What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[The Brain]

The relationship is a bit special.

[The Minsky Moment]

From a brief Trump's DOJ submitted in the tariff case, discussing Section 122, which Trump just used to authorize across the board tariffs of 10%, or 15% depending on which brain fart finds it's way into an EO:

More specifically, the reciprocal tariffs rest on the finding that a goods trade deficit has given rise to a variety of domestic problems centered on manufacturing deficiencies.  See supra at pp. 26-28.  It is those problems which underlie the national emergency declared with respect to the unusual and extraordinary threat, thus triggering application of IEEPA. EO '257 contains no finding that there even is an overall balance-of payments deficit, which considers not just transactions in goods but also services, capital investments, and other international transactions. Moreover, and sufficient for our conclusion that the statutes do not contradict each other as relevant here, the reciprocal tariffs do not in any way focus on "fundamental international payments problems."  Trade Act of 1974 § 122(a) [§ 2132] (emphasis added); see generally EO '257. Such problems concern the payments (financial, cash) side of the accounting statement, which involves the reserves of currencies (or their substitutes like gold) and the operation of foreign-exchange markets that determine the ability of persons from one country to acquire another country's currency needed to make the foreign purchases or investments reflected in the current and capital accounts. That is the nature of the problem underlying the 1971 Presidential Proclamation on which section 122 was based, . . .and section 122 is limited to some subset of such "fundamental international payments problems,"

A lot of words here but key takeaway is that the Trump administration represented to the Court that the US was not suffering a balance of payments (BOP) crisis that could justify using Section 122.

It further connects the meaning of BOP crisis to Nixon's 1971 proclamation, which defined the problem as one of insufficient monetary reserves.  It will be hard to declare a crisis exists in that dimension.

[Tamas]

The relationship is a bit special.

 

[Syt]

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5yvky5ldk1o

Trump threatens countries that 'play games' with existing trade deals

US President Donald Trump has threatened to impose higher tariffs on countries that "play games" with recent trade deals, after the Supreme Court last week blocked many of the sweeping global levies.

His warning came as countries around the world said they were evaluating what tariffs and trade deals would stand following the decision, which struck down the bulk of tariffs Trump imposed last year.

The European Union said on Monday it would suspend its ratification of a deal struck over the summer.

India also said it would defer previously scheduled talks to finalise a recent agreement.

Writing on social media, Trump warned countries against using the ruling to back away from trade commitments made in response to last year's tariffs.

"Any Country that wants to 'play games' with the ridiculous supreme court decision, especially those that have 'Ripped Off' the U.S.A. for years, and even decades, will be met with a much higher Tariff, and worse, than that which they just recently agreed to," he wrote on Truth Social. "Buyer beware."

The back-and-forth is an indication of the chaos kicked off after the Supreme Court on Friday struck down tariffs unveiled by Trump last spring under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).

The court said that law did not authorise the president to impose the tariffs, which are a tax on imports paid by businesses bringing goods into the country.

Trump responded by announcing a new 10% global tariff using a different law, which he quickly raised to 15%. That measure, from which some products are exempt, was set to come into force on Tuesday.

But many countries said they remained uncertain of the status of deals negotiated in the wake of Trump's initial tariff measures, when many countries sought lower levies on their goods in exchange for promises of investments or other concessions meant to make it easier for American firms to do business abroad.

The UK on Monday said it was pressing US officials for answers about whether its deal - which had set tariffs at 10%, below the 15% rate currently under discussion - would hold.

"I recognise the uncertainty the latest announcement from the US has created," UK Business and Trade Secretary Peter Kyle said in a statement, adding that "all options" were on the table as the UK seeks to protect businesses and the public.

Bernd Lange, chair of the European Parliament's International Trade Committee, said the committee had suspended its approval of the deal the US and EU and approved in July while it sought clarity.

"The situation is now more uncertain than ever," he said.

The White House has insisted that its approach to trade will not change as a result of the ruling, as it turns to other laws to impose the duties.

Trump on Friday deployed Section 122, a never-used law that allows the president to impose tariffs for 150 days without congressional approval.

He also ordered officials to start investigations under Section 301, a separate trade law that allows the president to impose tariffs in response to specific "unfair" trade practices.

The new tariffs are expected to stand alongside separate, previously announced tariffs Trump has imposed on specific items, such as steel, aluminium and cars, which were unaffected by the court's ruling.

"We found ways to really reconstruct what we're doing," US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer told on ABC News on Sunday.

"The legal tool to implement it - that might change, but the policy hasn't changed."

In a separate interview with CBS News on Sunday, Greer told that the White House would "stand by" the trade deals it had struck. "We expect our partners to stand by them," Greer added.

But many analysts and businesses say they expect the uncertainty to continue - especially because the new 15% tariffs are due to expire after 150 days, unless Congress votes to extend them.

Senate Democratic minority leader Chuck Schumer warned on Monday that Democrats would block any attempt to extend the duties. Trump's tariffs are also unpopular with some Republicans.

Schumer said in a statement: "Democrats will not go along with furthering Trump's economic carnage."

Writing on social media on Monday, Trump argued he did not need Congress's approval for tariffs.

[Zoupa]

Looks like the US ambassadors in Europe are being instructed to stir up trouble?

Kushner's felonious father just had his credentials pulled by Macron lol. I think he's out of fucks to give.

[The Minsky Moment]

The Section 122 tariffs violate the EU and UK trade deals.  So Trump is the one walking away.