Below is my column on the tariff decision and the question of who will pay the costs in the aftermath of the decision. While many Democratic politicians and pundits were positively gleeful about the costs, any refunds or policy changes are unlikely to follow anytime soon.
Here is the column:
Friday’s blockbuster ruling on tariffs was hardly welcomed by the Trump administration, but it was also widely expected. The Supreme Court clearly established in its 6-3 decision that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not afford presidents authority to issue sweeping, unilateral tariffs like those imposed by President Trump over the last year.
The justices fractured on other issues. And they left one issue conspicuously unaddressed: What happens to the hundreds of billions of dollars collected from these tariffs so far?
Many of us predicted that the administration would lose this fight. That view was reinforced after oral arguments, when a majority of justices raised possible reasons why the president might not possess this power.
Then again, he does possess similar powers under other laws, which the administration has already announced he will use.
Although Trump said he was “ashamed” of the conservative justices who ruled against him, their opinion is consistent with the conservative interpretive approach taken in prior statutory cases.
The majority defended Congress’s core power over the purse, maintaining the balance among the branches of our tripartite system. There were good-faith arguments on both sides, but these conservative justices ruled regardless of the political or practical repercussions, based on what they believed was demanded by the Constitution.
The most surprising votes were not the three conservatives but the three liberal justices, who historically have not been deterred by ambiguity in statutes in deferring to presidents. They have repeatedly also found delegated authority in independent agencies without worrying too much about the separation of powers.
Democratic politicians openly celebrated the loss. Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) seemed elated by the prospect that the country will have to incur massive penalties, costs that could undermine the current economic growth figures. Newsom, who has led his state into a deep deficit and triggered an exodus of taxpayers, eagerly called for economic penalties for the country: “Every dollar unlawfully taken must be refunded immediately — with interest. Cough up!”
In reality, the tariffs are not going away. Trump will just have to rely on less nimble laws, but he can pursue the same policies in the name of other causes, such as securing greater market access and other concessions from foreign governments.
So what about “coughing up” those past tariff dollars? Newsom may ultimately be disappointed. Unless members want to further add to the deficit, Congress should intervene to uphold the tariffs retroactively. But that may not be possible.
Democratic politicians like Newsom are not likely to want to help Trump, even if that means wounding the national economy and the federal budget. But this may offer Republicans a unique opportunity to force such a vote. Do Democrats truly want to vote to give hundreds of billions back? There are already more than 1,000 claimants.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh dealt with the problem directly in his forceful dissent. He criticized the majority for its silence on whether or how such refunds would be made. Most pointedly, Kavanaugh noted that the federal government “may be required to refund billions of dollars to importers who paid the … tariffs, even though some importers may have already passed on costs to consumers or others.”
In other words, importers could be double-compensated if they are repaid, since, in many cases, the public paid for the tariffs in the form of higher prices. That is precisely what Democrats have been arguing for months, claiming that prices were raised to cover the added cost of the tariffs.
Trump could therefore further force the issue by offering to pay the money directly to taxpayers as a tariff bonus as part of legislation that would ratify the tariffs. Would Democrats vote against such checks for average citizens?
Even if Congress does nothing, this will take years to sort out. In the meantime, the administration has already utilized the other tariff powers recognized by the court.
What is most striking is how the very people calling to pack the Supreme Court are celebrating this decision. The court has once again shown that it continues to exercise independent judgment on important questions. Yet figures from Eric Holder and various liberal pundits will continue to demand court-packing as soon as Democrats retake control of Congress. The tariff decision exposes the dishonesty of their plan.
Democratic strategist James Carville recently cut away the pretense: “I’m going to tell you what’s going to happen,” he said. “A Democrat is going to be elected in 2028. You know that. I know that. … They’re going to recommend that the number of Supreme Court justices go from nine to 13. That’s going to happen, people.”
It is all about power and radically changing our political system. It does not matter that the Supreme Court continues to rule unanimously or near-unanimously in most cases. It also does not matter that the court continues to rule both for and against the president based on the precedent, not the politics, of cases.
For some, this decision is one of the most resounding demonstrations of the court’s continued independence. But if these Democratic politicians and pundits have their way, that independence may not last much longer.
Jonathan Turley is a law professor and author of the New York Times bestseller “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”
“I am the one that makes the decision [to declare war]” by Donald J. Trump.
That’s what Trump said this week on Truth Social, apparently not realizing only Congress can declare war on Iran or any other nation.
Trump has no such authority under Article II powers, he is required to obtain permission from Congress.
No, he did NOT say he makes the decision “to declare war”. That is your own invention, in square brackets. He didn’t say it. So what are you on about?
He said he makes the decision whether to attack Iran. And yes, he does. He does NOT need Congress’s permission. Congress has only the power to DECLARE war, not the power to decide whether it should be fought. A declaration of war is unnecessary; most wars are never declared, by either side. The first war the USA fought was never declared, and yet the courts ruled that a state of war existed anyway. The USA was in combat, so it was irrelevant whether anyone had declared anything.
Trump’s Dubious Crypto Holdings
People in Iran gained access to more than 1,500 accounts on the Binance platform during 2024. About $1.7 billion had flowed from two Binance accounts to Iranian entities with links to terrorist groups, a possible violation of global sanctions. And one of those accounts belonged to a Binance vendor.
Binance, the world’s largest venue for crypto trading, has continued to find evidence of potential legal violations on its platform, even after it pleaded guilty to breaking anti-money-laundering laws in 2023.
But internal warnings about the Iranian transactions surfaced last year, in the months before President Trump granted a pardon to Binance’s founder, Changpeng Zhao, who had spent four months in federal prison in 2024 for his role in the firm’s crimes. The Trump family’s crypto start-up, World Liberty Financial, has forged close business ties with Binance, and Mr. Zhao was a guest this month at a conference at Mar-a-Lago, Mr. Trump’s club in Palm Beach, Fla.
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/23/technology/binance-employees-iran-firings.html?unlocked_article_code=1.OVA.0fwL.4HKOp6BnYRQT&smid=nytcore-android-share
………………………………
Trump went his own way on tariffs, creating a big mess. Crypto could become a much bigger mess. Why did Trump pardon Changpeng Zhao? And should the president be investing in speculative currencies? Should two convicted felons, Trump and Zhao, be allowed to fraternalize?
You say lot word when few better.
You ask questions like you already know. why don’t you just tell us?
insincere that’s why
. Presidents Carter, Bush, Obama and Trump have used IEEPA. It has been used 77 times and 46 of those are ongoing from Russia an Ukraine and Iran to Venezuela and Mexico, China and others. National security threats including threats to the economy and cyber threats are appropriate uses.
Trump must make an announcement to do that. You’re hereby reprimanded. Announcements can be difficult regarding NS.
FYI
. There is no need to wait for SCOTUS opinions. Just Google the question. For upcoming SCOTUS opinion on citizenship just google–> 4 ways to become a citizen of the US. Google renders answers by popular opinion and not necessarily truth. The reason perhaps regular forces becomes problematic as in call in the marines before NG guard. ☺
Have a good one. Read all directions on shampoo bottle before use.
None of them EVER used it to impose tariffs. That’s because it doesn’t authorize tariffs.
Neither did the TWEA in its day. Nixon did not use it to impose his tariffs. The common claim that he did is not true. He relied for his tariffs entirely on the ordinary trade agreements that were in force at the time, and only came up with the TWEA justification when he lost the court case, and it looked like he was going to lose the appeal as well. Then he pulled the TWEA out of a hat. And the appeals court only upheld it on the basis that the tariffs had already expired anyway, so the only outstanding issue was refunds. The appeals court, with dubious ethics, decided to uphold it on a one-time basis only, so the USA could save billions in refunding the stolen money.
Scale and Impact: In fiscal year 2023, the estimated retail value of seized counterfeit watches, jewelry, handbags, wallets, and apparel from China and Hong Kong was approximately $1.86 billion. The total value of all seized counterfeit goods by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) in 2024 was estimated at $5.4 billion if they had been genuine.
This kind of theft is happening year after year. This number does not include the billions in knockoffs of American invented products. Now we are going to have to wait years for the Congress to act.
Now the left is declaring oh happy days. Anti American derangement syndrome (AADS) is a blue state malady.
Tariffs do nothing about counterfeits or knockoffs. They were also applied to ally countries. Canada, for example.
“Now we are going to have to wait years for the Congress to act.”
Since those *counterfeit* products were seized, that is clearly not true.
Besides, what do *counterfeit* products have to do with tariffs?
So China produces a knock off that pits an American company out of business.
Intellectual property is not accepted by the Chinese.
They wait until a product has reached five million in sales and then they sweep in and sell the knock off at under the cost of production driving the original designer out of business.
If you think that we are not at war with China you are very naive.
Knock offs and Fentanyl is what we get.
How do we retaliate if not through tariffs?
If we wait for Congress to react when it happens there will be cobwebs growing around our long buried skeletons. It’s flabbergasting. Other nations can put tariffs on American goods but we can’t do the same. When does the bending over ever stop.
There is a contingent on the American Left, maybe all of it, that sides with China in that war. They don’t want us to retaliate because they want us to lose the war. The woke globalists would prefer is America, and Western Civilization in general, were to collapse and burn, so they can rebuild the world in their (communist) image.
See the socialist Mayor of New York City as a living testament.
Minnesota Governor Tim Walz has a long, documented history of travel to China, beginning with a year-long teaching stint in 1989-1990. He estimated making roughly 30 trips to the country, often leading educational student trips. You can hear the thunderous clapping now that their favorite nation will no longer be required to pay American tariffs.
Tariffs aren’t a retaliation against a foreign country. They are a punishment for American consumers for buying foreign goods. Since fentanyl isn’t tariffed there is no cost to American consumers for buying it. Knock-offs are another matter – the originals are usually made in China, so tariffs affect those as well.
If the goal is to restrict imports then one can simply embargo those goods that are a problem. The goods are no longer imported and there is no collection of taxes on them by Trump.
The majority of tariffs by other countries are graduated. For example, on American rice imports into Japan the tariff is something like $2.30–$2.38/kg. However it only applies after a quota of 770,000 tons annually that are imported at low tariffs or duty free.
The Trump claim is that the flow of money has to be equal and thinks that getting Americans to pay more to Trump for the imbalance is the fix.
Suckers.
Tariffs a “punishment” for consumers? Congrats on the most idiotic left wing Trump derangement talking point in history. The Left loved
S corporate taxes, like corporate income taxes, which also raise prices on consumers. But tariffs, the only corporate taxes imposed on foreigners and designed to serve the national interest, are bad. That’s moronic commie talk.
“But tariffs, the only corporate taxes *imposed on foreigners* . . .” (emphasis added)
You have an astounding ignorance of how tariffs work. They are *not* paid by foreigners. They are paid by *American* companies and their customers. Tariffs are a *domestic* tax, not a foreign tax.
“Tariffs a “punishment” for consumers”
Not in a free market full of fair competition. That’s the point: If a tariff hurts you, you’ve been engaging in a non-free unfair market.
Making markets free and productive used to be “The American Way”. Trump’s working on it.
“Tariffs aren’t a retaliation against a foreign country. ”
False – see the law of supply and demand, when the price goes up demand goes down.
“They are a punishment for American consumers for buying foreign goods.”
in some but not all instances.
As noted above – if prices go up – demand goes down. Tarriffs sometimes increase the price consumers pay, but the market works extremely hard not to increase the price and reduce demand – that can easily lead to a death spiral – lower demand increase the cost to produce, raising the price further, and lowering demand further. To the extent possible sellors will avoid raising prices if they can, and even if they can not they will try to keep price increases small. In addition to reducing deamdn – higher prices attract more competition – particularly competition that is not subject to the tariff. So again there are strong incentives not to increase prices.
Today chinese manufacturers only have about a 15% competitive advantage at the US retail location in most cases.
This is why before tariffs manufacturing was atlast partly returning to the US. 15% is often nto enough of an advantage for the problems with over seas suppliers and complicated logistics chains.
I have not seen significant price increases in the chinese goods that I buy.
Finally – tariffs are a tax – all taxes are bad, but they are necescary evils.
Tariffs are among the LEAST bad forms of taxation. Property taxes, taxes on profits, taxes on capital gains taxes on upper margin income are all much worse.
Further Tariffs are a mostly avoidable tax – do not buy foreign goods and you need not pay the tax.
Trump should go to congress and propose they impliment a Flat 20% tariff on all foreign imports and get rid of all income taxes on people earning less than 250K/yr – that is about 95% of tax payers. Most people would not have to file a tar return.
Further this would dampen the enthusiasm for government freebies – as people would KNOW the money was coming from their pockets.
The SCOTUS ruling was constitutionally correct.
That does NOT mean the tariffs were a bad idea.
“The majority of tariffs by other countries are graduated. ”
Some are – please provide evidence that the majority are.
Further despite jeers over Trump’s tariff calculus – the fact is that foreign nations do ALOT of different things to advantage their own goods.
Tariffs are ONE thing, subsidies are another.
While I am not concerned about the trade deficit as Trump is – it is still true that much of the world makes it hard to sell US products in their countries.
“The Trump claim is that the flow of money has to be equal”
It doesn;t.
“and thinks that getting Americans to pay more to Trump for the imbalance is the fix.”
All policies have winners and losers – Tariffs have many goals – raising taxes is one, Benefiting domestic production is another.
Benefiting US exports is another.
Much of your analysis presumes all of this is zero sum – it is not.
The principles of price economics – the laws of supply and demand are pretty simple.
But how they actually work in the real world is NOT – and it Definitely is NOT zero sum.
a ‘punishment’ for Americans?… So, our main competitor, China, is happy about Trump’s tariffs then? IS china happy about them?
Go ask your supervisor and let us know what they say. If he just tells you to get back to your keyboard, report that also.
“So China produces . . .”
At best, you’ve made an argument for tariffs on *China*. In fact, there’s a good argument for a complete embargo on China.
But what about the rest of the world?
“Other nations can put tariffs on American goods . . .”
Since when is “other nations do it” an argument that America should do it? Do you also want to extend that “argument” to free speech?
That describes how both Amazon and Walmart work against small American companies and manufacturers.
The importers who file claims may end up like the dog who caught the car.
To properly claim reimbursement, they should and likely will be required to produce a host of business records and economic data that may make the tariff reimbursement more painful than it was worth. Assume a widget imported from China:
– What was the price of the widget paid by that importer BEFORE application of the IEEPA tariff?
– What was the dollar – renminbi exchange rate in those transactions?
– What was the form of payment? What were the terms of payment and/or financing?
– Did the importer receive any rebates, special incentives, or preferential terms on this or other products?
– What were the shipping rates? Insurance rates? Freight forwarding fees? Lease terms on shipping containers?
– Did the importer pass the entire regular tariff through to the domestic purchaser?
Now repeat for the transactions on which reimbursement is claimed.
Were there any changes? Were those changes things of monetary or nonmonetary value that should be offset against any reimbursement? There are myriad ways in which all involved in the transaction could and likely did “take a haircut” to share in the additional cost of the IEEPA tariffs to reduce the price effects of the tariffs. It is in all parties’ interests to continue to sell lots of widgets in the US market.
If the importer of record claims full reimbursement of the IEEPA tariffs, but had already received offsets for the cost of those tariffs in various ways, the claimant could run afoul of federal false claims rules.
Further, did the importer of record who paid the IEEPA tariff charge pass the entire cost through to their customers? Or did their customers pass through the cost to THEIR customers? Wouldn’t a tariff reimbursement to a claimant who had been fully compensated constitute an unjust enrichment, perhaps void as against public policy?
What if the transaction was between/among related parties? Billions of dollars in trade occurs between and among related parties — who may have imported our widget from China to machine it into a structural element in the United States to re-export to Mexico or Canada to manufacture a subassembly and re-import into the United States for final assembly. The impact of an additional 10% or 20% tariff on one part gets lost, spread thin and absorbed throughout the process. How should that be accounted in the calculation of reimbursement?
Should be fun.
They have a record of the amount of tariffs paid. This is all the documentation they need. None of the rest of that matters. The government took money it was not entitled to take and has to give it back to the entity/person who paid it.
Trump, however, will make excuses about why they should not, much like any other criminal who has stolen cash wants to not give it back.
No it is not nearly that simple. If they twisted the arms of suppliers to cover all or part of the cost of Tariffs then the fact that they paid the tariff does not change the fact they were not harmed.
If the passed the price increase to consumers – they were not harmed.
You are pretending that economics is a trivial zero sum game – it NEVER is.
It doesn’t matter if they were harmed or not. They were strong-armed into paying an illegal tax.
By analogy: just because your buddy has parents who replaced his car that you stole and wrecked doesn’t mean you should not pay back your buddy for the damages you did to his property. Whether he pays his parents back or not it’s your financial responsibility to compensate him for the damage of your conduct.
Despite the attitude, Anon of 11:56 PM is correct. The bottom line is simply that the USA collected money to which it was not entitled. It must now return the stolen money.
It’s not as if it was not prepared for this. The plaintiffs in this case wanted an injunction, and the administration swore up and down that there was no need for one because if it lost the plaintiffs could simply get a refund, no harm no foul. It can’t now raise objections to that.
Milhouse – I will be happy to bet that does not happen.
not entitled to is not the same as stolen, regardless – if so from whom ? Just because the importer wrote the check does not mean they are the party that was harmed.
The plantiffs did not get an injunction because injunctions are not appropriate where the harm is monetary.
That does not change the fact that even if you win the case as they have, there still must be hearings on damages – and damages must be proven. I wrote a check is NOT enough.
More Turley fearmongering. Trump literally was told he did something unconstitutional – and yet Turley seems to find a way to write an entire post about how the Democrats are actually the ones doing something wrong (or WILL do something wrong) as a result of this entire Trump-made debacle. Turley is a broken record – always stuck in the same groove – fueling that rage that he loves to complain about. Pathetic.
Turley is doing what he is paid to do. Give him $100 Million and a private island and he won’t write another word.
1. It doesn’t matter what Trump was “literally told”. Anyone can tell anyone anything; no one is required to act on that advice. The administration had a reading of the statute that it believed was correct; the court found that it was wrong. That is no different than any other case the government loses — something that happened regularly to 0bama and Biden.
2. I don’t know who you think “told” Trump that the tariffs were unconstitutional, but whoever that was was wrong. The court did NOT find the tariffs unconstitutional. It couldn’t, because there was no such claim before it. The plaintiffs didn’t think they were unconstitutional.
It’s obvious from even a cursory glance at the constitution that tariffs are perfectly constitutional, and Congress can impose them at whatever rate it likes, or it can authorize the president to do so. The problem here was that it hadn’t done so. It authorized him to regulate imports and exports, but not to tax them. It could have said “or tax” and that would have been fine. Trump thought that taxing could be considered a kind of regulation; the court said no. That’s all. No constitutional issues involved.
Milhouse, commies always do as they are told without question so that is why they assume the world works that way. Unconstitutional? as if commies suddenly love our constituition that imparts individual rights.
Trump unconstitutionally applied a tax that Congress didn’t authorize.
Trump didn’t think that taxation is regulation and he didn’t ask if it was before doing this.
Trump is told by some he is acting unconstitutionally if he crosses the street.
Trump has won nearly all cases claiming he was acting unconstitutionally
While he propoerly lost this case – it is still perfectly reasonable for Trump to beleive that those who allways tell him what he is doing is unconstitutional and nearly always were wrong, were wrong in this case.
Put differently – this is not some moral failure. It is one bit of bad advice in 100 bits of good advice.
Trump is also going to lose the Birth Right Citizenship case – though I will bet that SCOTUS is just going to say Trump can not change citizenship law by Executive order. They are NOT going to resolve the question of whether eliminating Birth Right Citizenship is unconstitutional.
Unless congress does it, they do not have to.
” it is still perfectly reasonable for Trump to beleive that those who allways tell him what he is doing is unconstitutional and nearly always were wrong, were wrong in this case.”
Though I lean to the side of the majority of the SC, I recognize that 3 justices did not. I don’t presently have all the facts, so those three justices prove that Trump had legal justification, but not enough.
The points that stick in my mind are the laws passed by Congress, which permit the President to act if imports threaten national security or to act against unfair trade practices by foreign nations. Congress created an opening and as usual Congress sits by as an observer failing to use the powers they were given. and leaving it up to the President and the Courts.
The increased deficit is solely the responsibility of the Trump administration.
He could have petitioned Congress to pass them, making full use of his eloquence and powers of persuasion, and there would have been no basis to challenge those tax increases on Americans.
The money must be taken from current and future taxpayers and returned to the individuals it was taken from illegally.
. You lack citizen capacity to vote, Sean.
Professor Turley,
How did the plaintiffs have standing to challenge the application of the tariff in the first instance?
These additional tariffs were not imposed through a special mechanism like antidumping or countervailing duties. The IEEPA tariffs applied generally to all products from an identified country, and were paid by those importers of record who chose to import from that country in full knowledge of an additional tariff. The importers suffered no more particularized harm than any taxpayer who chooses to work knowing of the income tax.
As is his wont, in the face of controversy the Chief found yet another regulatory policy to be a tax. Why should tax standing rules not apply to this context?
The thief is not entitled to keep the stolen property even if the person held at gunpoint handed it over without a fight.
Dope, that’s just stupid. A very dopey argument. Any taxpayer has standing to challenge any tax that affects him. Who do you think brings all the cases that are heard about income tax law? Taxpayers. Who brought the suit against taxing income derived from property, that led to the 16th amendment? Property owners who were expected to pay it. If there’s a tax on gasoline then anyone who drives has standing to challenge it. That’s how standing works. I don’t understand how you could possibly think otherwise.
Hi, Milhouse, you should really try to educate yourself.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-3/section-2/clause-1/standing-requirement-taxpayer-standing
Contrary to the Chief Justice’s opinion, the essence of the IEEPA tariffs was not as a tax, but rather as an instrument of foreign and domestic economic policy. The Trump administration has made no secret of its objectives to re-industrialize the US economy. Nor has the administration been shy about denouncing unfair trade practices that advantage exports to the United State or disadvantage US exports to those countries. Nor has the administration been reluctant to complain about the cost of US security commitments to maintain international peace and stability as well as to keep the sea lanes open (e.g., the Red Sea), from which our allies and trading partners benefit economically as well as in terms of their own security.
The primary purpose for the tariffs was induce changes in foreign government policies through negotiation. This assertion is proven by the administration’s immediate entry into negotiations that led to the reduction of the initial tariff levels in exchange for concessions by the foreign government. Had the tariffs been primarily for revenue purposes, as should any assessment deemed a “tax,” the administration would not have been so willing to reduce them.
Secondarily, the tariffs were intended to compensate the United States for the cost of its (over)extended security commitments that redound to the benefit of our allies and trading partners. This novel approach in US trade policy that has not gotten sufficient attention. To put it in Trumpian terms, “we pay for your security, you should give us something of value back in compensation.”
The initial Liberation Day tariffs were calibrated in the first instance according to the administration’s analysis of the trade costs of unfair policies imposed by the various foreign governments on US commerce. Beyond the trade analysis, the administration added a factor to reflect the costs of providing security to that government. This element of the negotiation-triggering tariffs took the IEEPA tariffs from the realm of revenue-producing “taxes” to foreign policy.
Thirdly, the tariffs were intended to promote re-industrialization of the US economy. Protective tariffs serve to offset disadvantages in cost of production for domestic producers vis-a-vis foreign competitors. Further, in a global economy, a tariff wall induces foreign direct investment into the United States by causing erstwhile foreign exporters to the United States build factories in the United States rather than attempt to compete in the US market over the higher tariff wall. This dynamic is well understood and proven over time. For example, the large influx of foreign investment by foreign automobile producers in the 1980s was in response to threatened and actual trade disruptions by domestic automobile and parts producers.
All of these core, defining elements of the IEEPA tariffs remove them from the realm of revenue-producing taxes — even though they might produce revenue — into the realms of foreign policy as well as domestic economic policy. While Trump certainly boasted about the revenues received from the tariffs, courts are — or were — supposed to be more sophisticated in their analysis that newspaper copy and political rhetoric. Legal standing to challenge elements of foreign or domestic economic policy on the basis of being a taxpayer is much more limited than standing to challenge a tax as a payer thereof.
I have not dug into the record of this litigation to see if this argument was offered below, and I was curious if Professor Turley might respond. I am not in the least interested in your response, Milhouse, but thanks for playing.
It is ironic that the Chief Justice chose to write this “is it tax or policy” analysis after his sophistic Obamacare decision. You might recall that, in the Obamacare ruling, the Chief Justice conceded that the individual mandate, enforced by a fine, would have been unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause. But he instead ruled the individual mandate as constitutional on the grounds that the fine was assessed in tax forms and collected by the IRS — not to mention that the Obama Administration had taken to calling the fine a tax after describing it as “not a tax” during the congressional debate. The Chief Justice relied in his reasoning on the rule of interpretation favoring the constitutionality of a statute if such an interpretation is available. The Chief Justice did not extend such grace in this instance.
. This may be a stupid question but– when was the last time congress actually directly set tariffs in exercising their authority under article 1 section 8? George Washington did under the Hamilton Tarriff to protect start up American business and labor and to raise revenue. In contemporary time when has congress set tariffs? It can’t be delegated don’t forget … that would skew the balance of power?
Idk
Yes, it can be delegated. Where did you get the idea that it couldn’t be? The non-delegation doctrine only requires a guiding principle, and this has one.
Kash Patel was rushed to Walter Reed National Military Medical Center on Monday after suffering what an FBI spokesman called the “severe trauma” of flying coach.
Patel had been planning to take the FBI’s Gulfstream G550 jet to a date-night rendezvous with his girlfriend, country singer Alexis Wilkins, but balked when he saw Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth at the cockpit controls.
Booked onto a Spirit Airlines flight instead, Patel was reportedly already in a state of acute distress when a baby seated next to him projectile vomited on his signature FBI raid jacket.
A just-released New York Times/Siena College poll shows Patel’s job approval at 13 percent, and the baby’s at 89 percent.
So funny I forgot to laugh. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
This is an obvious lie. No no quotes, no sources, no citations.
BAN FOR LIFE!
Was this supposed to be funny? Don’t give up your day job. The Babylon Bee has actual comedy; your attempt is just pathetic.
The US Women’s Olympic Hockey team declines Trump’s invitation to attend the SOTU speech
Women are going to save this country.
I have no doubt about this.
Not the least bit shocked women are stepping up in this.
If the men’s team had any decency, they’d decline in solidarity with them.
I mean come on.
If I was invited to a speech given by a felon, rapist, pedophile who recently stole $175 billion from the American people I wouldn’t even have to think about it.
Yet more Trump Derangement Syndrome mental illness that pollutes the comment section hear.
Lots of lies and exaggerations eh anon? Try quotes.
Like Lillian Hellman’s writing, every word in that comment was a lie.
The team rep stated, “other obligations”… like college, jobs etc. Another SF.
Actually, I think they all needed to wash their hair.
LOSER ANON!!
Grammar: “this” refers to what? Indirect ancillary requires “that”. Since no quotes, its determined to be 3rd person, thus – that.
Thanks
What’s a woman?
other obligations as they stated. SF.
They all had to urgently wash their hair
Priorities !!!!!
BAN FOR LIFE!
Wash that man right out of their hair!
The US Women’s Olympic Hockey team declines Trump’s invitation to attend the SOTU speech
Screw them. He should never have invited them. They don’t deserve it. A bunch of unpatriotic louts.
Tariffs have multiple purposes that serve national security and the national interest. The US has the largest market in the world, and so businesses in foreign countries naturally want access to it. That gives us leverage which can be exercised through tariffs, as a negotiating chip, and for national revenue purposes, which is no small matter. Tariffs also serve the national interest in having a solid manufacturing base in-country, as well as the ability to grow the food we need if our sources of exported food ever get cut off due to hostilities. It does benefit national security in that regard, to be self-sufficient.
The down side is the cost. It interferes with the free market’s price mechanism in which resources are channeled to their highest and best use. That is a tradeoff that is inevitable in a world where hostiliites exist and it is impossible to predict with certainty that a particular foreign nation will never use its supply of some product as a weapon against us. The national government must keep all these factors in mind.
As for who pays the monetary cost: that depends on market forces such as the price elasticity of demand, which in turn depends on whether there are good home-made or home-grown substitutes. All these things feed into the “tax incidence” of the tariff (i.e., the person who bears the final economic burden of a tax often differs from who legally pays it), which is different for different goods:
https://libertystreeteconomics.newyorkfed.org/2025/06/are-businesses-absorbing-the-tariffs-or-passing-them-on-to-their-customers/
Excerpt: About three-quarters of businesses facing tariff-induced cost increases in both the manufacturing and service sectors passed along at least some of these higher costs to their customers by raising prices. Almost a third of manufacturers and about 45 percent of service firms reported fully passing along all tariff-related cost increases, while 45 percent of manufacturers and a third of service firms said they passed along some but not all of the cost increase. At the other end of the spectrum, roughly a quarter of both types of firms said they absorbed all tariff-related cost increases and were not raising their prices.
*imported food
Yes, let us all hope for the American coffee industry. Oh, wait, coffee plants don’t do well in the climate anywhere in America. Maybe there can be a soy-based imitation coffee.
Like coffee is the only agricultural product in the world. Idiot. Yeah beta male soy boys like you would like the imitation stuff, and insist it be decaffeinated. Pathetic moron.
American companies pay Trump’s import taxes, and they either pass the tax hike along to American consumers or they suck it up and cut their spending and hiring. And you find this to be just a-okay.
It’s not a matter of “a-okay” or “not a-okay.” It’s not that simple. There is a tradeoff, or a balancing, of competing policy goals.
Domestic production and jobs are boosted when imports are more expensive. Domestic production of necessary goods and services also serve the national interest. OTOH, consumer prices go up and the free market’s price-signal system is disrupted. I covered all of that in my comment.
The policy question is whether the good that occurs from the tariffs outweigh the bad. In the world we live in, you cannot realistically pretend that tariffs are “all bad and no good,” or “all good and no bad.” Again, it’s not that simple.
Yes, old man, it is simple. Tariffs are always bad. Read The Wealth of Nations, or almost any economics text published since then. As Milton Friedman said, this is the one issue on which all economists, from right to left, are united. Protectionism is bad, but politicians are addicted to it.
Also, don’t overlook that tariffs – especially reciprocal tariffs – can be used as a tactic to get other countries to lower their tariffs, which opens up markets for American-made goods, thereby inducing American companies to hire more American workers.
. Are citizens competent to vote when laws are written for experts? Listen Schumer gleaning dissatisfaction over this lying to people already confused. Where’s Olly with citizen capacity? Smh
Can you just STFU for once.
. Sure, thanks for the reminder.
Other countries use tariffs to protect certain industries that they already have and are concerned about losing.
The typical limitation is because people in those countries want the protection.
No one in America was begging for spending 400% more on coffee for which there is no domestic industry to protect.
Eventually it will be realized that Trump wanted a source of funding that did not require Congressional approval so he could operate without concern about laws that Congress passes. His expressed intention to send $10B to the peace foundation that he is solely in control of is the sort of action he wants to take.
A tariff is not a tax. Try this. Not all importers paid tariffs.
Pure idiocy. Tariffs are an import tax. You might as well say rape is not a crime.
Yes, a tariff is a tax. That’s what the word tariff means.
China lover ANON!!
Yes,
All policies have winners and losers.
It is often possible for there to be far fewer winners than losers. In this case 300 Million Americans lost due to Trump’s tariffs and about 10 were winners due to insider deal making.
Really? You just plagiarized, apart from the fact you add nothing to the current news cycle by including stolen material.
In other words, almost 100% of tariffs are paid by Americans. Either by reduced profits and decreased competitiveness by the importer or out of consumer pockets. It’s a tax paid by Americans. Even passing the cost along damages the importer who sees reduced demand due to higher prices without an increase in product value.
Tariffs are sometimes used to protect domestic industries, but the across-the-board treatment doesn’t do that. America closed out large sections of the vertical manufacturing. There is no interest in making an investment into restarting all those sections because the prices will rise to match those of the imports, making the investment worthless.
Here is a puzzle about the tariffs decision.
Six justices held that the major questions doctrine did not apply, the three liberals and the three conservative dissenters. So the MQD should have been taken off the table.
Six justices appear to have held that under ordinary principles of statutory interpretation, the President has the power to tariff under IEEPA. The three conservative dissenters stated this explicitly. The other three conservatives must have concluded that way as well, because if they had agreed with the liberal justices that the President did not have the power under ordinary principles of statutory interpretation, they would not have had to invoke the MQD to get to that result.
So there was a majority for the judgment only if you ignore the two majorities regarding the main legal interpretive issues discussed in the opinions.
Regardless, Trump has demonstrated his incompetence. His approach to tariffs was based on a simplistic formula drawn from trade deficit and surplus data. For example, because Japan buys less from the U.S. than we buy from them, he concluded they’re “ripping us off.” This is fundamentally misguided. There’s a reason the U.S. imports more than other countries—we are the wealthiest nation, consuming 25% of the world’s resources despite making up only 4.5% of the world’s population. It’s a concept that should be understandable to any fifth grader, but he fails to grasp it.
Furthermore, Trump imposed tariffs impulsively, using them as a tool for retaliation against countries that disagree with him. There’s no coherent economic strategy behind it. And when the Supreme Court doesn’t rule in his favor, he insults them. His actions are proof of his incompetence and his inability to effectively promote his policies. You can analyze the SCOTUS cases all you want, but the truth is that Trump is a failure—he loses in court, whether it’s in cases like his rape trial or immigration disputes—because he’s simply out of his depth.
CCP LOVER ANON!! Trump was stopping the U.S being ripped off by tariffs from foreign countries! 1 TRILLION trade deficit per year!!
INCOHERENT/INCOMPETENT ANON!!
So your solution to the trade deficit is to impoverish americans so we buy less elsewhere ?
Many poor nations import more than the export – your analysis is shallow and frankly wrong.
Western Sahara and Etriea both import more than they export.
A country generally imports products it can buy elsewhere cheaper than it can produce
If trump was against tariffs, I doubt you’d be arguing for them.
Of course he wouldn’t be. John Say is a consistent and intelligent person, and doesn’t tailor his opinions to what Trump says or doesn’t say. Trump is right about a lot of things, but he’s wrong on this one.
. It’s the ability to future think, anon, instead of instant gratification.
Trump isn’t trying to win in the conventional sense. He’s a vandal destroying what he can and has already won and will continue to win with every other damage done. If he can, and has, lined his pockets in the process, he has found a double reward.
. ^^^ Dan, known as a big mess
Not a puzzle. Maybe to you. You obviously, you sound confused with basic judicial concepts.
How pray tell will an accountant decipher the tariff impacts on any particular transaction. If those wanting supposed refunds, they will need the accounting of every transaction from initial seller to final sale to show what supposed harm the tariffs had. Another difficulty they may have, did they in turn raise their pricing? Gee’s there are so many variables in the equation: did the manufacture, wholesaler, jobber, warehouse, distributor or retailer raise prices due to tariffs increases, without even considering the raw materials supplier needed by the manufacture. Taking Chilean Copper or Canadian Timber to a United States Manufacturer is simple equation but what portion of a tariff increased if any did, they add to their pricing. Making it a little more complicated a Canadian Copper parts manufacture buys the Copper then ships the parts to United States this scenario poses the question who was impacted and by how much.
Does the President have authority to manage Tariff’s, I personally don’t think so under the consideration as presented, but what President Trump has proposed and done is of utmost importance to the future of America. The democrats preach FREETRADE over and over but have always been blind to the reality where the United States takes it on the chin. There has been, and still are, instances where the same commodity category is exported/imported without equalization of fees/duties/taxes. The way trade agreements will now have to be negotiated is non-functional, its layers any agreement to a cadre political zealots. How to get around the tax issue, I do believe the President could enter into an agreement under the auspices of diplomatic relations not requiring Senate ratification. ‘As long as I’m president, to retain peace between us, you pay what I pay, how’s about that you say.’
WTO/ITC Global trade tariffs 2025 world_tariff_profiles25_e.pdf
https:/www.wto.org/English/res_e/boolsp_e/world_tariff_profiles255_e._pd_f
We’ll all get a tax break.
There is a record of the tariff transaction of the amount and who paid it and what rule it was paid under.
If they ruled your electric bill had an illegal line item charge you would look at your bill and see that line item and how much it was.
It is up to the importer who paid the tariff to decide how much of a refund to pass along to their customers. Modern accounting already handles LIFO or FIFO to determine cost basis for income tax purposes; this is applied the same.
“There is a record . . .”
Good reply.
Some here are muddling the refund issue, in an attempt to rationalize the government keeping wealth looted from American companies and consumers.
How pray tell will an accountant decipher the tariff impacts on any particular transaction.
There’s no need to do any of that. It’s very simple: “Here’s the unlawful tax invoice I received, and here’s the receipt for my payment. Pay it back now, with interest.” What the taxpayer did to try to recoup his losses, whether he managed to pass it on to his customers or whatever, is completely irrelevant. He’s entitled to a full refund of every penny he paid, plus interest, and he’s also entitled to keep whatever he got from raising his prices, just as he could at any time.
. Penny wise, pound foolish
Did anyone notice that ~half the Supreme Court decided that the Supreme Court was incorrect and erroneous, which can only mean that the law was corrupted by the Supreme Court?
Imagine that.
I mean, it’s circular, incestuous, and perverted.
Especially when you consider that there is ever only one possible “manifest tenor” to a law.
Decisions must always be 9 – 0 lest those decisions be partial and deviant.
_________________________________________________________________________________
“…courts…must…declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.”
“…men…do…what their powers do not authorize, [and] what [their powers] forbid.”
__________________________________________________________________________________________
“[A] limited Constitution … can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing … To deny this would be to affirm … that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”
– Alexander Hamilton
What on earth are you babbling about?
The Democratic Party usually loves taxes. Amazing it celebrates this decision.
And then there’s that.
Communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs, AINOs) will always be in need of other people’s money to unconstitutionally redistribute to their favorite parasites.
“Oh, Suzy Q!”
You have a problem there anon. Communists are a distinct and separate category of social systems. Sorry, can’t enlighten you further. But take a stab at some serious research.
Clearly you need to be redirected to the Theoretical Physics Department.
. There is a thing called premium, superior products as exports. Exports should be examined, too. So stupid..
No, they’re not.
@suzy1951
Oh, that’s just because they aren’t ‘their’ taxes, and they don’t have the license to then do whatever they with with our money. The modern DNC do not care about the country or its citizens – just the DNC themselves, and whatever it takes to keep them in power. That is something long considered for me, not a whiplash response.
They went way too far in the years they had full control of Congress, and they are never getting any trust back. I am at the point where, as a person that did formerly vote for dems, I’m fairly certain if dems are celebrating something, it’s just an avenue for them to further exploit and dismantle to the detriment of anyone that cares about personal autonomy or freedom in general. They want a communist society, and they think they should be in charge of it. Allusions to Russian interference are a laugh riot. And even if that were the case, all eyes would be on China, not Russia.
It’s something I think pi$$es them off to no end about Vance – he actually DID come from modest upbringings and pulled himself up, and is smart, and articulate. They were given pacifiers by nannies and are lucky if their parents even know their names.
James,
“The modern DNC do not care about the country or its citizens – just the DNC themselves, and whatever it takes to keep them in power.”
An excellent observation as we have seen from all the grift from the USAID and NGOs DODGE uncovered and then latter in MN with all the fraud that Democrats turned a blind eye to, to keep the grift going.
By their words and to a degree by their actions they have come right out and said their desired end state is to pack the SC, add two more states that will lean Democrat and thereby guarantee Republicans will never win an election again. One. Party. Rule. THEIRS. With them in charge.
Funny you mention Vance. And whom do they hold up as their down trodden, blue collar worker who over came her challenging socio-economic past to go on to become a Congresswoman?
AOC.
And Republicans claim to hate taxes. Yet they celebrate Trump’s massive tariff-tax.
Can you represent us in a class action suit against every company who gets a refund? They should be required to pass the refund on to the consumer. I’m sure they know where every penny came from.
There’s a problem with your premise. Unless you, the business, paid the tariff, yo have no claim. Thus no need for a lawyer.
That’s stupid. Why on earth should any vendor ever have to give any customer a refund on the price they willingly paid for a product? The vendor said “This is the price”, and the customer said “Yes, I will buy at that price”. End of story. No tax has anything to do with it.
That the vendor’s reason for raising the price in the first place was that he’d been hit with an illegal tax bill is irrelevant. The customer doesn’t care about the vendor’s finances, he only cares what the product is worth to him, and whether that exceeds the price charged.
This morning the European Union paused any trade deal with the USA, because Trump destabilized the markets again. Now some American markets are down also.
Businesses need stability in trade deals with the USA and Trump is instead creating chaos, so many investors are afraid to invest longterm in anything.
Maybe this is why the Founding Fathers gave Congress sole authority to impose tariff-taxes and gave “0” authority to presidents to tax anyone? Businesses won’t invest longterm unless there is stability in the economy.
EW!
Meanwhile, foreign countries suck the money from America in massive trade deficits to enrich themselves; for crying out loud, China couldn’t even feed itself a few short years ago.
Somebody is very stupid.
Oh, yeah, it’s the global communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs, and AINOs).
We know the Supreme Court doesn’t want to Make America Great Again!
Foreign countries are not sucking money from America in massive trade deficits to enrich themselves.
You make it sound like a bank robbery where the US loses money and gets nothing in return
The reality is that the money leaving the US is payment for goods of value received in return. It is the money that changes hands between willing US importers who pay foreign companies for goods and services rendered.
It is a perfectly rational exchange where both parties are in agreement.
The fact that US companies buy more from foreign countries than they do from the US can not be characterized as sucking money from America.
The fact that foreign companies can produce goods at prices lower than American producers, means that the most rational decision is to import products.
The father of modern economics, Adam Smith said, “nations and companies should not attempt to produce goods internally if they can be acquired more cheaply from others.”
The fact that America is able to buy more products from foreigners than they can buy from us is a sign of American strength, not weakness.
“Foreign countries are not sucking money from America in massive trade deficits to enrich themselves.”
Of course they are and that is exactly what you would expect – Trump talks of America First – do you think the any other nation does NOT put their own interests FIRST ?
Left wing nuts maniacally believe that the US should not seek the interest of the american people above all.
But it is self interest that makes both the local and global economy work.
We Know that from each according to their ability to each according to their need results in poverty and blood.
“You make it sound like a bank robbery where the US loses money and gets nothing in return”
No just other nations acting in their own self interests.
“The reality is that the money leaving the US is payment for goods of value received in return. It is the money that changes hands between willing US importers who pay foreign companies for goods and services rendered.
It is a perfectly rational exchange where both parties are in agreement.”
Correct. ALL free exchange works that way – willing buyer, and willing sellor trading value for value.
But that is not the issue being discussed.
The issue is whether the policies of a foreign government – NOT the individual actors in foreign trade.
Act to advantage their own country over others – and the answer is OF COURSE THEY DO.
“The fact that US companies buy more from foreign countries than they do from the US can not be characterized as sucking money from America.”
Of course it can. While the extent to which that is actually harmful to the US is a different question – a trade imbalance ALWAYS means money is being sucked out of the country.
“The fact that foreign companies can produce goods at prices lower than American producers, means that the most rational decision is to import products.”
MOSTLY not the issue – US unions love to rail about unfair labor prices elsewhere, but the real issues are that they engage in protectionist policies to keep US (and other goods) out and to subsidize local production to make their own goods more competitive locally and in foreign markets.
“The father of modern economics, Adam Smith said, “nations and companies should not attempt to produce goods internally if they can be acquired more cheaply from others.””
Correct – but again NOT the issue.
“The fact that America is able to buy more products from foreigners”
Yes that is a sign of strength.
“than they can buy from us”
Far less clear.
Everything you have posted would be correct if all tariffs and subsidies everywhere were zero.
But they are not.
Further every government everywhere must find revenue to support the cost of government from somewhere.
For most of the past several centuries the most efficient way to do that has been Tariffs.
The US government ran entirely on Tariffs and excise taxes for a very long time.
Advancing technology has made sales taxes more efficient than Tariffs – but Tariffs are almost the least economiczlly damaging way to fund government.
“Trade deficits are not “bank robbery,” but they are not neutral either: a persistent deficit means the U.S. receives goods today in exchange for selling assets or issuing debt tomorrow, transferring ownership and increasing dependence over time. While voluntary trade and lower prices benefit consumers, decades of structural imbalance can erode domestic production and strategic capacity. In parallel, sustained U.S. deficits have fueled large trade surpluses for China, allowing it to accumulate vast foreign exchange reserves—primarily dollar-denominated assets—thereby strengthening its financial buffer, expanding its global investment reach, and increasing its leverage in international markets.”
– ChatGPT
And yet the left constantly complains about the loss of US manufacturing , and how it is negatively impacted the middle class and union membership
it’s strange how they complain that tariffs are A tax on the consumer leading to higher prices, but yet constantly demand higher wages and higher Corporate income taxes
Corporate taxes are offset by increasing wages and increasing investment. America’s greatest manufacturing expansion happened when the top marginal tax rate was over 90%. Then it got lowered, so there was less benefit in paying higher wages or investing in American production. The money went to build factories in China. Tariffs don’t cause any change in behavior of domestic producers as they don’t apply in a way to do so.
“You make it sound like a bank robbery . . .”
Precisely!
I have a “trade deficit” with Amazon. Does that make me poorer? Obviously not. It makes me richer — because I traded something of lesser value (my money) for a greater value (a product).
Some have a child-like view of what a “trade deficit” is and what it implies.
The markets arent the economy and the EU is a bit player in the US economy.
Absolutely Trump thrives on chaos – that is where the best deals can be made.
Absolutely businesses prefer stability – though it is false to claim that stability always outperforms instability.
Regardless, Trump’s economic instability is limited to imports. That is a small part of the economy.
Elsewhere the Trump economy is remarkably stable, pro business and pro consumer.
This SCOTUS decision was massive – but not because of Trump or Tariffs.
But because it means most of the regulations Trump is removing are going to be VERY HARD to put back.
And that is VERY good for the country.
The chaos Trump creates is of benefit to Trump and those who are part of the planning.