As the U.S., Israel and Iran agreed to a two-week ceasefire, questions remain about the legal and ethical boundaries of the rhetoric that defined the conflict. Judge , director of the Institute for Security Policy and Law and a professor in both the and the at Syracuse University, addresses those questions directly in our latest Q&A.

Baker also serves as a judge on the Data Protection Review Court, bringing a rare combination of academic expertise and active judicial experience to issues at the intersection of national security, military law and international legal norms.

To schedule an interview, please reach out to Vanessa Marquette, media relations specialist, at vrmarque@syr.edu.

Recent coverage in and an earlier article in the have questioned the increase in disability accommodations for students and recent graduates. A Syracuse University law professor and leading national expert says that framing is missing critical context.

The Expert

, professor of law and director, disability law and policy program in Syracuse University’s College of Law

What She Can Address

• Why rising accommodation numbers reflect a pipeline success story, not a system being gamed
• How the American with Disabilities Act’s broad definition of disability shapes what qualifies—and what gets denied
• The accommodations that never make headlines: requests that are routinely rejected
• How successful implementation of anti-discrimination laws at the K-12 level has expanded the population of students with disabilities entering higher education

In Her Own Words

“An increase in accommodations is a natural consequence of the increased presence of students with disabilities in higher education. The Americans with Disabilities Act defines disability broadly, and without knowing more about each individually approved accommodation, it is difficult if not improper to conclude that any increase is suspicious.”

Recent Work

Macfarlane’s article “” was recently published in the Georgetown Law Journal.

President Donald Trump announced that the U.S. will begin a naval blockade of the Strait of Hormuz. Retired Vice Adm. , professor of practice in Syracuse University’s Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs and deputy director of the , is available for interviews as this news evolves, especially as NATO allies refuse to support.

Members of the media looking to schedule an interview, please email Vanessa Marquette, media relations specialist, at vrmarque@syr.edu.

Professor Murrett’s Comments

“Today’s announcement today that the U.S. will commence ‘blockading any and all ships’ trying to enter or leave the Strait of Hormuz (SoH) represents a military option with certain advantages, and moreover, possible international support:

• First, full and unconstrained access to the SoH is in the interests of all nations (including Iran), and one that is vital to global economic interests. None of the nations adjacent to the SoH (Iran, Oman and the UAE) should hamper this freedom of navigation, as they have not in the past.
• Nearly all nations have an interest in free access into and out of the Persian/Arabian Gulf, and there is potential for conducting this operation as a combined naval effort with participation from several allied nations, which is preferable. The goal would be to have free and open access for all nations, or none.
• Geography matters: The blockade can also be enforced in areas that are not as advantageous for Iran a others, that is, in the Gulf of Oman rather that in the SoH narrows adjacent to Larak/Qeshm Islands.

These are just some initial thoughts, as the operational dimensions, participants, implementation and tactics evolve in the hours and days ahead.”

Will the Blockade Work?

“The blockade ‘can work’ from my estimation from the standpoint of the naval forces’ ability to stop traffic in and out of the Gulf,” Murrett says. “On the other hand, it is an open question as to whether or not will this military operation will ‘work’ as a means to compel the Iranian leadership to re-open the SoH for free access, as was the case before the current fighting started. The second question is the more important one.”

As the U.S., Israel and Iran agree to a tentative ceasefire, a Syracuse University expert is available to provide context and analysis.��, history professor in the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, specializes in U.S. foreign relations and the modern Middle East. He shared his comments below. To schedule an interview, please contact Vanessa Marquette, media relations specialist, at vrmarque@syr.edu.

Professor Khalil writes:

“The two-week ceasefire is welcome news. This conflict was entirely avoidable and the fault lies entirely with President Donald Trump. In 2018, he abandoned the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action for Iran’s nuclear program and replaced it with a maximum pressure campaign that failed. In his second term, he twice attacked Iran with Israel while using negotiations as a ruse. The second attack and ensuing war were based on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s inaccurate assessments of the enervated state of the Iranian government and military. Trump launched the attack on Iran against the advice of key Pentagon planners and the intelligence community and without consulting Washington’s European allies or its Arab Gulf partners.

“Despite the shock of the initial decapitation strikes, Iran’s retaliatory attacks across the Persian Gulf on U.S. bases as well as toward targets in Israel demonstrated that U.S. forces were caught unprepared by the response. U.S. bases across the region suffered extensive damage as did energy and other infrastructure of the Arab Gulf states. Iran’s closure of the Strait of Hormuz also shocked Washington and created the gravest energy crisis of the modern era. The ripple effects of the energy crisis on all aspects of global society and a range of industries from agriculture and technology to health care and transportation will be felt for the remainder of 2026 and into 2027.

“The two-week cease-fire benefits both sides. The United States and Israel are reportedly low on interceptors and smart bombs as well as military targets. In addition, Israel and the Arab Gulf states have suffered significant damage that will take time to rebuild. Furthermore, Israel’s invasion of Lebanon has been a failure as Netanyahu underestimated Hezbollah’s strength and determination to stymie a ground invasion. The ceasefire will help ease the energy markets as well as global stock exchanges and bond markets. However, food and energy prices will remain high and shortages of fertilizer will have implications for food production for the rest of the year.

“Iran has been heavily damaged by U.S. and Israeli air strikes and civilian casualties have been high. However, the government and military remain in place and are arguably more popular than before the war due to nationalist opposition to being attacked. In addition, Trump and Netanyahu’s plans for regime change are in tatters. Iran still maintains control of the Strait of Hormuz and all of its territory. It also retains a significant arsenal of missiles and drones should fighting renew as well as its supply of highly enriched uranium. Most important, President Trump acknowledged that it was Iran’s 10-point proposal for ending the conflict that would be the basis for negotiations and not his maximalist positions that initiated the conflict. Should an agreement be reached based on Iran’s proposal, especially the ending of sanctions and guarantees against future attack, then Tehran will emerge from this war bruised but victorious—the exact opposite of what Trump and Netanyahu claimed would occur.

“President Trump’s already battered international reputation has been further tarnished by the surprise attack under cover of negotiations and his increasingly petulant and profane threats. These actions served to further undermine America’s reputation, its relations with partners and allies, and revealed that the United States under Trump was not only unreliable but unstable. This was exacerbated by Trump’s decision to attack Iran with Netanyahu, who is wanted by the International Criminal Court for war crimes due to Israel’s genocidal campaign in Gaza. Although Trump will claim victory, as he has for over a month, this is an embarrassing defeat for the United States that has exposed the fragility of its global military posture. And it will have implications for the remainder of Trump’s second term and beyond.”

If your readers or viewers are sneezing more than usual this spring, there’s a reason.

Allergy seasons across the U.S. are starting earlier, lasting longer and hitting harder, driven by warmer temperatures and rising CO2 levels that are increasing pollen production. What’s more, people who have never had allergies before are suddenly developing them in adulthood—a trend that’s becoming increasingly common.

, a teaching professor of public health in the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs and a practicing family nurse practitioner, can help explain this year’s allergy season.

Here are some of the insights she’s ready to share:

Why this season feels different. Pollen seasons are not only starting earlier—they’re blending together across seasons, meaning the body’s immune system stays activated longer. When multiple trees pollinate at once, exposure becomes stacked and continuous, leading to more severe and persistent symptoms. Pollution compounds the problem by making pollen more irritating to airways. And a lesser-known phenomenon—”thunderstorm asthma”—can trigger severe asthma attacks when storms break pollen grains into tiny particles that travel deep into the lungs.

You are not born with allergies. First-time allergy symptoms in adulthood are very common, and the changing climate is expanding the pool of people affected. Anyone experiencing new seasonal symptoms this year shouldn’t assume it’s just a cold. Olson-Gugerty offers a simple rule of thumb: itching points to allergies; fever and body aches point to infection. She can walk reporters through the key clinical differences between seasonal allergies and a cold, flu or COVID—and explain when symptoms warrant a doctor’s visit rather than another trip to the drugstore.

Kids are different, and parents often miss the signs. Children are more likely to develop ear infections, sleep disturbances, and asthma flare-ups during high-pollen periods, but they often can’t articulate their symptoms. Parents should watch for mouth breathing, unusual fatigue, irritability and dark circles under the eyes—signs that are easy to overlook or misattribute.

The most common mistake allergy sufferers make. Olson-Gugerty says it’s waiting too long to treat. Allergy medications work best when started before symptoms peak, and taking them only as needed rather than consistently is one of the biggest reasons people struggle unnecessarily each spring.

To connect with Professor Olson-Gugerty, please contact Daryl Lovell.

The way society talks about autism is changing — and for Syracuse University researcher , that shift carries real consequences for science, diagnosis and daily life.

“The move from awareness to acceptance has been welcome,” says Russo, an associate professor of psychology in the and director of the . “It has led to a bigger focus on accepting differences and working with people’s strengths, rather than expecting everyone to learn or function in the same ways.”

But Russo cautions that the “autism as superpower” narrative, while helpful in reducing stigma, can create a skewed public image that doesn’t reflect the full range of autistic experiences—particularly for those who require significant daily support. As the diagnostic criteria have broadened over time to include more individuals with subtler presentations, she notes that research attention has drifted toward those with lower support needs, leaving a gap for autistic people whose daily lives require more intensive care.

The CARE Lab studies how autistic individuals process and integrate sensory information—work that has identified distinct brain signatures underlying those differences. Autistic people consistently show earlier and sometimes stronger neural responses to what they hear and see, responses that are linked to a range of sensory and behavioral characteristics.

Sensory differences are now part of autism’s official diagnostic criteria, and they vary widely: some individuals are hypersensitive to sound or touch, while others actively seek out sensory experiences. Russo encourages those wanting to understand the day-to-day reality of autistic life to seek out first-person accounts written by autistic people themselves.

The diagnostic picture is also more complicated than many realize. “If you have met one person with autism, you have met one person with autism,” Russo says—a reminder that variability between autistic individuals is vast. Autism presents differently across age, gender and cognitive ability, and co-occurring conditions like ADHD, anxiety and depression are common. Researchers found that girls and women are often diagnosed later, and that clinicians may need to look for different behavioral patterns within the same diagnostic categories when evaluating female patients.

On a broader level, Russo urges the public to be mindful of the unconscious biases that can shape how autistic people are perceived and treated.

“Autism is a disability, but part of that has to do with social and systemic barriers that make it hard for autistic people to flourish,” she says. “Be aware of your biases. How you treat people has an impact.”

World Autism Awareness Day is observed annually on April 2.

Following the President Donald Trump-Japan Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi meeting in Washington, D.C., Margarita Estévez-Abe,�� associate professor in the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, weighed in on what the meeting revealed about American influence in East Asia, Japan’s strategic vulnerabilities and the evolving landscape of U.S. alliances in the region.

If you’d like to schedule an interview with her, please reach out to Vanessa Marquette, media relations specialist, at vrmarque@syr.edu.

Professor Estévez-Abe writes: “At the first sight, the Takaichi-Trump summit in D.C. appears to be a big win for the Trump Administration. The new agreements between the two countries involve big tangible economic benefits for the U.S. However, I see this meeting as an important chapter in the tale of the end of the American hegemony in East Asia. The meeting sends a clear message to U.S. allies that they should reduce their dependence on the U.S.

“The meeting laid bare two things: Japan’s humiliating dependence on the U.S. and the hefty protection money the U.S. demands. Last year, Japan was forced to pledge investments in the U.S. for the whopping amount of $550 billion—an amount the Japanese government and corporations can hardly spare. The Trump Administration has a big say on where the money goes. Whether specific investment deals benefit Japan or not is of no concern to the U.S. Japan provides a lesson to other U.S. allies: Don’t depend too much on the U.S. or you become a vassal. South Korea is clearly getting this message.

“Part of Japan’s dependence on Trump is Takaichi’s own making. Her comments in November 2025 about a potential Chinese invasion of Taiwan as a ‘survival threatening situation’ for Japan —hence justifying Japan’s military intervention—marked a shift from the carefully crafted status quo. She probably wanted to signal to Trump that she was willing to confront China alongside the U.S. Not surprisingly, China responded with harsh retaliatory economic actions. China is as big a trading partner as the U.S. is to Japan. Takaichi’s failure to resolve the problem of her own creation leaves Japan without any serious option to hedge against an erratic White House. While all other American allies seek to hedge against the U.S. by forming closer ties with China, Japan cannot.

“Japan’s exclusive reliance on the U.S. weakens Japan’s economic and political standing. Loyalty to the U.S. comes with a big sacrifice. The U.S. ultimately has a lot to lose by weakening its most loyal Asian ally. South Korea is pivoting away from the U.S.”

The first round of France’s 2026 mayoral elections sent a clear message: the French left holds a plurality—but voters aren’t ready for radical change.

With alliances forming ahead of the March 22 runoff and the 2027 French presidential election on the horizon, John Goodman, assistant professor of political science by courtesy appointment and director of Syracuse University Strasbourg, breaks down what the results mean for France’s political future.

To request an interview, contact Vanessa Marquette, media relations specialist, at vrmarque@syr.edu.

Expert Analysis: France’s Political Mood Heading Into the Runoff

Goodman writes:

“After a lot of handwringing about a far-right takeover in France, the first round of the mayoral elections produced a clear signal of the country’s mood: The left side of the political spectrum holds a plurality of French votes, just as it has in the recent national elections.

“In every major French city—Paris, Lyon, Marseille, Bordeaux, Strasbourg, Nantes and Rennes—the Socialists, Greens or a coalition of the two came in first in Sunday’s elections. That said, to win in the second round they will need votes from either the far-left French Unbowed party (La France Insoumise), whether through a formal coalition or simply by letting those voters ‘vote their consciences.’ Many Socialists and Greens—like the mayoral candidates in Paris and Marseille—have rejected outright alliances with the far-left. Meanwhile, the far-right National Rally (RN) party, which came in second in many places, is calling on center-right parties to form a coalition under the RN banner in the second round.

“What’s the conclusion? One year out from the presidential election, and pending the second round of mayoral elections, it seems France is in a left-leaning mood—but not one in favor of radical change either for the far-right or the far-left.”

Syracuse University—home to one of the longest continuously running ROTC programs in the nation—has staff members available to comment on the shooting at Old Dominion University March 12 that killed Lt. Col. Brandon Shah, professor of military science and Army ROTC commander at ODU. Reporters covering the ROTC response, including the cadets who intervened and the leadership culture that shapes how they train, can reach out to schedule interviews.

Media contact: Vanessa Marquette, Media Relations Specialist, vrmarque@syr.edu

Available Experts

Ray Toenniessen, Deputy Executive Director, D’Aniello Institute for Veterans and Military Families (IVMF)

is a U.S. Army veteran and former Syracuse University ROTC cadet. He can speak to how ROTC programs build leadership instincts before moments of crisis—specifically the culture of responsibility and action that instructors like Lt. Col. Shah instill in their cadets.

Toenniessen states:

“In moments of crisis, you often learn what kind of leaders someone built. Today, we lost a great American and a soldier, LTC Brandon Shah, professor of military science at Old Dominion University, killed in this morning’s terrorist attack on campus. At least two ROTC cadets were also gravely wounded.

“It is a devastating loss for his family, for the Old Dominion community, and for the ROTC program he led. But amid that tragedy, something extraordinary happened.

“When the shooter entered that classroom and opened fire, the cadets LTC Shah had trained didn’t freeze. According to law enforcement, they moved immediately, rushing the gunman and stopping the attack. The FBI’s special agent in charge credited them directly, saying their actions likely prevented further casualties. They moved toward the threat.

“If you’ve spent any time around our nation’s ROTC programs, that isn’t surprising. Because that is exactly what leaders like LTC Shah spend their days teaching and living. Responsibility for the people to your left and right, and a willingness to act when it matters most. Those instincts don’t appear suddenly in a crisis. They are built over time, by leaders who show young men and women what service actually means.

“LTC Shah served more than two decades in uniform, deploying in support of both Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom. He gave everything, including his life, in service to this country.

“Tonight we mourn a soldier, a mentor and a hero. We honor the young leaders he helped shape, who when the moment came stepped forward without hesitation.

“That is a true measure of a leader’s legacy.

“I’m praying for the family of LTC Brandon Shah, the cadets of the Old Dominion Army ROTC program, and the entire ODU community.”

Retired Col. Ron Novack, Executive Director, Office of Veteran and Military Affairs (OVMA)

oversees the University’s military-connected student programs, including both the Army and Air Force ROTC programs. He can discuss ROTC leadership development at the institutional level—the culture of service, the structure of the program and how it prepares cadets to act decisively in emergencies.

Can an AI company take government money and still set limits on how its technology is used? That question is at the center of an ongoing dispute between the Pentagon and Anthropic, and Syracuse University professor Hamid Ekbia says it exposes fundamental tensions in how the AI industry operates.

Ekbia, founding director of the Academic Alliance for AI Policy, says the Pentagon’s demand that Anthropic either change its approach or forgo its lucrative contract is a vivid example of current federal policy. “With the bulk of public AI funding in the U.S. still coming from defense, companies either have to budge or shut themselves out from this unique source of money,” Ekbia says.

While Anthropic has adjusted some safety policies, it has so far declined to allow its technology to be used for domestic surveillance or autonomous drones, a distinction Ekbia says matters.

“That is cause for celebration for any observer concerned about such applications,” he says. “But the question going forward is whether this will continue to be the case.”

Political and Economic Forces

Ekbia says the pressure on Anthropic reflects a broader shift in the federal government’s approach to AI regulation.

“The anti-regulatory policies of the Trump administration don’t leave much room for safety-oriented approaches to AI,” he says, adding that those policies push companies and oversight bodies toward “aggressive and often reckless behaviors in the name of innovation.”

Market competition makes the pressure worse. “The AI ecosystem is defined by furious competition among a few big players in a race to grab the lion’s share of the spoils in a rapidly growing industry,” Ekbia says. “The ‘moral economy’ of the AI industry is one of the jungle, where only the most reckless, ruthless, and aggressive behaviors are expected to be rewarded.”

Employees as a Wild Card

One factor that could shape the outcome is pressure from within Anthropic itself. Ekbia says employee resistance has played a meaningful role so far, with workers vocal during negotiations and leadership appearing to take that seriously.

But he cautions that employee influence is not guaranteed to last. “How critical will employees be in the future of the company given the current wave of white-collar��under-employment, and how assertive will they be in expressing their resistance?” he says.

He outlines several other variables that will determine how the situation unfolds: whether competing AI companies are willing to fill the gap for the Pentagon, how hard the Trump administration continues to push for broad access to AI technology, and how well Anthropic can sustain itself financially without defense funding.

“The speed of change in these areas makes it hard to make solid predictions,” Ekbia says.

The Limits of Self-Regulation

Ekbia says the dispute ultimately tests a premise that Anthropic has staked its reputation on—that a company can be both commercially successful and a responsible steward of powerful technology.

“In the absence of federal policy, Anthropic aspired to play that role in the industry,” he says. “What is happening shows the limited efficacy of that aspiration. Society cannot rely on the industry to self-police itself, despite even the best intentions.”

He connects that failure to a broader culture in Silicon Valley, where prominent figures publicly embrace “effective altruism”—the idea that profit and doing good can coexist.

“The case of Anthropic shows how much of an illusion this is,” Ekbia says. “As the old saying goes, you cannot have your cake and eat it too.”

As tensions escalate in the Middle East and Iran effectively halts cargo traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, a major artery for global oil shipments, a Syracuse University expert is available to discuss the potential impacts on energy markets and the global economy.

The Strait of Hormuz is one of the most strategically important shipping routes in the world. A significant share of the ������Ա��’s oil supply moves through the narrow waterway between the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman, making any disruption to traffic there a major concern for energy markets and global economic stability.

, professor in the Department of Geography and the Environment in the��Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, studies the political economy of energy, capitalism, climate politics and resource geography.

Huber shared the following perspective on the conflict and its potential economic consequences:

“Before this war, Trump could at least claim gasoline prices were low to counteract the concerns about ‘affordability’ plaguing his administration. No longer (gasoline prices are up 25% since the beginning of the war). Like Venezuela before, there is a brazenness to this operation. It appears the administration expected it to go quickly and had little plan to address the havoc Iran is unleashing on the region and on energy markets more broadly. It is clear if they do not find a way to de-escalate the situation, and reopen the Strait of Hormuz, we will see an oil shock that could very well throw much of the global economy into recession if not worse.”

Reporters interested in speaking with Huber can contact Vanessa Marquette, media relations specialist, at vrmarque@syr.edu.

As college basketball fans prepare to fill out their March Madness brackets next week, one professor says the choices people make often have less to do with probability, and more to do with human nature.

, an associate professor in the Department of Sport Analytics, has studied how fans make decisions in wagering environments. He says the same behavioral patterns show up every March in bracket pools, where millions of Americans try to outguess each other and the NCAA Tournament.

“The biggest thing I’ve found is that people pick with clear and obvious biases,” Losak says. “Fans tend to favor teams they’re familiar with, regional teams, conference opponents or teams their school has played. Even a single game can create a sense of familiarity.”

That familiarity can cut both ways. A fan whose team lost to a tournament contender may overestimate that contender’s strength. Conversely, a fan might downgrade a top team that struggled against their school.

“It’s very normal,” he says. “When someone feels like they ‘know’ a team, even from one game, they’re more inclined to pick them, for better or worse.”

Head vs. Heart: Which Wins?

Every year, bracket‑fillers debate whether to trust their gut or stick to logic. According to Losak, the answer is clear, at least from a statistical standpoint.

“Gut and heart are not going to win you more money than logic,” he says. “They can win you one bet by chance, but not consistently.”

In traditional betting markets, Losak personally looks for places where the public is biased and goes the opposite direction. “If my gut says there’s no way the over can hit, and I know lots of people feel that way, that tells me there’s bias in the line. I’ll bet the over,” he says.

Bracket contests operate differently. Even so, the principle of avoiding conventional wisdom still applies.

In Bracket Pools, Pool Size Matters

One of Losak’s strongest pieces of advice: your strategy should change depending on how many people you’re competing against.

“In a large pool, you need to be contrarian,” he says. “If you go chalk—picking the higher seed in every matchup—you can’t win. Even if the favorites all advance, too many other people will have the same bracket.”

In smaller pools, however, Losak advises exactly the opposite.

“If you’re only playing against five or 10 people, go chalk the entire time,” he says. “Let everyone else take the risky upset picks. You give yourself a better probability of winning by staying conservative.”

For very large contests, he recommends resisting the instinct to choose a No. 1 seed to win the national championship.

“You will not win a very large pool if you pick a one‑seed,” he says. That’s because No. 1 seeds are massively overselected relative to their actual probability of winning.

Instead, Losak encourages bracket‑fillers to consider strong two‑ or three‑seeds that fewer people are selecting. “If that team wins it all, you may only need that one thing to happen,” he says. “You’re not fighting dozens of identical brackets.”

Smart Upsets and This Year’s Field

Losak cautions fans not to hunt for upsets simply because of historical patterns like the popular 5‑12 matchup.

“Don’t pick an upset just because it’s a 12‑5,” he says. “Look at betting markets the first weekend—they’re a great guide. Sometimes the spread will show you a matchup that’s closer than the seed line suggests.”

As for 2026’s field, Losak doesn’t see a dominant favorite. He suggests Duke may be overselected as the likely No. 1 overall seed, and says teams like Michigan or Arizona could be smart alternatives depending on pool size. He also predicts an early exit for Nebraska despite a likely top‑four seed.

Final Thought

At the end of the day, even experts get humbled by March Madness.

“My wife doesn’t watch college basketball all year and she beats me most years,” Losak says. “But if you understand biases, and play your pool size strategically, you give yourself a real edge.”

After the Supreme Court ruled that the Trump Administration tariffs are invalid, American businesses anticipate hundreds of millions of dollars in refunds for import tariffs they paid.

Since then, the U.S. Court of International Trade ordered that importers were due refunds for the tariffs paid and a federal court in New York is now taking the first official steps to being the refund process.

College of Law Dean Terence Lau is available to talk to reporters about these refunds. Dean Lau began his career in the Office of the General Counsel at Ford Motor Company in the International Trade and Transactions practice group. His practice focused on U.S. law for foreign affiliates and subsidiaries, among other topics. Later he served as Ford’s director for the Association of Southeast Asian Nations Government Affairs.

His comments about the refunds:

• “The Court of International Trade ruling confirms what the Supreme Court already made clear: IEEPA was never designed to be a tariff statute, and if the tariffs were unlawful, the money has to go back. Court of International Trade Judge Richard Eaton’s order that all importers of record are entitled to benefit, not just the ones who sued, is a big deal. That’s a very clear across-the-board refund mandate,” says Lau.
• “But the administration is clearly dragging its feet. Customs and Border Patrol called this ‘unprecedented’ and initially wanted four months just to assess its options, even though, as Judge Eaton pointed out, the agency liquidates entries and issues refunds every single day. Meanwhile, every month of delay costs taxpayers roughly $700 million in accruing interest on the $130 billion-plus in illegally collected duties. The government has acknowledged it owes interest, which makes the foot-dragging even harder to justify and understand,” says Lau.

• “At the same time, the administration pivoted within hours of the Supreme Court ruling to impose a new 15% global tariff under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, a statute no president has ever used before (just like with IEEPA, the administration is more than willing to stretch old statutes in new and novel ways). Secretary Scott Bessent said he expects tariff rates to return to pre-Supreme Court levels within five months through other legal authorities. So the message to businesses seems to be: we’ll eventually give your money back (maybe), but we’re going to keep taxing your imports in the meantime,” says Lau.
• “The Section 122 tariffs expire after 150 days unless Congress extends them. That’s a statutory ticking clock. The administration is betting it can build new tariff authority through Section 301 and Section 232 investigations before the window closes. Whether they can do that fast enough, and whether courts will sustain those actions, is the next big legal question. There will be a lot of litigation to settle these questions,” says Lau.
• “For businesses, especially small and mid-size importers, this is a confusing moment. They’re simultaneously paying new tariffs while waiting for refunds on the old ones, and the 180-day liquidation window means companies that don’t act in time could lose their refund rights entirely,” says Lau.

To arrange an interview, please contact Ellen James Mbuqe, executive director of media relations, at ejmbuqe@syr.edu.

As conflict between U.S. and Israeli forces and Iran intensifies across the Middle East, Syracuse University faculty and staff are available for media interviews. Their names, titles and areas of expertise are listed below. To arrange an interview, contact Vanessa Marquette, media relations specialist, at vrmarque@syr.edu.

• , professor in the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, is a historian of U.S. foreign relations and the modern Middle East. Khalil is the author of “America’s Dream Palace: Middle East Expertise and the Rise of the National Security State”��(Harvard University Press, 2016). He is frequently featured in the media regarding issues in the Middle East, with the latest being and .
• Retired Vice Admiral is��professor of practice in the Maxwell School and deputy director of the . Previously, Murrett was a career intelligence officer in the U.S. Navy, serving in assignments throughout the Pacific, Europe and the Middle East during his 34 years of service. Murrett also speaks with the media often on international relations, national security and military and defense strategy. In relation to the latest with the war on Iran, Murrett was interviewed by (), ��and .
• is deputy executive director of the D’Aniello Institute for Veterans and Military Families and a U.S. Army veteran. He can speak to the lived experience of ongoing military conflict—particularly the gap between public perception and the reality faced by service members and their families. Toenniessen’s expertise spans long-term support for veterans and Gold Star families, military family resilience during undeclared or low-visibility conflicts and why national commitment to those who serve must be sustained, not situational. He has about the U.S. service members killed in action following news of their deaths.