logo
What Happens to Trump's Tariffs Now that a Court Has Knocked them Down?

What Happens to Trump's Tariffs Now that a Court Has Knocked them Down?

Asharq Al-Awsat4 days ago

A federal court in New York handed President Donald Trump a big setback Wednesday, blocking his audacious plan to impose massive taxes on imports from almost every country in the world.
A three-judge panel of the US Court of International Trade ruled that Trump overstepped his authority when he invoked the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act to declare a national emergency and justify the sweeping tariffs.
The tariffs overturned decades of US trade policy, disrupted global commerce, rattled financial markets and raised the risk of higher prices and recession in the United States and around the world, The Associated Press said.
The US Court of International Trade has jurisdiction over civil cases involving trade. Its decisions can be appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington and ultimately to the Supreme Court, where the legal challenges to Trump's tariffs are widely expected to end up.
Which tariffs did the court block? The court's decision blocks the tariffs Trump slapped last month on almost all US trading partners and levies he imposed before that on China, Mexico and Canada.
On April 2, Trump imposed so-called reciprocal tariffs of up to 50% on countries with which the United States runs a trade deficit and 10% baseline tariffs on almost everybody else. He later suspended the reciprocal tariffs for 90 days to give countries time to agree to reduce barriers to US exports. But he kept the baseline tariffs in place. Claiming extraordinary power to act without congressional approval, he justified the taxes under IEEPA by declaring the United States' longstanding trade deficits 'a national emergency.'
In February, he'd invoked the law to impose tariffs on Canada, Mexico and China, saying that the illegal flow of immigrants and drugs across the US border amounted to a national emergency and that the three countries needed to do more to stop it.
The US Constitution gives Congress the power to set taxes, including tariffs. But lawmakers have gradually let presidents assume more power over tariffs — and Trump has made the most of it.
The tariffs are being challenged in at least seven lawsuits. In the ruling Wednesday, the trade court combined two of the cases — one brought by five small businesses and another by 12 US states.
The ruling does leave in place other Trump tariffs, including those on foreign steel, aluminum and autos. But those levies were invoked under a different law that required a Commerce Department investigation and could not be imposed at the president's own discretion.
Why did the court rule against the president? The administration had argued that courts had approved then-President Richard Nixon's emergency use of tariffs in a 1971 economic and financial crisis that arose when the United States suddenly devalued the dollar by ending a policy that linked the US currency to the price of gold. The Nixon administration successfully cited its authority under the 1917 Trading With Enemy Act, which preceded and supplied some of the legal language later used in IEPPA.
The court disagreed, deciding that Trump's sweeping tariffs exceeded his authority to regulate imports under IEEPA. It also said the tariffs did nothing to deal with problems they were supposed to address. In their case, the states noted that America's trade deficits hardly amount of a sudden emergency. The United States has racked them up for 49 straight years in good times and bad.
So where does this leave Trump's trade agenda? Wendy Cutler, a former US trade official who is now vice president at the Asia Society Policy Institute, says the court's decision "throws the president's trade policy into turmoil.'
'Partners negotiating hard during the 90-day tariff pause period may be tempted to hold off making further concessions to the US until there is more legal clarity," she said.
Likewise, companies will have to reassess the way they run their supply chains, perhaps speeding up shipments to the United States to offset the risk that the tariffs will be reinstated on appeal.
The trade court noted that Trump retains more limited power to impose tariffs to address trade deficits under another statute, the Trade Act of 1974. But that law restricts tariffs to 15% and only for 150 days with countries with which the United States runs big trade deficits.
For now, the trade court's ruling 'destroys the Trump administration's rationale for using federal emergency powers to impose tariffs, which oversteps congressional authority and contravenes any notion of due process,' said Eswar Prasad, professor of trade policy at Cornell University. "The ruling makes it clear that the broad tariffs imposed unilaterally by Trump represent an overreach of executive power.''

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

The Election of a Trump Ally in Poland Could Alter EU and Ukraine Policies
The Election of a Trump Ally in Poland Could Alter EU and Ukraine Policies

Asharq Al-Awsat

timean hour ago

  • Asharq Al-Awsat

The Election of a Trump Ally in Poland Could Alter EU and Ukraine Policies

Poland has elected Karol Nawrocki, a conservative historian and staunch nationalist, as its next president in a closely watched vote that signals a resurgence of right-wing populism in the heart of Europe. Nawrocki, who is set to take office on Aug. 6, is expected to shape the country's domestic and foreign policy in ways that could strain ties with Brussels while aligning the Central European nation of nearly 38 million people more closely with the administration of President Donald Trump in the United States. Here are some key takeaways: Conservative populism on the rise Nawrocki's victory underscores the enduring appeal of nationalist rhetoric among about half of the country along the eastern flank of NATO and the European Union, and its deep social divisions. The 42-year-old historian, who had no previous political experience, built his campaign on patriotic themes, traditional Catholic values, and a vow to defend Poland's sovereignty against the EU and larger European nations like Germany. His win also reflects the appeal of right-wing nationalism across Europe, where concerns about migration, national sovereignty, and cultural identity have led to surging support for parties on the right — even the far right in recent times. Far-right candidates did very well in Poland's first round of voting two weeks earlier, underlining the appeal of the nationalist and conservative views. Nawrocki picked up many of those votes. As his supporters celebrate his win, those who voted for the defeated liberal candidate, Warsaw Mayor Rafał Trzaskowski, worry that it will hasten the erosion of liberal democratic norms. Prime Minister Donald Tusk's troubles Nawrocki's presidency presents a direct challenge to Prime Minister Donald Tusk, who returned to power in late 2023 pledging to mend relations with the EU and restore judicial independence which Brussels said was eroded by Law and Justice, the party that backed Nawrocki. But Tusk's coalition, a fragile alliance of centrists, leftists, and agrarian conservatives, has struggled to push through key promises. Nawrocki will have the power to veto legislation, complicating Tusk's agenda and potentially triggering political gridlock. Ties with the Trump administration Nawrocki's election could signal a stronger relationship between Poland and the Trump administration. Poland and the US are close allies, and there are 10,000 US troops stationed in Poland, but Tusk and his partners in the past have been critical of Trump. Nawrocki, however, has a worldview closely aligned with Trump and his Make America Great Again ethos. Trump welcomed Nawrocki to the White House a month ago and his administration made clear in other ways that he was its preferred candidate. A shifting focus on Ukraine While Nawrocki has voiced support for Ukraine's defense against Russian aggression, he does not back Ukrainian membership in NATO and has questioned the long-term costs of aid, particularly support for refugees. His rhetoric has at times echoed that of Trump, for instance by accusing Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy of what he said was insufficient gratitude for Poland's assistance. With growing public fatigue over helping Ukrainian refugees, Nawrocki's approach could shift Poland's posture from strong ally to conditional partner if the war drags on much longer. Ties with the EU The election result is a setback for the EU, which had welcomed Tusk's return in 2023 as a signal of renewed pro-European engagement. Nawrocki and the Law and Justice party have criticized what nationalists view as EU overreach into Poland's national affairs, especially regarding judicial reforms and migration policy. While the president does not control day-to-day diplomacy, Nawrocki's symbolic and veto powers could frustrate Brussels' efforts to bring Poland back into alignment with bloc standards, particularly on rule-of-law issues. Market jitters Though an EU member, Poland has its own currency, the zloty, which weakened slightly on Monday morning, reflecting investor concerns over potential policy instability and renewed tensions with EU institutions. Billions of euros in EU funding has been linked to judicial reforms which Tusk's government will now be unlikely to enact without presidential cooperation.

China Blasts US for Its Computer Chip Moves and for Threatening Student Visas
China Blasts US for Its Computer Chip Moves and for Threatening Student Visas

Asharq Al-Awsat

time4 hours ago

  • Asharq Al-Awsat

China Blasts US for Its Computer Chip Moves and for Threatening Student Visas

China blasted the US on Monday over moves it alleged harmed Chinese interests, including issuing AI chip export control guidelines, stopping the sale of chip design software to China, and planning to revoke Chinese student visas. 'These practices seriously violate the consensus' reached during trade discussions in Geneva last month, the Commerce Ministry said in a statement. That referred to a China-US joint statement in which the United States and China agreed to slash their massive recent tariffs, restarting stalled trade between the world's two biggest economies. But last month's de-escalation in President Donald Trump's trade wars did nothing to resolve underlying differences between Beijing and Washington and Monday's statement showed how easily such agreements can lead to further turbulence. The deal lasts 90 days, creating time for US and Chinese negotiators to reach a more substantive agreement. But the pause also leaves tariffs higher than before Trump started ramping them up last month. And businesses and investors must contend with uncertainty about whether the truce will last. US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said the US agreed to drop the 145% tax Trump imposed last month to 30%. China agreed to lower its tariff rate on US goods to 10% from 125%. The Commerce Ministry said China held up its end of the deal, canceling or suspending tariffs and non-tariff measures taken against the US 'reciprocal tariffs' following the agreement. 'The United States has unilaterally provoked new economic and trade frictions, exacerbating the uncertainty and instability of bilateral economic and trade relations,' while China has stood by its commitments, the statement said. It also threatened unspecified retaliation, saying China will 'continue to take resolute and forceful measures to safeguard its legitimate rights and interests.' And in response to recent comments by Trump, it said of the US: 'Instead of reflecting on itself, it has turned the tables and unreasonably accused China of violating the consensus, which is seriously contrary to the facts.' Trump stirred further controversy Friday, saying he will no longer be nice with China on trade, declaring in a social media post that the country had broken an agreement with the United States. Hours later, Trump said in the Oval Office that he will speak with Chinese President Xi Jinping and 'hopefully we'll work that out,' while still insisting China had violated the agreement. 'The bad news is that China, perhaps not surprisingly to some, HAS TOTALLY VIOLATED ITS AGREEMENT WITH US,' Trump posted. 'So much for being Mr. NICE GUY!' The Trump administration also stepped up the clash with China in other ways last week, announcing that it would start revoking visas for Chinese students studying in the US. US campuses host more than 275,000 students from China. Both countries are in a race to develop advanced technologies such as artificial intelligence, with Washington seeking to curb China's access to the most advanced computer chips. China is also seeking to displace the US as the leading power in the Asia-Pacific, including through gaining control over close US partner and leading tech giant Taiwan.

Araghchi, the Bomb and the Iranian Train
Araghchi, the Bomb and the Iranian Train

Asharq Al-Awsat

time5 hours ago

  • Asharq Al-Awsat

Araghchi, the Bomb and the Iranian Train

The United States has no interest in resorting to the military solution to resolve the dispute with Iran over its nuclear program. The use of force in the Middle East revives memories of costly experiences. President Donald Trump himself does not believe that the military solution is viable, unless all other options to persuade Iran to abandon its nuclear dream run out. Iran, in turn, says it has no such dream. However, despite its repeated denials, the nuclear file continues to return to the spotlight. The lack of trust between the US and Iran is not unusual. Both countries have traded direct and indirect blows over the past decades, deepening this crisis of trust. The current Iran always views the US or 'Great Satan' as the top danger. It is aware that the US is a major power that is capable of upending balances of power in most parts of the world. Meanwhile, the US views Iran as the main backer of terrorism in the Middle East and it has accused it of having a hand in every attempt to destabilize the region. Trump's return to the White House has enflamed the crisis with Iran. He is connected to two major events in Iran's recent history: Washington's withdrawal from the nuclear agreement and the killing of Qassem Soleimani. Trump has opened the door for negotiations with Iran, but with the constant reminder that it will never be allowed to possess nuclear weapons, even if this ultimately means resorting to military force to prevent it from doing so. The current nuclear crisis with Iran has entered a new phase in wake of the latest International Atomic Energy Agency report that accuses Tehran of speeding up its rate of uranium enrichment. Trump's repeated statement that Tehran will not be allowed to acquire nuclear arms is accompanied by repeated signs from him that an agreement is possible with it, and soon. The US has no interest in sliding into a military confrontation with Iran. It also has no interest in Israel taking the reins in such a mission with unpredictable repercussions. In all likelihood, Iran, which has long avoided slipping into a direct confrontation with the US, will continue to walk the same path in avoiding such a costly clash. Moreover, Iran today is in no shape to become embroiled in such a test of force. The recent changes in the Middle East have not at all been in Iran's favor and they have denied it some of its most valuable cards. On this note, we have to wonder what Abbas Araghchi will feel when his plane approaches Beirut airport. Will he sense that Beirut has changed or that the region has changed, along with Iran's position in it? He knows that his mission these days is very difficult, if not impossible. The world is calling on Iran to reassure it, while he responds that it should reassure Iran instead. Araghchi is aware of what happened to the Iranian train in recent months. Syria has hopped off and there is nothing that would lead anyone to believe that it would jump back on again. What changed in Syria was not just the name of its president, but an entire way in how it treats the Syrian people, its neighbors and the world. Damascus ousted the 'way of the resistance' that the Assad regime had long relied on. The US is no longer viewed as an enemy. Syria is now being desired and is in demand. Its advice and demands are also being heard. Syria no longer hosts the officers of Iran's Revolutionary Guards Corps as part of the plan Qassem Soleimani spent years in drawing up, especially after he successfully persuaded Putin's Russia in saving the Assad regime from collapse. Syria no longer hosts the headquarters of Palestinian 'resistance' organizations and offers its leaders safe havens. These groups are no longer welcome in Syria, while Lebanon's Hezbollah is now viewed as an enemy. Lebanon has also changed. The naming of presidents is no longer in the hands of Hezbollah commanders. The current president of the republic was elected after vowing to achieve state monopoly over arms. The same can be said of the current prime minister. The current rule in Lebanon is based on the full implementation of United Nations Security Council resolution 1701. Any delay is full of dangers and risks wasting opportunities for reconstruction and reestablishing stability. Araghchi knows that the current nuclear crisis erupted at a very difficult time. The changes in Syria are comparable to the changes that took place in Iraq when Saddam Hussein was overthrown. Another Iraq and another Syria. Iran has not been able to make up such losses. Iraq did not hop off the Iranian train in wake of the Al-Aqsa Flood Operation and its ensuing wars, but it managed to remain outside of the storm and avoid any adventures. The Houthi missiles are not enough compensation for Iran's losses. One must pause at the situation in Gaza. The catastrophe there has not bounds and there are no limits to Israel's savagery. Hamas fought long and hard and paid hefty prices, but today, it has no other practical alternative than to seek shelter in Witkoff's proposal. Araghchi is aware of what happened to the Iranian train in wake of the Al-Aqsa operation. He knows that the countries of the region encourage building bridges with his own. Perhaps he even knows that accepting a lesser role for his country is much better than risking exposing it and its regime to a direct clash with the American military machine.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store