A federal judge on Monday (Feb 23) ordered the US Justice Department to permanently block the release of portions of former special counsel Jack Smith's report that details his investigation into President Trump's alleged mishandling of sensitive government documents and alleged obstruction of the federal probe.&nbsp;US District Judge Aileen Cannon, who was nominated to the bench by Trump, granted requests from Trump and two of his former co-defendents Walt Nauta and Carlos de Oliveira, to issue an order permanently stopping the release of the second volume of Smit's report.&nbsp;The court's decision bars Attorney General Pam Bondi and her successors from releasing or sharing the portion of the report. The Department of Justice (DOJ), under Bondi, has already moved from seeking the prosecution of Donald Trump to actively supporting the permanent sealing of the evidence against him.&nbsp;Smith, along with his team, produced a two-volume report on an investigation into Trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential elections after he lost to Joe Biden and allegedly retained classified documents related to US military and nuclear programs at his estate in Palm Beach, Florida, after leaving the White House following the end of his first term.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/-buyer-beware-trump-warns-nations-of-steep-tariffs-if-they-back-out-of-trade-deals-1771861507686">‘BUYER BEWARE’: Trump warns nations of steep tariffs if they back out of trade deals</a>&nbsp;The Judge reiterated her stance that Jack Smith acted "without lawful authority" during the investigation, making any final report produced by his team legally void for public distribution.&nbsp;"Special Counsel Smith, acting without lawful authority, obtained an indictment in this action and initiated proceedings that resulted in a final order of dismissal of all charges. As a result, the former defendants in this case, like any other defendant in this situation, still enjoy the presumption of innocence held sacrosanct in our constitutional order," Cannon wrote in her decision. “For obvious reasons, the Court need not take actions in contravention of that protection absent a statutory or other lawful directive to do so.”&nbsp;Connen further said that allowing release of the report would lead ot large amount of material related to the case becoming public, adding that the report contains "voluminous discovery" and grand jury materials that are protected by existing court orders.

The Judge reiterated her stance that Jack Smith acted "without lawful authority" during the investigation, making any final report produced by his team legally void for public distribution.

A federal judge on Monday (Feb 23) ordered the US Justice Department to permanently block the release of portions of former special counsel Jack Smith's report that details his investigation into President Trump's alleged mishandling of sensitive government documents and alleged obstruction of the federal probe. US District Judge Aileen Cannon, who was nominated to the bench by Trump, granted requests from Trump and two of his former co-defendents Walt Nauta and Carlos de Oliveira, to issue an order permanently stopping the release of the second volume of Smit's report. The court's decision bars Attorney General Pam Bondi and her successors from releasing or sharing the portion of the report. The Department of Justice (DOJ), under Bondi, has already moved from seeking the prosecution of Donald Trump to actively supporting the permanent sealing of the evidence against him. Smith, along with his team, produced a two-volume report on an investigation into Trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential elections after he lost to Joe Biden and allegedly retained classified documents related to US military and nuclear programs at his estate in Palm Beach, Florida, after leaving the White House following the end of his first term. Also Read: ‘BUYER BEWARE’: Trump warns nations of steep tariffs if they back out of trade deals The Judge reiterated her stance that Jack Smith acted "without lawful authority" during the investigation, making any final report produced by his team legally void for public distribution. "Special Counsel Smith, acting without lawful authority, obtained an indictment in this action and initiated proceedings that resulted in a final order of dismissal of all charges. As a result, the former defendants in this case, like any other defendant in this situation, still enjoy the presumption of innocence held sacrosanct in our constitutional order," Cannon wrote in her decision. “For obvious reasons, the Court need not take actions in contravention of that protection absent a statutory or other lawful directive to do so.” Connen further said that allowing release of the report would lead ot large amount of material related to the case becoming public, adding that the report contains "voluminous discovery" and grand jury materials that are protected by existing court orders.

The Judge reiterated her stance that Jack Smith acted "without lawful authority" during the investigation, making any final report produced by his team legally void for public distribution.

US Judge permanently blocks report on Trump’s alleged hoarding of top-secret military files

President Donald Trump continued his rant against the apex court's decision to strike down his tariffs, saying that the Supreme Court accidentally and unwittingly gave "far more powers and strength than I had prior to their ridiculous, dumb, and very internationally divisive ruling." Threatening to use licenses, the US president said he "can do absolutely “terrible things” to foreign countries.&nbsp;In his latest tirade, Trump said he will be using lower-case letters for the apex court based on a complete lack of respect, as he wrote "The supreme court" in lower case.&nbsp;"Our incompetent supreme court did a great job for the wrong people, and for that they should be ashamed of themselves (but not the Great Three!)," he said in a Truth Social post.&nbsp;Trump argued that according to ruling, Washington "can’t charge them (other nations) a License fee - BUT ALL LICENSES CHARGE FEES, why can’t the United States do so?" adding that "The court has also approved all other Tariffs, of which there are many, and they can all be used in a much more powerful and obnoxious way, with legal certainty, than the Tariffs as initially used."&nbsp;He accused the US Supreme Court of favouring China, saying, “The next thing you know, they will rule in favour of China.” He added that the Supreme Court would find a way to reach the wrong conclusion — one that would again make China and various other nations happy and rich.&nbsp;Trump's latest outburst against the top court came just two days after he raised tariffs to 15 per cent on countries from around the world. Earlier, he announced 10 per cent global tariffs following the US Supreme Court's decision to strike down the tariffs he had imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), saying it “does not authorise the President to impose tariffs.”

Trump's latest outburst against the top court came days after he raised tariffs to 15 per cent on countries from around the world. Earlier, he announced 10 per cent global tariffs after the US Supreme Court struck down his tariffs.

President Donald Trump continued his rant against the apex court's decision to strike down his tariffs, saying that the Supreme Court accidentally and unwittingly gave "far more powers and strength than I had prior to their ridiculous, dumb, and very internationally divisive ruling." Threatening to use licenses, the US president said he "can do absolutely “terrible things” to foreign countries. In his latest tirade, Trump said he will be using lower-case letters for the apex court based on a complete lack of respect, as he wrote "The supreme court" in lower case. "Our incompetent supreme court did a great job for the wrong people, and for that they should be ashamed of themselves (but not the Great Three!)," he said in a Truth Social post. Trump argued that according to ruling, Washington "can’t charge them (other nations) a License fee - BUT ALL LICENSES CHARGE FEES, why can’t the United States do so?" adding that "The court has also approved all other Tariffs, of which there are many, and they can all be used in a much more powerful and obnoxious way, with legal certainty, than the Tariffs as initially used." He accused the US Supreme Court of favouring China, saying, “The next thing you know, they will rule in favour of China.” He added that the Supreme Court would find a way to reach the wrong conclusion — one that would again make China and various other nations happy and rich. Trump's latest outburst against the top court came just two days after he raised tariffs to 15 per cent on countries from around the world. Earlier, he announced 10 per cent global tariffs following the US Supreme Court's decision to strike down the tariffs he had imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), saying it “does not authorise the President to impose tariffs.”

Trump's latest outburst against the top court came days after he raised tariffs to 15 per cent on countries from around the world. Earlier, he announced 10 per cent global tariffs after the US Supreme Court struck down his tariffs.

‘I can do absolutely terrible things’: Trump says he will use lowercase for Supreme Court after tariff ruling

Let me ask you something simple. When you go to a shop and the shopkeeper says, “Sorry, the price has gone up because the government added a new tax,” what do you do? You pay more. You have no choice. That is exactly what is happening right now in America — and what happens in America does not just stay in America. It travels. It reaches India. It reaches your life.&nbsp;On Saturday, 21st February, American President Donald Trump announced a brand new 15% import tax on all goods coming into the United States from other countries. Import tax, also called a tariff, is simply extra money that a country charges when goods arrive from outside. Think of it like an entry fee. That extra cost is not eaten by the seller alone. It gets passed on to the buyer — the ordinary American person wondering why the price of their rice cooker or running shoes just went up.&nbsp;This 15% tax actually replaced a 10% tax that Trump had announced just the day before. And that 10% tax itself came because the Supreme Court of America struck down Trump’s earlier, much larger tariff plan. The court said Trump had no legal authority to impose those tariffs using IEEPA — the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. IEEPA is a tool meant for emergencies like blocking money transfers or controlling trade with enemy nations, not for placing import taxes on the whole world. The court cancelled those tariffs.&nbsp;So Trump found another law — Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. Never used before in American history to impose tariffs, this law allows a president to place up to 15% import tax, but only for 150 days, roughly five months. Section 122 was created for situations where America is spending far more on buying goods from other countries than it earns by selling its own — what is called a trade deficit. Trump argues this is exactly the kind of problem this law was made for. Legal experts, however, are not fully convinced. There is a real possibility someone will take this to court too. But for now, the tariff is in place and it is real.&nbsp;In simple numbers — before the Supreme Court’s ruling, America's average import tax was 16%. After the ruling it dropped sharply to 9.1%. Now, with the new 15% tariff, it is expected to settle around 13.7%. As reported by The Wall Street Journal, a study by the Budget Lab at Yale University confirmed this.&nbsp;Now, why should you care? India exports medicines, textiles, software services, gems and engineering goods to America. A 15% tax means Indian companies either absorb the loss or charge more and risk losing customers. Either way, jobs are affected. Salaries are affected. Trade is not a faraway government matter — it is connected to someone’s job, someone’s evening meal.&nbsp;“Wait,” you might ask, “didn’t India just agree to an 18% rate earlier this month?” Yes, we did. But that deal was built on a legal foundation that the Supreme Court just demolished. While the new 15% tax sounds lower on paper, it is actually a trap. It strips away India’s special status and puts us in the same bucket as everyone else, all while hanging a 150-day timer over our heads. In trade, a lower tax with high uncertainty is often worse than a higher tax with a clear future.&nbsp;Not everything is taxed equally. Medicines, important minerals, defence goods, and products from Canada and Mexico under an existing trade agreement are exempt. But for most imports — including cheap goods from Chinese apps like Shein and Temu — the tax applies fully.&nbsp;Earlier, packages worth $800 or less could enter America without any tax. Trump ended this benefit, and the White House confirmed it will not return. Every small package now faces the 15% tariff. The Republican Party has also passed a law to permanently end this system from June 2027.&nbsp;On the ground, The Wall Street Journal noted that January’s inflation report showed prices for home appliances, furniture, and new cars had already gone up. For most of 2025, American companies and buyers paid over 90% of the extra costs themselves. Some companies stopped hiring. But shrimp fishermen in Alabama said tariffs actually helped them compete against cheaper foreign imports. So the story has two sides.&nbsp;My honest opinion? Tariff policy is not a light switch you can flick on and off every few days. Every change creates uncertainty. Uncertainty is itself a cost. And that cost finds its way to ordinary people every single time.&nbsp;Trump’s goal — protecting American industries, reducing dependence on China, bringing back jobs — is not wrong. But changing rates every 48 hours, getting them struck down in court, and finding new laws does not inspire confidence. A country’s trade policy must be stable and legally sound. What we are seeing right now is the opposite of that.&nbsp;And that, my friend, is exactly why you should be paying attention.&nbsp;(Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.)

Donald Trump’s 15% tariff shake-up creates global trade uncertainty, raising prices, legal doubts, and economic ripple effects reaching India. While the new 15% tax sounds lower on paper, it strips away India’s special status and puts us in the same bucket as everyone else.

Let me ask you something simple. When you go to a shop and the shopkeeper says, “Sorry, the price has gone up because the government added a new tax,” what do you do? You pay more. You have no choice. That is exactly what is happening right now in America — and what happens in America does not just stay in America. It travels. It reaches India. It reaches your life. On Saturday, 21st February, American President Donald Trump announced a brand new 15% import tax on all goods coming into the United States from other countries. Import tax, also called a tariff, is simply extra money that a country charges when goods arrive from outside. Think of it like an entry fee. That extra cost is not eaten by the seller alone. It gets passed on to the buyer — the ordinary American person wondering why the price of their rice cooker or running shoes just went up. This 15% tax actually replaced a 10% tax that Trump had announced just the day before. And that 10% tax itself came because the Supreme Court of America struck down Trump’s earlier, much larger tariff plan. The court said Trump had no legal authority to impose those tariffs using IEEPA — the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. IEEPA is a tool meant for emergencies like blocking money transfers or controlling trade with enemy nations, not for placing import taxes on the whole world. The court cancelled those tariffs. So Trump found another law — Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. Never used before in American history to impose tariffs, this law allows a president to place up to 15% import tax, but only for 150 days, roughly five months. Section 122 was created for situations where America is spending far more on buying goods from other countries than it earns by selling its own — what is called a trade deficit. Trump argues this is exactly the kind of problem this law was made for. Legal experts, however, are not fully convinced. There is a real possibility someone will take this to court too. But for now, the tariff is in place and it is real. In simple numbers — before the Supreme Court’s ruling, America's average import tax was 16%. After the ruling it dropped sharply to 9.1%. Now, with the new 15% tariff, it is expected to settle around 13.7%. As reported by The Wall Street Journal, a study by the Budget Lab at Yale University confirmed this. Now, why should you care? India exports medicines, textiles, software services, gems and engineering goods to America. A 15% tax means Indian companies either absorb the loss or charge more and risk losing customers. Either way, jobs are affected. Salaries are affected. Trade is not a faraway government matter — it is connected to someone’s job, someone’s evening meal. “Wait,” you might ask, “didn’t India just agree to an 18% rate earlier this month?” Yes, we did. But that deal was built on a legal foundation that the Supreme Court just demolished. While the new 15% tax sounds lower on paper, it is actually a trap. It strips away India’s special status and puts us in the same bucket as everyone else, all while hanging a 150-day timer over our heads. In trade, a lower tax with high uncertainty is often worse than a higher tax with a clear future. Not everything is taxed equally. Medicines, important minerals, defence goods, and products from Canada and Mexico under an existing trade agreement are exempt. But for most imports — including cheap goods from Chinese apps like Shein and Temu — the tax applies fully. Earlier, packages worth $800 or less could enter America without any tax. Trump ended this benefit, and the White House confirmed it will not return. Every small package now faces the 15% tariff. The Republican Party has also passed a law to permanently end this system from June 2027. On the ground, The Wall Street Journal noted that January’s inflation report showed prices for home appliances, furniture, and new cars had already gone up. For most of 2025, American companies and buyers paid over 90% of the extra costs themselves. Some companies stopped hiring. But shrimp fishermen in Alabama said tariffs actually helped them compete against cheaper foreign imports. So the story has two sides. My honest opinion? Tariff policy is not a light switch you can flick on and off every few days. Every change creates uncertainty. Uncertainty is itself a cost. And that cost finds its way to ordinary people every single time. Trump’s goal — protecting American industries, reducing dependence on China, bringing back jobs — is not wrong. But changing rates every 48 hours, getting them struck down in court, and finding new laws does not inspire confidence. A country’s trade policy must be stable and legally sound. What we are seeing right now is the opposite of that. And that, my friend, is exactly why you should be paying attention. (Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.)

Donald Trump’s 15% tariff shake-up creates global trade uncertainty, raising prices, legal doubts, and economic ripple effects reaching India. While the new 15% tax sounds lower on paper, it strips away India’s special status and puts us in the same bucket as everyone else.

The 150-day fuse: Trump’s new plan to tax the world

A recent survey by ABC News, The Washington Post, and Ipsos suggests widespread dissatisfaction with how Donald Trump is managing the country, particularly on key kitchen-table concerns such as rising costs, employment, and America’s role abroad. The poll was carried out using Ipsos’ KnowledgePanel shortly before the Supreme Court struck down Trump’s earlier global tariff measures. Roughly two-thirds of respondents said they disapprove of Trump’s handling of inflation. Six in ten expressed opposition to his approach to import tariffs, while 62% criticised his management of foreign affairs.&nbsp;&nbsp;Immigration policy drew disapproval from 58% of those surveyed, and 57% said the broader economy could be handled more effectively. Across these major issues, the president failed to secure majority approval. However, dissatisfaction extends beyond the White House. When participants were asked which political group they trust most to address the nation’s biggest challenges, opinions were nearly evenly divided: 33% chose Trump, 31% preferred Democrats in Congress, and another 31% selected neither option. The findings indicate frustration with both political camps.&nbsp;Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/encounter-breaks-in-kishtwar-sources-say-one-jem-pak-terrorist-killed-in-the-operation-1771741821391">Two terrorists killed in J&amp;K’s Kishtwar; one a top commander of Jaish-e-Mohammad</a>&nbsp;Political affiliation played a significant role in shaping responses. Democrats and independents largely rated Trump negatively across nearly every issue. Among Republicans, opinions were mixed. Strong supporters of the Make America Great Again movement tended to back the president’s performance, while Republicans who do not align with MAGA were more skeptical, particularly regarding inflation and foreign policy. Trump’s overall disapproval rating reached about 60%, marking one of the highest levels recorded during his second term and resembling the figures seen at the conclusion of his presidency in 2021.&nbsp;Economic sentiment remains subdued. Nearly half of Americans believe conditions have deteriorated since Trump returned to office, while only about 30% think the economy has improved. Just 22% reported being financially better off, with most saying their personal situation has either stagnated or worsened. Concerns also surfaced regarding the president’s capability to serve. More than half of the respondents questioned his mental acuity, and around half doubted his physical fitness for office. While most Republicans dismissed these concerns, Democrats and independents expressed strong agreement.&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/tehran-university-protests-anti-govt-slogans-raised-in-universities-in-tehran-1771760689215/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/tehran-university-protests-anti-govt-slogans-raised-in-universities-in-tehran-1771760689215/embed</a>&nbsp;Questions about integrity further cloud the picture. Approximately seven in ten Americans said they do not view Trump as honest or trustworthy. Many respondents felt he prioritizes personal benefit and exceeds his constitutional authority.On policy specifics, a majority opposed scaling back recommended childhood vaccines and rejected the idea of deploying the US military to impose changes abroad. Many also criticized the administration’s transparency on sensitive matters, including documents related to Jeffrey Epstein.&nbsp;The survey, conducted among more than 2,500 adults nationwide, reflects a politically divided electorate marked by skepticism toward both major parties and growing unease over the country’s direction.

Most Americans disapprove of Donald Trump’s performance in running country, new poll shows

A recent survey by ABC News, The Washington Post, and Ipsos suggests widespread dissatisfaction with how Donald Trump is managing the country, particularly on key kitchen-table concerns such as rising costs, employment, and America’s role abroad. The poll was carried out using Ipsos’ KnowledgePanel shortly before the Supreme Court struck down Trump’s earlier global tariff measures. Roughly two-thirds of respondents said they disapprove of Trump’s handling of inflation. Six in ten expressed opposition to his approach to import tariffs, while 62% criticised his management of foreign affairs. Immigration policy drew disapproval from 58% of those surveyed, and 57% said the broader economy could be handled more effectively. Across these major issues, the president failed to secure majority approval. However, dissatisfaction extends beyond the White House. When participants were asked which political group they trust most to address the nation’s biggest challenges, opinions were nearly evenly divided: 33% chose Trump, 31% preferred Democrats in Congress, and another 31% selected neither option. The findings indicate frustration with both political camps. Also Read: Two terrorists killed in J&K’s Kishtwar; one a top commander of Jaish-e-Mohammad Political affiliation played a significant role in shaping responses. Democrats and independents largely rated Trump negatively across nearly every issue. Among Republicans, opinions were mixed. Strong supporters of the Make America Great Again movement tended to back the president’s performance, while Republicans who do not align with MAGA were more skeptical, particularly regarding inflation and foreign policy. Trump’s overall disapproval rating reached about 60%, marking one of the highest levels recorded during his second term and resembling the figures seen at the conclusion of his presidency in 2021. Economic sentiment remains subdued. Nearly half of Americans believe conditions have deteriorated since Trump returned to office, while only about 30% think the economy has improved. Just 22% reported being financially better off, with most saying their personal situation has either stagnated or worsened. Concerns also surfaced regarding the president’s capability to serve. More than half of the respondents questioned his mental acuity, and around half doubted his physical fitness for office. While most Republicans dismissed these concerns, Democrats and independents expressed strong agreement. https://www.wionews.com/videos/tehran-university-protests-anti-govt-slogans-raised-in-universities-in-tehran-1771760689215/embed Questions about integrity further cloud the picture. Approximately seven in ten Americans said they do not view Trump as honest or trustworthy. Many respondents felt he prioritizes personal benefit and exceeds his constitutional authority. On policy specifics, a majority opposed scaling back recommended childhood vaccines and rejected the idea of deploying the US military to impose changes abroad. Many also criticized the administration’s transparency on sensitive matters, including documents related to Jeffrey Epstein. The survey, conducted among more than 2,500 adults nationwide, reflects a politically divided electorate marked by skepticism toward both major parties and growing unease over the country’s direction.

New poll finds most Americans disapprove of US President Donald Trump’s handling of inflation, economy, and foreign policy, with trust in both parties low

Indian-origin lawyer, Neal Katyal, who fought a court battle against Donald Trump's sweeping global tariffs, has sharply criticised the US president's decision to impose a new 15 per cent tariffs on countries worldwide, saying he cannot bypass Congress for such measures. Katyal stated that if Trump believes the tariffs are a "good idea," he should follow the Constitution.&nbsp;Katyal's reaction comes after the US Supreme Court on Friday struck down Trump's global tariffs, which he had imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) in a 6-3 ruling, saying it "does not authorise the President to impose tariffs."Soon after the apex court decision, Trump vowed to use other methods to reinstate sweeping tariffs that the Supreme Court struck down. “Other alternatives will now be used to replace the ones that the court incorrectly rejected,” adding that these options could also bring in more revenue.&nbsp;In a press conference, he announced a new 10 per cent global tariff on US trade partners, invoking Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. Trump raised the tariffs to 15 per cent a day after.&nbsp;Katyal, who played a key role in getting Trump's earlier tariffs quashed by the Supreme Court, questioned the legal basis for the new duties levied under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. He underlined that the Department of Justice (DOJ) had previously told the court that Section 122 can not be invoked in issues such as trade deficits, which are different from balance-of-payment deficits.&nbsp;In a post on X, he wrote, "Seems hard for the President to rely on the 15 percent statute (sec 122) when his DOJ in our case told the Court the opposite: Nor does [122] have any obvious application here, where the concerns the President identified in declaring an emergency arise from trade deficits, which are conceptually distinct from balance-of-payments deficits."&nbsp;Katyal added, “If he wants sweeping tariffs, he should do the American thing and go to Congress. If his tariffs are such a good idea, he should have no problem persuading Congress. That's what our Constitution requires.”

Katyal, who played a key role in getting Trump's earlier tariffs quashed by the Supreme Court, questioned the legal basis for the new duties levied under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974.

Indian-origin lawyer, Neal Katyal, who fought a court battle against Donald Trump's sweeping global tariffs, has sharply criticised the US president's decision to impose a new 15 per cent tariffs on countries worldwide, saying he cannot bypass Congress for such measures. Katyal stated that if Trump believes the tariffs are a "good idea," he should follow the Constitution. Katyal's reaction comes after the US Supreme Court on Friday struck down Trump's global tariffs, which he had imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) in a 6-3 ruling, saying it "does not authorise the President to impose tariffs." Soon after the apex court decision, Trump vowed to use other methods to reinstate sweeping tariffs that the Supreme Court struck down. “Other alternatives will now be used to replace the ones that the court incorrectly rejected,” adding that these options could also bring in more revenue. In a press conference, he announced a new 10 per cent global tariff on US trade partners, invoking Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. Trump raised the tariffs to 15 per cent a day after. Katyal, who played a key role in getting Trump's earlier tariffs quashed by the Supreme Court, questioned the legal basis for the new duties levied under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. He underlined that the Department of Justice (DOJ) had previously told the court that Section 122 can not be invoked in issues such as trade deficits, which are different from balance-of-payment deficits. In a post on X, he wrote, "Seems hard for the President to rely on the 15 percent statute (sec 122) when his DOJ in our case told the Court the opposite: Nor does [122] have any obvious application here, where the concerns the President identified in declaring an emergency arise from trade deficits, which are conceptually distinct from balance-of-payments deficits." Katyal added, “If he wants sweeping tariffs, he should do the American thing and go to Congress. If his tariffs are such a good idea, he should have no problem persuading Congress. That's what our Constitution requires.”

Katyal, who played a key role in getting Trump's earlier tariffs quashed by the Supreme Court, questioned the legal basis for the new duties levied under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974.

'If he wants sweeping tariffs, he should go to US Congress': Neal Katyal slams Trump’s new 15% levies

trump-global-tariff

Trump Global Tariff, News on Trump Global Tariff, stories on Trump Global Tariff, articles on Trump Global Tariff, Trump Global Tariff stories at Wion, Trump Global Tariff news, Trump Global Tariff latest news

trump global-tariff

US Judge permanently blocks report on Trump’s alleged hoarding of top-secret military files

‘I can do terrible things’: Donald Trump mocks Supreme Court over tariff ruling

The 150-day fuse: Trump’s new plan to tax the world

Most Americans disapprove of Trump’s performance in running country, poll shows

'Go to US Congress’: Indian-origin lawyer slams Trump’s new 15% tariffs