Donald Trump warns: Economic ruination of the US is coming if...
Live Events
(You can now subscribe to our
(You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel
US President Donald Trump has warned that if American courts strike down his tariff policy , it could result in the 'economic ruination of the United States of America.' He said that in such a scenario, other countries could use anti-American tariffs to hold the United States hostage."If the Courts somehow rule against us on Tariffs, which is not expected, that would allow other Countries to hold our Nation hostage with their anti-American Tariffs that they would use against us. This would mean the Economic ruination of the United States of America!," Donald Trump posted on Truth Social.Trump's warning came shortly after a major legal development. On Thursday, a federal appeals court in Washington reinstated his administration's tariffs on foreign imports, just one day after the U.S. Court of International Trade had ruled that Trump had overstepped his authority under emergency powers.The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a temporary stay on the lower court's decision. This means that the tariffs first announced on April 2, which Trump called 'Liberation Day' tariffs, remain in place while the government proceeds with an appeal.In early April, Trump had announced a sweeping set of tariffs, claiming that the US trade deficit amounted to a national emergency. His plan included a 10% tax on all imports. Countries like China, which run large trade surpluses with the United States, were targeted with even higher tariff rates.However, many of these proposed tariffs were quickly paused. On May 12, the White House announced that it would scale back the harshest tariffs on China while trying to reach a new trade agreement. Both the United States and China agreed to reduce tariffs on each other temporarily for at least 90 days.Before the appeals court's intervention, the U.S. Court of International Trade had found that Trump had unlawfully used the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to justify his tariff plan. The three-judge panel said that the IEEPA was designed to address urgent national security threats and could not support wide-ranging tariffs aimed at resolving long-standing trade imbalances.Trump's tariffs are currently being challenged in at least seven separate legal cases. The most recent ruling from the trade court was in response to two suits that had been combined. One was filed by five small businesses, and the other by a coalition of 12 U.S. states. In a related case, U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras issued a narrower injunction that protected two educational toy companies based in Illinois.After the trade court's decision, Trump took to social media on Thursday night to denounce the ruling. He said it undermined presidential authority and would be celebrated by America's rivals.'The horrific decision stated that I would have to get the approval of Congress for these Tariffs,' Trump wrote. 'If allowed to stand, this would completely destroy Presidential Power — The Presidency would never be the same! This decision is being hailed all over the World by every Country, other than the United States of America.'In another post on Truth Social, Trump shared an image of himself with a caption that read: 'He's on a mission from God & nothing can stop what is Coming.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mint
11 minutes ago
- Mint
Trump administration signals it will slash funds for long-delayed California high-speed rail project
LOS ANGELES — The Trump administration signaled Wednesday that it intends to cut off federal funding for a long-delayed California high-speed rail project plagued by multibillion-dollar cost overruns, following the release of a scathing federal report that concluded there is 'no viable path' to complete even a partial section of the line. Voters first authorized $10 billion in borrowed funds in 2008 to cover about a third of the estimated cost, with a promise the train would be up and running by 2020. Five years beyond that deadline, no tracks have been laid and its estimated price tag has ballooned to over $100 billion. In a letter to the California High-Speed Rail Authority, which oversees the project, Federal Railroad Administration acting Administrator Drew Feeley wrote that what was envisioned as an 800-mile system connecting the state's major cities has been reduced to a blueprint for 'a 119-mile track to nowhere.' After a $4 billion federal investment, the California agency 'has conned the taxpayer ... with no viable plan to deliver even that partial segment on time,' Feeley wrote. State officials defended what's known as the nation's largest infrastructure project and said they remain committed to construction, though it's not clear what funding would replace the federal support if it's withdrawn. Feeley noted the FRA could seek repayment of the federal funds but is not proposing to claw back those dollars at this time. Carol Dahmen, the state authority's chief of strategic communications, said in a statement that the federal conclusions are misguided and 'do not reflect the substantial progress made to deliver high-speed rail in California.' Dahmen noted that the majority of the funding for the line has been provided by the state and that Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom's budget proposal would extend at least $1 billion a year for 20 years to complete an initial segment of the line. State officials are focused on a stretch connecting the Central Valley cities of Bakersfield and Merced, which is set to be operating by 2033. The state agency has about a month to formally respond to the FRA, after which the grants could be terminated. State Sen. Tony Strickland, a Republican from Huntington Beach who is vice chair of the Transportation Committee, said that 'commonsense has prevailed" and urged the Legislature's dominant Democrats to redirect the funds from the rail line to lowering gas prices or investing in viable construction projects. 'Let's stop wasting California's hard-earned taxpayer dollars,' Strickland said. There is no known source for the billions of dollars that would be needed to complete the line. California High-Speed Rail Authority CEO Ian Choudri suggested in April that private investors could step in and fill the funding gap for the project that promised nonstop rail service between San Francisco and Los Angeles in under three hours. At the time, he acknowledged that even if funding is secured, it might take nearly two more decades to complete most of that segment. President Donald Trump said in May that his administration will not continue to fund the line. 'That train is the worst cost overrun I've ever seen,' Trump told reporters at the time, calling it "totally out of control.' This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
Hindustan Times
24 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Canadian bill seeks to deny hearings to some asylum-seekers
TORONTO, - A Canadian border-security bill introduced by the Liberal government earlier this week may deny some asylum-seekers a refugee hearing and make it easier for the government to revoke migrants' status. The bill comes as the government seeks to address U.S. concerns about its border security and reduce the number of migrants in the country. In addition to denying some refugee hearings and allowing the suspension, cancellation or variance of immigration documents, the bill facilitates sharing people's information and makes it easier to read people's mail, among other measures. President Donald Trump has said Canada had failed to do enough to stem the flow of illicit fentanyl into the U.S., using that as justification for some of his tariffs. This week Trump doubled the tariffs in place on steel and aluminum, prompting calls for Canada to boost retaliatory measures of its own. Late last year Canada pledged C$1.3 billion to beef up its border. As Canada reduces the number of new permanent and temporary residents, its refugee system faces a historic backlog of more than 280,000 cases. This week's bill follows through on some of those border promises as well as on suggestions from some top ministers that Canada would fast-track refusals for some refugee claims. If the bill passes, asylum-seekers who have been in Canada more than one year would not be eligible for refugee hearings. Instead, they would have access to a pre-removal risk assessment, meant to determine whether they would be in danger in their country of origin. According to data published by Canada's Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Department, 30% of pre-removal risk assessments in 2019 for people deemed ineligible for refugee hearings were approved; by contrast, according to Immigration and Refugee Board data, that year 60% of finalized refugee hearings were approved. Asylum-seekers who wait two weeks to file claims after crossing from the U.S. to avoid being turned back under a bilateral agreement would also not get hearings. The bill, which needs to go through multiple readings before the House of Commons votes on it and sends it to the Senate, would also allow the government to "cancel, suspend or vary" immigration documents if deemed in the public interest. Migrant and refugee advocates worry the changes could leave vulnerable people deported to dangerous situations in their home countries without adequate due process. A spokesperson for Canada's Immigration Minister Lena Metlege Diab said on Wednesday that the government recognizes the conditions in people's home countries may change, but the pre-removal risk assessment will prevent them from being returned to persecution or torture. "The asylum ineligibilities introduced yesterday seek to maintain protection for those fleeing danger while discouraging misuse that bypasses the asylum system's function – which is to protect the vulnerable," the spokesperson wrote in an email. "Canada is reneging on its basic human rights obligations to do individual arbitration," said Migrant Rights Network spokesperson Syed Hussan. "This is teeing up a deportation machine."
The Hindu
27 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Chhattisgarh government nod for policy to promote tourism in tribal-dominated areas
The Chhattisgarh Cabinet on Wednesday approved a homestay policy to promote tourism in rural and tribal-dominated areas, including the Maoism-hit Bastar division. The 'Chhattisgarh Homestay Policy 2025-30' was approved in a Cabinet meeting chaired by Chief Minister Vishnu Deo Sai and comes at a time when security forces are carrying out anti-Naxal operations in the Bastar region. Bastar and Sarguja are the two tribal-dominated regions of the State and are known for their natural beauty. A government official said the homestays would offer a rural life experience to visitors and highlight the regional characteristics of tribal areas, local culture, art and craft. The official added that the policy will benefit the locals by offering them a business opportunity to increase their income, which will play a pivotal role in achieving the goal of 'Vocal for Local' and the development of rural tourism. Another major decision taken during the meeting was the transfer of government employees. Under the Transfer Policy 2025, there will be a window of 11 days for transfers at the State level. Under this policy, transfers will be approved by Ministers of the departments concerned from June 14 to 25. No transfer would be allowed after June 25. The official, however, said that emergency cases could be considered through coordination and added that the applications for transfers would be accepted from June 6 to 13.
