Latest news with #nationalemergency
Telegraph
13 hours ago
- Business
- Telegraph
Trump's tariff drama shows he doesn't understand what America stands for
With his usual idiosyncratic use of capital letters, Donald Trump has pronounced judgment on the court which presumed to halt his tariff programme. If allowed to stand, their decision would, he wrote on his Truth Social platform,'completely destroy Presidential Power'. These 'backroom hustlers', he went on, 'must not be allowed to destroy our Nation'. Presumably the reference to the three judges (one of whom was appointed by Trump himself) as engaging in a sleazy 'backroom' conspiracy was an iteration of the earlier White House claim that these 'unelected judges' were arrogantly abusing their authority by interfering in the policy decisions of the President. This is, in fact, entirely wrong. What Trump regards as his rightful 'Presidential Power' does not permit him to make unilateral changes in tariffs (or in most economic policies) without the consent of Congress. He, or at least some of his advisers, seemed to have been aware of this at the outset because they framed their package of new tariffs as an 'emergency measure' which, in theory, would give the President permission to act without following the normal legislative procedure. This emergency provision was, of course, designed for dealing with wars or natural emergencies of a catastrophic kind. Congress and the federal courts were, traditionally, only to permit this kind of intervention by a President on grounds of national security. So the Trump White House originally declared a 'national economic emergency' and invoked the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act, but more recently, perhaps aware that this might be too ambiguous and difficult to defend, changed its designation of the crisis to a 'fentanyl epidemic'. While this term might just conceivably account for the punitive tariffs on Mexico, it is hard to see how it could be applicable to the European Union whose trade advantage with the US might be more to do with the fact that there are more Americans who want to buy European things than there are Europeans who want to buy American things. (Harley-Davidson motorbikes and Levi jeans apparently account for most imports from the US.) The derisive reference to judges as 'unelected' – and thus supposedly without legitimate power to intervene in presidential decisions – shows a total misunderstanding of the role of the judiciary whose function is precisely to interpret the Constitution and decide whether actions taken by the Executive (the Presidency) and the Legislature (Congress) are legal. Being 'unelected' is what, in theory at least, allows judges to make disinterested, non-partisan decisions. That is the great abiding principle of the United States Constitution. This country was to be, the Founders declared, 'a nation of laws, not men'. Ultimate authority over the conduct of national life – and the relationship between government and the citizenry – could never be dependent on the will (or the whims) of any elected politician, but must always be subject to judicial interpretation. The law – and those whose job it was to interpret it – had authority over any individual who held office. The 'Presidential Power' which Trump believes is rightly his was never intended to be absolute – even though he was elected by what he insists was a 'landslide': that no one person should ever have unchecked power was the defining point of the American Revolution. Even if subsequent Court rulings go in his favour and overturn the original judgement which threw the Trump reality tv Tariff Show into further doubt after weeks of backtracking and climbdown 'deals', the principle will stand. It was a Court that put an end to his arbitrary declaration of a new economic policy and it will take another Court to reverse that judgement. The Constitution will hold against the onslaught – just as it did on that infamous January day of Capitol rioting when an exceptionally courageous Vice President, Mike Pence, continued to count the votes that took the presidency away from his own administration. It is quite extraordinary how a document which embodies an inspirational idea can survive even when it is being tested nearly to destruction. But there is one element of American political doctrine which the Trump White House seems to have embraced wholeheartedly – even if it applies it more abroad than at home. Rather bizarrely, the President and his attack dog JD Vance have taken to lecturing other countries with historic democratic traditions (like this one) on free speech. Even as Trump and his breathtakingly aggressive press spokeswoman, Karoline Leavitt, are threatening to banish journalists who ask unhelpful questions, and his administration is attempting to prevent Harvard from admitting foreign students because some unpleasant things have been said on its campus, the White House solemnly declares its concern about the fate of British citizens whose careless tweets have resulted in prosecution. Sending people to prison for inflammatory social media posts is a seriously contentious issue which must be (and has been) exhaustively debated in Britain. That discussion has been held – as would be expected in this most rational of countries – with good conscience and proper deliberation on both sides. But what business does the most authoritarian, bullying, diplomatically obtuse administration in modern American history have inserting itself into this discussion? Considering their own problems at home which, according to the White House, actually constitute a national emergency, why are they intervening in what we ourselves recognise as a serious domestic issue? This would be wildly inappropriate even if Trump's insults and abuse of anyone who contradicts him did not make his passion for other people's free speech absurd. So what is this about? It is a distraction. Nothing more than an attempt to draw public attention away from the international chaos his original tariff plans unleashed, his failure to stop Putin's war in Ukraine or to bring peace to the Middle East, the huge profits made by his family and friends on the crypto gambits he has launched and perhaps finally, what could prove his inability to cut taxes if he cannot ram his tariff programme through. That is the real motivating force behind this selective passion for free expression from a President who just last week shouted at a reporter who asked a disobliging question: 'Don't ever say what you said.'
Washington Post
2 days ago
- Business
- Washington Post
Court's tariffs ruling offers US businesses a reprieve but they aren't ready to celebrate
NEW YORK — Businesses that have been unsettled by President Donald Trump's on again, off again tariffs grappled Thursday with how much faith to put in the latest reprieve, which came from a federal court that halted most of the taxes on foreign imports. A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of International Trade ruled late Wednesday that Trump overstepped his authority when he invoked the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act to declare a national emergency as justification for his wide-ranging tariffs.
The Guardian
3 days ago
- Health
- The Guardian
Trump tariffs blocked; Magda Szubanski's ‘rough' cancer diagnosis; and a high-flying paraglider
Good afternoon. Australia will continue to push Donald Trump to abandon his administration's tariff regime entirely, after a US court blocked the president's 'liberation day' tariffs from coming into effect. The Manhattan-based court of international trade said that under the US constitution only Congress has the power to regulate commerce with other countries, despite Trump arguing he has the power to act because the US's trade deficits constituted a 'national emergency'. The Australian trade minister, Don Farrell, said the Australian government would study the ruling closely. Meanwhile, Elon Musk has announced a quick and unceremonious exit from his role in the Trump administration, days after criticising Trump's spending plan and expressing frustration with the response to his signature 'department of government efficiency'. Trump's secretary of state, Marco Rubio, also announced the US would 'aggressively' revoke visas of Chinese students in the latest attack on the higher education sector. Pocock says voters have 'buyer's remorse' after Labor approves massive gas development's 40-year extension 'Treaty of Versailles': angry Liberal MPs warn makeup of Coalition shadow ministry will make new enemies Heartbroken mother tells inquest she's 'lost her way' after 'stuff of nightmares' murders at Bondi Junction Man arrested three decades after NSW woman Pauline Sowry disappeared from Wollongong US will 'aggressively' revoke visas of Chinese students, Rubio says Inside the Bradfield recount: painstaking and polite, but sometimes heartbreaking A Chinese paraglider who was accidentally carried more than 8,000 metres high by an updraft has been banned from flying for six months after footage of his ordeal went viral. Peng Yujiang began from an elevation of about 3,000m in the Qilian mountain range in northern China, where he intended to test a new secondhand equipment purchase without making a proper flight, according to an investigative report by the Gansu Provincial Aviation Sports Association. However, about 20 minutes into his practice he was caught in a strong updraft, which sent him soaring more than 5,000m high, in line with flight paths and nearly the height of Mount Everest. 'I won't sugar-coat it: it's rough. But I'm hopeful.' – Magda Szubanski The actor and comedian has revealed she has been diagnosed with stage four mantle cell lymphoma, a 'very rare, very aggressive' form of blood cancer. In a video shared on Instagram, she said she was undergoing treatment in Melbourne and that she was in good spirits, but reserved her 'right to be a cranky old moll'. Australians take coffee seriously – but a perfect storm of increased wholesale coffee bean prices, supply chain issues and other rising overheads are driving up the price of the humble takeaway coffee. We want to hear from you: is Australia's beloved cafe culture under threat, or are you still best friends with your local barista? Sign up to Afternoon Update Our Australian afternoon update breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what's happening and why it matters after newsletter promotion CJ Dennis's 'sentimental bloke' is one of Australian literature's most celebrated fictional characters. But 110 years after Dennis introduced 'The Bloke' through his book of verse The Songs of a Sentimental Bloke, the larrikin's real-life inspiration – and deeply troubled life and battlefield death – has finally been discovered. Today's starter word is: LOCK. You have five goes to get the longest word including the starter word. Play Wordiply. Enjoying the Afternoon Update? Then you'll love our Morning Mail newsletter. Sign up here to start the day with a curated breakdown of the key stories you need to know, and complete your daily news roundup. And follow the latest in US politics by signing up for This Week in Trumpland. If you have a story tip or technical issue viewing this newsletter, please reply to this email. If you are a Guardian supporter and need assistance with regards to contributions and/or digital subscriptions, please email
Asharq Al-Awsat
3 days ago
- Business
- Asharq Al-Awsat
What Happens to Trump's Tariffs Now that a Court Has Knocked them Down?
A federal court in New York handed President Donald Trump a big setback Wednesday, blocking his audacious plan to impose massive taxes on imports from almost every country in the world. A three-judge panel of the US Court of International Trade ruled that Trump overstepped his authority when he invoked the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act to declare a national emergency and justify the sweeping tariffs. The tariffs overturned decades of US trade policy, disrupted global commerce, rattled financial markets and raised the risk of higher prices and recession in the United States and around the world, The Associated Press said. The US Court of International Trade has jurisdiction over civil cases involving trade. Its decisions can be appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington and ultimately to the Supreme Court, where the legal challenges to Trump's tariffs are widely expected to end up. Which tariffs did the court block? The court's decision blocks the tariffs Trump slapped last month on almost all US trading partners and levies he imposed before that on China, Mexico and Canada. On April 2, Trump imposed so-called reciprocal tariffs of up to 50% on countries with which the United States runs a trade deficit and 10% baseline tariffs on almost everybody else. He later suspended the reciprocal tariffs for 90 days to give countries time to agree to reduce barriers to US exports. But he kept the baseline tariffs in place. Claiming extraordinary power to act without congressional approval, he justified the taxes under IEEPA by declaring the United States' longstanding trade deficits 'a national emergency.' In February, he'd invoked the law to impose tariffs on Canada, Mexico and China, saying that the illegal flow of immigrants and drugs across the US border amounted to a national emergency and that the three countries needed to do more to stop it. The US Constitution gives Congress the power to set taxes, including tariffs. But lawmakers have gradually let presidents assume more power over tariffs — and Trump has made the most of it. The tariffs are being challenged in at least seven lawsuits. In the ruling Wednesday, the trade court combined two of the cases — one brought by five small businesses and another by 12 US states. The ruling does leave in place other Trump tariffs, including those on foreign steel, aluminum and autos. But those levies were invoked under a different law that required a Commerce Department investigation and could not be imposed at the president's own discretion. Why did the court rule against the president? The administration had argued that courts had approved then-President Richard Nixon's emergency use of tariffs in a 1971 economic and financial crisis that arose when the United States suddenly devalued the dollar by ending a policy that linked the US currency to the price of gold. The Nixon administration successfully cited its authority under the 1917 Trading With Enemy Act, which preceded and supplied some of the legal language later used in IEPPA. The court disagreed, deciding that Trump's sweeping tariffs exceeded his authority to regulate imports under IEEPA. It also said the tariffs did nothing to deal with problems they were supposed to address. In their case, the states noted that America's trade deficits hardly amount of a sudden emergency. The United States has racked them up for 49 straight years in good times and bad. So where does this leave Trump's trade agenda? Wendy Cutler, a former US trade official who is now vice president at the Asia Society Policy Institute, says the court's decision "throws the president's trade policy into turmoil.' 'Partners negotiating hard during the 90-day tariff pause period may be tempted to hold off making further concessions to the US until there is more legal clarity," she said. Likewise, companies will have to reassess the way they run their supply chains, perhaps speeding up shipments to the United States to offset the risk that the tariffs will be reinstated on appeal. The trade court noted that Trump retains more limited power to impose tariffs to address trade deficits under another statute, the Trade Act of 1974. But that law restricts tariffs to 15% and only for 150 days with countries with which the United States runs big trade deficits. For now, the trade court's ruling 'destroys the Trump administration's rationale for using federal emergency powers to impose tariffs, which oversteps congressional authority and contravenes any notion of due process,' said Eswar Prasad, professor of trade policy at Cornell University. "The ruling makes it clear that the broad tariffs imposed unilaterally by Trump represent an overreach of executive power.''
BreakingNews.ie
3 days ago
- Business
- BreakingNews.ie
A look at what happens to Trump's tariffs following federal court ruling
A federal court in New York handed US President Donald Trump a big setback on Wednesday, blocking his audacious plan to impose massive taxes on imports from almost every country in the world. A three-judge panel of the US Court of International Trade ruled that Mr Trump overstepped his authority when he invoked the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEPPA) to declare a national emergency and justify the sweeping tariffs. Advertisement The tariffs overturned decades of US trade policy, disrupted global commerce, rattled financial markets and raised the risk of higher prices and recession in the United States and around the world. The US Court of International Trade has jurisdiction over civil cases involving trade. Its decisions can be appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington and ultimately to the Supreme Court, where the legal challenges to Mr Trump's tariffs are widely expected to end up. -Which tariffs did the court block? The court's decision blocks the tariffs Mr Trump slapped last month on almost all US trading partners and levies he imposed before that on China, Mexico and Canada. Advertisement A person walks in front of an electronic stock board showing Japan's Nikkei index at a securities firm in Tokyo (Eugene Hoshiko/AP) On April 2, Mr Trump imposed so-called reciprocal tariffs of up to 50% on countries with which the United States runs a trade deficit and 10% baseline tariffs on almost everybody else. He later suspended the reciprocal tariffs for 90 days to give countries time to agree to reduce barriers to US exports. But he kept the baseline tariffs in place. Claiming extraordinary power to act without congressional approval, he justified the taxes under IEEPA by declaring the United States' longstanding trade deficits 'a national emergency'. In February, he had invoked the law to impose tariffs on Canada, Mexico and China, saying that the illegal flow of immigrants and drugs across the US border amounted to a national emergency and that the three countries needed to do more to stop it. Advertisement The US Constitution gives Congress the power to set taxes, including tariffs. But lawmakers have gradually let presidents assume more power over tariffs — and Mr Trump has made the most of it. The tariffs are being challenged in at least seven lawsuits. In the ruling on Wednesday, the trade court combined two of the cases — one brought by five small businesses and another by 12 US states. The ruling does leave in place other Trump tariffs, including those on foreign steel, aluminium and autos. But those levies were invoked under a different law that required a Commerce Department investigation and could not be imposed at the president's own discretion. The legal challenges to Mr Trump' tariffs are widely expected to end up in the Supreme Court (Evan Vucci/AP) -Why did the court rule against the president? The administration had argued that courts had approved then-president Richard Nixon's emergency use of tariffs in a 1971 economic and financial crisis that arose when the United States suddenly devalued the dollar by ending a policy that linked the US currency to the price of gold. Advertisement The Nixon administration successfully cited its authority under the 1917 Trading With Enemy Act, which preceded and supplied some of the legal language later used in IEPPA. The court disagreed, deciding that Mr Trump's sweeping tariffs exceeded his authority to regulate imports under IEEPA. It also said the tariffs did nothing to deal with problems they were supposed to address. In their case, the states noted that America's trade deficits hardly amount to a sudden emergency. The United States has racked them up for 49 straight years in good times and bad. -So where does this leave Mr Trump's trade agenda? Wendy Cutler, a former US trade official who is now vice president at the Asia Society Policy Institute, says the court's decision 'throws the president's trade policy into turmoil'. Advertisement She said: 'Partners negotiating hard during the 90-day day tariff pause period may be tempted to hold off making further concessions to the US until there is more legal clarity. 'Likewise, companies will have to reassess the way they run their supply chains, perhaps speeding up shipments to the United States to offset the risk that the tariffs will be reinstated on appeal.' The trade court noted that Mr Trump retains more limited power to impose tariffs to address trade deficits under another statute, the Trade Act of 1974. But that law restricts tariffs to 15% and only for 150 days with countries with which the United States runs big trade deficits. For now, the trade court's ruling 'destroys the Trump administration's rationale for using federal emergency powers to impose tariffs, which oversteps congressional authority and contravenes any notion of due process', said Eswar Prasad, professor of trade policy at Cornell University. 'The ruling makes it clear that the broad tariffs imposed unilaterally by Trump represent an overreach of executive power.'
