Latest news with #Reagan
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Trump tariff plan faces uncertain future as court battles intensify
A federal appeals court paused a lower ruling blocking President Donald Trump's sweeping tariffs, siding with the administration Thursday in a legal fight over the White House's use of an emergency law to enact punishing import taxes. The back-and-forth injected more volatility into markets this week after several weeks of relative calm, and court observers and economists told Fox News Digital they do not expect the dust to settle any time soon. Here's what to know as this litigation continues to play out. Trump Denounces Court's 'Political' Tariff Decision, Calls On Supreme Court To Act Quickly The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit temporarily stayed a lower court ruling Thursday that blocked two of Trump's sweeping tariffs from taking force. The ruling paused a decision by the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) allowing Trump to continue to enact the 10% baseline tariff and the so-called "reciprocal tariffs" that he announced April 2 under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA. Read On The Fox News App It came one day after the U.S. Court of International Trade ruled unanimously to block the tariffs. Members of the three-judge panel who were appointed by Trump, former President Barack Obama and former President Ronald Reagan, ruled unanimously that Trump had overstepped his authority under IEEPA. They noted that, as commander in chief, Trump does not have "unbounded authority" to impose tariffs under the emergency law. Now, lawyers for the Trump administration and the plaintiffs are tasked with complying with a fast schedule with deadlines in both courts. Plaintiffs have until 5 p.m. Monday to file their response to the Court of International Trade, according to Jeffrey Schwab, senior counsel and director of litigation of the Liberty Justice Center, which represents five small businesses that sued the administration. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit gave plaintiffs until Thursday to file a response to the stay and the Trump administration until June 9 to file a reply, Schwab told Fox News Digital in an interview. The goal is to move expeditiously, and lawyers for the plaintiffs told Fox News they plan to file briefs to both courts before the deadlines to mitigate harm to their clients. "Hopefully," Schwab said, the quick action will allow the courts to issue rulings "more quickly than they otherwise would." The Trump administration praised the stay as a victory. The appellate court stay on the CIT ruling "is a positive development for America's industries and workers," White House spokesman Kush Desai said in a statement. "The Trump administration remains committed to addressing our country's national emergencies of drug trafficking and historic trade deficits with every legal authority conferred to the president in the Constitution and by Congress." But some economists warned that continuing to pursue the steep tariffs could backfire. Federal Judge Blocks 5 Trump Tariff Executive Orders The bottom line for the Trump administration "is that they need to get back to a place [where] they are using these huge reciprocal tariffs and all of that as a negotiating tactic," William Cline, an economist and senior fellow emeritus at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, said in an interview. Cline noted that this had been the framework laid out earlier by Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who had embraced the tariffs as more of an opening salvo for future trade talks, including between the U.S. and China. "I think the thing to keep in mind there is that Trump and Vance have this view that tariffs are beautiful because they will restore America's Rust Belt jobs and that they'll collect money while they're doing it, which will contribute to fiscal growth," said Cline, the former deputy managing director and chief economist of the Institute of International Finance. "Those are both fantasies." 'American Hero' Or 'Failure': Elon Musk's Doge Departure Divides Capitol Hill Plaintiffs and the Trump administration wait. But whether that wait is a good or bad thing depends on who is asked. Economists noted that the longer the court process takes, the more uncertainty is injected into markets. This could slow economic growth and hurt consumers. For the U.S. small business owners that have sued Trump over the tariffs, it could risk potentially irreparable harm. "Some of the harm has already taken place. And the longer it goes on, the worse it is," said Schwab. The White House said it will take its tariff fight to the Supreme Court if necessary. But it's unclear if the high court would choose to take up the case. The challenge comes at a time when Trump's relationship with the judiciary has come under increasing strain, which could make the high court wary to take on such a politically charged case. Lawyers for the plaintiffs described the case as "very likely" to be appealed to the Supreme Court, but it's unclear whether it will move to review it. "It's possible that because the case is before the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, which essentially applies to the country, unlike specific appellate courts, which have certain districts, that the Supreme Court might be OK with whatever the Federal Circuit decides and then not take the case," Schwab said. For now, the burden of proof shifts to the government, which must convince the court it will suffer "irreparable harm" if the injunction remains in place, a high legal standard the Trump administration must meet. Beyond that, Schwab said, the court will weigh a balancing test. If both sides claim irreparable harm, the justices will ask, "Who is irreparably harmed more? "And I think it's fair to say that our clients are going to be more irreparably harmed than the United States federal government. Because our clients might not exist, and the United States federal government is certainly going to exist."Original article source: Trump tariff plan faces uncertain future as court battles intensify
Fox News
12 hours ago
- Business
- Fox News
All aboard the WMAGA? Florida congressman wants to rename DC transit for Trump
"This is the Trump Train, next stop: Ronald Reagan National Airport," could be the conductor's call on Washington, D.C.'s commuter rail system if one Florida GOP congressman has his way. Rep. Greg Steube drafted "The Make Autorail Great Again (MAGA) Act," which would withhold $150 million in federal funding from the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) until it is renamed "WMAGA" – or the Washington Metropolitan Authority for Greater Access, in honor of President Donald Trump. It would also require the METRO rail system – six color-coded lines encompassing about 130 miles of track – to be renamed the "Trump Train." Steube called upon a 1966 District of Columbia law granting congressional "consent" for the interstate compact and ensuing establishment of WMATA. "WMATA has received billions in federal assistance over the years and continues to face operational, safety, and fiscal challenges," Steube said in a statement. "In the spirit of DOGE, this bill demands accountability by conditioning federal funding on reforms that signal a cultural shift away from bureaucratic stagnation toward public-facing excellence and patriotism." The day-to-day operations of WMATA and the METRO, including fares and routings, are controlled by its board – not Congress. It also receives funding and recommendations from the three state/district stakeholders. WMATA's board consists of two members from Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia, plus two appointed by the federal government. Steube called WMATA a "struggling institution" in need of a "fresh identity," particularly ahead of global events scheduled in the region, including the 2027 NFL Draft and FIFA World Cup matches. Fox News Digital reached out to WMATA as well as Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton, D-D.C., for comment. Several METRO stations already sport political names, though they often coincide with nearby sites – including for former President Ronald Reagan, ex-Secretary of State John Dulles, Pierre L'Enfant and Pierre DuPont. A move to rename the entire METRO system in honor of a dignitary, however, has never been tried previously.
Yahoo
20 hours ago
- Business
- Yahoo
The Billionaire Hoarders: How the Wealthy Became Our Biggest Threat
It happens every few generations. It's what drove the fascist oligarchs of the Confederacy to reach out and try to conquer the entire United States in the 1860s. It caused the robber barons to murder union organizers and ultimately crash America into the Republican Great Depression in the early decades of the twentieth century. And it's why wages have been stagnant while billionaires' wealth has exploded in the years since the Reagan revolution. What I'm talking about here is the rise of greedy oligarchs who are driven by an identifiable mental illness: what's either a subset of obsessive-compulsive disorder or a defect in impulse control called 'hoarding syndrome.' Because most hoarders never invite people into their homes, it's an almost invisible illness. But, as Drs. Randy Frost and Gail Steketee write in their book Stuff: Compulsive Hoarding and the Meaning of Things: Recent studies of hoarding put the prevalence rate at somewhere between 2 and 5 percent of the population. That means that six million to fifteen million Americans suffer from hoarding that causes them distress or interferes with their ability to live. That's tough enough; people afflicted with hoarding syndrome are often tortured by their obsession and socially embarrassed to the point of removing themselves from all but the most essential social situations. They're functionally invisible. But from a societal point of view, they're generally only harming themselves: Hoarding syndrome is considered a psychiatric condition, not a crisis for democracy itself. With one giant exception: morbidly rich people who are also afflicted with hoarding syndrome but don't live in or even close to poverty. When people with hoarding syndrome are born with or come into massive wealth, suddenly what was once a personal, psychiatric issue can become a crisis for all of society. Like Scrooge McDuck of Disney comics fame, instead of filling their mansions with old newspapers, tin cans, and balls of string, they obsessively fill their money bins, overseas bank accounts, and investment portfolios with billions of dollars. And then, driven to continuously hoard more and more money—that now being the object of their addiction—they reach out to use the power of government itself to redirect more and more cash into their greedy hands. As historian and political scientist Michael Parenti notes: Wealth becomes addictive. Fortune whets the appetite for still more fortune. There is no end to the amount of money one might wish to accumulate, driven onward by the auri sacra fames, the cursed hunger for gold. So the money addicts grab more and more for themselves, more than can be spent in a thousand lifetimes of limitless indulgence, driven by what begins to resemble an obsessional pathology, a monomania that blots out every other human consideration. It blots out their concern for their fellow humans. It blots out their willingness to take climate science seriously. It blots out their ability to see the damage they're doing to their own country and its democratic institutions. Ultimately, they don't care about the damage they do to society; such considerations are overwhelmed by their obsession. They don't care how many children must grow up in poverty or even die young to support their massive wealth. They don't care about destroying everybody else's future, so long as they can get more, more, more money! We defeated Confederate oligarchs with this disease back in 1865. We beat money hoarders back again after the Republican Great Depression with FDR's New Deal and LBJ's Great Society. We thought we were safe, as the middle class grew from around 10 percent of us to around two-thirds of us (with a single paycheck!) by the late 1970s. But then, in 1978, in the Bellotti decision written by 'Powell Memo' author Lewis Powell himself, five corrupt Republicans on the Supreme Court ruled that money is actually 'free speech' and corporations are 'persons.' It floated Reagan into office in 1981 on a tsunami of oil and banking industry money. Five other corrupted SCOTUS Republicans doubled down on that bizarre ruling in 2010 with Citizens United, creating an entirely new form of corrupt political bribery via something they created out of thin air that is called a SuperPAC. As a result, today these morbidly rich hoarders shovel small amounts (millions) into the pockets of captured politicians who then provide them with tax breaks, profit-driving deregulation, and government subsidies that return billions to them. And the impact on average Americans over the past 47 years that we've been living in the Reagan revolution has been dramatic. While every other developed country in the world offers free or nearly free health care to its citizens; free or nearly free education, including college; and almost universal unionization and a high minimum wage, we're stuck living in the nation these billionaires have forced on us just to satisfy their own avaricious obsession with more, more, more money: —Almost 30 million Americans lack health insurance altogether, and 43 percent of Americans are so badly under-insured that any illness or accident costing them more than $1,000 in co-pays or deductibles would wipe them out. —Almost 12 percent of Americans, over 37 million of us, live in dire poverty, and 60 percent of us live in poverty: 201 million Americans. According to OECD numbers, while only 5 percent of Italians and 11 percent of Japanese workers toil in low-wage jobs, as CBS News reports, 'for the bottom 60% of U.S. households, a minimal quality of life is out of reach.' (And low-income Japanese and Italians have free health care and college.) —More than one in five Americans—21 percent—are illiterate. By fourth grade, a mere 35 percent of American children are literate at grade level, as our public schools have suffered from a sustained, four-decade-long attack by Republicans at both state and federal levels to pay for tax cuts for billionaires. —Fully a quarter of Americans (26 percent) suffer from a diagnosable mental illness in any given year: Over half of them (54 percent) never receive treatment and, because of cost and a lack of access to mental health care, of the 46 percent who do get help, the average time from onset of symptoms to the first treatment is 11 years. —Every day in America, an average of 316 people are shot and 110 die from their wounds. Gun violence is now the leading cause of death for American children, a situation not suffered by the children of any other country in the world. And these are just the tip of the iceberg of statistics about how Americans suffer from Reagan's 40-year-long GOP war on working-class and poor people that has managed to make America the nation with the world's largest number of the world's wealthiest billionaires. —Almost half (44 percent) of American adults carry student debt, a burden virtually unknown in any other developed country in the world (dozens of countries actually pay their young people to go to college). —Americans spend more than twice as much for health care and pharmaceuticals as citizens of any other developed country. We pay $11,912 per person per year for health care; it's $5,463 in Australia, $4,666 in Japan, $5,496 in France, and $7,382 in Germany (the most expensive country outside of us). And we don't get better health or a longer lifespan for all the money; instead, it's just lining the pockets of rich insurance, pharma, and hospital executives and investors, with hundreds of billions in profits every year going to the morbidly rich. 'Dollar Bill' McGuire, the former CEO of UnitedHealth, for example, took over a billion dollars in compensation. —The average American life expectancy is 78.8 years: Canada's is 82.3, Australia's is 82.9, Japan's is 84.4, France's is 83.0, and Germany's is 81.3. —Our public schools are an underfunded mess, as are our highways and public transportation systems. While every other developed country in the world has high-speed train service, we still suffer under a privatized rail system that prevents Amtrak from running even its most modern trains at anything close to their top speeds. In the 42 years since the start of the Reagan revolution, bought-off politicians have so altered our tax code that fully $51 trillion has moved from the homes and savings of working-class Americans into the money bins of the morbidly rich money hoarders. As a result, America today is the most unequal developed nation in the world and the situation gets worse every day: Many of our billionaires are richer than any pharaoh or king in the history of the world, while a family lifestyle that could be comfortably supported by a single income in 1980 takes two people working full-time to maintain today. In the years since the Supreme Court first began down this road in 1976, the GOP has come to be entirely captured by this handful of mentally ill billionaires and the industries that made them rich. As a result, Republican politicians refuse to do anything about the slaughter of our schoolchildren with weapons of war; ignore or ridicule the damage fossil fuel–caused global warming is doing to our nation and planet; and continue to lower billionaire and corporate taxes every time they get full control of the federal or a state government. All because our courts and politicians, now well captured by right-wing billionaires, refuse to do anything about the ravages of hoarding syndrome among the very wealthy. Solving this problem won't be easy but also isn't complicated. Just like we did with the robber barons, the first step is to identify and publicize the problem of mentally ill people among the morbidly rich having seized control of our political system. We did this before. As President Grover Cleveland—the only Democrat elected during that post–Civil War period—proclaimed in his 1887 State of the Union address: As we view the achievements of aggregated capital, we discover the existence of trusts, combinations, and monopolies, while the citizen is struggling far in the rear or is trampled to death beneath an iron heel. Corporations, which should be the carefully restrained creatures of the law and the servants of the people, are fast becoming the people's masters. And as FDR pointed out when he began to pull America out of the Republican Great Depression: For out of this modern civilization economic royalists carved new dynasties. New kingdoms were built upon concentration of control over material things.… It was natural and perhaps human that the privileged princes of these new economic dynasties, thirsting for power, reached out for control over Government itself. FDR took on those 'economic royalists' and defeated them. He explicitly called them out when the Democratic Party renominated him for president in 1936 in Philadelphia: 'These economic royalists complain that we seek to overthrow the institutions of America,' Roosevelt said. 'What they really complain of is that we seek to take away their power.' He paused for a moment, then thundered, 'Our allegiance to American institutions requires the overthrow of this kind of power!' The crowd roared, delighted that he'd turned back the Republican Great Depression and put millions to work while undoing the climate-destroying Dust Bowl by creating, among other three-letter agencies, the Civilian Conservation Corps, or CCC, to plant millions of trees across the country. And he raised the top tax rate on the obscenely wealthy back up to 90 percent, while stopping an effort to kidnap him and turn the government fascist. 'In vain,' Roosevelt said, 'they seek to hide behind the Flag and the Constitution. In their blindness they forget what the Flag and the Constitution stand for. Now, as always, they stand for democracy, not tyranny; for freedom, not subjection; and against a dictatorship by mob rule and the over-privileged alike.' Cleveland's and Roosevelt's work now falls to us, as a new generation of obsessively money-hoarding robber barons have emerged from Reagan's tax cuts and these horrible Supreme Court decisions. It's thus now our job to educate the American people about the mental illness that's frozen our economy and is dismantling our democracy. Our task in this time of crisis is to create a societal consensus across America that we're done indulging these wealthy pampered babies' every desire, and begin the serious reforms necessary to put an end to this crisis and, like in the 1890s and 1930s, break up monopolies and raise their damn taxes so we can begin to pay down our nation's debt and rebuild the middle class. It'll take a few years, in all probability, but it's been done before. We can do it again.
CNN
a day ago
- Business
- CNN
White House grapples with whiplash legal rulings hitting heart of Trump's economic agenda
For a White House that has grown accustomed to a rollercoaster of legal rulings, judicial decisions over the past day throwing President Donald Trump's tariff plans into question landed like a bombshell. The rulings – which strike at the heart of Trump's economic agenda – represent far more of a threat to his priorities, White House officials said, than many other court opinions over the last four months since Trump returned to office. And perhaps no fight will prove as consequential to the president's agenda — at home and abroad — as the effort now underway by Trump and his administration to rescue his tariff policy after it was imperiled by a relatively obscure tribunal this week. The day after the US Court of International Trade — a panel housed in a boxy glass building in Lower Manhattan — ruled Trump lacked the authority to apply the sweeping sky-high tariffs under federal emergency powers, the president and his team quickly moved to have the ruling frozen. The administration blasted the Wednesday night decision, which was reached by a three-judge panel appointed by Trump, Barack Obama and Ronald Reagan. Trump's team was successful; by Thursday afternoon, a federal appeals court in Washington had preserved the tariffs on an administrative basis, buying the White House time. In the interim, there was a scramble inside the White House to both identify other authorities that would allow Trump to move ahead with the stiff new duties and to swiftly petition the courts to pause enforcement. Back-up options could prove cumbersome. Many of the alternative routes would involve lengthy investigations or require approval from Congress, where support for tariffs — even among some Republicans — is lukewarm. 'We're not planning to pursue those right now because we're very, very confident that this really is incorrect,' Trump's top economist Kevin Hassett said early Thursday in a Fox Business interview, before affirming later in the day what other White House officials had been saying: that Trump's team was exploring all its options. 'Heaven forbid, if it ever did have trouble in the future, we've got so many other options on the table that the president's policy is going to be there,' he told reporters in the White House driveway. Still, it seemed evident that Trump's advisers believed the courts would provide the best resource, even if there was little certainty at how judges will ultimately rule. 'We will respond forcefully, and we think we have a very good case with respect to this,' Trump's hawkish trade adviser Peter Navarro said following the stay decision. The whiplash rulings — which joined a string of on-again, off-again tariff moves orchestrated by Trump himself — only seemed to emphasize the degree of chaos that continues to color Trump's trade agenda. The tariffs were restored only temporarily, leaving foreign trade partners and investors in a state of limbo at least until June 9, the date by which the Justice Department must respond to those challenging the duties. The ultimate fate of Trump's prized tariffs, both a lynchpin of his wider economic agenda and the motivating force of his foreign policy, has now been thrust into deep uncertainty. And the prospects of the roughly 18 trade deals that the administration has said are being negotiated under threat of withering new tariffs — including three in their final stages, according to White House officials — now appear unclear. The legal and trade fights, which are now fully intertwined, present one of the biggest challenges yet for the administration – further complicated by urgent efforts to push the Senate to advance its budget and tax bill. Taken together, Trump faces a multi-front battle that could well define his presidency. Trump lashed out at the judiciary in a lengthy Thursday evening Truth Social post, taking aim at the three judges from the Court of International Trade. 'How is it possible for them to have potentially done such damage to the United States of America? Is it purely a hatred of 'TRUMP?' What other reason could it be?' Hours earlier, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt had struck a similar tone, attacking 'unelected judges' ahead of the stay decision. 'America cannot function if President Trump, or any president for that matter, has their sensitive diplomatic or trade negotiations railroaded by activist judges.' Trump remained behind closed doors Thursday, but did hold a meeting with Federal Reserve chairman Jerome Powell, whom he has sharply criticized for not lowering interest rates. Powell has also expressed concern Trump's tariffs could lead to higher inflation and lower economic growth. The president's long-standing belief in tariffs has not been shaken, officials said, despite the series of legal, political and economic setbacks. While Trump has repeatedly argued that tariffs will make the United States wealthy, the counterargument that import taxes will be paid by consumers has made his sales pitch far more difficult. And businesses are begging for a sense of certainty and a consistent policy. It was a coalition of small business owners and 12 states that challenged the legality of the Trump tariffs before the US Court of International Trade. 'We brought this case because the Constitution doesn't give any president unchecked authority to upend the economy,' Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield said in a statement. 'We're very confident in our case,' said Jeffrey Schwab, a senior counselor at the Liberty Justice Center, which represented the small business owners who filed suit. 'The Trump administration is asserting a vast unilateral authority that is not supported in the law.' As for the uncertainty abroad, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent argued Thursday night that trade negotiations with international partners haven't been affected. 'They are coming to us in good faith and trying to complete the deals before the 90-day pause ends,' he told Fox News. 'We've seen no change in their attitude in the past 48 hours. As a matter of fact, I have a very large Japanese delegation coming to my office first thing tomorrow morning.' But some US trading partners tread cautiously in their response. 'We will study this ruling of the US Federal Courts on reciprocal tariffs closely and note that they may be subject to further legal processes through the courts,' said Australia's trade minister Don Farrell, who was careful not to get ahead of ongoing judicial review. 'You will have to bear with us,' said a spokesman for India's Ministry of External Affairs when questioned about the court ruling. India remains in intensive discussions with the Trump administration on a trade deal. Still, the leader of one nation that has borne the brunt of Trump's trade agenda was more receptive. 'The government welcomes yesterday's decision,' Canada's Prime Minister Mark Carney, who held a stiffly cordial meeting with Trump earlier this month, told his country's parliament, calling the tariffs 'unlawful as well as unjustified.'
CNN
a day ago
- Business
- CNN
White House grapples with whiplash legal rulings hitting heart of Trump's economic agenda
For a White House that has grown accustomed to a rollercoaster of legal rulings, judicial decisions over the past day throwing President Donald Trump's tariff plans into question landed like a bombshell. The rulings – which strike at the heart of Trump's economic agenda – represent far more of a threat to his priorities, White House officials said, than many other court opinions over the last four months since Trump returned to office. And perhaps no fight will prove as consequential to the president's agenda — at home and abroad — as the effort now underway by Trump and his administration to rescue his tariff policy after it was imperiled by a relatively obscure tribunal this week. The day after the US Court of International Trade — a panel housed in a boxy glass building in Lower Manhattan — ruled Trump lacked the authority to apply the sweeping sky-high tariffs under federal emergency powers, the president and his team quickly moved to have the ruling frozen. The administration blasted the Wednesday night decision, which was reached by a three-judge panel appointed by Trump, Barack Obama and Ronald Reagan. Trump's team was successful; by Thursday afternoon, a federal appeals court in Washington had preserved the tariffs on an administrative basis, buying the White House time. In the interim, there was a scramble inside the White House to both identify other authorities that would allow Trump to move ahead with the stiff new duties and to swiftly petition the courts to pause enforcement. Back-up options could prove cumbersome. Many of the alternative routes would involve lengthy investigations or require approval from Congress, where support for tariffs — even among some Republicans — is lukewarm. 'We're not planning to pursue those right now because we're very, very confident that this really is incorrect,' Trump's top economist Kevin Hassett said early Thursday in a Fox Business interview, before affirming later in the day what other White House officials had been saying: that Trump's team was exploring all its options. 'Heaven forbid, if it ever did have trouble in the future, we've got so many other options on the table that the president's policy is going to be there,' he told reporters in the White House driveway. Still, it seemed evident that Trump's advisers believed the courts would provide the best resource, even if there was little certainty at how judges will ultimately rule. 'We will respond forcefully, and we think we have a very good case with respect to this,' Trump's hawkish trade adviser Peter Navarro said following the stay decision. The whiplash rulings — which joined a string of on-again, off-again tariff moves orchestrated by Trump himself — only seemed to emphasize the degree of chaos that continues to color Trump's trade agenda. The tariffs were restored only temporarily, leaving foreign trade partners and investors in a state of limbo at least until June 9, the date by which the Justice Department must respond to those challenging the duties. The ultimate fate of Trump's prized tariffs, both a lynchpin of his wider economic agenda and the motivating force of his foreign policy, has now been thrust into deep uncertainty. And the prospects of the roughly 18 trade deals that the administration has said are being negotiated under threat of withering new tariffs — including three in their final stages, according to White House officials — now appear unclear. The legal and trade fights, which are now fully intertwined, present one of the biggest challenges yet for the administration – further complicated by urgent efforts to push the Senate to advance its budget and tax bill. Taken together, Trump faces a multi-front battle that could well define his presidency. Trump lashed out at the judiciary in a lengthy Thursday evening Truth Social post, taking aim at the three judges from the Court of International Trade. 'How is it possible for them to have potentially done such damage to the United States of America? Is it purely a hatred of 'TRUMP?' What other reason could it be?' Hours earlier, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt had struck a similar tone, attacking 'unelected judges' ahead of the stay decision. 'America cannot function if President Trump, or any president for that matter, has their sensitive diplomatic or trade negotiations railroaded by activist judges.' Trump remained behind closed doors Thursday, but did hold a meeting with Federal Reserve chairman Jerome Powell, whom he has sharply criticized for not lowering interest rates. Powell has also expressed concern Trump's tariffs could lead to higher inflation and lower economic growth. The president's long-standing belief in tariffs has not been shaken, officials said, despite the series of legal, political and economic setbacks. While Trump has repeatedly argued that tariffs will make the United States wealthy, the counterargument that import taxes will be paid by consumers has made his sales pitch far more difficult. And businesses are begging for a sense of certainty and a consistent policy. It was a coalition of small business owners and 12 states that challenged the legality of the Trump tariffs before the US Court of International Trade. 'We brought this case because the Constitution doesn't give any president unchecked authority to upend the economy,' Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield said in a statement. 'We're very confident in our case,' said Jeffrey Schwab, a senior counselor at the Liberty Justice Center, which represented the small business owners who filed suit. 'The Trump administration is asserting a vast unilateral authority that is not supported in the law.' As for the uncertainty abroad, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent argued Thursday night that trade negotiations with international partners haven't been affected. 'They are coming to us in good faith and trying to complete the deals before the 90-day pause ends,' he told Fox News. 'We've seen no change in their attitude in the past 48 hours. As a matter of fact, I have a very large Japanese delegation coming to my office first thing tomorrow morning.' But some US trading partners tread cautiously in their response. 'We will study this ruling of the US Federal Courts on reciprocal tariffs closely and note that they may be subject to further legal processes through the courts,' said Australia's trade minister Don Farrell, who was careful not to get ahead of ongoing judicial review. 'You will have to bear with us,' said a spokesman for India's Ministry of External Affairs when questioned about the court ruling. India remains in intensive discussions with the Trump administration on a trade deal. Still, the leader of one nation that has borne the brunt of Trump's trade agenda was more receptive. 'The government welcomes yesterday's decision,' Canada's Prime Minister Mark Carney, who held a stiffly cordial meeting with Trump earlier this month, told his country's parliament, calling the tariffs 'unlawful as well as unjustified.'
