America’s Constitution caps presidents at two four-year terms via the 22nd Amendment, a safeguard post-FDR’s long reign. France limits presidents to two consecutive five-year stints since 2008 reforms, which also trimmed terms from seven years and barred non-consecutive repeats beyond two total.

Russia dramatically altered its landscape: terms ballooned to eight years, and 2020 amendments reset Vladimir Putin’s clock, zeroing out prior service. This paves the way for him through 2036. China scrapped all presidential term limits in 2018, solidifying Xi Jinping’s position without end.

Iran allows two successive four-year presidential terms, extensible in crises. Brazil matches with two consecutive four-year cycles. Shifting to prime ministers, India imposes none: leaders can serve repeatedly with Lok Sabha backing, terms tied to five-year elections.

Britain’s PMs face no numerical cap, relying on Commons support amid five-year parliamentary maximums. Canada’s PMs similarly lack limits, with elections roughly every four years despite a five-year Commons ceiling. Pakistan’s largely figurehead president has flexible rules, as does its premiership.

Germany’s chancellor wields PM-like power without term bounds—Merkel lasted 16 years. Israel ditched its old two-term PM rule, now unlimited. Uganda’s lack of limits enabled Museveni’s marathon rule.

From ironclad two-term precedents to open-ended tenures, these policies shape political dynasties, innovation, and accountability. As global elections loom, understanding these frameworks is key to grasping power’s ebb and flow.

The court’s decision dealt a significant blow to Trump. The uncertainty surrounding his trade policies has rattled financial markets, causing business stagnation, price increases, and concerns about economic slowdown. The court’s ruling concerned tariffs imposed by Trump in April on almost all US trading partners.

The Trump administration had argued that former US President Richard Nixon was permitted to impose tariffs based on an economic emergency. The court responded by stating that Nixon took this step when he ended the policy linking the dollar to gold. The US International Trade Court in New York ruled that Trump’s tariffs exceeded the powers granted to the President under emergency powers.

There was some disagreement among the judges in the court’s Friday decision. The court stated that the 1977 law does not permit emergency measures. The government argued that if Trump’s tariffs are removed, it would have to return all the tariffs it has collected from several countries. The government stated that the total revenue for July was $159 billion, which was double that of the previous year. The Justice Department warned in a legal argument that removing tariffs could lead to a financial crisis in the US, making it difficult for Trump to impose tariffs in the future.

Trump has long called America’s trade deficit a national emergency. Without Congressional consent, Trump claimed he imposed these tariffs using the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which he said was in the country’s interest. The court has said that the US Constitution grants Congress the power to set taxes, including tariffs, although lawmakers have gradually given presidents more authority on tariffs. The court noted that Trump took full advantage of this.

After announcing the tariffs, Trump postponed them for 90 days to allow countries to negotiate trade agreements with the US. Some countries accepted Trump’s decision, including the UK, Japan, and the European Union. However, many countries did not bow down to Trump. In a major blow, Trump imposed additional tariffs on those countries earlier this month, including Laos (40%), India (50%), and Algeria (30%).