Latest news with #IEPPA
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
What's next for Trump's tariffs after federal court ruling?
A federal court blocked President Donald Trump's plan to impose sweeping tariffs on almost every country globally. The Associated Press reported that a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of International Trade ruled on Wednesday that Trump overstepped his authority when invoking the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act to declare a national emergency to justify his tariffs plan. Here's where things stand. Dig deeper The U.S. Court of International Trade noted that President Donald Trump retains more limited power to impose tariffs to address trade deficits under another statute, the Trade Act of 1974. The Associated Press reported that this law restricts tariffs to 15% and only for 150 days with countries with which the United States runs big trade deficits. The AP noted that the court's decision blocks the tariffs Trump enforced in April on almost all U.S. trading partners and levies he imposed before that on China, Mexico and Canada. RELATED: Federal court blocks Trump from imposing sweeping tariffs under emergency powers law Companies will have to reexamine the way they run their supply chains, possibly expediting shipments to the U.S. to ease the danger that the tariffs will be reinstated on appeal. Wendy Cutler, a former U.S. trade official who is now vice president at the Asia Society Policy Institute, told the Associated Press that the court's decision "throws the president's trade policy into turmoil." "Partners negotiating hard during the 90- day tariff pause period may be tempted to hold off making further concessions to the U.S. until there is more legal clarity," Cutler told the AP. The backstory The Trump administration contended that courts had approved then-President Richard Nixon's emergency use of tariffs in a 1971 economic and financial crisis that happened when the U.S. devalued the dollar by ending a policy that linked the U.S. currency to the price of gold. According to the Associated Press, the Nixon administration successfully cited its authority under the 1917 Trading With Enemy Act, which preceded and supplied some of the legal language later used in the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEPPA). The court disagreed, deciding that Trump's sweeping tariffs exceeded his authority to regulate imports under IEEPA. It also said the tariffs did nothing to deal with problems they were supposed to address. In their case, the states noted that America's trade deficits hardly amount to a sudden emergency. The United States has racked them up for 49 straight years in good times and bad. On April 2, Trump enforced reciprocal tariffs of up to 50% on countries with which the U.S. runs a trade deficit and 10% baseline tariffs on almost everybody else. Trump later suspended the reciprocal tariffs for 90 days to give countries time to agree to reduce barriers to U.S. exports. But he kept the baseline tariffs in place. According to the Associated Press, Trump claimed he had power to act without congressional approval. He justified the taxes under IEEPA by declaring the United States' longstanding trade deficits "a national emergency." The Source Information for this story was provided by the Associated Press, which offers background on the court ruling and cites comments from a former U.S. trade official. This story was reported from Washington, D.C.
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Court blocks Trump from imposing sweeping tariffs under emergency powers law
A federal trade court on Wednesday blocked US President Donald Trump from imposing sweeping tariffs on imports under an emergency-powers law. The ruling from a three-judge panel at the New York-based Court of International Trade came after several lawsuits arguing Mr Trump has exceeded his authority, left US trade policy dependent on his whims and unleashed economic chaos. The White House did not immediately respond to a message seeking comment. The Trump administration is expected to appeal. At least seven lawsuits are challenging the levies, the centrepiece of Mr Trump's trade policy. Tariffs must typically be approved by Congress, but Mr Trump says he has the power to act because the country's trade deficits amount to a national emergency. He imposed tariffs on most of the countries in the world at one point, sending markets reeling. The plaintiffs argue that the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEPPA) does not authorise the use of tariffs. Even if it did, they say, the trade deficit does not meet the law's requirement that an emergency be triggered only by an 'unusual and extraordinary threat'. The US has run a trade deficit with the rest of the world for 49 consecutive years. Mr Trump imposed tariffs on most of the countries in the world in an effort to reverse America's massive and longstanding trade deficits. He earlier plastered levies on imports from Canada, China and Mexico to combat the illegal flow of immigrants and the synthetic opioids across the US border. His administration argues that courts approved then-president Richard Nixon's emergency use of tariffs in 1971, and that only Congress, and not the courts, can determine the 'political' question of whether the president's rationale for declaring an emergency complies with the law. Mr Trump's Liberation Day tariffs shook global financial markets and led many economists to downgrade the outlook for US economic growth. So far, though, the tariffs appear to have had little impact on the world's largest economy.
Euronews
2 days ago
- Business
- Euronews
What happens to Trump's tariffs now a court has knocked them down?
A federal court in New York handed President Donald Trump a big setback Wednesday, blocking his controversial plan to impose massive taxes on imports from almost every country in the world. A three-judge panel of the US Court of International Trade ruled that Trump overstepped his authority when he invoked the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act to declare a national emergency and justify the sweeping tariffs. The tariffs overturned decades of US trade policy, disrupted global commerce, rattled financial markets and raised the risk of higher prices and recession in the United States and around the world. The US Court of International Trade has jurisdiction over civil cases involving trade. Its decisions can be appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington and ultimately to the Supreme Court, where the legal challenges to Trump's tariffs are widely expected to end up. The court's decision blocks the tariffs Trump slapped last month on almost all US trading partners and levies he imposed before that on China, Mexico and Canada. On 2 April, Trump imposed so-called reciprocal tariffs of up to 50% on countries with which the United States runs a trade deficit and 10% baseline tariffs on almost everybody else. He later suspended the reciprocal tariffs for 90 days to give countries time to agree to reduce barriers to US exports. But he kept the baseline tariffs in place. Claiming extraordinary power to act without congressional approval, he justified the taxes under IEEPA by declaring the United States' longstanding trade deficits 'a national emergency'. In February, he'd invoked the law to impose tariffs on Canada, Mexico and China, saying that the illegal flow of immigrants and drugs across the US border amounted to a national emergency and that the three countries needed to do more to stop it. The US Constitution gives Congress the power to set taxes, including tariffs. But lawmakers have gradually let presidents assume more power over tariffs — and Trump has made the most of it. The tariffs are being challenged in at least seven lawsuits. In the ruling Wednesday, the trade court combined two of the cases — one brought by five small businesses and another by 12 US states. The ruling does leave in place other Trump tariffs, including those on foreign steel, aluminium and automobiles. But those levies were invoked under a different law that required a Commerce Department investigation and could not be imposed at the president's own discretion. The administration had argued that courts had approved then-President Richard Nixon's emergency use of tariffs in a 1971 economic and financial crisis that arose when the United States suddenly devalued the dollar by ending a policy that linked the US currency to the price of gold. The Nixon administration successfully cited its authority under the 1917 Trading With Enemy Act, which preceded and supplied some of the legal language later used in IEPPA. The court disagreed, deciding that Trump's sweeping tariffs exceeded his authority to regulate imports under IEEPA. It also said the tariffs did nothing to deal with problems they were supposed to address. In their case, the states noted that America's trade deficits hardly amount of a sudden emergency. The United States has racked them up for 49 straight years in good times and bad. Wendy Cutler, a former US trade official who is now vice president at the Asia Society Policy Institute, says the court's decision "throws the president's trade policy into turmoil'. 'Partners negotiating hard during the 90-day day tariff pause period may be tempted to hold off making further concessions to the US until there is more legal clarity," she said. Likewise, companies will have to reassess the way they run their supply chains, perhaps speeding up shipments to the United States to offset the risk that the tariffs will be reinstated on appeal. The trade court noted that Trump retains more limited power to impose tariffs to address trade deficits under another statute, the Trade Act of 1974. But that law restricts tariffs to 15% and only for 150 days with countries with which the United States runs big trade deficits. For now, the trade court's ruling 'destroys the Trump administration's rationale for using federal emergency powers to impose tariffs, which oversteps congressional authority and contravenes any notion of due process,' said Eswar Prasad, professor of trade policy at Cornell University. "The ruling makes it clear that the broad tariffs imposed unilaterally by Trump represent an overreach of executive power".
See - Sada Elbalad
2 days ago
- Business
- See - Sada Elbalad
US court blocks Trump from imposing sweeping global tariffs
Basant Ahmed A US trade court has ruled Donald Trump's sweeping tariffs regime illegal, in dramatic twist that could block the US president's controversial global trade policy. The ruling by a three-judge panel at the New York-based court of international trade came after several lawsuits argued that Trump had exceeded his authority, leaving US trade policy dependent on the president's whims and unleashing economic chaos around the world. Tariffs typically need to be approved by Congress but Trump has so far bypassed that requirement by claiming that the country's trade deficits amounted to a national emergency. It left the US president able to apply sweeping tariffs to most countries in the world last month, in a shock move that sent markets reeling. The court's ruling stated that Trump's tariff orders 'exceed any authority granted to the president … to regulate importation by means of tariffs'. Judges were keen to state that they were not passing judgment on the 'wisdom or likely effectiveness of the president's use of tariffs as leverage.' Instead, their ruling centred on whether the trade levies had been legally applied in the first place. Their use is 'impermissible not because it is unwise or ineffective, but because [federal law] does not allow it,' the decision explained. Financial markets cheered the court's ruling, with the US dollar rallying in its wake, surging against the euro, yen and Swiss franc. Stocks in Asia also climbed on Thursday, while US futures pointed to a jump in Wall Street-listed shares. The Trump administration reportedly plans to appeal against the ruling, while White House officials have hit out at the court's authority..'It is not for unelected judges to decide how to properly address a national emergency,' Kush Desai, a White House spokesperson, said in a statement to Reuters. But the ruling, if it stands, blows a giant hole through Trump's strategy to use steep tariffs to wring concessions from trading partners, draw manufacturing jobs back to US shores and shrink a $1.2tn (£892tn) US goods trade deficit, which were among his key campaign promises. Without the help of the international emergency powers act (IEPPA), the Trump administration would have to take a slower approach, launching lengthier trade investigations and abiding by other trade laws to back the tariff threats. Any legal challenge to the ruling will have to be heard atthe US court of appeals for the federal circuit in Washington DC, and ultimately the US supreme court. The court was not asked to address some industry-specific tariffs Trump has issued on automobiles, steel and aluminum, using a different statute, so these are likely to remain in place for now. Stephen Miller, the White House deputy chief of staff for policy, hit out at the ruling with on media post claiming 'the judicial coup is out of control'. Trump did not immediately post a response on Truth Social. Instead, he posted about what he characterised as a favourable ruling in another lawsuit, in which he is suing the Pulitzer board, which awards America's most prestigious journalism prizes. At least seven lawsuits have challenged Trump's border taxes, the centerpiece of Trump's trade policy. The tariffs lawsuit was filed by a group of small businesses, including a wine importer, VOS Selections, whose owner has said the tariffs are having a major impact and his company may not survive. A dozen states also filed a suit, led by Oregon. 'This ruling reaffirms that our laws matter, and that trade decisions can't be made on the president's whim,' Oregon attorney general Dan Rayfield said. The plaintiffs in the tariff lawsuit argued that the emergency powers law does not give the president the power to apply tariffs, and even if it did, the trade deficit does qualify as an emergency, which is defined as an 'unusual and extraordinary threat'. The US has run a trade deficit with the rest of the world for 49 consecutive years. Trump imposed tariffs on most countries around the world in an effort to reverse the US's massive and longstanding trade deficits. He also targeted imports from Canada, China and Mexico, claiming it was meant to combat the illegal flow of immigrants and the synthetic opioids across the US border. His administration pointed to the court's approval of the former president Richard Nixon's emergency use of tariffs in 1971, and claimed that only Congress, and not the courts, could determine the 'political' question of whether the president's rationale for declaring an emergency complied with the law. Trump's 'liberation day' tariffs shook global financial markets and led many economists to downgrade the outlook for US economic growth. So far, though, the impact of tariffs on the US economy has yet to be felt by consumers. read more Gold prices rise, 21 Karat at EGP 3685 NATO's Role in Israeli-Palestinian Conflict US Expresses 'Strong Opposition' to New Turkish Military Operation in Syria Shoukry Meets Director-General of FAO Lavrov: confrontation bet. nuclear powers must be avoided News Iran Summons French Ambassador over Foreign Minister Remarks News Aboul Gheit Condemns Israeli Escalation in West Bank News Greek PM: Athens Plays Key Role in Improving Energy Security in Region News One Person Injured in Explosion at Ukrainian Embassy in Madrid News Egypt confirms denial of airspace access to US B-52 bombers News Ayat Khaddoura's Final Video Captures Bombardment of Beit Lahia News Australia Fines Telegram $600,000 Over Terrorism, Child Abuse Content Arts & Culture Nicole Kidman and Keith Urban's $4.7M LA Home Burglarized Sports Former Al Zamalek Player Ibrahim Shika Passes away after Long Battle with Cancer Sports Neymar Announced for Brazil's Preliminary List for 2026 FIFA World Cup Qualifiers News Prime Minister Moustafa Madbouly Inaugurates Two Indian Companies Arts & Culture New Archaeological Discovery from 26th Dynasty Uncovered in Karnak Temple Business Fear & Greed Index Plummets to Lowest Level Ever Recorded amid Global Trade War Arts & Culture Zahi Hawass: Claims of Columns Beneath the Pyramid of Khafre Are Lies
Belfast Telegraph
2 days ago
- Business
- Belfast Telegraph
A look at what happens to Trump's tariffs following federal court ruling
A three-judge panel of the US Court of International Trade ruled that Mr Trump overstepped his authority when he invoked the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to declare a national emergency and justify the sweeping tariffs. The tariffs overturned decades of US trade policy, disrupted global commerce, rattled financial markets and raised the risk of higher prices and recession in the United States and around the world. The US Court of International Trade has jurisdiction over civil cases involving trade. Its decisions can be appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington and ultimately to the Supreme Court, where the legal challenges to Mr Trump's tariffs are widely expected to end up. -Which tariffs did the court block? The court's decision blocks the tariffs Mr Trump slapped last month on almost all US trading partners and levies he imposed before that on China, Mexico and Canada. On April 2, Mr Trump imposed so-called reciprocal tariffs of up to 50% on countries with which the United States runs a trade deficit and 10% baseline tariffs on almost everybody else. He later suspended the reciprocal tariffs for 90 days to give countries time to agree to reduce barriers to US exports. But he kept the baseline tariffs in place. Claiming extraordinary power to act without congressional approval, he justified the taxes under IEEPA by declaring the United States' longstanding trade deficits 'a national emergency'. In February, he had invoked the law to impose tariffs on Canada, Mexico and China, saying that the illegal flow of immigrants and drugs across the US border amounted to a national emergency and that the three countries needed to do more to stop it. The US Constitution gives Congress the power to set taxes, including tariffs. But lawmakers have gradually let presidents assume more power over tariffs — and Mr Trump has made the most of it. The tariffs are being challenged in at least seven lawsuits. In the ruling on Wednesday, the trade court combined two of the cases — one brought by five small businesses and another by 12 US states. The ruling does leave in place other Trump tariffs, including those on foreign steel, aluminium and autos. But those levies were invoked under a different law that required a Commerce Department investigation and could not be imposed at the president's own discretion. -Why did the court rule against the president? The administration had argued that courts had approved then-president Richard Nixon's emergency use of tariffs in a 1971 economic and financial crisis that arose when the United States suddenly devalued the dollar by ending a policy that linked the US currency to the price of gold. The Nixon administration successfully cited its authority under the 1917 Trading With Enemy Act, which preceded and supplied some of the legal language later used in IEPPA. The court disagreed, deciding that Mr Trump's sweeping tariffs exceeded his authority to regulate imports under IEEPA. It also said the tariffs did nothing to deal with problems they were supposed to address. In their case, the states noted that America's trade deficits hardly amount to a sudden emergency. The United States has racked them up for 49 straight years in good times and bad. -So where does this leave Mr Trump's trade agenda? Wendy Cutler, a former US trade official who is now vice president at the Asia Society Policy Institute, says the court's decision 'throws the president's trade policy into turmoil'. She said: 'Partners negotiating hard during the 90-day day tariff pause period may be tempted to hold off making further concessions to the US until there is more legal clarity. 'Likewise, companies will have to reassess the way they run their supply chains, perhaps speeding up shipments to the United States to offset the risk that the tariffs will be reinstated on appeal.' The trade court noted that Mr Trump retains more limited power to impose tariffs to address trade deficits under another statute, the Trade Act of 1974. But that law restricts tariffs to 15% and only for 150 days with countries with which the United States runs big trade deficits. For now, the trade court's ruling 'destroys the Trump administration's rationale for using federal emergency powers to impose tariffs, which oversteps congressional authority and contravenes any notion of due process', said Eswar Prasad, professor of trade policy at Cornell University. 'The ruling makes it clear that the broad tariffs imposed unilaterally by Trump represent an overreach of executive power.'
