Fortune (March 5)
“A landmark Supreme Court ruling against President Trump’s tariffs has cost the federal government an estimated $1.7 trillion in projected revenue through 2036.” At its current spending rate, this sets “the United States on a course toward a national debt of $58 trillion within the next decade.”
Tags: $1.7 trillion, $58 trillion, 2036, Cost, Government, Landmark, National debt, Projected revenue, Ruling, Spending rate, Supreme Court, Tariffs, Trump, U.S.
Washington Post (February 26)
“Many Asian governments used threats from President Donald Trump as a pretext to enact unpopular but necessary free-market reforms…. To get lower tariff rates, they agreed to pry open their closed markets to allow in American beef, auto parts and crude oil.” Now that the Supreme Court has ruled against the tariffs and Trump has instead “imposed a baseline tariff of 15 percent… some leaders feel buyer’s remorse.” In fact, it looks like the elusive goal of “liberalizing Asia’s tightly protected markets” may slip away, something that “would be a shame on both sides of the Pacific.”
Tags: Asia, Auto parts, Beef, Buyer’s remorse, Crude oil, Free market reforms, Governments, Necessary, Pretext, Supreme Court, Tariff rates, Threats, Trump, U.S., Unpopular
CNN (February 24)
China is “the real winner from the Supreme Court’s tariff ruling.” As major trade partners face “renewed uncertainty,” the “dramatic rebuke to the US president’s trade agenda” has delivered “clear vindication” to its biggest economic rival. When Trump embarks to China in March, he will be missing one of his “go-to tools for economic negotiations with other nations” or, what China has decried as, “unilateral bullying.” Negotiating power “seems to have shifted dramatically” in China’s favor.
Tags: Agenda, China, Economic rival, Negotiations, Rebuke, Supreme Court, Tariff ruling, Trade partners, U.S., Uncertainty, Unilateral bullying, Vindication, Winner
New York Times (February 23)
“Tariff turmoil” has returned to global markets. “Businesses and U.S. trade partners are again grappling with the uncertainty of President Trump’s trade war, even as he imposes new levies.” The President is vowing to extend tariffs under other means, but the recent “Supreme Court decision is likely to scramble, or at least slow down, some corporate investment plans,” including “commitments to reshore supply chains in the U.S.”
Tags: Businesses, Corporate investment, Decision, Global markets, Grappling, Levies, Reshoring, Scramble, Supply chains, Supreme Court, Tariff turmoil, Trade war, Trump, U.S., Uncertainty
LA Times (February 21)
“The Supreme Court’s decision Friday to strike down the majority of tariffs imposed by President Trump could provide some relief to L.A.’s trade-reliant economy — but only if they are not reimposed again through other means.” The twin ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach form the largest ports complex in North America. “The tariffs dealt a blow to a large swath of businesses in Southern California and across the state, including farmers, automakers, home builders, tech companies and apparel retailers.”
Tags: Apparel, Automakers, Decision, Economy, Farmers, Home builders, Long Beach, Los Angeles, Majority, Ports, Relief, Strike down, Supreme Court, Tariffs, Tech, Trade, Trump
Barron’s (January 8)
“There are few winners in the U.S. stock market from higher tariffs,” but investors are betting and hoping to win if the Supreme Court strikes Trump’s tariffs down. “The Supreme Court may or may not issue a Friday ruling regarding the legality of President Donald Trump’s use of emergency powers to impose tariffs without the approval of Congress. But investors already appear to be betting that the court will strike a blow against the levies.”
Tags: Congress, Emergency powers, Investors, Ruling, Stock market, Supreme Court, Tariffs, Trump, U.S., Winners
Wall Street Journal (November 9)
“President Trump has a big tariff problem: His border taxes are raising prices on tariffed goods, they’re unpopular with voters, and the Supreme Court might rule that his “emergency” tariffs are illegal.” To win back support, he has just promised “a dividend of at least $2000 a person (not including high income people!) will be paid to everyone.” This latest “hail Mary” is founded on, among other logical fallacies, a “contradiction that Mr. Trump can both pay a tariff rebate and pay down the national debt.” The WSJ editorial board has “advised Mr. Trump from the beginning that tariffs would do economic harm, and so they are.”
Tags: 2000, Border taxes, Contradiction, Dividend, Economic harm, Emergency, Illegal, Logical fallacies, National debt, Prices, Rebate, Supreme Court, Tariff, Trump, Unpopular, Voters
New York Times (November 6)
“President Trump’s barrage on global trade appears to have taken a hit” during questioning in front of the Supreme Court. “Concerns are growing that the Supreme Court could scramble the Trump administration’s tariffs strategy. That may be welcome news for free-trade advocates, but it could also unleash more uncertainty for businesses and Wall Street.” Market reaction was rapid as “the yield on 10-year Treasury notes spiked to 4.15 percent,” a sell-off that suggests “bond holders are fretting that an adverse ruling could deprive the government of revenues needed to offset the federal deficit.”
Tags: Barrage, Bond holders, Businesses, Free trade, Fretting, Global trade, Market reaction, Revenues, Scramble, Sell-off, Supreme Court, Tariffs strategy, Treasuries, Trump, Uncertainty, Wall Street, Yield
Bloomberg (October 7)
Should Trump’s “signature tariffs” be overturned by the Supreme Court, “it would unleash a bureaucratic nightmare involving reams of refund paper checks.” This could involve refunding “the bulk of the $165 billion in customs duties collected so far this fiscal year back to companies that paid them. But they won’t have an easy time getting their money back.”
Tags: $165 billion, Bureaucratic nightmare, Companies, Customs duties, Overturned, Paper checks, Supreme Court, Tariffs, Trump
Bloomberg (September 13)
“President Donald Trump’s most concrete step to rein in unprecedented US budget deficits — sweeping tariff hikes — faces the danger of a legal reversal that would put the nation’s finances on an even shakier footing.” While expert opinion is somewhat divided on the rationale for tariffs, “few disagree that tariff hikes are indeed generating a new stream of cash for the Treasury,” a stream that could disappear with the impending Supreme Court decision, placing “Trump’s deficit plan at risk.”
Tags: Budget deficits, Danger, Decision, Expert, Finances, Legal reversal, Opinion, Rationale, Risk, Shakier, Supreme Court, Tariff hikes, Treasury, Trump, U.S., Unprecedented
