U.S. LAW & GLOBAL TRADE RELATIONS.

Farmers are rebelling against the Trump tariffs and the Republicans throughout the farm belt. This is bad for Republicans in the run up to the midterms. This is alongside the general populist hostility toward globalization that has emerged over the last decade or so. New litigation has been filed contesting, once again, Trump’s tariffs. (This time contesting the newer Canadian tariffs under Section 338 of the 1930 Tariff Act.) Historically, farmers have always been against tariffs, because besides everything else, they have often resulted in counter-trade measures –blocking agricultural exports. But this time it’s a bit different. The Trump tariffs (and foreign military operations — Iran) have caused a great increase inflation — in the cost of agricultural production — from diesel fuel to cost of fertilizer and machinery. Trump’s promise of yet another farm bailout ($8 billion) is merely another crass maneuver. Yet the farm belt is probably the heaviest subsidized sector in the U.S. economy — ever since the New Deal. It needs international markets and global trade — not taxpayer money, barely hiding presidential bribes. It’s tariffs, more than Iran, that is being blamed for the politically toxic issue of consumer affordability.

“Economic anxieties are testing the loyalty of rural voters to the Republican Party, expanding the electoral battlefield into some of the most traditionally conservative districts across the nation and raising Democratic hopes. For a decade, farmers and ranchers have been a core part of Trump’s coalition, voting for him by double-digit margins in all three of his presidential races. But as the impact of his tariffs and the war in Iran fuel discontent in agricultural communities across the country, the bond between the president and rural voters is beginning to fray. The anger is palpable from the soybean farms in Mississippi to the cattle spreads in Kansas. Ranchers are seething over the administration’s decision to drop import tariffs on foreign beef. Farmers are fuming about the higher costs of tractors, fertilizer and fuel …. Farmers across the United States have been struggling for years with high costs for land, machinery, fertilizer and seeds, while most crop prices are down significantly from their 2022 highs. While financial shifts are expected in farming, the challenging conditions have been exacerbated by federal government policies …. Farmers across the United States have been struggling for years with high costs for land, machinery, fertilizer and seeds, while most crop prices are down significantly from their 2022 highs. While financial shifts are expected in farming, the challenging conditions have been exacerbated by federal government policies. Tariffs have driven up the cost of steel used to make tractors and weakened some export markets, hurting soybean farmers and ranchers. The war in Iran sent fertilizer and diesel prices skyrocketing .…. The financial challenges facing rural communities have shifted the electoral map, transforming Senate races in Kansas, Iowa and Texas.” “Farm Country and Strained Republicans.” New York  Times (10.16.26).

“Hostility towards global trade has been a seemingly unstoppable trend of the past decade, and a central campaigning message for both left and the right. The trend kicked off when Hillary Clinton chose to repudiate the Trans-Pacific Partnership as a sop to key portions of the Democratic electorate …. The White House’s problem is that tariffs and the war have become signature elements of the administration’s foreign policy, and are now seen by a majority of the American public as having increased the threat of shortages and inflation …. There’s little doubt that the globalisation of trade had concentrated effects in certain regions of the US, particularly in the Midwest and Southeast. And the Midwest has functioned as the fulcrum of American national politics for more than a decade. This may have amplified political incentives to focus on trade, particularly because solutions to problems in healthcare, housing, and higher education — the non-tradeable sectors— appear beyond the realm of cross-party, or even intraparty, political agreement. However, this strategy might have reached its limits.” “Has Populism’s Anti-Globalization Peaked in the U.S.?” Financial Times (Oct. 20, 2026).

“The Trump administration plans to hand out another $8 billion in direct payments to U.S. farmers who face losses from market disruptions and high fuel costs …. The planned payments under a U.S. Agriculture Department program come as America’s farmers are struggling with higher fuel prices from Trump’s war in Iran. Higher fertilizer costs and a recent drop in selling prices for corn are expected to drag on farmers’ profits. Diesel prices have surged to more than $6 a gallon on average, hurting farmers running equipment such as combines and tractors. The creation of the Harvest Fuel Relief program comes two weeks before the midterm elections …. Government funding has played a bigger role in boosting farmer incomes over the past decade, running from trade war-related payouts during Trump’s first and second terms and rescue funding through the Covid-19 pandemic. More recently, checks are being sent to help farmers deal with low crop prices. Before the creation of the new program, the Agriculture Department estimated that direct payments to farmers would hit $44 billion this year. “Trump Plans $8 billion for Farmers.” Wall Street Journal (Oct. 20, 2026).

“A new lawsuit challenges President Donald Trump’s 50% tariffs on a range of Canadian goods. The suit by the Gellert Global Group, a New Jersey food importer, asks the U.S. Court of International Trade to declare Trump’s “Section 338” tariffs unlawful and order refunds for duties already paid. Gellert Global is represented by the Liberty Justice Center, the same legal group that dealt a major blow to Trump’s trade agenda by successfully contesting his “reciprocal” tariffs at the Supreme Court …. Trump in July used Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930 to slap those steep tariffs on Canadian hockey sticks, wine, honey, wigs, and other products in response to alleged trade discrimination by Ottawa. It was the first time the 96-year-old law had ever been used to impose a tariff …. The Liberty Justice Center is currently engaged in two other lawsuits against what it says is Trump’s misuse of laws to impose sweeping tariffs …. The law (Section 338) permits tariff action “only upon finding ‘as a fact’” that a foreign country is unequally imposing unreasonable charges or trade limitations on U.S. products, or that its customs rules otherwise unfairly disadvantage the U.S.” “Trump Sued Over Canadian Tariffs.” CNBC (Oct. 29, 2026).

“Trump is trying to rescue vulnerable Republicans in the Midwest by promising an $8 billion bailout for farmers two weeks before the midterms. That would bring direct federal payments to farmers this fiscal year to about $55 billion. The amount is about a quarter of what farms add annually to U.S. gross domestic product and nearly five times the level of direct payments in 2017…. The special status for farmers is largely enabled by an old New Deal invention called the Commodity Credit Corporation, which gives the Agriculture Department broad discretion to distribute federal funds. Last December, the president used the fund to pay 12 billion for “one time bridge payments” to farmers facing “temporary trade market disruptions and increased production costs.” The fund has continued to serve as a backstop for farmers despite the rise of heavily subsidized federal crop insurance.” “Farmers, Bailout and Free Markets.” Washington Post (Oct. 21, 2026).

“Trump once called “tariff” the most beautiful word in the dictionary. He has somehow made it one of the most hated words in politics. In their midterm ads, Democrats repeatedly bash tariffs. Republicans, by contrast, are largely silent …. The uglification of tariffs threatens not just Republicans’ midterm chances, but Trump’s own legacy. In his first term, he succeeded in shifting the political consensus away from free trade. Upon his return, he could have gone even further by entrenching tariffs in American tax and trade policy. That now looks less likely, especially if Democrats win one or both chambers of Congress …. What happened? Trump’s trade agenda collided with the public’s cost of living agenda, and trade lost. The public blames tariffs even more than the war with Iran for worsening inflation …. So tariffs became politically toxic less because of their actual effect than how, and when, they were imposed.” “Tariffs – Most Hated Word in Politics.” New York Times (Oct. 23, 2026).

“As the midterms approach, how is the Trump administration’s foreign policy performing? The answer will influence decision making in the second half of his term and the policies of his successor in 2029. A revealing exercise is to attempt to evaluate success on the White House’s own terms. Rather than isolationism, the administration exhibits a desire to ensure America “gets paid” for its superpower status by maximising its cash flow and assets; a belief it can cut defence obligations without triggering a world war; and an assumption that other countries will suck it up. Values such as human rights and loyalty are peripheral. The goal of monetizing superpower status offends liberal values and orthodox economics but is not new …. The final conclusion is that the administration will not reverse course, but double down ….It could mean more concessions to placate China and Russia in the name of stability. And it means confrontations with allies over their attempts to build a plan B. Scored according to its own rationale, the first half has not been a failure, which almost guarantees the second will be no less dangerous. “Half-Time Report on Trump – Foreign Policy.” Financial Times (Oct. 23, 2026).

“Foreign policy seldom has much impact on domestic politics …. But this midterm election promises to be different. If, as now appears likely, this turns into a “blue wave” election, Republicans can pin a great deal of the blame on Trump’s foreign policy and trade agenda — and in particular on his foolhardy decisions to launch trade wars with many countries followed by a “forever war” with Iran …. Trump’s illogical and emotional devotion to tariffs led him to raise the effective tariff rate ….  Trump is right that the war with Iran hasn’t lasted as long, or caused as many U.S. casualties, as previous wars such as Vietnam. But, by shaking world energy markets, his Iran conflict has already caused more economic pain than previous conflicts such as those in Iraq and Afghanistan. “Trump’s Iran War and Tariffs,” Washington Post (Oct. 28, 2026).

A third wave of trade litigation against the Trump administration has now begun in the Court of International Trade (focusing on mass application of Section 301, rather than on individual countries.) The CIT recently certified a class action lawsuit against Trump asking for full IEEPA tariff refunds.

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.

Now he is making a push for even broader tariff powers (unrelated to Russia) that are included needlessly in the new Russian sanction legislation. His make a mockery out of the law. The recent summit with Xi achieved nothing (just photo ops) — despite some vague statements concerning a trade truce, maybe in the fuure.

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

Trump’s tariffs have endangered U.S. foreign policy and drove away our closest allies. emboldened our adversaries and endangered our national security. They have also turned away many of his former domestic supporters, especially farmers and auto manufacturers.

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. The cost of many everyday items would have declined without Trump’s legally fraught tariff policy, according to a report from the New York Federal Reserve.

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.’ Unfortunately, the Congress seems to be abetting Trump.

The federal courts and the Supreme Court need to get back into this constitutional fray. Needless to say, the midterms may well be a very real corrective mechanism, hopefully. The Republicans are going to pay for not standing up against Trump’s threats.

………………………………………….

“The cost of many everyday items would have declined without Trump’s legally fraught tariff policy, according to a report from the New York Federal Reserve. Shoppers saw a 2.9 percentage point increase in inflation on a sample of 67 types of goods as of February due to tariffs imposed in 2025 and early 2026. Without the tariffs, the team found that prices for goods would have pulled back in that period …. The New York Fed’s report offers the clearest evidence yet of the impact of Trump’s tariffs — a core policy of his most recent campaign and second term in — on consumers’ wallets. Economists had widely expected his levies to push up prices, though the precise effects had been hard to estimate due to the changing nature of the policy and the lack of transparency on how companies set their prices.” “Tariffs Causes Inflation.” CNBC (Oct. 8, 2026).

“For the third time in less than two years, the Trump administration returned to court to defend its power to wage a punishing global trade war …. The latest phase of Trump’s ever-evolving trade war rests in the familiar hands of a panel of federal judges, who heard the third major case in less than two years challenging the president’s ability to tax imports from around the world …. This time, the legal wrangling concerned the use of Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, which allows the administration to investigate unfair trade practices and impose tariffs if it finds that American businesses were harmed. The government relied on the statute to impose tariffs on 86 countries at once, claiming that they had failed to stamp out “forced labor” and had put U.S. firms that better protect workers at a competitive disadvantage. …. The expansive nature of the tariffs prompted state officials and small businesses to file a series of lawsuits, arguing that the Trump administration had failed to marshal the evidence required under law to justify the duties … judges on that specialized circuit have twice ruled against the president in major tariff cases. Another defeat could once again thrust his trade agenda into chaos …. In fact, presidents of both parties successfully invoked Section 301 in the past to target trade practices by individual countries, including China. But the expansive and expeditious way in which Trump applied the law this summer triggered swift lawsuits from those that had been involved in those past fights against the president’s earlier duties.” “New Attack on Trump’s Tariffs.” New York Times (Oct. 1, 2026).

“Trump’s lavish summit with Chinese leader Xi Jinping bought the White House time — and little else. Shortly after Xi touched down in Washington Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent announced he and his Chinese counterpart had agreed to a short-term extension of the two countries’ trade truce, ensuring the world’s most consequential economic relationship will remain stable until well after the U.S. midterms …. More than a year into a fragile trade truce with China, American exasperation with high prices has undercut the administration’s hand in its economic rivalry with Beijing. Republicans across the country are breaking with Trump weeks ahead of a midterm election, rejecting his trade policies and calling for an end to the Iran War as they seek to show voters they feel their economic pain. The result is a chastened Trump, with a hampered ability to threaten the economic pain necessary to secure real commitments from Xi to release China’s grip on critical minerals flows, which Beijing continues to restrict, help secure AI technologies or buy more U.S. products — let alone some of the bigger structural changes to the economic relationship that the White House had once envisioned. “Nothing Much at Xi Summit.” Politico (Sept. 26, 2026).

“Tariffs and high prices for diesel, gas and fertilizer because of the war in Iran, along with Trump’s plans to import more beef, have soured the moods of America’s farmers and ranchers ….  Trump’s trade war with China halted soybean exports — depressing prices for last year’s crop and costing farmers billions of dollars. Tariffs have also made farm equipment more expensive …. Several massive beef processing plants and large feedlots—where cattle are fattened before slaughter. ICE’s presence delayed shifts and hampered beef production at some facilities after some employees didn’t show up for work.” “Farmers, Trump’s Trade Problems  and GOP Troubles.” Wall Street Journal (9.26.26).

“Industry clamor around granting the president new tariff powers is reaching a fever pitch (in discussing the proposed Russian Sanctions Legislation) as groups intensify their lobbying efforts ahead of a potential floor vote ….. A coalition of more than 30 groups wrote to House leadership warning of higher costs to consumers and urging lawmakers to ditch the tariff language from the bill. Industry groups have also been meeting privately with lawmakers and congressional staff to vent their frustration …. The White House is pushing Johnson to jam this through because Trump is desperate for new tariff power, not because he needs new tools against Russia.” “Broad, New Trade Measures and Proposed  Russian Sanction Legislation.” Politico (Sept. 14, 2026).

“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).

“President Trump is expected to sign the legislation that gives him new authority to level tariffs …. The legislation wouldn’t only penalize certain Russian individuals and entities but also the five biggest importers of Russian oil and gas. It gives Trump the authority to issue up to 100% tariffs on the countries buying Russian energy. It also extends sanctions on Iran until 2031 …. It hands President Trump broad new tariff powers and lets him waive away the very sanctions it claims to impose …. Trump has shown during his second term that he loves the tariff tool, that he wants to constantly apply it and adjust it for coercive reasons over other countries.” “House Passes Broadened  Presidential Tariff Powers.” Wall Street Journal (Sept. 17, 2026).

“Trump’s trade war with Canada is harming both countries, but it’s helping American Democrats who are using his border taxes to attack Republicans. Ground zero is Michigan, where competitive races could decide control of Congress in November. A new poll conducted for the business coalition M finds that Trump’s tariffs are overwhelmingly unpopular in the state, especially the tariffs on Canada …. Trade protectionism can sound politically appealing in the abstract and when it’s spun as “America first.” But it becomes unpopular when voters see how it leads to higher costs and price increases in practice. This is how it’s now playing out in Michigan and farm states.” “More on Tariffs – More Unpopular Today with MAGA” Wall Street Journal (Sept. 19, 2026).

“Tariffs are raising the cost of materials and goods, higher fuel prices are increasing production and transportation costs, and higher interest rates are making inventory more expensive to finance. Auto suppliers, chemical companies, and other industrial businesses are seeing margins squeezed as they struggle to absorb higher costs. Companies that can pass higher costs to customers are better positioned, while businesses facing price-sensitive consumers risk losing demand if they raise prices too much. Big corporations with substantial cash reserves and longer-term debt are less immediately exposed to higher rates than smaller, more leveraged businesses. “Tariffs are Hurting American Companies.” CNBC (Sept. 20, 2o26).

“Trump  tariffs are hurting Americans. Real economic growth is slowing, consumer prices rising, and real wages stagnating. Now the Republican Party is set to pay for it. Since the founding, tariffs have proved toxic to the party that implemented them. When Trump asserted executive authority to impose the highest tariffs in 90 years, Republican congressmen, though skeptical, remained silent. If tariffs hurt Republicans in the November elections as much as they have hurt the economy, the midterms could end up igniting a Reagan revival on trade, shifting the trajectory of the party and the country. No American president was more passionate about trade liberalization than Ronald Reagan ….  Americans have reaped enormous gains from the fall of protectionist barriers …. U.S. agriculture needs foreign markets, and almost all U.S. manufacturing needs foreign components. Without low-cost inputs from abroad, many manufacturers can’t export their products.” “Republican Revolt against Tariffs.” Wall Street Journal (Sept. 22, 2026).

“Countries that respond to Trump’s tariffs also know how to target Trump’s supporters in red states. Between March 2025 and February 2026, retaliatory tariffs cut U.S. agricultural exports to China by $14.9 billion, annualized, according to a May report from North Dakota State University. Nearly half of that was soybeans, though it also included beef, cotton, tree nuts and corn …. Republicans are now in political danger in Iowa, Kansas and Nebraska ….  If the Administration wants farming in the U.S. to be easier, then stop the policies that make it harder.” “Farmers and Trump’s Tariffs. – Bad News.” Wall Street Journal (Sept. 24, 2026).

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.

Now he is making a push for even broader tariff powers (unrelated to Russia) that are included needlessly in the new Russian sanction legislation. His make a mockery out of the law. The recent summit with Xi achieved nothing (just photo ops) — despite some vague statements concerning a trade truce, maybe in the fuure.

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

Trump’s tariffs have endangered U.S. foreign policy and drove away our closest allies. emboldened our adversaries and endangered our national security. They have also turned away many of his former domestic supporters, especially farmers and auto manufacturers.

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.

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.’ Unfortunately, the Congress seems to be abetting Trump.

The federal courts and the Supreme Court need to get back into this constitutional fray. Needless to say, the midterms may well be a very real corrective mechanism, hopefully. The Republicans are going to pay for not standing up against Trump’s threats.

………………………………………….

“Trump’s lavish summit with Chinese leader Xi Jinping bought the White House time — and little else. Shortly after Xi touched down in Washington Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent announced he and his Chinese counterpart had agreed to a short-term extension of the two countries’ trade truce, ensuring the world’s most consequential economic relationship will remain stable until well after the U.S. midterms …. More than a year into a fragile trade truce with China, American exasperation with high prices has undercut the administration’s hand in its economic rivalry with Beijing. Republicans across the country are breaking with Trump weeks ahead of a midterm election, rejecting his trade policies and calling for an end to the Iran War as they seek to show voters they feel their economic pain. The result is a chastened Trump, with a hampered ability to threaten the economic pain necessary to secure real commitments from Xi to release China’s grip on critical minerals flows, which Beijing continues to restrict, help secure AI technologies or buy more U.S. products — let alone some of the bigger structural changes to the economic relationship that the White House had once envisioned. “Nothing Much at Xi Summit.” Politico (Sept. 26, 2026).

“Industry clamor around granting the president new tariff powers is reaching a fever pitch (in discussing the proposed Russian Sanctions Legislation) as groups intensify their lobbying efforts ahead of a potential floor vote ….. A coalition of more than 30 groups wrote to House leadership warning of higher costs to consumers and urging lawmakers to ditch the tariff language from the bill. Industry groups have also been meeting privately with lawmakers and congressional staff to vent their frustration …. The White House is pushing Johnson to jam this through because Trump is desperate for new tariff power, not because he needs new tools against Russia.” “Broad, New Trade Measures and Proposed  Russian Sanction Legislation.” Politico (Sept. 14, 2026).

“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).

“President Trump is expected to sign the legislation that gives him new authority to level tariffs …. The legislation wouldn’t only penalize certain Russian individuals and entities but also the five biggest importers of Russian oil and gas. It gives Trump the authority to issue up to 100% tariffs on the countries buying Russian energy. It also extends sanctions on Iran until 2031 …. It hands President Trump broad new tariff powers and lets him waive away the very sanctions it claims to impose …. Trump has shown during his second term that he loves the tariff tool, that he wants to constantly apply it and adjust it for coercive reasons over other countries.” “House Passes Broadened  Presidential Tariff Powers.” Wall Street Journal (Sept. 17, 2026).

“Trump’s trade war with Canada is harming both countries, but it’s helping American Democrats who are using his border taxes to attack Republicans. Ground zero is Michigan, where competitive races could decide control of Congress in November. A new poll conducted for the business coalition M finds that Trump’s tariffs are overwhelmingly unpopular in the state, especially the tariffs on Canada …. Trade protectionism can sound politically appealing in the abstract and when it’s spun as “America first.” But it becomes unpopular when voters see how it leads to higher costs and price increases in practice. This is how it’s now playing out in Michigan and farm states.” “More on Tariffs – More Unpopular Today with MAGA” Wall Street Journal (Sept. 19, 2026).

“Tariffs are raising the cost of materials and goods, higher fuel prices are increasing production and transportation costs, and higher interest rates are making inventory more expensive to finance. Auto suppliers, chemical companies, and other industrial businesses are seeing margins squeezed as they struggle to absorb higher costs. Companies that can pass higher costs to customers are better positioned, while businesses facing price-sensitive consumers risk losing demand if they raise prices too much. Big corporations with substantial cash reserves and longer-term debt are less immediately exposed to higher rates than smaller, more leveraged businesses. “Tariffs are Hurting American Companies.” CNBC (Sept. 20, 2o26).

“Trump  tariffs are hurting Americans. Real economic growth is slowing, consumer prices rising, and real wages stagnating. Now the Republican Party is set to pay for it. Since the founding, tariffs have proved toxic to the party that implemented them. When Trump asserted executive authority to impose the highest tariffs in 90 years, Republican congressmen, though skeptical, remained silent. If tariffs hurt Republicans in the November elections as much as they have hurt the economy, the midterms could end up igniting a Reagan revival on trade, shifting the trajectory of the party and the country. No American president was more passionate about trade liberalization than Ronald Reagan ….  Americans have reaped enormous gains from the fall of protectionist barriers …. U.S. agriculture needs foreign markets, and almost all U.S. manufacturing needs foreign components. Without low-cost inputs from abroad, many manufacturers can’t export their products.” “Republican Revolt against Tariffs.” Wall Street Journal (Sept. 22, 2026).

“Countries that respond to Trump’s tariffs also know how to target Trump’s supporters in red states. Between March 2025 and February 2026, retaliatory tariffs cut U.S. agricultural exports to China by $14.9 billion, annualized, according to a May report from North Dakota State University. Nearly half of that was soybeans, though it also included beef, cotton, tree nuts and corn …. Republicans are now in political danger in Iowa, Kansas and Nebraska ….  If the Administration wants farming in the U.S. to be easier, then stop the policies that make it harder.” “Farmers and Trump’s Tariffs. – Bad News.” Wall Street Journal (Sept. 24, 2026).

Outstanding two years mutually exploring international trade issues and U.S. law. Focus was on domestic U.S. trade remedies. global trade strategies, trade relations, geopolitics and national security.

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. Now he is making a push for even broader tariff powers (unrelated to Russia) that are included needlessly in the proposed Russian sanction legislation. His 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.

………………………………………….

“Industry clamor around granting the president new tariff powers is reaching a fever pitch (in discussing the proposed Russian Sanctions Legislation)as groups intensify their lobbying efforts ahead of a potential floor vote ….. A coalition of more than 30 groups wrote to House leadership warning of higher costs to consumers and urging lawmakers to ditch the tariff language from the bill. Industry groups have also been meeting privately with lawmakers and congressional staff to vent their frustration …. The White House is pushing Johnson to jam this through because Trump is desperate for new tariff power, not because he needs new tools against Russia.” “Broad, New Trade Measures and Proposed  Russian Sanction Legislation.” Politico (Sept. 14, 2026).

“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).