Connect with us

Business

The Supreme Court’s conservatives don’t seem to be buying Trump’s trillion-dollar tariff play

Published

on



Conservative members of the Supreme Court on Wednesday appeared skeptical of President Donald Trump’s sweeping unilateral tariffs midway through arguments in a case that’s a pivotal test of executive power for a tool central to his broader agenda.

While the questions at times seemed to challenge the rationale for the tariffs, the arguments are still ongoing, and further questioning could shed additional light on their positions. A decision in the case could take weeks or months.

The Republican administration is trying to defend the tariffs central to Trump’s economic agenda after lower courts ruled the emergency law he invoked doesn’t give him near-limitless power to set and change duties on imports.

The Constitution says Congress has the power to levy tariffs. But the Trump administration argues that in emergency situations the president can regulate importation — and that includes tariffs.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett grilled the government on that point. “Has there ever been another instance in which a statute has used that language to confer the power?” she asked.

Justices Neil Gorsuch also questioned the government on whether Trump’s position would hand congressional powers to the president.

Trump has called the case one of the most important in the country’s history and said a ruling against him would be catastrophic for the economy.

The challengers argue the 1977 emergency powers law Trump used doesn’t even mention tariffs, and no president before has used it to impose them. A collection of small businesses say the uncertainty is driving them to the brink of bankruptcy.

The case centers on two sets of tariffs. The first came in February on imports from Canada, China and Mexico after Trump declared a national emergency over drug trafficking. The second involves the sweeping “reciprocal” tariffs on most countries that Trump announced in April.

Multiple lawsuits have been filed over the tariffs, and the court will hear suits filed by Democratic-leaning states and small businesses focused on everything from plumbing supplies to women’s cycling apparel.

Lower courts have struck down the bulk of Trump’s tariffs as an illegal use of emergency power, but the nation’s highest court may see it differently.

Trump helped shape the conservative majority court, naming three of the nine justices in his first term. The justices have so far been reluctant to check his extraordinary flex of executive power, handing him a series of wins on the court’s emergency docket.

Still, those have been short-term orders — little of Trump’s wide-ranging conservative agenda has been fully argued before the nation’s highest court. That means the outcome could set the tone for wider legal pushback against his policies.

The justices have been skeptical of executive power claims before, such as when then-President Joe Biden tried to forgive $400 billion in student loans under a different law dealing with national emergencies. The Supreme Court found the law didn’t clearly give him the power to enact a program with such a big economic impact, a legal principle known as the major questions doctrine.

The challengers say Trump’s tariffs should get the same treatment, since they’ll have a much greater economic effect, raising some $3 trillion over the next decade. The government, on the other hand, says the tariffs are different because they’re a major part of his approach to foreign affairs, an area where the courts should not be second-guessing the president.

The challengers are also trying to channel the conservative justices’ skepticism about whether the Constitution allows other parts of the government to use powers reserved for Congress, a concept known as the nondelegation doctrine. Trump’s interpretation of the law could mean anyone who can “regulate” can also impose taxes, they say.

The Justice Department counters that legal principle is for governmental agencies, not for the president.

If he eventually loses at the high court, Trump could impose tariffs under other laws, but those have more limitations on the speed and severity with which he could act. The aftermath of a ruling against him also could be complicated, if the government must issue refunds for the tariffs that had collected $195 billion in revenue as of September.

The Trump administration did win over four appeals court judges who found the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, gives the president authority to regulate importation during emergencies without explicit limitations. In recent decades, Congress has ceded some tariff authority to the president, and Trump has made the most of the power vacuum.

___

Follow the AP’s coverage of the U.S. Supreme Court at https://apnews.com/hub/us-supreme-court.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Trump tones down escalating Greenland rhetoric in Davos

Published

on



President Donald Trump, in his own inimitable way, struck a bellicose and yet conciliatory tone with European leaders in Davos, Switzerland, on Wednesday, somewhat tempering rising trans-Atlantic tensions and stock market jitters over concerns the U.S. is considering a takeover of Greenland. 

The nearly 90-minute speech, in which Trump lectured and hectored the tech executives and government officials in the audience, many from Europe, before clarifying that he didn’t want to use force and ultimately wanted peace, could be summed up by Trump ribbing French President Emmanuel Macron, seemingly unaware of his eye injury. “I watched him yesterday with his beautiful sunglasses. I said, ‘What the hell happened?’” Trump later added, “I actually like him. I do.” 

And while the president ruled out using military force to acquire the Danish territory of Greenland, he did not back down from antagonistic rhetoric while repeating his contested claim of having stopped eight wars around the world. (Trump’s desire for a Nobel Peace Prize, one measure of his competitiveness with predecessor Barack Obama, has hung on this eight-war figure, which some countries such as India and Pakistan reject.)

Trump used his highly anticipated address at the World Economic Forum as a platform to reaffirm his critique of European nations and of the U.S.’s status as a global superpower, but clarified that he prefers a peaceful resolution to the question over Greenland’s ownership that has threatened to kneecap the 76-year-old NATO alliance.

“I don’t have to use force. I don’t want to use force. I won’t use force,” he said.

Trump’s statement on having resolved multiple conflicts first emerged in a leaked text message the president sent to Norwegian prime minister Jonas Gahr Støre over the weekend in which he said, ominously, that he was no longer obliged to “think purely of Peace.” In that message, Trump linked his Greenland bombast to the Nobel committee deciding not to award him a Peace Prize last October, despite having “stopped 8 wars PLUS.” The committee that awards Nobel Prizes is based in Norway, although the Norwegian government does not have a say in allocating the prizes. 

Sigh of relief in the mountains

The statement assuaged the concerns of some European leaders about a possible military confrontation with the U.S. and seemed to reassure markets jittery about the onset of a new trade war, or the end of the western alliance. 

Markets responded positively after their big Tuesday sell-off. As of late morning, both the S&P 500 and the Dow Jones Industrial Average had risen over 1%, while the Nasdaq Composite index had advanced 1.3%. The 10-year Treasury yield turned lower, and the U.S. dollar stabilized after big losses Tuesday.

But Trump’s comments were an olive branch in text only, not in tone. Speaking for over an hour, the president reiterated his desire for Greenland, stating “that’s our territory” with regards to the island, while claiming he had “stopped eight wars.” (India has repeatedly rejected Trump’s claim that he stopped a war between the countries, while Pakistan has welcomed his involvement, nominating him for a Nobel.)

And while Trump toned down aggressive rhetoric of an impending military takeover of Greenland, he made clear to foreign leaders that it was a choice, even a favor: “We probably won’t get anything unless I decide to use excessive strength and force, where we would be, frankly, unstoppable, but I won’t do that,” he said.

Trump’s claim has been disputed. While the president did not specify which wars he was referring to, the U.S. has been involved in six ceasefires, although tensions have occasionally flared between Israel and Hamas and India and Pakistan. He may also be referring to agreements brokered during his first term.

Trump’s ruling out of military force on Wednesday soothed some European officials. Rasmus Jarlov, who chairs the defense committee in Denmark’s parliament, told The New York Times he “wasn’t too upset” with the president’s comments.

Lars Lokke Rasmussen, Denmark’s foreign minister, was encouraged as well: “It is positive that it is being said that military force will not be used,” he told local reporters Wednesday. “But that will not make this case go away,” he added.

While Trump reiterated his desire for a peaceful resolution during his speech, he challenged European leaders to remain opposed to him.

“You can say yes and we will be very appreciative, or you can say no and we will remember,” he said.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

One Trump proposal meant to prevent ‘nation of renters’ may make homeownership harder, experts say

Published

on



President Donald Trump said he is reestablishing the American dream of homeownership, but one of his most recent housing policy proposals may put the dream even more out of reach, experts say.

Speaking Wednesday at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Trump touted his barrage of recent housing policy executive orders, including preventing institutional investors from buying single-family homes and attempting to lower mortgage rates by directing government-controlled mortgage finance firms Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to purchase $200 billion in mortgage-backed securities.

“It’s just not fair to the public [that] they’re not able to buy a house,” Trump said Wednesday of institutional homebuying. “And I’m calling on Congress to pass that ban into permanent law, and I think they will.” Trump has also asked Congress to cap credit-card interest rates at 10%, which he claimed Wednesday “will help millions of Americans save for a home.” 

Trump also spoke directly to Wall Street giants and institutional homebuyers at Davos, saying that “many of you are good friends of mine [and] many of you are supporters,” but “you’ve driven up housing prices by purchasing hundreds of thousands of single family homes.” 

“It’s been a great investment for them, often as much as 10% of houses on the market,” Trump said. “You know, the crazy thing is, a person can’t get depreciation on a house, but when a corporation buys it, they get depreciation.” 

One policy that went unmentioned during Trump’s Wednesday speech in Davos, and one experts say could carry potentially big risks and do little to address the root causes of high housing costs, is his proposal that would allow Americans tap their 401(k) savings for mortgage down payments, which now averages 19% of a home’s price. The current U.S. median home price is about $428,000, according to Redfin, meaning a down payment could amount to a whopping $81,000. Trump hasn’t put a dollar or percentage figure on the cap for the amount Americans could pull from their 401(k)s to use toward a down payment.

Trump’s final plan on allowing Americans to use their retirement savings for down payments would likely require congressional approval because it may involve changing the tax code. The proposal, announced Friday by Kevin Hassett, director of the National Economic Council, is Trump’s latest attempt to address growing concerns about affordability across the U.S. economy, especially in the housing market, and prevent America from becoming “a nation of renters,” as he said in his address at the World Economic Forum Wednesday.

Benefits of using 401(k) funds for a down payment

Trump’s idea has some benefits. The number of first time homebuyers has fallen to half of what it was about a decade ago, according to data from the National Association of Realtors. In addition, 22% of those who are able to buy their first home are already using either borrowed money or a gift from a friend or relative for their downpayment, according to the NAR.

While Americans can already withdraw up to $10,000 to pay for a home from individual retirement accounts (IRAs) without repaying it before age 59 ½ , this rule doesn’t apply to employer-sponsored 401(k)s, the most common retirement account, unless account holders pay a 10% penalty. 

Americans can withdraw money without a penalty from their retirement plans for some exempted purposes such as recovering from a natural disaster and some medical expenses, but still have to pay income taxes on their tax-deferred accounts. These “hardship withdrawals” increased to 4.8% of participants in Vanguard retirement plans in 2024, up from 3.6% in 2023.

Most employer-sponsored 401(k)s also allow Americans to borrow for a limited time from their retirement savings penalty-free before 59 ½, including for a home purchase, as long as they repay the amount borrowed to the account with interest.

Given the limited options for accessing retirement accounts, the president’s proposal could help Americans in need of cash to unlock liquidity for a down payment. This could be especially helpful for those who may struggle to repay an IRA loan, Robert Goldberg, a finance professor at Adelphi University in Garden City, N.Y., told Fortune.

Drawbacks of using 401(k) funds for a down payment

Still, Goldberg warned swapping out the diversified investments of a 401(k) and concentrating a large chunk of their investment into one asset is risky. While some believe home prices always go up, the housing market collapse of 2008 showed this isn’t always the case.

“Imagine home prices drop so much that the home price goes not just down to the mortgage level, but to below the mortgage level, wipes out your equity position,” he said. “You would have lost your equity, your 401(k) equity. Bad outcome.” 

Experts say Trump’s proposal also does little to address the supply side of the housing market, which has been largely frozen as homebuyers who bought in at lower interest rates prior to the pandemic have been hesitant to sell, Goldberg said. Giving more people the means to buy homes without adding more supply may inadvertently increase prices and lock more people out of the housing market, instead of making it more affordable, he argued. 

“Some people will benefit from [Trump’s plan], but overall it will just be more competition for homes,” Goldberg said. 

Yet, Trump’s proposal dealing with retirement savings is especially risky because it makes it easier for Americans to use crucial retirement savings meant for the future for non-retirement uses, said Jake Falcon, a chartered retirement planning counselor and the CEO of Falcon Wealth Advisors.

The median retirement savings for an American between the ages of 45 and 55 was $115,000 as of 2022, according to the Federal Reserve. Yet, this amount may not suffice for everyone, as some experts suggest the average person needs to have saved eight to 10 times their annual salary to retire comfortably.  

“People, generally speaking, are more than likely behind, and this will just make them further behind,” Falcon said.

Given the bleak data on American retirement savings, Falcon said the government should make dipping into a retirement account for other uses harder instead of easier.

“Allowing people to raid their 401(k) doesn’t solve the problem,” he said.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

‘Let’s not be naive’: Ray Dalio warns the global rule-based order is already ‘gone,’ toppled by America’s debt crisis and raw power

Published

on



Bridgewater Associates founder Ray Dalio, speaking to Fortune‘s Kamal Ahmed at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, issued a stark warning to global leaders and business executives: Stop pretending the old rules still apply. In a candid assessment of the current geopolitical landscape, Dalio argued the fate of the post-World War II global order—much debated amid President Donald Trump’s pursuit of Greenland and unsettling of the NATO alliance—is a moot point.

“Let’s not be naive and say, ‘Oh, we’re breaking the rule-based system,’” Dalio said. “It’s gone.”

The billionaire founder of the largest hedge fund in history added that as a student of financial history, he pays close attention to the economic cycles of the last 500 years and sees cycles repeat themselves over time.

“And what I learned through that exercise is the same thing happens over and over again,” he said. “And it’s like a movie for me. It’s like watching the same movie happen.”

According to Dalio, five specific forces interact to drive the movie plot forward, with the “money-debt cycle” serving as the MacGuffin that kicks things off. The roots of the current instability, Dalio explained, lie in the monetary decisions made during the past several decades. Since 1971, when the U.S. under President Richard Nixon broke the dollar’s link to gold, Dalio notes, governments have consistently chosen to “print money” rather than allow debt crises to naturally play out. This behavior occurs when debt-service payments rise faster than incomes, squeezing spending. After more than half a century of this, he argued, repeating a consistent warning in his public remarks on the subject, the world is now witnessing a “breakdown of the monetary order,” evidenced by central banks altering their reserves and buying gold.

The previous day, Dalio had said in an appearance on CNBC’s “Squawk Box,” from the sidelines of the annual meeting in Davos, fiat currencies and debt as a storehouse of wealth were “not being held by central banks in the same way” anymore. He pointed to a decoupling in which the U.S. markets have underperformed foreign markets in specific metrics, a trend visible in the changing balance sheets of global central banks.

The core of Dalio’s concern lies in the transition from trade disputes to what he terms “capital wars.” He alluded to how U.S. Treasury bonds were the bedrock of global reserves for decades, but now, Dalio said the sheer supply of debt being produced by the U.S. is colliding with a shrinking global appetite to hold it.

“There’s a supply-demand issue,” Dalio noted, adding “you can’t ignore the possibility that … maybe there’s not the same inclination to buy U.S. debt.”

This reluctance is driven by geopolitical friction. According to Dalio, in times of international conflict, “even allies do not want to hold each other’s debt,” preferring instead to move capital into hard currencies. This shift forces the issuer of the debt to monetize it, a phenomenon Dalio summarized bluntly: “We’re increasingly buying our own money. That’s… the lesson of all this.”

As Dalio was speaking on Monday, markets weathered a global selloff as they digested the revelation that President Donald Trump was demanding U.S. possession of Greenland in revenge for not getting the Nobel Peace Prize in 2025. He had texted the Prime Minister of Norway Jonas Gahr Støre in anger about this, according to confirmed reports over the weekend, even though the Nobel Prize committee is separately operated from the government of Norway. But Dalio’s Tuesday remarks came amid calmer markets, as Trump reiterated his request for Greenland but clarified he would not authorize use of force to acquire it.

This economic instability feeds directly into the collapse of political norms, Dalio told Fortune on Wednesday. He argued the multilateral world order established in 1945—characterized by institutions such as the United Nations and the World Trade Organization—was arguably a “naive system” from the start, as it relied on representation without guaranteed enforcement.

“What happens when the leading power doesn’t want to abide by the vote?” Dalio asked. “Do you really expect that there’s going to be a United Nations vote or a World Court that’s going to resolve these things?”

The result, he argued, is a definitive shift from a multilateral system to a unilateral one. Dalio posited the central question of our time has become: “Who makes the rules, who enforces the rules, and how are you going to deal with that?”

Perhaps the most chilling aspect of Dalio’s analysis is the erosion of legal authority in favor of brute force. “Power matters more” than the law, he told Fortune, noting conflicts are increasingly decided by who controls the military, the police, and the National Guard. This trend is visible not only internationally but within nations, where democracy is threatened by populism and a growing belief the system is corrupt.

When asked if this rupture should strike fear into corporate boards and CEOs who have long relied on stable global rules, Dalio responded ignoring the truth is far more dangerous.

“I think what always scares me is the lack of realism,” he said.

Dalio advised leaders to stop relying on a dissolving rule-based system and instead focus on “jurisdiction questions,” seeking out places where people are “like-minded” and mutually supportive. Whether dealing with international boundaries or domestic regulations, Dalio insists businesses must now face the hard reality the era of assured legal protection is ending.

“Will law prevail?” Dalio asked. “Internationally, everybody is having to deal with that question.”

As confidence in institutions, the law itself, and fiat-denominated debt erodes, Dalio highlighted to CNBC the quiet but significant resurgence of gold. He emphasized gold should not be viewed merely as a speculative asset but as “the second-largest reserve currency” in the world. He noted in the previous year, gold was the “biggest market to move,” and it performed far better than tech stocks as central banks diversified their holdings. JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon had similar remarks in an interview with Fortune at the Most Powerful Women conference in October, when he said for the first time in his life, it had become “semi-rational” to have gold in your portfolio.

However, Dalio’s outlook was not entirely defensive. He said he sees the current era as a bifurcation between the decaying monetary order and a “wonderful technological revolution,” echoing Trump’s remarks onstage earlier that day about the “economic miracle” taking place. In that regard, at least, might may end up making right.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © Miami Select.