Trump Tariff Ruling, Texas Abortion Medication Bill, New Dietary Guidelines

An appeals court rules that most of President Trump's tariffs are illegal.

It's a setback for the president's signature trade policy, but the ruling won't be enforced until October, giving the White House time to appeal. I'm Aisha Roscoe.

And I'm Scott Simon, and this is Up First from NPR News.

Texas lawmakers are on track to pass further restrictions aimed at reducing the use of abortion medication.

The bill would allow members of the public to file lawsuits against the medicines' providers. Also, Health Secretary Robert F.
Kennedy Jr. says he will soon release new dietary guidelines.

He's promised to make them brief and easy to read, but will the new guidelines make any difference to the nation's eating habits? So please stay with us.

We've got the news you need to start your weekend.

Support for NPR and the following message come from Warby Parker, the one-stop shop for all your vision needs. They offer expertly crafted prescription eyewear, plus contacts, eye exams, and more.

For everything you need to see, visit your nearest Warby Parker store or head to WarbyParker.com. This message comes from Schwab.

Everyone has moments when they could have done better, like cutting their own hair or forgetting sunscreen, so now you look like a tomato. Same goes for where you invest.

Level up and invest smarter with Schwab. Get market insights, education, and human help when you need it.
Learn more at schwab.com.

This message comes from the Council for Interior Design Qualification. Interior Designer and CIDQ President Siavash Madani describes the rigor of NCIDQ certification.

An NCIDQ certified interior designer must complete a minimum of six years of specialized education and work experience.

Being NCIDQ certified means that you've proven your knowledge and skills and are recognized as a qualified interior design professional. Learn more at cidq.org/slash npr.

This message comes from Dell Technologies. Your new Dell PC with Intel Core Ultra helps you handle a lot when your holiday to-dos get to be a lot.
That's the power of a Dell PC with Intel inside.

Get yours at dell.com/slash holiday.

President Trump has long touted tariffs as critical to rebalancing global global trade, believing that trade deficits penalize the U.S. But now a federal appeals court in Washington, D.C.

has ruled that the president overstepped his authority when he imposed many of those tariffs, including on China, Canada, and Mexico. Joining us now to talk about that in other political news.

NPR is Ron Elving. Ron, thanks for being with us.
Good to be with you, Scott. Social media post, the president says it would be, quote, a total disaster for the country if the tariffs went away.

What does this ruling and all the back back and forth mean for those trade deals? Aaron Powell, you know, this tariff story has been whiplash practically from the get-go.

Trump has imposed tariffs and lifted them. He's set them at 25% for a given country and then doubled them, set them at 100% of the value of the goods and then paired that way back.

He's looked very much, or this whole playing out has looked very much like an array of negotiating tactics in search of a strategy.

And while billions have been collected, it's premature to say that's really money in the bank, at least not yet.

So the disposition here is going to depend on what a series of courts, ultimately the U.S. Supreme Court, should decide.

Did Trump follow the law in his end run around Congress in setting these tariffs? Or is he within his rights?

That's been a crucial question all along, but Friday's ruling from the full Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit really raises the stakes. So it will go to the Supreme Court eventually.

But in the meantime, it's back with a trade court that has been tough on Trump in the past.

And at the same time, let's remember, it could be good news for consumers if it ultimately restrains these new Trump tariffs and allows U.S. retailers to return to their previous price structures.

LCS Day, a federal judge in Washington, D.C. held a hearing on Trump's attempts to fire a member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors.
That's right.

Gia Cobb, a four-year veteran of the federal bench here in D.C., heard arguments on the lawsuit filed by Lisa Cook, a member of the Federal Reserve Board whom Trump said he was firing this week.

It is far from clear he has the legal right to remove a member of the board, except, quote, for cause, unquote.

Now, Trump has cited as a cause a controversy that was stirred by one of his most recent appointees, who has accused Cook of violating a rule on holding multiple mortgages.

There has been no finding of guilt in that matter, and in fact, no charges have been filed in that matter, so we will be following that case.

Also late yesterday, Judge Cobb ruled against the president on the administration's fast-tracking of deportations.

That's right, too.

And in this case, which involves hundreds of thousands of individuals, Judge Cobb said Trump had not met the legal tests to show a national emergency existed that would give him special powers.

So that, too, is under review. And again, the Supreme Court will likely be the last stop.

But the case and the ruling have the potential to upend another big element in Trump's agenda for his second term.

President moved to cancel nearly $5 billion in funding for international aid this week, unilaterally.

Isn't Congress supposed to have the power of the purse?

Well, yes, that's what the textbooks say.

But here again, as we heard Trump himself say on tape this week, he's the president, and that means he can do pretty much what he wants if he thinks the country is in danger.

And Congress, at least so far, has shown no willingness to buck the president on any of these major policy matters, even when his moves seem to challenge or ignore the role of Congress itself.

Now, with the midterms of 2026 just around the corner, right now is the season for members of Congress to worry about challengers, not just for their re-election, but for their re-nomination by their own party.

And that's where Trump's influence over the Republican voting base can mean life or death for a member of Congress. Which introduces the fact that there has been some Republican resistance.

Senator Susan Collins of Maine, the top Senate appropriator,

called this, quote, a clear violation of the law. So could Congress vote to stop it?

They could, legally speaking. But do they want to go to war with Trump and his voters, who are also their own voters? Collins called it a clear violation, and it's hard to argue that point.

She's in a prime position to push back, but how will she do so?

And will other Republicans in the Senate who talk a good game about the Constitution and shared powers, but then find their own reasons to stand with the party and stand with the president?

The day when Republicans defy Trump may well come, but it has not come yet. So in that sense, Trump is right.

He can do anything he wants, practically speaking, because the Republicans in the House and Senate have yet to show it's ready or they're ready or willing to stop him.

And Paris Senior Contributor Ron Elving, thanks so much. Thank you, you, Scott.

Texas banned abortion after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v.
Wade three years ago.

And now, Texas lawmakers are working on legislation to further restrict a ban on abortion medication sent in from other states.

The bill would allow members of the public to file lawsuits against the medicines providers and to keep some of the money.

They could bring the suits even if they're not connected to the person getting the medication. Olivia Aldrich from Member Station KUTN Austin joins us now.
Olivia, thanks for being with us. Thank you.

The bill passed the Texas House and looks headed for passage in the state Senate next week. What is it intended to do?

Well, medication abortion is already banned in Texas, just like surgical abortion, but that hasn't totally stopped people from getting abortion pills here.

People get pills prescribed from a doctor outside the state who mails it here.

And anti-abortion legislators want to curb that practice by letting private citizens sue for at least $100,000 those prescribers, manufacturers, even someone who helps order those medications, mifopristone and mesoprostol, into Texas.

And this has been a focus for a while. The state tried to get at this by suing a doctor in New York who prescribed pills to a woman in Texas.

But, you know, New York is among the states that has what's called a shield law that protects her from lawsuits like this.

I talked to Amy O'Donnell, who represents the anti-abortion group called Texas Alliance for Life.

House Bill 7 adds another level of protection, another layer of protection on just to help ensure that we're doing everything we can to stop chemical abortion drugs from harming women and children in Texas.

So the effect of this could be that cases will end up in federal court to settle these legal conflicts between abortion rights states and states that ban abortion.

And what do abortion rights advocates say? Well, they're concerned because this medication abortion through telehealth has really been the only way that many folks are still able to access abortion.

And the Guttmacher Institute, a research group that supports reproductive rights, found in 2024 that more abortions are taking place actually than before the bans in the U.S.

That's because of telemedicine. Donna Howard, a Democratic Texas state representative from Austin, spoke about this on the Texas House floor this week.

Let me be clear: the only reason we have not seen a return to the days of coat hanger abortions is because of the medication abortion pill.

There's also a concern that the cash reward for people who bring suits could incentivize bad actors and opponents call that a bounty.

In some cases, a large part of the reward could also be directed to nonprofits and that includes anti-abortion nonprofits. How are other states handling this issue, Olivia?

Well, more than a dozen states have banned or tightly restricted abortion since Roe was overturned, overturned, but pills are kind of the focus right now because it's so much more difficult to effectively control them.

Louisiana has also attempted to sue and even charge an abortion doctor from out of state. There was also a failed effort to get the Supreme Court to roll back FDA approval of Mifipristone last year.

But abortion legislation out of Texas has been influential because it was early to ban abortion and other states have tried to adopt some of its methods.

So they could possibly follow Texas on this too. Olivia Aldridge with KUTN Austin, thanks so much.
Thank you.

Americans will soon get new advice on what they should and shouldn't be eating. The federal government updates its dietary guidelines every five years, and Health Secretary Robert F.
Kennedy Jr.

says the Trump administration plans to release the 2025 version by the end of next month.

To give us a sense of what we we might expect from the new guidelines, we're joined by NPR health correspondent Will Stone. Hi, Will.
Hey there.

So Secretary Kennedy has made food and diet a central issue in his Make America Healthy Again agenda. What's he said about the guidelines? Quite a lot, actually.

Kennedy and others in the administration have in certain ways vilified the current guidelines, blaming them for high rates of obesity and diet-related diseases in the U.S.

Obviously, food poor nutrition is a huge driver of these problems. At the same time, some of Kennedy's statements have mischaracterized the process and what these guidelines are.

And to give you a sense, take a listen to what he said during a congressional hearing in the spring.

We took the Biden guidelines, which were 453 pages long and were clearly written by industry that are incomprehensible.

driven by the same industry capture and those kind of carnal impulses that put fruit loops at the top of the food pyramid. And we are changing that.

Kennedy has gone on to say the forthcoming guidelines will be brief, they'll be easy to read, and they will emphasize, quote, whole foods, healthy foods, and local foods.

So how much of what Kennedy said there is actually accurate about the current guidelines? Yeah, there's a lot in there. First of all, the food pyramid was actually retired more than 10 years ago.

It did not mention specific products like fruit loops.

That was replaced by a visual called my plate that describes the food groups and how much you should aim for for example it says try to fill half of your plate with fruits and vegetables more broadly it's important to realize the guidelines are developed by a committee of leading experts in nutrition through an extensive review of the data the current ones from 2020 were released under the trump administration during the biden years a scientific committee was assembled to put together its report for this 2025 version they don't actually write the guidelines though.

They offer recommendations. And what gets released is ultimately up to the Department of Agriculture and HHS.
So does it seem like there will be some big changes this time around?

Well, that's definitely what Kennedy and others seem to be indicating.

The definition of a healthy eating pattern has remained pretty consistent over the years, emphasizing vegetables and fruits, whole grains, lean meat, and limiting certain foods like saturated fat, added sugar.

That's echoed in the newest report. But Kennedy has made no secret of his love for beef tallow and meat more broadly.
So that could be one change we see.

He's also called for elevating the role of whole fat dairy. Ultra-processed food is another area to watch.
I spoke to Deanna Helser, who's at the UT Health Houston School of Public Health.

She was on the 2025 committee and says some people have misunderstood their findings.

We did say there was a relationship between consumption of ultra-processed foods and health outcomes specifically to growth, body composition, and obesity, but the relationship was limited.

And she says that's partly because scientists are still figuring out exactly how to define ultra-processed food and high-quality evidence is pretty limited right now. So they have to be cautious.

And I think Aisha, this just underscores the committee tends to be pretty conservative in their recommendations. They don't want to get ahead of the science.

Now, Kennedy and others in the Maha movement have talked talked a lot about the harms of ultra-processed food, and they could push this much further.

So how consequential would it be if the new guidelines stray from these recommendations? Well, it is worth pointing out that most Americans currently don't follow the dietary guidelines.

But Barbara Schneeman tells me they still matter a lot. She was the chair of the 2020 scientific committee.
They are used in federal government policy. They're used by educators.

They're used by health professionals. So, undercutting the guidelines, I think it will have major implications for many programs.

My hope is there will be awareness of what the advisory committee did so that people can judge for themselves if it gets changed.

Schneeman says in 2020, the Trump administration did not heed all of their advice, for example, on added sugar and alcohol, but for the most part, they did follow the recommendations.

Whether that happens this time, we may find out in a few weeks. That's NPR's health correspondent, Will Stone.
Thank you so much, Will. Thank you.

And that's up first for Saturday, August 30th, 2025. I'm Scott Simon.
And I'm Aisha Roscoe. Today's podcast was produced by Andy Craig with help from Ryan Bank and Gabe O'Connor.

Our editors were Scott Hensley, Larry Kaplow, Melissa Gray, Jacob Fenston, and Martin Patience. Our director is Michael Radcliffe.

Our technical director is Nisha Hines with engineering support from Zoe Van Genhoven, Damian Herrin-Nathan, and Valentina Rodriguez-Sanchez. Shannon Rhodes is our acting senior supervising editor.

Evie Stone is our executive producer. And Jim Kaine is our deputy managing editor.

Tomorrow on the Sunday story, air travel can be stressful enough, and then you spot those travelers who paid to jump the line. You know what I'm talking about?

Those passengers who are ushered straight to the front of airport security.

Well, it's all part of a service provided by a company called Clear, and we'll be looking at the way the company has inched its way into airport security and asking what happens when public and private interests collide.

That's here in your podcast feed. There's a whole lot more, too, that you can hear on the radio.
Join us. Go to stations.npr.org to find your local NPR station.
No waiting.

No waiting in line, exactly. You can keep your shoes on, too.

Or you can keep them off. Yes.

This message comes from Vital Farms, who works with small American farms to bring you pastor-raised eggs. Farmer Tanner Pace shares a moment that brings him a sense of purpose.

I think that when the barn doors open and the hens run to the paddocks, you can truly see what a happy hen really is.

I love pasture-raised eggs because you can see the work and the pride that the farmers have and have put into these eggs.

To learn more about how Vital Farms farmers care for their hens, visit vitalfarms.com. Support for this podcast and the following message come from Humana.

Your employees are your business's heartbeat. Humana offers dental, vision, life, and disability coverage with award-winning service and modern benefits.
Learn more at humana.com/slash employer.

This message comes from NPR sponsor Rosetta Stone, an expert in language learning for 30 years.

Right now, NPR listeners can get Rosetta Stone's lifetime membership to 25 different languages for 50% off. Learn more at rosettastone.com/slash NPR.