Up First from NPR - Trump Tariff Ruling, Texas Abortion Medication Bill, New Dietary Guidelines

Episode Date: August 30, 2025

A federal appeals court ruled that most of President Trump’s tariffs are illegal, but is holding off enforcing the decision until October. Also, 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 medicine’s providers. And Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. says he will release new dietary guidelines, but will they change the nation’s eating habits?Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

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 Ayesha 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 of 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. I'm Peter Sagle. NPR is very serious, mostly. It treats newsmakers with all due respect, almost all the time. It brings you the most important information about the issues that really matter, usually, and it never asks famous people about things they don't know anything about, except once in a while. Join us for the great exception. Listen to Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me, the news quiz from NPR. There's a lot of news happening. You want to understand it better, but let's be honest, you don't want it to be your entire life either. Well, that's sort of like our show. here and now anytime. Every weekday on our podcast, we talk to people all over the country about everything from political analysis to climate resilience, video games. We even talk about dumpster diving on this show. Check out here and now anytime, a daily podcast from NPR and

WBUR. President Trump has long touted tariffs as critical to rebalancing global trade, believing that trade deficits penalize the U.S. But now a federal appeals court in Washington, D.C. is 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's Ron Elving. Ron, thanks for being with us. Good to be with you, Scott. Social media posts, 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 and forth mean for those trade deals? You know, this tariff story has been whiplash, practically from the get-go.

Trump has imposed tariffs and lifted them. He 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 that 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 allow us. as U.S. retailers to return to their previous price structures. LCS Day 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. Giacob, 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's 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. As late yesterday, Judge Cobb ruled against the president on the administration's fast-tracking

of deportations. And 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 renomination 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. assistance. 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 bind their own reasons to stand with the party and stand with

the president? The day when Republicans defy Trump may well come, but it does 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 Pierre Senior contributor, Ron Elving. Thanks so much. Thank 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 Alder, from member station KUT and 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. I mean, 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 misoprostol, 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 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. Houseville 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 Gutmacher 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 non-profits. How are other states handling

this issue, Olivia? Well, more than a dozen states have banned or tightly restricted abortion since Roe was 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 Mifapristone 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. Livia Aldridge with KUT and Austin. Thanks so much. Thank you. states its dietary guidelines every five years, and health secretary Robert of 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 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 we're 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 MyPlate.

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 and 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 Helcher, 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, and 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 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 many. 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. Shaineman 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 for Scott Hensley, Larry Kaplow, Melissa Gray, Jacob Fenston, and Martin Patience. Our director is Michael Radcliffe. Our technical director is Nisha Highness with engineering support from Zoe Van Gnhoven, Damien Heron, Nathan, and Valentina Rodriguez Sanchez.

Shannon Rhodes is our acting senior supervising editor. Evie Stone is our executive producer. And Jim Kane is our deputy managing editor. Tomorrow on the Sunday story, air travel can be stressful enough, and then you spot those travelers who pay 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 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. All right, you can keep them off. Yes.