In a recent move amplifying his trade tactics, Donald Trump declared he would escalate tariffs on steel and aluminium imports to a staggering 50 per cent. The announcement emerged in the aftermath of the court-approved reinstatement of pervasive global tariffs previously deemed unlawful. This development occurred a day after the original tariffs were unexpectedly halted owing to a ruling of illegality.
As he addressed employees at a Pennsylvania-based US Steel factory, Trump disclosed: ‘Our tariffs on steel imported to the US will increase from 25 per cent to 50 per cent. This measure is non-negotiable.’ Shortly afterward, he confirmed that this heightened levy would also apply to aluminium imports, scheduling the enforcement of these fresh tariffs for Wednesday, June 4th.
Trump’s extensive imposition of tariffs on both friend and foe nations alike has sent shockwaves through the global trade landscape. The legal framework suffered a brief interruption when a court found that Trump had exceeded his jurisdiction. Nevertheless, on the proceeding Thursday, an appellate court permitted the tariffs’ continuation during the ongoing legal proceedings without specifying an official explanation for their revised decision.
The legality of most of the extensive tariffs was reinstated as a temporary measure garnering Trump the power to impose trade taxes under the pretense of emergency powers law. Trump has consistently expressed his determination to escalate the matter to the Supreme Court if necessary.
President Donald Trump has made it clear that the prospect of reducing U.S. tariffs on Chinese goods to bring Beijing to the negotiation table is not on his agenda. The imposed tariffs on China have been set to an overwhelming 34 per cent, with Vietnam facing 46 per cent, Thailand 36 per cent, and Cambodia 49 per cent.
Trump’s negotiation strategy saw the tariffs on China spike impressively to an enormous 145 per cent. This was followed by Washington and Beijing reaching a consensus on a trade agreement culminating in the reduction of import tariffs on either side. However, Trump has accused China of failing to uphold the mutually agreed terms, announcing ‘So much for being Mr. NICE GUY!’
A twist in the narrative unfolded when a federal court in New York issued a colossal blow to President Donald Trump on a Wednesday. The court issued a ruling that obstructed Trump’s strategy to levy exorbitant import taxes on goods from nearly all nations around the globe.
A panel comprising three judges from the US Court of International Trade publicly asserted that Trump had surpassed his jurisdiction when he invoked the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act as grounds for declaring a national emergency. This was an attempt to justify ongoing tariff imposition.
The court chose to dispute this, contending that the comprehensive scale of Trump’s tariffs had surpassed the mandate he had under the IEEPA to control import regulation. The court further expounded that the tariffs were grossly ineffectual in addressing the issues they were originally intended to alleviate.
In the lawsuit, states highlighted that the trade deficit the U.S. faces cannot be climacterically regarded as a sudden emergency. This underscores the contention that the imposed tariffs are not a fitting solution for the problems at hand, thus questioning their effectiveness and purpose.