Tag: Trade Act of 1974

The reported discussions between the Biden administration’s China envoy and Beijing regarding a potential “birthday summit” between former President Trump and President Xi Jinping raise complex legal and policy questions. While the Wall Street Journal first detailed these discussions (March 2025), the concept of a bilateral meeting tied to leaders’ birthdays carries symbolic resonance and strategic calculation. At its core, the issue involves interpreting the scope of presidential authority in shaping foreign policy, balancing statutory constraints like the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. § 2155) against executive prerogatives under the Constitution’s Article II (Art. II, §2). This summit proposal illuminates tensions between congressional trade oversight, national security exemptions, and the President’s inherent power to conduct diplomacy.

On March 10, 2025, The Wall Street Journal reported that high‐level envoys from the United States and China engaged in exploratory discussions to arrange a bilateral summit between President Donald J. Trump and President Xi Jinping in mid‐June (Wall Street Journal, March 10, 2025). At stake are deeply entrenched legal, constitutional, and policy tensions involving trade sanctions, national security prerogatives, and Congress’s oversight role. This developing episode raises core questions under the U.S. Constitution—specifically, the President’s power to negotiate foreign agreements in light of statutory constraints and Congressional authority over tariffs and commerce (U.S. Const. art. II; Trade Act of 1974 § 151).

OECD Warns Trump: In May 2025, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) released a report cautioning that the United States’ escalating tariff measures under the Trump administration are likely to hinder domestic growth and destabilize global trade (OECD, 2025). At issue is the administration’s invocation of Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. § 2411), which permits unilateral tariffs on imports deemed unfair. Since 2018, successive rounds of duties have targeted steel, aluminum, and a broad array of Chinese goods, prompting retaliatory levies from key trading partners (Smith & Lee, 2024). This tension raises fundamental questions about the scope of executive trade authority vis-à-vis multilateral obligations under the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the Trade Act itself.

On April 2, 2025, President Donald Trump announced a sweeping overhaul of U.S. trade policy, introducing a baseline 10% tariff on all imports and significantly higher rates for certain countries, notably China. This move, termed "Liberation Day" by the administration, aimed to address longstanding trade imbalances and protect domestic industries. The immediate aftermath saw global markets plunge, with the S&P 500 experiencing its worst single-day decline since the 2020 pandemic-induced crash . However, a subsequent 90-day tariff pause, announced on April 9, led to a market rebound, highlighting the volatility and uncertainty surrounding the administration's trade strategies.

On May 13, 2025, China's Ministry of Finance announced a significant policy shift: China's 90-Day Tariff Reduction on U.S. goods to 10%, effective from May 14. This move marks a notable de-escalation in the ongoing trade tensions between the world's two largest economies. The decision follows a series of reciprocal tariff increases that had escalated to unprecedented levels, with U.S. tariffs on Chinese goods reaching 145% and Chinese tariffs on U.S. goods peaking at 125% .

In early 2025, President Donald Trump reasserted his "America First" trade agenda, initiating a series of aggressive tariff measures aimed at addressing longstanding trade deficits and promoting domestic manufacturing. These policies, characterized by substantial tariffs on imports from key trading partners, have led to significant market volatility and raised complex legal questions regarding the extent of executive power in trade matters.