President Trump isn't a tariff king

In a ruling heard 'round the world, the U.S. Court of International Trade on Wednesday blocked President Trump's sweeping tariffs. This is an important moment for the rule of law as much as for the economy, proving again that America doesn't have a king who can rule by decree.
The Trump tariffs have created enormous costs and uncertainty, but now we know they're illegal. As the three-judge panel explains in its detailed 52-page ruling, the President exceeded his emergency powers and bypassed discrete tariff authorities delegated to him by Congress. The ruling erases his April 2 tariffs as well as those on Canada and Mexico.
Small businesses and several states (V.O.S. Selections v. U.S.) challenged Mr. Trump's use of the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose tariffs willy-nilly. That law gives the President broad authority in a national emergency to 'deal with any unusual and extraordinary threat" including to 'regulate" the 'importation" of foreign property.
After declaring fentanyl an emergency, the President in February slapped tariffs on Mexico, Canada and China. Then in April he deemed the U.S. trade deficit an emergency and imposed tariffs of varying rates on the world. He later reduced those to 10% across the board for 90 days, supposedly to allow time to negotiate trade deals.
No other President has used IEEPA to impose tariffs. As the trade court explains, Richard Nixon used the law's precursor, the Trading With the Enemy Act, in 1971 to impose 10% tariffs for a short period to address a balance of payments problem. The Justice Department said Mr. Trump's tariffs are no different.
Not so. As the panel notes, Nixon tariffs were upheld by an appeals court because they were a 'limited surcharge" and 'temporary measure calculated to help meet a particular national emergency, which is quite different from imposing whatever tariff rates he deems desirable." The latter is what Mr. Trump did, at one point jacking up rates to 145% on China.
Congress also limited the President's emergency powers in IEEPA to prevent overreach. 'The legislative history surrounding IEEPA confirms that the words 'regulate . . . importation' have a narrower meaning than the power to impose any tariffs whatsoever," the panel notes.
Mr. Trump invoked IEEPA because he wanted to impose tariffs as he sees fit. But the Constitution doesn't let the President ignore Congress and do whatever he wants.
'Under the major questions doctrine, when Congress delegates powers of 'vast economic and political significance,' it must 'speak clearly,'" the judges stress. Democrats panned the major questions doctrine when the High Court used it to block Joe Biden's student-loan forgiveness, but perhaps they will now see its wisdom.
The judges also say Mr. Trump's fentanyl tariffs are unlawful because they don't, as IEEPA requires, 'deal with" their stated objectives. The government's theory would permit 'any infliction of a burden on a counterparty to exact concessions," the panel notes. 'If 'deal with' can mean 'impose a burden until someone else deals with,' then everything is permitted."
Exactly. The court's ruling effectively slams the door on IEEPA as a basis to impose tariffs. This means a future Democratic President can't declare a climate emergency and wield tariffs to punish countries for CO2 emissions. Conservatives ought to cheer this restraint on one-man rule.
White House officials are attacking the trade court's ruling as liberal judicial overreach, though the three judges were Reagan, Obama and Trump appointees. On Thursday the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit put a stay on the trade court's ruling while it considers Mr. Trump's emergency appeal. Meanwhile, a separate federal judge also ruled the tariffs illegal under IEEPA.
The White House boasts it will win at the Supreme Court, but our reading of the trade court's opinion suggests the opposite. Mr. Trump's three Court appointees are likely to invoke the major-questions precedent.
Mr. Trump has other laws he can use to impose tariffs, though most are more limited than his emergency claims. The most expansive is Section 338 of the 1930 Smoot-Hawley Act, which lets a President impose duties up to 50% on countries found to discriminate against the U.S. But no President has ever done so.
Mr. Trump would be wiser to heed the trade court's ruling as the political gift it is and liberate his Presidency and the economy from his destructive tariff obsessions.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

India Today

33 minutes ago

• India Today

Iran's retaliation against US strikes could come in next 48 hours: Report

Iran could launch retaliatory attacks against US forces in the Middle East within the next 48 hours, further escalating the conflict in the region following US airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities over the the Trump administration is continuing diplomatic efforts to prevent further conflict, two US officials, speaking on condition of anonymity to news agency Reuters, said intelligence assessments point to a heightened threat window in the next day or has vowed to defend itself after the US struck multiple targets, including components of its nuclear infrastructure, in what Washington described as a preemptive move to prevent an "unacceptable escalation" in the region. The strikes have prompted fears of a broader military conflict between the long-time President Donald Trump, who authorised the mission dubbed Operation Midnight Hammer, warned that any Iranian retaliation would be met with "a force far greater than that used in the weekend US attacks".In preemptive moves, General Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that the US military has heightened protection measures for its troops in the region, including those stationed in Iraq and US maintains around 40,000 troops across the Middle East, many of whom operate high-value assets including air defence systems, fighter aircraft, and warships—all of which could be vulnerable in the event of a coordinated Iranian week, the Pentagon began repositioning some of those assets to reduce exposure. Among the moves was the moving out of aircraft from the sprawling Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, which houses around 10,000 US personnel and serves as a strategic hub for operations across the its vows to retaliate, Tehran has so far refrained from attacking US positions or attempting to close the Strait of Hormuz, a vital waterway through which roughly a quarter of the world's oil shipments al-Rahim Mousavi, Chief of Staff of the Iranian Armed Forces, said the country will respond appropriately to the American aggression."Regardless of the damage caused to the three nuclear facilities, we will respond against the US simply because it attacked our country," Mousavi said.- EndsMust Watch

Mint

36 minutes ago

• Mint

Senate Readies Tax Bill for Vote With Holdouts Threatening Delay

(Bloomberg) -- President Donald Trump's tax-and-spending agenda is nearing a climactic vote in the Senate this week in the wake of air strikes on Iran, which risk embroiling the US in a prolonged Middle East conflict. Trump's $4.2 trillion tax-cut package, partially offset by social safety-net reductions, does not yet have the support it needs to pass the Senate. Fiscal hawks seeking to lower the bill's total price tag are at odds with Republicans worried about cuts to Medicaid health coverage for their constituents and phase-outs to green energy incentives that support jobs in their states. Finessing a deal to line up the votes will require focus — and a bit of arm-twisting — from Trump, who is juggling both a pivotal week for his domestic agenda alongside a highly uncertain situation in Iran following the US strikes. Trump on Sunday, as US officials and foreign leaders were still digesting what the attacks on Iranian nuclear sites will mean for Middle East stability, urged members of his party to swiftly pass the tax bill. 'Great unity in the Republican Party, perhaps unity like we have never seen before. Now let's get the Great, Big, Beautiful Bill done. Our Country is doing GREAT,' Trump said on social media. Senate Republicans plan to begin the multi-step process to vote on Trump's tax and spending cut bill mid-week, setting up final passage in the latter half of the week or over the weekend. That timeline would allow the House to vote on the latest version next week and meet Trump's goal of enacting his signature bill by July 4. Meeting that ambitious deadline will require senators to quickly negotiate resolutions to a series of thorny policy issues that have divided Republicans for weeks. Senate Majority Leader John Thune must balance demands by fiscal conservatives for deeper spending cuts with qualms from moderate Republicans concerned the bill goes too far in making people ineligible for Medicaid and cutting funding for rural hospitals. Renewable energy incentives continue to divide the party as well, with some conservatives pushing for a faster phase-out of tax breaks for wind, solar, nuclear, geothermal and hydrogen. Other senators are angling to keep the breaks in place for projects that have already begun. Senators will also find themselves in talks with some of their House counterparts over the state and local tax, or SALT, deduction. The Senate bill would keep the current $10,000 cap in place, while the House-passed version would raise it to $40,000. Several House members from high-tax states, including New York, New Jersey and California, have threatened to block the bill if it doesn't include a $40,000 SALT cap. The Senate has some negotiating room to increase the SALT cap. The bill, per Senate rules, can lose up to $1.5 trillion over a decade. But a new estimate from the non-partisan Joint Committee on Taxation, found the legislation only costs $441 billion over ten years — after deploying a budget gimmick that assumes the $3.8 trillion cost of extending Trump's first-term tax cuts cost nothing. Democrats are locked out of the deal-making, with Trump able to pass his agenda on Republican votes alone. But they have been able to use arcane Senate rules to successfully challenge and strike some provisions from the bill if the Senate parliamentarian declares the measures aren't sufficiently related to taxes, spending or the budget. The parliamentarian blocked a provision that would make it harder for judges to hold Trump administration officials in contempt for failing to abide by rulings. Democrats were able to eliminate measures that would curb some Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits. Provisions to strip funding from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and cut Federal Reserve employee salaries were also tossed out. Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough permitted Republicans to use the bill to pressure states not to regulate artificial intelligence by denying them funding for broadband Internet projects. That's a watered-down version of a House proposal that would have blocked states from issuing AI regulations. That plan drew bipartisan criticism for overstepping states' authority. Democrats are also seeking to remove the Section 899 'revenge tax' on companies domiciled in countries with 'unfair' tax regimes. That provision has stoked fears on Wall Street of capital flight from the US. That parliamentarian ruling could be released as soon as Monday. The tax bill is the core of Trump's economic agenda combined into a 'big, beautiful bill.' The Senate version makes permanent individual and business tax breaks enacted in 2017, while adding new breaks for tipped and overtime workers, seniors and car-buyers. The bill would allow hundreds of billions of dollars in new spending for the military, border patrol and immigration enforcement. To partly pay for the revenue losses, the bill imposes new work and cost-sharing requirements for Medicaid and food stamps while cutting aid to students. The measure would also avert a US payment default as soon as August by raising the debt ceiling by $5 trillion. More stories like this are available on

The Hindu

37 minutes ago

• The Hindu

Rythu Bharosa disbursement to be completed today

HYDERABAD The Telangana government has almost completed the disbursement of investment support to the landholding farming community under the Rythu Bharosa scheme, as promised before the commencement of the process, Minister for Agriculture Tummala Nageswara Rao said. An amount of ₹8,284.66 crore has been credited to the bank accounts of 67.01 lakh farmers with landholding up to 15 acres in a matter of just eight days, seven days effectively, and it is the speediest disbursement of the benefit ever since the introduction of the scheme in Kharif 2018-19 season, the Minister stated on Monday. The investment support to farmers with landholding above 15 acres would be completed on Tuesday. The disbursement was taken up on June 16 and on the first day, farmers with landholding up to 2 acres were credited with ₹2,349.83 crore, followed by farmers with holding up to 3 acres with ₹1,551.89 crore, up to 4 acres with ₹1,313.53 crore, up to 5 acres with ₹1,189.44 crore, up to 7 acres with ₹905.92 crore, up to 9 acres with ₹460.25 crore and up to 15 acres with ₹513.83 crore over the next six days. The Minister said that Chief Minister A. Revanth Reddy would address the farming community as part of the Rythu Nestham programme on the completion of the disbursement of the benefit for the season and other measures initiated by the government. The Minister explained that the BRS government had completed the disbursement of Rythu Bandhu (for two seasons) in 128 days in 2018, 132 days in 2019, 169 days in 2020, 69 days in 2021 and 108 days in 2022. As promised the Congress government had also implemented the farm loan waiver scheme by August 15 last year, he stated.