Tariffs

The US Supreme Court has questioned US President Donald Trump’s authority to use emergency powers to impose sweeping tariffs on trading partners around the world.

In a closely watched hearing on Wednesday in Washington, DC, conservative and liberal Supreme Court judges appeared sceptical about Trump’s tariff policy, which has already had ramifications for US carmakers, airlines and consumer goods importers.

The US president had earlier claimed that his trade tariffs – which have been central to his foreign policy since he returned to power earlier this year – will not affect US businesses, workers and consumers.

But a legal challenge by a number of small American businesses, including toy firms and wine importers, filed earlier this year, has led to lower courts in the country ruling that Trump’s tariffs are illegal.

In May, the Court of International Trade, based in New York, said Trump did not have the authority to impose tariffs and “the US Constitution grants Congress exclusive authority to regulate commerce”. That decision was upheld by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, DC, in August.

Now, the Supreme Court, the country’s top court, is hearing the issue. Last week, the small business leaders, who are being represented by Indian-American lawyer Neal Katyal, told the Court that Trump’s import levies were severely harming their businesses and that many have been forced to lay off workers and cut prices as a result.

In a post on his Truth Social Platform on Sunday, Trump described the Supreme Court case as “one of the most important in the History of the Country”.

“If a President is not allowed to use Tariffs, we will be at a major disadvantage against all other Countries throughout the World,” he added.

What happened in Wednesday’s Supreme Court hearing, and what could happen if the court rules against Trump’s tariffs?

Here’s what we know:

What was discussed at the Supreme Court on Wednesday?

During a hearing which lasted for nearly three hours, the Trump administration’s lawyer, Solicitor General D John Sauer, argued that the president’s tariff policy is legal under a 1977 national law called the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).

According to US government documents, IEEPA gives a US president an array of economic powers, including to regulate trade, in order “to deal with any unusual and extraordinary threat, which has its source in whole or substantial part outside the United States, to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States, if the President declares a national emergency with respect to such threat”.

Trump invoked IEEPA in February to levy a new 25 percent tax on imports from Canada and Mexico, as well as a 10 percent levy on Chinese goods, on the basis that these countries were facilitating the flow of illegal drugs such as fentanyl into the US, and that this constituted a national emergency. He later paused the tariffs on Canada and Mexico, but increased China’s to 20 percent. This was restored to 10 percent after Trump met Chinese President Xi Jinping last month.

In April, when he imposed reciprocal tariffs on imports from a wide array of countries around the world, he said those levies were also in line with IEEPA since the US was running a trade deficit that posed an “extraordinary and unusual threat” to the nation.

Sauer argued that Trump had imposed the tariffs using IEEPA since “our exploding trade deficits have brought us to the brink of an economic and national security catastrophe”.

He also told the court that the levies are “regulatory tariffs. They are not revenue-raising tariffs”.

But Neal Katyal, the lawyer for the small businesses that have brought the case, countered this. “Tariffs are taxes,” Katyal said. “They take dollars from Americans’ pockets and deposit them in the US Treasury. Our founders gave that taxing power to Congress alone.”

What did the judges say about tariffs?

The judges raised another sticking point: Also, under the US Constitution, only Congress has the power to regulate tariffs. Justice John Roberts noted that “the [IEEPA] statute doesn’t use the word tariff.”

Liberal Justice Elena Kagan also told Sauer, “It has a lot of actions that can be taken under this statute. It just doesn’t have the one you want.”

Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who was appointed by Trump during his first term as president, asked Sauer, “Is it your contention that every country needed to be tariffed because of threats to the defence and industrial base?

“I mean, Spain, France? I could see it with some countries, but explain to me why as many countries needed to be subject to the reciprocal tariff policy,” Coney Barrett said.

Sauer replied that “there’s this sort of lack of reciprocity, this asymmetric treatment of our trade, with respect to foreign countries that does run across the board,” and reiterated the Trump administration’s power to use IEEPA.

Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor took issue with the notion that the tariffs are not taxes, as asserted by Trump’s team. She said, “You want to say that tariffs are not taxes, but that’s exactly what they are.”

According to recent data released by the US Customs and Border Protection agency, as of the end of August, IEEPA tariffs had generated $89bn in revenues to the US Treasury.

During the court’s arguments on Wednesday, Justice Roberts also suggested that the court may have to invoke the “major questions” doctrine in this case after telling Sauer that the president’s tariffs are “the imposition of taxes on Americans, and that has always been the core power of Congress”.

The “major questions” doctrine checks a US executive agency’s power to impose a policy without Congress’s clear directive. The Supreme Court previously used this to block former President Joe Biden’s policies, including his student loan forgiveness plan.

Sauer argued that the “major questions” doctrine should not apply in this context since it would also affect the president’s power in foreign affairs.

Why is this case the ultimate test of Trump’s tariff policy?

The Supreme Court has a 6-3 conservative majority and generally takes several months to make a decision. While it remains unclear when the court will make a decision on this case, according to analysts, the fact that this case was launched against Trump at all is significant.

In a recent report published by Max Yoeli, senior research fellow on the US and Americas Programme at UK-based think tank Chatham House, said, “The Supreme Court’s outcome will shape Trump’s presidency – and those that follow – across executive authority, global trade, and domestic fiscal and economic concerns.”

“It is likewise a salient moment for the Supreme Court, which has empowered Trump and showed little appetite to constrain him,” he added.

Penny Nass, acting senior vice president at the German Marshall Fund’s Washington DC office, told Al Jazeera that the verdict will be viewed by many as a test of Trump’s powers.

“A first impact will be the most direct judicial restraint at the highest level on Presidential power. After a year testing the limits of his power, President Trump will start to see some of constraints on his power,” she said.

According to international trade lawyer Shantanu Singh, who is based in India, the global implications of this case could also be huge.

“One objective of these tariffs was to use them as leverage to get trade partners to do deals with the US. Some countries have concluded trade deals, including to address the IEEPA tariffs,” he told Al Jazeera.

After the imposition of US reciprocal tariffs in April and again in August, several countries and economic blocs, including the EU, UK, Japan, Cambodia and Indonesia, have struck trade deals with the US to reduce tariffs.

But those countries were forced to make concessions to get those deals done. EU countries, for example, had to agree to buy $750bn of US energy and reduce steel tariffs through quotas.

Singh pointed out that an “adverse Supreme Court ruling could bring into doubt the perceived benefit for concluding deals with the US”.

“Further, trade partners who are currently negotiating with the US will have to also adjust their negotiating objectives in light of the ruling and how the administration reacts to it,” he added.

Other countries including India and China are currently actively engaged in trade talks with the US. Trade talks with Canada were terminated by Trump in late October over what Trump described as a “fraudulent” advertisement featuring former President Ronald Reagan speaking negatively about trade tariffs, which was being aired in Canada.

What happens if the judges rule against Trump?

Following Wednesday’s Supreme Court Hearing, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who was at the court with Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick, told Fox News that he was “very optimistic” that the outcome of the case would be in the government’s favour.

“The solicitor general made a very powerful case for the need for the president to have the power,” he said and refused to discuss the Trump administration’s plan if the court ruled against the tariff policy.

However, Singh said if the Supreme Court does find these tariffs illegal, one immediate concern will be how tariffs collected so far will be refunded to businesses, if at all.

“Given the importance that the current US administration places on tariffs as a policy tool, we can expect that it would quickly identify other legal authorities and work to reinstate the tariffs,” he said.

Nass added: “The President has many other tariff powers, and will likely quickly recalibrate to maintain his deal-making efforts with partners,” she said, adding that there would still be very complicated work for importers on what to do with the tariffs already collected in 2025 under IEEPA.

During Wednesday’s hearing, Justice Coney Barrett asked Katyal, the lawyer for the small businesses contesting Trump’s tariffs, whether this process of paying money back would be “a complete mess”.

Katyal said the businesses he’s representing should be given a refund, but added that it is “very complicated”.

“So, a mess,” Coney Barrett stated.

“It’s difficult, absolutely, we don’t deny that,” Katyal said in response.

In an interview with US broadcaster CNN in September, trade lawyers said the court could decide who gets the refunds. Ted Murphy, an international trade lawyer at Sidley Austin, told CNN that the US government “could also try to get the court to approve an administrative refund process, where importers have to affirmatively request a refund”.

What tariffs has Trump imposed so far, and what has their effect been?

Trump has imposed tariffs of varying rates on imports from almost every country in the world, arguing that these levies will enrich the US and protect the domestic US market. The tariff rates range from as high as 50 percent on India and Syria to as low as 10 percent on the UK.

The US president has also imposed a 50 percent tariff on all copper imports, 50 percent on steel and aluminium imports from every country except the UK, 100 percent on patented drugs, 25 percent levies on cars and car parts manufactured abroad, and 25 percent on heavy-duty trucks.

According to the University of Pennsylvania’s Penn Wharton Budget Model, which analyses the US Treasury’s data, tariffs have brought in $223.9bn as of October 31. This is $142.2bn more than the same time last year.

In early July, Treasury Secretary Bessent said revenues from these tariffs could grow to $300bn by the end of 2025.

But in an August 7 report, the Budget Lab at Yale University estimated that “all 2025 US tariffs plus foreign retaliation lower real US Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth by -0.5pp [percentage points] each over calendar years 2025 and 2026”.

Meanwhile, according to a Reuters news agency tracker, which follows how US companies are responding to Trump’s tariff threats, the first-quarter earnings season saw carmakers, airlines and consumer goods importers take the worst hit from tariff threats. Levies on aluminium and electronics, such as semiconductors, also led to increased costs.

Reuters reported that as tariffs hit factory orders, big manufacturing companies around the world are also struggling.

In its latest World Economic Outlook report released last month, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) said the effect of Trump’s tariffs on the global economy had been less extreme.

“To date, more protectionist trade measures have had a limited impact on economic activity and prices,” it said.

However, the IMF warned that the current resilience of the global economy may not last.

“Looking past apparent resilience resulting from trade-related distortions in some of the incoming data and whipsawing growth forecasts from wild swings in trade policies, the outlook for the global economy continues to point to dim prospects, both in the short and the long term,” it said.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s skeptical questioning of former President Donald Trump’s global tariffs has fueled speculation that his trade measures may be struck down, potentially upending the already fragile trade landscape.

The case centers on Trump’s use of the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose sweeping tariffs on imports. The law grants presidents broad authority to regulate trade during national emergencies but makes no mention of tariffs, raising constitutional questions about the limits of executive power.

During oral arguments on Wednesday, justices across the ideological spectrum except Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas appeared doubtful that Trump had legal authority to levy such blanket global tariffs.

Trade experts now warn that if the court invalidates Trump’s tariff policy, it could trigger a new wave of economic uncertainty, as the administration is expected to pivot quickly to other trade laws to reimpose duties.

Why It Matters

The outcome of this case could reshape U.S. trade policy for years. Businesses have paid over $100 billion in IEEPA-related tariffs since 2025, and a ruling against Trump could open a complex refund battle or force the White House to seek alternative legal pathways for its protectionist agenda.

Corporate leaders, already weary of erratic trade shifts, say a ruling either way offers little stability. “Even if it goes against IEEPA, the uncertainty still continues,” said David Young of the Conference Board, who briefed dozens of CEOs after the hearing.

Trump Administration: Faces potential legal defeat but can pivot to Section 232 (Trade Expansion Act of 1962) or Section 122 (Trade Act of 1974), both of which allow temporary or national security-based tariffs.

U.S. Supreme Court: Balancing presidential powers with statutory limits on trade actions.

Businesses & Importers: Risk being caught in regulatory limbo over refunds and future duties.

Federal Reserve: Monitoring potential economic fallout from prolonged trade instability.

Refunds Could Get “Messy”

Justice Amy Coney Barrett raised concerns about how refund claims would be handled if the tariffs are ruled illegal, calling it “a mess” for courts to manage.
Lawyer Neal Katyal, representing five small businesses challenging the tariffs, said only those firms would automatically receive refunds, while others must file administrative protests a process that could take up to a year.

Customs lawyer Joseph Spraragen added that if the court orders refunds, the Customs and Border Protection’s automated system could process them, but he warned, “The administration is not going to be eager to just roll over and give refunds.”

Economic and Policy Repercussions

Analysts expect the administration to rely on alternative statutes if IEEPA tariffs are overturned. However, implementing new duties under those laws could be slow and bureaucratic, potentially delaying trade certainty until 2026.

Natixis economist Christopher Hodge said such a ruling would be only a “temporary setback” for Trump’s trade agenda, predicting renewed tariff rounds or trade negotiations in the coming year.

Meanwhile, Federal Reserve Governor Stephen Miran warned the uncertainty could act as a drag on economic growth, though it might also prompt looser monetary policy if trade instability dampens business confidence.

What’s Next

A Supreme Court ruling is expected in early 2026, leaving companies in limbo over the future of U.S. tariff policy.
If Trump’s powers under IEEPA are curtailed, analysts expect a new wave of trade maneuvers potentially invoking national security provisions to maintain his “America First” economic approach, prolonging the climate of global trade unpredictability.

With information from Reuters.

WASHINGTON — President Trump’s signature plan to impose import taxes on products coming from countries around the world ran into sharp skepticism at the Supreme Court on Wednesday.

Most of the justices, conservative and liberal, questioned whether the president acting on his own has the power to set large tariffs as a weapon of international trade.

Instead, they voiced the traditional view that the Constitution gives Congress the power to raise taxes, duties and tariffs.

Trump and his lawyers rely on an emergency powers act adopted on a voice vote by Congress in 1977. That measure authorizes sanctions and embargoes, but does not mention “tariffs, duties” or other means of revenue-raising.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said he doubted that law could be read so broadly.

The emergency powers law “had never before been used to justify tariffs,” he told D. John Sauer, Trump’s solicitor general. “No one has argued that it does until this particular case.”

Congress has authorized tariffs in other laws, he said, but not this one. Yet, it is “being used for a power to impose tariffs on any product from any country for — in any amount on any product from any country for — in any amount for any length of time.”

Moreover, the Constitution says Congress has the lead role on taxes and tariffs. “The imposition of taxes on Americans … has always been a core power of Congress,” he said.

The tariffs case heard Wednesday is the first major challenge to Trump’s presidential power to be heard by the court. It is also a test of whether the court’s conservative majority is willing to set legal limits on Trump’s executive authority.

Trump has touted these import taxes as crucial to reviving American manufacturing.

But owners of small businesses, farmers and economists are among the critics who say the on-again, off-again import taxes are disrupting business and damaging the economy.

Two lower courts ruled for small-business owners and said Trump had exceeded his authority.

The Supreme Court agreed to hear the appeal on a fast-track basis with the aim of ruling in a few months.

In defense of the president and his “Liberation Day” tariffs, Trump’s lawyers argued these import duties involve the president’s power over foreign affairs. They are “regulatory tariffs,” not taxes that raise revenue, he said.

Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan disagreed.

“It’s a congressional power, not a presidential power, to tax,” Sotomayor said. “You want to say tariffs are not taxes, but that’s exactly what they are.”

Imposing a tariff “is a taxing power which is delegated by the Constitution to Congress,” Kagan said.

Justice Neil M. Gorsuch may hold the deciding vote, and he said he was wary of upholding broad claims of presidential power that rely on old and vague laws.

The court’s conservative majority, including Gorsuch, struck down several far-reaching Biden administration regulations on climate change and student forgiveness because they were not clearly authorized by Congress.

Both Roberts and Gorsuch said the same theory may apply here. Gorsuch said he was skeptical of the claim that the president had the power to impose taxes based on his belief that the nation faces a global emergency.

In the future, “could the President impose a 50% tariff on gas-powered cars and auto parts to deal with the unusual and extraordinary threat from abroad of climate change?” he asked.

Yes, Sauer replied, “It’s very likely that could be done.”

Congress had the lawmaking power, Gorsuch said, and presidents should not feel free to take away the taxing power “from the people’s representatives.”

Justice Amy Coney Barrett said she was struggling to understand what Congress meant in the emergency powers law when it said the president may “regulate” importation.

She agreed that the law did not mention taxes and tariffs that would raise revenue, but some judges then saw it as allowing the authority to impose duties or tariffs.

Justices Brett M. Kavanaugh and Samuel A. Alito Jr. appeared to be leaning against the challenge to the president’s tariffs.

Kavanaugh pointed to a round of tariffs imposed by President Nixon in 1971, and he said Congress later adopted its emergency powers act without clearly rejecting that authority.

A former White House lawyer, Kavanaugh said it would be unusual for the president to have the full power to bar imports from certain countries, but not the lesser power to impose tariffs.

Since Trump returned to the White House in January, the court’s six Republican appointees have voted repeatedly to set aside orders from judges who had temporarily blocked the president’s policies and initiatives.

Although they have not explained most of their temporary emergency rulings, the conservatives have said the president has broad executive authority over federal agencies and on matters of foreign affairs.

But Wednesday, the justices did not sound split along the usual ideological lines.

The court’s ruling is not likely to be the final word on tariffs, however. Several other past laws allow the president to impose temporary tariffs for reasons of national security.

United States President Donald Trump’s tariffs are headed to the Supreme Court, as Washington and New Delhi pursue a trade deal. On the ground in India, export hubs are seeing cancelled orders, layoffs, and falling pay rates. As uncertainty deepens, what does this mean for factory workers?

WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court’s conservatives face a test of their own making this week as they decide whether President Trump had the legal authority to impose tariffs on imports from nations across the globe.

At issue are import taxes that are paid by American businesses and consumers.

Small-business owners had sued, including a maker of “learning toys” in Illinois and a New York importer of wines and spirits. They said Trump’s ever-changing tariffs had severely disrupted their businesses, and they won rulings declaring the president had exceeded his authority.

On Wednesday, the justices will hear their first major challenge to Trump’s claims of unilateral executive power. And the outcome is likely to turn on three doctrines that have been championed by the court’s conservatives.

First, they say the Constitution should be interpreted based on its original meaning. Its opening words say: “All legislative powers … shall be vested” in Congress, and the elected representatives “shall have the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposes and excises.”

Second, they believe the laws passed by Congress should be interpreted based on their words. They call this “textualism,” which rejects a more liberal and open-ended approach that included the general purpose of the law.

Trump and his lawyers say his sweeping “Liberation Day” tariffs were authorized by the International Economic Emergency Powers Act, or IEEPA.

That 1977 law says the president may declare a national emergency to “deal with any unusual and extraordinary threat” involving national security, foreign policy or the economy of the United States. Faced with such an emergency, he may “investigate, block … or regulate” the “importation or exportation” of any property.

Trump said the nation’s “persistent” balance of payments deficit over five decades was such an “unusual and extraordinary threat.”

In the past, the law has been used to impose sanctions or freeze the assets of Iran, Syria and North Korea or groups of terrorists. It does not use the words “tariffs” or “duties,” and it had not been used for tariffs prior to this year.

The third doctrine arose with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and is called the “major questions” doctrine.

He and the five other conservatives said they were skeptical of far-reaching and costly regulations issued by the Obama and Biden administrations involving matters such as climate change, student loan forgiveness or mandatory COVID-19 vaccinations for 84 million Americans.

Congress makes the laws, not federal regulators, they said in West Virginia vs. Environmental Protection Agency in 2022.

And unless there is a “clear congressional authorization,” Roberts said the court will not uphold assertions of “extravagant statutory power over the national economy.”

Now all three doctrines are before the justices, since the lower courts relied on them in ruling against Trump.

No one disputes that the president could impose sweeping worldwide tariffs if he had sought and won approval from the Republican-controlled Congress. However, he insisted the power was his alone.

In a social media post, Trump called the case on tariffs “one of the most important in the History of the Country. If a President is not allowed to use Tariffs, we will be at a major disadvantage against all other Countries throughout the World, especially the ‘Majors.’ In a true sense, we would be defenseless! Tariffs have brought us Great Wealth and National Security in the nine months that I have had the Honor to serve as President.”

Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer, his top courtroom attorney, argues that tariffs involve foreign affairs and national security. And if so, the court should defer to the president.

“IEEPA authorizes the imposition of regulatory tariffs on foreign imports to deal with foreign threats — which crucially differ from domestic taxation,” he wrote last month.

For the same reason, “the major questions doctrine … does not apply here,” he said. It is limited to domestic matters, not foreign affairs, he argued.

Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh has sounded the same note in the past.

Sauer will also seek to persuade the court that the word “regulate” imports includes imposing tariffs.

The challengers are supported by prominent conservatives, including Stanford law professor Michael McConnell.

In 2001, he and John Roberts were nominated for a federal appeals court at the same time by President George W. Bush, and he later served with now-Justice Neil M. Gorsuch on the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver.

He is the lead counsel for one group of small-business owners.

“This case is what the American Revolution was all about. A tax wasn’t legitimate unless it was imposed by the people’s representatives,” McConnell said. “The president has no power to impose taxes on American citizens without Congress.”

His brief argues that Trump is claiming a power unlike any in American history.

“Until the 1900s, Congress exercised its tariff power directly, and every delegation since has been explicit and strictly limited,” he wrote in Trump vs. V.O.S. Selections. “Here, the government contends that the President may impose tariffs on the American people whenever he wants, at any rate he wants, for any countries and products he wants, for as long as he wants — simply by declaring longstanding U.S. trade deficits a national ‘emergency’ and an ‘unusual and extraordinary threat,’ declarations the government tells us are unreviewable. The president can even change his mind tomorrow and back again the day after that.”

He said the “major questions” doctrine fully applies here.

Two years ago, he noted the court called Biden’s proposed student loan forgiveness “staggering by any measure” because it could cost more than $430 billion. By comparison, he said, the Tax Foundation estimated that Trump’s tariffs will impose $1.7 trillion in new taxes on Americans by 2035.

The case figures to be a major test of whether the Roberts court will put any legal limits on Trump’s powers as president.

But the outcome will not be the final word on tariffs. Administration officials have said that if they lose, they will seek to impose them under other federal laws that involve national security.

Still pending before the court is an emergency appeal testing the president’s power to send National Guard troops to American cities over the objection of the governor and local officials.

Last week, the court asked for further briefs on the Militia Act of 1908, which says the president may call up the National Guard if he cannot “with the regular forces … execute the laws of the United States.”

The government had assumed the regular forces were the police and federal agents, but a law professor said the regular forces in the original law referred to the military.

The justices asked for a clarification from both sides by Nov. 17.

SEOUL, Nov. 3 (UPI) — General Motors Korea saw its sales plunge more than 20% in October from a year earlier due to a slump at home and abroad amid high tariffs under the United States’ Trump administration.

GM Korea, based west of Seoul, said Monday that it sold 50,021 vehicles last month, down 20.8% year-on-year. The company’s domestic sales dropped 39.5%, while exports declined 20%.

Citing statistics from the Korea Automobile & Mobility Association, GM Korea Vice President Gustavo Colossi offered an optimistic view about its performance this year.

“Despite the production losses in the third quarter, demand for Chevrolet vehicles remains strong both domestically and globally, as evidenced by the Chevrolet Trax Crossover ranking No. 1 in domestic passenger car exports from January to September this year,” he said in a statement.

However, some observers remain worried about the future of GM Korea.

“Most of GM Korea’s turnover comes from exports to the United States. But the 25% tariffs have weighed on the company this year. Even if the duties go down to 15%, the struggle is feared to continue,” Daelim University automotive professor Kim Pil-soo told UPI.

“Worse, its domestic sales accounted for only about 3% in October, with just over 1,000 units sold. If the situation continues, speculation about GM’s withdrawal from Korea is unlikely to fade,” he added.

Originally, South Korean automakers did not pay any tariffs when exporting their cars to the United States, thanks to the bilateral free trade agreement that went into effect in early 2012.

The Trump administration imposed tariffs of up to 25% on Korean-made automobiles earlier this year, although Washington agreed to reduce the rate to 15% late last month in return for Seoul’s promise to make major investments in the United States.

GM Korea has denied rumors that it plans to leave South Korea.

ABOARD AIR FORCE ONE — President Trump described his face-to-face with Chinese leader Xi Jinping on Thursday as a roaring success, saying he would cut tariffs on China, while Beijing had agreed to allow the export of rare earth elements and start buying American soybeans.

The president told reporters aboard Air Force One that the U.S. would lower tariffs implemented earlier this year as punishment on China for its selling of chemicals used to make fentanyl from 20% to 10%. That brings the total combined tariff rate on China down from 57% to 47%

“I guess on the scale from 0 to 10, with ten being the best, I would say the meeting was a 12,” Trump said. “I think it was a 12.”

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said China agreed to purchase 25 million metric tons of U.S. soybeans annually for the next three years, starting with 12 million metric tons from now to January. U.S. soybean exports to China, a huge market for them, had come to a standstill in the trade dispute.

“So you know, our great soybean farmers, who the Chinese used as political pawns, that’s off the table, and they should prosper in the years to come,” Bessent told Fox Business Network’s “Mornings with Maria.”

Trump said that he would go to China in April and Xi would come to the U.S. “some time after that.” The president said they also discussed the export of more advanced computer chips to China, saying that Nvidia would be in talks with Chinese officials.

Trump said he could sign a trade deal with China “pretty soon.”

Xi said Washington and Beijing would work to finalize their agreements to provide “peace of mind” to both countries and the rest of the world, according to a report on the meeting distributed by state media.

“Both sides should take the long-term perspective into account, focusing on the benefits of cooperation rather than falling into a vicious cycle of mutual retaliation,” he said.

Sources of tension remain

Despite Trump’s optimism after a 100-minute meeting with Xi in South Korea, there continues to be the potential for major tensions between the world’s two largest economies. Both nations are seeking dominant places in manufacturing, developing emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence, and shaping world affairs like Russia’s war in Ukraine.

Trump’s aggressive use of tariffs since returning to the White House for a second term, combined with China’s retaliatory limits on exports of rare earth elements, gave the meeting newfound urgency. There is a mutual recognition that neither side wants to risk blowing up the world economy in ways that could jeopardize their own country’s fortunes.

When the two were seated at the start of the meeting, Xi read prepared remarks that stressed a willingness to work together despite differences.

“Given our different national conditions, we do not always see eye to eye with each other,” he said through a translator. “It is normal for the two leading economies of the world to have frictions now and then.”

There was a slight difference in translation as China’s Xinhua News Agency reported Xi as telling Trump that having some differences is inevitable.

Finding ways to lower the temperature

The leaders met in Busan, South Korea, a port city about 47 miles south from Gyeongju, the main venue for the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit.

In the days leading up to the meeting, U.S. officials signaled that Trump did not intend to make good on a recent threat to impose an additional 100% import tax on Chinese goods, and China showed signs it was willing to relax its export controls on rare earths and also buy soybeans from America.

Officials from both countries met earlier this week in Kuala Lumpur to lay the groundwork for their leaders. Afterward, China’s top trade negotiator Li Chenggang said they had reached a “preliminary consensus,” a statement affirmed by U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent who said there was “ a very successful framework.”

Shortly before the meeting on Thursday, Trump posted on Truth Social that the meeting would be the “G2,” a recognition of America and China’s status as the world’s biggest economies. The Group of Seven and Group of 20 are other forums of industrialized nations.

But while those summits often happen at luxury spaces, this meeting took place in humbler surroundings: Trump and Xi met in a small gray building with a blue roof on a military base adjacent to Busan’s international airport.

The anticipated detente has given investors and businesses caught between the two nations a sense of relief. The U.S. stock market has climbed on the hopes of a trade framework coming out of the meeting.

Pressure points remain for both U.S. and China

Trump has outward confidence that the grounds for a deal are in place, but previous negotiations with China this year in Geneva, Switzerland and London had a start-stop quality to them. The initial promise of progress has repeatedly given way to both countries seeking a better position against the other.

“The proposed deal on the table fits the pattern we’ve seen all year: short-term stabilization dressed up as strategic progress,” said Craig Singleton, senior director of the China program at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. “Both sides are managing volatility, calibrating just enough cooperation to avert crisis while the deeper rivalry endures.”

The U.S. and China have each shown they believe they have levers to pressure the other, and the past year has demonstrated that tentative steps forward can be short-lived.

For Trump, that pressure comes from tariffs.

China had faced new tariffs this year totaling 30%, of which 20% were tied to its role in fentanyl production. But the tariff rates have been volatile. In April, he announced plans to jack the rate on Chinese goods to 145%, only to abandon those plans as markets recoiled.

Then, on Oct. 10, Trump threatened a 100% import tax because of China’s rare earth restrictions. That figure, including past tariffs, would now be 47% “effective immediately,” Trump told reporters on Thursday.

Xi has his own chokehold on the world economy because China is the top producer and processor of the rare earth minerals needed to make fighter jets, robots, electric vehicles and other high-tech products.

China had tightened export restrictions on Oct. 9, repeating a cycle in which each nation jockeys for an edge only to back down after more trade talks.

What might also matter is what happens directly after their talks. Trump plans to return to Washington, while Xi plans to stay on in South Korea to meet with regional leaders during the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit, which officially begins on Friday.

“Xi sees an opportunity to position China as a reliable partner and bolster bilateral and multilateral relations with countries frustrated by the U.S. administration’s tariff policy,” said Jay Truesdale, a former State Department official who is CEO of TD International, a risk and intelligence advisory firm.

Boak, Megerian and Schiefelbein write for the Associated Press. Boak reported from Tokyo and Megerian reported from Busan, South Korea. Ken Moritsugu in Beijing and Seung Min Kim and Michelle Price in Washington contributed to this report.

Oct. 29 (UPI) — The U.S. Senate has passed legislation terminating the national emergency declared by President Donald Trump to impose tariffs on Canada, a day after it terminated the United States’ tariffs on Brazil.

Republicans Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Rand Paul, also of Kentucky, joined their Democratic colleagues in a 50-46 vote to pass S.J. Res. 77 on Wednesday evening.

“Tonight, the Senate came together and sent President Trump a clear, bipartisan message: he cannot continue to abuse his power and unilaterally wage a trade war against one of our strongest allies,” Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., said in a statement.

“We cannot afford to keep raising costs, hurting businesses and eliminating jobs by attacking our neighbor and ally.”

The move is mostly symbolic as it is not expected to be taken up by the Republican-controlled House.

Tariffs have been a central mechanism in Trump’s trade and foreign policy, using them to right what he sees as improper trade relations as well as to penalize nations he feels are doing him and the United States wrong.

In February, Trump announced 25% tariffs on Canadian imports under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, attracting retaliatory tariffs from Ottawa.

Then, in August, Trump raised tariffs on Canada to 35%.

Over the weekend, Trump announced a further 10% tariff on Canada over anti-tariff aired by Ontario’s provincial government.

The legislation passed Wednesday seeks to cancel the declared emergency, under which the tariffs were imposed.

“In order to strengthen our weakening economy, we need stability and strong relationships around the world — not chaotic trade wars that raise prices, shut American businesses out of foreign markets and decrease tourism to the U.S.,” Kaine, who sponsored the bill, said in a statement.

Relations between Canada and the United States, the closest of allies, have greatly soured under the second Trump administration. From tariffs to comments about annexing Canada, Ottawa and its citizens have begun to turn away from the United States in distrust and frustration to strengthen trade and defensive relations with Europe.

On Tuesday, five Republicans joined the Democrats to pass a similar bill seeking to end Trump’s tariffs on Brazil.

Tensions between China and the US have escalated amid Donald Trump’s tariff threats and new restrictions on exports.

WASHINGTON — The Senate approved a resolution Tuesday evening that would nullify President Trump’s tariffs on Brazil, including oil, coffee and orange juice, as Democrats tested GOP senators’ support for Trump’s trade policy.

The legislation from Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine, a Democrat, passed on a 52-48 tally.

It would terminate the national emergencies that Trump has declared to justify 50% tariffs on Brazil, but the legislation is likely doomed because the Republican-controlled House has passed new rules that allow leadership to prevent it from ever coming up for a vote. Trump would almost certainly veto the legislation even if it were to pass Congress.

Still, the vote demonstrated some pushback in GOP ranks against Trump’s tariffs. Five Republicans — Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Rand Paul of Kentucky and Thom Tillis of North Carolina — all voted in favor of the resolution along with every Democrat.

Kaine said the votes are a way force a conversation in the Senate about “the economic destruction of tariffs.” He’s planning to call up similar resolutions applying to Trump’s tariffs on Canada and other nations later this week.

“But they are also really about how much will we let a president get away with? Do my colleagues have a gag reflex or not?” Kaine told reporters.

Trump has linked the tariffs on Brazil to the country’s policies and criminal prosecution of former President Jair Bolsonaro. The U.S. ran a $6.8 billion trade surplus with Brazil last year, according to the Census Bureau.

“Every American who wakes up in the morning to get a cup of java is paying a price for Donald Trump’s reckless, ridiculous, and almost childish tariffs,” said Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York.

Republicans have also been increasingly uneasy with Trump’s aggressive trade policy, especially at a time of turmoil for the economy. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said last month that Trump’s tariff policy is one of several factors that are expected to increase jobless rates and inflation and lower overall growth this year.

In April, four Republicans voted with Democrats to block tariffs on Canada, but the bill was never taken up in the House. Kaine said he hoped the votes this week showed how Republican opposition to Trump’s trade policy is growing.

To bring up the votes, Kaine has invoked a decades-old law that allows Congress to block a president’s emergency powers and members of the minority party to force votes on the resolutions.

However, Vice President JD Vance visited a Republican luncheon on Tuesday in part to emphasize to Republicans that they should allow the president to negotiate trade deals. Vance told reporters afterwards that Trump is using tariffs “to give American workers and American farmers a better deal.”

“To vote against that is to strip that incredible leverage from the president of the United States. I think it’s a huge mistake,” he added.

The Supreme Court will also soon consider a case challenging Trump’s authority to implement sweeping tariffs. Lower courts have found most of his tariffs illegal.

But some Republicans said they would wait until the outcome of that case before voting to cross the president.

“I don’t see a need to do that right now,” said Sen. Kevin Cramer, a North Dakota Republican, adding that it was “bad timing” to call up the resolutions before the Supreme Court case.

Others said they are ready to show opposition to the president’s tariffs and the emergency declarations he has used to justify them.

“Tariffs make both building and buying in America more expensive, “ said Sen. Mitch McConnell, the former longtime Republican leader, in a statement. ”The economic harms of trade wars are not the exception to history, but the rule.”

His fellow Kentuckian, Republican Sen. Rand Paul, told reporters, “Emergencies are like war, famine, tornado. Not liking someone’s tariffs is not an emergency. It’s an abuse of the emergency power. And it’s Congress abdicating their traditional role in taxes.”

In a floor speech, he added, “No taxation without representation is embedded in our Constitution.”

Meanwhile, Kaine is also planning to call up a resolution that would put a check on Trump’s ability to carry out military strikes against Venezuela as the U.S. military steps up its presence and action in the region.

He said that it allows Democrats to get off the defensive while they are in the minority and instead force votes on “points of discomfort” for Republicans.

Groves writes for the Associated Press.

Getty Images

Golden crowns and grand orders

Reuters

BBC/Leehyun Choi

Oct. 29 (UPI) — The U.S. Senate on Tuesday night passed legislation terminating the national emergency declaration to impose duties on Brazilian imports, dealing a blow to President Donald Trump‘s use of the punitive economic measures to penalize the South American country for prosecuting his ally, former President Jair Bolsonaro.

The Senate voted 52-48 in favor of S.J. Res. 18, with five Republicans — Sens. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, Thom Tillis of North Carolina, Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Rand Paul, also of Kentucky — joining their Democratic colleagues in ending the emergency and, consequently, the tariffs.

The bipartisan bill was introduced by Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., and Paul.

Speaking from the floor prior to the vote Tuesday, Paul criticized the tariffs as a tax being levied against the people of the United States — taxes, which fall under the purview of the House of Representatives, not that of the executive branch.

“The Senate is compelled to act because one person in our country wishes to raise taxes without the approval of the Senate, without the approval of the House, without the approval of the Constitution,” he said, referring to Trump.

“The idea that one person can raise taxes is contrary to our founding principles.”

Tariffs have been a central mechanism of Trump’s trade and foreign policy, using them to right what he sees as improper trade relations as well as to penalize nations he feels are doing him and the United States wrong.

Starting in April, Trump imposed a 10% baseline tariff on nearly every country under a national emergency declaration, the legality of which is being challenged in court. In late July, Trump imposed an additional 40% tariff on Brazil via an executive order under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.

Trump had threatened Brazil with tariffs over how Bolsonaro “has been treated.”

Bolsonaro was being prosecuted at the time the tariffs were imposed for attempting a coup following his 2022 election loss to current President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva. In September, he was sentenced to 27 years in prison.

In his floor speech Tuesday, Kaine asked what threat to the U.S. economy, national security or foreign policy did Brazil pose to the United States to necessitate the national emergency.

“We have a trade surplus with Brazil: $7 billion a year in goods, $23 billion a year in services,” he said. “This president has said their prosecution of a disgraced politician is a national emergency for the United States? How could that be? Mr. President, if this is a national emergency, any president of any party could say that anything is a national emergency for the United States.”

China and 11-member regional bloc sign an upgraded version of their free trade pact, as both weather the impact of the US tariffs.

Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia – China and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) have upgraded their free trade agreement as trade between the two regions continues to rise in the shadow of United States President Donald Trump’s trade war.

The trade pact was signed on the sidelines of the 47th ASEAN Summit in Kuala Lumpur on Tuesday, in a ceremony witnessed by Chinese Premier Li Qiang and Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim.

The “3.0 version” of the deal will broaden collaboration on “infrastructure, digital and green transition, trade facilitation and people-to-people exchanges”, according to China’s State Council. It builds on the region’s first free trade pact with China, which came into force in 2010.

The 11-member ASEAN and China have become each other’s largest trade partners in recent years, thanks to the China Plus One supply chain that emerged after Trump’s trade war with China in 2018.

Trade between China and ASEAN has already hit $785bn in the nine months of 2025, up 9.6 percent year-on-year. Much of this trade reflects integrated manufacturing supply chains, but it also increasingly includes finished goods from China that are destined for Southeast Asian consumers.

In his remarks to the ASEAN summit on Tuesday, Li praised China and the bloc’s deepening trade relationship, and spoke of his expectation for “expanded and higher-quality economic cooperation” under the upgraded trade pact.

“Cooperation in various fields has yielded fruitful results, trade volume continues to grow steadily, and ASEAN governments have promoted even closer people-to-people exchanges,” he said.

Zhiwu Chen, a professor of finance at the University of Hong Kong, told Al Jazeera that the “3.0” trade pact comes at a time when China is trying to shore up its relationship with ASEAN.

“This is very important for China, as its trade tensions with the US and EU have been rising, and China needs ASEAN countries. At the same time, this is a time for ASEAN to take advantage of the window of opportunities precisely for the same reason,” he said, describing the deal as a “win-win outcome for both sides”.

In his remarks, Li also took aim at Trump’s tariffs, which have disrupted global trade, and marked the most protectionist policy pursued by the US government since the 1930s.

“Unilateralism and protectionism have seriously disrupted the global economic and trade order. External forces are increasingly interfering in our region, and many countries have been unfairly subjected to high tariffs,” Li said.

The US president also attended the ASEAN summit on Sunday, and is due to meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping in South Korea later this week.

While at ASEAN, Trump signed trade deals with Cambodia and Malaysia, as well as framework agreements with Thailand and Vietnam, highlighting his preference for bilateral trade deals hammered out in one-on-one discussions.

The deals appeared to finalise Trump’s “reciprocal tariff” rate on the four countries, which were set earlier this year at 19 to 20 percent.

Tariffs and trade barriers are also expected to headline Trump’s meeting with Xi, after US Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent announced that the two sides had reached a “framework agreement” on tariffs this week.

Earlier this month, Trump had threatened to impose a tariff of 100 percent on Chinese goods by November 1, after China strengthened export controls on rare earth minerals. Bessent said the framework agreement should help both sides “avoid” a tariff hike, according to Reuters.

Canadian PM Mark Carney says Ottawa “can’t control” US trade policy but will “stand ready” to resume talks “when the Americans are ready.” His remarks came after President Donald Trump halted negotiations and accused Canada of “cheating” over ads opposing US tariffs.

The Trump administration says it has ‘terminated’ all trade talks with Canada over a commercial published by the Ontario government that features comments on tariffs by the late US President Ronald Reagan, which his foundation says are misleading.

Published on
16/10/2025 – 11:19 GMT+2

ADVERTISEMENT

In the global trade storm unleashed since US President Donald Trump’s return to power, Italian pasta producers are feeling very much alone — while their case is a special one.

On 4 September, the US Department of Commerce announced preliminary tariffs of 91.74% on 13 pasta brands.

If upheld, the tariffs would take effect in January 2026, delivering a significant blow to Italy, which exported nearly €700 million worth of pasta to the United States in 2024.

Admittedly, the case is not new. It originated in 1996, when US pasta producers accused Italian manufacturers of dumping — selling their products in the American market at prices lower than those in Italy.

Since then, Italian producers have been regularly subject to tariffs, but never of the magnitude now decided by the Trump administration.

Combined with the 15% duties that now apply to EU imports into the US, the total tariff burden would reach 106.74% if implemented. The pasta makers say this is brutal.

“It’s unfair, it’s a protectionist action of the US against Italian pasta,” Margherita Mastromauro, president of Unione Italiana Food, the largest association of food producers in Italy, told Euronews.

“We need help, because a large part of our companies are involved. With a duty so high, it means that all these companies will not export until the new review will be done.”

The investigation concerned the period between 1 July 2023 and 30 June 2024, Italian producers hope the review of the year 2025 will bring them some relief. But for now, the future remains uncertain.

Can the fight become political?

The companies have been scrambling to get these tariffs lifted since September.

Two of them, Garofalo and La Molisana, have taken legal action against the decision.

The Italian government and the European Commission have begun to get involved. However, room for manoeuvre remains limited in what is, according to the president of Unione Italiana Food, more a “legal” than a “political” matter.

The Italian Foreign Ministry has said the duties were “disproportionate” and has joined the case as an “interested party” to weigh in favour of this key sector of Italy’s economy.

On its side, the Commission told Euronews that the issue could be raised within the framework of the new dialogue initiated with the Trump administration on tariffs, since the agreement reached in July ended weeks of discord between the two sides of the Atlantic.

But an EU official also conceded that, unlike the unilateral tariffs imposed on other European products — which violate rules of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) — the US anti-dumping action against pasta appears to be done traditionally, as a trade defence mechanism allowed by the WTO, which regulates international trade between its member countries.

“We are closely monitoring the case, and if there are flaws in the investigation, we will question it and we will raise the issue with the WTO,” the official told Euronews.

If that were the case, it could lead to retaliatory measures from the EU.

Socialist Italian MEP Brando Benifei, who leads the parliamentary delegation for relations with the US, condemned the US action that he considers “clearly discriminatory”.

“This has to be solved and we urge the Commission to act through,” Benifei told Euronews.

Oct. 10 (UPI) — President Donald Trump is imposing another 100% in tariffs on Chinese goods exported to the United States and will restrict software exports to China.

The new tariffs are in addition to an existing 30% tariff on Chinese goods and would take effect on Nov. 1, and possibly sooner, the president said in a social media post on Friday, according to CBS News.

The United States in November also will place restrictions on “critical software” destined for China.

Trump said he also might cancel a meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping due to new Chinese restrictions on rare earth minerals exports.

Trump and Xi are scheduled to meet in South Korea during an international economic conference that starts on Nov. 2, but the U.S. president on Friday said he no longer has a reason to do so.

“Some very strange things are happening in China!” the president said Friday in a post on Truth Social.

“They are becoming very hostile and sending letters to countries throughout the world that they want to impose export controls on each and every element of production having to do with rare earths,” Trump said.

The export restrictions would “clog’ the markets and make life difficult for virtually every country in the world — especially for China,” he added.

The president said representatives of other nations have contacted his administration and are “extremely angry over this trade hostility, which came out of nowhere.”

“There is no way China should be allowed to hold the world ‘captive,'” Trump said.

“But that seems to have been their plan for quite some time, starting with the ‘magnets’ and other elements that they have quietly amassed into somewhat of a monopoly position.”

Pending Chinese rare earth minerals restrictions

China sent letters that are several pages long to other nations and detail every rare earth element that Chinese leaders want to withhold from other countries, Trump said.

China controls most of the world’s rare earth minerals market and announced the new restrictions on Thursday, according to CNBC.

The restrictions announced on Thursday would take effect on Dec. 1 and affect the manufacturing of semiconductors and other technologies that rely on rare earth minerals, such as batteries for electric vehicles.

The Chinese government intends to require companies located outside of China to obtain a license to export their goods that contain rare earth minerals, The New York Times reported.

It also seeks to regulate the refining of rare earth minerals and certain types of technologies used to manufacture batteries.

The Chinese trade restrictions were announced amid efforts to ease trade tensions between the United States and China, which Trump and Jinping were expected to discuss during the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation conference in Seoul, South Korea, in January, Politico reported.

Mutually assured economic disruption

Beijing’s announcement on Thursday could trigger “mutually assured disruption” of the Chinese, U.S. and other global economies, said Craig Singleton, a China fellow for the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

He called China’s move a “miscalculation” and said Trump’s social media post shows China has crossed a line that is likely to cause a trade war.

“Both sides are reaching for their economic weapons at the same time,” Singleton told Politico, “and neither seems willing to back down.”

The Dow Jones Industrial Average reflected the news of the likely trade war on Friday and was down more than 520 points at $45,837.60 as of 2:25 p.m. EDT.

While the Dow is down, China’s pending rare earth minerals trade restrictions have spurred a run on related stocks, CNBC reported.

Rare earth mining firm MP Materials’ share price rose by 15% and USA Rare Earth’s shares by 19 percent during morning trading on the New York Stock Exchange.

USA Rare Earth is a vertically integrated rare earth miner and producer of magnets used in a variety of technologies.

NioCorp Developments’ share price also rose by 14% and Energy Fuels’ by more than 10% during trading late Friday morning.