Post New

Donald J. Trump - @realDonaldTrump
Based on a thorough, detailed, and complete review of the ridiculous, poorly written, and extraordinarily anti-American decision on Tariffs issued yesterday, after MANY months of contemplation, by the United States Supreme Court, please let this statement serve to represent that I, as President of the United States of America, will be, effective immediately, raising the 10% Worldwide Tariff on Countries, many of which have been "ripping" the U.S. off for decades, without retribution (until I came along!), to the fully allowed, and legally tested, 15% level.


It seems to be a question of time only until the legal rug is pulled underneath that construct, too, as section 122 delegation likely has expired with the gold standard:


... But the actual language of the Trade Act lists requirements that don’t exist today, including a “large and serious” balance-of-payments deficit. While the U.S. has run a trade deficit for decades, it’s been offset by capital inflows as foreign investors pour billions into financial markets, resulting in a net balance of zero. “Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act, on which Trump’s 10% tariff is based, does not apply in the current macro environment,” said Peter Berezin, chief global strategist at BCA Research, in post on X on Friday. “A balance of payments deficit is not the same thing as a trade deficit. You cannot have a balance of payments [deficit] if you have a flexible exchange rate, as the US currently does.”

Similarly, economist Alan Reynolds, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, pointed out that the trade deficit is fully funded by the capital account surplus, adding that there is no overall balance-of-payments deficit to justify Trump’s newest tax on imports. Bryan Riley, director of the National Taxpayers Union’s Free Trade Initiative, wrote in a blog post last month that Section 122 only makes sense under a fixed exchange rate, which hasn’t existed in the U.S. in more than 50 years. Back then, when the dollar was pegged to gold, there was still a risk that the U.S. could suffer from shortages of reserves needed to cover international obligations.

https://fortune.com/2026/02/21/trump-tariffs-secti...

AI's comment: The President’s "maneuver" has bought him 150 days of chaos. By the time a case reaches the Supreme Court to strike down Section 122, the 150 days will likely be over—which may be exactly what the "Architect of the Deal" intended.

SB's comment - let's not forget another wave of refund law suits.

Also this from Neal Katyal (the guy who argued against Trump's use of IEPPA before SCOTUS) on X:

Neal Katyal - @neal_katyal
Seems hard for the President to rely on the 15 percent statute (sec 122) when his DOJ in our case told the Court the opposite: “Nor does [122] have any obvious application here, where the concerns the President identified in declaring an emergency arise from trade deficits, which are conceptually distinct from balance-of-payments deficits."

If he wants sweeping tariffs, he should do the American thing and go to Congress. If his tariffs are such a good idea, he should have no problem persuading Congress. That’s what our Constitution requires.

Trump Says He Will Raise Global Tariff to 15 Percent

https://x.com/neal_katyal/status/20252512608409764...

onceptually distinct from balance-of-payments deficits."

So the question is, how fast do they get knocked down, and are we going to have a question on refunds for those also? Meanwhile, Dope and Co., concentrate on ID requirements for snow shovelers in New York.

AI's comment: The President’s "maneuver" has bought him 150 days of chaos. By the time a case reaches the Supreme Court to strike down Section 122, the 150 days will likely be over—which may be exactly what the "Architect of the Deal" intended.

Doesn't matter. He openly said that, during that 150 days, the Commerce Department will investigate everyone to justify the tariffs he wants under Section 301. Does anyone, anywhere, really think that Commerce will say anything other than what Trump the God wants to hear?

Section 301 of the US Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. § 2411) authorizes the President to take all appropriate action, including tariff-based and non-tariff-based retaliation, to obtain the removal of any act, policy, or practice of a foreign government that violates an international trade agreement or is unjustified, unreasonable, or discriminatory, and that burdens or restricts US commerce.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_301_of_the_T...

God on Earth Trump openly said that imposing the tariffs by diktat was easier and faster. Having Commerce perform a kabuki dance will accomplish the same thing, but take longer.

SB's comment - let's not forget another wave of refund law suits.

He explicitly said, in the presser, twice, he intends to keep those refund suits tied up in litigation for years.

Steve

He explicitly said, in the presser, twice, he intends to keep those refund suits tied up in litigation for years.

$175 billion in tariffs charged to date provide more than ample motivation for larger importers to sue for refunds though, chasing wonderful windfall profits - debit Treasury, credit JCs*

Meanwhile, yes, the justice system may be clogged up with those suits, not to mention potential further suits wrt section 122 tariffs.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/law-firms...


* sorry for the consumers who actually paid the lion share of the tariffs!

It all has to be litigated since the Supreme Court didn't rule on refunds and didn't rule on this new tariff angle Trump is trying.

I think a lot of these businesses are going to have some degree of trouble getting "refunds" for the past tariffs. One of the reasons is, did they absorb the tariffs out of their profits, or did they raise prices and pass the costs along to consumers?

That's going to have to be probably determined on a case by case basis, although maybe someone clever could do a class action. But any business with a large refund claim is going to opt out of class action litigation anyway.

As far as the basis for the new tariff plan, people have been quoting a bunch of experts for their opinions.

Typically that's going to require a trial on the merits unless someone can win a summary judgment and make it stick on appeal.

Trump's not even going to be President any longer by the time this all plays out in the courts.

Trump isn't breaking the system, he's working the system.

You want a refund, PROVE IT. IN COURT. I mean, that may not be your cup of tea but it is SOP for Trump. And it is all perfectly legal and within legal and political "norms."

Post New

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.