CVS Health to split into two companies

Business

Hailey Whitlock, Editor

On Nov. 4, CVS Health announced that the healthcare conglomerate has plans to split into two separate entities in the first half of 2028. However, before one can fully understand this division, it is essential to understand the conditions in which this decision was made.

The announcement came on the third-quarter conference call for CVS Health. Per Forbes, the reported quarterly revenue reached $108.4 billion with a net profit of $2.17 billion. This exceeded analyst expectations, with the company having a stronger footing in the market than expected. Morningstar analyst Julie Utterback said to USA Today, “Improving financial results probably helped with the timing of the move – better to move from a position of strength than a place of weakness.”

Further commenting on this notion of strength, current CVS Health CEO David Joyner remarked on the split per USA Today, “From a position of strength, and a focus on the long term, we plan to create two focused companies to improve consumer engagement, affordability, and care coordination.”

In addition to higher-than-expected earnings, the decision also came in line with a tightening regulatory environment for large healthcare companies. For example, the “Break Up Big Medical Act” seeks to address “rampant consolidation in the healthcare industry that drives up the prices, squashes competition, and fuels corporate greed,” as explained in Forbes. Elizabeth Warren said of the bill, “The only way to make health care more affordable is to break up these health care conglomerates. Our bill would be a monumental step towards ending the stranglehold that corporate giants have on our broken health care system.” In an environment where concerns continue to mount about over-consolidation in the healthcare industry, this decision seeks to alleviate consumer hesitations about CVS. It brings into question, though, what this division will look like.

The current plan to divide CVS Health into two involves breaking up the healthcare portion from the retail portion. The first company – which will continue to be known as CVS Health – will be run in the interim by David Joyner, the current CEO of CVS. It will include purchased companies such as Aetna and Caremark, specializing in the insurance area and pharmacy benefits. The second company would consist of about 9,000 retail stores, retail clinics, and a mail-in operation; this would essentially be the retail stores we drive by. This division will be called CVS Pharmacy, with Group President Prem Shah becoming CEO.

Consequently, the question investors face now is whether this split is a good decision for the future of the company and their investments. Stock prices trended slightly down after the announcement, but were buoyed by the positive earnings. Joyner told CNBC when asked what’s changed in the last few years to make this move viable: “What’s changed in two years is the fact that we now can look at this business and the assets that are assembled and really determine, without any distress or without anything that we have to do, what is the right strategic decision to make.” Michael Cherney, a senior research analyst at Lerrink Partners, said to CNBC about the decision, “The issue is not whether the companies can continue working together in some capacity, but whether any future contractual relationships preserve the SAME competitive advantages and flexibility as today under common ownership.” As to that question, the public will merely have to wait and see.

SpaceX and Tesla weigh merger

Business

Hailey Whitlock, Editor

On Oct. 20, 2026, SpaceX had its 2026 third-quarter earnings call, updating investors and stakeholders to hear important metrics and updates for the future of the company. These calls, held quarterly, play an important role as they guide investors in making decisions that ultimately affect the company’s stock price. During this call, there was a discussion about potentially merging SpaceX and Tesla, two companies largely managed by Elon Musk.

Per Time, Elon Musk said to investors on the conference call, “I do think there’s a lot of merit to combining the companies [SpaceX and Tesla] as we are pretty much in the superintelligence singularity, and there’s a lot to be gained from cooperating. I think it would be a good idea, but it’s really up to the special committees of both companies.” As of late, SpaceX and Tesla have become much more similar, moving heavily into the AI sector as well as focusing on robotics. Already, the two companies collaborate quite frequently; a merger could further these relationships, allowing a broader sharing of resources. Per Time, Morningstar analysts Seth Goldstein and Nicholas Owens wrote in June, “This would allow him [Musk] to run all their operations under one roof without tripping on as many governance issues. For example, Musk could move Tesla software developers or engineers to work on SpaceX AI projects, or vice versa, or have Tesla and SpaceX supply one another without the need for related party transaction disclosures or risking shareholder lawsuits claiming the resources of one firm are being diverted for the benefit of another.”

In light of these reasons, as well as the influence that Musk himself holds within the companies, many experts expect the companies to merge; some speculate this combination would happen as early as year-end. However, before that happens, there must be consensus between the two companies. Already, committees have been formed at each company to consider the benefits and potential drawbacks of the merger. Musk himself has recused himself from the proceedings, noting that to serve on either committee could be considered a conflict of interest to the discussions. When speaking about the merger as stated by Yahoo Finance, Musk said, “The special committees have not yet reached agreement on terms of any transaction, and there’s no guarantee they will.” Still, stock prices for SpaceX jumped 7% after the call and Tesla shares climbed 1% (a notable amount considering the call was only meant to speak on SpaceX’s performance as a company.)

Nevertheless, there are conflicts that could potentially derail the deal, chief among them Musk’s involvement. Some critics argue that Musk is influencing the deal, placing his personal desires above the desires of the company. When asked why he did not more ardently support the merger, Musk commented, per the Motley Fool, “This is definitely the kind of question where I feel I am tap dancing through a minefield.” While he has tried to strike much of his involvement with the deal, remaining independent of the committees considering the issue, it is still a valid concern. Other concerns include national security with Tesla operating in China and SpaceX carrying out defense work for the US government. This raises hesitations about the stability of the company’s combined supply chain should tensions with China persist and the eventual impacts on national security if SpaceX is unable to carry out this defense work. In addition the sheer size of this deal, potentially creating a company of about $3.5 trillion, will draw additional oversight and regulation.

Overall, there is the potential for a merger between SpaceX and Tesla, due to the shared commonalities between the two companies. This possibility is currently debated by special committees evaluating the positives and negatives of this decision. If electing to merge, the deal would rank one of the largest company mergers in history, having substantial impact on the US economy.

The Cornell Case Has College Students Talking. Do They Feel Safe on Their Own Campuses?

Business, Commentary

Fatu Sesay, Staff Writer

The fallout from the allegations at Cornell University has sent a quiet, uneasy tremor through college campuses nationwide. The civil lawsuit filed by a former student alleging she was drugged and assaulted inside a fraternity house in 2024 while the institution failed to protect her has reignited a painful, persistent conversation about Greek life, institutional accountability and student safety.

At La Salle University, the distance between Ithaca and Philadelphia offers little buffer from the anxiety the case has resurrected. Across dining halls and quad benches, students are questioning the very systems meant to protect them.

Institutional shield or student safety?

For many students, the details emerging from Cornell do not feel like an isolated scandal; they feel like the predictable outcome of how universities navigate crises. Undergraduates largely distrust administrative motives.

When asked whether higher education institutions prioritize survivor well-being or legal liability, the consensus leans sharply toward the latter. Students frequently point out that administrative responses often appear calibrated to mitigate public relations damage rather than dismantle hazardous social dynamics. The perception remains that universities act as protective buffers for their own brand, leaving survivors to navigate confusing, bureaucratic Title IX procedures that can feel isolating and re-traumatizing.

The off-campus authority dilemma

The case has also reopened contentious debates over university oversight at Greek houses and off-campus social spaces. While some advocate for aggressive administrative intervention such as sweeping bans on fraternity parties or stricter monitoring, others argue that institutional authority reaches a hard limit once events move off campus.

Yet, students voice frustration over what they view as selective responsibility. When off-campus parties serve as the primary social engine of campus life, students argue that universities cannot simply disclaim responsibility when harm occurs. The persistent culture surrounding fraternity events where power dynamics, alcohol and unchecked group behavior intersect continues to leave students feeling vulnerable.

Reporting in the shadows

Perhaps the most troubling realization among students is how difficult it remains to report sexual misconduct. Despite decades of reform for this matter, reporting still carries immense social and emotional friction, with some implications in place for victims not to ever get justice. Students express fear of social ostracization, disbelief and long-drawn-out procedures that rarely end in meaningful accountability.

The outcome of the Cornell case, where criminal charges were initially absent despite internal university sanctions, only reinforces the belief that reporting rarely yields justice.

Demand for systemic shift

Students across campuses are no longer satisfied with reactive policies or empty press statements. They want independent oversight, trauma-informed investigative processes and genuine culture changes that hold perpetrators accountable before a crisis reaches a courtroom.

As the national dialogue unfolds, one question lingers heavily over La Salle and campuses nationwide: if students cannot trust the systems built to protect them, how can they ever truly feel safe?

Ultimately, the unrest triggered by the Cornell investigation shows a growing crisis of legitimacy for university leadership across the country. Higher education can no longer rely on institutional distance or performative policy statements to reassure a deeply disillusioned student body. Until universities demonstrate a willingness to dismantle complicated social structures, protect survivors over administrative brand reputations, and enforce transparent accountability, student trust will remain shattered.

Treasury department announces US treasury buybacks of up to 6 billion dollars

Business

Hailey Whitlock, Editor

When deciding to make an investment, there is always a level of risk involved. Will the stock price actually go up? What if a company you purchased a bond through defaults? What if the stock market crashes and your mutual fund significantly loses value?

In the face of all of this uncertainty, there remains US treasury bonds. These bonds are typically considered “risk-free.” As such, when investors take on higher levels of risk (such as through equities or private bonds), investors are required to be compensated for this uncertainty. After all, why invest in an endeavor where you are highly unsure you will get your money back when there is a stable investment with the same rate of return?

As such, treasury yields play an important role in the market as far as investing and borrowing funds. The treasury yield is often considered the floor (in most cases) for return percentages as there is low risk. However, the higher the uncertainty about the government’s ability to pay back these investments the higher the rates go – as geopolitical tensions continue to rise, so do the treasury yields required to garner investment. Despite this growing unease, treasury bonds are still considered a relatively safe investment. This means that borrowing rates are in part set by the treasury rates. For instance, if you wanted to borrow money for a car loan at 4% and the treasury rate is 4%, most investors would charge a higher interest rate than the treasury yield to compensate for additional risk. As such, high treasury bill yield rates lift the borrowing interest rates making it more expensive to borrow funds.

This has become a problem in an incredibly tense economy; in fact, per the Guardian on Sep. 15 the treasury yields for a 10 year note reached 5.041% – the highest rate since 2007. In order to combat these increasing borrowing costs, the government has elected to enact a large scale buyback program of these securities.

Treasury bill rates are based upon supply and demand. Decreasing the supply by purchasing many of these securities makes for fewer securities available with the same demand which can create additional competition, driving the accepted rate of return down.

In an attempt to decrease these yields, the Treasury has decided to buy back treasury bonds for an amount up to six billion dollars, three times the previous level. Per Yahoo Finance, the Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent referred to the buyback as “successful,” noting his hope that the treasury yields will soon decline.

Overall, the treasury buybacks of these securities seek to ensure that the interest rates for borrowers remain viable in a time where treasury yields continue to climb.

The current state of the job market

Business

Hailey Whitlock, Editor

As of late, it may have appeared that the job market is simply untenable, with arduous challenges at every step. If you noted this perceived difficulty, you are not alone and you are not wrong.

“Hiring, while certainly not on a freeze, is on hold; and people that have jobs are absolutely holding onto them with white knuckles. I see that as definitely a labor market that’s stagnating,” said Dan North, Allianz Trade’s Senior Economist for North America, to CNN.

The job market truly is struggling right now; however, the growth of the economy is not. Typically when the job market stagnates so does the economy–the two function in tandem. However, the current economic climate is not following this structured path. Federal Reserve governor Christopher Waller stated in late February as reported by the Wall Street Journal, “This would be the first time in my career, my life that I saw an economy growing like this and zero job growth. I don’t even know quite how to think about this because I’ve never seen it before.”

Job growth is stagnating yet the economy is growing. You may ask how this is possible. There are many engines of growth, with key examples being growth of the labor force and productivity. When more people are hired, the economy grows; when the current workers are more productive, the economy also receives a boost. Usually the two go together, however, right now labor is stilted and almost all of this growth is a result of increased productivity. As per Wall Street Journal, Erik Brynjolfsson, the Director of the Stanford Digital Economy Lab declared, “With labor force growth slowing to a crawl, productivity is no longer just one of the engines of growth – it’s close to the only engine left.”

One key factor in this paradox is the growth of AI. Many professionals claim that AI will not take jobs, but instead function to increase productivity for workers. While this may appear true for these workers, and often is given their circumstances, a lot of the roles AI is filling are those typically done by entry level employees. That means people more often than not, people may not be losing jobs in droves due to AI (although that happens too), but instead the companies are hiring less entry-level workers, such as college students as those roles are being done by AI. This prompts greater productivity with existing workers, seeming to mitigate the need to hire.

This poses a significant problem for college students who are struggling in an incredibly competitive job market for the remaining entry level roles.

This results in a K-shaped economy where workers are split into different classes, experiencing radically different job markets. For those on the higher end of the K, those with high income or in areas with more in demand and valuable jobs, there are rising wages and stable income. Those on the lower portion of the K, who have lower income or are in more vulnerable areas, face an incredibly difficult job market with reduced hours and less hiring. Tyler Schipper, an associate professor of economics at St. Thomas University summarized this concept to CNN: “The question I ask myself is ‘What would be the conditions in which I think the labor market would ramp back up?’ and some of those are policy related. I have a hard time seeing those resolving themselves anytime soon. For better or worse, I think we could be in this K-shaped economy for some time. And I think the way out of it probably is that there’s a recession before things get better, which is never what you want to hear if you’re on the lower leg of the K.”

With concerns pertaining to a potential recession, the job market is fraught. The key reason the job market is not expected to be fixed any time soon is that the economy is doing well; this removes some of the pressure to fix the job market as soon as possible. However, the job market has real impacts on workers and must be addressed. The Federal Reserve has begun making judgments, factoring in these concerns.

How the current oil market is likely to impact interest rates

Business

Hailey Whitlock, Editor

The Federal Reserve serves a crucial role in the monetary policy of the United States, heavily influencing interest rates and by extension inflation and unemployment. At each of the eight Federal Open Market Committee meetings per year, board members vote on the level of the federal funds rate. The federal funds rate is essentially the interest rate paid when borrowing from the Federal Reserve or other banks. While at first glance this may not seem essential to the average consumer, it certainly is. The reason behind this is that the rate required for banks to borrow heavily impacts the rate banks are willing to lend at to the average consumer whether for a mortgage, car loan or even student loans. When the interest rates are lower, banks are more likely to lend aggressively, borrowing from other banks if they fall below the reserve requirements (the amount banks must keep on hand). However, when rates are high banks are more conservative as they do not wish to pay the steep interest rates if they overspend.

The Federal Reserve has two key goals: minimize unemployment and keep inflation to about 2%. Yet, each of these goals is often opposite the other; increasing rates typically curbs inflation while increasing unemployment and cutting rates attempts to reduce unemployment but can allow inflation to grow. As of late, unemployment has been quite high, and rates have been cut three times in 2025 in an effort to address the high unemployment rate. However, current geopolitical tensions in Iran have shifted the Fed’s attention in a different direction; instead of placing the bulk of the focus on unemployment, the Fed has been forced to look at the possibility of heightened inflation due to high oil prices.

As such, the two goals are opposite. Should they decrease interest rates to further increase employment? Increase interest rates to get ahead of inflation rumors? Or keep interest rates constant in the hope of exacerbating neither? With the next meeting of the Federal Reserve set to conclude on Mar. 18, 2026 per CNN experts expect the Federal Reserve to take the latter approach, keeping interest rates stable in light of the current political situation. Perhaps even more importantly, quarterly projections will be released with an analyst from AP News indicating the probability that rate cuts for this year will shift from one cut to zero, indicating that the unemployment issue may continue to linger.

It is always an incredibly difficult task when unemployment and inflation are high in tandem, but the current war in Iran only further highlights existing problems. Inflation was already high, with data from AP News indicating inflation excluding food and energy (a necessary exclusion as gas is in the energy sector) was 3.1% in January compared to a year earlier, in line with the rates from two years ago indicating an elevated inflation rate. The unemployment levels aren’t any better; in February AP News reports businesses cutting 92,000 jobs. While bad in and of itself, heightened oil prices certainly don’t help at the moment.

As oil prices continue to climb, consumers have less disposable income, meaning they have fewer funds to spend on other items. This means that many industries may suffer, potentially laying off more workers. In addition, geopolitical tensions often encourage consumers to save more when possible, worried about stability long-term. When consumers are spending less (or spending more on one good, such as oil), unemployment tends to rise.

Overall, the current oil crisis will continue to impact the Federal Reserve as economists seek to battle rising inflation and unemployment in tandem to stabilize the economy.

Supreme Court rules tariffs unconstitutional

Business, Politics

Hailey Whitlock, Editor

On Feb. 20 the Supreme Court issued a ruling deeming President Trump’s sweeping tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act unconstitutional. Per CNN, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the 6-3 majority opinion,“The president asserts the extraordinary power to unilaterally impose tariffs of unlimited amount, duration, and scope. In light of the breadth, history, and constitutional context of that asserted authority, he must identify clear congressional authority to exercise it.” The court felt that the emergency law President Trump supported his claim to set these tariffs fell short of this standard, writing, “When Congress grants the power to impose tariffs, it does so clearly and with careful restraints. It did neither here.”

The Supreme Court emphasized that while the focus of the court is not in areas of tariffs or foreign trade, it is in ensuring that the actions taken are in line with the aims of the Constitution. Keeping this goal in mind, Robert penned in the majority opinion, “We claim no special competence in matters of economics or foreign affairs. We claim only, as we must, the limited role assigned to us by Article III of the Constitution. Fulfilling that role, we hold that the IEEPA (the International Emergency Economic Powers Act) does not authorize the president to impose tariffs.”

However, not all of the justices agreed with this majority opinion. Clarence Thomas issued a dissenting opinion noting per Business Insider, “Neither the statutory text of IEEPA nor the Constitution provide a basis for ruling against the President. This Court has consistently upheld Congress’ delegation of power over foreign commerce including the power to impose duties on imports. The Court has long conveyed to Congress that it may ‘invest the president with large discretion in matters arising out of the execution of statutes relating to trade and commerce with other nations.” Brett Kavanaugh bluntly stated to Business Insider, “The tariffs at issue here may or may not be wise policy. But as a matter of text, history, and precedent, they are clearly lawful.”

As to President Trump’s response to the ruling, he proclaimed at a news conference following the ruling per CNN, “The Supreme Court’s rulings on tariffs are deeply disappointing, and I’m ashamed of certain members of the court, absolutely ashamed for not having the courage to do what’s right for our country.” He reiterated these thoughts during his State of the Union speech, calling the ruling “disappointing” and “unfortunate.”

Nevertheless, this ruling brings to mind a rather pressing, and complex, issue: how should the government refund the funds collected from the tariffs – and should they even try. The issue comes with the fact that the tariffs were deemed unconstitutional, meaning the Supreme Court acknowledged that these funds were raised improperly. The tariffs will stop in the future, unless of course they get put in again through a different law, likely getting sent back to the Supreme Court, but this does not handle the matter of the nearly $133 billion raised through the repealed tariffs.

In the majority opinion, the Supreme Court largely ignored the issue of retroactive payment. Per NPR Cavanaugh criticized this oversight, elucidating, “The Court says nothing today about whether, and if so how, the Government should go about returning the billions of dollars that it has collected from importers.”

This matter is not only complicated due to the negative financial consequences of pulling back $133 billion, much of which has already been spent, but also by the ethical concerns of repayment. Often when tariffs are charged the costs are passed on to consumers so while technically the importer pays the tariff fees, the consumers truly pay it through higher prices. As such, most repayment plans would be focused on issuing funds to importers, not the consumers who shouldered much of this burden. As such, the issue of repayment is a rather messy business with the potential to impact the economy tremendously. For the moment, it seems likely that the more micro decisions regarding the repayment plan will be sent to the lower courts and hashed out through litigation.

Congressional Budget Office Issues New Federal Deficit Predictions

Business

Hailey Whitlock, Editor

To begin, it is essential to understand how the federal debt and deficit work. A deficit in funding for a government refers to when the funds brought in by a government, often through taxes and tariffs, are less than the government spends. When the government spends more money than they collect, a deficit is formed and this excess money must be borrowed and eventually repaid. Every year, a report is issued on the current state of this deficit and the expected trend of it.

On Feb. 11, 2026, the Congressional Budget Office, a nonpartisan reporting agency, issued the newest report on the federal deficit. This report outlined predictions for the budget and economic outlook in the United States between 2026 and 2036. Within this time period, the federal deficit is expected to rise from an estimated $1.9 trillion in 2026 to approximately $3.1 trillion in 2036.

This dramatic upward shift was calculated using the current governmental spending rates. In fact, as mentioned in the Congressional Budget Office report, relative to the economy in 2026, this deficit is approximately 5.8% of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). This is expected to increase to 6.7% of the GDP by 2036. Per the Hill, the debt held by the public is anticipated to rise from 99% at the end of 2025 to 120% before 2036. The office indicated that during this time period, the national debt is likely to surpass the historically high rate of 106% and may even reach 175% within 30 years.

These numbers are concerning for the future of our nation. As the federal deficit continues to climb, it is becoming a part of the mainstream news regarding politics, influencing voters’ perspectives. Per AP News, Michael Peterson, CEO of the Peterson Foundation, claimed that the Congressional Budget Office’s newest prediction “is an urgent warning to our leaders about America’s costly fiscal plan. This election year, voters understand the connection between rising debt and their personal economic condition. And the financial markets are watching. Stabilizing our debt is an essential part of improving affordability, and must be a core component of the 2026 campaign conversation.”
A high deficit is not a political issue designated to one party alone; it is the responsibility of both parties to work together in combating this issue. As reported by AP News, Jonathan Burks, the Executive Vice President of Economic and Health Policy at the Bipartisan Policy Center, stated, “We encourage lawmakers to work together to explore options for raising revenue, trimming spending, and slowing the growth of the major cost drivers. Congress and the administration should seize the opportunity to act now before the available menu of choices becomes too painful.” His statement echoes the idea that it is essential to come together to advocate for the best interests of the country moving forward. As the deficit continues to climb, it raises concerns, particularly in young adults, about the effects such a high deficit may prompt in the future.

Kevin Warsh nominated as next Federal Reserve Chair

Business

Hailey Whitlock, Staff Writer

The last few months in the economic sector have been fraught with tension as President Trump frequently criticized Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell due to his disagreements pertaining to the rate of interest cuts. The chair, appointed by Trump himself, has faced increased scrutiny from the executive branch, making it evident that Powell’s term would not be renewed in 2026. As such, speculation began about who the president would nominate to lead the Federal Reserve when Powell’s term expires in May of 2026.

On Jan. 30, 2026, President Trump announced his decision: Kevin Warsh. Warsh, who served on the Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors during Bush’s presidency, is no stranger to economic crises. During his previous term on the Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors, Warsh served from 2006 to 2011, overlapping with the Great Recession of 2008. Under the leadership of chair

Ben Bernanke, he, along with other key Federal Reserve officials, took on the daunting task of assisting in managing rates during a very challenging economic time for the country.

In fact, due to his experience during the Great Recession, Warsh was a top contender for the role of the chair of the Federal Reserve during President Trump’s first term. Instead, the president chose Powell; per ABC News, he described Powell at the time of the 2017 appointment as a “consensus builder” who “understands what it takes for the economy to grow.”

However, now Trump saves the praise for Warsh, posting on social media per AP News: “I have known Kevin for a long period of time, and have no doubt he will go down as one of the GREAT Fed Chairmen, maybe the best. On top of everything else, he is ‘central casting,’ and he will never let you down.”

He is not the only one supportive of Warsh; as reported on the official White House webpage, the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Chairman Tim Scott penned, “As a former Federal Reserve Governor, Kevin has deep knowledge of markets and monetary policy that will be essential in this role. Federal Reserve independence remains paramount, and I am confident Kevin will work to instill confidence and credibility in the Fed’s monetary policy.”

Despite the praise, many wonder at the choice of Warsh; Warsh has been known to be a “hawk” when it comes to interest rates, preferring higher interest rates to slow inflation. This perspective, illustrated throughout his time on the Federal Reserve, is in direct contradiction to the preferred methods of the president calling into question why the president would pick a chair for the Federal Reserve who has proven himself to be so diametrically opposed to his preferred method. In recent years, Warsh has begun making statements more in line with cutting interest rates, as the president launched his search for the next Federal Reserve chair. Despite past evidence, Trump calmly stated that Warsh does want to cut interest rates. Analysts at Renaissance Macro Research put it simply: “Kevin Warsh has been a monetary policy hawk his entire career and most importantly during a time when the labor markets fell out of bed. His dovishness stems from convenience. The President risks getting duped.” This perspective holds that Warsh has changed his public view of interest rates to align with what the president is looking for, and will likely return to his views if selected.

Yet to see if such a prediction is accurate, the nomination must be confirmed by the Senate. Senator Tillis, a member of the banking committee that is called to consider the nomination, has stated that he will oppose the nomination until a Justice Department investigation pertaining to Powell is resolved. It is speculated that the investigation has political motives and is a way for the president to attempt to pressure the chair into lowering rates. Per AP News, Tillis wrote that Warsh is a “qualified nominee,” yet emphasized that “protecting the independence of the Federal Reserve from political interference or legal intimidation is non-negotiable.” It is speculated that without Tillis’ support, the confirmation will not be passed. However, Trump responded by stating per ABC News, “If he doesn’t approve, we’ll just have to wait until somebody comes in who will approve it,” alluding to the end of Tillis’ term early next year.

Supreme Court debates reversing President Trump’s tariffs

Business

Hailey Whitlock, Staff Writer

On Nov. 5 2025, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments regarding the legality of President Trump’s tariffs. The tariffs that were instituted in April have had profound impacts in the business world, including increased prices for consumers for imported goods, higher costs for businesses who partner with companies outside the U.S. to outsource parts, and high premiums raised for the U.S. government. When the tariffs initially came out, they caused quite a stir, placing “reciprocal taxes” on over 100 countries.

However, for the first time in President Trump’s second administration, the Supreme Court is outwardly challenging his power by reviewing if these tariffs are legal. The legality (or lack thereof) of these tariffs goes back to an act from 1977 called the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. This act allows the president to regulate international commerce during an emergency. It was under this act that the tariffs were initially put in place; the debate centers around if the tariffs stretch the power of this act too far.

The issue is that the power of taxation lies firmly with Congress. Many feel that President Trump has used this act to subvert going through Congress to pass what is essentially an act of taxation. Per the New York Times, Dr. John Sauer, the U.S. Solicitor General, claimed that the president’s actions were merely in regard to regulating foreign commerce, not infringing on Congress’ right to tax. He stated that the revenue raised from the tariffs was simply “incidental.” As stated by the New York Times, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said, “You want to say tariffs are not taxes, but that’s exactly what they are. They are generating money from American citizens.”

As reported by Fox News, Jeffrey Schwab, senior counsel for the Liberty Justice Center and counsel for plaintiffs in one of the consolidated cases, made the following statement: “It’s not about this president. It’s about all presidents and the power they have under the Constitution, and the powers that they don’t have under the Constitution, and whether Congress can delegate those powers- and, if it does, how broad can those powers be? Everybody should be concerned about that. Because even if you like what the president is doing now, you might not like what a future president does with the same power.”
If the Supreme Court did confirm the lower courts’ decision that the tariffs were beyond the scope of the act and therefore unconstitutional, the aftermath would be difficult as the government would be forced to navigate the complex process of repaying the funds collected. With respect to the complexity of this repayment process, the lower courts have agreed to pause their rulings in an effort to avoid the difficulties of figuring out these refunds until the Supreme Court issues the final opinion. U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer told the Hill, “You’ll have all these importers and importing interests who are going to want that money back. And, so, we’ll have to figure out, probably within the court, what kind of a schedule might look like and what are the rights of these parties and what rights the government has to that money.”