Jurors began deliberating Thursday in the case of two men charged with cutting down the Sycamore Gap tree that once stood along the ancient Hadrian’s Wall in northern England.

Daniel Graham, 39, and Adam Carruthers, 32, have pleaded not guilty to two counts each of criminal damage. The former friends each testified that they were at their separate homes that night and not involved.

Justice Christina Lambert told jurors in Newcastle Crown Court to take as long as they need to reach unanimous verdicts in the trial that began April 28.

The tree was not Britain’s biggest or oldest, but it was prized for its picturesque setting along the ancient wall built by Emperor Hadrian in A.D. 122 to protect the northwest frontier of the Roman Empire.

The tree was long known to locals but achieved international fame in Kevin Costner’s 1991 film “Robin Hood: Prince Of Thieves.” It sat symmetrically between two hills along the historic wall and was a draw for tourists, landscape photographers and those taking selfies for social media.

Prosecutors said the tree’s value exceeded 620,000 pounds ($830,000) and damage to the wall, which is a UNESCO World Heritage Site, was assessed at 1,100 pounds. Andrew Gurney, a lawyer for Carruthers, said Graham’s story didn’t add up and he was projecting his guilt on his former friend.

“Is that a plausible chain of events or is that the desperate story of a man caught out?” Gurney said.

Wright mocked the duo’s defense, saying common sense and a trail of evidence should lead jurors to convict them for their “moronic mission.”

Prosecutors showed grainy video from Graham’s phone of the tree being cut down — a video sent shortly afterward to Carruthers’ phone. Metadata showed it was taken at the tree’s location in Northumberland National Park. Data showed Graham’s Range Rover had traveled there.

Wright said he couldn’t say who cut the tree and who held the phone, but the two were the only people in the world who had the video on their devices.

Text and voice messages exchanged the following day between Carruthers and Graham captured their excitement as the story went viral.

Citizen activists supporting a public vote on important issues could have to brush up on their reading, writing and arithmetic if they want to get their initiatives on next year’s ballot in some states.

A new Arkansas law will bar initiative ballot titles written above an eighth-grade reading level. And canvassers will have to verify that petition signers have either read the ballot title or had it read aloud to them.

In South Dakota, sponsors will need to make sure their petition titles appears in 14-point type on the front page and 16-point font on the back, where people typically sign.

And in Florida, volunteers will have to register with the state if they gather more than 25 petition signatures from outside their family or risk facing felony charges punishable by up to five years in prison.

Across about dozen states, roughly 40 bills restricting or revamping the citizen initiative process have passed at least one legislative chamber this year, according to a review by The Associated Press. Many already have been signed into law. Some advocates for the initiative process are alarmed by the trend.

“Globally, as there’s movements to expand direct democracy. In the United States it’s contracting,” said Dane Waters, chair of the Initiative and Referendum Institute at the University of Southern California, who has advised ballot campaigns in over 20 nations.

Most of the new restrictions come from Republican lawmakers in states where petitions have been used to place abortion rights, marijuana legalization and other progressive initiatives on the ballot. GOP lawmakers contend their measures are shielding state constitutions from outside interests.

“This is not a bill to restrict. It is a bill to protect — to make sure that our constitutional system is one of integrity, and that it’s free of fraud,” said state Sen. Jennifer Bradley of Florida, where the new initiative requirements already have been challenged in court.

Since Oregon voters first used the process in 1904, a total of 2,744 citizen initiatives have appeared on statewide ballots, with 42% wining approval, according to the Initiative and Referendum Institute.

But the process has long caused tension between voters and their elected representatives.

Lawmakers often perceive the initiative process as “an assault on their power and authority, and they want to limit it,” Waters said. “They view it, in my opinion, as a nuisance – a gnat that keeps bothering them.”

Because initiative petitions require thousands of signatures to qualify for the ballot, groups sponsoring them often pay people to solicit signatures outside shopping centers and public places. Some states now prohibit payments based on the number of signatures gathered.

States also are trying to restrict who can circulate petitions. A new Arkansas law requires paid petition canvassers to live in the state. And a new Montana law will make petition circulators wear badges displaying their name and home state.

The new Florida law expanding registration requirements for petition circulators also requires them to undergo state training and bars canvassers who are noncitizens, nonresidents or felons without their voting rights restored.

In addition to providing their name, address and birth date, people signing initiative petitions in Florida also will have to provide either their Florida driver’s license, state identification card or the last four digits of their Social Security number.

That information is not required in other states, said Kelly Hall, executive director of the Fairness Project, a progressive group that has backed dozens of ballot initiatives in states. Hall said people concerned about privacy might hesitate to sign petitions.

“I work in ballot measures, and I deeply support many of the things that folks have tried to put on the ballot in Florida, ” Hall said, “and I don’t know if I could bring myself to do that – that’s a very prohibitive requirement.”

Many states already prescribe a particular format for initiative petitions. South Dakota’s new mandate for specific font sizes was prompted by allegations that some people got duped into signing a petition for abortion rights last year, said sponsoring state Sen. Amber Hulse, a Republican.

Printing the ballot title in large type “might make it harder for some issues to get on the ballot if people know what they’re signing. But that’s actually a good thing,” Hulse said.
More power for elected officials

Before they can collect signatures, petition sponsors must get approval from state officials. New measures in several states give those officials greater authority.

New Arkansas laws allow the attorney general to reject initiatives written above an eighth-grade reading level or which conflict with the U.S. Constitution or federal law. Utah’s lieutenant governor, who already can reject unconstitutional petitions, now also will be able to turn away petitions that are unlikely to provide adequate funding for their proposed laws.

A new Missouri law gives greater power to the secretary of state, instead of judges, to rewrite ballot summaries struck down as being insufficient or unfair.

Wall Street is pointing toward losses Tuesday ahead of a two-day meeting of the Federal Reserve, which is facing the diametrically opposed challenges of potential inflation and a softening employment landscape.

Futures for the S&P 500 lost 0.7% and futures for the Dow Jones Industrial Average retreated 0.6%. Nasdaq futures slid 1%.

The Fed is expected to hold its benchmark interest rate steady for the third consecutive meeting after trimming them three times to close out 2024. Uncertainty over President Donald Trump’s trade policy — namely tariffs — has officials concerned about a potential resurgence of inflation, which has been hovering just above the Fed’s target rate of 2%.

The U.S. economy shrank 0.3% in the first quarter, the first drop in three years.

After enormous sell-offs with the market roiling from back-and-forth tariff announcements from the White House, Wall Street had been on a nine-day winning streak, its longest since 2004. That momentum lost steam Monday and the S&P 500 fell 0.6%.

This week’s pause coincides with a growing number of U.S. corporations pulling guidance do to uncertainty about what the tariffs will bring, and spelling out the economic hits they’ll take.

Shares of Ford Motor Co. fell 2.5% before the bell after the automaker said Monday it expects to take a $1.5 billion hit to its operating profit from tariffs this year. That followed General Motors, which last week trimmed its 2025 guidance and said it was anticipating a potential $5 billion tariff impact

Clorox sank 3.2% after it missed sales and profit targets in its most recent quarter and lowered its forecast to reflect “macroeconomic uncertainty” related to tariffs.

DoorDash tumbled more than 5% in premarket after the food delivery app said it was acquiring Britain’s Deliveroo for 2.9 billion pounds ($3.9 billion) in cash, expanding its business in Europe, Asia and the Middle East.

In reporting its most recent financial results, DoorDash said demand for deliveries remained strong in the first quarter, even as more Americans feel increasingly uneasy about the U.S. economy.

Elsewhere, markets in China advanced after reopening from “Golden Week” holidays.

When asked at a routine briefing about comments Trump’s comments on NBC that he won’t cancel tariffs on China to pave the way for trade talks, a Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson reiterated Beijing’s stance that the U.S. “should stop threatening and pressuring and engage in dialogue with China on the basis of equality, respect, and mutual benefit.”

“If they want to fight, we will fight to the end; if they want to talk, the door is open,” Lin Jian said.

Late last week, China’s Commerce Ministry said it was evaluating various U.S. missives about holding talks.

The Shanghai Composite index added 1% to 3,311.89, while the Hang Seng in Hong Kong was up 0.7% at 22,651.65.

A monthly survey measuring future activity in China’s services sector fell to its lowest level ever, excluding the pandemic, in a further sign the escalation of Trump’s trade war is hitting the world’s second-largest economy.

A federal judge on Thursday barred the Trump administration from deporting any Venezuelans from South Texas under an 18th-century wartime law and said President Donald Trump’s invocation of it was “unlawful.”

U.S. District Court Judge Fernando Rodriguez Jr. is the first judge to rule that the Alien Enemies Act cannot be used against people who, the Republican administration claims, are gang members invading the United States. Rodriguez said he wouldn’t interfere with the government’s right to deport people in the country illegally through other means, but it could not rely on the 227-year-old law to do so.

“Neither the Court nor the parties question that the Executive Branch can direct the detention and removal of aliens who engage in criminal activity in the United States,” wrote Rodriguez, who was nominated by Trump in 2018. But, the judge said, “the President’s invocation of the AEA through the Proclamation exceeds the scope of the statute and is contrary to the plain, ordinary meaning of the statute’s terms.”

In March, Trump issued a proclamation claiming that the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua was invading the U.S. He said he had special powers to deport immigrants, identified by his administration as gang members, without the usual court proceedings.

“The Court concludes that the President’s invocation of the AEA through the Proclamation exceeds the scope of the statute and, as a result, is unlawful,” Rodriguez wrote.

In an interview on Fox News, Vice President JD Vance said the administration will be “aggressively appealing” the ruling and others that hem in the president’s deportation power.

“The judge doesn’t make that determination, whether the Alien Enemies Act can be deployed,” Vance said. “I think the president of the United States is the one who determines whether this country is being invaded.”

The chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, Rep. Adriano Espaillat, D-N.Y., said in a statement the judge had made clear “what we all knew to be true: The Trump administration illegally used the Alien Enemies Act to deport people without due process.”

The Alien Enemies Act has only been used three times before in U.S. history, most recently during World War II, when it was cited to intern Japanese-Americans.

The proclamation triggered a flurry of litigation as the administration tried to ship migrants it claimed were gang members to a notorious prison in El Salvador.

Rodriguez’s ruling is significant because it is the first formal permanent injunction against the administration using the AEA and contends the president is misusing the law. “Congress never meant for this law to be used in this manner,” said Lee Gelernt, the ACLU lawyer who argued the case, in response to the ruling.

Rodriguez agreed, noting that the provision has only been used during the two World Wars and the War of 1812. Trump claimed Tren de Aragua was acting at the behest of the Venezuelan government, but Rodriguez found that the activities the administration accused it of did not amount to an invasion or “predatory incursion,” as the statute requires.

“The Proclamation makes no reference to and in no manner suggests that a threat exists of an organized, armed group of individuals entering the United States at the direction of Venezuela to conquer the country or assume control over a portion of the nation,” Rodriguez wrote. “Thus, the Proclamation’s language cannot be read as describing conduct that falls within the meaning of ‘invasion’ for purposes of the AEA.”

If the administration appeals, it would go first to the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. That is among the nation’s most conservative appeals courts and it also has ruled against what it saw as overreach on immigration matters by both the Obama and Biden administrations. In those cases, Democratic administrations had sought to make it easier for immigrants to remain in the U.S.

Guacamole has been spared from tariffs for now. But salsa may not be so lucky.

While President Donald Trump put threatened tariffs on Mexican avocados on pause, the U.S. government plans to put a nearly 21% duty on fresh Mexican tomatoes starting July 14. A duty — like a tariff — is a tax on imports, and this one would impact the 4 billion pounds of tomatoes the U.S. imports from Mexico each year.

Proponents say the import tax will help rebuild the shrinking U.S. tomato industry and ensure the produce eaten in the U.S. is also grown there. Mexico currently supplies around 70% of U.S. tomato market, up from 30% two decades ago, according to the Florida Tomato Exchange.

“Unless we even the playing field in terms of fair pricing, you’re not going to have a domestic industry for fresh tomatoes in the very near future,” Robert Guenther, the trade group’s executive vice president, said. Florida and California are the top U.S. producers of tomatoes, but most of California’s crop is turned into sauces and other products.

Opponents say the duty will make fresh tomatoes more expensive for U.S. buyers. NatureSweet, a San Antonio-based company that grows tomatoes in Mexico as well as the U.S., said it will be paying millions of dollars each month in duties if the decision isn’t reversed.

“We will look for ways to adapt or streamline our operations, but the truth is, we are always doing that so we run an efficient business already,” said Skip Hulett, NatureSweet’s chief legal officer. “Produce is not a large-margin business. We’re determining what portion of the cost we could absorb, but these added costs will most certainly need to be passed on to the consumer.”

Tim Richards, a professor at the Morrison School of Agribusiness at Arizona State University, expects U.S. retail prices for tomatoes to rise by around 10.5% if the duty goes through. Mexico’s government said last month it was convinced it could negotiate over the issue. But if the tomato tax takes effect, Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum has hinted her country may impose duties on chicken and pork legs imported from the U.S.

The tug-of-war over tomatoes has a long history. In 1996, shortly after the North American Free Trade Agreement went into effect, the U.S. Department of Commerce investigated allegations that Mexico was exporting tomatoes to the U.S. at artificially low prices, a practice known as dumping.

The U.S. government agreed to suspend the investigation if Mexico met certain rules, including selling its tomatoes at a minimum price. Since then, the agreement has been subject to periodic reviews, but the two sides always reached an agreement that avoided duties.

But last month, the Commerce Department announced its withdrawal from the latest agreement, saying it had been “flooded with comments” from U.S. tomato growers who want better protection from Mexican imports.

Tomatoes are a labor-intensive crop, Guenther said, and the U.S. industry typically relies on immigrant workers through the H-2A visa program. That program required farmers to pay workers an average of $16.98 per hour last year, an amount that has jumped as labor has become harder to find. Richards estimates that workers on Mexican tomato farms earn about one-tenth that rate.

NatureSweet acknowledges that it’s more cost-effective to grow tomatoes in Mexico, but says climate is one of the biggest reasons. The company’s Mexican greenhouses don’t need lighting, heating or cooling systems because of the year-round weather conditions.

Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers said Friday that every American should be concerned about “chilling” suggestions from President Donald Trump’s top border adviser that he could be arrested over guidance the Democrat issued to state employees about what to do if confronted by federal immigration agents.

“I’m not afraid,” Evers said in the extraordinary video posted on YouTube. “I’ve never once been discouraged from doing the right thing and I will not start today.”

At issue is guidance Evers’ administration issued last month in response to state workers who asked what they should do if agents with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement show up at their offices.

Evers’ guidance advised them to contact an attorney immediately and ask the officers to return if an attorney is unavailable. The memo also advises state workers not to turn over paper files or give ICE officers access to computers without first consulting the state agency’s attorney and not to answer questions from the agents.

The recommendations are similar to guidance that Connecticut’s Democratic governor issued in January. The guidelines also mirror what the National Immigration Law Center and other advocacy groups have said should be done when immigration officials show up at a workplace.

Republican critics argued that the guidance was an order from Evers not to cooperate with ICE agents, an accusation the governor vehemently denied in Friday’s video. The goal of the guidance was to give state employees “clear, consistent instructions” to ensure they have a lawyer present to help them comply with all applicable laws, Evers said.

He accused Republicans of lying about the guidance and spreading misinformation to fuel a “fake controversy of their own creation.”

“I haven’t broken the law,” Evers said. “I haven’t committed a crime and I’ve never encouraged or directed anyone to break any laws or commit any crimes.”

Tom Homan, Trump’s top border adviser, was asked about the Evers memo by reporters outside the White House on Thursday. Homan said, “Wait to see what’s coming,” when asked about the memo.

“You cannot support what we’re doing, and you can support sanctuary cities if that’s what you want to do, but if you cross that line to impediment or knowingly harboring and concealing an illegal alien, that’s a felony and we’re treating it as such,” Homan said.

Some Republicans embraced the possibility of Evers being arrested. Republican Wisconsin state Rep. Calvin Callahan posted a fake image on social media showing Trump in a police uniform behind a grim-faced Evers in handcuffs outside of the state Capitol.

The comments from Homan and Evers’ response come a week after Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan was arrested at the courthouse on two felony charges. She is accused of helping a man evade immigration authorities by escorting him and his attorney out of her courtroom through the jury door last week after learning that federal officers were seeking his arrest.

Warren Buffett shocked an arena full of his shareholders Saturday by announcing that he wants to retire at the end of the year.

Buffett said he will recommend to Berkshire Hathaway’s board that Greg Abel should become CEO at the end of the year.

“I think the time has arrived where Greg should become the Chief Executive office of the company at year end,” Buffett said.

Abel has been Buffett’s designated successor for years, and he already manages all of Berkshire’s noninsurance businesses. But it was always assumed he wouldn’t take over until after Buffett’s death. Previously, the 94-year-old Buffett has always said he has no plans to retire.

Buffett announced the news at the end of a five-hour question and answer period and didn’t take any questions about it. He said the only board members who knew this was coming were his two children, Howard and Susie Buffett. Abel, who was sitting next to Buffett on stage, had no warning.

Many investors have said they believe Abel will do a good job running Berkshire, but it remains to be seen how good he will be at investing Berkshire’s cash. Buffett also endorsed him Saturday by pledging to keep his fortune invested in the company.

“I have no intention — zero — of selling one share of Berkshire Hathaway. I will give it away eventually,” Buffett said. “The decision to keep every share is an economic decision because I think the prospects of Berkshire will be better under Greg’s management than mine.”

Thousands of investors in the Omaha arena gave Buffett a prolonged standing ovation after his announcement in recognition of his 60 years leading the company.

CFRA research analyst Cathy Seifert said it had to be hard for Buffett to reach this decision to step down.

“This was probably a very tough decision for him, but better to leave on your own terms,” Seifert said. “I think there will be an effort at maintaining a ‘business as usual’ environment at Berkshire. That is still to be determined.”

Earlier, Buffett warned Saturday about the dire global consequences of President Donald Trump’s tariffs while telling the thousands of investors gathered at his annual meeting that “trade should not be a weapon” but “there’s no question that trade can be an act of war.”

Buffett said Trump’s trade policies have raised the risk of global instability by angering the rest of the world.

“It’s a big mistake in my view when you have 7.5 billion people who don’t like you very well, and you have 300 million who are crowing about how they have done,” Buffett said as he addressed the topic on everyone’s mind at the start of the Berkshire Hathaway shareholders meeting.

While Buffett said it is best for trade to be balanced between countries, he doesn’t think Trump is going about it the right way with his widespread tariffs. He said the world will be safer if more countries are prosperous.

“We should be looking to trade with the rest of the world. We should do what we do best and they should do what they do best,” he said.

America has been going through revolutionary changes ever since its birth and the promise of equality for all, which wasn’t fulfilled until years later, Buffett said. But nothing that is going on today has changed his long-term optimism about the country.

“If I were being born today, I would just keep negotiating in the womb until they said, ‘You could be in the United States,’” Buffett said.

President Donald Trump on Thursday signed an executive order aiming to slash public subsidies to PBS and NPR as he alleged “bias” in the broadcasters’ reporting.

The order instructs the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and other federal agencies “to cease Federal funding for NPR and PBS” and further requires that that they work to root out indirect sources of public financing for the news organizations. The White House, in a social media posting announcing the signing, said the outlets “receive millions from taxpayers to spread radical, woke propaganda disguised as ‘news.’”

It’s the latest move by Trump and his administration to utilize federal powers to control or hamstring institutions whose actions or viewpoints he disagrees with. Since taking office, Trump has ousted leaders, placed staff on administrative leave and cut off hundreds of millions of dollars in funding to artists, libraries, museums, theaters and others, through takeovers of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities. Trump has also pushed to withhold federal research and education funds from universities and punish law firms unless they agreed to eliminate diversity programs and other measures Trump has found objectionable.

The broadcasters get roughly half a billion dollars in public money through the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and have been preparing for the possibility of stiff cuts since Trump’s election, as Republicans have long complained about them.

Paula Kerger, PBS’ CEO and president, said in a statement last month that the Trump administration’s effort to rescind funding for public media would “disrupt the essential service PBS and local member stations provide to the American people.”

“There’s nothing more American than PBS, and our work is only possible because of the bipartisan support we have always received from Congress,” she said. “This public-private partnership allows us to help prepare millions of children for success in school and in life and also supports enriching and inspiring programs of the highest quality.”

The Corporation for Public Broadcasting sued Trump earlier this week over his move to fire three members of its five-person board, contending that the president was exceeding his authority and that the move would deprive the board of a quorum needed to conduct business.

Just two weeks ago, the White House said it would be asking Congress to rescind funding for the CPB as part of a $9.1 billion package of cuts. That package, however, which budget director Russell Vought said would likely be the first of several, has not yet been sent to Capitol Hill.

The move against PBS and NPR comes as his administration has been working to dismantle the U.S. Agency for Global Media, including Voice of America and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, which were designed to model independent news gathering globally in societies that restrict the press. Those efforts have faced pushback from federal courts, who have ruled in some cases that the Trump administration may have overstepped its authority in holding back funds appropriated to the outlets by Congress.

South Korea’s acting leader, Prime Minister Han Duck-soo, said Thursday he is resigning to take on “heavier responsibility” amid expectation he will run in next month’s presidential election.

Han has emerged as a potential conservative standard bearer as the main conservative People Power Party remains in disarray over the recent ouster of President Yoon Suk Yeol. Observers expect Han to officially launch his presidential campaign on Friday.

“I have two paths ahead of me. One is completing the heavy responsibility that I handle now. The other is putting down that responsibility and taking a heavier responsibility,” Han said in a nationally televised announcement. “I’ve finally determined to put down my post to do what I can and what I have to help overcome the crises facing us.”

Han, who Yoon had appointed prime minister, the country’s No. 2 post, is expected to align with the People Power Party to launch a unified conservative campaign against liberal front-runner Lee Jae-myung, observers say.

Han, 75, is a career bureaucrat with about 40 years of public service and a Harvard doctorate in economics. He has held many top posts under both conservative and liberal governments, including trade minister, finance minister and ambassador to the U.S. He’s served as prime minster twice, first under liberal President Roh Moo-hyun from 2007 to 2008 and later under Yoon.

Han’s supporters say his extensive government experience, especially on economic affairs, would make him the right leader who can deal with President Donald Trump’s aggressive tariff policies and other economic problems. But his critics say Han — who has never had an elected post — has no strong political support base and is too old to become president.

Lee’s main liberal opposition Democratic Party lambasted Han’s move. “Only the people’s severe punishment awaits Prime Minister Han Duck-soo, who is blind with greed and abandons state affairs,” party spokesperson Cho Seung-rae said.

Han is to formally end his term at midnight after he signs a related document, according to South Korean media. With Han’s resignation, Deputy Prime Minister Choi Sang-mok becomes acting president until a new leader is elected on June 3.

Lee, who won the nomination of the Democratic Party on Sunday, has been favored to win. But his campaign suffered a blow Thursday after the Supreme Court ordered a lower court to review its earlier cancellation of his conviction over election law violation charges.

While it’s unclear the Seoul High Court will come up with a new ruling on Lee before the June 3 election, the development provided his conservative rivals with fodder for a political offensive. Under South Korean law, anyone who receives a fine exceeding 1 million won ($683) for election law violations is barred from running for elections for five years.

The Democratic Party condemned the Supreme Court for allegedly trying to interfere in the election.

After the liberal opposition-controlled parliament impeached Yoon on Dec. 14 over his martial law declaration that plunged the country into turmoil, Han began serving as acting leader. But Han quickly clashed with Lee’s Democratic Party over his refusal to fill three vacant seats on the nine-member Constitutional Court, which was deliberating whether to formally dismiss or reinstate Yoon. A court decision to dismiss Yoon needed support from at least six justices.

In late December, the Democratic Party and other small opposition parties voted to impeach Han, accusing him of obstructing the restoration of the court’s full membership and abetting Yoon’s martial law decree. In March, however, the Constitutional Court overturned Han’s impeachment, reinstating him as acting president. The court in early April ruled to dismiss Yoon.

Yoon separately faces a criminal trial for rebellion in connection with his martial law decree. On Thursday, prosecutors added charges of abuse of power, according to a Seoul prosecutors’ office.

American businesses are cancelling orders from China, postponing expansion plans and hunkering down to see what trade policy surprises President Donald Trump plans to spring on them next.

The president’s massive and unpredictable taxes on imports seem likely to mean emptier shelves and higher prices for American shoppers, perhaps within weeks.

And the higher costs and paralyzing uncertainty could exact an economic toll: U.S. consumers are in the biggest funk since COVID-19 hit five years ago, and economists say recession risks are climbing.

An early sign of the damage emerged on Wednesday when the Commerce Department released its first look at first-quarter economic growth.

The U.S. economy shrank 0.3% from January through March, the first drop in three years. Gross domestic product — the nation’s output of goods and services — was down from 2.4% in the last three months of 2024. Imports shaved 5 percentage points off first-quarter growth. Consumer spending also slowed sharply.

Asked how much of deterioration in the world’s biggest economy could be traced to Trump’s erratic policies, Boston College economist Brian Bethune said: “All of it.’’

As he promised on the campaign trail, Trump has upended decades of American trade policy. He’s been imposing — then sometimes suspending — big import taxes, or tariffs, on a wide range of targets. He’s currently plastered a 10% levy on products from almost every country in the world. He’s hit China — America’s third-biggest trading partner and second-biggest source of imported goods – with a staggering 145% tariff.

China has responded with retaliatory tariffs of its own – 125% on American products. The take-no-prisoners trade war between the world’s two biggest economies has shaken global financial markets and threatened to bring U.S.-China trade to a standstill.

Gene Seroka, executive director of the Port of Los Angeles, warned last Thursday within two weeks arrivals to the port “will drop by 35% as essentially all shipments out of China for major retailers and manufacturers has ceased.’’ Seroka added that cargo from Southeast Asia also “is much softer than normal with tariffs now in place.’’

After Trump announced expansive tariffs in early April, ocean container bookings from China to the United States dropped 60% -- and stayed there, said Ryan Petersen, founder and CEO of Flexport, a San Francisco company that helps companies ship cargo around the world. With orders down, ocean carriers have reduced their capacity by cancelling 25% of their sailings, Flexport said.

Many companies tried to beat the clock by bringing in foreign goods before Trump’s tariffs took effect. In fact, that is a big reason that first-quarter economic growth is expected to come in so low: A surge in imports swelled the trade deficit, which weighs on growth.

By stockpiling goods ahead of the trade war, many companies “will be positioned to ride out this storm for a while,’’ said Judah Levine, research director at the global freight-booking platform Freightos. “But at a certain point, inventories will run down.’’

In the next few weeks, Levine said, “you could start seeing shortages ... it’s likely to be concentrated in categories where the U.S. is heavily dependent on Chinese manufacturing and there aren’t a lot of alternatives and certainly quick alternatives.’’ Among them: furniture, baby products and plastic goods, including toys.

Jay Foreman, CEO of toymaker Basic Fun, said he paused shipments of Tonka trucks, Care Bears and other toys from China after Trump’s tariff plan was announced in early April. Now, he’s hoping to get by for a few months on inventory he’s stockpiled.

“Consumers will find Basic Fun toys in stores for a month or two but very quickly we will be out of stock and stock product will disappear from store shelves, ” he said.

Kevin Brusky, who owns APE Games, a small tabletop game publisher in St. Louis, has about 7,000 copies of three different games sitting in a warehouse in China. The tariff bill of about $25,000 would wipe out his profit on the games, so he is launching a Kickstarter campaign next week to help defray the cost of the duties.

Another federal judge in Washington has expressed skepticism about the legality of a Trump administration executive order targeting a prominent law firm, saying he was concerned that the clear purpose of the edict was punishment.

U.S. District Judge John Bates had already temporarily halted President Donald Trump’s executive order against the firm of Jenner & Block but heard arguments Monday on a request by the firm to block it permanently. Lawyers for two other firms — Perkins Coie and WilmerHale — made similar arguments last week to judges who appeared receptive to their positions.

Like the other judges, Bates did not immediately rule but repeatedly pushed back against a Justice Department lawyer’s claims that the orders against Jenner and other law firms were not meant to punish them. The actions have generally imposed the same sanctions against the law firms, including ordering that security clearances of attorneys be suspended, that federal contracts be terminated and that lawyers be barred from accessing federal buildings.

“It’s trying to punish Jenner by stopping the flow of money to Jenner,” Bates said. He later asked: “Isn’t it logical that clients are going to be reluctant to engage Jenner & Block if they know there’s a real chance that Jenner and Block isn’t going to be able to go into a federal building or talk to federal agencies?”

Justice Department lawyer Richard Lawson said it was premature to make that assessment because guidelines governing how the executive order is to be implemented had not yet come out.

Michael Attanasio, a lawyer who presented arguments on behalf of Jenner & Block, said it was “surreal” to listen to the Justice Department’s “verbal gymnastics” in rationalizing the order.

“This order is designed to do one thing: it’s designed to punish a law firm because of the cases it take and because of its affiliation with a critic of the president,” Attanasio said. That’s a reference to the fact that the executive order against the firm takes note that Jenner & Block previously employed Andrew Weissmann, a prosecutor on special counsel Robert Mueller’s team that investigated Trump during his first term over potential ties between Russia and his 2016 presidential campaign.

“All we need to do is read this thing,” Attanasio said. “It reeks of unconstitutionality. It should be set aside in its entirety.”

Each of the law firms subject to an executive order that has challenged it in court has succeeded in getting it temporarily blocked. Other firms, by contrast, have opted to preemptively reach agreements with the White House to avoid getting targeted.

On Monday, Virginia Rep. Gerald Connolly, the top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, and another member of the panel, California Rep. Dave Min, sent letters to law firms that have settled with the administration seeking details about the terms of the deals.

Lee Jae-myung, a liberal who wants greater economic parity in South Korea and warmer ties with North Korea, became the main opposition party’s presidential candidate Sunday, solidifying his position as front-runner to succeed recently ousted conservative President Yoon Suk Yeol.

The former Democratic Party chief had led the opposition-controlled parliament’s impeachment of Yoon over the imposition of martial law in December. The country’s Constitutional Court formally dismissed Yoon earlier this month, prompting an early presidential election on June 3 to find a new president.

In a nationally televised announcement, the Democratic Party announced that Lee won its presidential nomination with nearly 90% of the votes cast during the primary that ended Sunday, defeating two competitors.

“Now, the people and our party colleagues gave me an opportunity to win back the presidency and build a new, real Republic of Korea. Thank you! I’ll humbly uphold that ardent, serious task,” Lee said in a victory speech.

Lee, 60, who served as the governor of South Korea’s most populous Gyeonggi province and a mayor of Seongnam city, is the clear favorite to win the election. In a Gallup Korea poll released on Friday, 38% of respondents chose Lee as their preferred choice, while all other aspirants obtained single-digit ratings. The main conservative People Power Party will nominate its candidate next weekend. Its four presidential hopefuls competing to win the party ticket won a combined 23% of support ratings in the Gallup survey.

It will be Lee’s third bid to run for president. He lost the 2022 election to Yoon in the narrowest margin in the country’s presidential elections. In 2017, Lee ranked third in a Democratic Party primary.

Lee has long established an image as an anti-establishment figure who can eliminate deep-rooted inequality and corruption in South Korea. But his critics view him as a populist who relies on stoking divisions and demonizing opponents and worry his rule would likely further polarize the country.

Lee currently faces five trials for corruption and other criminal charges. If he becomes president, those trials will likely stop as he will enjoy special presidential immunity from most criminal charges.

Lee’s rise comes as conservatives are struggling to win back public confidence in the wake of Yoon’s martial law decree that plunged the country into turmoil. The People Power Party is grappling with internal feuding between senior members defending Yoon’s action and reformist members who voted for his impeachment.