Chinese cars are making huge gains in Asia, Europe and South America, but brutal 100 percent tariffs have so far kept them locked out of North America. There’s a chance, though, that this won’t last much longer as Canadian lawmakers are considering scrapping the steep tariffs – and the country’s drivers think they should.

In a recent pole conducted by Canada’s CTV News, almost two thirds of respondents said they either supported or somewhat supported removing the 100 percent duty on Chinese-made EVs. A total 29 percent supported the removal of tariffs and 33 percent somewhat supported the move. Nine percent of those asked weren’t sure, while 27 percent either opposed or somewhat opposed ditching the duty altogether.

Related: Canada Freezes EV Mandate And GM Boss Can’t Stop Smiling

Canada’s government imposed the tariffs 11 months ago claiming the measure would shield local automakers from unfair Chinese competition. An EU study that led to similar, but less harsh, tariffs in the Old Continent found Chinese automakers received various forms of financial help from their country’s government.

Sliding EV Sales

Now, however, Canadian lawmakers have admitted that the tariffs are up for review. One of the reasons is that EV sales have cratered in the country, with figures released this week showing registrations of fully electric cars north of the US border are down a massive 39.2 percent, in part due to the lower availability of incentives.

Canada recently scrapped its mandate that 20 percent of all new vehicles be zero emissions by 2026 having realized the target was unworkable. Giving drivers access to more EVs, and ones with attractively low prices at that, could potentially boost electric car takeup – or so the thinking goes.

CTV Survey: Do You Support Removing 100 Percent Tariff on Chinese EVs?

Source: CTV News

Pressure From the Fields

There’s another force pushing for the removal of tariffs, though, and it’s nothing to do with cars or meeting lower emissions targets: it’s farmers. The agricultural industry hopes that by Canada agreeing to scrap 100 percent tariffs on EVs, or at least lower the rate, might make China willing to remove its own 75.8 percent tariffs on Canadian crops such as Canola.

Canada’s PM Mark Carney last week pledged $370 million CAD ($267m US) in support for the Canola market to help it weather the tariffs. The Canola industry supports 206,000 Canadian jobs and contributes $43.7 billion CAD ($31.6 bn US) to the country’s economy, according to Canola Digest, so the local government obviously pays great attention to it.

President Donald Trump holds up a chart while speaking during an event announcing broad global tariffs in the Rose Garden of the White House on April 2, 2025.  (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in early November on whether President Donald Trump’s emergency tariffs are legal, according to an order the court released Tuesday.

The one-page unsigned order laid out an expedited timeline, which the administration had requested, for the consolidated legal challenges brought by a handful of business owners and a dozen Democratic state attorneys general.

A U.S. appeals court sided with the businesses and state officials late last month. In its 7-4 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld a lower court’s ruling in May finding Trump’s unprecedented use of the International Economic Emergency Powers Act to trigger global tariffs violated the Constitution.

The justices’ acceptance of the case is the latest in a string of legal challenges against the administration that have escalated to the high court since Trump took office in January. Recently the Supreme Court has handed the administration wins on immigration enforcement and withholding foreign aid.

Trump began imposing wide-reaching tariffs in February and significantly broadened them in the following months on goods from around the globe after declaring national emergencies — first over illegal fentanyl smuggling, and then declaring trade deficits an emergency. A trade deficit means the U.S. imports more goods from a country than that nation’s businesses purchase from U.S. suppliers.

As of July, the U.S. had collected roughly $122 billion in tariff revenue, according to a monthly tracker produced by the Peterson Institute on International Economics. 

Tariffs are taxes that the U.S. government collects from domestic businesses and purchasers when they import foreign goods.

In the administration’s appeal to the Supreme Court to fast-track the case, U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent argued the government would face “catastrophic” economic fallout if it had to repay businesses for the tariffs already collected, particularly if the court waited until next year to take the case.

Arizona, Colorado, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico and Oregon were among states that challenged Trump’s emergency tariffs. 

The business plaintiffs include V.O.S. Selections, a New York-based company that imports wine and spirits from 16 countries, a Utah-based plastics producer, a Virginia-based children’s electricity learning kit maker, a Pennsylvania-based fishing gear company, and a Vermont-based women’s cycling apparel company.

Automakers aren’t the only ones walking back their electric vehicle plans as Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney has decided to give companies additional “flexibility.” As such, he’s waiving 2026 model year vehicles from the Electric Vehicle Availability Standard and will conduct a broader review to “provide additional flexibilities and reduce costs.”

As the prime minister’s office explained, the government wants to make “targeted regulatory adjustments” to ensure automotive companies remain competitive during the transition to electric vehicles. They added the “automotive sector is essential to Canada’s economy, supporting jobs, trade, innovation and the green transition.”

More: Canada Requires All New Cars Sold By 2035 To Be Electrified

The Electric Vehicle Availability Standard originally required at least 20% of new light-duty vehicle sales be zero emission by 2026. However, the rules will be amended to remove that target to reduce “economic pressure due to tariffs.”

On top of that, the government is reviewing other EVAS deadlines to ensure they “reflect market realities” and don’t place an “undue burden on automakers.” As you may recall, 60% of sales are supposed to be zero emission vehicles by 2030, while that number would rise to 100% by 2035.

Despite hitting the brakes on Canada’s electric vehicle push, Carney’s office said zero emission vehicles are “crucial for addressing climate change,” improving health, and creating significant opportunities for the economy. However, the government noted the transition to EVs is “unfolding amid significant short-term economic uncertainty” and “Canada must carefully consider how recent U.S. policy uncertainty could affect the affordability and availability of ZEVs in the integrated North American market.”

Interestingly, the government said they’ll “explore options to bring more affordable electric vehicles to Canadians.” They didn’t go into specifics, but it will be interesting to see if they’ll crack the door open to Chinese brands.

The changes to the Electric Vehicle Availability Standard were revealed as part of a larger announcement that aims to “protect, build, and transform Canadian strategic industries.” Part of this includes a new Buy Canadian Policy for the federal government as well as a Regional Tariff Response Initiative, which aims to help small and medium-sized businesses impacted by U.S. tariffs.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, pictured July 31, 2025. (Photo by Ashley Murray/States Newsroom)

The economy-wide tariffs President Donald Trump placed on nearly every U.S. trading partner are illegal, a federal appeals court said Friday.

The International Economic Emergency Powers Act does not give the president the power to impose tariffs, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled in a 7-4 decision upholding a May decision from the U.S. Court of International Trade and dealing a blow to Trump’s signature trade policy.

The unsigned majority opinion said the tariffs “exceed the authority delegated to the President by IEEPA’s text.”

However, the judges delayed their ruling from going into effect until October, providing the Trump administration an opportunity to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. The ruling also does not affect other tariffs Trump issued under different authorities, including industry- or material-specific tariffs on automobiles, steel and aluminum.

In a post to social media, Trump said he would appeal to the Supreme Court, where he predicted victory, and repeated his claim that tariffs were an essential economic tool.

“If these Tariffs ever went away, it would be a total disaster for the Country,” he wrote shortly after the decision was published. “It would make us financially weak, and we have to be strong.… If allowed to stand, this Decision would literally destroy the United States of America. At the start of this Labor Day weekend, we should all remember that TARIFFS are the best tool to help our Workers, and support Companies that produce great MADE IN AMERICA products.”

Several Democratic states challenged the IEEPA tariffs. Oregon Solicitor General Benjamin Gutman argued on their behalf on July 31. The 11 judges on the appeals court expressed skepticism of both sides during those arguments.

In a statement Friday, Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield called the ruling “a huge win for Americans.”

“Every court that has reviewed these tariffs has agreed that they are unconstitutional,” he said. “This ruling couldn’t come at a better time as people are walking into their local stores and seeing price increases for school supplies, clothes, and groceries.”

Vice President J.D. Vance addresses a crowd at Mid-City Steel in La Crosse on Thursday. (Henry Redman | Wisconsin Examiner)

Vice President J.D. Vance decried what he described as the crime-ridden streets of American cities and Democrats’ alleged efforts to take health care away from U.S. citizens and give it to undocumented immigrants at an event Thursday afternoon at a steel fabrication facility in La Crosse. 

At the event, which took place on the bank of the Mississippi River at Mid-City Steel, Vance and Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum touted the benefits that Republicans’ budget reconciliation law, known as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, will deliver for working class Wisconsinites. 

The night before Vance’s visit, Democratic elected officials and candidates for state and federal office mingled with voters at state Sen. Brad Pfaff’s (D-Onalaska) annual corn roast. State Dems came to meet voters at the La Crosse County Fairgrounds in West Salem and to search for a path back to power nationally, trifecta of control of  state government and an effective counter to the authoritarian impulses of President Donald Trump.

The back-to-back events highlighted how politically important western Wisconsin is set to become over the next year as attention focuses on the competitive 3rd Congressional District, represented by Republican Rep. Derrick Van Orden, and the open race for governor. 

At the fairgrounds on Wednesday, Pfaff’s staff members handed out 350 brats, 150 hot dogs and 500 ears of corn slathered with 13 pounds of butter as a polka band played and candidates for statewide office made their way down long picnic tables with cups of Spotted Cow and Miller Lite, stopping to chat with voters. In attendance were Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley, who is running for governor, Secretary of State Sarah Godlewski, who is running for lieutenant governor, and Appeals Court Judge Chris Taylor, who is running for a seat on the state Supreme Court. Also in attendance were state Sen. Kelda Roys (D-Madison) and Wisconsin Economic Development Coordinator Missy Hughes, both of whom have been testing the waters as possible gubernatorial candidates. 

Pfaff, who ran unsuccessfully against Van Orden for the 3rd District congressional seat in 2022, repeatedly touted the importance of Democrats listening to rural voters and speaking to issues that matter to their lives.

That message played well in front of the group of about 120 attendees who complained that Van Orden does not often face disgruntled constituents. Democrats have frequently highlighted the fact that Van Orden has not held any in-person town halls or debated his Democratic election opponents.

“It’s extremely frustrating. The thing is that we as Democrats, we’ve got a brand that we’ve got to rebuild,” Pfaff said. “And I’m a Democrat. I’m a proud rural Democrat. I was raised with the values of hard work, dedication and resilience. I was raised in the fact that, you know, you need to get up every morning and go to work, and you need to be able to provide for your family and put away for the future. But you need to be able to be part of a community and build a community that is inclusive and welcoming.” 

Pfaff added that Van Orden has not been accessible to his voters or answered for his votes on legislation such as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. 

“You need to be accessible to your constituents, and when you’re not accessible to your constituents, you’re not serving yourself, and definitely you’re not in touch with the people of the district,” he said. “So it’s very concerning. But …  we will have a very competitive congressional race in 2026 and Derek’s gonna have to explain his votes and his actions.” 

Rebecca Cooke, who lost to Van Orden in last year’s election and is running again to unseat him next year, said she’s trying to spend this time, about 14 months before the midterm elections, traveling the district and understanding voters’ concerns. 

“My campaign has always been really focused around working families and working class people, which I think Senator Pfaff too, we have a very similar thought and understanding, because we talk to people, right?” Cooke said. “Brad hosts open events like this so that he can hear from people directly. And I think that that’s the difference with Van Orden, who brings in J.D. Vance, the big guns, because he can’t deliver the message himself. I think we are of and from western Wisconsin, and so we know how to communicate with people in our community, and we listen to them.”

On Thursday, both Burgum and Vance celebrated Van Orden’s vote on the budget reconciliation bill, inspiring Van Orden  to stand from his front row seat and pump his fist. Prior to his vote on the legislation, Van Orden said he wouldn’t support a bill that cut funds from food assistance programs, but ultimately he cast a deciding vote for the legislation that, analysis shows, will boot 90,000 Wisconsinites off food assistance programs and cause 30,000 rural Wisconsinites to lose their health care. 

Burgum also said the Trump administration is working to bring steel manufacturing and shipbuilding back to America. But on Thursday, U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin raised the alarm for shipbuilders in Marinette after Trump announced the purchase of ships built in South Korea. 

“I am deeply concerned by recent reports that indicate the Trump Administration is looking to have U.S. ships made overseas in South Korea,” Baldwin said in a statement. “We need to see the details of this agreement because at the end of the day, America cannot compromise here – we are already losing to China and we have no time to waste. We must be firm on our commitment to supporting our maritime workforce, keeping our country safe, and revitalizing America’s shipbuilding capacity. I have long fought to strengthen our shipbuilding industry, and it can’t be done with shortcuts or quick fixes. The President must prioritize American workers by investing in our shipbuilding industry here at home and buying American-made ships.”

Despite the massive cuts the reconciliation law is making to federal assistance programs, Vance said that the Democratic Party is lying about its effects, claiming Democrats voted against the bill because they wanted to raise taxes and give health care to people who are in the country without legal authorization. 

Vance touted the extension of tax cuts passed by Republicans in 2017 during the first Trump administration, saying they will put money back into the pockets of American workers like the ones at Mid-City Steel. He also celebrated Trump’s tariffs calling them a lever to protect American industry. 

“What the working families tax cuts did is very simple, ladies and gentlemen, it let you keep more money in your pocket, it rewarded you for building a business, for working at a business right here in the United States of America, it makes it easy for you to take home more of your hard earned pay and it makes it easier if you’re an American manufacturer, an American business, it makes it easier for you to build your facility or expand your facility,” Vance said. 

But the cost of the tariffs is being borne by American consumers in the form of higher prices, and the tax cuts have largely gone to benefit the wealthiest Americans. 

An analysis from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy found that 69% of the benefits of the tax cuts will go to the richest 15% of Wisconsinites.

The vice president also painted American cities as crime-infested slums where everyday Americans cannot walk down the street without being accosted by a person “screaming on a street corner.” The Trump administration has deployed the National Guard and Marines in Washington D.C. and Los Angeles in a show  of force, and Trump has threatened to send soldiers to fight crime in other Democratic cities — even though the highest crime rates in the country are in Republican-controlled states. 

On Thursday Vance said that even though Milwaukee has what he said is a crime problem, the president doesn’t want to send troops in to address it unless he’s asked to by local officials. 

“Very simply, we want governors and mayors to ask for the help. The president of the United States is not going out there forcing this on anybody, though we do think we have the legal right to clean up America’s streets if we want to,” Vance said. “What the president of the United States has said is, “Why don’t you invite us in?’”

William Garcia, the chair of the 3rd Congressional District Democratic Party, said that Vance’s visit showed that Republicans are out of touch with western Wisconsin, noting that a speech at a steel fabricator isn’t representative of what actually drives the local economy and delivering that speech to a hand-selected crowd glosses over the pain the Trump administration’s policies are bringing to local communities.

“If you really wanted to talk to people out here, you would talk about agriculture, and you would try and justify why Canadian fertilizer has a massive tariff on it now, so we have to spend so much more money to just grow our own food,” Garcia said. “Then you have to talk about your immigration policies that are preventing our harvest from being picked after they’ve grown. And so that’s why he’s having to narrow the people he’s talking to, to this super small crowd, because by and large, conservative, liberal, whatever, are being hurt by these policies, and he doesn’t want to hear any pushback about that.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

the Von Ruden farm sits on a hill overlooking Vernon County. (Henry Redman | Wisconsin Examiner)

State Sen. Brad Pfaff (D-Onalaska) and Rep. Jenna Jacobson joined Wisconsin Farmers Union President Darin Von Ruden on his Vernon County farm Thursday to criticize the economic and agricultural policies of President Donald Trump as bad for Wisconsin’s small and medium farms. 

The event at the farm in Westby came as Wisconsin Republicans have ignored or disputed the cumulative effect on farmers of tariffs on foreign imports, cuts to programs at the U.S. Department of Agriculture and an immigration policy that has scared away some farm laborers who are afraid to show up to work. 

“The tariffs coming out of Washington D.C. are hurting our farmers across Wisconsin and across the country, and you don’t have to just take this from me,” Pfaff said. “All you have to do is look at the economic indicators, those troubling signs that are coming across from Washington, D.C. Job growth is stagnating, prices are rising, and the agriculture sector is taking a hit. Sadly, my Republican colleagues in Madison seem to be turning a blind eye to all of these concerns.”

Sen. Howard Marklein (R-Spring Green), whom Jacobson is challenging in next year’s midterm elections, recently said that “farmers aren’t concerned” about the potential damage of Trump’s policies. At a telephone town hall earlier this week, U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany said that through actions such as raising the estate tax exemption for farms and the establishment of trade agreements with countries around the world, Wisconsin farmers will be able to benefit from “free markets.” 

But Von Ruden told the Wisconsin Examiner he doesn’t see how Wisconsin’s farmers can benefit when the federal government is cutting programs that directly help them find markets for their products while tariffs only make it harder to export. Trump and Republicans have made massive cuts to USDA programs that help schools and food banks buy food from local farmers. The recently enacted Republican reconciliation law makes large cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, also known as food stamps, which low-income residents have been able to use to buy food from producers at local farmer’s markets. 

“That’s hundreds of millions of dollars that farmers are going to lose because the government’s not going to be purchasing [food] to take care of the most needy people in this country,” Von Ruden said. “The other thing is, because we’ve allowed so many loopholes in the USDA, fewer people are getting bigger dollars from the government or insurance subsidies and things like that. So that’s taking money away from the small producers, because we don’t have the capabilities to hire an attorney to make sure that we get that $5 or $6 million check from Uncle Sam. Our members and myself, I would much rather get my income from the marketplace versus depending on a government check.”

Von Ruden’s kids are the fourth generation to work on his family farm. He said that with Trump’s tariffs, his costs are going up. Canadian fertilizer is more expensive. The John Deere tractor he uses will soon be unaffordable. 

“We need to make sure that we’re growing agriculture, not decreasing it. Looking at how tariffs are going to affect this farm, we’re going to see the trickle down effect from that in the commodity markets,” Von Ruden said. That trickle down effect is the biggest concern for farmers, he added. 

“The president has said that he’s going to make sure that farmers are taken care of,” Von Ruden said. “Tariffs aren’t going to do that. So let’s stop all the rhetoric.”

Jacobson pointed to a number of proposals in the Wisconsin Legislature meant to help farmers respond to Trump’s trade wars that Republicans have blocked. 

“Wisconsin Republicans had three chances to support our farmers, and three times they voted no,” she said. “Howard Marklein and Republicans in both chambers have failed to support our family farmers, failed to invest in our agricultural industry and made it harder for those in need to buy food. This is completely unacceptable.” 

The driftless region of western Wisconsin is set to become a major target for Democrats in next year’s midterm elections as the effects of Trump administration and Republican policies hit the purple swing region. In addition to Jacobson’s challenge of Marklein, Democrats are targeting U.S. Rep. Derrick Van Orden’s 3rd Congressional District seat.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Photo by Architect of the Capitol | U.S. government work via Flickr

The July jobs report released last Friday wasn’t pretty. It showed weaker than anticipated U.S. job growth in July, and there were substantial downward revisions of jobs numbers for May and June as well. Economists predicted a slowdown. The chaos of tariff threats has created substantial uncertainty, which is bad for the economy, and the tariffs that have gone into effect have raised prices. It’s no surprise, then, that we’re seeing a slowdown in jobs. 

Moody’s chief economist Mark Zandi noted on social media, “It’s no mystery why the economy is struggling; blame increasing U.S. tariffs and highly restrictive immigration policy. The tariffs are cutting increasingly deeply into the profits of American companies and the purchasing power of American households. Fewer immigrant workers means a smaller economy.”

But instead of reflecting on mistakes in economic policy or offering some austerity suggestion, like limiting U.S.  children to  two dolls each , President Donald Trump blamed the messenger, firing the government official in charge of the data release, commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Erika McEntarfer. He baselessly asserted that the bad news was “concocted” and suggested that he knows better than the data. The economy is great, according to him, and he will find a commissioner to tell him so.

Trump’s approach is a disaster for economic decision making and for public trust. The BLS is an independent agency with a strong legacy of providing the data that businesses, analysts and policymakers need. Good economic decisions require reliable data. As the American Economics Association wrote: “The BLS has long had a well-deserved reputation for professional excellence and nonpartisan integrity. Safeguarding this tradition is vital for the continued health of the U.S. economy and public trust in our institutions.” 

The BLS monthly jobs report provides a timely snapshot of labor market dynamics which inform investing and hiring decisions as well as policy choices. BLS data also measures the rate of inflation through the consumer price index. The rising price of goods is not only a key economic indicator but also the scale by which Social Security payments are adjusted and a point of reference in private and union wage negotiations.

BLS data are essential to understanding what is going on in the economy, when a slowdown is emerging, and the cost of daily life. The independence and integrity of the agency, long assumed and supported by both parties, is now under attack.

Wisconsinites lived through something like this more than a decade ago. Former Republican Gov. Scott Walker promised to create 250,000 jobs in his first term. He focused on the goal relentlessly, at least until it became clear that he would not meet it. (In fact, the Wisconsin economy didn’t even meet Walker’s first term goal across his two terms – adding just 233,000 jobs by the time he left office after serving for eight years.)

In the first years of Walker’s  “relentless focus on jobs” under his administration’s tagline  “Wisconsin is Open for Business,” the monthly numbers showed that Wisconsin’s economy was growing more slowly than the national labor market and neighboring states. 

Walker blamed the data. He insisted that we wait instead for a federal source which was more reliable, but had a substantial time lag. As someone who watches this data, I can assure that this was the only time in my three-decade career when differences between monthly and quarterly sources of federal jobs data were a policy talking point. 

But in the end, the data issue was just a distraction from the truth. Wisconsin was growing more slowly, and no amount of complaining about the data or waiting for another source on jobs could change that fact. Eventually, the Walker administration went silent on both the data and the promised 250,000 jobs. 

Trump’s approach is worse than waiting for another source of data. His firing of the commissioner suggests that he’ll only accept data that confirms his narrative. And that makes it harder for any of us to trust any data the federal government is willing to release. 

That’s bad for the economy and bad for democracy. As narrow and nerdy as this topic may seem, we all have an interest in facts and reliable data. We have had a government infrastructure capable of producing it. We lose it at our own peril.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

A container ship arrives at the Port of Oakland on Aug. 1, 2025 in Oakland, California. President Donald Trump announced that his Aug. 1 deadline for trade deals will not be extended and sweeping tariffs will be imposed on certain countries beginning that day. (Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump pushed ahead with his promise to raise tariffs on foreign goods by Aug. 1, signing an order late Thursday increasing import taxes on products from nearly every U.S. trading partner.

Trump’s directive, and new data on weaker job growth, sent markets tumbling Friday.

The president imposed a 15% base tariff on products imported from nearly three dozen nations across five continents, plus the 27 trading nations that comprise the European Union. Trump slapped higher rates on select other countries, ranging from 18% on goods from Nicaragua to 30% on South Africa and 50% on Brazil.

The White House hailed the “reciprocal” tariffs as “a necessary and powerful tool to put America First after many years of unsustainable trade deficits that threaten our economy and national security,” according to a press release accompanying the executive order.

Trump describes the tariffs as “reciprocal” because they are his response to countries that have trade deficits with the U.S. — meaning that country sells more products to the U.S. than it buys.

U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer called the new rates “historic.”

“Over the past few months, the President’s tariff program and the ensuing ‘Trump Round’ of trade negotiations have accomplished what the World Trade Organization and multilateral negotiations have not been able to achieve at scale: expansive new market access for U.S. exporters, increased tariffs to defend critical American industries, and trillions of new manufacturing investments and purchases of goods that will create great American jobs and help reassert American leadership in key strategic sectors,” Greer said in a statement Wednesday.

The tariff announcement, combined with a weaker-than-expected jobs report Friday from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, caused sell-offs Friday from the three major U.S. stock indexes, according to financial media reports.

Trump fumed Friday afternoon about report adjustments that significantly decreased jobs numbers for May and June, even calling for the commissioner for labor statistics to be fired.

Tariffs and lawsuits

Trump made history earlier this year when he became the first president to trigger tariffs under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act.

The move sparked legal challenges from small businesses and Democratic-led states, and the plaintiffs faced the Trump administration Thursday in federal appeals court.

Tariffs are taxes on imported products that U.S. companies and other buyers pay to the U.S. government.

Trump announced staggering tariffs under an emergency declaration on April 2, what he referred to as “Liberation Day,” but delayed the new import taxes after global markets plummeted in response to the shock announcement.

Trump also separately announced Thursday a 35% levy on imported products from Canada that fall outside the bounds of an already established trade agreement between the U.S., Canada and Mexico.

Trump continued a 25% tariff on certain Mexican goods, but paused any rate increases to allow for 90 days of negotiations, according to media reports. The U.S. is continuing negotiations with China, whose products face a base import tax rate of 30%.

Marc Noland, executive vice president and director of studies for the Peterson Institute for International Economics, said Trump’s latest tariff rates are “unfortunate.”

“It will contribute to higher prices and slower growth here in the United States,” Noland said, adding there’s “a question about how sustainable they are legally here in the U.S.”

“And it’s particularly unfortunate, because I’m looking at the entire list of countries and see that the countries with the highest rates are the countries that are in the worst shape — Laos gets 40%, Syria got 41%,  Myanmar gets 40%. It’s the poorest, most desperate countries that are getting hit with the highest tariffs. So it’s bad for us and it’s bad for the world,” Noland told States Newsroom in an interview Friday.

The 15% rate on imports from dozens of countries mirrors the deals Trump announced in recent weeks with Japan, South Korea and European Union — though many details remain unknown.

“There are real questions about what exactly did anybody agree to,” Noland said. “And you know this, these don’t have the force of law that a treaty negotiated and passed by our Congress and somebody else’s national legislature have like, say, the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement, which, as we see, was unilaterally abrogated.”

‘Predictable’ trade agenda urged

Trade and industry advocates have also reacted to the new tariffs.

Gary Shapiro, CEO and vice chair of the Consumer Technology Association, issued a statement Thursday saying Trump’s new rates “highlight the uncertainty American innovators face in today’s trade environment.”

“CTA continues to urge the Administration and Congress to pursue a predictable, forward-looking trade agenda rooted in fairness and collaboration with trusted partners,” said Shapiro, whose organization hosts the annual CES trade show in Las Vegas, Nevada. “American innovation thrives when markets are open, trade rules are clear, and businesses are free to focus on creating jobs and bringing groundbreaking technologies to market.”

The National Foreign Trade Council warned that “Whatever progress that’s ultimately achieved as part of these new trade deals will come at the steep price of significant U.S. tariff increases and the erosion of trust with America’s key partners.”

The statement Thursday from the industry group’s president, Jake Colvin, continued: “Institutionalizing the highest U.S. duties since the Great Depression, coupled with ongoing uncertainty, will ultimately make American businesses less competitive globally and consumers worse off while harming relationships with close geopolitical allies and trading partners.” 

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, pictured July 31, 2025. (Photo by Ashley Murray/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — Judges on the U.S. Appeals Court for the Federal Circuit questioned the legality of President Donald Trump’s sweeping emergency tariffs Thursday as the White House pushes on with its Aug. 1 deadline for import taxes at levels not seen since the 1930s.

The case originated from consolidated lawsuits brought by a handful of business owners and a dozen Democratic state attorneys general who argued the president does not have the authority to impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA.

Through nearly two hours of questioning Thursday, the 11-judge panel probed whether the president could use IEEPA authority to set tariffs without approval from Congress.

The U.S. Department of Justice’s Brett Shumate argued the law is “one of the most powerful tools” to protect the economy and national security during emergencies.

Oregon Solicitor General Benjamin Gutman, who argued on behalf of the Democratic states challenging the tariffs, maintained Trump’s reason behind declaring the unilateral emergency tariffs — U.S. trade deficits with other nations — did not actually merit a national emergency.

Trump became the first president to trigger tariffs under the 1977 law when in February and March he ordered punitive import taxes on products from Canada, Mexico and China after declaring illegal fentanyl smuggling from those countries a national emergency.

The president took his tariffs worldwide in an April executive order that declared trade deficits an emergency and slapped what he described as “reciprocal” import taxes on nearly all foreign goods.

In late May, the U.S. Court of International Trade sided with Democratic attorneys general from Arizona, Colorado, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico and Oregon, as well as the business owners from across the country, including in New York, Pennsylvania, Utah, Vermont and Virginia.

The word ‘tariff’

Judges on the panel grilled Shumate about how IEEPA grants the authority to impose tariffs.

“A major concern that I have is IEEPA doesn’t even mention the word tariffs,” said Judge Jimmie V. Reyna, adding that Congress “certainly was aware about tariffs” when it wrote the law.

Existing laws already create “a highly structured … framework” for tariffs, said Reyna, who was appointed to the bench in 2011 by President Barack Obama. “You would agree with me that those statutes do pertain to tariffs?”

“Correct,” replied Shumate, the assistant attorney general for the Justice Department’s Civil Division.

Pressed again by Reyna on “tariff” not appearing in the statute, Shumate said “I don’t think that’s unusual.”

“There are at least two examples of statutes that authorize tariffs that don’t use the word ‘tariff’ — Sections 232c and 122, which authorize the president to restrict imports,” Shumate said.

Judge Leonard P. Stark, who was appointed in 2022 by President Joe Biden, jumped in with skepticism.

“Both of those are part of the code that deals expressly with customs and duties, unlike IEEPA, which is not in that chapter,” Stark said.

Dependence on deficits probed

The panel also quizzed legal counsel for the businesses and states, including on the weight and content of Trump’s emergency declaration that launched his April 2 “Liberation Day” tariffs.

The states ignored arguments in Trump’s executive order that an emergency existed because of a hollow manufacturing base, a threat to national security, supply-chain disruptions and other issues, Judge Richard G. Taranto said to Gutman, of Oregon.

“Your arguments in your brief to us are devoted to the more narrow question of trade deficits alone as not amounting to unusual and extraordinary threat,” Taranto, who was appointed by Obama in 2013, said.

Gutman replied that all other matters the order cites are related to trade deficits.

“You can look at the executive order itself, the justification, the unusual and extraordinary threat that it is identifying, is what it calls persistent trade deficits,” he said. “Everything else that’s discussed there is either mentioned as a cause or an effect.”

Stark followed up with, “Is that the only fair reading of the executive orders, though? Can it be read as there are some recent consequences, some recent effects of the long and persistent trade deficit that now are unusual and extraordinary?”

Gutman said those effects are mentioned “in about a sentence in the executive order.”

Chief Judge Kimberly A. Moore fact-checked that answer.

The executive order “goes on for paragraph after paragraph,” Moore said, mentioning production capacity, military equipment, national security concerns and other threats to the U.S. economy, she said.

“How could you stand here and say to me that the president said it’s all about the deficit, and it’s one throwaway sentence at most in this whole order about the rest of these things constituting a threat?” Moore, who was appointed by George W. Bush, asked.

After back and forth, Gutman said, “I will walk back that it was a single sentence. But I think if you read this, the fairest reading of this executive order is that it is about the large and persistent trade deficits.”

Debate continues

Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield said after oral arguments the U.S. Department of Justice had a “monster flop” during the arguments when at one point Shumate told Moore that the court did not have authority to review the tariffs.

“I think for those in the audience today, they are concerned when the federal government comes in and says that (judges) have absolutely no role to review what the president does under IEEPA. You actually heard laughter in the room,” Rayfield said.

During the White House daily briefing following the arguments, press secretary Karoline Leavitt defended tariffs as a success, citing that the duties have raised $150 billion in revenue since Trump took office.

“Those revenues will skyrocket even further, starting tomorrow, when new reciprocal tariff rates take effect,” Leavitt said.

Tariffs are paid to the U.S. government by American businesses and individuals who purchase foreign goods.

Critics across the spectrum

The case against Trump’s sweeping emergency tariffs has attracted support from various points on the political spectrum.

Democratic members of Congress filed an amicus brief on behalf of the state attorneys general and small businesses arguing the president’s import taxes under IEEPA usurped Congress’ tariff powers and violated the Constitution.

Congress has “explicitly and specifically” delegated tariff-raising powers to the president, but not under IEEPA, according to the lawmakers.

“Unmoored from the structural safeguards Congress built into actual tariff statutes, the President’s unlawful ‘emergency’ tariffs under IEEPA have led to chaos and uncertainty,” the lawmakers wrote.

The libertarian CATO Institute also filed an amicus brief raising several issues with Trump’s emergency tariffs, including that IEEPA contains “no textual support for tariff authority” and that it violates tariff power granted to Congress in the Constitution.

Brent Skorup, legal fellow at the CATO Institute, said it’s hard to predict the outcome of the case and whether a longstanding judicial branch deference to the executive branch will “win out” over a recent trend of skepticism of the president’s plans.

“In some ways I think this case has many analogies to President Biden’s attempt to forgive student loans,” he said in an interview with States Newsroom. “I mean, almost an identical issue — a vague statute, a president using it in a way that had never been used before for an economically major event.”

U.S. consumers bear costs

Economists are cautioning that the costs of the tariffs will fall on the shoulders of U.S. consumers.

The Yale Budget Lab’s most recent estimate shows the overall average effective tariff rate is 18.4%, the highest since 1933. The analysis, released Wednesday, included Trump’s latest trade announcement that he will impose a 25% duty on goods from India.

The overall price level and distributional effects of the tariffs are projected to cost American households roughly $2,400 in 2025 dollars, Budget Lab projected.

The analysis shows tariffs are expected to disproportionately affect clothing and textiles, with the prices of shoes increasing by 40% in the short run.

The Tax Foundation, a right-leaning think tank that advocates for lower taxes, found that Trump’s Aug. 1 tariff regime will affect nearly 75% of imported foods, with products from the European Union seeing the worst of it.

The five food imports that would be most affected, barring any deal changes, include liqueurs and spirits, baked goods, coffee, fish and beer, according to the foundation’s July 28 review.

Economists and some lawmakers also warn that Trump’s constantly evolving tariff policy is perpetuating an air of uncertainty for businesses. 

Sameera Fazili, the deputy director of the National Economic Council during the Biden administration, said the rapid changes are “undermining our economy.”

“You can see it in CEO surveys, where the Conference Board CEO Sentiment Survey for Q2 reported that a quarter of CEOs now plan to cut back on capital investments,” Fazili, now a senior fellow at the liberal think tank the Roosevelt Institute, said Tuesday during a press call organized by the Economic Speakers Bureau.

The same can be said for mid-sized and small businesses, said Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky.

“When I go home, I’ve yet to come across a businessman or -woman who says, ‘Oh, I love the tariffs.’ It’s the opposite,” Paul said at an event Wednesday at the CATO Institute.

Of the court case, Paul said he thinks the administration is “going to lose.”

“I think there’s a constitutional reason against it,” he said. “And I think there’s, in addition, a statutory reason they may fail.”

Photo by Gregory Conniff for Wisconsin Examiner

The divestment of staff, science and sustainability programs at USDA isn’t just a budget cut; it could be a direct threat to the nation’s food system. Experts warn of far-reaching consequences: unsafe food for consumers, more invasive and economically damaging pests for farmers, and an agriculture industry forced to adapt to climate change with less scientific insight.

“We might see more farming in the dark, essentially,” said Michal Happ, a climate change and rural community expert at the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy.

Investigate Midwest spoke with multiple agricultural experts and more than 30 current and former USDA employees to better understand Rollins’ leadership style, her impact on the department and the profound consequences her administration will have for farmers, rural families and consumers.

What emerged was a picture of a leader who has brought sweeping changes and largely embraced President Trump’s agenda of downsizing the federal government. However, Rollins has also been tasked with managing Trump policies that she has privately rebuked and cuts made before she assumed office.

Trump tapped Rollins to head the massive federal department at a crucial time for American agriculture. Farmers are grappling with changing weather patterns, shifting trade policies, and even internal administration critiques of pesticide use — a report from Health Secretary Robert Kennedy Jr.’s “Make America Healthy Again” commission, which Rollins applauded, slammed farms’ pesticide reliance.

Trump has praised Rollins’ performance. In mid-April, as an aside during a press conference, Trump thanked her for lowering egg prices. “Brooke Rollins, secretary of agriculture, did a great job,” he said. During his first term, she maneuvered into his inner circle and, as Politico reported, has quickly become “one of the most powerful conservatives in the country.”

Rollins has said her mission is to be the voice of farmers in Trump’s cabinet. She appears to have pull with the president, but questions remain about her influence over decisions affecting the USDA and its staff.

Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, appeared to wield significant control over department operations, at least until recently. It influenced everything from policy language to which USDA offices remain open, according to court records and Rollins’ hearing testimony.

In a statement to Investigate Midwest, the USDA rejected any characterization that Rollins was not solely responsible for department actions.

“The claims you cite are absurd and without merit,” it said. “Secretary Rollins was appointed by President Trump to lead the Department and to insinuate that anyone other than the Constitutionally directed cabinet officer is making the decisions at USDA is unwarranted.”

She’s also been sandwiched between Trump’s signature policy, an extreme stance on immigration, and the reality of agriculture’s labor force.

“We might see more farming in the dark, essentially.”

Michal Happ, a climate change and rural community expert at the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy

Because of immigration raids, some farms’ labor pools have been depleted, and, already, some fields have not been harvested. Farmers have pleaded for relief. In early June, Rollins pushed Trump to pause enforcement on farms, The New York Times reported. After the news broke, Rollins proclaimed she was in lockstep with Trump.

Raids on farms resumed days later, but Trump recently expressed support for giving farmers discretion over undocumented workers.

“Brooke Rollins brought it up, and she said, ‘So, we have a little problem. The farmers are losing a lot of people,’ and we figured it out, and we have some great stuff being written,” he said during a July 4 speech.

On July 8, Rollins said undocumented farmworkers would receive “no amnesty.”

Farming is inherently risky. Making a living depends on good weather and profitable markets. Farmers try to limit variables, but Rollins’ first months have added disorder into the food system, said Mike Lavender, a policy expert for the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.

“All of it is this theme of creating needless uncertainty and confusion amongst people who are trying to do the exact opposite in order to be successful in their livelihoods, support their families and ultimately support their communities,” he said.

The USDA did not directly answer questions about Rollins’ tenure, and, in a statement, it said she was cleaning up a mess left by her predecessor, Tom Vilsack.

“Secretary Rollins is working to reorient USDA to put Farmers First and be more effective and efficient at serving the American people,” the department said. “President Biden and Secretary Vilsack left USDA in complete disarray, including hiring thousands of employees with no sustainable way to pay them.”

In congressional hearings, Rollins said the USDA, which has lost more than 15,000 employees, has enough staff to fulfill its mission. Trump’s desire to make new deals with trading partners — which is causing confusion and financial anxiety for farmers — will create stability for agricultural producers, Rollins has said.

“I do believe, with every fiber of my being, that this era of unlimited or unprecedented prosperity for the ag community is just around the corner,” Rollins told Congress in June. “I’m just really, really sure of that.”

Rollins has painted the present as being “strikingly similar” to the time of the American Revolution, a period she often invokes in speeches. She has also cast her leadership in Biblical terms, citing Romans 13:12, saying she wears an “armor of light” in her current position.

“There is just a lot of darkness — not with this White House or my current boss, President Trump, or our cabinet, but the government in general,” Rollins told Decision Magazine, a religious publication, during an interview last month.

The USDA did not answer when asked if Rollins views rank-and-file employees as part of the “darkness.” But her management of employees varies drastically from her two predecessors, Vilsack and Sonny Perdue, Trump’s first agriculture secretary.

Perdue was a veterinarian and, as governor of Georgia, had led a large bureaucracy, experience that translated into running a complex federal department in a “thoughtful, analytical way,” said Kevin Shea, a USDA employee for 45 years under Republican and Democrat administrations.

“The first Trump administration at USDA was run very professionally,” Shea said. Now, however, “the USDA political leadership seems to be particularly scornful of its career workforce.”

For instance, very little information filters down to employees. Leadership has not effectively communicated what it wants, so it’s been a “gradual process of learning what is and is not OK,” said Ethan Roberts, president of AFGE Local 3247, a union representing government employees, and a nine-year USDA employee.

Agency staff used to plan months or years ahead, but that’s difficult now because they don’t know if they’ll still have jobs or if the office will exist, said one current employee who requested anonymity for fear of reprisal.

Her two predecessors regularly sent department-wide emails that communicated their goals and priorities, current and former employees said. Rollins seems to have a different audience in mind.

“She just posts on X what she’s doing,” said Laura Dodson, the vice president of AFGE Local 3403 and a longtime USDA employee. X, the social media company owned by Musk, requires an account to view posts. “It just seems everything’s coming from DOGE and whatever the White House is saying about federal employees.”

The first Trump administration also instituted funding freezes and reduced staff, including relocating USDA offices out of Washington, D.C. One of the affected agencies was the Economic Research Service, which provides insights into markets the industry relies on.

In 2019, Dodson and her colleagues were called into a conference room. If their job description was called, they would remain where they had established their lives. The others, the vast majority, would be relocated to Kansas City, Missouri. Employees started crying.

Despite that episode from Trump’s first term, Dodson said, the tone of his second stint is markedly different as DOGE, overseen by Musk until May, has wantonly carved up federal agencies.

“They still maintained a veneer of respectability. They were trying to do this for the greater good,” she said about the USDA under Perdue. “Now, with people like Elon Musk, it’s clear this is not the pursuit of efficiency. It’s the pursuit of cruelty.”

For instance, school nutrition researchers were told to flag any studies that included the word “class” — an attempt to discover funding for diversity, equity and inclusion, a Trump target, said one employee who asked for anonymity for fear of reprisal.

Another time, DOGE’s main liaison to the USDA, Gavin Kliger, requested that the word “tracking” be added to the list of words to flag in grants that could be terminated, according to an email included in a lawsuit.

“Tracking the exact carbon output of soybean yields does not provide a direct benefit to farmers,” he reasoned in an email to staff, “and we can reallocate that funding in a way that more directly benefits farmers.”

Kliger’s LinkedIn resume does not show any experience in agriculture. He graduated from the University of California-Berkeley in 2020 and has worked exclusively for tech and artificial intelligence companies. He has helped slash staff and funding at other agencies, including the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

It’s unclear how he came to this understanding about carbon tracking.

Carbon is essential to soil health, producing higher yields. Knowing how much carbon is escaping their soil can help farmers adopt better soil management techniques. This not only helps farmers grow more efficiently but helps keep the plant from warming. Soy industry groups have expressed the importance of tracking carbon footprints.

Also, under a Biden-era rule, measuring carbon output helps put money directly in farmers’ pockets — they can sell their output on carbon offset markets.

Despite this misguided reasoning, Kliger appears to have had considerable influence at the USDA.

In the same email, he said he wanted to surpass DOGE’s goal of cutting $120 million in climate-focused grants by a certain date. “I spoke with the Secretary tonight who was supportive of these initiatives – working on getting a memo formalized for her signature in parallel,” he wrote.

Kliger did not respond to requests for comment to his USDA email address. The USDA did not respond when asked about the email or how much influence Kliger had.

“All decisions made at the USDA are at the direction of secretary Rollins to best fulfil (sic) president trumps (sic) agenda,” the department said.

Kliger appears to have moved on. The USDA said his access to the National Finance Center, which manages employee payroll, has been “deactivated due to lack of use. … We would refer you to” the Small Business Administration.

While voices with no agricultural experience have been elevated, those with expertise — USDA employees — have been pushed aside and silenced, current and former employees said.

One skirmish between DOGE and the USDA’s rank-and-file has involved the Trump administration’s return-to-office policies. Some Republican leaders and Musk have claimed that allowing employees to work remotely is a waste.

In 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic forced remote work for staffers at the Farm Service Agency, which helps farmers access federal funding. As the year progressed, Perdue, the agriculture secretary at the time, considered calling workers back to the office.

However, an internal study found that employees had actually been more efficient, said Charles Dodson, a 30-year FSA veteran who retired late last year.

Despite that, Trump ordered remote workers back to offices when he retook the presidency. At the same time, DOGE began canceling leases of local offices around the country.

At a May hearing, members of Congress accused Rollins of being unaware that local FSA offices were being closed. Rollins did not deny the accusation. Then at a June hearing, she said the General Services Administration, a DOGE target, was behind the closures. (Some offices have since reopened.)

On the ground, the situation has caused confusion and consternation for USDA employees.

When one employee reported to a new office, they were told they weren’t on the list of transfers. How could they follow the order to report to an office if they weren’t allowed in? Another USDA employee, a researcher, was ordered to report to a Forest Service trailer in the woods. And another employee, according to NPR, was told to report to a shed where a boat was stored.

The USDA has also intimidated its workforce, current and former employees said.

According to Roberts, the department veteran and union representative, USDA scientists have been instructed to deflect questions from university researchers — their frequent collaborators — about the agency’s internal affairs.

“They’re being told to say those things for fear it looks like the USDA is silencing them,” he said, “which they are.”

Surveillance also has increased. While the government has used software to monitor employee emails for years, the Trump administration has altered it to detect emails sent to a personal or college account. As part of a leak investigation, one staffer was placed on administrative leave after emailing their personal account, even though it did not contain the leaked material officials were looking for.

The USDA did not respond to a question about the leak investigation.

Some employees have responded by doing only what is asked of them, not going above and beyond. Dodson, the retiree, recounted what a current staffer told him: “I’m afraid to do anything else. I just want to survive and not get fired.”

The lack of staff is a major obstacle, Shea said.

“There couldn’t be a worse time to lower our guard,” he said. “APHIS cannot do its job with that level of personnel. It simply cannot do it. I’ve never been more concerned about the agency’s ability to carry out its mission going forward.”

The USDA has implemented a hiring freeze, but in April it exempted APHIS. The agency has posted job listings online.

“Secretary Rollins will not compromise the critical work of the Department,” the USDA said. The exempted positions “carry out functions that are critical to the safety and security of the American people, our national forests, the inspection and safety of the Nation’s agriculture and food supply system.”

Another challenge Rollins has faced is trade, the lifeblood of U.S. agriculture.

When Trump returned to office, he generated chaos in the agricultural markets by starting a trade war and implementing higher tariffs. In response, Rollins has embarked on a global tour to establish new trade partners.

She has announced a few “Make Agriculture Great Again trade wins.” She recently proclaimed that Namibia, an African country, agreed to accept frozen poultry from the U.S. The Biden administration had opened the market after allaying the country’s concerns about bird flu. Also, she declared Costa Rica accepting U.S. dairy a win for Trump. An industry trade group said the “win has been several years in the making.”

Rollins has said repeatedly that the agricultural trade deficit — the U.S. imports more products from overseas than it exports — is bad for the country. The tariffs were intended to address the deficit, but the narrative hit a snag in early June.

Politico reported the USDA had delayed a regularly scheduled report because it showed Trump’s tariffs could exacerbate the trade deficit. Days later, Rollins defended the delay. “I want to be sure every piece of research we move out is the best, the best-cited, etc.,” she told Congress. (The hearing was about a week after news broke that the MAHA report, which Rollins supported, cited nonexistent studies.)

Perhaps the most pressing issue facing Rollins is helping the agriculture industry as it grapples with climate change, which is altering how farmers grow food and commodities. Rollins, however, has denied the planet is warming.

Her husband is an executive at an oil and gas company, and in a 2018 speech, she said “research of CO2 being a pollutant is just not valid,” according to Inside Climate News. More recently, she led the America First Policy Institute, which pushes Trump’s agenda. She employed another Trump loyalist, Carla Sands, who once said the idea of climate change is “Marxism to control humanity,” according to Politico.

In January, before Rollins was sworn in, USDA employees were directed to “unpublish any landing pages (on the USDA’s website) focused on climate change,” according to court records. Research involving climate change has also been effectively banned, current employees said. If studies include words such as “climate,” “clean energy,” “sustainable construction” or dozens of others, the research will not be funded.

Climate change is having profound effects on agriculture. For instance, the Corn Belt — considered the prime region for growing the valuable commodity used in everything from soft drinks to gasoline — is inching northward. In decades, instead of Iowa and Illinois, Minnesota and the Dakotas could be America’s breadbasket, researchers have predicted.

More recent research shows that, as the world keeps warming and farming gets harder, U.S. corn production could fall by 40% by century’s end.

If the USDA ignores climate issues, farmers could be struggling alone, said Happ, of the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy.

“They want to adapt to what’s going on,” he said. “They want to still have their land there and steward it for the next generation or two. Without those resources, they’re going to just have to figure it out on their own.”

The USDA did not respond when asked about Rollins’ household’s financial stake in fossil fuels. At a congressional hearing, Rollins agreed with a representative who said sound policy follows sound science. The USDA did not respond when asked why the USDA was not following climate change science.

The USDA has forced out 98 of 167 food safety scientists at the Agricultural Research Service, a department arm that studies how to prevent deadly pathogens, such as E. coli or Salmonella, from entering the food supply.

Foodborne illnesses could become more prevalent because the work the scientists were doing will likely just end, said Roberts, the union representative who works for the Agricultural Research Service.

“Who knows what we’ve lost? What discoveries or products that were going to be invented that we’ll just never see?” Roberts said. “We’ll be stuck with the tools we have now.”

A robust food safety system, with research and vigilant monitoring, is necessary to help prevent foodborne illnesses, which not only can hospitalize consumers but also have long-lasting health consequences, said Barbara Kowalcyk, a longtime food safety researcher who is now at George Washington University. In a 2013 study, Kowalcyk and her colleagues showed foodborne infections could lead to, among other conditions, chronic kidney disease, arthritis and cognitive deficits.

An example of science and government oversight working in concert to save lives stems from a deadly outbreak in the 1990s, she said. After eating undercooked hamburgers at Jack in the Box, more than 700 people fell ill and four children died.

The scandal put the USDA’s food safety system under an intense microscope, and the department changed how it protected America’s meat supply. Instead of eyeing and smelling a carcass, the USDA began testing for pathogens, a monumental task to implement.

The original testing procedure was first developed in the 1960s and refined over the decades. Since the USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service began using the system — named Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point — cases of foodborne illness from beef have declined dramatically.

“Lots of effort went into that,” Kowalcyk said. “We don’t see the same level of outbreaks in ground beef that we used to.”

Rollins plans on altering the USDA’s, and the country’s, future through her actions. Cutting funding to farmers, axing scientists, instilling fear in remaining employees — it’s about changing the country’s course.

“It isn’t just about the next four years,” she told Breitbart in May. “It’s about the next 250 years.”

But it could all backfire on farmers, rural communities and consumers, said Lavender, with the national sustainable agriculture coalition.

“The draining of expertise at USDA,” he said, “whether that’s scientific expertise or just expertise of people who have been there for a period of time and have built up knowledge —  it will ultimately come home to roost.”

---

This article first appeared on Investigate Midwest and is republished here under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. To republish, go to the original and consult the Investigate Midwest republishing guidelines.

New Nissan cars are driven onto a rail car to be transported from an automobile processing terminal located at the Port of Los Angeles on April 3, 2024 in Wilmington, California. (Photo by Mario Tama/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump said late Tuesday he struck a “massive” trade deal with Japan, lowering his threatened tariffs on Japanese products.

The deal, according to Japanese negotiators, will include a lower rate on the country’s top export: automobiles.

Trump’s declaration of a new framework comes as a legal fight over a large portion of his tariff policy will be heard in federal appeals court next week.

The president announced via Truth Social Tuesday evening that Japan had agreed “at my direction” to invest $550 billion in the United States and will open its markets to more American products, including cars, trucks, rice and other agricultural goods.

In exchange, Trump agreed to lower what he calls “reciprocal” import taxes on Japanese products to 15%, down from the 25% rate he threatened in early July.

Tariffs are import taxes paid by U.S. companies and individuals who purchase goods from other countries.

While some details remained unclear, Trump said the agreement is “the largest Deal ever made,” and continued in a post on his online platform that “there has never been anything like it.”

Japan’s government confirmed the new deal Wednesday. Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshimasa Hayashi said the parties agreed to a 15% tariff on Japanese vehicles and auto parts imported into the U.S. without any volume restrictions — down from the blanket 25% U.S. tariff on foreign cars that went into effect in April. Hayashi delivered the remarks through an English translation during a morning press conference.

Jeff Schott, senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, said securing $550 billion in investment from Japan would set the agreement apart from other trade deals.

“There isn’t a lot of information about over what period of time this would cover, and how it would be financed, and things like that, but the headline number of $550 billion is certainly notable, if it’s believable and if it’s achievable,” Schott said Wednesday in an interview with States Newsroom.

While specifics are unknown, possible investments from Japan might include Nippon Steel’s takeover of U.S. Steel, or a joint venture to export liquified natural gas from Alaska.

Schott said the trade deal “is likely going to set a template” for trade talks with other nations, including ongoing negotiations this week in Washington, D.C., with South Korean officials.

Aug. 1 deadline set

The news of a deal with Japan came just after the White House announced new trade arrangements with Indonesia and the Philippines ahead of a self-imposed Aug. 1 deadline, when steeper tariffs are set to trigger on trading partners around the world.

Trump had threatened Japan in a letter earlier this month with a 25% “reciprocal” tariff on all Japanese goods set to begin Aug. 1, in addition to special sectoral and national security tariffs on foreign automobiles, at 25%, and imported steel and aluminum, which now sit at 50%.

The president shocked global markets in early April when he announced a universal 10% tariff on every foreign good coming into the U.S., plus staggering additional “reciprocal” import taxes on major trading partners based on the country’s trading relationship with the U.S.

Trump initially slapped a 24% reciprocal tariff on Japan, which imports less from the U.S. than U.S. entities buy from Japan. The U.S. ran a $69.4 billion trade deficit with Japan in 2024, according to the Census Bureau.

Trump has twice delayed his so-called reciprocal tariffs on other economies as his administration attempts to leverage the threats into agreements. The administration has yet to strike a new deal with the European Union, another major trading partner.

Court hearing

The U.S. Appeals Court for the Federal Circuit is set to hear oral arguments July 31 over Trump’s reciprocal tariffs, which he triggered by declaring international trade a national emergency under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.

The U.S. Court of International Trade struck down Trump’s emergency tariffs as unconstitutional in a May 28 decision, following two legal challenges brought by a handful of business owners and a dozen Democratic state attorneys general.

Arizona, Colorado, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico and Oregon were among the states that brought the suit.

V.O.S. Selections, a New York-based company that imports wine and spirits from 16 countries, led the business plaintiffs. Others included a Utah-based plastics producer, a Virginia-based children’s electricity learning kit maker, a Pennsylvania-based fishing gear company and a Vermont-based women’s cycling apparel company.

Upon appeal from the White House, the Federal Circuit allowed Trump’s tariffs to remain in place while the case moved forward.

U.S. President Donald Trump speaks to reporters in the Oval Office of the White House on Feb. 3, 2025 in Washington, D.C.  Trump was joined by, left to right, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, former Executive Chairman of Fox Corporation Rupert Murdoch and Oracle CTO Larry Ellison. (Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — U.S. Democratic lawmakers argued in a new legal filing this week that President Donald Trump’s sweeping emergency tariffs usurped congressional power, and they urged a federal appellate court to strike down the duties on foreign imports.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is set to hear oral arguments over some of Trump’s tariffs after a lower court blocked them in May. Despite being tied up in court, Trump continued threatening tariffs Wednesday on numerous trading partners, including a 50% import tax on goods from Brazil.

Nearly 200 lawmakers signed onto the amicus brief Tuesday, asserting that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, under which Trump triggered the duties, “does not confer the power to impose or remove tariffs.”

The lawmakers argued that Trump’s unprecedented use of IEEPA violates Article I of the U.S. Constitution that authorizes Congress to “lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises” and “regulate commerce with foreign nations.”

“This reflects the Framers’ interest in ensuring the most democratically accountable branch — the one closest to the People — be responsible for enacting taxes, duties, and tariffs,” wrote the 191 Democratic members of Congress, citing the Federalist Papers, in their 65-page brief.

Congress has “explicitly and specifically” delegated tariff-raising powers to the president, but not under IEEPA, according to the lawmakers.

“Unmoored from the structural safeguards Congress built into actual tariff statutes, the President’s unlawful ‘emergency’ tariffs under IEEPA have led to chaos and uncertainty,” the lawmakers wrote.

‘Economic chaos,’ price hikes cited

Sen. Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, top Democrat on the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, co-led the brief with Oregon’s Sen. Ron Wyden, top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries also co-led, along with Reps. Gregory Meeks of New York, Joe Neguse of Colorado, Jamie Raskin of Maryland and Richard Neal of Massachusetts.

In a statement Wednesday, Shaheen said Trump’s “reckless tariff agenda has caused economic chaos and raised prices for families and businesses across the country at a moment in which the cost of living is far too high.”

“The Trump Administration’s unlawful abuse of emergency powers to impose tariffs ignores that he does not have the authority to unilaterally impose the largest tax increase in decades on Americans. This brief makes clear that IEEPA cannot be used to impose tariffs,” Shaheen said.

May decision

The U.S. Court of International Trade struck down Trump’s emergency tariffs in a May 28 decision, following two legal challenges brought by a handful of business owners and a dozen Democratic state attorneys general.

Arizona, Colorado, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico and Oregon were among the states that brought the suit.

The lead business plaintiff is V.O.S. Selections, a New York-based company that imports wine and spirits from 16 countries, according to its website. Other plaintiffs include a Utah-based plastics producer, a Virginia-based children’s electricity learning kit maker, a Pennsylvania-based fishing gear company, and a Vermont-based women’s cycling apparel company.

Following an appeal from the White House, the Federal Circuit allowed Trump’s tariffs to remain in place while the case moved forward.

Triple-digit tariff

Trump used IEEPA to declare international trade a national emergency and announced tariffs on nearly every other country on April 2 in what he dubbed as “Liberation Day.”

Tariffs reached staggering levels on major U.S. trading partners, including 46% on Vietnam, 25% on South Korea and 20% on the European Union.

The announcement wiped trillions from markets, which have largely recovered. Trump delayed all but a 10% base tariff for 90 days on every country except China. Trump fueled a trade war with the massive Asian nation, peaking at a 145% tariff rate, but then temporarily settling between 10% and 55%, depending on the good.

Even before Trump shocked the world with his “Liberation Day” announcement, small business owners from around the U.S. told States Newsroom they were bracing for potentially devastating economic effects.

The trade court’s ruling — a pending appeals litigation — does not apply to tariffs Trump imposed under other statutes, including national security-related duties on foreign automobiles, as well as steel and aluminum. Some of the steel tariffs, imposed during Trump’s first term, were left in place under former President Joe Biden.

President Donald Trump is displayed on a television screen as traders work on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange on April 7, 2025 in New York City. Markets around the world fell dramatically as global leaders, businesses and economies tried to understand and come to terms with Trump's tariff policy. (Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images)

President Donald Trump on Monday threatened tariffs from 25% to 40% on all goods from seven countries, including major U.S. trade partners Japan and South Korea.

The tariffs would go into effect Aug. 1, rather than Wednesday, which was the deadline Trump already extended once from an initial April date, Trump wrote in a series of letters to the countries’ leaders that he posted on his social media platform.

Countries that will see 25% tariffs are Japan, South Korea, Malaysia and Kazakhstan, with South Africa subject to a 30% rate and Laos and Myanmar seeing a 40% tariff rate.

The letters are nearly identical and begin by acknowledging the United States faces a trade deficit with the other country.

“Nevertheless, we have decided to move forward with you, but only with more balanced, and fair, TRADE,” Trump wrote in the letters. “We have had years to discuss our Trading Relationship with (your country), and have concluded that we must move away from these longterm, and very persistent, Trade Deficits.”

The economy-wide tariffs would apply above any sector-specific levies, Trump wrote.

The administration would respond to any effort by the other country to place a reciprocal tariff on the U.S. by setting a new tariff rate on that country that equaled whatever rate it set, plus 25%, Trump said.

Letters on the way

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Monday  about 14 countries would receive similar letters.

“These new rates that will be provided in this correspondence to these foreign leaders will be going out the door within the next month, or deals will be made,” Leavitt said. “Those countries continue to negotiate with the United States. We’ve seen a lot of positive developments in the right direction, but the administration, the president and his trade team want to cut the best deals for the American people and the American worker.”

The administration has used tariffs aggressively to reset trade relationships with every partner. The new threats are part of a push to reach trade deals with individual countries.

Trump set a goal of reaching 90 deals within 90 days of his April 2 announcement, but only two — Vietnam and the U.K. — had materialized by that deadline.

Trump will also sign an executive order further extending to Aug. 1 the deadline for tariffs on every country without a one-to-one trade agreement with the U.S., Leavitt said.

Trump shook the global economy when he imposed wide-reaching levies on nearly every country on April 2. The president walked them back just seven days later, announcing a 90-day pause on staggering tariffs that reached nearly 50% on some major U.S. trading partners and, briefly, 125% on Chinese imports.

The U.S. Court of International Trade struck down Trump’s emergency tariffs May 28. The following day, an appeals court temporarily restored the tariffs and as of Monday they remain in place while the court case is being heard.

Shauneen Miranda contributed to this report.

Reading Time: 6 minutes

For Pepper Roberts, running a successful farm comes down to managing risk and planning for potential challenges.

While other farmers sold their crops last fall, Roberts used grain bins to store half of his corn harvest, betting that he’d get a better price once corn supplies grew scarce. 

In January, Roberts sold the corn at an inflated rate, which helped cover bills left over from last year. The funds also provided a financial buffer for the current growing season.

“The Good Lord blessed me,” said Roberts, who grows soybeans, cotton, corn and other grains on a 6,250-acre farm in Belzoni, Mississippi. “There’s opportunities out there for (every farm) — it doesn’t matter what size.”

Like many other farmers, Roberts is now preparing for a year of uncertainty and tight margins. Since returning to the White House, President Donald Trump has enacted sweeping tariffs on imported goods, igniting trade disputes and disrupting global markets. Farmers were already facing high input costs and falling crop prices entering 2025, and many relied on government aid to offset losses last year.

Despite these headwinds, however, Roberts steadfastly supports the tariffs.

“In the long run, it’s going to be the best thing that ever happened,” he said, predicting that the levies will pressure trade partners like China to negotiate new purchasing agreements with the U.S.

Roberts is not alone. Though there’s been plenty of backlash from the agricultural sector, Trump’s tariffs have also drawn support from a subset of farmers, who see them as a means of regaining an edge in an increasingly competitive global economy.

A May survey of 400 U.S. producers found that 70% believe the tariffs will strengthen their industry in the long term. The same poll found that just 43% of respondents think the levies will hurt their earnings this year, down from 56% a month earlier. Respondents were based around the country and ran operations that grossed above $500,000 annually, according to the survey authors.

Much of this support reflects the belief that the tariffs will lead to better trade deals for American farmers. China is a top destination for U.S. agricultural exports like soybeans, and getting it to buy a set amount of crops each year would guarantee a market for producers without the threat of competition, one economist explained. That certainty, in turn, would stabilize commodity crop prices.

A new trade deal with China “locks in a source of demand” for U.S. farm products, said Will Maples, a professor at Mississippi State University’s Department of Agricultural Economics.

That guaranteed demand is essential for the 10 states bordering the Mississippi River, where agriculture exports collectively surpassed $57 billion in 2023. Though some Mississippi farmers worried the tariffs could backfire and worsen market conditions, others said they would be willing to weather a difficult year or two for increased trade opportunities down the road.

“Coming into all of this, we were already facing a downturn in the ag economy,” Maples said. “(If) you think about … Trump’s base, most of these guys probably voted for him. So it seems like they are willing to give him (the) benefit of the doubt in the short term.”

A high-stakes gamble

Trump’s trade war has proven divisive for American farmers — a group that overwhelmingly backed the president during last year’s election, according to a county-level analysis by Investigate Midwest.

When the White House imposed tariffs on most foreign imports earlier this year — including a staggering 145% tax on Chinese goods — many farmers and trade groups sounded the alarm, warning that the levies would raise supply costs domestically and threaten U.S. crop sales overseas. China retaliated with its own tariffs throughout the spring, though both countries have since scaled back their steepest duties.

In May, a federal court declared many of the president’s tariffs illegal. A separate court allowed them to remain in place while the administration appeals the decision.

As of June 11, the U.S. and China have reportedly reached a tentative accord to deescalate their trade dispute without inking a significant deal. According to the New York Times, some tariffs will remain in place on both sides.   

As the administration continues to adjust the size and scope of its levies, the agricultural sector has already sustained losses. China has canceled mass shipments of American farm products, and industry groups warn that a lengthy trade dispute could further reduce demand for U.S. exports.

China has been steadily developing agricultural markets in other parts of the world, primarily Brazil, explained Mike McCormick, president of the Mississippi Farm Bureau Federation. 

“They’re developing a lot of farmland there, and (China is) buying a lot of their products,” McCormick said. 

Of particular concern to McCormick is China’s growing reliance on Brazilian soybeans, which are used as livestock feed. Soybeans remain the United States’ largest agricultural export to China, and they’re mostly grown around the Mississippi River Basin, with Illinois, Iowa and Minnesota accounting for nearly 40% of the nation’s total production in 2022. But Brazil has dominated China’s soybean import market for more than a decade.

Should Chinese demand for soybeans increase amid a prolonged trade standoff with the U.S., experts say Brazil is uniquely positioned to fill that void.

“Brazil could convert an additional 70 million acres of pasture land into crop production without knocking down a single acre of forest,” said Joe Janzen, an agricultural economist at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. That’s over 80% of the total soybean acreage grown in the U.S. last year.

Proponents of Trump’s trade policies hope the tariffs will bring China back to the negotiating table, culminating in a trade deal similar to the one announced during the president’s first term.

In January 2020, Trump and China inked an agreement that called for China to purchase $80 billion in U.S. agricultural products through 2022. Crop prices soared in the next two years, though Maples at MSU stressed that market forces beyond the agreement — namely higher global spending in the latter stages of the pandemic — contributed to the increases.

The problem with Trump’s more expansive and erratic tariff strategy this time is that it risks alienating trade partners and further destabilizing markets, which in turn would drive down crop prices, Maples explained. Farmers base yearly planting decisions on what they can reasonably expect to earn for each crop, and the president’s on-again, off-again tariffs have made these projections significantly more tenuous.

“You can’t plan well when there’s so much uncertainty,” said Maples. “As long as we keep dealing with this, it’s going to be hard for prices to recover.”

Planning for pain

Roberts plans on sticking to his usual crop rotation this year despite the tariff-fueled uncertainty. The rotation has “paid for itself” in past years, he said, and he’s hoping to squeeze enough profit out of this year’s cycle to balance out expenses. He also has some savings from past years to fall back on if things go south.

“You can’t hit a grand slam every year,” Roberts said. “We all want the biggest profit we can ever make, but when I cross (the) break-even point, I’m ready to lock something in.”

Other farmers are more bearish about their prospects this season. In Clarksdale, Mississippi, Cliff Heaton has struggled to keep up with ballooning production costs on his 15,000-acre farm, where he grows cotton, corn, soybeans and other grains. Consecutive years of falling crop prices on top of high input costs created a perfect storm for Heaton, who suffered record losses in 2024. “I lost more money last year than I’ve lost in my entire life put together,” he said. “And it looks like this year’s heading in the same direction.”

Heaton said he supports the goal of securing better trade deals for U.S. producers, but he worries farmers may not survive the tariffs and their financial fallout without ample government assistance. He says recent market conditions have forced some of his friends to give up farming, and he’s considering a 40% reduction in operations if conditions don’t improve by harvest time.

“Inflation is taking its toll on us in our industry, and we’re not seeing (improvements) on our sales side,” said Heaton. He says particularly for products without a significant domestic market, like cotton, “as long as we’re dependent on selling into a world market … we need help.”

On March 18, U.S. Department of Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins announced that her agency would distribute up to $10 billion in subsidies to help farmers bounce back from 2024. The funds, authorized by Congress at the end of last year, have helped Mississippi farmers reduce outstanding debts and secure crop loans for the current growing season, according to McCormick.

As Trump fights to preserve his tariffs in court, McCormick said his members may be willing to “stand a little bit of pain” if the trade dispute leads to new markets. “We just gotta hope that we can get better deals and … a quick resolution,” he said.

Maples worries that pain could prove too great for some local producers, especially those who are new to the industry and lack the capital to withstand an extended tariff onslaught. The trade dispute could fast-track retirement plans for some older farmers in the state, he added.

These farm closures would have ripple effects across entire communities, affecting people and companies that rely on their business, Maples concluded.

“A bad farm economy hurts rural America at the end of the day,” he said.

Nick Judin contributed reporting.

This story is a product of the Mississippi River Basin Ag & Water Desk, an independent reporting network based at the University of Missouri in partnership with Report for America, with major funding from the Walton Family Foundation.

Wisconsin Watch is a member of the Ag & Water Desk network. Sign up for our newsletters to get our news straight to your inbox.

Trump’s tariffs are hurting US agriculture. Some farmers support them anyway. is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Left to right, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, President Donald Trump and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth attend a Cabinet meeting at the White House on April 30, 2025 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump’s emergency tariffs can go forward while the administration fights to overturn a lower court’s trade decision that ruled the global import taxes unlawful, according to a U.S. appeals court order late Tuesday.

The two cases filed by a handful of private businesses and a dozen Democratic state attorneys general will be consolidated and heard by a full panel of active circuit court judges in July, according to the four-page order from the U.S. Appeals Court for the Federal Circuit.

Democratic state attorneys general who brought the suit represent Arizona, Colorado, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico and Oregon.

The court “concludes that these cases present issues of exceptional importance warranting expedited en banc consideration of the merits in the first instance,” according to the order.

A hearing is scheduled for July 31 in Washington, D.C.

Trump rocked global markets when he imposed the wide-reaching levies on nearly every country on April 2 under an unprecedented use of the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA. The president walked them back just seven days later, announcing a 90-day pause on staggering tariffs that reached nearly 50% on some major U.S. trading partners.

The U.S. Court of International Trade struck down Trump’s emergency tariffs May 28. The following day, the appeals court temporarily restored the tariffs.