
EU gains leverage in trade talks as US court casts doubt on tariffs, EU officials say
The
European Union
has gained leverage in trade talks with the United States after a U.S. court cast doubt on the legality of Washington's "reciprocal" tariffs, EU officials said on Friday.
A U.S. federal appeals court temporarily reinstated President Donald Trump's tariffs on Thursday, a day after a U.S. trade court ruled that Trump had exceeded his authority in imposing the duties and ordered an immediate block on them.
"The uncertainty as to the legality of the 'reciprocal' tariffs certainly gives us extra leverage," one EU official close to the talks said. "The talks will continue, as formally we still look for zero-for-zero tariffs."
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
Giao dịch CFD với công nghệ và tốc độ tốt hơn
IC Markets
Tìm hiểu thêm
If the court system ultimately rules against Trump's use of the IEEPA emergency act, the administration could make use of other provisions in the U.S. Trade Act such as Section 301, which has been broadly used with China.
"You'd need to establish 'injury' and a legal basis and it takes months. Administratively, they might still do a hatchet job ... given checks and balances are not that strong in the U.S. right now but it won't be as easy or done as quickly as IEEPA," Niclas Poitiers, research fellow at EU Brussels think tank Bruegel, told Reuters
Live Events
"It would at least buy the EU some time."
The EU was willing to discuss some non-trade barriers with the U.S., EU officials said, but would not touch the EU's taxation system -- such as the value added tax or digital tax -- or food safety standards.
The EU officials said the uncertainty created by the court rulings and the Trump administration's tariff policy had a positive aspect for Europe, which was seen by markets as an oasis of stability in comparison.
"This is the watchword: uncertainty. It is impossible to know what the status of the tariffs will be next week, not to mention next month," one of the EU officials said.
"If you want sane, stable, even boring, rules-based order and predictable business environment, Europe is the place for you."
Meanwhile, some European companies, worried over the uncertainty and possible major hits to their business, are holding their own talks with U.S. authorities.
Volkswagen CEO Oliver Blume said his company was holding "fair" and "constructive" talks with the U.S. government on tariffs and wanted to make further investments in the country.
The European Commission conducts all trade negotiations on behalf of the 27-nation bloc and companies, or even individual EU countries, cannot legally get a deal outside that framework.
"Now it looks like we're not in the most damaging economic scenario ... but it still maintains the uncertainty and maybe increases it because there is a new player that people have not taken into account so far - the courts," Poitiers at Bruegel said.
EU-US TRADE TALKS
The European Commission would not comment on the U.S. court rulings because they were internal U.S. procedures.
But it said trade talks between Brussels and Washington would continue, with Europe sticking to its offer of mutual zero tariffs on industrial goods.
"There's no change in our approach, we proceed as planned with both technical and political meetings next week," a Commission spokesperson said.
EU Trade Commissioner Maros Sefcovic in a post on the X social media platform said he held a phone call with U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick on Friday.
"Our time and effort fully invested, as delivering forward-looking solutions remains a top EU priority. Staying in permanent contact," Sefcovic said on X.
More trade talks between the U.S. and the EU are scheduled for next week, on the sidelines of the OECD Ministerial Council Meeting in Paris on June 3-4.
The EU officials said the U.S. courts' rulings validated the EU view that the sweeping "reciprocal" tariffs, imposed on all goods from the EU and many other countries around the world on April 2, were unjustified.
They also said that while U.S. courts did not question Washington's 25% tariffs imposed on European steel, aluminium and cars, the rulings could also play a role in the EU's efforts to get those tariffs lowered or removed.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


India Today
33 minutes ago
- India Today
Trade deal with India likely in not-too-distant future: US Commerce Secretary
US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick has expressed strong optimism regarding the imminent finalisation of a trade deal between India and the United States, saying that an agreement could be reached in the "not-too-distant future".Secretary Lutnick highlighted that both nations have found a common ground that "really works for both countries," suggesting a breakthrough in long-standing negotiations.'You should expect a deal between the United States and India in the not-too-distant future... When they put the right person in India, put the right person on the other side of the table, and we've managed (that), I think," Lutnick said at the US-India Strategic Partnership Forum's Leadership Summit in The two countries intensified trade deal discussions after US President Donald Trump recently announced reciprocal tariffs on nations accused of causing trade imbalances, including India. However, the tariffs were later paused for 90 days, except for remarks, delivered at the eighth edition of the US-India Strategic Partnership Forum (USISPF) in Washington, underscore a significant push by the Trump administration to expedite trade US Commerce Secretary's remarks came just days after reports suggested that India is seeking a complete exemption from the additional 26 per cent tariff imposed by the United States on its goods, as both sides race to finalise an interim trade deal before July 8. The remarks also follow President Trump's claim that India had offered the US a tariff-free trade deal, a statement New Delhi rejected, clarifying that discussions are still ongoing to reach a win-win Monday, Commerce Minister Piyush Goyal said India and the US desire to give preferential market access to each other's businesses and teams of both countries are working together on the proposed bilateral trade agreement."Both countries are committed to work together, both countries desire to give preferential access to each other's businesses and we are working towards the bilateral trade agreement," Goyal said. In February, US President Trump and Prime Minister of India Narendra Modi announced plans to negotiate the first tranche or phase of a mutually beneficial, multi-sector Bilateral Trade Agreement (BTA) by fall (September-October) of 2025. It is aimed at more than doubling the bilateral trade to USD 500 billion by 2030 from the current level of USD 191 billion.


Time of India
35 minutes ago
- Time of India
Tyreek Hill trade still in play as Dolphins weigh cap relief amid offseason turmoil
Tyreek Hill's $29M gamble ( Image credit: Imagn Images) The Miami Dolphins are making headlines with a bold financial commitment to wide receiver Tyreek Hill, locking in $29 million as part of a lucrative contract restructure. This high-stakes decision underscores the franchise's belief in Hill's long-term value, even as the star receiver faces personal and professional challenges. Dolphins bet big on Tyreek Hill despite dip and drama Tyreek Hill, known for his electrifying speed and game-changing plays, saw a dip in his 2024 performance, posting career-low stats in receptions and yardage. Despite missing the playoffs, Miami is doubling down on their faith in the 'Cheetah,' guaranteeing him $65 million over the next three seasons and solidifying a $90 million package through 2026. This move gives Hill the most fully guaranteed money ever earned by an NFL wide receiver without extending the contract—a landmark financial commitment in the league. However, this decision comes on the heels of a turbulent offseason. Hill's personal life made tabloid waves after his wife, Keeta Vaccaro, filed for divorce following an alleged domestic incident. Although no legal charges emerged, the episode cast a shadow over Hill's public image. From a team-building perspective, the Dolphins' restructuring creates cap flexibility while also betting on Hill's leadership and bounce-back potential. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Pare a neuropatia: descubra como NeuroFit Undo It's a message to the league, Miami isn't panicking they're investing in their core, even amid controversy. Trade buzz grows as Dolphins weigh financial fallout in Tyreek Hill saga Still, trade speculation lingers. According to Mike Florio of Pro Football Talk, the possibility of moving on from Hill isn't off the table. 'That could change in a couple of days. Given the realities of Hill's contract (re-done in 2024), it makes sense for the Dolphins to hold Hill until June 2 or later. That's when the cap consequences can be spread over two years.' 'For now, Hill has $28.296 million in unallocated bonus money that will hit the cap. A pre-June 1 trade means all of it lands in 2025. A post-June 1 trade limits the 2025 dead money to $12.728 million, with the remaining $15.568 million landing on the cap in 2026,' he wrote. Also read: 'I've got to prove myself': Tyreek Hill vows to prove himself again as Dolphins fans brace for a defining season This financial breakdown suggests Miami may be strategically waiting for the post-June 1 window, where a potential trade would be significantly less damaging to their salary cap. As the 2025 season looms, this $29 million gamble could either reestablish Hill as the league's most feared wideout or mark the beginning of a calculated exit from South Florida.


Time of India
36 minutes ago
- Time of India
Donald Trump asks US Supreme Court to allow mass federal layoffs
Donald Trump's administration asked the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday to halt a judicial order blocking mass job cuts and the restructuring of agencies, part of the Republican president's campaign to downsize and reshape the federal government. The Justice Department's request came after San Francisco-based U.S. District Judge Susan Illston blocked large-scale federal layoffs , known as " reductions in force ," in a May 22 ruling siding with a group of unions, non-profit groups and local governments that challenged the administration. The case involves the U.S. Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Health and Human Services, State, Treasury and Veterans Affairs, among others. Controlling the personnel of federal agencies "lies at the heartland" of the president's executive branch authority, the Justice Department said in the filing. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Dermatologista recomenda: simples truque elimina o fungo facilmente Acabe com o Fungo Undo "The Constitution does not erect a presumption against presidential control of agency staffing, and the president does not need special permission from Congress to exercise core Article II powers," the filing said, referring to the constitution's section delineating presidential authority. The Supreme Court requested a response by the plaintiffs in the case to the administration's filing by June 9. Live Events Trump directed federal agencies in February to "promptly undertake preparations to initiate large-scale reductions in force" as part of his administration's restructuring plans. Illston wrote in her ruling that Trump had exceeded his authority in ordering the downsizing. "As history demonstrates, the president may broadly restructure federal agencies only when authorized by Congress," Illston wrote. Illston on May 9 had initially blocked about 20 agencies from making mass layoffs for two weeks and ordered the reinstatement of workers who had lost their jobs. She continued most of that relief in her May 22 ruling. The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 ruling on May 30 denied the Trump administration 's request to halt the judge's ruling. The 9th Circuit said the administration had not shown that it would suffer an irreparable injury if the judge's order remained in place and that the plaintiffs were likely to prevail in their lawsuit. "The executive order at issue here far exceeds the president's supervisory powers under the Constitution," the 9th Circuit wrote, calling the administration's actions "an unprecedented attempted restructuring of the federal government and its operations." Trump's administration has sought relief from the Supreme Court in a growing number of cases following rulings by lower courts impeding various policies since he returned to office in January.