White House Vows to Fight Tariff Ruling All The Way To Top
New Delhi: A recent federal appeals court ruling has dealt a significant blow to President Donald Trump's trade policy, overturning many of his new import duties. The Trump administration has vowed to escalate the dispute to the Supreme Court, demanding that the decision be suspended.
"We will win this battle in court," declared White House Press Secretary Karine Leavitt during a press briefing. The administration is also working to address concerns over "rogue judges" in the judicial system.
Despite the legal uncertainty, other countries have confirmed their intention to continue working with the United States. According to Leavitt, the US trade ambassador has received assurances from countries that they will continue trade negotiations. This commitment to negotiations was further emphasized during a phone call between Trump and Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba, where they exchanged views on tariff-related issues.
"Countries around the world have faith in the negotiator in chief, President Donald J. Trump. And they also probably see how ridiculous this ruling is, and they understand the administration is going to win," Leavitt said. "And we intend to win. We already filed an emergency appeal, and we expect to fight this battle to the Supreme Court," the press secretary asserted.
White House lawyers petitioned the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Thursday to halt Wednesday's decision from taking effect. The move followed a second court ruling that found President Trump had exceeded his authority in implementing the tariffs.
The rulings represent significant victories for small businesses and states that have mounted legal challenges to the measures, striking at policies central to Trump's economic and foreign policy agenda.
Leavitt also criticised the court's tariff ruling as an example of "judicial overreach." She argued that Trump's tariffs were introduced to address U.S. trade deficits with other nations and described the taxes as "legally sound" and "long overdue."
past."
Meanwhile, a US team is scheduled to visit India on June 5-6 for the next round of negotiations on a Bilateral Trade Agreement (BTA) between the two countries.
The India-US trade deal would mark a significant milestone in economic relations between the two big economies, potentially opening new avenues for bilateral commerce and investment.
Additionally, Ray Vickery, a Former United States Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Trade Development, stated that the trade agreement between India and the US can't be reached with Washington's "bullying approach."
"In Trump, 1.0, there was a negotiation that came close to getting a freer trade, not a free trade arrangement between the United States and India. One hopes that that would happen, but it's not going to happen with this bullying approach, which the Trump administration has indicated," Ray Vickery told ANI.
President Donald Trump has made repeated claims that the US mediated the cessation of hostilities between India and Pakistan and offered them "a lot of trade."
However, India has emphasised that the two nations' militaries negotiated directly and resolved the conflict through an agreement and understanding for a cessation of fire and military action.
The cessation of hostilities was agreed upon following a call from Pakistan's Director General of Military Operations (DGMO) to his Indian counterpart, Lieutenant General Rajiv Ghai, after India destroyed nine terror infrastructure sites in Pakistan and Pakistan occupied Jammu and Kashmir under Operation Sindoor.
Additionally, Vikrey said that the Trump administration has a "misunderstanding" regarding trade deficits, due to which the US is determined to impose tariffs on other countries.
"The Trump administration has a misunderstanding regarding trade deficits. Trade deficits are not necessarily something imposed just by unfair trade practices by another country, but they have to do with the United States' own saving and spending habits, he said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
22 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
US judge says prisons must provide gender-affirming care for trans inmates
A US judge on Tuesday ruled the US Bureau of Prisons must keep providing transgender inmates gender-affirming care, despite an executive order President Donald Trump signed on his first day back in office to halt funding for such care. US District Judge Royce Lamberth in Washington, D.C., allowed a group of more than 2,000 transgender inmates in federal prisons to pursue a lawsuit challenging the order as a class action. He ordered the Bureau of Prisons to provide them with hormone therapy and accommodations such as clothing and hair-removal devices while the lawsuit plays out. The ruling does not require the bureau to provide surgical care related to gender transitions. White House spokesperson Harrison Fields said the Trump administration expects to ultimately prevail in the legal dispute. "The District Court's decision allowing transgender women, aka MEN, in women's prisons fundamentally makes women less safe and ignores the biological truth that there are only two genders," Fields said in an email. The American Civil Liberties Union, which represents the inmates, said the ruling was "a critical reminder to the Trump administration that trans people, like all people, have constitutional rights that don't simply disappear because the president has decided to wage an ideological battle." About 2,230 transgender inmates are housed in federal custodial facilities and halfway houses, according to the US Department of Justice. About two-thirds of them, 1,506, are transgender women, most of whom are housed in men's prisons. The named plaintiffs, two transgender men and one transgender woman, sued the Trump administration in March to challenge Trump's January 20 executive order aimed at combating what the administration called "gender ideology extremism." The executive order directed the federal government to only recognize two, biologically distinct sexes, male and female; and house transgender women in men's prisons. It also ordered the bureau to stop spending any money on "any medical procedure, treatment, or drug for the purpose of conforming an inmate's appearance to that of the opposite sex." Lamberth, appointed by Republican President Ronald Reagan, said in Tuesday's ruling that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed in their lawsuit because the bureau did not perform any analysis before cutting off treatment that its own medical staff had previously deemed to be medically appropriate for the inmates. Even if it had extensively studied the issue before deciding to stop gender-affirming care, the decision might still violate the US Constitution's Eighth Amendment's protections against "cruel and unusual" punishment, Lamberth wrote. The Department of Justice had argued that the judge should defer to the policy decision of a democratically elected president, but Lamberth said a functioning democracy requires respect for "all duly enacted laws," including those that blocked the executive branch from acting in an "arbitrary and capricious" manner. Democratic self-governance "does not mean blind submission to the whims of the most recent election-victor," Lamberth wrote. The executive order said it was meant to promote the "dignity, safety, and wellbeing of women, and to stop the spread of "gender ideology" which denies "the immutable biological reality of sex." But the inmates receiving hormone treatments had little interest in promoting any ideology, and were instead taking "measures to lessen the personal anguish caused by their gender dysphoria," Lamberth wrote. (Reporting by Dietrich Knauth, Editing by Alexia Garamfalvi and Richard Chang)
Time of India
24 minutes ago
- Time of India
Man goes back on promise to marry woman with ‘aggressive sexual trait'
New Delhi: Supreme Court has quashed rape charges against a man who had a consensual physical relationship with a 30-year-old woman but backed out of his marriage promise after observing her "aggressive sexual behaviour, obsessive nature, and manipulative and vindictive tendencies". Tired of too many ads? go ad free now Allowing the man's plea to quash the FIRs lodged against him by Cyberabad police in 2022 on the woman's complaints accusing him of establishing a physical relationship with the promise of marriage, a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta said, "The facts on record clearly establish the vindictive and manipulative tendencies of the complainant and these aspects have a great bearing on the controversy." Writing the judgment, Justice Mehta said allowing the man's prosecution would be nothing but gross abuse of the process of law and the complaints were "nothing but a bundle of lies full of fabricated and malicious unsubstantiated allegations levelled by the complainant (woman)". The court was informed about a similar complaint the woman had lodged against an assistant professor at Osmania University in 2021, where she was studying. What rescued the man in the present case was the chats of the woman, who went by the name 'Muffin' on social media. In the chats, she admitted to being manipulative and her desire to "get a green card holder". "At one point of time, she also stated that it would not be difficult for her to trap the next one. In the very same breath, she mentions that she would not waste time with the accused appellant and needs to 'invest on the next victim'. She also mentions that she would irritate her victims to the extent that they dump her, and she could happily start with the next one. She also stated that she was using the accused appellant," the bench recorded in its judgment. "These chats depict the stark reality about the behavioural pattern of the de-facto complainant who appears to be having manipulative and vindictive tendencies. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now Thus, in our opinion, the accused appellant was absolutely justified in panicking and backing out from the proposed marriage upon coming to know of the aggressive sexual behaviour and the obsessive nature of the de-facto complainant," Justices Nath and Mehta said. Quashing the FIRs, the SC said, "Hence, even assuming that the accused appellant retracted from his promise to marry the complainant, it cannot be said that he indulged in sexual intercourse with the de-facto complainant under a false promise of marriage or that the offence was committed by him with the de-facto complainant on the ground that she belonged to the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes community."
Mint
43 minutes ago
- Mint
Elon Musk explodes on Donald Trump's spending bill, says ‘shame on those who voted for it'
Billionaire Elon Musk took to X, formerly Twitter, to unleash a scathing criticism of President Donald Trump's new spending and tax bill. 'I'm sorry, but I just can't stand it anymore. This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination. Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong. You know it,' Musk posted. His remarks came days after stepping down from a short-lived post in Trump's administration leading a federal spending reform initiative under the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). Tesla has seen a drop in EV sales, a blow attributed to Musk's association with Trump's controversial policies. House Speaker Mike Johnson hit back at Musk's criticism, calling it 'very disappointing.' 'With all due respect, my friend Elon is terribly wrong about the one big beautiful bill,' said Johnson, who claimed to have spoken with Musk for more than 20 minutes. Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt downplayed Musk's remarks, indicating they would not sway the administration's direction. 'The President already knows where Elon Musk stood on this bill. It doesn't change the president's opinion. This is one big, beautiful bill and he's sticking to it,' she said. Elon Musk just days earlier voiced criticism of Trump's tax and spending bill, warning it could worsen the federal deficit and derail cost-cutting efforts by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), which he briefly led. 'I think a bill can be big or it could be beautiful. But I don't know if it could be both,' Musk said in an interview with CBS. 'It increases the budget deficit and undermines the work that the DOGE team is doing.' The bill narrowly passed the House last week and is now headed for a tough vote in the Senate. Trump is urging swift Senate action to get the legislation on his desk by Independence Day. 'Passing THE ONE, BIG, BEAUTIFUL BILL is a Historic Opportunity to turn our Country around,' Trump posted. He added: 'Work as fast as they can to get this Bill to MY DESK before the Fourth of JULY.' He has been holding closed-door meetings with Senate GOP leaders and making personal calls to individual senators to push the bill forward. The House-passed bill is projected to reduce federal revenue by $4 trillion over 10 years and increase the deficit by $2.5 trillion. It extends 2017 tax cuts and adds new ones — including eliminating taxes on tips — while slashing safety-net programs like Medicaid and food stamps. Phases out Biden-era tax breaks for electric vehicles and green energy Allocates $350 billion for border security and deportations Raises the debt ceiling by $4 trillion Imposes work requirements for safety-net recipients An estimated 8.6 million could lose health coverage, and nearly 4 million may lose food assistance. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer called the proposal 'ugly to its very core,' aligning with Musk's criticism. 'Behind the smoke and mirrors lies a cruel and draconian truth: tax breaks for the ultra-wealthy paid for by gutting health care for millions of Americans," Schumer said. Senator Rand Paul has emerged as a key GOP holdout, objecting to the $4 trillion debt ceiling hike included in the bill. 'Rand votes NO on everything, but never has any practical or constructive ideas. His ideas are actually crazy (losers!),' Trump posted on Truth Social. Paul responded: 'I like the president, supported the president. But I can't in good conscience give up every principle that I stand for and every principle that I was elected upon.' Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has warned that without a debt ceiling increase by mid-July or early August, the US will run out of money to pay its obligations. Lawmakers are debating possible tweaks to the House version, including: Revising the proposed $40,000 SALT cap Reconsidering the $35 Medicaid copay Reinstating provider taxes crucial for rural hospitals The Senate is expected to vote narrowly, mirroring the one-vote margin in the House. With a July 4th deadline looming, Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' faces fierce resistance—from Democrats, policy experts, and even one-time allies like Elon Musk.
