Latest news with #InternationalTradeCourt
Wall Street Journal
2 days ago
- Business
- Wall Street Journal
President Trump Isn't a Tariff King
In a ruling heard 'round the world, the U.S. Court of International Trade on Wednesday blocked President Trump's sweeping tariffs. This is an important moment for the rule of law as much as for the economy, proving again that America doesn't have a king who can rule by decree. The Trump tariffs have created enormous costs and uncertainty, but now we know they're illegal. As the three-judge panel explains in its detailed 52-page ruling, the President exceeded his emergency powers and bypassed discrete tariff authorities delegated to him by Congress. The ruling erases his April 2 tariffs as well as those on Canada and Mexico. Small businesses and several states (V.O.S. Selections v. U.S.) challenged Mr. Trump's use of the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose tariffs willy-nilly. That law gives the President broad authority in a national emergency to 'deal with any unusual and extraordinary threat' including to 'regulate' the 'importation' of foreign property. After declaring fentanyl an emergency, the President in February slapped tariffs on Mexico, Canada and China. Then in April he deemed the U.S. trade deficit an emergency and imposed tariffs of varying rates on the world. He later reduced those to 10% across the board for 90 days, supposedly to allow time to negotiate trade deals.
The Independent
2 days ago
- Business
- The Independent
Trump Team's Plan B is to ram through tariffs using obscure law to negate ‘rogue judges': report
White House officials are already plumbing the depths of the U.S. legal code to find ways to get around judicial orders and carry out President Donald Trump 's plan to impose massive import taxes on goods from nearly every country on the globe. On Wednesday, the U.S. International Trade court struck down Trump's use of emergency powers to put tariffs on nearly every nation around the globe and also struck down the tariffs imposed on Mexican, Canadian and Chinese imports by the president with the stated aim of combatting fentanyl and drug trafficking from those countries. The decision to bar the tariffs, which was put on hold by the U.S. Court of Appeals a day later while the government appeals the ruling, eviscerated major planks of Trump's trade policy in response to a lawsuit in which the attorneys general of 12 states and a number of small American companies urged the court to strike down the import taxes on the grounds that Trump had exceeded his authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. But administration officials are already planning a way to pivot to using other powers to get around what they have repeatedly labeled the 'rogue judges' that have repeatedly ruled against Trump. According to The Wall Street Journal, Trump and his advisers are looking at invoking a never-before-used section of the 1974 Trade Act known as Section 122, which allows for a 15-percent tariff to be placed on imports for up to 150 days, in order to deal with trade imbalances with other countries. During that period, the White House would then start the process to impose alternative tariffs on individual countries' exports under Section 301 of the same 1974 law. Trump used Section 301 on multiple occasions during his first term to impose tariffs on some Chinese steel and aluminum imports, but using that authority takes time because it requires a notice-and-comment period. The judges that ruled against him said Trump's 'Liberation Day' tariffs, which set a 10 percent baseline tax on all imports and even higher taxes on imports from nearly every one of America's trading partners, 'exceed any authority granted to the President by IEEPA to regulate importation by means of tariffs.' They also rejected Trump's use of the emergency powers to tax Mexican, Canadian and Chinese imports because those tariffs don't specifically 'deal with an unusual and extraordinary threat with respect to which a national emergency has been declared,' as required by law. It's unclear whether the White House will seek to employ either of those alternate strategies while the case against Trump's 'Liberation Day' tariffs proceeds. Doing so might be seen by the appeals court — or the Supreme Court — as a concession that the Court for International Trade's decision was, in fact, correct. Thus far, the White House isn't even close to conceding that the three-judge panel, which included one jurist nominated to the New York-based court by Trump during his first term, might have been right to say Trump exceeded his authority. Instead, the president's top aides have been engaged in a full-throated campaign to attack and delegitimize the little-known court's ruling as part of what White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller called a 'judicial coup' in a social media post on Wednesday. Peter Navarro, Trump's senior counselor for trade and manufacturing, has been going on the attack in a series of TV appearances in which he has criticized the 'rogue judges' of the court, and White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt used her opening remarks at Thursday's White House press briefing to accuse the judges of having 'brazenly abused their judicial power to usurp the authority of President Trump to stop him from carrying out the mandate that the American people gave him.' 'These judges failed to acknowledge that the President of the United States has core Foreign Affairs powers and authority given to him by Congress to protect the United States economy and national security,' Leavitt added. For his part, Navarro has steadfastly denied that Trump's tariffs could have any economic or political cost for the president or his Republican allies. When he was asked about a column in the Journal by longtime GOP strategist Karl Rove in which Rove said the tariffs posed a 'messaging challenge' for Trump, Navarro became irate and emotional during a Thursday appearance on Fox Business Network. He also fumed about the 'rogue judges' who rejected the administration's arguments that Trump currently has broad authority to import sweeping tariffs under emergency powers and called Rove a washed-up has-been whose 'day has passed about ... a decade ago.' 'He hates the tariffs, he hates Donald Trump,' he said.
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
US appeals court temporarily blocks pause on Trump tariffs
After a US trade court had deemed several of President Trump's wide-sweeping tariff policies illegal and paused them, a US appeals court quickly stepped in on Thursday and is now granting the import taxes to temporarily stay in effect. Yahoo Finance legal correspondent Alexis Keenan explains the order of events, court hierarchies, and the timeline for the Trump administration's legal filings after being issued an administrative stay until June 9. To watch more expert insights and analysis on the latest market action, check out more Market Domination here. We've got breaking news now. A federal appeals court is pausing a US trade court ruling that blocked President Trump's global tariffs. Basically, tariffs are still in place for now is the bottom line. Senior legal reporter Alexis Keenan is here with more. So, all of the back and forth. Lot of back and forth back on. And and this is, is this a sooner finding than had been expected that the tariffs are going to be still in place for now? So, the federal circuit, it's an appellate court over the top of the International Trade Court. It can decide if it gets an application from the Trump administration, which it did, to put a temporary pause on what that lower court decided. So, this is the court stepping in here. This is a pelle court and reinstating these tariffs and saying it needs some time to look at the motions, look at briefings, look at the issues. Uh I don't know exactly where it's going to go from here, whether this is going to be an issue that will be decided at this stage at the appellate court level or whether the trial court, the the International Trade Court will be handling some of this. What the court said, this federal circuit court is that the request for an immediate administrative stay, they granted it to the extent they say that the judgments and the permanent injunctions entered by the court of International Trade are temporarily stayed until further notice. So the appeals court seeming here to put this pause into effect and they're asking the administration to give briefings to the court no later than June 9th. So that's the timeline that we have to work with right now. So you're kind of find a bouncing ball in the courts, Alexis, but correct me if I'm wrong. Doesn't Trump beyond that have plenty of tariff tools at his disposal? I mean, it's, you know, it's section 232, 122, 301. I mean, he has what sounds like just tremendous tariff authority and power here. Well, certainly the administration thinks so, but they chose to go with the act that they did, the emergency Act where Trump had said the administration had said that these national emergencies, immigration, drug trafficking, flows of illegal drugs into the United States, and so forth was a national emergency. And that didn't work at least at this lower court level. Now the legal experts I've been talking to in this area, they say it's anybody's guess what this appeals court might decide when the administration and the challengers come up before them. You know, maybe it'll go the other way. Maybe this International Emergency Act will be enough authority for a different court. Alexis, we will keep following it. Thank you so much. Yeah, bouncing around. Thanks.
CNET
2 days ago
- Business
- CNET
Tariffs Explained: Everything You Need to Know as Trump's Policy Hit Legal Trouble
Enlarge Image Donald Trump's wide-ranging taxes on imports were briefly halted by a trade court this week before being allowed to continue, setting a bigger legal showdown soon. James Martin/CNET President Donald Trump's second-term economic plan can be summed up in one word: tariffs. When his barrage of these import taxes went into overdrive a month ago, markets trembled, and business leaders sounded alarms about the economic damage they would cause. After weeks of uncertainty and clashes with major companies, Trump's tariffs hit their biggest roadblock yet in court, and while they may be back in place for now, a final ruling should be imminent. Late Wednesday, the US Court of International Trade ruled that Trump had overstepped his authority when he imposed tariffs, effectively nullifying thew tariffs, after concluding that Congress has the sole authority to issue tariffs and decide other foreign trade matters, and that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 -- which Trump has used to justify his ability to impose them -- doesn't grant the president "unlimited" authority on tariffs. The next day, an appeals court allowed the tariffs to go back into effect for the time being, while the administration calls for the Supreme Court to overturn the trade court ruling altogether. Should You Buy Now or Wait? Our Experts Weigh In on Tariffs Should You Buy Now or Wait? Our Experts Weigh In on Tariffs Click to unmute Video Player is loading. Play Video Pause Skip Backward Skip Forward Next playlist item Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration 0:06 Loaded : 100.00% 0:00 Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:06 Share Fullscreen This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Opacity Opaque Semi-Transparent Text Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Opacity Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Caption Area Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Opacity Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Drop shadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Close Modal Dialog This is a modal window. This modal can be closed by pressing the Escape key or activating the close button. Close Modal Dialog This is a modal window. This modal can be closed by pressing the Escape key or activating the close button. Should You Buy Now or Wait? Our Experts Weigh In on Tariffs However, things shake out in the end, the initial ruling certainly came as a relief to many, given the chaos and uncertainty that Trump's tariffs how caused thus far. For his part, Trump has recently lashed out against companies -- like Apple and Walmart -- that have reacted to the tariffs or discussed their impacts in ways he dislikes. Apple has been working to move manufacturing for the US market from China to relatively less-tariffed India, to which Trump has threatened them with a 25% penalty rate if they don't bring manufacturing to the US instead. Experts have predicted that a US-made iPhone, for example, would cost consumers about $3,500. During a recent earnings call, Walmart warned that prices would rise on things like toys, tech and food at some point in the summer, which prompted Trump to demand the chain eat the costs themselves, another unlikely scenario. Amid all this noise, you might still be wondering: What exactly are tariffs and what will they mean for me? The short answer: Expect to pay more for at least some goods and services. For the long answer, keep reading, and for more, check out CNET's price tracker for 11 popular and tariff-vulnerable products. What are tariffs? Put simply, a tariff is a tax on the cost of importing or exporting goods by a particular country. So, for example, a "60% tariff" on Chinese imports would be a 60% tax on the price of importing, say, computer components from China. Trump has been fixated on imports as the centerpiece of his economic plans, often claiming that the money collected from taxes on imported goods would help finance other parts of his agenda. The US imports $3 trillion of goods from other countries annually. The president has also, more recently, shown a particular fixation on trade deficits, claiming that the US having a trade deficit with any country means that country is ripping the US off. This is a flawed understanding of the matter, as a lot of economists have said, deficits are often a simple case of resource realities: Wealthy nations like the US buy specific things from nations that have them, while those nations might in turn not be wealthy enough to buy much of anything from the US. While Trump deployed tariffs in his first term, notably against China, he ramped up his plans more significantly for the 2024 campaign, promising 60% tariffs against China and a universal 20% tariff on all imports into the US. Now, tariffs against China are more than double that amount and a universal tariff on all exports is a reality. "Tariffs are the greatest thing ever invented," Trump said at a campaign stop in Michigan last year. At one point, he called himself "Tariff Man" in a post on Truth Social. Who pays the cost of tariffs? Trump repeatedly claimed, before and immediately after returning to the White House, that the country of origin for an imported good pays the cost of the tariffs and that Americans would not see any price increases from them. However, as economists and fact-checkers stressed, this is not the case. The companies importing the tariffed goods -- American companies or organizations in this case -- pay the higher costs. To compensate, companies can raise their prices or absorb the additional costs themselves. So, who ends up paying the price for tariffs? In the end, usually you, the consumer. For instance, a universal tariff on goods from Canada would increase Canadian lumber prices, which would have the knock-on effect of making construction and home renovations more expensive for US consumers. While it is possible for a company to absorb the costs of tariffs without increasing prices, this is not at all likely, at least for now. Speaking with CNET, Ryan Reith, vice president of International Data's worldwide mobile device tracking programs, explained that price hikes from tariffs, especially on technology and hardware, are inevitable in the short term. He estimated that the full amount imposed on imports by Trump's tariffs would be passed on to consumers, which he called the "cost pass-through." Any potential efforts for companies to absorb the new costs themselves would come in the future, once they have a better understanding of the tariffs, if at all. Which Trump tariffs have gone into effect? Following Trump's "Liberation Day" announcements on April 2, the following tariffs are in effect: A 25% tariff on all steel and aluminum imports. A 30% tariff on all Chinese imports until Aug. 10 while negotiations continue. China being a major focus of Trump's trade agenda, this rate has been notably higher than others and has steadily increased as Beijing returned fire with tariffs of its own, peaking at 145%, which it could return to down the line if a deal is not reached. 25% tariffs on imports from Canada and Mexico not covered under the 2018 USMCA trade agreement brokered during Trump's first term. The deal covers roughly half of all imports from Canada and about a third of those from Mexico, so the rest are subject to the new tariffs. Energy imports not covered by USMCA only will be taxed at 10%. A 25% tariff on all foreign-made cars and auto parts. A sweeping overall 10% tariff on all imported goods. For certain countries that Trump said were more responsible for the US trade deficit, Trump imposed what he called "reciprocal" tariffs that exceed the 10% level: 20% for the 27 nations that make up the European Union, 26% for India, 24% for Japan and so on. These were meant to take effect on April 9 but were delayed by 90 days as a result of historic stock market volatility, which makes the new effective date July 8. Trump's claim that these reciprocal tariffs are based on high tariffs imposed against the US by the targeted countries has drawn intense pushback from experts and economists, who have argued that some of these numbers are false or potentially inflated. For example, the above chart claims a 39% tariff from the EU, despite its average tariff for US goods being around 3%. Some of the tariffs are against places that are not countries but tiny territories of other nations. The Heard and McDonald Islands, for example, are uninhabited. We'll dig into the confusion around these calculations below. Notably, that minimum 10% tariff will not be on top of those steel, aluminum and auto tariffs. Canada and Mexico were also spared from the 10% minimum additional tariff imposed on all countries the US trades with. On April 11, the administration said smartphones, laptops and other consumer electronics, along with flat panel displays, memory chips and semiconductors, were exempt from reciprocal tariffs. But it wasn't clear whether that would remain the case or whether such products might face different fees later. How were the Trump reciprocal tariffs calculated? The numbers released by the Trump administration for its barrage of "reciprocal" tariffs led to widespread confusion among experts. Trump's own claim that these new rates were derived by halving the tariffs already imposed against the US by certain countries was widely disputed, with critics noting that some of the numbers listed for certain countries were much higher than the actual rates and some countries had tariff rates listed despite not specifically having tariffs against the US at all. In a post to X that spread fast across social media, finance journalist James Surowiecki said that the new reciprocal rates appeared to have been reached by taking the trade deficit the US has with each country and dividing it by the amount the country exports to the US. This, he explained, consistently produced the reciprocal tariff percentages revealed by the White House across the board. "What extraordinary nonsense this is," Surowiecki wrote about the finding. The White House later attempted to debunk this idea, releasing what it claimed was the real formula, though it was quickly determined that this formula was arguably just a more complex version of the one Surowiecki deduced. What will the Trump tariffs do to prices? In short: Prices are almost certainly going up, if not now, then eventually. That is, if the products even make it to US shelves at all, as some tariffs will simply be too high for companies to bother dealing with. While the effects of a lot of tariffs might not be felt straight away, some potential real-world examples have already emerged. Microsoft has increased prices across the board for its Xbox gaming brand, with its flagship Xbox Series X console jumping 20% from $500 to $600. Elsewhere, Kent International, one of the main suppliers of bicycles to Walmart, announced that it would be stopping imports from China, which account for 90% of its stock. Speaking about Trump's tariff plans just before they were announced, White House trade adviser Peter Navarro said that they would generate $6 trillion in revenue over the next decade. Given that tariffs are most often paid by consumers, CNN characterized this as potentially "the largest tax hike in US history." New estimates from the Yale Budget Lab, cited by Axios, predict that Trump's new tariffs will cause a 2.3% increase in inflation throughout 2025. This translates to about a $3,800 increase in expenses for the average American household. Reith, the IDC analyst, told CNET that Chinese-based tech companies, like PC makers Acer, Asus and Lenovo, have "100% exposure" to these import taxes as they currently stand, with products like phones and computers the most likely to take a hit. He also said that the companies best positioned to weather the tariff impacts are those that have moved some of their operations out of China to places like India, Thailand and Vietnam, singling out the likes of Apple, Dell and HP. Samsung, based in South Korea, is also likely to avoid the full force of Trump's tariffs. In an effort to minimize its tariff vulnerability, Apple has begun to move the production of goods for the US market from China to India. Will tariffs impact prices immediately? In the short term -- the first days or weeks after a tariff takes effect -- maybe not. There are still a lot of products in the US imported pre-tariffs and on store shelves, meaning the businesses don't need a price hike to recoup import taxes. Once new products need to be brought in from overseas, that's when you'll see prices start to climb because of tariffs or you'll see them become unavailable. That uncertainty has made consumers anxious. CNET's survey revealed that about 38% of shoppers feel pressured to make certain purchases before tariffs make them more expensive. About 10% say they have already made certain purchases in hopes of getting them in before the price hikes, while 27% said they have delayed purchases for products that cost more than $500. Generally, this worry is the most acute concerning smartphones, laptops and home appliances. Mark Cuban, the billionaire businessman and Trump critic, voiced concerns about when to buy certain things in a post on Bluesky just after Trump's "Liberation Day" announcements. In it, he suggested that consumers might want to stock up on certain items before tariff inflation hits. "It's not a bad idea to go to the local Walmart or big box retailer and buy lots of consumables now," Cuban wrote. "From toothpaste to soap, anything you can find storage space for, buy before they have to replenish inventory. Even if it's made in the USA, they will jack up the price and blame it on tariffs." CNET's Money team recommends that before you make any purchase, especially of a high-ticket item, be sure that the expenditure fits within your budget and your spending plans in the first place. Buying something you can't afford now because it might be less affordable later can be burdensome, to say the least. What is the goal of the White House tariff plan? The typical goal behind tariffs is to discourage consumers and businesses from buying the tariffed, foreign-sourced goods and encourage them to buy domestically produced goods instead. When implemented in the right way, tariffs are generally seen as a useful way to protect domestic industries. One of the stated intentions for Trump's tariffs is along those lines: to restore American manufacturing and production. However, the White House also claims to be having negotiations with numerous countries looking for tariffs exemptions and some officials have also floated the idea that the tariffs will help finance Trump's tax cuts. You don't have to think about those goals for too long before you realize that they're contradictory: If manufacturing moves to the US or if a bunch of countries are exempt from tariffs then tariffs aren't actually being collected and can't be used to finance anything. This and many other points have led a lot of economists to allege that Trump's plans are misguided. In terms of returning -- or "reshoring" -- manufacturing in the US, tariffs are a better tool for protecting industries that already exist because importers can fall back on them right away. Building up the factories and plants needed for this in the US could take years, leaving Americans to suffer under higher prices in the interim. That problem is worsened by the fact that the materials needed to build those factories will also be tariffed, making the costs of "reshoring" production in the US too heavy for companies to stomach. These issues, and the general instability of American economic policies under Trump, are part of why experts warn that Trump's tariffs could have the opposite effect: keeping manufacturing out of the US and leaving consumers stuck with inflated prices. Any factories that do get built in the US because of tariffs also have a high chance of being automated, canceling out a lot of job creation potential. To give you one real-world example of this: When warning customers of future price hikes, toy maker Mattel also noted that it had no plans to move manufacturing to the US. Trump has reportedly been fixated on the notion that Apple's iPhone -- the most popular smartphone in the US market -- can be manufactured entirely in the US. This has been broadly dismissed by experts, for a lot of the same reasons mentioned above, but also because an American-made iPhone could cost upward of $3,500. One report from 404 Media dubbed the idea "a pure fantasy." The overall sophistication and breadth of China's manufacturing sector has also been cited, with CEO Tim Cook stating in 2017 that the US lacks the number of tooling engineers to make its products. For more, see how tariffs might raise the prices of Apple products and find some expert tips for saving money.
Reuters
2 days ago
- Business
- Reuters
Sustainable Switch: US legal system fights back against Trump
May 29 - This is an excerpt of the Sustainable Switch newsletter, where we make sense of companies and governments grappling with climate change, diversity, and human rights on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Fridays. To receive the full newsletter in your inbox for free sign up here. Hello! It's a big day for legal eagles in Thursday's newsletter as a United States trade court blocked President Donald Trump's tariffs, while a federal court stopped his attempts to prevent migrant workers seeking work permits under a temporary parole program. Let's start with the tariffs, which have mostly been blocked by the U.S. court in a sweeping ruling that found the president overstepped his authority by imposing across-the-board duties on imports from U.S. trading partners. The Court of International Trade said the U.S. Constitution gives Congress exclusive authority to regulate commerce with other countries and that cannot be overridden by the president's emergency powers to safeguard the U.S. economy. Financial markets cheered the ruling. The U.S. dollar rallied following the court's order, surging against currencies such as the euro, yen and the Swiss franc in particular. Wall Street futures rose and equities across Asia also jumped. The court invalidated with immediate effect all of Trump's orders on tariffs since January that were rooted in the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a law meant to address "unusual and extraordinary" threats during a national emergency. The Trump administration has filed a notice of appeal and questioned the authority of the court. The parole program Meanwhile, a U.S. federal judge ordered Trump's administration to resume processing applications from migrants seeking work permits or more lasting immigration status who are living in the country temporarily under "parole" programs. The ruling by District Judge Indira Talwani in Boston will provide relief to thousands of migrants from Afghanistan, Latin America, and Ukraine who were granted a two-year "parole" to live in the country under programs established by Democratic former President Joe Biden's administration. The same judge had previously blocked the Trump administration from revoking the parole status of hundreds of thousands of Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans and Venezuelans. The Trump administration has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to pause Talwani's ruling. Talwani, appointed by Democratic former President Barack Obama, rejected the Trump administration's claim that suspending the parole programs was within its broad discretion to direct immigration policy. Federal law still requires agencies under the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to follow a lengthy process for granting or denying parole and other immigration relief, she wrote. The Homeland Security Department did not respond to requests for comment. New York's congestion pricing Elsewhere, a judge blocked the U.S. Transportation Department from withholding federal funding from New York as the Trump administration tried to stop Manhattan's congestion pricing program. New York launched its first-in-the-nation congestion pricing program in January which its governor Kathy Hochul said dramatically cut congestion and that funds raised from the program would underpin $15 billion in debt financing for critical mass transit capital improvements. The program charges most passenger vehicles $9 during peak periods to enter Manhattan south of 60th Street. U.S. District Judge Lewis Liman issued a temporary restraining order before issuing a preliminary injunction preventing the federal government from withholding approval of funding for New York projects. U.S. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy said the government would appeal. ESG Lens U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced the United States will start "aggressively" revoking visas of Chinese students, including those with connections to the Chinese Communist Party or studying in critical fields. President Donald Trump's administration has sought to ramp up deportations and revoke student visas as part of wide-ranging efforts to fulfil its immigration agenda. International students - of which India and China together account for 54% - contributed more than $50 billion to the U.S. economy in 2023, according to the U.S. Department of Commerce. Today's Sustainable Switch was edited by Jane Merriman Think your friend or colleague should know about us? Forward this newsletter to them. They can also subscribe here.
