Get the latest crypto news, updates, and reports by subscribing to our free newsletter.
Giấy phép số 4978/GP-TTĐT do Sở Thông tin và Truyền thông Hà Nội cấp ngày 14 tháng 10 năm 2019 / Giấy phép SĐ, BS GP ICP số 2107/GP-TTĐT do Sở TTTT Hà Nội cấp ngày 13/7/2022.
© 2026 Index.vn
Dai Truong Phat Education Group has attracted several million USD in foreign capital from Japan and Singapore. Related to the 3rd-grade computer science textbook containing a 'blacklisted web' link, Hue City Police's PA03 unit has intervened. The publisher confirmed the error appeared in 2022 print editions due to the learning-material…
The U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) on April 10 heard arguments in lawsuits filed by 24 states and small businesses challenging a 10% additional import tax imposed by President Donald Trump on all trading partners since February 24. The plaintiffs argue the measure is a workaround to a Supreme Court ruling.
On February 20, the Supreme Court rejected Trump’s import tax policies under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), including countervailing duties and separate tariffs on Mexico, Canada, and China. The same day, Trump signed an executive order imposing an additional 10% import tax, citing authority under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974.
During more than three hours of proceedings, a three-judge panel focused on the meaning of a “balance of payments deficit.” Judge Timothy Stanceu questioned the administration’s position that a trade deficit alone could be sufficient to invoke the 1974 act.
Brett Shumate, a Department of Justice attorney, responded that the trade deficit contributes to widening the balance of payments deficit and creates a large, serious international-payments problem for the United States.
Brian Marshall, representing the state of Oregon, argued that the U.S. dollar is not currently at risk of rapid depreciation. He urged the court to block the 10% tariff rather than allow it to expire after 150 days, warning that Trump could use other legal avenues to keep the tariff in place indefinitely.
“If the tariff continues to be applied, that will be a problem,” Marshall said.
Marshall also pointed to the broader trade picture, noting that even with higher tariffs already in place, the 2025 trade deficit was about $901.5 billion—roughly unchanged from the previous year.
The CIT has not announced when it will issue a decision. The outcome is not expected to affect other tariffs Trump has imposed—such as those on aluminum, steel, and copper—because they are based on different statutes.
Hà Thu (Reuters)
Premium gym chains are entering a “golden era” that is ending or already in decline, as rising operating costs collide with shifting consumer preferences toward more flexible, community-based ways to exercise. Long-term memberships are shrinking, margins are pressured by higher rents and facility expenses, and competition from smaller, more personalized…
