ReportWire

Tag: Tariff

  • Black Friday shoppers spend more time looking for deals but less money amid economic angst

    Black Friday shoppers flocked to stores, hoping to get more bags for their buck as they grapple with inflation, tariffs and anxiety about the health of the economy.

    Citadel Outlets in Commerce was mobbed Friday morning with long waits for parking and winding lines in front of stores as consumers tried to grab good deals. Camila Romero and her 13-year-old daughter spent hours in line trying to get the best possible deals on Ugg and Coach items on their wish lists.

    “You come to the Citadel because it’s outlets. And it’s discounts on top of that,” she said. “So even when you’re broke, you don’t feel it.”

    Shoppers across Los Angeles plan to spend less this holiday season, data show. While retailers tease their biggest deals and prepare for what they hope is robust demand, a Deloitte survey found that Angelenos plan to spend 14% less over the holidays compared with last year.

    Nationally, shoppers are expected to spend 10% less than last year.

    Consumers are pulling back on spending in response to economic uncertainty and rising prices, said Rebecca Lohrey, a partner at Deloitte with expertise in retail and e-commerce.

    “There is at least a perception of higher prices and higher costs of goods,” Lohrey said. “That is a concern for consumers across the board, and is one of the reasons they’re tightening their wallets a little bit.”

    The survey found that 62% of Angelenos expect the economy to weaken in the year ahead, up from 34% in 2024. Around the same percentage of respondents said they are concerned about a potential recession in the next six months.

    Across income groups, consumers are making cost-cutting trade-offs and putting more emphasis on finding the best deal, the data showed. More than half of Los Angeles respondents said they would switch brands if their first choice was too expensive.

    “It tends to be the lower income brackets or the middle income brackets that are the most likely to trade down,” said Collin Colburn, vice president of commerce and retail media at the Interactive Advertising Bureau. “This year, actually, everyone is trading down.”

    Camryn Smith and her daughter showed up to snoop around for the deals at the Americana at Brand in Glendale early Friday morning. The discounts help knock off some of the effect of inflation, she said.

    “The prices are higher and they just bring them down to what they normally would be,” Smith said. “It’s crazy.”

    Consumers are fatigued from continuous inflation and instability brought on by the Trump administration. More shoppers are regifting or considering giving homemade gifts, the Deloitte survey found.

    “We’ve been in an environment where prices continue to rise for a host of reasons, inflation being one, tariffs being another,” Colburn said. “I think when that happens year on year, it really drags on the consumer.”

    This means more shoppers are looking for ways to save on purchases — and presents — they cannot put off.

    The National Retail Federation predicts that a record number of Americans will shop the sales over Thanksgiving weekend. Retail sales in November and December are expected to grow between 3.7% and 4.2% compared with last year, the federation said.

    Cautious consumers are more eager than ever to find a hot deal, said NRF chief economist Mark Mathews.

    “People are changing the way that they spend,” he said. “They’re focusing more on stretching their dollar and getting value for the dollar.”

    Even shoppers spending more than usual may be doing it out of concern, economists say. Consumers who anticipate inflation sometimes spend now out of fear that prices will rise later.

    Brooklyn Farmer braved the crowds at Citadel to shop and try to save amid inflation.

    “People are struggling right now, but the holidays are still important to them,” he said. “The thinking is if there’s going to be discounts like this, I might as well go while I can, instead of spending more later.”

    Of those surveyed by Deloitte in Los Angeles, 43% said they planned to spend most of their holiday budget at big-box retailers and 32% said they would spend the most at digital-first retailers.

    Shoppers are also using new tools to help them find products and deals, including artificial intelligence. Data collected by the Interactive Advertising Bureau found that AI now ranks as the second-most influential shopping source, ahead of retailers’ websites and apps and behind only search engines.

    Nearly 90% of shoppers nationally said AI helps them find products they wouldn’t have found otherwise, according to the IAB data.

    Mattel, the El Segundo-based toy company, is offering up to 50% off at Target on Hot Wheels, Barbie dolls and Disney Princess toys, said company spokesperson Kelly Powers.

    “Mattel is working closely with retailers across the country on Black Friday deals,” Powers said.

    In May, Mattel said it was considering raising its prices to offset the effect of President Trump’s tariffs on China..

    On the October earnings call, however, the company said the full effect of tariffs won’t be seen until the fourth quarter.

    Discount retailers that depend heavily on foot traffic have given conflicting signals about their business.

    Walmart recently raised its sales forecast for the year after reporting a 6% year-over-year increase in revenue in the third quarter.

    Target, in contrast, missed analyst expectations and reported a 1.5% decline in sales in the third quarter. On a call with analysts earlier this month, Target Chief Executive Brian Cornell said the company “has not been performing up to its potential.”

    Of course, for many shoppers on Friday, the pilgrimage to splurge at the local mall was about more than saving.

    Ericka Pentasuglia brought her daughter to the Americana the Brand at around 3 a.m. to be the first in line for a pop-up store selling Billie Eilish perfume. She thought it was important for her to pass down the tradition of Black Friday shopping.

    “I do feel like it is dying a little bit,” Pentasuglia said. “The best thing is that you don’t lose a tradition, it continues to your children.”

    Caroline Petrow-Cohen, Christopher Buchanan, Gavin J. Quinton

    Source link

  • How tariffs could impact your holiday wine

    President Trump is rolling back tariffs on *** wide range of agricultural products, many of which are not widely made in the United States. Here’s what he told reporters last night. The president’s executive order released on Friday lifts so-called reciprocal tariffs on dozens of imported goods, including coffee, tea, spices, tropical fruits like bananas and beef. Labor Department data shows some of those products have seen big price increases in the last year. Take coffee up nearly 19% since last September, President. Trump says his new order will help bring prices down, but continued to insist that the cost of tariffs has been largely borne by other countries. Some Democrats though had *** different take, with one congressman writing quote, President Trump is finally admitting what we always knew. His tariffs are raising prices for the American people. The debate follows recent Democratic wins in elections largely. Focused on the issue of affordability and as both parties look ahead to high stakes midterms next year, President Trump said Friday he does not think it’ll be necessary to reverse other tariffs moving forward. His administration most recently has been touting trade frameworks with 4 Latin American countries and Switzerland as evidence in their view that these tariffs are working. Reporting in Washington, I’m Jackie DeFusco.

    Choosing the right wine to pair with your Thanksgiving meal can be as stressful as cooking the turkey. And this year, it’s going to be worse.Video above: Trump rolls back tariffs on dozens of productsShoppers can expect higher prices and possibly slimmer selections at their local wine shops, as importers are facing steep tariffs and shopkeepers are dealing with declining demand.Bottled wine prices have risen nearly 20% over the past 25 years and 8% over the past decade, according to the latest government data. Several reasons are to blame, including climate change, inflation, and rising production costs.Wine prices at McCabes Wine & Spirits shop in Manhattan are between 5% to 12% higher this year because “it’s the reality of the tariffs, shipping, manufacturing, and labor,” said owner Daniel Mesznik.His shop, like others in the United States, are working to strike a delicate balance. They’re dealing with higher upfront costs due to a hodgepodge of tariffs from President Donald Trump’s administration — notably, a 15% tariff on European Union imports — while trying not to pass too many of those costs to their customers”We’re doing our best to keep those increases to a minimum for our guests,” he told CNN. “But, I think folks understand that this is the current reality and they’re receptive to it and they’re understanding of it.”Tariffs are affecting the bottom line even more for importers of wine. Elenteny Imports, a logistics and distribution company that works with 9,000 retailers and restaurants, said wine sales are down 13% year over year.Wine woesWine volume consumed in the United States declined 3% between 2019 and 2024, and it’s expected to fall another 4% from 2024 to 2029, according to IWSR, an alcohol data insights firm.”For casual drinking occasions, wine has often been the choice for drinkers who prefer not to drink beer. But wine can be expensive and only comes in larger bottles,” said Marten Lodewijks, president of IWSR.For the past few years, drinkers have been shifting their preferences to spirits and canned cocktails.”We’ve seen wine volumes consistently decline year after year, while ready-to-drink beverages, which are less expensive, come in convenient sizes and packs, and benefit from continual flavor innovations, are growing rapidly,” he told CNN.2025 is another gloomy year, according to data from Elenteny. Order volumes for imported wines show that year-to-date bookings are down nearly 30%.Demand has sunk following a “post-pandemic frothiness,” Elenteny CEO Alexi Cashen told CNN, but said “absolutely that tariffs are the persecutory issue here.”Domestic wines, which Trump thought the tariffs would help, aren’t selling any better this year, she added.Mesznik’s shop, which recently reopened following a 16-month renovation, has shifted some of its focus from wine to tequila. He added 40% more brands and types and moved them to the front of the shop.Notably, tequila and mezcal are exempt from tariffs since both fall under the 2018 free trade agreement Trump signed with Mexico during his first term.”Tequila are in the most beautiful bottles. It’s the category in my business that everyone gravitates to right now and I want that to be front and center,” Mesznik said.Wine used to be roughly 70% of his annual sales but will drop to 65% this year because of growth in other categories, like agave, he said.Smaller selections?With drastically smaller orders coming in from overseas, including a 50% drop from France and 66% decline from Italy, per Elenteny’s data, shoppers might see that reflected on store shelves.”Many retailers, distributors, and restaurants have streamlined their wine offerings in response to the falling overall demand for alcoholic beverages, including wine,” Mike Veseth, the Wine Economist, told CNN. “Consumers might have to search more than usual to find a particular brand.”Adding to the uncertainty, Veseth said, is the upcoming Supreme Court decision about the legality of tariffs, “which discourages wine business from making investment or taking decisive action on prices.”In particular, Cashen said mid-priced wines between $40 to $50 wines “struggle the most,” while low-end bottles and premium wines are selling well, further underscoring the “K-shaped” economy.Meanwhile, Mesznik said his shop is ordering “smarter” compared to years’ past, buying from fewer wholesalers that offer deals when buying more cases.”For example, we have a Pinot Noir from Argentina this month that’s on sale. Whereas I may only buy normally 1 or 3 cases of that, I’m ordering 5 and 10 cases,” he said.

    Choosing the right wine to pair with your Thanksgiving meal can be as stressful as cooking the turkey. And this year, it’s going to be worse.

    Video above: Trump rolls back tariffs on dozens of products

    Shoppers can expect higher prices and possibly slimmer selections at their local wine shops, as importers are facing steep tariffs and shopkeepers are dealing with declining demand.

    Bottled wine prices have risen nearly 20% over the past 25 years and 8% over the past decade, according to the latest government data. Several reasons are to blame, including climate change, inflation, and rising production costs.

    Wine prices at McCabes Wine & Spirits shop in Manhattan are between 5% to 12% higher this year because “it’s the reality of the tariffs, shipping, manufacturing, and labor,” said owner Daniel Mesznik.

    His shop, like others in the United States, are working to strike a delicate balance. They’re dealing with higher upfront costs due to a hodgepodge of tariffs from President Donald Trump’s administration — notably, a 15% tariff on European Union imports — while trying not to pass too many of those costs to their customers

    “We’re doing our best to keep those increases to a minimum for our guests,” he told CNN. “But, I think folks understand that this is the current reality and they’re receptive to it and they’re understanding of it.”

    Tariffs are affecting the bottom line even more for importers of wine. Elenteny Imports, a logistics and distribution company that works with 9,000 retailers and restaurants, said wine sales are down 13% year over year.

    Wine woes

    Wine volume consumed in the United States declined 3% between 2019 and 2024, and it’s expected to fall another 4% from 2024 to 2029, according to IWSR, an alcohol data insights firm.

    “For casual drinking occasions, wine has often been the choice for drinkers who prefer not to drink beer. But wine can be expensive and only comes in larger bottles,” said Marten Lodewijks, president of IWSR.

    For the past few years, drinkers have been shifting their preferences to spirits and canned cocktails.

    “We’ve seen wine volumes consistently decline year after year, while ready-to-drink beverages, which are less expensive, come in convenient sizes and packs, and benefit from continual flavor innovations, are growing rapidly,” he told CNN.

    2025 is another gloomy year, according to data from Elenteny. Order volumes for imported wines show that year-to-date bookings are down nearly 30%.

    Demand has sunk following a “post-pandemic frothiness,” Elenteny CEO Alexi Cashen told CNN, but said “absolutely that tariffs are the persecutory issue here.”

    Domestic wines, which Trump thought the tariffs would help, aren’t selling any better this year, she added.

    Mesznik’s shop, which recently reopened following a 16-month renovation, has shifted some of its focus from wine to tequila. He added 40% more brands and types and moved them to the front of the shop.

    Notably, tequila and mezcal are exempt from tariffs since both fall under the 2018 free trade agreement Trump signed with Mexico during his first term.

    “Tequila are in the most beautiful bottles. It’s the category in my business that everyone gravitates to right now and I want that to be front and center,” Mesznik said.

    Wine used to be roughly 70% of his annual sales but will drop to 65% this year because of growth in other categories, like agave, he said.

    Smaller selections?

    With drastically smaller orders coming in from overseas, including a 50% drop from France and 66% decline from Italy, per Elenteny’s data, shoppers might see that reflected on store shelves.

    “Many retailers, distributors, and restaurants have streamlined their wine offerings in response to the falling overall demand for alcoholic beverages, including wine,” Mike Veseth, the Wine Economist, told CNN. “Consumers might have to search more than usual to find a particular brand.”

    Adding to the uncertainty, Veseth said, is the upcoming Supreme Court decision about the legality of tariffs, “which discourages wine business from making investment or taking decisive action on prices.”

    In particular, Cashen said mid-priced wines between $40 to $50 wines “struggle the most,” while low-end bottles and premium wines are selling well, further underscoring the “K-shaped” economy.

    Meanwhile, Mesznik said his shop is ordering “smarter” compared to years’ past, buying from fewer wholesalers that offer deals when buying more cases.

    “For example, we have a Pinot Noir from Argentina this month that’s on sale. Whereas I may only buy normally 1 or 3 cases of that, I’m ordering 5 and 10 cases,” he said.

    Source link

  • Presents to arrive in time for the holidays, but may be more expensive

    Consumers don’t have to worry about products arriving in time for the holidays, though they may be facing higher prices, say officials at one of America’s largest ports.

    Imports at the Port of Long Beach are flowing smoothly through its facilities despite the government shutdown and tariff uncertainties, port executives said. Still, they acknowledge that the volume and prices of products in the millions of containers coming through the port suggest that imports are becoming more costly and consumers are more cautious.

    Until now, retailers, manufacturers and other intermediaries have absorbed much of the cost of tariffs, but that is changing as it becomes more apparent which tariffs are here to stay, Mario Cordero, chief executive of the Port of Long Beach, said Friday during a virtual news conference.

    “Consumers will likely see price escalation in the coming months as shippers continue to pass along the cost of tariffs on goods, and a higher percentage of these costs will be passed on to the consumer,” he said.

    Cordero, who drinks Starbucks coffee, said he’s seen the price of a cup of coffee increase by 15% and that more consumers are going to discount stores to find deals. However, potential price hikes could be offset if the United States and China strike further trade agreements.

    The Port of Long Beach, a gateway for trade between the United States and Asia-Pacific, released new data that offers a glimpse into how President Trump’s on-again, off-again tariffs are affecting goods imported from key trade partners, such as China.

    This week, the U.S. Supreme Court also started to hear arguments as the justices examine the legality of Trump’s tariffs.

    Over the past year, the port saw a drop in the movement of containers filled with certain goods such as winter apparel, kitchen appliances and toys that people typically buy as gifts, a sign that consumers are likely wary about spending.

    Still, the impact of tariffs on cargo volume hasn’t been as bad as some experts predicted. Cordero said some experts had projected that the port could see as much as a 35% drop in cargo volume.

    “Clearly today, it’s fair to say that the worst scenarios some predicted did not occur,” Cordero said. “The challenges were many, and there’s no doubt that many companies and their workers suffered, but cargo volume is turning out to be just as high this year as it was last year.”

    In fiscal year 2025, which runs from October 2024 to September 2025, the port surpassed 10 million 20-foot equivalent units (TEUs) for the first time, up 11% from the same period last year. TEU is a measurement used to describe cargo capacity for container ships and terminals.

    While the port saw a decline in the amount of TEUs moved in October compared with the same period in 2024, Cordero said he thinks the port will end 2025 in “positive territory.”

    In October, there were 839,671 TEUs moved. That’s because retailers and shippers started shipping goods earlier than normal to avoid fees and to stock up their warehouses because of tariffs.

    The Port of Long Beach is an economic engine for California. Officials say it helps create 691,000 jobs in Southern California. More than 2.7 million U.S jobs are connected to the Port of Long Beach, they say.

    Queenie Wong

    Source link

  • Supreme Court justices sound skeptical of Trump’s tariffs

    WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court justices sounded skeptical Wednesday of President Trump’s claim that he has the power to set large tariffs on products coming from countries around the world.

    Most of the justices, both conservative and liberal, said Congress, not the president, had the power to impose taxes and tariffs. And they agreed Congress did not authorize tariffs in an emergency powers law adopted in 1977.

    It has “never before been used to justify tariffs, and no one had argued it before this case,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. told Trump’s top courtroom attorney. “The imposition of taxes on Americans … has always been a core power of Congress.”

    Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer argued that tariffs involve the president’s power over foreign affairs. They are “regulatory tariffs, not taxes,” he said.

    Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan disagreed.

    Imposing a tariff “is a taxing power which is delegated by the Constitution to Congress,” Kagan said.

    Justice Neil M. Gorsuch said he too was skeptical of the claim the president had the power to impose taxes based on his belief that the nation faces a global emergency.

    If so, could a future president acting on his own impose a 50% tax on cars because of climate change? he asked.

    Gorsuch said the court has recently blocked far-reaching presidential regulations by Democratic presidents that went beyond an old and vague law, and the same may be called for here.

    Otherwise, presidents may feel free to take away the taxing power “from the people’s representatives,” he said.

    But Justices Brett M. Kavanaugh and Samuel A. Alito Jr. questioned the challenge to the president’s tariffs.

    Kavanaugh pointed to a round of tariffs imposed by President Nixon in 1971, and he said Congress later adopted its emergency powers act without clearly rejecting that authority.

    Justice Amy Coney Barrett said she was struggling to understand what Congress meant in the emergency powers law when it said the president may “regulate” importation.

    She agreed the law did not mention taxes and tariffs that would raise revenue, but some judges then saw it as allowing the authority to impose duties or tariffs.

    The tariffs case heard Wednesday is the first major challenge to Trump’s presidential power to be heard by the court. It is also a test of whether the court’s conservative majority is willing to set legal limits on Trump’s executive authority.

    Trump has touted these import taxes as crucial to reviving American manufacturing.

    But owners of small businesses, farmers and economists are among the critics who say the on-again, off-again import taxes are disrupting business and damaging the economy.

    Since Trump returned to the White House in January, the court’s six Republican appointees have voted repeatedly to set aside orders from judges who had temporarily blocked the president’s policies and initiatives.

    While they have not explained most of their temporary emergency rulings, the conservatives have said the president has broad executive authority over federal agencies and on matters of foreign affairs.

    David G. Savage

    Source link

  • What to know about the Supreme Court arguments over Trump’s tariffs

    Three lower courts have ruled President Donald Trump’s use of emergency powers to impose worldwide tariffs to be illegal. Now the Supreme Court, with three justices Trump appointed and generally favorable to muscular presidential power, will have the final word.In roughly two dozen emergency appeals, the justices have largely gone along with Trump in temporarily allowing parts of his aggressive second-term agenda to take effect while lawsuits play out.But the case being argued Wednesday is the first in which the court will render a final decision on a Trump policy. The stakes are enormous, both politically and financially.The Republican president has made tariffs a central piece of his economic and foreign policy and has said it would be a “disaster” if the Supreme Court rules against him.Here are some things to know about the tariffs arguments at the Supreme Court:Tariffs are taxes on importsThey are paid by companies that import finished products or parts, and the added cost can be passed on to consumers.Through September, the government has reported collecting $195 billion in revenue generated from the tariffs.The Constitution gives Congress the power to impose tariffs, but Trump has claimed extraordinary power to act without congressional approval by declaring national emergencies under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act.In February, he invoked the law to impose tariffs on Canada, Mexico and China, saying that the illegal flow of immigrants and drugs across the U.S. border amounted to a national emergency and that the three countries needed to do more to stop it.In April, he imposed worldwide tariffs after declaring the United States’ longstanding trade deficits “a national emergency.”Libertarian-backed businesses and states challenged the tariffs in federal courtChallengers to Trump’s actions won rulings from a specialized trade court, a district judge in Washington and a business-focused appeals court, also in the nation’s capital.Those courts found that Trump could not justify tariffs under the emergency powers law, which doesn’t mention them. But they left the tariffs in place in the meantime.The appeals court relied on major questions, a legal doctrine devised by the Supreme Court that requires Congress to speak clearly on issues of “vast economic and political significance.”The major questions doctrine doomed several Biden policiesConservative majorities struck down three of then-President Joe Biden’s initiatives related to the coronavirus pandemic. The court ended the Democrat’s pause on evictions, blocked a vaccine mandate for large businesses and prevented student loan forgiveness that would have totaled $500 billion over 10 years.In comparison, the stakes in the tariff case are much higher. The taxes are estimated to generate $3 trillion over 10 years.The challengers in the tariffs case have cited writings by the three Trump appointees, Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, in calling on the court to apply similar limitations on a signal Trump policy.Barrett described a babysitter taking children on roller coasters and spending a night in a hotel based on a parent’s encouragement to “make sure the kids have fun.”“In the normal course, permission to spend money on fun authorizes a babysitter to take children to the local ice cream parlor or movie theater, not on a multiday excursion to an out-of-town amusement park,” Barrett wrote in the student loans case. “If a parent were willing to greenlight a trip that big, we would expect much more clarity than a general instruction to ‘make sure the kids have fun.’”Kavanaugh, though, has suggested the court should not apply the same limiting standard to foreign policy and national security issues.A dissenting appellate judge also wrote that Congress purposely gave presidents more latitude to act through the emergency powers law.Some of the businesses that sued also are raising a separate legal argument in an appeal to conservative justices, saying that Congress could not constitutionally delegate its taxing power to the president.The nondelegation principle has not been used in 90 years, since the Supreme Court struck down some New Deal legislation.But Gorsuch authored a dissent in June that would have found the Federal Communications Commission’s universal service fee an unconstitutional delegation. Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas joined the dissent.“What happens when Congress, weary of the hard business of legislating and facing strong incentives to pass the buck, cedes its lawmaking power, clearly and unmistakably, to an executive that craves it?” Gorsuch wrote.The justices could act more quickly than usual in issuing a decisionThe court only agreed to hear the case in September, scheduling arguments less than two months later. The quick turnaround, at least by Supreme Court standards, suggests that the court will try to act fast.High-profile cases can take half a year or more to resolve, often because the majority and dissenting opinions go through rounds of revision.But the court can act quickly when deadline pressure dictates. Most recently, the court ruled a week after hearing arguments in the TikTok case, unanimously upholding a law requiring the popular social media app to be banned unless it was sold by its Chinese parent company. Trump has intervened several times to keep the law from taking effect while negotiations continue with China.

    WASHINGTON —

    Three lower courts have ruled President Donald Trump’s use of emergency powers to impose worldwide tariffs to be illegal. Now the Supreme Court, with three justices Trump appointed and generally favorable to muscular presidential power, will have the final word.

    In roughly two dozen emergency appeals, the justices have largely gone along with Trump in temporarily allowing parts of his aggressive second-term agenda to take effect while lawsuits play out.

    But the case being argued Wednesday is the first in which the court will render a final decision on a Trump policy. The stakes are enormous, both politically and financially.

    The Republican president has made tariffs a central piece of his economic and foreign policy and has said it would be a “disaster” if the Supreme Court rules against him.

    Here are some things to know about the tariffs arguments at the Supreme Court:

    Tariffs are taxes on imports

    They are paid by companies that import finished products or parts, and the added cost can be passed on to consumers.

    Through September, the government has reported collecting $195 billion in revenue generated from the tariffs.

    The Constitution gives Congress the power to impose tariffs, but Trump has claimed extraordinary power to act without congressional approval by declaring national emergencies under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act.

    In February, he invoked the law to impose tariffs on Canada, Mexico and China, saying that the illegal flow of immigrants and drugs across the U.S. border amounted to a national emergency and that the three countries needed to do more to stop it.

    In April, he imposed worldwide tariffs after declaring the United States’ longstanding trade deficits “a national emergency.”

    Libertarian-backed businesses and states challenged the tariffs in federal court

    Challengers to Trump’s actions won rulings from a specialized trade court, a district judge in Washington and a business-focused appeals court, also in the nation’s capital.

    Those courts found that Trump could not justify tariffs under the emergency powers law, which doesn’t mention them. But they left the tariffs in place in the meantime.

    The appeals court relied on major questions, a legal doctrine devised by the Supreme Court that requires Congress to speak clearly on issues of “vast economic and political significance.”

    The major questions doctrine doomed several Biden policies

    Conservative majorities struck down three of then-President Joe Biden’s initiatives related to the coronavirus pandemic. The court ended the Democrat’s pause on evictions, blocked a vaccine mandate for large businesses and prevented student loan forgiveness that would have totaled $500 billion over 10 years.

    In comparison, the stakes in the tariff case are much higher. The taxes are estimated to generate $3 trillion over 10 years.

    The challengers in the tariffs case have cited writings by the three Trump appointees, Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, in calling on the court to apply similar limitations on a signal Trump policy.

    Barrett described a babysitter taking children on roller coasters and spending a night in a hotel based on a parent’s encouragement to “make sure the kids have fun.”

    “In the normal course, permission to spend money on fun authorizes a babysitter to take children to the local ice cream parlor or movie theater, not on a multiday excursion to an out-of-town amusement park,” Barrett wrote in the student loans case. “If a parent were willing to greenlight a trip that big, we would expect much more clarity than a general instruction to ‘make sure the kids have fun.’”

    Kavanaugh, though, has suggested the court should not apply the same limiting standard to foreign policy and national security issues.

    A dissenting appellate judge also wrote that Congress purposely gave presidents more latitude to act through the emergency powers law.

    Some of the businesses that sued also are raising a separate legal argument in an appeal to conservative justices, saying that Congress could not constitutionally delegate its taxing power to the president.

    The nondelegation principle has not been used in 90 years, since the Supreme Court struck down some New Deal legislation.

    But Gorsuch authored a dissent in June that would have found the Federal Communications Commission’s universal service fee an unconstitutional delegation. Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas joined the dissent.

    “What happens when Congress, weary of the hard business of legislating and facing strong incentives to pass the buck, cedes its lawmaking power, clearly and unmistakably, to an executive that craves it?” Gorsuch wrote.

    The justices could act more quickly than usual in issuing a decision

    The court only agreed to hear the case in September, scheduling arguments less than two months later. The quick turnaround, at least by Supreme Court standards, suggests that the court will try to act fast.

    High-profile cases can take half a year or more to resolve, often because the majority and dissenting opinions go through rounds of revision.

    But the court can act quickly when deadline pressure dictates. Most recently, the court ruled a week after hearing arguments in the TikTok case, unanimously upholding a law requiring the popular social media app to be banned unless it was sold by its Chinese parent company. Trump has intervened several times to keep the law from taking effect while negotiations continue with China.

    Source link

  • Supreme Court’s conservatives face a test of their own in judging Trump’s tariffs

    WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court’s conservatives face a test of their own making this week as they decide whether President Trump had the legal authority to impose tariffs on imports from nations across the globe.

    At issue are import taxes that are paid by American businesses and consumers.

    Small-business owners had sued, including a maker of “learning toys” in Illinois and a New York importer of wines and spirits. They said Trump’s ever-changing tariffs had severely disrupted their businesses, and they won rulings declaring the president had exceeded his authority.

    On Wednesday, the justices will hear their first major challenge to Trump’s claims of unilateral executive power. And the outcome is likely to turn on three doctrines that have been championed by the court’s conservatives.

    First, they say the Constitution should be interpreted based on its original meaning. Its opening words say: “All legislative powers … shall be vested” in Congress, and the elected representatives “shall have the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposes and excises.”

    Second, they believe the laws passed by Congress should be interpreted based on their words. They call this “textualism,” which rejects a more liberal and open-ended approach that included the general purpose of the law.

    Trump and his lawyers say his sweeping “Liberation Day” tariffs were authorized by the International Economic Emergency Powers Act, or IEEPA.

    That 1977 law says the president may declare a national emergency to “deal with any unusual and extraordinary threat” involving national security, foreign policy or the economy of the United States. Faced with such an emergency, he may “investigate, block … or regulate” the “importation or exportation” of any property.

    Trump said the nation’s “persistent” balance of payments deficit over five decades was such an “unusual and extraordinary threat.”

    In the past, the law has been used to impose sanctions or freeze the assets of Iran, Syria and North Korea or groups of terrorists. It does not use the words “tariffs” or “duties,” and it had not been used for tariffs prior to this year.

    The third doctrine arose with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and is called the “major questions” doctrine.

    He and the five other conservatives said they were skeptical of far-reaching and costly regulations issued by the Obama and Biden administrations involving matters such as climate change, student loan forgiveness or mandatory COVID-19 vaccinations for 84 million Americans.

    Congress makes the laws, not federal regulators, they said in West Virginia vs. Environmental Protection Agency in 2022.

    And unless there is a “clear congressional authorization,” Roberts said the court will not uphold assertions of “extravagant statutory power over the national economy.”

    Now all three doctrines are before the justices, since the lower courts relied on them in ruling against Trump.

    No one disputes that the president could impose sweeping worldwide tariffs if he had sought and won approval from the Republican-controlled Congress. However, he insisted the power was his alone.

    In a social media post, Trump called the case on tariffs “one of the most important in the History of the Country. If a President is not allowed to use Tariffs, we will be at a major disadvantage against all other Countries throughout the World, especially the ‘Majors.’ In a true sense, we would be defenseless! Tariffs have brought us Great Wealth and National Security in the nine months that I have had the Honor to serve as President.”

    Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer, his top courtroom attorney, argues that tariffs involve foreign affairs and national security. And if so, the court should defer to the president.

    “IEEPA authorizes the imposition of regulatory tariffs on foreign imports to deal with foreign threats — which crucially differ from domestic taxation,” he wrote last month.

    For the same reason, “the major questions doctrine … does not apply here,” he said. It is limited to domestic matters, not foreign affairs, he argued.

    Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh has sounded the same note in the past.

    Sauer will also seek to persuade the court that the word “regulate” imports includes imposing tariffs.

    The challengers are supported by prominent conservatives, including Stanford law professor Michael McConnell.

    In 2001, he and John Roberts were nominated for a federal appeals court at the same time by President George W. Bush, and he later served with now-Justice Neil M. Gorsuch on the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver.

    He is the lead counsel for one group of small-business owners.

    “This case is what the American Revolution was all about. A tax wasn’t legitimate unless it was imposed by the people’s representatives,” McConnell said. “The president has no power to impose taxes on American citizens without Congress.”

    His brief argues that Trump is claiming a power unlike any in American history.

    “Until the 1900s, Congress exercised its tariff power directly, and every delegation since has been explicit and strictly limited,” he wrote in Trump vs. V.O.S. Selections. “Here, the government contends that the President may impose tariffs on the American people whenever he wants, at any rate he wants, for any countries and products he wants, for as long as he wants — simply by declaring longstanding U.S. trade deficits a national ‘emergency’ and an ‘unusual and extraordinary threat,’ declarations the government tells us are unreviewable. The president can even change his mind tomorrow and back again the day after that.”

    He said the “major questions” doctrine fully applies here.

    Two years ago, he noted the court called Biden’s proposed student loan forgiveness “staggering by any measure” because it could cost more than $430 billion. By comparison, he said, the Tax Foundation estimated that Trump’s tariffs will impose $1.7 trillion in new taxes on Americans by 2035.

    The case figures to be a major test of whether the Roberts court will put any legal limits on Trump’s powers as president.

    But the outcome will not be the final word on tariffs. Administration officials have said that if they lose, they will seek to impose them under other federal laws that involve national security.

    Still pending before the court is an emergency appeal testing the president’s power to send National Guard troops to American cities over the objection of the governor and local officials.

    Last week, the court asked for further briefs on the Militia Act of 1908, which says the president may call up the National Guard if he cannot “with the regular forces … execute the laws of the United States.”

    The government had assumed the regular forces were the police and federal agents, but a law professor said the regular forces in the original law referred to the military.

    The justices asked for a clarification from both sides by Nov. 17.

    David G. Savage

    Source link

  • How Trump pressures the world into burning more oil and gas

    The world was on the brink of a climate milestone: adopting a global carbon tax for the shipping industry. Countries had spent years crafting the plan, hoping to throttle planet-warming pollution from cargo vessels. They had every reason to think the measure would pass when the International Maritime Organization met in mid-October.

    Enter Donald Trump. After returning to the White House for a second term, the president and his top officials undertook a monthslong campaign to defeat the initiative. The U.S. threatened tariffs, levies and visa restrictions to get its way. A battery of American diplomats and Cabinet secretaries met with various nations to twist arms, according to a senior U.S. State Department official, who asked for anonymity to speak candidly. Nations were also warned of other potential consequences if they backed the tax on shipping emissions, including imposing sanctions on individuals and blocking ships from U.S. ports.

    Under that Trump-led pressure — or intimidation, as some describe it — some countries started to waver. Ultimately, a bloc including the U.S., Saudi Arabia and Iran voted to adjourn the meeting for a year, killing any chance of the charge being adopted anytime soon.

    The U.S. “bullied otherwise supportive or neutral countries into turning against” the net-zero plan for shipping, says Faïg Abbasov, a director at the European advocacy group Transport & Environment. With its intense lobbying at the International Maritime Organization, the Trump administration was “waging war against multilateralism, UN diplomacy and climate diplomacy.”

    At first glance, it might look like the U.S. has exited the climate fight. The president is once again pulling the country out of the Paris Agreement, and he may not send an official U.S. delegation to next month’s COP30 climate summit in Brazil. But don’t be confused: America is still in the arena; it’s just fighting for the other side.

    Since his return to Washington, Trump has used trade talks, tariff threats and verbal dressing-downs to encourage countries to jettison their renewable energy commitments (and buy more U.S. oil and liquefied natural gas in the process). Just 10 months into his second term, the campaign is showing surprising success as key figures and countries increasingly buckle under the determined pressure.

    Trump was elected to implement a “common sense energy agenda,” says White House spokeswoman Taylor Rogers. He “will not jeopardize our country’s economic and national security to pursue vague climate goals that are killing other countries.”

    Oil and gas supporters champion the president’s ambition. They say he’s helped reset the global conversation around climate change and given a welcome political opening to banks, corporations and other governments that wanted to back away from some sustainability targets in the face of growing electricity demand. “President Trump is sort of providing the banks, the European Union and others cover for tempering their climate ambitions,” says Tom Pyle, president of the American Energy Alliance, an advocacy group. “He gives these countries the ability to say, ‘Hey, I’m just trying to go along with the United States here. That’s why I’m buying all this LNG.’”

    But in the eyes of environmental advocates and leaders who depend on multilateralism as a means for global climate action, Trump is unfairly asserting his will on a world that’s running out of time to rein in emissions and avert the worst consequences of global warming. “They’re clearly casting a much wider net to the climate destruction than they did the first time,” says Jake Schmidt, a senior strategic director for the Natural Resources Defense Council. “They have more people engaged in it, and they obviously had more time to plan for it.”

    The strong-arming is happening on multiple fronts. Among the biggest is trade, where Trump has already compelled Japan, South Korea and the EU to pledge to spend on American energy and energy infrastructure. Japan, for instance, agreed to invest $550 billion on U.S. projects, and talks are underway to steer some of that funding to a $44 billion Alaska gas pipeline and export site. South Korea has pledged roughly $100 billion in U.S. energy purchases.

    The EU, meanwhile, has vowed to spend some $750 billion buying American energy, including LNG, to secure lower tariffs on its exports to the U.S. Analysts have questioned whether those sales will fully materialize, since they’d require Europe to more than triple its annual energy imports from the U.S. But the public commitment by itself was a stunning move for a bloc that’s led the world in pushing policies to combat climate change — including by setting binding targets for slashing planet-warming pollution, establishing a “green deal” plan to shed fossil fuels and slapping a tariff on carbon-intensive imports.

    Trump administration officials have seized on the U.S.-EU trade deal to urge other changes. For instance, Energy Secretary Chris Wright is pressuring the bloc to relax curbs on the methane footprint of imported gas. The EU is already easing corporate sustainability requirements so fewer companies are compelled to limit their environmental harms, a retrenchment that came after pressure from Germany and other European stakeholders as well as the White House.

    Meanwhile the administration has been goading the International Energy Agency to shuffle its leadership and urged the agency to reinstate forecasts that show a rosier outlook for fossil fuel demand. It has pressed multilateral development banks to prioritize fossil fuels over climate adaptation and clean energy projects when their financing of those green initiatives has become critical given widespread foreign aid cuts.

    And Trump himself has berated countries that aren’t falling in line. In a September speech to the United Nations General Assembly, he chided nations for setting policies around what he called the “hoax” and “con job” of climate change, warning that they can’t be “great again” without “traditional energy sources.” He’s also told UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer to reject wind turbines and embrace the North Sea’s oil riches.

    It’s a marked acceleration from term-one Trump. During his first four years in the White House, Trump’s “energy dominance” agenda amounted to rally cries of “drill, baby, drill” and slow steps to encourage more domestic oil and gas production. This time around, the president’s approach has global reach — and far fewer limits. And when it comes to international agreements relating to energy and climate, “the U.S. has an interest in divide and rule, and thus breaking the potential for cooperation,” says Abby Innes, an associate professor in political economy at the London School of Economics.

    Whether or not U.S. officials attend COP30 in November, the U.S. president’s influence will loom large. “Countries like Saudi Arabia feel emboldened by Trump to promote fossil fuels,” says Linda Kalcher, founder of the Strategic Perspectives think tank and a veteran of the annual UN climate summits. One European diplomat said the main goal now at COP30 is just to avoid being bullied.

    To be sure, other countries haven’t followed the U.S. exodus from the Paris Agreement, and the deployment of clean energy is still soaring globally. Even tax incentive phaseouts and project cancellations in the U.S. are only slowing, not stopping, the country’s adoption of wind and solar power. And while multinational companies may be dialing down their green rhetoric, analysts say many are still quietly cleaning up their supply chains and operations to keep selling in California, Europe and other places demanding more sustainability.

    And in a perverse twist for a U.S. president who’s decried the world’s reliance on China, other nations are increasingly linking arms with Beijing as they bid for zero-emission energy tech. “When it comes to dealing with China, whether it’s countries or companies, politicians and executives tell me: ‘Better the devil that you know,’” says Ioannis Ioannou, an associate professor at the London Business School whose research focuses on sustainability and corporate social responsibility. “It offers more stability than the Trump administration.”

    Dlouhy and Rathi write for Bloomberg. Bloomberg’s Jack Wittels and John Ainger contributed to this report.

    Jennifer A. Dlouhy, Akshat Rathi

    Source link

  • Nearly Half of Congress Urges Supreme Court To Strike Trump Tariffs

    Lawmakers are rallying against President Donald Trump’s tariffs a week before the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments over the legality of the newly imposed duties.

    A bipartisan group of 207 lawmakers last week submitted an amicus brief arguing that Trump does not have the authority to implement such sweeping tariffs under the the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, a 1977 law Trump has used to justify his policies.

    “The Administration’s interpretation of IEEPA would effectively nullify the guardrails set forth in every statute in which Congress expressly granted the President limited tariff authority — a result Congress did not intend,” the lawmakers argue in their brief. 

    They further argue that it is the Constitution that gives Congress the power to implement tariffs, not the president. Thirty-six senators appeared on the brief, along with 171 House Democrats. Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AL) was the only Republican to sign off on the brief. 

    The brief is the latest in a lawsuit initially filed by Rick Woldenberg, the CEO of Learning Resources, a Vernon Hills, Illinois-based educational toy company that expected 2025 would be its best year on record. Then Trump’s tariffs hit. Woldenberg, who expects sales to dip by 25 percent this year after the new, skyrocketing duties took effect, wants to recoup the tariffs he, along with thousands of other companies, have paid so far this year. 

    Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has previously acknowledged that collective tariff refunds could be as much as $1 trillion.

    A lower court ruled in August that Trump’s tariffs are illegal, setting off a high-stakes showdown before the Supreme Court, which will settle the matter at the highest judicial level. An early October survey from JPMorgan shows that trade experts believe the odds could be as high as 80 percent that the Supreme Court will rule against Trump’s tariff policies.

    “While the sitting three liberal justices are expected to oppose IEEPA tariffs, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Barrett–both with pro-business leanings — may also side against,” the survey said. 

    The Senate is deliberating three different bills that seek to eliminate Trump’s tariffs in some capacity, though passage is unlikely on any front.

    Meanwhile, Trump continued escalating his tariff rhetoric, most recently slapping Canada with an additional 10 percent tariff after a Canadian-backed television advertisement ran during a World Series game. The ad, paid for by Ontario, Canada’s most populous province, critiqued Trump’s tariff policies, using then-President Ronald Reagan’s 1987 remarks to extoll the benefits of free trade, decrying what happens when protectionist tariffs are imposed: “Then the worst happens: Markets shrink and collapse; businesses and industries shut down; and millions of people lose their jobs,” he said.

    Melissa Angell

    Source link

  • China Vows to Stand Firm Against Trump’s 100 Percent Tariff Threat

    China signaled Sunday that it would not back down in the face of a 100 percent tariff threat from President Donald Trump, urging the U.S. to resolve differences through negotiations instead of threats. U.S. Vice President JD Vance defended Trump’s position and seemed to warn China not to be aggressive in its response.

    “China’s stance is consistent,” the Commerce Ministry said in a statement posted online. “We do not want a tariff war but we are not afraid of one.”

    It was China’s first official comment on Trump’s threat to jack up the tax on imports from China by Nov. 1 in response to new Chinese restrictions on the export of rare earths, which are vital to a wide range of consumer and military products.

    The back and forth threatens to derail a possible meeting between Trump and Chinese leader Xi Jinping and end a truce in a trade war in which new tariffs from both sides briefly topped 100 percent in April.

    In response, Vance said Sunday that Trump is committed to protecting America’s economic livelihoods while making the United States more self-sufficient. He said the fact that China has “so much control over critical supply in the United States of America” is the definition of a national emergency and therefore justifies Trump’s move to impose tough tariffs.

    “It’s going to be delicate dance and a lot of it is going to depend on how the Chinese respond. If they respond in a highly aggressive manner, I guarantee you the president of the United States has far more cards than the People’s Republic of China,” Vance said on Fox News Channel’s “Sunday Morning Futures.”

    “If, however, they’re willing to be reasonable, then Donald Trump is always willing to be a reasonable negotiator. We’re going to find out a lot in the weeks to come about whether China wants to start a trade war with us or whether they actually want to be reasonable,” Vance continued. “I hope they choose the path of reason. The president of the United States is going to defend America regardless.”

    Trump has raised taxes on imports from many U.S. trading partners since taking office in January, seeking to win concessions. China has been one of the few countries that hasn’t backed down, relying on its economic clout.

    “Frequently resorting to the threat of high tariffs is not the correct way to get along with China,” the Commerce Ministry said in its post, which was presented as a series of answers from an unnamed spokesperson to four questions from unspecified media outlets.

    The statement called for addressing any concerns through dialogue.

    “If the U.S. side obstinately insists on its practice, China will be sure to resolutely take corresponding measures to safeguard its legitimate rights and interests,” the post said.

    In addition to the 100 percent tariff, Trump threatened to impose export controls on what he called “critical software,” without specifying what that means.

    Both sides accuse the other of violating the spirit of the truce by imposing new restrictions on trade.

    Trump said in a social media post that China is “becoming very hostile” and that it is holding the world captive by restricting access to rare earth metals and magnets.

    The Chinese Commerce Ministry post said the U.S. has introduced several new restrictions in recent weeks, including expanding the number of Chinese companies subject to U.S. export controls.

    On rare earths, the ministry said that export licenses would be granted for legitimate civilian uses, noting that the minerals also have military applications.

    The new regulations include a requirement that foreign companies get Chinese government approval to export items that contain rare earths sourced from China, no matter where the products are manufactured.

    China accounts for nearly 70 percent of the world’s rare earths mining and controls roughly 90 percent of their global processing. Access to the material is a key point of contention in trade talks between Washington and Beijing.

    The critical minerals go into many products, from jet engines, radar systems and electric vehicles to consumer electronics including laptops and phones. China’s export controls have hit European and other manufacturers, as well as American ones.

    The Commerce Ministry statement said that the U.S. is also ignoring Chinese concerns by going forward with new port fees on Chinese ships that take effect Tuesday. China announced Friday that it would impose port fees on American ships in response.

    Copyright 2025. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

    Associated Press

    Source link

  • Shoppers in California plan to splurge this holiday season — out of fear

    Shoppers in California plan to splurge this coming holiday season, but not because they are confident about the future. They are worried about inflation and figure it’s better to buy now than pay more later.

    At least that’s the takeaway from a new report from accounting firm KPMG that shows that consumers on the West Coast are more concerned about price rise and tariffs than those in any other region in the country.

    Nationally, shoppers intend to boost their holiday spending by 4.6% this year compared with last year, spending an average of $847 on shopping, according to the report.

    “When you think about why consumers are planning on spending more, it’s not that they have more wallet to spare, but it’s actually an expectation that prices are increasing,” Duleep Rodrigo, KPMG U.S. consumer and retail leader, said in an interview. “Eighty percent also of consumers are really being very conscious about inflation, and inflation that is impacted as a result of tariffs.”

    • Share via

    Of the six different regions KPMG surveys, the Pacific region — which includes California, Oregon, Washington, Hawaii and Alaska — showed the highest concern for rising prices due to tariffs, with 72% citing inflation as a top concern.

    Nationally, 8 in 10 consumers believe tariffs will result in price increases. The least concerned were consumers in the Northeast, where only 6% said price increases would result in cutting back on holiday spending.

    “The consumer is spending like a poker player with a small chip stack,” Rodrigo said in the report. “They know they can’t play every hand but are willing to go ‘all in’ on a promising hand with a high emotional payoff. There’s also a psychological element where the consumer is managing a complex set of uncertainties.”

    KPMG found that consumer spending on essentials such as groceries, automotive expenses and personal care have increased in 2025, though much less than last year. In discretionary categories such as toys, furniture and hobby supplies, people expect to spend less.

    As budgets get tight, more people plan on spending on themselves this holiday season, with many purchasing big ticket holiday travel costing more than $1,000.

    The top gifts people want to receive this holiday season? Cold hard cash — followed by gift cards and apparel — indicating that more people want flexibility to spend on things they like, according to KPMG.

    Consumer price inflation for Los Angeles increased 3.3% in August, compared with the same time last year. National consumer inflation stood at 2.9% for the same period, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

    From toys to apparel, retailers have experienced varying levels of impact due to President Trump’s sweeping tariffs on much of the world this year.

    Many retailers have been absorbing the costs of tariffs imposed by the Trump administration but cannot hold off indefinitely.

    Rodrigo said price increases on goods have already started happening, with retailers being more strategic.

    “For now, consumers that are in the top 20% are probably driving 80% of the economic activity that is sustaining and maintaining the current state of the economy,” Rodrigo said. “But there is a larger population that is really hurting, and that is really concerned with their dollars right now.”

    Nilesh Christopher

    Source link

  • Report: Slips in employer optimism tied to Trump tariffs

    BOSTON — The state’s economy may be on solid footing but employers are becoming increasingly pessimistic about the impact of President Donald Trump’s tariffs on their bottom lines, according to a new report.

    The latest Business Confidence Index, which is compiled by the pro-business group Associated Industries of Massachusetts, shows overall enthusiasm among employers “grew darker” after slipping 1.4 points to 47.5 on a 100-point scale in September.


    This page requires Javascript.

    Javascript is required for you to be able to read premium content. Please enable it in your browser settings.

    kAm%92E’D E96 D6G6?E9 4@?D64FE:G6 >@?E9 E96 :?56I 76== 36=@H E96 d_A@:?E >2C< 4@?D:56C65 A6DD:>:DE:4 E6CC:E@CJ 2>@?8 6>A=@J6CD[ E96 8C@FA D2:5] xE 2EEC:3FE65 H62<6?:?8 4@?7:56?46 E@ 6>A=@J6C F?46CE2:?EJ 23@FE 2 9@DE @7 7656C2= A@=:4J :?:E:2E:G6D F?56C E96 %CF>A 25>:?:DEC2E:@?[ :?4=F5:?8 E96 :>A24E @7 E96 AC6D:56?E’D 8=@32= E2C:77D]k^Am

    kAm$2C2 y@9?D@?[ 492:CH@>2? @7 px|’D q@2C5 @7 t4@?@>:4 p5G:D@CD[ D2:5 H9:=6 E96 DE2E6’D ;@3 >2C<6E C6>2:?D DE23=6 2?5 :ED 8C@DD 5@>6DE:4 AC@5F4E 8C6H 3J b]gT 😕 E96 D64@?5 BF2CE6C[ E96 “>@>6?EF> 😀 4@@=:?8” 2>@?8 >2?J 3FD:?6DD6D]k^Am

    kAm“t>A=@J6CD 2C6 ?2G:82E:?8 E96 4C@DD4FCC6?ED @7 2? 64@?@>J E92E 92D D66? C@3FDE 8C@HE9 C646?E=J 3FE 😀 GF=?6C23=6 E@ D92CA :?4C62D6D 😕 E2C:77D[ A6CD:DE6?E :?7=2E:@?[ 2?5 6I46DD:G6 7656C2= 3F586E 567:4:ED[” y@9?D@? D2:5 😕 2 DE2E6>6?E]k^Am

    kAm%96 C6A@CE[ H9:49 DFCG6J65 `c_ |2DD249FD6EED 6>A=@J6CD[ BF@E65 F??2>65 6>A=@J6CD 56D4C:3:?8 E96:C 492==6?86D @7 ECJ:?8 E@ DE2J 29625 @7 56G6=@A>6?ED 😕 E96 (9:E6 w@FD6’D EC256 A@=:4J[ H:E9 E96 A@E6?E:2= 4@DE @7 E96 E2C:77D 7=F4EF2E:?8]k^Am

    kAm“&?E:= H6 @H 9@H E96 E2C:77D 2C6 8@:?8 E@ 36 2AA=:65[ 2?5 E96 2>@F?E[ @FC 4FDE@>6CD 92G6 =2C86=J DE@AA65 3FJ:?8[” @?6 >2?F724EFC6C E@=5 E96 8C@FA]k^Am

    kAmp?@E96C >2?F724EFC6C D2:5 E96J AFC492D65 2 A:646 @7 6BF:A>6?E E92E H2D “6DD6?E:2=” E@ E96:C 3FD:?6DD @A6C2E:@? 3FE :E 42>6 H:E9 2 Sh[cbg E2C:77 4@DE]k^Am

    kAm“%2C:77D 2C6 2?E:3FD:?6DD 2?5 2C6 2 5:C64E E2I @? D>2== 3FD:?6DD6D 2=C625J @A6C2E:?8 😕 2 4@>A6E:E:G6 2?5 492==6?8:?8 64@?@>J[” E96 6>A=@J6C E@=5 E96 3FD:?6DD 8C@FA]k^Am

    kAmx? pAC:=[ %CF>A 564=2C65 2 “?2E:@?2= 6>6C86?4J” 2?5 D2:5 E96 “{:36C2E:@? s2J” E2C:77D 2C6 ?66565 E@ 6C2D6 2 EC256 567:4:E 36EH66? E96 &?:E65 $E2E6D 2?5 @E96C 4@F?EC:6D]k^Am

    kAm%CF>A’D @C56C @? “C64:AC@42=” E2C:77D 7@C 6IA@CED 7C@> eh EC25:?8 A2CE?6CD =:DE:?8 9:896C :>A@CE 5FEJ C2E6D @7 `_T E@ c`T E@@< 67764E pF8] f[ C2:D:?8 E96 2G6C286 &]$] :>A@CE 5FEJ E@ :ED 9:896DE 😕 2 46?EFCJ] |2DD249FD6EED 3FD:?6DD6D 6IA@CE 23@FE Sff 3:==:@? H@CE9 @7 8@@5D 6249 J62C E@ >@C6 E92? a`_ >2C<6ED H@C=5H:56[ 244@C5:?8 E@ px|]k^Am

    kAm$@ 72C[ E96 E2C:77D 92G6 DFCG:G65 =682= 492==6?86D] qFE E96 &]$] $FAC6>6 r@FCE 😀 6IA64E65 E@ 564:56 :7 %CF>A 92D E96 2FE9@C:EJ F?56C E96 x?E6C?2E:@?2= t>6C86?4J t4@?@>:4 !@H6CD p4E E@ :>A@D6 E2C:77D[ 4C62E:?8 7FCE96C F?46CE2:?EJ]k^Am

    kAm%96 %CF>A 25>:?:DEC2E:@? A@:?ED E@ 52E2 D9@H:?8 56DA:E6 E96 :>A24E @7 E2C:77D @? 3FD:?6DD6D 2?5 4@?DF>6CD E96 64@?@>J 😀 8C@H:?8 2E ?62C=J 2 cT C2E6[ F?6>A=@J>6?E C6>2:?D 9:DE@C:42==J =@H[ :?7=2E:@?’D DE:== F?56C bT 2?5 E2C:77D 2C6 AC@;64E65 E@ 86?6C2E6 >@C6 E92? Sc__ 3:==:@? 2 J62C 😕 C6G6?F6]k^Am

    kAmpx| !C6D:56?E 2?5 rt~ qC@@<6 %9@>D@? D2:5 |2DD249FD6EED 6>A=@J6CD “4@?E:?F6 E@ AFD9 7@CH2C5” 56DA:E6 2 DH:C= @7 A@=:E:42=[ 64@?@>:4 2?5 E649?@=@8:42= F?46CE2:?EJ]k^Am

    kAm“t>A=@J6CD 2C6 4@?46C?65 23@FE :?E6C?2E:@?2= EC256[ E96 6>6C86?46 @7 2CE:7:4:2= :?E6==:86?46 2?5 E96 4@DE @7 5@:?8 3FD:?6DD 😕 |2DD249FD6EED[ 3FE[ 2E E96 D2>6 E:>6[ E96 u65 ;FDE =@H6C65 :?E6C6DE C2E6D[ F?6>A=@J>6?E 92D 366? DE625J[ 2?5 E96 7:?2?4:2= >2C<6ED 92G6 DFC865[” %9@>D@? D2:5]k^Am

    kAmr9C:DE:2? |] (256 4@G6CD E96 |2DD249FD6EED $E2E69@FD6 7@C }@CE9 @7 q@DE@? |65:2 vC@FAUCDBF@jD ?6HDA2A6CD 2?5 H63D:E6D] t>2:= 9:> 2E k2 9C67lQ>2:=E@i4H256o4?9:?6HD]4@>Qm4H256o4?9:?6HD]4@>k^2m]k^Am

    By Christian M. Wade | Statehouse Reporter

    Source link

  • Tariffs and birthright citizenship will test whether Trump’s power has limits

    WASHINGTON — Supreme Court justices like to talk about the Constitution’s separation of powers and how it limits the exercise of official authority.

    But Chief Justice John G. Roberts and his conservative colleagues have given no sign so far they will check President Trump’s one-man governance by executive order.

    To the contrary, the conservative justices have repeatedly ruled for Trump on fast-track appeals and overturned federal judges who said the president had exceeded his authority.

    The court’s new term opens on Monday, and the justices will begin hearing arguments.

    But those regularly scheduled cases have been overshadowed by Trump’s relentless drive to remake the government, to punish his political enemies, including universities, law firms, TV networks and prominent Democrats, and to send troops to patrol U.S. cities.

    The overriding question has become: Are there any legal limits on the president’s power? The Supreme Court itself has raised the doubts.

    A year ago, as Trump ran to reclaim the White House, the justices blocked a felony criminal indictment against him related to his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, mob attack on the Capitol as Congress met to certify Trump’s defeat in the 2020 election, for which Trump was impeached.

    Led by Roberts, the court ruled for Trump and declared for the first time that presidents were immune from being prosecuted for their official actions in the White House.

    Not surprisingly, Trump saw this as a “BIG WIN” and proof there is no legal check on his power.

    This year, Trump’s lawyers have confidently gone to Supreme Court with emergency appeals when lower-court judges have stood in their way. With few exceptions, they have won, often over dissents from the court’s three liberal Democrats.

    Many court scholars say they are disappointed but not surprised by the court’s response so far to Trump’s aggressive use of executive power.

    The Supreme Court “has been a rubber stamp approving Trump’s actions,” said UC Berkeley law Dean Erwin Chemerinsky. “I hope very much that the court will be a check on Trump. There isn’t any other. But so far, it has not played that role.”

    Roberts “had been seen as a Republican but not a Trump Republican. But he doesn’t seem interested or willing to put any limits on him,” said UCLA law professor Adam Winkler. “Maybe they think they’re saving their credibility for when it really counts.”

    Acting on his own, Trump moved quickly to reshape the federal government. He ordered cuts in spending and staffing at federal agencies and fired inspectors general and officials of independent agencies who had fixed terms set by Congress. He stepped up arrests and deportations of immigrants who are here illegally.

    But the court’s decisions on those fronts are in keeping with the long-standing views of the conservatives on the bench.

    Long before Trump ran for office, Roberts had argued that the Constitution gives the president broad executive authority to control federal agencies, including the power to fire officials who disagree with him.

    The court’s conservatives also think the president has the authority to enforce — or not enforce — immigration laws.

    That’s also why many legal experts think the year ahead will provide a better test of the Supreme Court and Trump’s challenge to the constitutional order.

    “Overall, my reaction is that it’s too soon to tell,” said William Baude, a University of Chicago law professor and a former clerk for Roberts. “In the next year, we will likely see decisions about tariffs, birthright citizenship, alien enemies and perhaps more, and we’ll know a lot more.”

    In early September, Trump administration lawyers rushed the tariffs case to the Supreme Court because they believed it was better to lose sooner rather than later.

    Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said the government could face up to a $1-trillion problem if the court delayed a decision until next summer and then ruled the tariffs were illegal.

    “Unwinding them could cause significant disruption,” he told the court.

    The Constitution says tariffs, taxes and raising revenue are matters for Congress to decide. Through most of American history, tariffs funded much of the federal government. That began to change after 1913 when the 16th Amendment was adopted to authorize “taxes on incomes.”

    Trump has said he would like to return to an earlier era when import taxes funded the government.

    “I always say ‘tariffs’ is the most beautiful word to me in the dictionary,” he said at a rally after his inauguration in January. “Because tariffs are going to make us rich as hell. It’s going to bring our country’s businesses back that left us.”

    While he could have gone to the Republican-controlled Congress to get approval, he imposed several rounds of large and worldwide tariffs acting on his own.

    Several small businesses sued and described the tariffs as “the largest peacetime tax increase in American history.”

    As for legal justification, the president’s lawyers pointed to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977. It authorizes the president to “deal with any unusual or extraordinary threat … to the national security, foreign policy or economy of the United States.”

    The law did not mention tariffs, taxes or duties but said the president could “regulate” the “importation” of products.

    Trump administration lawyers argue that the “power to ‘regulate importation’ plainly encompasses the power to impose tariffs.” They also say the court should defer to the president because tariffs involve foreign affairs and national security.

    They said the president invoked the tariffs not to raise revenue but to “rectify America’s country-killing trade deficits and to stem the flood of fentanyl and other lethal drugs across our borders.”

    In response to lawsuits from small businesses and several states, judges who handle international trade cases ruled the tariffs were illegal. However, they agreed to keep them in place to allow for appeals.

    Their opinion relied in part on recent Supreme Court’s decisions which struck down potentially far-reaching regulations from Democratic presidents on climate change, student loan debt and COVID-19 vaccine requirements. In each of the decisions, Roberts said Congress had not clearly authorized the disputed regulations.

    Citing that principle, the federal circuit court said it “seems unlikely that Congress intended to … grant the president unlimited authority to impose tariffs.”

    Trump said that decision, if allowed to stand, “could literally destroy the United States of America.” The court agreed to hear arguments in the tariffs case on Nov. 5.

    A victory for Trump would be “viewed as a dramatic expansion of presidential power,” said Washington attorney Stephanie Connor, who works on tariff cases. Trump and future presidents could sidestep Congress to impose tariffs simply by citing an emergency, she said.

    But the decision itself may have a limited impact because the administration has announced new tariffs last week that were based on other national security laws.

    Last month, Trump administration lawyers asked the Supreme Court to rule during the upcoming term on the birthright citizenship promised by the 14th Amendment of 1868.

    They did not seek a fast-track ruling, however. Instead, they said the court should grant review and hear arguments on the regular schedule early next year. If so, a decision would be handed down by late June.

    The amendment says: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States.”

    And in the past, both Congress and the Supreme Court have agreed that rule applies broadly to all children who are born here, except if their parents are foreign ambassadors or diplomats who are not subject to U.S. laws.

    But Trump Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer said that interpretation is mistaken. He said the post-Civil War amendment was “adopted to grant citizenship to freed slaves and their children, not to the children of illegal aliens, birth tourists and temporary visitors.”

    Judges in three regions of the country have rejected Trump’s limits on the citizenship rule and blocked it from taking effect nationwide while the litigation continues.

    David G. Savage

    Source link

  • Video: Taiwan Screw Suppliers Feel Impact of Trump’s Tariffs

    new video loaded: Taiwan Screw Suppliers Feel Impact of Trump’s Tariffs

    transcript

    transcript

    Taiwan Screw Suppliers Feel Impact of Trump’s Tariffs

    Screws from Taiwan hold together countless everyday American goods. But Trump’s tariffs are threatening the island as a manufacturing leader of the tiny, yet essential, components.

    “Our product range are mainly for residential area, from your home, from the roof, and then also from your backyard.”

    Shawn Paik and An Rong Xu

    Source link

  • Supreme Court To Quickly Consider If President Trump Has Power To Impose Sweeping Tariffs – KXL


    WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court is granting an unusually quick hearing on whether President Donald Trump has the power under federal law to impose sweeping tariffs.

    The justices agreed Tuesday to hear the case in November, lightning fast by the usual standards of the nation’s highest court.

    The small businesses and states that challenged the tariffs in court also agreed to the fast timetable.

    They say Trump illegally used emergency powers to set import taxes on nearly every country in the world, nearly driving their businesses to bankruptcy.

    Two lower courts have found most of the tariffs were illegally imposed, though a 7-4 appeals court has left them in place for now.

    More about:


    Grant McHill

    Source link

  • Trump urges Supreme Court to uphold his worldwide tariffs in a fast-track ruling

    WASHINGTON — President Trump has asked the Supreme Court for a fast-track ruling that he has broad power acting on his own to impose tariffs on products coming from countries around the world.

    Despite losing in the lower courts, Trump and his lawyers have reason to believe they can win in the Supreme Court. The six conservative justices believe in strong presidential power, particularly in the area of foreign policy and national security.

    In a three-page appeal filed Wednesday evening, they proposed the court decide by next Wednesday to grant review and to hear arguments in early November.

    They said the lower court setbacks, unless quickly reversed, “gravely undermine the President’s ability to conduct real-world diplomacy and his ability to protect the national security and economy of the United States.”

    They cited Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent’s warning about the potential for economic disruption if the court does not act soon.

    “Delaying a ruling until June 26 could result in a scenario in which $750 billion-$1 trillion have already been collected and unwinding them could cause significant disruption,” he wrote.

    Trump and his tariffs ran into three strong arguments in the lower courts.

    First, the Constitution says Congress, not the president, has the power “to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises,” and a tariff is an import tax.

    Second, the 1977 emergency powers law that Trump relies on does not mention tariffs, taxes or duties, and no previous president has used it to impose tariffs.

    And third, the Supreme Court has frowned on recent presidents who relied on old laws to justify bold, new, costly regulations.

    So far, however, the so-called “major questions” doctrine has been used to restrict Democratic presidents, not Republicans.

    Three years ago, the court’s conservative majority struck down a major climate change regulation proposed by Presidents Obama and Biden that could have transformed the electric power industry on the grounds it was not clearly based on the Clean Air Act of the 1970s.

    Two years ago, the court in the same 6-3 vote struck down Biden’s plan to forgive hundreds of millions of dollars in student loans. Congress had said the Education Department may “waive or modify” monthly loan payments during a national emergency like the COVID-19 pandemic, but it did not say the loans may be forgiven, the court said. Its opinion noted the “staggering” cost could be more than $500 billion.

    The impact of Trump’s tariffs figures to be at least five times greater, a federal appeals court said last week in ruling them illegal.

    In a 7-4 vote, the federal circuit court cited all three arguments in ruling Trump had exceeded his legal authority.

    “We conclude Congress, in enacting the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, did not give the president wide-ranging authority to impose tariffs,” they said.

    But the outcome was not a total loss for Trump. The appellate judges put their decision on hold until the Supreme Court rules. That means Trump’s tariffs are likely to remain in effect for many months.

    Trump’s lawyers were heartened by the dissent written by Judge Richard Taranto and joined by three others.

    He argued that presidents are understood to have extra power when confronted with foreign threats to the nation’s security.

    Taranto called the 1977 law “an eyes-open congressional grant of broad emergency authority in this foreign-affairs realm” that said the president may “regulate” the “importation” of dangerous products including drugs coming into this country.

    Citing other laws from that era, he said Congress understood that tariffs and duties are a “common tool of import regulation.”

    David G. Savage

    Source link

  • At Labor Day rallies, speakers decry Trump

    Thousands of union members and others participated in marches, rallies and picnics on Labor Day throughout the Los Angeles region and across the country on Monday, decrying actions by the Trump administration that they say weaken unions and harm workers while strengthening and emboldening major corporations and the wealthy.

    A White House proclamation Monday said President Trump’s actions are “reversing decades of neglect and finally putting American Workers first” by rewriting tax laws and creating a better economic climate for businesses.

    His critics say he is undermining, in historic ways, the government and labor-union infrastructure established to protect workers — and therefore hurting individual workers.

    Participants at a massive Wilmington rally and parade — organized by the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor — united over a common foe: Trump.

    “Donald Trump has gone too far,” said state Sen. Maria Elena Durazo (D-Los Angeles), as she and others linked typical Labor Day rhetoric directly to immigration raids. “On this Labor Day, we have an American president who takes parents from their children and workers from their jobs.”

    The raids are no longer about border security, Durazo said, but “about breaking the backbone of our economy and terrorizing families.”

    ”Fighting for workers’ rights means fighting for immigrant rights,” said Angelica Salas, the executive director of the immigrant advocacy group CHIRLA.

    The Trump administration, meanwhile, marked Labor Day by extolling the American worker and calling attention to new trade policies — including widespread tariffs — intended to spur a return of manufacturing to the United States.

    “Every day, my Administration is restoring the dignity of labor and putting the American worker first,” Trump said in a Labor Day proclamation. “We are making it easier to buy American and hire American, breathing new life into our manufacturing cities, and securing fair trade deals that protect our jobs and reward our productivity. … Under my leadership, we are bringing jobs back to America — and those jobs are going to American-born workers.”

    Tariff chaos at port

    The effect of tariffs and their uneven rollout is widely debated, including within Trump’s Republican Party, although a Congress controlled by Republicans has not acted to stop them.

    Trump’s tariffs — and the threat of them — have triggered unpredictable boom-and-bust cycles at L.A.’s ports, Mickey Chavez, president of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union Southern California District Council, said Monday.

    Standing with his French bulldog Gucci under an ILWU tent after the Wilmington parade, the union foreman described how the mood has fluctuated dramatically at the nearby union hall where ILWU members wait for work.

    “It’s been chaotic, more than anything, with the tariffs,” Chavez said as smoke from a barbecue a few tents over curled past his ILWU beret. “Either the workers really get a lot of work because they’re trying to beat the tariffs, or then [Trump] sets out more tariffs and the work slows down.”

    The uncertainty has made it difficult for workers to plan, particularly those at the lowest level, who are most affected by slowdowns.

    “If he sends out a tweet or makes a decision, we never know if there’s going to be work or not, so it’s been in flux,” the fourth-generation ILWU member said.

    Chavez’s great-grandfather first joined the union in the 1940s and his family has worked at the ports ever since. But he has never experienced anything like this before, where work is so dependent on the whims of a single man, he said.

    Trump bans most federal bargaining

    On the same day as his Labor Day proclamation, Trump issued an order banning collective bargaining at the International Trade Administration and the Patent and Trademark Office within the Commerce Department; the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Environmental Satellite, Data and Information Service, and the National Weather Service; as well as at NASA and the U.S. Agency for Global Media.

    Trump cited national security concerns as providing legal grounds for the unilateral edict. The latest action follows a March order outlawing collective bargaining for a majority of the federal workforce, citing the same justification.

    Unions immediately filed suit, putting Trump’s action on hold.

    A study from the left-leaning Center for American Progress estimated that Trump’s orders have stripped 82% of civilian federal workers of their right to bargain. The total number of workers whose contracts Trump has abrogated exceeds 1 million, an estimated one-fifteenth of American workers covered by a union contract.

    In addition, Trump fired National Labor Relations Board member Gwynne Wilcox, although the National Labor Relations Act stipulates that board members serve for five years and her term was not to end until August 2028. Her dismissal has paralyzed the labor board by leaving it without a quorum. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to stop her dismissal as part of ongoing litigation.

    At least one speaker at the Wilmington rally spoke of the need for organized labor to support California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s efforts to redraw state congressional districts to flip as many as five seats from Republican to Democrat — a strategy to offset actions taken in Texas — urged on by Trump — to do exactly the opposite.

    Labor groups have already put millions of dollars behind it and have committed to help lead voter-mobilization efforts.

    Unlike in Texas, Newsom’s plan must be approved by voters, who will have the opportunity to support it by voting for Proposition 50.

    Passage of the measure at the ballot box is essential, state Assemblyman Mark Gonzalez (D-Los Angeles) said at the Wilmington event, because Trump is already “destroying the fabric of the labor movement” months into his second term.

    California Republicans point out that the measure unravels reforms meant to make California districts more representative and competitive. Opponents of the retaliatory gerrymander include former California Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

    Festive vibes

    In Wilmington, although the thousands of union members and allies were fired up, the rally and parade retained a festive vibe.

    On a truck at the front of the procession, leaders of local and state labor groups danced with elected officials as Bob Marley and the Wailers sang about standing up for rights over a loudspeaker.

    Hammerhead cranes at the nearby port facilities dotted the horizon as classic cars turned down E Street, and posters and T-shirts in the crowd advertised membership in an alphabet soup of union locals.

    Children sharing space with political fliers in oversized wagons blew bubbles, and teenage girls from a local high school twirled pom-poms.

    At the helm of a massive shiny black truck bearing the Teamsters insignia, a driver clenched a cigar between his teeth as he steered with one hand and pulled an overhead horn with the other. Representatives from the local branch of the sheet metal workers union carried a carefully crafted, welded brown California bear in the back of their truck.

    Alongside carpenters and nurses and dockworkers, there were also representatives from a cadre of entertainment industry unions representing actors, writers and production workers.

    Rallies across the Southland and the country were united under the banner of May Day Strong, a partnership of labor, political and environmental organizations. The targets of the rallies included federal agencies carrying out immigration raids, including U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

    “The billionaires continue to wage a war on working people, with their cronies in the administration, ICE and law enforcement backing up their attacks,” according to the organizers’ toolkit. “This Labor Day we will continue to stand strong, fighting for public schools over private profits, healthcare over hedge funds, shared prosperity over billionaire-bought politics.”

    Julia Wick, Howard Blume

    Source link

  • Video: How Tariffs Will Affect This Unique Cheese

    new video loaded: How Tariffs Will Affect This Unique Cheese

    By Eshe Nelson, Nikolay Nikolov, Laura Salaberry, Emli Bendixen and Jon Hazell•

    Stilton is a special type of blue cheese that can be made in only three English counties. There are just four producers of Stilton left, but this one was crowned best cheese in the world, according to one of the industry’s top awards last year. Eshe Nelson, a business reporter for The New York Times, went to Clawson Farms, the producer of the award-winning Stilton, which is trying to expand its business in the United States, despite the higher costs imposed by the Trump administration’s tariff policy.

    Recent episodes in Behind the Reporting

    Eshe Nelson, Nikolay Nikolov, Laura Salaberry, Emli Bendixen and Jon Hazell

    Source link