The NPR Politics Podcast - Tariff Twists; Diplomatic Deals; Mango Mania

Episode Date: May 30, 2025

President Trump's trade policies were dealt a blow this week as a court said he could use a 1977 emergency law to justify levying tariffs. What comes next? Plus, a look at how the traditional rules of diplomacy have been upended by the Trump administration. And, much ado about mangoes. This podcast: White House correspondents Deepa Shivaram, Franco Ordoñez, and Danielle Kurtzleben, and national security correspondent Greg Myre.This podcast was produced by Bria Suggs, and edited by Casey Morell. Our executive producer is Muthoni Muturi.Listen to every episode of the NPR Politics Podcast sponsor-free, unlock access to bonus episodes with more from the NPR Politics team, and support public media when you sign up for The NPR Politics Podcast+ at plus.npr.org/politics.Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

Hi, this is Betsy in Seattle. It's currently 1 a.m. and I just finished my dress for my work's annual gala that's happening later today. Last year I put the final stitches in my dress at 6.30 a.m. the day of the gala, so I think I'm getting better. This episode was recorded at 12.37 p.m. on Friday, May 30th, 2025. Things may have changed by the time you've listened to this, but hopefully I will have caught up

on some much needed sleep. Okay, off to the gala. Oh, man. I need pictures. Yeah, pictures. When she says finishing touches, I mean, like, did she make the whole dress? I must, I must know.

Hey there, it's the NPR Politics Podcast. I'm Deepa Sivaram. I cover the White House. Danielle Pletka I'm Danielle Kurtzleben. I also cover the White House. Frank Ordonez And I'm Frank Ordonez and I also cover the White House. Deepa Sivaram I love a pod when we just dominate from the White House team. All right, so it's been a busy week in Washington, starting with the ongoing fight over President Trump's tariff

policy, so much back and forth. But Danielle, I want to start with you on this because there is a court involved in this that not many people have heard of or dealt with that, you know, kind of handed the president a setback this week. Can you tell us what happened? Danielle Pletka Yes. So this is a court called the Court of International Trade. And there's a reason people may not have heard of this court. It usually deals in trade disputes that would strike a lot of people as niche, even pick a unit, even if they aren't really in real life. But some of their disputes, I

looked up a recent one, was about whether one particular imported product could be defined as a centrifuge or not. This case that we are talking about today was a much bigger deal. What happened here was a group of businesses as well as a centrifuge or not. This case that we are talking about today was a much bigger deal. What happened here was a group of businesses, as well as a group of state attorneys general, brought a case to the court of international trade, challenged the heart of President Trump's tariff policy. So really the heart of his entire economic policy.

They argued, hey, for a lot of these tariffs, the president just didn't have the legal authority to do it. And specifically, the tariffs we're talking about today are those global sweeping tariffs that day that he called Liberation Day when he imposed tariffs on countries all over the world. Those tariffs plus tariffs he's imposed on China, Canada, and Mexico, and he justified those as a way to slow the flow of fentanyl.

So the court looked at this argument and said, you know, you're right. These tariffs have to stop. The president did not have the legal authority to impose these. Okay. And so the court said that it's not legal and their reason was? This ruling is all about a 1977 law and it's called AIIPA. You're going to hear me say that a lot today. R it's called AIIPA. You're going to hear me say that a lot today. Rhymes with DIPA. AIIPA DIPA. That's what's important. I'm glad we got that. Yes. So AIIPA stands for the International

Emergency Economic Powers Act. Again, passed in 1977. Broadly, it gives the president the power to regulate international commerce, that is a phrase in an emergency. So it's not just about tariffs. For example, after 9-11, George W. Bush used this law to freeze the assets of anyone found to be connected to terrorist groups. So presidents can use it for a lot. But Trump, he's the first president to use it to impose tariffs.

So the reason that we are talking about that law is this. In imposing these fentanyl tariffs and those global tariffs, Trump said, I am doing this under the authority of AIIPA. So we have those two sets of tariffs, and the court had two broad arguments for why it was blocking those. The global ones, the court said, look, AIIPA just doesn't give President Trump the power to do this. These tariffs are so sweeping.

They're on nearly every country at once and they're indefinite. The court specifically said in their ruling also, Congress has the power to tariff, not the president. If you want tariffs passed, go to Congress. The Fentanyl tariffs, they had a different reasoning. They said the Trump administration reasoned in imposing those F fentanyl tariffs that we are using these tariffs to create economic pressure on Canada, Mexico, China to slow the flow of fentanyl. The court said those tariffs do not deal with fentanyl. They just create economic pressure. So therefore, this tariff also can't stand. SONIA DARA complicated. And I will say to further complicate the situation, that ruling is now on hold. So, Danielle, what is the state of the tariffs right now?

Yes. So three bullet points are really important here. One is that a court granted an administrative stay saying the administration can continue collecting these tariffs that the Court of International Trade blocked. So those tariffs can be collected for now until this is all decided on appeal. Okay. That's one thing. Two, another federal court in a separate case brought by two toy makers called Learning Resources and Hand to Mind, those companies also challenged President Trump's tariffs that were imposed under IEPA like we've been talking about. Well, the federal judge said you're right These tariffs are illegal under IEPA

However that judge ruled that these two companies do not have to pay the tariffs, but the ruling does not go beyond them It doesn't stop tariffs altogether The one other thing is that some tariffs are still in place The auto and auto parts tariffs and steel and aluminum tariffs. President Trump imposed those under a different law that was not AIIPA, so those are still there. SONIA DARA GASKIN Okay, got it. And Franco, let's bring you in here because it's looking more and more like the Supreme Court is going to have to weigh in on this as it has been with a number of different situations in the Trump administration.

And especially that's the case because it seems like Congress is like, we're not getting involved. FRANCOIS CHOUX So, I mean, look, the White House has made clear that they are gonna continue to fight this. They wanna take this all the way up to the Supreme Court. I was at the White House yesterday and Caroline Levitt, the press secretary, was repeatedly calling for the Supreme Court to step in and make a ruling here. But it's probably in most people's interests and global markets interests and business interests and everyone's interest to basically have the Supreme Court way in here and cut through this confusion and kind of Bring some global certainty because it's very hard to kind of parse through all this

I was gonna say clarity is like the thing that's lacking and probably the thing that is the most Necessary when we're talking about so many countries involved so so much money, so many markets being moved. To further complicate matters, the president on social media seemed to be threatening China, saying that they are not keeping their side of the deal. That led to a reduction in tariffs. But Franco, kind of catch me up here. What is he talking about? Yeah. I mean, remember that earlier this month, the US agreed to cut Trump's planned 145% tariff on Chinese imports to 30%. And then China cut their 125% tariff on American airports to 10%. In that social media post, he said so much for Mr. Nice Guy, and I'll just point

out that Mr. Nice Guy was in all capital letters. I mean, I don't think you can discount that this is also happening at a time that the Trump administration is also threatening to revoke the student visas of tens of thousands of Chinese students in the US. And I think this is very clearly shows that the talks that the administration is having with China on these various issues are not going well. And the administration is also taking a very aggressive approach to kind of try to cut traditional ties with China. Clearly though, there are consequences and we're seeing how tough that is as we kind

of see these global markets fluctuate even today. Danielle Pletka But I want to add one quick thing about that social media post about China, which is it didn't actually say much. It may just be sound and fury. It very much conveyed that President Trump is dissatisfied with how things are going. But this wasn't one of his social media posts where he came out and said, I am changing X tariff to Y. Right. I feel like especially when it comes to his conversations with China, like when we talk about lack of clarity, it is the biggest bucket of lack of clarity comes with these conversations over tariffs with China. There is like along those lines as people are just

like, well, what is happening? What isn't happening? Something that popped up this week that President Trump was not particularly happy with, but definitely made the rounds on social media is this meme going around related to Trump's trade policy called TACO. It was coined by a Financial Times columnist, and it stands for Trump Always Chickens Out. And it's the idea that the president's trade policies are these vague sort of interactions. They're bluffs. He keeps walking back what he walks back. Trump was asked about it at the White House this week and he did not like it.

But don't ever say what you said. That's a nasty question. So yeah, clearly not happy there, but I just want to be really emphatic. When we're talking about tariffs and 30 percent whatever, these are massive market moving numbers that broadly affect so many people around the world and the president isn't exactly consistent. And so my question for both of you is, what does it mean for this administration's economic policy and probably reputation in a way if a lot of these global leaders think the president can't be taken seriously? I mean, I would agree that Trump definitely did not take that well. I mean, it goes against his brand of being this

tough negotiator that's holding all the best cards. I guess I would push back a teeny bit on the idea that folks are not taking him seriously though. I mean, there's kind of this strategy, much of Wall Street, about taking Trump seriously, but just not literally. And I think that has really been tested with many of these trade battles, these trade announcement. And Trump has backed off for sure on some of the most aggressive policies. You know, we had Liberation Day where he backed off on so much of that. He also backed off on the 50% tariffs on Europe, that threat. I mean, foreign governments do need to be cautious though. And I would add that I do think it is worth noting that while he has backed off on some of the most extreme measures, he didn't back off or back down

on the 10% across the board tariffs. Now, those are stuck in kind of like this court limbo, of course. But I do think there is an argument to be made. And that's the one that a lot of Republicans are making, is that by slapping these huge tariffs first, he was able to kind of make the 10% more palatable. Those are still a really, really big deal. Yeah, 30% and 10% are both big economy moving tariffs. That is absolutely correct. And one economist I spoke with recently told me that he thinks that markets are starting to act

as if 10% is not that big, because it's just not as high as Trump's tariffs used to be. Same with that China, 30%. But to wrap this all together, what does it mean for economic policy if people don't take the president seriously? It means potentially very big things, especially if the president keeps doing things or trying to do things unilaterally. Because there's the question of, is he serious? There's the question of, will it be blocked in court?

And there's also the very, very big important point that the United States is a global economic superpower. So when our bond market goes haywire, as it did when Trump imposed those high China tariffs, that can mess up so many things. International investment, how much you and I pay for a mortgage or a car loan. It could go on and on. So there are potentially very broad economic knock-on effects. Yeah. All right. Well, we're going to come back after a quick break. Danielle, you're going to join us back for Can't Let It Go so you can take an even longer break. And we'll be back in a moment.

And we're back. And NPR National Security correspondent Greg Myhre is here. Hey, Greg. Hi, Deepa. Thanks is here. Hey, Greg. Hi, Deepa. Thanks for joining us. Sure thing. All right. So you have been looking into the way that diplomacy and foreign policy have shifted from what we would call the norm under the Trump administration. And so I just kind of want to start broadly here. How would you say it's different?

Well, Trump clearly prefers the art of the deal to the art of diplomacy. He looks at foreign policy through a business lens, saying, you know, can we do a deal with this country? Should we punish this country with tariffs? So he was very comfortable doing deals with friends and allies. And we saw this on his recent Middle East trip, where he was feted by the leaders in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates. They announced these deals and plans for big investment projects.

Now, there's nothing wrong with this. In fact, they'll be very beneficial if, in fact, they play out his plan. So it can really be a win-win. However, presidents are also expected to engage in diplomacy, and this involves working out tough compromises with rivals and enemies who have opposing interests. So this can be much harder, and it's an area where Trump just shows a lot less interest. Yeah, that definitely seems to be the case. But I'm curious, how are you seeing this workout

in practice? So, there are diplomatic efforts underway on several fronts, but they are proving difficult. Nowhere is easy to solve as Trump had predicted. I'd point to three diplomatic engagements right now, and what's really striking about them is that he's chosen one man, his longtime friend Steve Witkoff, to take the lead in all of them. We've just heard in the past day or so here that there is a new ceasefire proposal that Witkoff has worked out, trying to get Israel and Hamas to stop fighting, be for 60 days.

They would exchange hostages and prisoners. This was apparently worked out with Israel. Hamas is studying it. So we'll see if that's gonna play or not. It's still very much up in the air. Now, Witkoff is also leading the effort to work out a nuclear deal with Iran. These talks appear serious, but there's no sign of a breakthrough yet. And, of course, Trump pulled out of his deal that may end up being pretty similar, but he pulled out

of a deal in his first term. And then there's Russia-Ukraine and that war. Trump is clearly frustrated with Russian leader Vladimir Putin now for these ongoing heavy attacks against Ukraine. Trump says he'll know in two weeks if Putin's serious, but there's no real progress in this conflict. And so all of them are still up in the air as to whether there'll be a breakthrough. Danielle Pletka I thought it was really interesting. A couple of weeks ago, I was traveling with the president on Air Force One, and he was talking about the conflict that was going on in India and Pakistan after there was a gunman attack in Kashmir.

And he sort of was getting asked about how the US might intervene. And he said, oh, well, maybe we'll throw some tariffs into the situation to try and get these countries to stop fighting with each other. And that was almost his go-to for solving that situation, which sort of complicates, for some of these countries that have worked with the US in the past, how they are coming to the table with this administration. Does it sort of shift their position as well? Yeah, it was interesting because Trump clearly didn't show a lot of interest in that conflict. He said yes This is a long-running feud. They'll probably just keep fighting or maybe they'll stop so he didn't show much interest

But Secretary of State Marco Rubio did so he he played, at least in this case, a much more traditional role. He really got on the phone, talked to both sides, and it was sorted out after a few days and of course had the potential to escalate and become a very, very nasty conflict. So at the end of the day, Rubio did play this more traditional role, worked it out, but you didn't sense that Trump was deeply involved or cared much about the details. So I think going forward, we'll have to look and see which one carries the day, the more traditional approach, maybe that Rubio or the State Department apparatus takes over, or is it just Trump making decisions from his gut?

Yeah. Franco, I mean, I want to get to the why of this. Like, what is the rationale for doing this differently? This administration, Trump himself has long felt that traditional allies have taken advantage of the US, taken advantage of US generosity. I mean, that involves defense spending. Trump has often complained that the US spends way too much money on defense and that the European leaders do not. Also talks about trade, which we have been talking about that, you know, allies have been taking advantage of the US on trade. And I think Trump, you know, kind of appreciates the transactional relationships that he has with the Gulf leaders.

I mean, these are relationships that go back decades. I mean, from times before President Trump was president and to his private dealings and announcing real estate deals. He really appreciates these relationships and he's just extended them because like Trump, they wanna make business deals. They don't wanna talk about human rights issues. They speak Trump's language and I would argue they do it very well. I mean, I was on the trip with Trump when

he went to the Middle East and I saw firsthand, you know, the fighter jet escorts coming up to Air Force One, the lavish welcome ceremony, you know, the camels. I mean, Trump loves this stuff. I mean, he likes to be treated like royalty. He feels the president of the most powerful country in the world should be treated like royalty. It should get a very, very large plane. This is one of the ways that Trump works. It's about trading.

It's very transactional. It's about trading favors. And the way he sees it, or at least the case that he is making for it is that this is something that he can gain this is a way of winning something for the United States. Greg I'm curious though what are some of the downsides of the Trump administration doing business slash diplomacy this way? So I think we'll have to it will take some time to see how this plays out before we can we can really decide but I would mention two things One is the hot spots we've talked about a little bit, the Israel-Hamas war in Gaza, the Russia-Ukraine war. Now, the U.S. can't solve

either of these conflicts unilaterally, but the U.S. does have a role to play in trying to end them. And if the U.S. doesn't use its traditional diplomatic clout, These wars could grind on, they could expand. The U.S. does have a role to play there. So that's potentially one thing. I think the second issue would really be the long-term relationships with allies. There's simply no other country in the world that has what the U.S. has had for the past 80 years. This network of alliances and partners all around the world that the US trades with, has security relationships, cultural relationships with, will those be weakened over time? Will those countries that have created economic models, security models

based on a certain relationship with the US, will they change, become less dependent, less confident in the US, will they change, become less dependent, less confident in the US? I mean, and that's a really big deal when as the US, for example, tries to take a new approach with China. I mean, you know, having traditional allies aligned with the United States can confront China from a stronger position, Russia as well. I mean, this, you know, the kind like this rules-based system that Greg is referring to you know

kind of spawned this idea that That the United States will be stronger if its allies are stronger The United States will be richer if its allies are richer The United States will be more secure if its allies are more secure and many analysts are arguing that that has kind of been blown up Because it's now a go it alone type strategy more secure. And many analysts are arguing that that has kind of been blown up because it's now a go it alone type strategy. And the world has kind of been broken into these spheres of influence and the United States is focused on its sphere of influence. And it's really only listening to the other big superpowers that are focused on their spheres

of influence. And there's little collaboration happening to address these very big global issues. I feel like both of the blocks of this podcast are so related in that way of like trade and tariffs are one thing and then foreign...but it's all like that system of just like we're throwing out the rule book and we're going at it alone has really flipped everything on its head. Trump clearly likes to do things one on one with one other country, with one other leader. When he's talking about a group dealing with the entire European community or multiple

countries in Latin America, he just, he really clearly has no interest in making that approach. Yeah. All right. Well, Greg, thank you so much for bringing your reporting to the podcast. We appreciate it. Sure thing. We're going to take one more break and then Can't Let It Go. And we're back and so is Danielle, hello.

Hello. And it's time for Can't Let It Go. That's the part of the show where we talk about the things from the week we just can't stop thinking about, politics or otherwise. I am gonna kick it off. I don't know if you guys know this, but it is peak mango season right now.

Ooh. And that's like- Peak, peak. And that basically means that like every South Asian person is like running to their closest Indian store to get mangoes that get shipped from India, from Pakistan. Like Alfonso mangoes are like the... I just feel like if you bought, like, in the produce section,

like the pre-cut mangoes or whatever, those are just like, they're kind of raw tasting, they're a little, like, tangy and stringy, and it's just, like, not the joy that people should experience. Like, I have so many memories of just, like, oh, my God, notching on a mango, and there's just, like, juice running down your arms, like, and, like, every family has, like, a certain way they, like, cut my god, notching on a mango, and there's just like juice running down your arms. And like every family has like a certain way

they like cut mango, anyway. I have a store up near me that I know sells mangoes, so I will be looking this weekend. Please circle back, yes. And in return for giving you some delicious mango, you need to teach me how to cut one. Oh yeah. So I don't, you know, slice open an artery.

No, there's some hot takes on how to do it. But anyway, the thing I can't let go of is that I looked up, I was trying to see how many mangoes are getting shipped. And Air India put out a press release this week saying that they have transported close to 1,000 tons of fresh Indian mangoes all over the world. So to Europe, North America, the Middle East, everywhere. But my favorite bit about the press release is they talk about how they transport them. And there's these cooling blankets that they travel with like across tarmacs.

And so I'm just imagining like little bundles of mangoes and blankets being treated as precious cargo as they travel all over the world. I want pictures. Anyway, no, I would love some photos. So catch me like emailing Air India to be like, please send photographic evidence. But anyway, that's the thing that I cannot let go of this week. Danielle, what is it for you? So what I can't let go of is a column in The Guardian, which was brought to my attention by our illustrious podcast producer, Casey Morell. It is a column about meetings and

how much we all absolutely detest sitting in unproductive meetings that's redundant for hours on end. And so this column brings up a suggestion of using magical questions to make meetings more livable, questions that everyone is interested in answering and hearing other people answer. So I'm understanding. This is a question that you'd like. You're having a Zoom meeting at the office and you like, I'm gonna throw out these new questions to help us get in the energy. Yeah, I think it, by sense, I guess,

yeah, it's like an icebreaker. Like, all right, let's all have some reason to feel some joy. That's it, kind of like I can't let it go. So okay. All right, guys. My eyes are rolling a little bit by the way. How dare you? All right, Franco, your answer had better be good.

Okay guys, what is a topic that you could give a 20 minute presentation on without preparation? Well, we know that Deepa can talk about mangoes. That's true, yeah. I could do that, I could do that. Oh yeah, like the proper way to cut a mango. I could probably do that. Oh, I have to think on this more.

What's yours? Greg and I, you know, we have talked about, you know, sports and our kids and sports all the time. I'm always listening to him talk about lacrosse. I could talk about, you know, dealing with my son's soccer and how to talk to coaches, soccer coaches. Oh, I like that. That's a good one.

I've decided to- I'm not sure, I'm not sure, that's an expert on it, but I try. No, but you could do a presentation on it, which is the coaches. Oh, I like that. That's a good one. I've decided to- I'm not sure, I'm not sure, I'm not an expert on it, but I try. No, but you could do a presentation on it, which is the point. Yeah, absolutely. Danielle, I'm amending our speakers- All the pitfalls of talking to your soccer coach. No, that's good.

I actually would listen to you talk about that. Danielle, I'm amending mine because you and I were part of a very passionate conversation yesterday in the office about the ranking of best French fries. Absolutely. And I feel very passionately that waffle fries are on the bottom. No steak fries are on the bottom. Oh right, we said steak fries are on the bottom and then like second worst is waffle fry and

it ended up being like a very long conversation about the rankings of French fries. So I think that would be mine. Yeah, yeah. What's yours? I've been thinking about this. I think mine would be a persuasive speech. Stick with me on this because like I like... Eyes rolling again. Franco! I'm kidding, I'm kidding. You're too late. I'm playing, I'm playing. I'm angry now. So, your eyes are gonna roll more. I

really like going to the symphony. I like seeing... I like that. I like seeing orchestras perform. I would do a speech on how orchestras should have some of their performances, not all, some, be rowdier, like where you can yell and hoot and holler in the middle. Like when the when the symphony goes da da da da at the beginning of Beethoven's Fifth, you kind of want to sing it along with them. Oh, I kind of love. I think the symphony is way stuffy. And if they want to grow and have bigger audiences and more excitement, you have to let people cut loose a little. A little mosh pit at the symphony. You gotta jump up and down and say, yes!

As a former band kid, I support it. I support it. Thank you. All right, Franco, what can't you let go of? What I can't let go is the spelling bee. I always get excited about the spelling bee every year, because I can never, ever be as smart as these little kids and know these words.

And the winning word this year, and someone correct me, because I know I'm going to butcher it, is eclairecement, eclairecement, which is spelled E-C-L-A-I-R-C-I-S-S-E-M-E-N-T, for those who did not know, which apparently means the enlightening explanation of something, typically someone's conduct that has been hereto inexplicable.

So, how the... Good word. Exactly. How they come up with this. And I just find it's always so fascinating how these kids are able to come up with these words and how they kind of use all these roots. And I will say this Year was particularly interesting because there was actually some a little bit of controversy a little bit of drama

with some of the parents raising concerns that too much geography is Being used or was used in the spelling bee and that's because scripts which you know sponsors the spelling bee has been that's because scripts, which, you know, sponsors the spelling bee, has been relying more and more on geographical terms to kind of winnow down the field of spellers. And oftentimes these words are included, and while they're part of the dictionary and they're in the dictionary, they often don't follow kind of the familiar roots and language patterns, so it's much

harder to kind of rely on, you know, the tools that you usually use to figure out how to spell and form these words. So, drama at the scripts spelling big. I'm obsessed with that. I totally understand why you can't let that go. That's a good one. Stage moms and stage dads. Yeah, big fan. All right, that's all for today. Our executive producer is Mathony Maturi. Casey Morell edits the podcast. Our producer is Bria Suggs. Special thanks to Krishna Dev Kalamur. I'm Diva Shivaram. I cover the White House. I'm Danielle Kurtz-Layden. I also cover the White House.

And I'm Frank Boyd-Dunas. I also cover the White House. And thank you for listening to the NPR Politics Podcast.