Court Declines US Tariff Relief on Low-Cost Goods, for Now
The decision from the Court of International Trade on Monday in the fight over what's known as the 'de minimis' tariff exemption is the latest favorable order for the Trump administration in its defense against multiple lawsuits over his move to raise global tariffs.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
a few seconds ago
- Los Angeles Times
9th Circuit keeps freeze on Southern California ICE patrols
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals dealt a stinging blow to the Trump administration's mass deportation project Friday night in a fiery opinion upholding a lower court's block on 'roving patrols' across much of Southern California. 'If, as Defendants suggest, they are not conducting stops that lack reasonable suspicion, they can hardly claim to be irreparably harmed by an injunction aimed at preventing a subset of stops not supported by reasonable suspicion,' the panel wrote. The ruling leaves in place a temporary restraining order barring masked and heavily armed agents from snatching people off the streets of Southern California without first establishing reasonable suspicion that they are in the U.S. illegally. Under the 4th Amendment, reasonable suspicion cannot be based solely on race, ethnicity, language, location or employment, either alone or in combination, U.S. District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong of Los Angeles wrote in her original order. 9th Circuit Judges Marsha S. Berzon, Jennifer Sung and Ronald M. Gould agreed. 'There is no predicate action that the individual plaintiffs would need to take, other than simply going about their lives, to potentially be subject to the challenged stops,' the opinion said. Fourth Amendment injunctions are hard to win, experts say. Plaintiffs must show not only that they were hurt, but that they are likely to be hurt again in the same way in the future. One way to meet that test in court is to show the injury is the product of a government policy. Throughout a hearing Monday, the appellate judges repeatedly probed that question, roughly doubling the administration's time to respond in an effort to get an answer. 'After the district court injunction here, the secretary of Homeland Security said, 'We are going to continue doing what we're doing' — so that's not a policy?' Berzon asked. 'The policy is to follow the 4th Amendment and to require reasonable suspicion,' said Deputy Assistant Atty. Gen. Yaakov Roth. Roth also rebuffed questions about a 3,000-arrests-per-day quota first touted by White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller in May. In a memo to the panel on Wednesday, Roth clarified that 'no such goal' had been established. The court rejected that argument Friday, writing that 'no official statement or express policy is required' to prove one exists. 'Agents have conducted many stops in the Los Angeles area within a matter of weeks ... some repeatedly in the same location,' the opinion said, making the likelihood of future stops 'considerable.' The ruling scolded the Department of Justice for 'misreading' the restraining order it sought to block, and said it 'mischaracterized' Judge Frimpong's order. And it rejected the government's central claim that its law enforcement mandate would be 'chilled' by the district court's order. 'Defendants have failed to establish that they will be 'chilled' from their enforcement efforts at all, let alone in a manner that constitutes the 'irreparable injury' required to support a stay pending appeal,' the panel wrote. The case is still in its early phases, with hearings set for a preliminary injunction in September. But the 'shock and awe' campaign of chaotic public arrests that first gripped Southern California on June 6 has all but ceased in the seven counties covered by Frimpong's order: Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino, Orange, Ventura, Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo. 'The underlying 4th Amendment law is not complicated,' said Mohammad Tajsar of the ACLU of Southern California — part of a coalition of civil rights groups and individual attorneys challenging cases of three immigrants and two U.S. citizens swept up in chaotic arrests. 'Even a more conservative panel would have been concerned about what the government is doing.' Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, whose city was among a number of Southern California municipalities allowed to join the lawsuit this week, celebrated the news. 'Today is a victory for the rule of law and for the city of Los Angeles,' Bass said. 'Los Angeles will stand together against this administration's efforts to break up families who contribute every single day to the life, the culture and the economy of our great city.' The Trump administration has previously signaled its intent to fight judicial limits on its deportation efforts any way it can. It was not immediately clear where an appeal would proceed.
CNN
12 minutes ago
- CNN
Trump's tariffs are sending African countries into China's hands
Africa is adjusting to the new reality of US President Donald Trump's tariffs, with countries on the continent facing some of the highest export charges. But what could become a crisis is an opportunity for United States rival China, which has long courted African countries and is now offering them a lifeline. 'We (Africa) are going straight into the hands of China,' Nigerian economist Bismarck Rewane told CNN. 'That is the unfortunate outcome,' Rewane said of Africa's expected further shift toward China, which has emerged in recent years as the continent's largest bilateral trading partner. Four African nations - Libya, South Africa, Algeria and Tunisia - face some of the steepest tariffs imposed by the Trump administration, with charges on exports ranging from 25% to 30%. Eighteen other countries from the continent were hit with 15% levies, a modified tariff package released Thursday by the White House showed. In April, when the US import levies were first announced, Trump pitched them as 'reciprocal' and targeting countries that he said had trade deficits with the US. But Trump instead based his tariffs on countries' trade deficits with the United States – not the tariffs they charge. South Africa, one of the continent's powerhouses, challenged the imposition of a 30% tariff on its US-bound exports, saying Trump's decision was not based on 'an accurate representation of available trade data.' China has offered to soften the impact of US tariffs on Africa, saying in June it would halt charges on imports for nearly all its African partners. 'There is no other opportunity for African countries to strengthen South-South trade (among developing nations) than now,' South African researcher Neo Letswalo told CNN, while urging countries to 'solely turn to China and make it the next US.' 'America is gradually forfeiting its global leadership status,' Letswalo said, adding that the more countries 'become less dependent on the US, the greater opportunity for China to become an alternative.' Before the tariff deadline, the US did not make a trade deal with any African nation despite efforts from the continent to avoid the tariffs, underscoring Africa's place on the White House's priority list. Letswalo described America's failure to negotiate a deal with Africa as 'an open goal for China.' The impact of Trump's tariffs is already being felt in some of Africa's most buoyant economies and some of the continent's poorest, such as Lesotho, which was slapped with a 15% tariff. It had previously been hit with a 50% tariff – one of the steepest rates – before the charges were modified. Lesotho's Prime Minister Samuel Matekane said in June that the huge tariff, combined with the halt of US aid to the nation of just over 2 million people, 'have crippled industries that previously sustained thousands of jobs.' Trump has described Lesotho, a landlocked nation surrounded by South Africa, as a country 'nobody has ever heard of' – even though trade between the US and Lesotho totaled over $240 million last year, mostly in textiles. Before the tariffs, Lesotho benefited from a US trade agreement that allowed it and other eligible sub-Saharan countries to export goods to the US duty-free. Authorities in Lesotho have declared a two-year national state of disaster over the tariffs, as the country braces for their impact, with the textile industry already grappling with massive job losses. Thousands of roles are also threatened in Lesotho's richer neighbor, South Africa, where citrus growers said they were gripped with 'great anxiety' ahead of the August 1 tariff deadline. In a statement this week, the country's Citrus Growers' Association (CGA) warned that 'job losses will be a certainty' if the tariffs came into effect. It added that, 'hundreds of thousands of cartons of citrus are ready in packhouses to be shipped to the US over the next few weeks,' and that implementing the charges 'will mean most of this fruit will be left unsold.' Other industries in South Africa, such as the automobile sector, also face the risk of economic shocks, analysts said. 'Already, we have companies within the automobile sector threatening to leave (the country) as a result of plummeting business,' Letswalo said. 'The tariffs will add to the burden of pre-existing issues, and if these entities decide to exit South Africa, our already existing unemployment calamities will worsen,' he said. Gwede Mantashe, South Africa's minister of mineral and petroleum resources, told reporters Tuesday that other routes are being sought for South African goods. 'If the US imposes high tariffs, we must look for alternative markets,' he said. 'Our biggest trading partner is China, not the US. The US is number two,' Mantashe added. As South Africa scouts for broader opportunities, however, the citrus growers' group has voiced its reservations, specifically that their products suit designated markets so finding another is not straightforward. Its CEO, Boitshoko Ntshabele, told CNN in a statement that 'the US market remains a priority, and so should improving access to China' and elsewhere. 'There is a deep appreciation of South African citrus by US consumers. Since 2017, our exports to that market have almost doubled. The market has immense potential,' Ntshabele added. Letswalo believes there are accompanying risks behind the enticing option of relying on Beijing to cushion the impact of Trump's tariffs. Alternating US with China 'could be risky,' he said, 'especially for some nascent industries within the (African) countries.' 'If they're not protected, Chinese products will flood and outcompete them as many African countries are price sensitive markets,' he warned. China has imposed some imbalanced trade deals of its own in Africa with trade deficits skewed in its favor, according to the China-Global South Project (CGSP), an organization monitoring China's engagement with developing countries. Additionally, the bulk of Beijing's exports to Africa comprise mainly manufactured products, while the continent's exports to China are commonly raw materials. South Africa's Ramaphosa advocated for balanced trade with China when he met his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping in Beijing last year. Letswalo advised that, while Africa leans on China for trade, it must also seek domestic alternatives. He recommended a swift implementation of the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA), an agreement signed by nations on the continent to boost trade among themselves. Although established in 2020, implementing AfCFTA has been slow, with just over 20 countries of the continent's 55 trading under the deal. Rewane believes that the US tariffs could inspire Africa 'to build economic resilience and be less dependent on lopsided trade.' Above all, he added, the continent must be 'more inward-looking rather than outward-dependent.'
Hamilton Spectator
29 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
After a reference to Trump's impeachments is removed from a history museum, complex questions echo
NEW YORK (AP) — It would seem the most straightforward of notions: A thing takes place, and it goes into the history books or is added to museum exhibits. But whether something even gets remembered and how — particularly when it comes to the history of a country and its leader — is often the furthest thing from simple. The latest example of that came Friday, when the Smithsonian Institution said it had removed a reference to the 2019 and 2021 impeachments of President Donald Trump from a panel in an exhibition about the American presidency. Trump has pressed institutions and agencies under federal oversight, often through the pressure of funding, to focus on the country's achievements and progress and away from things he terms 'divisive.' A Smithsonian spokesperson said the removal of the reference, which had been installed as part of a temporary addition in 2021, came after a review of 'legacy content recently' and the exhibit eventually 'will include all impeachments.' There was no time frame given for when; exhibition renovations can be time- and money-consuming endeavors. In a statement that did not directly address the impeachment references, White House spokesperson Davis Ingle said: 'We are fully supportive of updating displays to highlight American greatness.' But is history intended to highlight or to document — to report what happened, or to serve a desired narrative? The answer, as with most things about the past, can be intensely complex. It's part of a larger effort around American stories The Smithsonian's move comes in the wake of Trump administration actions like removing the name of a gay rights activist from a Navy ship, pushing for Republican supporters in Congress to defund the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and getting rid of the leadership at the Kennedy Center. 'Based on what we have been seeing, this is part of a broader effort by the president to influence and shape how history is depicted at museums, national parks, and schools,' said Julian E. Zelizer, a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University. 'Not only is he pushing a specific narrative of the United States but, in this case, trying to influence how Americans learn about his own role in history.' It's not a new struggle, in the world generally and the political world particularly. There is power in being able to shape how things are remembered, if they are remembered at all — who was there, who took part, who was responsible, what happened to lead up to that point in history. And the human beings who run things have often extended their authority to the stories told about them. In China, for example, references to the June 1989 crackdown on pro-democracy demonstrators in Beijing's Tiananmen Square are forbidden and meticulously regulated by the ruling Communist Party government. In Soviet-era Russia, officials who ran afoul of leaders like Josef Stalin disappeared not only from the government itself but from photographs and history books where they once appeared. Jason Stanley, an expert on authoritarianism, said controlling what and how people learn of their past has long been used as a vital tool to maintain power. Stanley has made his views about the Trump administration clear; he recently left Yale University to join the University of Toronto, citing concerns over the U.S. political situation. 'If they don't control the historical narrative,' he said, 'then they can't create the kind of fake history that props up their politics.' It shows how the presentation of history matters In the United States, presidents and their families have always used their power to shape history and calibrate their own images. Jackie Kennedy insisted on cuts in William Manchester's book on her husband's 1963 assassination, 'The Death of a President.' Ronald Reagan and his wife got a cable TV channel to release a carefully calibrated documentary about him. Those around Franklin D. Roosevelt, including journalists of the era, took pains to mask the impact that paralysis had on his body and his mobility. Trump, though, has taken it to a more intense level — a sitting president encouraging an atmosphere where institutions can feel compelled to choose between him and the truth — whether he calls for it directly or not. 'We are constantly trying to position ourselves in history as citizens, as citizens of the country, citizens of the world,' said Robin Wagner-Pacifici, professor emerita of sociology at the New School for Social Research. 'So part of these exhibits and monuments are also about situating us in time. And without it, it's very hard for us to situate ourselves in history because it seems like we just kind of burst forth from the Earth.' Timothy Naftali, director of the Richard M. Nixon Presidential Library and Museum from 2007 to 2011, presided over its overhaul to offer a more objective presentation of Watergate — one not beholden to the president's loyalists. In an interview Friday, he said he was 'concerned and disappointed' about the Smithsonian decision. Naftali, now a senior researcher at Columbia University, said museum directors 'should have red lines' and that he considered removing the Trump panel to be one of them. While it might seem inconsequential for someone in power to care about a museum's offerings, Wagner-Pacifici says Trump's outlook on history and his role in it — earlier this year, he said the Smithsonian had 'come under the influence of a divisive, race-centered ideology' — shows how important those matters are to people in authority. 'You might say about that person, whoever that person is, their power is so immense and their legitimacy is so stable and so sort of monumental that why would they bother with things like this ... why would they bother to waste their energy and effort on that?' Wagner-Pacifici said. Her conclusion: 'The legitimacy of those in power has to be reconstituted constantly. They can never rest on their laurels.' ___
