Last July, President Donald Trump imposed 50 percent tariffs on various Canadian goods, a list he subsequently expanded to include additional imports, some of which he banned outright. His legal justification was Section 338 of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, which Congress approved in 1930. Section 338 authorized tariffs in response to discriminatory trade practices. But in the 96 years since it was enacted, no president had ever used it to impose tariffs.

Why is that? According to a lawsuit that the Liberty Justice Center (LJC) filed on Tuesday in the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT), the answer is clear: Section 338 was superseded by subsequent legislation that likewise targeted discriminatory trade barriers, beginning with the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act of 1934 and culminating in Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. Section 301, the current remedy, includes requirements that Trump apparently sought to dodge by invoking Section 338 instead.

That maneuver is illegal, the LJC argues. "Congress already gave the executive branch a tool for responding to unfair foreign trade practices: Section 301, which requires an investigation, public comment and other safeguards," says Jeffrey M. Schwab, the LJC's director of litigation. "The administration cannot skip those protections by reaching for a 1930 statute that no president had ever used to impose a tariff."

Why not? "Where provisions in two acts are in irreconcilable conflict, the later act, to the extent of the conflict, constitutes an implied repeal of the earlier one," the lawsuit says. "Where a later act covers the whole subject of an earlier one and is clearly intended as a substitute, it operates similarly as a repeal. And a specific policy embodied in a later federal statute controls the construction of an earlier one even absent express amendment."

Even if Section 338 somehow survived congressional approval of contrary laws, the LJC adds, Trump's tariffs exceed the authority it grants. And if Trump's interpretation of Section 338 were correct, the lawsuit says, the provision would violate the nondelegation doctrine, which bars Congress from delegating its tariff power to the president without providing "an intelligible principle" to guide and constrain his exercise of it.

Trump's Section 338 tariffs, in short, are "the Administration's latest attempt to exercise, through a statute never designed for the purpose, the tariff power that the Constitution assigns to Congress." That pattern should be familiar by now.

Shortly after taking office in 2025, Trump claimed to have discovered a previously unnoticed delegation of extensive tariff authority in the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a 1977 law that does not mention import taxes and had never been used to impose them. That claim was rejected by every court that considered it, and last February the Supreme Court ruled that IEEPA does not authorize tariffs at all.

Trump responded to that decision by immediately announcing similarly broad tariffs under Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act, which addresses "fundamental international payments problems" caused by "serious United States balance-of-payments deficits." In May, the CIT ruled that the new tariffs were illegal because Trump had failed to "identify balance-of-payments deficits within the meaning of Section 122."

Trump then switched to Plan C, invoking Section 301 of the Trade Act, which authorizes tariffs in response to a foreign "act, policy, or practice" that is "unreasonable or discriminatory" and "burdens or restricts" U.S. commerce. He claimed that provision justified tariffs on 86 trading partners, accounting for nearly all U.S. imports, because they had failed to "impose and effectively enforce a prohibition on the importation of goods produced with forced labor." The CIT is currently weighing challenges to those tariffs, including an LJC lawsuit.

Trump's Section 338 tariffs have now added to the CIT's caseload. The LJC represents Gellert Global Group, an importer that was hit hard by those taxes after Trump added cheese to the list of disfavored Canadian goods. The lawsuit asks the CIT to certify a class of importers, numbering in "the hundreds, if not the thousands," that likewise have been clobbered by Trump's 50 percent tariffs.

Since Trump obviously is aware of Section 301, why did he resort to a never-used, seemingly obsolete provision to justify the tariffs on imports from Canada? As the LJC notes, Section 301 requires an investigation by the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, "consultation with the foreign country concerned, notice, public comment, a hearing, and determinations within statutory deadlines." It also requires "that action be equivalent in value to the burden imposed, that duties be preferred over other import restrictions, and that actions terminate after four years absent a request for continuation and review."

Can Trump avoid those constraints by invoking Section 338 instead? The LJC thinks not: "Congress did not intend to leave in place a parallel authority that would allow the President to impose the same remedies, for the same conduct, free of every one of those safeguards."

Section 338 has been "impliedly repealed," the LJC argues. "At a minimum, Section 301 controls where, as here, the President seeks to respond to foreign practices within Section 301's scope, and the President may not impose duties in response to such practices while disregarding the procedures and limits Section 301 imposes. Because the President did not proceed under Section 301, the Section 338 Tariffs are unlawful whether or not Section 338 survives."

Even if you ignore subsequent legislation, the LJC argues, the Canadian policies that Trump cited when he announced the tariffs do not qualify as "discrimination" under Section 338. "Canada's motor vehicle surtax and its provinces' alcohol purchasing decisions are responses to tariffs that the United States imposed on Canada, not discrimination by Canada against the United States," it says. Trump also complained that Canada treats European cheese imports more favorably than U.S. cheese imports. But "when Congress enacted Section 338, a preference granted under a reciprocal agreement was not 'discrimination.'"

Section 338 "addresses discrimination: measures that single out United States commerce for worse treatment than the commerce of the world at large," the lawsuit says. "It is not a general authorization to impose tariffs whenever the President disagrees with a trading partner's policies, or whenever a trading partner responds to tariffs the United States has imposed on it."

Trump also was unfazed by Section 338's requirement that the president set duties to "offset" the costs imposed by discriminatory practices, which implies proportionality. Rather than attempt that, the LJC notes, Trump imposed "the statutory maximum rate of 50 percent without tying it to any measured burden."

As interpreted by Trump, the lawsuit warns, Section 338 authorizes the president to "impose tariffs of up to 50 percent on any products of any country that extends better treatment to any other country in any respect—including through any of the hundreds of preferential trade agreements to which the United States is not a party—or that responds to tariffs the United States has imposed on it." Yet Section 338 "contains no clear statement authorizing that power," contrary to the "major questions" doctrine, which applies to assertions of executive authority with "vast economic and political significance."

If Section 338 conferred the sort of unfettered authority that Trump is claiming, the LJC says, it "would supply no intelligible principle constraining the exercise of Congress's power to lay duties." His reading "would convert a narrow, fact-dependent provision into an effectively unrestricted delegation of Congress's tariff power," which would be "an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power."

This case "is not about the president," says LJC CEO Sara Albrecht. "It is about the presidency. No president should have the power to pull a dormant statute off the shelf and use it to impose sweeping tariffs or import bans without the limits Congress required."

The post Trump's 50% Tariffs on Canadian Goods Illegally Rely on a Superseded Statute, a Lawsuit Argues appeared first on Reason Magazine.

On Monday, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced it would "make $8 billion available for one-time payments to American farmers this harvest season to provide relief during temporary market disruptions and increased input costs."

Using a formula derived from the USDA's production, yield, and price estimates, the Harvest Fuel Relief program will "provide simple, proportional support to producers." It will only cover a "portion of modeled losses during the 2026 crop year." The Farm Service Agency—an office within the USDA that administers credit and loan programs—will administer the $8 billion in one-time payments using funds from the Commodity Credit Corporation, a federal entity authorized to draw up to $30 billion from the U.S. Treasury to fund agricultural initiatives. Payment rates won't be released until November, and the USDA's notice leaves open the possibility of additional payments for "non-Title I commodities, including specialty crop growers and fishermen."

A fiscally questionable decision, the program comes at a time when farmers are feeling a significant price pinch. The dyed diesel American farmers and ranchers use is exempt from state and federal highway taxes, but that has done little to offset skyrocketing fuel prices. In September, the American Farm Bureau Federation projected that fuel expenses would reach $22 billion this year, up 29 percent from 2025. The Farm Bureau estimates that total production expenses will reach nearly $500 billion in 2026. According to its own predictions, the USDA doesn't expect the situation to improve anytime soon.

In its latest Commodity Costs and Returns report, released in June, the USDA projects farmers and ranchers will face record production costs in 2027—higher than during the COVID-19 supply chain disruptions—driven by higher prices for necessary inputs such as fuel, fertilizer, seeds, machinery, and labor. 

While the USDA has blamed "temporary market disruptions" for these cost hikes, the blame more accurately falls to President Donald Trump, thanks to his illegal war in Iran. As of Tuesday, Trump's war—and the subsequent shocks it has caused to the global diesel supply—have pushed the national average price in the U.S. up $2.70 per gallon from a year ago, a 74.6 percent increase, according to AAA data.

Unfortunately, the war in Iran is just one of several Trump administration policies making life more expensive for everyone, including the nation's farmers and ranchers. Tariffs on imported fertilizer, which began in 2020 during the first Trump administration, have made it difficult for American farmers to afford what they need. By the Farm Bureau's estimates, fertilizer costs for 2026 are projected to reach a record $40 billion, up 15 percent from the previous year.

The $8 billion program is part of a windfall of taxpayer money the Trump administration has sent to farmers as relief for harms caused by the president's actions. Last December, the USDA sent $11 billion in one-time bridge payments to more than half a million farmers nationwide. Earlier this month, the USDA announced it would provide a record $13.8 billion in gross payments to agricultural producers to cover revenue losses. 

In a speech in Kansas touting the program, Trump claimed that the state's residents would see a "plunge" in prices once the war ends. That's likely an exaggeration, given the host of questionable economic policies he seems hell-bent on implementing. 

Still, that shouldn't discredit the president's suggestion. Ending the war would benefit farmers, ranchers, and consumers, without doling out billions in another government bailout for a favored industry.

The post Trump's $8 Billion Diesel Bailout Pays Farmers for a Problem He Created appeared first on Reason Magazine.

Today, the Liberty Justice Center (LJC) filed Gellert Global Group Corp. v. Trump, the first lawsuit challenging President Donald Trump's massive Section 338 tariffs against a variety of Canadian imports. The case was filed in the US Court of International Trade (which has jurisdiction over tariff-related cases); Gellert Global Group is an importer of Canadian cheese subject to the tariffs. LJC is the same public interest group that I worked with on the case challenging Trump's earlier IEEPA tariffs, which ultimate resulted in their invalidation by the Supreme Court. I am not directly involved in the present case. But I support it and believe it deserves to prevail.

LJC has also filed cases challenging Trump's massive Section 122 and Section 301 tariffs. They have become America's premier public interest law group standing up for free trade and enforcing constitutional constraints on executive power over trade restrictions.

Section 338 was part of the infamous Smoot-Hawley tariff act of 1930, which gravely exacerbated the Great Depression. It has never been used before, likely because it was superseded by later laws.

I have previously written about why Trump's Section 338 tariffs are harmful and illegal. See my recent Montreal Economic Institute paper on this topic, and earlier pieces here, here, and here. To briefly summarize, the tariffs on Canada are illegal because 1) Section 338 has been superseded by later legislation, 2) even if Section 338 is still operative, Trump's tariffs do not meet its requirements because the Canadian actions they supposedly respond to do not "discriminate" against US goods, as the law requires, 3) Trump's tariffs do not "offset" the Canadian actions (as Section 338 also requires), but go far beyond that, 4) the administration's interpretation of Section 338 runs afoul of the "major questions" doctrine, and 5) if Section 338 is operative and does authorize the Trump actions, it would violate the constitutional nondelegation doctrine (which restricts delegation of legislative power to the executive).

The LJC complaint advances all five of these arguments. To prevail, they need win on only one. They also add a few more technical points that I will not try to cover here. LJC further seeks a class action certification for a class of all those importers subject to the Section 338 tariffs. If this succeeds, it would block all enforcement of Section 338 tariffs, not just those paid by Gellert.

This lawsuit does not directly challenge Trump's extension of the Section 338 action to categorically ban some Canadian imports, in addition to imposing tariffs. As far as I can tell, Gellert does not import goods subject to the ban (as opposed to the tariffs). However, as I explained here and here, the legality of the bans is dependent on that of the initial tariffs. In a recent Lawfare article, I outline the reasons why executive-imposed import bans are subject to most of the same legal constraints as executive-imposed tariffs.

Like the IEEPA, Section 122, and Section 301 tariffs, Trump's use of Section 338 is an attempt to convert a limited delegation of authority into a blank check enabling the president to impose tariffs whenever he wants. Courts should reject all of these power grabs.

I commend LJC for bringing this important case. And I hope and expect it may not be the last lawsuit challenging the Section 338 measures. Future cases might well challenge the import bans directly, as well as the tariffs.

The post Liberty Justice Center Files First Lawsuit Challenging Trump's Section 338 Tariffs Against Canadian Imports appeared first on Reason Magazine.

On Monday, a group of students from the University of Chicago stood outside the Chicago Mercantile Exchange—one of the world's largest and most diverse derivatives marketplaces—and called for the repeal of an obscure 1958 law that bans onions as futures products traded on U.S. exchanges. 

Attracting an audience with a humorous jingle and amusing signs that included "Onions Deserve a Future," "Honk If You Want Free Onions," "Hot Girls Hedge Onions," and "Free Markets Feed Families," the student group, named For Our Futures, has a simple platform: a repeal of the 1958 Onion Futures Act, which prohibits anyone from trading in onion futures on commodity exchanges. (The law was amended in 2010 to ban motion picture box office receipts from being traded on commodity exchanges.) The viral campaign drew enough attention that Mike Selig—chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and a proponent of expanding the list of commodities traded on futures markets—was asked about the law in a media appearance. 

American farmers produce about 6.75 billion pounds of onions a year, according to the National Onion Association, an industry trade group. While peers who grow cotton, wheat, corn, and soybeans can hedge against price swings by trading futures contracts, onion farmers have no such recourse under federal law. But, as the Agriculture Department's daily National Potato and Onion Report shows, onion prices are highly volatile and subject to wild swings, making them an ideal market for futures trading. 

In its latest report, released Monday, the agency shows that onion prices have roughly doubled since this time last year. If onion futures contracts were legal, farmers could rely on market expectations instead of planting crops based on last year's prices. It would also let buyers potentially cut costs by locking in lower prices to protect against spikes. Trading onion futures contracts would give the industry a useful price-discovery tool, one that the student group aptly notes is "crucial for price stability and for hedging risks associated with weather and market fluctuations."

It's not For Our Futures' first time trying this gambit. The student group staged similar protests at college campuses in April and May, armed with bags of raw onions to entice passersby into signing their petition to legalize onion futures. The students' crusade might be comical, but after a recent Gallup poll found that 57 percent of Americans age 18–34 have a positive image of socialism, it's encouraging to see college-age students stand up for free markets.

A protest over onions sounds absurd, but it's a viral reminder to others in that age cohort of how far governments can go when given the slightest leeway to regulate an industry.

Instead of relying on outdated price points when planning future harvests, American onion producers could use resources like futures contracts that offer real-time market signals. All that would require—as the college kids state—is for federal lawmakers to "let the free market reign supreme."

The post You Can Trade Contracts on Elections, but Not on Onions. These College Students Want To Fix That. appeared first on Reason Magazine.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio held talks with India's foreign minister in Mumbai on Tuesday as the two countries seek to deepen energy cooperation and move closer to finalizing a trade deal.

Nearly $1 million worth of trading cards in more than 200 packages were stolen from a FedEx truck last week outside of Professional Sports Authenticators (PSA) in Santa Ana.

The cards, which Santa Ana police said were valued at approximately $963,000, were graded by PSA and were being shipped back to their owners.

Police said that sports and Pokémon cards were included in the heist.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE OUTKICK SPORTS COVERAGE

The thief had broken into the truck by breaking the lock. The cards were stolen while the FedEx driver was away from the vehicle.

Card collector and YouTuber SKY-B was a victim of the heist, saying he had 104 cards stolen, "many" of which are "irreplaceable."

"A hundred four cards which were either case hits, which are ultra rare, or they're 1-of-1s, meaning they're the only one in the world," the YouTuber said.

"We are aware of a theft involving a third-party shipping vehicle carrying PSA-graded items. We are working closely with law enforcement and the carrier as the investigation continues," Collectors said in a statement.

FORMER CLIPPERS STAR WARNS OF TEAM'S UPHILL BATTLE AFTER BRUTAL KAWHI LEONARD SALARY CAP PUNISHMENT

Collectors said it has "deactivated the certificates for the stolen items and notified marketplace partners so they can be on the lookout for rare and serialized items."

"Our customer service team has contacted affected customers directly and is arranging compensation based on fair market value," Collectors said.

"We understand the impact this has on collectors involved, many of whom see these cards as far more than a financial asset. Our team is focused on supporting them. We take this incident seriously, and we will continue working with law enforcement to hold those responsible accountable."

OUTKICK IS NOW AVAILABLE ON THE FOX NEWS APP: CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD

No arrests have been made, and none of the cards have been recovered.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky travelled to Oslo to meet US envoys, pressing Washington over a delayed shipment of Patriot interceptor missiles already paid for by European allies.

NATO said it will send additional surveillance, reconnaissance and forensic support to the Black Sea after a string of attacks on commercial vessels transiting the corridor.

A new lawsuit filed in the US Court of International Trade challenges President Donald Trump's 50% tariffs on a range of Canadian goods. The plaintiffs invoke a rarely used 1930 trade-law provision, arguing the administration overstepped its legal authority.

While Americans prepare to cast their ballots for who should control Congress and their local governments, the cost of filling a gas tank, paying rent and buying a home is becoming a defining test of the economy leading up to the 2026 midterms.

The latest inflation report underscores the challenge facing President Donald Trump and Republicans as they campaign on the economy and vow to improve conditions for American consumers. Trump returned to the White House promising to lower costs and is now campaigning for GOP candidates in key races, but the reality is something quite different.

With Election Day less than two weeks away, rising prices are testing whether voters feel like Republicans have done enough to improve the economy and their financial well-being.

ONE STATE IS GROUND ZERO AS TRUMP'S MULTIBILLION-DOLLAR TECH AMBITIONS FACE A MIDTERM TEST

And that pressure showed up in the latest inflation report, which found consumer prices rose 3.7% over the past year and 0.6% in September alone. The Consumer Price Index (CPI) tracks the prices households pay for a broad range of goods and services, from food and gasoline to housing and medical care.

Gasoline was a major driver, with its index jumping 9.1% for the month. But the gas to fill up the tank is not the only fuel cost putting pressure on households.

The diesel used to power trucks, farm equipment and freight trains is also surging, which has raised the cost of moving groceries, packages and building materials — another charge that has trickled down to how much Americans pay for those goods.

Additionally, the Iran war has disrupted shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, further tightening global fuel supplies, while disruptions to Russian energy infrastructure have added pressure.

Utility costs are adding to the squeeze as colder weather approaches. Electricity prices were up 4.4% from a year earlier in September, while piped natural gas service rose 5%, according to the CPI.

Those figures track prices, not what any one household paid, so a local customer's bill can show how the increase is landing in real life.

REPUBLICANS JUST GOT A POWERFUL NEW PLAYBOOK FOR THE BATTLE FOR CONGRESS. HERE'S WHAT'S INSIDE.

Housing costs also continued to climb. The shelter index, which tracks rents and a measure of what homeowners would pay to rent their homes, rose 3.2% over the past year. Grocery prices offered some relief, dipping 0.1% in September, though they remained 1.8% higher than a year earlier.

Additionally, Trump's trade agenda is another part of the affordability debate.

A New York Fed study found that tariffs in place through February added 2.9 percentage points to consumer-goods inflation. Tariffs are taxes on imported goods, and U.S. companies that pay them can pass some of the added cost along to shoppers.

The study found that higher prices also affected some goods made in the United States, as domestic producers faced less competition from imports. The White House has argued that its trade policies will strengthen U.S. manufacturing and that foreign exporters bear the costs.

Housing presents a different affordability challenge. The median price of an existing home reached $417,500 in September, up 1.3% from a year earlier, while the average 30-year mortgage rate was 7.4%.

AMERICAN-MADE GOODS ALSO GOT MORE EXPENSIVE UNDER TRUMP TARIFFS, NEW RESEARCH FINDS

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

The latest figures give voters a snapshot of what they are paying, but not a verdict on who is to blame.

With Election Day approaching, Trump and Republican candidates will have to convince voters that their policies can make everyday costs more manageable.

The European Union has signed a comprehensive association agreement with Andorra and San Marino, establishing a framework that will allow the two small European states to participate more fully in the EU single market while remaining outside the bloc.

The agreement was signed in Brussels on Monday, 19 October, by representatives of the European Commission and the two governments, marking the conclusion of negotiations that began more than a decade ago.

The arrangement covers trade, investment and regulatory cooperation, alongside provisions concerning financial services, education, environmental protection, consumer rights and other areas normally governed by EU legislation.

However, the agreement has not yet entered into force. It requires further approval procedures, including consent from the European Parliament and ratification by the participating countries. Andorra intends to submit the agreement to a binding national referendum.

Access to the European single market

According to the European Commission’s announcement, the agreement will provide Andorra and San Marino with access to the single market under shared regulatory requirements and conditions intended to ensure fair competition.

The principal objective is to remove barriers that continue to restrict economic activity between the two countries and the EU’s 27 member states.

For businesses, the arrangements should provide greater predictability concerning the rules governing cross-border trade, investment and commercial operations.

Participation will nevertheless require both countries to implement relevant EU legislation and maintain systems capable of enforcing the applicable standards.

In practice, access to the European market will carry obligations comparable to those imposed on companies established inside the Union, particularly concerning product standards, competition, environmental rules and consumer protection.

The agreement also establishes institutional arrangements for managing cooperation and dealing with future regulatory developments.

For two countries whose economies are closely connected to neighbouring EU members, greater regulatory consistency could reduce administrative barriers and facilitate commercial expansion.

Financial services to be integrated gradually

Financial services represent one of the more sensitive elements of the agreement.

Andorra has a banking and financial sector with substantial links to Spain and France, while San Marino’s economy is closely integrated with Italy.

Both countries already use the euro under separate monetary arrangements with the European Union, although neither is a member of the eurozone or the EU.

The new association framework would provide a route towards broader participation in the EU financial services market, but integration will be gradual and subject to specific conditions.

The Commission has made clear that the process will involve assessments of the regulatory and supervisory arrangements operating in both countries.

This means the signature does not provide their financial institutions with immediate, unrestricted access to all services available within the EU.

Brussels has also signed updated monetary agreements designed to remove overlapping requirements between existing arrangements and the new association framework.

Financial supervision, the prevention of money laundering and compliance with European regulatory standards will be central to the implementation process.

Integration without EU membership

The agreement illustrates how the Union can extend significant elements of its economic framework to neighbouring countries without admitting them as members.

Andorra and San Marino will not acquire voting rights in EU institutions or the political representation enjoyed by member states.

Their participation will instead depend on accepting relevant common rules and complying with the institutional provisions established under the association agreement.

The EU already operates differentiated arrangements with several non-member European countries, including Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein through the European Economic Area.

Earlier European Council conclusions on relations with non-EU Western European countries identified Andorra and San Marino among the states with which Brussels sought closer economic and institutional cooperation.

The newly signed agreement does not replicate every aspect of existing arrangements, but it follows the broader principle that access to the single market can be negotiated separately from EU membership.

That principle is also relevant to discussions about how candidate countries might receive selected economic benefits before completing the full accession process.

Brussels has been considering wider market participation for countries such as Ukraine and Moldova ahead of possible membership.

Referendum and ratification ahead

The immediate political challenge now moves from negotiation to approval.

Following the signature, the Council will seek the European Parliament’s consent before the agreement can be formally concluded. Its application will also depend on the completion of the necessary national procedures.

In Andorra, Prime Minister Xavier Espot’s government has committed to a binding referendum, although no voting date has yet been fixed.

The referendum will determine whether Andorran voters accept the economic opportunities and regulatory commitments established by the agreement.

San Marino must also complete the procedures required under its constitutional system.

Until those requirements have been satisfied, the agreement remains a signed framework rather than an operational extension of the EU single market.

For both countries, the eventual implementation will determine how far their economies can integrate with the Union while retaining their existing status as independent non-member states.

Chinese automakers facing a new European Union import quota on hybrid electric vehicles are preparing to ramp up local production. Firms are weighing building their own European plants or leasing idle capacity from foreign manufacturers.

Argentina's government has spent roughly $445 million on weapons, military and security equipment since President Javier Milei took office in December 2023, an analysis by the newspaper Infobae found. The figure, compiled from official procurement records through August 2026, already exceeds the totals recorded during the full terms of predecessors Alberto Fernández and Mauricio Macri.

Albertans voted decisively against separating from Canada in the province's first-ever independence referendum, with early results showing about 77% in favour of staying. The result boosts Prime Minister Mark Carney's push for national unity as Canada faces US tariff and annexation threats.

Gli autotrasportatori di Gizzeria, Racalmuto, Cerignola, quelli del lagonegrese, delle Madonie, gli autuisti di Pachino con i loro magnifici pomodorini, quelli dell’Etna che trasportano le arance rosse sono attesi in prefettura a Milano da Matteo Salvini.

Il ministro è milanese, le cose da fare sono tante, i problemi crescono, l’orologio è impietoso.

Chi scioperà per via del portafoglio vuoto fa un altro piccolo sacrificio: treno, aereo o autobus e via a Milano. Poche centinaia di euro e si è da Salvini in persona, per parlare dei portafogli vuoti.

Abbiamo pensato cosa sarebbe accaduto in Italia se un ministro della Repubblica, magari nato a Caltanissetta ed ivi residente, avesse convocato gli autisti del Brennero, i veneti di Valpolicella, i piemontesi di Alba, e quelli che guidano i tir di Sassuolo per trasportare ovunque le bellissime ceramiche tutti a Caltanissetta, nella città dove il ministro affaccendato ha da sbrigare le tantissime faccende appunto.

Avremmo mormorato, vero? La fannullaggine del sud, la mancanza di rispetto, quelli che lavorano e gli altri col culo in poltrona, la vita traversa dei soliti mantenuti.

Eccetera eccetera.

L'articolo Salvini, i tir di Cerignola convocati a Milano e lo strano “doppio” che voleva portare quelli del Brennero a Caltanissetta… proviene da Il Fatto Quotidiano.

A Belgian criminal organisation’s links with a Brazilian cocaine gang have been the focus of a major trial in Brussels, where smuggling links have been alleged between European players and the drug cartels of Latin America

In the early hours of 7 September, a convoy of heavily armed police swept through the sleeping streets of central Brussels towards the Haren district, on the city’s north-eastern outskirts. They made their way to 22 Avenue du Bourget, a militarised bunker-like complex that was the former headquarters of Nato.

The modernist complex, with its austere and functional architecture, was hastily built in 1967 and houses the Justitia courtroom, where Belgium’s federal trials are now held. It was here that the perpetrators and accomplices of the 2015 Paris terrorist attacks and the 2016 Brussels attacks were tried in 2022.

Continue reading...

© Composite: Guardian Design/Belga/AFP/Getty Images/AP/Europol

© Composite: Guardian Design/Belga/AFP/Getty Images/AP/Europol

© Composite: Guardian Design/Belga/AFP/Getty Images/AP/Europol

The growing global use of GLP-1 weight-loss drugs is pushing consumers toward more nutrition-conscious choices, creating new export opportunities for New Zealand's premium food producers.

Argentina posted another trade surplus after exports reached $77 billion between January and September 2026, with agricultural products, minerals, gas and oil making up 73% of total sales abroad.