US still working on trade deals despite court ruling, USTR [US Trade Representative] says

ny post ^ | 08/31/2025 | Jasper Ward and Andrea Shalal

[BenLurkin]

The Trump administration is continuing its talks with trading partners despite a US appeals court ruling that most of President Trump’s tariffs are illegal, US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said on Sunday.

“Our trading partners, they continue to work very closely with us on negotiations,” he said in an interview on Fox News’ “Fox & Friends.” “People are moving forward with their deals, regardless of what this court may say in the interim.”

Greer did not say which countries the US was still in talks with, but said he had spoken with one trade minister on Saturday morning.

The ruling threatens what has become a pillar of Trump’s foreign policy since starting his second term in the White House in January. He has used the levies imposed on imported goods to exert political pressure and renegotiate trade deals even as the tariffs have increased volatility in financial markets.

Trump on Friday blasted the decision and vowed to take the case to the U.S. Supreme Court. The appeals court said his tariffs can remain in effect through Oct. 14 to allow for appeals.

Trade experts said the Trump administration had been bracing for the ruling and preparing alternative plans to be able to proceed with its tariffs.

“If other countries are looking at this and thinking they’re going to get tariff relief, they’re in for a unpleasant surprise. There are backup options upon backup options, even if the Supreme Court ends up agreeing with the appeals court,” said Josh Lipsky, chair of international economics at the Atlantic Council think tank.

[frank ballenger]

Let’s hope we can get past the little judges with this and all the initiatives they are blocking.

Hope this will be true of the judges:

There are two types of people in this world, those who are humble and those who are about to be humbled.
—Matt Deggs

[GOPJ]

Trump has to win this one...

and he will.

[Bruce Campbells Chin]

He won't.

He might have been able to win a case that was limited to certain targeted tariffs. I'd be shocked if SCOTUS upheld the President's attempt to impose unilaterally 10% across the board tariffs. Nor should they.

[kaktuskid]

You would trust the congress with trade issues?

[kaktuskid]

Most countries have across the board tariffs or taxes on imports.

[Bruce Campbells Chin]

Most countries have across the board tariffs or taxes on imports.

This has nothing to do with whether across the board tariffs are a good idea or a bad idea. They may be the greatest policy in the history of the United States. But the president does not have the power to impose them unilaterally. The Constitution leaves that to Congress.

[central_va]

Please trade about the Trade Act of 1974 you Johnny one note.

[central_va]

How much does the CCP pay you to post here?

[Bruce Campbells Chin]

You would trust the congress with trade issues?

Irrelevant. The only relevant question is what the Constitution says about it.

But, to answer your question, I'd sooner trust a GOP Congress with trade issues than say, President AOC, who might declare a "climate emergency", and then slap massive tariffs on anything that could possibly produce CO2.

[Bruce Campbells Chin]

Please trade about the Trade Act of 1974 you Johnny one note. You need to lay off the meth before posting.yhat kind of gibberish.

[TwelveOfTwenty]

Note to the American workers, these activist judges just sold YOU out.

[central_va]

Your TDS lies get old.

[central_va]

The American worker is invisible even though it is the biggest group of voters.

[Lod881019]

He’s right an you being a never trumpet isn’t helping your argument

[Paladin2]

The leftist Judges are going to make Congress do its job?

Unlikely. Congress loves the Executive Branch doing Congress’ work.

[woodpusher]

Please trade [talk?] about the Trade Act of 1974 you Johnny one note.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/COMPS-10384/pdf/COMPS-10384.pdf

Trade Act of 1974 (excerpt)

SEC. 122. BALANCE-OF-PAYMENTS AUTHORITY.

(a) Whenever fundamental international payments problems require special import measures to restrict imports—

(1) to deal with large and serious United States balance of- payments deficits,

(2) to prevent an imminent and significant depreciation of the dollar in foreign exchange markets, or

(3) to cooperate with other countries in correcting an international balance-of-payments disequilibrium, the President shall proclaim, for a period not exceeding 150 days (unless such period is extended by Act of Congress)—

(A) a temporary import surcharge, not to exceed 15 percent ad valorem, in the form of duties (in addition to those already imposed, if any) on articles imported into the United States;

[...]