Latest news with #Section122
Mint
30-05-2025
- Business
- Mint
Trump's team plots plan B for imposing tariffs
President Trump's trade team is readying its plan B. The administration's tariff strategy was undermined when a court this week found it was illegal for Trump to impose sweeping duties by using emergency economic powers. A federal appeals court on Thursday allowed his duties to stay in effect while the administration's appeal moves forward, but U.S. officials are weighing their options should they need to find a new legal authority to impose the president's steep tariffs, which he argues will help rebalance trade in America's favor. The potential pivot reflects the challenges to Trump's aggressive trade policy, which relied on a novel interpretation of trade law. Typically, tariffs are imposed using targeted authority delegated to the president by Congress, but Trump's team relied on little-used emergency powers to impose the bulk of his wide-ranging second-term tariffs quickly. With that strategy under threat, the president's team is weighing a twofold response, according to people familiar with the matter. First, the administration is considering a stopgap effort to impose tariffs on swaths of the global economy under a never-before-used provision of the Trade Act of 1974, which includes language allowing for tariffs of up to 15% for 150 days to address trade imbalances with other countries, the people said. That would then buy time for Trump to devise individualized tariffs for each major trading partner under a different provision of the same law, used to counter unfair foreign trade practices. That second step requires a lengthy notification and comment process, but is seen by administration officials as more legally defensible than the tariff policy that was found to be illegal this week. The alternative provision has been used many times in the past, including for Trump's first-term tariffs on China. Peter Navarro, senior counselor for trade and manufacturing, is floating alternative strategies. The conversations remained fluid, and the administration hadn't made a final decision, the people added. The administration could wait to implement any alternative plans after the federal appeals court allowed Trump's emergency tariffs to stay in place during the appeals process. The White House and the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative didn't respond to requests for comment. Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, said Thursday that the administration is weighing other options to impose tariffs as it appeals the court rulings, but she didn't give specifics. Peter Navarro, senior counselor for trade and manufacturing, appeared to confirm that the administration is considering a twofold alternative tariff plan, which would first use Section 122 of the 1974 trade law, and then Section 301. 'Those are the kinds of thoughts" the economic team is considering, he said when asked about those provisions on Bloomberg TV. Navarro also suggested that the administration could use the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930, which has a provision that allows for tariffs on nations that discriminate against America. The U.S. could also expand the use of tariffs imposed citing national-security concerns. All of the options under consideration now were discussed in the early weeks of the administration, but officials opted to instead impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, also known as IEEPA. The law had never been used before to impose tariffs but allowed the administration to move quickly to impose levies on virtually every global trading partner. In its decision Wednesday, the U.S. Court of International Trade struck down Trump's use of IEEPA to address trade deficits. In doing so, the court pointed to Section 122, the measure Trump's team is now weighing as a stopgap policy, saying part of federal law already grants explicit authority to address 'large and serious balance-of-payments deficits." Pivoting to a different tariff authority could pose risks. If the administration moves to use a different law, that could be seen by courts as admitting defeat in ongoing appeals in the IEEPA case. 'The administration could quickly turn to other tariff authorities, but doing so while the ruling is under judicial review could be seen as a lack of confidence in the final decision," said Everett Eissenstat, who served as deputy director of the National Economic Council in Trump's first term. Trump's alternative plan would likely still face legal challenges, said Peter Harrell, who served as senior director for international economics on the Biden administration's National Security Council. But both elements are on firmer legal ground than the IEEPA tariffs, he said. The Court of International Trade 'seemed to indicate that Section 122 is how you'd address a trade deficit," Harrell said. Section 301, he added, has a long case law history, and action under that provision would likely be upheld as long as the Trump administration can point to unfair trade practices from each targeted nation. In all, the plan is 'certainly more defensible than the IEEPA tariffs," he said. Trump's potential alternative tariff plan has an advantage: Using another law to reimpose the tariffs could smooth over any interruptions in tariffs because of the court's ruling, preserving Trump's leverage in ongoing trade talks. In a filing asking for an emergency stay on the Court of International Trade's decision, the administration said the ruling 'jeopardizes ongoing negotiations with dozens of countries by severely constraining the President's leverage and undermining the premise of ongoing negotiations." That appeared to contradict National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett, who insisted Thursday that trade negotiations will continue unabated and that three deals are close to being completed. Navarro similarly said that 'nothing has really changed." The ruling on Wednesday came days after the president threatened to impose 50% tariffs on the European Union and then quickly pulled back to allow for negotiations until July 9—a deadline now thrown into question. A rise in global stocks supports the EU's argument that tariffs aren't good for anyone, Spanish Minister of Economy Carlos Cuerpo said Thursday. He said the bloc is taking 'a constructive approach to reaching an agreement and, if possible, even reducing barriers" below pretariff dispute levels. Some analysts said the ruling could ease the path for a trade deal between the U.S. and EU by removing, if the decision survives Trump's appeal, a key sticking point from the negotiations. Ignacio García Bercero, a former EU trade official, said that removing the U.S.'s 10% tariff on European imports and the threat of further across-the-board tariffs would allow trade negotiators to focus instead on the U.S.'s sectoral tariffs on such industries as steel and automobiles. Those were implemented on national-security grounds, not using the economic-powers law, and will be unaffected by the continuing court battle. 'If there's a more pragmatic attitude from the United States and also, of course, from the European Union, one would have the opportunity to try to use this to find a more balanced type of agreement that is in the interest of both sides," he said. Write to Gavin Bade at and Kim Mackrael at
Yahoo
29-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Appeals court reinstates Trump tariffs, markets tumble again
Appeals court reinstates Trump tariffs, markets tumble again originally appeared on TheStreet. An appeals court has temporarily reinstated President Donald Trump's controversial reciprocal tariffs, pausing a lower court order that had struck them down earlier this month. The decision gives the Trump administration more time to appeal while allowing the tariffs to stay in effect during the legal process. The U.S. Court of International Trade had initially ruled against the tariffs, calling them unlawful under existing trade law. But the administration argued it could reimpose the duties using executive authority under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 — the same legal basis used for tariffs during Trump's first term. Goldman Sachs earlier said the White House was likely to seek alternative legal channels to revive the tariffs, including Section 122, which allows temporary levies on countries with large trade surpluses with the U.S. Crypto markets showed reaction to the news. At the time of writing, Bitcoin was trading at $106,138, down 1.4%. Ethereum hovered near $2,649, while XRP held below $2.27. Analysts noted that markets had largely priced in a policy-driven push for tariffs and were waiting for further developments. This is a developing story. Appeals court reinstates Trump tariffs, markets tumble again first appeared on TheStreet on May 29, 2025 This story was originally reported by TheStreet on May 29, 2025, where it first appeared. 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
Yahoo
29-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
How Trump could aim to reinstall tariffs in the long term
The US Court of International Trade has rejected several of President Trump's tariff policies — particularly his sweeping import taxes against Canada, Mexico, and China — identifying them as illegal and putting a pause on them. Yahoo Finance Washington correspondent Ben Werschkul comes on Market Domination to explain the course of action Trump officials could take to contest this federal court ruling or reimplement certain tariffs. Also catch Greta Peisch, the former general counsel for the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) under the Biden administration, also weigh in on the workarounds the Trump administration could pursue as it appeals this ruling. To watch more expert insights and analysis on the latest market action, check out more Market Domination here. Well, markets are reacting to that new twist in the tariff saga. A federal court blocking President Trump from imposing sweeping tariffs on imports under an emergency powers law. That move rattled global financial markets, confused trade partners, raised broader fears about inflation and a possible recession. The ruling from a three-judge panel at the New York-based US Court of International Trade coming after several lawsuits arguing Trump's liberation day tariffs exceeded his authority and left the country's trade policy dependent on his changing orders. The White House is appealing the ruling. We're joined now by our Washington correspondent Ben Worshkol. So, Ben, there's a lot to impact, unpack. What is the latest about what happens now? Yeah, so what I've been looking at today is sort of what what are the next steps for Trump as as he's trying to do this, and what the White House is saying is it's kind of a two-pronged approach. The first prong is to contest this bill, or to contest this ruling. Um, they're they've they they've issued two quick motions last evening, and then another one today basically to push back on implementation of a ban on these tariffs, reverse it completely, and also get it to the Supreme Court, perhaps as early as this week. So, they're really aggressive in that front. The second front is exploring legal other routes to get to the same tariffs through different routes, which the White House is confirmed they're also exploring. Um, part of the rationale of this decision last night was that Trump has the authority to do a lot of these actions he's done using emergency authority through other things. And this is true because Congress has given the president a wide different array array of authorities to do it. One intriguing scenario here, if these appeals fail, is that Trump could move on a different quick strike action, called Section 122, to essentially re-implement the tariffs quickly, but only for 150 days and then pursue a separate authority that could allow him to get a lot of them in place permanently. So, it's a that's a multi-step process that has a lot of legal trip wires with it, but it's in it's one that's not likely to provide a lot of certainty for for Congress for certain. Ben, you mentioned Congress there. Do you, is it possible Congress would ever step in and give Trump this authority? I mean, could they do that? Would they do that? Um, well, they have given over basically almost almost total authority to the president over over decades. Now, the question, I think, is is whether they would come in to sort of take back some of the authority. Interestingly, this quick strike option, this Section 122, does have a bigger role for Congress. Basically, the president can implement it, but there's a limit on how high and for how long unless Congress unless Congress extends it. So, he could, he could be going to Congress to ask him to to keep these tariffs in place for longer. There's that, but definitely been a lot of calls in the last 24 hours from lawmakers who are opposed to this for Congress to take back their authority. They could always pass a law that says, "No, we're in charge of tariffs." But that that's a hard lift, especially with Congress so unloyal to the president, with these Republicans in charge. All right, Ben. Thank you. Appreciate it. Thank you.
Time of India
29-05-2025
- Business
- Time of India
Not so fast: Trump can still impose tariffs despite court ruling — here's how
Despite a recent court setback limiting Trump's tariff powers under IEEPA, he retains multiple legal avenues to impose new taxes on foreign imports. Options include Section 122 for quick, short-term tariffs, Section 232 based on national security, Section 301 for longer-term strategies, and the previously unused Section 338. Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Trump Still Has Tools to Raise Tariffs Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads What's Next? Hold your horses—despite a recent federal court ruling that blocked one of Donald Trump 's tariff tactics, the US president still has multiple legal avenues to hit foreign imports with new taxes.A three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of International Trade ruled that Trump overstepped his authority under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) when he declared a national emergency and imposed sweeping tariffs on global imports. The court said the law was never meant to support such broad trade the decision marks a legal setback, it doesn't mark the end of Trump's tariff Phillips, Chief U.S. Political Economist at Goldman Sachs, told that the Trump team still has other legal tools at its disposal—some of which could be deployed almost could invoke Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which allows the president to impose tariffs for up to 150 days without a formal investigation. The rationale? To address a balance of payments deficit or prevent a major depreciation of the U.S. believes this could enable Trump to quickly slap on a 15% across-the-board tariff again—though it's unclear if they could be paused and resumed used during Trump's first term, Section 232 enables tariffs based on national security concerns. That's how previous tariffs on steel, aluminum, and autos were say Trump could expand this approach to include items like pharmaceuticals, semiconductors, and consumer electronics under similar broader, longer-lasting tariffs, Trump could launch Section 301 investigations into unfair trade practices by other countries. These probes take time—weeks or more—but could justify higher, targeted tariffs once 338 of the Trade Act of 1930 allows tariffs up to 50% on countries that discriminate against the U.S. No formal investigation is required. While this provision has never been used, it remains legally Sachs says the most likely scenario would see Trump using Section 122 for quick, short-term tariffs while simultaneously kicking off Section 301 investigations to justify longer-term said, there's a practical ceiling. Only so many countries can realistically be targeted in a 150-day window, meaning smaller nations or those with modest trade surpluses may be spared.
Economic Times
29-05-2025
- Business
- Economic Times
Not so fast: Trump can still impose tariffs despite court ruling — here's how
Trump Still Has Tools to Raise Tariffs Live Events What's Next? (You can now subscribe to our (You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel Hold your horses—despite a recent federal court ruling that blocked one of Donald Trump 's tariff tactics, the US president still has multiple legal avenues to hit foreign imports with new taxes.A three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of International Trade ruled that Trump overstepped his authority under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) when he declared a national emergency and imposed sweeping tariffs on global imports. The court said the law was never meant to support such broad trade the decision marks a legal setback, it doesn't mark the end of Trump's tariff Phillips, Chief U.S. Political Economist at Goldman Sachs, told that the Trump team still has other legal tools at its disposal—some of which could be deployed almost could invoke Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which allows the president to impose tariffs for up to 150 days without a formal investigation. The rationale? To address a balance of payments deficit or prevent a major depreciation of the U.S. believes this could enable Trump to quickly slap on a 15% across-the-board tariff again—though it's unclear if they could be paused and resumed used during Trump's first term, Section 232 enables tariffs based on national security concerns. That's how previous tariffs on steel, aluminum, and autos were say Trump could expand this approach to include items like pharmaceuticals, semiconductors, and consumer electronics under similar broader, longer-lasting tariffs, Trump could launch Section 301 investigations into unfair trade practices by other countries. These probes take time—weeks or more—but could justify higher, targeted tariffs once 338 of the Trade Act of 1930 allows tariffs up to 50% on countries that discriminate against the U.S. No formal investigation is required. While this provision has never been used, it remains legally Sachs says the most likely scenario would see Trump using Section 122 for quick, short-term tariffs while simultaneously kicking off Section 301 investigations to justify longer-term said, there's a practical ceiling. Only so many countries can realistically be targeted in a 150-day window, meaning smaller nations or those with modest trade surpluses may be spared.
