Connect with us

Published

2 years ago

on

During my family’s recent visit to Israel, we spent time with my brother in Haifa, who gave one of my daughters a “Guardians of Democracy” T-shirt worn by protesters who oppose the current government’s plans to constrain judicial power. We also spent time with my sister in Gush Etzion, a bloc of settlements near Jerusalem, who casually referred to such protesters as “anarchists.”

Those characterizations, each misleading in its own way, reflect a disagreement about the proper role of courts in a democracya debate that echoes familiar arguments in the United States. Israel’s version of that controversy, which has featured mass demonstrations that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu sees as evidence of a nascent “civil war,” is flaring up again as the Knesset, Israel’s parliament, considers a bill that would bar the Israeli Supreme Court from blocking legislation based on a lack of “reasonableness.” That proposal, while less radical than bills that would virtually eliminate judicial review, encapsulates the issues raised by the determination of Netanyahu’s coalition partners to restrict the court’s authority.

Those issues, which go to the heart of legislative and judicial legitimacy, were illuminated 16 years ago by an exchange between Richard Posner, a now-retired judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, and Barak Medina, a senior lecturer in law at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. Their debate centered on the judicial philosophy of Aharon Barak, who served as a justice of the Israeli Supreme Court from 1978 to 1995 and as its president from 1995 to 2006. That period included the “constitutional revolution” in which the court took on the task of enforcing limits imposed by Israel’s “basic laws.”

Barak is the bte noire of the right-wing legislators in Netanyahu’s coalition, who see themselves, contrary to their opponents’ take, as defenders of democracy against judicial usurpation. Barak “has brought disaster on Israel,” saysJustice Minister Yariv Levin. “His path stands in contrast to democracy. To him, judges are preferable to the people’s elected officials.”

In a 2007 review of Barak’s bookThe Judge in a Democracy, Posner offered a similar critique, portraying the Israeli jurist as an “enlightened despot” and “legal buccaneer” who overrode government policy based on his personal preferences. “Barak does not attempt to defend his judicial practice by reference to orthodox legal materials; even the ‘Basic Laws’ are mentioned only in passing,” Posner wrote in The New Republic. “His method, lacking as it does any but incidental references to enacted provisions, may seem the method of the common law (the judge-made law that continues to dominate many areas of Anglo-American law, such as contracts and torts), except that common-law rules are subject to legislative override, and his rules are not. The significance of this point seems to elude him. He takes for granted that judges have inherent authority to override statutes. Such an approach can accurately be described as usurpative.”

In particular, Posner took issue with Barak’s deployment of vague abstractions such as “reasonableness,” “justice,” and “equality,” which Posner called “as empty as they are lofty,” to second-guess the choices of elected representatives. As Posner saw it, that “lawless” method invited unjustified interference with the democratic process.

To illustrate the arbitrariness he saw as characteristic of Barak’s approach, Posner cited “a ruling made during the Gulf war in 1991 requiring the Israeli army to distribute more gas masks to residents of the West Bank.” Defending that decision, Barak said: “We did not intervene in military considerations, for which the expertise and responsibility lie with the executive. Rather, we intervened in considerations of equality, for which the expertise and responsibility rest with the judiciary.”

Although the basic laws do not explicitly mention equality, the Israeli Supreme Court has deemed that principle implicit in the “human dignity” protected by the 1992 basic law. Yet Barak’s book “strongly commends the balancing of competing interests as a technique of judicial decision-making,” Posner said, “implying that in the gas-mask case the court should have balanced against considerations of equality whatever military reasons the army gave for distributing fewer gas masks on the West Bank than in Israel proper, such as that Iraq was more likely to aim its missiles at Jews than at Arabs.” The general test, according to Barak, is whether “a reasonable person responsible for security would be prudent to adopt the security measures that were adopted.”

Medina’s rejoinder to Posner, published the same year in the Harvard International Law Journal, faulted the American judge for misrepresenting the Israeli system of government. Contrary to Posner’s assertion that the Israeli Supreme Court’s decisions are not “subject to legislative override,” Medina noted, the Knesset can change the basic laws at will, typically by a simple majority vote. Somewhat contradictorily, Medina also objected to Posner’s assertion that “Israel does not have a constitution.” He noted that “the constitutional assembly chosen to draft a Constitution decided, soon after its election, to also serve as the legislature,” and “it established explicitly that all future Knessets will have ‘all the powers’ given to the First Knesset.”

Treating the basic laws as a constitution, Medina argued, “is based upon the recognition of the importance of judicial review in ensuring respect for basic human rights” and “protecting the fundamental principles of the State of Israel as a democratic and Jewish state.” He said that “appropriate compromise” also recognizes that “it is best to base judicial review upon explicit consent of the people, via its representatives in Knesset.”

Medina emphasized that the Knesset had accepted judicial review based on the basic laws. “The Knesset did not amend the Basic Laws in response to the Court’s decision regarding the ‘constitutional revolution,’ and refrained from limiting the Court’s power to practice judicial review over legislation,” he wrote. “Moreover, in recent years, the Knesset usually examines proposed legislation to ensure its accordance with the Basic Laws, recognizing the supremacy of the provisions of the Basic Laws over ‘regular’ legislation. The Knesset accepted, by a clear consensus, the Court’s decisions in which it voided provisions in legislation which violated the Basic Laws.”

As demonstrated by the ongoing clash over judicial review, that “clear consensus” has broken down. And the fact that the basic laws were enacted by the national legislature, which retains the power to alter them, makes those ground rules strikingly different from the U.S. Constitution, which by design is very difficult to change. While Medina surely is correct that judicial review is essential in “ensuring respect for basic human rights,” empowering the legislature to determine the content of those rights obviously makes them less secure than they would be in a system where the amendment process is more arduous and complicated. That is especially true under a governing scheme like Israel’s, which lacks the checks and balances achieved through an autonomous lower level of government and separation of legislative and executive powers.

In this context, judicial review is both more important and more precarious than it is in the United States. At the same time, the legitimacy of that power is open to question when courts go beyond interpreting and applying the law. According to Posner, that is what Barak’s approach demands.

Medina argued that Posner grossly exaggerated the extent to which the Israeli Supreme Court interfered with executive and legislative choices. He noted that the government and the Knesset had made many momentous decisionsincluding “the economic program of 1985, the expansion of the settlements in the Occupied Territories, the invasion into Lebanon and the withdrawal from Lebanon, the Oslo peace Accords, the policy of privatization, the increases and subsequent decreases in stipeds for families with children, the disengagement from Gaza, Operation Desert Shield against Palestinian terror organizations, the construction of the Separation Wall, changes in Israel’s immigration policy, [and] the policy adopted in the Second Lebanon War”without “significant intervention by the Court.”

Medina added that the court had not responded to “governmental inactions” in areas such as “measures to close widening economic gaps in society and the deepening of poverty,” “discrimination by private agents against Arab citizens,” and “delays in decisions to desalinate water and to recycle materials.” He noted that the court “did not instruct the Government to adopt a policy of affirmative action in order to contend with inequality,” “did not instruct the State to set up soup kitchens or subsidize lifesaving drugs,” “did not prevent discriminatory security checks of Arab citizens in airports,” and “did not even examine the constitutionality of the decision not to draft Arabs into the Israel Defense Forces.”

While some of these policies raise issues that are plausibly related to provisions of Israel’s basic laws and/or resemble constitutional claims that might be brought in U.S. courts, many of them seem far afield from such concerns. Medina nevertheless implied that the Israeli Supreme Court could have intervened in all of these areas, including large chunks of social and economic policy, but chose not to do so, perhaps because it worried about the potential for the sort of political backlash it now faces. It is precisely this open-endedness to which Posner objected: When judges reject or mandate government policies without “reference to orthodox legal materials,” he argued, they are usurping the role of legislators.

Medina did not really have a response to that objection, except to suggest that judges unavoidably act as legislators while pretending otherwise, a point he said Posner’s own preferred judicial method concedes. “According to [Posner’s] philosophy, a judge should ignore deontological limitations, for instance the recognition of values such as the dignity of man or tolerancea view which is in line with his critique of Barak,” Medina wrote. “However, Posner does not maintain that morality is irrelevant for judicial decision. In fact, the opposite is true: Posner believes that the judicial decision should be basedentirelyupon a moral approach that he calls ‘legal pragmatism.'”

Under that approach, Medina said, “a judge should render his decision by calculating the anticipated social ramifications of the application of each of the possible interpretations in the given case (though the nature of the calculation is unclear). Even if one were to ignore the difficulties in implementing such an eclectic approach, it is clear that this approach conforms with the position that a judge’s decision should ensure the greatest harmony between the law and (a certain definition of) the social good. The fact that Posner believes that the correct moral approach is consequentialism (and not deontology) does not make his approach any more legitimate than that which Barak espouses; thus his harsh critique of Barak’s approach is astounding.”

Even by Medina’s account, however, legal pragmatism comes into play when a judge chooses between “possible interpretations” of the law, which requires an intelligible principle that arguably can be applied in different ways. According to the basic law that the Knesset enacted in 1992, for example, “every person has a right to privacy and to intimacy.” That right includes restrictions on searches of “private premises” and protection for “the confidentiality of conversation” and of “writings or records.” On its face, that guarantee is broader than the U.S. Constitution’s privacy protections, and it is clearly relevant in search and seizure cases.

Medina mentioned various other ways in which the basic laws have been construed to protect “fundamental rights of the individual.” He noted decisions “voiding the government’s decision to prevent the participation of certain parties and candidates in elections,” “enforcing the prohibition against discrimination against Arab citizens in the distribution of state land,” “enforcing the prohibition against discrimination against women in a variety of contexts,” “protecting freedom of speech,” “prohibiting the use of harmful meansincluding torturein investigations of those suspected of terror activities,” and “prohibiting the use of military methods that cause ‘disproportionate’ harm to citizens.”

Those cases involved disputes that implicate widely recognized civil liberties. Not so the hypothetical decisions that Medina imagined, which involved issues such as recycling, desalination, pharmaceutical subsidies, and welfare programs to address “widening economic gaps.”

Medina also noted that Israeli “judicial activism” has included “relatively great involvement in ensuring the proper functioning of politics (predominately
restricting those who are suspected of breaking the law from serving in public office, barring someone from public office when there is a conflict of interest, and so forth).”The New York Times cites a recent example: Israeli judges invoked “reasonableness” to “bar Aryeh Deri, a veteran ultra-Orthodox politician, from serving in Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s cabinet. They said it was unreasonable to appoint Mr. Deri because he had recently been convicted of tax fraud.”

The bill that the Knesset is taking up this week targets decisions based on “reasonableness,” which the Times describes as a “flexible and contentious legal standard that currently lets the court intervene in governance.” Under that standard, the paper says, “a decision is deemed unreasonable if a court rules that it was made without considering all relevant factors or without giving relevant weight to each factor, or by giving irrelevant factors too much weight.”

That sort of analysis seems indistinguishable from the judgments that legislators themselves are charged with making. It is not hard to understand why critics would argue that the “reasonableness” standard invites judges to overstep their proper authority. The question is whether Israel can curb such unbridled discretion without compromising the rights that the Knesset has promised to respect.

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

World

Worst mass shooting in Sweden’s history as around 10 killed at adult education centre

Published

6 mins ago

on

February 4, 2025

By

Worst mass shooting in Sweden's history as around 10 killed at adult education centre

Swedish police have said around 10 people have been killed at an adult education centre, in what the country’s prime minister said is the worst mass shooting in Sweden’s history.

The attack happened at around 12.30pm local time (11.30am UK time) at Campus Risbergska in the town of Orebro, around 200km (125 miles) west of the capital Stockholm.

A spokesperson told a news conference on Tuesday evening that police believe the “primary perpetrator” is dead and acted alone. They do not expect more attacks, the spokesperson added.

Police at the scene of a shooting at Risbergska School, in Orebro, Sweden Pic: Kicki Nilsson/TT News Agency
Image:
Police at the scene of the shooting. Pic: AP/Kicki Nilsson/TT News Agency

Police said they carried out investigations at various addresses in Orebro, with technical personnel working at the scene.

Sweden shooting latest: ‘Everything points to typical loner attack’

“At present, the police believe that the perpetrator acted alone, but we cannot rule out more perpetrators connected to the incident,” the update on the Swedish police’s website said.

Police also said they do not know the motive but do not believe it is terrorism, adding they “had no warning sign” about the attack.

More on Sweden

Related Topics:

Officers are working to identify the perpetrator and the victims.

The damage at the crime scene was so extensive that investigators were unable to be more definitive on the number killed, said Roberto Eid Forest, head of the local police.

Head of the local police Roberto Eid Forest attends a press conference after a shooting at the adult education center Campus Risbergska school in Orebro, Sweden, February 4, 2025. Pontus Lundahl/TT News Agency/via REUTERS ATTENTION EDITORS - THIS IMAGE WAS PROVIDED BY A THIRD PARTY. SWEDEN OUT. NO COMMERCIAL OR EDITORIAL SALES IN SWEDEN.
Image:
Head of the local police Roberto Eid Forest. Pic: Reuters

“When it comes to saying anything more about the perpetrator, it is still very early. The operation is ongoing and that will undoubtedly become clearer. But we are working very intensively right now,” Mr Forest said.

He described the attack as a “horrible” incident, calling it “exceptional” and a “nightmare”.

The suspected gunman had not previously been known to police, Mr Forest said..

Datawrapper

This content is provided by Datawrapper, which may be using cookies and other technologies.
To show you this content, we need your permission to use cookies.
You can use the buttons below to amend your preferences to enable Datawrapper cookies or to allow those cookies just once.
You can change your settings at any time via the Privacy Options.


Unfortunately we have been unable to verify if you have consented to Datawrapper cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow Datawrapper cookies for this session only.

Enable Cookies
Allow Cookies Once

Speaking at a press conference this evening, Sweden’s prime minister Ulf Kristersson said the tragedy is the worst mass shooting in the country’s history.

“Today, we have witnessed brutal, deadly violence against completely innocent people,” Mr Kristersson told reporters.

Sweden's Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson speaks to media during the Joint Expeditionary Force Leaders' Summit, at the Estonian Knighthood House in Tallinn, Estonia, Tuesday, Dec. 17, 2024. (AP Photo/Sergei Grits)
Image:
Sweden’s Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson. File pic: AP

“This is the worst mass shooting in Swedish history. Many questions remain unanswered, and I cannot provide those answers either.

“But the time will come when we will know what happened, how it could occur, and what motives may have been behind it. Let us not speculate,” he said.

Meanwhile, the country’s king Carl XVI Gustaf said the shooting was a “terrible atrocity”.

Danish Royals State Visit To Sweden - Day 2 ** STORY AVAILABLE, CONTACT SUPPLIER** Featuring: King Carl Gustaf Where: Stockholm, Sweden When: 07 May 2024 Credit: Dutch Press Photo/Cover Images **NOT AVAILABLE FOR PUBLICATION IN THE NETHERLANDS OR FRANCE** (Cover Images via AP Images)
Image:
King Carl Gustaf. File pic: AP

“We send our condolences tonight to the families and friends of the deceased. Our thoughts at this time also go to the injured and their relatives, as well as to others affected.

“My family and I would like to express our great appreciation for the police, rescue and medical personnel who worked intensively to save and protect human lives on this dark day.”

Police earlier urged the public to stay away from the centre as they were searching and evacuating the premises.

At least five people were taken to hospital. Four underwent surgery – one is critically injured, two are stable and one is lightly injured, police said at an earlier news conference.

Swedish newspaper Dagens Nyheter said police officers had been shot at, but police said no officers had been shot.

A police officer at Risbergska School in Orebro, Sweden. Pic: TT News Agency/Kicki Nilsson/Reuters
Image:
A police officer at the school. Pic: Reuters

Emergency personnel and police officers work at the adult education center Campus Risbergska school after a shooting attack in Orebro, Sweden, February 4, 2025. TT News Agency/Kicki Nilsson via REUTERS ATTENTION EDITORS - THIS IMAGE WAS PROVIDED BY A THIRD PARTY. SWEDEN OUT. NO COMMERCIAL OR EDITORIAL SALES IN SWEDEN.
Image:
Pic: Reuters

The centre is for students over the age of 20, according to its website. It offers primary and upper secondary school courses, as well as Swedish classes for immigrants, vocational training and programmes for people with intellectual disabilities.

Google Maps shows a number of schools for children in the vicinity.

The shooting happened after many students had gone home following a national exam.

A helicopter at the scene of the shooting at Risbergska School, in Orebro. Pic: Kicki Nilsson/TT News Agency/AP
Image:
A police helicopter above the scene. Pic: AP

Students were taking shelter in nearby buildings and other parts of the campus were evacuated.

Teacher Lena Warenmark told SVT News that there were unusually few students on the campus on Tuesday afternoon after the exam. She also told the broadcaster that she heard probably 10 gunshots.

Andreas Sundling, 28, was among those forced to barricade themselves inside the school.

Read more: What we know about Sweden shooting so far

“We heard three bangs and loud screams,” he told the Expressen newspaper while sheltering in a classroom.

“Now we’re sitting here waiting to be evacuated from the school. The information we have received is that we should sit and wait.”

Police cars pass near the adult education center Campus Risbergska school after a shooting attack in Orebro, Sweden, February 4, 2025. REUTERS/Philip O'Connor
Image:
Police cars pass near the Campus Risbergska school. Pic: Reuters

Swedish newspaper Aftonbladet reported one person trapped in the centre as saying: “We have heard several shots outside.”

The newspaper also quoted a person who had received a text from a teacher at the centre saying “there was a shooting with automatic weapons”.

It said local emergency and intensive care departments are being made ready for casualties.

Fatal attacks at educational establishments in Sweden are rare, with 10 killed in seven incidents between 2010 and 2022, according to the Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention.

Continue Reading

World

Sweden shooting: What we know after around 10 people killed at adult education centre, police say

Published

6 mins ago

on

February 4, 2025

By

Sweden shooting: What we know after around 10 people killed at adult education centre, police say

A major police operation is under way after around 10 people were killed at an adult education centre in Sweden.

Authorities have warned the public to stay away from the area in the town of Orebro, around 200km (125 miles) west of the capital Stockholm.

Sweden shooting latest: Follow updates

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Footage shows classroom on lockdown during shooting

In an update on Tuesday afternoon, police said around 10 people had been killed in the shooting.

The gunman is believed to be among the dead, officers said.

The website for the Swedish police added: “About ten people have been killed in the incident.

“We are currently working on identification. The total number of injured is currently unclear.”

Here is everything we know about the shooting so far.

A police officer unrolls police tape at Risbergska School in Orebro, Sweden. Pic:TT News Agency/Kicki Nilsson/Reuters
Image:
Pic:TT News Agency/Kicki Nilsson/Reuters

What happened?

Police were alerted to shots being fired at Campus Risbergska adult education centre just after 12.30pm local time (11.30am UK time) on Tuesday.

The violence broke out after many students had gone home following a national exam. Video footage from the scene showed a large police presence and other emergency vehicles.

In a news conference after 5pm UK time, police said around 10 people had been killed.

Officers added they don’t believe there is a terror motive in the attack, but this is not conclusive.

None of those admitted to hospital are children, according to a separate update on the Orebro regional authorities’ website.

Police at the scene of a shooting at Risbergska School, in Orebro, Sweden Pic: Kicki Nilsson/TT News Agency
Image:
Pic: Kicki Nilsson/TT News Agency

Students that were sheltering in nearby buildings, and other parts of the school, were evacuated following the shooting.

Campus Risbergska serves students who are over the age of 20, according to its website.

Primary and upper secondary school courses are offered, as well as Swedish classes for immigrants, vocational training and programmes for people with intellectual disabilities.

Datawrapper

This content is provided by Datawrapper, which may be using cookies and other technologies.
To show you this content, we need your permission to use cookies.
You can use the buttons below to amend your preferences to enable Datawrapper cookies or to allow those cookies just once.
You can change your settings at any time via the Privacy Options.


Unfortunately we have been unable to verify if you have consented to Datawrapper cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow Datawrapper cookies for this session only.

Enable Cookies
Allow Cookies Once

What we know about the suspect

The suspect remains unnamed, but police confirmed they are a male.

In their evening update, police said they believed the suspect had also died.

He was not known to officers, police said.

A spokesperson added that they cannot rule out that there are more suspected attackers involved.

Pic: AP
Image:
Pic: AP

‘Three bangs and loud screams’

Teacher Lena Warenmark told SVT News that there were unusually few students on the campus on Tuesday afternoon after the exam. She also told the broadcaster that she heard probably 10 gunshots.

Andreas Sundling, 28, was among those forced to barricade themselves inside the school.

“We heard three bangs and loud screams,” he told the Expressen newspaper while sheltering in a classroom.

“Now we’re sitting here waiting to be evacuated from the school. The information we have received is that we should sit and wait.”

Video Grab from AP
Image:
Police at the scene

Pavel Koubak, a photographer who was in the area at the time of the attack, said that he saw at least three police helicopters in the sky.

“I was talking to a guy riding a bicycle who passed through the area,” he told Sky News presenter Kamali Melbourne.

“He had a friend that was working inside the school that had sent him a text message that there was automatic rifle fire. He was laying down on the floor inside the school.”

Asked whether gun violence was rare in the area, Mr Koubak said it was not.

“We’ve had plenty of shootings around Sweden and also in Orebro in the last couple of years. But, this seems to be sort of a bigger magnitude,” he said.

“I think [the police] are pretty educated on these types of situations nowadays. There was a pretty quick response from the big unit of police and lots of helicopters very, very quickly after the alarm.”

Police at Risbergska School in Orebro, Sweden. Pic: TT News Agency/Kicki Nilsson/Reuters
Image:
Pic: TT News Agency/Kicki Nilsson/Reuters

What have the police said?

Police said they carried out investigations at various addresses in Orebro, with technical personnel working at the scene.

“At present, the police believe that the perpetrator acted alone, but we cannot rule out more perpetrators connected to the incident,” the update on the Swedish police’s website said.

Police added that they “had no warning sign” about the attack.

Officers are also working to identify the perpetrator and the victims.

The damage at the crime scene was so extensive that investigators were unable to be more definitive on the number killed, said Roberto Eid Forest, head of the local police.

A helicopter at the scene of the shooting at Risbergska School, in Orebro. Pic: Kicki Nilsson/TT News Agency/AP
Image:
Pic: Kicki Nilsson/TT News Agency/AP

“When it comes to saying anything more about the perpetrator, it is still very early. The operation is ongoing and that will undoubtedly become clearer. But we are working very intensively right now,” Mr Forest said.

He described the attack as a “horrible” incident, calling it “exceptional” and a “nightmare”.

What has the government said?

Sweden’s prime minister Ulf Kristersson said the tragedy is the worst mass shooting in the country’s history.

“Today, we have witnessed brutal, deadly violence against completely innocent people,” Mr Kristersson told reporters.

“This is the worst mass shooting in Swedish history. Many questions remain unanswered, and I cannot provide those answers either.

“But the time will come when we will know what happened, how it could occur, and what motives may have been behind it. Let us not speculate,” he said.

Meanwhile, the country’s king Carl XVI Gustaf said the shooting was a “terrible atrocity”.

“We send our condolences tonight to the families and friends of the deceased. Our thoughts at this time also go to the injured and their relatives, as well as to others affected.

“My family and I would like to express our great appreciation for the police, rescue and medical personnel who worked intensively to save and protect human lives on this dark day.”

Continue Reading

World

Donald Trump’s tariffs: What’s going on and what does it all mean?

Published

6 mins ago

on

February 4, 2025

By

Donald Trump's tariffs: What's going on and what does it all mean?

Donald Trump has announced sweeping tariffs on Mexico, Canada and China, kicking off a trade war that will affect the globe.

Here we look at the tariffs and what they all mean for the world:

What did Trump announce?

On Sunday the US president said goods from Mexico and Canada will face 25% tariffs, while 10% taxes will be implemented on imports from China.

Canadian energy, including oil, natural gas and electricity, will be taxed at a 10% rate.

Trade war latest: Follow live updates

The levies were expected to all take effect on Tuesday, with Mexico and Canada both announcing counter-tariffs of their own in response.

However, on Monday both Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said the implementation of tariffs would be paused for a month after they had calls with Mr Trump.

But Mr Trump has also threatened to go further, saying tariffs on the European Union would be implemented “pretty soon”.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Trump’s proposed tariffs

When questioned about the UK, the president said Britain was “out of line” when it came to trade but he thought the situation could be “worked out” without the use of tariffs.

What are tariffs, and how do they work?

Put simply, tariffs are taxes on goods brought in from other countries.

By raising the price of imports, tariffs aim to protect domestic manufacturers by making locally made goods cheaper.

Contrary to what Mr Trump has said, it is not foreign countries that pay tariffs, but the importing companies that buy the goods.

For example, American businesses like Walmart or Target pay tariffs directly to the US treasury.

In the US, these tariffs are collected by customs and border protection agents, who are stationed at 328 ports of entry across the country.

Tariffs graphic
Image:
Mr Trump’s proposed tariffs

To compensate for tariffs, companies then put up their prices, so customers end up paying more for goods.

Tariffs can also damage foreign countries as it makes their products pricier and harder to sell.

This can lead to them cutting prices (and sacrificing profits) to offset levies and maintain their market share in the US.

Why is Trump doing this?

Mr Trump has argued imposing higher levies will help reduce illegal migration and the smuggling of the synthetic opioid fentanyl to the US.

On Mexico, the US leader claimed drug traffickers and the country’s government “have an intolerable alliance” that in turn impacts national security.

He further claimed Mexican drug cartels are operating in Canada.

Tariffs graphic

On China, he said the country’s government provides a “safe haven” for criminal organisations.

He has also pledged to use tariffs to boost domestic manufacturing.

“We may have short term some little pain, and people understand that. But long term, the United States has been ripped off by virtually every country in the world,” he said.

His aim appears to be to force governments in those countries to work much harder to prevent what he calls illegal migration and the smuggling of the deadly drug fentanyl – as appears to have been agreed by Mexico. But, even if the countries do not do what America wants, it will still potentially benefit firms that produce goods in the US.

What could the consequences be?

Mexico and Canada are two of America’s largest trading partners, with the tariffs upending decades-old trade relationships.

Goods that could be affected most by the incoming tariffs include fruit and veg, petrol and oil, cars and vehicle parts and electronic goods.

New analysis by the Budget Lab at Yale University found the average US household would lose the equivalent of $1,170 US dollars (£944) in income from the tariffs.

Read more: This is how US consumers will be affected

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Why Trump’s tariffs could cost you

The research also found economic growth would slow and inflation would worsen, as the tariffs forced up prices.

Immediate consequences were felt on Monday morning, as shares on Asian markets took a tumble.

Japan’s Nikkei opened down 2.9% while Australia’s benchmark – often a proxy trade for Chinese markets – fell 1.8%. Stocks in Hong Kong, which include listings of Chinese companies, fell 1.1%.

UK stocks were also significantly down, with the benchmark FTSE 100 index – containing the most valuable companies on the London Stock Exchange – dropped more than 1.3% on the open.

In Europe, stock markets opened sharply lower while the euro slid 1.3%. The Europe-wide index of companies, the Stoxx 600 dropped as much as 1.5%.

While Mexico’s peso hit its lowest in nearly three years.

‘Very scary path’

Sky News’ data and economics editor Ed Conway said the long-term consequences of a trade war is “everyone gets poorer”, which is what happened to the world before World War Two.

“As countries get poorer, they get frustrated and you get more nationalism,” Conway said, speaking on Friday’s Sky News Daily podcast.

“This is exactly what happened in the 1930s, and the world ended up at war with each other. It is a very, very scary path, and yes, we are basically on a potential of that path.”

However, Conway added one positive of Mr Trump’s tariffs could be highlighting “massive imbalances” within the global economy.

He said Mr Trump may be able to shift the conversation to problems “economists don’t want to talk about”.

Spreaker

This content is provided by Spreaker, which may be using cookies and other technologies.
To show you this content, we need your permission to use cookies.
You can use the buttons below to amend your preferences to enable Spreaker cookies or to allow those cookies just once.
You can change your settings at any time via the Privacy Options.


Unfortunately we have been unable to verify if you have consented to Spreaker cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow Spreaker cookies for this session only.

Enable Cookies
Allow Cookies Once

👉 Follow Trump 100 on your podcast app 👈

“At the moment, we have a dysfunctional global economy,” he explained.

“You have got massive imbalances like trade deficits [when a country’s imports exceeds the value of its exports] and trade surpluses [when a country’s exports exceeds the cost of its imports].

“There might well be a better way of everyone getting together and having a conversation and working out how to align their affairs, so we don’t have these imbalances in the future.

“And tariffs help to get you to this point.”

How has the world reacted?

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau reacted strongly against Mr Trump’s tariffs, saying his country would impose 25% tariffs on $155bn Canadian dollars (£85.9bn) of US goods in response.

He added the move would split the two countries apart, and urged Canadians to choose domestic products rather than American ones.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Tariffs against Canada ‘will put US jobs at risk’

Mexican President Ms Sheinbaum posted on X on Sunday to say she had ordered her economy minister to implement tariff and non-tariff measures to defend Mexico’s interests.

She said her government “categorically rejects” the claim it has “alliances with criminal organisations” and called on the White House to “fight the sale of drugs on the streets of their major cities”.

A day later, she posted saying she and Mr Trump had a “good conversation” and “reached a series of agreements”.

These agreements include Mexico sending 10,000 troops to the border to “prevent drug trafficking from Mexico to the United States, particularly fentanyl”.

Mr Trump responded to the agreement with Ms Sheinbaum, saying negotiations between the two will be ongoing to try and achieve a “deal”.

Meanwhile, China has retaliated by imposing 10% tariffs on American crude oil, agricultural machinery, large-displacement cars and pickup trucks.

There will also be 15% tariffs on coal and liquefied natural gas, as well as an investigation into Google.

China also said it is imposing export controls on rare earth metals such as tungsten, tellurium, ruthenium, molybdenum and ruthenium-related items – the country controls much of the world’s supply of such metals, which are critical for the transition to clean energy.

They will not come into effect until Monday 10 February, however.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Mexico responds to Trump’s tariffs

A spokesperson for the UK government reiterated that the US is an “indispensable ally” and one of the country’s “closest trading partners”.

They added that the trading relationship was “fair and balanced”, after Mr Trump criticised the UK, saying it was “out of line”.

European Union (EU) leaders have also taken a strong stance against looming US tariffs.

Kaja Kallas, the chief of foreign policy for the bloc, said there were no winners in a trade war, and if the US and Europe started one “then the one laughing on the side is China”.

German Chancellor Olaf Scholz added that the EU is strong enough to “respond to tariffs with our own tariffs”, while French President Emmanuel Macron said declarations by the US were pushing Europe to be “stronger and more united”.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

EU can react with its own tariffs

What’s the history of trade wars?

Imposing tariffs is not new to Mr Trump, or the US for that matter.

During his first term in the White House, he imposed higher levies on China and Vietnam.

In 2018, he imposed 25% tariffs on imported steel and 10% on imported aluminium from most countries, a response to what he said was the unfair impact of Chinese steel driving down prices and negatively affecting the US steel industry.

China then hit back with retaliatory tariffs on US imports, including 15% on 120 American products such as fruits, nuts, wine and steel pipes and a 25% tariff on US pork and recycled aluminium.

Before that, Democrat Jimmy Carter went so far as to completely ban the sale of wheat to Russia, which remained in effect until Ronald Reagan ended it in 1981.

Read more:
Breaking economies could be just Trump’s first step
Trump’s changed tack to focus on Mexico and Canada – why?
Toronto Raptors fans boo US national anthem

In 2019, Mr Trump also used the threat of tariffs as leverage to persuade Mexico to crack down on migrants crossing Mexican territory on their way to the US.

A study by economists at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the University of Zurich, Harvard and the World Bank concluded Mr Trump’s tariffs the first time around failed to restore jobs to the American heartland.

The tariffs “neither raised nor lowered US employment” when they were supposed to protect jobs, according to Sky News’ US partner network NBC News.

Continue Reading

Trending