DiabloWags said:

---

HUGE BLOW TO THE TRUMP AGENDA!



Supreme Court strikes down Trump's sweeping tariffs, upending central plank of economic agenda

---

State of the Union should be interesting with the Supreme Court Justices in attendance.

BearNIt said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

HUGE BLOW TO THE TRUMP AGENDA!



Supreme Court strikes down Trump's sweeping tariffs, upending central plank of economic agenda

---

State of the Union should be interesting with the Supreme Court Justices in attendance.

---

Next Tuesday!

And that's not all who will be in attendance.
Haley Robson will be Ro Khanna's guest.

"The Biden Administration should ignore the court" - AOC, 2023 pic.twitter.com/kyMeb5MlN4

— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) February 20, 2026

Bringing this back for yall

DiabloWags said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

It's not all about you. I was speaking on the government and your country losing money.

---

How is the Country losing money on something that was NOT LEGAL in the first place?
Please explain.

---

"The U.S. Treasury is gonna be busy cutting a lot of checks.

Between $133 - $175 Billion."
-Wags 2/20/2026

---

I repeat: The money that the U.S. Treasury took in was NOT LEGAL IN THE FIRST PLACE.

The Supreme Court of the United States of America just said so.

So Trump and his Administration can throw that CBO estimate of tariffs generating $2.5 Trillion over the next decade out the window.

Time for a reality check when it comes to deficits and interest payments on the national debt.
Stop spending so much freaking money!!!

Bessent said that they had $774 Billion on hand as of Jan. 8th.
So start the repayments now.

---

Obvious from some of the dumb comments here that no one has actually read the decisions, and like the media is providing their own personal narrative. The majority decision written by Roberts indicates Trump exceeded his authority to impose tariffs under a law reserved for a national emergency, called IEEPA. Roberts said neither IEEPA nor any other law expressly authorizes tariffs to be imposed under IEEPA. Roberts also said that the decision did not impact tariffs imposed under other laws which may allow tarrifs to be imposed. That led to the dissent which said the decision probably would not restrict presidential tariff authority going forward, but would create a "mess" for the government, including by requiring billions of dollars in refunds to businesses. At this juncture the estimate of taxes collected under IEEPA is around $130 Billion per the GAO and Diablo, and most collected tariffs have been imposed under other laws, or were increases of tariff rates of tariffs already in place and are not impacted by decision. So Diablo, in theory, is absolutely correct about the $130 million in rebates, subject to qualifications below.


The ruling was expected as things went bad for the administration during oral argument. As pointed out by the dissent and posters here, the administration may simply recast the tariffs under different authority moving forward Moreover most currently imposed tariffs are not imposed under IEEPA, so I'm unclear about the trillion dollar numbers being thrown around.


So to discuss the practical:

The ruling did not grant refund payments and really was basically silent on the whole subject of refunds. There currently is no process by which refunds on the IEEPA collected tariffs could be claimed. The dissent, Trump and legal experts have warned refunds could be denied or delayed, depending on how U.S. courts rule and how U.S. Customs goes about issuing any eligible payments, or even the Trump administration may claim the tariffs were legally imposed under other law, leading to more protracted litigation. So don't expect any refunds soon, if at all.

Also several countries have also already signed written agreements in response to IEEPA tariffs with specific tariff rates such as the signed agreement with the UK for a flat 15% tariff. Agreements are perfectly legal means to impose and collect tariffs collected under those agreements are unaffected by the Court's decision. So it is not at all clear, right now, how those country specific agreements will be impacted if at all. But the tariffs collected under agreements will not be subject to refund absent a separate challenge. I don't know what part of the $130 Billion are composed of tariffs collected under these agreements.

Those thinking the courts provide perfect and quick remedies to those being harmed by improper government action are delusional.

Great post.
I'm (allegedly) working and have not had time to read the opinions.
These things are usually nuanced and the MSM is lazy / biased and never tell an accurate story with these SCOTUS decisions.

tequila4kapp said:

---

Great post.
I'm (allegedly) working and have not had time to read the opinions.
These things are usually nuanced and the MSM is lazy / biased and never tell an accurate story with these SCOTUS decisions.

---

Almost all posts are expressed in absolutes, and the world doesn't work that way, especially the legal world.

Another observation:

I spent a substantial portion of my legal practice defending governmental action on real estate matters (I didn't perform the actual litigation). In cases in which the government lost initially, it typically was a temporary set back. The government (often my client) simply went back, used experts in a different manner, made new findings or approaches and moved on doing what it was doing. I suspect that is what will happen with tariffs.

A good example of this is the Memorial Stadium remodel litigation, in which Cal reportedly had a crushing loss at trial, only to come back a few months later with a new approach, which the court approved. The project went forward, as contemplated. The government, if it is patient, has the resources and power to eventually win almost all the time.

And now the TANTRUM begins . . . The KING has to show who's BOSS!

calpoly said:

---

International achievement is hard and should not be done by extortion but that is the only way trump can make deals. He does not have the mental capacity to actually negotiate.

---

One person's extortion is another person's leverage.

Quote:

---

What "benefits" did we receive from that tax? A tax on American households that cost them $1200 last year.
A tax on Ford Motor Company that cost them $2 Billion.

I'm not following your logic.

---

The things I listed. Virtually every change to our political, military and economic relationships with foreign countries has come under threat of losing access to the greatest consumer market in the world. And the admin achieved those objectives quickly, as politics goes. This is politically shrewd / brilliant.

The $1200 tax is built into the inflation numbers, right? Year over year inflation (2025) is lower than 2024; it is in the range of half the rate (if not less than 1/2) of the worst inflation under Biden. So the $1200 number is real but this is better than what we encountered the prior 4 years. It sometimes seems like there's some gratuitous outrage on this topic (not you specifically) because of the name of the person in office.

IIRC Ford got screwed because the admin made a late change to the timing and manner in which the tariffs were administered (I vaguely recall the article you posted mentioned a change of this nature). That is stupidity by the admin for modifying a policy implementation that a major corporation relied on.

tequila4kapp said:

---

The things I listed. Virtually every change to our political, military and economic relationships with foreign countries has come under threat of losing access to the greatest consumer market in the world. And the admin achieved those objectives quickly, as politics goes. This is politically shrewd / brilliant.

---

And yet the American Farmer has been handcuffed when it comes to China for 6-straight months.
Talk about losing access to one of the greatest consumer markets in the world.

I wouldn't be calling that politically shrewd or brilliant.

China Purchased No U.S. Soybeans For An Unprecedented Fifth Straight Month

A strategy can be brilliant / shrewd and still have pockets where results were not A+.

I am not fully up to speed on details re China/farmers and I am not an economist but my hunch is the Chinese are probably working to resist doing what they agreed to. If there is another explanation then there's another explanation...maybe the admin screwed this part of the negotiation up, maybe they lied about what the deal really meant for farmers, etc. I don't know.

Just In: Trump announces his response to the Supreme Court striking down his tariffs

🔴 All National Security tariffs, Sec 232 and existing 301 tariffs are in full force and effect
🔴 10% global tariff under Section 122
🔴 Section 301 investigations for trade practices pic.twitter.com/42PgQ2AJ06

— OSZ (@OpenSourceZone) February 20, 2026

DiabloWags said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

The things I listed. Virtually every change to our political, military and economic relationships with foreign countries has come under threat of losing access to the greatest consumer market in the world. And the admin achieved those objectives quickly, as politics goes. This is politically shrewd / brilliant.

---

And yet the American Farmer has been handcuffed when it comes to China for 6-straight months.
Talk about losing access to one of the greatest consumer market in the world.

I wouldn't be calling that politically shrewd or brilliant.

China Purchased No U.S. Soybeans For An Unprecedented Fifth Straight Month

---

Farmers are businessmen, they deserve no other consideration.

tequila4kapp said:

---

In my humble opinion this may end up being the single most consequential decision from SCOTUS during Trump's 8 years. A hallmark of Trump is that he has used the economic might of our economy (via tariffs) to achieve foreign policy and international economic objectives. It was IMO one of the most overlooked and brilliant moves by a President in recent times. Unfortunately, it was also illegal.

---

Lol

I was with you until you said "brilliant".

"Yeah, I like fking up all our hard-years won diplomacatic relationships, too!" he says with facetious tone.

tequila4kapp said:

---

The $1200 tax is built into the inflation numbers, right? Year over year inflation (2025) is lower than 2024; it is in the range of half the rate (if not less than 1/2) of the worst inflation under Biden. So the $1200 number is real but this is better than what we encountered the prior 4 years. It sometimes seems like there's some gratuitous outrage on this topic (not you specifically) because of the name of the person in office.

---

So in your opinion, Trump gets a "pass" on what the tariffs have cost the average American household because under Biden inflation was higher?

That sounds like some serious spin to me.
Not sure most Americans would agree with that kind of logic given current polling.

Never mind that the Core PCE for December was at 3.0% and going in the wrong direction.
Never mind that the single biggest issue with Americans is affordability.

calpoly said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

In my humble opinion this may end up being the single most consequential decision from SCOTUS during Trump's 8 years. A hallmark of Trump is that he has used the economic might of our economy (via tariffs) to achieve foreign policy and international economic objectives. It was IMO one of the most overlooked and brilliant moves by a President in recent times. Unfortunately, it was also illegal.

---

Perhaps it hasn't been used in "recent times" due to the fact that most know that it's illegal.
Tariffs in "recent times" have only been used when it comes to "dumping of product" in our market.

ie.) Bush's tariff on imported steel in March of 2002 that got lifted in December of 2003.

2002 United States steel tariff - Wikipedia

---

That isn't my point. Virtually every international achievement has come at the hands of tariffs. Not long drawn out diplomacy. Not threat of military action. Without tariffs NATO would still be paying less than 2%, we'd have the terribly one sided trade deals with most of the world and we'd probably have some number of dead service members.

I fully understand your and other's objections to them as a tax. We got a lot of benefit from that tax.

---

International achievement is hard and should not be done by extortion but that is the only way trump can make deals. He does not have the mental capacity to actually negotiate.

---

I guess tequila is an Ends Justifies The Means kind of guy. As long as "we" get what we want it's an achievement!

concordtom said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

In my humble opinion this may end up being the single most consequential decision from SCOTUS during Trump's 8 years. A hallmark of Trump is that he has used the economic might of our economy (via tariffs) to achieve foreign policy and international economic objectives. It was IMO one of the most overlooked and brilliant moves by a President in recent times. Unfortunately, it was also illegal.

---

to achieve foreign policy and international economic objectives


Tell me, what foreign policy and international economic objectives did he achieve???

---

This was already answered.

DiabloWags said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

The $1200 tax is built into the inflation numbers, right? Year over year inflation (2025) is lower than 2024; it is in the range of half the rate (if not less than 1/2) of the worst inflation under Biden. So the $1200 number is real but this is better than what we encountered the prior 4 years. It sometimes seems like there's some gratuitous outrage on this topic (not you specifically) because of the name of the person in office.

---

So in your opinion, Trump gets a "pass" on what the tariffs have cost the average American household because under Biden inflation was higher?

That sounds like some serious spin to me.

Never mind that the Core PCE for December was at 3.0% and going in the wrong direction.
Never mind that the single biggest issue with Americans is affordability.

---

He listed other benefits of the tariffs. His response was specific to your question. It is unethical to stretch his response as far as you just did.

oski003 said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

The $1200 tax is built into the inflation numbers, right? Year over year inflation (2025) is lower than 2024; it is in the range of half the rate (if not less than 1/2) of the worst inflation under Biden. So the $1200 number is real but this is better than what we encountered the prior 4 years. It sometimes seems like there's some gratuitous outrage on this topic (not you specifically) because of the name of the person in office.

---

So in your opinion, Trump gets a "pass" on what the tariffs have cost the average American household because under Biden inflation was higher?

That sounds like some serious spin to me.

Never mind that the Core PCE for December was at 3.0% and going in the wrong direction.
Never mind that the single biggest issue with Americans is affordability.

---

He listed other benefits of the tariffs. His response was specific to your question. It is unethical to stretch his response as far as you just did.

---

I disagree.
I clearly focused on one portion of his response which dealt with INFLATION.
Not on his claims about foreign policy. But I'm not surprised that you would conflate the two.

Thanks.

DiabloWags said:

---

And now the TANTRUM begins . . . The KING has to show who's BOSS!

---

Good insertion

concordtom said:

---

calpoly said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

That isn't my point. Virtually every international achievement has come at the hands of tariffs. Not long drawn out diplomacy. Not threat of military action. Without tariffs NATO would still be paying less than 2%, we'd have the terribly one sided trade deals with most of the world and we'd probably have some number of dead service members.

I fully understand your and other's objections to them as a tax. We got a lot of benefit from that tax.

---

International achievement is hard and should not be done by extortion but that is the only way trump can make deals. He does not have the mental capacity to actually negotiate.

---

I guess tequila is an Ends Justifies The Means kind of guy. As long as "we" get what we want it's an achievement!

---

To a certain extent maybe I am. How long have politicians been trying to get NATO to pay their fair share? How long have politicians gave lip service, at best, regarding China?

concordtom said:

---

oski003 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

In my humble opinion this may end up being the single most consequential decision from SCOTUS during Trump's 8 years. A hallmark of Trump is that he has used the economic might of our economy (via tariffs) to achieve foreign policy and international economic objectives. It was IMO one of the most overlooked and brilliant moves by a President in recent times. Unfortunately, it was also illegal.

---

to achieve foreign policy and international economic objectives


Tell me, what foreign policy and international economic objectives did he achieve???

---

This was already answered.

---

I just inserted an acknowledgment in my post.
I hadn't read 25-on posts to get to this. Calm down.
I don't agree, but I acknowledge.

---

"This was already answered" is a pretty neutral, calm comment. If I calmed down anymore, I'd be dead.

DiabloWags said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

The $1200 tax is built into the inflation numbers, right? Year over year inflation (2025) is lower than 2024; it is in the range of half the rate (if not less than 1/2) of the worst inflation under Biden. So the $1200 number is real but this is better than what we encountered the prior 4 years. It sometimes seems like there's some gratuitous outrage on this topic (not you specifically) because of the name of the person in office.

---

So in your opinion, Trump gets a "pass" on what the tariffs have cost the average American household because under Biden inflation was higher?

That sounds like some serious spin to me.
Not sure most Americans would agree with that kind of logic given current polling.

Never mind that the Core PCE for December was at 3.0% and going in the wrong direction.
Never mind that the single biggest issue with Americans is affordability.

---

I am not saying a Pass. I am saying context matters.

According to FRED Q4 2024 PCE was 2.7%. Q4 2025 PCE was 2.7%
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/DPCCRV1Q225SBEA

Even if PCE for a different month is up, it is in the same general range as before. Again, I am not an economist so maybe I do not have a handle on this stuff. But is seems logical the $1200 is built into the assorted inflation numbers, which are fundamentally no different than the last 2 Biden years and 1/2 or more the rate of inflation during the worst Biden years.

I remember learning that tariffs are a tax in Econ, too. I came of political age during the Reagan (allegedly) small government era. I am naturally opposed to this. But objectively, I see zero evidence the tariffs are the economic horror show we were taught they are supposed to be. This is fundamentally similar to what we saw during Trump1 and honestly, I do not understand it. But just because I do not understand it doesn't change the data. I am open minded to the possibility that data tells me what I was taught about Econ was wrong or incomplete.

So I have seen several articles in traditional liberal sources such as Axios, that say don't judge tariffs by Trump. Here are the theoretical argmuents supporting the use of tariffs:

Tariffs are imposed to shield domestic companies and workers from foreign import competition or to generate revenue for the government. Protectionist motivations for imposing a tariff include revitalizing local industries, creating jobs, offsetting allegedly "unfair" trading practices of other nations, promoting national security, or affecting the balance of trade. Tariffs attempt to achieve these objectives by making imports cost as much or more than similar, higher-priced goods made domestically. (If domestic goods were already priced less than imports in the absence of a tariff, a new tax would be unnecessary.) Thus, a tariff discourages US consumers from purchasing imports and encourages them to buy from domestic producers instead, boosting the producers' sales and profits. Before the end of World War 2, the US was quite protectionist, and imposed large tariffs.

Now when I took Econ 100 (macro) in the stone age at Cal, I had a very famous Econ teacher, Ken Galbraith, who mathematically proved that free trade without tariffs made consumers better off due to competitive advantage. In the context of international trade, comparative advantage refers to the products that a country can produce more better, cheaper and or easier, and then trade for products that another country has a comparative advantage. That all falls apart when countries want taxes, cheat by such things as subsidies, enforce regulation such as prevent the exploitation and depletion of a environmental resources etc. or in a political context, to push countries who engage in unacceptable behavior (think of sanction against Apartheid for example). So tariffs can serve a purpose where you punish unacceptable economic or political behavior to achieve a long run result, and pretty much everyone agrees they are warranted, the question just is when? .

But tariffs come with a cost since they really do act like a tax. Consumers and other businesses forced to pay tariffs or buy higher-priced domestic goods suffer from lower incomes and profits than they would have without the tariffs. This, in turn, means reduced consumer spending on other goods and services or, for companies, on worker salaries or investments. Tariffs can also lead to increased currency values, placing exporters at a disadvantage in foreign markets and thus reducing their sales and profits. Like any tax, a tariff generally leads to deadweight loss (an excess loss or burden above the amount actually paid in tax) because it decreases aggregate economic activity and incomes. But if you like taxes, don't complain about tariffs. Also, raising tariffs high enough to reduce or eliminate imports (and thus protect higher-priced domestic producers), and tariff revenue also is reduced or eliminated.

Which gets back to the entire premise is that how you use tariffs matters. if you say it is to protect jobs, you probably get a lot more support than if you say it is because you didn't get a noble prize. Focusing on the substance, Trump already has negated the SCOTUS decision by imposing new tariffs under different laws, as predicted by the minority opinion.

concordtom said:

---

So you DO or DON'T adhere to your comparative advantage economics prof?

---

I have no idea what you are asking? Is this like does the dude abides with comparative advantage? I just paraphrased what Galbraith said, which is under economic theory, consumers are better off without tariffs (or taxes for that matter). I think anyone with an economics degree agrees with that. The math works. He also said the math breaks down when countries cheat, impose regulation, etc. I might add tariffs are used as a political/foreign affairs weapon and as noted on this board often, people like imposing taxes, as long at the taxes are not on them. Look, there are trade offs that people must consider. Do you impose tariffs on Russian for invading Ukraine, and risk retaliation, higher costs of Russian goods, etc.? For the last several Presidents the answer is yes.

tequila4kapp said:

---

I remember learning that tariffs are a tax in Econ, too. I came of political age during the Reagan (allegedly) small government era. I am naturally opposed to this. But objectively, I see zero evidence the tariffs are the economic horror show we were taught they are supposed to be. This is fundamentally similar to what we saw during Trump1 and honestly, I do not understand it. But just because I do not understand it doesn't change the data. I am open minded to the possibility that data tells me what I was taught about Econ was wrong or incomplete.

---

Understood.

But make no mistake, the monetary value of tariffs applied during Trump 1 are paltry compared to Trump 2.
And the uncertainty and chaos amongst countries and companies has been exponentially off the charts.