Politics

What happens to Donald Trump’s tariffs now that a federal appeals court has knocked them down?

Published

3 months ago

August 30, 2025

President Donald Trump has audaciously claimed virtually unlimited power to bypass Congress and impose sweeping taxes on foreign products.

Now a federal appeals court has thrown a roadblock in his path.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled Friday that Trump went too far when he declared national emergencies to justify imposing sweeping import taxes on almost every country on earth. The ruling largely upheld a May decision by a specialized federal trade court in New York. But the 7-4 appeals court decision tossed out a part of that ruling striking down the tariffs immediately, allowing his administration time to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The ruling was a big setback for Trump, whose erratic trade policies have rocked financial markets, paralyzed businesses with uncertainty and raised fears of higher prices and slower economic growth.

The court’s decision centers on the tariffs Trump slapped in April on almost all U.S. trading partners and levies he imposed before that on China, Mexico and Canada.

Trump on April 2 — Liberation Day, he called it — imposed so-called reciprocal tariffs of up to 50% on countries with which the United States runs a trade deficit and 10% baseline tariffs on almost everybody else.

The president later suspended the reciprocal tariffs for 90 days to give countries time to negotiate trade agreements with the United States — and reduce their barriers to American exports. Some of them did — including the United Kingdom, Japan and the European Union — and agreed to lopsided deals with Trump to avoid even bigger tariffs.

Those that didn’t knuckle under — or otherwise incurred Trump’s wrath — got hit harder earlier this month. Laos got rocked with a 40% tariff, for instance, and Algeria with a 30% levy. Trump also kept the baseline tariffs in place.

Claiming extraordinary power to act without congressional approval, Trump justified the taxes under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act by declaring the United States’ longstanding trade deficits “a national emergency.”

In February, he’d invoked the law to impose tariffs on Canada, Mexico and China, saying that the illegal flow of immigrants and drugs across the U.S. border amounted to a national emergency and that the three countries needed to do more to stop it.

The U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to set taxes, including tariffs. But lawmakers have gradually let presidents assume more power over tariffs — and Trump has made the most of it.

The court challenge does not cover other Trump tariffs, including levies on foreign steel, aluminum and autos that the president imposed after Commerce Department investigations concluded that those imports were threats to U.S. national security.

Nor does it include tariffs that Trump imposed on China in his first term — and President Joe Biden kept — after a government investigation concluded that the Chinese used unfair practices to give their own technology firms an edge over rivals from the United States and other Western countries.

The administration had argued that courts had approved then-President Richard Nixon’s emergency use of tariffs in the economic chaos that followed his decision to end a policy that linked the U.S. dollar to the price of gold. The Nixon administration successfully cited its authority under the 1917 Trading With Enemy Act, which preceded and supplied some of the legal language later used in IEEPA.

In May, the U.S. Court of International Trade in New York rejected the argument, ruling that Trump’s Liberation Day tariffs “exceed any authority granted to the President’’ under the emergency powers law. In reaching its decision, the trade court combined two challenges — one by five businesses and one by 12 U.S. states — into a single case.

On Friday, the federal appeals court wrote in its 7-4 ruling that “it seems unlikely that Congress intended to … grant the President unlimited authority to impose tariffs.”

A dissent from the judges who disagreed with Friday’s ruling clears a possible legal path for Trump, concluding that the 1977 law allowing for emergency actions “is not an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority under the Supreme Court’s decisions,” which have allowed the legislature to grant some tariffing authorities to the president.

The government has argued that if Trump’s tariffs are struck down, it might have to refund some of the import taxes that it’s collected, delivering a financial blow to the U.S. Treasury. Revenue from tariffs totaled $159 billion by July, more than double what it was at the same point the year before. Indeed, the Justice Department warned in a legal filing this month that revoking the tariffs could mean “financial ruin” for the United States.

It could also put Trump on shaky ground in trying to impose tariffs going forward.

“While existing trade deals may not automatically unravel, the administration could lose a pillar of its negotiating strategy, which may embolden foreign governments to resist future demands, delay implementation of prior commitments, or even seek to renegotiate terms,” Ashley Akers, senior counsel at the Holland & Knight law firm and a former Justice Department trial lawyer, said before the appeals court decision.

The president vowed to take the fight to the Supreme Court.

“If allowed to stand, this Decision would literally destroy the United States of America,” he wrote on his social medial platform.

Trump does have alternative laws for imposing import taxes, but they would limit the speed and severity with which he could act. For instance, in its decision in May, the trade court noted that Trump retains more limited power to impose tariffs to address trade deficits under another statute, the Trade Act of 1974. But that law restricts tariffs to 15% and to just 150 days on countries with which the United States runs big trade deficits.

The administration could also invoke levies under a different legal authority — Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 — as it did with tariffs on foreign steel, aluminum and autos. But that requires a Commerce Department investigation and cannot simply be imposed at the president’s own discretion.

___

Republished with permission of the Associated Press.

Post Views: 0

Source link

Politics

Debra Tendrich turns ‘pain into policy’ with sweeping anti-domestic violence proposal

Published

1 hour ago

December 5, 2025

May Greene

Florida could soon rewrite how it responds to domestic violence.

Lake Worth Democratic Rep. Debra Tendrich has filed HB 277, a sweeping proposal aimed at modernizing the state’s domestic violence laws with major reforms to prevention, first responder training, court safeguards, diversion programs and victim safety.

It’s a deeply personal issue to Tendrich, who moved to Florida in 2012 to escape what she has described as a “domestic violence situation,” with only her daughter and a suitcase.

“As a survivor myself, HB 277 is more than legislation; it is my way of turning pain into policy,” she said in a statement, adding that months of roundtables with survivors and first responders “shaped this bill from start to finish.”

Tendrich said that, if passed, HB 277 or its upper-chamber analogue (SB 682) by Miami Republican Sen. Alexis Calatayud would become Florida’s most comprehensive domestic violence initiative, covering prevention, early intervention, criminal accountability and survivor support.

It would require mandatory strangulation and domestic violence training for emergency medical technicians and paramedics, modernize the legal definition of domestic violence, expand the courts’ authority to order GPS monitoring and strengthen body camera requirements during investigations.

The bill also creates a treatment-based diversion pathway for first-time offenders who plead guilty and complete a batterers intervention program, mental-health services and weekly court-monitored progress reporting. Upon successful completion, charges could be dismissed, a measure Tendrich says will reduce recidivism while maintaining accountability.

On the victim-safety side, HB 277 would flag addresses for 12 months after a domestic-violence 911 call to give responders real-time risk awareness. It would also expand access to text-to-911, require pamphlets detailing the medical dangers of strangulation, authorize well-check visits tied to lethality assessments, enhance penalties for repeat offenders and include pets and service animals in injunctions to prevent coercive control and harm.

Calatayud called it “a tremendous honor and privilege” to work with Tendrich on advancing policy changes “that both law enforcement and survivors of domestic abuse or relationship violence believe are meaningful to protect families across our communities.”

“I’m deeply committed to championing these essential reforms,” she added, saying they would make “a life-or-death difference for women and children in Florida.”

Organizations supporting HB 277 say the bill reflects long-needed, practical reform. Palm Beach County firefighters union IAFF Local 2928 said expanded responder training and improved dispatch information “is exactly the kind of frontline-focused reform that saves lives.”

The Florida Police Benevolent Association called HB 277 a “comprehensive set of measures designed to enhance protections” and pledged to help advance it through the Legislature.

The Animal Legal Defense Fund praised provisions protecting pets in domestic violence cases, noting research showing that 89% of women with pets in abusive relationships have had partners threaten or harm their animals — a major barrier that keeps victims from fleeing.

Florida continues to see high levels of domestic violence. The National Coalition Against Domestic Violence estimates that 38% of Florida women and 29% of Florida men experience intimate-partner violence in their lifetimes — among the highest rates in the country.

With costs rising statewide, HB 277 also increases relocation assistance through the Crimes Compensation Trust Fund, which advocates say is essential because the current $1,500 cap no longer covers basic expenses for victims fleeing dangerous situations.

Tendrich said survivors who contributed to the bill, which Placida Republican Rep. Danny Nix is co-sponsoring, “finally feel seen.”

“This bill will save lives,” she said. “I am proud that this bill has bipartisan support, and I am even more proud of the survivors whose bravery drives every line of this legislation.”

Source link

Politics

Ash Marwah, Ralph Massullo battle for SD 11 Special Election

Published

2 hours ago

December 5, 2025

May Greene

Even Ash Marwah knows the odds do him no favors.

A Senate district that leans heavily Republican plus a Special Election just weeks before Christmas — Marwah acknowledges it adds up to a likely Tuesday victory for Ralph Massullo.

The Senate District 11 Special Election is Tuesday to fill the void created when Blaise Ingoglia became Chief Financial Officer.

It pits Republican Massullo, a dermatologist and Republican former four-term House member from Lecanto, against Democrat Marwah, a civil engineer from The Villages.

Early voter turnout was light, as would be expected in a low-key standalone Special Election: At 10% or under for Hernando and Pasco counties, 19% in Sumter and 15% in Citrus.

Massullo has eyed this Senate seat since 2022 when he originally planned to leave the House after six years for the SD 11 run. His campaign ended prematurely when Gov. Ron DeSantis backed Ingoglia, leaving Massullo with a final two years in office before term limits ended his House career.

When the SD 11 seat opened up with Ingoglia’s CFO appointment, Massullo jumped in and a host of big-name endorsements followed, including from DeSantis, Ingoglia, Agriculture Commissioner Wilton Simpson, U.S. Sens. Ashley Moody and Rick Scott, four GOP Congressmen, county Sheriffs in the district, and the Florida Chamber of Commerce.

The Florida LGBTQ+ Democratic Caucus is endorsing Marwah.

Marwah ran for HD 52 in 2024, garnering just 24% of the vote against Republican John Temple.

Massullo has raised $249,950 to Marwah’s $12,125. Massullo’s $108,000 in spending includes consulting, events and mail pieces. One of those mail pieces reminded voters there’s an election.

The two opponents had few opportunities for head-to-head debate. The League of Women Voters of Citrus County conducted a SD 11 forum on Zoom in late October, when the two candidates clashed over the state’s direction.

Marwah said DeSantis and Republicans are “playing games” in their attempts to redraw congressional district boundaries.

“No need to go through this expense,” he said. “It will really ruin decades of progress in civil rights. We should honor the rule of law that we agreed on that it’ll be done every 10 years. I’m not sure why the game is being played at this point.”

Massullo said congressional districts should reflect population shifts.

“The people of our state deserve to be adequately represented based on population,” he said. “I personally do not believe we should use race as a means to justify particular areas. I’m one that believes we should be blind to race, blind to creed, blind to sex, in everything that we do, particularly looking at population.”

Senate District 11 covers all of Citrus, Hernando and Sumter counties, plus a portion of northern Pasco County. It is safely Republican — Ingoglia won 69% of the vote there in November, and Donald Trump carried the district by the same margin in 2024.

Source link

Politics

Miles Davis tapped to lead School Board organizing workshop at national LGBTQ conference

Published

3 hours ago

December 5, 2025

May Greene

Miles Davis is taking his Florida-focused organizing playbook to the national stage.

Davis, Policy Director at PRISM Florida and Director of Advocacy and Communications at SAVE, has been selected to present a workshop at the 2026 Creating Change Conference, the largest annual LGBTQ advocacy and movement-building convention.

It’s a major nod to his rising role in Florida’s LGBTQ policy landscape.

The National LGBTQ Task Force, which organizes the conference, announced that Davis will present his session, “School Board Organizing 101.” His proposal rose to the top of more than 550 submissions competing for roughly 140 slots, a press note said, making this year’s conference one of the most competitive program cycles in the event’s history.

His workshop will be scheduled during the Jan. 21-24 gathering in Washington, D.C.

Davis said his selection caps a strong year for PRISM Florida, where he helped shepherd the organization’s first-ever bill (HB 331) into the Legislature. The measure, sponsored by Tampa Democratic Rep. Dianne Hart, would restore local oversight over reproductive health and HIV/AIDS instruction, undoing changes enacted under a 2023 expansion to Florida’s “Parental Rights in Education” law, dubbed “Don’t Say Gay” by critics.

Davis’ workshop draws directly from that work and aims to train LGBTQ youth, families and advocates in how local boards operate, how public comment can shape decisions and how communities can mobilize around issues like book access, inclusive classrooms and student safety.

“School boards are where the real battles over student safety, book access, and inclusive classrooms are happening,” Davis said. “I’m honored to bring this training to Creating Change and help our community build the skills to show up, speak out, and win — especially as PRISM advances legislation like HB 331 that returns power to our local communities.”

Davis’ profile has grown in recent years, during which he jumped from working on the campaigns and legislative teams of lawmakers like Hart and Miami Gardens Democratic Sen. Shevrin Jones to working in key roles for organizations like America Votes, PRISM and SAVE.

The National LGBTQ Task Force, founded in 1973, is one of the nation’s oldest LGBTQ advocacy organizations. It focuses on advancing civil rights through federal policy work, grassroots engagement and leadership development.