Showing posts sorted by date for query BALTIMORE. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query BALTIMORE. Sort by relevance Show all posts

Monday, March 02, 2026

Congress, Do Your Job and End This Illegal War of Aggression by the US and Israel

Congress must assert its constitutional authority over matters of war and peace against an out-of-control, rogue president and executive branch, and vote in favor of the Iran War Powers Resolutions
.


Demonstrators gathered outside the White House in Washington DC, to protest US and Israeli strikes on Iran.
(Photo by Celal Gunes/Anadolu via Getty Images)



Kevin Martin
Mar 02, 2026
Common Dreams

Once again, the United States and Israel are illegally attacking Iran, as they did last June. It is already a regional war, which will take a horrible toll on ordinary people in many countries, with reports a girls’ school was bombed, killing at least 85 people.

Unlike the limited strikes in last June’s 12-day war, this is aimed not just at Iran’s nuclear or military facilities, but at regime change in Iran, as President Donald Trump declared, and government targets in Tehran have been hit, with Israel claiming Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was killed. Predictably, Iran is firing back at Israel and at US military bases in the region.

Late last week, the Foreign Minister of Oman, who had been mediating negotiations between the US and Iran, stated prospects were good for a possible agreement. However, according to an Israeli official, the talks were apparently a treacherous ruse, as the US and Israel had planned coordinated attacks on Iran for months.

This crisis lies at the feet of President Trump, who abrogated the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in his first term. That multilateral agreement had effectively capped Iran’s nuclear program well short of acquiring The Bomb. Now, once again, two nuclear-weapon states are bombing a non-nuclear-weapon state. Meanwhile, Trump has preposterously called for Iranians to overthrow their government.

Congress should also impeach, convict, and remove the president from office for this illegal act, as politically unlikely as that appears now.

The timing of this attack, while perhaps planned for months, came as momentum was building in just the last few days for Congressional War Powers Resolution votes in both the House and the Senate. Democratic leadership in both Houses of Congress had coalesced behind the resolutions, Senate Joint Resolution 104, sponsored by US Sens. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) and Rand Paul (R-Ky.), with 12 other co-sponsors, and House Concurrent Resolution 38, sponsored by US Reps. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), with over 80 co-sponsors. That resolution may be voted on as soon as Tuesday or Wednesday, according to Khanna.

Sen. Kaine issued a statement asking, “Has President Trump learned nothing from decades of US meddling in Iran and forever wars in the Middle East?” and “Is he too mentally incapacitated to realize that we had a diplomatic agreement with Iran that was keeping its nuclear program in check, until he ripped it up in his first term?,” while calling the war a colossal mistake and “a dangerous, unnecessary, and idiotic action.”

US Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.), ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, stated, “Everything I have heard from the administration before and after these strikes on Iran confirms this is a war of choice with no strategic endgame,” and “It does not appear Donald Trump has learned the lessons of history.”

Congress must assert its constitutional authority over matters of war and peace against an out-of-control, rogue president and executive branch, and vote in favor of the Iran War Powers Resolutions. Congress should also impeach, convict, and remove the president from office for this illegal act, as politically unlikely as that appears now.

Anti-war protest demonstrations are already being held this weekend in many cities, including Washington, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Chicago, Princeton, Norwalk, Greenbelt, Canandaigua and others, reflecting not only the illegality of this war but also its unpopularity, as 70% of Americans oppose war with Iran, according to a recent poll. The world urgently needs more diplomacy, not more war.

While this may prove impractical as the war has already begun, and may metastasize in unpredictable ways, we should recall the recent Don’t Give Up the Ship video by six US senators and representatives, all veterans of the military or intelligence services, reminding members of those services of not only their right, but their obligation, to refuse to obey illegal orders. I don’t know if this illegal attack on Iran was what they had in mind, but it certainly applies.

On Saturday in the Washington, DC area, it was sunny and warm after an unusually cold, snowy winter. I had thought of taking a stroll on Theodore Roosevelt Island to watch the Potomac River flow, as Bob Dylan might recommend, but was deterred by the thought of the smell and filth from the collapse of the major sewage pipe that released over 240 million gallons of poo into our precious, life-sustaining, wild river. One cannot help but reflect on the metaphorical, and literal, consequences of our choices as a nation, to prioritize endless, bottomless spending of our tax dollars on war and weapons of destruction over infrastructure to keep our communities safe and healthy.

May we start making better choices, right now. Let’s end this senseless war and prioritize human and environmental needs over the profits of the war machine.


Democratic Leaders Face Backlash Over ‘Cowardly’ Responses to Trump War on Iran

“As we plunge headlong into another catastrophic war, Sen. Schumer and Rep. Jeffries’ throat-clearing and process critique only serves Trump and the war machine.”



Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) held a joint news conference on January 8, 2026.
(Photo by Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call, Inc. via Getty Images)


Jake Johnson
Mar 01, 2026
COMMON DREAMS

The top Democrats in the US Congress, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, faced backlash on Saturday over what critics described as tepid, equivocal responses to President Donald Trump’s illegal assault on Iran—and for slowwalking efforts to prevent the war before the bombing began.

While both Democratic leaders chided Trump for failing to seek congressional authorization and not adequately briefing lawmakers on the details of Saturday’s attacks, neither offered a full-throated condemnation of a military assault that has killed hundreds so far, including dozens of children, and hurled the Middle East into chaos.
...
Top Dems Reportedly Working to Sabotage Bill to Stop Trump War With Iran

Schumer (D-NY)—who infamously worked to defeat the 2015 nuclear deal that Trump later abandoned during his first White House term, setting the stage for the current crisis—said he “implored” US Secretary of State Marco Rubio to “be straight with Congress and the American people about the objectives of these strikes and what comes next.”

“Iran must never be allowed to attain a nuclear weapon,” he added, “but the American people do not want another endless and costly war in the Middle East when there are so many problems at home.”

Jeffries (D-NY), a beneficiary of AIPAC campaign cash, said in his response to the massive US-Israeli assault that “Iran is a bad actor and must be aggressively confronted for its human rights violations, nuclear ambitions, support of terrorism, and the threat it poses to our allies like Israel and Jordan in the region.”

“The Trump administration must explain itself to the American people and Congress immediately, provide an ironclad justification for this act of war, clearly define the national security objective, and articulate a plan to avoid another costly, prolonged military quagmire in the Middle East,” said Jeffries.

The Democratic leaders’ responses bolstered the view that their objections to Trump’s attack on Iran are based on procedure, not opposition to war.




Claire Valdez, a New York state assemblymember who is running for Congress, said that “as we plunge headlong into another catastrophic war, Sen. Schumer and Rep. Jeffries’ throat-clearing and process critique only serves Trump and the war machine.”

“Democrats should speak clearly and with one voice: no war,” Valdez added.

Schumer and Jeffries both committed to swiftly forcing votes on War Powers resolutions in their respective chambers. But reporting last week by Aída Chávez of Capital & Empire indicated that top Democrats worked behind the scenes to slow momentum behind the resolutions, helping ensure they did not come to a vote before Trump launched the war.

“The preferred outcome of many AIPAC-aligned Senate Democrats, according to a senior foreign policy aide to Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer, is that Trump acts unilaterally, weakening Iran while absorbing the domestic backlash ahead of the midterms,” Chávez wrote.

Neither Schumer nor Jeffries backed legislation last year aimed at forestalling US military intervention in Iran.

The top Democrats’ responses to Saturday’s US-Israeli attacks on Iran, which Trump said would continue “uninterrupted” even after the killing of the nation’s supreme leader, contrasted sharply with statements of rank-and-file congressional Democrats—and even some members of leadership—who condemned the president for shredding the Constitution and driving the US into another deadly war that the American public opposes.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), who has been floated as a possible 2028 challenger to Schumer, said Saturday that “the American people are once again dragged into a war they did not want by a president who does not care about the long-term consequences of his actions.”

“This war is unlawful. It is unnecessary. And it will be catastrophic,” said Ocasio-Cortez. “This is a deliberate choice of aggression when diplomacy and security were within reach. Stop lying to the American people. Violence begets violence. We learned this lesson in Iraq. We learned this lesson in Afghanistan. And we are about to learn it again in Iran. Bombs have yet to create enduring democracies in the region, and this will be no different.”

Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), a vice chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, was more blunt.

“Congress must stop the bloodshed by immediately reconvening to exert its war powers and stop this deranged president,” she said. “But let’s be clear: Warmongering politicians from both parties support this illegal war, and it will take a mass anti-war movement to stop it.”


Smarter shelf strategy can boost retail profits and cut food waste by more than 20%, new study finds





Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences





BALTIMORE, Feb. 25, 2026— Grocery retailers may not need new technology—or behavior change from shoppers—to meaningfully reduce food waste. New research in the INFORMS journal Management Science finds that small operational decisions already under a retailer’s control, including how perishable items are displayed and when (and how much) they’re discounted, can increase profits while reducing spoilage.

The new study takes a close look at perishables with declining quality over time, such as fresh produce, dairy and meat. Using advanced analytical modeling and thousands of simulated retail scenarios, the researchers examined how three factors interact: product display, discount timing and discount depth.

Their conclusion: where a product sits on the shelf matters almost as much as its price. By making small, strategic changes to where items are placed when discounts appear, retailers can increase profits by an average of 6% and cut waste by more than 21%, according to the study.

The findings challenge a long-held assumption in retail: that selling only the freshest items at full price is the safest way to protect margins. Instead, the research shows that smarter display and discounting strategies can deliver a rare win-win, benefiting retailers, consumers and the environment at the same time.

“Retailers don’t have to choose between profitability and sustainability,” said Zumbul Atan of Eindhoven University of Technology, one of the study’s authors. “In many cases, the same decisions that improve profits also dramatically reduce waste.”

Food waste is a global problem hiding in plain sight. Roughly 17% of all food produced worldwide is wasted, with retail accounting for a significant share. In the United States alone, up to 40% of food goes uneaten. At the same time, food waste is a major driver of methane emissions and climate change.

When older, soon-to-expire items are made easier to reach, such as by placing them at the front of a display, shoppers are more likely to buy them. Compared with a common industry benchmark where fresh and older items are equally accessible and no discounts are offered, optimizing display and discount decisions led to a 6.01% increase in profit and a 21.24% reduction in relative waste on average.

The study also found that the best strategy depends on the product. Items that deteriorate slowly, like dairy, benefit most from displaying older products more prominently and offering modest discounts. Products that deteriorate quickly and are costly to discard, such as meat or prepared foods, perform better when fresher items are emphasized and discounts are used more aggressively. For fast-decaying, low-cost items like fresh bread, it can still make sense to clear shelves entirely when new stock arrives.

Perhaps most surprising is what the research says about “everyday low price” retailers, such as Walmart, that avoid discounting altogether. Even without changing prices, simply adjusting how products are displayed can reduce waste and improve profitability when customer traffic is unpredictable, which is the reality for most stores.

“For retailers worried that discounts might hurt their brand or cannibalize full-price sales, display strategy alone can deliver meaningful gains,” said Dorothee Honhon of the University of Texas at Dallas, a co-author of the study.

Beyond the balance sheet, the implications ripple outward. The research underscores that meaningful gains in both profit and sustainability can come from decisions retailers already control. Small adjustments to shelf design and pricing strategy can yield substantial economic and environmental benefits across food supply chains.

“This research shows that better operations decisions can improve lives in very real ways,” said Amy Pan of the University of Florida, one of the study’s authors. “It’s not about asking consumers to do more. It’s about designing systems that work better for everyone.”

Editors Note:

The study, “Displaying and Discounting Perishables: Impact on Retail Profits and Waste,” was published online in Management Science, a journal of the Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences (INFORMS) can be accessed here.

About INFORMS and Management Science

INFORMS is the world’s largest association for professionals and students in operations research, AI, analytics, data science and related disciplines, serving as a global authority in advancing cutting-edge practices and fostering an interdisciplinary community of innovation. Management Science, a leading journal published by INFORMS, publishes quantitative research on management practices across organizations. INFORMS empowers its community to improve organizational performance and drive data-driven decision-making through its journals, conferences and resources. Learn more at informs.org or @informs.

 

Contact

Rebecca Seel

Public Affairs Specialist, INFORMS

rseel@informs.org

(443) 757-3578

 

###

Journal

DOI

Article Title

Thursday, February 26, 2026

 Spiritual Politics

The quiet American? Pope Leo XIV enables Catholic resistance to Trump.
(RNS) — Pope Leo XIV may be less inclined to stick his thumb in the eye of the conservative resistance, but he's no less committed to Pope Francis' agenda.
Pope Leo XIV holds his weekly general audience in the Paul VI Hall at the Vatican, Wednesday, Jan. 7, 2026. (AP Photo/Alessandra Tarantino)

(RNS) — The lukewarmness of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops toward Pope Francis and his agenda was hard to miss. His initiatives on climate and synodality were received unenthusiastically to say the least. His de-prioritization of combatting abortion and LGBTQ+ rights was ignored.

Bishops aligned with him were regularly denied leadership positions in the USCCB in favor of those associated with monied bastions of opposition like the Napa Institute. In parallel, criticism of the Trump administration was muted, while criticism of the Biden administration was loud and clear.

So now there’s a new pope in town. How’s that working out? 


Pope Leo XIV may be less inclined to stick his thumb in the eye of the conservative resistance, but he’s no less committed to Pope Francis’ agenda. He has made clear his support for the climate and synodality initiatives, and last fall he backed the Archdiocese of Chicago’s decision to give its annual lifetime achievement award to retiring Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin, a supporter of abortion rights. (After criticism of the decision by domestic conservatives, including Bishop Thomas Paprocki of Springfield, Durbin declined to accept the award.)

On the Trump front, the Vatican recently turned down an invitation to participate in the president’s new Board of Peace even as Leo declined Vice President Vance’s in-person invitation to come to the U.S. to celebrate the country’s anniversary. The pope said he’d be spending July 4 instead on the tiny Italian island of Lampedusa, a major port of entry for migrants to Europe.

Indeed, nowhere has Leo followed his predecessor’s footsteps more closely than on immigration policy, up to and including criticism of what he called “the inhuman treatment of immigrants in the United States.” And the American bishops do seem to have taken note.

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops meets at the Baltimore Marriott Waterfront hotel, Tuesday, Nov. 11, 2025, in Baltimore. (RNS photo/Aleja Hertzler-McCain)

Of course, the bishops cannot be accused of ignoring the treatment of immigrants during the first Trump administration. And in its annual report a year ago, their Committee on Religious Liberty listed as the first of its areas of critical concern “the targeting of faith-based immigration services.”

At its annual plenary assembly in Baltimore last November, the USCCB passed a “special message” for the first time in a dozen years, in this case to express concern about current immigration enforcement. Sure, the message didn’t call out the president or Immigration and Customs Enforcement by name, and it prayed for “an end to dehumanizing rhetoric and violence, whether directed at immigrants or at law enforcement (italics added),” but it did oppose “the indiscriminate mass deportation of people.”

At the same meeting, meanwhile, the bishops proceeded to choose a number of leaders from its old anti-Francis wing. This led Michael Sean Winters of the National Catholic Reporter to “fear the USCCB will spend the next three years hobbling along, tripping over itself, too divided internally to help heal the polarization of society, too often silent in the face of previously unthinkable challenges to our democratic norms.” 


Case in point: In this year’s annual report, the bishops’ Committee on Religious Liberty did not so much as mention faith-based immigrant services, targeted or otherwise.

What we are left with, as usual, is individual bishops taking it upon themselves to speak or act in ways consistent with the pope’s concerns, such as Cardinal Joseph Tobin calling for the defunding of ICE and conducting Masses at a local ICE detention center in Newark on Ash Wednesday.

Or Bishop Brendan J. Cahill of Victoria, Texas, chairman of the USCCB’s Committee on Migration, condemning the federal government’s plan to use giant warehouses as detention centers. Or Archbishop Timothy Broglio, immediate past president of the USCCB and head of the Catholic Archdiocese for the Military Services, declaring “illegal and immoral” orders to kill survivors of attacks by U.S. forces on boats in the Caribbean. 

As for Pope Leo himself, new reporting reveals that in a closed-door meeting with Spanish bishops last November, he said the greatest danger to their country comes not from economic turmoil or secularism but from ultra-right politicians seeking to “instrumentalize” the church for partisan purposes. Whatever the American resistance to the first American pope thinks, they’ve got to know that he’s on the case and that, at age 70, he’s likely to be around for some time.

Monday, February 23, 2026

Conservative National Review torches key Trump talking point


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

"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
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 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


Trump Increases Across-the-Board Tariff Rate to 15 Percent

White House
File image courtesy of the White House

Published Feb 22, 2026 10:31 PM by The Maritime Executive


On Saturday, U.S. President Donald Trump said that he would raise the United States' global baseline tariff rate to 15 percent in order to compensate for the suspension of the country-by-country tariffs he enacted under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which have been tossed out by the Supreme Court. The new tariff hike takes advantage of a never-before-used power under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which lets the president raise tariffs to a maximum of 15 percent for up to 150 days in the event of a "large and serious balance-of-payment deficit." 

On Friday, Trump declared a Section 122 global tariff of 10 percent, with exclusions for certain strategic goods like critical minerals, components for defense manufacturing. Though the president announced a hike from 10 percent to 15 percent over the weekend, there were no immediate signs that the increase went into effect. 

The previous IEEPA tariff regime was targeted at individual countries, and the administration used changes in tariff levels to extract concessions - for example, convincing India to moderate its purchases of Russian oil, with reduced tariffs as a reward. 

Before the Supreme Court decision, the most favorable tariff rate that the administration was willing to allow its closest allies was 10 percent. Now that best-case scenario is below the baseline for all countries, regardless of concessions made. 

The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) is at work on legal ways to resurrect the previous tariff regime by alternative means. The USTR can investigated countries for unfair trade practices and take countervailing action using Section 301 of the Trade Act; though not as swift or as flexible as IEEPA, Section 301 can be used to rebuild the previous tariff arrangement, Trade Representative Jamieson Greer says. 

"So even though the Supreme Court struck down tariffs under one authority, tariffs under other national security elements remain in place," Greer told CBS on Sunday. "And during that time [the next 150 days], we're going to conduct investigations that can allow us to impose tariffs if it's justified by the investigation. So we expect to have continuity in the president's tariff program."

In the meantime, across-the-board Section 122 tariff will have an effect on importers and on foreign manufacturers in many verticals. When including Friday's announcement of a 10 percent Section 122 tariff, the average tariff rate for all U.S. imports comes to 13.7 percent, according to the Yale Budget Lab, down from 16 percent under the now-defunct IEEPA tariff regime. 

America's closest allies are among the nations most affected by the changing tariff rates. Australia and the UK, which had negotiated for a 10 percent rate, will see tariffs on their exports go up again. UK businesses view the sudden shifts unfavorably, the British Chamber of Commerce's trade chief told BBC.

"There is a weariness about the constant changes, the lack of any clarity and certainty in terms of tariffs, and therefore the prices that companies can charge for the goods in terms of customers in the US," said the chamber's head of trade policy, William Bain, speaking to BBC. 



‘Not the end’: Small US firms wary but hopeful on tariff upheaval


By AFP
February 20, 2026


The Supreme Court decision on tariffs does not mark an end to the difficult trade environment some businesses are dealing with - Copyright AFP/File LEANDRO LOZADA
Beiyi SEOW

Small American businesses warned Friday that a tougher trade landscape was here to stay, as the Supreme Court’s rejection of sweeping tariffs was quickly followed by President Donald Trump’s pledge to impose new duties.

“It’s certainly not the end of the difficult trade environment that we’re trying to deal with,” said Ben Knepler, co-founder of outdoor chair maker True Places.

He was forced to radically scale back his Pennsylvania-based business last year after Trump imposed new tariffs on virtually all trading partners.

The high court’s decision on Friday that these country-specific tariffs were illegal brought limited comfort.

“Even with this ruling, there’s too much uncertainty for us to be able to restart production for the US,” he told AFP.

Knepler had shifted his supply chain out of China to Cambodia at heavy cost after Trump’s trade war with Beijing during his first presidency.

But Trump’s new 19-percent tariff on Cambodia imports last year forced him to halt manufacturing. He is now working on selling the remainder of his inventory rather than continuing production while he plans his next steps.

But he said: “It does give us a little bit of hope that at least there’s some kind of check on what was previously unlimited power outside of Congress.”

– ‘Surgical approach’ –

Josh Staph, chief executive of Ohio-based Duncan Toys Company, urged a “more surgical approach to tariffs” after Trump announced his plan to impose new and sweeping 10-percent duties on imports.

Duncan Toys has been producing yo-yos, flying discs and model gliders in China, and Washington’s escalating tariffs with Beijing last year similarly forced him to pause imports.

He was “cautiously optimistic” over the Supreme Court ruling.

But he said he “knows the administration is committed to imposing these tariffs, despite their impact on US toy companies and consumers.”

Boyd Stephenson, who runs retailer Game Kastle in Maryland, told AFP he was “very excited to hear that the tariffs have been struck down.”

He believes the legal limits can do “wonderful things for the gaming and toy industry over the next year,” but conceded “the devil’s always in the details.”

“It’s very much a wait to see how the removal of the tariffs percolates through the supply chain,” he added.

Meanwhile, the effects of Trump’s incoming duties remain uncertain.

– ‘A setback’ –

Drew Greenblatt, president of Baltimore-based metal product manufacturer Marlin Steel, worries however that Friday’s court ruling was “a setback” for the United States.

Greenblatt has been supportive of Trump’s steel levies, which alongside other sector-specific tariffs were not impacted by the high court’s decision.

But he expressed concern that the outcome would hamper Trump’s ability to navigate and negotiate trade deals with an aim of boosting US manufacturing.

“Do you think if we get into an adversarial relationship with one of these trading entities, they’re going to supply us ships?” he asked. “Do you think they’re going to supply us critical materials?”

“The wider concern is we need a robust manufacturing industry,” he told AFP.


Op-Ed: Despite SCOTUS ruling, Trump declares new tariffs within 24 hours?


By Paul Wallis
EDITOR AT LARGE
DIGITAL JOURNAL
February 20, 2026


Image: © AFP

In a day, Trump has “announced” a new global tariff of 10% after the Supreme Court specifically ruled that he had no power to impose tariffs. Anybody else would at least know it was game over.

It’s also anyone’s guess whether these new tariffs will stick or can be challenged.

Trump is so heavily invested in tariffs as the one and only idea for managing trade and revenue that he simply has nowhere else to go. To back down would look weak, but there’s no way around this ruling, either.

To complicate matters, the SCOTUS ruling also means possible years of refunds to importers, which are estimated at $175 billion. This is a truly unholy administrative mess, and it’s not going to get simpler over time.

Refunding the total amount of tariffs paid could be incredibly expensive in processing alone. It was mentioned at the time the tariffs were introduced that the legality of the “economic emergency powers” was in question.

That may or may not be a basis for future legal action against the administration and set up a punitive, net-loss environment for revenue.

Trump has been “trumpeting” tariffs as the cure for America’s trade debt, and revenue problems, but the numbers have never stacked up and still don’t. The net revenue is absolutely minuscule in comparison with America’s massive debt bill.

The other problem is the sheer abrasiveness of the tariffs. These tariffs have rubbed the world the wrong way, and retaliatory tariffs are still in play.

It’s also an unmitigated disaster for the administration in terms of power projection. The tariffs were supposedly pointed at China, which has enjoyed an excellent trade surplus within 12 months of their introduction.

Having also effectively neutered revenue from the tariffs due to refunds, the question is now how the administration plans to fund spending. This is an unavoidable issues, particularly with much-hyped possible tax cuts.
An aerial view of vehicles awaiting their export at a port in Nanjing, eastern China’s Jiangsu province on December 9, 2025 – Copyright AFP STR

It doesn’t look like a healthy budget is possible. The net result is likely to be a very unconvincing time of desperate damage control up to the midterms.

__________________________________________________

Disclaimer
The opinions expressed in this Op-Ed are those of the author. They do not purport to reflect the opinions or views of the Digital Journal or its members.