Latest news with #economicemergency
BBC News
2 days ago
- Business
- BBC News
Tariffs court fight threatens Trump's power to wield his favourite economic weapon
Since returning to power, US President Donald Trump has wielded tariffs – or the threat of them - as his economic weapon of choice. He has slapped import duties against allies and adversaries alike, and raised their rates to staggeringly high levels, only to change his mind and abruptly pause or reduce the charges. Markets and global leaders have scrambled trying to guess his next moves, while major retailers have warned of rising prices for American consumers and potentially empty shelves in president has claimed this power to impose tariffs unilaterally. He says that as president he is responding to a national economic emergency - and he cannot wait for Congress to pass legislation. In effect, this meant his finger was constantly poised on one of the most effective triggers of US economic policy. Firing off a threatening missive to a country playing hardball was as easy as posting on Truth Social (just ask the European Union, which he called "very difficult to deal with" in negotiations last week). However, late on Wednesday, the US Court of International Trade ruled that he had exceeded the authority of the emergency powers he was using. The court gave the White House 10 days to remove almost all tariffs, which it says have been imposed White House appealed, and a federal appeals court has stayed the trade court's ruling, which means that those tariffs will stay in place - for now. The administration argued in its appeal that a ruling against Trump "would kneecap the president on the world stage, cripple his ability to negotiate trade deals, imperil the government's ability to respond to these and future national emergencies".On Thursday night, Trump was back on Truth Social, rebuking the lower court judges who had ruled against him, calling their decision "wrong" and "horrible". Trump tariffs can stay in place for now, appeals court rulesWhat tariffs has Trump announced and why?Simon Jack: Tariff ruling doesn't really change US-UK deal Until now, the power to make or break the economy has rested on his shoulders, as the tariff rates levelled against other countries keep going up and down – seemingly according to Trump's mood. He raised the tariffs on imported Chinese goods all the way up to 145% before dropping them down to 30%. A few weeks later he used a social media post to threaten the EU with 50% tariffs, before backing down a couple of days Street analysts have even reportedly now coined the phrase "Taco trade", referring to their belief that Trump Always Chickens Out from imposing steep import taxes. He looked furious when asked about the acronym in the Oval Office on Wednesday. "That's a nasty question" he said, arguing that it was only by making these threats that he got the EU to the negotiating table. Trump's ambassador to the EU during his first term, Gordon Sondland, told the BBC this so-called wishy-washy-ness was by design."What Trump is doing is exactly what he would do as a business person. He would immediately find a point of leverage to get someone's attention today. Not next month, not next year... he wants to have these conversations now," he said earlier this week, before the latest legal twists. "How do you get someone as intransigent and as slow moving as the EU to do something now? You slap a 50% tariff on them and all of a sudden the phone start ringing."If Trump's tariffs plan continues to meet resistance in the courts, one option at his disposal is asking Congress to legislate the taxes instead. But that would eliminate one of his biggest tools - the element of surprise. For decades, Trump has been convinced that trade tariffs are the answer to many of America's economic problems. He has appeared to welcome the prospect of global trade war sparked by his tariff agenda, insisting that it is by raising the price of imported goods and reviving the US manufacturing sector that he will "Make America Great Again".Trump touts the money - billions of dollars, not trillions, as he says - that tariffs have already brought in to US government coffers. The president argues they will help to revive American manufacturing by persuading firms to move their factories to the US to avoid import duties. However, University of Michigan economics professor Justin Wolfers described Trump's methods as "madness". "If you believe in tariffs, what you want is for businesses to understand that the tariffs are going to... be permanent so that they can make investments around that and that's what would lead the factories to come to the United States," he told the BBC. He said that whatever happens with this court challenge, Trump has already transformed the global economic order. Prof Wolfers said while Trump "chickens out from the very worst mistakes" - citing his original 'Liberation Day' levies and the threat of 50% tariffs on the EU - he doesn't backflip on everything. The president wants to keep 10% reciprocal tariffs on most countries and 25% tariffs on cars, steel and aluminium. "Yes, he backs off the madness, but even the stuff he left in meant that we had the highest tariff rate yesterday than we'd had since 1934," Prof Wolfers said. All signs point to this being a fight that the Republican president won't give up easily. "You can assume that even if we lose, we will do it another way," Trump's trade advisor Peter Navarro said after Thursday's appeals court ruling. While the litigation plays out, America's trade partners will be left guessing about Trump's next move, which is exactly how he likes it.
CNN
3 days ago
- Business
- CNN
Trump tariffs decision rests on arguments conservatives repeatedly used against Biden
The blockbuster federal court ruling that halts President Donald Trump from imposing some of his most sweeping tariffs rests in part on a legal theory that conservative groups repeatedly used at the Supreme Court to block former President Joe Biden's agenda. A push by the majority-conservative Supreme Court to use what's known as the 'major questions doctrine' to trim the power of the White House and federal agencies to act without congressional approval may play a role when the case inevitably works its way up to the high court. The Trump administration is already pledging to bring an emergency appeal to the justices in coming days. The US Court of International Trade on Wednesday blocked Trump from relying on a 1977 law dealing with economic emergencies to impose sweeping duties on much of the world. It did so in part by noting separation-of-powers theories the Supreme Court has used to shut down some of Biden's policies, such as his efforts to forgive student loans, curb power plant emissions and extend a moratorium on evictions at the tail end of the pandemic. 'There's a broader movement in this direction,' said Andrew Morris, senior litigation counsel at the New Civil Liberties Alliance, a libertarian-leaning law group that is active at the Supreme Court and that sued Trump over the tariffs in a separate case. 'The general trend is that the court is looking closely at whether Congress has delegated certain power to the executive branch – agencies and presidents,' Morris said. 'That trend weighs against the president in this case.' In 2023, the Supreme Court relied on what's known as the major questions doctrine to block Biden's student loan forgiveness plan. That doctrine requires Congress to 'speak clearly' when it intends to authorize a president to take actions of 'economic or political significance.' In other words, if Congress doesn't explicitly include language in a law giving the president power to act in some way, that action may be legally suspect. The Supreme Court in 2022 curbed the Environmental Protection Agency's ability to regulate carbon emissions from power plants, a major defeat for Biden that also relied heavily on the major questions doctrine. In both cases, the policies were challenged by Republican attorneys general in conservative states. The trade court's opinion also flicked at what's known as the 'nondelegation doctrine,' or the idea that Congress can't delegate its power to federal agencies. The Supreme Court is currently considering a case it will likely decide in June that touches on that same doctrine. That appeal involves the multibillion-dollar Universal Service Fund, which Congress created in 1996 to offset the cost of phone and internet service for low-income Americans. A conservative 'consumer awareness group' is challenging that fund, arguing it amounts to a tax levied by the Federal Communications Commission. It is Congress that holds the power to tax, not the executive branch. The federal trade court nodded to both theories in its opinion Wednesday as 'tools' that could be used to resolve the case. 'These tools indicate that an unlimited delegation of tariff authority would constitute an improper abdication of legislative power to another branch of government,' the court wrote. 'Regardless of whether the court views the president's actions through the nondelegation doctrine, through the major questions doctrine, or simply with separation of powers in mind, any interpretation' of the law 'that delegates unlimited tariff authority is unconstitutional.' Trump's lawyers urged an appeals court to pause the trade court ruling and threatened to take the matter to the Supreme Court. The administration said the ruling 'threatens to unwind months of foreign-policy decision-making and sensitive diplomatic negotiations, at the expense of the nation's economic well-being and national security.' During Trump's first administration, the Supreme Court declined to hear appeals over Trump's 25% tariffs on foreign steel. But those tariffs were levied under a different legal authority.
E&E News
14-05-2025
- Business
- E&E News
Federal trade court weighs bid to block Trump tariffs
President Donald Trump's power to issue sweeping tariffs on imported goods came under judicial scrutiny Tuesday, as the U.S. Court of International Trade weighed claims from small businesses that his actions had violated the Constitution. During oral arguments, a three-judge panel closely questioned whether Trump had overstepped Congress' power when he invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to set 10 percent tariffs on goods from most countries and even higher tariffs on dozens of others. The 1977 law gives the president power to respond to a declared economic emergency, but it does not explicitly mention tariffs. The Trump administration argued that language in the law granting authority to regulate imports is broad enough to include the ability to impose tariffs. Advertisement Judge Gary Katzmann said the court was keeping an open mind about the closely watched case.
