Latest news with #IEEPA
Morocco World
3 days ago
- Business
- Morocco World
EU Races to Avoid Trade War as Trump Threatens 30% Tariffs
Rabat – The European Union is working urgently to avoid a trade war with the United States after US President Donald Trump threatened to impose 30% tariffs on most EU imports starting August 1. EU Trade Commissioner Maros Sefcovic said on Monday that such high tariffs would severely damage trade between the two sides. He warned that a 30% tariff rate would make it almost impossible to continue trading as before, adding that it would harm supply chains and hurt both economies. Sefcovic said EU ministers had agreed to focus on negotiations to try to stop the new tariffs. The commissioner will do everything he can to prevent this 'super-negative scenario,' he told reporters ahead of a meeting with EU trade ministers. Despite Trump's threat, Sefcovic said American officials were still open to talks. However, he noted that the EU must be ready for all outcomes, including taking strong action if needed. The European Commission had earlier planned to suspend a first set of EU tariffs on $24.5 billion worth of US goods. That suspension was due to expire at midnight on Monday. Now, the Commission is also preparing a second package of possible tariffs that would target an additional $78 billion in American goods. Danish Foreign Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen said it was too early to strike back with countermeasures, but the EU had to be ready. 'If you want peace, you have to prepare for war. And I think that's where we are,' he said. French Trade Minister Laurent Saint-Martin urged the EU to go even further. He suggested that the EU should consider hitting US services or using its special 'anti-coercion' tool. 'This balance of power desired by Donald Trump is one in which you must show your ability to fight back,' Saint-Martin said. 'And this is perhaps where we need to move faster today.' In April 2025, Trump launched his so‑called 'Liberation Day' tariff campaign under IEEPA, imposing a blanket 10 % import duty on nearly all foreign goods and additional 'reciprocal tariffs' on countries running trade deficits with the US. This policy especially hit machinery-exporting nations such as China, which supplies nearly 17 % of US machinery imports, which resulted in sharply higher costs for American manufacturers dependent on critical industrial tools and components.
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Why Trump's tariff lawsuits may not slow his larger trade war
A courtroom showdown over President Trump's tariffs is coming at the end of July, just one day before a series of steep duties are scheduled to take effect for dozens of countries around the world. But it could still take a lot longer to permanently settle the legal question of whether the president has authority to impose his wide-ranging tariffs, according to legal experts and even a participant in the current case. "If we win," the Trump administration 'could try to use other statutes' to justify new tariffs, said Ilya Somin, a lawyer for the small business importers that successfully challenged Trump's tariffs before a lower court in May. 'And that would be a lengthy, complex discussion about what [the president] can do,' added Somin, a law professor at George Mason University and constitutional studies chair at the Cato Institute. The small business importers that proved it was possible to temporarily derail Trump's global tariffs with a lower court victory in May will make their arguments again on July 31 before the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, D.C. In a separate challenge, two toy manufacturers are scheduled to make their own arguments against Trump's tariffs before the DC Circuit Court of Appeals on Sept. 30, after also winning a lower court victory. These legal challenges to Trump's escalating trade war don't necessarily pose an immediate danger to Trump's broader tariff plans for a few reasons, according to legal and trade experts. One, even if he loses the current cases on appeal, Trump could turn to other statutes that administration officials believe allow him to also act unilaterally. Any lawsuits designed to stop those moves would likely stretch for months into 2026. Another complicating factor for challengers is that the Supreme Court has made it more difficult for lower courts to issue a nationwide injunction against a presidential action. It did so in a ruling last month in a case stemming from a Trump executive order ending a longstanding US rule on birthright citizenship. The court's decision could be relevant for the tariff cases, since in May the small business importers were able to convince the US Court of International Trade to issue a nationwide injunction against Trump's tariffs after concluding he lacked authority to impose his duties by executive order under the International Economic Emergency Powers Act (IEEPA). The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit put that order on hold while it considers whether the president has the ultimate legal authority to impose the IEEPA duties, which are now scheduled to take effect on Aug. 1 unless countries are able to negotiate new deals in the coming weeks. 'I think trading partners should take the message and probably do take the message that they can't rely on the courts to protect them from tariff actions from the United States,' said Greta Peisch, an international trade attorney and former general counsel for the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR). She and other trade experts say the matter is likely to be taken up by the Supreme Court, though not necessarily on an expedited basis. Peisch also noted the two cases now before appeals courts won't address the president's authority under other statutes that carve out exceptions to Congress' tariff power. These alternative statutes include Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, which allows the president to impose tariffs on a foreign nation so long as the US Trade Representative finds the nation has violated trade agreements or engaged in unfair trade practices. They also include Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, which empowers the president to impose tariffs on certain imports designated as a threat to the US economy, and Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930 that empowers the president to impose tariffs on countries that unreasonably restrict US goods. There are a lot of questions about how those other laws may work, Peisch said, because some haven't been challenged in court. 'I think what that means for negotiating partners and for importers, is that the outcome of the case and the timing is not something that they can certainly hang their hat on and depend on as something that's going to change the dynamics and the calculus in the next months, maybe even year,' she said. One loophole that the Supreme Court left in place that could work against Trump is that it has kept intact the ability of plaintiffs to seek a widespread block of presidential executive orders through class action lawsuits. The lawyer working with the importers that are challenging Trump's tariffs, Somin, said 'we believe we don't need, necessarily, a class action to get a broad remedy here.' A complete remedy, Somin added, 'requires a broad injunction barring these IEEPA tariffs entirely.' Somin also noted that if the president does turn to other statutes to impose tariffs, they could be more limited than the widespread duties justified under IEEPA. 'What I do not think you can do is start a gargantuan trade war with the entire world, which is what he has tried to use IEEPA to do,' Somin said. Ben Werschkul contributed to this article. Alexis Keenan is a legal reporter for Yahoo Finance. Follow Alexis on X @alexiskweed. Click here for in-depth analysis of the latest stock market news and events moving stock prices Fehler beim Abrufen der Daten Melden Sie sich an, um Ihr Portfolio aufzurufen. Fehler beim Abrufen der Daten Fehler beim Abrufen der Daten Fehler beim Abrufen der Daten Fehler beim Abrufen der Daten
National Observer
6 days ago
- Business
- National Observer
PM will meet premiers, cabinet to discuss new US tariff threats
Prime Minister Mark Carney will be meeting with his cabinet and Canada's premiers to discuss U.S. President Donald Trump's new threat to slap 35 per cent tariffs on Canadian goods next month. The Prime Minister's Office announced there will be a cabinet meeting on Tuesday to discuss ongoing Canada-U.S. trade negotiations. Carney's office said he also will meet with the premiers on July 22 as they gather for the annual Council of the Federation conference in Huntsville, Ont. Carney said Thursday his government will "steadfastly" defend workers and businesses. In a late night post on social media, Carney said Canada will continue to work to secure a trade deal with the U.S. by a revised deadline of Aug. 1. In a letter to Carney on Thursday, Trump threatened to impose 35 per cent tariffs on Canadian goods by that date — evidently setting a new deadline for the trade talks that were supposed to wrap up by July 21. A White House official said the 35 per cent tariff rate is only expected to be applied to goods already hit with a 25 per cent import tax. This would exempt goods compliant with the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement on trade, called CUSMA, plus energy and potash imports that face a 10 per cent tariff rate. The official said no final policy paper has been drafted and Trump has not yet made a final decision. Canada also faces additional U.S. tariffs on steel, aluminum and automobiles, as well as a U.S. plan to introduce tariffs on copper on Aug. 1. Prime Minister Mark Carney will be meeting with his cabinet and Canada's premiers to discuss U.S. President Donald Trump's new threat to slap 35 per cent tariffs on Canadian goods next month. Asked about the tariff threat while leaving the White House Friday morning, Trump told reporters that "it was sent yesterday. They called. I think it was fairly well received." A spokeswoman for the Prime Minister's Office said Carney and Trump did not speak Thursday night. She said that while officials from both countries meet daily as trade talks continue, Thursday's meeting took place before Trump sent his tariff letter. Trump's letter said if Canada works to stop the flow of fentanyl into the United States, he may consider a tariff adjustment. U.S. government data shows the volume of fentanyl seized at the United States' northern border is minuscule compared to the amounts recovered at the border with Mexico. Trump declared an emergency at the northern border in order to use the International Economic Emergency Powers Act of 1977, or IEEPA, to slap Canada with economywide tariffs in March. He partially paused the duties a few days later for imports compliant under CUSMA. It's not clear whether Trump's use of IEEPA to hit nearly every nation with duties will survive a looming legal challenge. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is scheduled to hear arguments on July 31 — a day before the tariffs are set to return. The U.S. Court of International Trade said in May that Trump does not have the authority to use the national security statute for the fentanyl and so-called "reciprocal" tariffs. Trump's administration promptly appealed the decision and it's expected to go all the way to the Supreme Court. Trump has continued to use the tariff lever to pressure countries to sign trade deals. Canada was the latest nation to receive correspondence from Trump this week outlining higher duties. Marty Warren, national director of the United Steelworkers, said the government needs to take "urgent measures" to keep workers employed and industries running. The steel and aluminum sectors have been hard hit by Trump's 25 per cent tariffs on those metals, invoked under a national security rationale separate from the IEEPA tariffs. 'This is clearly about power and control. It has nothing to do with public safety or fair trade,' Warren said in a media statement. 'Canada cannot cave to blackmail. Our government must stand up for Canadian workers, enforce trade rules and protect our industries before it's too late.' Federal Industry Minister Mélanie Joly said at a time of uncertainty, Canada must strengthen its economic relationships with other nations. "We are not alone in this world," she said in Ottawa during a Friday news conference with Stéphane Séjourné, the visiting European Commission executive vice-president for prosperity and industrial strategy. "We need to be closer to our allies." When asked about plans for retaliation, Joly said Canada and China are the only nations that have taken such a stance so far. "We have had already a very strong response," Joly said Alberta Premier Danielle Smith discouraged Ottawa from imposing further retaliatory tariffs in a post on social media, saying it would "constitute a tax on Canadian consumers and businesses and only weaken Canada's economy further." Smith said the federal government should also drop "Trudeau-era anti-resource development laws." In a social media post, Ontario Premier Doug Ford said "we need to come together" and develop a plan to protect Canadian workers, business and communities. Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe said in a media statement that while Trump's tariff escalation is "concerning, it should not have much impact on Saskatchewan" because "about 95 per cent" of the province's exports are covered by the current free trade agreement. Ontario Conservative MP Adam Chambers sent a letter to the chair of the House of Commons international trade committee Friday afternoon asking for a meeting so MPs can discuss and debate Canada's negotiating position. Chambers wrote that trade-exposed businesses "deserve" a chance to tell Parliament about the "direct impacts of U.S. actions and Canadian countermeasures." "This is particularly urgent, as Parliament has not offered such a forum since it adjourned after a brief spring session," Chambers wrote. Bloc Québécois Leader Yves-François Blanchet said on social media that his party supports increasing trade ties with the European Union. He also accused Carney of "failing" by focusing on investments in the oil and gas sector, which he said would only affect trade "well after Donald Trump's departure." In Washington, Sen. Jeanne Shaheen said the latest tariff threat against America's northern neighbour undermines the Trump administration's own negotiations to reach a trade deal, while the "consistent attacks" on Canada have damaged a "vital relationship." The Democrat from New Hampshire said she's heard many complaints about tourists not coming from Canada and lost business due to Trump's trade war.
Miami Herald
6 days ago
- Automotive
- Miami Herald
Detroit Axle warns of more layoffs as tariff case is heard by federal court
Detroit Axle, a large aftermarket auto parts dealer, says it has cut a handful of jobs so far and more layoffs are coming if it can't get tariff relief on goods it imports from China. The Ferndale-based company, which in May sued President Donald Trump's administration over the tariffs, said in recent court filings that it's been forced to lay off 10 employees and notified the state officials of 100 more. A federal three-judge panel heard arguments in the case Thursday and could issue a decision in the coming days. "The company is already operating at a loss, has begun firing employees, and is perilously close to going out of business," said one recent court filing, which urged swift action in the case. The Detroit Axle job cuts come after Trump ended the "de minimis" exemption, which previously allowed small-value packages from China to enter the country duty-free. The firm argues the abrupt cancellation of that exemption could mean the end of its business, which employs more than 500 people, with almost half of those in Michigan. Detroit Axle had leaned heavily on the small-value package carve-out in order to affordably ship China-made parts to U.S. customers - such as mechanics and do-it-yourselfers - from a distribution center in Juarez, Mexico. Without the under-$800 package exemption in place, it says those same parts now face a 72.5% tax at the border, so it's halted shipments from the facility altogether. CEO Mike Musheinesh said in a recent court filing that the tariffs had "profoundly damaged" the business. "Detroit Axle's price-sensitive customers would not tolerate that price increase, and Detroit Axle cannot lower its prices to absorb the impact of the tariffs," Musheinesh said in a legal declaration filed late last month, as his company has sought a preliminary injunction that would provide it tariff relief. On Thursday, attorneys for Detroit Axle and the government made their case before the three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of International Trade in New York City. The family-run firm joins several companies actively challenging the president's ability to impose his sweeping import taxes. Detroit Axle's case is intertwined with another tariffs case recently heard by the same New York trade court, which involved several states and businesses including VOS Selections Inc., a wine and spirits company. In that case, the trade court agreed that the president's moves to set new duties had exceeded his legal authority under a law called the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA. But those broader set of tariffs are still in place while an appeal plays out. If the VOS group ultimately wins, it will bolster Detroit Axle's argument that Trump wasn't legally allowed to unilaterally end the de minimis exemption. But the company's attorney, Tom Dupree, on Thursday also argued that the parts distributor should prevail even if the Trump administration succeeds in the VOS case, because government officials didn't conduct the proper noticing and comment period before the tariff exemption ended. A government lawyer, Sarah Welch, pushed back on that idea, stating that the Detroit Axle case should be treated separately from VOS, and that a portion of a Trump executive order that axed the de minimis exemption could live on even if his other tariffs are legally halted. Government attorneys have argued that the end of the de minimis exemption hasn't actually had a significant impact on the company, pointing out that Detroit Axle didn't file its case for a couple of weeks after the new policy became official. One of the judges said that under the recently-signed One Big Beautiful Bill Act, Trump's sweeping policy legislation, the de minimis exemption is formally set to end in 2027 anyway. Dupree said that later timeframe is OK, and gives Detroit Axle time to adapt its business model, whereas Trump's unilateral order ending the exemption earlier this year did not. Musheinesh, in his recent legal declaration, said the company has fulfilled orders from a stockpile of parts at its Michigan facility. But as that supply has been depleted, it has been forced to import some of its parts from the Mexico facility, "paying millions of dollars in tariffs on them before selling them to customers, often at a loss. When the pre-tariff inventory runs out, the business will no longer make economic sense." He said the company's can't quickly shift to non-Chinese suppliers because it has long-term contracts with those companies, non-Chinese suppliers cost more, and they don't offer all products at the same quality level. Copyright (C) 2025, Tribune Content Agency, LLC. Portions copyrighted by the respective providers.
CNBC
7 days ago
- Business
- CNBC
Trump's 50% Brazil tariff stretches emergency powers already facing court challenge
President Donald Trump's politically charged new tariff threat — a blanket 50% duty on imports from Brazil — stretches an interpretation of his powers that is already facing a high-stakes court challenge. Trump said in a letter Wednesday that he is imposing the massive new tariff at least partly in retaliation against Brazil's treatment of its former president, Jair Bolsonaro. But to do so, he is citing a law that only grants him emergency economic powers in order to deal with certain foreign threats to the United States, a White House official told CNBC Thursday. That same law — the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA — is at the center of an ongoing lawsuit over Trump's "reciprocal" tariffs that is currently before a federal appeals court. Trump's lawyers say his invocation of the law to impose those tariffs was an appropriate move to address multiple national emergencies, including "America's exploding trade deficit." The White House did not immediately respond to CNBC's questions about Trump's letter to Brazil, including how Bolsonaro's circumstances relate to Trump's stated authority under IEEPA. While the latest levy on Brazilian imports may not have a direct impact on the lawsuit already underway, critics say it could further erode the administration's credibility as Trump pursues an aggressive trade agenda. Trump's letter announcing the tariff on Brazil "takes abuse of power to a whole new level," said Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., in a statement Thursday. Kaine vowed to "use all available means to block these latest job-killing tariffs." Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon, the top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, accused Trump of attempting to "sacrifice the economy to settle his own personal scores, and it is far outside his legal authority." IEEPA gives the president some powers to deal with national emergencies stemming from "any unusual and extraordinary threat" that comes in whole or in large part from outside the U.S. Trump previously cited IEEPA in early April, when he slapped 10% tariffs on nearly all other countries' imports, plus higher rates on dozens of individual nations. His April 2 executive order announcing those tariffs also formally declared a national emergency. According to the order, foreign trade practices that "contribute to large and persistent annual United States goods trade deficits" have caused the loss of America's "industrial capacity" and "compromised military readiness." Trump temporarily suspended the higher tariffs a week later, following a trading frenzy in global markets. In late May, the U.S. Court of International Trade struck the reciprocal tariffs down, ruling that IEEPA did not authorize Trump to impose them. The judges in that case found that Trump's assertion of "unbounded" tariff-making power "exceeds any tariff authority delegated to the President under IEEPA." But in June, judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit paused that decision from taking effect while the case is still pending. "We'll have to see" if Trump's tariff letter to Brazil could factor into the appeal, said Ilya Somin, a law professor who is representing plaintiffs in the case against the Trump administration. "For the moment, these new Brazil tariffs are not part of the case," Somin said in a phone interview. But he added that the letter "further underscores the indefensible nature" of Trump's assertion that he has virtually "unreviewable discretion" on tariffs. This week, Trump began a new strategy: firing off individual letters to world leaders that set new tariff rates on their countries' U.S. imports, starting Aug. 1. The nearly two dozen letters sent so far include identical language complaining about trade policies that have created "persistent" and "unsustainable Trade Deficits against the United States." "This Deficit is a major threat to our Economy and, indeed, our National Security!" they read. But Trump's letter to Brazil takes things much further, by explicitly declaring that he is imposing tariffs because he opposes the recent political and legal developments in the country. Trump specifically decried Brazil's treatment of Bolsonaro, who is facing trial over his role in an alleged coup to overturn his 2022 reelection loss. "This Trial should not be taking place," Trump wrote in the letter to current President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva. "It is a Witch Hunt that should end IMMEDIATELY!" He said the 50% tariff was coming in part due to "Brazil's insidious attacks on Free Elections." He also alleged that the country has attacked the "fundamental Free Speech Rights of Americans," accusing Brazil's Supreme Court of unlawfully censoring U.S. social media platforms. Trump also knocked Brazil's trade policies. Echoing his language from prior letters, Trump claimed that Brazil's persistent U.S. trade deficits pose a national security threat. Except that Brazil is one of the few trading partners with whom the U.S. maintains a goods trade surplus, not a deficit. That surplus totaled $7.4 billion in 2024, according to the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative. "He's either lying or misinformed," Somin said of Trump's incorrect claim. Somin also asserted, contra Trump and his lawyers, that the U.S. having trade deficits with its partners is not unusual and does not constitute an emergency. So "it's particularly stupid when we actually have a trade surplus," he said.
