分类： politics

On Thursday, U.S. President Donald Trump moved forward with new permanent double-digit tariffs on goods from 60 major U.S. trading partners, just hours after temporary stopgap levies—imposed following a Supreme Court defeat earlier this year—officially expired. The new measures set tariffs ranging from 10% to 12.5% on covered imports, covering 99% of all goods entering the United States. The Trump administration justified the new taxes by alleging that these trading partners have failed to adequately enforce bans on imports produced through forced labor, with 10% duties on exports from Trinidad and Tobago remaining unchanged from the earlier temporary regime.

Speaking on behalf of the administration, U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer framed the move as a long-overdue push for global policy alignment, noting, “The United States has had a forced labour import ban for nearly a century, and rigorously enforces it; it’s well past time for our trading partners to do the same.”

The new tariffs replace the temporary 10% global levies that were set in place after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Trump’s earlier, broader tariff regime in February. That original 2024 action invoked the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), under which Trump imposed double-digit tariffs on nearly all global imports, framing the country’s decades-long trade deficit as a national emergency. The Supreme Court ruled that IEEPA did not grant the president authority to implement tariffs under that framework, forcing the administration to issue refunds to importers that had paid the disputed duties.

Following that ruling, Trump implemented temporary 10% tariffs under Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act, a provision that limits temporary trade measures to a 150-day window. That window closed at the end of yesterday, prompting the transition to the new permanent structure under Section 301 of the same 1974 Trade Act. This statute grants the president authority to impose import taxes and other trade sanctions against nations found to engage in “unjustifiable,” “unreasonable,” or “discriminatory” trade practices. Trump previously relied on Section 301 to implement large-scale tariffs on Chinese goods during his first term, measures that ultimately survived legal challenges in federal courts.

Key sectors are exempt from the new round of tariffs, including domestic oil and gas production and fertilizer imports. Goods that qualify for duty-free treatment under the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA)—the revised North American trade pact negotiated by Trump during his first term—are also spared from the new duties.

The Trump administration has signaled that additional Section 301 tariffs may be on the horizon: the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative has already launched an investigation into whether 16 major trading partners, which account for 70% of total U.S. imports, have engaged in overproduction that suppresses global prices and puts U.S. manufacturers at a competitive disadvantage. That probe is still ongoing, with no final timeline for completion announced.

Trump has long positioned steep tariffs as a core policy tool to revive American manufacturing, and last year formally overturned decades of bipartisan U.S. policy that prioritized lower trade barriers and increasingly liberalized global trade. However, the new tariffs drew immediate pushback from congressional critics, who argue the forced labor justification is a thin pretext for a broader protectionist agenda.

“Today’s forced labour justification is too convenient to be taken seriously,” said U.S. Representative Richard Neal of Massachusetts, the ranking Democratic member of the House Ways and Means Committee. “Forced labour is a real and pervasive problem in our supply chains and demands serious enforcement. It should never be cheapened into a pretext for a tariff policy built on dubious legal theories and personal grievances.”

In a dramatic act of political defiance that electrified gathered supporters Thursday night, Marvin Gonzales, chairman of Trinidad and Tobago’s main opposition People’s National Movement (PNM), publicly burned a court order tied to an investigation into the party’s iconic Balisier House headquarters, declaring the opposition would never be intimidated by what he frames as a politically motivated attack.

Addressing a crowd of enthusiastic PNM backers assembled outside the party’s long-time headquarters in Port of Spain, Gonzales launched a blistering attack on the ruling government, accusing it of weaponizing state institutions to selectively target the opposition ahead of growing political tensions. The investigation at the center of the standoff centers on the funding used for Balisier House’s reconstruction, launched after a court ordered the PNM to disclose detailed records of how the project was financed. The PNM has already mounted a legal challenge to the proceedings, turning the headquarters itself into a symbolic battleground for national politics.

In a fiery speech peppered with rhetoric that repeatedly called out Attorney General John Jeremie by name, Gonzales framed Balisier House as far more than just a physical building. “We will not be afraid of this order because the PNM, ladies and gentlemen, is not only in brick and concrete and mortar; the PNM lives in the heart and the dreams of every single citizen of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago,” he told the cheering crowd. Even if the government chose to destroy the physical structure, he added, the party’s core would remain unbroken.

Gonzales insisted the entire investigation is not a push for transparency, but a calculated component of a broader government campaign to erode the opposition’s standing ahead of upcoming political contests. He went as far as to frame the court order itself as a politically corrupted document, saying, “It was conceived in political sin. It was born in sin and it was shaped in political iniquity.”

Moments after delivering those remarks, Gonzales set the court order ablaze on stage before exiting, declaring that the document would not be allowed to desecrate the land where the PNM was founded. “We will send them to the political ashes in the political cemetery of the people of Trinidad and Tobago,” he added, to loud applause from supporters.

The PNM chairman doubled down on his accusations, claiming Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar personally selected Jeremie to lead a coordinated effort to persecute political opponents through state agencies. “I say to Kamla Persad-Bissessar and John Jeremie, we will not allow you to interfere in the people’s house. Get your grubby hands and get your dirty hands off the people’s house because this is our house. We will stand our ground and we will defend this country, we will defend this party,” Gonzales said.

Throughout the address, Gonzales also revisited longstanding criticisms of Jeremie’s track record, recalling that when Jeremie previously served as Attorney General under a PNM administration, the Trinidad and Tobago Law Association passed two separate motions of no confidence against him in 2009. The first motion, Gonzales explained, stemmed from Jeremie’s alleged attempt to interfere in the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, then led by Geoffrey Henderson. The second motion accused Jeremie of meddling in criminal prosecutions for political gain.

Gonzales also leveled new accusations against the current administration, claiming Jeremie has recently restructured national security agencies to consolidate power under his own control: he moved the Anti-Corruption Bureau directly under the Attorney General’s Office, and placed a division of the national spy agency under his immediate authority.

In addition to the Balisier House controversy, Gonzales raised new questions about unexecuted Preventive Detention Orders (PDOs), asking “Where are the missing PDOs?” He claimed that out of 465 PDOs issued by police, only 435 have been executed, leaving 30 orders unaccounted for with no official explanation. He also alleged that corrupt officers have been extorting citizens, telling them they can avoid arrest under the outstanding orders if they pay thousands of dollars in bribes. Gonzales called on Police Commissioner Allister Guevarro to launch a full investigation into these extortion claims.

A high-profile legal battle over the pre-trial detention of a 70-year-old woman linked to an alleged assassination plot took a new turn on Friday, as attorneys for Star Sabga pushed to have her constitutional challenge fast-tracked under the same urgent timeline granted to her co-accused, wealthy business couple Dominic and Genevieve Hadeed. Sabga, who is related to the Hadeeds, was taken into custody one day after the couple was detained via Preventative Detention Orders (PDOs) on June 24, and all three are held in connection with the same alleged conspiracy. Just moments after the Court of Appeal concluded an urgent hearing for the Hadeeds on Thursday, Trinidad and Tobago’s Minister of Homeland Security Roger Alexander moved to revoke the PDOs against the couple — but left Sabga’s detention order intact. Representing Sabga, Senior Counsel Douglas Mendes — who also represents the Hadeed couple — argued before High Court Justice Vigel Paul that there was no logical basis to delay Sabga’s constitutional claim now that the Hadeeds have been released from custody. Mendes emphasized that Sabga is being held on substantially the same evidence as the co-accused who were already granted an expedited hearing, noting “The State is saying let us release the co-conspirators but let us take our time with Star Sabga.” He further warned that the window to hear Sabga’s challenge is rapidly closing: the current national State of Emergency (SoE), which authorizes the detention orders, is set to expire in September, and if the case is not heard before the PDO expires on its own, the challenge will become moot. Mendes rejected the State’s argument that the Court of Appeal’s urgency order was tied specifically to Dominic Hadeed’s documented health issues and ongoing detention, stressing that appellate judges framed the entire related matter as one of extreme urgency, with no limiting conditions attached. Fellow senior counsel Rishi Dass added that the recent affidavits filed on Sabga’s behalf only update the court on new developments, including the Hadeeds’ release, and contain no material that would prejudice the State’s position. “They are saying that Star Sabga was in a conspiracy with them. The Hadeeds are now free,” Dass argued, reiterating that the case demands immediate court attention aligned with the appellate court’s direction. However, Gerald Ramdeen, who represents the State, pushed back against the request for an automatic extension of the urgent hearing order. He noted that the Court of Appeal’s direction for an accelerated hearing was specific to the Hadeeds’ separate proceedings, and was granted on the basis that the couple remained in custody at the time and Dominic Hadeed had pressing health concerns. Now that the Hadeeds have been released, Ramdeen argued, the original justification for urgency no longer stands, and Sabga’s case cannot be automatically merged into the existing timeline. Ramdeen also pointed out that no formal application for an expedited hearing had actually been filed with the High Court before Friday’s proceeding, and that the volume of last-minute affidavit evidence from Sabga’s legal team has left the State without adequate time to review the material and prepare a response. In the past week alone, Sabga’s legal team filed a 64-page affidavit Wednesday, a 62-page supplemental affidavit Thursday morning, and notified the State hours before Friday’s hearing that they intended to rely on five additional affidavits from the earlier appellate proceedings. “It is unfortunate and regrettable where someone is detained,” Ramdeen acknowledged, “but each party has to be afforded a certain level of fairness.” He also noted that Sabga, detained since June 25, did not have a constitutional claim filed on her behalf until July 8, questioning the sudden push for extreme urgency after a two-week delay. After hearing arguments from both sides, Justice Paul declined to automatically extend the Court of Appeal’s urgency direction to Sabga’s hybrid constitutional claim and judicial review. The judge ruled that Sabga’s legal team must file a formal written application for an expedited hearing by the following Monday, and adjourned the proceedings to 2 p.m. that same day to hear the application. Paul also agreed to grant the State’s request for additional time to respond to Sabga’s new affidavit evidence, ruling that a short delay of a couple of days was not unreasonable under the circumstances, noting that Sabga had not even reviewed the content of Homeland Security Minister Alexander’s responsive affidavit yet. The judge added that he also needs to obtain a full transcript of Thursday’s Court of Appeal hearing to clarify the exact basis on which appellate justices Eleanor Donaldson-Honeywell and Joan Charles granted the expedited hearing for the Hadeeds. In a nod to procedural fairness, Ramdeen confirmed that the State would arrange special access for Sabga’s legal team to meet with their detained client over the weekend — a break from usual visiting rules that prohibit inmate visits on weekends — so Sabga can review Alexander’s affidavit and prepare a response. The legal team for Sabga includes four senior counsel alongside junior attorneys, while the State is represented by Ramdeen and two additional attorneys.