President Trump has announced an additional 100% tariffs on imports from China, set to take effect no later than November 1st, citing China’s trade policies as the reason. This action is a direct response to China’s tightened export controls on rare earth elements, which Trump labeled “extraordinarily aggressive” and “unprecedented.” The US President also hinted at potential export restrictions on key software to China and questioned a planned meeting with President Xi Jinping. The announcement has already negatively impacted the stock prices of US chip manufacturers.
Read More
Under Trump, US cedes its share of China’s beef market to Australia. It’s fascinating, isn’t it, how shifts in global trade can happen so quickly? I mean, one minute the US beef industry is chugging along, and the next… well, the Aussies are suddenly doing a lot of winning. And we’re talking big numbers – an $80 million per month swing in beef exports, all thanks to a series of events that played out under the Trump administration.
The story really begins with tariffs. When Trump decided to impose tariffs on Chinese imports, China, naturally, retaliated. And one of the first things they did was significantly curb their imports of US beef.… Continue reading
The publication is seeking financial support from its readers to maintain its operations. Declining advertising revenue has created a funding shortfall, threatening the continuation of its independent and unbiased journalism. Readers who value the publication’s reporting are encouraged to contribute. Their support will help ensure the availability of accurate and meaningful news for all.
Read More
The Supreme Court has agreed to expedite a case concerning President Trump’s authority to impose broad tariffs, with arguments scheduled for November. The case challenges the legality of these tariffs, which were implemented using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). A federal appeals court previously found the tariffs were illegally implemented, potentially leading to refunds. The outcome of the Supreme Court’s decision could have significant implications, potentially setting clearer boundaries on presidential trade actions and impacting the government’s ability to collect duties.
Read More
The Trump administration has requested the Supreme Court to rule on the legality of his tariff policies, despite rulings against them from two lower federal courts. The petition itself presents factual claims that, if taken seriously, would likely lead the Court to strike down the tariffs under the “major questions doctrine.” However, the Court’s Republican justices have seemingly used this doctrine inconsistently, applying it against Democratic President Biden while potentially seeking a way to exempt Trump. This doctrine has no legal basis and appears to be a tool used selectively to invalidate policies, potentially offering an exception for foreign policy decisions.
Read More
President Trump’s tariffs, which imposed duties as high as 145% on some countries, face a Supreme Court challenge after a federal appeals court ruled they were unlawfully enacted. If the Supreme Court upholds the lower court’s decision, the Treasury could be forced to refund over $210 billion in tariff revenue to American businesses. While businesses await potential refunds, economic experts caution that such a move could lead to increased government borrowing and potentially fuel inflation. Therefore, the outcome of the Supreme Court’s decision on the legality of the tariffs has wide-ranging implications for both businesses and the overall economy.
Read More
In a recent ruling, a court declared Donald Trump’s tariffs illegal, raising the possibility of the government repaying billions in duties. The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit determined that the president exceeded his authority by unilaterally imposing import taxes on trading partners using emergency powers. This decision casts uncertainty over trade agreements and could invalidate tariffs placed on countries like China, Canada, and Mexico. The court emphasized that the statute does not grant the president the power to impose tariffs, duties, or taxes under a declared national emergency.
Read More
July’s inflation, as measured by the Federal Reserve’s preferred personal consumption expenditures (PCE) price index, edged higher, with core inflation reaching a 2.9% annual rate, the highest since February. The all-items index also hit the consensus outlook at a 2.6% annual rate. While the Fed targets a 2% inflation rate, markets still anticipate the Fed to resume lowering its benchmark interest rate, with experts like Ellen Zentner emphasizing the importance of labor market data. Despite rising prices, consumer spending increased 0.5%, alongside a 0.4% rise in personal income, indicating economic strength.
Read More
A federal appeals court ruled that most of President Trump’s global tariffs were illegal, significantly impacting his trade policies. The court determined that the law Trump invoked to impose the tariffs, including his “reciprocal” tariffs, did not grant him the necessary power. The ruling pauses its effect until October 14th, giving the Trump administration time to appeal to the Supreme Court. The case originated from lawsuits challenging Trump’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, and the court found that the tariffs’ scope exceeded the president’s authority.
Read More
Trump’s global tariffs are unlawful, appeals court says, and that’s a pretty straightforward statement. It’s the kind of news that makes you think, “Well, duh,” especially when you consider the whole situation. The court case has been dragging on for eight months, and the fact that the tariffs were allowed to stay in place while the legal wrangling unfolded is, frankly, a little infuriating. It essentially allowed these allegedly unlawful actions to continue for a significant period, with no immediate consequences. It’s the kind of thing that breeds cynicism, isn’t it?
The response from Trump, as reported, was pretty dramatic. Warning that blocking the tariffs “would literally destroy the United States of America” feels like an overwrought reaction, to say the least.… Continue reading
John Q. Hosedrinker 
Matt Underwood