Here are the Trump tariffs that were struck down — then reinstated, for now
As a result, those tariffs have been reinstated for now.
The businesses challenging the tariffs have until June 5 to respond, while the administration has until June 9 to file any reply, the appeals court said.
Earlier: On Wednesday, a federal trade court voided some of the tariffs the Trump administration has imposed as part of its effort to shore up the trade deficit and boost manufacturing.
Less than 24 hours later, a second court, the District Court of Washington, D.C., issued a similar ruling just after noon on Thursday.
The rulings have set the stage for a contentious court fight, as the White House immediately filed an appeal to the initial decision. The Trump administration may ask the U.S. Supreme Court as soon as Friday to pause the rulings, CNBC reported.
In the meantime, under the terms of the initial decision, the U.S. has until June 9 to direct customs officials to cease collections of the import taxes the president imposed under an emergency-powers statute.
These include the "fentanyl tariffs," Trump imposed at the outset of his second term, the "reciprocal tariffs" he announced on April 9 (which so far have extended only to China), and the de minimis tariffs on low-cost imports from China.
The trade court also held that the U.S. must refund the tariffs it has collected under the emergency powers statute. Analysts with Nomura Holdings financial group said that even if Trump ultimately replicates those tariffs using other authorizations, that refund obligation would remain in place.
The rulings inject further uncertainty into the markets and the economy.
In the meantime, assuming the rulings are allowed to fully take effect, here are the tariffs that would, and would not, be affected.
10% universal baseline tariff
20% duties on Chinese goods in response to its alleged failures to combat fentanyl trafficking
10% "reciprocal" duty targeting all Chinese goods
De minimis tariffs on Chinese goods valued at less than $800
25% on auto imports (excluding non-U.S. content of USMCA-compliant autos)
25% on auto parts imports (USMCA-compliant parts exempt)
25% on all steel, aluminum, and aluminum articles
This article was originally published on NBCNews.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
24 minutes ago
- USA Today
John Grisham: Trump's cuts to legal aid would hurt veterans, children and families
I write bestselling novels about the legal system. And as a lawyer, I represented low-income clients for free – the same people who will struggle to get justice under the president's proposed cuts. Before I became a writer, when I was a newly minted attorney in rural Mississippi, I saw how helpless people were going to court on their own. When I could, I took cases for no fee to prevent people from getting lost in the complex legal system. But it was obvious pro bono services alone could not meet the vast needs of Americans, especially in rural areas. Those people I sought to help are like the more than 6 million Americans annually who are aided by legal services organizations because they cannot afford an attorney on their own. Access to justice is a core American value, cited in the first line of the Constitution, etched over the entrance to the Supreme Court and invoked daily in the Pledge of Allegiance. Congress established the Legal Services Corporation (LSC) in 1974 to better uphold this American ideal and ensure access to quality legal assistance for low-income Americans − including more than a million children, over 200,000 survivors of domestic violence and nearly 45,000 veterans. But the Trump administration has proposed eliminating LSC. This action would abandon the nation's founding principles of liberty and justice and devastate millions. Southerners, rural residents would be hurt most Congress has rejected the White House proposal to zero-out LSC. The Senate advanced a bill to slightly increase funding, and the House proposed a drastic 46% cut. Both bills fall far short of what's needed, but they send a clear message – lawmakers on both sides of the aisle see immense value in legal services for the folks they represent. About 15% of the population − more than 50 million Americans − are eligible for LSC-funded legal services. These are everyday, hardworking families and individuals who are faced with life-changing crises, often through no fault of their own. If LSC sees significant cuts, many more Americans will be left to face issues like domestic violence, natural disaster recovery, medical debt and consumer scams or fraud without legal assistance. Who would feel the loss the most? America's children, seniors, Southerners and those living in rural areas are the most likely to qualify for this type of legal aid. More than 1 in 5 children live in households eligible for LSC-funded services. The number of seniors eligible for legal aid has increased dramatically since 2016, from 6.6 million to 8.9 million in 2023. If this trend continues, more than 10 million seniors will be eligible by 2027. More households in the South are eligible for LSC-funded legal assistance than in any other region, and 1 in 5 rural households are eligible for the aid. The states with the highest proportion of eligible residents include my own home state of Mississippi, along with Louisiana, New Mexico and Oklahoma. John Grisham: Ugly truth of racism, injustice there for all to see | Opinion LSC distributes more than 94% of its federal appropriation in grants to 130 independent nonprofit organizations with offices in every congressional district across the country. Since 1974, more than 75 million Americans have received assistance. They are Americans like Coleen, a widowed senior in Florida, who was scammed out of her life savings while working to recover after Hurricane Ian destroyed her home in 2022. With LSC's help, she got her money back and was able to repair her home. While the fundamental purpose of civil legal aid is to ensure fairness in our legal system, it also provides substantial economic benefits. For every $1 invested in civil legal assistance through LSC, communities see $7 in economic value. Protects Americans' lawfully earned wages Legal services are a crucial part of efficient government. Without LSC, courts would have to serve more people with no access to legal representation, complicating court dockets and slowing down proceedings. The issue of overburdened courts is one reason that a bipartisan majority of state supreme court chief justices and state attorneys general voice their support for LSC each year. Civil legal services are nonpartisan. They benefit working families, uphold American values, lift the economy and improve government efficiency. Opinion: Do you think the Supreme Court is partisan? What recent rulings show. Legal assistance helps veterans access their benefits. It helps survivors of domestic violence leave unsafe situations. It helps displaced hurricane and wildfire victims attain the documents they need to rebuild. These are not political issues − these are problems that can affect anyone. The proposals to eliminate or cut LSC could stop assistance received by millions in every county in every state. By helping people address legal issues before they spiral, fewer taxpayer dollars are needed for costly services like shelters, medical care and law enforcement. Opinion alerts: Get columns from your favorite columnists + expert analysis on top issues, delivered straight to your device through the USA TODAY app. Don't have the app? Download it for free from your app store. Legal assistance protects the lawfully earned wages and benefits that Americans rely on and allows them to maintain their independence and contribute to their local economies. By helping families stay together and ending cycles of violence, legal assistance enables more children to grow up in safe and stable homes, making them more likely to stay in school, complete their education and pursue steady employment. Without LSC, hope for millions of Americans to access legal support in times of crisis is in jeopardy. Congress must save this legal lifeline to protect the safety and security of everyday Americans and uphold liberty and justice for all. To see how proposed cuts to LSC funding would impact where you live, visit John Grisham is the author of more than 50 consecutive bestselling novels, which have been translated into nearly 50 languages. Much of his fiction explores deep-seated problems in our criminal justice system. You can read diverse opinions from our USA TODAY columnists and other writers on the Opinion front page, on X, formerly Twitter, @usatodayopinion and in our Opinion newsletter.
San Francisco Chronicle
24 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Thailand and Cambodia reaffirm ceasefire after China-brokered meeting in Shanghai
BANGKOK, Thailand (AP) — Thailand and Cambodia reaffirmed their shaky ceasefire violation after days of fighting along their border, as China stepped in to negotiate with the two countries. The ceasefire reached in Malaysia was supposed to take effect at midnight on Monday, but was quickly tested. Thailand's army accused Cambodia of launching attacks in multiple areas early Tuesday, but Cambodia said there was no firing in any location. The Thai army then reported exchanges of gunfire into Wednesday morning but said there was no use of heavy artillery. 'Such act of aggression constitutes once again a clear violation of the ceasefire agreement by Cambodian forces and their apparent lack of good faith,' said Thailand's Foreign Ministry in a statement Wednesday morning. By Wednesday afternoon, however, both sides appeared to have reaffirmed their commitment to a ceasefire, with representatives appearing smiling in a photo with a Chinese vice minister Sun Weidong at a meeting in Shanghai. In attendance from Cambodia was Kung Phaok, Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs Ministry and in attendance from Thailand was Jullapong Nonsrichai, executive advisor to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Thailand. 'Cambodia and Thailand reiterated to China their commitment to the ceasefire consensus and expressed appreciation for China's positive role in de-escalating the situation,' a statement from China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs said. China said the informal meeting was its 'latest diplomatic effort' and it was playing a 'constructive role in resolving their border dispute," according to the same statement. Violating the ceasefire The fighting Tuesday night occurred in Phu Makhuea, a mountain in a disputed area next to Thaikand's Sisaket province. Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Manet and Thailand's acting prime minister, Phumtham Wechayachai, agreed on Monday to an 'unconditional' halt in fighting, which has killed at least 41 people. The meeting was hosted by Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim as annual chair of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. He called the ceasefire a 'vital first step towards de-escalation and the restoration of peace and security.' The ceasefire was brokered with U.S. pressure and U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Washington applauded the ceasefire declaration. 'President (Donald) Trump and I are committed to an immediate cessation of violence and expect the governments of Cambodia and Thailand to fully honor their commitments to end this conflict,' Rubio said in a statement. Hun Manet said Tuesday that Trump had called to offer congratulations for the peace move. He posted on social media that Trump pledged the U.S. would join the monitoring process along with Malaysia to ensure the ceasefire is implemented. The Thai government separately said it has complained to Malaysia, the U.S. and China about Cambodia's alleged breach of the ceasefire agreement previously. By Wednesday, there were signs of calm along the border, with some of the more than 260,000 people displaced by the fighting returning to their homes. Cambodia and Thailand have clashed in the past over their 800-kilometer (500-mile) border. The fighting began Thursday after a land mine explosion along the border wounded five Thai soldiers. Tensions had been growing since May when a Cambodian soldier was killed in a confrontation that created a diplomatic rift and roiled Thailand's domestic politics. While some residents near the border have started returning home, many remain behind in evacuation shelters, uncertain of their fate. Vendor Kanchana Sukjit, 33, said she fled home near the Ta Muen Thom temple with a few belongings and her small white-colored dog Nam Khaeng, which means ice in Thai. The temple had been one of the main flashpoints in the conflict over the past week. It was the first time she had to flee home like this and she was worried as she waited for clearer instructions about what happens next. 'I'm stressed when I read the news, like when reports said they were going to fire (a long-range rocket), because my home is right next to a military camp. I was quite stressed that day because I was afraid that my home would get caught in a crossfire,' she said.
NBC News
25 minutes ago
- NBC News
How Trump's poll numbers on immigration have shifted as he has enacted his agenda
President Donald Trump started his second term with one huge difference compared with his first term: Polls regularly showed majorities of Americans approving of his handling of immigration. In fact, it was his best issue, whereas it had been one of his least popular before. Six months into his second term, it's still among his best issues, but it's no longer as popular. There has been a clear decline in support for Trump's handling of immigration, with his approval rating dropping across a handful of prominent polls. The trend mirrors the downtick in his overall approval rating as the administration has pursued an aggressive set of policies resulting in many arrests but slow progress on deportations of known undocumented immigrants convicted of major crimes, as well as controversial clashes over deportations. While Trump still gets good marks on some specifics, including border security, many of his more aggressive specific immigration policies don't poll well, even as he continues to press on with immigration as a signature issue. Polls do continue to show immigration remaining among Trump's most popular issues. But the trend is clear. While most Trump voters remain satisfied with his handling of immigration and other issues, some have told NBC News that they take issue with his approach. "For one, I think it's immoral," Jorge, 21, an independent from Florida who voted for Trump last year, said in an interview following up on his responses in a previous poll. He criticized the Trump administration for not "taking the time to separate the people who do not need to be here, which are the criminals, illegal criminals and migrants, and separating from the working people that benefit our society," said Jorge, who declined to share his last name while discussing national politics. "It's disappointing. ... He thinks he can just take everyone." Inside the data In poll after poll in his first few weeks in office, Trump's approval rating on immigration regularly eclipsed 50%. Fifty-six percent of registered voters approved of his handling of immigration in a late January survey as part of Morning Consult's "Trump Tracker," which includes his approval rating on a slew of issues. Other polls found similar results: 51% of U.S. citizen adults approved in a mid-February Economist/YouGov poll, 54% of adults approved in a late February CBS/YouGov poll, and 51% of adults approved in an early March CNN poll. But across each of those polls, there has been a clear downward trend as more Americans are souring on Trump's handling of that major issue. Some of the movement is within polls' margins of error, but overall, they consistently show a measure of decline. In CNN's mid-July poll, just 42% of adults approved of Trump's handling of immigration, while 45% of adults said the same in an early July Economist/YouGov poll, as did 41% in a late June Quinnipiac University poll. While narrowly half or more still approved of Trump's handling of the issue in the most recent Morning Consult (51%) and CBS/YouGov (50%) polls from mid-July and late June, respectively, months of surveys by both found the same trend of slightly decreased ratings on immigration. Fox News' poll, however, hasn't changed much. Fox News tested Trump's approval rating on immigration three times, finding it at 47% in April, 46% in June and 48% in July. That having been said, the landscape remains complicated, especially from a partisan political perspective. When Fox News asked this month which party does a better job on immigration, Republicans had a 6-point lead (52%-46%). While that's down from the double-digit Republican advantage the poll found in 2022 and 2023, Democrats had the edge when Fox tested the question during the first three years of Trump's first term. What has sparked the public reaction A possible reason Trump's broader numbers on immigration have fallen could lie in the administration's policies itself. Even when Trump's numbers on the issue were higher, the harder-edged parts of his immigration policy — the ones the administration has trumpeted in recent months — have always polled worse than his overall numbers on the issue. Then, once Trump started acting on those policies, they drove news coverage and perceptions of the administration. The Wall Street Journal poll conducted in mid-January, before Trump returned to office, provides a clear example of the pre-inauguration warning signs on an issue that was once a strength. Almost three-quarters of registered voters (74%) said they supported detaining and deporting only undocumented immigrants who had been convicted of crimes. It was the second-most-popular immigration proposal tested, behind creating a pathway to citizenship for "undocumented immigrants who have been in the U.S. for many years and pass a background check," which 79% supported. A majority of registered voters also favored increasing the level of legal immigration and the number of H1-B visas available for high-skilled workers. The public was narrowly in favor of a plan to "detain and deport millions of undocumented immigrants" (52% in favor); noting that businesses could face worker shortages because of the plan made it slightly less popular. A majority (53%) also backed building a wall along the Mexican border. By contrast, only 38% favored a plan to detain and deport undocumented immigrants with American citizen children, 31% favored a call to end birthright citizenship, and 26% favored deporting "undocumented immigrants even if they have lived in the U.S. for 10 or more years, pay taxes on earnings, and have no criminal record." Fox News found a similar thing when it polled voters' views on illegal immigration shortly before Trump returned to office and in late July. Both times, 59% said their views hewed closest to "deport only those illegal immigrants who have been charged with crimes but allow others to remain in the U.S. and eventually qualify for citizenship." Twenty-nine percent said they backed deporting all illegal immigrants, and 11% backed allowing all to remain in the country. In other words, there's broader support for general promises of deportations or plans focused on removing criminals than there is support for specifically deporting people who haven't committed crimes outside of coming to the United States illegally or people who have American citizen children. Other, more recent polls have mirrored those findings. A May NPR/Ipsos poll on immigration found near-majority support (48%) for "quickly deporting alleged gang members under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798," and pluralities also supported a border wall and allowing local law enforcement to detain immigrants without legal status. But a near-majority, 46%, backed giving "legal status to immigrants without legal status brought to the U.S. as children," and a majority (53%) opposed ending birthright citizenship, which Trump has tried to do by an executive order that has been challenged in court. And the public was almost evenly divided on support for the "mass deportation of everyone who is in the country without legal status." This week, the Wall Street Journal poll found registered voters close to evenly split on their approval of Trump's handling of immigration — 48% approved, 51% disapproved — and with similar marks for his handling of illegal immigration specifically — 51% approved, 49% approved. But as in many other recent polls, some specific pieces of the administration's policy poll better than others. Sixty-two percent approve of "deporting undocumented immigrants," while 36% oppose. But 58% oppose deporting people "believed to be here illegally without them ever seeing a judge or getting a hearing." And 53% say the "Trump administration is crossing the line" with its deportation efforts, while 45% say it is "doing what is necessary." Most of the swing-state voters who participated still supported Trump and his broad actions on deportations, but a handful of participants criticized the administration's widespread deportations. They said Trump and the government should be prioritizing undocumented immigrants who committed additional crimes over those who have followed the rules since they came to the country illegally. 'He was going to deport people that were criminals and have backgrounds,' Ruby L., a focus group participant who was born in Colombia and lives in Georgia, said last month. 'But I see that he's deporting people that work hard and have been in this country. I think he should find a way to help them stay and get a citizenship or something.'
