ReportWire

Tag: Tariffs

  • Swiss Finance Minister Says Tariff Deal With US Depends on Trump

    [ad_1]

    ZURICH (Reuters) -Swiss efforts to secure a more favourable trade relationship with the U.S. are ongoing, Finance Minister Karin Keller-Sutter said on Thursday, after Swiss corporate bosses met with U.S. President Donald Trump earlier this week. 

    Switzerland was left reeling after Trump imposed tariffs of 39% on Swiss imports in August, among the highest duties levied in his global trade reset.

    Keller-Sutter, who has come under fire for her handling of the dispute, said she had fulfilled her duties as Switzerland’s president when she spoke to Trump before the tariffs announcement.

    “He did not agree with the negotiated agreement. Period,” she told newspaper Blick in an article published on Thursday. 

    “We have to live with that. The talks are continuing.”

    She remained tight-lipped on the negotiations, or whether an agreement could be reached this year.

    “Ultimately, it is up to the U.S. president to decide whether or not to agree to a deal,” Keller-Sutter said.

    Swiss companies have also been working to persuade Trump to reduce the tariffs, with a delegation of business leaders meeting Trump in the White House on Tuesday.

    The group, which included executives from shipping company MSC, watchmaker Rolex, investment firm Partners Group, commodities trader Mercuria, Cartier-owner Richemont and precious metals firm MKS, had organised to draw attention to the consequences of U.S. tariffs on their companies, Switzerland’s economy ministry said. 

    The government welcomed the initiative.

    “Diplomatic and political exchanges are continuing with a view to achieving a rapid reduction in additional tariffs,” the ministry added.

    (Reporting by Ariane Luthi and John Revill; Editing by Paul Simao)

    Copyright 2025 Thomson Reuters.

    Photos You Should See – Oct. 2025

    [ad_2]

    Reuters

    Source link

  • CEO challenging Trump at Supreme Court could trigger wave of tariff refunds:

    [ad_1]

    Rick Woldenberg says it’s not in his nature, nor consistent with the mission of his Chicago-area toy business, to sit quietly in the face of an existential threat. So last April, a few weeks after the Trump administration unveiled sweeping tariffs on so-called “Liberation Day,” he took action. 

    Woldenberg sued President Trump and his top advisers, alleging in a 37-page complaint Mr. Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs amounted to an illegal “Executive Branch power grab.” After a lower court sided with Woldenberg in June, the Trump administration appealed, and on Wednesday, the Supreme Court heard the case to decide the fate of the president’s signature economic policy. 

    “I just wasn’t willing to be led to a slaughter by the politicians,” Woldenberg told “CBS Evening News” anchor Maurice DuBois. “So we did what we’re allowed to do, which is to push back.” 

    Woldenberg heads Learning Resources, which manufactures most of its 2,000 educational toys in Asia. He has taken a path that stands in stark contrast to many top business leaders who grouse privately about the uncertainty wrought by Mr. Trump’s tariffs but stay quiet in public or try to lobby the president behind closed doors.  

    “I’m not a politician and this is not a political movement,” Woldenberg said. “This is a lawsuit over the interpretation of a law.”

    The Supreme Court is being asked to weigh in on whether the president has the legal authority to levy tariffs on a foreign country in order to address a national emergency, such as the fentanyl crisis, illegal migration, or persistent trade deficits, all of which Mr. Trump has cited. 

    Should the Court uphold his tariffs, Mr. Trump has said the decision would guarantee American prosperity. If Woldenberg prevails, the White House claims economic catastrophe would follow because the administration might be forced to pay back billions to American companies.

    Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said last month the U.S. would have to refund about half of the more than $200 million in tariff revenue collected this year. Woldenberg estimates a third of his 500 employees have had to shift their roles to focus on tariffs. Learning Resources has paid between $5 million and $10 million in tariffs this year so far. 

    “I definitely want my money back,” he said. “The government has chosen to hit us with a massive tax.” 

    For years, Woldenberg has fought government attempts to infringe on his business. In 2009, he fought the Obama administration on tougher lead-testing rules in toys. And while he donated $7,000 to the Kamala Harris campaign in the 2024 election, Woldenberg insists his decision to sue the president isn’t political. He has previously given to both Democrats and Republicans.

    On a recent Friday morning, workers at the company’s 356,000-square-foot warehouse, north of Chicago, were preparing and loading shipments bound for big box retailers like WalMart and mom-and-pop toy stores nationwide. 

    Woldenberg says factories in China and Vietnam have unique advantages: labor to assemble items like the company’s ever-popular toddler cash register and source materials for products like “BubblePlush,” a new children’s yoga ball that he expects to do well this Christmas. He said shifting production to the U.S. would be impossible.

    “We can’t do it,” said Woldenberg, who took over in 1998 the business his family has run for decades. “And we don’t see our competitors doing it.”

    What they have done is play “whack-a-mole,” reacting to almost daily swings in the tariff rate. For example, after Mr. Trump took aim at China, raising the tariff rate to 145%, Learning Resources shifted some production to India. But then in August, the president raised India’s tariff rate to 50%, and Woldenberg raced to ship those products to the U.S to avoid additional penalties.

    “It was like a bat-outta-hell emergency,” he said. “And we had until Sept. 16 to clear customs in this country and the boat sauntered in six hours late. So, that cost us 50 grand.”

    Along with Woldenberg’s case, the Supreme Court heard a similar case brought by five other small businesses and a group of Democratic state attorneys general. In that case, a federal appeals court ruled many of the president’s tariffs are illegal. 

    The case is the first in which the Supreme Court will directly decide the legality of one of the most consequential of Mr. Trump’s second-term policies. The high court has weighed in on an interim emergency basis on challenges to many of the president’s initiatives, most recently in his bid to fire Federal Reserve commissioner Lisa Cook.

    Woldenberg said he’s confident the Court will grant him relief. 

    “We and the hundreds of thousands of other similarly situated businesses will get the unlawfully collected taxes rebated to us,” he said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Supreme Court deciding if Trump has the power to unilaterally impose tariffs

    [ad_1]



    Supreme Court deciding if Trump has the power to unilaterally impose tariffs – CBS News










































    Watch CBS News



    The Supreme Court heard arguments on Wednesday on the legality of President Trump’s sweeping tariffs on foreign imports. CBS News legal contributor Jessica Levinson has more.

    [ad_2]
    Source link

  • Oregon Leads Case Against Trump Tariffs Straight To Supreme Court – KXL

    [ad_1]

    Oregon Attorney Dan Rayfield speaks to reporters during a virtual press conference Wednesday afternoon, Nov. 5, 2025.

    Washington, D.C. – The Supreme Court will decide the fate of President Trump’s sweeping tariffs. Justices heard arguments Wednesday in a 12-state lawsuit led by Oregon. 

    Oral arguments lasted nearly three hours, much longer than expected. “The court was grappling with the reality: did this President abuse an emergency power to be able to do this,” Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield said Wednesday afternoon.

    Justices asked pointed questions of both sides, particularly over whether a President’s power to “regulate” imports includes taxation. The Trump Administration’s Solicitor General John Sauer told them, “When Congress confers the power to regulate imports, it is naturally conferring the power to tariff, which is delegated to the Executive branch.” But some Justices seemed skeptical. Rayfield said later, “You heard Chief Justice Roberts talk about, ‘So, Trump Administration, what you’re effectively saying is you can tax anything at any height for any length for any reason?’ And, that’s an immense amount of power.”  

    Rayfield also points out the President’s lawyers admit tariffs are not paid by foreign countries. “$4 trillion is the amount of money that’s expected to be raised,” said Rayfield, “They talked, even in their own words, about 30-80% – by their own calculations – are going to be paid by Americans.” He wants the tariffs deemed illegal and refunds sent to businesses and consumers, “The philosophy behind this is exactly what we teach our kids: if you make a wrong, you make it right. And if you screw up, you need to fix it.”

    Rayfield is cautiously optimistic about the outcome, “If I were sitting in the shoes of either the Trump administration or the states holding the line, I’d rather be sitting in our shoes right now, based on the questioning happening.” And, he thinks the ruling will be swift, but admits the timeline is unpredictable, “I would expect something to happen sooner than the normal schedule, just based upon past actions.”

    Three lower courts ruled in favor of the 12-state coalition led by Oregon.

    More about:

    [ad_2]

    Heather Roberts

    Source link

  • The Supreme Court Seems Skeptical of Trump’s Tariffs. It Might Not Matter.

    [ad_1]

    The Supreme Court on Wednesday appeared doubtful about buying into the Trump administration’s rationale to justify its aggressive tariff strategy, with justices on both sides of the political aisle expressing great skepticism. 

    The nine justices grilled Trump’s Solicitor General John Sauer for nearly three hours on the Trump administration’s decision to use the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPAA), a 1970-era law invoked during national emergencies, to justify imposing sweeping tariffs across the globe. 

    Central to the debate was the so-called major questions doctrine, which requires government entities, in this case, the president, to have explicit authority from Congress to carry out measures with “national significance.”

    Chief Justice John Roberts underscored that IEEPAA has never been used to justify tariffs in the past. Sauer argued that the law allows the executive branch to regulate imports, which includes tariffs, since the president also has purview over foreign policy. 

    But even the court’s conservative justices seem unpersuaded by that argument, with Justice Neil Gorsuch underlining how future presidents may liberally use IEEPA for their own benefit, like imposing tariffs on gas-guzzling cars as a way to deal with the “extraordinary threat” of climate change.

    At one point, Justice Sonia Sotomayer, one of the court’s liberal justices, shot down Sauer’s claim that the tariffs are not taxes. 

    “It’s a congressional power, not a presidential power, to tax,” Sotomayer said. “You want to say tariffs are not taxes, but that’s exactly what they are – degenerating money from American citizens’ revenue.”

    More than a few businesses would likely agree with that sentiment, as entrepreneurs nationwide have contended with steep price increases in recent months. A group of small business plaintiffs filed suit to stop the tariffs, and the high court’s decision to hear the case is rooted in a string of lower court losses for the administration.

    A decision from on the high-stakes case may not come for weeks, if not months. They have until June of next year to do so. 

    Even if the Supreme Court rules in favor of the states and small businesses that originally brought the case to court, there are other mechanisms that the Trump administration might use to justify its tariff strategy. That’s according to Michael Cornett, a tax lawyer and managing director at Forvis Mazars, an accounting firm headquartered in Springfield, Missouri.

    One avenue is using Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930, which allows the president to levy retaliatory tariffs of up to 50 percent on other nations if foreign nations have lobbed “unreasonable” duties against the U.S. Trump has long argued that countries have ripped off the U.S. for decades.

    “Justice Alito raised the issue that the President could impose Section 338 tariffs if he were to lose this case, which is solely focused on IEEPA,” Cornett said. “This reinforces that [..] the tariff debate will continue; This would be consistent with the Court’s approach to address issues narrowly and not address future impacts of a narrow decision.”

    The early-rate deadline for the 2026 Inc. Regionals Awards is Friday, November 14, at 11:59 p.m. PT. Apply now.

    [ad_2]

    Melissa Angell

    Source link

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

    [ad_1]

    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.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Listen live to Supreme Court arguments on dispute over Trump’s sweeping tariffs

    [ad_1]

    Washington — The Supreme Court is set to consider Wednesday whether President Trump can unilaterally impose tariffs on nearly every country under a federal emergency powers law, with the justices poised to test a centerpiece of his economic agenda and the limits of presidential powers.

    The court fight over Mr. Trump’s sweeping tariffs marks the first in which the Supreme Court will weigh the legal merits of one of the president’s signature policies implemented in his second term.

    Three lower courts have concluded that most of the president’s tariffs are illegal, and a ruling from the Supreme Court upholding those decisions would deal a blow to Mr. Trump’s plans to use tariffs as leverage to push U.S. trading partners to negotiate better trade deals. The president has also claimed that tariffs help to boost domestic manufacturing.

    At issue in the case are two sets of duties that Mr. Trump rolled out through a series of executive orders earlier this year. The president has relied on a 1977 law called the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, to impose the tariffs.

    The first tranche set a baseline rate of 10% on nearly every U.S. trading partner, as well as higher reciprocal tariffs on dozens of countries in response to what he said are “large and persistent” trade deficits. The second targeted China, Canada and Mexico with tariffs of varying rates for what he asserted was their failure to stop the flow of fentanyl and other illegal drugs into the U.S.

    In his executive orders, the president declared trade imbalances and the trafficking of drugs across U.S. borders as national emergencies, which unlocked IEEPA’s powers. The law authorizes the president to “regulate … importation” to deal with “any unusual and extraordinary threat” to national security, foreign policy or the U.S. economy. Mr. Trump has argued that trade deficits and the failure to curtail the flow of illicit drugs into the country qualify as such a threat. 

    Presidents have used IEEPA dozens of times over the past nearly 50 years to impose sanctions on foreign actors, but it has never before been used to levy tariffs.

    Since Mr. Trump announced the import taxes in February and April — on what he called “Liberation Day” — the administration has reached trade deals with at least 10 countries and the European Union, and said it is “actively negotiating” with other nations. 

    But after the rollout of the new levies, two sets of small businesses and a group of 12 states filed lawsuits arguing that IEEPA doesn’t authorize the president’s sweeping action. The first case was brought in Washington, D.C., by a pair of Illinois-based educational toy companies. The others, filed in the U.S. Court of International Trade, came from a group of five small businesses and Democratic officials from 12 states.

    The U.S. district court in Washington and the Court of International Trade separately ruled against the administration, concluding that IEEPA doesn’t give the president the authority to impose his global and trafficking-related tariffs.

    The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which reviewed the trade court’s decision in cases from the five small businesses and states, ruled 7-4 that many of the president’s levies are illegal. The appeals court found that while IEEPA may authorize some tariffs, the law didn’t allow for those “of the magnitude” of Mr. Trump’s.

    Still, it allowed the Trump administration to continue collecting the sweeping tariffs while the legal battles play out.

    Mr. Trump has also continued to rely on IEEPA to impose new levies or tweak existing rates, including raising Canadian tariffs to 35% (though many of its goods are subject to exemptions), imposing an additional 40% duty on Brazil and threatening China with an additional 100% duty, though the president has since walked that back. Mr. Trump announced last week following a meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping that he would be reducing the tariffs on goods imported from China.

    The Supreme Court is hearing the dispute over Mr. Trump’s tariffs on an extremely fast timeline, having agreed in September to decide the cases, and could move quickly to issue a ruling.

    Trump administration argues for presidential powers

    In urging the high court to uphold the duties, the Trump administration has argued that Congress has long given the president broad authority to impose tariffs to address emergencies. IEEPA, Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote in a filing, is a continuation of that tradition because it gives the president the power to “regulate … importation.”

    Sauer also said that the tariffs are an exercise of Mr. Trump’s power over national security and foreign affairs, and courts should give deference to his determination that the duties are best suited for addressing national emergencies arising from trade deficits and drug-trafficking.

    Invalidating those levies, Sauer wrote, would have “catastrophic consequences” for national security, foreign policy and the economy.

    “To the President, these cases present a stark choice: With tariffs, we are a rich nation; without tariffs, we are a poor nation,” he said.

    Mr. Trump is highly invested in the case, calling it “one of the most important in the history of the country.” The president floated attending the arguments in person, but he reversed course Sunday, writing on social media that he did “not want to distract from the importance of this decision.”

    Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told Fox News on Monday that he will be at the arguments with a “ringside seat.” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Bessent is attending at the president’s request.

    Businesses warn of economic impact

    On the other side, the small businesses warned in court papers that Mr. Trump’s tariffs have significant economic consequences. An analysis from the Tax Foundation found the duties will impose $1.7 trillion in new taxes on Americans by 2035, reduce GDP growth by 0.7% per year, and reduce income by 1.1% in 2026.

    Neal Katyal, who will argue on behalf of the companies before the Supreme Court, said the Trump administration’s interpretation of IEEPA is a “breathtaking assertion” of power that requires explicit authorization from Congress. IEEPA, he said, doesn’t even mention the word tariff or duty, and no president has understood the law to authorize them.

    If the Supreme Court agrees with Mr. Trump that the power to tax is found in IEEPA through the phrase “regulate … importation,” then “the president, empowered by a supercharged U.S. Code, could tax everything from autos to zoos,” Katyal wrote in a filing.

    The plaintiffs also argued that trade deficits hardly constitute an “unusual and extraordinary threat,” as imbalances have lasted for five decades, and Mr. Trump himself has described them as “persistent.”

    Additionally, the power to levy taxes and duties rests squarely with Congress, and any delegations of that power have been “explicit and strictly limited,” they said. And indeed, there are numerous other statutes in which Congress has delegated its tariffing power — some of which have been used by Mr. Trump — though they put constraints on the president.

    Testing the boundaries of presidential authority

    The dispute over Mr. Trump’s efforts to use IEEPA to impose his sweeping tariffs comes as he has tested the boundaries of his presidential authority, including through his firings of independent agency officials, the withholding of $4 billion in foreign aid approved by Congress and his efforts to overhaul the executive branch.

    Those cases have already been before the Supreme Court, though at earlier stages than the challenges to Mr. Trump’s tariffs. In most of those emergency appeals, the conservative justices have allowed the Trump administration to temporarily enforce its policies while proceedings in the lower courts continue.

    Like those other cases, the dispute over whether Mr. Trump has the authority to impose duties on nearly every country under IEEPA without Congress could have significant implications for presidential power.

    The Supreme Court has been skeptical of broad assertions of executive authority on issues of major political and economic significance when Congress has not spoken clearly, invoking what’s called the major questions doctrine to invalidate former President Joe Biden’s plan to wipe away more than $400 billion in student loan debt and block an eviction moratorium during the COVID-19 pandemic.

    That legal principle is raised in the battle over his tariffs, though the Trump administration argues that it doesn’t apply to matters of national security and foreign policy. 

    “Judges lack the institutional competence to determine when foreign affairs pose an unusual and extraordinary threat that requires an emergency response; that is a task for the political Branches,” Sauer wrote.

    But lawyers for the small businesses counter that tariffs are a tax on the American people, and the Constitution has vested the taxing power in Congress.

    “The Framers understood that taxation is a potent power that can destroy the taxed as it fills the sovereign’s coffers. The Constitution vests that extraordinary power exclusively in the branch of government considered most responsive to the citizenry: Congress,” lawyers for the Illinois companies wrote in a filing. “This Court should not lightly assume that Congress abdicated its core taxing power to permit the President to tax Americans with virtually no limits.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Supreme Court Weighs Legality of Tariffs in Major Test of Trump’s Power

    [ad_1]

    By Andrew Chung and John Kruzel

    WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The U.S. Supreme Court is due on Wednesday to hear arguments over the legality of Donald Trump’s sweeping tariffs in a case with implications for the global economy that marks a major test of the Republican president’s powers and the willingness of the justices to let him push the limits of his authority.

    The arguments are set to begin at 10 a.m. EST (1500 GMT) after lower courts ruled that Trump’s unprecedented use of a 1977 federal law meant for national emergencies to impose the tariffs exceeded his authority. The challenge involves three lawsuits brought by businesses affected by the tariffs and 12 U.S. states, most of them Democratic-led. 

    Trump has heaped pressure on the Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, to preserve tariffs that he has leveraged as a key economic and foreign policy tool. The tariffs – taxes on imported goods – could add up to trillions of dollars for the United States over the next decade. 

    If the justices strike them down, “we would be defenseless, leading perhaps even to the ruination of our Nation,” Trump wrote in a social media post on Sunday.

    Highlighting the importance of the case to the administration, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent plans to attend Wednesday’s arguments in person. Trump earlier had spoken of attending but decided against it. 

    If the Supreme Court rules against Trump, these tariffs are expected to remain as the administration switches to other legal authorities, Bessent told Reuters. 

    While the Supreme Court typically takes months to issue rulings after hearing arguments, the Trump administration has asked it to act swiftly in this case.

    The justices will consider Trump’s actions invoking the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, to impose the tariffs on nearly every U.S. trading partner. The law allows a president to regulate commerce in a national emergency but does not specifically mention the word tariffs. 

    Trump is the first president to use IEEPA in this manner, one of the many ways he has aggressively pushed the boundaries of executive authority since he returned to office in areas as varied as his crackdown on immigration, the firing of federal agency officials and domestic military deployments.

    The U.S. Constitution grants Congress, not the president, the authority to issue taxes and tariffs. Trump’s Justice Department has argued that IEEPA allows tariffs by authorizing the president to “regulate” imports to address emergencies.

    The IEEPA-based tariffs have generated $89 billion in estimated collections between February 4 and September 23, when the most recent data was released by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency. Trump has imposed some additional tariffs invoking other laws. Those are not at issue in this case.

    The Supreme Court has backed Trump in a series of decisions issued this year on an emergency basis. These have let Trump policies that were impeded by lower courts amid questions about their legality proceed on an interim basis, prompting critics to warn that the justices are refusing to act as a check on the president’s power. 

    The tariffs case marks the first time the court has heard arguments on the legal merits of one of Trump’s policies this year. It heard arguments in May in a case concerning Trump’s effort to restrict birthright citizenship but focused not on the legality of his policy but on the authority of federal judges to block actions nationwide.

    Trump instigated a global trade war when he returned to the presidency in January, alienating trading partners, increasing volatility in financial markets and fueling global economic uncertainty.

    He invoked IEEPA in slapping tariffs on goods imported from individual countries to address what he called a national emergency related to U.S. trade deficits, as well as in February as economic leverage on China, Canada and Mexico to curb the trafficking of the often-abused painkiller fentanyl and illicit drugs into the United States.

    Trump has wielded tariffs to extract concessions and renegotiate trade deals, and as a cudgel to punish countries that draw his ire on non-trade political matters. These have ranged from Brazil’s prosecution of former president Jair Bolsonaro, India’s purchases of Russian oil that help fund Russia’s war in Ukraine, and an anti-tariff ad by Canada’s Ontario province.

    ‘AN UNUSUAL AND EXTRAORDINARY THREAT’

    IEEPA gives the president power to deal with “an unusual and extraordinary threat” amid a national emergency. It historically had been used for imposing sanctions on enemies or freezing their assets, not to impose tariffs. In passing IEEPA, Congress placed additional limits on the president’s authority compared to a predecessor law.

    The Supreme Court is reviewing two rulings against Trump. The Washington-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit sided with challengers including five small businesses that import goods and the states of Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, Oregon and Vermont. A Washington-based federal judge sided with a family-owned toy company called Learning Resources.

    “It seems unlikely that Congress intended, in enacting IEEPA, to depart from its past practice and grant the president unlimited authority to impose tariffs,” the Federal Circuit said. 

    The Federal Circuit also said that the administration’s expansive view of this law violates the Supreme Court’s “major questions” doctrine, which requires executive branch actions of vast economic and political significance to be clearly authorized by Congress. The Supreme Court applied this doctrine to strike down key policies of Trump’s Democratic predecessor Joe Biden.

    (Reporting by Andrew Chung in Washington; Additional reporting by David Lawder; Editing by Will Dunham)

    Copyright 2025 Thomson Reuters.

    [ad_2]

    Reuters

    Source link

  • China Confirms Suspension of 24% Tariff on US Goods, Retains 10% Levy

    [ad_1]

    BEIJING (Reuters) -China will suspend its 24% additional tariff on U.S. goods for one year but retain a 10% levy, the State Council’s tariff commission said on Wednesday, following last week’s meeting between President Xi Jinping and U.S. President Donald Trump.

    The commission also announced China, the world’s top agricultural buyer, will lift some tariffs of up to 15% on U.S. agricultural goods from November 10.

    (Reporting by Beijing Newsroom; Editing by Jamie Freed)

    Copyright 2025 Thomson Reuters.

    Photos You Should See – Oct. 2025

    [ad_2]

    Reuters

    Source link

  • Nvidia Cannot Sell Its Most Advanced AI Chip to China, White House Says

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The United States is not interested in selling Nvidia’s advanced AI chip, known as the Blackwell, to China at this time, the White House said on Tuesday.

    (Reporting by Nandita Bose and Katharine Jackson; Editing by Doina Chiacu)

    Copyright 2025 Thomson Reuters.

    Photos You Should See – Oct. 2025

    [ad_2]

    Reuters

    Source link

  • The Economy Seems Uncertain. Here’s Why Entrepreneurs Remain Optimistic

    [ad_1]

    Although small company workplaces likely face margin pressures from higher costs generated by import tariffs, they’re still largely upbeat, characterized by owner optimism about their business outlook. Nevertheless, recent data shows that many entrepreneurs are using the same cautious hiring strategies as bigger firms, slowing recruiting to a crawl nationwide.

    That mix of entrepreneur confidence despite lingering concerns over the broader outlook for economic growth was captured by payroll and staff management service provider Gusto. Its recent “State of Small Business 2025” report surveyed 1,148 owners of midsized and smaller companies, most of whom remained upbeat despite the impact of import tariffs, rising costs, and higher interest rates that have made borrowing prohibitively expensive. Indeed, an impressive 87 percent of respondents said their businesses met or exceeded performance expectations this year, including 51 percent of participant who said they’d fared better than anticipated.

    Still, entrepreneurs were divided in their views of the wider economy, with exactly half of respondents describing themselves as either somewhat or very pessimistic about its direction. By contrast, only 28 percent of participants said they were somewhat or very optimistic about the economy, while 21 percent were undecided.

    Small business owners were even more tightly split about the effects of tariffs. Half described import duties imposed this year as having had more negative consequences than previously existing duties did. Surprisingly, the other 50 percent of participants said the recent levies had generated no additional impacts beyond those of previous customs levies, or had even produced positive changes.

    But there was another way the tariffs colored entrepreneurs’ perceptions. Eighty-five percent of small company owners who voiced negative views of the economy said tariffs had influenced that view, while 65 percent of respondents who said their businesses had underperformed their expectations blamed import duties at least partially for that.

    “(T)he costs of tariffs are felt by many small business owners, who told us that tariffs are creating a clear drag on margins and forcing them to rethink supply chains and possibly scale back expansion plans,” the Gusto report said. “What began in 2025 as uncertainty is now manifesting at the end of the year as real economic costs.”

    In addition to tariff costs prompting some entrepreneurs to rethink growth plans, wider doubts about the economy have also led many small business owners to embrace the minimalist hiring patterns adopted by bigger companies since the first quarter of the year.

    Around 40 percent of owner-respondents who employ one person or more said they had hired no additional new staff this year. That was often described as a check on rising costs, a precaution that many entrepreneurs attributed to tariffs and inflation. Nearly 60 percent of 2025 Gusto survey participants said higher prices had had a negative effect on their businesses — compared to 49 percent last year — leading many to become wary of adding more staff and salary expenses.

    “The smallest businesses tend to keep their headcount steady over time and hire only when an employee leaves,” the Gusto report said, noting that aligned with other aspects of national employment strategies. “The low rate of hiring among those firms suggests more workers are staying put, which is consistent with broader trends in the labor market.”

    Small business owners who have been hiring said they often filled customer-facing jobs, or other work requiring human skills that artificial intelligence applications can’t replace.

    “(A)s price increases have stressed the budgets of both businesses and consumers, small businesses who can’t easily raise prices may be investing in exceptional customer service to retain and attract customers,” the Gusto report said. “Finally, customer- and client-facing roles may be more resilient to replacement by today’s AI tools, as most of their value comes from a ‘human touch’ AI can’t replicate.”

    Another concern a majority of entrepreneurs voiced are the still relatively high interest rates that make borrowing money through bank loans too expensive. As a result, nearly 60 percent of survey respondents said they turned to alternative forms of external financing this year, with owners’ drawing from personal savings or using business credit cards cited as the most frequent forms.

    Contrary to popular belief, however, those funds were often used just to keep existing business running, and not to finance expansion plans.

    “It’s a popular assumption that small businesses primarily seek financing to grow their business,” the Gusto analysis said. “However, our survey shows financing is more often used to cover everyday expenses. This year, entrepreneurs have been most likely to use external financing to cover short-term costs or buy equipment and tools. Just 16 percent of small businesses that have received external financing this year have used it to invest in long-term growth.”

    [ad_2]

    Bruce Crumley

    Source link

  • Supreme Court prepares to weigh tariffs fight in test of Trump’s power

    [ad_1]

    Washington — For Lindsay Hagerman, the past few months have felt tumultuous.

    As the co-owner of the Pennsylvania-based RainCaper, which sells art-inspired travel accessories and gifts, Hagerman has found herself questioning her pricing strategy while watching tariffs on goods imported from China see-saw from 10% to 20% to 145% — and then back down again.

    “Is it temporary? Is this the new normal? You’re struggling with how do we price — do we change prices now? Wait? I don’t want to gouge people,” Hagerman told CBS News. “That’s not how you do good business. But I also need to cover expenses.”

    RainCaper, which Hagerman founded with her mother nearly a decade ago, sells rain capes, travel accessories, umbrellas, scarves, shawls and drinkware to boutiques, museum stores, retailers and directly to consumers through its website.

    Her company imports umbrellas and rain capes made from a waterproof fabric from China, and neither can be made in the U.S., Hagerman said. As a result, RainCaper has found itself on the front lines of President Trump’s trade war, which relies heavily on tariffs.

    But Hagerman and small business owners across the U.S. could see some stability in the coming weeks, with the Supreme Court set to consider Wednesday whether Mr. Trump has the authority to unilaterally impose tariffs on nearly every country under a federal emergency powers law.

    Lower courts have ruled his most sweeping duties are illegal, and a decision from the Supreme Court upholding those decisions could deal a blow to the president’s efforts to use tariffs as leverage in negotiations with foreign countries and to pressure U.S. companies to invest in domestic manufacturing. But a ruling from the high court against Mr. Trump, who appointed three of the justices, could also have significant implications for presidential power.

    Since he announced the sweeping global tariffs earlier this year, many small businesses have had to devote time and resources to keeping up with the fast-changing fluctuations in the tariff rates and countries targeted, all while making determinations about how to respond to the increased costs of importing the components needed for their products.

    At RainCaper, Hagerman has trimmed expenses and laid off two of its seven employees who were working in operations and customer service, she said.

    She also explored manufacturing outside of China because of the levies, though Hagerman ultimately decided against it in part because of the significant investment it would require. And as a military spouse whose husband is out of state, she said making trips to countries like Bangladesh and Cambodia to look at other potential facilities wasn’t possible.

    “When the administration is saying we’re bringing trillions into the economy and saying China is paying these tariffs, Brazil is paying these tariffs, it’s just not true,” Hagerman said. “Tariffs are borne by the importer. I’m the importer.”

    A “stark choice” for the Supreme Court

    Mr. Trump has invoked a federal law called the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA to impose two different sets of tariffs through a series of executive orders. The first set a baseline rate of 10% on nearly every U.S. trading partner, as well as higher reciprocal tariffs on more than 50 countries; and the second targeted China, Canada and Mexico with tariffs of varying rates.

    In his executive orders, the president declared trade deficits and the flood of fentanyl and other illegal drugs into the U.S. as national emergencies, which unlocked IEEPA’s powers. The law authorizes the president to “regulate … importation” to deal with “any unusual and extraordinary threat” to national security, foreign policy or the U.S. economy, which he said trade imbalances and drug trafficking constitute. 

    Since Mr. Trump announced the tariffs in February and April — on what he called “Liberation Day” — the administration has reached trade deals with 10 countries and the European Union, and said it is “actively negotiating” with more foreign nations. 

    But soon after the president announced the tariffs, two sets of small businesses and a group of 12 states filed lawsuits arguing that IEEPA doesn’t authorize the sweeping duties. Lower courts have ruled against the administration, finding that IEEPA doesn’t give the president the power to unilaterally impose the global and trafficking tariffs.

    In one of the cases, involving a group of five small businesses and Democratic officials from 12 states, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled 7-4 that many of the president’s levies are illegal. But the Federal Circuit set aside a lower court’s injunction, which has allowed the Trump administration to keep collecting the global and trafficking tariffs for now.

    Mr. Trump has also continued to rely on IEEPA to impose new levies or tweak existing rates, including raising Canadian tariffs to 35%, though many of its goods are exempt, imposing an additional 40% duty on Brazil and threatening China with an additional 100% duty, though the president has since walked that back. Mr. Trump then announced last week after a meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping that he would be reducing the tariffs on goods imported from China.

    The Trump administration is urging the Supreme Court to uphold the levies, arguing that Congress has long given the president broad authority to impose tariffs to address emergencies. Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote in a filing that IEEPA is a continuation of that tradition because it gives the president the power to “regulate … importation.”

    Sauer also asserted that the tariffs are an exercise of Mr. Trump’s power over national security and foreign affairs, and argued courts should give deference to his determination that the duties are best suited for addressing national emergencies arising from trade deficits and drug trafficking.

    Invalidating those levies, he said, would have “catastrophic consequences” for national security, foreign policy and the economy.

    “To the President, these cases present a stark choice: With tariffs, we are a rich nation; without tariffs, we are a poor nation,” Sauer wrote.

    Mr. Trump has called the case “one of the most important in the history of the country” and had said he planned to attend the arguments in-person. But he reversed course Sunday, writing on social media that he did “not want to distract from the importance of this decision.”

    Lawyers for the small businesses told the high court in papers that Mr. Trump’s tariffs have significant economic consequences. An analysis from the Tax Foundation found the duties will impose $1.7 trillion in new taxes on Americans by 2035, reduce GDP growth by 0.7% per year, and reduce income by 1.1% in 2026.

    No president has used IEEPA to levy tariffs — until now — and the law makes no mention of that word or others like it. Neal Katyal, who will argue on behalf of the small businesses before the Supreme Court, warned in filings that the Trump administration’s interpretation of IEEPA is a “breathtaking assertion” of power that requires explicit authorization from Congress.

    If the Supreme Court agrees with Mr. Trump that the power to tax is found in IEEPA through the phrase “regulate … importation,” then “the president, empowered by a supercharged U.S. Code, could tax everything from autos to zoos,” Katyal wrote in a filing.

    “The government’s theory is really that the president has the ability to impose sales taxes, property taxes, use taxes, essentially a wealth tax under IEEPA,” Timothy Meyer, an expert in international law at Duke Law, told CBS News. “The justices are going to have to confront this really extraordinary breadth of the government’s argument.”

    The plaintiffs also argued that trade deficits hardly constitute an “unusual and extraordinary threat,” as imbalances have lasted for five decades, and Mr. Trump himself has described them as “persistent.”

    Additionally, the power to levy taxes and duties rests squarely with Congress, and any delegations of that power have been “explicit and strictly limited,” they said. And indeed, there are numerous other statutes in which Congress has delegated its tariffing power — some of which have been used by Mr. Trump — though they put constraints on the president.

    “The reason that President Trump likes IEEPA is because unlike every other statute that delegates to the president the authority to impose tariffs, IEEPA requires no process before the president can act, requires no investigation, no fact-finding other than an unreviewable declaration of a national emergency, and it places no limits on what the president can do in terms of the amount of the duty or the length of time that they can remain in place,” Meyer said.

    He continued: “The reason it doesn’t do any of those things is because it doesn’t mention duties at all, so it seems pretty likely that Congress did not intend to include substantial power to impose tariffs in the statute.”

    Jeffrey Bialos, a partner at Eversheds Sutherland who specializes in international law, predicted that if Mr. Trump prevails before the Supreme Court, future administrations would likely use IEEPA’s authority to set out broad tariffs rather than look to other authorities that are more narrow and impose certain requirements.

    “This isn’t foreign affairs. It’s a question of what is permissible to delegate under Article I Section 8, and what kind of authority you need,” Bialos said. “Did Congress intend to allow the president to throw out the entire tariff code of the United States? That’s the import of what was done here.”

    A test of presidential authority

    Mr. Trump has spent his first months back in the White House flexing his presidential authority in other ways, including through his firings of executive branch officials and the withholding of $4 billion in foreign aid approved by Congress.

    When those cases made their way to the Supreme Court in their early stages, the conservative justices have in most instances allowed the Trump administration to temporarily enforce certain policies while proceedings in the lower courts continue.

    In the dispute over Mr. Trump’s tariffs, the Supreme Court will weigh the legal merits of the case, something it has not yet done in the others. But the court battle, like those others, could have implications for the power the president is seeking to assert.

    “What the Supreme Court is really deciding here is whether or not to give the administration a free pass any time it’s able to connect some sort of policy initiative to some sort of international dimension,” Meyer said. “If you create a system in which you get deference if you can characterize something as a foreign affairs issue, but there’s no deference if it’s done by an administrative agency pursuing sort sort of statutory delegation, then the administration will just do as much as it can through emergency and international affairs powers.”

    The Supreme Court has been skeptical of broad assertions of executive authority on issues of major political and economic significance when Congress has not spoken clearly, invoking what’s called the major questions doctrine to invalidate former President Joe Biden’s plan to wipe away more than $400 billion in student loan debt and block an eviction moratorium during the COVID-19 pandemic.

    That legal principle is raised in the battle over his tariffs, though the Trump administration argues that it doesn’t apply to matters of national security and foreign policy. But lawyers for the small businesses counter that tariffs are a tax on the American people, and the Constitution has vested the taxing power in Congress.

    “Taxing American citizens is not national security or foreign policy, and the tariffs are paid by Emily Ley and other ordinary Americans,” said Mark Chenoweth, president and chief legal officer at the New Civil Liberties Alliance. The organization is representing a Pensacola-based stationary company and its CEO, Emily Ley, in a different challenge to Mr. Trump’s tariffs. That case is not before the Supreme Court.

    “To argue that unilateral taxation of American citizens is national security or foreign policy is incorrect,” Chenoweth said. “We fought a Revolutionary War over the idea of taxation without representation, and that’s what this would be if the president can unilaterally raise taxes on American citizens.”

    A “mass extinction” of small businesses

    While lower courts have agreed that Mr. Trump’s global and trafficking tariffs are illegal, the government has continued to collect the duties as the Supreme Court weighs the cases.

    For Julie Robbins, CEO of EarthQuaker Devices, that has meant paying nearly $40,000 in levies through the end of October.

    The family-owned company makes guitar pedals and manufactures its products in Akron, Ohio. EarthQuaker’s product line includes 50 pedals that require more than 900 unique components that it sources from 15 different countries, including Mexico, Portugal, Poland, Ukraine and several in Asia.

    To assist with logistics, Robbins said EarthQuaker works with wholesalers that vet overseas manufacturers and source the mechanical and electrical components needed for its pedals. The wholesalers are paying the tariffs when the items arrive at U.S. ports and then pass along a portion of the duties to EarthQuaker, she said.

    Upon hearing Mr. Trump would be imposing his sweeping levies, one of Robbins’ first moves was to search for domestic suppliers. She ultimately found they either don’t exist for the parts that go into EarthQuaker’s guitar pedals or they charge significantly more than her international sources.

    Plus, breaking off long-held relationships with overseas suppliers would be risky and disrupt a supply chain that took years to perfect, she said, since there were no guarantees other manufacturers or their products would be reliable.

    “It’s taken us 20 years to develop this supply chain,” she said. “It’s not something that happened overnight and so in order to redo it, I can’t see it happening.”

    Robbins said EarthQuaker could save money by having their pedals made in-full overseas, rather than having the parts shipped to the U.S. and the pedals assembled at its production facilities in Ohio. But doing that wouldn’t align with the company’s values of keeping well-paying jobs in Akron, a city that was once known as the “Rubber Capital of the World” for its production of rubber products.

    “When people try to oversimplify and say you should be manufacturing in the United States, we are manufacturing in the United States, but you can’t make the raw materials in the U.S.,” Robbins said.

    EarthQuaker doesn’t have deep-pocketed investors and has eroded its cash cushion as it has navigated the whiplash of changing tariff rates, she said. The company also opted not to replace employees that have left in recent months, and it pulled two open positions. 

    “My concern is there’s just going to be this mass extinction of small business,” Robbins said. “It’s not sustainable.”

    Cephalofair Games, a California-based company that designs and publishes board games, has paid more than $144,000 in new tariffs over the past few months, according to its chief operating officer, Price Johnson.

    In July, Cephalofair informed its customers it would be adding “tariff surcharges” as a result of the import taxes and has increased the prices of its products. It has also reduced the salaries of staff and furloughed workers.

    The company manufactures its games in China and has had to make adjustments to product runs in response to the tariffs. Johnson told CBS News that a run of 7,000 units is nearly completed, but instead of bringing it into the U.S., the company will instead send its games to Europe, the United Kingdom and Australia.

    In the meantime, Johnson said the company continues to design and develop new games, but is waiting to hear from the Supreme Court before moving forward with manufacturing.

    Cephalofair wasn’t impacted by tariffs during the first administration and had been preparing for tariffs on Chinese imports of between 10% and 15%, Johnson said. But these days, he and his colleagues have taken to watching Mr. Trump’s social media feed for tariff-related announcements.

    The uncertainty has “removed any ability for us to plan or rely on what we as importers can operate on,” Johnson said. “We have to plan on not being able to plan or trust what U.S. policy is surrounding trade.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump Tries Old Tactic With China on Fentanyl – a New ‘Working Group’

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON (Reuters) -U.S. President Donald Trump began his second term by signaling that talks with China to stop a deadly flow of fentanyl were fruitless and instead slapped 20% tariffs on Chinese goods to try to push Beijing to tackle trafficking of the synthetic opioid.

    But last week, after meeting Chinese President Xi Jinping in South Korea, Trump agreed to slash his fentanyl-related tariffs on China in half in return for a fresh “consensus” on the drug, which U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said would be hashed out via a new bilateral working group.

    The deal revives a communications channel embraced by China, but long derided by Republican lawmakers, who argue that Beijing floats such working groups as concessions in high-level talks and then mires the U.S. in protracted negotiations. 

    It also signals a shift for Trump officials, who had insisted that punitive measures would remain in place until Beijing proved it was cracking down on its fentanyl supply chains.

    “The administration has made significant compromises in its own position on China and counternarcotics by now accepting a commitment to launch a working group,” said Henrietta Levin, who served as a director for China on President Joe Biden’s National Security Council and is now a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

    Levin said such a working group could still yield results, but that China had successfully sold counternarcotics cooperation to the U.S. at least three times in the past decade under Trump and Biden. 

    “You start to wonder how many times they can sell us exactly the same half-hearted commitment,” she said.

    Trump administration officials say this time the mechanism will be results-focused, not a forum for dialogue on fentanyl. 

    Chinese officials vehemently defend their record on fentanyl, a leading cause of U.S. overdose deaths, saying they have already taken extensive action to regulate certain precursor chemicals used to make the drug. They accuse Washington of using the issue as “blackmail.”

    China has revealed few details of its own on the fentanyl accord. Its Foreign Ministry readout of the Trump-Xi meeting made no mention of fentanyl, and its Commerce Ministry statement said only that the two sides had “reached consensus” on fentanyl counternarcotics cooperation. 

    “The U.S. needs to take concrete actions to create necessary conditions for the cooperation,” China’s embassy in Washington told Reuters without mentioning the working group. It said China “remains open to continuing the cooperation.”

    The Biden-era U.S.-China counternarcotics working group rapidly disintegrated when Trump unfurled tariffs earlier this year. But it had been a target of Republican scorn. 

    In 2023, then-Senator JD Vance – now Trump’s vice president – joined other Republican lawmakers in lambasting the Biden administration for removing sanctions on China to lure it into fentanyl talks.

    “President Xi will only respond to strength. We must force his hand and make it clear that sanctions will only be lifted after the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) stops the deadly production of fentanyl precursor chemicals,” Vance and other lawmakers wrote to the Biden administration.

    Biden officials insisted that China took incremental steps under the working group, but that it needed to do far more. 

    The White House did not respond to Reuters’ request for comment on the new working group, but it issued a statement on Saturday that said China “will stop the shipment of certain designated chemicals to North America and strictly control exports of certain other chemicals to all destinations in the world.”  

    U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer told Fox Business News that the U.S. still maintained 10% tariffs on China over fentanyl. 

    “We still have leverage on this point to make sure the Chinese follow through on their obligations,” Greer said. 

    Nonetheless, reimposing the tariffs could threaten the broader, uneasy trade truce reached by Trump and Xi, with any renewal in trade tensions calling into question a possible Trump visit to China in April. 

    Michael Froman, president of the Council on Foreign Relations and a former U.S. Trade Representative, said in a newsletter that Trump’s tariffs worked as a source of leverage, provided that China “actually adheres to the agreement this time.”

    “If not, I imagine those tariffs might go back up,” he wrote.

    (Reporting by Michael Martina in Washington; Editing by Michelle Nichols and Matthew Lewis)

    Copyright 2025 Thomson Reuters.

    [ad_2]

    Reuters

    Source link

  • US Treasury Chief Says He Will Be Present at Supreme Court Hearing on Tariffs

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON (Reuters) -U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said on Monday he would be present at the Supreme Court during a hearing this week on the legality of President Donald Trump’s tariff policy that the treasury chief called a “matter of national security.”

    “I’m actually going to go and sit, hopefully in the front row, and have a ringside seat,” Bessent told Fox News’ “Jesse Watters Primetime” show. “This is a matter of national security.”

    When asked if his presence at the Supreme Court could be seen as potential intimidation, Bessent said he will “emphasize that this is an economic emergency.”

    (Reporting by Kanishka Singh in Washington; Editing by Christopher Cushing)

    Copyright 2025 Thomson Reuters.

    [ad_2]

    Reuters

    Source link

  • Will a Mamdani victory push the Democrats further left?

    [ad_1]

    This week, editors Peter Suderman, Katherine Mangu-Ward, Nick Gillespie, and Matt Welch discuss the upcoming New York City mayoral election and what a Zohran Mamdani victory could mean for both the city and national politics. They weigh the best-case/worst-case scenarios of a leftward turn in New York, asking whether Mamdani represents a lasting anti-AI socialist movement or simply the newest iteration of the Democratic big tent.

    The editors then turn to the governor’s races in Virginia and New Jersey, where Democratic wins would signal continued strength for the party’s centrist wing. They examine a federal judge’s order requiring the government to keep SNAP funded during the ongoing shutdown, and then analyze Trump’s tariff case as it heads to the Supreme Court and what a ruling could mean for presidential trade powers. Finally, a listener asks whether libertarians who work in the defense industry are violating their principles or simply operating within the system as it exists.

     

    0:00–The best-case scenario and worst-case scenario for a Mayor Mamdani

    8:09–Gubernatorial races in New Jersey and Virginia

    20:04–SNAP benefits and shutdown politics

    29:32–Does the GOP have an Obamacare alternative?

    34:57–Listener question on ethical contradictions

    44:37–Tariffs case reaches the Supreme Court

    55:05–Weekly cultural recommendation

     

    Mentioned in This Podcast

    “The Democratic Thrill for Mamdani Is a Tell,” by Matt Welch
    “Will Democrats Find Their Way?” By Liz Wolfe
    “Mamdani’s Socialist Mayorship Will Make New York a Worse Place To Live and Do Business,” by Nick Gillespie
    “Zohran Mamdani’s $5 Billion Corporate Tax Hike Threatens NYC’s Status as the World’s Financial Capital,” by Filippo Borello
    “3 Reasons Why Zohran Mamdani’s City-Run Grocery Stores Will Fail,” by Natalie Dowzicky
    “New York City Is About To Elect a Socialist Mayor in Zohran Mamdani. Why Won’t This Failed Ideology Die?” By Zach Weissmueller
    “About 1 in 5 Kids Are at Risk of Losing SNAP. Centralized Control Keeps Failing Low-Income Families.” By Romina Boccia and Tyler Turman
    “SNAP Stops,” by Liz Wolfe

    “In Tariff Case, Trump’s Attorneys Can’t Decide if Foreign Investment Is Good or Bad for America,” by Eric Boehm
    “Trump Hopes To Bully SCOTUS Into Upholding His Tariffs,” by Damon Root
    “Trump’s Tariff Tantrum Proves He Shouldn’t Have That Power,” by Joe Lancaster

    “In Yorgos Lanthimos’ Bugonia, Elites Are Alien Creatures,” by Peter Suderman

    “I’m Just A Shill (FT. Zohran),” by Andrew Cuomo

    [ad_2]

    Peter Suderman

    Source link

  • Walmart CEO Doug McMillon Applies Pandemic Lessons to Navigate Tariff Turmoil

    [ad_1]

    Doug McMillon says Walmart is relying on quick decision-making and consumer insight to stay ahead of tariff and inflation challenges. Jason Davis/Getty Images for Bentonville Film Festival

    Costume lovers flooding Walmart’s aisles last month in preparation for Halloween had little idea how much calculation went into stocking this year’s superhero, witch, and zombie outfits. Amid the Trump administration’s fluctuating tariffs, Walmart’s seasonal planning, which begins months in advance, now includes projecting how levies might change before orders arrive, estimating potential price shifts and guessing how many units will sell, according to CEO Doug McMillon. All that comes on top of analyzing how inflation may affect consumer behavior.

    “Families prioritize their children and their pets before they prioritize the parents, and a mom usually puts herself last,” McMillon said while speaking at the Harvard Business Review’s Future of Business event today (Nov. 3). “These trade-offs happen throughout the family.”

    Walmart factored those dynamics into its Halloween strategy this year. “We were confident there would be trick or treating and children’s costumes would sell, but we might not sell as many adult costumes,” he said, adding that the company has “done a really good job of generally getting things right” amid the uncertainty caused by tariffs.

    As America’s largest retailer, Walmart manufactures more than two-thirds of its products domestically. But it still depends on imports from countries such as China, Mexico, Canada and Vietnam, leaving it exposed to tariffs. Earlier this year, the Bentonville, Ark.-based company warned that the duties could force it to raise prices.

    Price hikes are just one of several difficult choices Walmart executives face under tariff pressure. Other decisions include shifting production, changing countries of origin and managing inventory. Inventory management can be an especially delicate task, according to McMillon. “If you get over-inventoried, you end up with all these additional costs,” he said. “If you have too little goods, you end up missing sales opportunities.”

    It’s not the first time Walmart has had to make quick decisions in response to an unprecedented event. The onset of the Covid-19 pandemic, for instance, accelerated the company’s decision-making as executives worked to protect employees and customers while maintaining supply chains. Those efforts paid off: Walmart’s profits surged in 2020 as consumers stocked up on essentials, spent stimulus checks, and embraced the retailer’s online shopping and curbside pickup options.

    McMillion credits Walmart’s pandemic-era success to the agility of its associates across stores, supply chains and warehouses. “What I experienced is just how good their judgment was and how fast they could make decisions,” he said. The same adaptability, he added, is proving essential again as Walmart navigates tariff-fueled uncertainty.

    “The way they’ve managed through this whole, ever-changing complex situation, too, has been impressive—just like it was during the pandemic,” he said.

    Walmart CEO Doug McMillon Applies Pandemic Lessons to Navigate Tariff Turmoil

    [ad_2]

    Alexandra Tremayne-Pengelly

    Source link

  • Can the Global Economy Be Healed?

    [ad_1]

    Now that many governments around the world are moving to protect industries they consider vital, and international institutions like the I.M.F. and the World Trade Organization are being sidelined, Rodrik believes it will be largely up to the U.S. and China, as the world’s two dominant economic powers, to define new rules of global commerce after Trump has departed. He is particularly enthused by China’s two-decades-long effort to promote renewable energy, which he says could serve as a model to apply in other countries, and in other sectors of the economy. Largely as a result of technological progress in China, solar energy is now so cheap that even a red state like Texas is rapidly expanding its solar capacity. And thanks to the growth of the electric-vehicle industry in China, which is now the world’s largest car market, cheap Chinese E.V.s are being exported to many other countries. “We’re much further ahead on this”—the green transition—“than anyone thought feasible, and it happened through a mechanism that nobody predicted,” Rodrik said.

    In his book, he argues that the key to the success of China’s green-energy initiative was the breadth of tools it employed, and the flexibility with which they were applied. The Chinese government supplied E.V. startups with venture capital, subsidies, customized infrastructure, specialized training, and preferential access to raw material. But instead of imposing a top-down production plan, it left a lot of the details up to the businesses. “The hallmark of Chinese developmentalism is an experimental approach,” Rodrik writes. “The national government sets broad objectives. Then a variety of industrial policies are deployed in different industries and locations, followed by close monitoring, iteration, and revision when called for.”

    Rodrik also saw much to like in the Biden Administration’s industrial policies, which aimed to hasten the green transition by offering subsidies, tax credits, and public support for industrial research. Trump is busy dismantling many of these policies. Rodrik would support restoring them in the future. He also advocates for allowing countries, including the U.S., to use targeted tariffs to protect specific industries that they consider vital, but he insists it’s a mistake to focus solely on manufacturing, which employs less than ten per cent of the U.S. workforce. The real challenge, he argues, is boosting wages in the vast services sector, which employs more than eighty per cent of American workers. “Whether we like it or not, services will remain the main job engine of the economy,” he writes. Some service jobs, such as managerial ones, are well paid, but many of them, particularly in areas like retail and care, are low-wage positions. “An inescapable conclusion follows: a good jobs economy hinges critically on our ability to increase the productivity and quality of jobs in such services.”

    Rodrik concedes that there is no tried and tested formula to achieve this. The approach that he advocates mimics the Chinese model in encompassing government agencies at the national and local level, as well as educational institutions, private businesses, and workers. He supports efforts to organize service workers in labor unions, and he discusses the possibility, raised by Arin Dube, an economist at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, of establishing wage boards to set minimum wages that vary across industries, occupations, and locations. Rodrik, citing the contrast between nurse practitioners, who earn a median yearly salary of a hundred and twenty-six thousand dollars, and low-wage care workers, also argues that training, technology, and regulatory reform can a play a big role—as can directed scientific research.

    He calls for the establishment of a workers’ equivalent of DARPA, the Pentagon agency that has helped finance the development of the internet, G.P.S., and the mRNA technologies used to make COVID-19 vaccines. Whereas DARPA focusses on research that potentially has military implications, Rodrik’s proposed “ARPA-W” would focus on developing “labor-friendly technologies,” including some that employ artificial intelligence. As some observers predict that A.I. could eliminate huge numbers of jobs, many of them well paid, Rodrik, echoing the M.I.T. economists David Autor, Daron Acemoglu, and Simon Johnson, argues that technological progress needs to be refocussed. Referring to his proposal for an ARPA-W, he writes, “The overarching objective would be to allow workers to do what they cannot presently do, instead of displacing them by taking over the tasks that they already do.”

    [ad_2]

    John Cassidy

    Source link

  • President Trump on nuclear testing, the government shutdown, immigration, tariffs and U.S.-China relations

    [ad_1]

    It’s been five years since President Trump appeared for an interview on 60 Minutes. A lot has happened since then, not least of which was his political comeback and triumphant return to the White House. 

    On Friday, hours after he touched down from his whirlwind trip to Asia, Mr. Trump agreed to sit down with us for a wide-ranging conversation. It was exactly one year to the day since he sued Paramount, the parent company of CBS, alleging that 60 Minutes had deceptively edited an interview with his opponent, Kamala Harris. 

    Paramount settled that lawsuit. The settlement did not include an apology or admission of wrongdoing. 

    In our nearly 90 minute conversation this past week, we spoke with Mr. Trump about the country and the world. We met with the president at Mar-a-Lago, his private club in Florida, on the 31st day of the government shutdown.

    Norah O’Donnell: We are now approaching the longest shutdown in American history.

    President Donald Trump: Democrats’ fault.

    Norah O’Donnell: Under your presidency, we’re talking about more than a million federal workers who are not getting a paycheck, including our air traffic controllers. You see there’s traffic snarls out at the airports now. This weekend food aid for more than 42 million Americans is set to expire. What are you doing as president to end the shutdown?

    President Trump: Well, what we’re doing is we keep voting. I mean, the Republicans are voting almost unanimously to end it, and the Democrats keep voting against ending it. You know, they’ve never had this. This has happened like 18 times before. The Democrats always voted for an extension, always saying, “Give us an extension, we’ll work it out.” They’ve lost their way. They’ve become crazed lunatics. And all they have to do, Norah, is say, “Let’s vote.”

    Senate Democrats say they will vote to reopen the government if Republicans agree to extend subsidies for over 20 million Americans who use Obamacare for their health insurance.

    President Trump: Obamacare is terrible. It’s bad health care at far too high a price. We should fix that. We should fix it. And we can fix it with the Democrats. All they have to do is let the country open and we’ll fix it. 

    Norah O’Donnell: But if ending the government shutdown—

    President Trump: —they have to let the country open, and I’ll sit down with the Democrats, and we’ll fix it. But they have to let the country— and you know what they have to do—

    Norah O’Donnell: So your plan—

    President Trump: All they have to do is raise five hands. We don’t need all of  ’em.

    Norah O’Donnell: But so you’re saying your plan is to tell the Democrats to vote to end the shutdown.

    President Trump: Correct, very simple. 

    Norah O’Donnell: And that you will put forward a health care plan? 

    President Trump: No. We will work on fixing the bad health care that we have. Right now, we have terrible health care and too expensive for the people, not for the government, for the people.

    Norah O’Donnell: But Mr. President, with all due respect—

    President Trump: The people are paying—

    Norah O’Donnell: —you’ve been talking about fixing the health care since 2015—

    President Trump: Sure. And you can’t do it because of the Democrats. That’s right.

    Norah O’Donnell: Since 2015, you said you’d fix it.

    President Trump: I’ve been talking about it for a long time. We almost did it. We were one vote short. We woulda had great health care. 

    That was in 2017, when Senate Republicans failed by one vote to partially repeal Obamacare.

    President Trump: We can make it much less expensive for people and give them much better health care. And I’d be—

    Norah O’Donnell: But where is that plan?

    President Trump: —willing to work with the Democrats—

    Norah O’Donnell: But where is that plan?

    President Trump: —on it. The problem is, they want to give money to prisoners, to drug dealers, to all these millions of people that were allowed to come in with an open border from Biden. And nobody can do that. Not-

    Norah O’Donnell: Can I just—

    President Trump: —one Republican would ever do that.

    Norah O’Donnell: My understanding is, if those health care subsidies are not extended, premiums will double for many of the people that are on it. And I was looking into it. Three quarters of these people will see their health care premiums double live in states where you won in the last election. I mean, even here in Florida has the highest number of residents on Obamacare in the country. If those—

    President Trump: And I’m saying we can fix it, Norah.   

    Norah O’Donnell: You have helped end these government shutdowns in the past when it came about—

    President Trump: I did.

    Norah O’Donnell: And you did it by bringing back—

    President Trump: I’m very good at it, but I’m not going to do it by—

    Norah O’Donnell: You brought members of Congress to— 

    President Trump: —I’m not going to do it by extortion—

    Norah O’Donnell: —to the White House.

    President Trump: I’m not going to do it by being extorted by the Democrats who have lost their way. The – there’s something wrong with these people

    Norah O’Donnell: So then what happens on November 15th—

    President Trump: Schumer— Schumer is a basket case.

    Norah O’Donnell: —when the troops don’t get a paycheck?

    President Trump: Schumer is a basket case. And he has nothing to lose. He’s become— I just left Japan. He’s become a kaz— kamikaze pilot.

    Norah O’Donnell: Sounds like it’s not going to get solved, the shutdown.

    President Trump: It’s going to get solved, yeah. Oh, it’s going to get solved.

    Norah O’Donnell: How?

    President Trump: We’ll get it solved. Eventually, they’re going to have to vote.

    Norah O’Donnell: You’re saying the Democrats will capitulate? 

    President Trump: I think they have to. And if they don’t vote, that’s their problem. Now, I happen to agree to something else. I think we should do the nuclear option. This is a totally different nuclear, by the way. It’s called ending the filibuster.

    But to do that, he’d need Senate Majority Leader John Thune to change Senate rules.

    Norah O’Donnell: Did you see John Thune said today they’re not going to do that—

    President Trump: I know John doesn’t— well, John and a few others. But, you know what? The Republicans have to get tougher. If we end the filibuster, we can do exactly what we want. We’re not going to lose power. The theory is, oh, then we’ll do it, but then when they get into power someday they’ll do it. That’s true. But you know what?

    Norah O’Donnell: So you think John—

    President Trump: We’re here right now. No, I like John Thune. I think he’s terrific, but I disagree with him on this point.

    Norah O’Donnell: He j— he said today he wasn’t going to do it.

    President Trump: Well, that’s too bad.

    So far, the shutdown hasn’t spooked the stock market, which hit record highs this past week.  

    President Trump: Perfect timing for your show, just hit an all-time high. We’re doing really well

    Norah O’Donnell: Uh-huh. Can I ask you, Mr. President—

    President Trump: The smart people definitely—

    Norah O’Donnell: —on that point, though?

    President Trump: Yeah.

    Norah O’Donnell: When the stock market is doing well, that doesn’t affect everybody. Not everybody’s invested in the stock market—

    President Trump: It does. Oh, it does, it does.

    Norah O’Donnell: But there have been— grocery prices are up—

    President Trump: Look, 401(k)s. People have 401(k)s. Their 401(k)s are double what they were a year ago.

    Norah O’Donnell: But for people that don’t have 401(k)s, who are not invested in the stock market—

    President Trump: Sure. But— but—

    Norah O’Donnell:  —they’ve seen their grocery prices go up, inflation—

    President Trump: No, you’re wrong. They went up under Biden. Right now they’re going down. Other than beef, which we’re working on, which we can solve very quickly.

    Norah O’Donnell: On the economy, the signature part of your economic plan is tariffs. The Supreme Court is going to hear arguments this week on whether you have the authority to impose these sweeping tariffs without Congressional approval. The lower courts have ruled against you. That’s why it’s at—

    President Trump: Well, no.

    Norah O’Donnell: —the Supreme Court right now.

    President Trump: Very close rulings, yeah.

    Norah O’Donnell: What happens to your economic plan if the Supreme Court invalidates your tariffs?

    President Trump: I think our country will be immeasurably hurt. I think our economy will go to hell. Look, because of tariffs, we have the highest stock market we’ve ever had. Because of tariffs, 401(k)s at the highest level that — and this is millions and millions of people — that we’ve ever had 401(k)s. I think it’s the most important subject discussed by the Supreme Court in 100 years. 

    Norah O’Donnell: I know your time is limited, so I do want to make sure I get through more of these topics.

    President Trump: Sure.

    Norah O’Donnell: Immigration. You campaigned on immigration. You largely won the election on a promise to close the border—

    President Trump: Did a great job, don’t you think?

    Norah O’Donnell: —and you succeeded on that. Illegal crossings at the Southern border are at a 55-year low. More recently, Americans have been watching videos of ICE tackling a young mother, tear gas being used in a Chicago residential neighborhood, and the smashing of car windows. Have some of these raids gone too far?

    President Trump: No. I think they haven’t gone far enough because we’ve been held back by the— by the judges, by the liberal judges that were put in by Biden and by Obama. 

    Norah O’Donnell: You’re OK with those tactics?

    President Trump: Yeah, because you have to get the people out. You know, you have to look at the people. Many of them are murderers. Many of them are people that were thrown outta their countries because they were, you know, criminals. 

    Norah O’Donnell: Well, you promised in your campaign that you were going to deport the worst of the worst, violent criminals—

    President Trump: And I know we’re doin’ that—

    Norah O’Donnell: —rapists.

    President Trump: Well, that’s what we’re doing—

    Norah O’Donnell: But a lot of the people that your administration has arrested and deported aren’t violent criminals. Landscapers, nannies, construction workers—

    President Trump: Oh, no, no, landscapers who are  criminals—

    Norah O’Donnell: —farmworkers.

    President Trump: Now, look, look.

    Norah O’Donnell: The family of U.S. service members—

    President Trump: I need landscapers and I need farmers more than anybody, OK.

    Norah O’Donnell: Is it your intent to deport people who do not have a criminal record?

    President Trump: We have to start off with a policy, and the policy has to be you came into the country illegally, you’re going to go out. However, you’ve also seen, you’re going to go out. We’re going to work with you, and you’re going to come back into our country legally. 

    Norah O’Donnell: When will you declare mission accomplished on immigration?

    President Trump: Well, it takes a long time, because, you know, probably I say 25 million people were let into our country. A lotta people say it was 10 million people. But whether it was 10 or— I believe I’m much closer to the right number. Of the 25, many of them should not be here. But we’re— we’re cleaning up our cities. You know, I campaigned on crime, but I’ve done a much better job on crime than I thought. You know, the crime numbers are way down, even though we have a lot more people in our country that really shouldn’t be here. And many of them are stone-cold hard criminals.

    The president has ordered the National Guard to five cities: Los Angeles, Washington, D.C., Portland, Chicago and Memphis. 

    Norah O’Donnell: This past Tuesday, while speaking to American troops in Japan, you talked about U.S. cities that are having trouble with crime. And you said, “If we need more than the National Guard, we’ll send more than the National Guard.” What does that mean, send more than the National Guard?

    President Trump: Well, if you had to send in the Army or if you had to send in the Marines, I’d do that in a heartbeat. You know, you have a thing called the Insurrection Act. You know that, right?

    Norah O’Donnell: Uh-huh

    President Trump: Do you know that I could use that immediately and no judge can even challenge you on that. But I haven’t chosen to do it because I haven’t felt we need it. 

    Norah O’Donnell: So you’re going to send the military into American cities?

    President Trump: Well, if I wanted to I could, if I want to use the Insurrection Act. The Insurrection Act has been used routinely by presidents. And if I needed it, that would mean I could bring in the Army, the Marines, I could bring in whoever I want. But I haven’t chosen to use it. I hope you give me credit for that.

    Norah O’Donnell: I want to ask you about— another matter. James Comey, John Bolton, Letitia James were all recently indicted. There is a pattern to these names. They’re all public figures who have publicly denounced you. Is it political retribution?

    President Trump: You know what? You know who got indicted, the man you’re lookin’ at. I got indicted, and I was innocent. And here I am, because I was able to beat all of the nonsense that was thrown at me. And yet, when you go after a dirty cop like Comey or a guy like Bolton, who I hear has, I don’t know anything about it, I hear he took records all over the place, who knows. Letitia James is a terrible, dishonest person, in my opinion. 

    Norah O’Donnell: Did you instruct the Department of Justice to go after them?

    President Trump: No, and not in any way, shape or form. No. You don’t have to instruct ’em because they were so dirty, they were so crooked, they were so corrupt that the honest people we have, Pam Bondi’s doing a very good job. Kash Patel’s doing a very good job. The honest people that we have go after ’em automatically

    But in a Truth Social post from September addressed to Attorney General Pam Bondi, President Trump endorsed the idea that former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James, were, quote, “guilty as hell,” and wrote, quote, ” justice must be served, now!!!.” Five days later, James Comey was indicted. He pled not guilty — and so did Letitia James and President Trump’s former national security adviser John Bolton.

    Norah O’Donnell: Is this retribution on your part?

    President Trump: No, it’s the opposite. I think I’ve been very mild-mannered. You’re looking at a man who was indicted many times, and I had to beat the rap. Otherwise I couldn’t have run for president. They tried to get me not to run for president by going after me and by indicting me. 

    So far this year, the president has pardoned or shortened the sentences of more than 1,600 people. The latest pardon was for a cryptocurrency tycoon who is known as C.Z. The company C.Z. founded, Binance, helped boost the profile of the Trump family’s crypto firm World Liberty Financial.

    Norah O’Donnell: He pled guilty in 2023 to violating anti-money-laundering laws.

    President Trump: Right.

    Norah O’Donnell: The government at the time said that C.Z. had caused “significant harm to U.S. national security”, essentially by allowing terrorist groups like Hamas to move millions of dollars around. Why did you pardon him?

    President Trump: OK, are you ready? I don’t know who he is. I know he got a four-month sentence or something like that. And I heard it was a Biden witch hunt.

    Norah O’Donnell: In 2025 his crypto exchange, Binance, helped facilitate a $2 billion purchase of World Liberty Financial’s stablecoin. And then you pardoned C.Z. How do you address the appearance of pay for play?

    President Trump: Well, here’s the thing, I know nothing about it because I’m too busy doing the other—

    Norah O’Donnell: But he got a pardon—

    President Trump: I can only tell you that—

    Norah O’Donnell: He got a pardon—

    President Trump: No, I can only tell you this. My sons are into it. I’m glad they are, because it’s probably a great industry, crypto. I think it’s good. You know, they’re running a business, they’re not in government.

    World Liberty Financial has denied any involvement in the pardon.

    With state and local elections coming up Tuesday, we asked the president about the highly anticipated mayoral race that includes former NY Gov. Andrew Cuomo and Zohran Mamdani.

    Norah O’Donnell: Zohran Mamdani, 34-year-old democratic socialist. He’s the front runner—

    President Trump: Communist, not socialist. Communist. He’s far…

    Norah O’Donnell: Some…

    President Trump: He’s far worse than a socialist.

    Norah O’Donnell: Some people have compared him to a left-wing version of you, charismatic, breaking the old rules. What do you think about that?

    President Trump: Well, I think I’m much better looking person than him, right?

    Norah O’Donnell: What if Mamdani becomes mayor?

    President Trump: It’s going to be hard for me as the president to give a lot of money to New York. Because if you have a communist running New York, all you’re doing is wasting the money you’re sending there. So I don’t know that he’s won, and I’m not a fan of Cuomo one way or another, but if it’s going to be between a bad Democrat and a communist, I’m going to pick the bad Democrat all the time, to be honest with you.

    When we sat down with President Trump on Friday at Mar-a-Lago, he had just returned from a high-stakes meeting with China’s President Xi Jinping, which culminated with a temporary truce in the trade war between the two countries. But before the meeting even began, Mr. Trump made news — as he often does — with a social media post.

    Norah O’Donnell: Less than an hour before your meeting with President Xi, you posted on social media that you instructed the, quote, “Department of War to start testing our nuclear weapons–

    President Trump: That’s right.

    Norah O’Donnell: —immediately.”

    President Trump: Yeah—

    Norah O’Donnell: What did you mean? 

    President Trump: Well, we have more nuclear weapons than any other country. And I think we should do something about denuclearization. And I did actually discuss that with both President Putin and President Xi. We have enough nuclear weapons to blow up the world 150 times. Russia has a lot of nuclear weapons, and China will have a lot. They have some. They have quite a bit, but—

    Norah O’Donnell: So why do we need to test– our nuclear weapons?

    President Trump: Well, because you have to see how they work. You know, you do have to— and the reason I’m saying— testing is because Russia announced that they were going to be doing a test. If you notice, North Korea’s testing constantly. Other countries are testing. We’re the only country that doesn’t test, and I want to be— I don’t want to be the only country that doesn’t test. 

    Norah O’Donnell: Are you saying that after more than 30 years, the United States is going to start detonating nuclear weapons for testing—

    President Trump: I’m saying that we’re going to test nuclear weapons like other countries do, yes.

    Norah O’Donnell: But the only country that’s testing nuclear weapons is North Korea. China and Russia are not—

    President Trump: Well, Russia’s— no, no. Russia’s testing nuclear weapons—

    Norah O’Donnell: So my understanding–

    President Trump: And China’s testing ’em too. You just don’t know about it.

    Norah O’Donnell: That would be certainly very newsworthy. My understanding is what Russia did recently was test essentially the— delivery systems for nuclear weapons, essentially missiles, which we can do that but w— not with nuclear warheads—

    President Trump: Russia’s testing, and China’s testing, but they don’t talk about it. You know, we’re a open  society. We’re different. We talk about it. We have to talk about it, because otherwise you people are going to report— they don’t have reporters that going to be writing about it. We do. 

    However, this week the president’s own nominee to lead STRATCOM — the admiral who would be in charge of nuclear weapons — was asked about this very issue on Capitol Hill. He said neither China nor Russia were conducting nuclear explosive tests.

    Norah O’Donnell: One potential flash point with China, probably the potential flash point with China in the coming years, is over the issue of Taiwan. The Chinese military is encroaching on Taiwan’s sea lanes, its airspace, its cyberspace. I know you have said that Xi Jinping wouldn’t dare move militarily on Taiwan while you’re in office. But what if he does? Would you order U.S. forces to defend Taiwan?

    President Trump: You’ll find out if it happens. And he understands the answer to that.

    Norah O’Donnell: Why not say it—

    President Trump: This never even came up yesterday, as a subject. He never brought it up. People were a little surprised at that. He never brought it up, because he understands it, and he understands it very well. 

    Norah O’Donnell: Do you mind if I ask, when you say, “He understands,” why not communicate that publicly to the rest of us? What does he understand that—

    President Trump: Well—

    President Trump: —I don’t want to give away— I can’t give away my secrets. I don’t want to be one of these guys that tells you exactly what’s going to happen if something happens. The other side knows, but— I’m not somebody that tells you everything because you’re askin’ me a question. But they understand what’s going to happen. And— he has openly said, and his people have openly said at meetings, “We would never do anything while President Trump is president,” because they know the consequences.

    At the top of the agenda for President Trump and President Xi was a one-year trade deal that, for now, averts the escalating tension between the two economic superpowers. 

    Mr. Trump told us that in exchange for lower tariffs, China agreed to sell the U.S. its valuable rare earth minerals – and to resume buying American agricultural products.

    Norah O’Donnell: This trade war, though, was hurting Americans. I mean, our soybean farmers. China had stopped buying the soybeans.

    President Trump: Yeah.

    Norah O’Donnell: China was withholding these rare earth materials that you need for everything from smartphones, to build submarines.

    President Trump: Sure.

    Norah O’Donnell: What was the crucial thing? I mean, how tough of a negotiator—

    President Trump: Well, when you say hurting—

    Norah O’Donnell: —is President Xi—

    President Trump: —it was a temporary hurt. It was a hurt because— I was takin’ in a lot of money from China. We’re doing very well against China. And all of a sudden they said, “You know, we have to fight back.” And so they used their powers. The power they have is rare earth because of the fact that they’ve been accumulating it and— and really taking care of it for a period of 25, 30 years. Other countries haven’t. They use that against us, and we used other things against them. For instance, airplane parts. That’s a big deal. They have— hundreds of Boeing airplanes. We wouldn’t give them parts. We were both acting— maybe a little bit irrationally, but the big thing we had was tariffs ultimately. I said, “Look, if you don’t open up, then what we’re going to do is we’re going to impose a hundred percent tariff over and above what you’re already paying.” 

    Norah O’Donnell: Mr. President, you just negotiated this one-year trade deal with China—

    President Trump: Yep.

    Norah O’Donnell: But as you know, the Chinese, they think in a hundred years.

    President Trump: Sure.

    Norah O’Donnell: They play the long game, including on our own soil.

    President Trump: We play the long game too.

    Norah O’Donnell: Our own intelligence agencies say the Chinese have infiltrated parts of the American power grid and our water systems. They steal American intellectual property and Americans’ personal information. They bought American farmland. How big of a threat is China?

    President Trump: It’s like everybody else. We’re a threat to them too. Many of the things that you say, we do to them. Look, this is a very competitive world, especially when it comes to China and the U.S. And— we’re always watching them, and they’re always watching us. In the meantime, I think we get along very well, and I think it’s— I think we can be bigger, better, and stronger by working with them as opposed to just— knocking them out– 

    Norah O’Donnell: Who’s tougher to deal with, Vladimir Putin or Xi Jinping?

    President Trump: Both tough. Both smart. Both— look, they’re both very strong leaders. These are people not to be toyed with. These are people you have to take very serious. They’re not— they’re not walking in saying, “Oh, isn’t it a beautiful day? Look how beautiful. The sun is shining, it’s so nice.” These are serious people. These are people that are tough, smart leaders.

    Norah O’Donnell: And on that note, you talk about Ukraine. In August, I mean, you rolled out the red carpet for Vladimir Putin in Alaska. But there’s been—

    President Trump: Well, I roll out the red carpet for everybody.

    Norah O’Donnell: OK. But is— but there’s been no ceasefire—

    President Trump: I think I made— yes, there isn’t—

    Norah O’Donnell: What’s— is he ignoring you?

    President Trump: —because he thinks— because I inherited a country where he thinks he’s winning. That was a war that would’ve never happened if I was president. 

    Norah O’Donnell: So why won’t Putin end this war?

    President Trump: —that was— but— but Norah, that was Joe Biden’s war, not my war. I inherited that stupid war.

    As the bloodiest land war in Europe since WWII continues…

    President Trump: But I brought, just a little list of— look at this, wars. 

    President Trump wanted to make sure we saw the list of eight international conflicts he says he’s been able to end since returning to office.

    Norah O’Donnell: I mean, you have branded yourself the peace president.

    President Trump: Well, I think I did—

    Norah O’Donnell: What—

    President Trump: —pretty good. I— I solved— those are eight of the nine wars I solved. I—

    Norah O’Donnell: When—

    President Trump: —you know how I solved ’em? I said, in many cases, in 60% I said, “If you don’t stop fighting, I’m putting tariffs on both of your countries and you’re not going to be able to do business with the United—

    Norah O’Donnell: So why isn’t that— why isn’t that working with Putin?

    President Trump: Uhh, it is working with Putin, I think. I did different with him because we don’t do very much business with Russia, for one thing, you know? He’s not, like, somebody that buys a lot from us because of— foolishness. And I think he’d like to be. I think he wants to come in and he wants to trade with us, and he wants to make a lotta money for Russia, and I think that’s great. 

    The commander-in-chief has directed the U.S. military to destroy at least nine vessels in the waters off Venezuela, killing more than three dozen alleged drug smugglers. U.S. lawmakers, including at least four Republicans, have questioned the strikes’ legality.

    In the meantime, F-35 fighter jets, roughly 10,000 U.S. servicemembers, and multiple warships are in the Caribbean.

    Norah O’Donnell: And now the U.S.S. Gerald Ford, that is the world’s largest aircraft carrier, on the way to the Caribbean. Are we going to war against Venezuela?

    President Trump: I doubt it. I don’t think so. But they’ve been treating us very badly, not only on drugs— they’ve dumped hundreds of thousands of people into our country that we didn’t want, people from prisons— they emptied their prisons into our company— country. They also— if you take a look, they emptied their mental institutions and their insane asylums— into the United States of America, ’cause Joe Biden was the worst president in the history of our country. 

    Norah O’Donnell: But I just want to talk about the scale of the military operation around Venezuela, because it has been described to “60 Minutes” as using a blowtorch to cook an egg. Is this about stopping—

    President Trump: Well, I don’t think so. Look—

    Norah O’Donnell: Is it about— let me ask you, though. Is it about stopping narcotics? Or is this about getting rid of President Maduro? 

    President Trump: No, this is about many things. This is a country that allowed their prisons to be emptied into our country. To me, that would be almost number one, because we have other countries—

    Norah O’Donnell: We don’t need to blow up boats in order to deal—

    President Trump: Look, Mexico has been very bad to us in terms of drugs, OK? Very bad. We have a closed border right now. You probably noticed that for five months in a row, they have zero— think of this, zero people coming into our country through our southern border. 

    Norah O’Donnell: On Venezuela in particular, are Maduro’s days as president numbered? 

    President Trump: I would say yeah. I think so, yeah.

    Norah O’Donnell: And this issue of potential land strikes in Venezuela, is that true?

    President Trump: I don’t tell you that. I mean— I’m not saying it’s true or untrue, but I— you know, I wouldn’t—

    Norah O’Donnell: Why would we do it?

    President Trump: —I wouldn’t be inclined to say that I would do that. But— because I don’t talk to a reporter about whether or not I’m going to strike.

    Norah O’Donnell: Let’s talk about Israel — you got the remaining Israeli hostages out of Gaza.

    President Trump: I did.

    Norah O’Donnell: You arranged a ceasefire, however fragile that may be. Those are major—

    President Trump: It’s not fragile. It’s a very solid— you know, I mean, you hear about Hamas, but Hamas could be taken out immediately if they don’t behave. They know that. If they don’t behave they’re going to be taken out immediately. They’re know that—

    Norah O’Donnell: How do you get Hamas to disarm?

    President Trump: If I want ’em to disarm, I’ll get ’em to disarm very quickly. They’ll be— they’ll be eliminated. They know that. Don’t forget, you said I got the remaining hostages. I got all the hostages out. But I always said the last 10 or 20 are going to be tough. 

    Norah O’Donnell: You pushed the Israeli Prime Minister to make this deal, to get a ceasefire, to apologize to Qatar. Can you push Bibi Netanyahu to recognize a Palestinian state?

    President Trump: Yeah, he’s— he’s fine. He’s fine. Look, he’s a wartime prime minister. I worked very well with him. Yeah, I mean, I had to push him a little bit one way or the other. I think I— I did a great job in pushing— he’s a very talented guy. He’s a guy that— has never been pushed before, actually. That’s the kind of person you needed in Israel at the time. It was very important. I don’t think they treat him very well. He’s under trial for some things, and I don’t think they treat him very well. I think it should— you know, we’ll— we’ll be involved in that to help him out a little bit, because I think it’s very unfair. Um – I did, I pushed him. I didn’t like certain things that he did, and you saw what I did about that. I also stopped— you know, I— we knocked the hell out of Iran, and then it was time to stop, and we stopped. 

    President Trump told us he expects to expand the Abraham Accords, the historic agreement struck during Mr. Trump’s first term, that normalized relations between Israel and some Arab states.

    Norah O’Donnell: I wanted to ask you about the crown prince of Saudi Arabia is coming to the White House—

    President Trump: That’s right.

    Norah O’Donnell: —this month. He has said they won’t join the Abraham Accords without a two-state solution. Do you believe that?

    President Trump: No. I think he’s going to join. I— I think— we will have a solution. I don’t know if it’s going to be two-state. That’s going to be up to Israel and other people, and me. But— look, the main thing is you could’ve never had any kind of a deal if you had a nuclear Iran. And you essentially had a nuclear Iran. And I blasted the hell out of ’em, and no president is—

    Norah O’Donnell: Are you convinced they have no nuclear capability right now in Iran—

    President Trump: Do you want to know— do you want to know— they have no nuclear capability, no. Do you want to know that— the pilots, I invited them to the White House—

    Norah O’Donnell: I saw that.

    President Trump: —’cause they were very brave. I mean, I wouldn’t have wanted to do it you know, getting in a plane, and they know you’re coming, and you’re going right into Iran airspace. And, you know, they’re very experts, and you’re flying in with machines. Personally I can think of other things I’d rather do. These guys are very brave people. I mean, they’re real American heroes. And they told me something I didn’t know. They said, “Sir for 22 years we’ve been practicing this route… three times a year every year for 22 years, and you were the only president that let us do our job.” 

    As our time with the president was winding down, we asked him whether he’ll try to stay in his job beyond 2028.

    Norah O’Donnell: There’s been a lotta talk about 2028 and who will be at the top of the—

    President Trump: Yeah.

    Norah O’Donnell: —Republican ticket. Can you set the record straight? You’re not going to try and run for a third term?

    President Trump: Well I don’t even think about it. I will tell you, a lotta people want me to run. But the difference between us and the Democrats is we really do have a strong bench. I don’t want to use names, because it’s, you know, inappropriate. But it’s too early. 3 and ¼ years –

    Norah O’Donnell: But people do like when you start talking about whether you like J.D. Vance or Secretary Rubio—

    President Trump: I do like J.D. Vance. I like—

    Norah O’Donnell: Or secretary—

    President Trump: —Marco Rubio. I like— I like so many people. We have an unbelievable bench. 

    Norah O’Donnell: Mr. President, can I also ask you, we’re now at the end of your first year.

    President Trump: Yeah. 

    Norah O’Donnell: Of this second term. What do you hope to accomplish in the next three years?

    President Trump: I hope I can have the same year that we had. Look, we have been acknowledged to have the greatest nine months. You know, it’s nine months. The greatest nine months in the history of the presidency. So if I can keep that going I’ll be very happy. 

    Produced by Andy Court and Keith Sharman. Associate producers, Roxanne Feitel, Annabelle Hanflig, Jessica Kegu, Cassidy McDonald, Arman Badrei, Georgia Rosenberg and Julie Morse. Broadcast associates, Mariah Johnson, Callie Teitelbaum and Jane Greeley. Edited by Sean Kelly, Matthew Lev and Aisha Crespo.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump Says He Will Not Attend Supreme Court’s Oral Arguments on Tariffs

    [ad_1]

    By Jasper Ward and Andrea Shalal

    WASHINGTON (Reuters) -U.S. President Donald Trump said on Sunday he will not attend the Supreme Court’s upcoming oral arguments concerning the legality of his global tariffs.

    Justices have a Wednesday hearing scheduled for arguments on the tariffs case. Trump told reporters on Air Force One that despite his desire to be there, he does not want to create a distraction during the hearing.

    “I wanted to go so badly,” Trump said as he flew back to Washington after a weekend in Florida. “I just don’t want to do anything to deflect the importance of that decision. … I don’t want to call a lot of attention to me. It’s not about me, it’s about our country.”

    Arguments before the highest U.S. court on Wednesday will center on the legality of Trump’s sweeping global tariffs in a major test of one of his boldest assertions of executive power, regarding an issue that has been central to his economic and trade agenda.

    The Supreme Court took up the Justice Department’s appeal of a lower court’s ruling that Trump overstepped his authority in imposing most of his tariffs under a 1977 law known as the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The tariffs were challenged by various businesses and 12 U.S. states.

    Trump defended his use of tariffs to balance global trade flows, citing years of high duties charged by other countries on U.S. imports. He said his tariffs had increased U.S. revenues and driven the stock markets to a series of record highs.

    “If we don’t have tariffs, we don’t have national security, and the rest of the world would laugh at us because they’ve used tariffs against us for years and took advantage of us,” he said.

    “We were subject to being abused by a lot of other countries, including China. For years, not anymore. Tariffs have brought us tremendous national security,” he said.

    (Reporting by Jasper Ward and Andrea Shalal; Editing by Nia Williams and Diane Craft)

    Copyright 2025 Thomson Reuters.

    [ad_2]

    Reuters

    Source link

  • Canadia’s Prime Minister Mark Carney says he apologized to Trump over anti-tariff ad

    [ad_1]

    Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney said he told Ontario’s premier not to run an anti-tariff ad that prompted President Trump to end trade talks with Canada.

    Carney also confirmed that he apologized to the president during a dinner at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit this week because Mr. Trump was “offended.”

    Ontario’s television advertisement that aired in the U.S. criticizes Mr. Trump’s tariffs by citing a speech from former U.S. President Ronald Reagan.

    The ad infuriated Mr. Trump, who ended trade talks with Canada and said he plans to hike tariffs on imports of Canadian goods by an extra 10%.

    President Donald Trump greets Canada’s Prime Minister Mark Carney during a summit to support ending the more than two-year Israel-Hamas war in Gaza after a breakthrough ceasefire deal, Monday, Oct. 13, 2025, in Sharm El Sheikh, Egypt.

    Evan Vucci / AP


    When asked on Saturday what Ontario Premier Doug Ford’s response was to being asked not to run the ad, Carney said, “Well, you saw what came of it.”

    “It’s not something I would have done,” Carney added at a news conference as he wrapped a nine-day trip to Asia.

    Ford is a populist Conservative, while Carney is a Liberal. As premier, Ford is the equivalent of a U.S. governor.

    “I’m the one who is responsible, in my role as prime minister, for the relationship with the president of the U.S., and the federal government is responsible for the foreign relationship with the U.S. government,” Carney said.

    A spokesperson for Ford didn’t immediately respond when asked if Carney told Ford not to run the ad.

    Ford previously said Carney and Carney’s chief of staff watched the ad before it was released.

    Ford pulled the ad last Monday but allowed it to be shown in the first two games of the World Series, where the Toronto Blue Jays are playing the Los Angeles Dodgers.

    Mr. Trump said the ad misrepresented the position of Reagan, a two-term president and a beloved figure in the Republican Party. But Reagan was wary of tariffs and used much of the 1987 address featured in Ontario’s ad, spelling out the case against them, saying tariffs work “only for a short time” and “hurt every American worker and consumer.” 

    “High tariffs inevitably lead to retaliation by foreign countries and the triggering of fierce trade wars,” Reagan said, as quoted by the ad.

    Mr. Trump has complained that the ad was aimed at influencing the U.S. Supreme Court ahead of arguments scheduled this month that could decide whether Mr. Trump has the power to impose his sweeping tariffs, a key part of his economic strategy. Lower courts had ruled he had exceeded his authority.

    Carney met with Mr. Trump at the White House last month and has been trying to secure a trade deal to lower some tariffs on sectors like steel and aluminum. Tariffs are taking a toll on the aluminum, steel, auto and lumber sectors.

    More than three-quarters of Canadian exports go to the U.S., and nearly 3.6 billion Canadian dollars ($2.7 billion) worth of goods and services cross the border daily.

    On Wednesday, the Senate voted to approve a resolution that would block Mr. Trump’s tariffs on Canada. In a 50 to 40 vote, four Republicans joined Democrats to approve the measure, which would terminate the national emergency used to impose tariffs on some goods from Canada. 

    The move is mostly symbolic, since it is unlikely to be taken up in the GOP-controlled House.

    [ad_2]

    Source link