CBS News
Can Trump impose tariffs without Congress? It’s complicated, according to experts.
President-elect Trump, who has said he thinks “tariff” is “the most beautiful word in the dictionary,” has proposed a variety of taxes on goods imported from other countries.
His aim is to deter American companies from relying on parts and goods from overseas, including from China, by making it more expensive for them to do so.
He’s also claimed that he doesn’t need Congress’ support to impose the tariffs he’s floated. The reality is more complicated, according to economists and foreign trade experts.
What has Trump proposed?
On the campaign trail, Trump proposed tariffs of between 60% and 100% on Chinese goods. He’s offered few additional details, however, such as whether the tariffs would apply to all goods, or just certain categories of products.
He’s also proposed a sweeping tariff policy including a universal tax of between 10% to 20% on all imports, and has promised reciprocal tariffs on any country that imposes tariffs on American-made goods.
Can Trump unilaterally impose tariffs?
Once he takes office, President-elect Trump has a few different pathways through which he could try to implement the types of tariffs he has proposed.
The U.S. Constitution gives Congress the authority to impose tariffs in Article 1, Section 8, which states that “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties…To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations.” But Congress can also selectively delegate tariff-setting authority to the President, which it has done for decades.
Trump, in his first term as president from 2017-2021, made use of this presidential authority to increase tariffs: Duties paid on U.S. imports doubled from roughly $37 billion in 2015 to $74 billion in 2020, according to the Congressional Research Service.
“Looking at his previous four years in office, he seems to believe he has the authority to impose tariffs,” said Jake Colvin, president of the National Foreign Trade Council, a group dedicated to advocating for U.S. companies in international commerce. “If they decide on day one that they want to use executive authority to put tariffs on Chinese goods, they could probably go ahead and do that.”
Colvin added that it will be important for the incoming Trump administration to provide businesses with more specifics so that companies can plan accordingly. “A lot has been proposed in the course of the campaign, so it’s important for the administration to give a signal about the path it intends to pursue, for clarity and planning purposes for American businesses,” he said.
Presidential authority to impose tariffs
The president has authority to impose a range of trade restrictions on foreign nations, said Inu Manak, a trade policy fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.
“It seems pretty clear that he would pursue tariffs soon after taking office. During his last term, tariffs were a tool of choice in the trade war against China and against allies, too. So I believe that is a strategy he’ll replicate in his next term,” Manak told CBS MoneyWatch.
Manak added that he would likely be able to do so without support from Congress. “The president has quite a bit of discretion to do what he wants,” she said.
Legal powers at Trump’s disposal include Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, under which the president may impose retaliatory tariffs when “an act policy, or practice of a foreign country … violates, or is inconsistent with, the provisions of, or otherwise denies benefits to the United States under, any trade agreement, or … is unjustifiable and burdens or restricts United States commerce.”
Trump has already relied on Section 301 to impose tariffs on China throughout 2018 and 2019, and he could, simply, expand upon existing tariff actions he’s already taken, according to Manak.
“That would require no action from Congress, because they are already in place,” she said.
In his previous term as president, he also made use of Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 to impose tariffs on steel and aluminum imports. It grants the president the authority to adjust imports, including by imposing tariffs, when they are found to be a threat to national security.
Threats to national security
There’s also the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which hasn’t been used to restrict trade since President Nixon was in office, from 1969 until his resignation in 1974.
The act says “Any authority granted to the President by … this title may be exercised to deal with any unusual and extraordinary threat … to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States, if the President declares a national emergency with respect to such threat.”
“The authorities granted to the President … may only be exercised to deal with an unusual and extraordinary threat with respect to which a national emergency …” it adds in part.
In other words, in order to use IEEPA to impose tariffs, Trump would have to declare a national emergency through an executive order, claiming that the U.S.’s trading partners pose an unusual and extraordinary threat.
Alan Wm. Wolff, former deputy director-general of the World Trade Organization and a distinguished visiting fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics (PIIE), is skeptical that Trump has the authority to impose sweeping tariffs under IEEPA.
“Can it be used against trade with all countries, our allies and friends in Europe and Asia, in the Americas, not to mention the poorest countries in Africa? That would simply be too large a power grab to have been within what Congress intended in this statute,” he wrote in a recent blog post.
Discrimination against U.S. commerce
Manak said that Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930 could also conceivably give the president the authority to unilaterally raise tariffs.
The rarely used act allows the president to impose duties of up to 50% of a product’s value, and is triggered when a president finds that a foreign country has imposed an unreasonable charge on, or discriminated against U.S. commerce.
Typically, though, the finding has to come from the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC). “But the statute’s language is ambiguous in terms of what that would look like, and I would imagine he could pursue this without a final finding from ITC, or pursue it while a finding is being made,” she said.
Impact of tariffs on consumer prices
Some companies have already said they’re aiming to move production out of China to avoid Trump’s proposed tariffs.
Shoemaker Steve Madden, for example, says it plans to import fewer goods made in China to the U.S., and replace them with items made in other countries.
If imposed, the proposed tariffs on imports could lead to consumers losing between $46 billion and $78 billion in spending power each year on products including apparel, toys, furniture, household appliances, footwear and travel goods, according to the National Retail Federation.
By another estimate, a 20% general tariff on all imported goods, combined with a 60% tariff on goods imported from China, would cost the typical U.S. households more than $2,600 a year. If Trump imposes a 10% tariff across the board instead, that would cost families $1,700 more, according to PIIE.
More concrete data on what the cost will be on consumers may soon be available, as experts expect Trump’s proposed tariffs to be implemented rather quickly.
“We would imagine that within a few months of him taking office, we would see the first tranche of tariffs taking effect,” Manak said.
CBS News
Want to live an extra 5 years? Those over 40 should exercise like this every day, researchers say
Exercising like the most active 25% of Americans can help those over 40 add an extra 5 years to their life on average, according to new research.
In the study, published Thursday in the British Journal of Sports Medicine, researchers created a predictive model to estimate the impact of different levels of physical activity on life expectancy using data about people who were at least 40 years old from the National Health and Nutritional Examination Survey and other sources.
Though it was an observational study, which doesn’t prove cause and effect, the findings suggest increased focus on physical activity can potentially pay off in terms of Americans’ lifespans.
“Our findings suggest that (physical activity) provides substantially larger health benefits than previously thought, which is due to the use of more precise means of measuring (it),” the authors wrote.
So how much do you have to exercise to gain the potential benefits? The total physical activity of the most active 25% of Americans was equivalent to 160 minutes of walking at a normal pace, or about 3 miles per hour, every day, according to the study.
If all Americans over 40 matched this level of activity, life expectancy at birth would bump from 78.6 years to nearly 84 years, about a 5-year increase in average lifespan.
If the least active Americans committed to an extra 111 minutes of walking daily, the effects were even more dramatic, the estimates indicate — adding almost 11 years to the average lifespan.
This isn’t the first time research has highlighted the health benefits of walking.
A study last year from the same journal found walking just 11 minutes per day could significantly lower the risk of stroke, heart disease and some cancers.
Other viral fitness trends like the “hot girl walk” and “fart walk” have also encouraged Americans to get their walking shoes on for a number of physical and mental health positives.
CBS News
After two “Forever” postage stamp hikes, the USPS lost nearly $10 billion in 2024
The U.S. Postal Service on Thursday said its annual loss widened to almost $10 billion, although revenue rose slightly after two postage rate hikes this year, part of Postmaster Louis DeJoy’s plan to get the postal agency on a better financial footing.
The USPS said it lost $9.5 billion in the fiscal year ended September 30, compared with a loss of $6.5 billion a year earlier. The postal service blamed the wider loss on billions spent on noncash contributions to worker compensation.
Excluding that expense as well as what it described as other “certain expenses that are not controllable by management,” the USPS said it would have lost $1.8 billion in fiscal 2024, compared with a loss of more than $2.2 billion a year earlier. Revenue rose 1.7% to $79.5 billion in the most recent fiscal year.
The USPS is in the midst of a 10-year overhaul engineered by DeJoy, who has argued that higher postal rates and other changes are essential to staunch the postal service’s financial bleeding. Under his original plan, the USPS had aimed to turn a profit in fiscal 2024, but instead, the agency has now reported mounting losses for two consecutive years, raising questions about the effectiveness of the turnaround effort.
DeJoy said the agency is focused on reducing its costs, but that it is also dealing with “many economic, legislative and regulatory obstacles for us to overcome.”
The USPS has raised postage rates twice in 2024, with a two-cent per stamp increase in January and a second boost in July, which raised the cost of a Forever stamp to 73 cents.
Fewer deliveries
Mail volume declined in the most recent fiscal year, although revenue increased due to the higher postage rates, the USPS said. It delivered 112 billion pieces of mail, magazines, packages and other items last year, a decline of 3.2% from the prior fiscal year, it said in a financial report.
Keep US Posted, an advocacy group of newspapers, magazines and other companies that rely on the USPS, described the agency’s $9.5 billion loss as “staggering,” and said it was $3 billion higher than expected. The group also blamed the rate hikes for driving customers away from the USPS, reducing mail volume.
“The bottom line is that these consistent financial losses are driven by stamp hikes which lead to disastrous mail volume losses, plus the complete failure of USPS to capture parcel market share in already crowded package delivery space,” said Keep US Posted executive director Kevin Yoder in a statement.
Yoder, a former Republican Congressman from Kansas, also criticized the USPS for focusing on packages rather than traditional mail delivery, which he said remains the largest revenue generator for the postal service.
CBS News
Behind the surprising Infowars purchase by The Onion
Be the first to know
Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.