Category: AP News Feed

NEW YORK (AP) — When Manhattan’s original Pennsylvania Station was demolished in 1963, it marked the undignified end to one of America’s great public works, a monolithic Beaux Arts train terminal with Roman-style columns and a spacious central waiting area that was at the time the city’s largest indoor space.

In its place rose Madison Square Garden — home of NBA’s New York Knicks and NHL’s New York Rangers — while train commuters were forced underground into gloomy, claustrophobic, low-ceilinged corridors when the redesign was completed in 1968.

“Through Pennsylvania Station one entered the city like a god,” the architectural historian Vincent Scully famously lamented. “One scuttles in now like a rat.”

But a dramatic new vision for the busiest transit hub in the Western Hemisphere calls for a return to the original station’s grandeur from 1910.

Renderings released Monday feature a rectangular stone facade lined with imposing columns along a grand entryway. Inside, a sunlight-drenched concourse boasts soaring ceilings more than 50 feet (15 meters) high in places. There are bronze finishes and other ornamental details, like a bas-relief of the city’s famous skyline and a large station clock.

Inside one entryway, an inside wall bears the seal and name of President Donald Trump, who had Amtrak assume control of the project last year after decades of political infighting among transit agencies and opposition to moving MSG from billionaire owner James Dolan.

Trump has floated renaming his hometown station in his honor as he’s sought to burnish his legacy through public works projects, from a massive new White House ballroom to a triumphal arch.

For now, though, the name etched across the proposed grand facade would still read “Pennsylvania Station,” according to the renderings. They were released by Amtrak, which owns the terminal, and Penn Transformation Partners, the design and development consortium picked for the project.

Proposal aims to make Penn Station an icon again

The proposed design draws from the ornate, Beaux-Arts design of Grand Central Terminal, the city’s other major rail hub, as well as Art Deco landmarks like the Empire State Building and Rockefeller Center, according to lead design architect Vishaan Chakrabarti.

The vision, he said, is to restore Penn Station’s place among the pantheon of the city’s greatest landmarks.

“There was this fearless embrace of ornament and decoration that in some ways we’ve lost,” Chakrabarti said. “We want to bring some of that sense of craftsmanship back.”

The redesign is projected to cost roughly $8 billion, and construction is targeted to begin before the end of 2027, officials said Monday. Penn Station would remain in operation throughout as the project progresses in phases over about six years.

More than 600,000 commuters traverse the rail hub on any given workday, or more than the three major international airports that serve greater New York City — John F. Kennedy, LaGuardia and Newark Liberty — combined.

Knicks and Rangers home arena would remain at the site

Plans floated over the decades have called for relocating MSG, but the plan is for the “World’s Most Famous Arena” to remain in place. A theater owned by MSG and built directly above the tracks, however, would have to be razed.

The developers and MSG’s owner have reached an agreement on this critical point, but the final terms — including payment — are still being negotiated. That’s according to Andy Byford, a former New York City subway chief who Amtrak named as a special adviser to oversee the redevelopment.

Transit advocates complain the process has been shrouded in secrecy.

“It’s really important that there be public input and involvement,” said Lisa Daglian, who heads a group that advises the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, which operates New York’s subway and two commuter rail systems.

“We don’t need another megamall or monument and certainly not at the cost of billions in local revenue or by putting existing services at risk,” added Danny Pearlstein of the transit advocacy group Riders Alliance.

Byford said more details will be revealed in the months ahead, including a more detailed breakdown of costs, as the developers refine the preliminary designs and the project goes through the extensive federal environmental review process.

But he vowed no fare hikes to cover project costs and no plans for the government to condemn and take surrounding properties to expand the station, as some have suggested.

At Penn Station on Tuesday, John Schoen was among the regular riders who welcomed the prospect of a more inviting commute.

“The city needs new looks. This is old,” the 55-year-old Long Island resident said. “Let’s do it. Move forward.”

Others, though, wondered how construction might worsen their commutes. James Culhane, another Long Island rider, noted parts of the station received a significant face-lift in recent years that brought in new eateries, more natural light and other improvements.

“Things are operating as well as they can be,” said the 24-year-old opera stagehand. “Just use the money elsewhere.”

___

Follow Philip Marcelo at https://x.com/philmarcelo

Salt Lake City and its county have filed a lawsuit seeking to block the Department of Homeland Security’s plan to open a giant warehouse in the city that would be used to detain up to 10,000 immigrants.

The lawsuit, filed Monday in federal court, is the latest brought by local officials around the country who were not consulted before DHS purchased industrial warehouses that it planned to convert into regional immigrant processing and detention centers.

The lawsuit targets the most expensive property purchased by DHS for the initiative: $145.4 million for a 833,000-square-foot (77,388-square-meter) warehouse that is roughly the size of 15 football fields. The March purchase, from a real estate development group partially owned by Deutsche Bank, cost nearly 50% more than the property’s 2025 assessed market value, records show.

In all, DHS purchased 11 warehouses for more than $1 billion between January and March in the final weeks of Homeland Secretary Kristi Noem’s tenure under her $38.3 billion plan for a new detention model to increase bed capacity and make deportations more efficient. The DHS Office of Inspector General has opened an investigation into whether the plan was wasteful, and Noem’s successor, DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin, has put it on hold.

Like others filed around the country, the lawsuit in Utah alleges DHS violated federal law by failing to conduct required environmental reviews or get input from state and local officials before the purchase.

“This kind of facility has no place in Salt Lake City, not only due to its inhumane nature but also because of our limited water supply, the increased strain on public utilities systems, and the potentially drastic public health and safety impacts it would have on our residents,” Salt Lake City Mayor Erin Mendenhall said in a statement.

Salt Lake County Mayor Jenny Wilson said the plan “is a dire threat to the very essence of our community values,” adding it would overwhelm infrastructure, harm businesses, and undermine public health and safety.

A newly formed advocacy group, Uproar Utah, also planned a news conference Tuesday to discuss litigation against the warehouse plan.

“As with any transition, we are reviewing agency policies and proposals,” DHS said in a statement Tuesday, adding that Mullin has pledged to work with community leaders and be “good partners.”

Legal actions elsewhere have had some initial success.

In Pennsylvania, Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro’s administration has issued administrative orders blocking the operation of two planned detention centers until DHS can show they are complying with state and federal environmental regulations. DHS is appealing the orders.

In Maryland, a judge has granted a preliminary injunction halting construction activities at a Williamsport warehouse while a lawsuit is heard. In New Jersey, ICE is preparing a new environmental assessment and decision after a lawsuit was filed against its plan for a detention center in Roxbury Township. Other cases are pending in Arizona, Michigan and Georgia.

TORONTO (AP) — A new Canadian-built bridge across the Detroit River that U.S. President Donald Trump threatened to block will open soon, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney said Tuesday.

A ribbon-cutting ceremony for the Gordie Howe International Bridge, jointly owned by Canada and the U.S. state of Michigan, is set to take place on Friday, while the bridge itself is expected to open to traffic later this month.

Invitations for a Friday afternoon event to “mark the next step for the Gordie Howe International Bridge” have been sent, according to an invitation obtained by The Associated Press.

The event follows a recent conversation between Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer and White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles, according to a person familiar with the matter who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss private talks.

In February, Trump demanded that Canada turn over at least half the ownership of the bridge to the U.S. federal government and agree to other unspecified demands in one of his many salvos over cross-border trade issues.

The bridge, which would connect Windsor, Ontario, and Detroit and would be a vital economic artery between Canada and the United States, had been expected to open early this year, according to information on the project’s website.

The bridge is named after Howe, the late Canadian hockey great who spent 25 seasons with the Detroit Red Wings.

The project was negotiated by former Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder — a Republican — and paid for by the Canadian government to help ease congestion over the existing Ambassador Bridge and Detroit-Windsor tunnel. Work has been underway since 2018.

“Obviously the bridge will be open at the end of the week. A symbol of, but also a fact of, cooperation between our countries,” Carney told reporters as he walked into Parliament.

“Great for Canadians going across the border, Americans coming across the border, and for commerce,” he said, calling it “positive news.”

Trump threatened the bridge as the United States-Mexico-Canada trade agreement is up for review this year, and Trump has been taking a hard-line position before those talks, including by issuing new tariff threats.

Carney, meanwhile, has spoken out on the world stage against economic coercion by the United States.

Sen. Elissa Slotkin, a Michigan Democrat, has said that the Canadian-funded project is a “huge boon” to her state and its economic future.

Michigan is a swing state that Trump carried in both 2016 and 2024, but lost to Biden in 2020.

Snyder wrote in an op-ed in The Detroit News earlier this year that Trump was wrong in asserting that Canada owns both the U.S. and Canadian sides of the bridge.

“Canada and the state of Michigan are 50/50 owners of the new bridge,” Snyder wrote. “Canada was wonderful and financed the entire bridge. They will get repaid with interest from the tolls. Michigan and the United States got their half-ownership with no investment.”

The Gordie Howe bridge will join the privately owned Ambassador Bridge as the second span connecting Detroit and Windsor, Ontario.

The rival Ambassador Bridge was long the busiest U.S.-Canadian border crossing, carrying 25% of all trade between the two countries. It plays an especially important role in auto manufacturing.

Companies controlled by the Moroun family, owners of the rival Ambassador Bridge, previously sued to prevent the Howe bridge from being built.

_______

Associated Press writer Joey Cappelletti in Washington contributed to this report.

Sales of previously occupied U.S. homes accelerated last month to their fastest pace since December, a sharp turnaround in demand after a lackluster start to the spring homebuying season.

Existing home sales rose 3.2% in May from the previous month to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 4.17 million units, the National Association of Realtors said Tuesday. Sales also rose 3.2% compared with May last year.

Home sales increased from a year earlier in the Midwest, South and West, but fell in the Northeast, NAR said.

The latest sales figure topped the roughly 4.07 million pace economists were expecting, according to FactSet.

Home sales have been mostly hovering close to a 4-million annual pace going back to 2023, far short of the historic norm that is closer to 5.2-million.

Sales rose last month even as mortgage rates have continued to mostly trend higher this spring, although they remain below where they were a year ago.

Home prices continued to rise nationally last month. The U.S. median sales price increased 1.3% in May from a year earlier to $429,300, an all-time high for any May on data going back to 1999, NAR said. Home prices have risen on an annual basis for 35 months in a row.

Even so, home price growth is now lagging income growth in many areas. That, plus mortgage rates holding below where they were this time last year, is helping to improve affordability, giving the housing market momentum, said Lawrence Yun, NAR’s chief economist.

“I cannot definitively say if home sales are truly coming out of the slump, because we know that there’s still uncertainty related to the oil prices or how the mortgage rates will move,” Yun said, adding that he expects home sales will emerge from their multi-year slump if the average rate on a 30-year mortgage drops back closer to 6%.

The U.S. housing market has been in a slump since 2022, when mortgage rates began to climb from pandemic-era lows. Sales of previously occupied U.S. homes were essentially flat last year, stuck at a 30-year low. They have remained sluggish so far this year. They were flat in April after declining from a year earlier through the first three months of this year.

Years of soaring home prices, especially in the early part of this decade when rock-bottom mortgage rates fueled a buying frenzy, have left many would-be homebuyers frozen out of the market. And a chronic shortage of homes for sale nationally, due partly to years of below-average new home construction, has helped prop up home prices even in a multiyear sales slump.

Homes purchased last month likely went under contract in March and April, when the average rate on a 30-year mortgage ranged from 6% — close to its lowest level in three and a half years — to 6.46%, according to mortgage buyer Freddie Mac. The average rate was at 6.48% last week, down from 6.85% a year earlier.

While the average rate has remained below where it was a year ago, it has been mostly trending higher since the war with Iran began, disrupting the passage of tankers ferrying crude oil from the Persian Gulf to customers worldwide and driving oil prices sharply higher. Expectations of high oil prices as the war continues have pushed up the long-term bond yields that lenders use as a guide to pricing home loans, causing mortgage rates to climb.

“If not for the war-related spike in inflation, the average 30-year fixed mortgage rate could well be in the mid-to-upper 5’s,” said Ted Rossman, principal analyst at Bankrate.

Despite the uncertainty over mortgage rates, first-time buyers accounted for 35% of home purchases last month, the highest share going back to June 2020, Yun said. Historically, they made up 40% of home sales.

Those who can afford to buy at current rates are likely benefitting from buyer-friendly trends in many markets. In May, median list prices were down 2.4% from a year earlier, the steepest drop on data going back to 2017, according to Realtor.com.

They also have more homes on the market to choose from, although home inventory levels remain well below historical norms.

There were 1.55 million unsold homes at the end of May, up 3.3% from April and up 0.6% from May last year, NAR said. That’s still short of the roughly 2 million homes for sale that was typical before the COVID-19 pandemic.

May’s month-end inventory translates to a 4.5-month supply at the current sales pace. Traditionally, a 5- to 6-month supply is considered a balanced market between buyers and sellers.

A study commissioned by President Joe Biden’s administration to investigate alcohol-related health harms was released independently on Tuesday, after President Donald Trump’s administration decided not to feature the researchers’ findings in new dietary guidelines as it faced pushback from the alcohol industry and a congressional committee.

The findings of the study, in the Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, were in line with years of research, saying that health risks go up with just one drink a day and no level of alcohol has a protective effect on mortality. Even levels considered “moderate” raise the risk of premature death and more than 200 diseases, including heart disease and cancer, researchers found.

The new study was one of two government reviews meant to help inform the new dietary guidelines. Released earlier this year, the guidelines advised consuming “less alcohol for better overall health.” The authors of the independently released study say that didn’t provide detailed practical advice about the risks of drinking.

One of the officials involved in the study commissioned by Biden’s Democratic administration accused Trump’s Republican administration of “sidelining” the research — an allegation the Trump administration denies.

Robert Vincent, a former Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration alcohol policy official who led the yearslong effort, made the accusations in an editorial published alongside the study. Vincent was laid off last year as part of a government reduction in force.

“The challenges confronting alcohol policy today are not rooted in scientific uncertainty,” Vincent wrote. “What remains contested is whether evidence will meaningfully inform policy when it conflicts with commercial interests.”

The dispute over the study underscored the increasingly tense relations between the medical and scientific community and the Trump administration, which has questioned or ignored longstanding science in its policymaking, fired a slew of veteran scientists from the federal workforce and cut scientific grants that proponents say help keep the U.S. at the forefront of medical innovation.

Industry and congressional Republicans pushed back on the study

After the study’s researchers released a draft report last year, the alcohol industry mobilized against it, launching campaigns to discredit its work. The House oversight committee also criticized the study, releasing a report earlier this year that called it “fraught with bias” and accused the study authors of having predetermined conclusions based on their past research and affiliations.

Emily Hilliard, a spokesperson for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, denied any notion that the findings weren’t considered.

HHS and the U.S. Department of Agriculture “reviewed the study alongside the broader body of available scientific evidence and followed the established process for developing the 2025–2030 Dietary Guidelines for Americans,” she said. “The Guidelines are informed by the totality of the scientific record, not any single report or analysis.”

Vincent told The Associated Press in an interview that the researchers were thoroughly vetted for conflicts and the findings were scientifically sound. He said that while he was in the Trump administration, he was “asked to kill the study” but did not. HHS didn’t immediately respond to that claim. The department said the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration wasn’t involved in the review or the clearance of the study published Tuesday, which evolved from the draft version with additional authors, analysis and policy recommendations.

Amanda Berger, senior vice president of science and research for the alcohol trade association the Distilled Spirits Council of the United States, said in an email to the AP that the congressional committee’s findings showed the study was “irretrievably flawed.”

Findings support more forceful alcohol intake recommendation

The Trump administration earlier this year released new dietary guidelines that advised consuming “less alcohol for better overall health.” The researchers said that they don’t dispute that advice but that their findings support a more detailed and forceful recommendation that current adult drinkers consume one drink or fewer a day.

“I’m glad that they had a message that corresponds with our science, and that is that less is best,” said Dr. Timothy Naimi, director of the University of Victoria’s Canadian Institute for Substance Use Research and one of the study’s authors. “But giving people quantity information is necessary to make a truly informative guideline.”

The study differed from the other research commissioned by the government to help inform the dietary guidelines on the issue, which said moderate alcohol use was associated with a decreased risk of mortality from all causes but also an increased risk of some diseases.

Priscilla Martinez-Matyszczyk, one of the authors of the new study and a deputy scientific director at the Public Health Institute’s Alcohol Research Group, said their study didn’t look at mortality from all causes but instead examined mortality specifically attributed to alcohol to avoid confounding factors.

Martinez-Matyszczyk also addressed an issue raised by Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Administrator Dr. Mehmet Oz in his explanations of the new guidelines: that drinking is “a social lubricant that brings people together” and that even though not drinking is preferred, being social has health benefits.

“I don’t know of any studies that have teased out the social effect from the health effect,” she said.

Research aligns with other recent findings

The new findings are “in line with the latest science that basically shows less is better when it comes to health,” Naimi said.

For example, a 2019 study in Lancet found that moderate drinking slightly raised the risk of stroke and high blood pressure and offered no protective effects on health.

Moderate drinking was once thought to have benefits for the heart, but better research methods have thrown cold water on that idea. Older studies compared groups of people by how much they drink instead of randomly assigning people to drink or not, so they couldn’t prove cause and effect. When researchers adjusted for things like education levels, income and health care access, the benefits tended to disappear.

About half of Americans age 12 or older had a drink in the past month, researchers said, making it the most commonly used addictive substance in the U.S. One drink is the equivalent of about one 12-ounce can of beer, a 5-ounce glass of wine or a shot of liquor.

___

The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Department of Science Education and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content.

NEW YORK (AP) — A federal judge questioned a U.S. Customs and Border Protection official Tuesday about the government’s process for refunding billions of dollars in tariffs that importers paid before the Supreme Court ruled that President Donald Trump illegally imposed higher duties on goods from most other countries.

Court of International Trade Judge Richard Eaton said he wanted to hear details that would help him decide whether to order the government to speed up and expand its system for issuing tariff refunds.

Eaton praised the online system that CBP developed to process refund claims, saying it was working well and that he believed the government wanted to return all of the import tax money it collected without constitutional authority to do so. But he said a Justice Department appeal of his order requiring the agency to refund all companies that paid tariffs, not just those that filed lawsuits, threatened to derail the process.

“Sometimes lawyers push legal positions beyond what is useful for the client,” the judge said during a 90-minute hearing in the New York-based trade court. “The legal position pushed by the government may not be in the government’s best interest.”

The Justice Department is arguing that only companies that were parties in any of the more than 4,000 lawsuits that challenged the legal mechanism Trump used to set higher tariff rates were entitled to seek refunds. That question is now in the hands of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

First phase of tariff refunds is still ongoing

Eaton ordered Customs and Border Protection in March to create a system by which “all importers of record” could apply for their share of the $166 billion CBP estimated it had collected before the Supreme Court struck down the global tariffs. But he allowed the agency to roll out the system in phases while it developed the necessary technology to handle various kinds of refund claims.

The agency launched the online system April 20, saying it would first review applications from importers whose tax bills had not been finalized. Eaton scheduled Tuesday’s hearing to help him weigh whether he should compel CBP to refund all the money the government owes immediately or give the agency more time.

The pace and scope of the process became a contentious matter, however, when Eaton directed CBP Commissioner Rodney Scott to appear in court to discuss the agency’s timeline for complying with the judge’s “universal” order. The Justice Department objected and asked if one of Scott’s deputies could attend the hearing instead.

When Eaton insisted on hearing directly from the head of the agency, Justice Department lawyers appealed both that mandate and the judge’s broader ruling on refund eligibility. Last week, the Federal Circuit agreed to temporarily suspend the requirement for Scott to testify. Susan Thomas, CBP’s executive assistant commissioner for trade, appeared before Eaton instead.

Who gets access to the next phase of tariff refunds

The hearing focused on CBP’s capability and willingness to open the refund process to companies with tariff payments that date back the farthest.

Claims for refunds totaling $90 billion had been accepted for processing as of Tuesday, and the agency has directed the Treasury Department to issue $23 billion in refunds, Thomas told the judge.

So far, CBP has limited applications to businesses that either did not have their tax bills finalized by the time the Supreme Court invalidated Trump’s “reciprocal” tariffs in late February or whose bills had been settled within the preceding 80 days.

Thomas said CBP was developing a way to handle refunds involving older shipments that was likely to be finished by the end of July. But she said the agency would not process cases beyond the 80-day window while Eaton’s order requiring refunds for all duty payers is on appeal.

“I can’t speak to the appeal, but I can tell you I will be prepared,” she said. “I am pushing our teams to the limit.”

Lawyers for the government argued it unnecessary for Eaton to try to hasten the process by enforcing his order. They said the appeal involves 6.9% of the $166 billion collected and that the vast majority of taxed imports eligible for refunds can either be processed by the existing system or are part of pending lawsuits.

Lawyers for the five companies behind the lawsuit that produced the judge’s order said $11 billion was still a lot of money, and it would be unconstitutional for them to pay less tariffs than other companies that also paid the invalidated duties, which the Supreme Court held Trump improperly imposed by citing an emergency powers law to usurp Congress’ taxmaking authority.

One of the plaintffs’ lawyers said a possible solution would be for Eaton to certify their case as a class action on behalf of “potentially tens of thousands of identically situated importers.”

Eaton said that question would need to wait for another time, and he did not make any rulings Tuesday. He added that “it would be disappointing if we have to find our way into the world of class action” instead of allowing CBP to make progress that would ultimately accomplish the goal of his broad order requiring refunds for all.

“Let the Customs and Border Patrol be the Customs and Border Patrol,” Eaton said. “Let them do their job, let them do what I believe the government actually wants to do.”