NTRA Updates on Tariffs, Other Washington Developments

The Supreme Court struck down President Trump's global tariffs last week, in a 6-3 vote. The court said the President exceeded his power to invoke the federal emergency-powers law to impose the worldwide tariffs he announced last April. This doesn't mean tariffs are going away, however. The Trade Act of 1974 allows the President to impose tariffs for up to 150 days, at which point Congress would have to vote to extend them. The day the Supreme Court made its decision, the President also announced a new worldwide tariff rate of 10%, using the Trade Act to do so. Over the weekend, Trump said he would increase this number to 15%, but this hasn't yet happened officially. What this means in the short term is that tariff rates go up or down depending on which country you are importing from. Check with your local import broker if you are unsure about your new rate. It also means that many countries and coalitions like the European Union (EU) are putting their trade deal negotiations on hold until more is revealed. The United States and the EU were deep in negotiations for a trade deal before the Supreme Court made its announcement. What this doesn't change is the various exceptions for horses. Horses coming in from Canada and Mexico are still duty-exempt goods through the U.S.-Mexico-Canada (USMCA) trade agreement. Horses coming in for racing or other temporary events can get a temporary import bond or carnet. This is a developing situation, and more tariffs could be added in the future. CFTC Chairman Announces New Stance on Prediction Markets Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) Chairman Michael Selig announced on X last Tuesday that the agency has filed a "friend of the court" brief in support of Crypto.com regarding its legal battle in Nevada. This is the first time the CFTC has taken a side when it comes to the issue of prediction markets. For those who don't know, prediction markets are platforms that allow users to "trade" the outcomes of events, like on the stock market. For example, one could trade on the outcome of the Presidential election and predict who would win. The thorniest part of prediction markets involves the exact definition. Are they gambling or not? Right now, it hasn't been decided. Courts are intervening across the country, especially now that various prediction markets are allow users to trade on sports outcomes. "Over the past year, American prediction markets have been hit with an onslaught of state-led litigation," Selig said in the video. "The CFTC will no longer sit idly by while overzealous state governments undermine the agency's exclusive jurisdiction over these markets by seeking to establish statewide prohibitions on these exciting products," said Selig. Notably, Selig did not mention sports in that video. Utah's Republican Governor, Spencer Cox, replied to the post on X, vowing to fight Selig and the CFTC in court, claiming that prediction markets are gambling and should fall under the already-in-place regulations. It remains to be seen where this fight will end, especially with Congress not weighing in with a law defining a prediction market. Various legal battles across the country will likely determine what happens, though that could take months. Farm Bill Around the Corner House Agriculture Committee Chairman G.T. Thompson recently unveiled the newest Farm Bill proposal, an important step in beginning the process of passage through the House. This proposal represents a "skinny" Farm Bill, as some items got taken care of last summer in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. The House was set to begin discussion on it on February 23rd, but that was postponed because of the blizzard along the East Coast. It will now happen on March 3rd. "It's the 80% of policy that we couldn't do in the 'One Big Beautiful Bill' under budget reconciliation, but it's about 20% of funding overall," Thompson said. This introduction doesn't guarantee passage, though. With such a small majority, Republicans must tread carefully. There's a long road ahead to getting it passed during a midterms year. The measure has historically required bipartisan support to clear Congress, and Democrats are still stinging from multi-billion-dollar spending cuts Republicans made to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).