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 tradeoffs 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 Tech London. 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. The 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. So 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? I'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 and a half percent 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. But 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. So 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. So 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. That'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. They 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. industries 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. One 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 law the Smoot Tariff Act Yes, yes. So 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. And 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% 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 and 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? Well, 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, United States and Mexico have had better and more productive discussions. And unfortunately, the same has not been the case with US 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 longstanding 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. Would 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. As markets move and headlines break, what matters most is context. A Bloomberg subscription gives you unmatched reporting. sharp analysis, and powerful tools that help you connect the dots. Visit Bloomberg.com slash podcast offer to learn more. 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. And that resulted in 25 percent 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. So 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. Now, 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. One 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. Congress 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. And 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? In 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. But 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. So 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. So 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. Well, they're back. This 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. And 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. And 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. Could 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. So 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. I 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, the seashell. So in Watts v. 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 and 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 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. So I think the sort of stars are all aligned in the same direction here, that this is a form of, if it's even that, sort of hyperbolic or rhetorical political communication and nothing more. I think it is important if you look at dictionary definitions and common understandings of what these numbers mean when arranged in that way, that there's very thin, if any, evidence that they point to any kind of violence, you know, get rid of, or in the case of a restaurant, there's no more of. That's 86. And so the sort of violent use of that set of numbers is very rare, not reflected in dictionaries. And the whole thing just reeks of, of course, more of the same sort of retribution against the president's political enemies. And he always says the quiet part out loud. He wanted Pam Bondi to arrest Comey for something. There must be something. And they finally found a prosecutor who was willing to, with a straight face, present this to a grand jury. And I think it going to be another dismissal and an embarrassment But here the thing about the Trump administration I don think they embarrassed I think the point is to put Comey through the trouble of being charged arrested having to plead in front of a judge, you know, and that all happened to Trump. So it should happen to all his political enemies. And that's what this is really about. Also, they argue that even if the alternative arguments, so even if this could be taken to suggest violence, it would be political hyperbole and not a true threat. So tell us about that argument in the context of the Supreme Court affording political speech the highest standard of protection. Yeah, I mean, it's obviously recognized a category of speech that can be criminalized called a true threat. But when you define that as a category, if you're the court, you're very careful to make sure the definition does not sweep in political opposition, even when it is sort of couched in violent terms. So even assuming you could read violence into 8647, as I said, in Watts and in other cases, the court has said, well, you have to be very careful not to allow the government to criminalize opposition to political power. In this case, the president of the United States, and in those cases too. And there are other cases of a similar ilk, right? So there's a civil rights era case where a civil rights leader stands up in front of people he wants to participate in a boycott of white businesses in southern town. And he says, look, if you don't come along, there may have to be some discipline and necks may have to be broken. And that was a civil case. But the same question arose. Well, is that a threat? Is that a threat of violence? No. That's the kind of strong political rhetoric the First Amendment protects. So even if, as the defense points out, even if you could ring some kind of violent imagery out of 8647, that is still protected speech. It is not a true threat. And that is the sort of cost, if one wants to look at it that way, of having such a robust free speech right in the United States. You can, and speakers often do, make these sorts of communications, even when they implicate sort of violence. Also, you know, if this actually went to trial, the prosecution would have to prove that Comey knowingly and willfully made the threat. I mean, Comey deleted the post and said that he didn't realize that some people associate those numbers with violence. So for the prosecution to prove he had intent seems like it would be a huge hurdle. Yeah, that's not something you can resolve on the motion to dismiss. But the sort of mental state of the speaker would be, you're absolutely right, critical if this thing were to go to trial. Whether or not Comey would testify I think is an interesting question if it goes that far. But the statutes that he's being prosecuted under have mental state requirements, as does the First Amendment. The First Amendment, the court said in a case called Countermann v. Colorado, requires that you show that the speaker acted recklessly, a form of sort of subjective intent. But you knew there was a danger here that someone would view this as a threat of violence, and you spoke anyway. But I just don't see how you get to, you know, if Watts' speech is protected and other statements about, you know, actually killing the president more directly are protected, how do you get there with something like this? And in Watts, for example, the Vietnam era case, part of the reason the court said it's not a threat is it's so highly conditional. Here's this young man, I think he was 18 years old. He's at a political rally. He makes this statement and people laugh. But also there's really just no prospect that violence would be visited on President Johnson. So, too, here. We've heard violent rhetoric from President Trump repeatedly over the years. But does that have any bearing at all on this case? I don't think it does. You know, the question is whether, in this case, the Speaker, Comey, can be convicted of the offenses he's been charged with. But I do think in terms of, you know, whether you want to call it a slippery slope argument or just a fairness argument, there's a lot of violent political rhetoric in the United States. And again, you could see that as the cost of having this robust First Amendment. But the president himself has engaged in this sort of speech. There are some on the other side of the political aisle who've used 86. And they weren't prosecuted, of course. Todd Blanche has said, the acting attorney general, look, we're not going to go after everyone. Then why are you going after Comey? So I think it does matter that a lot of political rhetoric circulates. It's long understood to be protected by the First Amendment. And there are questions as to why Comey's being singled out. That's going to go, I think, to another motion, which is going to be filed to dismiss the case on the grounds of vindictive and selective prosecution. And those raise different issues. That's not about the content of his speech. That's about how and why he was selected among all those who use similar language to be criminally charged. What standard will the judge use in deciding whether to throw the case out? Ordinarily, those are hard cases to get thrown out on a motion to dismiss because, as you said, context matters. Is there more to it? Do we need more fact finding? And the intent or the mental state of the defendant typically matters. And that's usually not something you can resolve on motion papers, motion to dismiss. This may again be that rare case where you can, in fact, throw it out. And the defendants make the point that even trying him, putting him through these paces, is its own sanction for what's clearly protected speech. My suspicion, my expectation is that the administration is going to say, or the department's going to say, look, we need factual development here and discovery should take place and you shouldn't throw this out. You know, we promise there's more to this and they keep doing that. Now, whether a judge has patience for that is another matter. And then, of course, if it's dismissed, it'll immediately be appealed and all of that. Right. So it is rare to succeed on these sorts of motions. But one of the things that makes it more plausible is just sort of the extraneous statements of the president and the administration and the attorney general about Comey in particular. And, you know, Trump sort of telling his attorney general, pursue these people for something. Now, a court might not say, you know, that's evidence in the case, but it just has to have some impact on how you view cases like this, I would think. Also, the FBI has already investigated this. And it took, what, close to a So how much more information is there out there to discover? You know, ordinarily you would have a period of discovery. And again, I'd be surprised if there's anything more to this. You know, they did, I think, seize Comey's devices, his phone and so forth. So it's possible he made other derogatory statements about Trump, but join the multi-million who've done that. That's not evidence of an intent to threaten to murder him. So I'd just be very surprised that this didn't just fizzle out like so many cases have where they eventually dropped the charges. There's a recent one, a sort of union leader in California during an anti-Ice protest. He was arrested for allegedly, and this is a common charge, interfering with ICE's activities and assaulting an officer. Well, they just dropped it after months and months and months and months. Of course, they've now put this man through not just an arrest and a physical assault, but all the other things that come with being charged with a felony. So if the pattern holds, this case will run that course. And, you know, again, the Trump administration and the Department of Justice will simply move on to its next target because what Trump wanted will have been done. Comey got charged. And if the charges aren't dismissed at this early stage, Comey will have to go through with a trial that's now scheduled for October. So six months of going through this whole process of being charged, pre-trial motions, discovery, and then trial. And you never know what's going to happen at trial. So it's hanging over you. It's entirely plausible. It's happened already that the trial jury, if there is one, will reject the government's case. But as you point out, right, there's a lot of process and there's a lot of cost to these things. And Trump has said out loud in the civil context, not the criminal, the point is to make them pay, meaning to make them suffer the financial consequences of being sued. He doesn't care if he wins. The punishment is the suit or the investigation. So that is wildly inappropriate, improper, a violation of due process, and in these cases, a violation of the First Amendment. I'm really interested in seeing what the government will come up with in its response papers. It's been great having you on, Tim. Thanks so much. That's Professor Timothy Zick of William & Mary Law School. And that's it for this edition of the Bloomberg Law Show. Remember, you can always get the latest legal news on our Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at www.bloomberg.com slash podcast slash law. And remember to tune into the Bloomberg Law Show every weeknight at 10 p.m. Wall Street time. I'm June Grosso, and you're listening to Bloomberg.
