Latest news with #StateofOregon
Yahoo
13-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
‘That Should Cause People to Pause': Why Trump Might Lose the Legal Fight on Tariffs
Dan Rayfield, Oregon's rookie attorney general, says he didn't want to spend his first months in office fighting presidential edicts in court. But along with the consumer protection and law-and-order duties that more typically define his role, the Democrat is now a key combatant in Donald Trump's trade war, leading a 12-state lawsuit challenging the president's sweeping tariff regime. Rayfield, 46, is among the newest in a band of Democratic state attorneys general that's been strikingly coordinated in challenging and stalling Trump's avalanche of executive orders slashing federal spending, restricting birthright citizenship, gutting diversity and inclusion programs and much more since Jan. 20. The looming impact of the tariffs in his trade-dependent Pacific Northwest state made taking the lead on the lawsuit an easy call, says Rayfield, who served as speaker of the Oregon House of Representatives before winning the AG post in November. 'Right now, in Canada, they are literally pulling [Oregon] products off of shelves,' he told POLITICO Magazine last week as he attended meetings in New York. Rayfield has worked closely with Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes in leading the suit, which challenges Trump's invocation of the International Economic Emergency Powers Act, enacted in 1977 and now used for the first time to impose tariffs. 'It's an unprecedented misuse of emergency powers,' said Rayfield. California was the first state to file suit over the tariffs last month (perhaps unsurprisingly, given its economic heft and Gov. Gavin Newson's political profile). But Rayfield's suit — State of Oregon, et al., v. Trump — is expected to be taken up first, and will likely be cited in the U.S. Court of International Trade this week, where judges will consider a private company's challenge to the tariffs. Rayfield talked about his confidence in the merits of his case, how labor unions are supporting his push against the Trump tariffs and his disappointment that big companies aren't speaking out more publicly about the tariffs — even if they're opposed to them behind closed doors. This conversation has been edited for length and clarity. You're leading a 12-state lawsuit challenging the Trump administration's tariffs, and you're involved in a number of other lawsuits on Trump executive orders as well. Why did you and Oregon choose to lead on the tariff lawsuit? The sweeping nature and impact of those tariffs to every aspect of our daily lives — whether you're a small business operating in the state of Oregon, whether you are an individual just going to the grocery store — the impact to all of us was immense. And so for me, it was a real easy decision. When you see the president overstepping his authority in a way that effectively is a $3,800 tax on all Americans — that is something that was very easy to sit there and say, 'Okay, working families are struggling, and we need to be there to [hold] the line. And if you want to pass taxes in that way, you just need to do it the right way. You need to do it in Congress.' You're coordinating closely with a lot of Democratic attorneys general on a number of fronts. How do you decide who takes the lead? It's one of those things where each case is a little bit different. It might be that one state notices the impact first and really starts moving on it, and then we start spreading feelers out. There are other cases — before Trump took office, we knew the hot topics — and the states kind of raised their hands, and we shared resources, knowing that each state can't do all of the cases. There's a partnership that we have. This case specifically was something that our office and myself started researching a couple of months ago to really start looking at the basis for him applying all these sweeping tariffs. Our state was a little bit further ahead along in the research with Arizona, and so we were the two states that ended up taking the lead in this case. And it just made sense, right? We had done a lot of the homework. We were ready. It was something we were passionate about, and we moved forward with it. It does feel like Democratic AGs are having an interesting moment here, particularly as Democratic governors take varied approaches to dealing with President Trump. Some are a bit more accommodating, some a bit more in resistance, some a bit of both. How do you view your role in this moment as each state tries to figure out how to navigate Trump? Well, each elected office has this unique role, and its unique set of tools. So attorneys general right now are really enforcing the rule of law and making sure that when the president takes actions, that he's following the Constitution, following the law, and that is our defined role. It's a very reactive role. Obviously, I would rather have had my first four months be incredibly boring — this is not what you want to be doing with your time. [But] it's incredibly meaningful. I have found the cooperation and coordination among all the Democratic attorneys general incredibly helpful, where we are really partnering together to find the right moments, working together to find the right impacts in each of our communities to be able to challenge these unconstitutional actions. In Congress, they have a different set of tools, right? And early on, attorneys are generally going to be very active, and that will probably shift toward Congress, because a lot of these spending things that we're fighting in court right now, the president could do if he just passed them in Congress. He's choosing not to do that. And one can wonder, is he choosing not to do that because he doesn't think that public support for what he's doing is there? Polling does seem to show right now that the public's appetite for the president's trade agenda, for some of the elements of his economic agenda, seems to be weakening. Does that affect conversations that you have with fellow AGs about either the approach or the timing on some of these issues? What's been the reaction, in terms of either support or pushback, within the business community in Oregon? In California, it's been mixed. What are you hearing from the business community, and from the labor community? Starting from the business community, I've heard absolutely nothing but positive comments. Most businesses will tell you, behind the scenes, that this is an absolutely horrible economic policy. There is no rational basis behind what the president is trying to accomplish. Now, in a public space, a lot of these businesses are trying to negotiate — larger businesses are, that is — private deals with the president. So why would they be out publicly trying to effectively harm their negotiations on a national level? So there's a conflict of interest. And right now, I think it's a unique moment in our nation where people are scared to speak up about impacts, and that is not a democracy. That, fundamentally, is a problem. On the labor side — and this is how I feel about tariffs — I believe tariffs are a valid economic tool. In the '90s, when you had the dumping of steel in the United States, manipulating the market, tariffs were an appropriate response to balance the playing field when it comes to trade. Congress thought about all of these things, and they passed certain laws with certain safeguards and sideboards for when the president should implement tariffs. And it's these safeguards and sideboards that were really meant to protect the economy and only put tariffs in when it was appropriate under those set of circumstances. So when we did our rollout, we had the president of Oregon AFL-CIO at our press conference, sitting there [saying], 'You can do tariffs and you should, under some circumstances. But when you do tariffs like this, it actually harms frontline workers.' Back to the coordination among AGs for a second. California went first in terms of filing a challenge on the tariffs. Was that a surprise? Was there any discussion of combining efforts with California, which is obviously kind of a behemoth in this regard? You know, internally, I don't know exactly what the California conversation was. When we were researching tariffs within the state of Oregon, I think, and among many of the states, we were further along in our research and preparation and drafting of a complaint. It sounds to me, and again, I would talk to AG Rob Bonta, who has been nothing but wonderful and transparent about where his state is — it really felt to me that AG Bonta was working on behalf of Gov. [Gavin] Newsom, and so I don't know if that was an AG Bonta case or whether it was a Gov. Newsom case. We didn't have conversations about necessarily joining each other. We were roughly on the same timeline, is what it feels like. We wanted to file in the U.S. Court of International Trade, and so that's where we filed. They filed in California for various reasons. How do you view the Trump administration's legal arguments, its invoking of emergency power? And how confident are you that the Supreme Court, if it gets to that point, would see it your way? I think facts are the strongest thing that support us in this case. I think one of the facts that stands out to me is that no president in the history of IEEPA has ever used it to put in tariffs. That's pretty impressive. And even President Trump, during his first four years when he wanted to do tariffs, he did it the right way under Title 19. So this is unprecedented. It's an unprecedented misuse of emergency powers. The emergency that the president says that he wants to right in some circumstances, was this imbalance of trade. Now Congress contemplated that — in fact, they created a specific law under Title 19 for an imbalance of trade. So the question that I think all Americans and all the judges should be looking at is, why, if Congress contemplated it and created a law for that, and there has been an imbalance of trade for decades, A, how is that an emergency? And B, why aren't you using the statute that Congress intended you to use when they delegated the power to the president? The Trump administration is clearly pushing the envelope. Should Democrats actually be learning a lesson from this, and be taking a page out of this playbook, when there's a Democratic president again? Over the history of the United States, depending on which party is in office, the other side, has always claimed that that president is over-using their executive powers. I mean, we all know that. We've all read the articles throughout the years. What's going on right now is obviously unprecedented in context of the prior presidents, and I think that that is incredibly dangerous. It's dangerous for a Democratic president to do the same things that are being done right now. It's dangerous for a Republican president, and that's why you have attorneys general to be that backstop to say, 'Hey, hold on. You can't do that.' I also think that is incredibly important to just recognize that it's not just attorneys general fighting back right now. While we have filed, you know, 20-plus lawsuits, you have more than 200 lawsuits that have been filed by organizations, individuals, law firms across this country saying no, and some of those cases are coming from incredibly conservative organizations, just like on the tariffs case, and that should cause people to pause: Why are Democratic attorneys general fighting tariffs, as well as some also incredibly conservative organizations that have filed similar lawsuits in our courts? Just months ago you were speaker of the House in Oregon. How was that transition to the role of AG? In some ways, they're very similar, and then in other ways, you have entirely different sets of tools to really effectuate change in your community. As speaker of the House, you have a broad set of responsibilities looking at education, health care, and in a lot of ways right now with my colleagues back in the legislature, they are watching this national context and saying, 'What are we going to do with our budget?' We're waiting for the next revenue forecast. If that crashes, which a lot of people expect it will, that is going to change. As a legislature, you have to adapt and react to a lot of these things going on at the federal end. I'm now in this very different role, more on the front end, trying to protect and partnering with them so that they can do their job. I would be remiss to not say there's also other incredibly important responsibilities that you have at the Oregon Department of Justice, keeping communities and children safe. There is protecting consumers, seniors and working families. Those are things that still have to go on while we're doing this important work, too. For me, it has felt pretty seamless. And we have amazing people at the Oregon Department of Justice. I wouldn't be able to do any of this stuff without all the folks on the front lines. As former legislator, how do you view the way that Democrats in Congress are approaching the Trump presidency thus far? That's a tough question, because I never served in Congress, and that is a very different game than, say, being a speaker and a state legislator. So it's tough for me to sit there and judge under those circumstances. The way my brain has thought about it is right now a lot of the action is in the courts, in this space. It is going to shift to Congress as the president is unsuccessful in the courts, and I think that is where the pressure is really going to be on. I think there's some things that they've done really well under certain circumstances. As an outsider, there's probably some things that I might have done differently, but it's really tough to gauge, as I've not served in Congress. What might you have approached differently? Good follow up. As a politician, you don't want to be critical of people, especially when you've never walked a mile in their shoes — that's what I always try to be cautious about. And that's why I put the big caveat as an outsider. You know, I think that there has been some pressure that could have happened in the Senate on some of these earlier decisions, that I have wondered why certain outcomes happened the way they did. And there's been some disappointments. I know my senator, [Democratic] Sen. Ron Wyden, did a wonderful job on a bill to kind of pull back on tariffs and there wasn't support for that. There's a little bit of disappointment, and that's probably more toward the Republican senators in that space.
Politico
13-05-2025
- Business
- Politico
‘That Should Cause People to Pause': Why Trump Might Lose the Legal Fight on Tariffs
Dan Rayfield, Oregon's rookie attorney general, says he didn't want to spend his first months in office fighting presidential edicts in court. But along with the consumer protection and law-and-order duties that more typically define his role, the Democrat is now a key combatant in Donald Trump's trade war, leading a 12-state lawsuit challenging the president's sweeping tariff regime. Rayfield, 46, is among the newest in a band of Democratic state attorneys general that's been strikingly coordinated in challenging and stalling Trump's avalanche of executive orders slashing federal spending, restricting birthright citizenship, gutting diversity and inclusion programs and much more since Jan. 20. The looming impact of the tariffs in his trade-dependent Pacific Northwest state made taking the lead on the lawsuit an easy call, says Rayfield, who served as speaker of the Oregon House of Representatives before winning the AG post in November. 'Right now, in Canada, they are literally pulling [Oregon] products off of shelves,' he told POLITICO Magazine last week as he attended meetings in New York. Rayfield has worked closely with Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes in leading the suit, which challenges Trump's invocation of the International Economic Emergency Powers Act, enacted in 1977 and now used for the first time to impose tariffs. 'It's an unprecedented misuse of emergency powers,' said Rayfield. California was the first state to file suit over the tariffs last month (perhaps unsurprisingly, given its economic heft and Gov. Gavin Newson's political profile). But Rayfield's suit — State of Oregon, et al., v. Trump — is expected to be taken up first, and will likely be cited in the U.S. Court of International Trade this week, where judges will consider a private company's challenge to the tariffs. Rayfield talked about his confidence in the merits of his case, how labor unions are supporting his push against the Trump tariffs and his disappointment that big companies aren't speaking out more publicly about the tariffs — even if they're opposed to them behind closed doors. This conversation has been edited for length and clarity. You're leading a 12-state lawsuit challenging the Trump administration's tariffs, and you're involved in a number of other lawsuits on Trump executive orders as well. Why did you and Oregon choose to lead on the tariff lawsuit? The sweeping nature and impact of those tariffs to every aspect of our daily lives — whether you're a small business operating in the state of Oregon, whether you are an individual just going to the grocery store — the impact to all of us was immense. And so for me, it was a real easy decision. When you see the president overstepping his authority in a way that effectively is a $3,800 tax on all Americans — that is something that was very easy to sit there and say, 'Okay, working families are struggling, and we need to be there to [hold] the line. And if you want to pass taxes in that way, you just need to do it the right way. You need to do it in Congress.' You're coordinating closely with a lot of Democratic attorneys general on a number of fronts. How do you decide who takes the lead? It's one of those things where each case is a little bit different. It might be that one state notices the impact first and really starts moving on it, and then we start spreading feelers out. There are other cases — before Trump took office, we knew the hot topics — and the states kind of raised their hands, and we shared resources, knowing that each state can't do all of the cases. There's a partnership that we have. This case specifically was something that our office and myself started researching a couple of months ago to really start looking at the basis for him applying all these sweeping tariffs. Our state was a little bit further ahead along in the research with Arizona, and so we were the two states that ended up taking the lead in this case. And it just made sense, right? We had done a lot of the homework. We were ready. It was something we were passionate about, and we moved forward with it. It does feel like Democratic AGs are having an interesting moment here, particularly as Democratic governors take varied approaches to dealing with President Trump. Some are a bit more accommodating, some a bit more in resistance, some a bit of both. How do you view your role in this moment as each state tries to figure out how to navigate Trump? Well, each elected office has this unique role, and its unique set of tools. So attorneys general right now are really enforcing the rule of law and making sure that when the president takes actions, that he's following the Constitution, following the law, and that is our defined role. It's a very reactive role. Obviously, I would rather have had my first four months be incredibly boring — this is not what you want to be doing with your time. [But] it's incredibly meaningful. I have found the cooperation and coordination among all the Democratic attorneys general incredibly helpful, where we are really partnering together to find the right moments, working together to find the right impacts in each of our communities to be able to challenge these unconstitutional actions. In Congress, they have a different set of tools, right? And early on, attorneys are generally going to be very active, and that will probably shift toward Congress, because a lot of these spending things that we're fighting in court right now, the president could do if he just passed them in Congress. He's choosing not to do that. And one can wonder, is he choosing not to do that because he doesn't think that public support for what he's doing is there? Polling does seem to show right now that the public's appetite for the president's trade agenda, for some of the elements of his economic agenda, seems to be weakening. Does that affect conversations that you have with fellow AGs about either the approach or the timing on some of these issues? What's been the reaction, in terms of either support or pushback, within the business community in Oregon? In California, it's been mixed. What are you hearing from the business community, and from the labor community? Starting from the business community, I've heard absolutely nothing but positive comments. Most businesses will tell you, behind the scenes, that this is an absolutely horrible economic policy. There is no rational basis behind what the president is trying to accomplish. Now, in a public space, a lot of these businesses are trying to negotiate — larger businesses are, that is — private deals with the president. So why would they be out publicly trying to effectively harm their negotiations on a national level? So there's a conflict of interest. And right now, I think it's a unique moment in our nation where people are scared to speak up about impacts, and that is not a democracy. That, fundamentally, is a problem. On the labor side — and this is how I feel about tariffs — I believe tariffs are a valid economic tool. In the '90s, when you had the dumping of steel in the United States, manipulating the market, tariffs were an appropriate response to balance the playing field when it comes to trade. Congress thought about all of these things, and they passed certain laws with certain safeguards and sideboards for when the president should implement tariffs. And it's these safeguards and sideboards that were really meant to protect the economy and only put tariffs in when it was appropriate under those set of circumstances. So when we did our rollout, we had the president of Oregon AFL-CIO at our press conference, sitting there [saying], 'You can do tariffs and you should, under some circumstances. But when you do tariffs like this, it actually harms frontline workers.' Back to the coordination among AGs for a second. California went first in terms of filing a challenge on the tariffs. Was that a surprise? Was there any discussion of combining efforts with California, which is obviously kind of a behemoth in this regard? You know, internally, I don't know exactly what the California conversation was. When we were researching tariffs within the state of Oregon, I think, and among many of the states, we were further along in our research and preparation and drafting of a complaint. It sounds to me, and again, I would talk to AG Rob Bonta, who has been nothing but wonderful and transparent about where his state is — it really felt to me that AG Bonta was working on behalf of Gov. [Gavin] Newsom, and so I don't know if that was an AG Bonta case or whether it was a Gov. Newsom case. We didn't have conversations about necessarily joining each other. We were roughly on the same timeline, is what it feels like. We wanted to file in the U.S. Court of International Trade, and so that's where we filed. They filed in California for various reasons. How do you view the Trump administration's legal arguments, its invoking of emergency power? And how confident are you that the Supreme Court, if it gets to that point, would see it your way? I think facts are the strongest thing that support us in this case. I think one of the facts that stands out to me is that no president in the history of IEEPA has ever used it to put in tariffs. That's pretty impressive. And even President Trump, during his first four years when he wanted to do tariffs, he did it the right way under Title 19. So this is unprecedented. It's an unprecedented misuse of emergency powers. The emergency that the president says that he wants to right in some circumstances, was this imbalance of trade. Now Congress contemplated that — in fact, they created a specific law under Title 19 for an imbalance of trade. So the question that I think all Americans and all the judges should be looking at is, why, if Congress contemplated it and created a law for that, and there has been an imbalance of trade for decades, A, how is that an emergency? And B, why aren't you using the statute that Congress intended you to use when they delegated the power to the president? The Trump administration is clearly pushing the envelope. Should Democrats actually be learning a lesson from this, and be taking a page out of this playbook, when there's a Democratic president again? Over the history of the United States, depending on which party is in office, the other side, has always claimed that that president is over-using their executive powers. I mean, we all know that. We've all read the articles throughout the years. What's going on right now is obviously unprecedented in context of the prior presidents, and I think that that is incredibly dangerous. It's dangerous for a Democratic president to do the same things that are being done right now. It's dangerous for a Republican president, and that's why you have attorneys general to be that backstop to say, 'Hey, hold on. You can't do that.' I also think that is incredibly important to just recognize that it's not just attorneys general fighting back right now. While we have filed, you know, 20-plus lawsuits, you have more than 200 lawsuits that have been filed by organizations, individuals, law firms across this country saying no, and some of those cases are coming from incredibly conservative organizations, just like on the tariffs case, and that should cause people to pause: Why are Democratic attorneys general fighting tariffs, as well as some also incredibly conservative organizations that have filed similar lawsuits in our courts? Just months ago you were speaker of the House in Oregon. How was that transition to the role of AG? In some ways, they're very similar, and then in other ways, you have entirely different sets of tools to really effectuate change in your community. As speaker of the House, you have a broad set of responsibilities looking at education, health care, and in a lot of ways right now with my colleagues back in the legislature, they are watching this national context and saying, 'What are we going to do with our budget?' We're waiting for the next revenue forecast. If that crashes, which a lot of people expect it will, that is going to change. As a legislature, you have to adapt and react to a lot of these things going on at the federal end. I'm now in this very different role, more on the front end, trying to protect and partnering with them so that they can do their job. I would be remiss to not say there's also other incredibly important responsibilities that you have at the Oregon Department of Justice, keeping communities and children safe. There is protecting consumers, seniors and working families. Those are things that still have to go on while we're doing this important work, too. For me, it has felt pretty seamless. And we have amazing people at the Oregon Department of Justice. I wouldn't be able to do any of this stuff without all the folks on the front lines. As former legislator, how do you view the way that Democrats in Congress are approaching the Trump presidency thus far? That's a tough question, because I never served in Congress, and that is a very different game than, say, being a speaker and a state legislator. So it's tough for me to sit there and judge under those circumstances. The way my brain has thought about it is right now a lot of the action is in the courts, in this space. It is going to shift to Congress as the president is unsuccessful in the courts, and I think that is where the pressure is really going to be on. I think there's some things that they've done really well under certain circumstances. As an outsider, there's probably some things that I might have done differently, but it's really tough to gauge, as I've not served in Congress. What might you have approached differently? Good follow up. As a politician, you don't want to be critical of people, especially when you've never walked a mile in their shoes — that's what I always try to be cautious about. And that's why I put the big caveat as an outsider. You know, I think that there has been some pressure that could have happened in the Senate on some of these earlier decisions, that I have wondered why certain outcomes happened the way they did. And there's been some disappointments. I know my senator, [Democratic] Sen. Ron Wyden, did a wonderful job on a bill to kind of pull back on tariffs and there wasn't support for that. There's a little bit of disappointment, and that's probably more toward the Republican senators in that space.
Yahoo
24-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
12 states sue Trump, administration to block tariffs
Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield, right, and Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes, left, at a town hall they hosted in Portland, Ore., on April 10, 2025. Rayfield is leading a multistate lawsuit against President Donald Trump and administration officials over tariffs. (Alex Baumhardt/Oregon Capital Chronicle) This story first appeared on the Oregon Capital Chronicle. Twelve states are suing President Donald Trump and officials in his administration over tariffs that have touched nearly all goods imported into the United States. The suit, State of Oregon, et al., v. Trump, et al., was filed Wednesday by Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield and 11 other Democratic state attorneys general in the Court of International Trade in New York. It names Trump, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and its leader, Kristi Noem, and U.S. Customs and Border Patrol and its leader, Peter Flores. The attorneys general — from Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, Oregon and Vermont — are challenging four of Trump's executive orders that have added a 145% tariff on most imports from China, a 25% tariff on most imports from Canada and Mexico, and a 10% tariff on most all other goods imported to the U.S. The suit also preemptively challenges Trump's plan to raise tariffs on imports from more than 40 other countries on July 9, according to a news release from the Oregon Attorney General's Office. 'We cannot sit quietly while the president takes actions that are going to cost us jobs, increase the prices that we pay, and harm our economy,' Rayfield told reporters Wednesday at a news conference held at the Oregon Department of Justice in Portland. Experts estimate tariffs could raise the cost of living for the average family nationwide by more than $3,800 a year, according to a report from the Budget Lab at Yale University. Rayfield and the other attorneys general argue Trump is unlawfully using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose tariffs that are, under Article I of the U.S. Constitution, powers granted only to Congress, not the executive branch. The 1977 Emergency Economic Powers Act gives the president broad latitude on financial regulation and foreign policy if a national emergency, described as an 'unusual and extraordinary threat,' is declared. The attorneys general argue no such threat exists, and that no president before Trump has imposed tariffs based on the Emergency Economic Powers Act. 'Congress has the sole authority to set tariff policy,' Rayfield said. 'Congress has enacted various laws that allow the president to implement tariffs under certain conditions, but most importantly, certain safeguards. And it's these conditions and safeguards that the president doesn't like.' Rayfield was joined by state Rep. Daniel Nguyễn, D-Lake Oswego, and co-founder of Portland-based Bambuza Vietnam Kitchen; Pat Hubbell, owner of Brooklyn Pharmacy in Portland; Graham Trainor, president of Oregon AFL-CIO, a federation of more than 300,000 unionized Oregonians working in construction, education, health care and manufacturing; Todd Nelson, co-owner of Bountiful Farms in Woodburn; Cody Sullivan, the first person with Down syndrome to graduate with a four-year degree from an Oregon college, and Ann Donaca, Sullivan's aide and a retired educator. Trump touts manufacturing while undercutting state efforts to help factories Nguyễn said Bambuza, like all businesses, is struggling to deal with the economic insecurity wrought by the tariffs. He said the business has stocked many of its Vietnamese imports, such as rice paper, rice noodles and coffee, but he knows they will not last long. 'This survival mentality might save an individual business in a pinch, but it can't be sustained, and it can be devastating for our broader economy,' he said. Trainor said Trump's erratic use of tariffs lacks a clear strategy, making them detrimental rather than beneficial for workers. He said many union members are 'wondering if their jobs will still exist tomorrow.' 'What we need is a comprehensive trade policy that puts workers first,' he said. 'That means targeting unfair trade practices, investing in domestic industries and ensuring that tariffs are used strategically, not just as political weapons.' Sullivan has been applying for jobs unsuccessfully for three years. Donaca said that's only going to get harder in an economy where hiring slows altogether due to economic uncertainty. Both Oregon Democratic Gov. Tina Kotek and Oregon U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden, a Democrat, held roundtables recently with small- and medium- business owners to discuss the impact of tariffs. Business leaders told Kotek April 16 they were frustrated at the speed and inconsistency with which tariffs are being issued, and some said their businesses might not survive if tariffs continue for much longer. 'We believe manufacturers our size are going to go under,' Emma Mcilroy, CEO of Portland-based clothing company Wildfang, told Kotek. Oregon's state economist, Carl Riccadonna, joined Kotek's roundtable discussion. He has encouraged business owners to take a survey from Business Oregon, the state's economic development agency, so it can gather more information about tariff impacts. Riccadonna said the full impact of tariffs on Oregon's economy — measured by growth of new or existing businesses, increases in hiring and decreases in inflation — likely won't be known until mid-summer. At a roundtable with businesses held at the Port of Portland Monday, Wyden said he and Kentucky U.S. Sen. Rand Paul, a Republican, would introduce legislation to end Trump's tariffs as early as next week. Wyden described it as 'one of the most important matters I've ever been involved with in my entire life.' 'I think the stakes are that high,' he said. Oregon Capital Chronicle is part of States Newsroom, a national nonprofit news organization. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
23-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
New Mexico joins Oregon suit against Trump, administration to block tariffs
Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield (right) and Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes (left) at a town hall they hosted in Portland April 10, 2025. Nearly 200 people came to discuss concerns about President Trump's executive orders and cuts to federal agencies. The two states attorneys general are among 23 Democratic attorneys general nationwide who have sued the federal government more than a dozen times in the first three months of Trump's second term. (Alex Baumhardt/Oregon Capital Chronicle) This is a developing story and will be updated. Oregon is leading 11 other states in suing President Donald Trump and officials in his administration over tariffs that have touched nearly all goods imported into the U.S. The suit, State of Oregon, et al., v. Trump, et al., was filed Wednesday by Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield and 11 other Democratic state attorneys general in the Court of International Trade in New York. It names Trump, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and its leader, Kristi Noem, and U.S. Customs and Border Patrol and its leader, Peter Flores. Rayfield plans to discuss the suit with reporters later this afternoon. The attorneys general — from Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York and Vermont as well as Oregon— are challenging four of Trump's executive orders that have added a 145% tariff on most imports from China; a 25% tariff on most imports from Canada and Mexico; and a 10% tariff on most all other goods imported to the U.S. The suit also preemptively challenges Trump's plan to raise tariffs on imports from more than 40 other countries on July 9, according to a news release from the Attorney General's Office. 'When a president pushes an unlawful policy that drives up prices at the grocery store and spikes utility bills, we don't have the luxury of standing by — especially when so many Oregonians live on fixed incomes,' Rayfield said in the news release. Rayfield and the attorneys general argue Trump is unlawfully using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose tariffs that are, under Article I of the U.S. Constitution, powers granted only to Congress, not the Executive Branch. The 1977 Emergency Economic Powers Act gives the president broad latitude on financial regulation and foreign policy if a national emergency, described as an 'unusual and extraordinary threat,' is declared. The attorneys general argue no such threat exists, and that no president before Trump has imposed tariffs based on the Emergency Economic Powers Act. Experts estimate tariffs could raise the cost of living for the average family nationwide by more than $3,800 a year, according to a report from the Budget Lab at Yale University Both Gov. Tina Kotek and Oregon's U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden, a Democrat, held roundtables recently with small and medium business owners to discuss the impact of tariffs. Business leaders told Kotek April 16 they were frustrated at the speed and inconsistency with which tariffs are being issued, and some said their businesses might not survive if tariffs continue for much longer. 'We believe manufacturers our size are going to go under,' Emma Mcilroy, CEO of Portland-based clothing company Wildfang, told Kotek. Oregon's state economist, Carl Riccadonna, joined Kotek's roundtable discussion. He has encouraged business owners to take a survey from Business Oregon, the state's economic development agency, so it can gather more information about tariff impacts. Riccadonna said the full impact of tariffs on Oregon's economy — measured by growth of new or existing businesses, increases in hiring and decreases in inflation — likely won't be known until mid-summer. At a roundtable with businesses held at the Port of Portland Monday, Wyden said he and Kentucky's senior U.S. Sen. Rand Paul, a Republican, would introduce legislation to end Trump's tariffs as early as next week. Wyden described it as 'one of the most important matters I've ever been involved with in my entire life.' 'I think the stakes are that high,' he said. 'The American people will pay more at the checkout line because of these unlawful tariffs imposed by the Trump administration,' New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez said in announcing the state's participation in the lawsuit. 'We were promised that prices would go down—but instead, these tariffs are driving up the cost of everyday goods for families across the country. Without a legitimate state of emergency, the President does not have the authority to unilaterally impose sweeping tariffs that hurt working Americans. Our communities should not have to shoulder the burden of bad policy decisions, and I will see this lawsuit through to ensure the American people are protected from unnecessary and unjustified financial strain.' Oregon Capital Chronicle is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Oregon Capital Chronicle maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Julia Shumway for questions: info@
Yahoo
23-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Oregon Attorney General leads suit against Trump, administration to block tariffs
Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield (right) and Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes (left) at a town hall they hosted in Portland April 10, 2025. Nearly 200 people came to discuss concerns about President Trump's executive orders and cuts to federal agencies. The two states attorneys general are among 23 Democratic attorneys general nationwide who have sued the federal government more than a dozen times in the first three months of Trump's second term. (Alex Baumhardt/Oregon Capital Chronicle) This is a developing story and will be updated. Oregon is leading 11 other states in suing President Donald Trump and officials in his administration over tariffs that have touched nearly all goods imported into the U.S. The suit, State of Oregon, et al., v. Trump, et al., was filed Wednesday by Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield and 11 other Democratic state attorneys general in the Court of International Trade in New York. It names Trump, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and its leader, Kristi Noem, and U.S. Customs and Border Patrol and its leader, Peter Flores. Rayfield plans to discuss the suit with reporters later this afternoon. The attorneys general — from Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York and Vermont as well as Oregon— are challenging four of Trump's executive orders that have added a 145% tariff on most imports from China; a 25% tariff on most imports from Canada and Mexico; and a 10% tariff on most all other goods imported to the U.S. The suit also preemptively challenges Trump's plan to raise tariffs on imports from more than 40 other countries on July 9, according to a news release from the Attorney General's Office. 'When a president pushes an unlawful policy that drives up prices at the grocery store and spikes utility bills, we don't have the luxury of standing by — especially when so many Oregonians live on fixed incomes,' Rayfield said in the news release. Rayfield and the attorneys general argue Trump is unlawfully using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose tariffs that are, under Article I of the U.S. Constitution, powers granted only to Congress, not the Executive Branch. The 1977 Emergency Economic Powers Act gives the president broad latitude on financial regulation and foreign policy if a national emergency, described as an 'unusual and extraordinary threat,' is declared. The attorneys general argue no such threat exists, and that no president before Trump has imposed tariffs based on the Emergency Economic Powers Act. Experts estimate tariffs could raise the cost of living for the average family nationwide by more than $3,800 a year, according to a report from the Budget Lab at Yale University Both Gov. Tina Kotek and Oregon's U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden, a Democrat, held roundtables recently with small and medium business owners to discuss the impact of tariffs. Business leaders told Kotek April 16 they were frustrated at the speed and inconsistency with which tariffs are being issued, and some said their businesses might not survive if tariffs continue for much longer. 'We believe manufacturers our size are going to go under,' Emma Mcilroy, CEO of Portland-based clothing company Wildfang, told Kotek. Oregon's state economist, Carl Riccadonna, joined Kotek's roundtable discussion. He has encouraged business owners to take a survey from Business Oregon, the state's economic development agency, so it can gather more information about tariff impacts. Riccadonna said the full impact of tariffs on Oregon's economy — measured by growth of new or existing businesses, increases in hiring and decreases in inflation — likely won't be known until mid-summer. At a roundtable with businesses held at the Port of Portland Monday, Wyden said he and Kentucky's senior U.S. Sen. Rand Paul, a Republican, would introduce legislation to end Trump's tariffs as early as next week. Wyden described it as 'one of the most important matters I've ever been involved with in my entire life.' 'I think the stakes are that high,' he said. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
