The new two-fold question — Is Trump intentionally disregarding US law as to imposition of newer tariffs and is he intentional disregarding the War Powers Resolution concerning the continuing Iran war?

………………………………………………….

“The partisan battle over authorizing the Iran War has shifted to one of semantics, as the sides haggle over a contentious deadline created by a Vietnam-era law. On Friday, the conflict hit the 60-day mark — a critical marker under the 1973 War Powers Act — and Democrats are using the milestone to fuel their efforts to force President Trump to end the military campaign against Tehran immediately, unless Congress explicitly approves it. Trump and his Republican allies are pushing back, arguing that the conflict never rose to the level of a “war,” precluding the need for congressional consent. They also maintain that, even if it did meet that distinction, the current ceasefire has effectively ended the shooting part of the war long before the 60-day threshold was met. The clash is renewing the age-old debate over the separation of powers when it comes to the use of military force. And it promises to continue for many weeks to come, as Democrats are vowing a strategy of forcing vote after vote on war powers resolutions, if only to put Republicans on record supporting a conflict that’s grown wildly unpopular with voters. “ War Powers Resolution and Iran. The Hill (May 2, 2026).

“With a flurry of Section 301 investigations under way, US trading partners should be deeply worried. Of the 19 deals the administration has negotiated since last summer, none have dispute settlement provisions. The US has also written off WTO dispute settlement since 2017, arguing that many of its trade actions are a matter of economic or national security and therefore out of bounds for WTO adjudication.” US Trading Partners, Tariffs and Rule of Law. Financial Times (April 28, 2026).

“The Trump administration has taken a novel approach as it looks for ways to issue new tariffs to replace the levies invalidated by the Supreme Court. It began a new trade investigation in March that targets 59 countries and the European Union with potential tariffs unless they pass laws that ban imports of goods made with forced labor …. Forced labor occurs in fields, factories and fishing vessels, and that import bans could risk missing where labor violations were actually occurring …. Some are questioning whether the administration’s measure is more of a pretext to impose tariffs that U.S. officials want to have in effect anyway, and whether foreign countries will be able to take actions to have the tariffs rolled back …. historic Section 301 investigation will ensure both that the perpetrators of forced labor practices cannot unduly profit from unfettered access to the American economy and that American workers are no longer unfairly undermined …. Others urged the United States to do a better job of enforcing its own rules against imports of goods made with forced labor, including a 2021 law that bans most products from Xinjiang …. The United States has a nearly century-old ban on imports made with forced, convict or indentured labor, as well as the 2021 law restricting imports from Xinjiang.” “More Trump’s Tariffs and Forced Labor.” New York Times (May 2, 2026).

“From an international law perspective, my judgment is that the attack was quite clearly illegal.  Under the United Nations Charter, states are prohibited from using force in international relations except in one of two circumstances: (1) where the state acts in self-defense if it has sustained an “armed attack” by its adversary; or (2) where the U.N. Security Council has authorized the use of force.  The Security Council has not, of course, authorized the use of force against Iran.  In terms of self-defense, Iran did not carry out an armed attack against the United States. With regard to the right of self-defense, there are international legal scholars—and I count myself as a member of this camp—who believe that states can exercise the right of self-defense not only after they have sustained an armed attack, but where they face an imminent threat of attack.  This is referred to by international lawyers as “anticipatory self-defense,” and President Trump gestured to this concept by stating that the U.S. attacks against Iran were aimed at “eliminating imminent threats from the Iranian regime.”  The problem with this position is that even if there is a right of anticipatory self-defense, the predicate condition is strict; it requires an imminent threat of an armed attack by the adversary.  The notion that Iran presents a general security threat to U.S. interests does not constitute a threat of imminent attack.  Nor does the possibility that Iran might at some point in the future acquire either nuclear weapons or intercontinental missiles capable of reaching the U.S. homeland amount to a threat of an imminent attack.” “Legality of Iran War.” Stanford (March 3, 2026).