More Tariffs & Comey Asks for Dismissal of Charges

0:00Whatever your goal, trade show giveaways, client gifts, or team gear, 4imprint has the promo products to match. With thousands of options, from apparel and drinkware to tech and totes, it's easy to find the right fit for your brand and budget, with standout choices at every price point. And with their 360-degree guarantee, you can be 4imprint certain your order will show up just right, right on time. Explore more at 4imprint.com. 4imprint. 4certain. The thing about AI for business, it may not automatically fit the way your business works. At IBM, we've seen this firsthand. But by embedding AI across HR, IT, and procurement processes, we've reduced costs by millions, slash repetitive tasks, and freed thousands of hours for strategic work.

0:47Now we're helping companies get smarter by putting AI where it actually pays off, deep in the work that moves the business. Let's create smarter business. IBM. Healthcare doesn't always work great. If you've ever waited on a refill or couldn't schedule an appointment, you get it. That's the kind of stuff Optum is changing. They're using data and technology to integrate patient care, pharmacy, and everything else. So healthcare is connected, not complicated. What's that look like? Cheaper prescriptions that are easier to get and care that looks at the whole person. How you need it. Optum is helping make healthcare work as one for everyone.

1:23Learn more at business.optum.com. This is Bloomberg Law with June Grosso from Bloomberg Radio. This time around, it took only hours after President Trump's latest global tariffs took effect last Friday before a legal challenge was mounted against them. Small businesses filed a pair of lawsuits in the U.S. Court of International Trade accusing Trump of unlawfully using Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 to the detriment of American businesses and consumers. California-based watchmaker Asher Rapkin is one of the plaintiffs. Congress sets tariffs, not one person alone, and my company, like so many others, are bearing the financial burden of this.

2:16The duties are set at a rate between 10 percent and 12.5 percent, and apply to imports from around 60 economies that the U.S. accuses of failing to enforce bans on foreign goods made with forced labor and therefore enjoying an unfair competitive advantage. My guest is an expert in trade law, Timothy Brightbill, a partner at Wiley Ryan. Tim, start by telling us about the administration's latest global tariffs relating to forced labor. This is a very broad new set of tariffs announced last week, the broadest since the reciprocal tariffs announced in the Rose Garden under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which was later struck down by the Supreme Court.

3:09So these are new tariffs relating to forced labor on more than 60 economies or 60 trading partners. These tariffs range from 10 % to 12.5%. They took effect on July 24th, which was coincidentally or not, the same day that the prior 10 % tariffs were set to expire. And these tariffs are to address forced labor and supply chains, as well as whether or not countries have forced labor laws on their books and enforce them effectively. And I'm sure we all agree that forced labor is a serious issue. No one wants to have a product in their home or business that's made using forced labor. But the question is not just about is forced labor used, but also do these countries have laws and do they enforce them?

4:02I'll also say there are lots of exceptions and exclusions to these tariffs that were announced last week. Some are product specific. And also, if there are other tariffs involved, there may be exclusions from these 10 to 12.5 % tariffs. Is this just, you know, find a reason to impose new tariffs? Because the report from the U.S. Trade Representative doesn't say whether specific nations are actually importing goods made with forced labor or whether products are being made in those countries using forced labor. I mean, is this just a made up reason to impose new tariffs? Well, that's what opponents are alleging, that this is not just a coincidence that the new tariffs were announced to replace the old tariffs that expired and that these are just a pretext.

4:53But that being said, the fact that countries are starting to take greater action against forced labor means that there is a reason to take action and that it remains an important issue and one where the United States has stronger laws than many of our trading partners. We have the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, which has caused seizure of hundreds of millions of dollars worth of goods at the border that are suspected to use forced labor. So it is a real issue, But at the same time, the timing is perhaps not just a coincidence that the new rates took effect on the same day that the old rates expired.

5:36So there's already been a court challenge. Tell us about the court challenge. So some of the plaintiffs that challenged earlier Trump tariffs have again filed lawsuit at the Court of International Trade. And these plaintiffs have alleged that USTR's forced labor investigation was designed to impose a predetermined tariff policy. And they said, in fact, that the rationale of addressing forced labor is just a pretext for tariffs. So there has already been a challenge. The Court of International Trade will hear it. That being said, courts to date have largely upheld prior administration's use of Section 301, including when the first Trump administration imposed tariffs on hundreds of billions of dollars worth of goods coming from China.

6:33So the courts have largely been supportive of the president's use of this law. That being said, this is a very sweeping action and it remains to be seen if there is enough legal support in these 60 different investigations to allow these tariffs to stand in court. I'll also note that the administration tried to take this action in a way so that each of the 60 investigations stands separately so that an appeal would only affect individual country tariffs rather than the entire 60 country structure that was announced last week. Yeah, I was going to ask whether the court will examine the justification for the tariffs on each of the countries.

7:20That's what the administration is trying to encourage, but it's not clear yet. And I think the plaintiffs are challenging the whole architecture, not just individual country findings, but the whole fact that this was not really about forced labor in their view. It was about replacing the other tariffs that were struck down by the Supreme Court or that expired after their 90 day period ran its course. And the businesses are represented by the Liberty Justice Center. And that was the group that challenged Trump's earlier global tariffs. That's right. The Liberty Justice Center is the group that filed these actions.

8:04They filed on behalf of a couple of small businesses. And they've structured this as a potential class action so that many other plaintiffs can potentially join to strengthen the suit against the Trump administration. So let's talk about the next round of Section 301 tariffs. Where does that stand? Sure. So the next and potentially bigger set of tariffs to come is also under Section 301 of the trade laws. So again, this challenges unreasonable practices of foreign countries that burden and restrict U.S. commerce. And these investigations relate to structural overcapacity. So where do countries maintain massive amounts of subsidized capacity that ends up harming U.S.

9:02industries because that excess capacity gets sent here and negatively affects U.S. companies and industries that are trying to compete. So this investigation involves 16 countries. China, of course, is the biggest and is probably the biggest problem as it relates to structural overcapacity. Many of my clients have seen over the years, whether it's steel, aluminum, solar, wood products, that China builds massive amounts of state-subsidized capacity, that that results in dumping and that excess product gets sent to the U.S. market, which is large and relatively open and attractively priced. So these investigations are less predictable and they've been going on in parallel with the forced labor investigations, but this will be a very important outcome and many businesses and industries are watching this carefully to see what USTR does.

10:05One key question is the question of how do you measure overcapacity? Some industries, like steel, have measures in place to gauge, well, China has much more steel capacity than it needs and sends all of its excess here. Other industries, it's less clear, even though there is overcapacity, how you measure it, and how will the U.S. trade representative gather all that information for a country as a whole. Now, Canada is getting special treatment. The administration has announced plans to impose 50 % tariffs on a range of Canadian goods using a century-old law, the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act. Yes, yes.

10:54So the administration threatened action or announced action 30 days in advance under Section 338 of the trade laws. As you mentioned, this is part of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, which was highlighted in everyone's favorite movie, Ferris Bueller's Day Off. Yes, a provision that has almost never been used before, and I think not in the last 40 or 50 years. And there are three types of alleged discrimination against U.S. products by Canada relating to motor vehicles, dairy products, and alcoholic beverages. So for example, it's fairly well known that Canadian liquor stores are not carrying U.S. alcoholic beverages.

11:44And similarly, there have been longstanding disputes with respect to Canada and dairy products. So those are the alleged discrimination by the Trump administration. The tariffs that are announced that would take effect in a month would be 50 percent tariffs affecting about$20 billion in trade. Again, there would be some carve outs and some exclusions, for example, on products already subject to national security tariffs. And I think it's clear that this announcement is in part to build leverage to use against Canada in the ongoing USMCA negotiations to try and shore up that trade agreement. The Trump administration, which, of course, negotiated USMCA in the first place and said a number of years ago that it was the best trade deal ever, now has major concerns and has threatened to not renew the agreement.

12:43And negotiations are ongoing there. So we'll monitor to see if these tariffs actually go into effect in 30 days or whether there can be some sort of resolution. I will point out that this is a real problem for a number of U.S.-Canada supply chains. So these tariffs, if they do take effect, could end up harming some U.S. companies and industries that the Trump administration is trying to help. Tim, you think that the threat of Canadian tariffs is a ploy for negotiations. Is there any other reason why Trump is specifically singling out Canada for special treatment, our neighbor to the north and longtime ally?

13:30Well, it's a great question why President Trump has chosen to focus on allies rather than to focus on China and China's growing influence in the world. But for whatever reason, Canada has been a particular target. And even in the USMCA negotiations, the United States and Mexico have had better and more productive discussions. and unfortunately the same has not been the case with U.S. and Canada. So I can't explain why Canada is being singled out here. It is a serious issue when you threaten tariffs of this nature on not only a neighbor to the north, but obviously a long-standing ally. So we'll just have to see how this plays out and hopefully it won't come to the point where these tariffs are actually imposed.

14:24Would tariffs on Canada violate the U.S.-Mexico-Canada agreement? Canada would say yes, that those tariffs would not be justified and would be a violation of USMCA. So again, we'll have to monitor whether or not these take place and go into effect, or if some sort of negotiation can resolve enough issues that this tariff threat can be removed. Stay with me, Tim. Coming up next, will there be tariffs on generic drugs? I'm June Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg. Whether you're planning a big tech event, launching a new campaign, or just stocking up on team gear, finding the right promotional products makes all the difference.

15:044imprint offers thousands of options, from on-trend apparel and premium drinkware to tech, totes, and giveaways, so you can find the right fit for any audience, purpose, or budget. You can customize it all, your logo, your message, your look, and many items come with no setup charge to help you save. And if you're really watching the bottom line, you'll find standout choices at every price point so you can make a real impact while staying on budget. Plus, you'll get expert help, fast turnaround times, and their 360-degree guarantee. So you can be 4imprint certain your order will arrive on time and look exactly right.

15:39Whatever your goal, 4imprint makes it easy to find your perfect promo match. Explore the possibilities today at 4imprint.com. 4imprint. 4certain. Get the news you need in just 15 minutes. Start your day with Bloomberg Daybreak, the podcast with a global view on the stories that matter. I'm Nathan Hager. And I'm Karen Moscow. Join us each morning for curated stories on current events, politics, business and foreign relations. Plus one conversation on the day's biggest developments, all in just 15 minutes. Subscribe to Bloomberg Daybreak for a precise, thoughtful take on the stories that matter.

16:14Listen to Bloomberg Daybreak each morning on Apple, Spotify or anywhere you listen. From the start of his second term, President Donald Trump has made clear he'll put tariffs at the center of U.S. economic policy. I've been talking to trade attorney Timothy Brightbill of Wiley Ryan. There are so many tariffs and so many possible tariffs. So let's go to tariff announcements on Brazil and generic drugs. Where does that stand? Yes. So last week was another chaotic week in the land of tariffs and trade. So in addition to the forced labor tariffs on 60 economies, we had the conclusion of another investigation that was focused only on Brazil.

17:00And that resulted in 25 % tariffs that were put in place last week, again, under Section 301. These were designed to address several unfair Brazilian trade practices, according to the administration, including discriminatory digital trade rules, content removal orders on U.S. tech platforms, barriers in the ethanol market, deforestation concerns, sort of a variety of unfair trade practices from Brazil. So 25 % tariffs have been enacted. But again, there have been major exceptions for consumer goods like coffee and orange juice, as well as major Brazilian industries, including aircraft and airplane parts.

17:49So I think there's balancing going on here with the Trump administration trying to address unfair trade practices in Brazil and other countries, but also very aware of affordability issues and not wanting to cause problems for consumers who are buying consumer goods or in grocery stores and so forth. So that investigation wrapped up last week. And then there was an interesting tariff threat. There has been an ongoing investigation of generic drugs. And President Trump suggested that there would be tariffs imposed of 100 % in one year on imports of generic drugs, but that that would leave time for generic drug manufacturers to build manufacturing here in the United States.

18:41Now, that was just a social media post by the president. To my knowledge, there hasn't been any follow up yet or any White House announcements of details of how that would work. But another sector to monitor because of concerns that so many generic drugs are not made here in the United States. Well, is Congress doing anything about the tariffs? Congress is very concerned, and I think it's fair to say there are bipartisan concerns. There have been a variety of legislative proposals, not that these will pass this year, but to sort of stake out ground in advance of the midterm elections and ultimately the presidential elections.

19:23One significant new legislative proposal is from Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon. That carries particular weight given his role as the ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, which deals with all trade-related legislation. So he has introduced something called the Congressional Trade Powers Reform Act. This would require the president to submit to Congress some of the proposed new tariffs, for example, national security tariffs under Section 232 or any new actions under Section 301. And it would also repeal some of these very old trade authorities, such as Section 122 and Section 338. So for laws that have been on the books for 50 years or more, but have never really been used, this legislation would simply say, no, the president doesn't have that authority anymore.

20:18Congress has that authority. Just broadly, Trump treats tariffs as the be-all and end-all of economic policy. But don't the tariffs worsen the concerns about affordability? The Yale Budget Lab estimates that Trump's tariffs will increase costs for the average U.S. household by$1 ,100 each year. I mean, the U.S. has lost 75 ,000 factory jobs, and he says it will boost U.S. manufacturing. And the tariffs didn't narrow the U.S. trade deficit. It hit record highs in 2025. I know he likes to use them as a cudgel against other countries, but for Americans, what are the benefits? Sure. Well, this is the real question.

21:04And I do think from my experience in more than 25 years as a trade lawyer, that there are ways to use tariffs strategically to strengthen U.S. industries and companies that have been harmed by unfair trade. So there is a way to do it. But the real question is, what is the benefit or harm of all of the chaos of the last year and a half? And this comes down to ultimately affordability, which will be the issue of the midterm elections and most likely the presidential elections. And the general public is going to decide, do tariffs have any benefit? Do we see any growth in jobs and manufacturing industries?

21:51In some cases, you do. I have clients who have benefited. But at the same time, is it increasing the costs on consumer goods for most Americans? Again, it's going to be the critical issue of the election. And I think that's why the administration, even as it's announcing these things, is trying to do them in a way that causes as little harm as possible. How are your clients dealing with the continued threats of more and more tariffs and the uncertainty? Are they taking any special steps? Well, it's a real challenge for companies and industries that are trying to run businesses. So again, some of them are supportive of some of these tariff actions, particularly if they face unfair trade from China and Chinese-owned companies, perhaps in Vietnam and Malaysia.

22:41But others, the chaos and the unpredictability make it very difficult to invest, to hire workers, to build global supply chains. And these challenges are not going away. They don't seem to be calming down. If last week was any indication, the chaos and the unpredictability are unfortunately going to continue. And that, again, it does help some businesses and some industries, but it's very harmful to many others. Is there anything else we should be watching for, Tim? There are other things to keep an eye on. We have additional potential tariffs in the near term. So don't forget about the various national security tariff investigations under Section 232 of the trade laws, many of which investigations have been going on for almost a year.

23:33So one action that we're monitoring closely relates to polysilicon and solar products, such as solar cells and solar panels. That investigation should be coming to a close within the next few weeks. And it will be important to see how the administration addresses this problem. This is one example where we really have seen Chinese overcapacity spread around the world to countries like Vietnam and Malaysia, and now even Ethiopia, Laos, Indonesia, and so forth. So we'll be monitoring that in the next few weeks, and there are other investigations going on. So we expect this to continue to be a big issue for this president and this administration in the weeks and months to come.

24:23So we'll be talking again and again, Tim. Thanks so much. That's Timothy Brightbill, a partner at Wiley Ryan. Coming up next on the Bloomberg Law Show, former FBI Director James Comey has been charged for threatening President Donald Trump in a social media post which showed seashells spelling out the numbers 8647. Comey is asking a federal judge to dismiss the indictment, saying it was not a call to violence against Trump, but rather protected political speech. Whether you're planning a big tech event, launching a new campaign, or just stocking up on team gear, finding the right promotional products makes all the difference.

25:044imprint offers thousands of options, from on-trend apparel and premium drinkware to tech, totes, and giveaways, so you can find the right fit for any audience, purpose, or budget. You can customize it all. Your logo, your message, your look. And many items come with no setup charge to help you save. And if you're really watching the bottom line, you'll find standout choices at every price point so you can make a real impact while staying on budget. Plus, you'll get expert help, fast turnaround times, and their 360-degree guarantee. So you can be four-imprint certain your order will arrive on time and look exactly right.

25:39Whatever your goal, 4imprint makes it easy to find your perfect promo match. Explore the possibilities today at 4imprint.com. 4imprint. For certain. AI is entering its most consequential phase where scale, safety, and sovereignty will determine who leads and who lags. Join Bloomberg Tech in London on November 2nd and 3rd as global leaders across business, finance, and policy examine the defining trade-offs shaping the future of AI. Thank you to our presenting sponsor, Salesforce, and supporting sponsors, IDA Ireland and Schneider Electric. Learn more at BloombergLive.com slash TechLondon. Well, they're back.

26:21This time about a picture of seashells on a North Carolina beach a year ago. And this won't be the end of it. The Trump administration indicted former FBI Director James Comey for the second time in April. this time charging him with threatening President Donald Trump in a social media post which showed Seashell spelling out the number 8647. 86, you know what 80s, it's a mob term for kill him, you know. You ever see the movies, 86 him, the mobster says to one of his wonderful associates, 86 him, that means kill him. In fact, the term 86 is widely understood to be a restaurant term, meaning to be out of something.

27:08And Comey's lawyers argue that dictionaries, context, precedent and common sense show it was not a call to violence against Trump, but protected political speech. They're asking a judge to dismiss the charges. My guest is First Amendment expert Timothy Zick, a professor at William & Mary Law School. Tim, in his motion to dismiss, Comey makes several arguments, sometimes alternative arguments. So start by telling us what a true threat is and Comey's claim that the indictment doesn't allege a true threat. So the Supreme Court has defined a true threat as a serious expression of an intent to commit an unlawful act of violence against another person.

27:54And in addition, has said that a reasonable, objective observer would have to view what was said or communicated as a threat of violence. So one of the principal arguments is it just doesn't meet the definition. The seashells arranged by somebody else posted by Comey to social media does not constitute expression of a serious intent to do bodily injury to the president. I mean, the indictment is so threadbare. There's no reference to what evidence they presented to a grand jury to make them return a true bill here. They said that posting a photograph which depicted seashells arranged in a pattern making out 8647, which a reasonable recipient who's familiar with the circumstances would interpret as a serious expression of an intent to do harm to President Trump.

28:44Could it be that they didn't present anything else to the grand jury? It's possible that that's all they presented to the grand jury. As you probably know, there have been some shenanigans with federal prosecutors and grand juries and other cases, including, I think, one against Comey, another one against Comey. But in any event, the administration has done this in countless cases with regard to, for example, protesters, anti-ice protesters who've been charged. There's always a promise that there's more to come. There's more evidence. Then courts offer the administration's attorneys, the DOJ attorneys, an opportunity to provide it, and they never do.

29:20So I suspect there's not much more, if any more, to this case than the seashells, the social media posts, and of course, you know, the prior relationship between these two men. But that really is a function of sort of political difference or, you know, Comey's actions as FBI director. And that's all public record. So I just don't know what else there could be. Context is important. That's true. But it doesn't strike me that there's some smoking gun here that shows that this was a serious expression of an intent to harm the president. So, you know, it seems to me, even by the administration's, you know, very low bar standards in these sorts of prosecutions, an extraordinarily weak case.

30:08I mean, you have precedents from the Supreme Court that have turned away indictments and arrests for statements that are far more a sort of violence intentive than, say, you know, the seashell. So in Watts versus United States during the Vietnam era, some young man says, well, if they ever put a gun in my hand, the first person I'm going to point it at is Lyndon Baines Johnson. And in another case, a worker in an office, a public employee says to a co-worker, look, if they ever go after Reagan again, I hope they get him. Now, that's not nice to say, but it is clearly protected political hyperbole under the Supreme Court's precedence.

30:48And I would say under the Fourth Circuit's precedence, which is where this case is going to presumably end up if it does get appealed. There are T-shirts and hats with the 8646 used during Biden's presidency. I mean, does that come up anywhere? I think that's part of the context, right? If you think about the words that are used, or in this case, the numbers that are used, as the defense lawyers point out, look, they were used during Biden's presidency. 8647, in fact, is all over T-shirts and political billboards and all the rest. And in fact, there's a recent case out of the District of Columbia where there was a sign up using those very same numbers and a court threw the case out on the grounds that it could not possibly be interpreted as a true threat.