The Department of Justice rebuffed a federal judge’s request to attest in writing it that won’t move forward with its “anti-weaponization fund,” arguing in a filing Friday that it would be “unnecessary” and that the request raises “serious separation of powers concerns.” 

Judge Leonie Brinkema last week extended her block of the $1.8 billion fund, which was planned to compensate purported victims of prosecutorial overreach during the Biden administration. She argued verbal claims by DOJ leadership that the fund wasn’t moving forward were insufficient. 

Brinkema gave Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent a week to file written, sworn declarations that the fund would not move forward before she’d agree to dismiss a lawsuit seeking to block the fund permanently. 

“The Acting Attorney General has testified before Congress that the Fund is ‘not going forward, period’…  Undersigned counsel have twice signed briefs reaffirming that ‘the Fund is not going forward,’ and counsel for Defendants has twice said substantially the same thing in open court,” DOJ attorney Andrew Block wrote in the Friday filing.

“All these statements were made against the backdrop of serious penalties for falsity,” Block wrote.

Blanche previously testified to a House panel that the fund was not moving forward, though he held off on putting that claim in writing. He was also not under penalty of perjury at the time, MS Now reported. 

Following Blanche’s testimony, President Donald Trump said he wanted to move forward with the fund, which Brinkema pointed to as reason to doubt the DOJ’s claims and request sworn declarations from Blanche and Bessent. 

The DOJ in May announced it was creating the fund as part of a settlement of Trump’s $10 billion lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service for the leak of his tax records by an IRS contractor.

The plan was harshly criticized from both sides of the aisle over concerns that it could be used to pay Trump’s allies, including people who pleaded guilty to crimes associated with the Jan. 6, 2021 riot at the U.S. Capitol. 

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy on Thursday kicked off a surprise visit to Saudi Arabia, seeking support for Kyiv as the U.S. reportedly weighs shifting military resources to the Middle East amid escalating tensions with Iran.

Zelenskyy met with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman in Jeddah to discuss the escalating military tensions in the Middle East and the war in Ukraine. The Ukrainian leader said he expected to hold “important meetings” during this trip, as Kyiv offered its air-defense expertise and drone technology to countries in the region reeling from the Iranian strikes.

More than 200 Ukrainian experts have been dispatched to advise Middle East countries on how to intercept attacks that have wreaked havoc on energy infrastructure across the region.

Zelenskyy is hoping to draw support from the Gulf nations in Kyiv’s war against Russia, which is now in its fifth year and Western military aid faces new uncertainty.

Iran’s Shahed-136 ‘kamikaze’ drone has become a fixture of modern warfare, with Moscow utilizing the technology in its years-long invasion of Ukraine. Ukraine has found some success in downing drones with fighter jet cannon fire and recently pioneered the development of cheaper mass-produced interceptors.

In an earlier speech to the U.K. parliament on March 17, Zelenskyy sought to draw parallels between the Iran War and Kyiv’s battle with Russia.

“If, together with partners in the Middle East, we build a [military] system like Ukraine’s, they will be able to track attacks from Iran or the Houthis in real time, analyze them, keep improving their defense – giving people, critical infrastructure, and trade routes real security,” he said.

Zelenskyy’s trip comes as the Pentagon was weighing redirecting the equipment and weapons intended for Ukraine to the Middle East, according to The Washington Post, as the conflict with Iran strains existing American munitions stockpiles.

The Trump administration was also considering sending another 10,000 troops to the Middle East, the Wall Street Journal reported Friday, adding to the buildup of roughly 5,000 Marines and thousands of paratroopers from the 82nd Airborne Division in the region.

The growing U.S. military presence in the Middle East has fueled concerns about a ground attack against Iran, even as both sides held on to contradictory signals on potential peace talks. Trump on Thursday insisted that the negotiations were going well, while Tehran has denied any direct talks with the U.S.

“All announcements regarding troop deployments will come from the Department of War. As we have said, President Trump…

Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., has dropped his lawsuit against Bill Pulte which accused the director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency of weaponizing mortgage fraud investigations to target critics of President Donald Trump.

Swalwell — a California gubernatorial candidate — filed the lawsuit in November, arguing that Pulte unlawfully accessed and disclosed his private mortgage records in violation of federal privacy law and the First Amendment’s “bedrock prohibition on viewpoint-based retaliation.”

“Director Pulte has combed through private records of political opponents. To silence them,” Swalwell posted in a statement at the time on X.

Swalwell, a seven-term congressman and House impeachment manager during Trump’s second impeachment, has long been one of the most vocal critics of the president.

Pulte had referred Swalwell to the Department of Justice over claims that the congressman may have made false or misleading statements in loan documents for a Washington home. Swalwell called the claims “patently false.”

Swalwell’s decision to drop the suit comes as his gubernatorial opponents have raised questions about his eligibility to run for California’s top post, with rival Democrat Tom Steyer accusing Swalwell of living in California “on paper only.”

A separate lawsuit attempting to block Swalwell from appearing on the ballot, brought by conservative filmmaker Joel Gilbert, was tentatively rejected Friday after a California judge found sufficient evidence that he had lived in the state for the required five years.

Pulte did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The Swalwell campaign also did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The Supreme Court’s decision Friday to throw out a large number of tariffs that President Donald Trump imposed on imports was widely expected. What’s far less certain is the longer-run impacts as the economy and markets again adjust to a changed landscape.

Trump and other White House officials have promised to employ other authorities to implement the tariffs, with the president already announcing a 10% levy under a section of the Trade Act of 1974.

However, other questions remain: What will be the impact on prices? Will companies that paid the tariffs covered in the high court’s decision seek refunds? How will the Federal Reserve react?

Here are five takeaways from the ruling and the associated fallout.

1. The economic impact

In a word, the macro reverberations are expected to be limited, especially pending Trump’s next moves and what happens with the refunds issue.

RSM chief economist Joseph Brusuelas characterized the likely economic fallout as “narrow,” though there are “enormous potential winners from this ruling,” particularly in the tariff-sensitive retail and manufacturing sectors.

Growth slowed substantially in the fourth quarter, with GDP accelerating at just a 1.4% annualized rate. But that was largely due to the government shutdown, with faster growth likely in the first quarter of 2026.

“Fiscal conditions already point to a sizable positive impulse in 2026, driven by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act and an easing monetary policy backdrop,” said Jason Pride, chief of investment strategy and research at Glenmede. “The tariff ruling may incrementally enhance this stimulus, reinforcing expectations for above-trend economic growth.”

Pride warned that there could be a temporary drag on exports if companies rush to import products ahead of Trump’s next tariff moves, as they did in early 2025.

2. Some help for inflation

The court decision came the same day that the Commerce Department reported core inflation ran at a 3% annual rate in December, according to the Fed’s primary forecasting gauge. Central bank officials have estimated that tariffs are worth about half a percentage point to inflation, an impact that will be only temporary at least as it figures into the way inflation is calculated.

So losing the tariffs reduces, for now, a potential economic headwind that could figure into the Fed’s decisions on interest rates this year.

Interestingly, markets on Friday rolled back their bets on rate cuts a bit, now placing a higher likelihood of the next reduction coming in July rather than June, as previously indicated, according to CME Group data. Traders still largely expect two cuts this year, with about 40% odds of a third — little changed from before the decision.

“We think that the…

Apple’s tariff bill has racked up about $1 billion per quarter, but that number should start shrinking following the Supreme Court decision on tariffs.

The Supreme Court on Friday struck down a large chunk of President Donald Trump‘s far-reaching tariff agenda, delivering a major rebuke of the president’s key economic policy. 

Apple has paid about $3.3 billion in tariffs since Trump initiated them last year.

The iPhone maker’s shares rose about 1% on Friday.

Friday’s decision means Apple could start to see lower production costs and keep more of its margins. The company could also face less pressure to move its production away from China and simplify its supply chain.

Apple declined to comment.

The large tariff costs stem from U.S. import duties on products and components manufactured overseas — especially from China and other Asian partners, like Vietnam and India.

When laying out the plan to handle tariffs in May, CEO Tim Cook said Apple is sourcing half of its iPhones for the U.S. from India and most of its other U.S.-bound products like Macs, AirPods and watches from Vietnam, where tariffs were lower than China’s at the time.

Friday’s decision kills Trump’s tariffs on China-made goods, which were at a 47% rate as of December. It also frees Apple up to produce more U.S.-bound products in China, where most of its products to non-U.S. countries have been sourced, instead of diverting to India and Vietnam.

On earnings calls, Cook has emphasized that Apple is largely absorbing tariff costs to avoid sudden price jumps for customers.

Friday’s ruling means the U.S. government could owe more than $175 billion in refunds to importers after the Supreme Court ruled in a 6-3 decision that tariffs unilaterally imposed by Trump are illegal.

One big question is whether Apple will fight to claw back its tariffs or eat the costs to avoid angering the president.

Addressing the SCOTUS decision in a press conference Friday afternoon, Trump did not commit to refunding U.S. companies that paid the tariffs and said he expects multi-year “litigation” over paying back the money.

The tariffs have tested the relationship between the commander-in-chief and the chief executive of one of the world’s most valuable companies.

The once-solid relationship between Trump and Cook began breaking down over the idea of a U.S.-made iPhone. In May, Trump said he “had a little problem with Tim Cook,” and threatened to slap a 25% tariff on iPhones.

Cook went on the charm offensive.

In August, he appeared at the White House with Trump to announce plans to spend about $600 billion over four years in the U.S. Apple also committed to purchasing parts and expanding its relationship with U.S. suppliers.

Cook presented Trump with a custom, engraved glass plaque featuring a 24-karat gold base.

Last month,…

India has announced a 20-year tax exemption for hyperscalers that use data centers in the country to service global clients, in a move that could shift artificial intelligence-driven businesses to the South Asian country.

According to experts, cost of data center infrastructure is already low in India and coupled with the tax holiday it will make using data centers in India for global delivery more attractive for hyperscalers, compared to competing hubs including Singapore, UAE and Ireland.

Hyperscalers refer to cloud computing giants such as Amazon Web Services, Microsoft Azure and Google Cloud that are investing heavily in data center infrastructure that power AI models. 

“This proposal will significantly increase the hyperscaler demand and major foreign firms will now find India a significantly cheaper base for global workloads,” Riaz Thingna, partner, tax, regulatory and finance consulting at Grant Thornton Bharat, told CNBC.

This move positions India not just as a “consumption market” for data center demand but as a “global cloud computing and AI computing hub,” Thingna said, adding that currently hyperscalers face “corporate income tax exposure” if they have “significant economic presence” in India.

Currently, data center operations of foreign hyperscalers in India are considered permanent establishment and the profits arising from these operations are taxed at 35% plus surcharge and cess, explained Kumarmanglam Vijay, partner and head of practice-direct tax at legal firm JSA Advocates and Solicitors.

Now, cloud services provided by global hyperscalers using data centers owned and operated by a local developer will be exempt from tax until 2047, India’s Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman said during her budget speech on Sunday, adding that it will “boost investment in data centers.”

India’s role in the global AI race has been limited so far as it lacks strong local foundational models, chip manufacturing abilities and large data center capacities as compared to the U.S. and China.

The proposed tax holiday and the investment it is likely to bring could accentuate India’s role in global AI race at a time when the country is seeing increasing interest from tech behemoths that have announced billions in AI-related infrastructure investments.

India’s Electronics and Information Technology Minister Ashwini Vaishnaw said at the recently concluded World Economic Forum that India was “making very good progress” in all the five layers of AI architecture — applications, models, chip, infra and energy.

Apart from attracting hyperscalers, India has been doubling down on its AI ambitions by incentivizing semiconductor design and production companies…

U.S. President Donald Trump on Friday signed an executive order that aims to block the seizure of Venezuelan oil revenue held in U.S. Treasury accounts.

The executive order states that the revenue, which is held in foreign government deposit funds, are “held solely for sovereign purposes” and that any court attempt to seize the funds will “materially harm the national security and foreign policy” of the U.S.

The order, which declared a national emergency, said the funds are the sovereign property of Venezuela held in U.S. custody for governmental and diplomatic means, and are not assets subject to private claims. Any use of judicial process against the funds will interfere with efforts to “ensure economic and political stability in Venezuela,” the order says.

Trump signed the order nearly one week after U.S. military forces captured Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, in Caracas. Both were indicted on drug-trafficking charges and have pleaded not guilty. 

Since the military operation, Trump has said that both nations “are working well together” on rebuilding Venezuela’s oil and gas infrastructure and that American oil giants will invest at least $100 billion in the South American country.

Trump met with major oil industry executives on Friday afternoon in an effort to get U.S. oil companies to invest in Venezuela. In that meeting, ExxonMobil CEO Darren Woods told Trump that right now Venezuela is “uninvestable.”

ConocoPhillips and ExxonMobil exited Venezuela after its government, under President Hugo Chávez, nationalized the country’s oil sector along with several other key industries. Both companies have filed arbitration cases against Venezuela seeking billions of dollars in compensation for assets that were expropriated by the government.

Chevron is the only major U.S. oil company currently operating in Venezuela through a special license issued by the Trump administration.

In his Friday order, Trump cited the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act and the 1976 National Emergencies Act as legal justification for safeguarding Venezuelan oil revenue in U.S. accounts.

The White House did not immediately respond to a CNBC request for comment.

President Donald Trump is pressing to get Lindsey Halligan confirmed as U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, weeks after criminal cases against his foes James Comey and Letitia James were dismissed because of Halligan’s involvement in their prosecutions.

But her nomination faces a likely fatal obstacle from the tradition of so-called blue slips, which Republican senators refuse to abandon despite Trump’s demands.

Halligan on Wednesday submitted a 28-page questionnaire to the Senate Judiciary Committee, which is responsible for vetting U.S. attorney picks. It was the first action on her nomination since Trump formally sent it to the Senate on Sept. 30.

The questionnaire was sent more than two weeks after a federal judge disqualified her from serving as interim U.S. attorney for the Eastern District because of the nature of her appointment to that role.

“She’s the president’s nominee. It is our hope that she is confirmed, and submitting her questionnaire is part of that process,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told CNBC.

MS NOW first reported that Halligan had submitted her questionnaire.

A spokesperson for the Judiciary panel’s Republican majority told CNBC in a statement, “The Committee has not received blue slips” from Virginia’s senators, Tim Kaine and Mark Warner, who are both Democrats.

Blue slips — literally forms printed on blue paper — for more than a century have given senators a crucial say over nominees for the judiciary and for U.S. attorneys in their states.

“Nominees without blue slips don’t have the votes to advance out of committee or get confirmed on the Senate floor,” the Judiciary spokesperson said.

Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, has called the practice “a fundamental example of our system of checks and balances” that “prevents one party from jamming through nominees who don’t align with the values in the communities they would serve.”

The Judiciary spokesperson said that Grassley “wants President Trump’s nominees to be successful.”

Halligan had no prior prosecutorial experience when Trump tapped her to lead the U.S. Attorney’s Office.

Instead, her legal career largely focused on insurance cases.

She previously worked as a lawyer for Trump on a federal criminal case in Florida, where he was accused of illegally retaining classified documents, and on Trump’s defamation case against CNN.

Trump has repeatedly urged Republicans to abandon the blue slips rule, arguing that it undermines his ability to confirm his preferred candidates for key roles.

On Thursday morning, the president complained that the practice is “making it impossible to get great Republican Judges and U.S. Attorneys approved to serve in any state where there is even a single Democrat Senator.”

“If they say no, then it is OVER for that very well qualified Republican candidate,” Trump wrote on Truth Social.

His post called out Grassley by…

Alina Habba, who had previously served as President Donald Trump‘s defense lawyer, said Monday that she was stepping down as U.S. attorney for New Jersey after judges disqualified her from that position.

Habba’s resignation came a week after the 3rd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals upheld a district court judge’s ruling that found her ineligible for the top prosecutor’s job because of the circumstances of her appointment as the interim holder of that post.

Habba and Attorney General Pam Bondi said Habba would remain at the Department of Justice as senior advisor to the attorney general for U.S. attorneys.

Bondi also said the DOJ would appeal the 3rd Circuit’s ruling and that the department is confident it would be reversed.

“As a result of the Third Circuit’s ruling, and to protect the stability and integrity of the office which I love, I have decided to step down in my role as the U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey,” Habba said in a statement on X.

“But do not mistake compliance for surrender. This decision will not weaken the Justice Department and it will not weaken me,” Habba said.

“Make no mistake, you can take the girl out of New Jersey, but you cannot take the New Jersey out of the girl.”

Bondi said on X, “I am saddened to accept Alina’s resignation.”

“The court’s ruling has made it untenable for her to effectively run her office, with politicized judges pausing trials designed to bring violent criminals to justice,” Bondi said.

“These judges should not be able to countermand the President’s choice of attorneys entrusted with carrying out the executive branch’s core responsibility of prosecuting crime.”

Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche appointed three people to supervise the criminal, civil and appellate, and administrative functions of the New Jersey U.S. Attorney’s Office in light of Habba’s departure.

Lindsey Halligan, another former lawyer for Trump, was recently disqualified by a judge from serving as the top federal prosecutor for the Eastern District of Virginia because of the circumstances of her appointment.

Because of Halligan’s disqualification, the grand jury indictments she obtained against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James were dismissed last month.

Bondi appointed Habba as interim U.S. attorney in March after her predecessor resigned.

Trump later nominated her to hold the post permanently, but her nomination was never considered by the Senate, as is required.

The DOJ engaged in a byzantine series of maneuvers that it argued enabled Habba to automatically become the acting U.S. attorney, but a federal judge and then the 3rd Circuit rejected that effort, saying they failed to comply with the Federal Vacancies Reform Act.

— Additional reporting by Justin Papp and Garrett Downs

Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., filed a 19-page lawsuit Tuesday in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., alleging Federal Housing Finance Agency Director Bill Pulte abused his authority to make “fanciful” mortgage fraud allegations against him and other critics of President Donald Trump.

The lawsuit asks the court to declare Pulte’s conduct unlawful, order him and the FHFA to withdraw a criminal mortgage fraud referral, and award damages for violations of federal privacy law.

Swalwell — who announced Friday that he is running for governor of California — alleges in the complaint that Pulte improperly accessed and leaked his private mortgage records in retaliation for his political speech, violating both the Privacy Act of 1974 and the First Amendment.

“Director Pulte has combed through private records of political opponents to silence them,” Swalwell posted in a statement on X.

The suit alleges Pulte’s referral of the matter to the Justice Department was “patently false,” noting that Swalwell had sworn in an affidavit that his Washington, D.C., home would be his wife’s primary residence and that he remained a California resident.

Swalwell’s lawyers note in the filing that the disclosures landed just as Swalwell prepared to launch his gubernatorial bid. The leak of Pulte’s referral letter to the media occurred “with remarkable speed,” the suit states, followed by conservative commentators posting details about his home where his wife and children live, activity Swalwell’s suit says increased security risks for his family.

The filing casts Pulte’s actions as part of a broader effort by the Trump administration to use federal agencies and the courts against political opponents. Swalwell, a seven-term congressman and former House impeachment manager during Trump’s second impeachment, has long been one of the most vocal critics of the president.

“Pulte’s brazen practice of obtaining confidential mortgage records from Fannie Mae and/or Freddie Mac and then using them as a basis for referring individual homeowners to DOJ for prosecution is unprecedented and unlawful,” the lawsuit argues. 

In recent months, Pulte has issued similar criminal referrals to Swalwell’s to other Trump critics, among them New York Attorney General Letitia James, Sen. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., and Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook.

James’ indictment was dismissed by a federal judge Monday while Schiff faces an ongoing probe though has not been charged. Cook also has not been charged, though Trump cited the criminal referral as cause in his attempt to fire her from the board of governors for the Federal Reserve in August. The firing is currently on hold pending a Supreme Court review.

Pulte defended his agency’s criminal referral of Cook to CNBC in August, saying it wasn’t politically motivated. “We make referrals almost every day. Lisa Cook happened to be one of them,” he said.

In an interview with “Squawk Box” in September, Pulte…