
Trump's Liberation Day tariffs at risk after court scuttles Don's trade plans… but the White House vows to fight back
DONALD Trump's sweeping global tariffs are now at risk after a court has said he doesn't have the power to impose the levies himself.
A US federal court in New York on Wednesday blocked most of the import taxes from going into effect, ruling that the president had overstepped his authority.
4
The US President held up a chart of the tariffs he was implementing
Credit: AFP
4
Trump's tariffs caused a sharp response in Canada
Credit: Reuters
4
Tariffs are levies paid on bringing a good or service into a country
Credit: Getty
The Court of International Trade ruling is a big setback for Trump, who has sought to reshape global trade and put America first by using its economic heft to cut deals.
Trump has started a global trade war with nearly every country by instituting a minimum 10 per tariff on their exports into the US.
He also slapped a 25 per cent tariff on Mexico and Canada, saying he needed to levies to stop the flow of illegal immigrants and the horror drug Fentanyl.
The court's order could spell an end to Trump's international trade war as it bars Trump's most sweeping tariffs, effectively erasing most of the trade restrictions Trump has announced since taking office.
But Trump is likely to appeal and take the fight all the way to the Supreme Court.
White House spokesman Kush Desai said: "Foreign countries' nonreciprocal treatment of the Unites States has fueled America's historic and persistent trade deficits.
"These deficits have created a national emergency that has decimated American communities, left our workers behind, and weakened our defense industrial base – facts that the court did not dispute.
"It is not for unelected judges to decide how to properly address a national emergency. President Trump pledged to put America First, and the Administration is committed to using every lever of executive power to address this crisis and restore American Greatness."
Most read in The US Sun
The ruling does not state that tariffs themselves are illegal, but that the executive branch does not have the authority to impose them without Congress.
The president used a 1977 federal economic emergency law to justify a range of levies.
Trump's Liberation Day Tariffs signed in on Executive Order
The three-judge panel wrote in an unsigned opinion: "The question in the two cases before the court is whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 ("IEEPA") delegates these powers to the president in the form of authority to impose unlimited tariffs on goods from nearly every country in the world.
"The court does not read IEEPA to confer such unbounded authority and sets aside the challenged tariffs imposed thereunder."
One of Trump's key aides, Stephen Miller, attacked the ruling in a post on social media saying: "The judicial coup is out of control."
Trump memorably held up a board showing rates he was about to set individual trading partners in the White House's Rose Garden when he announced the tariffs as part of a "liberation day".
China was clobbered with 34 per cent tariffs, Vietnam 46 per cent, Thailand 36 per cent and Cambodia 49 per cent.
Tariffs on China were eventually increased to a
The ten per cent on Britain was at the bottom of the sliding scale devised by Trump's officials.
Markets were thrown into turmoil but calmed after he paused the larger tariffs for 90 days.
Read more on the Irish Sun
He also suspended some of the higher duties pending negotiations with individual countries and blocs.
Britain has signed a new trade deal with Trump following the imposition of the tariffs - how that will be affected is not yet clear.
4
US and Chinese representatives at trade talks
Credit: Reuters
Hashtags

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


Irish Times
an hour ago
- Irish Times
Forget hope. Be a hopeful pessimist instead
Pope Francis was a nice fella, but was he wrong about hope? Diagnosing the problems of the modern world, he argued that what we need more than anything today is belief in a better future. Yet many of the worst actors globally are infused with overconfidence, or excessive optimism. Hope itself appears to have become an impediment to tackling urgent challenges. Action on climate change is weakened by a general hope technology will come to the rescue. European defence against Russia is undermined by a hazy belief Vladimir Putin will metamorphose into a peacemaker. Dealing with Ireland's housing crisis is crippled by a faith in the same old policies. I've lost track of the number of people who said in the wake of Donald Trump's election as US president 'ah, sure, he mightn't be so bad'. And then there's the irrational exuberance surrounding artificial intelligence , with governments now tending to see the glass as half full regarding this potentially cataclysmic technology. Not for nothing is the biography of OpenAI boss Sam Altman called The Optimist. Philosophers have long discussed the paradoxical nature of hope. READ MORE 'Only one thing is more stupid than absolute pessimism and that is absolute optimism,' said Albert Camus. His thinking on the matter was informed by a conundrum that also troubled Pope Francis: Why are people so indifferent to the suffering of others? Francis described indifference as 'the opposite of love', and believed it was a much more common evil in human affairs than hate. Camus, who was active in the French resistance against the Nazis, was also deeply troubled by political apathy and saw it as essentially anti-love. Modern man 'fornicated and read the papers', Camus wrote in a damning assessment of our unmotivated condition. Francis saw hope as the answer to indifference. 'It is often said that 'so long as there is life, there is hope', but the truth, if anything, is the opposite: it is hope that keeps life going, protects it, takes care of it, helps it to grow,' he wrote. Camus was more ambivalent about optimism, and argued pessimism could be a more powerful force against inertia, what he called 'man's strongest temptation'. He was particularly wary of ideological hope in 'some great idea' – be it religious or secular – that deflected us from reality. 'We find in his [Camus's] pessimism a clearsightedness that cuts through all the subterfuges and evasions available in his time to the beating core of his activism: that we must do what must be done, for reasons of justice and solidarity – because we owe it to our fellow human beings to prevent their suffering as best we can ... Camus proposes a fierce philosophy of action that is as bold as it is stark, stripped from any confidence of victory,' philosopher Mara Van der Lugt writes in a new book, Hopeful Pessimism. [ Don't dismiss Peig Sayers. Her stoic folk wisdom has plenty to offer today Opens in new window ] Camus's wariness of hope seems well founded when considering the utopian thinking of today's tech moguls. Elon Musk , the world's richest man, dreams of occupying Mars and re-engineering democracy. And to achieve this goal, we need less – not more – concern for the suffering of our fellow human beings. 'The fundamental weakness of western civilisation is empathy. The empathy exploit. They're exploiting a bug in western civilisation, which is the empathy response,' the multi-billionaire whined on the Joe Rogan podcast earlier this year. For utopians like Musk, human solidarity interferes with grand visions. So what is the right approach to hope? One way of resolving the conundrum is by definitions. Hope can be defined as either positive thinking or constructive thinking. One is more passive than the other. Optimism can be defined as a belief in a positive outcome. It has a faith element, and potentially carries higher risks and rewards. Studies show optimists live longer but are also more likely to take risks. 'The evidence suggests that optimism is widespread, stubborn and costly,' the psychologist Daniel Kahneman said. He had in mind particularly the optimism around public projects, and how spending estimates on infrastructure were always pitched towards the most hopeful end of the spectrum. Hello National Children's Hospital . Then there is utopianism, which can be defined as an ideological attachment to progress or some idealised future. [ Could there be good reason to believe in life after death? Opens in new window ] So defined, it's always good to have some hope. Treat optimism with caution and be very wary of utopianism. Van der Lugt resolves the matter in a different way, saying we should strive to become 'hopeful pessimists'. This aims to take the best of what optimism and pessimism both have to offer. It has the advantage of drawing us away from self-centred hope, and towards the responsibilities we have to our fellow human beings and the wider world. 'If anything, the pessimists have taught me this: with eyes full of that darkness there can still be this strange shattering openness, like a door cracked open, for the good to make its entry into life. Since all things are uncertain, so too is the future, and so there is always the possibility of change for better as there is for worse,' writes Van der Lugt. An exclusive focus on hope can lead us towards passivity and indifference. Better that we are hopeful pessimists who, as Van der Lugt puts it, 'strive for change without certainties, without expecting anything from our efforts other than the knowledge that we have done what we are called upon to do as moral agents in a time of change'.


RTÉ News
an hour ago
- RTÉ News
China 'firmly rejects' US claim that it violated tariff deal
China has said it "firmly rejects" US claims that it had violated a sweeping tariffs deal, as tensions between the two economic superpowers showed signs of ratcheting back up. Last month, China and the US agreed to slash staggeringly high tariffs on each other for 90 days after talks between top officials in Geneva. However, top US officials last week accused China of violating the deal, with Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick saying Beijing was "slow-rolling" the agreement in comments to "Fox News". China hit back, saying the US "has made bogus charges and unreasonably accused China of violating the consensus, which is seriously contrary to the facts". "China firmly rejects these unreasonable accusations," the Chinese commerce ministry said in a statement. US President Donald Trump said last week that China had "totally violated" the deal, without providing details. China's commerce ministry said it "has been firm in safeguarding its rights and interests, and sincere in implementing the consensus". It fired back that the US "has successively introduced a number of discriminatory restrictive measures against China" since the Geneva talks. The ministry cited export controls on artificial intelligence chips, curbs on the sale of chip design software and the revocation of Chinese student visas in the United States. "We urge the US to meet China halfway, immediately correct its wrongful actions, and jointly uphold the consensus from the Geneva trade talks," the ministry said. If not, "China will continue to resolutely take strong measures to uphold its legitimate rights and interests," it added. Trump-Xi talks? US officials have said they are frustrated by what they see as Chinese foot-dragging on approving export licences for rare earths and other elements needed to make cars and chips. However, Washington's Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent looked to ease the pressure, saying the two sides could arrange a call between their respective heads of state to resolve their differences. "I'm confident... this will be ironed out" in a call between Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping, Mr Bessent said on CBS's "Face the Nation". He added, however, that China was "withholding some of the products that they agreed to release", including rare earths. On when a Trump-Xi call could take place, Mr Bessent said: "I believe we will see something very soon." China has been less forthcoming, and the commerce ministry's statement did not mention any planned conversations between the two leaders. The Geneva deal was "an important consensus reached by the two sides on the principle of mutual respect and equality, and its results were hard-won", the ministry said. It warned the US against "going its own way and continuing to harm China's interests".


RTÉ News
2 hours ago
- RTÉ News
Russia, Ukraine head to Istanbul for fresh peace talks
Russian and Ukrainian officials will meet in Istanbul to exchange their plans for how to end the three-year war, Europe's largest conflict since World War II, after Ukraine says it struck dozens of strategic bombers parked at airbases deep in Russia. Urged on by US President Donald Trump, the countries have opened direct negotiations for the first time since the early weeks of Russia's invasion but have yet to make significant progress towards an elusive agreement. The talks come a day after Ukraine carried out one of its most brazen and successful attacks ever on Russian soil - hitting dozens of strategic bombers parked at airbases thousands of kilometres behind the front line. At the first round of talks in Istanbul last month, they agreed to a large-scale prisoner exchange and to swap notes on what their vision of a peace deal might look like. The second set of negotiations is scheduled to get underway at 11pm Irish time at the Ciragan Palace in Istanbul, an Ottoman imperial house on the banks of the Bosphorus that is now a luxury five-star hotel. Russia says it will present a "memorandum" of its peace terms, having resisted pressure by Ukraine to send its demands in advance. Despite the flurry of diplomacy, the two sides remain far apart over a possible deal - either for a truce or longer-term settlement. Outlining Ukraine's position ahead of the talks, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky refreshed his call for an immediate halt to the fighting. "First - a full and unconditional ceasefire. Second -- the release of prisoners. Third - the return of abducted children," he said in a post on social media. He also called for the sides to discuss a direct meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin. "The key issues can only be resolved by the leaders," Mr Zelensky said. The Kremlin has repeatedly pushed back on that prospect, saying a Putin-Zelensky meeting could only happen after the negotiating delegations reach wider "agreements". Russia has questioned Mr Zelensky's legitimacy throughout the war and repeatedly called for him to be toppled. Russia has said it wants to address the "root causes" of the conflict - language typically used to refer to a mix of sweeping demands including limiting Ukraine's military, banning the country from joining NATO and massive territorial concessions. Ukraine and the West have rejected those calls and cast Russia's assault as nothing but an imperialist land grab. Tens of thousands have been killed since Russia invaded, with swathes of eastern and southern Ukraine destroyed and millions forced to flee their homes. War rages on Russia's top negotiator in Istanbul will be Vladimir Medinsky, an ideological Putin aide who led failed talks in 2022, has written school textbooks justifying the invasion and questioned Ukraine's right to exist. Ukraine's team will be led by Defence Minister Rustem Umerov, seen as a skilled and pragmatic negotiator, but who has been mired in domestic scandal over alleged abuse of power and a lack of transparency. "Diplomatic advisors" from Germany, France and Britain will be "on the ground... in close coordination with the Ukrainian negotiating team," a German government spokesperson said Sunday. Ukraine said it had damaged some 40 strategic Russian bombers, worth $7 billion, in a major special operation after months of setbacks for the country's military. Ukraine's security service said the plan, 18 months in the making, had involved smuggling drones into Russia which were then launched from near the airbases, thousands of kilometres away from the front lines. Russian troops have meanwhile been advancing on the ground, particularly in the northeastern Sumy region, where Mr Putin ordered his forces to establish a "buffer zone" along the border. Ballistic strikes in the northeastern Kharkiv region yesterday injured at least six people, including a seven-year-old, and damaged a civilian business and a warehouse, Kharkiv Governor Oleg Synegubov said on Monday. Ahead of the talks, Russian officials have called for Ukraine to be cut off from Western military support and cede territory still controlled by its army. Ukraine has pushed Russia to agree to a full, unconditional and immediate ceasefire - saying a pause in the fighting is necessary to then discuss what a long-term settlement could look like. Ukraine has refused to formally give up the one-fifth of its territory controlled by Russia, though it has accepted that it may only be able to get some land back through diplomacy, not fighting. It also wants concrete Western-backed security guarantees - like NATO protections or Western troops on the ground - that have also been ruled out by Russia.