U.S. President Donald Trump in Rome, Georgia, U.S., February 19, 2026.
February 20, 2026
ALTERNET
President Donald Trump's trade policies are drawing strong criticism from liberal economists like Paul Krugman and Robert Reich as well as students of the late Milton Friedman, who believed that steep tariffs are bad both businesses and consumers. Regardless, Trump and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick are doubling down on tariffs, which Trump claims will reduce the United States' national debt and eventually eliminate the need for federal income taxes.
Trump is also claiming major trade deficit reductions. In a Wednesday, February 18 post on his Truth Social platform, the president wrote, in all caps, "THE UNITED STATES TRADE DEFICIT HAS BEEN REDUCED BY 78% BECAUSE OF THE TARIFFS BEING CHARGED TO OTHER COMPANIES AND COUNTRIES."
But the conservative National Review disagrees strongly with Trump's claims in an editorial published on February 20.
"Talk about bad timing," the National Review editors argue. "On Wednesday, President Trump boasted on social media that the U.S. trade deficit had been reduced by 78 percent thanks to his comprehensive tariff regime, a claim apparently based on his cherry-picking of data between October and January. Less than 12 hours later, the Census Bureau published its annual trade report. It reveals that the U.S. trade deficit declined by just 0.2 percent in 2025 — a far cry from Trump's figure — from $903.5 billion in 2024 to $901.5 billion last year."sents money lost to other count
President Donald Trump's trade policies are drawing strong criticism from liberal economists like Paul Krugman and Robert Reich as well as students of the late Milton Friedman, who believed that steep tariffs are bad both businesses and consumers. Regardless, Trump and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick are doubling down on tariffs, which Trump claims will reduce the United States' national debt and eventually eliminate the need for federal income taxes.
Trump is also claiming major trade deficit reductions. In a Wednesday, February 18 post on his Truth Social platform, the president wrote, in all caps, "THE UNITED STATES TRADE DEFICIT HAS BEEN REDUCED BY 78% BECAUSE OF THE TARIFFS BEING CHARGED TO OTHER COMPANIES AND COUNTRIES."
But the conservative National Review disagrees strongly with Trump's claims in an editorial published on February 20.
"Talk about bad timing," the National Review editors argue. "On Wednesday, President Trump boasted on social media that the U.S. trade deficit had been reduced by 78 percent thanks to his comprehensive tariff regime, a claim apparently based on his cherry-picking of data between October and January. Less than 12 hours later, the Census Bureau published its annual trade report. It reveals that the U.S. trade deficit declined by just 0.2 percent in 2025 — a far cry from Trump's figure — from $903.5 billion in 2024 to $901.5 billion last year."sents money lost to other count
"In reality, the balance of trade has no bearing on a country's economic prosperity," the conservatives explain. "The United States is one of the wealthiest countries in the world per capita, and it also runs the largest trade deficit. Several countries that are desperately poor, such as Libya and Papua New Guinea, run trade surpluses…. Tariffs…. have proven unable to meaningfully shift the full balance of trade. President Trump imposed a suite of sweeping duties last year, resulting in an average pre-substitution rate of 14.5 percent across all imported goods."
They add, "Previously, the average rate hovered around 2.5 percent. Yet while this stunning increase has mangled trade in certain products and with particular countries, it has hardly put a dent in the deficit."
Supreme Court’s tariff decision may have dealt GOP a midterm death blow: report
Alexander Willis
February 22, 2026
U.S. President Donald Trump speaks to reporters onboard Air Force One, on travel from West Palm Beach, Florida, to Joint Base Andrews, Maryland, U.S., February 16, 2026. REUTERS/Elizabeth Frantz
The Supreme Court’s stunning ruling Friday that President Donald Trump’s tariffs were unlawful may very well have set the Republican Party up for failure in the upcoming midterm elections, a Wall Street Journal report published on Saturday suggested.
Within hours of the court’s ruling, Trump vowed to pursue alternative methods for imposing his so-called reciprocal tariffs on other nations, and less than 24 hours later, hiked global tariffs from 10% to 15%. And, while Trump has yet to provide full details as to what those “alternatives” may look like, the Journal noted that all options available to him would set his trade policy “on a collision course with the midterm campaign season.”
“Some of the new tariffs Trump wants to impose require congressional approval to extend beyond five months. Others require months of investigations before they can be put into place,” wrote Journal trade and economic policy reporter Gavin Bade.
“In both cases, that pushes key tariff decisions into the summer, just months before November’s midterms when many Republicans are likely to be especially sensitive to complaints about inflation and affordability.”
Of the tariff options available to Trump that require Congressional approval, Kevin Brady, a former Republican member of Congress from Texas, told the Journal that lawmakers would be hesitant to support new tariffs just months away from the midterms.
“The potential that they could be asked by the White House to vote to levy higher tariffs on their constituents is not something Congress would look forward to,” Brady told the Journal. “The conventional wisdom is that there isn’t support for that.”
Americans have largely soured on Trump’s tariffs, with a new Washington Post-ABC News-Ipsos poll revealing this weekend that 64% of Americans disapprove of Trump’s tariffs. Trump’s tariffs have increased prices across a range of different sectors, and a recent study found that 96% of all tariff-induced cost increases were paid directly by American consumers.
Alexander Willis
February 22, 2026
RAW STORY
U.S. President Donald Trump speaks to reporters onboard Air Force One, on travel from West Palm Beach, Florida, to Joint Base Andrews, Maryland, U.S., February 16, 2026. REUTERS/Elizabeth Frantz
The Supreme Court’s stunning ruling Friday that President Donald Trump’s tariffs were unlawful may very well have set the Republican Party up for failure in the upcoming midterm elections, a Wall Street Journal report published on Saturday suggested.
Within hours of the court’s ruling, Trump vowed to pursue alternative methods for imposing his so-called reciprocal tariffs on other nations, and less than 24 hours later, hiked global tariffs from 10% to 15%. And, while Trump has yet to provide full details as to what those “alternatives” may look like, the Journal noted that all options available to him would set his trade policy “on a collision course with the midterm campaign season.”
“Some of the new tariffs Trump wants to impose require congressional approval to extend beyond five months. Others require months of investigations before they can be put into place,” wrote Journal trade and economic policy reporter Gavin Bade.
“In both cases, that pushes key tariff decisions into the summer, just months before November’s midterms when many Republicans are likely to be especially sensitive to complaints about inflation and affordability.”
Of the tariff options available to Trump that require Congressional approval, Kevin Brady, a former Republican member of Congress from Texas, told the Journal that lawmakers would be hesitant to support new tariffs just months away from the midterms.
“The potential that they could be asked by the White House to vote to levy higher tariffs on their constituents is not something Congress would look forward to,” Brady told the Journal. “The conventional wisdom is that there isn’t support for that.”
Americans have largely soured on Trump’s tariffs, with a new Washington Post-ABC News-Ipsos poll revealing this weekend that 64% of Americans disapprove of Trump’s tariffs. Trump’s tariffs have increased prices across a range of different sectors, and a recent study found that 96% of all tariff-induced cost increases were paid directly by American consumers.
This almighty blow to Trump is about much more than tariffs
Robert Reich
February 21, 2026
Donald Trump speaks following the Supreme Court's ruling on his tariffs. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque
A 6-3 majority of the Supreme Court decided yesterday that Donald Trump cannot take core powers that the Constitution gives Congress. Instead, Congress must delegate that power clearly and unambiguously.
This is a big decision. It goes far beyond merely interpreting the 1997 International Emergency Economic Powers Act not to give Trump the power over tariffs that he claims to have. It reaffirms a basic constitutional principle about the division and separation of powers between Congress and the president.
On its face, this decision clarifies that Trump cannot decide on his own not to spend money Congress has authorized and appropriated — such as the funds for USAID he refused to spend. And he cannot on his own decide to go to war.
“The Court has long expressed ‘reluctan[ce] to read into ambiguous statutory test’ extraordinary delegations of Congress’s powers,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for himself and five other justices in the opinion released yesterday in Learning Resources vs. Trump.
He continued: “In several cases involving ‘major questions,’ the Court has reasoned that ‘both separation of powers principles and a practical understanding of legislative intent’ suggest Congress would not have delegated ‘highly consequential power’ through ambiguous language.”
Exactly. Trump has no authority on his own to impose tariffs because the Constitution gives that authority to Congress.
But by the same Supreme Court logic, Trump has no authority to impound money Congress has appropriated because the Constitution has given Congress the “core congressional power of the purse,” as the Court stated yesterday.
Hence, the $410 to $425 billion billion in funding that Trump has blocked or delayed violates the Impoundment Control Act, which requires Congressional approval for spending pauses. This includes funding withheld for foreign aid, FEMA, Head Start, Harvard and Columbia universities, and public health.
Nor, by this same Supreme Court logic, does Trump have authority to go to war because Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution grants Congress the power to "declare War … and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water" — and Congress would not have delegated this highly consequential power to a president through ambiguous language.
Presumably this is why Congress enacted the War Powers Act of 1973, which requires a president to notify Congress within 48 hours of deploying troops and requires their withdrawal within 60 to 90 days unless Congress declares war or authorizes an extension. Iran, anyone?
The press has reported on yesterday’s Supreme Court decision as if it were only about tariffs. Wrong. It’s far bigger and even more important.
Note that the decision was written by Chief Justice John Roberts — the same justice who wrote the Court’s 2024 decision in Trump v. United States, another 6-3 decision in which the Court ruled that former presidents have absolute immunity for actions taken within their core constitutional powers and at least presumptive immunity for all other official acts.
I think Roberts intentionally wrote yesterday’s decision in Learning Resources v. Trump as a bookend to Trump v. United States.
Both are intended to clarify the powers of the president and of Congress. A president has immunity for actions taken within his core constitutional powers. But a president has no authority to take core powers that the Constitution gives to Congress.
In these two decisions, the Chief Justice and five of his colleagues on the Court have laid out a roadmap for what they see as the boundary separating the power of the president from the powers of Congress, and what they will decide about future cases along that boundary.
Trump will pay no heed, of course. He accepts no limits to his power and has shown no respect for the Constitution, Congress, the Supreme Court, or the rule of law.
But the rest of us should now have a fairly good idea about what to expect from the Supreme Court in the months ahead.
Robert Reich
February 21, 2026
Donald Trump speaks following the Supreme Court's ruling on his tariffs. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque
A 6-3 majority of the Supreme Court decided yesterday that Donald Trump cannot take core powers that the Constitution gives Congress. Instead, Congress must delegate that power clearly and unambiguously.
This is a big decision. It goes far beyond merely interpreting the 1997 International Emergency Economic Powers Act not to give Trump the power over tariffs that he claims to have. It reaffirms a basic constitutional principle about the division and separation of powers between Congress and the president.
On its face, this decision clarifies that Trump cannot decide on his own not to spend money Congress has authorized and appropriated — such as the funds for USAID he refused to spend. And he cannot on his own decide to go to war.
“The Court has long expressed ‘reluctan[ce] to read into ambiguous statutory test’ extraordinary delegations of Congress’s powers,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for himself and five other justices in the opinion released yesterday in Learning Resources vs. Trump.
He continued: “In several cases involving ‘major questions,’ the Court has reasoned that ‘both separation of powers principles and a practical understanding of legislative intent’ suggest Congress would not have delegated ‘highly consequential power’ through ambiguous language.”
Exactly. Trump has no authority on his own to impose tariffs because the Constitution gives that authority to Congress.
But by the same Supreme Court logic, Trump has no authority to impound money Congress has appropriated because the Constitution has given Congress the “core congressional power of the purse,” as the Court stated yesterday.
Hence, the $410 to $425 billion billion in funding that Trump has blocked or delayed violates the Impoundment Control Act, which requires Congressional approval for spending pauses. This includes funding withheld for foreign aid, FEMA, Head Start, Harvard and Columbia universities, and public health.
Nor, by this same Supreme Court logic, does Trump have authority to go to war because Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution grants Congress the power to "declare War … and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water" — and Congress would not have delegated this highly consequential power to a president through ambiguous language.
Presumably this is why Congress enacted the War Powers Act of 1973, which requires a president to notify Congress within 48 hours of deploying troops and requires their withdrawal within 60 to 90 days unless Congress declares war or authorizes an extension. Iran, anyone?
The press has reported on yesterday’s Supreme Court decision as if it were only about tariffs. Wrong. It’s far bigger and even more important.
Note that the decision was written by Chief Justice John Roberts — the same justice who wrote the Court’s 2024 decision in Trump v. United States, another 6-3 decision in which the Court ruled that former presidents have absolute immunity for actions taken within their core constitutional powers and at least presumptive immunity for all other official acts.
I think Roberts intentionally wrote yesterday’s decision in Learning Resources v. Trump as a bookend to Trump v. United States.
Both are intended to clarify the powers of the president and of Congress. A president has immunity for actions taken within his core constitutional powers. But a president has no authority to take core powers that the Constitution gives to Congress.
In these two decisions, the Chief Justice and five of his colleagues on the Court have laid out a roadmap for what they see as the boundary separating the power of the president from the powers of Congress, and what they will decide about future cases along that boundary.
Trump will pay no heed, of course. He accepts no limits to his power and has shown no respect for the Constitution, Congress, the Supreme Court, or the rule of law.
But the rest of us should now have a fairly good idea about what to expect from the Supreme Court in the months ahead.
Robert Reich is an emeritus professor of public policy at Berkeley and former secretary of labor. His writings can be found at https://robertreich.substack.com/. His new memoir, Coming Up Short, can be found wherever you buy books. You can also support local bookstores nationally by ordering the book at bookshop.org
No comments:
Post a Comment