{"id":22512,"date":"2026-03-05T20:08:04","date_gmt":"2026-03-05T20:08:04","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/readtrends.com\/en\/trump-noem-mullin\/"},"modified":"2026-03-05T20:08:04","modified_gmt":"2026-03-05T20:08:04","slug":"trump-noem-mullin","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/readtrends.com\/en\/trump-noem-mullin\/","title":{"rendered":"Live Updates: Trump Fires Noem as DHS Secretary and Taps Senator Mullin as Replacement – The New York Times"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Lead:<\/strong> On Thursday, March 5, 2026, a coalition of roughly two dozen U.S. states filed suit in the U.S. Court of International Trade challenging President Trump\u2019s newly announced 10 percent worldwide tariff. The plaintiffs \u2014 led by Democratic attorneys general from Oregon, New York, California and Arizona \u2014 say the administration lacked legal authority and improperly sidestepped the Supreme Court\u2019s recent decision that struck down the president\u2019s earlier duties. The complaint targets the administration\u2019s invocation of Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 and seeks to block the tariff and potential revenue collection or to require refunds if the tax is maintained. If the tariff remains for the full 150 days, analysts estimate it could raise roughly $35 billion; prior illegal duties may already tally more than $100 billion in contested collections.<\/p>\n

Key Takeaways<\/h2>\n
    \n
  • Twenty-four states, led by Democratic attorneys general from Oregon, New York, California and Arizona, sued the Trump administration on March 5, 2026 over a 10% global import tariff.<\/li>\n
  • The administration invoked Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which allows tariffs up to 15% for 150 days; the rate is currently set at 10% and the president has said he may increase it to 15%.<\/li>\n
  • The states argue the administration misapplied Section 122\u2019s \u201cbalance of payments\u201d standard and \u201ccherry-picked\u201d data, asserting economic harm to residents and businesses.<\/li>\n
  • If upheld for 150 days, the 10% tariff could generate about $35 billion in revenue; earlier, now-invalidated duties could amount to over $100 billion in contested collections.<\/li>\n
  • Some products and countries were exempted from the new tariff; plaintiffs say those carve-outs exceed the statute\u2019s allowance and reveal an inconsistent legal rationale.<\/li>\n
  • The suit follows the Supreme Court\u2019s February ruling that blocked the administration\u2019s prior use of emergency economic authorities to impose tariffs without congressional approval.<\/li>\n
  • The administration plans to pursue more established trade tools, including Section 301 investigations, while defending its Section 122 action in court.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

    Background<\/h2>\n

    President Trump\u2019s second-term trade strategy has centered on broad tariffs meant to reshape global supply chains, encourage domestic manufacturing and raise revenue for the federal government. Early in his term he relied on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose targeted duties; the Supreme Court in late February rejected that usage, finding the emergency authority inappropriate for sweeping tariff impositions. In response, the administration turned to Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, a little-used provision that permits the president to impose temporary duties tied to balance-of-payments concerns.<\/p>\n

    Congress enacted Section 122 in the 1970s amid a different international monetary context \u2014 when worries about balance-of-payments solvency were real as the U.S. moved off the gold standard. Many economists and lawyers note that modern trade deficits differ from the historic balance-of-payments crises the statute addressed. The administration argues the persistent trade deficit and related pressures justify Section 122\u2019s application; critics say that rationale stretches the law beyond its intent.<\/p>\n

    Main Event<\/h2>\n

    On March 5, 2026, a coalition of 24 states filed a complaint in the U.S. Court of International Trade. Plaintiffs contend the president did not satisfy Section 122\u2019s statutory thresholds and that the administration relied on selective data to claim a balance-of-payments problem. The complaint names specific harms to state economies, businesses and consumers, pointing to the risk of higher prices and disrupted supply chains.<\/p>\n

    State attorneys general publicly criticized the administration\u2019s approach at a press conference, calling the statute\u2019s invocation an improper exercise of executive power. Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield framed Section 122 as an \u201carchaic statute\u201d ill-suited for this use and said the administration\u2019s own prior statements distinguish balance-of-payments issues from trade-deficit concerns. Letitia James, the New York attorney general, emphasized the broader economic stakes and asked a court to declare the tariffs unlawful.<\/p>\n

    The administration has defended the tariffs internally as temporary and legally defensible. Officials point to alternative trade tools \u2014 including Section 301 investigations into unfair trade practices \u2014 that could replicate the scale of prior duties after more conventional processes. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told reporters he expects tariff rates to return to prior levels within months, suggesting the White House sees Section 122 as an interim measure while longer investigations proceed.<\/p>\n

    Analysis & Implications<\/h2>\n

    The lawsuit exposes a central legal question: whether Section 122\u2019s statutory criteria \u2014 tied to the balance of payments \u2014 can encompass the modern trade-deficit narrative the administration advances. If judges accept the administration\u2019s construction, presidents will gain a broader, relatively swift tool to impose economy-wide tariffs; if not, courts could significantly constrain executive leeway over unilateral trade policy. Either outcome will set precedent for how future administrations can use long-dormant statutes to pursue trade objectives.<\/p>\n

    Economically, a sustained 10% tariff for 150 days would shift costs to importers and ultimately consumers, though the distribution of those costs depends on product markets and currency movements. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget\u2019s estimate of roughly $35 billion in revenue over 150 days provides a scale for potential fiscal effects; however, litigation that forces refunds could create sizable fiscal liabilities. Additionally, businesses that already paid higher, now-invalidated duties may continue seeking repayments totaling more than $100 billion, adding to the administration\u2019s legal and fiscal exposure.<\/p>\n

    Politically, the dispute sharpens domestic fault lines: states with diverse industrial bases and supply-chain exposures have joined the challenge, reflecting cross-regional concern about unilateral tariff shocks. Internationally, foreign governments and trading partners will watch whether U.S. courts permit a renewed executive tariff pathway, since broader acceptance could increase global trade uncertainty and provoke retaliatory measures or renewed WTO challenges.<\/p>\n

    Comparison & Data<\/h2>\n
    \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
    Measure<\/th>\nTrump\u2019s Prior Duties<\/th>\nSection 122 Tariff<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
    Legal authority invoked<\/td>\nIEEPA (invalidated)<\/td>\nTrade Act of 1974, Section 122<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    Current rate<\/td>\nVaried by product<\/td>\n10% (stated intent to raise to 15%)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    Maximum statutory term<\/td>\nN\/A<\/td>\n150 days<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    Estimated revenue (150 days)<\/td>\nVaries; contested<\/td>\n~$35 billion (CRFB estimate)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    Contested prior collections<\/td>\n\u2014<\/td>\nMore than $100 billion<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>
    Overview of the administration\u2019s two approaches and their fiscal implications.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

    These figures show the shift from an emergency-based justification to an arcane trade-stability statute. The largest practical differences lie in the statutory language: IEEPA does not mention tariffs, creating a grave legal stretch, whereas Section 122 explicitly contemplates duties but imposes specific economic thresholds that the states dispute.<\/p>\n

    Reactions & Quotes<\/h2>\n
    \n

    “It is an archaic statute that was never intended for its current purpose as used by the Trump administration.”<\/p>\n

    Dan Rayfield, Oregon Attorney General<\/cite><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

    Rayfield framed the suit as a guardrail defense against executive overreach and disputed the administration\u2019s data choices. He and other state officials emphasized the potential for concrete economic harm within their jurisdictions.<\/p>\n

    \n

    “The stability of our economy is more than just a political talking point. That is why we are asking a court to declare these tariffs unlawful.”<\/p>\n

    Letitia James, New York Attorney General<\/cite><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

    James tied the legal challenge to broader economic stability concerns, urging the court to consider downstream effects on prices, jobs and state budgets.<\/p>\n

    \n

    “It\u2019s my strong belief that the tariff rates will be back to their old rate within five months.”<\/p>\n

    Scott Bessent, Treasury Secretary (reported to CNBC)<\/cite><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

    Bessent\u2019s comment, reported by the press, signals the administration\u2019s intent to use Section 122 as a temporary bridge to more procedurally established trade remedies.<\/p>\n