America
US federal court overturns Trump’s tariffs
The US Court of International Trade (CIT) has unanimously ruled that President Trump exceeded his authority by imposing tariffs on dozens of trade partners.
The unanimous decision by the federal court’s three-judge panel struck a blow to a cornerstone of the President’s economic policy at a time when Donald Trump was attempting to use tariffs as leverage to sign trade deals worldwide.
Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield, who filed the lawsuit against Trump’s tariffs along with 11 other state attorneys general, stated, “Today’s court decision is a victory not only for Oregon but also for working families, small businesses, and ordinary Americans. President Trump’s sweeping tariffs were illegal, reckless, and economically devastating.”
Arguing that the Constitution does not grant any president “unlimited authority to disrupt the economy,” Rayfield added, “This decision reaffirms that our laws matter and that trade decisions cannot be made by the arbitrary whims of the president.”
The court’s decision also means the government may have to refund tariffs already collected. Ilya Somin, a law professor at George Mason University and an attorney in a case brought by several small businesses against the tariffs, said, “Everyone who has paid tariffs so far will be able to get that money back.”
The Department of Justice quickly filed an appeal, paving the way for further legal debate on the scope of Trump’s tariff authorities. Ultimately, the case could reach the Supreme Court.
Trump had justified imposing tariffs on dozens of countries based on national emergency declarations related to fentanyl trafficking and the ongoing threat of trade deficits. Trump also imposed retaliatory tariffs on countries that responded in kind.
However, the court found that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) of 1977, a federal law granting the president authority to impose tariffs, embargoes, and sanctions in national emergencies, “does not grant the president unlimited authority to impose tariffs.”
The New York-based federal court, which hears cases related to trade laws, opined, “Worldwide and retaliatory tariff decisions exceed the authority granted to the President by IEEPA to regulate imports through tariffs.”
The court invalidated Trump’s presidential decrees that imposed a 25% tariff on Canadian and Mexican products and a 20% tariff on Chinese goods, citing the national emergency related to drug trafficking.
Additionally, a 10% tariff applied to all US trade partners to address the trade deficit and “reciprocal” tariffs ranging from 20% to 50% imposed by Trump on nearly 60 trade partners were also overturned.
These tariffs were set to take effect on July 9 if foreign governments did not reach an agreement with the White House by that date.
During a hearing before the CIT last week, Assistant Attorney General Brett Shumate argued that a decision prohibiting Trump from collecting tariffs would “bring to its knees” the president’s efforts to sign new trade deals by July 8, including with leading trade partners such as Japan, India, and the European Union.
Shumate added, “While the President is conducting external negotiations with other countries on the trade deficit and the fentanyl crisis, an injunction would be extremely disruptive.”
The decision, delivered Wednesday evening, covers a lawsuit filed by V.O.S. Selections, a New York-based wine company, and several other small businesses, and a separate lawsuit by Oregon and 11 other Democrat-led states questioning the constitutionality of Trump’s actions.
The ruling was issued by a three-judge panel consisting of Gary Katzmann, an Obama appointee; Jane Restani, a Reagan appointee; and Timothy Reif, a Trump appointee. No specific judge was identified as the author of the court’s opinion.
Meanwhile, it is indicated that Trump might try to implement the same tariffs under other laws.
Furthermore, the decision does not affect other tariffs imposed by Trump under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, which allows the president to introduce new taxes on national security grounds.
Trump used this provision in March to expand existing steel and aluminum tariffs and impose a 25% tax on foreign car imports.
The administration has launched several other Section 232 investigations that could lead to future tariffs on semiconductors, pharmaceuticals, and a range of other products.
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].”
-
Interview5 days agoDaniel Davis warns US strategy fails against Iranian defense grid
-
Diplomacy5 days agoErdogan blocked CIA-Mossad plan for armed Kurdish uprising in Iran, report says
-
America5 days agoAIPAC super PAC pours millions into key Democratic primary races
-
Middle East5 days agoUS considers land blockade on Iran involving Türkiye and neighbours
-
Interview2 weeks agoQuincy Institute expert says the United States had no plan B
-
America5 days agoUS-Brazil rift widens over proposed sanctions and trade tariffs
-
Opinion2 weeks agoThe U.S. Economy and NATO’s Function
-
Europe5 days agoUkraine uses British drones for long-range strikes deep inside Russia
