U.S. Government Faces Brief Shutdown as Congress Delays Funding Deal 
Google Halts UK YouTube TV Measurement Service After Legal Action 
Pentagon and Anthropic Clash Over AI Safeguards in National Security Use 
Sam Altman Criticizes ICE Enforcement as Corporate Leaders Call for De-Escalation 
U.S. Vaccine Policy Shifts Under RFK Jr. Create Uncertainty for Pharma and Investors 
China Approves First Import Batch of Nvidia H200 AI Chips Amid Strategic Shift 
Federal Judge Rules Trump Administration Unlawfully Halted EV Charger Funding 
South Korea Repatriates 73 Suspected Online Scammers From Cambodia in Major Crackdown 
Publishers Seek to Join Lawsuit Against Google Over Alleged AI Copyright Infringement 
Trump Administration Appeals Judge’s Order Limiting ICE Tactics in Minneapolis 
Pemex Halts Planned Crude Oil Shipment to Cuba Amid Rising US Pressure 
Using the Economic Calendar to Reduce Surprise Driven Losses in Forex 
Asian Currencies Trade Flat as Dollar Retreats After Fed Decision 
Minnesota Judge Rejects Bid to Halt Trump Immigration Enforcement in Minneapolis 
Toyota Retains Global Auto Sales Crown in 2025 With Record 11.3 Million Vehicles Sold 
FAA Says It Is Not Blocking Boeing 737 MAX 7 and MAX 10 Certification 
United States Officially Exits World Health Organization, Raising Global Public Health Concerns 
When Donald Trump announced sweeping “Liberation Day” tariffs in April, Learning Resources CEO Rick Woldenberg quickly began searching for legal support to challenge the move. Determined to protect his family’s decades-old educational toy business, Woldenberg joined forces with Akin Gump attorneys to take their case, Learning Resources v. Trump, to the U.S. Supreme Court. The case, along with two others—one filed by Democratic-led states and another by the Liberty Justice Center representing small firms like MicroKits and V.O.S. Selections—argues that Trump’s tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) exceed presidential authority.
Trump’s tariffs, ranging from 10% to 50%, have generated about $100 billion for the U.S. but hit small businesses hardest. Large corporations have largely stayed out of the litigation, opting instead for lobbying and exemption strategies. According to economist John Horn of Washington University, major firms can absorb tariff shocks through larger cash reserves and flexible supply chains, while smaller firms face crippling uncertainty and higher costs.
For Woldenberg, the tariffs forced drastic cutbacks, including canceling a 600,000-square-foot expansion, freezing hiring plans, and slashing marketing budgets. “I predicted we’d be smaller and make less money—and both are true,” he said. MicroKits founder David Levi shared similar struggles. His small Virginia-based toy company saw growth stall after tariffs on Chinese imports surged above 100%, forcing him to cut production and staff hours. With key electronic parts unavailable domestically, Levi says U.S. manufacturing remains unrealistic.
Liberty Justice Center attorney Jeffrey Schwab said the response from small businesses nationwide has been “overwhelming.” Victor Schwartz, president of V.O.S. Selections, said his wine import business lost $200,000 due to the tariffs, calling his participation in the lawsuit a “moral imperative.” As the Supreme Court hears arguments, small businesses hope for a ruling that restores stability and fairness to U.S. trade policy.
