Trump says giving EU until July 4 to fulfill trade deal or will raise tariffs

[BumRushDaShow]

Source: Reuters

May 7, 2026 3:14 PM EDT Updated 52 mins ago


WASHINGTON, May 7 (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump said he had a "great call" ​with European Commission President Ursula von der ‌Leyen on Thursday and would give the EU until July 4 to fulfill its side of the trade deal ​before hiking U.S. tariffs to much higher levels.

"I’ve ​been waiting patiently for the EU to ⁠fulfill their side of the Historic Trade ​Deal we agreed in Turnberry, Scotland, the largest ​Trade Deal, ever!" Trump said in a post on Truth Social.

"A promise was made that the EU would ​deliver their side of the Deal and, ​as per Agreement, cut their Tariffs to ZERO! I agreed ‌to ⁠give her until our Country’s 250th Birthday or, unfortunately, their Tariffs would immediately jump to much higher levels."

Trump on Friday had threatened to ​increase tariffs ​on EU ⁠cars and trucks to 25% this week, from 15% currently, because the ​EU was not complying with the terms ​of ⁠a deal struck in Scotland last July.

Read more: https://www.reuters.com/world/trump-says-giving-eu-until-july-4-fulfill-trade-deal-or-will-raise-tariffs-2026-05-07/

[Lovie777]

1. Again...................

[Scrivener7]

2. What a fucking asshole.

[the nelm]

19. And maroon...n/t

[Scrivener7]

21. And ignoranimus!

[displacedvermoter]

3. Are any Senate Republicans listening to this sick old fuck?

[Norrrm]

4. Trump charges/changes tariffs capriciously, most often with revenge/coercion, not based on economics.

Trump charges/changes tariffs capriciously, most often with revenge/coercion, not based on economics.

He calls these ever-increasing taxes on Americans - "revenue".

[underpants]

10. He's petulant petty child with power

German Chancellor Merz makes one statement pointing out that Trump has completely screwing up with the Iran mess and *poof* Trump punishes him m withdrawing 5,000 troops.

[popsdenver]

14. I often think these Republicans

are much like.............If you put basketfuls of hand grenades in a room, with a bunch of monkeys, and locked the door.......

[the nelm]

20. If only...n/t

[Skittles]

5. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

so tiresome

[dave99]

6. Bet Ursula put her phone on mute and did other work until shitstain stopped talking

Tariffs ARE illegal, as per the Racist Supreme Court of the United States.
So much for raising non-existent tariffs.

[Permanut]

7. Give the bully your lunch money just this one last time..

And he promises he will not do it again.

[Buddyzbuddy]

8. What Supreme Court decision?

[underpants]

9. So is he ignoring/defying SCOTUS here or clinging to the BS Rule 122 opinion of his DOJ?

In a 6-3 ruling on February 20, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down many of Donald Trump's trade tariffs, holding that the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) did not authorize the president to impose tariffs. The Court ruled this was executive overreach, stating that the constitutional power to regulate commerce lies with Congress.

Administration Response: Following the ruling, the administration pivoted to alternate legal justifications, including imposing new tariffs under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974.
—-

Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 empowers the U.S. President to impose temporary, 150-day import restrictions—such as up to 15% tariffs or quotas—to address urgent balance-of-payments deficits, severe dollar depreciation, or international payments instability. Recently, it was invoked in February 2026 to apply 10% tariffs, following judicial limitations on alternative trade authorities.

——

Even the Cato Institute calls BS on Rule 122 saying it’s an anachronism

APRIL 14, 2026 1:57PM
Section 122 Is an Anachronism, Not a License for New Tariffs

The administration’s latest tariff move does not just rest on bad policy. It rests on a concept that no longer fits the world we live in. That is why I joined the economists’ amicus brief challenging the administration’s use of Section 122 in the US Court of International Trade, which can be found here. The core problem is simple: Section 122 was written for a monetary order that has passed. The administration is trying to revive it as if nothing important has changed in the international monetary system since the early 1970s.

https://www.cato.org/blog/section-122-anachronism-not-license-new-tariffs

[BumRushDaShow]

12. The Trade Court just ruled against use of Section 122

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10143661981

[underpants]

15. 💣

[BumRushDaShow]

16. I'll join you

(need the cushions for achy joints )

[moonshinegnomie]

11. considering a federal court just blocked his new tariffs

good luck with that

[Baitball Blogger]

13. Is he suffering from Alzheimer's?

Tariff's are not legal. His own Supreme Court said so.

[BigmanPigman]

17. Happy July 4th America

I hate this ass with a passion!

[AllaN01Bear]

18. And doesn't he rrealze that We John a citizen pay the tarrffs , and not the opposing country?

[SirReal69]

22. Not sure...

how he can raise tariffs when all of his tariffs have been found illegal.