Stocks, dollar rally as Trump tariffs hit court roadblock
Agencies
London
European stocks and Wall Street futures rose on Thursday after a US federal court blocked President Donald Trump'sso-called 'Liberation Day' tariffs from going into effect, sending the dollar up on safe-haven currencies.
The little-known Manhattan-based Court of International Trade ruled that Trump overstepped his authority by imposing his April 2 across-the-board duties on imports from US trading partners.
The White House quickly appealed the decision, and could take it all the way to the Supreme Court if needed. But in the meantime, it offered some hope that Trump might back away from the highest tariff levels he had threatened.
'The ruling has brought a temporary sense of relief to the markets, even as uncertainty lingers over whether the administration will fully comply,' said James Leong, chief executive officer at Grasshopper Asia.
'While volatility has eased for now, the lack of clarity around the government's response could reignite market turbulence. Until the Supreme Court provides a definitive ruling, we're unlikely to see a lasting resolution,' he added.
The ruling could also encourage US trading partners to stall any trade negotiations they are having with the White House while they wait to see how the case is resolved.
However, analysts at Goldman Sachs noted the order does not block sectoral levies, and there were other legal avenues for Trump to impose across-the-board and country-specific tariffs.
'This ruling represents a setback for the administration's tariff plans and increases uncertainty but might not change the final outcome for most major US trading partners,' analyst Alec Phillips wrote in a note.
Europe's STOXX 600 index was up 0.3 percent in early London trade.
US markets looked primed for a stronger reaction with S&P 500 futures last up 1.6 percent. Nasdaq futures were up 2%, also benefiting from relief over earnings from Nvidia , which beat sales estimates.
But Britain's FTSE 100 index shrugged off the news and was last down 0.1 percent.
'Is this a sign that stock markets in countries who did manage to score trade deals with the US in recent weeks, could be at a disadvantage if tariffs are reversed? This could be a short-term theme to watch,' said Kathleen Brooks, research director at XTB.
Britain was the first country to secure a trade deal with the US and will hold talks with Washington next week to speed up the implementation of that deal, the Financial Times reported.
Earlier in Asia, Japan's Nikkei rose 1.9 percent, while South Korean shares climbed 1.9 percent to a nine-month high. Chinese blue chips firmed 0.6 percent.
The news of the court decision hit traditional safe-haven currencies, which have benefitted from tariff fears punishing the US dollar.
The dollar gained nearly 1percent against the Japanese yen . It later eased and but remained up 0.3 1percent. The dollar was, meanwhile, up 0.4 1percent against the Swiss franc .
Another beneficiary of dollar woes, the euro dropped as much as 0.7 1percent and was last down 0.2 1percent against the greenback.
US Treasury yields rose, adding to the pressure on the market unnerved by Trump's hefty tax and spend bill, which passed the House of Representatives last week.
Yields on 10-year Treasuries , which move inversely with prices, were up 4 basis points to 4.52 1percent and markets further shaved the chance of a Federal Reserve rate cut anytime soon.
Longer-dated, 30-year yields held above the closely-watched 5 1percent level.
Minutes of the last Fed meeting showed 'almost all participants commented on the risk that inflation could prove to be more persistent than expected' due to Trump's tariffs.
A rate cut in July is now seen as around a 20 1percent chance, while September has come in at around 60 1percent, having been more than fully priced a month ago.
In commodity markets, gold was down 0.2 1percent to $3,283 an ounce .
Oil prices extended a rally first begun on supply concerns as OPEC+ agreed to leave its output policy unchanged and the US barred Chevron from exporting Venezuelan crude.
Brent rose $1 to $65.9 a barrel, while US crude rose similarly to $62.84 per barrel.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Al Jazeera
5 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
Enlightened Americans should stay and fight, not leave
For all his faults and hubris, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy possesses one unmistakable quality: courage. That became apparent during a memorable moment more than three years ago when Russia launched its invasion of Ukraine. A foreboding, endless column of Russian tanks and other armoured vehicles had breached the border in a pincer pattern. In the halting face of such an intimidating display of overwhelming force, defeat seemed close by. Kyiv looked bound to fall. Zelenskyy and company would be arrested or killed as a lethal exclamation point while Russian President Vladimir Putin installed a puppet regime to bow and obey. The comedian turned unlikely wartime leader did not flinch. He stood his ground – on the sacred soil of Ukraine. To reassure fretful Ukrainians, Zelenskyy posted a short video on social media featuring himself surrounded by several solemn-looking officials and cabinet ministers. 'The president is here,' he said. 'We are all here … defend[ing] our independence.' I was reminded of that remarkable scene while I read accounts over the past few months from a disparate group of Americans, including artists and academics, departing their beloved homeland in the distressing wake of President Donald Trump's jarring return to the Oval Office. Before I continue, I am obliged to make two instructive points. First, by invoking Zelenskyy's vow to remain in Ukraine despite the ominous risks, I do not mean to imply that enlightened Americans opting to forgo living and working in the United States, lack courage. Far from it. Each of us has confronted or will confront in due course a defining dilemma: to stay or to go. Answering the prickly question can stir doubt and anxiety. Making a choice, regardless of the direction, is a bold act. It takes resolve to exchange the familiar for the unknown. Second, I have avoided the word 'flee' to describe why some Americans choose to emigrate due to Trump's egregious modus operandi. 'Flee' evokes impulsive panic or self-preservation, rather than thoughtful, deliberate decision-making. Still, Zelenskyy offers a compelling example of why it is necessary to stay instead of escaping to Canada or Europe when a bully threatens the values and principles that you hold dear – fairness, truth, empathy, tolerance, justice, diversity, and intelligence. So, enlightened Americans, I urge you to insist like Zelenskyy: We are all here. Your presence in America to fight for its promise is a duty and responsibility. Together, you can fashion a formidable, immovable buttress against the wretched aspects of Trumpism – its assault on facts, erosion of democratic norms, embrace of authoritarianism, and corrosive pursuit of division and fear. This contest cannot be won remotely – far from the epicentre of the urgent battle. It has to be fought face-to-face with an uncompromising adversary and hand-in-hand with other enlightened Americans, thin on the privileges and resources that have enabled your exit. Trumpism thrives when opposition retreats. Absence creates space for extremism to entrench itself even more deeply and widely into America's already frayed and discordant fabric. Withdrawal only comforts the Trumpists determined to quash dissent and erase resistance through edicts, threats, and coercion. Leaving can also be seen as an admission of defeat – a concession that an angry, ruptured country is beyond redemption or salvation. Dynamic governance is not self-sustaining; it requires citizens to keep up the struggle, particularly when it is trying. By forsaking the arena, some enlightened Americans forfeit their ability to shape the present and the future. In contrast, standing with and by enlightened Americans remaining behind, confirms that America belongs to all its people, not just the cartoonish characters shouting the loudest or demanding the most attention. Trump welcomes the idea of disheartened Americans building new lives in new places because he is president. It is, I suspect, a point of pride since it suggests his vindictive agenda is working. For Trump, the exodus of 'liberal elites' or 'out-of-touch' entertainers is proof that the old establishment, never subscribers to his jejune notion of America's 'greatness', is being replaced by 'authentic' patriots. This response is, of course, symptomatic of Trump's broader political strategy – drawing a Berlin-Wall-like line between 'real' Americans – his supporters – and everyone else. By celebrating the phenomenon of Americans parting in protest, he promotes the insidious attitude that protest is not an essential ingredient of a mature, confident nation, but a form of disloyalty. Trump is not interested in unity or persuasion. As such, he frames his presidency as a litmus test of fidelity. If you don't worship him, you're encouraged to join the despondent diaspora – and, in his jaundiced view, good riddance. Despite their arguments and reservations about resettling to avoid the depressing capitulation of major law firms, universities, and corporate media, Americans face an uncomfortable truth: walking out won't help drive change. Scholars and intellectuals with the mettle and means to challenge obstinate power should rejoin the fight where it counts: in classrooms, on airwaves, in town halls. Declarations from abroad, however poignant, are not substitutes for showing up, time and again, in person to remind America that kindness, resiliency, and decency matter. Trumpism thrives on spectacle, and few understand the potency of spectacle better than celebrities. Many bidding America adieu did so defiantly, wielding a righteous pulpit from foreign shores. Even so, symbolism without substance is hollow. Returning means tackling – head-on – the mess, the contradictions, the tarnished ideals of a battered nation still worth the imagination and effort. Public figures ought to leverage their popular platforms not just to condemn, but to galvanise, to convey resistance not as elitist scorn but as shared obligation. That would impress more than a pointed opinion column in the New York Times or a thread of disparaging tweets ever could. Zelenskyy knows that hard work is always done on the ground. This is where returnees can make a tangible difference – not as saviours parachuting in, but instead as allies to like-minded collaborators who do that hard work without notice or applause. Trumpism may be ascendant, but it is not invincible. What it fears most is solidarity that bridges class, race, and background – solidarity that declares that America is not Donald Trump's to disfigure or define. The bruised and disillusioned exiles can reclaim their rightful place in that grave fray – if they come home. The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial stance.
Al Jazeera
a day ago
- Al Jazeera
Supreme Court allows Trump to revoke humanitarian parole for 530,000
The conservative-dominated United States Supreme Court has handed President Donald Trump another major victory, allowing his administration to revoke a temporary legal status from more than 500,000 immigrants as legal challenges continue in lower courts. Friday's decision applies to hundreds of thousands of Venezuelan, Cuban, Haitian and Nicaraguan people who were granted humanitarian parole under the administration of former President Joe Biden. That parole status allowed them to enter the US due to emergencies or urgent humanitarian reasons, including instability, violence and political repression in their home countries. But the Supreme Court's ruling means that the beneficiaries of humanitarian parole could be targeted for deportation prior to a final ruling on whether the revocation of their immigration status is legal. The ruling by the top court, which is dominated six-to-three by conservatives, reverses a lower court's order temporarily halting the Trump administration from yanking humanitarian parole from Venezuelans, Cubans, Haitians and Nicaraguans. The Supreme Court's decision was unsigned and did not provide reasoning. However, two liberal justices on the panel publicly dissented. The outcome 'undervalues the devastating consequences of allowing the government to precipitously upend the lives and livelihoods of nearly half a million noncitizens while their legal claims are pending', Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote. She noted that some of the affected individuals had indicated in court filings that they would face grave harm if their humanitarian parole were cut short. Trump has targeted programmes like humanitarian parole as part of his efforts to limit immigration into the US. His administration has accused Biden of 'broad abuse' in his invocation of humanitarian parole: Trump has said Biden was lax on immigration and oversaw an 'invasion' of the US from abroad. Since taking office in January, Trump's administration has also indefinitely suspended applications for asylum and other forms of immigration relief. The plaintiffs in Friday's humanitarian parole case warned the Supreme Court they could face life-threatening conditions if they were not allowed to seek other avenues for immigration and were forced to leave the country. If they were deported 'to the same despotic and unstable countries from which they fled', lawyers for the plaintiffs argued that 'many will face serious risks of danger, persecution and even death'. Earlier in May, the Supreme Court also allowed Trump to end Temporary Protected Status (TPS) — another temporary immigration pathway — for about 350,000 Venezuelans living in the US. TPS allows non-citizens to remain in the US while circumstances in their home countries remain unsafe or unstable. As with Friday's case, the Supreme Court's ruling on TPS allowed the Trump administration to move forward with removals while a legal challenge to Trump's policy plays out in lower courts. Biden had encouraged the use of programmes like TPS and humanitarian parole as alternatives to undocumented immigration into the US. Humanitarian parole, for instance, allowed recipients to legally live and work in the US for two years. Trump's efforts to end the programme would cut that timeframe short. The countries in question — Nicaragua, Venezuela, Cuba and Haiti — have all experienced significant economic and political crises in recent years. In Venezuela, for instance, critics have accused President Nicolas Maduro of detaining and disappearing political dissidents and activists, and an economic collapse caused hyperinflation that put basic necessities beyond the means of many Venezuelans. Millions have fled the country in recent years. One of the other countries, Haiti, has been ravaged by a spike in gang violence since the assassination of President Jovenal Moise in 2021. Federal elections have not been held since, and gangs have used violence to fill the power vacuum. As much as 90 percent of the Haitian capital, Port-au-Prince, has fallen under gang control, according to the United Nations, and thousands have been killed.
Al Jazeera
a day ago
- Al Jazeera
Confusion and concern loom over Mexico's historic judicial election
Monterrey, Mexico – There will be more than 7,000 candidates. More than 2,600 open positions. And at least six ballots per person to weigh them all. On Sunday, Mexico embarks on an election believed to be the first of its kind: Voters will cast ballots for all of the country's judges, half now and half in 2027. Judges of all levels will be in the running. Some candidates are competing to serve on the Supreme Court. Others are aiming for federal district or circuit courts. Still more are competing for the thousands of open positions on the state and local levels. By one estimate, if a voter spent five minutes researching each federal candidate on their ballot, they would need more than 15 hours to complete the task. Therein lies the dilemma, according to many election experts. While the Mexican government has touted the election as a milestone in democratic participation, critics fear the vote could in fact be vulnerable to political manipulation or criminal groups. Julio Rios Figueroa, a law professor at the Autonomous Technological Institute of Mexico (ITAM), considers the election a step towards "democratic erosion". He fears the vote "will eliminate the judiciary as a countervailing factor" that balances other more overtly political branches of government, like the presidency and Congress. Then, of course, there's the sheer challenge of keeping track of all the candidates. 'For a citizen who has the time and the interest, it's a very difficult task," Ríos Figueroa said. "Now, there are many citizens who don't have the time or the interest."
