Trump’s 10% Global Tariff Ruled Illegal

Trump at a White House event Wednesday (NurPhoto)
By Yuval Rosenberg and Michael Rainey

Good evening. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas reached a milestone today, becoming the second-longest serving justice in the history of the court. Only Justice William O. Douglas, a liberal who served for 36 years, 6 months and 27 days until 1975, had a longer tenure than Thomas, who joined the high court in 1991 and is now a little more than two years away from breaking the record.\n\nHere's what else is happening.

Trump's 10% Global Tariff Violates the Law, Court Rules

The U.S. Court of International Trade ruled Thursday that President Trump's 10% tariff on most imports violates the law, dealing another blow to Trump's effort to create a new trade regime for the U.S. economy.

Trump imposed the 10% tariff in February, soon after the Supreme Court struck down a previous set of tariffs that were imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977. Switching legal authorities, Trump applied the 10% global tariff under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which allows the White House to impose tariffs for up to 150 days in response to "large and serious United States balance-of-payments deficits" and "fundamental international payments problems."

In a 2-1 ruling, the panel of judges on the trade court ruled that Trump's effort did not meet the criteria defined by the law.

The Trump administration is expected to appeal the ruling, but there is now the distinct possibility that the White House will be required to reimburse American importers who have paid the tariff fees over the last two months, just as it has had to do with the previous tariff fees.

EU gets a tariff deadline: Earlier Thursday, before the U.S. court announced its ruling, Trump said the European Union has until July 4 to ratify a trade agreement with the United States.

The announcement of the new deadline comes less than a week after Trump threatened to impose a 25% tariff on vehicles imported from the EU. Trump accused the 27-nation trading bloc of failing to live up to the terms of a handshake deal that was reached last summer with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen.

Under the terms of that agreement, the EU said it would eliminate tariffs on a variety of industrial and agricultural goods imported from the United States and purchase $750 billion worth of U.S. energy products, while the U.S. agreed to cap tariffs on EU goods at 15%. With some members of the European Parliament pushing back on the agreement - due in part to Trump's threats last year to seize Greenland, which is part of Denmark - the EU has not yet ratified the agreement.

"I've been waiting patiently for the EU to fulfill their side of the Historic Trade Deal we agreed in Turnberry, Scotland, the largest Trade Deal, ever!" Trump said on his social media site. "A promise was made that the EU would deliver their side of the Deal and, as per Agreement, cut their Tariffs to ZERO! I agreed to give her until our Country's 250th Birthday or, unfortunately, their Tariffs would immediately jump to much higher levels."

Late Wednesday, talks between EU lawmakers and representatives of EU member nations over ratification of the trade deal ended inconclusively. One of the reported sticking points is the inclusion of safeguards in the agreement that would protect the EU if the U.S. fails to deliver on its promises, introduces new tariffs or threatens EU member states.

Swedish Member of European Parliament Karin Karlsbro, an EU negotiator, said the talks were productive, but there is still work to do. "It is important that we get a Trump-proof agreement in place before we have a final deal," she said, per Politico.

What comes next: Trump's deadline gives the EU less than two months to push the trade agreement through a complicated internal process. Both the European Parliament and the European Council, which includes the heads of state of the member nations, must approve the final text, which is still under negotiation. While the EU says it is confident that it can complete the effort, doing so by the July 4 deadline may prove to be a challenge.

Today's U.S. trade court ruling, along with the Supreme Court ruling against Trump's tariffs in February, may add more hurdles. If EU lawmakers believe that much of Trump's trade effort could be overturned by the courts, it may make it that much harder to ratify a trade treaty whose future could be in doubt.

Dems Frustrated by Lack of Answers on Cost of Iran War

Congressional Democrats are still pressing for answers about how much the war with Iran has cost so far.

The Pentagon's acting comptroller told lawmakers last week that the war effort has cost $25 billion since the first strikes were launched on February 28. But that estimate - the first that lawmakers and the American public had received in weeks - quickly came into question. CNN, for example, reported that it was "a lowball figure that does not include the cost of repairing extensive damage suffered by US bases" in the Persian Gulf region. One unnamed source reportedly told CNN that the real cost was closer to $40 billion or $50 billion.

Democrats quickly suggested that the $25 billion figure was far short of the real total - and, as Kevin Frey and David Rohde report for MS Now, Democratic lawmakers "are still trying to find out exactly what the price tag is for what President Donald Trump has dubbed a 'little excursion' in the Middle East."

Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, who sits on the Armed Services Committee, told MS Now that the Trump administration has been "uniquely unresponsive" to requests for information on defense spending. "This administration has stonewalled unlike any other I have seen, which has frustrated not only Democrats but our Republican colleagues," Blumenthal said.

Rep. Pat Ryan of New York, an Iraq War veteran who serves on the House Armed Services Committee, told MS NOW that Democrats on the committee also estimate the real cost of the war so far as about double the $25 billion estimate provided by the Pentagon. But, Ryan said, Democrats may have to win back control of the House to get a more complete "100% reckoning" of the war and its cost.

The bottom line: "The reluctance to come before Congress is all the more notable as the White House is in the process of asking lawmakers to approve $1.5 trillion in Pentagon spending for the upcoming year," Frey and Rohde write, adding that the administration may also seek supplemental war funding.

Read more at MS Now.

Number of the Day: $7.5 Million

As President Trump continues to remake the nation's capital, his administration has proposed painting the Eisenhower Executive Office Building white. A White House official reportedly said Thursday that the paint job could cost at least $7.5 million.

The Eisenhower building, which neighbors the White House, was built between 1871 and 1888 as the State, War and Navy (SWAN) Building and was designated a National Historic Landmark in 1969. It was renamed for President Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1999.

The building exterior is a gray granite, and Trump has criticized the color. The White House has proposed to coat the whole building superstructure in white or, as an alternative option, paint most of the building but leave the granite façade on the exposed basement and subbasement. The White House plan says that the building "has been largely neglected" since it was built and that the structure "does not align visually" with the architecture around it.

Preservationists have opposed and sharply criticized the White House proposal, warning that painting the granite would permanently damage it.

On Thursday, the National Capital Planning Commission reportedly voted unanimously to direct the White House to provide more details about the proposal, including potential damage and long-term maintenance costs.

Fiscal News Roundup

Views and Analysis