No. of Recommendations: 17
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.
