Connect with us

The Dictatorship

What the Supreme Court could mean for Trump, tariffs, and foreign policy

Published

on

What the Supreme Court could mean for Trump, tariffs, and foreign policy

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump sees tariffs — or the threat of them — as a powerful tool to bend nations to his will.

He has used them in an unprecedented way, not only as the underpinning of his economic agendabut also as the cornerstone of his foreign policy in his second term.

He has wielded the import taxes as a threat to secure ceasefiresfrom countries at war. He has used them to browbeat nations into promising to do more to stop people and drugs from flowing across their borders. He has used them, in Brazil’s case, as political pressure because its judicial system prosecuted a former leader who was a Trump ally, and in a recent blowup with Canada, as punishment for a television ad.

This week, the Supreme Court hears arguments on whether the Republican president has overstepped federal law with many of his tariffs. A ruling against him could limit or even take away that swift and blunt leverage that much of his foreign policy has relied on.

Trump increasingly has expressed agitation and anxiety about the looming decision in a case he says is one of the most important in U.S. history.

He has said it would be a “disaster” for the United States if the justices fail to overturn lower court rulings that found he went too far in using an emergency powers law to put his tariffs in place.

Trump had said he wanted to take the highly unusual step of attending the arguments in person, but on Sunday said he had ruled it out, saying he didn’t want to be a distraction. “I wanted to go so badly — I just don’t want to do anything to deflect the importance of that decision,” he told reporters on Air Force One.

The Justice Department, in its defense of the tariffs, has highlighted the expansive way Trump has used them, arguing that the trade penalties are part of his power over foreign affairs, an area where the courts should not second-guess the president.

Earlier this year, two lower courts and most judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that Trump did not have power under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, to set tariffs — a power the Constitution grants to Congress. Some dissenting judges on the court, though, said the 1977 law allows the president to regulate imports during emergencies without specific limitations.

The courts left the tariffs in place while the Supreme Court considers the issue. Meanwhile, Trump has continued to wield them as he has tried to pressure or punish other countries on matters related — and unrelated — to trade.

“The fact of the matter is that President Trump has acted lawfully by using the tariff powers granted to him by Congress in IEEPA to deal with national emergencies and to safeguard our national security and economy,” White House spokesman Kush Desai said in a statement. “We look forward to ultimate victory on this matter with the Supreme Court.”

Still, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said that the Trump trade team is working on contingency plans should the high court rule against the Republican administration.

“We do have backup plans,” Leavitt said on Fox News’ “Sunday Morning Futures.” “But ultimately…we are hopeful that the Supreme Court will rule on the right side of the law and do what’s right for our country. The importance of this case cannot be overstated. The president must have the emergency authority to utilize tariffs.”

Most presidents haven’t used tariffs as a foreign policy tool

Modern presidents have used financial sanctions such as freezing assets or blocking trade, not tariffs, for their foreign policy and national security aims, said Josh Lipsky, a former Obama White House and State Department staffer who is now the international economics chair at the Atlantic Council.

There are other laws that presidents can use to impose tariffs. But they require a monthslong process to justify the rates.

Trump, citing the IEEPA, moves faster and more dramatically. He signs executive orders imposing new rates and fires off social media posts threatening additional import taxes, as he did in late October when he was angered by an anti-tariff television ad aired by the province of Ontario.

“Presidents have typically treated tariffs as a scalpel, not a sledgehammer,” Lipsky said.

In contrast, Trump has used tariffs as the backbone of his national security and foreign policy agenda, Lipsky said. “All of it is interconnected and tariffs are at the heart of it,” he said.

For example, earlier this year Trump had threatened a 30% tariff on European imports, a major increase from 1.2% before he took office. Seeking to secure Trump’s support for the NATO military alliance and for security guarantees for Ukraine in its war with Russia, the European Union struck a deal to settle for 15% tariffs.

The EU Commission faced criticism from businesses and member states for giving away too much. But Trade Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič argued the settlement was “not only about the trade. It’s about security. It’s about Ukraine.”

Trump has been able “to use it in specific circumstances to get better deals — not just trade deals — but better deals overall than he might otherwise,” Lipsky said. “On the other hand, you would say there’s probably some backlash.”

Supreme Court decision could rattle geopolitics — and wallets

Trump’s tariff strong-arming has rattled relationships with America’s friends and foes. Some have responded by becoming more protectionist or looking to foster relations with China, which has tried to be seen as a promoter of free trade.

There also is the impact on pocketbook. Some businesses have passed on some of the costs to consumers by raising prices, while others have waited to see where tariff rates end up.

Tariffs traditionally have been used just as a tool to address trade practices.

“There’s literally no precedent for the manner that President Trump is using them,” said Emily Kilcrease, who was a deputy assistant U.S. trade representative and earlier worked on trade issues at the National Security Council as a career civil servant during the Obama, Trump and Biden administrations,

“The use of tariffs the way that President Trump is using them is like — just broadscale attack on an economy as a way to incentivize a foreign government to change their posture,” said Kilcrease, now a director at the Center for a New American Security think tank.

But she said the case is not clear-cut. Kilcrease said she thinks there is a “decent chance” the Supreme Court could side with Trump because IEEPA gives the president “broad, flexible emergency powers.”

The case is also coming before a Supreme Court that has thus far been reluctant to check to Trump’s wide-ranging use of executive powers.

If the court constrains Trump, it could leave foreign governments questioning whether to try to renegotiate trade agreements recently struck with the Trump administration, experts said. But there are political realities at play too, because reneging on deals could affect other foreign policy or economic priorities.

The administration could pivot to try to use other laws to justify the tariffs, though that could mean a more complex and bureaucratic process, Kilcrease said.

“It certainly doesn’t take tariffs off the table,” she said. “It just makes them a little bit slower.”

___

Associated Press writer Lindsay Whitehurst contributed to this report.

Read More

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The Dictatorship

Karen Bass advances to general election in Los Angeles mayoral contest

Published

on

Karen Bass advances to general election in Los Angeles mayoral contest

Incumbent mayor Karen Bass will proceed to the Nov. 3 general election in the Los Angeles mayoral race, the Associated Press projected early Wednesday morning.

Bass emerged as the leader of the crowded field of more than a dozen candidates after a feisty battle the past few months that led to former reality TV star Spencer Pratt and Los Angeles City Councilwoman Nithya Raman polling neck-and-neck less than a week before primary day.

As of early Wednesday morning, the Associated Press had yet to project a second candidate who would advance to the general election in the all-party primary in which the top two vote-getters move on.

Bass, the 72-year-old incumbent, has a long record in politics: Before being elected LA mayor in 2022, she represented Los Angeles in the California State Assembly, eventually becoming speaker, and served six terms in the U.S. House of Representatives. She entered the mayor’s race facing extensive criticism from Angelenos for both her handling of last year’s deadly LA wildfires — she was in Ghana when the blazes broke out — and her failure to achieve her goal of ending homelessness by the end of her first term.

Bass has campaigned on her experience, which includes standing up to the Trump administration when the president deployed Immigration and Customs Enforcement to the city last year, and a pledge to deliver on her promise to end homelessness.

Pratt, 42, was a surprise candidate when he announced his intention to run for mayor in January. The registered Republican and former reality TV villainbest known from the MTV show “The Hills,” has no political experience, but became a vocal critic of Bass and Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom after his family home burned down in the Pacific Palisades fire last year. Since launching his populist campaign centered on critiquing the city’s Democratic leadership and cracking down on homelessness and crime, Pratt has earned the backing of MAGA leadersand even President Donald Trump himself, though Pratt rejects any affiliation with the MAGA movement.

After a strong televised debate performance last month, Pratt’s fundraising surged. All in all, he has raised $3.7 million since January, compared to the $3.2 million Bass has raised over the past two years, according to the latest campaign finance filings.

Raman, a member of the Democratic Socialists of America who has represented LA’s 4th council district since 2020, launched her surprise mayoral campaign in February — less than two weeks after she endorsed Bass’ campaign for re-election.

Raman, 44, earned comparisons early on to New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani due to her DSA roots and her pledge to bring generational change to the city if elected. But as the race progressed, she walked back some of her more left-wing policy stances — such as defunding the police and opposing anti-camping zones for homeless people — and polling suggested Raman and Pratt would be fighting for second place on primary day.

This is a developing story. Check back for updates.

Julianne McShane is a breaking news reporter for MS NOW who also covers the politics of abortion and reproductive rights. You can send her tips from a non-work device on Signal at jmcshane.19 or follow her on X or Bluesky.

Read More

Continue Reading

The Dictatorship

Republican infighting in Iowa points to GOP peril after Feenstra loses governor’s race

Published

on

Republican infighting in Iowa points to GOP peril after Feenstra loses governor’s race

Republicans have not lost a gubernatorial race in Iowa since George W. Bush was president.

So the anxiety within the GOP as voters went to the polls Tuesday was, on its face, hard to explain. But the projected defeat of Rep. Randy FeenstraTrump’s endorsed candidate, in the GOP primary for governor was an early sign of just how unpredictable voters may be in Iowa this year.

In the two decades since a Democrat last won the governorship, in 2006, Iowa has gone from presidential battleground to reliably red-state terrain, carried three times by Donald Trump. In most election cycles, that record would all but guarantee a comfortable race for Republicans this fall — even in a year when momentum is building on the left.

Not this year.

What happened in Iowa on Tuesday was a clear test case of just how far the president’s blessing and the sway of partisan identity can carry a candidate over the finish line. Trump’s endorsement has essentially been the gold standard in Republican politics, often making the difference between a candidate being a contender or becoming a has-been. Sometimes, though, Trump simply sides with the candidate who seemed to be the most likely to be the primary winner.

What happened in Iowa on Tuesday was a clear test case of just how far the president’s blessing and the sway of partisan identity can carry a candidate over the finish line.

His nod to Feenstra days before Iowa’s gubernatorial primary, however, carried the marks of a late-breaking rescue mission — especially given that other rivals were well positioned as Iowans headed to vote. Democrats have had to deal with none of those worries on their end: State Auditor Rob Sand has run effectively unopposed for months, free to focus on the general election and that alone.

“Rob Sand is, he’s a very dangerous candidate, he’s running against both parties,” said Bob Vander Plaats, a conservative evangelical leader in the state. While he backed GOP candidate Adam Steen, Vander Plaats had concerns about Feenstra. “I really believe Randy gives us our biggest, biggest risk of having Rob Sand be governor,” he said ahead of Tuesday’s primary.

Even with Trump’s endorsement, Feenstra fell short in the GOP primary. The Republican congressman conceded the race Tuesday night to opponent Zach Lahn, making for one of the few times this year that Trump’s endorsed candidate has been rejected by Republican voters.

Feenstra entered the race as the front-runner. Back in 2020, he helped both national and Iowa Republicans when he defeated deeply controversial Rep. Steve King in a Republican primary — a victory that catapulted him to Washington. With a low-key approach and national connections forged in Congress, he appeared primed to help his party hold the state and continue its gubernatorial-race dominance; federal filings show that earlier in his campaign he moved more than $1 million from his congressional campaign to boost his statewide ambitions.

But the primary bruised him. While Sand glided toward November, Feenstra spent the spring fending off a crowded field.

“I feel pretty comfortable saying that we can beat anybody that they put against us,” Sand told reporters Tuesday. “I think most Iowans recognize that the state’s going in the wrong direction.”

In a five-way Republican race, Feenstra’s most formidable challenge came from Lahn, who tried to claim the “outsider” lane. Lahn lent his campaign more than $2 million and drew support from the late Charlie Kirk’s Turning Point Action organization and an arm of the Make America Healthy Again movement — the kind of backing that can scramble expectations in Republican circles.

Trump noticeably sat out the race until late last week, when he posted an endorsement on social media touting Feenstra. Despite all that, even after Trump endorsed the congressman, Lahn said last weekend he did not believe Feenstra could beat Sand this fall.

“Rob Sand has run a campaign that he’s been out with the people for a very long time, the complete opposite of what Randy Feenstra’s done,” Lahn said in an interview. “This is what’s at stake. If Randy Feenstra’s the  nominee on June 3, it affects every other race for Republicans in the state. That’s how important this is. It affects the U.S. Senate race, the House races, some of which will be in razor-thin margins.”

Ahead of polls closing Tuesday night, Feenstra campaign spokesman Billy Fuerst claimed in a message that “Randy Feenstra earned President Trump’s complete and total endorsement to be the next Governor of Iowa because President Trump knows that Randy is the only proven conservative who can defeat Extreme Liberal Rob Sand and keep Iowa red.”

Electability is often a concern in competitive primaries. But the aftermath in Iowa may prove especially difficult for Republicans. While the Iowa governor’s race is important to the state, it also could have an outsize influence on congressional control as well. A strong performance by Sand could prove pivotal in also helping Democrats as they try to win the state’s open U.S. Senate this fall, as well as to potentially flip as many as three congressional districts.

Given the narrow control Republicans have in the House, those seats could become incredibly important. And while winning the Senate race is more of a long shot, it is one of just a few that Democrats realistically have a chance of winning in the fall as they try to overcome a difficult picture to take back the Senate.

All of this means that after a few cycles where its national importance has faded, Iowa could become a tipping point for either Republicans maintaining sway for the final two years of Trump’s time in power or seeing it slip away.

Either outcome may depend on just how much Sand stresses Republicans in Iowa as he runs on a message that picks at partisan politics generally and that tries to bring back some relatability back to a Democratic Party whose reputation as caring about ideology over economic woes has become alienating in pockets of the Midwest and in key battleground states.

“[Sand’s] got the wind at his back right now, because he’s not being attacked relentlessly like he will be after the primary,” said David Kochel, an Iowa Republican strategist. “I think once this race defines and once you kind of can show that he is part of a national Democratic brand, I think it gets a lot tougher for him to win a state like Iowa.”

Hunter Woodall covers politics for MS NOW. He’s reported on politics and presidential campaigns for The Associated Press and CBS News and reported on Congress for The Minnesota Star Tribune.

Alex Tabet is a reporter for MS NOW.

Read More

Continue Reading

The Dictatorship

Scott Pelley fired from CBS News after tense ‘60 Minutes’ meeting

Published

on

Scott Pelley fired from CBS News after tense ‘60 Minutes’ meeting

Veteran “60 Minutes” correspondent Scott Pelley has been fired from CBS News a day after he excoriated the show’s new executive producer and editor-in-chief Bari Weiss in a staff meeting.

The venerated show’s newly named executive producer, Nick Bilton, announced the network “parted ways” with Pelley in a Tuesday note to staff obtained by MS NOW.

“I know how much Scott meant to many of you, and I don’t say this lightly,” Bilton wrote. “I made repeated attempts to have direct conversations with him over the weekend, and this afternoon I tried to find common ground. That was not the path Scott chose.”

Pelley’s firing deepens a seismic shift for the network, which has seen an exodus of journalists since David Ellison, CEO of Paramount Skydance, appointed Weiss as editor-in-chief last year. Last week, correspondent Sharyn Alfonsi’s contract expired after she criticized Weiss for pulling her segment on torture in Salvadoran prisons from the air. (Weiss maintained that the story was not ready. A revised version aired a month later.)

Pelley has worked for the show since 2004 and has won more than 50 Emmy Awards, according to his bio on the network’s website, which also notes he won half of all major awards earned by “60 Minutes” during his tenure.

In a staff meeting Monday, Pelley told Bilton — a journalist and filmmaker who has no prior experience in broadcast television — he had “slender” qualifications for the job, and that Weiss was “murdering” “60 Minutes,” according to The New York Times, which obtained a recording of the meeting.

“She does not love this place,” Pelley reportedly said of Weiss, according to the Times. “She was brought in to kill it, and she’s been doing exactly that.”

The news of Pelley’s firing was first reported by journalist Oliver Darcy, author of the newsletter Status.

In the termination letter Bilton sent Pelley, which was also obtained by MS NOW, the new executive producer said the veteran correspondent “hijacked my first meeting with staff to disparage me, my qualifications, and my intentions with remarkable incivility and contempt.”

“Yesterday’s performative display of hostility — enacted in front of the staff instead of in a civil, private conversation — demonstrated that you have no interest in contributing to the future success of the show, or approaching my new tenure with a mind open to collaboration and progress,” Bilton wrote.

In a phone interview with the Times after news of his firing broke, Pelley said he devoted decades of his life to the network.

“I have been in combat in Afghanistan. I have been in combat in Iraq. I have been in the war zone in Ukraine multiple times, risking my life and the happiness of my family because of my devotion to the broadcast,” he told the newspaper.

Weiss herself praised Pelley’s career even as she condemned his conduct in recent days.

“Despite our attempts to engage with Scott Pelley and to find a way back, unfortunately we weren’t able to do so, and so
we had to part ways,” Weiss said Wednesday morning at the top of the CBS News editorial call, according to remarks obtained by MS NOW.

“That unfortunate outcome does not discount from the amazing contributions and work that Scott Pelley
has done for CBS and for ‘60 Minutes’ over the course of his career,” Weiss added, listing several major things Pelley covered in the show’s most recent season.

“Those are unforgettable stories,” she said.

Julianne McShane is a breaking news reporter for MS NOW who also covers the politics of abortion and reproductive rights. You can send her tips from a non-work device on Signal at jmcshane.19 or follow her on X or Bluesky.

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending