Latest news with #KushDesai
Russia Today
a day ago
- Business
- Russia Today
Trump's trade war has cost firms $34 billion
Multi-national companies have suffered $34 billion in losses due to tariffs imposed by US President Donald Trump, according to a Reuters analysis. The measures have disrupted businesses and heightened tensions with Washington's key allies, notably the EU. The report, based on disclosures from 56 firms across the US, Europe, and Japan, attributes the losses to higher input costs, revenue losses, and supply chain uncertainty. Economists have warned the real cost could be far higher, owing to ripple effects including weaker investment, reduced consumer spending, and rising inflation risks. Trump has rolled out sweeping duties since returning to office in January, in the name of protecting US manufacturing which culminated in his 'Liberation Day' tariffs on April 2 that included a universal 10% levy on all imports and a threatened 50% rate on EU goods. 'The Administration has consistently maintained that the United States, as the world's largest economy, has the leverage to make our trading partners ultimately bear the cost of tariffs,' said White House spokesperson Kush Desai. However, data suggests American businesses are footing the bill, while relations with Washington's allies have grown increasingly strained. The EU prepared countermeasures targeting €100 billion worth of American goods, including cars, medical devices, and plastics. After a call between Trump and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, the 50% duties were delayed until July 9 to allow room for negotiation. Apple, Ford, Kimberly-Clark, Walmart, and others have warned of rising costs and lowered their own forecasts, blaming Trump's 'erratic' trade approach, Reuters reported. One of the few to endorse the measures is General Motors, which has backed the auto tariffs, arguing they allow US automakers to compete more fairly. Trump has defended his tariff strategy as a way of reshoring jobs and reducing the trade deficit. 'We're going to raise hundreds of billions in tariffs; we're going to become so rich we're not going to know where to spend that money,' he said in March. According to the Tax Foundation, tariffs imposed and scheduled for 2025 are projected to raise $152.7 billion in federal revenue, equivalent to 0.49% of GDP, the largest tax increase since 1993.
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Stocks edge up as traders feel whiplash from the latest tariff developments
Stocks gained on Thursday after a court blocked President Donald Trump's tariffs. However, an appeals court reinstated the tariffs temporarily. Stocks also got a boost from Nvidia's first-quarter earnings beat. Investors were digetsting the latest tariff developments on Thursday, with an appeals court reinstating Donald Trump's tariffs less than 24 hours after a US trade court said they were illegal. Major indexes ended higher in volatile trading. The Nasdaq 100 got a boost from Nvidia's first-quarter earnings after the bell on Wednesday, though the tech-heavy index gave up the biggest gains throughout Thursday's session. This embedded content is not available in your region. Here's where US indexes stood at the 4 p.m. closing bell on Thursday: S&P 500: 5,912.17, up 0.4% Dow Jones Industrial Average: 42,215.73, up 0.3% (+117 points) Nasdaq composite: 19,175.87, up 0.4% In a ruling late Wednesday, the US Court of International Trade found that Trump did not have the power to impose tariffs on many of the US's trading partners. The ruling said it would give the Trump administration 10 days to comply with its order. "It is not for unelected judges to decide how to properly address a national emergency. President Trump pledged to put America First, and the Administration is committed to using every lever of executive power to address this crisis and restore American Greatness," Kush Desai, a spokesperson for the White House, told Business Insider in an email. Investors have been antsy all year about the potential impact of tariffs, which economists have said will raise costs for businesses that can be passed along to consumers. Tariffs could also weigh on economic growth and keep interest rates elevated, as the Federal Reserve will be hesitant to lower borrowing costs to avoid stoking more upward price pressure. Analysts say that uncertainty is still hanging over the market, despite the boost in sentiment. "Yet the uncertainty premium remains very much alive. Every forthcoming court milestone carries the potential for fresh headlines," Ahmad Assiri, a research strategist at Pepperstone, wrote in a note on Thursday, pointing to anxieties over the growing US budget deficit. "This after-hours rally reflected a swift change in sentiment as traders welcomed the prospect of reduced trade headwinds," David Morrison, a senior market analyst at Trade Nation, wrote in a note. "But investors should take care. Markets are extremely skittish at present and capable of big moves in both directions, as demonstrated by the overnight rally. This is not the slow and steady bull market that took off in October 2022." Trump has incrementally scaled back the majority of his proposed tariffs, a move that the market has coined as the "TACO trade" in recent days. Many of the tariffs he announced on April 2 have been reduced to 10% for a 90-day period as trade negotiations take place. Tariffs on China have also been reduced to 30% on a separate 90-day timeline. A 50% tariff on the EU has been pushed out to July 9, which is when the pause on most of the Liberation Day tariffs expire. Tech stocks were also on a tear on Thursday as traders took in Nvidia's latest quarterly earnings report. The chipmaker reported $44.06 billion in revenue, beating estimates. CEO Jensen Huang also soothed investors about the impact of restrictions on its business in China. Nvidia shares rose as much as 6%, before paring gains to trade 3% higher around $139 a share. Other chipmakers also moved higher, with Advanced Micro Devices up 0.15% Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company up 0.5%. Read the original article on Business Insider Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
MTV Lebanon
3 days ago
- Business
- MTV Lebanon
US Trade Court Blocks Tariffs in Major Setback for Trump
The opinion marks a significant setback to Trump as he bids to redraw the US trading relationship with the world by forcing governments to the negotiating table through tough new tariffs. Trump's global trade war has roiled financial markets with a stop-start rollout of import levies aimed at punishing economies that sell more to the United States than they buy. Trump argued that the resulting trade deficits and the threat posed by the influx of drugs constituted a "national emergency" that justified widespread tariffs. But the three-judge Court of International Trade ruled Wednesday that Trump had overstepped his authority, barring most of the duties announced since he took office in January. The White House slammed the ruling, arguing that "unelected judges" have no right to weigh in on Trump's handling of the issue. "President Trump pledged to put America first, and the administration is committed to using every lever of executive power to address this crisis and restore American greatness," Trump's spokesman Kush Desai said. Attorneys for the Trump administration promptly filed to appeal against the ruling Wednesday. China: 'cancel wrongful tariffs' The ruling comes as Trump has used the tariffs as leverage in trade negotiations with friends and foes, including the European Union and China. Beijing -- which was hit by 145 percent tariffs before they were sharply reduced to give space for negotiations -- reacted to the court ruling by saying the United States should scrap the levies. "China urges the United States to heed the rational voices from the international community and domestic stakeholders and fully cancel the wrongful unilateral tariff measures," said commerce ministry spokeswoman He Yongqian. Japan's tariffs envoy Ryosei Akazawa said as he left for a fourth round of talks in Washington that Tokyo -- reeling from tariffs on cars -- would study the ruling. Trump unveiled sweeping import duties on nearly all trading partners on April 2, at a baseline 10 percent, plus steeper levies on dozens of economies, including China and the European Union. The ruling also quashes duties that Trump imposed on Canada, Mexico and China separately using emergency powers. Some of the turmoil was calmed after he paused the larger tariffs for 90 days and suspended other duties, pending negotiations with individual countries and blocs. Asian markets rallied on Thursday and US futures pointed to early gains, but Europe was mixed, with London in the red while Paris and Frankfurt rose. The ruling "throws into disarray several trade deals that have already been agreed, and those that are still in the negotiation phase," said Kathleen Brooks, research director at XTB brokerage firm. 'Extraordinary threat' The federal trade court was ruling in two separate cases -- brought by businesses and a coalition of state governments -- arguing that the president had violated Congress's power of the purse. "The question in the two cases before the court is whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 ("IEEPA") delegates these powers to the president in the form of authority to impose unlimited tariffs on goods from nearly every country in the world," the three-judge panel wrote in an unsigned opinion. "The court does not read IEEPA to confer such unbounded authority and sets aside the challenged tariffs imposed thereunder." The judges stated that any interpretation of the IEEPA that "delegates unlimited tariff authority is unconstitutional." The IEEPA authorizes the president to impose necessary economic sanctions during an emergency "to combat an unusual and extraordinary threat," the bench said. The ruling gave the White House 10 days to complete the bureaucratic process of halting the tariffs. Gregory Meeks, the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said the ruling confirmed that "these tariffs are an illegal abuse of executive power." "Trump's declaration of a bogus national emergency to justify his global trade war was an absurd and unlawful use of IEEPA," he said. White House aide Stephen Miller took to social media to decry a "judicial coup" that he said was "out of control."
The Age
3 days ago
- Business
- The Age
US court blocks Trump's tariffs, rules president exceeded his authority
Companies of all sizes have been whipsawed by the president's swift imposition of tariffs and sudden reversals as they seek to manage supply chains, production, staffing and prices. A White House spokesperson, Kush Desai, said US trade deficits with other countries constituted 'a national emergency that has decimated American communities, left our workers behind, and weakened our defence industrial base – facts that the court did not dispute'. 'It is not for unelected judges to decide how to properly address a national emergency,' Desai said in a statement. Financial markets cheered the ruling. The US 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, along with equities across Asia. The ruling, if it stands, blows a giant hole through Trump's strategy to use steep tariffs to wring concessions from trading partners. It creates deep uncertainty around multiple simultaneous negotiations with the European Union, China and many other countries. However, analysts at Goldman Sachs noted the order does not block sector-specific levies and there were other legal avenues for Trump to impose across-the-board and country-specific tariffs. Loading 'This ruling represents a setback for the administration's tariff plans and increases uncertainty but might not change the final outcome for most major US trading partners,' analyst Alec Phillips wrote in a note. Trump has promised Americans the tariffs would draw manufacturing jobs back to US shores and shrink a $US1.2 trillion ($1.9 trillion) US goods trade deficit, which were among his central campaign promises. Without the instant leverage provided by tariffs, the Trump administration would have to find new forms of leverage or take a slower approach to negotiations with trading partners. The ruling came in a pair of lawsuits, one filed by the non-partisan Liberty Justice Centre on behalf of five small US businesses that import goods from countries targeted by the duties and the other by 13 US states. The companies, which range from a New York wine and spirits importer to a Virginia-based maker of educational kits and musical instruments, have said the tariffs will hurt their ability to do business. 'There is no question here of narrowly tailored relief; if the challenged tariff orders are unlawful as to plaintiffs, they are unlawful as to all,' the trade court wrote in its decision. At least five other legal challenges to the tariffs are pending. Oregon Attorney-General Dan Rayfield, a Democrat whose office is leading the states' lawsuit, called Trump's tariffs unlawful, reckless and economically devastating. Loading 'This ruling reaffirms that our laws matter, and that trade decisions can't be made on the president's whim,' Rayfield said in a statement. Trump has claimed broad authority to set tariffs under IEEPA, which has historically been used to impose sanctions on enemies of the US or freeze their assets. Trump is the first US president to use it to impose tariffs. The Justice Department has said the lawsuits should be dismissed because the plaintiffs have not been harmed by tariffs that they have not yet paid, and because only Congress, not private businesses, can challenge a national emergency declared by the president under IEEPA. In imposing the tariffs in early April, Trump called the trade deficit a national emergency that justified his 10 per cent across-the-board tariffs on all imports, with higher rates for countries with which the US has the largest trade deficits, particularly China. The country-specific tariff rates were paused for 90 days a week later, though the baseline 10 per cent duty was put in place for most nations. The Trump administration on May 12 said it was also temporarily reducing the steepest tariffs on China while working on a longer-term trade deal. Both countries agreed to cut tariffs on each other for at least 90 days.
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Did 'Activist Judges' Derail Trump's Tariffs?
In the immediate aftermath of Wednesday's federal court ruling that blocked the Trump administration's tariffs on nearly all imports, the president's allies have turned to a predictable excuse for the sweeping legal defeat. "It is not for unelected judges to decide how to properly address a national emergency," said Kush Desai, the White House's deputy press secretary, in a statement. "President Trump pledged to put America First, and the Administration is committed to using every lever of executive power to address this crisis and restore American Greatness." "With activist judges, what is even the point of having a president?!" posted conservative pundit Charlie Kirk (in a tweet that inaccurately characterized just about every aspect of the legal ruling). "The judicial coup is out of control," wrote Stephen Miller, the White House deputy chief of staff, on X. These reactions are as inaccurate as they are lame. In Miller's view, apparently, a "coup" occurs when judges tell the president that he has overstepped the bounds of his powers under the law—rather than when a president seizes those expansive powers. That's a very silly definition of a coup. More importantly, it's also a misleading description of what the Court of International Trade ruled on Wednesday. In this case, it was the Trump administration, not the court, that was claiming to be able to exercise unlimited, unchecked power by invoking a law. Trump had used the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose tariffs on nearly all imports to the U.S., even though that law narrowly authorizes presidential actions only in response to "an unusual and extraordinary threat." International commerce is plainly neither of those things, as the court concluded in its ruling. "We do not read IEEPA to delegate an unbounded tariff authority to the President," the judges wrote. "We instead read IEEPA's provisions to impose meaningful limits on any such authority it confers." By reviewing the actions of the executive branch to ensure they comport with the underlying law, the Court of International Trade merely fulfilled the constitutional role of the judiciary. "This ruling reaffirms that the President must act within the bounds of the law, and it protects American businesses and consumers from the destabilizing effects of volatile, unilaterally imposed tariffs," Jeffrey Schwab, senior counsel at the Liberty Justice Center, the public-interest law firm that represented the plaintiffs in the lawsuit before the Court of International Trade, told Reason in a statement. In short, that's the opposite of a coup. The claim that these were "activist judges" also doesn't stand up to scrutiny. For starters, one of the three judges who issued Wednesday's unanimous ruling was appointed by Trump. Judge Timothy Reif was nominated in June 2018, during the first Trump administration. The other two judges who decided the case were appointed by Presidents Barack Obama and Ronald Reagan. That seems like a pretty fair panel: A liberal, an older conservative, and a Trump appointee. All three agreed that Trump had overstepped his authority with the tariffs. Additionally, the court's ruling leaned on two bits of jurisprudence that conservatives have long championed as a way for courts to check executive authority: the "nondelegation" and "major questions" doctrines. The former says, in effect, that Congress cannot delegate its core lawmaking authority to other branches of the government. The latter says the same thing in reverse: That major questions of policy must be decided by Congress, not the other branches. The court found that Trump's tariffs failed on both counts. In the ruling, the three judges wrote that "an unlimited delegation of tariff authority would constitute an improper abdication of legislative power to another branch of government. Regardless of whether the court views the President's actions through the nondelegation doctrine, through the major questions doctrine, or simply with separation of powers in mind, any interpretation of IEEPA that delegates unlimited tariff authority is unconstitutional." The idea that these judges—a majority of whom were appointed by Republicans and who were exercising a pair of conservative legal theories in evaluating Trump's tariffs—were somehow unfairly biased against the president is simply laughable. There may be some questions about the basic legitimacy of the Court of International Trade, which most Americans have probably never encountered. Let's put those to rest too. The court was created by an act of Congress in 1980 to adjudicate disputes exactly like this one. Like in all federal courts, rulings from the Court of International Trade can be appealed—and the Trump administration has already indicated that it will appeal Wednesday's sweeping tariff ruling. It's also somewhat telling that the Trump administration's lawyers have been trying to move other tariff-related cases into this court. Rather than viewing the Court of International Trade as illegitimate or biased, it seems like the administration believed that the court would be the friendliest legal venue for reviewing the president's claimed tariff powers—at least until Wednesday evening. (That belief was shared by many trade policy observers, including myself, who were skeptical that the courts would be willing to intervene in such a direct way to block tariffs imposed under the IEEPA.) Whether as a legal matter or a practical one, Trump's allies are simply wrong when they claim that the administration is the victim of judicial activism in the tariff ruling. The Court of International Trade's decision to strike down the tariffs and draw clear lines around the president's emergency economic powers is well-reasoned and appropriate. It's also the sort of ruling that conservatives would be universally cheering if it were brought down against a Democratic president's power grab. This isn't a judicial coup or an unfair result. Trump exceeded the limits of the power granted to him by Congress, and the courts put a stop to it. That's exactly how our constitutional system is supposed to work. The post Did 'Activist Judges' Derail Trump's Tariffs? appeared first on
