Tag: trump tariffs
supreme court justices Roberts, Kagan, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh

Will Supreme Court's 'Originalist' Justices Permit Trump's Power Grab?

I think the Supreme Court will rule against President Donald Trump's imposition of tariffs. That said, it's just remarkable that the vote will not be 9-0.

Trump is claiming sweeping powers to impose (and rescind and reimpose and re-rescind) tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA), which was a revised version of the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917 (TWEA). The acronyms "I-EE-pah" and "TWEE-ah" flew around the courtroom like trapped sparrows.

The question for the Court was whether IEEPA actually grants the president power to impose tariffs — though the word "tariff" does not appear in the text of the law and no president has ever before interpreted the statute to grant taxing power. Addressing the justices on Wednesday, Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued that because the law grants the power to "regulate" trade in certain emergencies, it must also include the power to tariff.

But that's a huge leap, and the reason should be obvious to conservative justices who have claimed to be suspicious of overweening executive power. Striking down former President Joe Biden's student loan forgiveness, Justice Brett Kavanaugh said that "some of the biggest mistakes in the Court's history were deferring to assertions of executive emergency power," while "some of the finest moments in the Court's history were pushing back against presidential assertions of emergency power."

Yet when it came to Trump's imposition of crushing tariffs against every nation on the globe, Kavanaugh curled up at the feet of executive power like a purring cat. "The tariff on India, right? That's designed to help settle the Russia-Ukraine war, as I understand it," he said on Wednesday.

But that's a huge leap, and the reason should be obvious to conservative justices who have claimed to be suspicious of overweening executive power. Striking down former President Joe Biden's student loan forgiveness, Justice Brett Kavanaugh said that "some of the biggest mistakes in the Court's history were deferring to assertions of executive emergency power," while "some of the finest moments in the Court's history were pushing back against presidential assertions of emergency power."

Yet when it came to Trump's imposition of crushing tariffs against every nation on the globe, Kavanaugh curled up at the feet of executive power like a purring cat. "The tariff on India, right? That's designed to help settle the Russia-Ukraine war, as I understand it," he said on Wednesday.

Not quite. The tariff on India reportedly arose from Trump's pique at Prime Minister Narendra Modi's refusal to say (falsely) that Trump had negotiated a ceasefire between India and Pakistan and thus deserved the Nobel Peace Prize.

But let's grant for the sake of argument that Trump's 50 percent tariffs on India have a legitimate foreign policy purpose. How does Kavanaugh account for the extra 10 percent tariff on Canada in retaliation for a TV ad that embarrassed Trump by accurately quoting Ronald Reagan's opposition to tariffs? Or the 40 percent tariff on Brazil (a country with whom we ran a trade surplus) for trying and convicting his fellow election stealer Jair Bolsonaro? Kavanaugh should reread his own words about unwise deferral to executive authority.

As the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled in August, imposing tariffs is a core congressional prerogative, and while the statute authorizes a number of discrete actions, tariffs were not among them.

This would seem to be a core point. When the president claims sweeping authority to impose taxes (tariffs) without congressional approval, he obtains his own independent income stream and Congress becomes a nullity. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution specifically vests power in Congress to "lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises." It is Congress, not the president, that is granted power "to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations." If the Supreme Court were to accept Trump's grasp for unreviewable taxing power, the balance would be obliterated.

During Wednesday's oral argument, the advocates and justices discussed the emergency powers in question but didn't dwell on whether the emergency was real or a Trump alternate reality — like the 2020 "stolen" election.

Trump has claimed several "emergencies" as justification for upending global trade. One is fentanyl. And while it's true that fentanyl is a dangerous drug that enters the United States through Mexico, it is not the case that Canada is implicated — yet Canada is sanctioned along with Mexico and China. (More than 5,000 pounds of fentanyl were seized on the southern border in the first part of 2025, but only 64 pounds crossed from Canada; that's the difference between a U-Haul's worth of fentanyl and a backpack's worth.)

More risible is the argument that America's bilateral trade deficits with various countries comprise an emergency. The U.S. has been running trade deficits since 1976, and in that half-century, it has achieved the highest per capita GDP on the planet. With only about 4.5 percent of the world's population, the U.S. accounts for more than 26 percent of global GDP. In any case, something that has been going on since before most Americans were born is hardly an emergency.

In 2023, the conservative justices were correct to brush back the Biden assertion of authority to forgive billions in student debt. Citing "major questions doctrine," Chief Justice John Roberts ruled that if something will have huge economic or social consequences, it requires clear congressional authorization.

But it shouldn't require any newly minted doctrine to find that presidential power, like kingly power, cannot go unchecked. Resistance to arbitrary power fueled the American Revolution and inspired the Founding. When Patrick Henry worried that the president might easily become a king, James Madison sought to reassure him by noting that "the purse is in the hands of the representatives of the people." In McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), Chief Justice John Marshall intoned that "the power to tax involves the power to destroy."

Our Constitution is premised on limiting the power of the state. Judicial conservatives claim to cherish this idea. Let's see.

Trump Fears Supreme Court Will Strike Down His Unilateral Imposition Of Tariffs

Trump Fears Supreme Court Will Strike Down His Unilateral Imposition Of Tariffs

On Wednesday, November 5, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump — a case that challenges President Donald Trump's right to unilaterally impose steep new tariffs using the Emergency Powers Act of 1977.

The plaintiff in the case argues that Trump, without Congress' input, is imposing a policy that is harmful to his business. Trump, however, argues that his tariffs are vital to the country's economic wellbeing.

Axios' Courtenay Brown reports in an article published on November 4, that Trump is claiming the tariffs are a "life or death" matter for the U.S.

"President Trump claimed on Tuesday that the U.S. would be 'virtually defenseless' against other nations if the Supreme Court strikes down a slew of tariffs," Brown reports. "Why it matters: Trump's comments come just one day before the highest court will hear oral arguments challenging the legality of a key part of his economic agenda. Trump officials have played down the effects of a potential loss, saying the administration would step in to reimpose any tariffs overturned by the Supreme Court using other trade authorities."

Brown adds, "Still, Trump for months has been warning that a loss would be economically devastating for the country — even though the U.S. had long survived without the highest tariffs in nearly a century."

On his Truth Social platform, Trump posted, "Tomorrow's United States Supreme Court case is, literally, LIFE OR DEATH for our Country. With a Victory, we have tremendous, but fair, Financial and National Security. Without it, we are virtually defenseless against other Countries who have, for years, taken advantage of us. Our Stock Market is consistently hitting Record Highs, and our Country has never been more respected than it is right now. A big part of this is the Economic Security created by Tariffs, and the Deals that we have negotiated because of them."

Brown notes that what the High Court ultimately decides "could curb Trump's powers — or open the door for Trump and future presidents to use the emergency powers to bypass Congress."

Reprinted with permission from Alternet

When Scott Bessent Claims Trump Is Making Life Affordable, Who Believes Him?

When Scott Bessent Claims Trump Is Making Life Affordable, Who Believes Him?

When it comes to the economy, the thing American households care most about by far these days is affordability, aka the cost-of-living, aka what things cost.

Note that while, of course, inflation is related to this concern, it is by no means the same thing. Telling people who want lower prices that they’ve got slower inflation is a slight-of-hand that they interpret as gaslighting. They want lower prices; you’re (falsely, as shown below) claiming that you’re delivering slower-growing prices.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has been on a campaign to convince people that life is a lot more affordable under his boss, despite the fact that this is false and people know it’s false. The fact that his boss and party are refusing to reconsider their policy to make health-coverage premiums rise sharply for tens of millions of Americans just makes their affordability falsehoods that much more transparent.

First, here’s Sec’y Bessent on Face the Nation last Sunday:

MARGARET BRENNAN: [Americans] are seeing prices still high on furniture, energy, gardening, lawn care, apparel. Do you expect these things to cool off and when?
SEC. BESSENT: Well, it is cooling off because the core inflation number that you referenced was 0.2% which is down the- from the previous sequence over the previous months. And you listed the things that are up, but we’re seeing plenty of things that are down, whether it’s energy and rents.

The gas price is down, as I’ll show in a moment, and that’s certainly a price people notice, but electricity prices are way up. CPI rents are up, not down, though the Zillow rent index is down $50 over both the past month and the past year. Rental inflation is, in fact, consistently down as shown in the figure below. It started falling in the spring of 2023, but again, that just means average rents are growing more slowly. Electricity prices are not just up, they’re accelerating (figure), in part due to data-center demand, meaning consumers in states like mine (VA) are getting hit with spillovers from insatiable data-center energy draws. No one’s loving that, either.

Gas is down—the figure shows the per gallon price from AAA—to about where it was in late 2024. You might think that boosted people’s economic vibes back then but it failed to do, much as it’s failing to do so now. Consumer sentiment is at or below recessionary levels.

Bessent went on to correctly point out that the mortgage rate is down, from about seven percent when Trump took office to just above six percent now, which is good news for home buyers and refi-ers. But while housing prices have flattened, they’re not coming down and they’re up by more than 50 percent since the pandemic (Case-Shiller index). When more than a third of Americans are “housing cost burdened,” meaning it takes at least 30 percent of their income to pay rent or mortgage, dismissing housing affordability is not your best play.

But, as is their wont, Bessent doubled down on X:

Inflation is down?? Yearly CPI inflation was ~2% in April and its ~3% now. We’ve got a pocketful of receipts on this one! As noted, some prices are down, but the rise in the average price level, i.e., inflation, is not in question. In every inflation report, you’ll always find some prices down and more prices up, but to claim “inflation is down” when it’s up over the past few months is not credible.

Moreover, tariffs are part of the reason inflation is up. I’ve shown this for goods prices in a recent post, but here’s the latest update from Cavallo et al, who have been tapping their unique dataset of five major retailers (the vertical line is when Trump’s tariffs were introduced):

Closer to home, and I mean your home and my home, where the day does not begin without an excessively large cup of coffee, Trump’s 50 percent tariff on Brazilian coffee is partially responsible for that price rising 19 percent over the past year (it’s not just tariffs; droughts have pushed up both coffee and beef costs). Some commentators responded to Bessent’s tweet above with pictures of what they were paying for groceries.

With all these mostly-up price movements going on in the background, the Trump administration and Congressional Rs voted to make health coverage a lot more expensive for over 20 million people by ending subsidies that were offsetting that cost.

Given those facts on the ground, Mr. Sec’y, here’s some free advice: Stop trying to convince people life is more affordable than they believe to be the case. You’ve got to know that average prices almost always go up, unless there’s a deep depression upon the land. So, BS’ing people that they can have their old prices back is, as noted, just feckless gaslighting.

Instead, you need to explain what you’re doing to make life more affordable, which has two broad policy thrusts: supporting real income growth and helping to offset the high costs of key sources of price pressures, including housing, groceries, health care, child care, utilities (e.g., electricity) costs. Neale Mahoney and I explain the policy framework and give some policy examples here; Chao and Konczal go deep here.

But before you can pursue policies to help with affordability, you’ve got to stop making the problem worse. That means unwinding tariffs and restoring health coverage subsidies.

On the income side, you’ve also got to start worrying about the unusually low-hire job market, which, unlike the booming stock market, is where the people most concerned about affordability get their income. For them, it’s paychecks, not portfolios.

So, when the Wall Street Journal reports the following…:

American employers are increasingly making the calculation that they can keep the size of their teams flat—or shrink them through layoffs—without harming their businesses. Part of that thinking is the belief that artificial intelligence will be used to pick up some of the slack and automate more processes. Companies are also hesitant to make any moves in an economy that many still describe as uncertain.

…you need to get the team thinking about ways to help restart the job-growth engine, which, for the record, isn’t tariffs, deportations, or Fed harassment. It is, in part, restored business and consumer confidence, less chaos and uncertainty, and standing up policies that nudge AI-use to upweight labor complementarity and down-weight labor substitution. I grant you, this is hard policy work, but it’s the only honest way forward.

I know—free advice, worth what you pay for it. But I learned much of the above the hard way. And for all the endless noise your boss generates, all the breaking of norms and laws, at the end of the day, affordability, as prosaic as may sound relative to reshaping everything from trade to immigration to the rule-of-law to the White House itself, is what people really need your help with.

Telling them that’s what you’re doing when in fact you’re doing the opposite won’t cut it.

Jared Bernstein is a former chair of the White House Council of Economic Advisers under President Joe Biden. He is a senior fellow at the Council on Budget and Policy Priorities. Please consider subscribing to his Substack.

Reprinted with permission from Econjared.

Donald Trump's 'Love' Is Still Driving American Farmers Into Ruin

Donald Trump's 'Love' Is Still Driving American Farmers Into Ruin

At a 2018 press conference in New York City, Trump said of American farmers, "I love them, and they voted for me, and they love me. ... And they said, 'We don't care if we get hurt, he's doing the right thing.'"

During his 2025 joint address to Congress, Trump said, "Our new trade policy will also be great for the American farmer — I love the farmer."

Hardly any sector has suffered from Trump's trade wars more than agriculture. Soybeans were hardest hit.

Before the first trade war in the first Trump administration, China was the biggest foreign market for U.S. soybeans, taking about 30 percent of total production. Soybean exports to China fell from $12.3 billion in 2017 to $3.1 billion in 2018.

Joe Biden came into office, and exports rose in 2022 to a record $16.4 billion. But farmers didn't vote for Biden's successor in 2024. They voted again for Trump, even though he campaigned with a promise for Trade War II, singling out China.

And come "Liberation Day" on April 2, he launched it with heightened ferocity. China retaliated, targeting U.S. agricultural products. This year, just as American soybean farmers anticipate a bumper crop, exports to China are down to about zero.

Other American farm products have also suffered greatly. They include corn, beef, tree nuts, and pork.

The political mystery endures. "It's somewhat understandable that Trump appealed to rural voters in 2016. After all, he kept saying he loved farmers. The first trade war undoubtedly took them by surprise, though he did bail them out with $23 billion in aid, courtesy of the American taxpayer.

But why did they vote for him a second time? Trump received an even larger percentage of their support while promising another trade war. Almost 78 percent of voters in farming-dependent counties supported him in 2024. The reasons were probably part cultural — rural Americans tend to be more socially conservative — and Trump's inflation argument also hit home. Under Biden, prices were rising for fertilizer, fuel, and equipment.

But even if this latest trade war ended tomorrow, growers of commodity crops like soybeans would still face lasting damage. They've spent decades cultivating buyers for their products in China and elsewhere. China is looking for new suppliers, and once those relationships are cemented, it will be hard to win them back.

China has turned to Brazil and Argentina for soybeans — Australia for beef. It's investing in port projects in Peru and Brazil to ensure a reliable supply of farm products from South America. Trump is talking about another big bailout of farmers, but once replaced, Americans have lost long term. No magic wand can bring their export markets back to their former glory.

The trade war has also further raised the farmers' prices, especially for fertilizer. Much of it comes from trade-war target Canada.

One doubts that other business interests would have been as accommodating to Trump's ruinous policies as farmers were after getting whacked the first time around.

Heartland grumbling has turned into louder protest. But no matter. Trump is presumably not running again for president. He no longer needs their vote — or rural scenery for campaign backdrops. And he certainly doesn't yearn for their love. He's a city boy, and the company he favors hails from crypto, tech, and Wall Street.

How did Trump pull it off, abusing farmers while convincing them, like battered wives, that he still loved them? That took considerable talent, reminiscent of his much-quoted remark, "I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn't lose any voters."

Thing is, people on Fifth Avenue are doing just fine. It's the farmers who are bleeding.

Froma Harrop is an award winning journalist who covers politics, economics and culture. She has worked on the Reuters business desk, edited economics reports for The New York Times News Service and served on the Providence Journal editorial board.

Reprinted with permission from Creators.


Shop our Store

Headlines

Editor's Blog

Corona Virus

Trending

World