Latest news with #courtRulings
Globe and Mail
a day ago
- Business
- Globe and Mail
Tariff turmoil could continue for months. Here are five suggestions for what to do with your money
There are two things that give Donald Trump fits these days. The first is adverse court rulings. There have been several, ordering the roll-back of some of his most controversial executive orders. The biggest one came last week when a three-judge panel of the New York-based Court of International Trade ruled that many of his tariffs exceeded the authority granted to him under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. These included the so-called 'fentanyl and border tariffs' aimed at Canada, Mexico, and China, and the reciprocal tariffs announced April 2, the so-called 'Liberation Day'. A day after the Trade Court ruling, an appeals court ordered a stay that will allow the U.S. government to continue collecting the disputed tariffs until the legal process plays out. But that didn't stop the White House, which is appealing all the negative verdicts, from reiterating that judges should not be allowed to overturn federal government policies. Mr. Trump has even suggested impeaching judges who have ruled against him, prompting a rare public rebuke from Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts. Mr. Trump's other pet hate these days is business leaders who suggest his beloved tariffs will increase consumer prices and exacerbate inflation. He has always tried to maintain the fiction that tariff costs are borne by the exporting countries rather than U.S. businesses and consumers. Recently, he was outraged over a report that Inc. (AMZN-Q) was going to display the cost of tariffs alongside the prices of items on its website, a move his press secretary described as 'a hostile and political act'. The plan was squelched after Mr. Trump got Amazon founder Jeff Bezos on the phone and gave him an earful. Since the Amazon incident, many business leaders have tried to keep a low profile when it comes to tariffs. Home Depot's chief financial officer said recently the company will not raise prices due to tariffs. Customers should take that statement with a large grain of salt. Lumber, steel, and aluminum have already been hit with tariffs and the company should expect to see higher prices for many more foreign-sourced items including lighting and electrical components. Home Depot (HD-N) imports many of its products from China and, while it is trying to diversify its sources, it may be difficult to do so. The result could be a squeeze at both ends. Many of Home Depot's customers are professional tradespeople and contractors. They tend to be particularly price-sensitive because they buy in large quantities and often work on fixed budgets. While Home Depot is staying under Mr. Trump's radar, Walmart is being straight-up about what's going on. During the company's recent earnings call in mid-May, CEO Doug McMillon said Walmart won't be able to absorb all the additional costs 'given the reality of narrow retail margins'. Predictably, Mr. Trump reacted angrily, telling Walmart in a Truth Social post to 'EAT THE TARIFFS' and hold the price line. That's not easy when your profit margin is 2.75 per cent, as Walmart's was in April, according to The Wall Street Journal. Boiling it all down, we're left with probability that the turbulence and uncertainty created by the President's attempt to reconfigure global trade is going to drag on for months, if not years. Mr. Trump is unlikely to back down from his position, although he may soften it somewhat over time. His opponents will continue to attack by every means open to them. For investors, this implies volatile stock markets for the foreseeable future, with huge day-to-day swings depending on Mr. Trump's latest Truth Social posting, Oval Office musing, or out-of-the-blue policy changes like his Friday announcement that he's doubling the tariffs on steel and aluminum. So, what should you be doing with your money? Here are five suggestions. Focus on Canada. In the past, I've advised overweighting portfolios to U.S. securities and underweighting Canada. Now keeping more of your money at home seems like a better plan. So far this year, the TSX has outperformed the S&P 500 by a wide margin and recently reached a new record high. The weak U.S. performance may reflect a stronger reaction by American investors to Trump's declarations and maneuvers, thereby increasing volatility, but the upshot is Toronto seems to be calmer than New York at present. Add to Europe. The STOXX Europe 600 Index is performing much better than expected, with a gain of about 8 per cent so far this year. Most Canadians have little or no European exposure in their portfolios. Reduce risk. The coming months are going to be stressful. Both Canada and the U.S. face the risk of a recession and the market volatility we've seen so far in 2025 will almost certainly continue. Low-risk investments I recommend include shares in Canada's big six banks and a significant position in a utilities ETF, such as the BMO Equal Weight Utilities Index ETF (ZUT-T), which is up 7.4 per cent this year, including distributions. Buy gold. The precious metal thrives in uncertain times, and this is about as uncertain as it gets. The S&P/TSX Global Gold Index is ahead 41.59 per cent year-to-date. Keep your cool. There will be times in the coming months when you may be ready to abandon the markets altogether and opt to put your money into safe GICs. Unless you are very elderly and/or can't sleep at night, that's probably not a good plan. Suck it up and ride out the storms. If you have a well-constructed portfolio, you'll come out fine. Gordon Pape is editor and publisher of the Internet Wealth Builder and Income Investor newsletters. Be smart with your money. Get the latest investing insights delivered right to your inbox three times a week, with the Globe Investor newsletter. Sign up today.
CNN
2 days ago
- Business
- CNN
On GPS: What will become of Trump's tariffs?
Fareed asks two seasoned analysts, the Financial Times' US national editor Edward Luce and the American Enterprise Institute's Kori Schake, what the future holds for Trump's tariffs after several important court rulings this week.
Yahoo
3 days ago
- General
- Yahoo
Oregon AG touts confidence in courts as Trump tries to ‘amass power in unconstitutional ways'
The courts are attempting to add some guardrails to Donald Trump's policies. Mary McCord and Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield join The Weekend to discuss how much of a difference it will make if the administration decides to just ignore their rulings.
Yahoo
17-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Just How Unbounded Will Trump's Power Be? Courts Get Closer To Weighing In
As President Trump pushes the bounds of executive power, a few major court rulings that will decide how successful he is in the endeavor are inching closer to their finales. On Friday, the D.C. District Court heard a case stemming from Trump's firing of independent agency board members who can't be fired at-will. The administration is aiming to get the case before the Supreme Court, where it bets that enough conservatives are ready to overturn Humphrey's Executor and get rid of the removal protections. If it does that, every agency in the executive branch — including, alarmingly, the Federal Reserve — could be stocked and led by Trump groupies. It's one of the last bastions of civil service resistance that Trump and Elon Musk have so successfully decimated. And on Thursday, the Supreme Court heard an argument tangential to Trump's birthright citizenship executive order — whether judges can order universal injunctions, blocking such a policy for the whole country and not just the named plaintiffs. If Trump prevails there, courts will be much more limited in stopping his most lawless action. — Kate Riga Hunter Walker dug up Trump administration State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce's blog from the early 2000s, which featured plenty of George W. Bush-era right-wing nuttery, but also a substantial amount of culture war commentary narrated through the voice of … her family pets? The current plan to slash Medicaid and supplemental nutrition programs for low-income and disabled Americans isn't enough for some House Republicans. Emine Yücel has more on the latest GOP conference schism as it attempts to pass Trump's sweeping budget bill out of the House by Memorial Day. Josh Kovensky examines the legal concept of constructive custody, which may end up being critical as courts weigh bids to secure the return of those the administration has rendered to an El Salvador prison. Let's dig in. — Nicole Lafond There is an animal voice inside a top Trump administration spokesperson. One of the Fox News personalities filling out the ranks of the Trump administration is State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce. Before she was leading the briefings in Foggy Bottom, Bruce had a long career as a conservative commentator and author, which included working as a Fox News contributor and hosting her own show on the Fox Nation streaming service. But Bruce's pre-State Department punditry wasn't limited to these conventional venues — or even by the bounds of the human mind. Before becoming one of the top voices of American foreign policy, Bruce also spent years maintaining her own blog and website that featured posts apparently written in the voice of her cat and dog, Sadie and Sydney Bruce. TPM dug up these animalistic writings through the web archive. While the 'Sadie & Sydney' blog was ostensibly dedicated to 'animal news and commentary,' even this was not presented entirely without politics. 'Here on the S&S Blog, you will get only good animal news, which is always under-reported by the evil MSM,' the introductory post promised. 'So there, and welcome aboard! Meow and Woof'! Bruce's pet blog typically featured links to news stories about animals, one entry from November 3, 2006 included commentary on a series of photos showing 'How to Hug a Baby.' In the voice of Bruce's dog, this inspired a musing on how Tammy herself enjoyed watching her pet make little children 'scream.' It's quite a scene: 'I've seen them, those human baby things, on my walkies. They always are very friendly toward me–they hold out their hands and smile. Sometimes they scream and jump up and down. I'm not quite sure if that's a good thing or a bad thing but the humans, including Tammy, seem to like it,' the post said. 'Sometimes the human allows their 'baby' to pet me. To cause a ruckus, or because I can't help myself (who really knows) I sometimes give the baby a kiss. That makes them scream, too.' Bruce did not respond to a request for comment about what she learned from pet blogging or whether she plans to return to writing in the pet voice at the State Department. The rest of Bruce's blog was far more conventional Bush era right wing fare. Her site featured the tag lines 'YOUR DEFENSE AGAINST THE NEW THOUGHT POLICE' and 'SHE'S A CHICK WITH A GUN AND A MICROPHONE.' Now, in the new Trump era, her microphone has become much bigger. — Hunter Walker Far-right members of the House Budget Committee voted to reject House Republicans' One Big Beautiful Bill Act (that is literally what they are calling it, just FYI) on Friday — in an act of rebellion that raises some questions about the fate of the legislation, which includes much of Trump's fiscal agenda. A band of Republicans on the committee joined all of the committee Democrats to vote 'no' on the reconciliation package, which House Republican leadership has been trying to put together for weeks. Apparently dissatisfied with the level of social safety net slashing the bill is already doing, they are calling for steeper spending cuts. Reps. Chip Roy (R-TX), Ralph Norman (R-SC), Andrew Clyde (R-GA), and Josh Brecheen (R-OK) all voted against the bill. Rep. Lloyd Smucker (R-PA), who initially voted 'yes,' changed his vote to 'no' as a procedural move that will allow Republicans to call the bill up again later. During the hearing, Roy, a Freedom Caucus member, said he is against the bill in its current form as it adds to the deficit. 'I have to now admonish my colleagues on this side of the aisle,' Roy said. 'This bill falls profoundly short. It does not do what we say it does with respect to deficits.' 'I am a no on this bill unless serious reforms are made today, tomorrow, Sunday. Something needs to change or you're not gonna get my support,' he later added. The far-right members who are against the bill are also specifically upset that the Medicaid work requirements included in the bill would not kick in until 2029. The fact that leadership delayed the implementation of work requirements until 2029 'indicates that there was kind of a lack of sincerity,' Grothman said, according to Politico. House Republican leadership and the holdout far-right members will soon be back at the negotiation table, with indications that they might try to come up with a solution before the end of the weekend. The Budget Committee is planning to reconvene on Sunday at 10 p.m. ET to vote again on the reconciliation package. — Emine Yücel It's been two months since the U.S. began sending hundreds of migrants to El Salvador's notorious detention camp, CECOT. After March 15, the government removed several more people to CECOT via Guantanamo under 'normal' immigration proceedings. Getting them back to the U.S. — or simply out of CECOT and out of El Salvador — will not be easy. Right now, that fight centers around how the courts will apply a legal concept called constructive custody. It contemplates: if you are not under the direct physical control of the U.S. government, but are being detained at its behest, are you still in U.S. custody? Think about private prisons, or people awaiting extradition to the United States on American arrest warrants. In both cases, these detainees are understood to be in a form of somewhat mediated U.S. custody. They can file habeas corpus petitions in American federal courts and thereby ask for their release, though the specifics depend on the circumstances. The question here is whether that same logic applies to El Salvador, and the people that the Trump administration sent there using both Alien Enemies Act and non-Alien Enemies justifications. There's one case from the War on Terror that somewhat touches on this issue: in that matter, Abu Ali, the Saudi government held a U.S. citizen for questioning by the FBI. A district judge ruled that the man's parents could bring a habeas case because the man was under American constructive custody. This case never made it up to an appeals court as the government brought formal charges against the citizen and extradited him to the U.S., ending the habeas claim. With CECOT, the contradictions abound. These people aren't U.S. citizens, though the government is paying for their detention. They face no charge; there's no real end date for their confinement. In one case in D.C., overseen by Chief Judge James Boasberg for the District of Columbia, the ACLU is seeking records in an effort to prove that these people are in U.S. constructive custody, and therefore can be subject to a U.S. court order directing the government to attempt their return. Boasberg is directing the government to produce copies of the agreement between the U.S. and El Salvador over the detentions, information about any efforts the government has made to secure people's return to the U.S., and various other communications. Boasberg's decision here will help define what the courts and others can do to return or release these people. — Josh Kovensky
