'So It's a Loss, Then?'
My 7 stages of emotions in a Trump news cycle on tariffs.
This is a reader-supported Substack for and about you — witnesses to an age of acrimony and anxiety.
I’m stunned:
“WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court struck down President Donald Trump’s far-reaching global tariffs on Friday, handing him a significant loss on an issue crucial to his economic agenda.”
I’m hopeful:
“It’s the first major piece of Trump’s broad agenda to come squarely before the nation’s highest court, which he helped shape with the appointments of three conservative jurists in his first term.”
I’m grateful:
“The majority found that the Constitution ‘very clearly’ gives Congress the power to impose taxes, which include tariffs. ‘The Framers did not vest any part of the taxing power in the Executive Branch,’ wrote Chief Justice John Roberts, a nominee of President George W. Bush.
I’m impressed:
“The deliberative nature of the legislative process was the whole point of its design. Through that process, the nation can tap the combined wisdom of the people’s elected representatives, not just that of one faction or man,” wrote Justice Neil Gorsuch, a Trump appointee. “Whatever else might be said about Congress’s work in IEEPA, it did not clearly surrender to the president the sweeping tariff power he seeks to wield.”
I’m dubious:
“Despite Friday’s ruling, other sweeping levies remain in place. Trump used another law — Section 232 of the 1962 Trade Expansion Act — to slap sectoral tariffs on steel and aluminum, cars, copper, lumber and products like kitchen cabinets worldwide. And the president has plenty of other options to keep taxing imports aggressively.”
I’m schadenfreude:
“So it’s a loss, then?” Trump said in a private meeting with governors when his trade team handed him a piece of paper with news of the ruling.
I’m tired:
“Other alternatives will now be used to replace” the tariffs rejected by SCOTUS, Trump told reporters later. “We have alternatives. Great alternatives.”
Another thing we can be dubious about: Refunds of tariffs already collected.
As Paul Krugman notes at his newsletter here: "If you seized money without constitutional authority, finding other revenue sources going forward doesn’t make the original seizure legal."
That economist also agrees that several justices are "fools," "lapdogs" and "very unpatriotic," as the insulter-in-chief posts at Truth Social this afternoon, "although I think we have different justices in mind."
Just more distraction while they loot the treasury, extort the world, and slander our name. Their aim is to lay ruin to the global order and pick up the scraps left over with digital currencies they assume someone wants or needs. This will be an exciting few years ahead for the Trumpstein class.