Trump tears up to tariffs: judge insults Richter as a crook!

Trump tears up to tariffs: judge insults Richter as a crook!

New York, USA - The legal disputes about the trade tariffs of US President Donald Trump are anything but ended. A current decision by a US trade court, which Trump's punitive tariffs declared unconstitutional, triggered a wave of outrage in the White House. Trump described the judgment in a contribution to Truth Social as "terrible" and politically motivated. He insulted the judges who made the verdict as a "back room crook" and accused them of causing serious damage to the United States. These statements clarify Trump's determination to continue his controversial trade policy and to defend itself against legal setbacks. reports that the case is expected to land before the Supreme Court of the United States.

The decision of the court in New York blocks comprehensive tariffs from Trump on goods from almost all countries. The judge's committee found that Trump exceeded his powers with his customs policy and pointed out that the responsibility for trade tariffs was at the US Congress. The White House reacted promptly and immediately appealed, which shows the view that Trump claims the executive power to handle the trade crisis. Tagesse Commercial goods specific taxes on products from China, Mexico and Canada, which increases the tensions with different trading partners.

Trump's trade policy and their challenges

The legal disputes are not only limited to technical aspects. The President referred to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) from 1977 to justify his tariffs, which he considered necessary to extend the pressure on unsolved trading problems and drug smuggling. However, judges made it clear that trade deficits cannot be seen as a national emergency, which undermines the basis for many of Trump's arguments. The taz explains that the IEEPA does not provide the president for such measures, and the constitution attributes the customs sovereignty to Congress.

The consequences of these decisions could be serious for Trump's trade policy. While the basic tariffs remain from ten percent to almost all imports to the United States, the controversial tariffs on steel, aluminum and cars are still valid, based on other legal provisions. Experts predict that companies will be re -evaluated their supply chains, which could result in serious economic implications. At the same time, it remains to be seen whether the Supreme Court will deal with the case and how the final decision could influence the political landscape.

In the meantime, the discussion about a possible return to tariffs of up to 50 percent according to a 1930 trading law remains, should Trump have to adjust his strategies. The legal disputes about his originally introduced tariffs illustrate the complexity and the far-reaching consequences of its trade policy for the US economy and international relationships.