Replies

The International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) provides the President broad authority to regulate a variety of economic transactions following a declaration of national emergency. IEEPA, like the Trading with the Enemy Act (TWEA) from which it branched, sits at the center of the modern U.S. sanctions regime. Changes in the use of IEEPA powers since the act’s enactment in 1977 have caused some to question whether the statute’s oversight provisions are robust enough given the sweeping economic powers it confers upon the President during a declared emergency.

Over the course of the twentieth century, Congress delegated increasing amounts of emergency power to the President by statute. TWEA was one such statute. Congress passed TWEA in 1917 to regulate international transactions with enemy powers following the U.S. entry into the First World War. Congress expanded the act during the 1930s to allow the President to declare a national emergency in times of peace and assume sweeping powers over both domestic and international transactions. Between 1945 and the early 1970s, TWEA became the central means to impose sanctions as part of U.S. Cold War strategy. Presidents used TWEA to block international financial transactions, seize U.S.-based assets held by foreign nationals, restrict exports, modify regulations to deter the hoarding of gold, limit foreign direct investment in U.S. companies, and impose tariffs on all imports into the United States.

https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R45618

“In 1971, after President Nixon suspended the convertibility of the U.S. dollar to gold, he made use of Section 5(b) of TWEA to declare a state of emergency and place a 10% ad valorem supplemental duty on all dutiable goods entering the United States.”

https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R45618

IEEPA vs Section 232 for Imposing Tariffs in Response to a
National Security Threat

While a President could likely use IEEPA to impose additional tariffs on imported goods as President Nixon did under TWEA, no President has done so. Instead, Presidents have turned to Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 in cases of purported emergency. Section 232 provides that if the Secretary of Commerce “finds that an article is being imported into the United States in such quantities or under such circumstances as to threaten to impair the national security,” then the President may take action to adjust the imports such that they will no longer impair national security. While the use of Section 232 requires findings by the Secretary of Commerce, the restrictions and reporting requirements of the NEA do not apply. For that reason, Section 232 may be an attractive source of presidential authority for imposing additional tariffs for national security purposes. Using this authority, President Donald J. Trump applied additional duties on steel and aluminum in March 2018.

However, IEEPA is not subject to the same procedural restraints as Section 232. As no investigation is required, IEEPA authorities can be invoked at any time in response to a national emergency based on an “unusual and extraordinary threat, which has its source in whole or substantial part outside the United States.” As such, IEEPA may be a source of authority for the President to impose a tariff quickly. On May 30, 2019, President Trump announced his intention to use IEEPA to impose and gradually increase a 5% tariff on all goods imported from Mexico until “the illegal migration crisis is alleviated through effective actions taken by Mexico.” The tariffs were scheduled to be implemented on June 10, 2019, with 5% increases to take effect at the beginning of each subsequent month. On June 7, 2019, President Trump announced that that “The Tariffs scheduled to be implemented by the U.S. [on June 10], against Mexico, are hereby indefinitely suspended.”

https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R45618

North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act §201(a)(1)
(1993):31 “The President may proclaim—(A) such modifications or continuation of any duty, (B) such continuation of duty-free or excise treatment, or (C) such additional duties, as the President determines to be necessary or appropriate to carry out or apply [specified] articles ... of the Agreement.”

“Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities and Accountability Act of 2015
§103(a):35 “Whenever the President determines that one or more existing duties or other import restrictions of any foreign country or the United States are unduly burdening and restricting the foreign trade of the United States and that the purposes, policies, priorities, and objectives of this chapter will be promoted thereby, the President ... may ... proclaim—(i) such modification or continuance of any existing duty, (ii) such continuance of existing duty-free or excise treatment, or (iii) such additional duties, as the President determines to be required or appropriate to carry out any such trade agreement.... The President shall notify Congress of the President’s intention to enter into an agreement under this subsection.” This authority is subject to the following restrictions: “No proclamation may be made under paragraph (1) that—(A) reduces any rate of duty (other than a rate of duty that does not exceed 5 percent ad valorem on June 29, 2015) to a rate of duty which is less than 50 percent of the rate of such duty that applies on June 29, 2015; (B) reduces the rate of duty below that applicable”

“In Cornet Stores v. Morton, a case involving a challenge to a presidential proclamation that imposed a 10% surcharge duty on certain imported merchandise in light of a declared national emergency, the plaintiffs sought recovery of the import surcharges they had paid, relying on the jurisdictional provisions of the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917.37 Both the district court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit dismissed the matter, finding it fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the former Court of Customs and Patent Appeals Court (Customs Court), which has since been replaced at the trial level by the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT).”

“Cornet Stores v. Morton, 632 F.2d 96, 97 (9th Cir. 1980).”

In 1928, a similar challenge was brought in the Customs Court in J.W. Hampton, Jr., & Co. v. United States. In Hampton, an importer challenged an increase in duties on certain imported goods as a result of a presidential proclamation issued under Section 315 of the Tariff Act of 1922, which provides:
[W]henever the President, upon investigation of the differences in costs of production of articles wholly or in part the growth or product of the United States and of like or similar articles wholly or in part the growth or product of competing foreign countries, shall find it thereby shown that the duties fixed in this act do not equalize the said differences in costs of production in the United States and the principal competing country he shall, by such investigation, ascertain said differences and determine and proclaim the changes in classifications or increases or decreases in any rate of duty provided in this act shown by said ascertained differences in such costs of production necessary to equalize the same.”

There may be more:
https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R44707

My Revised Tariff Plan 4/14/2025

The total tariff shall be:
1. 25%, on aircraft grade aluminum alloys and automotive grade ferrous metal,
2. on national security products [we could and should make],
a. initially 0%, and then increasing by 2% at the start of every IRS quarter month after 2025 to 20%, on
I. industrial level components,
II. any drug for lawful retail sale & consumer use,
III. drug, chemical and plastic industrial inputs, other than refinery hydrocarbons and those for making fertilizer,
VI. semiconductors,
V. solar cells and panels,
VI. basic rare earth element products other than ore,
3. 0%, on
a. other raw materials, including coffee beans, fertilizers and their precursors,
base metals, electricity, raw & refined hydrocarbon products,
when vended without resale or short leash supply restriction,
b. foodstuffs, when sourced from a country for which the Secretary of Agriculture justly holds in good standing
for lack of undue impediment on import of US agricultural products generally vendable in the USA,
4. tariffs paid on section 1 and 2 imports, except from China,
may creditable on a one-to-one basis after bona fide export of manufactured products containing them
via any optional scheme the Secretary of Commerce may allow a bona fide manufacturing exporter to participate in.

The base tariff, on all imports not assigned a total tariff, shall be:
1. 20%, on items of a type that have been sold at retail that can be made and packaged by automated equipment,
2. 10%, on any other product,
3. 200%, on a service such as gambling or pornography historically banned by law, or
4. 10%, on any other service.

The base tariff for a particular import shall be:
1. increased 2% per dollar as estimated by the Secretary of Commerce,
on the industry wage shortfall of a key source country compared to the USA,
up to 20%, but levied only if the country is industrially advanced,
2. increased by the percentage of the latest 12-month US<->international commercial cash flow US shortfall,
excluding most raw material transactions, as to be estimated by the Secretary of Commerce, up to
a. 10%, if the key source country is industrially advanced,
b. 5%, otherwise,
3. increased by the percentage of the latest 12-month US<->the key source country commercial cash flow US shortfall,
excluding most raw material transactions, as to be estimated by the Secretary of Commerce, of up to
a. 10%, if the key source country is industrially advanced,
b. 5%, otherwise,
4. adjusted based on the latest 12-month US<->foreign exchange rate change,
as to be computed at least annually by the Secretary of Commerce, with
a. proportional addition by up to 5%, when unfavorable to the US dollar,
b. proportional reduction by up to 5%, when favorable to the US dollar, but to not less than 10% tariff,
5. as directed by the President of the United States and otherwise allowed by law,
adjusted based on domestic producer profitability, by industry and/or product type,
except when the import is a garment from a country that is not industrially advanced,
or contains intellectual property of key value significance,
as shall be calculated by the Secretary of Commerce, with
I. a 10% addition, no domestic producer of product or service type,
II. addition of calculated percentage that is less than 10%,
III. reduction by calculated percentage that is less than 10%, but to not less than 10% tariff.

For tariff purposes, a country is to be considered industrially advanced if it:
1. exports vehicles sold in the USA, other than motorcycles, which can be driven on a federal interstate highway,
2. produces an aircraft, or more than 10% of an aircraft by value, when such aircraft is certified by the FAA,
3. enriches uranium,
4. produces weapons for export to the USA which had a listed import value in excess of $100 million
in a prior 12-month period less than 24 months past,
5. is considered as such by the Secretary of Commerce for reasonable cause.

There shall be no tariff on bartered items internal to a motor vehicle organization, bartered beverage exchange system, or other barter system approved for tariff exemption by and justly held in good standing with the Secretary of Commerce.

[Certain dollar amounts on apparel, electronic and stuff typically sold below any possible US production amount
should be tariff exempt, not never the whole item regardless of cost. We don’t need to be importing $1,000 cellphones that
could be made in the USA for far less.]

The Secretary of Commerce may by regulation provide tariff exemptions up to the following amounts:
1. $100 on a laptop or personal computer
2. $60 on a smartphone
3. 10 cents per square inch of LCD screen
4. $45 per hard disk drive
5. $1 per first GB of solid-state memory and 20 cents for each additional GB
6. $5 on a shirt, blouse or dress
7. $4 on a pair of pants or skirt
8. $1 on an undergarment
9. $15 on a suit
10. 10 cents per inch of sewing, up to $2 on shoes and any other garment including dolls clothing
11. 80% of the genuine wholesale value of material in a garment
12. 90% of the genuine wholesale value of precious metal in an item of jewelry
13. such amounts on kitchen appliances that do not exceed
80% of values of competitively priced basic models as of June 1, 2023
14. such amounts on hand tools, powered and unpowered, that do not exceed
80% of values of competitively priced basic models as of June 1, 2023.

The Secretary of Commerce or any federal judge shall refuse admission to the US to products whose ability to be supplied to the US market might be the result of a coercive technology transfer agreement, patent infringement or technology or trade secret theft.

https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/4310879/posts

Trump has already told America the reality. We are now simply a Great Power, no longer the Hyper Status Power, who history will show abused our power.

Immediately after China’s XI talked of new world order, France was talking about rebuilding their hospital system to support a rear area for NATO troops in Ukraine.

In many ways for NATO and the US, UKraine has become so more than we bargained for when planned the destruction of Russia.

For the West Ukraine is becoming an Extresenial Threat. If NATO loses in Ukraine, they will at the same time see the rest of Africa and the non-aligned/globabl south slip from their overlordship.

Russia was a prize to capture for the west due to it’s vast resources. The Ukrainian’s actually spread the war to Africa with help from the French and British - and France has paid dearly in it’s overseas colonies and their Foreign Franc economy, losing 3-4 nations outright and facing freedom movements everywhere overseas. The Brits have delusions of greatness, piggy backing on US power, to still rule the world - Trump is weening the Brit’s off the American back, and no longer will the US be the muscle for London and Paris.

Trump came into office fighting Brics - he never said so, but I recognized it immediately. All his sanctions were just another angle to isolate either Russia or the West - it was a bold gambit.

In China it now appears from the news that most of the world wants out from under the West and our loving jackbooted NATO. We have abused our own laws concerning NATO since Bill Clinton - I still remember talking with GOs in the Army that Clinton was breaking laws and misusing NATO. Today, we have watch NATO be used to stop the dreams of the world crushed when foreign leaders tried to establish Gold based Banking and free loans in Africa and to poorer nations. We went to war with Iraq and destroyed Lybia - both tried to implement a Gold Dinar loan system. The western banking system from London to NYC run the world as we know it.

Trump will not bring peace; Trump is going to lead the US into wars of destruction of our National Power abroad and quite possibly at home. There are too many woke people who believe that the US can win a “Limited Nuclear War” with either of the other Great Powers Trump has talked about.

Were the US to simply allow the EU to become their Zone of Influence they too could become a Great Power, along with the US, China and Russia... emerging India.

AS the EU loses influence in the world, it is a dangerous time for Trump - he cannot bring himself to talk a step back from the Ukrainian US Coup and military buildup in Ukraine which is for Russia an Extensial Threat. That we don’t give a damn about Russian security concerns, nor those of China or India shows just have Facist we have become in the US in regards to our nonexistant foreign policy - NATO has been the club we beat others with, but it hollowed out.

Today, Trump knows that we are in the time of what will be nuclear wars. The US cannot achieve via coup, buying politicians abroad, or uprisings in other nations, the non-use of military power. We and the EU/NATO have to use military power to maintain our grip on the world. Trump knows what started out as war against Russia has turned 2/3s of the world against the west.

Ukraine was everything in 2015 to the DNC/Brits/deep state. Today, everyone is all in to the point of telling other countries they must choose either the US or Russia.

The way the west used every lever of power against Russia has been watched and learned in real time by the entire world. They saw the Swith, the Banking, the Sancations, the Seizure of Assest and now Theft of Russian Assets, they have watched the US Coups, the NATO duplicity and lies as it spread eastward, and its wars in the Middle East - and the Wrold is looking to be just be left alone.

Brics was a pipe dream in 2020. After watching the West and US power on display against Russia, Brics is now blending with the Shanghai Cooperation Organization in China and with the non-aligned/global south.

Trump is kinda correct. If he cannot Sanction other countries and maintain US leverage over them, the American way of life will have to be worked harder for in order for our government and the dollar to survive.

Trump went to Japan, EU and Korea and took their USD Reserves from them under the threat of tariffs in a like amount - for them the prospect of tariffs of this magnitude would sink their economies - Trump blackmailed these nations for their hard earned dollars. This has not been lost on the rest of the world either.

Japan has literally thrown in the towel with Trump giving up even negotiating or talking with him. I am concerned after Trump’s the Pirate was finished with Tokyo raids of their currency reservces that they may well end up siding with Brics and leaving the US Orbit.

Trump does yet see this. It has been a possibility with S.Korea for over 20 years and as they eventually grow closer to China they may too flip against the heavy handed Presidential Diplomacy if that’s what it can be called.

Trump is a desperate man. He cannot be seen to lose Ukraine. He is facing a recession at home. The US has pissed away all the good will it ever had with most of the world. Unless Foggy Bottom begins to at least recognize some of the viewpoints exposed herein, we are apt to fail in our diplomatic endeavors in the near future.

All that is left for Trump is the military option. Trump is going to bring the US into multiple conflicts - unless he grows some political backbone at home and at the same time defeats the Deep State/Brit ownership of AmeriKa and return America to it’s non-British days.

President Donald Trump claimed on Sunday that tariffs are driving more than $15 trillion in new U.S. investment and that if courts should strike them down, the U.S. would likely become a "Third World Nation."
Trump’s post comes in direct response to a federal appeals court delivering a major legal setback to his trade policy, declaring most of his sweeping tariffs unlawful under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA.

It's a shame there is no legal argument. Now it is just fear mongering.

International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.)

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1701

50 U.S. Code § 1701 - Unusual and extraordinary threat; declaration of national emergency; exercise of Presidential authorities
(a) Any authority granted to the President by section 1702 of this title may be exercised to deal with any unusual and extraordinary threat, which has its source in whole or substantial part outside the United States, to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States, if the President declares a national emergency with respect to such threat.
(b) The authorities granted to the President by section 1702 of this title may only be exercised to deal with an unusual and extraordinary threat with respect to which a national emergency has been declared for purposes of this chapter and may not be exercised for any other purpose. Any exercise of such authorities to deal with any new threat shall be based on a new declaration of national emergency which must be with respect to such threat.
(Pub. L. 95–223, title II, § 202, Dec. 28, 1977, 91 Stat. 1626.)

- - - - - - - - -

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/unusual">

Unusual: different from others of the same type in a way that is surprising, interesting, or attractive:

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/extraordinary">

extraordinary: very unusual, special, unexpected, or strange

- - - - - - - - - -

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1702">

50 U.S. Code § 1702 - Presidential authorities
(a) In general
(1) At the times and to the extent specified in section 1701 of this title, the President may, under such regulations as he may prescribe, by means of instructions, licenses, or otherwise—
(A) investigate, regulate, or prohibit—
(i) any transactions in foreign exchange,
(ii) transfers of credit or payments between, by, through, or to any banking institution, to the extent that such transfers or payments involve any interest of any foreign country or a national thereof,
(iii) the importing or exporting of currency or securities, by any person, or with respect to any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States;
(B) investigate, block during the pendency of an investigation, regulate, direct and compel, nullify, void, prevent or prohibit, any acquisition, holding, withholding, use, transfer, withdrawal, transportation, importation or exportation of, or dealing in, or exercising any right, power, or privilege with respect to, or transactions involving, any property in which any foreign country or a national thereof has any interest by any person, or with respect to any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States; and.[1]
(C) when the United States is engaged in armed hostilities or has been attacked by a foreign country or foreign nationals, confiscate any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, of any foreign person, foreign organization, or foreign country that he determines has planned, authorized, aided, or engaged in such hostilities or attacks against the United States; and all right, title, and interest in any property so confiscated shall vest, when, as, and upon the terms directed by the President, in such agency or person as the President may designate from time to time, and upon such terms and conditions as the President may prescribe, such interest or property shall be held, used, administered, liquidated, sold, or otherwise dealt with in the interest of and for the benefit of the United States, and such designated agency or person may perform any and all acts incident to the accomplishment or furtherance of these purposes.
(2) In exercising the authorities granted by paragraph (1), the President may require any person to keep a full record of, and to furnish under oath, in the form of reports or otherwise, complete information relative to any act or transaction referred to in paragraph (1) either before, during, or after the completion thereof, or relative to any interest in foreign property, or relative to any property in which any foreign country or any national thereof has or has had any interest, or as may be otherwise necessary to enforce the provisions of such paragraph. In any case in which a report by a person could be required under this paragraph, the President may require the production of any books of account, records, contracts, letters, memoranda, or other papers, in the custody or control of such person.
(3) Compliance with any regulation, instruction, or direction issued under this chapter shall to the extent thereof be a full acquittance and discharge for all purposes of the obligation of the person making the same. No person shall be held liable in any court for or with respect to anything done or omitted in good faith in connection with the administration of, or pursuant to and in reliance on, this chapter, or any regulation, instruction, or direction issued under this chapter.
(b) Exceptions to grant of authority
The authority granted to the President by this section does not include the authority to regulate or prohibit, directly or indirectly—
(1) any postal, telegraphic, telephonic, or other personal communication, which does not involve a transfer of anything of value;
(2) donations, by persons subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, of articles, such as food, clothing, and medicine, intended to be used to relieve human suffering, except to the extent that the President determines that such donations (A) would seriously impair his ability to deal with any national emergency declared under section 1701 of this title, (B) are in response to coercion against the proposed recipient or donor, or (C) would endanger Armed Forces of the United States which are engaged in hostilities or are in a situation where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances; or [2]
(3) the importation from any country, or the exportation to any country, whether commercial or otherwise, regardless of format or medium of transmission, of any information or informational materials, including but not limited to, publications, films, posters, phonograph records, photographs, microfilms, microfiche, tapes, compact disks, CD ROMs, artworks, and news wire feeds. The exports exempted from regulation or prohibition by this paragraph do not include those which are otherwise controlled for export under section 4604 [3] of this title, or under section 4605 [3] of this title to the extent that such controls promote the nonproliferation or antiterrorism policies of the United States, or with respect to which acts are prohibited by chapter 37 of title 18; or
(4) any transactions ordinarily incident to travel to or from any country, including importation of accompanied baggage for personal use, maintenance within any country including payment of living expenses and acquisition of goods or services for personal use, and arrangement or facilitation of such travel including nonscheduled air, sea, or land voyages.
(c) Classified information
In any judicial review of a determination made under this section, if the determination was based on classified information (as defined in section 1(a) of the Classified Information Procedures Act) such information may be submitted to the reviewing court ex parte and in camera. This subsection does not confer or imply any right to judicial review.
(Pub. L. 95–223, title II, § 203, Dec. 28, 1977, 91 Stat. 1626; Pub. L. 100–418, title II, § 2502(b)(1), Aug. 23, 1988, 102 Stat. 1371; Pub. L. 103–236, title V, § 525(c)(1), Apr. 30, 1994, 108 Stat. 474; Pub. L. 107–56, title I, § 106, Oct. 26, 2001, 115 Stat. 277.)