Jamieson Greer Says Trump’s Trade Deficit Emergency Wasn’t as Serious an Emergency “as Maybe Thought”
Against the background of empty ports, stalled shipping traffic, and impending business failures, Trump has capitulated on his trade embargo with China. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Trade Representative Jamieson Greer will announce an even bigger rollback of tariffs than the 80 or 50% tariffs Trump floated last week, to 30% (which is the 10% tariffs imposed worldwide, plus the 20% that purports to be a punishment for China’s role in providing precursors for fentanyl).
The U.S. and China agreed to slash punishingly high tariffs on each other’s goods, a major thaw in trade relations that resets the tone between the world’s two largest economies from outright conflict to constructive engagement.
After weekend talks in Geneva:
- President Trump’s “reciprocal” tariff on China will fall to 10% from 125%.
- A separate 20% tariff the president imposed over what he described as China’s role in the fentanyl trade will remain.
- Beijing will cut its retaliatory levies on U.S. goods to 10% from 125%.
- The U.S. said the reductions would last for 90 days while the two sides begin further talks.
The agreement lowered tariffs levels more than Wall Street expected and came after just two days of talks.
In announcing this “deal,” Greer offered up thin excuses for capitulating within hours.
It’s important to understand how quickly we were able to come to an agreement, which reflects that perhaps the differences were not so large as maybe thought. That said, there was a lot of groundwork that went into these these two days.
Just remember why we’re here in the first place is the United States has a massive $1.2 trillion trade deficit. So the President declared a national emergency, and imposed tariffs. We’re confident that the deal we struck with our Chinese partners will help us to resolve — work toward resolving that national emergency.
“Perhaps the differences were not so large as maybe thought” — thought by whom, Greer doesn’t say. But Greer does note that the President was the guy who declared those differences that were not so large as maybe thought to be an emergency.
Trump thought it was an emergency. Now Greer says it wasn’t, as it turns out.
Once it became clear that Trump had caused a far bigger emergency by declaring one, it took just hours to rethink the claimed emergency.
The focus on the emergency may cause the Administration headaches going forward (which may be why Greer attempted to offer an excuse).
That claimed emergency is the basis via which Trump usurped Congress’ authority to set tariffs.
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.)(IEEPA), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.)(NEA), section 604 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2483), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code,
I, DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United States of America, find that underlying conditions, including a lack of reciprocity in our bilateral trade relationships, disparate tariff rates and non-tariff barriers, and U.S. trading partners’ economic policies that suppress domestic wages and consumption, as indicated by large and persistent annual U.S. goods trade deficits, constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and economy of the United States. That threat has its source in whole or substantial part outside the United States in the domestic economic policies of key trading partners and structural imbalances in the global trading system. I hereby declare a national emergency with respect to this threat.
A series of lawsuits challenging Trump’s tariffs — in this case, one brought by a wine importer, VOS Selections, and other small businesses, supported by right wing funders, in which Greer is a named defendant — have argued the trade deficit is not an emergency. [docket]
The President has no authority under IEEPA to issue the tariffs. IEEPA does not even mention tariffs. No other President has asserted this authority. IEEPA was passed to limit the President’s emergency powers. If Congress wanted to grant the President the authority to issue tariffs in IEEPA, it could have, as it has done so elsewhere. But when Congress does give the President tariff authority, it does so subject to strict statutory limits.
Legitimate use of IEEPA is limited to cases of emergencies where there is an “unusual and extraordinary threat.” But the national emergency the President has declared—the existence of bilateral trade deficits with some countries—is not an emergency, nor is it unusual or extraordinary. The United States has had some amount of trade deficit in goods for most of the last century, while having the most economic success of any country in history.
Moreover, the power claimed by the President here is extreme: he claims the power to unilaterally impose infinite tariffs of his choosing on any country he chooses—even countries with which we run a trade surplus. Any grant of such authority by Congress to the President should qualify as a major question subject to the strictest judicial scrutiny—which this claim of authority under IEEPA cannot survive.
The government, in response, has argued that it — like other Executive authorities — is not subject to court review.
More to the point, courts have consistently held that the President’s emergency declarations under the National Emergencies Act, and the adequacy of his policy choices addressing those emergencies under IEEPA, are unreviewable. “Although presidential declarations of emergencies . . . have been at issue in many cases, no court has ever reviewed the merits of such a declaration.” Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Trump, 453 F. Supp. 3d 11, 31 (D.D.C. 2020) (emphasis in original). And the Federal Circuit has recognized that an inquiry to “examine the President’s motives and justifications for declaring a national emergency” under IEEPA “would likely present a nonjusticiable political question.” Chang v. United States, 859 F.2d 893, 896 n.3 (Fed. Cir. 1988); see, e.g., Yoshida, 526 F.2d at 579 (“courts will not normally review the essentially political questions surrounding the declaration or continuance of a national emergency”); United States v. Shih, 73 F.4th 1077, 1092 (9th Cir. 2023) (refusing to review declaration of emergency under IEEPA); In re 650 Fifth Ave. & Related Props., 777 F. Supp. 2d 529, 575 n.16 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (concluding that whether the government of Iran’s actions and policies constituted an “unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States” was an unreviewable judgment “reserved to the executive branch”); Beacon Products Corp. v. Reagan, 633 F. Supp. 1191, 1194-95 (D. Mass. 1986) (concluding that whether Nicaragua posed sufficient threat to trigger the President’s IEEPA power to impose an embargo on the country was a nonjusticiable political question).
Reviewing the legitimacy of the underlying emergency—a foreign-affairs and nationalsecurity matter constitutionally and statutorily committed to the President—would require “the court to assess the wisdom of the President’s judgment concerning the nature and extent of that threat, a matter not susceptible to judicially manageable standards.” Beacon Products, 63 F. Supp. at 1195. Thus, the President’s “motives, his reasoning, his finding of facts requiring the action, and his judgment, are immune from judicial scrutiny.” Florsheim, 744 F.2d at 796; see United States v. George S. Bush & Co., 310 U.S. 371, 380 (1940) (“For the judiciary to probe the reasoning which underlies this Proclamation would amount to a clear invasion of the legislative and executive domains.”).
Normally, such an argument would carry a lot of sway with courts.
But in a parallel invocation of Presidential authority, judges already are pointing to Trump’s fickleness as evidence that his justifications for exercising Executive authority are bullshit. In her opinion granting Perkins Coie summary judgement against Trump’s attack on the law firm, Beryl Howell noted that the only thing that happened between the time Trump claimed Paul, Weiss lawyers could not be trusted with security clearances and when he decided they could be was their agreement to provide $40 million in pro bono legal services. [docket]
Second, and tellingly, the Paul, Weiss EO contained a virtually identical security clearance review provision to the one at issue in this case. Compare EO 14230 § 2, 90 Fed. Reg. at 11781, with Paul, Weiss EO § 2, 90 Fed. Reg. at 13039. As discussed, see supra Part III.B.1(b), the Paul, Weiss EO was revoked only seven days after its issuance when President Trump reached a “deal” with that firm. See generally Paul, Weiss Revocation Order, 90 Fed. Reg. 13685. While the Paul, Weiss Revocation Order summarized that firm’s agreement to, inter alia, “adopt[] a policy of political neutrality with respect to client selection and attorney hiring; tak[e] on a wide range of pro bono matters representing the full political spectrum; commit[] to merit-based hiring, promotion, and retention . . .; dedicat[e] the equivalent of $40 million in pro bono legal services during [President Trump’s] term in office . . .; and other similar initiatives,” none of these agreedupon policy or practice changes appear to explain or address how any national security concerns sufficient to warrant the Paul, Weiss EO could have changed so rapidly. Id. § 1, 90 Fed. Reg. at 13685. The speed of the reversal and the rationale provided in the Paul, Weiss Revocation Order, which focused only on agreements to advance policy initiatives of the Trump Administration, see id., further support the conclusion that national security considerations are not a plausible explanation for Section 2.
As Roger Parloff noted, Paul Clement made a similar point in arguing that the EO against Wilmer Hale must be overturned (I’m fairly certain he has made this more general observation about how the Paul, Weiss flipflop made the retaliatory EOs more vulnerable).
I think it’s crystal clear, he proceeds, that it’s all tied together. Section 1 explains what motivated all the sections.
What happened with the law firm of Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison adds further support for viewing the order as a whole, he argues. Paul Weiss faced the same operative provisions in an executive order issued on March 14. But on March 21, a later executive order repealed the whole thing. It didn’t keep, say, the security clearances or restrictions on government buildings while rescinding other sections.
Clement thinks that’s particularly telling with respect to the security clearances, he says. When you look to the agreement Paul, Weiss made with the president, there wasn’t anything specific mentioned about national security or the national interest or anything else. It was mostly about providing $40 million in pro bono services that were more to the president’s liking.
This trade deficit emergency Trump declared remains the claimed basis for the 10% tariffs still levied against China and most other countries in the world (as a wine importer, tariffs on those other countries, not China — Austria, Italy, Greece, Lebanon, Morocco, Spain, France, Portugal, Mexico, Argentina, Germany, Croatia, Hungary, and South Africa — are the ones that pose a problem for VOS Selections).
And now his Trade Representative has gone on TV to proclaim that maybe what was claimed to be an emergency was “not so large as maybe thought.”
I look forward to plaintiffs invoking Greer’s admission going forward.
The port of Los Angeles is still emptying out with no ships on the way. Our allies are still furious with us and under a 10% tariff. Tariffs are still not going to replace income tax. Negotiations have still not produced any signed agreements. Democratic lawmakers are still under the threat of arrest. By all practical measures, habeus has still been suspended for anyone suspected of being undocumented. ICE is still grabbing people off the streets. We are still not being invaded. SCOTUS is still proud of itself. Republicans are still letting the president usurp article one powers. We are still heading to hell in a hand basket.
I had little faith in the gop congress. But their inaction at ANY of trump’s excesses and ysurpations of their powers has been stunning. Doesn’t bode well for us.
Ships on the way:
Port of Long Beach, 77 vessels have arrived within the past 24 hours and 43 ships are expected to arrive in the next 30 days.
https://www.vesselfinder.com/ports/USLGB001
Port of Los Angeles, 62 vessels have arrived within the past 24 hours and 49 ships are expected to arrive in the next 30 days.
https://www.vesselfinder.com/ports/USLAX001
They usually have ships waiting outside the harbor.
There are no container ships waiting offshore of Long Beach right now.
Are those arrivals *container* ships? The site doesn’t allow drill down without a subscription.
If I understand correctly, site allows number of results to 20 without sub.
9 container ships through the 17th at Long Beach.
14 container ships through the 17th at 11:00 at LA.
Ships are named and if you click to the right of date (show on map), on next screen will be ship info including port calls, ie origin.
LA-Longbeach starting at about 17:00 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=52rgNekVCGU
Other ports and comments at beginning.
See my comment at https://www.emptywheel.net/2025/05/12/stocking-up-on-containers-of-vapor/#comment-1097184
That’s odd. I was at seal beach all day Saturday and Sunday and saw no signs of these ships arriving at port
Ships can’t deliver imported goods then = Biden is a communist!
https://www.factcheck.org/2021/10/posts-spread-baseless-claims-about-cause-of-cargo-ship-backups/
Ships can’t deliver imported goods now = Trump is a genius!
Buttery mails!
The only “national emergency” is Trump’s erratic presidency.
How is China going to help our country’s trade “national emergency”? In 90 days?
Having Trump or his aides sabotage the Administration’s legal arguments by careless statements is what Trump does. The lack of due diligence before implementation is what Trump does. And then he blames the judges, the media, Joe Biden, or whatever convenient fall guy he can invent. Or claims it is all part of his grand secret strategy, which, unfortunately, it might be.
Blaming the usual suspects is just popcorn for the faithful while they stay up late watching the Retribution Show and getting sleepy. In the morning there will be ponies!
Current Freight Rate Forecast
Freight rates are projected to rise sharply in the coming weeks as importers rush to capitalize on this window of opportunity. The increases are expected to begin with ocean freight rates in the near term, followed by domestic trucking rates in July and August. This surge stems from importers addressing existing backlogs and expediting new orders before potential policy changes at the end of the 90-day period.
This pattern echoes transportation capacity challenges observed in late 2021 and early 2022, as carriers seek to maximize pricing power during an anticipated surge in shipments.
https://www.freightwaves.com/news/transportation-rates-likely-to-surge-during-tariff-pause
They can’t ship if the ships and containers aren’t there.
And it’s not a “deal” written in anything. It’s a 90-day “Pause” before the 145% tariffs return. These tariffs, deals, and pauses will become the new “Infrastructure Week” for this administration. How does it work, if I ran cargo ships? Do I have 90 days to collect orders, load the ship, and cross the Pacific before my cargo gets hit, or when do the tariffs apply?
Besides retribution, another motive for Trump is the desire to create opportunities to exert power over companies . How many companies have called him about the harm tariffs are doing to their company? How much can he extract from these companies when he gives them what they want? I wouldn’t be surprised to see the same dynamic with his EO on prescription drugs.
Note that all of this occurs as Trump heads to Saudi Arabia. Coincidence? Likely not.
The Saudis have announced a new policy of “market share” pricing. In other words, they will take all steps necessary to maintain their share of global oil demand.
This is in apparent response to two things: 1) Russia and Kazakhstan cheating on their OPEC+ oil production allotments by overproducing; and 2) Saudi assessment of an imminent worldwide recession and reduction in global oil demand.
What does this mean? The Saudis have increased oil production and are (apparently) willing to drive oil prices down into the $40 per barrel range. This price reduction will serve to stimulate economic growth and maintain Saudi market share. (Yes, I know all about global warming, but this is how the world’s economy currently functions.)
There will be losers. Shale oil producers in the US, and this means predominantly the Permian basin in Texas, cannot produce when the price of WTI goes below the mid-$60 barrel range. The precise figure is controversial but in the $40-barrel range the Permian production goes bust. And the Russian budget is based upon Urals crude selling at $70 per-barrel. At $40-barrel the Russian economy is in dire straits and given the burdens of the Ukraine war, could potentially collapse.
So, one could posit that Trump is going to try and assuage the Saudi’s and argue that the world economy is going to be just fine: “see what I’ve just done.” Because destroying the economy of Texas (with ripple effects through the US economy) and bankrupting the Russian economy were not likely on Trump’s bingo card. Whether the Saudi’s believe him is another thing altogether.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Zs26E-QzLI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSXAlt8HxTY
While we’re at it. Can someone explain how trump can get away with being gifted an air force one replacement from Qatar. Which when he’s out office will be lifted to the trump library (which doesn’t exist yet) enabling him to use it.
Not to mention the millions it will cost to upgrade and secure it.
Is his library going to be in a hangar at the Palm Beach airport? With that bird parked outside?
It’s unlikely Trump will ever take possession of that 747. It’s fraught with lawsuits no matter when he would do it. Plus, he has no plans to retire or leave the White House, except feet first.
replying to EoH:
Lawsuits, and then the security concerns.
The Secret Service, NSA, and a whole host of other folks will want to crawl all over that plane to assure themselves that it meets whatever security restrictions Air Force One has to meet. They can do that with Boeing with little trouble, as Boeing works within the US security clearance system already. With the Qataris, not so much.
Well, you see, it isn’t really a gift to Trump. It’s a gift to the Air Force. And then the Air Force (through some mechanism no one in media has explained) has to give it to the Trump Presidential library, and pay all the costs of delivering it there to boot. And then, you see, it’s not really going to be Trump’s plane. It will belong to his library instead.
No doubt, the entity known as the library will exercise dominion over it, and will not allow Trump or his family members to use it whenever they want.
If you still have any lingering doubts, rest assured. Pam Bondi said it’s okay.
How are they going to get that thing into the Trump Library, in the backroom of the porn shop, next to a landscaping company, somewhere in Colorado?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Well that certainly explains the offer of a plane to Trump by Qatar — they’re bribing him *specifically* for cooperation against Russia’s overproduction.
“There will be losers” has been the global subscript since last November.
The deflationary effect of ~$40 oil will also assuage the FED vis a vis interest rates, right? Which shiny object will Trump lunge for, I wonder? My money is on the most deflationary-ist one. Gas at <$2.50 here in the US buys a lot of favorability points, and lower transportation costs will help offset tariff pain.
Trump has no bingo card. He's working from nothing more than the grandiose and paranoid miasma that is his thought process, informed by the rantings of his sycophants, all of whom have their own venal and self-aggrandizing agendas. Every decision is a crap shoot with dice so loaded they can barely roll.
One thing that interests me now is how this capitulation will effect Miller’s standing going forward. Can he compete with MBS?
You know what would affect the price per barrel from the Saudis to aid US production? Tariffs! Yet, oil was exempted by Trump.
Personally, ignoring all environmental concerns, it makes strategic long term national security sense to import cheap oil and maintain U.S. oil reserves to tap when foreign supply is exhausted. The same for rare earth minerals.
Find the supplies/ sources we possess domestically but limit their exploitation to preserve the resource, while creating strategic government owned reserves- like we have down with helium, etc..
We should also put back in place protections on exporting raw resources, like unrefined oil.
Damage is already being done.
Last Friday on my monthly Aldi (discount grocery store in U.S.) shopping trip, I was blown away by the price increase in fresh fruit and veg available and a surprising number of house brand items that weren’t even available.
However there were still a handful of toilet paper packs, so I guess that’s good news.
I’m not sure how bad this is going to squeeze middle income families, but for those of us on fixed income, even if all this ends with “just” a 10% tariff across the board, it is still an economic earthquake.
Especially if cuts to SNAP and Social Security are made along with these price increases, we are doomed.
We were doomed the day the 49% mindless fools voted for him last november
Most of US toilet paper is produced domestically — some of it by Koch-owed business. *sigh* We get it in the end, coming or going.
I don’t buy mine at Costco, because they only have Koch-made paper products.
Expect somebody will be looking at insider trading signs with this “lull” in the crisis. That chart in the WSJ item of the index jumps Friday to today cry out for it. Even with a paywall for the whole article that chart is a top-of-item image.
That was my thought, though the rumblings about an agreement between Friday and Sunday cut into what otherwise would have been a perfect market short play.
All of this is an extended pump-and-dump combined with extortion.
“All of this is an extended pump-and-dump combined with extortion.
Nailed it….
“not so large as maybe thought.” Great.
Now do the “illegals invasion.”
Good frickin grief.
When Trump was carrying on about fent. coming in from Canada and China it did make me laugh. Its always some one else’s fault, never his and never his country’s. If the U.S.A. has a drug problem they need to deal with it. Its not another country’s problem. As it turns out not all that much fent. was coming from Canada. It was simply a reason Trump could sell to the American public as the reason for the tariffs. These tariffs are making some one rich. Unfortunately it isn’t the working people of the U.S.A. Trump’s actions simply look to me as an attempt to turn the American economy back to the 1930s.
All this tariff b.s. is a distraction and its working. Perhaps he thought he could gut the Constitution and social programs while people were fixating on tariffs.