Category News

A day after a trade court determined that the tariffs were above the authority of the president, a federal appeals court temporarily reinstated (PDF) US President Donald Trump.

On Thursday, the Federal Circuit’s Court of Appeals in Washington temporarily halted the lower court’s decision, but it provided no justification for it, giving the plaintiffs only until June 5 to respond.

The Trump administration filed an emergency motion with the Federal Circuit, arguing that a halt is “essential to the country’s national security.”

The decision was applauded by the White House.

Trade adviser Peter Navarro said, “You can assume that we will find another way even if we lose tariff cases.”

His accusations that the three countries were facilitating the flow of fentanyl into the US were being tarnished or delayed by the US Court of International Trade’s surprise ruling on Wednesday, which had threatened to halt or delay Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs on most US trading partners as well as import levies on goods from Canada, Mexico, and China.

The International Court of Trade ruled that tariffs made under the IEEPA, which is typically used to address national emergencies rather than to deal with the country’s debt, were overreach.

According to experts, the IEEPA, which was passed in 1977, is only applicable to certain nations, US-designated “terrorist organizations” (terrorist organizations), or gang activity that is tied to specific circumstances. For instance, the US used the law to seize both the property of Colombian drug traffickers in 1995 and the property of Iran’s government during the hostage situation in 1979.

Bruce Fain, a former US associate deputy attorney general under Ronald Reagan, claimed that the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act doesn’t mention tariffs in any way.

In the event of a national emergency, Fein added that a statute, the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, permits tariffs. He did point out that the commerce secretary must conduct an investigation and that product-by-product regulations cannot be applied.

‘Product-by-product’

Despite the appeal court’s reprieve, the administration’s economic strategy, which has so far resulted in lower consumer confidence and a US decline in its top credit rating, has been criticized for its decision on Wednesday.

In the end, according to experts, the tariffs won’t be effective.

Attorney Peter Harrell, a fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, wrote in a post on X, formerly Twitter, that importers should eventually be able to recover any [IEEPA] tariffs they have already paid. However, the government will likely try to hold off on refund requests until the appeals are over. ″

The Congress has the authority to determine the tariff levels. There is no mention of raising tariffs in the IEEPA. And it was actually passed to lessen the president’s authority. According to Greg Schaffer, professor of international law at Georgetown Law School, the president is rewriting the tariff schedule for the entire world.

The Trade Expansion Act, a law that was used to justify tariffs on steel, aluminum, and cars, did not appear before the US trade court.

Similar narrow tariffs can also be applied to other industries, such as Chinese pharmaceuticals. The US Department of Commerce announced in April that it would look into whether US reliance on China for active ingredients in important medications posed a threat to national security and warranted tariffs.

Former associate deputy attorney general Fein said, “This is not a question of whether the president can impose tariffs.” He may use the 1962 Act after conducting a study and demonstrating that it is not arbitrary and capricious and that it uses a product-by-product approach rather than a country-by-country one. ”

Washington, DC – For Anson, it was heartbreaking to learn that US President Donald Trump’s administration is currently pursuing Chinese student visas.

After US Secretary of State Marco Rubio declared that the country would start “aggressively revoke visas for Chinese students, including those with connections to the Chinese Communist Party or those studying in critical fields,” the Chinese graduate student, who is studying foreign service at Georgetown University, told Al Jazeera.

Anson requested that only his first name be used because “there is undoubtedly a degree of uncertainty and anxiety observed amongst us.”

Some observers found the two-sentence announcement, which also promised to “revise visa criteria to enhance scrutiny” for incoming applicants from China and Hong Kong, to be intentionally vague.

Anson, 23, said he was unsure of the potential scope of the Trump administration’s new policy given that he understood that the US government had concerns about foreign influence and national security when it came to China.

The majority of students in his country, according to him, were like the other more than one million students studying in the US each year because of its “inclusivity and broad demographics” and “the other more than one million of its students.”

He continued, adding that he and other Chinese students in the US were still trying to understand the policy change, adding that it is heartbreaking for many of us to see immigrants constructing more xenophobia and hostility toward the rest of the world.

“An increased and growing suspicion”

The US Department of Justice launched the so-called “China Initiative” in 2018 with the stated goal of preventing “trade secret theft, hacking, and economic espionage,” which is not the first time the Trump administration has taken issue with Chinese students. In 2018, during Trump’s first term, the US Department of Justice launched the “China Initiative” with the stated goal of combating “trade secret theft, hacking, and economic espionage.

Instead, an analysis from MIT revealed that the program was primarily focused on Chinese academics and researchers, which was what critics described as “racial profiling and fear mongering.” The administration of former US President Joe Biden discontinued it in February 2022.

According to Kyle Chan, a Princeton University researcher on China, there has only been “greater and greater suspicion in the US, almost on a bipartisan basis, of various aspects of Chinese technology, actions by Beijing around the world, and now these concerns about surveillance and spying within the US.”

That included a congressional report led by Republicans in September 2024 that claimed hundreds of millions of US tax dollars were being used by Beijing to develop crucial technologies, including those relating to semiconductors, artificial intelligence, hypersonic weapons, and nuclear capabilities, in response to a US-China partnership at universities.

However, Chan claimed that the Trump administration’s broad announcement did not appear to address “genuine security concerns” despite acknowledging that “genuine security concerns” exist.

Instead, he claimed, it has “shock waves of fear” erupted on university campuses nationwide.

Trump’s recent pressure campaigns on US universities, which most recently resulted in the revocation of Harvard University’s ability to accept international students, have made this uncertainty even more perplexing.

Because it is not about a specific policy, Chan told Al Jazeera, “I believe the vagueness is part of the Trump administration’s] strategy.” In the end, I don’t believe it’s really about finding the few people who might pose a real risk.

Instead, he thought Trump’s decision was intended to appeal to his political audience, which are “sitting between people who are very anxious about immigrants in general and people who are very anxious about China.”

“Terribrate disruption”

The administration has provided little clarity regarding the definition of “studying in critical fields” or the scope of the visa revocations.

State Department spokeswoman Tammy Bruce told reporters on Thursday, providing only the following information: “We will continue to use every tool in our tool chest to make sure that we know who wants to come into this country and if they should be allowed to come in.”

Further, she added, “The United States will not tolerate the CCP’s exploitation of US universities or the theft of US research, intellectual property, or technologies to expand its military might, conduct intelligence collection, or suppress voices of opposition,” she added.

According to Cole McFaul, a research analyst at Georgetown University’s Center for Security and Emerging Technology, the policy’s eventual form will determine how “disruptive” it may be despite the lack of clarity.

He cited “real concerns about intellectual property [transferred] in Beijing and about illicit IP [intellectual property] transfers,” noting that there have been a few documented instances of this activity in recent years.

According to McFaul, “my hope is that this is a targeted action that is based on reliable analysis of risk and costs,” according to McFaul.

He said, “My worry is that this will result in large-scale, broad-based revocations of visas for Chinese students working in STEM subjects,” referring to the acronym for science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.

According to McFaul, about 80% of the estimated 277, 000 Chinese students studying in the US each year have STEM interests, which he described as “an enormously important talent pipeline from China to the United States for the past 40 years.”

The majority of Chinese PhDs in STEM fields, or about 80%, stay in the country after graduation, according to McFaul, which is another significant plus for the country.

What qualifies as a worker in a crucial technology, the question is, “? Life sciences: are they important? I would say “yes.” The physical sciences are they important? I’d say ‘ yes’. Computer science: Is it crucial? Is engineering a necessary skill? said McFaul.

Therefore, he said, “There would be a world where the vast majority of Chinese students would not be permitted to study in the United States, which would be a significant loss and significant disruption to the US science and technology ecosystem.”

“Creating unnecessary fear”

Chinese students in the US said they are monitoring the Trump administration’s frequently erratic winds because the policy is still unclear.

In the midst of uncertainty, Su, a 23-year-old graduate student majoring in applied analytics, reported that she had quickly changed her plans to return home to China this summer.

Su, who had a last name in mind, feared that if I go back to China, I won’t be able to return to the US when classes begin.

We never know whether something Trump makes will actually work or not, she told Al Jazeera. It’s “changing constantly,” he says.

Deng, a graduate student at Georgetown, expressed his complete support for reforms in order to address issues involving Chinese influence in US academia.

He claimed that “oligarchy corruption,” the spread of nationalist propaganda, and the intimidation of political dissidents were just a few examples.

He claimed the administration’s approach was misguided in an email to Al Jazeera, though.