The US Court of International Trade has ruled that the Trump administration’s reciprocal tariff program is illegal, delivering a significant blow to the White House’s trade policy.

The program had imposed steep tariffs on imports from multiple countries, sparking strong opposition and retaliatory measures from global trade partners. The court found that the president exceeded statutory authority in implementing such broad tariffs.

Following the ruling, Wall Street stock futures rose as investors saw it as a positive signal for de-escalating trade tensions. However, the White House said it would appeal, leaving the ultimate fate of the tariff policy uncertain.

Analysts note that if the ruling stands, it could significantly reshape US relations with major trading partners and provide relief for businesses affected by the tariffs.

A US federal appeals court issued a temporary order on Thursday blocking the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) rule that allowed women to obtain the abortion drug mifepristone by mail, CNN and The New York Times reported. The ruling will have significant implications for medication abortion accessibility across the country.

The Ruling

The appeals court’s temporary order effectively suspends the FDA’s expanded policy that permitted certified healthcare providers to mail mifepristone to patients. Mifepristone is the primary drug used in medication abortions, which currently represent the most common method for the procedure in the United States.

The ruling is the latest development in an ongoing legal campaign by anti-abortion organizations and state governments challenging the FDA’s regulatory decisions on the drug. Opponents argue that mailing prescription abortion drugs poses safety risks and should be subject to stricter oversight.

Impact

The mifepristone-misoprostol medication abortion regimen is currently the most prevalent method for terminating early pregnancies in the US. The FDA’s previous rule allowing mail distribution of the drug significantly expanded access for women in remote areas and states with restrictive abortion laws.

The temporary order will reintroduce barriers to medication access for this population, particularly in states that have implemented strict abortion restrictions.

Reactions

Pro-choice organizations strongly condemned the ruling, arguing it infringes on personal medical autonomy. Related legal groups have indicated they will continue pursuing legal avenues to defend the FDA’s original policy.

Conversely, anti-abortion groups welcomed the ruling as an interim victory and called on the court to permanently overturn the FDA’s mail distribution rule.

Legal Background

The FDA’s regulatory approach to mifepristone has undergone several changes in recent years. In 2021, the agency eliminated the in-person dispensing requirement, allowing the drug to be distributed by mail. Since then, anti-abortion states and organizations have filed multiple lawsuits seeking to reverse this policy change.

It remains unclear whether the appeals court’s temporary order will persist and how the case will proceed through higher levels of the judicial system.

Source: CNN, The New York Times

Elon Musk took the stand on April 28, 2026, in the ongoing lawsuit against OpenAI, delivering sharp testimony in which he accused co-founder Sam Altman of betraying both him and the public by transforming a non-profit organization with a public mission into a profit-seeking enterprise.

Key Testimony

“It’s not OK to loot a charity,” Musk told the court. He emphasized that the outcome of the case extends beyond his personal interests, touching the very foundation of the charitable giving system.

Musk was a co-founder of OpenAI, which was established in 2015 as a non-profit organization with the stated mission of ensuring that artificial general intelligence (AGI) benefits all of humanity, rather than being monopolized by a small group. However, following the explosive success of ChatGPT and the broader AI boom, OpenAI transitioned to a “capped-profit” model in 2019 and subsequently attracted billions in investment from Microsoft.

The Core of the Dispute

Musk’s lawsuit centers on several key claims:

1. Mission Drift: Musk alleges that OpenAI abandoned its original non-profit mission, prioritizing technology and profit over public good.
2. Governance Structure: He questions OpenAI’s current governance framework, arguing that Altman and management have effectively taken control of an organization that nominally still operates under the banner of “ensuring AI benefits humanity.”
3. Public Interest: Musk stressed that the case concerns “the basis of charitable giving,” warning that if non-profit organizations can freely convert into for-profit entities, it would undermine public trust in the entire charitable sector.

Industry Implications

The case is widely regarded as one of the most consequential legal battles in the AI industry. Analysts note that regardless of the outcome, the ruling will have far-reaching implications for the business models and regulatory frameworks of the global AI sector.

The AI industry is currently in a period of intense competition. Tech giants including Google, Microsoft, Amazon, and Meta are all accelerating their AI investments, and OpenAI’s business model and governance structure have become focal points of industry debate.

Altman’s Response

Altman has previously denied Musk’s allegations, arguing that OpenAI’s transition to a profit-cap structure was necessary to achieve greater impact rather than to pursue personal gain. In earlier court filings, Altman stated that the organizational change enabled OpenAI to attract top talent and large-scale investment, thereby accelerating the pace of AI development.

The legal battle between the two tech visionaries continues, and the final outcome is expected to shape the future trajectory of the global AI industry.

Source: Al Jazeera, BBC News