The U.S. filed another defense of tariff action taken under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act last week at the Court of International Trade, more fulsomely embracing the notion that the president needs tariff-setting authority under IEEPA to address a host of foreign policy issues. Opposing a group of 11 importers' motion for judgment against the reciprocal tariffs and IEEPA tariffs on China, the government argued that "the success of the Nation" in "navigating and addressing a range of extremely consequential threats" is "built off the dispatch and unitary nature of the executive, girded by necessary tools," including IEEPA tariffs (Princess Awesome v. CBP, CIT # 25-00078).
President Donald Trump elaborated on his tariff intentions with reporters in the White House, after posting online earlier in the day that 50% tariffs would begin on EU exports on June 1, and that he would be imposing a 25% tariff on imported iPhones.
The head of the Africa Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace said that Africans who are worried about the possible end of the African Growth and Opportunity Act should remember that it's not just their countries that are losing trade access.
Cecilia Malmstrom, a former top European Commission trade official, said the EU is "painfully aware that the transatlantic relationship as we used to know it has been severely damaged."
Volumes of imported goods from China -- particularly those that would have been eligible for de minimis -- are likely to fall in the coming months, according to Gene Seroka, executive director for the Port of Los Angeles. But he said it's unclear how much they will fall, and when.
The Court of International Trade on May 21 held a second hearing in as many weeks on the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The same three judges, Jane Restani, Gary Katzmann and Timothy Reif, pressed both the government and counsel for 12 U.S. states challenging all IEEPA tariff actions on whether the statute allows for tariff action, as well as whether the courts can review if the declared emergencies are "unusual and extraordinary" and the extent to which the case is guided by Yoshida International v. U.S. (The State of Oregon v. Donald J. Trump, CIT # 25-00077).
International Trade Today is providing readers with the top stories from last week in case they were missed. All articles can be found by searching on the titles or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
As reciprocal tariffs against imports from China and Hong Kong fall from 125% to 10% for 90 days as the U.S. and China seek to hash out a trade deal (see 2505120006), so are Southern California port volumes and trans-Pacific freight rates reflected the volatility seen in the trade space.
While traveling in the Gulf States in the Middle East, President Donald Trump again said that negotiators in his administration don't have time to meet with every country subject to reciprocal tariffs ahead of the 90-day deadline for those tariffs to snap back into place. So, he said, he will be telling some countries what their tariff rates will be in two or three weeks.
Although the reciprocal tariff for imported Chinese goods may have fallen to 10% for 90 days (see 2505130074), Flexport trade experts advised companies to not treat this action as if there will be an extension. Doing so will prevent companies from having to ask later whether they will have any in-transit exemptions as the 90-day period ends around Aug. 12, according to Angela Lewis, global head of customs for Flexport.