Latest news with #TariffAct
Yahoo
19 hours ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Utah father and son duo charged for allegedly supporting Mexican drug cartel
SALT LAKE CITY () — A father and son duo out of Utah are facing federal charges after being accused of supporting a Mexican cartel that has been designated as a foreign terrorist organization. James Lael Jensen, 68, of Sandy, and Maxwell Sterling Jensen, 25, of Draper, have been charged with conspiring to materially support the Mexican cartel, conspiracy to commit money laundering and related smuggling charges, according to U.S. Attorney Nicholas J. Ganjei. Utah couple arrested for smuggling millions of dollars of crude oil, documents say Per the indictment, the Jensens allegedly conspired to provide financial support to the Cartel de Jalisco Nueva Generación (CJNG), a group that was in February. The Jensens allegedly operated Arroyo Terminals, a Rio Hondo-based enterprise, that reportedly helped 'conceal and disguise the nature and source of the proceeds of illegally smuggled goods' such as crude oil. Federal prosecutors further allege the father and son duo aided and abetted 2,881 shipments of oil in violation of the Tariff Act. At the time of their arrest, authorities reportedly seized four tank barges containing crude oil, three commercial tanker trucks, an Arroyo Terminal pickup truck and a personal vehicle. Authorities are also working on seeking forfeiture for the Arroyo Terminal property in Rio Hondo, crude oil contained in storage tanks owned by Arroyo Terminal and other real properties. 'What began as a Drug Enforcement Administration drug trafficking investigation evolved into a multifaceted case involving an alleged complex criminal operation generating millions of dollars from crude oil – the largest funding source for Mexican drug cartels,' said William Kimball, acting special agent in charge of DEA – Houston. 'Given the charges have profound implications for both the United States and Mexico, we will continue to explore all leads and identify any believed to be involved.' Nicholas Ganjei said the case underscores the more aggressive and innovative approach the Southern District of Texas is taking towards battling drug cartels. He said the strategy focuses not only on the traffickers and 'trigger-pullers' that are directly employed by cartels, but also their enablers. 'Whether you are handing the cartel a gun, providing a car or safehouse for smugglers, or putting money in the cartel's pocket, you will be held to account,' said Ganjei. Prosecutors said, if convicted, the charges of conspiracy to provide material support and money laundering both carry a possible prison term of up to 20 years. Both men could also face up to 10 years and five years for aiding and abetting the smuggling of goods into the United States and by doing so through false statements. James Jensen also faces one count of money laundering, which carries an additional 10 years in prison. The United States is also seeking a $300 million money judgment if the two are convicted. Charges are allegations only. All arrested persons are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. BLM to remove over 3,000 wild horses from Wyoming land Utah father and son duo charged for allegedly supporting Mexican drug cartel Stage 1 fire restrictions issued for multiple southwest Utah counties Fetterman claims media trying to 'smear' him over missed votes, absences Trump administration asks Supreme Court to lift judge's new block on mass layoffs Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Globe and Mail
3 days ago
- Business
- Globe and Mail
Seek markets elsewhere: A found poem about tariffs
Claire Cameron is a novelist, essayist and author of the memoir How to Survive a Bear Attack. This poem was assembled using quotes from Canadian reporting about legislation passed in the United States in 1930, the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act. What is Canada? I Don't Have a Family Doctor To Sleep on the Street Charles Thirteen Halloweens
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
The Nixon-era tariff fight that could help Trump
President Trump is looking to former President Nixon as proof that his global tariffs should be allowed to stand in court. Roughly five decades ago, 10% duties unilaterally imposed by the 37th president as part of a set of economic measures dubbed the "Nixon shock" were challenged in court in much the same way as Trump's 2025 tariffs have been. The US Court of International Trade struck down many of Trump's tariffs Wednesday (just as Nixon's duties suffered an initial defeat_ and an appeals court on Thursday allowed Trump's duties to temporarily stay in place while legal arguments continue. What has emboldened the Trump administration is that the Nixon-era Justice Department eventually won its case on appeal, an outcome that the Trump administration cited in court documents this week, predicting that its legal saga would likely turn out the same way. It told the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that "the Federal Circuit's predecessor concluded that the very same language that today exists" in a law used by Trump to justify his tariffs "gave President Nixon the power to impose an import duty surcharge." It was in August 1971 that Nixon imposed his temporary 10% tariff in addition to standard duties on all imported goods. Nixon said the duty was meant to help address the country's escalating deficit crisis and slow the tide of imports, as an additional measure to the administration's decision to suspend the US dollar's convertibility to gold. A Japanese zipper maker sued, saying Nixon lacked power to set the 10% tariff on foreign goods under three different laws that the government gave as justification: the Tariff Act, the Trade Expansion Act, and the Trading With the Enemy Act (TWEA). The most controversial of the justifications was the TWEA, a predecessor law to the 1977 International Economic Emergency Power Act that Trump cited as a basis for his multiple tariffs this year. The US Customs Court, a predecessor to the US Court of International Trade, initially sided with the zipper importer, holding that none of the three laws were adequate authority for the duty. Yet on appeal, Nixon's tariffs were upheld. While the lower court reasoned that "neither need nor national emergency" justified Nixon's tariff because Congress had not delegated such power and because the authority was "not inherent" in his office, the appeals court said the TWEA carved out enough power to regulate importation during an economic emergency. The Trump administration argued that language in the TWEA law, carried over to the IEEPA, should likewise permit Trump's tariffs. Its lawyers went on to say that the US Court of International Trade incorrectly applied the Yoshida case by distinguishing the Nixon tariffs as more limited than those imposed by Trump. In the Yoshida appeal, the court ruled that an emergency-based import duty must be appropriately and reasonably related to the emergency declared. Jonathan Entin, a constitutional law professor at Case Western Reserve University, said it's possible that Federal Circuit or Supreme Court judges will agree with the administration and conclude that the president does have broader authority than the Court of International Trade suggested. Entin said the lower court focused on two kinds of concerns related to the president's claimed authority under IEEPA. One is the "nondelegation doctrine," which says that Congress cannot give away its legislative authority, including its Constitutionally vested power to "lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises" to the president or executive branch officials. A broad reading of IEEPA like the one that Trump suggests, he said, would raise real questions about whether Congress had essentially given away that authority. Another concern before the court is the "major questions doctrine," which has been recognized by the current Supreme Court to require Congressional approval for executive branch actions of 'vast economic and political significance.' "Those arguments clearly resonated with the court, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the Federal Circuit or the Supreme Court would agree on this," Entin said. The administration also hinted at its strategy in citing a federal appeals court case in its request to pause the US Court of International Trade order. In Florsheim Shoe Co. v. US, it said, the appeals court ruled that the president's motives, reasoning, findings and judgment in his decision to remove duty-free status on imported buffalo leather were exempt from judicial scrutiny. Seth Chandler, a constitutional law professor at the University of Houston Law Center, said he expects the dispute to end up before the Supreme Court. 'Obviously this issue has huge economic consequences, one way or the other,' he said. 'It will probably get there. So it's just a question of when.' Alexis Keenan is a legal reporter for Yahoo Finance. Follow Alexis on X @alexiskweed. Click here for in-depth analysis of the latest stock market news and events moving stock prices Error while retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
The Nixon-era tariff fight that could help Trump
President Trump is looking to former President Nixon as proof that his global tariffs should be allowed to stand in court. Roughly five decades ago, 10% duties unilaterally imposed by the 37th president as part of a set of economic measures dubbed the "Nixon shock" were challenged in court in much the same way as Trump's 2025 tariffs have been. The US Court of International Trade struck down many of Trump's tariffs Wednesday (just as Nixon's duties suffered an initial defeat_ and an appeals court on Thursday allowed Trump's duties to temporarily stay in place while legal arguments continue. What has emboldened the Trump administration is that the Nixon-era Justice Department eventually won its case on appeal, an outcome that the Trump administration cited in court documents this week, predicting that its legal saga would likely turn out the same way. It told the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that "the Federal Circuit's predecessor concluded that the very same language that today exists" in a law used by Trump to justify his tariffs "gave President Nixon the power to impose an import duty surcharge." It was in August 1971 that Nixon imposed his temporary 10% tariff in addition to standard duties on all imported goods. Nixon said the duty was meant to help address the country's escalating deficit crisis and slow the tide of imports, as an additional measure to the administration's decision to suspend the US dollar's convertibility to gold. A Japanese zipper maker sued, saying Nixon lacked power to set the 10% tariff on foreign goods under three different laws that the government gave as justification: the Tariff Act, the Trade Expansion Act, and the Trading With the Enemy Act (TWEA). The most controversial of the justifications was the TWEA, a predecessor law to the 1977 International Economic Emergency Power Act that Trump cited as a basis for his multiple tariffs this year. The US Customs Court, a predecessor to the US Court of International Trade, initially sided with the zipper importer, holding that none of the three laws were adequate authority for the duty. Yet on appeal, Nixon's tariffs were upheld. While the lower court reasoned that "neither need nor national emergency" justified Nixon's tariff because Congress had not delegated such power and because the authority was "not inherent" in his office, the appeals court said the TWEA carved out enough power to regulate importation during an economic emergency. The Trump administration argued that language in the TWEA law, carried over to the IEEPA, should likewise permit Trump's tariffs. Its lawyers went on to say that the US Court of International Trade incorrectly applied the Yoshida case by distinguishing the Nixon tariffs as more limited than those imposed by Trump. In the Yoshida appeal, the court ruled that an emergency-based import duty must be appropriately and reasonably related to the emergency declared. Jonathan Entin, a constitutional law professor at Case Western Reserve University, said it's possible that Federal Circuit or Supreme Court judges will agree with the administration and conclude that the president does have broader authority than the Court of International Trade suggested. Entin said the lower court focused on two kinds of concerns related to the president's claimed authority under IEEPA. One is the "nondelegation doctrine," which says that Congress cannot give away its legislative authority, including its Constitutionally vested power to "lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises" to the president or executive branch officials. A broad reading of IEEPA like the one that Trump suggests, he said, would raise real questions about whether Congress had essentially given away that authority. Another concern before the court is the "major questions doctrine," which has been recognized by the current Supreme Court to require Congressional approval for executive branch actions of 'vast economic and political significance.' "Those arguments clearly resonated with the court, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the Federal Circuit or the Supreme Court would agree on this," Entin said. The administration also hinted at its strategy in citing a federal appeals court case in its request to pause the US Court of International Trade order. In Florsheim Shoe Co. v. US, it said, the appeals court ruled that the president's motives, reasoning, findings and judgment in his decision to remove duty-free status on imported buffalo leather were exempt from judicial scrutiny. Seth Chandler, a constitutional law professor at the University of Houston Law Center, said he expects the dispute to end up before the Supreme Court. 'Obviously this issue has huge economic consequences, one way or the other,' he said. 'It will probably get there. So it's just a question of when.' Alexis Keenan is a legal reporter for Yahoo Finance. Follow Alexis on X @alexiskweed. Click here for in-depth analysis of the latest stock market news and events moving stock prices 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
Black America Web
30-04-2025
- Business
- Black America Web
The Overlooked Link Between Tariffs And Slavery In The US
Black America Web Featured Video CLOSE Source: Rawf8 / Getty Tariffs have long played a central role in American economic and political history. At their core, tariffs are taxes placed on imported goods, intended to protect domestic industries and raise government revenue. But in the early 19th century, tariffs did far more than adjust trade balances. Tariffs stoked regional tensions and played a major role in unraveling America's troubling slavery system. Tariffs are taxes levied by a government on goods imported from other countries. By making foreign goods more expensive, tariffs encourage consumers to buy domestically produced products. While this can benefit local manufacturers, tariffs can also lead to higher prices and retaliatory measures from trading partners. In the U.S., tariffs were one of the federal government's main sources of revenue before the income tax was introduced in 1913. In the United States, one of the very first laws passed by the First Congress was the Tariff Act of 1789, according to The Fordham Journal of Corporate and Financial Law. This foundational legislation had two major goals: to promote trade and raise revenue for the newly established federal government. Alexander Hamilton, the first Secretary of the Treasury, was a major proponent of the Act. He believed tariffs would not only help pay down national debt but also shield the emerging American manufacturing sector from overwhelming foreign competition, especially from Britain. Hamilton saw tariffs as essential to encouraging long-term industrial growth, even in a nation still dominated by agriculture. Though not without opposition, particularly from agrarian interests, the Tariff Act proved to be a powerful fiscal tool. At various points in the 19th century, tariffs accounted for up to 95% of federal revenue, making them critical to funding the operations of the early American government. Source: Print Collector / Getty In the early 1800s, the American South was dominated by a plantation economy centered on large-scale agriculture. Wealth and power flowed from the cultivation of cash crops like cotton, tobacco, and rice—all made possible by the forced labor of enslaved people. Southern prosperity depended heavily on trade with Europe: planters exported raw materials, especially cotton, and in return imported manufactured goods, most notably from Great Britain. Because of this economic model, the South had little interest in protective tariffs. These import taxes—meant to shield domestic industries from foreign competition—drove up the cost of goods Southerners needed but did not produce. While the North was rapidly industrializing and lobbying for tariffs to protect its factories, the South saw these policies as direct threats to its economic interests. The tension over tariffs reached a boiling point with the Tariff of 1828, infamously dubbed the 'Tariff of Abominations' by its Southern critics, The Bill of Rights Institute notes. Pushed by Northern industrialists and their political allies, the tariff imposed duties as high as 49% on imported goods. Supporters argued that such protection was vital to developing American industry and breaking economic dependence on Europe. To them, shielding domestic manufacturing was a matter of national independence, not just economic gain. But for Southern planters, this policy was catastrophic. The tariff made imported goods more expensive and threatened the South's trade relationships abroad. It came at a time when cotton prices were already falling, largely due to the Panic of 1819, which had triggered a prolonged agricultural depression. Southerners feared not only a rise in costs but also retaliatory tariffs from Europe that could shrink foreign demand for American cotton. Frustration over federal economic policy gave rise to a constitutional crisis. In 1832, South Carolina—under the leadership of Vice President John C. Calhoun—took dramatic action. The state passed the Ordinance of Nullification, declaring the 1828 and 1832 tariffs unconstitutional and unenforceable within its borders. The ordinance ordered all state officials to support nullification or face removal from office and directed state courts to ignore federal rulings on the matter. This defiance of federal authority brought the Union to the brink of conflict. President Andrew Jackson, thought himself a Southerner, responded with forceful rhetoric and prepared to send federal troops into South Carolina to ensure compliance, according to Medium. At the same time, he worked with Congress to pass a compromise tariff, which gradually reduced duties. By 1857, average tariff rates had dropped to around 20%, still high by modern standards, but far less punitive than those under the Tariff of Abominations. Although the Nullification Crisis was defused, the rift between North and South only deepened in the decades that followed. Tariffs remained a point of contention, symbolizing broader disputes over states' rights, economic policy, and the future of slavery. When Abraham Lincoln was elected in 1860—on a Republican platform that supported protective tariffs—Southern fears intensified. Secession followed soon after. That's because The South viewed Abraham Lincoln's election in 1860 as a direct threat to the institution of slavery. Lincoln and the Republican Party wanted to limit the expansion of slavery and they felt as though the political balance would tip permanently against them, The Constitution Center noted. As a result, South Carolina seceded in December 1860, followed by 10 other Southern states in the months that followed, forming the Confederate States of America. On April 12, 1861, just over a month after Lincoln's inauguration, Confederate forces opened fire on Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbor, prompting a Union surrender and marking the official start of the American Civil War. As the war dragged on, the Southern economy, so long dependent on slavery and international trade, began to collapse. Union blockades choked off exports, leaving cotton bales to rot on the docks. Britain, which once relied on the U.S. for 80% of its cotton supply, saw prices skyrocket and was forced to turn to new sources, including Egypt and India, according to Smithsonian Mag. The Civil War reshaped not only America but the global economy. As Southern plantations withered under blockades and the loss of enslaved labor, countries around the world capitalized on the vacuum. While the war devastated the South—both economically and socially—it also accelerated the decline of slavery as an institution and shifted the balance of global cotton production. For decades, America's industrial and agricultural sectors had coexisted uneasily, each seeing the other as a rival rather than a partner. In the end, it was not just economic policy, but the unresolvable conflict over slavery, that broke the Union. Yet tariffs, often treated as dry fiscal tools, played a crucial role in fanning the flames. SEE ALSO: The 100-Day Challenge: Biden And Trump Side By Side Trump Believes He's The Reason Shedeur Sanders Was Drafted SEE ALSO The Overlooked Link Between Tariffs And Slavery In The US was originally published on
