Latest news with #U.S.TradeRepresentative
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Trump Rages at His Own Appointed Judge in Explosive Tariff Tirade
President Donald Trump blew up at his own appointee to a federal trade court that struck a massive blow to his tariff agenda. Trump went on a lengthy Truth Social rant on Thursday a day after the U.S. Court for International Trade ruled that he lacked authority to impose the bulk of his sweeping tariffs. Trump took particular issue with a conservative legal group that he said advised him on whom to nominate as judges. 'Where do these initial three Judges come from? How is it possible for them to have potentially done such damage to the United States of America? Is it purely a hatred of 'TRUMP?' What other reason could it be?' he wrote. The three-judge panel was composed of appointees of Trump, Barack Obama, and Ronald Reagan. They ruled unanimously that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA), which Trump invoked to justify his tariffs, does not grant him 'unbounded authority' to impose global levies. In 2018, Trump appointed Judge Timothy Reif to the federal trade court as part of the 15th wave of judicial nominees. Reif previously served as a senior advisor and general counsel of the U.S. Trade Representative and spent a decade as chief international trade counsel for the House Ways and Means Committee. Trump kept mum about the federal trade court's ruling against him until it was put on pause by an appeals court on Thursday. On the same day, federal judge Rudolph Contreras, an Obama appointee, issued a similar ruling stating that the IEEPA does not authorize Trump to impose his tariffs. 'The ruling by the U.S. Court of International Trade is so wrong, and so political! Hopefully, the Supreme Court will reverse this horrible, Country threatening decision, QUICKLY and DECISIVELY,' he said. 'Backroom 'hustlers' must not be allowed to destroy our Nation!' Trump also took aim at the Federalist Society, blasting its chairman Leonard Leo as a 'real sleazebag' and a 'bad person, who in his own way, probably hates America, and obviously has his own separate ambitions.' His bad blood with the conservative legal organization appeared to stem from its recommendations for judges. 'I was new to Washington, and it was suggested that I use The Federalist Society as a recommending source on Judges. I did so, openly and freely,' Trump said. 'I am so disappointed in The Federalist Society because of the bad advice they gave me on numerous Judicial Nominations. This is something that cannot be forgotten!' Though a high-stakes legal battle over Trump's tariffs is now underway, the administration might still be able to push through with its much-hyped levies, according to economists at Goldman Sachs. 'This ruling represents a setback for the administration's tariff plans and increases uncertainty but might not change the final outcome for most major U.S. trading partners,' they wrote in a research note. 'For now, we expect the Trump administration will find other ways to impose tariffs.'
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
The courts are unlikely to end the trade war
Legal powerhouses section 122 and 338 offer upside Yesterday, a U.S. court struck down President Trump's 'Liberation Day' tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), calling them unconstitutional and stopping 10% global tariffs and higher levies on China, Canada, and Mexico. The ruling, citing IEEPA's misuse for trade imbalances, cut the U.S. tariff rate from 27% to 17.8%.Trump has two legal, constitutional tools—Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 and Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930—to push his trade agenda forward without Congress. These laws provide clear limits, removing the subjective nature of Trump's prior tariffs, which businesses will find reassuring. With upside potential, especially against China's well-documented trade abuses, these options offer a structured path forward and may help reduce the uncertainty that has been bred by the on-again, off-again policy. Section 122: Quick, capped tariffs Section 122 allows Trump to impose tariffs up to 15% on imported goods' value to address major trade deficits, like the U.S.'s $971 billion gap in 2024, or to prevent dollar devaluation. No congressional approval is needed and tariffs last 150 days. The May 2025 court ruling endorsed Section 122's legality, making it a fast, predictable tool to tax imports from countries driving trade imbalances, giving businesses clarity on short-term impacts while Trump plans longer 338: A slam dunk against China Section 338 lets Trump tax imports up to 50% or ban them from countries that unfairly hurt U.S. businesses, with no time limit or need for Congress. Its clear 50% cap eliminates the uncertainty of Trump's earlier open-ended tariffs, a relief for businesses craving stability. China's trade abuses make Section 338 a strong fit. An investigation into China's practices—already well-documented—would justify tariffs or bans, leveraging this constitutional tool to target unfair trade head-on. China's well-documented trade abuses China's trade violations are clear. It slaps high tariffs on specific goods, like 25% on U.S. cars versus 2.5% on Chinese cars in the U.S., skewing competition. Subsidies, like $100 billion awarded yearly for tech firms, boost Chinese companies unfairly. Intellectual property theft, including forced technology transfers, costs U.S. firms $50 billion annually. China limits U.S. exports, controlling 80% of rare earth minerals. Its currency manipulation keeps the Yuan low, fueling a $419 billion U.S. trade deficit in 2024. These abuses, noted in U.S. Trade Representative reports, make Section 338 a straightforward, legally sound response. Strategic upside post-rulingThe court's ruling curbs IEEPA but green lights Section 122 and Section 338. Trump could use Section 122 for immediate 15% tariffs, then investigate China for Section 338's 50% tariffs. Section 122's 150-day limit and Section 338's 50% cap provide predictability, easing business concerns in recent months about an undetermined ceiling. While Section 122 is low-risk, Section 338 could spark trade tensions, raising prices. Courts might question Section 338's disuse, but China's clear violations bolster Trump's case. Section 122 and Section 338 give Trump legal, limited tariff tools, sidestepping the May 28 2025 ruling. With Section 122's quick action and Section 338's strength against China's abuses, these laws offer upside by stabilizing trade policy, giving businesses confidence in a more predictable tariff framework. The post The courts are unlikely to end the trade war appeared first on FreightWaves.
Hindustan Times
23-05-2025
- Business
- Hindustan Times
India may let US, foreign firms bid for government contracts, sources say
* India ready to open government contracts to US and other firms on reciprocal basis: sources * UK firms get partial access to government contracts under trade deal * Small businesses to keep 25% of contracts, industry body says NEW DELHI, - India is opening up a chunk of its protected government procurement market to foreign firms, including the U.S, two government sources said, in a shift that could extend to other trading partners after it was offered to the UK under a trade deal this month. The government is likely to allow U.S. firms to bid for contracts worth over $50 billion, mainly from federal entities, as it negotiates a trade deal with Washington, the sources said. Total public procurement - including by federal, state and local governments and state-run firms - is worth an estimated $700 billion-$750 billion per year, according to government estimates. Most is reserved for domestic firms, with 25% set aside for small businesses, although sectors like railways and defence can buy from foreign suppliers when domestic options are unavailable. Earlier this month, India and the UK agreed on a free trade pact that gives British firms access to federal government contracts in select sectors - covering goods, services and construction - on a reciprocal basis. "In a policy shift, India has agreed to open its public procurement contracts gradually to trading partners including the U.S. in a phased manner and reciprocal manner," said one of the officials, with the knowledge of the matter. Only a portion of the government's procurement contracts - mainly linked to federal projects worth around $50-$60 billion - will be opened to foreign firms, while state and local government purchases will be excluded, the official said. "Following the UK pact, India is ready to open a part of its public procurement market to the U.S. as well," said a second official. Both sources requested anonymity, as details of the ongoing talks have not been made public. The commerce ministry did not respond to requests for comment on the U.S. proposal or extending the plan to other nations. India has long resisted joining the World Trade Organisation's Government Procurement Agreement, citing the need to protect small businesses. In its March report on foreign trade barriers, the U.S. Trade Representative said India's restrictive procurement policies pose challenges for U.S. firms due to "changing rules and limited opportunities." Indian Trade Minister Piyush Goyal visited Washington this week to advance trade talks, with both sides aiming to sign an interim agreement by early July, officials said. New Delhi is pushing to clinch a trade deal with the U.S. within the 90-day pause on tariff hikes announced by U.S. President Donald Trump on April 9 for major trading partners, which includes a 26% tariff on imports from India. The commerce ministry said in a text message that UK firms would only be allowed limited access to bid for contracts of non-sensitive federal entities, excluding state and local government procurement. UK-based suppliers can bid for Indian tenders above 2 billion rupees while the UK will offer non-discriminatory access to Indian suppliers under its public procurement system, the ministry said. The government has assured small industry that a quarter of the orders will be reserved for them, said Anil Bhardwaj, secretary general of the Federation of Indian Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises , a leading industry body. "Opening procurement to foreign firms on a reciprocal basis offers an opportunity for Indian businesses in overseas markets as well," he said.
Yahoo
21-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
US Ports Warn of $6.7B Bill if 100% Tariff on China-Made Cranes Kicks in
U.S. ports are urging the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) to reconsider a new 100-percent tariff on Chinese-manufactured ship-to-shore (STS) cranes, citing billions in extra costs. At a hearing in Washington on Monday, American Association of Port Authorities (AAPA) president and CEO Cary Davis testified that public port authorities would have to pay total tariffs, if imposed, of a combined $6.7 billion over the next decade. More from Sourcing Journal NRF VP: Retailers 'Need Clarity' on New China Tariff Deadline India Ends Land Port Entry for Bangladeshi Garment Imports Walmart Says It Will Increase Prices on Some Goods Because of Tariffs 'Applying a new 100 percent tariff to Chinese STS cranes will not create a domestic crane manufacturing industry out of thin air,' stated Davis, in official comments submitted to the Federal Register. 'It will only increase costs for public port authorities.' The 100-percent tariffs would expand on prior 25-percent tariffs slapped on the equipment in 2024 under the Biden administration. At the time, the 81-port AAPA also pushed back against those duties, but to no avail. American ports currently have 55 cranes on order and another 151 are expected to be needed in six to 10 years, according to Davis' testimony. For example, Port Houston has eight STS cranes contracted for delivery by spring 2026 for $14 million each. But under the tariffs, the port would be spending an extra $302.4 million in added costs—potentially preventing the hub from investing in infrastructure elsewhere. The port association suggested that the 'logical first step' toward reshoring STS crane production would be for Congress to establish a tax credit for domestic production. 'USTR should forgo any further tariffs on STS cranes until such legislation is passed,' Davis said. From there, the association recommended the USTR to forgo applying the 100-percent tariff to cranes that were ordered and contracted prior to the publication of the proposal on April 17. Davis also called for the USTR to delay imposition of the 100-percent tariff for one or two years, saying that ports' decisions on equipment and infrastructure investments are made years in advance. 'If a port authority needs a new STS crane to either replace aging equipment, expand the capacity of an existing terminal, or outfit a new terminal, altering procurement plans is complicated,' said Davis. 'Adding millions of dollars in tariffs to a project's budget can get the project scaled back, delayed, or cancelled entirely. Even with these tariffs, manufacturers cannot stand up production facilities in the U.S. and start producing cranes for several years.' Finally, he asked USTR to clarify that the Section 301 tariffs are not additive to the 125-percent reciprocal and 20-percent fentanyl tariffs on China—both of which were responsible for most of the added hypothetical tariff costs. American retailers and brands shared their own individual concerns with the USTR's Section 301 punitive measures. The American Apparel & Footwear Association (AAFA) is concerned that imposing tariffs on cranes, chassis and shipping containers without the availability of competitive alternatives will significantly raise shipping costs. 'Many companies have already increased prices in response to existing tariffs and cannot absorb further cost burdens,' said Nate Herman, senior vice president of policy at the AAFA, in a letter. 'We strongly urge you not to raise the duty rates on the proposed products.' If tariffs are deemed necessary, the AAFA requested that the duties be phased in gradually to allow businesses adequate time to adapt and plan for the resulting expenses. The Retail Industry Leaders Association (RILA) had a more specific worry regarding the office's 'country of origin' test set forth in the proposal, in which tariffs would be placed on cranes manufactured by any company's owned or controlled by a Chinese citizen rather than a state-owned enterprise. 'Here, USTR proposes to change well-established origin tests and adopt an expansive definition that requires importers of ship-to-shore cranes to exclude from its sourcing operations any business that may be owned by a Chinese national,' said Blake Harden, vice president of international trade at RILA. 'This would create additional burdens and administrative challenges for businesses trying to make sourcing determinations around the globe, as well as create confusion and impede their ability to meet other customs obligations.' RILA urged USTR to reconsider the expanded country of origin test. Shanghai Zhenhua Heavy Industries (ZPMC), which manufactured 80 percent of cranes currently used at U.S. ports, denied it was a threat to U.S. national security interests and requested its removal from the list of items proposed under Section 301 tariffs. 'The proposed tariffs on STS cranes will undermine the U.S. economy and national security by negatively disrupting essential U.S. supply chains,' ZPMC said in a filing to the USTR Monday. 'China's STS cranes pose no alleged cybersecurity risk, and the proposed tariffs are not a legitimate remedy; and the proposed tariffs would negatively impact the global STS crane industry, including the United States, and would harm, rather than help, the U.S. economy and national security.' The USTR Office and Ambassador Jamieson Greer have shown to be flexible in amending potential Section 301 penalties against China in the wake of public commentary. When the office unveiled the crane proposal in April, it also revealed a finalized, pared back version of the previously criticized port docking fees levied on Chinese ships. The latest measures were more lenient on container shipping giants than originally expected, with ocean carriers like Maersk and CMA CGM already saying they won't deal with any cost impact.
Axios
12-05-2025
- Business
- Axios
Trump drug price order puts new pressure on pharma
The Trump administration is looking to negotiate lower U.S. drug prices while allowing pharmaceutical companies to charge more for their products abroad, under a sweeping executive order President Trump signed Monday. Why it matters: The order hangs a big sword over the drug industry, which thought it was making inroads with the administration. The order will focus on lowering prices for drugs with the highest cost disparities between U.S. and other developed nations, most of which have government-run health systems. GLP-1 prices are expected to come down as a result, a White House official told reporters. State of play: The order directs HHS to set targets for drug price reductions for publicly insured health programs and private markets in the United States, kicking off a round of negotiations between the government and industry. If the talks don't yield enough progress, HHS would then implement a "Most Favored Nation" policy via rulemaking and look into other policy levers that could bring prices down for federal and commercial payers, the official said. HHS will facilitate direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical sales at Most Favored Nation prices. The U.S. Trade Representative and the Commerce Department will directed to take action against "unreasonable and discriminatory policies" in other countries that keep prices lower abroad, the official said. Meanwhile, the Justice Department and Federal Trade Commission will also work to stop purported anti-competitive actions that the official said keep prices high in the U.S. Zoom in: The administration expects the U.S., as the largest purchaser of pharmaceuticals, to get the best deal across the world, the official said. But cracking down on other countries' "unfair and discriminatory practices" will have the effect of increasing prices abroad and provide additional revenues for pharmaceutical companies, the official added. What to watch: It's unclear how this policy will intersect with threatened pharmaceutical tariffs. A Commerce Department investigation into how pharmaceutical imports affect national security is ongoing, the official said.
