June 2, 2025 • 17 mins
We’re more than halfway through the 90-day pause on President Trump’s sweeping reciprocal tariffs. That three-month delay was supposed to give the US time to negotiate trade deals with countries around the world. And while talks are ongoing, many deals still seem out of reach. Now, legal challenges to Trump’s tariff strategy have thrown another wrench in the administration’s plans.
On today’s Big Take podcast, host Sarah Holder sits down with Bloomberg’s Brendan Murray to hear a status report on the latest steel tariff hikes and trade negotiations, and with legal reporter Erik Larson to explore how the courts could upend Trump’s agenda.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
How would you describe this moment in the trade war.
Speaker 3 (00:11):
I think we're at a big turning point.
Speaker 2 (00:13):
Brendan Murray leads Bloomberg's trade coverage.
Speaker 3 (00:16):
We're really at an important juncture at the moment where
the question of Trump's strategy, this aggressive, I'm going to
put leverage on you strategy could be called into question.
Speaker 2 (00:27):
It's a strategy that's become all too predictable. Trump comes
out swinging with big threats and then pulls back when
markets react.
Speaker 3 (00:35):
And so the question now is can he keep in
a sense crying wolf like that, can he keep credibility
or will countries on the other side say, you know,
he's just bluffing. If we just ate this out, he
will rain this back because market pressure will be too great.
Speaker 2 (00:52):
We're more than halfway through the ninety day pause on
Trump's sweeping reciprocal tariffs. That three month delay was supposed
to the US time to negotiate trade deals with countries
around the world. But besides a limited deal with the
UK and a tariff truce with China that's looking increasingly shaky,
there hasn't been much in the way of progress.
Speaker 3 (01:14):
Now, the administration would say talks are advancing with various
countries Japan, South Korea, India, Switzerland, but otherwise they keep
saying this every week, that these deals are imminent and
they're not here yet.
Speaker 2 (01:27):
And now there's pressure coming from a different direction the courts.
Last week, judges for the US International Trade Court ruled
that Trump's fentanyl related tariffs on China, Mexico, and Canada,
and his Liberation Day reciprocal tariffs the marquee policies of
his trade war are illegal. The Trump administration is appealing
(01:49):
and exploring other strategies to advance its agenda, but Brendan
says the legal setback is just the latest sign that
the US trade war isn't going according to plan.
Speaker 3 (02:00):
We're at the point where the tables are sort of
turning to where Trump is either going to maintain this
leverage or it's going to slowly slip into the hands
of his negotiating counterparties.
Speaker 2 (02:13):
I'm Sarah Holder, and this is the big take from
Bloomberg News Today. On the show, Trump's trade war and
his credibility face their biggest challenges yet. I speak with
Brendan Murray to get the latest on tariff negotiations, and
with Bloomberg's Eric Larsen to dive deeper into the Trade
Court's ruling and what comes next. The Trump administration may
(02:38):
have suffered a setback when its reciprocal tariffs were deemed
illegal last week, but that didn't stop the president from
announcing a new tariff hike days later. Standing before a
crowd of US steel workers near Pittsburgh on Friday, he
said he'd double existing tariffs on steel and aluminum from
twenty five percent to fifty percent. I asked Bloomberg's Brendan
(03:00):
Murray about the motivations behind the move.
Speaker 3 (03:03):
Trump said that he hiked these steel and aluminum tariffs
because he wants to protect this industry as important for
national security. If America doesn't have its own steel makers,
its own aluminum smelters, then we're reliant on a lot
of other producers, including China. There's a distinction to be
made in the authorities that he used for both the
(03:26):
reciprocal tariffs that's the universal ten percent tariff on most
trading partners and the twenty five and now fifty percent
tariff on steel and aluminum. One is he used an
authority that's rarely been used. This is the authority that
the court struck down the other law. The authority that
he used was called Section two thirty two. It's been
done before, it's kind of legally established. It's a pretty
(03:49):
ironclad tariff that you can put on steel and aluminum
because of national security reasons. So the president suffered this
setback in court. A couple days later, he'd reminded the
world that these two thirty two tariffs on steel and
aluminum that he still has a lot of power over
setting tariff levels, and we saw him double those to
(04:10):
fifty percent.
Speaker 2 (04:11):
Well, Trump made the announcement about the steel and aluminum
tariff hikes at the US Steel plant. What kind of
reaction did Trump get from the crowd, wells, it.
Speaker 3 (04:19):
Was like a campaign event. The banner behind the stage
was the Golden Age, referring to sort of the golden
age of America that he wants to restore. So it
was a pretty receptive crowd. And of course, you know,
the steel industry lobby couldn't be happier about the result.
It may help the profits of steel companies. It may
(04:40):
protect production lines in states like Pennsylvania and Ohio where
steel is produced but it's also going to hurt a
lot of users of steel, the buyers of steel. These
are the companies that make washing machines and cars and
construct homes exactly. Construction companies are, you know, among the
biggest complainers of this that is only going to anger
(05:02):
countries at exports steel, Korea, Japan, the European Union, the UK.
The UK did this supposed deal with the administration. What
happens to their steel exports. So there's a lot of
questions and it just keeps getting the web keeps getting
more tangled every single day.
Speaker 2 (05:17):
What other major trade negotiations were playing out in the
background this weekend? Were there any other major updates on
the tariffront.
Speaker 3 (05:25):
Well, there's a number of countries that have these ongoing talks,
and it's sort of shuttle diplomacy, flying into Washington for
a couple of days, flying back to their capitals. The
Japanese are in at least round number four of talks.
The South Koreans are also pretty well advanced into their discussions.
Switzerland not an EU country, so it's got to negotiate
(05:46):
its own deal with the US is apparently getting pretty
close to a deal as well. India has long been
said to be among the front runners to get a
deal before the July ninth deadline. But interestingly, we saw
right after that court ruling, India sort of step back
and go, well, wait a second, now, maybe maybe the
(06:07):
president doesn't have as much leverage over US as he
used to. If this reciprocal tariff is going to be
proven illegal. They drew another line in the sand that
said we we no longer think that the ten percent
reciprocal tariff on US is acceptable and that has to
come off if we're going to keep talking. So what
we've seen is, you know, a lead up to about
(06:27):
now when the president feels like he's got a lot
of leverage, but it looks and the experts that we
talk to say that leverage is slowly slipping away. Time
is really ticking against the president. You know, he came
to office as the you know, the deal making president,
and if he can't deliver on those or he has
to issue another ninety day delay, you know that credibility
(06:49):
will be eroded.
Speaker 2 (06:51):
And what about China. China accuse the US of violating
it's trade truce just today. Can you say more about
how China US relationship are being strained right now.
Speaker 3 (07:02):
On Friday, when Trump said that China wasn't living up
to ince end to the bargain, he said something to
the effect of no more mister nice guy the end
of his social media post. China has a fairly long
standing policy of not responding to threats, intimidation, bullying, and
they're not driven to the negotiating table out of fear,
(07:24):
or at least that's the perception that the Chinese government
wants to portray. So what we saw was the Chinese
Commerce Ministry today saying this is not the kind of
environment that's helpful for talks to progress. President Trump really
wants to have a phone call with President she and
that will help spark negotiations and get things back on track.
(07:46):
And the Chinese officials who we report on say, we're
not going to sit down at the negotiating table if
you're telling us no more mister nice guy. That's essentially
the message that we heard out of Beijing.
Speaker 2 (08:00):
Coming up, I sit down with US legal reporter Eric
Larson to ask how significant was the Trade Court's ruling
that deemed many of Trump's tariffs illegal and how will
that ruling impact the flu of trade negotiations the administration
is trying to rush through. Eric Larson, legal reporter for Bloomberg,
(08:24):
thank you so much for being here.
Speaker 1 (08:25):
Yeah, thanks for having me.
Speaker 2 (08:27):
Eric. We saw the biggest challenge yet to Trump's trade
policies come last week from the courts. Walk us through
the lawsuits that led us to this consequential ruling in
the US Court of International Trade. When they were mounted
and who was behind them? Sure?
Speaker 1 (08:42):
So the tariffs were issued starting in February, and then
of course the big Liberation Day tariffs Global tariffs in
early April. And so around April twenty third, a group
of a dozen Democratic led states filed one of the
biggest lawsuits challenging them, filing in the Court of Internet
National Trade, and another group another lawsuit filed by a
(09:03):
group of small businesses, filed a very similar lawsuit. Those
cases ended up being consolidated, and the Court of International
Trade issued this ruling on May twenty eighth, finding that
the tariffs were in fact illegal and granting what's known
as a summary judgment against the tariffs without even holding
a trial. Determined that the facts were very straightforward and
(09:27):
no trial was necessary.
Speaker 2 (09:29):
What were the central arguments the plaintiffs were making these
states and these small businesses, why did they think these
tariffs were illegal?
Speaker 1 (09:35):
Sure, so the way that Trump rolled out these tariffs
was pretty unprecedented. He used an emergency law passed in
nineteen seventy seven that grants a president authority over different
kinds of financial transactions if a national emergency has been declared.
So what Trump did was declare a series of national
emergencies and then used this law to issue sweeping tariffs
(09:59):
against most countries in the world that we do business with.
Trump decided that the trade imbalance that we have with
a lot of countries are trade deficits, constituted a national emergency.
And the States and the groups that sued said, that's
not what the law is used for. Only Congress has
control over this level of tariffs and taxes. That's in
(10:19):
the constitution, and so they said it was illegal.
Speaker 2 (10:23):
So that law that Trump used, the International Emergency Economic
Powers Act called AIPA of a trade experts, what was
it created for and what has it been used for
in the past.
Speaker 1 (10:33):
Well, it's typically been used for sanctions if there were
a national emergencies, say with a specific country like Iran,
or a shortage of some sort of products that the
government decided constituted an emergency. And you know, I looked
into when it had been used before, and they were
incidents I never heard of. It's very under the radar.
Speaker 2 (10:53):
So the judges sided with the plaintiffs said that using
AYEPA in this way was not legal. But the administration
quickly appealed and a federal appeals court temporarily reinstated the tariffs.
For now, where do we stand with tariffs while this
case is working its way through the appeals process and
what's next?
Speaker 1 (11:12):
Sure, so the tariffs are currently in effect because of
that stay that was issued by the Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit in Washington, and it was a
very brief pause. It's an administrative stay. It's called while
the appeals court considers a longer lasting stay pending appeal,
which would essentially block the Trade Court's ruling until the
(11:35):
litigation is resolved. So a pretty long lasting ruling. We
don't have that yet. So what we're waiting for is
for the appeals court to rule on that motion for
a stay pending appeal. And it's pretty consequential because the
fact that the court granted this administrative stay just to
keep the status quo in place. While it considers this
(11:55):
longer lasting stay, you can't read too much into it.
So there is the possibility that this appeals court could
deny the stay pending appeal, in which case the tariffs
would go back into effect.
Speaker 2 (12:07):
It's interesting because we've seen Trump and Trump administration officials
like Peter Navarro kind of played down the importance of
this case and this ruling publicly, while also trying very
hard to get an appeal and saying we needed to
use these powers to enforce our trade policies. What struck
you about the response so far?
Speaker 1 (12:24):
It showed a little bit of there were two sides
of things. That there was what they were saying in
the court filings and then what they were saying in
public the court filings, they couldn't have been more clear
that they considered this ruling by the Trade Court to
be a massive threat to national security, a threat to
the president's authority to carry out negotiations with foreign countries,
saying that undermined President Trump's ability to negotiate all these
(12:47):
tariff deals and trade deals that of course we've been
watching the government conduct. That's why they were arguing for
this stay pending appeal that I mentioned earlier that we
still are waiting for. They're saying that they need it
because of how urgent it is, and then of course
in public they're talking about all the other ways they
can issue tariffs, and so maybe it's not that big
of a deal and they're moving forward with the tariffs.
Speaker 2 (13:08):
Well, So, in your assessment, the assessment of your legal
sources trade experts, how big of a blow would a
loss on this this court case be for the Trump
administration and for its tariff policies.
Speaker 1 (13:20):
I think it would be a historic loss for the
Trump administration if ultimately the Supreme Court upholds the Trade
Court's decision, because it would represent a big swing by
Trump's administration being shot down by the highest court in
the land, which he has a six' three conservative, Majority
and if they ultimately came down and, said, yes you
(13:40):
exceeded your, AUTHORITY i think it would probably be seen
as one of the biggest setbacks of his. Administration And
i've also spoken with folks including The Oregon Attorney, general
have made this argument that does The Supreme court wants
to set this precedent WHERE aipa can be used by
a president in this way because they argue the next
(14:01):
president could be A. Democrat and you, know, hypothetically just
throwing this out, there what if they declared gun violence
in the country to be a national emergency and decided
to therefore issue one thousand percent tariffs on all weapons
imports and ammunition and everything. Else that would be pretty
damning for The republicans to have that situation hanging out.
Speaker 2 (14:24):
There and if The Supreme court does rule Against, trump
it could reshape his trade policy and use of tariffs going.
FORWARD i Asked Bloomberg's Brendan murray about how the administration might.
ADAPT i doubt.
Speaker 3 (14:39):
It's going to diminish his impulse to put tariffs on
imports to accomplish what he wants to. Accomplish he has
a number of other authorities that he can. Use can
we talked about the two thirty. Two he's got something
Called section three zero, one which is kind of put
on industries that are operating unfairly in trading with THE.
(14:59):
Us and there's another, authority a sort of obscure. Authority
the number is one twenty two and it could be
brought in for one hundred and fifty days and the
president could put fifteen percent tariffs on anybody's imports if
he wants. To, now that's only going to last for
one hundred and fifty, days but it could still sort
of extend the policy of protectionism that the president wants
(15:22):
to deploy out into the. Future so a lot of
trade lawyers would say that was no surprise That trump
tried at praierly obscure untested legal authority and has at
least lost for. Now but there are others that he can.
Use they're more, targeted they take longer to, implement there's
investigations you have to do to kind of justify while
(15:45):
you're putting tariffs on whatever's coming, next semiconductors or, timber you,
know other. Things so it was definitely a, setback one
that some people in the administration probably didn't, expect and
they are now pivoting to this what do we do?
Now what about these other? Authorities can we use? Those
and we'll see in the days ahead whether they try
(16:06):
to deploy.
Speaker 2 (16:06):
Those what about how this court case is impacting international trade?
Negotiations how does it impact THE us government's negotiating power
when it's talking to countries Like, China, India European union
members right, Now, well.
Speaker 3 (16:22):
It's ultimately going to slow all these talks. Down if
you're sitting on the other side of the table from
a counter party that has its main threat over you
is being challenged in court and it could be days
when court could strike those down and they could no
longer use those with, you then your strategy is to
(16:44):
delay and to run out the clock on. This and
so you would probably see countries try to drag this
out as much as they, can at least until there's
some clarity in the court case and ultimately or five
weeks away From july, ninth and there's still no really
no deals, done and so it's going to come down
(17:06):
to the wire as to whether they can get any
meaningful deals.
Speaker 2 (17:10):
Done this is The Big take From Bloomberg. News I'm Sarah.
Holder to get more From The Big take and unlimited
access to all Of bloomberg dot, com subscribe today At
bloomberg dot Com slash podcast. Offer if you liked this,
episode make sure to follow and Review The Big take
(17:30):
wherever you listen to. Podcasts it helps people find the.
Show thanks for. Listening we'll be back. Tomorrow
Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
How would you describe this moment in the trade war.
Speaker 3 (00:11):
I think we're at a big turning point.
Speaker 2 (00:13):
Brendan Murray leads Bloomberg's trade coverage.
Speaker 3 (00:16):
We're really at an important juncture at the moment where
the question of Trump's strategy, this aggressive, I'm going to
put leverage on you strategy could be called into question.
Speaker 2 (00:27):
It's a strategy that's become all too predictable. Trump comes
out swinging with big threats and then pulls back when
markets react.
Speaker 3 (00:35):
And so the question now is can he keep in
a sense crying wolf like that, can he keep credibility
or will countries on the other side say, you know,
he's just bluffing. If we just ate this out, he
will rain this back because market pressure will be too great.
Speaker 2 (00:52):
We're more than halfway through the ninety day pause on
Trump's sweeping reciprocal tariffs. That three month delay was supposed
to the US time to negotiate trade deals with countries
around the world. But besides a limited deal with the
UK and a tariff truce with China that's looking increasingly shaky,
there hasn't been much in the way of progress.
Speaker 3 (01:14):
Now, the administration would say talks are advancing with various
countries Japan, South Korea, India, Switzerland, but otherwise they keep
saying this every week, that these deals are imminent and
they're not here yet.
Speaker 2 (01:27):
And now there's pressure coming from a different direction the courts.
Last week, judges for the US International Trade Court ruled
that Trump's fentanyl related tariffs on China, Mexico, and Canada,
and his Liberation Day reciprocal tariffs the marquee policies of
his trade war are illegal. The Trump administration is appealing
(01:49):
and exploring other strategies to advance its agenda, but Brendan
says the legal setback is just the latest sign that
the US trade war isn't going according to plan.
Speaker 3 (02:00):
We're at the point where the tables are sort of
turning to where Trump is either going to maintain this
leverage or it's going to slowly slip into the hands
of his negotiating counterparties.
Speaker 2 (02:13):
I'm Sarah Holder, and this is the big take from
Bloomberg News Today. On the show, Trump's trade war and
his credibility face their biggest challenges yet. I speak with
Brendan Murray to get the latest on tariff negotiations, and
with Bloomberg's Eric Larsen to dive deeper into the Trade
Court's ruling and what comes next. The Trump administration may
(02:38):
have suffered a setback when its reciprocal tariffs were deemed
illegal last week, but that didn't stop the president from
announcing a new tariff hike days later. Standing before a
crowd of US steel workers near Pittsburgh on Friday, he
said he'd double existing tariffs on steel and aluminum from
twenty five percent to fifty percent. I asked Bloomberg's Brendan
(03:00):
Murray about the motivations behind the move.
Speaker 3 (03:03):
Trump said that he hiked these steel and aluminum tariffs
because he wants to protect this industry as important for
national security. If America doesn't have its own steel makers,
its own aluminum smelters, then we're reliant on a lot
of other producers, including China. There's a distinction to be
made in the authorities that he used for both the
(03:26):
reciprocal tariffs that's the universal ten percent tariff on most
trading partners and the twenty five and now fifty percent
tariff on steel and aluminum. One is he used an
authority that's rarely been used. This is the authority that
the court struck down the other law. The authority that
he used was called Section two thirty two. It's been
done before, it's kind of legally established. It's a pretty
(03:49):
ironclad tariff that you can put on steel and aluminum
because of national security reasons. So the president suffered this
setback in court. A couple days later, he'd reminded the
world that these two thirty two tariffs on steel and
aluminum that he still has a lot of power over
setting tariff levels, and we saw him double those to
(04:10):
fifty percent.
Speaker 2 (04:11):
Well, Trump made the announcement about the steel and aluminum
tariff hikes at the US Steel plant. What kind of
reaction did Trump get from the crowd, wells, it.
Speaker 3 (04:19):
Was like a campaign event. The banner behind the stage
was the Golden Age, referring to sort of the golden
age of America that he wants to restore. So it
was a pretty receptive crowd. And of course, you know,
the steel industry lobby couldn't be happier about the result.
It may help the profits of steel companies. It may
(04:40):
protect production lines in states like Pennsylvania and Ohio where
steel is produced but it's also going to hurt a
lot of users of steel, the buyers of steel. These
are the companies that make washing machines and cars and
construct homes exactly. Construction companies are, you know, among the
biggest complainers of this that is only going to anger
(05:02):
countries at exports steel, Korea, Japan, the European Union, the UK.
The UK did this supposed deal with the administration. What
happens to their steel exports. So there's a lot of
questions and it just keeps getting the web keeps getting
more tangled every single day.
Speaker 2 (05:17):
What other major trade negotiations were playing out in the
background this weekend? Were there any other major updates on
the tariffront.
Speaker 3 (05:25):
Well, there's a number of countries that have these ongoing talks,
and it's sort of shuttle diplomacy, flying into Washington for
a couple of days, flying back to their capitals. The
Japanese are in at least round number four of talks.
The South Koreans are also pretty well advanced into their discussions.
Switzerland not an EU country, so it's got to negotiate
(05:46):
its own deal with the US is apparently getting pretty
close to a deal as well. India has long been
said to be among the front runners to get a
deal before the July ninth deadline. But interestingly, we saw
right after that court ruling, India sort of step back
and go, well, wait a second, now, maybe maybe the
(06:07):
president doesn't have as much leverage over US as he
used to. If this reciprocal tariff is going to be
proven illegal. They drew another line in the sand that
said we we no longer think that the ten percent
reciprocal tariff on US is acceptable and that has to
come off if we're going to keep talking. So what
we've seen is, you know, a lead up to about
(06:27):
now when the president feels like he's got a lot
of leverage, but it looks and the experts that we
talk to say that leverage is slowly slipping away. Time
is really ticking against the president. You know, he came
to office as the you know, the deal making president,
and if he can't deliver on those or he has
to issue another ninety day delay, you know that credibility
(06:49):
will be eroded.
Speaker 2 (06:51):
And what about China. China accuse the US of violating
it's trade truce just today. Can you say more about
how China US relationship are being strained right now.
Speaker 3 (07:02):
On Friday, when Trump said that China wasn't living up
to ince end to the bargain, he said something to
the effect of no more mister nice guy the end
of his social media post. China has a fairly long
standing policy of not responding to threats, intimidation, bullying, and
they're not driven to the negotiating table out of fear,
(07:24):
or at least that's the perception that the Chinese government
wants to portray. So what we saw was the Chinese
Commerce Ministry today saying this is not the kind of
environment that's helpful for talks to progress. President Trump really
wants to have a phone call with President she and
that will help spark negotiations and get things back on track.
(07:46):
And the Chinese officials who we report on say, we're
not going to sit down at the negotiating table if
you're telling us no more mister nice guy. That's essentially
the message that we heard out of Beijing.
Speaker 2 (08:00):
Coming up, I sit down with US legal reporter Eric
Larson to ask how significant was the Trade Court's ruling
that deemed many of Trump's tariffs illegal and how will
that ruling impact the flu of trade negotiations the administration
is trying to rush through. Eric Larson, legal reporter for Bloomberg,
(08:24):
thank you so much for being here.
Speaker 1 (08:25):
Yeah, thanks for having me.
Speaker 2 (08:27):
Eric. We saw the biggest challenge yet to Trump's trade
policies come last week from the courts. Walk us through
the lawsuits that led us to this consequential ruling in
the US Court of International Trade. When they were mounted
and who was behind them? Sure?
Speaker 1 (08:42):
So the tariffs were issued starting in February, and then
of course the big Liberation Day tariffs Global tariffs in
early April. And so around April twenty third, a group
of a dozen Democratic led states filed one of the
biggest lawsuits challenging them, filing in the Court of Internet
National Trade, and another group another lawsuit filed by a
(09:03):
group of small businesses, filed a very similar lawsuit. Those
cases ended up being consolidated, and the Court of International
Trade issued this ruling on May twenty eighth, finding that
the tariffs were in fact illegal and granting what's known
as a summary judgment against the tariffs without even holding
a trial. Determined that the facts were very straightforward and
(09:27):
no trial was necessary.
Speaker 2 (09:29):
What were the central arguments the plaintiffs were making these
states and these small businesses, why did they think these
tariffs were illegal?
Speaker 1 (09:35):
Sure, so the way that Trump rolled out these tariffs
was pretty unprecedented. He used an emergency law passed in
nineteen seventy seven that grants a president authority over different
kinds of financial transactions if a national emergency has been declared.
So what Trump did was declare a series of national
emergencies and then used this law to issue sweeping tariffs
(09:59):
against most countries in the world that we do business with.
Trump decided that the trade imbalance that we have with
a lot of countries are trade deficits, constituted a national emergency.
And the States and the groups that sued said, that's
not what the law is used for. Only Congress has
control over this level of tariffs and taxes. That's in
(10:19):
the constitution, and so they said it was illegal.
Speaker 2 (10:23):
So that law that Trump used, the International Emergency Economic
Powers Act called AIPA of a trade experts, what was
it created for and what has it been used for
in the past.
Speaker 1 (10:33):
Well, it's typically been used for sanctions if there were
a national emergencies, say with a specific country like Iran,
or a shortage of some sort of products that the
government decided constituted an emergency. And you know, I looked
into when it had been used before, and they were
incidents I never heard of. It's very under the radar.
Speaker 2 (10:53):
So the judges sided with the plaintiffs said that using
AYEPA in this way was not legal. But the administration
quickly appealed and a federal appeals court temporarily reinstated the tariffs.
For now, where do we stand with tariffs while this
case is working its way through the appeals process and
what's next?
Speaker 1 (11:12):
Sure, so the tariffs are currently in effect because of
that stay that was issued by the Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit in Washington, and it was a
very brief pause. It's an administrative stay. It's called while
the appeals court considers a longer lasting stay pending appeal,
which would essentially block the Trade Court's ruling until the
(11:35):
litigation is resolved. So a pretty long lasting ruling. We
don't have that yet. So what we're waiting for is
for the appeals court to rule on that motion for
a stay pending appeal. And it's pretty consequential because the
fact that the court granted this administrative stay just to
keep the status quo in place. While it considers this
(11:55):
longer lasting stay, you can't read too much into it.
So there is the possibility that this appeals court could
deny the stay pending appeal, in which case the tariffs
would go back into effect.
Speaker 2 (12:07):
It's interesting because we've seen Trump and Trump administration officials
like Peter Navarro kind of played down the importance of
this case and this ruling publicly, while also trying very
hard to get an appeal and saying we needed to
use these powers to enforce our trade policies. What struck
you about the response so far?
Speaker 1 (12:24):
It showed a little bit of there were two sides
of things. That there was what they were saying in
the court filings and then what they were saying in
public the court filings, they couldn't have been more clear
that they considered this ruling by the Trade Court to
be a massive threat to national security, a threat to
the president's authority to carry out negotiations with foreign countries,
saying that undermined President Trump's ability to negotiate all these
(12:47):
tariff deals and trade deals that of course we've been
watching the government conduct. That's why they were arguing for
this stay pending appeal that I mentioned earlier that we
still are waiting for. They're saying that they need it
because of how urgent it is, and then of course
in public they're talking about all the other ways they
can issue tariffs, and so maybe it's not that big
of a deal and they're moving forward with the tariffs.
Speaker 2 (13:08):
Well, So, in your assessment, the assessment of your legal
sources trade experts, how big of a blow would a
loss on this this court case be for the Trump
administration and for its tariff policies.
Speaker 1 (13:20):
I think it would be a historic loss for the
Trump administration if ultimately the Supreme Court upholds the Trade
Court's decision, because it would represent a big swing by
Trump's administration being shot down by the highest court in
the land, which he has a six' three conservative, Majority
and if they ultimately came down and, said, yes you
(13:40):
exceeded your, AUTHORITY i think it would probably be seen
as one of the biggest setbacks of his. Administration And
i've also spoken with folks including The Oregon Attorney, general
have made this argument that does The Supreme court wants
to set this precedent WHERE aipa can be used by
a president in this way because they argue the next
(14:01):
president could be A. Democrat and you, know, hypothetically just
throwing this out, there what if they declared gun violence
in the country to be a national emergency and decided
to therefore issue one thousand percent tariffs on all weapons
imports and ammunition and everything. Else that would be pretty
damning for The republicans to have that situation hanging out.
Speaker 2 (14:24):
There and if The Supreme court does rule Against, trump
it could reshape his trade policy and use of tariffs going.
FORWARD i Asked Bloomberg's Brendan murray about how the administration might.
ADAPT i doubt.
Speaker 3 (14:39):
It's going to diminish his impulse to put tariffs on
imports to accomplish what he wants to. Accomplish he has
a number of other authorities that he can. Use can
we talked about the two thirty. Two he's got something
Called section three zero, one which is kind of put
on industries that are operating unfairly in trading with THE.
(14:59):
Us and there's another, authority a sort of obscure. Authority
the number is one twenty two and it could be
brought in for one hundred and fifty days and the
president could put fifteen percent tariffs on anybody's imports if
he wants. To, now that's only going to last for
one hundred and fifty, days but it could still sort
of extend the policy of protectionism that the president wants
(15:22):
to deploy out into the. Future so a lot of
trade lawyers would say that was no surprise That trump
tried at praierly obscure untested legal authority and has at
least lost for. Now but there are others that he can.
Use they're more, targeted they take longer to, implement there's
investigations you have to do to kind of justify while
(15:45):
you're putting tariffs on whatever's coming, next semiconductors or, timber you,
know other. Things so it was definitely a, setback one
that some people in the administration probably didn't, expect and
they are now pivoting to this what do we do?
Now what about these other? Authorities can we use? Those
and we'll see in the days ahead whether they try
(16:06):
to deploy.
Speaker 2 (16:06):
Those what about how this court case is impacting international trade?
Negotiations how does it impact THE us government's negotiating power
when it's talking to countries Like, China, India European union
members right, Now, well.
Speaker 3 (16:22):
It's ultimately going to slow all these talks. Down if
you're sitting on the other side of the table from
a counter party that has its main threat over you
is being challenged in court and it could be days
when court could strike those down and they could no
longer use those with, you then your strategy is to
(16:44):
delay and to run out the clock on. This and
so you would probably see countries try to drag this
out as much as they, can at least until there's
some clarity in the court case and ultimately or five
weeks away From july, ninth and there's still no really
no deals, done and so it's going to come down
(17:06):
to the wire as to whether they can get any
meaningful deals.
Speaker 2 (17:10):
Done this is The Big take From Bloomberg. News I'm Sarah.
Holder to get more From The Big take and unlimited
access to all Of bloomberg dot, com subscribe today At
bloomberg dot Com slash podcast. Offer if you liked this,
episode make sure to follow and Review The Big take
(17:30):
wherever you listen to. Podcasts it helps people find the.
Show thanks for. Listening we'll be back. Tomorrow
Hosts And Creators
Sarah Holder
Saleha Mohsin
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
Ridiculous History
History is beautiful, brutal and, often, ridiculous. Join Ben Bowlin and Noel Brown as they dive into some of the weirdest stories from across the span of human civilization in Ridiculous History, a podcast by iHeartRadio.