WITA’s Friday Exchange Podcast – Breaking Ground: New Tariffs on Pharmaceuticals, Furniture, and Trucks
This week on WITA’s Friday Exchange, former trade negotiators discussed a spate of new tariffs announced this week; the challenges facing negotiations for those who have yet to come to terms with the White House; and where things stand for countries like India, Korea, Vietnam, Switzerland and more!
Featured Speakers:
Wendy Cutler, Senior Vice President, Asia Society Policy Institute; former Acting Deputy U.S. Trade Representative, Office of the U.S. Trade Representative
Mark Linscott, Senior Fellow, Atlantic Council; former Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for South and Central Asia/WTO and Multilateral, Office of the U.S. Trade Representative
Daniel Mullaney, Non-Resident Senior Fellow, Atlantic Council; former Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Europe and the Middle East, Office of the U.S. Trade Representative
Moderator: Joe Damond, Chair of International Trade Policy and Global Life Sciences, Crowell Global Advisors; former Deputy Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Asia and Pacific, Office of the U.S. Trade Representative
Watch the Video on YouTube | Listen on Spotify or Apple Podcasts
Recorded at 9:05 AM ET on 09/26/2025 | WITA
Congress Must Reclaim Its Constitutional Authority Over Trade
Former Congressman Charles Boustany (R-LA) served as Chairman of the House Ways & Means Subcommittees on Tax Policy, Oversight, and Human Resources.
Our Founders deliberately placed the power to “regulate commerce with foreign nations” with Congress for a reason. The legislative branch, closest to the people, was always intended to decide the terms of our economic relationships with the world because trade policy has always been about more than tariffs – it shapes our economy, our diplomacy, and our national security.
Yet Congress has steadily ceded its constitutional role in trade policy to the executive branch over the course of many decades. What was once the responsibility of the People’s Branch has increasingly become the domain of presidents who wield tariffs and trade agreements as instruments of foreign and domestic policy. This imbalance was not created overnight. But the result is a dangerous concentration of power that runs contrary to our constitutional order.
Historically, Congress played the central role in setting tariffs and trade policy. That began to shift in the 20th century when lawmakers began delegating increased negotiating authority to the executive branch. The Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act of 1934 and the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. The Trade Act of 1974 established the Trade Promotion Authority — a statute that allowed for the President to work in tandem with Congress to approve trade agreements. Nonetheless, each of the aforementioned laws gave presidents greater leeway to cut deals or impose restrictions in the name of national security or economic stability. While these moves were intended to provide flexibility, they also blurred constitutional lines.
In recent years, presidents from both parties have increasingly exploited these powers in unilateral and unpredictable ways. Trade wars have been launched without debate, presidents have imposed sweeping tariffs against allies and adversaries alike, and major international agreements have been entered into or abandoned without legislative approval. This is not how our system of checks and balances was meant to function.
The danger is twofold. First, unchecked executive power on trade undermines democratic accountability. When a president can, with the stroke of a pen, raise costs for American farmers, manufacturers, and families, the people’s representatives are sidelined. Second, it erodes the very principle of separated powers that our republic depends on.
09/24/2025 | Charles Boustany | The Fulcrum
The Expansion of the ‘National Security’ Exception in Trade Law: Trump’s Tariffs and Broader Trends
Introduction
President Trump’s imposition of tariffs on imported goods is a clear example of the way in which a country’s domestic regulatory choices can have enormous legal, political and economic consequences for the international legal order.
On 29 August, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (USCAFC) ruled that Trump’s ‘reciprocal’ tariffs were illegal. Specifically, a 7–4 majority held that Trump had exceeded his power by invoking emergency powers to impose tariffs of ‘unlimited duration on nearly all goods from nearly every country in the world’. In so doing, the Court upheld the decision of the United States Court of International Trade (USCIT), which had struck down sweeping tariffs that the Trump Administration had imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) in May.
The USCAFC held that the tariffs would remain in place until 14 October, in order to allow time for further appeals.
Tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act
The Trump Administration’s rationale for the implementation of tariffs under the IEEPA is a declared emergency based on the trade deficit, a series of alleged unfair trade practices and the public health crisis due to the use of fentanyl and other illicit drugs. First, the basis of Trump’s declared emergency in relation to the trade deficit must be questioned, given that the United States has recorded a trade deficit every year since 1976, making it difficult to sustain the argument that the trade deficit is either ‘unusual’ or ‘extraordinary’, in keeping with the requirements of the IEEPA. The causal link between implementing IEEPA tariffs and remedying the alleged public health crisis is also dubious. This point was made by the USCIT, when it declared that Trump’s tariffs in response to the trafficking of illicit drugs ‘do not deal with the threats set forth in those orders.’ The third basis on which Trump’s tariffs can be challenged is that the IEEPA does not authorise the implementation of tariffs. This lack of authority was a decisive factor in the decisions of the USCIT and the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (USDCDC).
The federal Courts’ rulings are consistent with the US Supreme Court’s recent jurisprudence. That is, since the Supreme Court term that began on October 4, 2021, it has ruled on a series of cases that have struck down government action that falls within the scope of a broad statute but is not specifically authorised by that statute. The approach that the Supreme Court has adopted involves a two-step analytical approach: (1) determining whether the government action is of ‘economic and political significance’; and (2) determining whether Congress clearly authorised the government’s measure. To the extent that Congress has not clearly authorised the government’s measure, the Supreme Court has struck down the government action. This two-step approach will be significant if Trump’s tariffs are eventually appealed to the Supreme Court.
It is important to note that the Trump Administration has imposed tariffs under other pieces of legislation that would be unaffected by the above Courts’ rulings. These include tariffs under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Actof 1962 and Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974.
09/23/2025 | Catherine Gascoigne & Shawkat Alam | Cambridge International Law Journal
World Trade Report 2025: Making Trade and AI Work Together To The Benefit of All
The following are excerpts from the WTO’s World Trade Report 2025. Read more here.
Artificial intelligence (AI) is beginning to reshape the global economy. Like previous general-purpose technologies, or technological breakthroughs with global impact – such as electricity or the internet – AI has the potential to transform how economies function by altering the ways in which goods and services are produced, exchanged and consumed. However, its future trajectory and impact remain uncertain. In addition, the effects of AI raise critical questions about the future role of trade in supporting inclusive growth, because AI could either foster innovation, boost economic growth, and prompt income convergence between and within economies – or it could deepen existing economic and technological divides…
The role of the WTO in supporting more inclusive approaches to trade and AI
International cooperation on AI is still in its early stages, and remains largely aspirational, with little attention given to trade or trade policy. Most AI-related initiatives primarily involve high-level declarations, broad principles or voluntary guidelines that emphasize the ethical use, safety, transparency and interoperability of AI. Most also make little or no reference to international trade, despite the fact that trade is the “oil” that keeps the AI engine running, as it enables the cross-border flow of essential inputs, from data and infrastructure to the hardware, human talent and services that power AI development and deployment.
Greater international cooperation, and particularly stronger cooperation on AI and trade, could support wider participation in AI development and deployment. Trade cooperation can foster a more stable and predictable environment for AI-related investment and innovation. This can help mitigate issues such as unequal access to technologies, regulatory fragmentation and concentrated market power, that hinder broader and more affordable participation in AI development and deployment.
So far, regional trade agreements (RTAs) have been the main avenue for advancing traderelated AI cooperation among economies. However, such agreements, mostly negotiated by high-income economies, remain limited in both number and scope. They typically recognize the potential of AI to support economic growth or digital transformation, with fewer identifying areas for cooperation, such as research and regulation…
AI, trade-related and complementary policies are necessary for AI and trade to work together for inclusive growth
Trade-related and complementary policies are key to ensure both that AI supports inclusive trade-led growth, and that trade can support AI development and diffusion. While tariffs and nontariff measures can drive down the prices and increase the availability of both AI-enabling and AI-enabled products, they can only be effective in a policy environment that stimulates widespread AI adoption. Such an environment requires intellectual property (IP) policies that incentivize innovation while allowing for knowledge diffusion and competition policies that prevent excessive market concentration. It requires education and labour market policies that foster talent and leave no one behind, as well as investment in data infrastructure and regional policies to allow for the inclusive adoption of AI, and government support, through subsidies and public procurement, that does not exclude fiscally constrained economies from AI benefits. These policies typically tend to apply to domestic and foreign firms alike, but policy design can lead to discriminatory effects that prevent AI diffusion and inclusive trade.
09/17/2025 | World Trade Organization
WITA – We put the community in trade community.
Information about upcoming WITA and trade community events