America
Court challenge could force an end to Trump’s trade wars this month
US President Donald Trump’s trade wars could be forced to end this month, even without dozens of trading partners having to make concessions.
The decision rests with the US Court of International Trade (CIT), a little-known, New York-based federal court that adjudicates cases related to trade and customs law.
The court will hear oral arguments in a case questioning Trump’s use of the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) last month to impose sweeping new tariffs, and his subsequent 90-day suspension of the highest levies applied to approximately 60 trading partners.
If the court grants the plaintiffs’ request for an emergency preliminary injunction, the trade negotiations that the Trump administration is currently rushing to complete with dozens of countries could be upended.
Opponents of the tariffs, according to a report in POLITICO, argue that Trump has violated the Constitution and hope the US Court of International Trade will grant a preliminary injunction by the end of the month.
Jeffrey Schwab, senior counsel for the Liberty Justice Center, a conservative constitutional rights group representing VOS Selections (a New York-based wine and spirits company) and other small businesses suing over Trump’s tariffs, stated that many businesses will not survive if the tariffs are not lifted, as the case could potentially reach the Supreme Court.
An injunction would also jeopardize Trump’s efforts to use the threat of country-specific “reciprocal” tariffs to negotiate new trade deals with dozens of nations.
Trump announced the first of these deals with the United Kingdom on Thursday, though many details remain unclear. The White House has also been negotiating an agreement with China to reduce tariffs and establish a bilateral mechanism to resolve long-standing trade disputes.
To justify previous tariffs on China and the largely suspended 25% tariffs on Canada and Mexico, Trump had declared a national emergency due to immigrants and fentanyl crossing the border. However, the VOS case challenges the reciprocal tariffs Trump announced on April 2.
The Coalition for a Prosperous America, a group representing manufacturers who support import protection, praised Trump’s decision to use emergency law to implement his trade agenda as a “bold and long-overdue reset of the global trading system.”
But figures like former Republican Senator John Danforth argue that Trump is using a “flimsy pretext” to usurp the taxing and trade powers vested in Congress by the founders.
“This is the biggest issue our country has faced since its founding. This is about the concentration of power in one hand and James Madison’s idea of spreading power across various branches of government,” Danforth said in an interview.
Danforth, along with a group including former Republican senators George Allen and Chuck Hagel, and former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, submitted an amicus brief criticizing Trump’s decision and urging the CIT to issue a preliminary injunction preventing the administration from collecting tariffs while the cases are pending.
The brief states, “Since the founding of the Republic, the power to tax – like the power to raise revenue – has belonged exclusively to Congress. This is not a formality. This country was born out of the slogan ‘No taxation without representation,’ meaning that the power to tax, raise revenue, and determine the economic obligations of the people must belong to the elected representatives of the people.”
Danforth argued that the argument in their brief goes to the very heart of the matter. “This isn’t about the appropriateness of tariffs or some legal issues. It’s a constitutional issue. The question is, ‘Can the President seize the power to tax from [Congress]?’ but I would also add to that the power to control foreign trade,” the former senator said.
Schwab, lead counsel for the VOS case in the CIT on Tuesday, said they presented a series of arguments they believe the court will find persuasive.
“[Fundamentally,] we do not believe that the IEEPA grants the president the authority to impose tariffs or implement customs duties,” Schwab stated.
The plaintiffs also contest Trump’s assertion that a “large and persistent annual merchandise trade deficit” justifies imposing tariffs as a national emergency, given that the US has had a trade deficit for 50 years. Schwab said this gave Congress ample time to act if its members deemed it necessary.
The plaintiffs also advance several more technical legal arguments. One is the “major questions doctrine,” which requires an explicit delegation of authority from Congress when the executive branch takes actions exceeding an undefined threshold of “economic and political significance.” The plaintiffs argue that Trump’s tariffs clearly surpass this threshold.
Another somewhat related argument is the “nondelegation doctrine,” which states that Congress cannot delegate its legislative powers to the executive branch without providing an intelligible principle to guide the executive’s discretion.
Schwab stated, “Here, what the Trump administration is essentially saying is that they have the authority to impose tariffs without any oversight, and they can do it whenever they want, at whatever rate they want. If the court interprets [the IEEPA] this way, we believe it will find it unconstitutional.”
America
US national debt hits record $40 trillion as borrowing accelerates
The US national debt has reached a record $40 trillion as borrowing expanded at a historic pace.
The development has heightened investor concern over the state of US public finances, despite Donald Trump’s pledge to bring spending under control.
Gross federal debt crossed the threshold on Tuesday, according to Treasury Department data published on Wednesday.
Calculations by the Financial Times show that debt climbed by $3 trillion over the past year, registering the fastest rate of increase in history outside the pandemic period.
Marc Goldwein, senior policy director at the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget think tank, said:
“This is like a giant, flashing ‘check engine’ light. It doesn’t mean your engine will melt down tomorrow, but it is a clear sign that things have gotten quite out of hand. And it’s not just the size of the number; it’s the speed at which we’ve reached it.”
The US national debt has surged over the past two decades, climbing from below $6 trillion at the start of the century (about $12 trillion in 2026 dollar terms) as massive public spending during the financial crisis and the Covid-19 pandemic compounded enormous budget deficits.
In the past 10 years alone, the total debt load has doubled. Debt held by the public—a key gauge tracked by markets that excludes intra-governmental holdings—now exceeds $32 trillion, roughly equal to the size of the US economy.
The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office expects debt held by the public to surpass the post-Second World War record of 106% of GDP by the end of the decade and to reach 120% by 2036.
As borrowing increased, investors began demanding a higher premium to hold US bonds.
This has driven interest rates higher, leaving debt servicing costs larger than national defence spending.
The situation has created unease in Washington. On Wednesday, prior to the release of the debt data, the Treasury Department announced it would double its buybacks of long-term government debt in a bid to halt a recent sell-off.
Last week, the US paid its highest borrowing costs since 2001 to sell 30-year bonds.
Wednesday’s 10-year Treasury auction produced the highest yields since 2007 as investors fretted over the scale of the debt.
Ed Yardeni, president of Yardeni Research, said: “That is an awful lot of money being borrowed. It is going to feed on itself with interest expenses. If interest rates rise because of concerns about the high debt load, that will lead to even more interest expense. It’s a vicious cycle.”
Trump returned to office in 2025 promising to rein in “wasteful” government spending.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent pledged to reduce the budget deficit to 3% of GDP by the end of Trump’s term.
However, measures to trim spending in some areas were offset by broad tax cuts in the president’s signature 2025 fiscal legislation, the “One Big Beautiful Bill”, which will add more than $4 trillion to the debt by 2034.
Trump also requested an increase of more than 50% in annual defence spending, seeking $1.5 trillion in the largest budget request in US history.
The deficit fell to 5.9% of GDP in 2025 from 6.3% the previous year. The CBO expects the deficit to decline to 5.8% this year. The US national debt comprises years of accumulated deficits compounded by interest charges.
Analysts noted that both US political parties missed opportunities during periods of economic expansion to take significant steps toward curbing spending.
Calculations by the Congressional Joint Economic Committee indicate that over the past year, total national debt grew by roughly $7.9 billion a day, or approximately $91,000 per second.
Budget specialists said they hoped crossing the $40 trillion threshold would spur politicians from both parties to take meaningful steps to bring borrowing back under control.
Michael Peterson, head of the Peterson Foundation, a think tank dedicated to returning debt to a sustainable trajectory, said:
“My hope is that this serves as a national alarm and wake-up call to address our fiscal future. If we keep borrowing this much, we are going to face a day of reckoning in financial markets… People will wake up one day and decide: ‘You know what? I’m more worried about the United States now. I’m going to demand higher interest rates, or I’m going to put my money somewhere else.'”
America
Independent US oil firms set to sign output deals in Venezuela
Several independent US oil producers are expected to sign production contracts with Venezuela’s state-owned oil company in the coming days.
According to sources who spoke to Politico on condition of anonymity because details of the event have not yet been made public, a signing ceremony involving several small US producers and Petróleos de Venezuela (PDVSA) was scheduled to take place in Houston on Tuesday (18 August) evening.
One source said Venezuela’s oil minister and the head of PDVSA’s exploration division were scheduled to attend the ceremony. Another source added that the event could be postponed until Wednesday morning.
The White House, which did not immediately respond to a request for comment, was not expected to be officially involved in Tuesday’s ceremony.
However, the development follows a visit by senior officials to Caracas in late April, where they signed memorandums of understanding that established the framework for formal production agreements in the country, which holds some of the world’s largest oil reserves.
Despite the tailwind provided by high crude prices, negotiations had stalled over key details such as dispute resolution, while officials in Caracas contended with two devastating earthquakes in June that claimed thousands of lives.
Venezuela’s interim president, Delcy Rodríguez, announced new regulations last month that offer more favourable fiscal terms to international oil companies.
According to an industry source close to the negotiations, the signing of the contracts comes after the Trump administration renewed pressure on Rodríguez to ensure PDVSA concludes agreements with American firms.
The source said these efforts included outreach by Secretary of State Marco Rubio to discuss how increased oil revenues could assist the country following the devastating earthquake earlier this summer.
The source added:
“Delcy reached a renewed awareness that increased oil production is the way to rebuild after the earthquakes and to achieve what her government wants to do for the people suffering from the earthquakes.”
David Goldwyn, president of the international energy consultancy Goldwyn Global Strategies, said investments from independent oil producers and boosting output from existing fields would serve as the “primary source of new oil growth for the next few years” for Venezuela.
“While the oil majors are trying to buy time to see how the political situation clarifies and whether they can cherry-pick the best assets, independent companies can de-risk their projects in the short term,” Goldwyn said.
However, Goldwyn noted that these investments would add no more than 300,000 barrels per day to the country’s oil production over the next year, falling far short of the multi-million-barrel increase that officials in Caracas and Washington wish to see.
“Until the framework improves, electricity is restored, and the political picture becomes clear, all we will see is incremental production growth,” the strategist said.
America
US-Brazil rift widens over proposed sanctions and trade tariffs
Diplomatic tensions between the two countries remain at a peak as the US government considers new sanctions targeting a judge on Brazil’s Supreme Court.
According to sources familiar with the matter who spoke to the Financial Times (FT), the Trump administration is evaluating new measures against Justice Alexandre de Moraes, whom it sanctioned last year on human rights grounds before subsequently rescinding that decision.
Washington’s renewed focus on the magistrate threatens to widen the rift between Brazil and the US across trade and political spheres, casting a shadow over upcoming elections in Latin America’s largest nation.
A little over a year ago, De Moraes was subjected to sanctions under the Global Magnitsky Act. US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent accused him at the time of engaging in a “repressive censorship campaign, arbitrary detentions that violate human rights, and politicized prosecutions,” including measures directed at former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro.
Bolsonaro, an ally of Donald Trump, was sentenced last year to 27 years in prison for plotting a coup.
However, sanctions targeting the judge, his wife, and a company owned by his family were lifted in December following a meeting and phone conversations between Trump and his Brazilian counterpart, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva.
According to a source familiar with the matter who requested anonymity, US interest in De Moraes was revived partly due to a case that ignited a debate over press freedom in Brazil.
The judge authorized police raids against a journalist and two sources as part of an investigation into media coverage concerning a Supreme Court justice and his family.
De Moraes defended the action, arguing that the information in question had been illegally obtained and disclosed, thereby endangering the safety of the justice’s family.
The judge gained global prominence several years ago following a public conflict with Elon Musk, which briefly led to the billionaire’s X platform being blocked in Brazil.
Supporters say he “helped protect Brazilian democracy against a wave of misinformation.”
However, critics, including the Trump administration, view him as violating free speech rights.
“He went after the president’s supporters. Not just Elon Musk, but MAGA supporters in Brazil as well. Even if we want to build good relations with Brazil, it is clear that this man is an adversary,” said a person familiar with the US government’s thinking.
Another person stated that the reimposition of Magnitsky sanctions is “under evaluation,” noting that such sanctions entail the freezing of US-based assets and a prohibition on American companies and individuals conducting business with targeted parties.
While it remains unclear whether or when a decision will be reached, any such move would intensify an escalating retaliatory spiral between the two most populous countries in the Americas.
Tensions initially erupted more than a year ago when Trump imposed a 50% tariff on Brazil while demanding that prosecution proceedings against Bolsonaro be dropped.
That tariff was subsequently invalidated by the US Supreme Court.
A brief period of de-escalation since then has drawn to a close, with the US applying a 25% import tariff on numerous Brazilian products in July.
Last month, Brazil denied entry to two Trump envoys over concerns regarding potential interference in its upcoming October elections. Washington rejects those allegations.
Lula, who is seeking re-election for a fourth presidential term, suggested that the US might act to support his main opponent, Senator Flavio Bolsonaro, the jailed former leader’s son.
The 80-year-old president has also engaged in a sharp public exchange of words with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio.
On Sunday, thousands of supporters gathered to welcome Lula at a stadium in Sao Bernardo do Campo, an industrial suburb of Sao Paulo, for the official launch of his election campaign.
Lula originally achieved prominence in the area during the late 1970s as a union leader heading metalworkers’ strikes.
Speaking at the venue, Lula said, “I thank the working men and women of this country who believed that someone like themselves could achieve more than someone different from them. As long as I am alive, I will not stop fighting, and I will not allow the right [to prevail].”
-
Interview6 days agoDaniel Davis warns US strategy fails against Iranian defense grid
-
Diplomacy6 days agoErdogan blocked CIA-Mossad plan for armed Kurdish uprising in Iran, report says
-
America6 days agoAIPAC super PAC pours millions into key Democratic primary races
-
Middle East7 days agoUS considers land blockade on Iran involving Türkiye and neighbours
-
Interview2 weeks agoQuincy Institute expert says the United States had no plan B
-
Europe6 days agoUkraine uses British drones for long-range strikes deep inside Russia
-
Opinion2 weeks agoThe U.S. Economy and NATO’s Function
-
America6 days agoUS-Brazil rift widens over proposed sanctions and trade tariffs
