Business
Trump warns US could be left ‘defenceless’ if Supreme Court overturns global tariffs
US President Donald Trump has cautioned that the United States could be left “defenceless” and “reduced to almost Third World status” if the Supreme Court overturns his sweeping global tariffs. The warning came as justices appeared sceptical during oral arguments on Wednesday about his claims of near-unlimited authority to impose tariffs.
Despite the court’s doubts, trade experts say Trump would still have multiple legal tools to continue taxing imports even if his emergency powers are curtailed. “It’s hard to see any pathway here where tariffs end,” said Kathleen Claussen, a trade law professor at Georgetown University. “He could rebuild the tariff landscape using other authorities.”
Tariffs have become a key element of Trump’s foreign and economic policy in his second term. Since returning to the White House, he has imposed double-digit “reciprocal” tariffs on most countries, declaring America’s trade deficits a national emergency. The average US tariff now stands at 17.9%, up from 2.5% in January, according to Yale University’s Budget Lab — the highest level since 1934.
At the hearing, Neal Katyal, representing small businesses challenging the tariffs, argued that Trump’s use of the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) went far beyond what Congress intended. He noted that Congress had already delegated tariff powers through other, more limited laws. “Congress knows exactly how to delegate its tariff powers,” Katyal said.
Even if the Supreme Court restricts his use of emergency powers, Trump could turn to several other laws to keep tariffs in place. Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 allows the United States to impose duties on countries engaged in “unjustifiable” or “unreasonable” trade practices. Trump has used it extensively against China, including tariffs on a wide range of goods during his first term. These measures can last four years and be renewed indefinitely.
Another option is Section 122 of the same act, which lets the president impose tariffs of up to 15% for 150 days in response to trade imbalances. Though never used before, this provision requires no investigation before implementation.
Trump has also relied heavily on Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, which allows tariffs on imports deemed a threat to national security. Using this authority, he has imposed duties on steel, aluminium, and even furniture, a move that critics argue stretches the definition of “security.” Courts are generally reluctant to question presidential determinations in this area, giving the White House considerable latitude.
Some advisers have floated an even older tool: Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930, part of the infamous Smoot-Hawley legislation that deepened the Great Depression. The clause permits tariffs of up to 50% against countries that discriminate against US businesses. Though it has never been used, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent recently described it as a potential “Plan B” should the Supreme Court strike down Trump’s emergency tariffs.
“To be the first president ever to use it could have some cachet,” said John Veroneau, a former US trade official. For now, Trump’s message to the court — and to trading partners — is clear: even if one door closes, he intends to keep the tariff war alive.
Business
Iran Conflict Sparks Global Fertiliser Crunch, Raising Fears for Food Security
The war involving Iran and the continued blockade of the Strait of Hormuz are beginning to ripple through global agriculture, with rising fertiliser costs threatening food production and pushing farmers under increasing financial strain.
A new World Bank report warns that soaring energy prices and disrupted trade routes have created a severe fertiliser squeeze, driving affordability for farmers to its lowest level in four years. The crisis is being fuelled largely by a sharp rise in natural gas prices, a key ingredient in the production of nitrogen-based fertilisers.
Because fertiliser production is closely tied to energy markets, any spike in gas prices quickly translates into higher costs for farmers. That dynamic is now raising concerns about the impact on future harvests, particularly in regions already facing economic and food security challenges.
European agriculture ministers are reportedly discussing emergency measures to shield farmers from escalating costs and to protect grain production for next year. While Europe is not currently facing an immediate supply shortage, industry groups say the pressure on farm finances is intensifying.
A spokesperson for Fertilisers Europe said the continent remains relatively well supplied, thanks to strong domestic production and high import levels in recent months. Europe typically meets around 70% of its fertiliser demand through its own output.
However, the organisation warned that farmers are operating on increasingly narrow margins. It called for targeted support from European Union institutions while also ensuring that assistance does not undermine the competitiveness of the region’s fertiliser industry.
The situation is more severe outside Europe. According to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, shipping disruptions through the Strait of Hormuz have caused significant fertiliser shortages across Asia, the Middle East and parts of Africa.
Countries including India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Egypt, Sudan and several nations in sub-Saharan Africa are facing rising costs, reduced availability and growing risks to food security.
Analysts warn that if farmers cut fertiliser use to save money, crop yields could fall sharply in the next planting season. Research from the International Food Policy Research Institute suggests that reduced application rates would likely lower global grain production and tighten food supplies.
The FAO’s Food Price Index has already begun to rise, reflecting mounting concerns over input costs and supply disruptions. Higher transport expenses and logistical challenges linked to the conflict are expected to place additional upward pressure on food prices in the months ahead.
For many developing economies already struggling with inflation, the impact could be especially severe. Policymakers may face difficult choices as they seek to balance economic stability with food affordability.
Experts say the crisis underscores the importance of securing not only food supplies, but also the essential inputs that make food production possible. Without a stabilisation of energy markets and a restoration of normal shipping routes, the effects of the Iran conflict could linger far beyond the battlefield.
Business
Oil Markets Jolt as UAE Exits OPEC Amid Strait of Hormuz Crisis
Business
UAE’s OPEC Exit Marks New Chapter for Gulf Energy Strategy
-
Entertainment2 years agoMeta Acquires Tilda Swinton VR Doc ‘Impulse: Playing With Reality’
-
Business2 years agoSaudi Arabia’s Model for Sustainable Aviation Practices
-
Business2 years agoRecent Developments in Small Business Taxes
-
Sports2 years agoChina’s Historic Olympic Victory Sparks National Pride Amid Controversy
-
Home Improvement1 year agoEffective Drain Cleaning: A Key to a Healthy Plumbing System
-
Politics2 years agoWho was Ebrahim Raisi and his status in Iranian Politics?
-
Sports2 years agoKeely Hodgkinson Wins Britain’s First Athletics Gold at Paris Olympics in 800m
-
Business2 years agoCarrectly: Revolutionizing Car Care in Chicago
