Latest news with #WileyRein
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
China negotiations are 'high priority' for the Trump admin.
Tensions are rising as the US and China's trade accusations over trade practices and access to critical minerals mount. Timothy Brightbill, partner at Wiley Rein, joins Catalysts to explain what's driving the latest tariff standoff and where negotiations could head next. To watch more expert insights and analysis on the latest market action, check out more Catalysts here. Talk to me about this tit-for-tat between the US and China both accusing each other of the same thing. Is there any merit to that? Is this just negotiation in the art of the deal? Where does this sit with you? Uh, thanks for having me this morning, Madison. There, I think, uh, there's, uh, there are things going on on both sides here. Uh, the United States and China, uh, both are have some accurate statements that they've made. The Trump administration is clearly frustrated with China, uh, that it's not living up to the May 12th agreement, and in particular, that it's slowing down access to rare earth magnets and other critical minerals, which are needed for so many different segments of manufacturing. Uh, now MOFCOM, of course, has pushed back and said that it's the United States that is escalating the situation, uh, first with restrictions on the sale of chip design software to China, and then also some of the other issues, such as the announcement to revoke visas of Chinese students. So, I think, uh, both sides make some valid claims. It's mostly negotiations, but we do want to see these discussions move forward, um, given the size of the tariffs that have been suspended between the two countries. And talk to me about what that looks like. What would be the impetus to make these negotiations move forward? Are you seeing any signals of further discussions happening? I think both sides are very interested. So, uh, yes, I think there are signals of more discussions. Uh, there will be other opportunities going on. There is an OECD meeting this week. Uh, this is a high priority for the administration, for Ambassador Greer, um, but there's a lot of ground to cover and a lot of very hot button issues between the two countries. So, not clear how how quickly it will be resolved.
Yahoo
29-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
2 laws Trump could use to reimpose his tariffs (and why he might use both)
President Trump's trade plans ran into a stumbling block this week when a court blocked a wide swath of his tariffs. But he could bounce back quickly even if White House plans to appeal the defeat don't pan out. That's because Congress has been handing its tariff powers over to the executive branch for decades, with an array of other authorities at the ready — especially from two laws passed in 1962 and 1974 — if Trump needs to reimplement things like his "Liberation Day" tariffs by different means. "It's a setback [but] it doesn't mean that the president can't find other means or authorities to try to implement this policies, and it's also just the first step in litigation," Greta Peisch, a former Biden administration trade general counsel, now at law firm Wiley Rein, noted in a Yahoo Finance appearance Thursday morning. Wednesday's decision from the US Court of International Trade pointed out that other laws essentially give the president the authority to act in a similar manner, even while striking down Trump's actions so far that it said "exceed any authority granted to the President." This week's decision called into question Trump's authority under a 1977 law called the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). But two alternatives quickly emerged among trade experts if the court ruling stands, with Trump showing no signs of backing away from his tariff ambitions. The most prominent quick strike option is the so-called balance-of-payments authority derived from Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. That power could allow Trump to move quickly, but with a 150-day limit on how long any tariffs can be in place. The second route is a possible renewed focus on sectoral duties such as "Section 301" or "Section 232" tariffs. These long-established tariff authorities (one derived from the Trade Act of 1974 and another from a separate Trade Expansion Act of 1962) are ones Trump has used in the past, but with the downside, from his perspective, that they can take time to implement. Perhaps the most intriguing scenario involves the president moving on both fronts to try to quickly implement a short-term patch followed by a permanent fix. Either way, Trump has offered signs in recent days that he is more focused on sector-specific tariffs at the moment and has no intention of backing down from trade threats. In comments on Sunday, Trump said he cared if tariffs helped the US produce things like military equipment and semiconductors, but "we're not looking to make sneakers and t-shirts." Then, on Wednesday before the ruling, Trump reacted angrily to the notion that he has "chickened out" on tariff plans, saying even the suggestion that he has backed down is "the nastiest question." Read more: The latest news and updates on Trump's tariffs The balance-of-payments authority is a likely immediate-term option for Trump if he wants to act quickly. But the limitations of that choice "are clear," Henrietta Treyz of Veda Partners said in a note. That's because this authority allows the president to have new tariffs in place within days, but only up to a 15% rate and for a 150-day span unless Congress extends it. These types of duties have been discussed in Trump's circle for years but took a back seat to IEEPA when he came into office this year. The second options are more legally established and more permanent but slower. These are tariff authorities — most prominently via the national security-focused Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 — where Trump can act unilaterally, but with the administration required to jump through time-consuming hoops like investigations and soliciting of public comment before the tariffs can go into place. But the upside for Trump here is that these are well-tested legal authorities that have even been used in recent months on goods like steel, aluminum, and cars. The White House is currently conducting additional investigations into goods like pharmaceuticals and semiconductors, with that process likely to give Trump new options by this summer. A similar tariff authority, but one premised on economic security, is Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, which also includes the requirement for an investigation before implementation. Section 301, it's worth noting, is the authority Trump relied on in his first term to implement an array of tariffs on goods from China. It's a legal landscape that could add up, Goldman Sachs warned in a note, to a situation that "increases uncertainty but might not change the final outcome for most major US trading partners." That's in part because one scenario outlined in the note even sees Trump rely on both authorities in sequence. First, the president could invoke that balance-of-payments authority to quickly keep tariffs in place before he then launches sector-specific investigations to eventually make them permanent. Peisch also sees a good chance of a multistep process ahead, with the administration pursuing all avenues, including litigation, but with the quick strike balance-of-payments authority front of mind as an option "in the short term." Read more: What Trump's tariffs mean for the economy and your wallet Other options at the president's disposal are seen as less likely at the moment but remain on the table. The Trade Act of 1974 also has a Section 201 that gives the president other tariff authorities. Reaching even further back in US history, the Trade Act of 1930 allows the president to impose tariffs, which Goldman notes has never been used and bears similarities to Section 301 authority "but does not require a formal investigation." The recently advanced "big, beautiful bill" could give Trump yet another tool, with changes to Section 899 of the IRS code aimed at tightening restrictions on "discriminatory foreign countries" and giving the president the power to levy new taxes to combat these practices. For now, Wednesday's ruling gives the administration 10 days to halt tariff collection. The administration quickly filed two legal notices to state that it planned to appeal the decision and ask for a pause in the enforcement of the court's order. The administration also indicated in a court filing Thursday that it may ask the Supreme Court to hear the case as soon as this week. The White House remains focused on keeping tariffs in place no matter what, with spokesperson Kush Desai telling Yahoo Finance in a statement, "President Trump pledged to put America First, and the Administration is committed to using every lever of executive power to address this crisis and restore American Greatness." Ben Werschkul is a Washington correspondent for Yahoo Finance. Click here for political news related to business and money policies that will shape tomorrow's 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
Yahoo
29-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Two laws that Trump could use to re-impose his tariffs (and why he might do them both)
President Trump's trade plans ran into a stumbling block this week when a court blocked a wide swath of his tariffs. But he could bounce back quickly even if White House plans to appeal the defeat don't pan out. That's because Congress has been handing its tariff powers over to the executive branch for decades, with an array of other authorities at the ready — especially from two laws passed in 1962 and 1974 — if Trump needs to reimplement things like his "Liberation Day" tariffs by different means. "It's a setback [but] it doesn't mean that the president can't find other means or authorities to try to implement this policies, and it's also just the first step in litigation," notes Greta Peisch, a former Biden administration trade general counsel now at law firm Wiley Rein, in a Yahoo Finance Live appearance Thursday morning. Wednesday's decision from the United States Court of International Trade even pointed out that other laws essentially give the president the authority to act in a similar manner even as it struck down Trump's actions so far that it said "exceed any authority granted to the President." What this week's decision called into question is Trump's authority under a 1977 law called the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). But two alternatives quickly emerged among trade experts if the court ruling stands, with Trump showing no signs of backing away from his tariff ambitions. The most prominent quick strike option is so-called balance-of-payments authority derived from section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. That power could allow Trump to move quickly but with a 150-day limit on how long any tariffs can be in place. The second route is a possible renewed focus on sectoral duties such as "section 301" or "section 232" tariffs. These long-established tariff authorities (one derived from that Trade Act of 1974 and another from a separate Trade Expansion Act of 1962) are ones Trump has used in the past but with the downside from his perspective that they can take time to implement. Perhaps the most intriguing scenario is one that sees the president move on both fronts to try and quickly put in place a short term patch followed by a permanent fix. Either way, Trump has offered signs in recent days that he is more focused on sector-specific tariffs at the moment, and that he has no intention of backing down from trade threats. In comments on Sunday, Trump said he cared if tariffs helped the US produce things like military equipment and semiconductors but "we're not looking to make sneakers and t-shirts." Then on Wednesday before the ruling, Trump reacted angrily to the notion that he has "chickened out" on tariff plans, saying even the suggestion he has backed down is "the nastiest question." The balance-of-payments authority is a likely immediate term option for Trump if he wants to act quickly. But the limitations of that choice "are clear," Henrietta Treyz of Veda Partners said in a note. That's because this authority allows the president to have new tariffs in place within days but only up to a 15 percent rate and only for a 150-day span unless Congress extends it. These types of duties have been discussed in Trump's circle for years but took a backseat to IEEPA when he came into office this year. The second options are more legally established and more permanent but slower. These are tariff authorities — most prominently via the national security focused section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 — where Trump can act unilaterally but with the administration required to jump through time-consuming hoops like investigations and soliciting of public comment before the tariffs can go into place. But the upside for Trump here is that these are well-tested legal authorities that have even been used in recent months on goods like steel, aluminum, and cars. The White House is currently in the process of conducting additional investigations around goods like pharmaceuticals and semiconductors, with that process likely to give Trump new options by this summer. A similar tariff authority, but one premised on economic security, is section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 which also includes the requirement for an investigation before implementation. Section 301 — it's worth noting — is the authority that Trump relied on in his first term to implement an array of tariffs on good from China. It's a legal landscape that could add up, Goldman Sachs warned in a note, to a situation which sees "increases uncertainty but might not change the final outcome for most major US trading partners." That's in part because one scenario outlined in the note even sees Trump rely on both authorities in sequence. First the president could invoke that balance-of-payments authority to quickly keep tariffs in place before he then launches sector-specific investigations to eventually make them permanent. Peisch also sees a good chance of a multi-step process ahead, with the administration pursuing all avenues including litigation but with the quick strike balance-of-payments authority front of mind as an option "in the short term." Other options at the president's disposal are seen as less likely at the moment but remain on the table. The Trade Act of 1974 also has a section 201 that gives the president other tariff authorities. Reaching even further back in US history, the Trade Act of 1930 allows the President to impose tariffs, which Goldman notes has never been used and bears similarities to section 301 authority "but does not require a formal investigation." The recently advanced 'big beautiful bill' could give Trump yet another tool, with changes to section 899 of the IRS code aimed at tightening restrictions on "discriminatory foreign countries" and giving the president the power to levy new taxes to combat these practices. As for now, Wednesday's ruling gives the administration 10 days to halt tariff collection, with the administration quickly filing two legal notices to state that it planned to appeal the decision and to ask for a pause the enforcement of the court's order. The administration also indicated in a court filing Thursday it may ask the Supreme Court to hear the case as soon as this week. The White House remains focused on keeping tariffs in place no matter what, with spokesman Kush Desai telling Yahoo Finance in a statement "President Trump pledged to put America First, and the Administration is committed to using every lever of executive power to address this crisis and restore American Greatness." Ben Werschkul is a Washington correspondent for Yahoo Finance. Click here for political news related to business and money policies that will shape tomorrow's stock prices
Yahoo
29-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Two laws that Trump could use to re-impose his tariffs (and why he might do them both)
President Trump's trade plans ran into a stumbling block this week when a court blocked a wide swath of his tariffs. But he could bounce back quickly even if White House plans to appeal the defeat don't pan out. That's because Congress has been handing its tariff powers over to the executive branch for decades, with an array of other authorities at the ready — especially from two laws passed in 1962 and 1974 — if Trump needs to reimplement things like his "Liberation Day" tariffs by different means. "It's a setback [but] it doesn't mean that the president can't find other means or authorities to try to implement this policies, and it's also just the first step in litigation," notes Greta Peisch, a former Biden administration trade general counsel now at law firm Wiley Rein, in a Yahoo Finance Live appearance Thursday morning. Wednesday's decision from the United States Court of International Trade even pointed out that other laws essentially give the president the authority to act in a similar manner even as it struck down Trump's actions so far that it said "exceed any authority granted to the President." What this week's decision called into question is Trump's authority under a 1977 law called the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). But two alternatives quickly emerged among trade experts if the court ruling stands, with Trump showing no signs of backing away from his tariff ambitions. The most prominent quick strike option is so-called balance-of-payments authority derived from section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. That power could allow Trump to move quickly but with a 150-day limit on how long any tariffs can be in place. The second route is a possible renewed focus on sectoral duties such as "section 301" or "section 232" tariffs. These long-established tariff authorities (one derived from that Trade Act of 1974 and another from a separate Trade Expansion Act of 1962) are ones Trump has used in the past but with the downside from his perspective that they can take time to implement. Perhaps the most intriguing scenario is one that sees the president move on both fronts to try and quickly put in place a short term patch followed by a permanent fix. Either way, Trump has offered signs in recent days that he is more focused on sector-specific tariffs at the moment, and that he has no intention of backing down from trade threats. In comments on Sunday, Trump said he cared if tariffs helped the US produce things like military equipment and semiconductors but "we're not looking to make sneakers and t-shirts." Then on Wednesday before the ruling, Trump reacted angrily to the notion that he has "chickened out" on tariff plans, saying even the suggestion he has backed down is "the nastiest question." The balance-of-payments authority is a likely immediate term option for Trump if he wants to act quickly. But the limitations of that choice "are clear," Henrietta Treyz of Veda Partners said in a note. That's because this authority allows the president to have new tariffs in place within days but only up to a 15 percent rate and only for a 150-day span unless Congress extends it. These types of duties have been discussed in Trump's circle for years but took a backseat to IEEPA when he came into office this year. The second options are more legally established and more permanent but slower. These are tariff authorities — most prominently via the national security focused section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 — where Trump can act unilaterally but with the administration required to jump through time-consuming hoops like investigations and soliciting of public comment before the tariffs can go into place. But the upside for Trump here is that these are well-tested legal authorities that have even been used in recent months on goods like steel, aluminum, and cars. The White House is currently in the process of conducting additional investigations around goods like pharmaceuticals and semiconductors, with that process likely to give Trump new options by this summer. A similar tariff authority, but one premised on economic security, is section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 which also includes the requirement for an investigation before implementation. Section 301 — it's worth noting — is the authority that Trump relied on in his first term to implement an array of tariffs on good from China. It's a legal landscape that could add up, Goldman Sachs warned in a note, to a situation which sees "increases uncertainty but might not change the final outcome for most major US trading partners." That's in part because one scenario outlined in the note even sees Trump rely on both authorities in sequence. First the president could invoke that balance-of-payments authority to quickly keep tariffs in place before he then launches sector-specific investigations to eventually make them permanent. Peisch also sees a good chance of a multi-step process ahead, with the administration pursuing all avenues including litigation but with the quick strike balance-of-payments authority front of mind as an option "in the short term." Other options at the president's disposal are seen as less likely at the moment but remain on the table. The Trade Act of 1974 also has a section 201 that gives the president other tariff authorities. Reaching even further back in US history, the Trade Act of 1930 allows the President to impose tariffs, which Goldman notes has never been used and bears similarities to section 301 authority "but does not require a formal investigation." The recently advanced 'big beautiful bill' could give Trump yet another tool, with changes to section 899 of the IRS code aimed at tightening restrictions on "discriminatory foreign countries" and giving the president the power to levy new taxes to combat these practices. As for now, Wednesday's ruling gives the administration 10 days to halt tariff collection, with the administration quickly filing two legal notices to state that it planned to appeal the decision and to ask for a pause the enforcement of the court's order. The administration also indicated in a court filing Thursday it may ask the Supreme Court to hear the case as soon as this week. The White House remains focused on keeping tariffs in place no matter what, with spokesman Kush Desai telling Yahoo Finance in a statement "President Trump pledged to put America First, and the Administration is committed to using every lever of executive power to address this crisis and restore American Greatness." Ben Werschkul is a Washington correspondent for Yahoo Finance. Click here for political news related to business and money policies that will shape tomorrow's 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
The Hindu
13-05-2025
- Business
- The Hindu
Trump's tariff blitz yields deals but misses global trade fix
The weekend U.S.-China tariff truce unleashed a surge in global stock prices and may stave off damage from price spikes and critical minerals shortages until August, but does nothing to address longstanding U.S. complaints about China's state-dominated, export-driven economic model. Instead, it sets a tight new deadline for complex negotiations with Beijing that will take place alongside talks with dozens of other countries facing an earlier, July 8 deadline to avoid higher tariffs - stretching the Trump administration's limited negotiating resources. Some other early Trump trade deals are expected in the coming weeks, with Switzerland, India and Japan likely to lead the pack. But like the British deal, these are expected to be agreements in principle, with more work to finalize them, and durably shifting supply chains and trade flows can take years to accomplish. "The jury's still out, and we won't be able for some time to look back and say this was a successful strategy," said Greta Peisch, a former senior trade official under President Joe Biden who is now a partner in the Wiley Rein law firm. "This is round one." Kelly Ann Shaw, a senior U.S. official during Trump's first term who is now with the Akin Gump law firm, said Trump deserved credit for bringing China, the UK and other countries to the negotiating table after years of concerns about U.S. trade deficits. "Whether you agree or disagree with the tactic, at least Trump is thinking outside the box," Shaw said. "They're negotiating some of the deals at record speed, and that is not something that has ever happened before." Waiting for talks Diplomats with the European Union, a top U.S. trade partner that has drawn Trump's ire, are still waiting for in-depth negotiations to begin. And it's unclear how quickly a substantive agreement with China could be reached. U.S. and Chinese negotiators issued a rare joint statement after two days of meetings in Switzerland, but did not set dates or a venue to meet again. The negotiations will also include measures to curb trafficking of fentanyl, the source of Trump's 20% duties on Chinese goods. Democrats and Republicans alike have criticized China for producing too much steel, too many solar panels and other goods and then dumping them in Western markets, but those policies haven't changed despite repeated entreaties. China had long proven resistant to changing its economy and allowing more U.S. companies to compete for orders, Peisch said. "You're up against China's whole theory of its economic policy and how it is operating in the world," she said. Robert Kuttner, co-founder of liberal magazine The American Prospect, said Beijing was not about to jettison its mercantilist system, which benefits from state-led capitalism to create or capture technology and product advantages, "and certainly not in 90 days." Even if agreements were eventually reached in which Beijing pledged to reform its intellectual property laws or lower barriers to entry by U.S. firms, assessing compliance would be extremely difficult, Peisch added. Beijing's failure to fulfill its commitments to vastly increase purchases of U.S. manufactured and farm goods, energy and services in Trump's first-term "Phase 1" agreement also remains a sore point, said Ryan Majerus, a trade lawyer who worked under both the Trump and Biden administrations and is now a partner at King & Spalding. "This is a positive development, but the devil is in the details on where the talks go from here," Majerus said. "We have a lot of longstanding trade concerns with China where the administration will want to see meaningful commitments." Uncertainty reigns Miriam Sapiro, a nonresident fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and former acting USTR chief under then-President Barack Obama, said long-term solutions were needed to resolve deep U.S.-China trade differences, but it would be nearly "nearly impossible" to address non-tariff barriers on the compressed 90-day time line. "What we really need is more consistency. U.S. companies need to be able to plan instead of scramble to reroute supply chains, which can be difficult to do quickly. And American families are quite spooked by the impact these and other tariffs are going to have on their pocketbook," she said. Matt Priest, President and CEO of the Footwear Distributors and Retailers of America, agreed the deal marked a good step toward easing tensions, but said high tariffs remained in place on some Chinese imports, including some shoes facing duties approaching 90%. "We're not across the finish line yet."
