Connect with us

American News

Conservative justices sharply question Trump tariffs in high stakes hearing

Published

on

Donald Trump’s sweeping use of tariffs in the first nine months of his second term was sharply questioned during oral arguments before the Supreme Court on Wednesday.

Chief Justice John Roberts, and justices Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gorsuch – three conservative jurists considered swing votes in this case – peppered US Solicitor General John Sauer, representing the president’s administration before the court.

They were joined by the court’s three liberal justices, who also expressed scepticism about whether federal law – and the US Constitution – give the president authority to unilaterally set tariff levels on foreign imports.

“The justification is being used for power to impose tariffs on any product from any country in any amount, for any length of time,” Roberts said.

If the court ruled for Trump in this case, Gorsuch wondered: “What would prohibit Congress from just abdicating all responsibility to regulate foreign commerce?”

He added that he was “struggling” to find a reason to buy Sauer’s arguments.

In a possible sign of case’s complexities, the hearing stretched almost three hours – far longer than the time formally allotted.

Arguing over ‘country-killing’ crises

The case centres around a 1977 law, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), that Trump’s lawyers have said gives the president the power to impose tariffs. Although the Constitution specifically vests Congress with tariff authority, Trump has claimed that the legislature delegated “emergency” authority to him to bypass longer, established processes.

Sauer asserted that the nation faced unique crises – ones that were “country-killing and not sustainable” – that necessitated emergency action by the president. He warned that if Trump’s tariff powers were ruled illegal, it would expose the US to “ruthless trade retaliation” and lead to “ruinous economic and national security consequences”.

Trump first invoked IEEPA in February to tax goods from China, Mexico and Canada, saying drug trafficking from those countries constituted an emergency.

He deployed it again in April, ordering levies from 10% to 50% on goods from almost every country in the world. This time, he said the US trade deficit – where the US imports more than it exports – posed an “extraordinary and unusual threat”.

Those tariffs took hold in fits and starts this summer while the US pushed countries to strike “deals”.

Lawyers for the challenging states and private groups have contended that while the IEEPA gave the president power to regulate trade, it made no mention of the word “tariffs”.

Neil Katyal, making the case for the private businesses, said it was “implausible” that Congress “handed the president the power to overhaul the entire tariff system and the American economy in the process, allowing him to set and reset tariffs on any and every product from any and every country, at any and all times”.

He also challenged whether the issues cited by the White House, especially the trade deficit, represent the kind of emergencies the law envisioned.

Suppose America faced the threat of war from a “very powerful enemy”, Samuel Alito, another conservative justice, asked. “Could a president under this provision impose a tariff to stave off war?”

Katyal said that a president could impose an embargo or a quota, but a revenue-raising tariff was a step too far.

For Sauer, this was a false choice. Presidents, he said, have broad powers over national security and foreign policy – powers that the challengers want to infringe on.

Tariffs v taxes

A key question could be whether the court determines whether Trump’s tariffs are a tax.

Several justices pointed out that the power to tax – to raise revenue – is explicitly given to Congress in the Constitution.

Sauer’s reply was that Trump’s tariffs are a means of regulating trade and that any revenue generated is “only incidental”.

Of course, Trump himself has boasted about the billions his tariffs have generated so far and how essential this new stream of funding is to the federal government.

The justices spent very little time on questions about refunds or whether the president’s emergency declarations were warranted. Instead they spent most of their time examining the text of IEEPA and its history.

Sauer urged them to understand tariffs as a natural extension of other powers granted to the president under the law rather than a tax. “I can’t say it enough – it is a regulatory tariff, not a tax,” he said.

But that appeared to be a stumbling block for many of the justices.

“You want to say that tariffs are not taxes but that’s exactly what they are,” Justice Sotomayor said.

Many seemed persuaded by arguments from the business and states that tariffs, as a tax paid by US businesses, were fundamentally different from the other kinds of powers addressed by the law.

But not all.

Justice Kavanaugh expressed doubts on that point toward the end of the hearing, saying it didn’t seem to very “common sense” to give the president the power to block trade entirely, but not impose a 1% tariff, sugggesting it left a gap like a donut hole.

“It’s not a donut hole. It’s a different kind of pastry,” Gutman responded, drawing chuckles in the crowd.

What the court’s ruling could do

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who attended the hearing, made no comment when asked by the BBC what he thought of the hearing. Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick, also in court, flashed a thumbs-up.

US Trade Envoy Jamieson Greer was in court, along with Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar, who said outside after arguments that she was “hopeful” based on the questions asked that the court would overturn the tariffs.

“I thought they were very good questions,” she said, describing tariffs as an “unconstitutional power grab” by the president.

The hearing drew a full audience, with press pushed into overflow seats behind columns.

If a majority of the Supreme Court rules in Trump’s favour, it will overturn the findings of three lower courts that already ruled against the administration.

The decision, no matter how it works out, has implications for an estimated $90bn worth of import taxes already paid – roughly half the tariff revenue the US collected this year through September, according to Wells Fargo analysts.

Trump officials have warned that sum could swell to $1tn if the court takes until June to rule.

During oral arguments, Barrett grappled with the question of reimbursing such revenue, wondering if it would be a “complete mess”.

Katyal responded by saying that small businesses might get refunds, but bigger companies would have to follow “administrative procedures”. He admitted that it was a “very complicated thing”.

In remarks on Wednesday, press secretary Karoline Leavett hinted that the administration already is looking at other ways to impose tariffs if the Supreme Court rules against them.

“The White House is always preparing for Plan B,” she said. “It would be imprudent of the president’s advisors not to prepare for such a situation.”

American News

Trump celebrates as Democrats face fallout from end of shutdown

Published

on

By

After 43 days, the longest US government shutdown in history is coming to an end.

Federal workers will start receiving pay again. National Parks will reopen. Government services that had been curtailed or suspended entirely will resume. Air travel, which had become a nightmare for many Americans, will return to being merely frustrating.

After the dust settles and the ink from President Donald Trump’s signature on the funding bill dries, what has this record-setting shutdown accomplished? And what has it cost?

Senate Democrats, through their use of the parliamentary filibuster, were able to trigger the shutdown despite being a minority in the chamber by refusing to go along with a Republican measure to temporarily fund the government.

They drew a line in the sand, demanding that the Republicans agree to extend health insurance subsidies for low-income Americans that are set to expire at the end of the year.

When a handful of Democrats broke ranks to vote to reopen the government on Sunday, they received next to nothing in return – a promise of a vote in the Senate on the subsidies, but no guarantees of Republican support or even a necessary vote in the House of Representatives.

Since then, members of the party’s left flank have been furious.

They’ve accused Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer – who didn’t vote for the funding bill – of being secretly complicit in the reopening plan or simply incompetent. They’ve felt like their party folded even after off-year election success showed they had the upper hand. They feared that the shutdown sacrifices had been for nothing.

Even more mainstream Democrats, like California’s Governor Gavin Newsom, called the shutdown deal “pathetic” and a “surrender”.

“I’m not coming in to punch anybody in the face,” he told the Associated Press, “but I’m not pleased that, in the face of this invasive species that is Donald Trump, who’s completely changed the rules of the game, that we’re still playing by the old rules of the game.”

Newsom has 2028 presidential ambitions and can be a good barometer for the mood of the party. He was a loyal supporter of Joe Biden who turned out to defend the then-president even after his disastrous June debate performance against Trump.

If he is running for the pitchforks, it’s not a good sign for Democratic leaders.

For Trump, in the days since the Senate deadlock broke on Sunday, his mood has gone from cautious optimism to celebration.

On Tuesday, he congratulated congressional Republicans and called the vote to reopen the government “a very big victory”.

“We’re opening up our country,” he said at a Veteran’s Day commemoration at Arlington Cemetery. “It should have never been closed.”

Trump, perhaps sensing the Democratic anger toward Schumer, joined the pile-on during a Fox News interview on Monday night.

“He thought he could break the Republican Party, and the Republicans broke him,” Trump said of the Senate Democrat.

Although there were times when Trump appeared to be buckling – last week he berated Senate Republicans for refusing to scrap the filibuster to reopen the government – he ultimately emerged from the shutdown having made little in the way of substantive concessions.

While his poll numbers have declined over the last 40 days, there’s still a year before Republicans have to face voters in the midterms. And, barring some kind of constitutional rewrite, Trump never has to worry about standing for election again.

With the end of the shutdown, Congress will get back to its regularly scheduled programming. Although the House of Representatives has effectively been on ice for more than a month, Republicans still hope they can pass some substantive legislation before next year’s election cycle kicks in.

While several government departments will be funded until September in the shutdown-ending agreement, Congress will have to approve spending for the rest of the government by the end of January to avoid another shutdown.

Democrats, licking their wounds, may be hankering for another chance to fight.

Meanwhile, the issue they fought over – healthcare subsidies – could become a pressing concern for tens of millions of Americans who will see their insurance costs double or triple at the end of the year. Republicans ignore addressing such voter pain at their own political peril.

And that isn’t the only peril facing Trump and the Republicans. A day that was supposed to be highlighted by the House government-funding vote was spent dwelling on the latest revelations surrounding the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

Later on Wednesday, Congresswoman Adelita Grijalva was sworn in to her congressional seat and became the 218th and final signatory on a petition that will force the House of Representatives to hold a vote ordering the justice department to release all its files on the Epstein case.

It was enough to prompt Trump to complain, on his Truth Social website, that his government-funding success was being eclipsed.

“The Democrats are trying to bring up the Jeffrey Epstein Hoax again because they’ll do anything at all to deflect on how badly they’ve done on the Shutdown, and so many other subjects,” he wrote.

It was all a very clear reminder that the best-laid plans and political strategies can be derailed in a flash.

Continue Reading

American News

BBC faces fresh claim of misleading Trump edit

Published

on

By

The BBC was accused of a misleading edit of Donald Trump’s 6 January 2021 speech two years before the Panorama sequence that led to the resignation of the director-general.

The clip aired on Newsnight in 2022, and a guest on the live programme challenged the way it had been cut together, the Daily Telegraph reported.

On Monday the BBC apologised for an “error of judgement” over an edited portion of the same speech that aired last year on Panorama.

The fallout saw the resignations of the BBC’s director-general Tim Davie and head of news Deborah Turness, and a legal threat from the US President.

Lawyers for Trump have written to the BBC saying he will sue for $1bn (£759m) in damages unless the corporation issues a retraction, apologises and compensates him for the Panorama broadcast.

In response to Thursday’s story in the Telegraph, a BBC spokesperson said: “The BBC holds itself to the highest editorial standards. This matter has been brought to our attention and we are now looking into it.”

In Trump’s speech on 6 January 2021, he said: “We’re going to walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women.”

More than 50 minutes later in the speech, he said: “And we fight. We fight like hell.”

In the Panorama programme, the clip shows him as saying: “We’re going to walk down to the Capitol… and I’ll be there with you. And we fight. We fight like hell.”

In the Newsnight programme the edit is a little different.

He is shown as saying: “We’re going to walk down to the Capitol. And we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women. And we fight. We fight like hell. And if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not gonna have a country anymore.”

This was followed by a voiceover from presenter Kirsty Wark saying “and fight they did” over footage from the Capitol riots.

Responding to the clip on the same programme, former White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, who quit a diplomatic post and became a critic of Trump after describing the 6 January riots as an “attempted coup”, said the video had “spliced together” Trump’s speech.

“That line about ‘we fight and fight like hell’ is actually later in the speech and yet your video makes it look like those two things came together,” he said.

The Telegraph also reported that a whistleblower told the newspaper that a further discussion the following day was also shut down.

Last week, a leaked internal BBC memo claimed Panorama had misled viewers by splicing two parts of Trump’s 6 January 2021 speech together, making it appear as though he was explicitly urging people to attack the US Capitol after his election defeat.

The documentary aired days before the US presidential election in November 2024.

Speaking to Fox News, Trump said his 6 January 2021 speech had been “butchered” and the way it was presented had “defrauded” viewers.

Continue Reading

American News

President Donald Trump is asking the US Supreme Court to review the $5m (£3.6m) civil case that found he defamed and sexually abused writer E Jean Carroll.

Published

on

By

He has repeatedly claimed that the judge who oversaw the civil trial, Lewis Kaplan, improperly allowed evidence to be presented that hurt how the jury viewed Trump.

A federal appeals court agreed with the jury’s verdict last year and said Kaplan did not make errors that would warrant a new trial.

A New York jury awarded Ms Carroll damages over her civil claim that Trump sexually assaulted her in the 1990s, and then branded the incident a hoax on social media. He denied the allegations.

The Supreme Court is now Trump’s last hope of overturning the unanimous jury’s verdict. Whether the top US court will take the case up is unclear.

A federal appeals court declined to rehear Trump’s challenge to it in June.

Trump’s comments about the jury’s findings in the case led a separate jury to order him to pay Ms Carroll $83m for defaming her. A panel of federal judges denied his appeal of that decision in September, and Trump has now taken the next step in trying to have it overturned by asking the full bench of judges at a federal appeals court to review the case.

In the petition to the Supreme Court, Trump’s lawyers argued Kaplan should not have let jurors see the 2005 Access Hollywood tape that showed the president saying he groped and kissed women.

“There were no eyewitnesses, no video evidence, and no police report or investigation,” they wrote about Ms Carroll’s allegations.

“Instead, Carroll waited more than 20 years to falsely accuse Donald Trump, who she politically opposes, until after he became the 45th president, when she could maximize political injury to him and profit for herself.”

Roberta Kaplan, Ms Carroll’s attorney, told the BBC she had no comment on the Supreme Court appeal.

While Trump was found to have defamed and sexually abused Ms Carroll, the jury rejected her claim of rape as defined in New York’s penal code.

Ms Carroll, a former magazine columnist who is now 81, sued Trump for attacking her in the mid-1990s in a department store dressing room in Manhattan. The defamation stemmed from Trump’s post on his Truth Social platform in 2022 denying her claim.

Trump has said Ms Carroll was “not my type” and that she lied.

Continue Reading

Trending