Latest news with #importtaxes
Associated Press
2 minutes ago
- Business
- Associated Press
Triumphant in trade talks, Trump and his tariffs still face a challenge in federal court
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump has been getting his way on trade, strong-arming the European Union, Japan and other partners to accept once unthinkably high taxes on their exports to the United States. But his radical overhaul of American trade policy, in which he's bypassed Congress to slam big tariffs on most of the world's economies, has not gone unchallenged. He's facing at least seven lawsuits charging that he's overstepped his authority. The plaintiffs want his biggest, boldest tariffs thrown out. And they won Round One. In May, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of International Trade, a specialized federal court in New York, ruled that Trump exceeded his powers when he declared a national emergency to plaster taxes — tariffs — on imports from almost every country in the world. In reaching its decision, the court combined two challenges — one by five businesses and one by 12 U.S. states — into a single case. Now it goes on to Round Two. On Thursday, the 11 judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, which typically specializes in patent law, are scheduled to hear oral arguments from the Trump administration and from the states and businesses that want his sweeping import taxes struck down. That court earlier allowed the federal government to continue collecting Trump's tariffs as the case works its way through the judicial system. The issues are so weighty — involving the president's power to bypass Congress and impose taxes with huge economic consequences in the United States and abroad — that the case is widely expected to reach the U.S. Supreme Court, regardless of what the appeals court decides. Trump is an unabashed fan of tariffs. He sees the import taxes as an all-purpose economic tool that can bring manufacturing back to the United States, protect American industries, raise revenue to pay for the massive tax cuts in his 'One Big Beautiful Bill,'' pressure countries into bending to his will, even end wars. The U.S. Constitution gives the power to impose taxes — including tariffs — to Congress. But lawmakers have gradually relinquished power over trade policy to the White House. And Trump has made the most of the power vacuum, raising the average U.S. tariff to more than 18%, highest since 1934, according to the Budget Lab at Yale University. At issue in the pending court case is Trump's use of the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose sweeping tariffs without seeking congressional approval or conducting investigations first. Instead, he asserted the authority to declare a national emergency that justified his import taxes. In February, he cited the illegal flow of drugs and immigrants across the U.S. border to slap tariffs on Canada, China and Mexico. Then on April 2 — 'Liberation Day,'' Trump called it — he invoked IEEPA to announce 'reciprocal'' tariffs of up to 50% on countries with which the United States ran trade deficits and a 10% 'baseline'' tariff on almost everybody else. The emergency he cited was America's long-running trade deficit. Trump later suspended the reciprocal tariffs, but they remain a threat: They could be imposed again Friday on countries that do not pre-empt them by reaching trade agreements with the United States or that receive letters from Trump setting their tariff rates himself. The plaintiffs argue that the emergency power laws does not authorize the use of tariffs. They also note that the trade deficit hardly meets the definition of an 'unusual and extraordinary'' threat that would justify declaring an emergency under the law. The United States, after all, has run trade deficits — in which it buys more from foreign countries than it sells them — for 49 straight years and in good times and bad. The Trump administration argues that courts approved President Richard Nixon's emergency use of tariffs in a 1971 economic crisis. The Nixon administration successfully cited its authority under the 1917 Trading With Enemy Act, which preceded and supplied some of the legal language used in IEEPA. In May, the trade court rejected the argument, ruling that Trump's Liberation Day tariffs 'exceed any authority granted to the President'' under the emergency powers law. 'The president doesn't get to use open-ended grants of authority to do what he wants,'' said Reilly Stephens, senior counsel at the Liberty Justice Center, a libertarian legal group that is representing businesses suing the Trump administration over the tariffs. In the case of the drug trafficking and immigration tariffs on Canada, China and Mexico, the trade court ruled that the levies did not meet IEEPA's requirement that they 'deal with'' the problem they were supposed to address. The court challenge does not cover other Trump tariffs, including levies on foreign steel, aluminum and autos that the president imposed after Commerce Department investigations concluded that those imports were threats to U.S. national security. Nor does it include tariffs that Trump imposed on China in his first term — and President Joe Biden kept — after a government investigation concluded that the Chinese used unfair practices to give their own technology firms an edge over rivals from the United States and other Western countries.
Washington Post
2 minutes ago
- Business
- Washington Post
Triumphant in trade talks, Trump and his tariffs still face a challenge in federal court
WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump has been getting his way on trade , strong-arming the European Union , Japan and other partners to accept once unthinkably high taxes on their exports to the United States. But his radical overhaul of American trade policy, in which he's bypassed Congress to slam big tariffs on most of the world's economies, has not gone unchallenged. He's facing at least seven lawsuits charging that he's overstepped his authority. The plaintiffs want his biggest, boldest tariffs thrown out. And they won Round One. In May, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of International Trade , a specialized federal court in New York, ruled that Trump exceeded his powers when he declared a national emergency to plaster taxes — tariffs — on imports from almost every country in the world. In reaching its decision, the court combined two challenges — one by five businesses and one by 12 U.S. states — into a single case. Now it goes on to Round Two. On Thursday, the 11 judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, which typically specializes in patent law, are scheduled to hear oral arguments from the Trump administration and from the states and businesses that want his sweeping import taxes struck down. That court earlier allowed the federal government to continue collecting Trump's tariffs as the case works its way through the judicial system. The issues are so weighty — involving the president's power to bypass Congress and impose taxes with huge economic consequences in the United States and abroad — that the case is widely expected to reach the U.S. Supreme Court, regardless of what the appeals court decides. Trump is an unabashed fan of tariffs. He sees the import taxes as an all-purpose economic tool that can bring manufacturing back to the United States, protect American industries, raise revenue to pay for the massive tax cuts in his 'One Big Beautiful Bill,'' pressure countries into bending to his will, even end wars. The U.S. Constitution gives the power to impose taxes — including tariffs — to Congress. But lawmakers have gradually relinquished power over trade policy to the White House. And Trump has made the most of the power vacuum, raising the average U.S. tariff to more than 18%, highest since 1934, according to the Budget Lab at Yale University. At issue in the pending court case is Trump's use of the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose sweeping tariffs without seeking congressional approval or conducting investigations first. Instead, he asserted the authority to declare a national emergency that justified his import taxes. In February, he cited the illegal flow of drugs and immigrants across the U.S. border to slap tariffs on Canada, China and Mexico. Then on April 2 — 'Liberation Day,'' Trump called it — he invoked IEEPA to announce 'reciprocal'' tariffs of up to 50% on countries with which the United States ran trade deficits and a 10% 'baseline'' tariff on almost everybody else. The emergency he cited was America's long-running trade deficit. Trump later suspended the reciprocal tariffs, but they remain a threat: They could be imposed again Friday on countries that do not pre-empt them by reaching trade agreements with the United States or that receive letters from Trump setting their tariff rates himself. The plaintiffs argue that the emergency power laws does not authorize the use of tariffs. They also note that the trade deficit hardly meets the definition of an 'unusual and extraordinary'' threat that would justify declaring an emergency under the law. The United States, after all, has run trade deficits — in which it buys more from foreign countries than it sells them — for 49 straight years and in good times and bad. The Trump administration argues that courts approved President Richard Nixon's emergency use of tariffs in a 1971 economic crisis. The Nixon administration successfully cited its authority under the 1917 Trading With Enemy Act, which preceded and supplied some of the legal language used in IEEPA. In May, the trade court rejected the argument, ruling that Trump's Liberation Day tariffs 'exceed any authority granted to the President'' under the emergency powers law. 'The president doesn't get to use open-ended grants of authority to do what he wants,'' said Reilly Stephens, senior counsel at the Liberty Justice Center, a libertarian legal group that is representing businesses suing the Trump administration over the tariffs. In the case of the drug trafficking and immigration tariffs on Canada, China and Mexico, the trade court ruled that the levies did not meet IEEPA's requirement that they 'deal with'' the problem they were supposed to address. The court challenge does not cover other Trump tariffs, including levies on foreign steel, aluminum and autos that the president imposed after Commerce Department investigations concluded that those imports were threats to U.S. national security. Nor does it include tariffs that Trump imposed on China in his first term — and President Joe Biden kept — after a government investigation concluded that the Chinese used unfair practices to give their own technology firms an edge over rivals from the United States and other Western countries.
Al Arabiya
2 minutes ago
- Business
- Al Arabiya
Triumphant in trade talks, Trump and his tariffs still face a challenge in federal court
President Donald Trump has been getting his way on trade, strong-arming the European Union, Japan, and other partners to accept once unthinkably high taxes on their exports to the United States. But his radical overhaul of American trade policy, in which he's bypassed Congress to slam big tariffs on most of the world's economies, has not gone unchallenged. He's facing at least seven lawsuits charging that he's overstepped his authority. The plaintiffs want his biggest, boldest tariffs thrown out. And they won Round One. In May, a three-judge panel of the US Court of International Trade, a specialized federal court in New York, ruled that Trump exceeded his powers when he declared a national emergency to plaster taxes – tariffs – on imports from almost every country in the world. In reaching its decision, the court combined two challenges – one by five businesses and one by 12 US states – into a single case. Now it goes on to Round Two. On Thursday, the 11 judges on the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, which typically specializes in patent law, are scheduled to hear oral arguments from the Trump administration and from the states and businesses that want his sweeping import taxes struck down. That court earlier allowed the federal government to continue collecting Trump's tariffs as the case works its way through the judicial system. The issues are so weighty – involving the president's power to bypass Congress and impose taxes with huge economic consequences in the United States and abroad – that the case is widely expected to reach the US Supreme Court regardless of what the appeals court decides. Trump is an unabashed fan of tariffs. He sees the import taxes as an all-purpose economic tool that can bring manufacturing back to the United States, protect American industries, raise revenue to pay for the massive tax cuts in his 'One Big Beautiful Bill,' pressure countries into bending to his will, even end wars. The US Constitution gives the power to impose taxes – including tariffs – to Congress. But lawmakers have gradually relinquished power over trade policy to the White House. And Trump has made the most of the power vacuum, raising the average US tariff to more than 18 percent, highest since 1934, according to the Budget Lab at Yale University. At issue in the pending court case is Trump's use of the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose sweeping tariffs without seeking congressional approval or conducting investigations first. Instead, he asserted the authority to declare a national emergency that justified his import taxes. In February, he cited the illegal flow of drugs and immigrants across the US border to slap tariffs on Canada, China, and Mexico. Then on April 2 – 'Liberation Day,' Trump called it – he invoked IEEPA to announce reciprocal tariffs of up to 50 percent on countries with which the United States ran trade deficits and a 10 percent baseline tariff on almost everybody else. The emergency he cited was America's long-running trade deficit. Trump later suspended the reciprocal tariffs, but they remain a threat: They could be imposed again Friday on countries that do not pre-empt them by reaching trade agreements with the United States or that receive letters from Trump setting their tariff rates himself. The plaintiffs argue that the emergency power laws does not authorize the use of tariffs. They also note that the trade deficit hardly meets the definition of an 'unusual and extraordinary threat' that would justify declaring an emergency under the law. The United States, after all, has run trade deficits – in which it buys more from foreign countries than it sells them – for 49 straight years and in good times and bad. The Trump administration argues that courts approved President Richard Nixon's emergency use of tariffs in a 1971 economic crisis. The Nixon administration successfully cited its authority under the 1917 Trading With Enemy Act, which preceded and supplied some of the legal language used in IEEPA. In May, the trade court rejected the argument, ruling that Trump's 'Liberation Day' tariffs exceed any authority granted to the President under the emergency powers law. 'The president doesn't get to use open-ended grants of authority to do what he wants,' said Reilly Stephens, senior counsel at the Liberty Justice Center, a libertarian legal group that is representing businesses suing the Trump administration over the tariffs. In the case of the drug trafficking and immigration tariffs on Canada, China, and Mexico, the trade court ruled that the levies did not meet IEEPA's requirement that they deal with the problem they were supposed to address. The court challenge does not cover other Trump tariffs, including levies on foreign steel, aluminum, and autos that the president imposed after Commerce Department investigations concluded that those imports were threats to US national security. Nor does it include tariffs that Trump imposed on China in his first term – and President Joe Biden kept – after a government investigation concluded that the Chinese used unfair practices to give their own technology firms an edge over rivals from the United States and other Western countries.
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
'How will we survive?' Lesotho factory that made Trump golf shirts hit hard by US tariffs
A garment factory in Lesotho, which has produced Trump-branded golf shirts, may have to soon shut down following the massive import taxes, or tariffs, imposed by the US government earlier this year. The small, southern African kingdom was hit with "reciprocal" tariffs of 50% - a higher rate than any other country - when they were announced by US President Donald Trump in April. Although they have since been put on hold, Trump says they will be reimposed this Friday, 1 August, along with other countries around the world, unless a separate deal is reached. "We don't know how we survive this one. We are going to die," Aletta Seleso tells the BBC in a bleak voice standing outside Precious Garments, where the Trump golf shirts have been made. The mother of one young child has worked there for almost a decade, also supporting her extended family on her monthly salary of $160 (£120). Lesotho has become known as the "denim capital of Africa". The country's garment factories also produce jeans for iconic American brands such as Levi's and Wrangler. But the uncertainty over the future of the country's clothes industry is one reason why Lesotho declared a national "state of disaster" earlier this month in order to speed up job-creation. The BBC meets Ms Seleso during her lunch break just outside Precious Garments. She joins hundreds of workers streaming out of the factory with their lunch boxes in one hand and water bottles in the other as they try to find a spot in the weak sun of the southern hemisphere winter to enjoy their home-cooked meals. Most workers, with blankets wrapped around their bodies, huddle in groups with their backs to the sun as they try to soak up a bit of warmth. She has been working at the factory as an embroiderer for the past eight years and had little reason to worry about her job - until the US tariffs announcement in April. She says workers have been told that the firm "can close any time from now". "They say it's about a tariff," she says. In the meantime, Ms Seleso and her colleagues have been told to work for two weeks a month, meaning they get just half the pay. She says it is now "so hard" for her to support her child, mother and her late younger sister's two children, who are all under her care. The BBC has approached Precious Garments for comment. But Sam Mokhele, the secretary general of one the unions representing 150 workers at the firm, says the company had not "indicated any sign of shutting down" at the moment. "But what they said was [they may have to] shut down if things do not change," he says. Ms Seleso is appealing to the government to engage with the US and try to find a viable solution to the tariff question. Despite her desperate situation, she at least still has an income – but others are not so fortunate. On the other side of town, in Maseru's Thetsane industrial site, dozens of desperate job seekers gather outside another garment factory, CGM. The factory, one half of the CGM Presitex Jeans Manufacturer, has closed but there have been rumours it may soon reopen. The would-be workers stand in small groups, clutching water bottles, their only source of sustenance for the day, as they listen and hope they will be among the lucky few. Among this group, mostly women, is Puleng Selane, who has been job-hunting since March. Since 2018, the mother of three has worked as a security guard, along with a variety of other jobs. The young woman now relies on the sale of medical face masks to support her family - which even on a good day only brings in enough money to buy maize meal and paraffin. "Now life is so hard... we often eat once a day but sometimes go to bed without any food," she says. Although the 50% tariff has been paused, Lesotho's exports to the US are still subject to a 10% tax, like the rest of the world. Until this year, its exports had not been subject to any US tariffs under the African Growth and Opportunity Act (Agoa) - a law passed in Washington in 2000 to allow duty-free access to the US for goods from some countries in order to alleviate poverty and create jobs. This was part of the "trade not aid" philosophy. Trump's tariffs could be death knell for US-Africa trade pact How jeans and diamonds pushed Lesotho to the top of Trump's tariffs list The textile and garment industry is Lesotho's largest private sector employer providing, at its peak, around 50,000 jobs, out of a population of just over two million. The figure now hovers around 36,000 according to the government, with 12,000 jobs directly affected by the US tariffs. Precious Garments at one point hired 4,000 workers. But the Lesotho textiles boom boosted by Agoa meant that it had a trade surplus with the US - exporting more than it imports from the country. And that was why Trump imposed such high tariffs on the country, which appear to have put an end to Agoa, threatening the future of the one bright spot in the country's economy. Despite the relative success of the clothes factories - until now - the country as a whole is still struggling to create enough jobs for its young population. Unemployment stands at 30% but for young people the rate is almost 50%, according to official figures. Youth activist Tšolo Thakeli tells the BBC that even without the latest threat to the textile sector, the situation is "tragic" as there are "literally no jobs in the country, especially for the youth". "We have graduates from every level... not having jobs. There's a serious state of hopelessness amongst the youth," he says. And while there are myriad reasons, Mr Thakeli blames the "nepotism [and] corruption" that many allege runs rampant in the country. The 31-year-old entrepreneur and qualified lawyer is a vocal critic of Lesotho's government and was arrested after he posted a video on social media questioning whether Prime Minister Sam Matekane's promise to create 70,000 jobs in two weeks was realistic. He tells the BBC the prime minister lacks a proper plan to tackle the crisis. "There's nothing tangible that the government has done or set to address the problem. [It's just] empty promises," he says. This is denied by Trade Minister Mokhethi Shelile, who insists that the government is working to try and resolve the issue. "We already had some solutions, even before the tariff was announced, because the US market was already beginning to be a difficult market for us," he tells the BBC. He says the country is "already shifting to production for South Africa" and that as things stand, only "20% of the garment industry supplies the US market". Mr Shelile is speaking to the BBC outside another factory hit hard by the uncertainty caused by the tariffs. TZICC, owned by a Taiwanese national, has been operational in Lesotho since 1999, producing sportswear for the likes of JC Penney, Walmart and Costco. At the height of operations, the firm produced 400,000 garments a month but when the BBC visits, hundreds of sewing machines lie gathering dust in one of the warehouses. A manager at the firm, Rahila Omar, says the company's 1,000 employees, mostly women, have been laid off for the next four months due to a halt in orders. "Because of the... pressure of the tariffs, our buyers wanted us to finish the order or the quantity as soon as we can. We were given a deadline of 30 June, but we finished before 30 June, and that's why we have a layoff," she says. Ms Omar says TZICC is waiting for an update on Agoa and whether the current tariff structure would be reviewed before deciding on the next step. Even if the current 10% tax remained, without Agoa, it would not be enough for the firm to reopen as there would be "some additional charges" to consider, she explains. And while the factory also supplies clothing to South African retailers, Ms Omar says the income generated from these pales in comparison to what the firm earns from the US market. Despite the government's assurance that it is working to resolve the issue - with the minister even promising a desperate passer-by who spotted him during our interview that "it's going to work [out] at the end of the day" - for Ms Seleso and Mr Thakeli, these are hollow words for the country's despondent and hopeless workforce. Find out more about Lesotho from the BBC: Nine things about Lesotho - the country 'nobody has ever heard of' Who benefits from Lesotho's 'white gold'? The small African country with the world's highest suicide rate Go to for more news from the African continent. Follow us on Twitter @BBCAfrica, on Facebook at BBC Africa or on Instagram at bbcafrica BBC Africa podcasts Focus on Africa This Is Africa
Bloomberg
6 days ago
- Business
- Bloomberg
Trump Says He's Not Focused on Talks With Canada, Tariffs Might Stay
US President Donald Trump said trade talks with Canada are not a focus for his administration right now, and instead of negotiating a deal he may decide to just leave existing import taxes in place. 'We haven't really had a lot of luck with Canada,' Trump told reporters Friday morning.
