Rachel Abrams

And I'd like to take a step back here and just understand what was this case about?

And I'd like to take a step back here and just understand what was this case about?

Right, and the court that ruled late Wednesday agreed with that assessment.

Right, and the court that ruled late Wednesday agreed with that assessment.

It only feels like it's adding to this kind of whirlwind of trade news. It's really, I think, been hard for a lot of people to keep all of these different tariffs straight. So I wonder if you could just kind of help us understand the current state of play on tariffs. Like, what is in place? Where? What's on hold?

It only feels like it's adding to this kind of whirlwind of trade news. It's really, I think, been hard for a lot of people to keep all of these different tariffs straight. So I wonder if you could just kind of help us understand the current state of play on tariffs. Like, what is in place? Where? What's on hold?

Okay, so then the Wednesday night ruling, how does that ruling affect, if it affects, the negotiations that are active right now between the administration and these foreign trading partners?

Okay, so then the Wednesday night ruling, how does that ruling affect, if it affects, the negotiations that are active right now between the administration and these foreign trading partners?

And Gina, what would that look like? Like, what options does the administration have in front of it?

And Gina, what would that look like? Like, what options does the administration have in front of it?

And how likely is it that the president would enact that 150-day 15% tariff and then go to Congress to seek the authority to, I guess, extend it permanently?

And how likely is it that the president would enact that 150-day 15% tariff and then go to Congress to seek the authority to, I guess, extend it permanently?

Can you explain that a little bit? What are these more legally solid options?

Can you explain that a little bit? What are these more legally solid options?

So if those options could theoretically put the administration on more solid legal footing, why not use those to begin with? Like, why even rely on this 1977 law that seems to have been relatively easily struck down, at least by this first court?

So if those options could theoretically put the administration on more solid legal footing, why not use those to begin with? Like, why even rely on this 1977 law that seems to have been relatively easily struck down, at least by this first court?

It feels as though there has been this pattern since President Trump took office of him levying these huge threats that end up in one way or another going away, either because a court strikes something down or a deal is negotiated or he walks something back.

It feels as though there has been this pattern since President Trump took office of him levying these huge threats that end up in one way or another going away, either because a court strikes something down or a deal is negotiated or he walks something back.

And I just wonder if this ruling on Wednesday, if in any way it puts even more pressure on President Trump to show that he means business with these trade negotiations. Yeah.

And I just wonder if this ruling on Wednesday, if in any way it puts even more pressure on President Trump to show that he means business with these trade negotiations. Yeah.