump Organization from tax audits was not repealed, but merely narrowed. Blanche stated in writing that the protection applies only to tax claims that were still open at the time of the settlement and not to future tax returns. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Legal experts nevertheless consider this to be an extraordinary intervention in the American tax system. According to previous reporting, it could eliminate more than $100 million in back taxes. Federal Judge Kathleen Williams had already ruled in July that Trump's lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service had been filed for an improper purpose. She did not overturn the settlement itself, but found that the government may not claim in official proceedings that the agreement was the result of a proper legal process. Legal experts continue to question whether such tax immunity can be lawful at all. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Another point of contention has been added. Once confirmed as attorney general, Blanche could influence ongoing tax audits, even though the relevant safeguards were created after the Watergate scandal specifically to prevent political interference. Democrats are therefore demanding legislation that would permanently prohibit both the $1.8 billion fund and the tax immunity. Trump himself recently stated that he would immediately put the fund back on the table if Blanche's confirmation were to fail.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Pirro Defies Trump - Then Gets Called Into the Oval Office as Trump Considers Firing Her <\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n