Latest news with #tradePolicy
CTV News
2 days ago
- Business
- CTV News
Canada considers further action amid Trump's planned steel tariffs
Watch The Canadian government will 'stand strong' and consider further action if Trump's steel tariffs will be implemented. CTV's Colton Praill has the latest.
CNN
2 days ago
- Business
- CNN
Trump doubles steel tariffs to 50% in ‘major announcement'
President Donald Trump announced Friday that he would set tariffs on steel imported into the United States at 50%, double their current rate. At a US Steel facility in West Mifflin, Pennsylvania, Trump said he had a 'major announcement.' 'We are going to be imposing a 25% increase,' Trump said. 'We're going to bring it from 25% to 50%, the tariffs on steel into the United States of America, which will even further secure the steel industry in the United States. Nobody's going to get around that.' Trump said he was considering a 40% tariff, but industry executives told him they wanted a 50% tariff. 'At 25% they can sorta get over that fence,' Trump said. 'At 50% nobody's getting over that fence.' This is a developing story and will be updated.
Forbes
3 days ago
- Business
- Forbes
Cloudy Legal And Policy Outlook For Trump Tariffs
WASHINGTON, DC - APRIL 02: U.S. President Donald Trump holds up a chart while speaking during a ... More 'Make America Wealthy Again' trade announcement event in the Rose Garden at the White House on April 2, 2025 in Washington, DC. Touting the event as 'Liberation Day', Trump is expected to announce additional tariffs targeting goods imported to the U.S. (Photo by) On May 28 the specialized U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) struck down major new tariffs imposed by President Trump over the last few months. The U.S. Federal Circuit Court of Appeals temporarily reinstated those tariffs the next day, pending its review of a Trump Administration appeal. Various other challenges to the Trump tariffs are before other courts. The Supreme Court likely will have to step in to resolve the tariff issue, possibly on an expedited basis. The Trump tariffs raise major issues of foreign economic policy as well as significant legal questions. The ultimate resolution of this intertwining of law and policy could have a substantial impact on the American economy. The CIT Opinion The President based his authority to impose broad new tariffs on the International Economic Emergency Powers Act. IEEPA empowers the president to regulate imports or exports 'to deal with' an 'unusual and extraordinary threat' which has been declared a national emergency under IEEPA. The CIT struck down two categories of Trump tariffs. The first category, 'trafficking tariffs,' were levied on Mexico, Canada, and China by Trump executive orders in February 2025. The President imposed these tariffs in response to his prior orders declaring a 'national emergency' at the U.S. borders stemming from uncontrolled drug and human trafficking. The second category, 'worldwide and retaliatory tariffs,' were applied by April executive order to 57 nations (including China). In imposing these tariffs, whose rates varied by country, the President cited the existence of an IEEPA national emergency based on 'large and persistent goods trade deficits' stemming from harmful foreign economic policies, including high tariff rates and non-tariff barriers. The President subsequently paused and temporarily adjusted downward several tariffs, based on various conversations and anticipated negotiations with senior foreign officials. Twelve states and five companies jointly sued the U.S. Government to have the tariff orders vacated. The CIT first found that the tariffs had imposed economic injury on the plaintiffs, giving them legal 'standing' to sue. The CIT next stressed that an unlimited delegation by Congress to the President of Congress's authority to levy tariffs would be unconstitutional. To avoid constitutional problems, it held that IEEPA's reference to 'regulating imports' provided the President with only limited authority over tariff-setting. The CIT then held that IEEPA authorized neither the 'trafficking tariffs' nor the 'worldwide and retaliatory tariffs.' The trafficking tariffs did not meet the IEEPA requirement of 'dealing with' the cited border emergency because the collection of tariffs 'does not evidently relate to foreign governments' efforts to . . . seize bad actors within their respective jurisdictions.' The worldwide and retaliatory tariffs dealt with a balance of payments deficit and thus had to conform with the limits of a separate law, Section 122 of the Trade Act, which deals specifically with such deficits. The words 'regulate importation' within IEEPA did not therefore 'permit the President to impose tariffs in response to balance of payments deficits.' Judicial Review of the Opinion The CIT decision is defensible but not impregnable. It is based on careful interpretation of IEEPA in light of other trade laws and constitutional limits on delegating legislative power to the President. The Administration may be expected to argue that, contrary to the CIT's holding, tariffs are an appropriate way of 'dealing with' the trafficking crisis. It will also argue that the existence of Section 122 (which does not deal with emergencies) does not preclude the President from imposing tariffs under other laws, such as IEEPA, that empower the President to regulate trade in an emergency. More generally, the Administration will also probably argue that the President has broad foreign affairs authority under the Constitution, and that the CIT's narrow reading of IEEPA constitutes unwarranted judicial interference in the President's exercise of that authority, contrary to the constitutional separation of powers. The resolution of this case is uncertain. It could well turn on how a Supreme Court majority resolves the tension between two separation of powers questions – the limitation on Congress's assignment of legislative authority to the President and the President's ability to carry out foreign policy free from judicial micromanagement. Alternatives to IEEPA The Administration may, if it chooses, turn to a variety of other trade statutes that could authorize Trump tariffs. Compared to IEEPA, however, those laws give the President less flexibility to act quickly and decisively in setting policy. They may thus prove less effective in spurring negotiations with other countries. Furthermore, immediate efforts to invoke other laws could perhaps undermine the Administration's IEEPA litigation posture. Policy Considerations The Trump tariff dispute highlights major questions of economic policy. The tariffs have been controversial from the start, and have generated competing narratives. Tariffs are Bad Large numbers of distinguished mainstream economists have attacked them as economically harmful measures that distort the efficient working of markets and impose higher costs and diminished welfare on American consumers and many U.S. industries. Some expert commentators are cautiously optimistic that the CIT decision, if it holds, will bolster the American economy. Tariffs May Incentivize Beneficial Trade Deals A contrarian argument economic argument is that the tariffs provide needed leverage to bring foreign countries to the negotiating table. Negotiations could potentially lead to other nations' reduction of their tariffs and of their high non-tariff barriers that harm their own economies as well as American businesses. A series of negotiations, seen in the best light, could potentially yield a 'win-win' result (perhaps even with China), featuring lower tariffs and fewer anticompetitive market distortions that serious reduce economic welfare. The Trump Administration could point to the fact that the U.S. and UK have already entered into a new trade agreement that reduced various tariffs. Furthermore, '[t]he European Union, Canada, and China all announced minor tariffs on U.S. products, escalating the possibility of companies negotiation lower rates for US workers and companies.' Nevertheless, the CIT holding may reduce the Administration's leverage by causing potential negotiating partners to take a 'wait and see' attitude, and delay coming to the table. Even with expedited judicial review, a final resolution of the case will take a while. Tariffs Generate Costly Uncertainty A third less encouraging perspective is that even if tariff adjustments by the U.S. generate some negotiations, the end result is unpredictable. In particular, the very fact of 'up and down' U.S. adjustments in proposed tariff rates by the Trump Administration generates substantial business uncertainty. Such uncertainty may be expected to discourage economically beneficial investments and commercial agreements, to the detriment of the American economy. According to one report, tariff-related uncertainty has already slowed U.S. GDP growth. Final Observations (As of Now) Trump tariff policy will play a significant role in shaping the Administration's legacy. These are early days still. Stay tuned for further developments.
ABC News
3 days ago
- Business
- ABC News
Tariffs a sideshow to greater US problem: economist
Samantha Donovan: Well up until the last couple of weeks, the financial markets have swung wildly after Donald Trump's every utterance on tariffs. Recent reaction to the President's trade policy shifts has been more muted though. Australian Justin Wolfers is a Professor of Economics and Public Policy at the University of Michigan. He told our business correspondent David Taylor, tariffs are now a sideshow to a much greater concern for the international community. Justin Wolfers: The Constitution gives the power over tariffs to Congress, not the White House. Now over the years, Congress has given some of that power, handed it off to the White House, but only in a very limited and constrained way. So a simple reading of the rules would say the President can't do this. So in order to have across the board tariffs or what he calls reciprocal tariffs on every country in the world, he's had to call it a national emergency and invoke the Emergency Powers Act, which is interesting, first of all, because that act says nothing about tariffs. And secondly, there's no emergency. The so-called emergencies, the US has trade deficits with many countries. Bilateral trade deficits are not themselves a problem. So it's been in the works that this was going to get knocked down and it finally hit court last night. The court said this is quite clearly unconstitutional. It was a three judge panel, an Obama judge, a Reagan judge, and a Trump judge. So it seems like a pretty clear decision. So that all seemed pretty clear until the US federal government, the Trump administration, filed an appeal with the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals unsurprisingly agreed to hear the case. And while it's waiting to get its work done, so while they're reading the documents and so on, it decided to stay, that is to say reinstate the Trump tariffs. All of this is going to be on a pretty expedited schedule. So within a couple of weeks, they're going to come back with their decision. If, as I expect, they find this to be unconstitutional, then the tariffs will be back off again. Then we'll be off to the Supreme Court. We'll see the same drama play out one more time. And then what happens after that is what's really interesting. Because this is saying you can't have across the board tariffs, but recall Congress delegates certain tariff powers to the White House. And it turns out there's a lot of other statutory authorities that they could use. They're a little narrower. And so for instance, that's why the tariffs on steel and aluminium and cars are going to persist because they did not come through this overreach. And it would be easy to get further tariffs on semiconductors and pharmaceuticals and so on. So my guess is the White House lawyers are just going to find other ways of creating international trade havoc. David Taylor: That kind of goes to my next question though, Justin Wolfers, based on your understanding of recent history and Donald Trump, what is, and I know this is a very complicated and difficult question to answer, but where is Donald, where would you think that Donald Trump's mind is at? What do you think his next move is likely to be? Justin Wolfers: His lawyers will be telling him as of this afternoon, Mr. President, the statutory authority we were using will come under question. But if you want to push ahead with tariffs, I've got lots of other ways that you can do it. My guess based on past history is he'll say that's terrific. Let's keep going. David Taylor: Given that, and given how much you know that financial markets can't stand uncertainty, the market reaction, the financial markets reaction over the past 24 hours, I would describe as being quite muted compared to... Justin Wolfers: I agree. David Taylor: Yeah, why? Why? Justin Wolfers: Yeah, I've given this a lot of thought. So the S&P 500 rose one and a half percent when this was announced. That's quite muted given that the day that Trump... So, and this announced all of these tariffs are illegal and they're off. Compare that to seven days after Liberation Day when Trump announced a 90-day pause on the tariffs that led US stocks to rise by about 9%, like six times more for a pause as opposed to it's unconstitutional and you can't do it. So a few thoughts here. One is perhaps this is markets betting that this is going to be overturned at a later point. Another possibility is markets, even if markets don't think it's going to be overturned, and I don't think it's going to be overturned, I think the use of the Emergency Powers Act will be ruled unconstitutional. But even so, Trump has other ways of imposing tariffs. So I suspect that this is markets understanding someone's getting in the way of Trump creating tariffs the way he wants to, but he's probably just going to come back and do it a different way. If you're really interested in this, I'm going to give you one more interpretation. So the markets were incredibly volatile in early April when he announced Liberation Day tariffs, they tanked. When he paused, they soared. They acted like this was a huge thing. Now there's two interpretations of that. One, markets believe that tariffs are so fundamentally important to the profitability of American businesses they have no choice but to rise and fall dramatically every time something happens. If that were true, then you would have thought that the Supreme Court making it unconstitutional should have caused markets to absolutely soar today, and they merely rose a little. So the other possibility is that the original policy announcement was so incoherent, so poorly thought through, so dramatic, so unconstitutional on its face, so absurd, so much overreach in both the economic, political, and legal domains that it signalled an administration that's out of control, and that could do a lot of damage. And so maybe that's what markets were learning in early April. They reacted a little bit to tariffs and a huge amount to learning that this is an economically unhelpful administration. And if that's the case, then all that we learned today, when the courts say Trump wasn't allowed to do tariffs in a particular way, you're only going to see a small reaction because it's still true that the White House is full of lunatics, and that still weighs on people's minds. Samantha Donovan: Professor Justin Wolfers from the University of Michigan. He was speaking with our business correspondent, David Taylor.
Bloomberg
4 days ago
- Business
- Bloomberg
White House Downplays Court Ruling Striking Down Tariffs
Senior White House officials downplayed the implications of a court ruling that blocked many of Donald Trump's tariff measures, and expressed confidence about an appeal. 'If anybody thinks this caught the administration by surprise, think again,' the US president's trade adviser, Peter Navarro, said. 'Nothing's really changed.' The impact of the court ruling may indeed prove limited, two of Wall Street's top investment banks cautioned, because other avenues to impose import duties can be taken. Trump's power to 'raise and escalate — it might be a little bit slower moving, but it is still there,' Michael Zezas, global head of fixed income and thematic research at Morgan Stanley, told Bloomberg TV.
