California to sue Trump administration over 'illegal' tariffs, says Gavin Newsom
California has filed a federal lawsuit challenging former US President Donald Trump's sweeping tariff plan, alleging he exceeded his legal authority by imposing the duties without congressional approval.
Governor Gavin Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta announced the suit on Wednesday, claiming the tariff measures violate the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The move seeks to block the implementation of Trump's tariffs, which have already triggered economic uncertainty.
"President Trump's unlawful tariffs are wreaking chaos on California families, businesses, and our economy — driving up prices and threatening jobs," Newsom said in a statement.
The legal complaint, filed in federal court, contends that IEEPA does not permit the president to impose tariffs even in a declared economic emergency. 'This is the first time a president has attempted to rely on this law to impose tariffs,' Newsom's office added.
The tariffs, which Trump recently paused for 90 days, have reportedly affected global trade relations. While several nations have entered negotiations, the administration has also escalated duties on Chinese imports — raising them to 145% this week.
Bonta stressed the broader impact, noting California's position as the world's fifth-largest economy. 'Tariffs have very real consequences for Californians across our state,' he said.
Trump has defended his actions under IEEPA, citing national security and economic concerns. However, legal experts and California officials argue the law does not authorise the imposition of trade duties.
'Such expansive action absent congressional approval is a clear violation of the law,' said a statement from Newsom's office.
The lawsuit now awaits a decision from the federal court on whether the case will proceed to trial. If successful, it could significantly limit the scope of presidential authority in trade matters going forward.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Express Tribune
2 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Israel's attacks could result in regime change in Iran: Netanyahu
US President Donald Trump speaks as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu waves following a meeting in the White House, in Washington, US, April 7, 2025. PHOTO: REUTERS Listen to article Regime change in Iran could be a result of Israel's military attacks on the country, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told Fox News on Sunday, saying Israel would do whatever is necessary to remove the "existential threat" posed by Tehran. Israel launched "Operation Rising Lion" with a surprise attack on Friday morning that wiped out the top echelon of Iran's military command and damaged its nuclear sites, and says the campaign will continue to escalate in coming days. Iran has vowed to "open the gates of hell" in retaliation. Israel's military has said the current goal of the campaign is not a change in regime, but the dismantling of Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile programs. Asked by Fox's Bret Baier on his "Special Report" program if regime change was part of Israel's military effort, Netanyahu said: "Could certainly be the result because the Iran regime is very weak." "We're geared to do whatever is necessary to achieve our dual aim, to remove ... two existential threats - the nuclear threat and the ballistic missile threat," Netanyahu said in one of his first interviews since Israel's attacks began. "We did act - to save ourselves, but also, I think, to not only protect ourselves, but protect the world from this incendiary regime. We can't have the world's most dangerous regime have the world's most dangerous weapons," he said. Israel has said its operation could last weeks, and Netanyahu has openly urged the Iranian people to rise up against their Islamic clerical rulers. Israel and Iran launched fresh attacks on each other overnight into Sunday, killing scores and raising fears of a wider conflict, as US President Donald Trump said it could be ended easily while warning Tehran not to strike any US targets. Asked about a Reuters report that Trump vetoed an Israeli plan to kill Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Netanyahu said: "I'm not going to get into that." But he said he had informed Trump ahead of Friday's military action. American pilots are shooting down Iranian drones headed toward Israel, he said. With worries growing of a regional conflagration, Trump has lauded Israel's offensive while denying Iranian allegations that the US has taken part in it. He warned Tehran not to widen its retaliation to include US targets or else face the "full strength and might" of the US armed forces. Trump has repeatedly said Iran could end the war by agreeing to tough restrictions on its nuclear program, which Iran says is for peaceful purposes but Western countries say could be used to make a bomb. The latest round of nuclear negotiations between Iran and the United States, due to be held on Sunday, was scrapped after Tehran said it would not negotiate while under Israeli attack.
Express Tribune
3 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Realism and shifting tides of international relations
The writer is a former Secretary to Government, Home and Tribal Affairs Department and a retired IGP. He can be reached at syed_shah94@ Listen to article In the ever-evolving arena of international politics, the concept of permanent alliances or perpetual hostilities often proves to be a myth. As Lord Palmerston had put it long ago, "We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." This preposition remains central to realist thought in foreign policy, where national interest overrides ideological consistency or historical ties. Recent geopolitical developments — from the US President Donald Trump's unconventional diplomacy to shifting alliances in South Asia -— demonstrate these powerful illustrations of this timeless truth. Trump recently visited the Middle East and had diplomatic engagements amid scenes of pomp and show. He had interactions with Saudi Arabia - which is poles apart from the US from an ideological perspective. One espouses democratic values and the other Sharia law with a dynastic rule. However, overridding considerations of lucrative arms deals and mutual economic benefits set all those ideals to naught. Trump even declared Saudi Arabia as a model for a reimagined Middle East, emphasising the promise of economic prosperity over instability in a region reeling from multiple wars. Similarly, Trump's brief chat with President Ahmed al-Sharaa of Syria, though on the sidelines of his diplomatic initiatives, was widely speculated and analysed. He also announced easing sanctions on Syria to give the country "a chance at peace". Trump's remarks and subsequent actions, however melodramatic in presentation, reflect the primacy of interest over principle. In the complex chessboard of international relations, strategic considerations often overshadow moral judgments. Perhaps one of the most glaring examples of realist foreign policy was observed during the US-Taliban talks culminating in the 2020 Doha Agreement between the two. After nearly two decades of warfare that claimed thousands of lives and cost billions of dollars, the US opted to negotiate directly with its once-archenemy. The very group that had been the target of a massive military campaign post-9/11 was now being recognised as a legitimate stakeholder in Afghanistan's future. This position from combat to the negotiating table, sidelining Ashraf Ghani and finally abandoning his government, was not a reflection of ideological transformation but rather a calculated move to pull out the US troops from a protracted and unwinnable conflict. It was a textbook case of interest-based diplomacy. This trend is not unique to the United States. China's recent diplomatic initiatives further portray the realist approach. The trilateral meeting of the foreign ministers of China, Pakistan and Afghanistan in Beijing marked a strategic reevaluation in the region. Expressing unanimity of views, the three states agreed to shore up diplomatic and economic engagement, assuring a cooperative stance on counterterrorism. From a Chinese perspective this move would further enhance security along its western borders, ensuring the success of the Belt and Road Initiative, and countering the influence of rival powers in a geopolitically sensitive area. Pakistan's participation in this meeting also reflects a realist recalibration. Once a frontline ally in the US-led War on Terror, Pakistan is increasingly leaning towards regional partnerships that align more closely with its evolving strategic and economic interests. The re-engagement with Afghanistan, under Taliban leadership no less, is a nod to regional stability over ideological divergence. It's a pragmatic choice aimed at containing security threats and fostering economic integration. The meeting has also provided a fair chance to the de facto rulers of Afghanistan to gain legitimacy and economic lifelines. By engaging with regional powers like China and Pakistan, the Taliban seek to break out of international isolation and gain access to trade routes, infrastructure investments and diplomatic recognition. Once again, national interest overrides historical enmities or ideological moorings. All those aforementioned events, underscore the relevance and utility of realism in international politics. Realism postulates that the international system is anarchic and that states primarily follow the law of self-preservation and prosperity. In such a system, moral principles, while not entirely absent, are often subordinated to strategic calculations. Ideological allies may quickly turn into enemies and former foes may transform into partners as dictated by the circumstances. Critics of realism often decry its perceived cynicism and lack of moral compass. However, proponents argue that it is a sober and necessary lens through which to view global affairs. Idealism may inspire, but it is realism that governs the actions of states when stakes are high and options are limited. Moreover, the real-world consequences of deviating from realism can be severe. History is replete with examples where ideological rigidity led to strategic blunders — from the Vietnam War to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Conversely, moments of pragmatic diplomacy — such as Nixon's visit to China or the Iran nuclear deal — have often yielded more sustainable outcomes.
Express Tribune
4 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Trump vetoed Israeli plan to kill Iran's supreme leader, US officials say
Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei looks on, in a televised message following the Israeli strikes in Tehran, Iran, June 13, 2025. Office of the Iranian Supreme Leader. PHOTO: REUTERS Listen to article President Donald Trump vetoed an Israeli plan in recent days to kill Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, two US officials told Reuters on Sunday. "Have the Iranians killed an American yet? No. Until they do we're not even talking about going after the political leadership," said one of the sources, a senior US administration official. The officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said top US officials have been in constant communications with Israeli officials in the days since Israel launched a massive attack on Iran in a bid to halt its nuclear program. They said the Israelis reported that they had an opportunity to kill the top Iranian leader, but Trump waved them off of the plan. The officials would not say whether Trump himself delivered the message. But Trump has been in frequent communications with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. When asked about Reuters report, Netanyahu, in an interview on Sunday with Fox News Channel's "Special Report With Bret Baier," said: "There's so many false reports of conversations that never happened, and I'm not going to get into that." "But I can tell you, I think that we do what we need to do, we'll do what we need to do. And I think the United States knows what is good for the United States," Netanyahu said. Trump has been holding out hope for a resumption of US-Iranian negotiations over Tehran's nuclear program. Talks that had been scheduled for Sunday in Oman were canceled as a result of the strikes. Trump told Reuters on Friday that "we knew everything" about the Israeli strikes.
