Trump said that “the prices are easy” – he learns the hard thing is not the case | Trump prices

“The prices are easy,” said Donald Trump in March. For his administration and the world, they have proven something else. Now, an obscure court of New York has blocked its signature trade policy, setting up a battle that seems sure to be in front of the Supreme Court.

The plan was simple. For decades, Trump pleaded for prices. Now, in his second term, he would do them spectacularly on the world; raise thousands of dollars for the federal government; Reduce taxes for Americans; And attract the manufacturers of the country’s industrial Heartlands, creating millions of jobs.

But this drastic offer to revise the world economy has proven to be much more complicated. The threats were followed by delays. Exemptions have been sculpted by supposed universal tariff waves. Even when they were imposed, it was days, if not hours, before the announcement of breaks.

Trump returned to his functions determined to ignore all the warnings that led his first administration to stop executing his most extreme ideas.

Long before the president returned to the White House, he committed to hike on the two largest trade partners in his country and to launch a trade war with the second world economy. Radical samples from dozens of other countries ensued.

Each important economic assault has prepared the ground for a quick retirement. The prices in Canada and Mexico were almost interrupted. The high prices high calculated for a series of business partners have been reduced to 10%. An attractive rate of 145% on Chinese products has been radically cut, having been in place for a few weeks.

Trump’s mind in each case has not been changed. His arm was twisted.

Panic on the markets prompted its administration, after initially demonstrated a challenge, to retreat. And the warnings that the very people who voted in power would bring the weight of his prices prompted the president, after having initially played the risks, to reconsider.

Trump’s economic order, which is aid is trying to travel without railing, has so far been slowed down by real consequences that have not managed to match his story. And on Wednesday, another torsion threatened to derail the hearts of his plan.

To impose general prices on the nations of Mexico and Mauritius on China and Chad, the administration declared a national emergency and used the International Economic Powers (IEEPA), a law of 1977, as legal justification.

The flow of fentanyl through borders, and the fact that the United States is more important than it exports, are emergencies that justify prices under the ieepa, according to the White House. An little -known federal court did not agree.

The ieepa “does not allow any of the pricing orders worldwide, reprisals or trafficking”, the American Court of International Trade has ended in a decision. Most Trump’s prices – including a rate of 10% on all imports, introduces last month – “go beyond any authority granted to the president by the IEEPA to regulate imports by prices,” a panel of three federal judges wrote.

On Thursday, a court of appeal judged that the decision was “temporarily suspended until further notice while this court examines the requests of requests”.

But there is no doubt that it was an important setback. Rather than reluctantly backing up his prices himself and presenting him as a kind of negotiation coup, as Trump has done several times in recent months, for the first time, figures outside his administration drew the plug.

“It was a new and expansive use of the IEEPA, and not tested,” said Greta Peisch, a former lawyer at the office of the US trade representative under Joe Biden. “It was new,” she added. “They really tested the limits of this power and the capacity of the executive branch to use it to impose prices.”

The administration’s appeal allegedly alleged that the decision was an example of a “legal tyranny” in the United States. But a closer decision Thursday, when a second US court rendered a preliminary decision against Trump’s prices in a case filed by two Illinois toy companies, learning resources and hand2mind, presented another legal obstacle.

In any case, this process forces to force Trump to fundamentally rethink his economic program. The decision of the American Court of International Trade did not aim to know if the White House was to launch a series of tariff attacks on the world, but how.

“We have a very solid argument with the IEEPA,” said the White House Commercial Advisor Peter Navarro on Thursday during an interview with Bloomberg. “But the court essentially tells us that if we lose that, we just do other things,” he said. “So, nothing has really changed.”

After months of uncertainty, these last legal spots add another layer of confusion, rather than clarifying companies trying to sail in the global economy under Trump.

“We are going to leave this decision to progress in the American court system,” said Candace Laing, president and chief executive officer of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. “In the end, the end of this trade war with the United States will not spend the courts.”

Despite Trump’s promises, most Americans are not as “rich as hell”, thanks to prices. The prices have also not collected billions of dollars or created millions of jobs. But Trump’s point of view has not changed either. They remain beautiful, at least in his eyes.

“Do not project that it will be where we meet,” said Peisch, now a lawyer for the Wiley law firm, about current legal limbo. “There will be a lot of ups and downs before arriving wherever the final rest place is intended for prices under this administration.”