Constitutionally unsound: Does Trump have legal authority to push his tariffs through? Not really
'Just about everything Trump has been doing on trade is illegal,' writes Paul Krugman in his August 1 Substack column, 'Trump/Brazil: Delusions of Grandeur Go South'. Krugman isn't alone. In the US, a dozen state governments, several businesses and individuals have sued the Trump regime for using executive orders to slap tariffs, overstepping the legislative process. This overuse of presidential authority, they argue, has caused immense harm to American businesses and economy. Their plea to US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit: pronounce Trump tariffs illegal and stop government agencies and officials from enforcing them.
During hearings, federal appeals court judges have expressed scepticism on the president's authority to impose tariffs, and called it an unprecedented use of emergency powers. Strange as it may sound, International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) of 1977, the law that Trump has used to justify his sweeping tariffs, does not mention the word 'tariff'. The Trump regime says that the country is under 'an unusual and extraordinary threat', arising from trade deficits and drug trafficking, and this threat validates the use of IEEPA. The plaintiffs, in turn, have called these threats bogus. They argue that the US economy has been dealing with trade deficits for decades, and yet has continued to prosper. They add that there is little evidence of drug trafficking from most countries that are subject to Trump tariffs.In some cases, it's just Trump's personal vendetta against certain world leaders that is the cause of high tariffs. For instance, Trump has imposed a 50% tariff on Brazil, citing the trial of former president Jair Bolsonaro, a former Trump ally, an emergency. Critics claim this is a blatant misuse of the US presidential powers and interference in the governance of another country.The US Constitution grants the president authority to impose tariffs in three exceptional circumstances. None of them holds true in the current case: Security reasons In his first term, Trump had imposed tariffs on steel and aluminium, and then raised them further in his second term, using the excuse of national security. But legal experts say that since there is no imminent threat to American security, use of tariffs to address a bogus threat is baloney. Unfair trade There is no evidence that the world is dumping its produce in the US at less than market prices. So, this is not a valid justification for sweeping duties across countries. Anti-dumping duties would require evidence of dumping against specific countries and specific goods. Economic emergency Trump has bragged many times that the US economy during his presidency is the greatest, ever. Surely, it can't be the 'greatest economy ever' and be in an emergency at the same time.Earlier, in May, US Court of International Trade, based in NYC, ruled that the Trump regime had exceeded the authority granted by Congress to the president and ordered blocking enforcement of Trump tariffs. But the regime appealed that ruling in the federal circuit, which allowed the government to continue enforcing tariffs while the case proceeded.The legal battle questioning Trump's authority to impose tariffs will likely continue for his term. It will probably come before the Supreme Court. While it has a majority of conservative judges, the court may not necessarily rule in Trump's favour, as most conservative judges are constitutionalists. Therefore, they'll be unlikely to pass a judgment that clips the Congress' authority and grants unprecedented powers to POTUS.Trump can seek Congress' legislative approval. But the process is time-consuming, and it's not clear that even Republican legislators will give him the authority, given his haphazard and reckless ways. Republican support for Trump tariffs may decline once the latter's adverse effects on the US economy become more visible.So, what should GoI do as it faces threats of tariffs and penalties? At the start of Trump 2.0, pundits suggested that New Delhi avoid getting into a trade war with the US. That advice is still valid. GoI has conveyed that it won't allow Trump to dictate its foreign policy, or be bullied into deciding who it should buy crude oil from.It's in India's economic interest to keep buying crude from Russia. If Russian oil is pushed out of the global market - as Trump intends by pressuring countries to stop imports - prices could rise above $100 a barrel, sharply increasing India's import bill. Meanwhile, GoI should use the opportunity that Trump's tariff threats present to lower tariffs to improve India's competitiveness with the world at large. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this column are that of the writer. The facts and opinions expressed here do not reflect the views of www.economictimes.com.) Elevate your knowledge and leadership skills at a cost cheaper than your daily tea. Berlin to Bharuch: The Borosil journey after the China hit in Europe
FIIs are exiting while retail investors stay put. Will a costly market make them pay?
BlackRock returns, this time with Ambani. Will it be lucky second time?
Paid less than plumbers? The real story of freshers' salaries at Infy, TCS.
Stock Radar: Down 27% from highs! Hero MotoCorp stock shows signs of momentum after breaking out from 11-week consolidation
For those prepared for the long game: 5 mid-cap stocks from different sectors with an upside potential of 14 to 33% in one year
Financial services: Time to look at a new set for the next cycle? 5 stocks from the financial services space with upside potential of up to 37%
These 8 banking stocks can give more than 29% returns in 1 year, according to analysts
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
8 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Trump to meet Putin on August 15 in Alaska
President Donald Trump on Friday (August 8, 2025) said he will meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin on August 15 in Alaska. He announced the meeting in a post on social meeting and said more details would follow. Earlier, Mr. Trump had said that he will meet 'very shortly' with Russian President Vladimir Putin to discuss ending the war in Ukraine, a potential major milestone after expressing weeks of frustration that more was not being done to quell the fighting. 'The highly anticipated meeting between myself, as President of the United States of America, and President Vladimir Putin, of Russia, will take place next Friday, August 15, 2025, in the Great State of Alaska,' Mr. Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform. This will be the first meeting between the leaders since Trump returned to the White House Speaking to reporters at the White House after announcing a framework aimed at ending decades of conflict elsewhere in the world — between Armenia and Azerbaijan — Mr. Trump had refused to say exactly when or where he would meet with Mr. Putin, but that he planned to announce a location soon. He also suggested that his meeting with the Russian leader could come before any sit-down discussion involving Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. 'We're going to have a meeting with Russia, start off with Russia. And we'll announce a location. I think the location will be a very popular one,' Mr. Trump had said. He added: 'It would have been sooner, but I guess there's security arrangements that unfortunately people have to make. Otherwise I'd do it much quicker. He would, too. He'd like to meet as soon as possible. I agree with it. But we'll be announcing that very shortly." First summit since 2021 If it happens, the meeting would be the first US-Russia summit since 2021, when former President Joe Biden met Mr. Putin in Geneva. It could mean a breakthrough in Mr. Trump's effort to end the war, although there's no guarantee it would stop the fighting since Moscow and Kyiv remain far apart on their conditions for peace. There was no immediate confirmation from Moscow. Still, Mr. Trump said, 'President Putin, I believe, wants to see peace, and Zelenskyy wants to see peace." He said that, 'In all fairness to President Zelenskyy, he's getting everything he needs to, assuming we get something done.' Mr. Trump also said that a peace deal would likely mean 'there will be some swapping of territories' between Ukraine and Russia but did not provide further details. Pressed on if this was the last chance to make a major peace deal, Mr. Trump said, 'I don't like using the term last chance,' and said that, 'When those guns start going off, it's awfully tough to get 'em to stop.'
Economic Times
8 minutes ago
- Economic Times
Is your money safe? Trump's 401(k) executive order could put your retirement savings on the line
Synopsis Trump 401(k) executive order is making headlines as it could soon allow Americans to invest in crypto, private equity, and real estate through their retirement plans. Signed on August 7, 2025, President Trump's order directs changes to open 401(k) access to alternative investments once only available to the wealthy. While this move could boost financial freedom and investment options, experts warn it also comes with risk. From Bitcoin to private funds, this bold retirement reform may reshape the future of savings. Trump 401(k) executive order is shaking up how Americans might plan for retirement. With this bold move, President Donald Trump is pushing to open the door for cryptocurrency, private equity, and real estate investments inside your 401(k)—options once limited to the wealthy elite. Signed on August 7, 2025, this policy could completely change the way millions build their nest egg. Trump executive order could allow 401(k) investments in crypto and private equity: In a major shake-up to the way Americans save for retirement, President Donald Trump has signed a bold executive order that could soon allow 401(k) retirement plans to include alternative assets like cryptocurrencies, private equity, and real estate. This game-changing move has sparked a fierce debate across financial and political circles—with some hailing it as a way to democratize wealth-building opportunities and others warning of serious risks to Americans' nest eggs. On August 7, 2025, President Trump signed an executive order that directs the Department of Labor (DOL) to reassess rules surrounding the types of investments that can be included in employer-sponsored 401(k) retirement plans. Under this directive, assets that were once restricted—like Bitcoin, Ethereum, private real estate funds, and private equity vehicles—could become available to the average retirement saver. This move is part of Trump's broader economic strategy to promote financial freedom, retirement innovation, and wealth access for all Americans. The order requires the Department of Labor to review current fiduciary standards under ERISA (Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) within 180 days. This could clear the path for retirement plans to offer: Digital assets such as cryptocurrencies and blockchain-based tokens such as cryptocurrencies and blockchain-based tokens Private equity funds and venture capital vehicles and venture capital vehicles Real estate investment trusts (REITs) and infrastructure projects and infrastructure projects Hedge funds, commodities, and other non-traditional investments The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has also been asked to examine potential rule changes that would support access to these emerging asset classes in retirement accounts. President Trump and his economic advisors argue that the current retirement system is outdated and heavily favors Wall Street's public markets. They believe that expanding access to private market strategies and digital innovation can: Help Americans diversify their retirement portfolios Offer potential for higher long-term returns Give individuals access to investment tools once reserved for the ultra-wealthy Promote financial innovation and competition in the retirement industry Trump's administration framed the move as a way to "democratize investment access" and close the wealth gap by allowing everyday Americans to build wealth using the same tools hedge funds and institutional investors have long enjoyed. While the proposal is generating excitement in tech and investment circles, many financial experts and retirement advisors are urging caution. Here's why: Cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin and Ethereum are highly volatile , and price swings could wipe out a retiree's savings if not properly managed. like Bitcoin and Ethereum are , and price swings could wipe out a retiree's savings if not properly managed. Private equity often involves long lock-up periods , high fees , and limited transparency , making them less suitable for average investors. often involves , , and , making them less suitable for average investors. Fiduciaries who manage 401(k) plans may face legal risks if these investments fail to meet the best-interest standard. if these investments fail to meet the best-interest standard. The long-term returns of private market investments are not guaranteed and, in some cases, underperform public market indexes. According to retirement analysts, while greater access to alternative investments could benefit some investors, others may unknowingly expose themselves to significant risks and reduced liquidity. Despite the executive order, retirement savers won't see immediate changes to their 401(k) options. Here's a breakdown of what to expect: The Department of Labor has until early 2026 to propose regulatory updates that would permit these investment changes. has until early 2026 to that would permit these investment changes. After that, financial providers would need to update their platforms, investment options, and risk disclosures. would need to update their platforms, investment options, and risk disclosures. Adoption could take months or years, depending on how quickly the DOL and SEC move forward with rule changes and how retirement plan administrators respond. So, while the door is opening to crypto and private equity in 401(k)s, it's not a done deal yet. If these changes are implemented, American workers could gain access to new asset classes that offer greater potential upside—but also come with greater responsibility and risk. Here's what retirement savers should consider: Do your homework : Alternative assets are complex. Investors should thoroughly research any new offerings before allocating funds. : Alternative assets are complex. Investors should thoroughly research any new offerings before allocating funds. Know your risk tolerance : Cryptocurrencies and private funds may not be appropriate for conservative savers nearing retirement. : Cryptocurrencies and private funds may not be appropriate for conservative savers nearing retirement. Diversify wisely : Experts recommend limiting exposure to alternative assets to a small percentage of your total portfolio. : Experts recommend limiting exposure to alternative assets to a small percentage of your total portfolio. Seek professional advice: A licensed financial planner can help you assess whether these options align with your retirement goals. President Trump's 401(k) executive order could transform how Americans invest for retirement, opening up access to digital assets, private equity, and non-traditional investments once reserved for the wealthy. Supporters praise it as a long-overdue modernization of the retirement system, while critics fear it could lead to excessive risk-taking and financial missteps. As agencies move forward with reviewing the rules, savers should stay informed and cautious—because how this policy plays out could directly impact millions of Americans' retirement security in the years to come. Q1. What is Trump's 401(k) executive order about? It aims to let Americans invest in crypto and private equity through their 401(k) plans. Q2. Can I invest in Bitcoin through my 401(k) now? Not yet—rules may change soon, but it's not allowed as of now.
Mint
8 minutes ago
- Mint
Trump DOJ Asks to Dismiss Harvard Suit Over Foreign Students
The Trump administration asked a federal judge to throw out Harvard University's lawsuit over a proposed ban on international students, saying the president has broad authority to issue rules restricting the entry of non-citizens into the country. The Justice Department said in a court filing in Boston Friday that Harvard doesn't have the legal right to challenge the restrictions. The dispute involves Harvard's certification with the Student Exchange and Visitor Program — a requirement for any university to enroll international students. In June, President Donald Trump signed an executive action that prevents foreign nationals from entering the US to study at Harvard, accusing the school of failing to implement discipline on campus and fostering a dramatic rise in crime. Trump has made Harvard the main target of his effort to force universities to reshape higher education by cracking down on alleged antisemitism, removing perceived political bias among the faculty and eliminating diversity programs. Judge Allison Burroughs is expected to rule soon in another dispute over whether the government can terminate more than $2 billion in federal research funding for the school. Harvard sued the administration over the international students in May, arguing that the enrollment ban violates its due process rights and fails to follow federal regulations. Burroughs, who is overseeing multiple lawsuits between the school and the Trump administration, granted the university's request for a preliminary injunction blocking the policy, and then issued another order saying the government can't enforce Trump's ban on its international students entering the US. The Harvard lawsuit related to foreign students addresses both sections of the Trump policy. Compliance with the program 'is an important requirement for hosting foreign student visa holders to ensure they are adequately monitored, disciplined, and reported on,' the US said in the filing. 'Harvard was not complying with its obligations. This raised serious national security and public safety concerns, of which the President's determination is due the utmost deference.' A Harvard spokesperson said that the government's motion Friday has has no impact on the school's ability to enroll international students. 'The university will continue to defend its rights — and the rights of its students and scholars,' the spokesperson said. The Justice Department didn't immediately return a message seeking comment. The Trump administration has been trying for months to stop foreign students from enrolling at Harvard, one of several levers that could hurt the university's finances. In the last academic year, 27% of Harvard students came from abroad. Harvard, the oldest and richest US college with an endowment of $53 billion, and the government have been negotiating toward a global settlement but have yet to come to a deal. Ivy League peers the University of Pennsylvania, Columbia and Brown have reached agreements in recent weeks. The White House views a payment of $500 million by Harvard University as a floor in negotiations, and the cost of a deal could climb far higher if the school doesn't submit to government oversight provisions, according to people with knowledge of the matter. Justice Department lawyers said earlier this week that the US would no longer rely on a May 22 letter by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to justify the near-immediate ban on foreign students it sought, but plans to move forward through an administrative process to 'simplify this case and narrow the issues.' The case is Harvard v. US Department of Homeland Security, 25-cv-11472, US District Court, District of Massachusetts . With assistance from Janet Lorin. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
