PARIS – French police on Friday detained leading chef Christophe Leroy and flamboyant businessman Pierre-Jean Chalencon questioning over organizing clandestine restaurant dinners for top figures in defiance of Covid-19 restrictions, prosecutors said.
The two men, along with Leroy’s spouse, were interrogated for several hours by investigators before being released.
“At this stage of the investigation, there is no evidence that indicates any members of the government took part in the dinners being investigated,” prosecutors said.
The M6 private television channel last week broadcast a reportage based on footage recorded with a hidden camera purportedly from a clandestine restaurant in a high-end area of Paris where neither the staff nor the diners were wearing masks.
Participants were shown enjoying caviar and champagne at the even costing 220 euros(260 dollars) per person.
All restaurants and cafes have been closed in France for eating in for the last five months. The country this week began a new limited nationwide lockdown to deal with surging Covid-19 infections.
The hashtag #OnVeutLesNoms (We Want the Names) went viral on Twitter, as speculation swirled over who may have attended such dinners.
Chalencon, who owns the luxury Palais Vivienne venue in the center of Paris that was allegedly used for such an event, had told the channel that several such dinners had taken place and even ministers had attended.
The long-haired businessman, a prominent collector of memorabilia, later backtracked from this remark and the government has vehemently denied that any ministers have been involved.
Paris prosecutor Remy Heitz said Sunday that a criminal probe had been opened into putting the lives of others at risk.
Police on Thursday searched the premises of the Palais Vivienne and a similar search had been carried on Wednesday at the home of Christophe Leroy.
Leroy’s lawyer Thierry Fradet said his client had submitted documents that showed that any dinners he had organized were in private homes — in line with the current rules — and not secret restaurants.
France briefly detains chef, businessman in secret dinners scandal
https://arab.news/cf8pu
France briefly detains chef, businessman in secret dinners scandal
- M6 private TV broadcast recorded footage showing participants enjoying caviar and champagne at 220 euros/person
- #OnVeutLesNoms (We Want the Names) went viral on Twitter as speculation swirled over dinners’ attendees
Trump’s big plans on trade and more run up against laws of political gravity, separation of powers
- he laws of political gravity, the separation of powers and geopolitical realities are proving to be tougher to conquer than Trump will publicly admit
WASHINGTON: Once again, President Donald Trump’s biggest policy plans were stopped in their tracks.
On Wednesday, an obscure but powerful court in New York rejected the legal foundation of Trump’s most sweeping tariffs, finding that Trump could not use a 1977 law to declare a national emergency on trade imbalances and fentanyl smuggling to justify a series of import taxes that have unsettled the world. Reordering the global economy by executive fiat was an unconstitutional end-run around Congress’ powers, the three-judge panel of Trump, Obama and Reagan appointees ruled in a scathing rebuke of Trump’s action.
The setbacks fit a broader pattern for a president who has advanced an extraordinarily expansive view of executive power. Federal courts have called out the lack of due process in some of Trump’s deportation efforts. His proposed income tax cuts, now working their way through Congress, are so costly that some of them can’t be made permanent, as Trump had wished. His efforts to humble Harvard University and cut the federal workforce have encountered legal obstacles. And he’s running up against reality as his pledges to quickly end the wars in Ukraine and Gaza have turned into slogs.
The laws of political gravity, the separation of powers and geopolitical realities are proving to be tougher to conquer than Trump will publicly admit. As various legal skirmishes play out, he may have to choose between bowing to the limits of his power or trying to ignore the judicial system.
“If the latter, we may have a constitutional crisis,” said University of Texas history professor H.W. Brands.
After a second federal court on Thursday found Trump’s tariffs to be improper, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said the Trump administration expects to prevail in its judicial appeals but also indicated that officials are exploring other laws to implement tariffs. A federal appeals court said Thursday the government can continue to collect the tariffs under the emergency powers law for now as the Trump administration challenges the ruling, though the government could be obligated to refund the money if the ruling is upheld.
Kevin Hassett, director of the White House National Economic Council, said there are two baseball caps in the room behind the Oval Office that say “Trump Always Wins” and Trump has been “right” about everything.
“Trump does always win these negotiations because we’re right,” Hassett said on Fox Business Network’s “Mornings with Maria.” “These activist judges are trying to slow down something right in the middle of really important negotiations.”
Part of Trump’s challenge lies in the nature of the job, in which only the thorniest of problems cross his desk. But there’s also the fact that Trump’s keen instincts for what plays well on TV don’t necessarily help with the nitty-gritty of policy details.
By unilaterally ordering tariffs, deportations and other actions through the White House, Trump is bypassing both Congress and the broader public, which could have given more popular legitimacy to his policy choices, said Princeton University history professor Julian Zelizer.
“The president is trying to achieve his goals outside normal legal processes and without focusing on public buy-in,” Zelizer said. “The problem is that we do have a constitutional system and there are many things a president can’t do. The courts are simply saying no. The reality is that many of his boldest decisions stand on an incredibly fragile foundation.”
As Trump sees it, his tariffs would solve genuine problems. His “Liberation Day” taxes on imports would close persistent trade imbalances with other countries, with his 10 percent baseline tariff providing a stream of revenue to help offset the trillions of dollars in federal borrowing that would be created by his planned income tax cuts.
But when the financial markets panicked and the interest charged on US debt shot up, Trump backtracked and ratcheted down many of his tariffs to 10 percent while negotiations began to take place.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent suggested this had been the plan all along to force new trade negotiations. But Trump shortly undercut him by saying on the White House South Lawn that he backed down because the financial markets were getting “yippy” — a reminder that Trump’s own improvizatory and disruptive style can upend any working policy process.
Trump still has tariffs in place on autos, steel and aluminum. Those are tied to the premise that imports would create national security risks based on previous investigations under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. He could use other laws to start new investigations or temporarily impose tariffs, but the White House is more focused at the moment on challenging the court rulings.
“What is unprecedented is Trump asserting authority under a 1977 statute that had never been used for tariffs, not just for targeted tariffs, but the largest tariffs since the 1930s,” said Peter Harrell, a fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace who served in the Biden White House. “That’s what is unprecedented and unusual.”
Harrell said Trump could re-create many of his tariffs using other laws but “it would require more work and be a much more orderly process.”
Rice University history professor Douglas Brinkley said Trump’s sense of the presidency relies on a deep misreading of the office. He mistakenly assumes that the tariffs used in the 19th century to fund a much smaller federal government would now be able to pay for a much larger federal government. But he also assumes that power flows to and from him, rather than from institutions and the rule of law.
“He doesn’t seem to realize that anytime he doesn’t listen to the court orders that he’s making an anti-American statement,” Brinkley said. “It’s telling people that I’m bigger than the American Constitution, that judges are just errand boys for me.”
The Trump White House blamed its latest setback on the US Court of International Trade.
White House trade adviser Peter Navarro said in a Bloomberg News interview that the judicial branch was part of the problem, keeping Trump from delivering on his promises.
“We’ve got courts in this country who are basically engaged in attacks on the American people,” Navarro said. “The president ran on stopping the fentanyl poisoning, stopping international trade unfair practices from stealing our factories and jobs. And courts keep getting in the way of that.”
White House acknowledges problems in RFK Jr.’s ‘Make America Healthy Again’ report
- Kennedy has repeatedly said he would bring “radical transparency” and “gold-standard” science to the public health agencies
WASHINGTON: The White House will fix errors in a much-anticipated federal government report spearheaded by US Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., which decried America’s food supply, pesticides and prescription drugs.
Kennedy’s wide-ranging “Make America Healthy Again” report, released last week, cited hundreds of studies, but a closer look by the news organization NOTUS found that some of those studies did not actually exist.
Asked about the report’s problems, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said the report will be updated.
“I understand there was some formatting issues with the MAHA report that are being addressed and the report will be updated.” Leavitt told reporters during her briefing. “But it does not negate the substance of the report, which, as you know, is one of the most transformative health reports that has ever been released by the federal government.
Kennedy has repeatedly said he would bring “radical transparency” and “gold-standard” science to the public health agencies. But the secretary refused to release details about who authored the 72-page report, which calls for increased scrutiny of the childhood vaccine schedule and describes the nation’s children as overmedicated and undernourished.
Leavitt said that the White House has “complete confidence” in Kennedy.
“Minor citation and formatting errors have been corrected,” HHS Spokesman Andrew Nixon said in an emailed statement. He described the report as a “historic and transformative assessment by the federal government to understand the chronic disease epidemic afflicting our nation’s children.”
NOTUS reported Thursday that seven of the more than 500 studies cited in the report did not appear to have ever been published. An author of one study confirmed that while she conducted research on the topics of anxiety in children, she never authored the report listed. Some studies were also misinterpreted in the MAHA report. The problematic citations were on topics around children’s screen time, medication use and anxiety.
Kennedy’s MAHA report had already been stoking concerns among Trump loyalists, including farmers who criticized how the report characterized the chemicals sprayed on US crops.
The report is supposed to be used to develop policy recommendations that will be released later this year. The White House has requested a $500 million boost in funding from Congress for Kennedy’s MAHA initiative.
US-China tariff talks ‘a bit stalled,’ needs Trump, Xi input, Bessent says
US trade talks with China are “a bit stalled” and getting a deal over the finish line will likely need the direct involvement of President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said on Thursday.
Two weeks after breakthrough negotiations led by Bessent that resulted in a temporary truce in the trade war between the world’s two biggest economies, Bessent told Fox News that progress since then has been slow, but said he expects more talks in the next few weeks.
“I believe we may at some point have a call between the president and party Chair Xi,” Bessent said.
“Given the magnitude of the talks, given the complexity ... this is going to require both leaders to weigh in with each other,” he said. “They have a good relationship, and I am confident that the Chinese will come to the table when President Trump makes his preferences known.”
The US-China agreement to dial back triple-digit tariffs for 90 days prompted a massive relief rally in global stocks. But it did nothing to address the underlying reasons for Trump’s tariffs on Chinese goods, mainly longstanding US complaints about China’s state-dominated, export-driven economic model, leaving those issues for future talks.
Since the mid-May deal, the Trump administration has concentrated on tariff negotiations with other major trading partners, including India, Japan and the European Union. Trump last week threatened 50 percent tariffs on EU goods, only to delay that threat.
A US trade court on Wednesday
ruled that Trump overstepped his authority in imposing the bulk of his tariffs on imports from China and other countries under an emergency powers act. But less than 24 hours later, a federal appeals court reinstated the tariffs, saying it was pausing the trade court ruling to consider the government’s appeal. The appeals court ordered the plaintiffs to respond by June 5 and the administration to respond by June 9.
Bessent said earlier that some trading partners, including Japan, were negotiating in good faith and that he detected no changes in their postures as a result of the trade court ruling. Bessent said he would meet with a Japanese delegation on Friday in Washington.
At UN Security Council, US urges Russia to take Ukraine ceasefire deal
- Threatens to step back as mediator if Russia makes wrong choice
- Moscow responds that the ball is in Kyiv’s court now
UNITED NATIONS: The United States told the UN Security Council on Thursday that its proposal for a ceasefire in Ukraine was “Russia’s best possible outcome” and President Vladimir Putin should take the deal.
The United States wants Russia to agree to a comprehensive 30-day land, air, sea and critical infrastructure ceasefire. A first round of direct talks between Russia and Ukraine on May 16 failed to reach an agreement on a ceasefire — which Moscow has said is impossible to achieve before certain conditions are met.
“We want to work with Russia, including on this peace initiative and an economic package. There is no military solution to this conflict,” Acting Deputy US Ambassador John Kelley told the Security Council. “The deal on offer now is Russia’s best possible outcome. President Putin should take the deal.”
US President Donald Trump began his second term in January vowing to swiftly end Russia’s three-year-old war in Ukraine. Kelley said the first US step was to put forward a proposal for an immediate, unconditional and comprehensive ceasefire, which had been accepted by Ukraine, pending Russia’s agreement.
“Since then, we have been urging Russia to accept a ceasefire,” he said.
“If Russia makes the wrong decision to continue this catastrophic war, the United States will have to consider stepping back from our negotiation efforts to end this conflict,” he warned, adding that Washington could also impose further sanctions on Russia.
Kelley said that after Trump and Putin spoke by phone last week, Russia was now expected to provide a term sheet broadly outlining its vision for a ceasefire in the conflict, which began when Moscow invaded its neighbor in February 2022.
“We will judge Russia’s seriousness toward ending the war, not only by the contents of that term sheet, but more importantly, by Russia’s actions,” said Kelley, condemning Russia’s recent attacks on Ukraine as not demonstrating “a desire for peace.”
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said on Wednesday that Moscow had drafted a memorandum outlining a settlement position in the Ukraine war. But Ukraine said Moscow has not yet shared its proposal.
Russia’s UN Ambassador Vassily Nebenzia said Moscow intended to continue serious, direct negotiations with Ukraine. Russia has suggested a second round of direct talks take place on Monday in Istanbul.
“The ball is in Ukraine’s court: either talks, followed by peace, or the unavoidable defeat of Ukraine on the battlefield with different conditions for the conflict’s end,” Nebenzia told the Security Council.
Ukraine’s Deputy UN Ambassador Khrystyna Hayovyshyn said Russia was “not signaling any genuine intention to stop its war” and urged countries to impose stronger sanctions on Moscow.
“Ukraine has consistently demonstrated commitment to diplomacy and remains open to any format that can yield tangible results,” she said, but added that Kyiv would never recognize Russia’s claim to any occupied Ukrainian territory.
“We will not tolerate interference in sovereign decisions, including our defense or alliances. There must be no appeasement of the aggressor. Such attempts only embolden future aggression,” Hayovyshyn told the council.
Trump’s tariffs to remain in effect after appeals court grants stay
- Trade court ruled Trump exceeded authority under IEEPA
- Uncertainty over tariffs impacts trade talks and market reactions
WASHINGTON: A federal appeals court temporarily reinstated the most sweeping of President Donald Trump’s tariffs on Thursday, a day after a trade court had ruled Trump had exceeded his authority in imposing the duties and ordered an immediate block on them.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington said it was pausing the lower court’s ruling to consider the government’s appeal, and ordered the plaintiffs in the cases to respond by June 5 and the administration by June 9.
Wednesday’s surprise ruling by the US Court of International Trade had threatened to kill or at least delay the imposition of Trump’s so-called Liberation Day tariffs on imports from most US trading partners and additional tariffs on goods from Canada, Mexico and China. The latter was related to his accusation that the three countries were facilitating the flow of fentanyl into the US.
The trade court’s three-judge panel ruled that the Constitution gave Congress, not the president, the power to levy taxes and tariffs, and that the president had exceeded his authority by invoking the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, a law intended to address threats during national emergencies.
Senior Trump administration officials had said they were undeterred by the trade court’s ruling, saying they expected either to prevail on appeal or employ other presidential powers to ensure they go into effect.
Trump has used the threat of charging US importers costly tariffs for goods from almost every other country in the world as leverage in international trade talks, a strategy the trade court’s ruling would upend. The trade court ruling had not interfered with any negotiations with top trading partners that are scheduled in the days ahead, Trump’s administration said.
US trading partners “are coming to us in good faith and trying to complete the deals before the 90-day pause ends,” Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said in a Fox News interview. “So we’ve seen no change in their attitude in the past 48 hours. In fact I have a very large Japanese delegation coming to my office first thing tomorrow morning.”
Many US trading partners offered careful responses. The British government said the trade court’s ruling was a domestic matter for the US administration and noted it was “only the first stage of legal proceedings.” Both Germany and the European Commission said they could not comment on the decision.
Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney welcomed the trade court’s finding, saying it was “consistent with Canada’s longstanding position” that Trump’s tariffs were unlawful.
Financial markets, which have whipsawed wildly in response to every twist and turn in Trump’s chaotic trade war, had reacted with cautious optimism to the trade court ruling, though gains in stocks on Thursday were largely limited by expectations that the court’s ruling faced a potentially lengthy appeals process. Indeed, analysts said broad uncertainty remained regarding the future of Trump’s tariffs, which have cost companies more than $34 billion in lost sales and higher costs, according to a Reuters analysis.
Some sector-specific tariffs, such as those on imports of steel, aluminum and automobiles, were imposed by Trump under separate authorities on national security grounds and were unaffected by the ruling.
The Liberty Justice Center, the nonprofit group representing five small businesses that sued over the tariffs, said the appeals court’s temporary stay was a procedural step.
Jeffrey Schwab, senior counsel for the center, said the appeals court would ultimately agree with the small businesses that faced irreparable harm of “the loss of critical suppliers and customers, forced and costly changes to established supply chains, and, most seriously, a direct threat to the very survival of these businesses.”
A separate federal court earlier on Thursday had also found Trump overstepped his authority in using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act for what he called reciprocal tariffs of at least 10 percent on goods from most US trading partners and for the separate 25 percent levies on goods from Canada, Mexico and China related to fentanyl.
That ruling was much narrower, however, and the relief order stopping the tariffs applied only to the toy company that brought the case. The administration has appealed that ruling as well.
Uncertainty persists
Following a market revolt after his major tariff announcement on April 2, Trump paused most import duties for 90 days and said he would hammer out bilateral deals with trade partners. But apart from a pact with Britain this month, agreements remain elusive, and the trade court’s ruling on the tariffs and the uncertainty of the appeals process may dissuade countries like Japan from rushing in to deals, analysts said.
“Assuming that an appeal does not succeed in the next few days, the main win is time to prepare, and also a cap on the breadth of tariffs — which can’t exceed 15 percent for the time being,” said George Lagarias, chief economist at Forvis Mazars international advisers.
The trade court ruling would have lowered the overall effective US tariff rate to about 6 percent, but the appellate court’s emergency stay means it will remain at about 15 percent, according to estimates from Oxford Research. That is the level it has been since Trump earlier this month struck a temporary truce that reduced punishing levies on Chinese goods until late summer. By contrast, the effective tariff rate had been between 2 percent and 3 percent before Trump returned to office in January. Trump’s trade war has shaken makers of everything from luxury handbags and sneakers to household appliances and cars as the price of raw materials has risen. Drinks company Diageo and automakers General Motors and Ford are among those that have abandoned forecasts for the year ahead.
Non-US companies including Honda, Campari , Roche and Novartis have said they are considering moving operations or expanding their US presence to mitigate the impact of tariffs.
