|
||
|
TWN
Info Service on WTO and Trade Issues (Nov25/06) Geneva, 11 Nov (D. Ravi Kanth) — United States President Donald Trump on 11 November warned that “a negative decision on Tariffs” by the US Supreme Court will be a disaster and “devastating to the future of our country – Possibly non-sustainable”, according to his latest post on the social media website Truth Social. According to his Truth Social post on 11 November, President Trump seemingly raised the spectre of fear in the minds of the Supreme Court justices by suggesting that it was given the “wrong numbers” about the likely impact of the removal of the tariffs. He wrote: “The US Supreme Court was given the wrong numbers. The “unwind” in the event of a negative decision on Tariffs, would be, including investments made, to be made, and return of funds, in excess of 3 Trillion Dollars. It would not be possible to ever make up for that kind of a “drubbing.” That would truly become an insurmountable National Security Event, and devastating to the future of our Country – Possibly non- sustainable!” Earlier, he suggested that the money collected from the unilateral reciprocal tariffs – imposed under national security provisions, ostensibly to address trade deficits with countries that allegedly contributed to America’s de-industrialization – will now be used to fund $2,000 payments to low- and middle-income US citizens, according to his social media posts. He made this announcement in a post on his social media website Truth Social on 9 November: “All money left over from the $2000 payments made to low and middle income USA Citizens, from the massive Tariff Income pouring into our Country from foreign countries, which will be substantial, will be used to SUBSTANTIALLY PAY DOWN NATIONAL DEBT.” Without mentioning the US Supreme Court – which appears to have expressed sharp concern and skepticism over the Trump administration’s imposition of tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) without formal Congressional approval – President Trump justified the tariffs on rather questionable legal and economic grounds. “People that are against tariffs are fools!” he said. “We are now the richest, most respected country in the world, with almost no inflation, and a record of stock market prices,” President Trump touted. The decision, set to be implemented in the coming days, appears to make a mockery of the fleeting justifications previously offered for imposing reciprocal tariffs under the IEEPA, several commentators observed. Based on the President’s repeated claims, the administration has seemingly collected more than $100 billion in tariff revenue to date. The so-called “Liberation Day” tariffs have been justified under a 1970s emergency-powers statute and applied on the basis of arbitrary and unilateral assertions – including, notably, against countries with which the US runs a trade surplus, such as Brazil. As the US Supreme Court prepares to rule on the legality of these tariffs, President Trump voiced his disapproval in another Truth Social post on 8 November: “So, let’s get this straight??? The President of the United States is allowed (and fully approved by Congress!) to stop ALL TRADE with a Foreign Country (Which is far more onerous than a Tariff!), and LICENSE a Foreign Country, but is not allowed to put a simple Tariff on a Foreign Country, even for purposes of NATIONAL SECURITY.” “That is NOT what our great Founders had in mind!” he insisted. “The whole thing is ridiculous! Other Countries can Tariff us, but we can’t Tariff them??? It is their DREAM!!! Businesses are pouring into the USA ONLY BECAUSE OF TARIFFS. HAS THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT NOT BEEN TOLD THIS??? WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON???” he asked. President Trump further added in the same post: “We are taking in Trillions of Dollars and will soon begin paying down our ENORMOUS DEBT, $37 trillion. Record Investment in the USA, plants and factories going up all over the place. A dividend of at least $2,000 a person (not including high-income people!) will be paid to everyone.” In fact, successive US administrations – as part of their multilateral trade commitments negotiated across various rounds under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) – chose to reduce tariffs to levels deemed reasonable, according to several legal commentators. However, the Trump administration, commentators argue, has seemingly upended its binding multilateral commitments under the GATT/WTO (World Trade Organization) rules by imposing varying levels of reciprocal tariffs that align with neither existing domestic law nor international trade norms. China is the only country that has challenged the Trump administration’s tariffs at the WTO – fully aware, analysts note, that even a favourable ruling could remain unenforceable. According to a Wall Street Journal (WSJ) editorial dated 10 November, President Trump’s claim that tariff revenue will be used to pay down the national debt is highly dubious: “The annual federal budget deficit is roughly $1.8 trillion even with tariff revenue, so paying a rebate would add to the national debt, not reduce it”. Moreover, the President’s revenue claims appear to contradict statements made by his own Solicitor General, John Sauer, before the Supreme Court on 5 November. In arguing that tariffs are not taxes but primarily tools of foreign policy, Mr. Sauer stated: “These tariffs, these policies – it is clear that these policies are most effective if nobody ever pays the tariff. If it never raises a dime of revenue, these are the most effective use of these – of this particular policy.” He added: “So they’re clearly regulatory tariffs, not taxes. They are not – they’re not an exercise of the power to tax.” However, Supreme Court justices pushed back, questioning whether – even as a regulatory measure – the imposition of tariffs requires prior Congressional authorization. The WSJ posed the logical follow-up: “If tariffs are most effective if no one ever pays them, then how are they going to raise the revenue Mr. Trump needs to pay those rebates?” “The truth is tariffs are taxes,” the editorial continued, “but Mr. Sauer didn’t want to admit this lest the Court conclude that Mr. Trump is usurping a core constitutional power of Congress. Which he is.” The WSJ also challenged the logic of the rebate itself: “[Trump is] promising to repay Americans $2,000 of the border taxes they’re paying in higher prices. But if tariffs are a free economic lunch, and their benefits abound, why offer a rebate? Shouldn’t voters be thrilled about tariffs even without a rebate?” Despite the President’s assertion that “the tariff impact is dispersed across the economy so consumers have a hard time sorting out how much those taxes contribute to which higher prices,” the WSJ argued that consumers “know, however, that they’re paying more than they used to” – a sentiment reflected in election exit polls last week, which showed broad disapproval of President Trump’s handling of inflation and the economy. SECTION 301 PROBE SUSPENDED Meanwhile, in a separate development, the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR), led by Ambassador Jamieson Greer, announced the suspension of Section 301 investigations concerning China’s shipbuilding practices. “The suspension follows the historic trade and economic deal reached between President Trump and President Xi Jinping of China, announced by the White House on November 1, 2025,” the USTR stated. “In
light of this deal, and pursuant to the direction of the President,
the United States Trade Representative is suspending for one year,
beginning on November
|
||
