An April fool? Trump trade war backfires as court blocks US president's tariffs
President Trump waited until April 2 to unveil his tariff policy, avoiding April Fool's Day.
But the US Court of International Trade has left him looking foolish.
It turns out that 'liberation day' was an exercise in overreach; the tariff scheme Trump unveiled to great fanfare in the Rose Garden in Washington is illegal.
The panel of judges have decided the president did not have the authority to use the emergency powers legislation he used as justification.
So where does this leave Trump's trade war?
Well, he has marched his troops to the top of the hill, now he faces the prospect of a forced march down again.
As things stand, the levies the president imposed on April 2, including the 10% baseline on all US imports and the 'reciprocal' tariffs of many countries, will have to be wound back.
The legal ruling could disarm Trump of the tariff stick he's used to try to beat concessions out of China and the EU.
But it's not over yet, the Trump administration says it will launch an appeal, and a higher court may take a different view.
And, as the UK car industry is pointing out, this judgment doesn't affect them.
'Our initial understanding is that this does not apply to Section 232 tariffs, so the additional 25% levied on cars, steel and aluminium still applies,' says Mike Hawes, Chief Executive of the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders.
Hawes adds: 'The importance of confirming and implementing urgently the UK's deal on these products, therefore, still applies.'
This is an important point. The trade deal between the UK and the US was announced on 9th May.
Three weeks on, and we have the outline of an agreement but not much more in the way of detail and nothing resembling a legal document, ready to be signed.
For now, every car that is shipped from the UK to the US attracts the extra 25% tax as soon as it hits dry land.
As for the UK economy as a whole, economists aren't scrambling to revise their forecasts this morning.
'The US tariffs were never a game-changer for the UK economy in the first place, although they weren't helpful, so any cancellation of the tariffs or the deal with the US to limit them isn't going to be a game-changer either,' writes Paul Dales of Capital Economics.
'The one thing that remains constant when everything else is changing is the heightened uncertainty.'
President Trump's trade policy has always looked chaotic. Today, it looks more ragged still and less under his control.
Until now, the only person in the world who knew what would happen next was Donald Trump, and now not even he can be sure.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Stakes are high for US democracy as conservative supreme court hears raft of cases
A year has proved to be a long time on the scales of US justice. Less than 12 months ago, the US supreme court was in serious disrepute among liberals following a series of ethics scandals and a spate of highly contentious, conservative-leaning rulings. It culminated in a ruling last July vastly expanding a president's immunity from prosecution, virtually guaranteeing that Donald Trump would escape criminal censure for the 6 January 2021 insurrection and retaining classified documents. So far had the court's stock with Democrats fallen, that Joe Biden called for radical reforms on how the court was run and a constitutional amendment asserting that no president was above the law or immune for crimes committed in office. Now, with a re-elected and vengeful Trump having run rampant over democratic norms by issuing a fusillade of often illegal and unconstitutional executive orders, the same court – with the same nine justices on the bench – is being cast in the unlikely role of potential saviour of American democracy. Critics who once derided the judicial consequences of the court's six-three conservative majority hope that the justices will show enough fealty to the US constitution to mitigate the effect of Trump's all-out assault on a range of rights, from birthright citizenship to basic due process appeals against deportation, and preserve the constitutional republic's defining contours. 'The court is certainly a very important institution at this moment since Congress is completely pliant and not asserting its own prerogatives and the executive branch doesn't seem to be guided by any internal legal constraint,' said Jamal Greene, a law professor at Columbia University and a former high-ranking justice department official in the Biden administration. The court has already adjudicated in several high-profile cases since Trump's return – notably ruling against the administration in ordering it to 'facilitate' the return of Kilmar Ábrego García, a Maryland resident wrongly deported to El Salvador. But it has ruled in Trump's favour, at least temporarily, in several others. The stakes are about to be raised further still as a spate of cases arising from rulings against the administration by lower judges awaits the supreme court's final say before its current term ends this month. These include: the rights of lower courts to issue injunctions against Trump's efforts to restrict birthright citizenship, which is guaranteed in the constitution; an attempt by Tennessee to ban or limit transgender care for minors; a complaint by parents in Maryland against allowing LGBTQ+ books in elementary schools; the need for insurers to cover preventive healthcare costs under the Affordable Care Act; and attempts to cut off public funding for Planned Parenthood. Added to that daunting schedule, the justices can expect additional unaccustomed summer workload in the shape of seemingly unending emergency cases wrought by Trump's no-holds-barred attempt to transform government. Most experts believe the court will ultimately rule against Trump's attempt to undermine birthright citizenship rights, given that they are so clearly defined in article 14 of the constitution. Yet the devil may be in the detail. Some analysts believe the court has already lent the administration's case unwarranted credibility by agreeing to consider its challenge against lower courts' powers to issue nationwide injunctions on the subject. Perhaps tellingly, the court has not called for a supplemental briefing on whether Trump's 20 January executive order was legal. Hopes that the current court can act as a brake on Trump seem forlorn given its conservative majority and the fact that three of its members – Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett – were appointed to the bench by Trump himself. In addition, justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito consistently take hardline positions that seem predisposed to favour Trump. Yet speculation that the chief justice, John Roberts, and Coney Barrett have become disenchanted by the brazenness of Trump's actions has fueled optimism. Some believe they could vote with the court's three liberal justices, Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson – who consistently issue dissenting opinions on rightwing rulings – frequently enough on key occasions to form an effective bulwark. But Leah Litman, a law professor at Michigan University and author of a book on the court entitled Lawless: How the Supreme Court Runs on Conservative Grievance, Fringe Theories, and Bad Vibes, is sceptical. A recent ruling upholding the president's firing of the head of the National Labor Relations Board, Gwynne Wilcox, and overturning a 1935 precedent known as Humphrey's Executor – which gave Congress the power to limit a president's ability to remove officials from independent agencies – shows the conservative justice's reverting to type, she said. 'Some people wondered: 'Was the court going to have second thoughts about, for example, their immunity decision giving Donald Trump such leading powers, including powers to act outside of the law and above it?'' Litman argued. 'I think the Wilcox ruling underscored that the answer is definitively no.' Underpinning the conservative justices' approach is the unitary executive theory, which posits that the president has sole authority over government's executive branch, allowing him to fire members of nominally independent agencies without cause. 'They have been pushing this theory for over three decades and now they have a chance to make a pretty muscular version of it the law,' Litman said. 'Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Barrett understand that the court can't let Donald Trump get away with everything, including usurping Congress's power or obviously depriving individuals of due process. But short of that, I don't think they are having any kind of second thoughts about their own views of executive power or about the law more generally.' The few cases of the court standing up to Trump, argues Litman, have been 'overplayed' and pale in importance compared with other rulings that have emboldened the president, including upholding the stripping of temporary protected status from about 300,000 Venezuelans. Greene defined the court's approach as 'formalist' and ill-suited to counter Trump's lawbreaking. He contrasted it with the much bolder ethos under Chief Justice Earl Warren's leadership in the 1950s and 1960s, when the court became renowned for creatively enforcing racial desegregation and civil rights orders in the south. 'Trump's modus operandi is to exploit what he perceives as weaknesses in the system of enforcement and accountability,' Greene said. 'If he thinks that courts are not going to be able to step in, he will try to exploit that as much as he can, unless and until he's stopped by some political actor or an actor with more power. 'The Trump administration is exploiting the formality and the lack of creativity of courts in general, but the supreme court in particular.' The court's writ has already been exposed as limited by Trump's failure to comply with its order to facilitate the return of Ábrego García to the US. According to Greene, the White House's failure to police its own actions to ensure they are in line with the law and the constitution already amounts to a constitutional crisis, because the courts lack the time and resources to counter unbridled violations. That puts added onus on the supreme court to fulfill its role as ultimate arbiter, argues Litman. 'We should continue to demand that they actually do uphold the law,' she said. 'I don't think we should just give up and give in to their inclination to not enforce the law and allow Donald Trump to get away with legal violations. If they don't, force them to expend the capital and pay a price in their public approval rating.'
Metro
2 hours ago
- Metro
Trump backs madcap theory Joe Biden was killed and replaced with clone in 2020
It is something straight out of science fiction film: clones replacing world leaders behind the backs of the public. But that is precisely the bizarre theory President Donald Trump endorsed about his one-time political rival Joe Biden. Trump shared a viral post on his TruthSocial site on Saturday night, which claimed the former US president was executed in 2020 and replaced by a 'clone'. Details are scant on this Blade Runner-esque conspiracy. The user, named llijh, said: 'There is no #JoeBiden – executed in 2020. #Biden clones doubles & robotic engineered soulless mindless entities are what you see. '#Democrats dont know the difference.' Despite little other information, Trump shared the post and sparked a social media frenzy, getting over 14,000 likes from his supporters. What we do know is that Biden was elected president in November 2020. It was a win that prompted Trump to spread misinformation about election interference, leading to the storming of the Capitol building in an attempt to stop Congress from certifying the election. Biden was inaugurated in January 2021 alongside Kamala Harris. His term was dogged by questions over his age and health. His faltering performance in a TV debate against Donald Trump in June 2024 forced him to exit the race in favour of Harris. The 82-year-old faced renewed scrutiny after the book Original Sin, focusing on his ill-fated decision to run for a second term, was published by journalists Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson. The exposé detailed alleged signs of his physical and mental decline in his last year as president. Biden later refuted these claims, joking he could 'beat the hell out of' the two authors. Earlier in May, Biden revealed he is suffering from an aggressive form of prostate cancer, which has spread to his bones. This is not the first time Trump has shared unhinged conspiracy theories. More Trending He once suggested the father of rival Republican Ted Cruz was involved in the JFK assassination. Trump was a prominent endorser of the so-called 'birther' conspiracy, which falsely claimed that President Barack Obama was not born in the United States. He demanded to see Obama's birth certificate for years and suggest it was fraudulent even after Obama released it. It was only in 2016 that Trump finally admitted Obama was born in the US. Get in touch with our news team by emailing us at webnews@ For more stories like this, check our news page. MORE: Trump reveals if he's willing to pardon ex-pal Diddy if convicted of sex trafficking MORE: Biden jokes he 'can beat the hell out of' authors on his decline after cancer diagnosis MORE: Rosie O'Donnell reveals hit show she was meant to star in before fleeing America
New Statesman
3 hours ago
- New Statesman
What the world gets wrong about Poland's election
As the country heads to the polls for the second round of voting today (1 June), Poland is torn by two very different presidential candidates – the pro-European liberal Rafał Trzaskowski and the right-wing nationalist Karol Nawrocki. It's impossible to predict who might win. It is also increasingly difficult to ignore the growing disillusionment that Poles feel toward politics. Trzaskowski, who belongs to the Civic Coalition party and narrowly won the most votes in the first round of voting on 18 May, has been a firm supporter of the European Union and the strengthening of foreign ties. Though this position delights Poland's neighbours and the West, the sentiment is not shared by a large proportion of the electorate who have been sceptical of pro-EU candidates in the past (including current prime minister Donald Tusk). Such candidates tend to be branded pro-German and mocked at rallies as elitist or anti-Polish. The liberal mayor of Warsaw, Trzaskowski's support comes from the metropolitan-based, younger, professional classes. Yet his critics accuse him of selling out the country's sovereignty and undermining the Polish traditions and values that are closely linked to the Catholic church. In contrast to Trzaskowski, the nationalist historian Nawrocki has no political experience, despite being backed by the right-wing Law and Justice Party, which lost power under Donald Tusk's coalition. He's expressed admiration for Donald Trump's Maga agenda and currently heads the Institute of National Remembrance which embraces nationalist historical narratives — they reject Poland's involvement in the Holocaust under Nazi occupation, for example — and opposes publication of 'false information' that 'dishonours or harms the Polish nation'. His anti-Russian views combined with his pledge to block Ukraine's accession to Nato appeals to Trzaskowski's critics and could capture the votes that were cast for far-right politician Sławomir Mentzen in the first round of voting. Yet a shared beer between Mentzen and Trzaskowski, organised as part of Mentzen's YouTube coverage of the election, is thought to have shifted the support of the far-right politician's voters towards the mayor of Warsaw. Nawrocki hasn't expressed a strong position on many of the country's most pressing issues, like the predicted 289-billion-złoty (£57 billion) deficit for 2025 or immigration. Many of his opinions on topics like education and abortion mirror those of the Law and Justice party. Despite Trzaskowski narrowly winning the first round, it's impossible to say who will win the second vote. The final presidential debate, hosted by right-leaning Republika TV, took place on 28 May in the town of Końskie, though Trzaskowski made the bold move not to appear. (Trzaskowski lost in the 2020 election to Andrzej Duda after not turning up to the debate in Końskie; soon after the debate, Trzaskowski plummeted in the polls.) With both candidates neck-in-neck in the polls, the Polish media can't decide whether Trzaskowski has once again lost his shot at presidency, or whether he will break through the 'curse of Końskie'. In many ways, the real momentum in this election campaign has come from abroad. A record number of 695,000 expats are registered to vote on 1 June, perhaps motivated by the fact that in Poland, presidents have a formal role in foreign and defence policies. A Trzaskowski win could establish Poland as a key player on the European stage and, as a Tusk ally, he could also aid the prime minister's progressive reform. A Nawrocki win, meanwhile, could lead to the disengagement with the European Union on all matters excluding trade and potentially block Ukraine's ascension into Nato. His stance on Poland reaching Net Zero by 2050 will also have an impact on the EU's climate change policies. Yet this international excitement barely ripples over the Polish public. The truth is, neither candidate is likely to have a ground-shaking impact on the lives of the electorate. A Trzaskowski win would likely bring with it an initial burst of hope, which is almost certain to grow into disillusionment over his often-contradictory positions on the LGBTQ rights, immigration and healthcare. A Nawrocki win, on the other hand, would likely isolate younger, progressive voters by prioritising the country's frustrated right-wing. Nawrocki's victory could cause a further spike in emigration among young people — already a long-running problem in Poland — as the historian looks to hinder Donald Tusk's progressive agenda. Neither candidate presents solutions to the most pressing issues that divide the country, such as the influx of migrants crossing the Poland-Belarus border, the continuing war in Ukraine and inflation. It's no surprise that turn out is now predicted to be just over 50 per cent in the second round. Rather than uniting, the political promises of this election campaign have only disillusioned the country more. [See also: Sanction Netanyahu's cabinet ultras now] Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe Related
