“President Donald Trump on Thursday signed his plan for reciprocal tariffs but delayed their implementation as his administration launches negotiations on a one-by-one basis with nations that could be impacted.
“The Plan shall ensure comprehensive fairness and balance across the international trading system,” read the memorandum signed by Trump.
The studies of each country could be completed by April 1, incoming Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said Thursday while standing at Trump’s side, adding that then “we’ll hand the president the opportunity” to start implementing them as soon as on April 2.”
…
“Nations from India to Brazil to South Korea have long charged higher average duties on various goods and will clearly be in the middle of coming talks.
Trump’s memo Thursday outlined how non-tariff barriers, such as the VAT, would also be subject to reciprocity.
“For purposes of this United States Policy, we will consider Countries that use the VAT System, which is far more punitive than a Tariff, to be similar to that of a Tariff,” Trump posted to Truth Social on Thursday.
That issue is likely to be a sizable stumbling block in relations with the European Union.”
LC: VATs are applied to domestic products and imports, so treating a VAT like an import tariff that is just applied to the import, makes no sense.
“When Trump imposed tariffs during his first term, he cited authority under other laws, like the Trade Act of 1974 and the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. At one point he threatened to invoke the IEEPA to impose tariffs on Mexican goods, but he never followed through, perhaps amid concern it would have been seen as legally dubious.
That’s because the IEEPA is typically used to impose sanctions — not tariffs — on other countries.
But Trump’s decision to use the IEEPA this time, when he’s aggressively flexing his executive authority, may be no accident: Unlike other trade laws, the IEEPA has the fewest procedural requirements and safeguards.
It gives the president the power to regulate or prohibit a broad swath of economic activity in order “to deal with any unusual and extraordinary threat” that is based largely outside the United States and concerns “the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States.” In the executive orders that announced the tariffs on Canada, Mexico and China, Trump invoked the opioid crisis, as well as illegal immigration from Canada and Mexico.”
…
“No president has ever used the IEEPA to impose tariffs before. In fact, the IEEPA was passed as part of a broader effort by Congress in the 1970s to limit the president’s ability to exercise emergency economic powers. The framework ultimately created, however, completely fails to rein in the president, according to Timothy Meyer, a law professor and expert on international trade law. And Trump is taking advantage of that failure by pushing beyond what the Constitution intended.
“This strikes me as unconstitutional,” Meyer told me. “It’s very difficult to see how the framers would’ve thought that it was constitutional for the president to simply have the power on the drop of a hat to impose an across-the-board 25 percent tariff on our major trading partners.”
The Constitution gives Congress the authority to “lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises.” Between Trump’s tariffs and his unilateral effort to halt federal spending, he has now effectively claimed that he has both taxing and spending authority — a government all his own. Congress barely even needs to exist in this framework.”
“Vance’s most comprehensive statement of this radical position came in an interview I conducted with him in January 2023 for a profile in POLITICO Magazine. During the interview, I referred to comments that he had made on a conservative podcast in 2021 suggesting that Trump, if reelected, should “fire every single midlevel bureaucrat, [and] every civil servant in the administrative state … and when the courts stop you, stand before the country like Andrew Jackson did and say: ‘The chief justice has made his ruling. Now let him enforce it.’”
I asked Vance if this was still his view.
“Yup,” he responded.”
…
“Vance’s rhetorical quibbling aside, his suggestion is radical. The course of action he is recommending — the president openly defying a Supreme Court order and then challenging the courts to enforce it — would amount to a full-fledged constitutional crisis of a different sort, one that would entirely upend the existing rules governing the separation of powers between the courts and the executive branch.”
“The arrival of Elon Musk’s allies at the Labor Department has sparked fears that the quality of the agency’s reports on everything from inflation to jobs could suffer at the hands of inexperienced outsiders — with global consequences.”
“The Office of Personnel Management has formally submitted draft regulations that would make it easier for agencies to fire career government officials who push back against presidential orders.
The move laid out in documents obtained by POLITICO on Tuesday is the latest step toward rekindling a plan initiated at the tail end of President Donald Trump’s first term to eliminate civil service protection for federal employees who play a role in policy development or advocacy.”