U.S. LAW & GLOBAL TRADE RELATIONS.

The tariff war is increasingly becoming an all-out trade war –– with many nations including our closest allies. Reliance now on Section 338 is outrageous as well as claims of forced labor. Section 338 has never been relied upon over the almost last 100 years (since its inception in 1930’s). Trump’s reliance on Section 301 “Retaliation’ is even worse. Trump’s ever-changing legal rationales on a broad range of tariff actions are ludicrous. They make a mockery out of the law.

Trump’s economic and military threats are no longer bearing much fruit. Just look at the recent Iranian and Canadian threats.

Trump’s tariffs have simply not increased U.S. manufacturing. This is clear from the data. They have only increased the wealth-wage divide in the U.S.

Trump’s tariffs have endangered U.S. foreign policy and drove away our closest allies. emboldened our adversaries and endangered our national security.

Courts and Congress need to be more aggressive in their overview. Politicians and the broad range of individuals, consumers, farmers and firms — large and small — need to immediately raise their voices of confrontation. ‘Enough.’ The Supreme Court needs to get back into this constitutional fray.

………………………………………….

“The age of capitulation that defined Trump’s return to office may be starting to fade. World leaders and domestic institutions are, in some cases at least, showing less willingness to submit to Trump’s will ….  Universities and law firms are rebuffing his directives rather than signing on the bottom line …. The clash with Canada brings a lot of that history to the fore. Both sides have continued to escalate in recent days.” ““Deference to Trump Turns Increasingly to Defiance.” New York Times (August 27, 2026).

“The president has invoked a long dormant section of law to hit one of America’s closest allies, a move that has troubled courts in the past …. To impose punishing tariffs around the world, President Trump has repeatedly turned to a series of decades-old, never-before-used trade powers, only to be slapped down by federal courts for overstepping the law ….  His new trade war against Canada — risking yet another round of costly legal wrangling for the White House …. Before this weekend, no president appears to have issued tariffs under Section 338, so Trump’s actions quickly raised novel legal questions about a law that had otherwise sat dormant …. No one had brought a similar lawsuit challenging the president’s use of Section 338 against Canada …. Under the 1930 law, a president can impose tariffs in response to a country that has placed “unequal impositions or discriminations” on American goods but not on the rest of the world …. But the statute also goes one step further: If the tariffed country “maintained or increased its said discriminations” in response to the new duties, then the president may exclude some of those imported goods from the United States altogether ….  One of those laws is the Trade Act of 1974, which includes Section 301, a tool that the president may use to investigate unfair trade practices and impose tariffs in response. It is more settled legal ground, though Trump’s aggressive use of it this year — targeting dozens countries in bulk — has produced its own legal challenge pending before the courts …. The matter could land in the hands of the Court of International Trade, which has repeatedly taken issue with Trump’s expressions of tariff authority. To that end, another loss for the president could further restrain his powers to impose duties without Congress.” “Canadian Tariffs and Section 338.” New York Times (8.27.26).

“Just when you thought Donald Trump was thoroughly engaged with other misadventures like the Iran war, he decided to pick another tariff fight with a neighbour that has faced him down before. With inflation posing a risk to his already slumping popularity, Trump’s tariff follies are politically ever more ill-advised …. Far from weakening the target country’s resolve, a mindlessly aggressive campaign frequently unites it in opposition …. The other lesson Trump has failed to absorb is that tariff wars don’t actually do much damage, except to the US’s credibility …. Trump has now spent a year and a half throwing rocks into the rivers of world commerce, only to find trade flowing over and around them. He set out in his second term determined to stop China simply rerouting its exports to the US through third countries, as happened during his first. The howling anger of the White House’s recent screed against what it wrongly calls “transshipment” shows he knows he is failing.” “Trump’s Tariff Battle Plan  — Witless.” Financial Times (August 28, 2026).

“American manufacturing is resurgent despite the president’s protectionist measures, not because of them. Nor does the boom look much like the one he promised …. Uniquely strong demand conditions in two sectors have underpinned the expansion of industrial output, rather than a surge in tariff-related onshoring. The first is computer and electronic products, which includes the chips and servers feeding the ongoing AI frenzy. Next is aerospace, where aircraft backlogs …. There is another inconvenient data point for tariff backers. If tariffs were driving a broad reshoring boom, one would expect domestic production to displace imports. Instead, the manufacturing revival has dovetailed with a notable pick-up in purchases from abroad …. “The AI build-out, aircraft back-orders, tax deductions for capital expenditure in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act and even the Iran war are driving the recent US manufacturing surge …. In other words, Trump’s tariffs are proving a blunt tool for reviving his nostalgic vision of manufacturing. America’s industrial strengths are proving resilient in spite of them — and would have been stronger still without them.” “US manufacturing is booming — but it’s no thanks to Trump’s tariffs.” Financial Times (Aug. 29, 2026).

“President Trump’s repeated attempts to impose tariffs have become an encapsulation of his second term. They have hurt the American economy and his own popularity. They also range from legally dubious to blatantly illegal …. Still Trump’s defiance stands out. He has twice tried to circumvent the court’s tariff ruling, imposing new rounds of import fees by invoking legal justifications that are patently ridiculous …. This is part of a broader pattern …. Trump has taken this approach with tariffs, immigration and funding freezes …. His latest round of global tariffs offers an example. The administration’s rationale for them is a section of a 1974 law that empowers a president to enact tariffs against countries that import goods made with forced labor. Congress can play a vital role here …. Even many Republicans in Congress are unhappy about the tariffs, and they have the power to halt them. They can start with public criticism, which will raise the political cost for Trump of keeping the tariffs in place. If he does not yield, they should pass new laws closing the loopholes he has used. In the case of the Canada tariffs, Congress should pass legislation to make clear that he cannot use the 1930 law to enact sweeping tariffs …. Judges can act, too, especially on the forced-labor tariffs. They are now before the Court of International Trade, a federal body, and it should swiftly rule on them. As the leaders of 25 U.S. states argued in a legal filing, “The tariff action is arbitrary, capricious and contrary to law.” The administration’s claims about forced labor “make a mockery of the statute used to justify them.” …. While federal judges have often done an admirable job of trying to respond to. Trump’s illegal policies, the tariff cases highlight a core problem: Trump’s legalistic noncompliance moves more quickly than the courts do. When a judge rules one Trump policy to be illegal, he replaces it with a new one accomplishing similar aims …. Eventually, the forced-labor tariffs will probably go back to the Supreme Court, which needs to become nimbler about protecting the Constitution …. In economic terms, the policy has so far been a disappointment. The tariffs have raised prices on many goods, without producing a revival in manufacturing employment. Overall economic job growth has slowed in recent months. Instead of pulling back in response, Trump has doubled down on his trade war. Incredibly, the 1930 law that he has used to justify the Canadian tariffs is the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, a law notorious for contributing to the Great Depression.” …. The even more important principle, though, is the constitutional one. Trump is breaking the law. Congress and the judiciary need to respond.” “Ludicrous Legal Arguments Behind Trump’s Tariffs.” New York Times (August 30, 2026).

“Worsening trade tensions between the US and Canada have diverted attention away from the debate about the Trump administration’s use of Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 to reshape the US tariff schedule. Many have asked whether it can legally do so. But a different question needs to be considered: what kind of trade policy results when Section 301 becomes the foundation of the tariff regime? The answer lies in the statute’s basic logic. Section 301 of the Trade Act empowers the US Trade Representative to investigate and respond to specific foreign trading practices judged to be unfair. Tariffs are supposed to be a remedy. They are not supposed to be the objective …. A structurally unsettled trade policy also makes it harder for the US to persuade other countries to organise around its strategic priorities. Many in Washington, both Democrats and Republicans, believe the US needs a fundamentally different approach to trade in an era of rising geopolitical tension and rapidly changing technology. That debate is worth having, both in Washington and among its partners. Section 301 cannot answer that question.  A tariff regime built on Section 301, a statute that is repeatedly revisited through successive investigations and reviews, sidesteps that debate rather than resolving it.  The real question is not whether Section 301 can support a new tariff regime. It is whether the US is prepared to decide what that regime is for.” “Worsening U.S. Trade Policy and Section 301 Growing Reliance.” Financial Times (Sept. 1, 2026).

“Increase in “”

The tariff war is increasingly becoming an all out trade war –– with many nations including our closest allies. Reliance now on Section 338 is outrageous. It’s never been relied upon over the almost last 100 years (since 1930 and its inception).

Trump’s threats are no longer bearing much fruit. Just look at the Iranians and the Canadians.

Trump’s tariffs have simply not increased U.S. manufacturing. This is clear from the data. They have only increased the wealth-wage divide in the U.S.

They have also endangered U.S. foreign policy and drove away our closest allies. emboldened our adversaries and endangered our national security.

………………………………………….

“The age of capitulation that defined Trump’s return to office may be starting to fade. World leaders and domestic institutions are, in some cases at least, showing less willingness to submit to Trump’s will ….  Universities and law firms are rebuffing his directives rather than signing on the bottom line …. The clash with Canada brings a lot of that history to the fore. Both sides have continued to escalate in recent days.” ““Deference to Trump Turns Increasingly to Defiance.” New York Times (August 27, 2026).

“The president has invoked a long dormant section of law to hit one of America’s closest allies, a move that has troubled courts in the past …. To impose punishing tariffs around the world, President Trump has repeatedly turned to a series of decades-old, never-before-used trade powers, only to be slapped down by federal courts for overstepping the law ….  His new trade war against Canada — risking yet another round of costly legal wrangling for the White House …. Before this weekend, no president appears to have issued tariffs under Section 338, so Trump’s actions quickly raised novel legal questions about a law that had otherwise sat dormant …. No one had brought a similar lawsuit challenging the president’s use of Section 338 against Canada …. Under the 1930 law, a president can impose tariffs in response to a country that has placed “unequal impositions or discriminations” on American goods but not on the rest of the world …. But the statute also goes one step further: If the tariffed country “maintained or increased its said discriminations” in response to the new duties, then the president may exclude some of those imported goods from the United States altogether ….  One of those laws is the Trade Act of 1974, which includes Section 301, a tool that the president may use to investigate unfair trade practices and impose tariffs in response. It is more settled legal ground, though Trump’s aggressive use of it this year — targeting dozens countries in bulk — has produced its own legal challenge pending before the courts …. The matter could land in the hands of the Court of International Trade, which has repeatedly taken issue with Trump’s expressions of tariff authority. To that end, another loss for the president could further restrain his powers to impose duties without Congress.” “Canadian Tariffs and Section 338.” New York Times (8.27.26).

“Just when you thought Donald Trump was thoroughly engaged with other misadventures like the Iran war, he decided to pick another tariff fight with a neighbour that has faced him down before. With inflation posing a risk to his already slumping popularity, Trump’s tariff follies are politically ever more ill-advised …. Far from weakening the target country’s resolve, a mindlessly aggressive campaign frequently unites it in opposition …. The other lesson Trump has failed to absorb is that tariff wars don’t actually do much damage, except to the US’s credibility …. Trump has now spent a year and a half throwing rocks into the rivers of world commerce, only to find trade flowing over and around them. He set out in his second term determined to stop China simply rerouting its exports to the US through third countries, as happened during his first. The howling anger of the White House’s recent screed against what it wrongly calls “transshipment” shows he knows he is failing.” “Trump’s Tariff Battle Plan  — Witless.” Financial Times (August 28, 2026).

“American manufacturing is resurgent despite the president’s protectionist measures, not because of them. Nor does the boom look much like the one he promised …. Uniquely strong demand conditions in two sectors have underpinned the expansion of industrial output, rather than a surge in tariff-related onshoring. The first is computer and electronic products, which includes the chips and servers feeding the ongoing AI frenzy. Next is aerospace, where aircraft backlogs …. There is another inconvenient data point for tariff backers. If tariffs were driving a broad reshoring boom, one would expect domestic production to displace imports. Instead, the manufacturing revival has dovetailed with a notable pick-up in purchases from abroad …. “The AI build-out, aircraft back-orders, tax deductions for capital expenditure in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act and even the Iran war are driving the recent US manufacturing surge …. In other words, Trump’s tariffs are proving a blunt tool for reviving his nostalgic vision of manufacturing. America’s industrial strengths are proving resilient in spite of them — and would have been stronger still without them.” “US manufacturing is booming — but it’s no thanks to Trump’s tariffs.” Financial Times (Aug. 29, 2026).

Tariffs are back. A new broad range of tariffs. Picking up where he left off after the Supreme Court killed his earlier tariffs. Trump is back to threatening everyone — with a new torrent of tariffs. Tariffs are an obsession for Trump, no matter what. He is perfecting his trickery and whack-a-mole legalistic strategy. The problem for him — he fails to care about the midterms or anyone else. His tariff rhetoric increases daily. This should be called the “Art of the Threat.” The U.S. is now one of the most protecti0nist countries in the global trading system.

Trump really doesn’t care about the economics of tariffs. He has a host of totally idiosyncratic reasons. The Trump administration has refunded $160 million of the ‘Liberation Day Tariffs.” He now uses a host of confusing legal rationales for the new tariffs. Small firms have almost immediately sued and attacked these tariffs. State Attorney-Generals have also sued. Other suits have also been filed. Same ones that previously won in the Supreme Court –supported by very conservative organizations. His tariffs (taxes) are in part funding the Iranian War at the expense of the American people. They are not increasing investment in the U.S. at all, as Trump argues.

Incredibly, the new proposed sanctions legislation, already passed by the Senate, would cede even more tariff authority to the President. A broad range of lobbyists are fighting this. But this is incredible. Increasing the President’s power to tax — delegating one of Congress’ most important power.

By the way, Mr. President, threats and insults never work in international or personal affairs. Maybe in the short term, but never in the long term — as soon as events change, so do the compliance of the threatened. Also tariffs as well as bombing campaigns never achieve desired results.

………………………………………………………..

“Trump is preparing to reshape the legal justification for his tariff regime this week and push negotiations with North American trading partners into high gear, setting off a new phase of trade uncertainty for businesses after months of relative calm …. The calm is ending …. Expect new tariff action soon, previewing replacement tariffs for the ones that expire Friday. And a day earlier, Trump said he would impose additional 50% tariffs on certain goods from Canada, a move that pressures America’s northern neighbor to renegotiate the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement. The Canada tariffs were separate from the sweeping global levies Trump is trying to rebuild after the Supreme Court ruling …. Trump can keep Section 301 levies in place indefinitely. But before that can happen, USTR must issue its final report in the tariff investigation, taking into account more than 1,500 comments from U.S. companies, many of which pleaded for exemptions from the coming levies …. Trump proposed the new Canada tariffs under a never-before-used portion of U.S. trade law—Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930, which covers alleged discrimination on U.S. goods. That provision could give him more flexibility to impose tariffs on a whim, rather than the months of investigations required by Section 301. “Trump’s New Tack on Tariffs,” Wall Street Journal (7.22.26).

“The sanctions legislation that moved forward in the Senate this week goes beyond enacting new financial restrictions on Russia and Iran. It also gives President Trump broad new powers to impose tariffs on imports from some of the world’s largest economies …. The bill represents the latest move by Congress to cede more of its authority over trade policy to Trump. It also comes amid bipartisan anger over the president’s provocative use of tariffs …. The lobbying groups include the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Retail Industry Leaders Association and the National Foreign Trade Council asked lawmakers to remove the tariff authority in the bill and warned that tariffs were “a blunt tool that can penalize law-abiding U.S. companies.” “Sanctions Bill Would Give Trump Major New Tariff Powers.” New York Times (7.30.26).

“The U.S. has announced 25% duties on many imports from Brazil, while unveiling a broader-than-expected list of exemptions, reviving a trade war that could embroil dozens of countries around the world as the Trump administration reworks its tariffs policy, one of its signature diplomatic tools …. The U.S. has announced 25% duties on many imports from Brazil, while unveiling a broader-than-expected list of exemptions, reviving a trade war that could embroil dozens of countries around the world as the Trump administration reworks its tariffs policy, one of its signature diplomatic tools …. The new tariffs, which are expected to take effect on July 22, could eventually ensnare countries from India and China to the EU, Japan and South Korea as President Donald Trump seeks a trade reset after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a previous round of global levies ,,,, India, one of the biggest trading partners of the U.S., has struggled to sign a trade deal with Washington at least partly because of the Section 301 investigations …. The most impactful exemptions include ​beef, coffee, rare earths, energy products, aircraft, and aircraft parts.” “Trump’s New Brazilian Tariffs.” Reuters (7.16.26).

“Trump is poised to unleash fresh tariffs on dozens of countries as soon as this week, even as his advisers warn him against risking the economic shocks of his original trade war in advance of the midterm elections …. Trump on Monday unveiled tariffs of 50 per cent on Canadian goods, having already hit Brazilian imports with a 25 per cent levy, underscoring his continued fixation with using tariffs against trading partners …. Behind the scenes, senior officials have been counselling the president to maintain stability with trading partners and honour the deals that Washington struck with them to reduce their tariffs in 2025, according to two people familiar with the matter ….  Trump’s attempt to renew his trade war comes at a time of escalating hostility between the US and Iran, which has roiled global energy markets and risks broadening into a regional conflict …. The new approach to imposing tariffs underscores the way in which the administration must rely on a patchwork of more procedural laws to apply high duties, rather than being able to hit countries with huge tariffs almost instantly under emergency presidential powers.” “New Trump Tariffs Barrage.” Financial Times (July 22, 2026).

“We are living in a mercantilist era. One in which the concerns of policymakers are as much those of security as of prosperity. This threatens both the stability of the world economy and relations among great powers. China is also better suited to mercantilism than the US and EU. Mercantilists seek power and security or, in other words, the ability to bully others and resist being bullied by them in turn …. China is an effective mercantilist power, though even it cannot avoid the shortcomings of this approach. The US, too, is now mercantilist, though in a far less coherent manner. The EU is also being forced in a similar direction.” “New Mercantilist War.” Financial Times (July 20, 2026).

“The Trump administration is preparing to introduce another barrage of global tariffs as soon as this week, as the president tries to replace tariffs that were declared legally invalid in February. The specific authorities this administration is using have changed, but the trade strategy has not.” ….  Lawmakers are weighing whether to expand or restrict the president’s ability to impose tariffs. While the Constitution gives power over trade to Congress, lawmakers have written numerous laws that allow the president to issue tariffs in certain circumstances. Mr. Wyden introduced a bill on Wednesday that would eliminate or reform various tariff authorities delegated to the president to reassert Congress’ authority over such duties. The bill would mandate Congressional approval for tariffs, establish a committee that would review the president’s tariff actions and make clear that binding trade pacts need approval from Congress.” “Trump Resurrecting Tariffs.” New York Times (July 23, 2026).

“The biggest obstacle to undoing Trump’s tariffs after 2028 won’t be legal. It will be financial. With the national debt clocking in at a staggering $39.6 trillion, the market responsible for selling this debt has quickly grown addicted to the money coming into the government every day thanks to tariffs. …. Trump, still convinced that tariffs are the best economic weapon he has available to fix what he believes is an unfair trading system, never abandoned the strategy.” “Trump’s Tariffs Will Long Outlast Him.” New York Times (July 24, 2026).

“Tariffs are back. The Trump administration put new levies into effect around midnight in Washington. But unlike last time, businesses saw these coming, so don’t expect the same frantic scramble to shore up global trade and supply chains. While these new measures appear more legally defensible, court challenges are still inevitable. More important, let’s be honest about what the tariffs are: the administration’s primary tool for negotiating leverage — even as the levies raise fresh questions about the future of U.S. relationships with trade partners.” “Tariffs are Back.” New York Times (July 24, 2026).

“Washington has hit 60 trading partners with tariffs of at least 10 per cent, as President Donald Trump attempts to reconstruct the tariff wall that the US Supreme Court razed earlier this year. Under the new regime, countries such as the UK, EU, Canada and Mexico face a 10 per cent duty, while others, such as China, India, Brazil and Australia, face duties of 12.5 per cent. For some European countries, such as France and Germany, this move reduces the US effective tariff rates they face. The White House’s rationale for tariffs keeps changing. It imposed Section 232 tariffs on imports such as semiconductors on “national security” grounds. It used “emergency” powers to institute the “liberation day” tariffs unveiled in the Rose Garden last year, which the Supreme Court ruled illegal and terminated. Following that, it imposed tariffs under the Section 122 authority, designed to remedy balance-of-payments problems. The Section 122s expire today, which could explain the latest salvo. The new duties come under Section 301 of the 1974 Trade Act, under the justification that targeted countries have failed to prohibit “forced labor” in their supply chains. Building back the tariff wall using multiple legal levers could prevent a court from causing another blanket collapse of the tariff regime, analysts said. How should we understand Trump’s tariff campaign? It is not simply a return to 1930s protectionism. Instead, it is best described as a project to ensure the US cannot be coerced economically and ‘gets paid’ for superpower services it provides to the world.” “Torrent of New Trump Tariffs.” Financial Times (July 24, 2026).

“Tariffs are an obsession for Trump, much as climate was for the Biden Administration. How else to explain his imposition of yet another round of border taxes three months before the November election despite their political unpopularity and economic harm? The Administration unveiled new tariffs under Section 301 to replace the President’s Section 122 tariffs that were lapsing. These latest duties will affect some 60 economies, hitting nearly all U.S. imports, with rates from 10% to 12.5%, and they come on top of a slew of other border taxes. Wait, didn’t the Supreme Court strike down Mr. Trump’s tariffs in February? Only the emergency tariffs …. Then again, Trump doesn’t seem to care about the damage since tariff costs are dispersed across businesses, consumers and workers. Customs duties have raised $163 billion in the current fiscal year through June, which excludes some $70 billion in emergency-tariff refunds. That’s a big tax increase.” “Trump and Mores Tariffs.” Wall Street Journal (July 25, 2026).

“Small businesses have been playing a prominent role in the Supreme Court challenge. The case’s lead plaintiffs include V.O.S. Selections, a wine importer, and Learning Resources, which manufactures educational toys in China. Many big businesses, in contrast, have been noticeably quiet about the effects of Trump’s tariffs …. The small-business community, in addition to having less fear of retaliation, feels like we don’t have another option.” The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Consumer Technology Association, which both represent major multinational companies, submitted a brief to the Supreme Court last week arguing that the emergency powers law does not confer the sweeping power the president has claimed.” “Small Business Sue Immediately After Latest Tariffs – Same Ones as Last Time.” New York Times (July 25, 2026).

“Effective tariff rates are going to change for the 45th time in the past 18 months — an average of once every 12 days. Rates will ratchet up yet again next month if Trump’s recently announced 50 percent levy on some Canadian goods goes into effect …. Trump’s tariff trickery is not quite an Andrew Jackson moment, with the executive openly flouting the law of the land. Mr. Trump’s patchwork approach to reconstructing his tariffs is in keeping with the text of the Supreme Court’s ruling but not with its spirit …. The Supreme Court clearly declared that taxing power rests with Congress and that any delegation of tariff authority to the president is “subject to strict limits.” Faced with those limits, the administration is betting that it can outrun institutions meant to constrain it. New tariff authorities may continue to face legal challenges. Those will take time to play out. And in the meantime, the administration can try to attach a new rationale to an old law to accomplish much of the same …. This whole game is one of tariff Whack-a-Mole ….There isn’t much to be done in the short run to curb the administration’s tariffs, which flout negotiated trade agreements and the clear constraints on the executive’s power. You have to hope that Congress will eventually push back against this unlawful usurpation of its authority.  “Never-Ending Tariffs, Never Stop Hurting the Economy.” New York Times (.26.26).

“Two U.S. small businesses on Friday challenged President Donald Trump’s latest round of tariffs on goods from 60 trading partners, saying that the new policy, like most of Trump’s previous tariffs, went beyond the president’s authority to tax imports. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. Court of International Trade in New York, argues that the new tariffs require more detailed country-specific findings about unfair trade practices to be legally justified. The two small businesses, backed by a nonprofit legal group that successfully sued over previous rounds of tariffs, argued that the president is trying to re-impose tariffs that were already ruled illegal by the U.S. Supreme Court …. But the small businesses said in their lawsuit that Section 301 tariffs have historically been targeted to address specific nations and industries, and Trump’s broad-brush approach has no historical precedent. Jeffrey Schwab, an attorney at the Liberty Justice Center who represents the small businesses, said that Section 301 does not include any authority “to tax substantially all imports from substantially all countries at preestablished rates.” The lawsuit asks the trade court to declare the tariffs unlawful, prevent their enforcement and preserve importers’ ability to receive refunds for any illegal tariffs.” “Small Businesses Sue Over New Tariffs.” Reuters (July 24, 2026).

“What might constrain the US president this time? For foreign partners, bringing cases to the paralysed World Trade Organization is probably futile. For countries lacking leverage comparable, say, to China’s stranglehold on rare earths, retaliation also looks risky; the measures against Canada seem to signal that the Trump administration is ready to use Section 338 to hit back at any government that tries to retaliate. The US courts could again prove pivotal. But the administration’s new main tariff weapon, Section 301, does provide statutory authority for retaliatory measures against unfair trade practices by foreign countries. ….  Barely three months before the US midterms, with the Iran war again pushing up oil prices, new rounds of tariffs hardly seem a voter-friendly move. “Trump Rebuilds Tariff Walls.” Financial Times (July 28, 2026).

“For eight decades, the U.S. led the world toward open markets and open trade. In barely two years, Trump has transformed it into effectively the most protectionist major advanced economy. The result has not been a manufacturing renaissance. It has been higher prices, weaker investment, fewer manufacturing jobs — and a government increasingly willing to make falsehood official policy in order to defend a failed economic creed.” “Trump Lies About Tariffs.” Washington Post (August 1, 2026).

“A group of US states has accused the Trump administration of mounting a “sham” investigation into the country’s trading partners in the latest lawsuit against the president’s most recent round of tariffs. More than 20 Democratic attorneys-general have challenged  Trump’s recent tariffs over alleged forced labour violations, arguing that the administration used the probe “as a pretext to continue its illegal tariff scheme”. The suit is the latest to challenge duties imposed on more than 60 trading partners and threatens to kick off another protracted legal battle over the US president’s signature economic policy and effort to remake global trade …. Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, which was used to apply the forced labour tariffs, is widely considered to be more legally sound than some other laws used by the Trump administration to impose duties …. A number of other groups have also filed legal challenges against the most recent duties. Lawyers representing Learning Resources, who successfully fought Trump’s earlier emergency tariffs in the Supreme Court, argued in their filing that the Trump administration had launched an “unprecedented, unsupported, and indiscriminate abuse of Section 301 to levy billions of dollars of taxes on Americans, including plaintiffs’ family-owned businesses and their customers” …. Their filing was made on the same day as a separate legal challenge from lawyers for the Liberty Justice Center, who argued that “the government cannot preserve a pre-determined global tariff policy simply by moving from one statute to another”.” “US Sates Also Sue Trump Over New Tariffs.” Financial Times (Aug. 4, 2026).

“The Trump administration has paid out about $100bn in tariff refunds since the US Supreme Court struck down its use of emergency powers to levy duties on its trading partners earlier this year.  The sum, which is 60 per cent of the $165bn collected from the president’s “liberation day” tariffs, was reported by US customs officials to judges at the US Court of International Trade …. The rapid pace at which refunds have been issued is the latest twist in Trump’s tumultuous trade war in which he has deployed tariffs on an unprecedented scale as part of sweeping efforts to reshape America’s relationship with the global economy …. However, US lawmakers complain that the money is often handed back to large companies and rarely makes its way back into the hands of the consumers or small businesses who had the tariff charges passed on to them …. Only the “importer of record” can use its website to register a claim. This excludes small businesses that did not directly import products themselves but in effect paid the tariffs either through higher costs or itemized surcharges …. There are already at least three separate legal challenges to the latest suite of duties, however, including from the lawyers who successfully challenged the “liberation day” tariffs in the Supreme Court.” “$100 Million Tariffs Already Refunded.” Financial Times (8.5.26).

“It’s a funny moment for Trump’s trade war. Gone are the heady days when hastily composed rage-tweets threatening huge tariffs on US allies were splashed across the front pages. Now those threats are made less often and mostly draw resigned shrugs …. But it’s fair to say the trade war has passed into the hands of the professionals. Now reliant on a patchwork of obscure laws, US officials have set up a series of new investigations and probes that could all lead to tariffs.” “Tariffs.” Financial Times (August 10, 2026).

Tariffs are back. A new broad range of tariffs. Picking up where he left off after the Supreme Court killed his earlier tariffs. Trump is back to threatening everyone — with a new torrent of tariffs. Tariffs are an obsession for Trump, no matter what. He is perfecting his trickery and whack-a-mole legalistic strategy. The problem for him — he fails to care about the midterms or anyone else. His tariff rhetoric increases daily. This should be called the “Art of the Threat.” The U.S. is ow one of the most protecti0nist countries in the global trading system.

Trump really doesn’t care about the economics of tariffs. He has a host of totally idiosyncratic reasons. The Trump administration has refunded $160 million of the ‘Liberation Day Tariffs.” He now uses a host of confusing legal rationales for the new tariffs. Small firms have almost immediately sued and attacked these tariffs. State Attorney-Generals have also sued. Other suits have also been filed. Same ones that previously won in the Supreme Court –supported by very conservative organizations. His tariffs (taxes) are in part funding the Iranian War at the expense of the American people. They are not increasing investment in the U.S. at all, as Trump argues.

Incredibly, the proposed new sanction legislation in the Senate would cede even more tariff authority to the President. A broad range of lobbyists are fighting this.

By the way, Mr. President, threats and insults never work in international or personal affairs. Maybe in the short term, but never in the long term — as soon as events change, so do the compliance of the threatened. Also tariffs as well as bombing campaigns never achieve desired results.

………………………………………………………..

“Trump is preparing to reshape the legal justification for his tariff regime this week and push negotiations with North American trading partners into high gear, setting off a new phase of trade uncertainty for businesses after months of relative calm …. The calm is ending …. Expect new tariff action soon, previewing replacement tariffs for the ones that expire Friday. And a day earlier, Trump said he would impose additional 50% tariffs on certain goods from Canada, a move that pressures America’s northern neighbor to renegotiate the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement. The Canada tariffs were separate from the sweeping global levies Trump is trying to rebuild after the Supreme Court ruling …. Trump can keep Section 301 levies in place indefinitely. But before that can happen, USTR must issue its final report in the tariff investigation, taking into account more than 1,500 comments from U.S. companies, many of which pleaded for exemptions from the coming levies …. Trump proposed the new Canada tariffs under a never-before-used portion of U.S. trade law—Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930, which covers alleged discrimination on U.S. goods. That provision could give him more flexibility to impose tariffs on a whim, rather than the months of investigations required by Section 301. “Trump’s New Tack on Tariffs,” Wall Street Journal (7.22.26).

“The sanctions legislation that moved forward in the Senate this week goes beyond enacting new financial restrictions on Russia and Iran. It also gives President Trump broad new powers to impose tariffs on imports from some of the world’s largest economies …. The bill represents the latest move by Congress to cede more of its authority over trade policy to Trump. It also comes amid bipartisan anger over the president’s provocative use of tariffs …. The lobbying groups include the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Retail Industry Leaders Association and the National Foreign Trade Council asked lawmakers to remove the tariff authority in the bill and warned that tariffs were “a blunt tool that can penalize law-abiding U.S. companies.” “Sanctions Bill Would Give Trump Major New Tariff Powers.” New York Times (7.30.26).

“The U.S. has announced 25% duties on many imports from Brazil, while unveiling a broader-than-expected list of exemptions, reviving a trade war that could embroil dozens of countries around the world as the Trump administration reworks its tariffs policy, one of its signature diplomatic tools …. The U.S. has announced 25% duties on many imports from Brazil, while unveiling a broader-than-expected list of exemptions, reviving a trade war that could embroil dozens of countries around the world as the Trump administration reworks its tariffs policy, one of its signature diplomatic tools …. The new tariffs, which are expected to take effect on July 22, could eventually ensnare countries from India and China to the EU, Japan and South Korea as President Donald Trump seeks a trade reset after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a previous round of global levies ,,,, India, one of the biggest trading partners of the U.S., has struggled to sign a trade deal with Washington at least partly because of the Section 301 investigations …. The most impactful exemptions include ​beef, coffee, rare earths, energy products, aircraft, and aircraft parts.” “Trump’s New Brazilian Tariffs.” Reuters (7.16.26).

“Trump is poised to unleash fresh tariffs on dozens of countries as soon as this week, even as his advisers warn him against risking the economic shocks of his original trade war in advance of the midterm elections …. Trump on Monday unveiled tariffs of 50 per cent on Canadian goods, having already hit Brazilian imports with a 25 per cent levy, underscoring his continued fixation with using tariffs against trading partners …. Behind the scenes, senior officials have been counselling the president to maintain stability with trading partners and honour the deals that Washington struck with them to reduce their tariffs in 2025, according to two people familiar with the matter ….  Trump’s attempt to renew his trade war comes at a time of escalating hostility between the US and Iran, which has roiled global energy markets and risks broadening into a regional conflict …. The new approach to imposing tariffs underscores the way in which the administration must rely on a patchwork of more procedural laws to apply high duties, rather than being able to hit countries with huge tariffs almost instantly under emergency presidential powers.” “New Trump Tariffs Barrage.” Financial Times (July 22, 2026).

“We are living in a mercantilist era. One in which the concerns of policymakers are as much those of security as of prosperity. This threatens both the stability of the world economy and relations among great powers. China is also better suited to mercantilism than the US and EU. Mercantilists seek power and security or, in other words, the ability to bully others and resist being bullied by them in turn …. China is an effective mercantilist power, though even it cannot avoid the shortcomings of this approach. The US, too, is now mercantilist, though in a far less coherent manner. The EU is also being forced in a similar direction.” “New Mercantilist War.” Financial Times (July 20, 2026).

“The Trump administration is preparing to introduce another barrage of global tariffs as soon as this week, as the president tries to replace tariffs that were declared legally invalid in February. The specific authorities this administration is using have changed, but the trade strategy has not.” ….  Lawmakers are weighing whether to expand or restrict the president’s ability to impose tariffs. While the Constitution gives power over trade to Congress, lawmakers have written numerous laws that allow the president to issue tariffs in certain circumstances. Mr. Wyden introduced a bill on Wednesday that would eliminate or reform various tariff authorities delegated to the president to reassert Congress’ authority over such duties. The bill would mandate Congressional approval for tariffs, establish a committee that would review the president’s tariff actions and make clear that binding trade pacts need approval from Congress.” “Trump Resurrecting Tariffs.” New York Times (July 23, 2026).

“The biggest obstacle to undoing Trump’s tariffs after 2028 won’t be legal. It will be financial. With the national debt clocking in at a staggering $39.6 trillion, the market responsible for selling this debt has quickly grown addicted to the money coming into the government every day thanks to tariffs. …. Trump, still convinced that tariffs are the best economic weapon he has available to fix what he believes is an unfair trading system, never abandoned the strategy.” “Trump’s Tariffs Will Long Outlast Him.” New York Times (July 24, 2026).

“Tariffs are back. The Trump administration put new levies into effect around midnight in Washington. But unlike last time, businesses saw these coming, so don’t expect the same frantic scramble to shore up global trade and supply chains. While these new measures appear more legally defensible, court challenges are still inevitable. More important, let’s be honest about what the tariffs are: the administration’s primary tool for negotiating leverage — even as the levies raise fresh questions about the future of U.S. relationships with trade partners.” “Tariffs are Back.” New York Times (July 24, 2026).

“Washington has hit 60 trading partners with tariffs of at least 10 per cent, as President Donald Trump attempts to reconstruct the tariff wall that the US Supreme Court razed earlier this year. Under the new regime, countries such as the UK, EU, Canada and Mexico face a 10 per cent duty, while others, such as China, India, Brazil and Australia, face duties of 12.5 per cent. For some European countries, such as France and Germany, this move reduces the US effective tariff rates they face. The White House’s rationale for tariffs keeps changing. It imposed Section 232 tariffs on imports such as semiconductors on “national security” grounds. It used “emergency” powers to institute the “liberation day” tariffs unveiled in the Rose Garden last year, which the Supreme Court ruled illegal and terminated. Following that, it imposed tariffs under the Section 122 authority, designed to remedy balance-of-payments problems. The Section 122s expire today, which could explain the latest salvo. The new duties come under Section 301 of the 1974 Trade Act, under the justification that targeted countries have failed to prohibit “forced labor” in their supply chains. Building back the tariff wall using multiple legal levers could prevent a court from causing another blanket collapse of the tariff regime, analysts said. How should we understand Trump’s tariff campaign? It is not simply a return to 1930s protectionism. Instead, it is best described as a project to ensure the US cannot be coerced economically and ‘gets paid’ for superpower services it provides to the world.” “Torrent of New Trump Tariffs.” Financial Times (July 24, 2026).

“Tariffs are an obsession for Trump, much as climate was for the Biden Administration. How else to explain his imposition of yet another round of border taxes three months before the November election despite their political unpopularity and economic harm? The Administration unveiled new tariffs under Section 301 to replace the President’s Section 122 tariffs that were lapsing. These latest duties will affect some 60 economies, hitting nearly all U.S. imports, with rates from 10% to 12.5%, and they come on top of a slew of other border taxes. Wait, didn’t the Supreme Court strike down Mr. Trump’s tariffs in February? Only the emergency tariffs …. Then again, Trump doesn’t seem to care about the damage since tariff costs are dispersed across businesses, consumers and workers. Customs duties have raised $163 billion in the current fiscal year through June, which excludes some $70 billion in emergency-tariff refunds. That’s a big tax increase.” “Trump and Mores Tariffs.” Wall Street Journal (July 25, 2026).

“Small businesses have been playing a prominent role in the Supreme Court challenge. The case’s lead plaintiffs include V.O.S. Selections, a wine importer, and Learning Resources, which manufactures educational toys in China. Many big businesses, in contrast, have been noticeably quiet about the effects of Trump’s tariffs …. The small-business community, in addition to having less fear of retaliation, feels like we don’t have another option.” The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Consumer Technology Association, which both represent major multinational companies, submitted a brief to the Supreme Court last week arguing that the emergency powers law does not confer the sweeping power the president has claimed.” “Small Business Sue Immediately After Latest Tariffs – Same Ones as Last Time.” New York Times (July 25, 2026).

“Effective tariff rates are going to change for the 45th time in the past 18 months — an average of once every 12 days. Rates will ratchet up yet again next month if Trump’s recently announced 50 percent levy on some Canadian goods goes into effect …. Trump’s tariff trickery is not quite an Andrew Jackson moment, with the executive openly flouting the law of the land. Mr. Trump’s patchwork approach to reconstructing his tariffs is in keeping with the text of the Supreme Court’s ruling but not with its spirit …. The Supreme Court clearly declared that taxing power rests with Congress and that any delegation of tariff authority to the president is “subject to strict limits.” Faced with those limits, the administration is betting that it can outrun institutions meant to constrain it. New tariff authorities may continue to face legal challenges. Those will take time to play out. And in the meantime, the administration can try to attach a new rationale to an old law to accomplish much of the same …. This whole game is one of tariff Whack-a-Mole ….There isn’t much to be done in the short run to curb the administration’s tariffs, which flout negotiated trade agreements and the clear constraints on the executive’s power. You have to hope that Congress will eventually push back against this unlawful usurpation of its authority.  “Never-Ending Tariffs, Never Stop Hurting the Economy.” New York Times (.26.26).

“Two U.S. small businesses on Friday challenged President Donald Trump’s latest round of tariffs on goods from 60 trading partners, saying that the new policy, like most of Trump’s previous tariffs, went beyond the president’s authority to tax imports. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. Court of International Trade in New York, argues that the new tariffs require more detailed country-specific findings about unfair trade practices to be legally justified. The two small businesses, backed by a nonprofit legal group that successfully sued over previous rounds of tariffs, argued that the president is trying to re-impose tariffs that were already ruled illegal by the U.S. Supreme Court …. But the small businesses said in their lawsuit that Section 301 tariffs have historically been targeted to address specific nations and industries, and Trump’s broad-brush approach has no historical precedent. Jeffrey Schwab, an attorney at the Liberty Justice Center who represents the small businesses, said that Section 301 does not include any authority “to tax substantially all imports from substantially all countries at preestablished rates.” The lawsuit asks the trade court to declare the tariffs unlawful, prevent their enforcement and preserve importers’ ability to receive refunds for any illegal tariffs.” “Small Businesses Sue Over New Tariffs.” Reuters (July 24, 2026).

“What might constrain the US president this time? For foreign partners, bringing cases to the paralysed World Trade Organization is probably futile. For countries lacking leverage comparable, say, to China’s stranglehold on rare earths, retaliation also looks risky; the measures against Canada seem to signal that the Trump administration is ready to use Section 338 to hit back at any government that tries to retaliate. The US courts could again prove pivotal. But the administration’s new main tariff weapon, Section 301, does provide statutory authority for retaliatory measures against unfair trade practices by foreign countries. ….  Barely three months before the US midterms, with the Iran war again pushing up oil prices, new rounds of tariffs hardly seem a voter-friendly move. “Trump Rebuilds Tariff Walls.” Financial Times (July 28, 2026).

“For eight decades, the U.S. led the world toward open markets and open trade. In barely two years, Trump has transformed it into effectively the most protectionist major advanced economy. The result has not been a manufacturing renaissance. It has been higher prices, weaker investment, fewer manufacturing jobs — and a government increasingly willing to make falsehood official policy in order to defend a failed economic creed.” “Trump Lies About Tariffs.” Washington Post (August 1, 2026).

“A group of US states has accused the Trump administration of mounting a “sham” investigation into the country’s trading partners in the latest lawsuit against the president’s most recent round of tariffs. More than 20 Democratic attorneys-general have challenged  Trump’s recent tariffs over alleged forced labour violations, arguing that the administration used the probe “as a pretext to continue its illegal tariff scheme”. The suit is the latest to challenge duties imposed on more than 60 trading partners and threatens to kick off another protracted legal battle over the US president’s signature economic policy and effort to remake global trade …. Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, which was used to apply the forced labour tariffs, is widely considered to be more legally sound than some other laws used by the Trump administration to impose duties …. A number of other groups have also filed legal challenges against the most recent duties. Lawyers representing Learning Resources, who successfully fought Trump’s earlier emergency tariffs in the Supreme Court, argued in their filing that the Trump administration had launched an “unprecedented, unsupported, and indiscriminate abuse of Section 301 to levy billions of dollars of taxes on Americans, including plaintiffs’ family-owned businesses and their customers” …. Their filing was made on the same day as a separate legal challenge from lawyers for the Liberty Justice Center, who argued that “the government cannot preserve a pre-determined global tariff policy simply by moving from one statute to another”.” “US Sates Also Sue Trump Over New Tariffs.” Financial Times (Aug. 4, 2026).

“The Trump administration has paid out about $100bn in tariff refunds since the US Supreme Court struck down its use of emergency powers to levy duties on its trading partners earlier this year.  The sum, which is 60 per cent of the $165bn collected from the president’s “liberation day” tariffs, was reported by US customs officials to judges at the US Court of International Trade …. The rapid pace at which refunds have been issued is the latest twist in Trump’s tumultuous trade war in which he has deployed tariffs on an unprecedented scale as part of sweeping efforts to reshape America’s relationship with the global economy …. However, US lawmakers complain that the money is often handed back to large companies and rarely makes its way back into the hands of the consumers or small businesses who had the tariff charges passed on to them …. Only the “importer of record” can use its website to register a claim. This excludes small businesses that did not directly import products themselves but in effect paid the tariffs either through higher costs or itemized surcharges …. There are already at least three separate legal challenges to the latest suite of duties, however, including from the lawyers who successfully challenged the “liberation day” tariffs in the Supreme Court.” “$100 Million Tariffs Already Refunded.” Financial Times (8.5.26).

Tariffs are back. A new broad range of tariffs. Picking up where he left off after the Supreme Court killed his earlier tariffs. Trump is back to threatening everyone — with a new torrent of tariffs. Tariffs are an obsession for Trump, no matter what. He is perfecting his trickery and whack-a-mole legalistic strategy. The problem for him — he fails to care about the midterms or anyone else. His tariff rhetoric increases daily. This should be called the “Art of the Threat.”

Trump really doesn’t care about the economics of tariffs. He has a host of totally idiosyncratic reasons. He now uses a host of confusing legal rationales for the new tariffs. Small firms have almost immediately sued and attacked these tariffs. Same ones that previously won in the Supreme Court –supported by very conservative organizations. His tariffs (taxes) are in part funding the Iranian War at the expense of the American people. They are not increasing investment in the U.S. at all, as Trump argues.

Incredibly, the proposed new sanction legislation in the Senate would cede even more tariff authority to the President. A broad range of lobbyists are fighting this.

By the way, Mr. President, threats and insults never work in international or personal affairs. Maybe in the short term, but never in the long term — as soon as events change, so do the compliance of the threatened. Also tariffs as well as bombing campaigns never achieve desired results.

………………………………………………………..

“Trump is preparing to reshape the legal justification for his tariff regime this week and push negotiations with North American trading partners into high gear, setting off a new phase of trade uncertainty for businesses after months of relative calm …. The calm is ending …. Expect new tariff action soon, previewing replacement tariffs for the ones that expire Friday. And a day earlier, Trump said he would impose additional 50% tariffs on certain goods from Canada, a move that pressures America’s northern neighbor to renegotiate the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement. The Canada tariffs were separate from the sweeping global levies Trump is trying to rebuild after the Supreme Court ruling …. Trump can keep Section 301 levies in place indefinitely. But before that can happen, USTR must issue its final report in the tariff investigation, taking into account more than 1,500 comments from U.S. companies, many of which pleaded for exemptions from the coming levies …. Trump proposed the new Canada tariffs under a never-before-used portion of U.S. trade law—Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930, which covers alleged discrimination on U.S. goods. That provision could give him more flexibility to impose tariffs on a whim, rather than the months of investigations required by Section 301. “Trump’s New Tack on Tariffs,” Wall Street Journal (7.22.26).

“The sanctions legislation that moved forward in the Senate this week goes beyond enacting new financial restrictions on Russia and Iran. It also gives President Trump broad new powers to impose tariffs on imports from some of the world’s largest economies …. The bill represents the latest move by Congress to cede more of its authority over trade policy to Trump. It also comes amid bipartisan anger over the president’s provocative use of tariffs …. The lobbying groups include the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Retail Industry Leaders Association and the National Foreign Trade Council asked lawmakers to remove the tariff authority in the bill and warned that tariffs were “a blunt tool that can penalize law-abiding U.S. companies.” “Sanctions Bill Would Give Trump Major New Tariff Powers.” New York Times (7.30.26).

“The U.S. has announced 25% duties on many imports from Brazil, while unveiling a broader-than-expected list of exemptions, reviving a trade war that could embroil dozens of countries around the world as the Trump administration reworks its tariffs policy, one of its signature diplomatic tools …. The U.S. has announced 25% duties on many imports from Brazil, while unveiling a broader-than-expected list of exemptions, reviving a trade war that could embroil dozens of countries around the world as the Trump administration reworks its tariffs policy, one of its signature diplomatic tools …. The new tariffs, which are expected to take effect on July 22, could eventually ensnare countries from India and China to the EU, Japan and South Korea as President Donald Trump seeks a trade reset after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a previous round of global levies ,,,, India, one of the biggest trading partners of the U.S., has struggled to sign a trade deal with Washington at least partly because of the Section 301 investigations …. The most impactful exemptions include ​beef, coffee, rare earths, energy products, aircraft, and aircraft parts.” “Trump’s New Brazilian Tariffs.” Reuters (7.16.26).

“Trump is poised to unleash fresh tariffs on dozens of countries as soon as this week, even as his advisers warn him against risking the economic shocks of his original trade war in advance of the midterm elections …. Trump on Monday unveiled tariffs of 50 per cent on Canadian goods, having already hit Brazilian imports with a 25 per cent levy, underscoring his continued fixation with using tariffs against trading partners …. Behind the scenes, senior officials have been counselling the president to maintain stability with trading partners and honour the deals that Washington struck with them to reduce their tariffs in 2025, according to two people familiar with the matter ….  Trump’s attempt to renew his trade war comes at a time of escalating hostility between the US and Iran, which has roiled global energy markets and risks broadening into a regional conflict …. The new approach to imposing tariffs underscores the way in which the administration must rely on a patchwork of more procedural laws to apply high duties, rather than being able to hit countries with huge tariffs almost instantly under emergency presidential powers.” “New Trump Tariffs Barrage.” Financial Times (July 22, 2026).

“We are living in a mercantilist era. One in which the concerns of policymakers are as much those of security as of prosperity. This threatens both the stability of the world economy and relations among great powers. China is also better suited to mercantilism than the US and EU. Mercantilists seek power and security or, in other words, the ability to bully others and resist being bullied by them in turn …. China is an effective mercantilist power, though even it cannot avoid the shortcomings of this approach. The US, too, is now mercantilist, though in a far less coherent manner. The EU is also being forced in a similar direction.” “New Mercantilist War.” Financial Times (July 20, 2026).

“The Trump administration is preparing to introduce another barrage of global tariffs as soon as this week, as the president tries to replace tariffs that were declared legally invalid in February. The specific authorities this administration is using have changed, but the trade strategy has not.” ….  Lawmakers are weighing whether to expand or restrict the president’s ability to impose tariffs. While the Constitution gives power over trade to Congress, lawmakers have written numerous laws that allow the president to issue tariffs in certain circumstances. Mr. Wyden introduced a bill on Wednesday that would eliminate or reform various tariff authorities delegated to the president to reassert Congress’ authority over such duties. The bill would mandate Congressional approval for tariffs, establish a committee that would review the president’s tariff actions and make clear that binding trade pacts need approval from Congress.” “Trump Resurrecting Tariffs.” New York Times (July 23, 2026).

“The biggest obstacle to undoing Trump’s tariffs after 2028 won’t be legal. It will be financial. With the national debt clocking in at a staggering $39.6 trillion, the market responsible for selling this debt has quickly grown addicted to the money coming into the government every day thanks to tariffs. …. Trump, still convinced that tariffs are the best economic weapon he has available to fix what he believes is an unfair trading system, never abandoned the strategy.” “Trump’s Tariffs Will Long Outlast Him.” New York Times (July 24, 2026).

“Tariffs are back. The Trump administration put new levies into effect around midnight in Washington. But unlike last time, businesses saw these coming, so don’t expect the same frantic scramble to shore up global trade and supply chains. While these new measures appear more legally defensible, court challenges are still inevitable. More important, let’s be honest about what the tariffs are: the administration’s primary tool for negotiating leverage — even as the levies raise fresh questions about the future of U.S. relationships with trade partners.” “Tariffs are Back.” New York Times (July 24, 2026).

“Washington has hit 60 trading partners with tariffs of at least 10 per cent, as President Donald Trump attempts to reconstruct the tariff wall that the US Supreme Court razed earlier this year. Under the new regime, countries such as the UK, EU, Canada and Mexico face a 10 per cent duty, while others, such as China, India, Brazil and Australia, face duties of 12.5 per cent. For some European countries, such as France and Germany, this move reduces the US effective tariff rates they face. The White House’s rationale for tariffs keeps changing. It imposed Section 232 tariffs on imports such as semiconductors on “national security” grounds. It used “emergency” powers to institute the “liberation day” tariffs unveiled in the Rose Garden last year, which the Supreme Court ruled illegal and terminated. Following that, it imposed tariffs under the Section 122 authority, designed to remedy balance-of-payments problems. The Section 122s expire today, which could explain the latest salvo. The new duties come under Section 301 of the 1974 Trade Act, under the justification that targeted countries have failed to prohibit “forced labor” in their supply chains. Building back the tariff wall using multiple legal levers could prevent a court from causing another blanket collapse of the tariff regime, analysts said. How should we understand Trump’s tariff campaign? It is not simply a return to 1930s protectionism. Instead, it is best described as a project to ensure the US cannot be coerced economically and ‘gets paid’ for superpower services it provides to the world.” “Torrent of New Trump Tariffs.” Financial Times (July 24, 2026).

“Tariffs are an obsession for Trump, much as climate was for the Biden Administration. How else to explain his imposition of yet another round of border taxes three months before the November election despite their political unpopularity and economic harm? The Administration unveiled new tariffs under Section 301 to replace the President’s Section 122 tariffs that were lapsing. These latest duties will affect some 60 economies, hitting nearly all U.S. imports, with rates from 10% to 12.5%, and they come on top of a slew of other border taxes. Wait, didn’t the Supreme Court strike down Mr. Trump’s tariffs in February? Only the emergency tariffs …. Then again, Trump doesn’t seem to care about the damage since tariff costs are dispersed across businesses, consumers and workers. Customs duties have raised $163 billion in the current fiscal year through June, which excludes some $70 billion in emergency-tariff refunds. That’s a big tax increase.” “Trump and Mores Tariffs.” Wall Street Journal (July 25, 2026).

“Small businesses have been playing a prominent role in the Supreme Court challenge. The case’s lead plaintiffs include V.O.S. Selections, a wine importer, and Learning Resources, which manufactures educational toys in China. Many big businesses, in contrast, have been noticeably quiet about the effects of Trump’s tariffs …. The small-business community, in addition to having less fear of retaliation, feels like we don’t have another option.” The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Consumer Technology Association, which both represent major multinational companies, submitted a brief to the Supreme Court last week arguing that the emergency powers law does not confer the sweeping power the president has claimed.” “Small Business Sue Immediately After Latest Tariffs – Same Ones as Last Time.” New York Times (July 25, 2026).

“Effective tariff rates are going to change for the 45th time in the past 18 months — an average of once every 12 days. Rates will ratchet up yet again next month if Trump’s recently announced 50 percent levy on some Canadian goods goes into effect …. Trump’s tariff trickery is not quite an Andrew Jackson moment, with the executive openly flouting the law of the land. Mr. Trump’s patchwork approach to reconstructing his tariffs is in keeping with the text of the Supreme Court’s ruling but not with its spirit …. The Supreme Court clearly declared that taxing power rests with Congress and that any delegation of tariff authority to the president is “subject to strict limits.” Faced with those limits, the administration is betting that it can outrun institutions meant to constrain it. New tariff authorities may continue to face legal challenges. Those will take time to play out. And in the meantime, the administration can try to attach a new rationale to an old law to accomplish much of the same …. This whole game is one of tariff Whack-a-Mole ….There isn’t much to be done in the short run to curb the administration’s tariffs, which flout negotiated trade agreements and the clear constraints on the executive’s power. You have to hope that Congress will eventually push back against this unlawful usurpation of its authority.  “Never-Ending Tariffs, Never Stop Hurting the Economy.” New York Times (.26.26).

“Two U.S. small businesses on Friday challenged President Donald Trump’s latest round of tariffs on goods from 60 trading partners, saying that the new policy, like most of Trump’s previous tariffs, went beyond the president’s authority to tax imports. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. Court of International Trade in New York, argues that the new tariffs require more detailed country-specific findings about unfair trade practices to be legally justified. The two small businesses, backed by a nonprofit legal group that successfully sued over previous rounds of tariffs, argued that the president is trying to re-impose tariffs that were already ruled illegal by the U.S. Supreme Court …. But the small businesses said in their lawsuit that Section 301 tariffs have historically been targeted to address specific nations and industries, and Trump’s broad-brush approach has no historical precedent. Jeffrey Schwab, an attorney at the Liberty Justice Center who represents the small businesses, said that Section 301 does not include any authority “to tax substantially all imports from substantially all countries at preestablished rates.” The lawsuit asks the trade court to declare the tariffs unlawful, prevent their enforcement and preserve importers’ ability to receive refunds for any illegal tariffs.” “Small Businesses Sue Over New Tariffs.” Reuters (July 24, 2026).

“What might constrain the US president this time? For foreign partners, bringing cases to the paralysed World Trade Organization is probably futile. For countries lacking leverage comparable, say, to China’s stranglehold on rare earths, retaliation also looks risky; the measures against Canada seem to signal that the Trump administration is ready to use Section 338 to hit back at any government that tries to retaliate. The US courts could again prove pivotal. But the administration’s new main tariff weapon, Section 301, does provide statutory authority for retaliatory measures against unfair trade practices by foreign countries. ….  Barely three months before the US midterms, with the Iran war again pushing up oil prices, new rounds of tariffs hardly seem a voter-friendly move. “Trump Rebuilds Tariff Walls.” Financial Times (July 28, 2026).

“Trump is preparing to reshape the legal justification for his tariff regime this week and push negotiations with North American trading partners into high gear, setting off a new phase of trade uncertainty for businesses after months of relative calm …. The calm is ending …. Expect new tariff action soon, previewing replacement tariffs for the ones that expire Friday. And a day earlier, Trump said he would impose additional 50% tariffs on certain goods from Canada, a move that pressures America’s northern neighbor to renegotiate the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement. The Canada tariffs were separate from the sweeping global levies Trump is trying to rebuild after the Supreme Court ruling …. Trump can keep Section 301 levies in place indefinitely. But before that can happen, USTR must issue its final report in the tariff investigation, taking into account more than 1,500 comments from U.S. companies, many of which pleaded for exemptions from the coming levies …. Trump proposed the new Canada tariffs under a never-before-used portion of U.S. trade law—Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930, which covers alleged discrimination on U.S. goods. That provision could give him more flexibility to impose tariffs on a whim, rather than the months of investigations required by Section 301. “Trump’s New Tack on Tariffs,” Wall Street Journal (7.22.26).

“The U.S. has announced 25% duties on many imports from Brazil, while unveiling a broader-than-expected list of exemptions, reviving a trade war that could embroil dozens of countries around the world as the Trump administration reworks its tariffs policy, one of its signature diplomatic tools …. The U.S. has announced 25% duties on many imports from Brazil, while unveiling a broader-than-expected list of exemptions, reviving a trade war that could embroil dozens of countries around the world as the Trump administration reworks its tariffs policy, one of its signature diplomatic tools …. The new tariffs, which are expected to take effect on July 22, could eventually ensnare countries from India and China to the EU, Japan and South Korea as President Donald Trump seeks a trade reset after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a previous round of global levies ,,,, India, one of the biggest trading partners of the U.S., has struggled to sign a trade deal with Washington at least partly because of the Section 301 investigations …. The most impactful exemptions include ​beef, coffee, rare earths, energy products, aircraft, and aircraft parts.” “Trump’s New Brazilian Tariffs.” Reuters (7.16.26).

Two outstanding pieces appeared today in the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal — both assessing critically Trump’s tariff policies and focus on geopolitics and national security in economic relations. Namely that his tariff policies have been a total failure and blindly promoting national security concerns over economic efficiency is questionable (if not wrong).

“During his first term, Mr. Trump weaponized tariffs in response to concerns that a trading system lacking reciprocity — with China, in particular — left the United States at a disadvantage. In his second term, his list of targets has expanded enormously …. Corporations will accelerate the overhaul of their operations in a world where artificial intelligence is already driving change. The game theory of global commerce will force many companies to continue to replace just-in-time production strategies with just-in-case ones. Backup supply chains will be more prevalent; so will reshoring factories to be nearer to their major consumers. Expect also the proliferation of chief geopolitical officers or chief geoeconomic officers as boardrooms integrate rigorous national security and industrial policy issues into their corporate strategies …. The transition from an era driven by economic efficiency to one defined by geoeconomics and economic statecraft is no longer theoretical. It is the new operating system for the global economy and its markets. Those who fail to change risk being caught off guard by sudden policy shifts, punitive tariffs and systemic fragmentation.” “Geopolitics now, not Economic Efficiency.” New York Times (7.11.26).

“This is a deflection from the dismal reality that his border taxes are raising costs and have failed to usher in a manufacturing renaissance …. But the President is right that his tariffs are at work—in destroying U.S. jobs and raising prices. The U.S. has lost some 75,000 manufacturing jobs since January 2025, including 25,900 in motor vehicle and parts production. Manufacturing jobs have been declining since early 2023, so not all of these job losses stem from Mr. Trump’s border taxes …. Trump’s Section 232 national security tariffs on autos and parts have cost $35.2 billion through April of this year, and his steel and aluminum tariffs another $17.5 billion, according to U.S. government data. Mr. Trump and his advisers claim that foreigners pay his border taxes, but the evidence shows that U.S. companies, workers and consumers are picking up most of the tab…. The uncertainty hanging over the extension of the U.S.-Mexico-Canada trade agreement is delaying some investments since businesses don’t know what the trade rules or tariffs will be in a few years—or even tomorrow with Trump. His trade oscillations and border taxes are a major reason the economy hasn’t performed as well as during his first term, and why Americans are so unhappy.” “How Trump’s Tariffs Really Work.” Wall Street Journal (7.11.26).

What is happening to U.S. observing international law and being the world leader in promoting international Law?

Just this week the Supreme Court rejected some very-long standing judicial rules implementing international law in the United States (Alien ort Statute, Tortue Victims Protection Act, Foreign Immunities Act). Also the International Criminal Court has filed suit against Trump in federal court in New York.

I’m not even talking about the launching a war against Iran and pursuing it in very questionable means. This has been subsequent to blowing up boats on the high seas and capturing foreign leaders and killing some. Raises many questions of international and U.S. law.

The good news is that the federal courts (and even the Supreme Court, occasionally) have provided a bulwark against some of Trump’s worst instincts and policies. A lot more to be said.

…………………………………………………………………….

The International Criminal Court and the Trump administration have entered a new chapter after three ICC judges filed a lawsuit against the U.S. president, arguing that sanctions imposed on them crossed legal boundaries and have severely disrupted their personal and professional lives. Filed in federal court in Manhattan the lawsuit challenges sanctions introduced by the Trump administration last year against several ICC officials, marking an unprecedented attempt by sitting judges at the Hague-based court to fight back through the U.S. legal system.” “International Court Justices (ICC) Sue Trump in Federal Court.” MS Now (June 25, 2026).

“The Supreme Court ruled in Exxon Mobil v. Corporación Cimex that a lawsuit by Exxon Mobil against Cuban state-owned companies for the confiscation of assets owned by subsidiaries of the oil giant’s predecessor can go forward. Writing for the majority, Justice Brett Kavanaugh explained that the Helms-Burton Act, a federal law passed in 1996, cancels the immunity that the Cuban government and its companies would normally have, so that plaintiffs seeking to rely on that statute to sue them are not required to satisfy an exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, a federal law that generally prohibits lawsuits in U.S. courts against foreign governments and their “agencies and instrumentalities.” “Stacking an FSIA requirement on top of the Helms-Burton Act would thwart Congress’s design and directly contravene the President’s foreign policy judgments,” Kavanaugh wrote.” “No Sovereign Immunity for Cuba under Helms-Burton Act.” Scotus Blog  (June 23, 2026).

“The Supreme Court made it far more difficult for foreigners to bring lawsuits in U.S. courts alleging serious violations of international law. In an opinion by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the justices ruled that a 1789 law, the Alien Tort Statute, on which plaintiffs have relied to bring such cases, only allows lawsuits based on the very small group of claims that Congress likely had in mind when it passed the law. The court also ruled that the Torture Victim Protection Act, a 1991 law that allows suits against individuals who subject others to torture while acting on behalf of a foreign government, does not allow lawsuits for aiding and abetting torture.” “S. Ct. Limits 1789 Alien Tort Statute and 1991 Torture Victims Protecti0on Act.” Scotus Blog (June 23, 2026).

“The US judiciary has traditionally shown forbearance to any executive action with the words “national security” before it. The same cannot be said of the home front. Although Trump has assaulted one guardrail after another — and destroyed longstanding norms — the US courts have thrown plenty of grit into his wheels. In addition to upholding the 2020 presidential election through more than 60 rulings, including by Trump-appointed judges, courts have since January 2025 blocked or tried to block hundreds of White House executive orders …. Trump has also made little progress in his judicial retribution campaign …. Public opinion is the ultimate bulwark against a rogue US presidency ….  Department of Justice officials have routinely ignored court orders, or continued to pursue an action on quickly altered legal grounds …. Another check on Trump could occur in November, if Republicans lose control of Capitol Hill in midterm elections. A Democratic-controlled Congress would bury Trump in subpoenas and probably put further grit in his wheels. For the time being, the system is just about holding.” “Trump and Court System – It’s Holding.” Financial Times (June 26, 2026).

— Graduate International Transactions Program —

(Reunion of Initial Graduates After 35 Years.)

Recent reunion of initial graduates (early 1990’s) of the George Mason’s MAIT Program (Masters of International Transactions). Happy and successful group.

As the Founder and Former Director of the program, I am really proud of them. The program quickly became the largest graduate program at GMU.

Glad to reunite after 35 years. Many met their spouses in the program and all remain friends and colleagues today (even their children).

Many have had outstanding professional careers in the federal government, international organizations and have established very successful professional and commercial enterprises. Great tribute to George Mason University and the Commonwealth of Virginia of Virginia.

MAIT.Brochure_1_1995_.pdf

RTD.MAIT_Program_1992_..jpg (2197×1074)

MAIT.Brochure_1_1995_.pdf

This is the early brochure from the graduate international transactions program founded at George Mason University in 1991. Just had a reunion of many early students from the early 1990’s. Really outstanding.