Latest news with #CIT
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Trump warns court ruling against tariffs could lead to 'economic ruination' of US
President Donald Trump on Sunday said if the courts rule against the administration's sweeping tariffs, it would mean the "economic ruination" of the country. The post comes after the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) ruled unanimously on Wednesday to block the use of an emergency law to enact punishing import taxes. Members of the three-judge panel, who were appointed by Trump, former President Barack Obama and former President Ronald Reagan, said Trump has overstepped and does not have "unbounded authority" to impose the tariffs. Federal Judge Blocks 5 Trump Tariff Executive Orders "If the Courts somehow rule against us on Tariffs, which is not expected, that would allow other Countries to hold our Nation hostage with their anti-American Tariffs that they would use against us," Trump wrote on Truth Social Sunday afternoon. "This would mean the Economic ruination of the United States of America!" Trump administration lawyers have until 5 p.m. Monday to file their response. Read On The Fox Business App Trump Denounces Court's 'Political' Tariff Decision, Calls On Supreme Court To Act Quickly Following the court decision, a federal appeals court on Thursday ruled in favor of the Trump administration, delaying a lower court's ruling blocking the use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to enact a 10% baseline tariff and "reciprocal tariffs." The reciprocal taxes, announced by the White House on April 2, were being used by the Trump administration as a negotiating tactic with other countries prior to the court battles. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit gave the plaintiffs until Thursday to file a response, and the Trump administration until June 9. Fox News Digital's Breanne Deppisch contributed to this article source: Trump warns court ruling against tariffs could lead to 'economic ruination' of US
Yahoo
12 hours ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Kevin Hassett 'very, very confident' courts will back Trump's tariffs amid legal setback
White House Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett says he remains "very, very confident" that courts will support President Donald Trump's tariff agenda. Hassett made the statement during a Sunday morning appearance on ABC's "This Week," telling host George Stephanopoulos that the White House still expects "Plan A" to work out. "And so we're very thrilled. We are very confident that the judges would uphold this law. And so I think that that's Plan A, and we're very, very confident that Plan A is all we're ever going to need," Hassett said. "But if, for some reason, some judge were to say that it's not a national emergency when more Americans die from fentanyl than have ever died in all American wars combined, that's not an emergency that the president has authority over – if that ludicrous statement is made by a judge somewhere, then we'll have other alternatives that we can pursue as well to make sure that we make American trade fair again," he added. Twelve States Sue Trump Over Tariffs, Claiming They're 'Illegal' And Harmful To Us Economy Hassett's appearance comes after a federal court struck down Trump's tariffs in a ruling last week, only for an appeals court to issue a temporary stay protecting the tariffs during litigation. Read On The Fox News App The appeals court ruling paused a decision by the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT), thus allowing Trump to continue to enact the 10% baseline tariff and the so-called "reciprocal tariffs" that he announced April 2 under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA. The CIT had ruled unanimously to block the tariffs the day before. Federal Judge Blocks 5 Trump Tariff Executive Orders Members of the three-judge panel who were appointed by Trump, former President Barack Obama and former President Ronald Reagan, ruled unanimously that Trump had overstepped his authority under IEEPA. They noted that, as commander in chief, Trump does not have "unbounded authority" to impose tariffs under the emergency law. For now, the burden of proof shifts to the government, which must convince the court it will suffer "irreparable harm" if the injunction remains in place, a high legal standard the Trump administration must meet. Fox News' Breanne Deppisch contributed to this reportOriginal article source: Kevin Hassett 'very, very confident' courts will back Trump's tariffs amid legal setback
Time of India
12 hours ago
- Business
- Time of India
Will the Donald Trump administration be forced to give billions of dollars in tariff refunds?
If the ruling is upheld it could mean the Trump administration will have to reimburse the substantial import duties already collected. (AI image) What will happen if the US trade court ruling against American President Donald Trump 's reciprocal tariffs is upheld? If that happens, it could necessitate the Trump administration to refund billions in import duties that have already been collected! On Wednesday, the US Court of International Trade (CIT) panel, comprising three judges, determined that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) did not authorise Trump to implement extensive tariffs or circumvent Congress's traditional authority over economic and commerce policies. Trump had referenced this 1977 legislation to validate most of his tariff implementations, particularly those announced on "'Liberation Day' in early April. According to a NewsWeek report, Todd Tucker, a trade specialist from the Roosevelt Institute in New York, shared on BlueSky on Thursday: "This will do tremendous damage to Trump's agenda. His whole second term seemed to be DOGE, deport, and (trade) deals." He further questioned: "On trade, in particular, why would any country waste time negotiating to lower his tariffs if he can't impose them in the first place?" The government has lodged an appeal with the Court of Appeals of the Federal Circuit, describing the CIT's decision as a "judicial coup." Experts suggest alternative methods remain available for Trump to implement his trade policies in response to the ruling. Will Trump Be Forced To Refund? The NewsWeek report said that if the ruling is upheld it could mean the Trump administration will have to reimburse the substantial import duties already collected. Whilst The Kobeissi Letter assessed collected tariff revenue at $10 billion since April 2, Newsweek's examination of Treasury Department records indicates potentially larger amounts. Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Camden: If You Were Born Between 1940-1975 You Could Be Eligible For This Life Cover Reassured Get Quote Undo Also Read | 'Work of fiction…': Will Donald Trump bury US government in debt with multitrillion-dollar tax breaks? Even Elon Musk is concerned "I think that the court's order should lead CBP (US Customs and Border Protection) to suspend liquidation of entries going forward, which would mean that if the court's decision is ultimately upheld, importers can get their money back," stated William Reinsch, who served as under secretary of commerce for export administration during the Clinton administration and led the National Foreign Trade Council from 2001 to 2016. Importers, including American companies and overseas exporters who are bound by contract to pay import duties, might qualify for refunds. However, according to Reinsch's statement to Newsweek, consumers are "probably not" likely to receive any refunds following the CIT's ruling, despite having paid higher prices for imported products in recent months. "The people who paid the tariffs—the importers—might get their money back, but they would not be obligated to pass that on to consumers, although some might choose to do so as a matter of goodwill," he explained. He further expressed doubt about the success of any potential legal action by consumers against the government for compensation. According to the report, legal experts suggest that importers could potentially take legal action against the administration for goods that have already cleared customs procedures. The administration under Trump has recognised its obligation to reimburse specific tariff payments in cases where duties are subsequently eliminated or reduced. Following a decision in late April that determined certain tariffs should not be 'stacked' or applied cumulatively, Trump issued an executive order stating this would have retroactive application to particular tariffs. The order also confirmed that reimbursements for those who had paid increased import duties would be handled according to existing laws and standard CBP refund procedures. When announcements were made regarding exemptions to Trump's reciprocal tariffs, similar details were provided. The CBP has also issued instructions detailing how importers can seek refunds for duty payments on items where tariffs were later withdrawn or decreased. Also Read | 'Went COLD TURKEY, it was devastating for them…': Donald Trump slams China for 'violating' trade agreement with US - what went wrong this time? Tariff Impact: $34 billion losses and counting…and counting.. Meanwhile, corporate disclosures reveal that Trump's trade policies have resulted in companies losing more than $34 billion through decreased sales and increased expenses, as per Reuters' evaluation. This impact is likely to grow as businesses struggle with uncertainty surrounding tariffs, affecting operational decisions at major global corporations. Prominent organisations across three continents have seen significant setbacks. Notable examples include Apple, Ford, Porsche and Sony, which have either withdrawn or substantially reduced their profit projections. Most companies indicate that the unpredictable implementation of Trump's trade measures has rendered precise cost calculations unfeasible. The combined total of $33 billion represents calculations from 32 S&P 500 firms, three STOXX 600 enterprises and 21 Nikkei 225 organisations. According to financial experts, the actual business impact is expected to significantly exceed the currently reported figures. "You can double or triple your tally and we'd still say ... the magnitude is bound to be far greater than most people realize," said Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, professor at the Yale School of Management, according to the Reuters report. The broader implications could prove more severe, Sonnenfeld noted, pointing to possible reductions in consumer and business expenditure, alongside heightened inflation projections. Also Read | 'Even if we lose…': Donald Trump administration readying two-part strategy to impose reciprocal tariffs, says 'we will do it another way' Stay informed with the latest business news, updates on bank holidays and public holidays . AI Masterclass for Students. Upskill Young Ones Today!– Join Now
Fox News
14 hours ago
- Business
- Fox News
Kevin Hassett 'very, very confident' courts will back Trump's tariffs amid legal setback
White House Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett says he remains "very, very confident" that courts will support President Donald Trump's tariff agenda. Hassett made the statement during a Sunday morning appearance on ABC's "This Week," telling host George Stephanopoulos that the White House still expects "Plan A" to work out. "And so we're very thrilled. We are very confident that the judges would uphold this law. And so I think that that's Plan A, and we're very, very confident that Plan A is all we're ever going to need," Hassett said. "But if, for some reason, some judge were to say that it's not a national emergency when more Americans die from fentanyl than have ever died in all American wars combined, that's not an emergency that the president has authority over – if that ludicrous statement is made by a judge somewhere, then we'll have other alternatives that we can pursue as well to make sure that we make American trade fair again," he added. Hassett's appearance comes after a federal court struck down Trump's tariffs in a ruling last week, only for an appeals court to issue a temporary stay protecting the tariffs during litigation. The appeals court ruling paused a decision by the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT), thus allowing Trump to continue to enact the 10% baseline tariff and the so-called "reciprocal tariffs" that he announced April 2 under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA. The CIT had ruled unanimously to block the tariffs the day before. Members of the three-judge panel who were appointed by Trump, former President Barack Obama and former President Ronald Reagan, ruled unanimously that Trump had overstepped his authority under IEEPA. They noted that, as commander in chief, Trump does not have "unbounded authority" to impose tariffs under the emergency law. For now, the burden of proof shifts to the government, which must convince the court it will suffer "irreparable harm" if the injunction remains in place, a high legal standard the Trump administration must meet.
Telegraph
16 hours ago
- Business
- Telegraph
Bond markets are waking up to Trump's chaotic tariffs regime
If you didn't already fully understand the meaning of 'uncertainty', last week should have provided you with plenty of learning material. The concept of uncertainty relates to a situation when there is no known calculus for anticipating future outcomes. This contrasts with the concept of risk – when you can gauge the probabilities. Perhaps the purest case of risk concerns the chance of a ball sent spinning by a roulette wheel landing on a particular number. One hundred years ago, John Maynard Keynes made much of this distinction but it is still given insufficient attention. Financial and economic analysis is usually conducted solely on the basis of risk. The world is full of people who seem to think that they can calculate risks when, in reality, they haven't a clue. Keynes thought that the financial and business worlds were beset with endemic uncertainty. Sometimes economic agents would be immobilised by it. At other times, they might simply put it out of their mind, or assume the best, or press on regardless. This is why he thought market participants' 'animal spirits' were so important. In general, financial markets hate uncertainty and so do the managers of financial and non-financial businesses. Last week, the uncertainty quotient leapt up thanks to the still developing consequences of Donald Trump's trade policies. The fun and games last week started when the US Court of International Trade (CIT) blocked two of Trump's key tariff measures, that is to say, 'trafficking tariffs' – i.e. those related to fentanyl on Canada, Mexico and China – as well as his 'worldwide and retaliatory tariffs' on most countries. It took this action because it believes that the US president didn't have the authority to impose these tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. You might imagine that this would have an extremely favourable impact, as it seemed to imply a yet further unravelling of Trump's tariff shock. After all, the markets were badly hit when Trump first announced his tariffs on 'liberation day'. So you might reasonably think that markets would surge on news of their undoing. Indeed, the US and other equity markets did react favourably at first. But then the euphoria fizzled out. Partly, this was because equity markets had already regained most, if not all, of the ground they had lost on the initial tariff announcements – due mainly to Trump's backtracking and apparent second thoughts. The lukewarm reaction was also partly because it is widely assumed that the Trump administration would find a way round this. Indeed, on Thursday a US appeals court granted at least a temporary reprieve. The next stop will be the Supreme Court, which is dominated by Republicans. Moreover, even if the Supreme Court upholds the CIT's ruling, the Trump administration would probably try to find other ways of increasing tariffs, such as ramping up Section 301 and 232 investigations into various countries' trade policies, or trying to get Congress to pass legislation imposing tariffs. It was striking that the CIT's ruling wasn't warmly welcomed by the US Treasury market. Indeed, the 10-year bond yield initially edged up to over 4.5pc. The dominant thinking here concerns the possible fiscal implications of a failure by the Trump administration to enact widespread tariff increases. This is because the extra tariff revenue to be raised by Trump's measures was intended to largely offset the loss of tax revenue resulting from Trump's 'big beautiful bill', introducing or extending substantial tax reductions, which has now passed the House of Representatives. If the president presses on with tax cuts but is unable to push through substantial increases in tariffs then the implication would be a significant increase in the budget deficit – hence higher bond yields. Admittedly, if Trump's tariffs are blocked, then there would be much less upward pressure on inflation and that would make it easier for the Federal Reserve to cut interest rates sooner and by more than would otherwise have been the case. Ordinarily, the bond market would like this. But if Trump is prevented from using tariffs as a way of closing the American trade deficit, then he may well want to substitute policies that would cause the dollar to fall substantially. That would renew inflation worries at the Fed – as well as causing widespread consternation among international holders of dollar assets. Actually, a depreciation of the currency, rather than tariffs, is the textbook way of addressing a trade deficit. But, of course, currency depreciation doesn't discriminate between countries and it affects both imports and exports of all types of goods, as well as services. That is precisely why economists tend to favour it. Importantly, though, unlike the imposition of tariffs, a currency depreciation does not produce any extra revenue for the government. That is the key reason why the Trump administration has favoured tariffs. As well as the potential impact on US financial markets and the American economy, these tariff shenanigans potentially have major effects on the world economy. If the proposed tariffs are rescinded, the countries set to gain the most are those heavily exposed to trade with the US – Canada, Mexico, Vietnam, Korea and Japan. Importantly, with tariffs on automative, steel and aluminium imports still in place, Canada, Mexico, Japan and Korea are heavily at risk – unless they can negotiate further concessions as the UK did. lose patience with Vladimir Putin. He may well impose tougher sanctions on Russia and those countries dealing with it, or even step up military aid for Ukraine.
