Showing posts sorted by date for query TARIFFS ARE A TAX. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query TARIFFS ARE A TAX. Sort by relevance Show all posts

Monday, February 23, 2026

US Attacks in Venezuela and Greenland Lay Groundwork for Billionaire Fiefdoms

Trump’s foreign interventions may pave the way for techno-fascist city-states to seize sovereignty.
February 21, 2026

Aerial view of Pier Juan Griego in Margarita Island, Nueva Esparta State, Venezuela, on November 25, 2024. A blockchain-based residential settlement called CryptoCity spans 35 hectares on Margarita Island and is promoted to German and other foreign investors as a highly exclusive enclave.
JUAN BARRETO / AFP via Getty Images


Truthout is an indispensable resource for activists, movement leaders and workers everywhere. Please make this work possible with a quick donation.

On January 3, 2026, Tim Stern, a German investor, was sleeping peacefully at his Venezuela residence when the phone on his small bedside table suddenly went wild. As he explained to Timothy Allen of the “Free Cities Podcast,” calls streamed in immediately after news broke that the United States had bombed Caracas in the early hours of the morning. Within hours, it was clear that Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro had been captured and was being sent to the United States — a change, Stern said in the podcast, that “is going to be the start of an absolute bonanza here in Venezuela.”

Oil interests were at the center of the U.S. invasion of Venezuela; U.S. President Donald Trump has made clear his intentions to reclaim nationalized Venezuelan oil for U.S. companies and to oversee the sale of Venezuelan crude. However, Stern is not involved in the oil industry. Instead, he’s the co-founder of a blockchain-based residential settlement called CryptoCity, a luxury real estate development spanning 35 hectares on Venezuela’s Margarita Island. Margarita, an island with duty-free port status and a population of around 490,000, depends largely on the tourism industry and has suffered hardships due to Venezuela’s economic crisis. However, CryptoCity is promoted to German and other foreign investors as a highly exclusive enclave. It boasts of luxury living for “high net-worth” entrepreneurs fully vetted and selected through a rigorous process. All transactions in the zone must be made in crypto, and residents form part of a “brain pool” aimed at generating joint business ventures through a Decentralized Autonomous Organization (DAO).

CryptoCity is one example of how Trump’s foreign policy is benefitting a venture-capital fueled private city and “network state” movement. The project is featured on the page of the Free Cities Foundation, a leading private city promotor led by German economist Titus Gebel that has also championed the crypto-libertarian movement’s flagship project, a self-governing jurisdiction in Honduras called the Próspera ZEDE (Economic Development and Employment Zone). According to Stern, property in Margarita sold so rapidly after the U.S.’s attack on January 3 that their company was running out of apartments to sell. Property values shot up, properties for $20,000-$30,000 were nowhere to be found, and CryptoCity experienced an influx of investors interested in visiting the island, he maintained.

While libertarians have long fantasized about sovereign, “free-market” enclaves, a movement for so-called private cities, built in highly autonomous special jurisdictions, gained new momentum after the 2008 economic crisis. Palantir co-founder Peter Thiel is one of the most prominent backers of the movement. The billionaire first backed the Seasteading Institute — an organization promoting ocean colonization — and then VC firm Pronomos Capital, an early investor in Próspera. In 2022, crypto investor Balaji Srinivasan took the tech-futurist and land-hungry movement to the next level, coining the idea of the “network state.” A network state refers to an online community that pools capital, forms a blockchain “nation,” and then crowdsources land and exploits legal exemptions to build para-national territories.

Military Bases Could Open Doors for Private Sovereignty

At the end of the recent World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Trump’s rhetoric on Greenland took a sharp turn, easing concerns over potential military conflict or crushing tariffs against European countries. Trump now claims to have reached a framework for a deal with NATO over Greenland and the Arctic, rumored to include sovereign territories for U.S. military bases, similar to the arrangement the U.S. holds in Guantánamo, Cuba.

Although official details have not been released and a larger conflict seems to have been averted, small territorial concessions in Greenland are still aligned with the interests of Trump’s tech oligarch allies and present a serious threat to the island. This is because even small pockets of U.S. territory could pave the way for venture capitalist interests in private jurisdiction development under the “network state” rubric.

Early in Trump’s second term, a rising network state project called Praxis — in fact a self-proclaimed “network empire” — enthusiastically backed Trump’s resolve to annex Greenland from Denmark, declaring plans to make it the first physical site for their digital nation. A week after Trump’s election, Praxis co-founder Dryden Brown announced that he had visited Greenland “to try to buy it.” Meanwhile Trump’s support for “Freedom Cities” within the United States (later named “Acceleration Zones”), an offshoot of Honduras’s Economic Development and Employment Zones (ZEDEs) like Próspera, moved from a campaign promise to official policy. Praxis — also backed by a group of mega tech and crypto investors including Pronomos, Balaji Srinivasan, Patri Friedman of the Seasteading Institute, Palantir co-founder Joe Lonsdale, Sam Bankman-Fried’s trading firm Alameda Research, and Apollo Ventures (the VC firm of OpenAI’s Sam Altman) — circulated a White House X post on November 5, 2025, that featured President Trump inside a pattern resembling the Praxian flag, adding a note: “Praxians in control.” The image leaves little room for doubt of Trump’s alliance with the right-wing network nation.

As the prospect of a full U.S. takeover of Greenland has grown increasingly remote, the idea of a Greenland-based “Freedom City” has understandably faded from view — but it has not disappeared entirely. An expanded U.S.–Denmark military base agreement could still create openings, depending on how its terms are structured. This possibility is underscored by Praxis’s focus on military defense and space exploration and its affinity towards designing cities adjacent to military installations.

In June 2025, Praxis proposed Atlas, a “defense-focused spaceport city on 3,850 acres at the Vandenberg Space Force Base,” in California, demonstrating its will to merge military development with network state plans. Praxis proposes launching Atlas first as a beachside industrial town to attract elite technical talent. Its close proximity to Department of Defense assets and Space Force installations on the base would enable “rapid test-to-deployment cycles” for AI-driven defense technology innovation. Estimated to attract 50,000 residents and produce $35 billion in income, Praxis promotes Atlas as a way to “defend the West on Earth and beyond.”

Danger of Expansion

In Honduras, small extensions of land were used by private city investors as a foothold to claim sovereignty and resist government oversight. The legislation backing ZEDEs was designed for these small footholds to grow over time. Honduras’s ZEDE law, which was passed in 2013, repealed in 2022, and ultimately ruled unconstitutional by the Honduran Supreme Court in 2024, contained a few key articles that insured the private territories would be difficult to contain. For instance, the law designated entire coastal areas with low population density as subject to the special ZEDE regime without a plebiscite or congressional approval, while also allowing new territory to be easily merged into the special jurisdiction if sold or voluntarily incorporated by a private landowner. The Próspera ZEDE, located on the Honduran island of Roatán, set a precedent for this when it purchased the Satuye Port, a non-contiguous territory on mainland Honduras, and placed it under the jurisdiction of the Próspera government. Próspera continued to operate as a self-governing territory and raise investment even after the Supreme Court’s ruling struck the ZEDE framework from the Honduran Constitution.

Praxis is a particularly extreme player in the network state movement. Western chauvinism is mixed with Mars colonization fantasies and allusions to white supremacist ideology in Praxis’s online discourse. One Praxis X post, for example, invokes the imperative to save the “corpse of Albion” — a term that refers to a fictitious independent island nation in the gaming world, but is also used by some ethnonationalist and neo-Nazi groups to reference a mythical, pre-modern, and “pure” Britain. Commenters responded to the post with “HAIL Praxis.” On February 6, 2025, Praxis boosted an X post titled “Make Rhodesia Great Again,” featuring a series of videoclips of colonial violence, and added “Praxians, are you ready for action?” Rhodesia, a former settler-colonial state in present-day Zimbabwe known for its systematic domination of the Black majority, is a widely recognized symbol of white nationalism. Praxis deploys other pre-fascist cultural concepts that were later adopted by European fascists and the Nazi Party, such as that of the “eternal city” and the “Faustian spirit.”

Taken together, Trump’s open disregard for the sovereignty of other nations does more than disrupt diplomatic norms; it paves the way for private city and network-state projects that revive long-standing logics of colonialism. If the Honduras case is any example, the legal details of an agreement between the United States and Denmark will be instrumental in determining the extent of the damage done to the island of Greenland and the self-determination of its people.

This article is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), and you are free to share and republish under the terms of the license.


Beth Geglia is an anthropologist and documentarian focused on urban political economy, land politics, and tech-futurist territorial movements. She holds a Ph.D. from American University and is based in Washington, D.C. and Barcelona.

Op-Ed

Peter Thiel Is Unleashing a Neocolonial Billionaire Fantasy in Honduras

Tech billionaires want to create their own city-states. Hondurans pay the price.


By Edith Romero , 
February 16, 2026

Peter Thiel speaks at The Cambridge Union on May 8, 2024, in Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, England.
Nordin Catic / Getty Images for The Cambridge Union

In April 2025, Peter Thiel’s Palantir made headlines after documents were released detailing its partnership with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to create ImmigrationOS, a massive database of information gathered from a variety of sources including the IRS, in order to surveil, detain, and deport immigrants. Thiel is not new to spearheading endeavors that aim to dehumanize and attack people of color. In fact, the tech mogul is one of the billionaires leading our modern-day version of tech neocolonialism, the new-yet-old imperial monster that colonizes land, extracts resources, exploits natives, and is happy to profit off of their suffering.

As a Honduran immigrant myself, I would know.

In 2009, Honduras found itself in turmoil after a military coup destabilized the country leading to unprecedented levels of violence and repression. Taking a page out of the “shock doctrine” playbook, the elite political actors behind the coup (including narco-dictator Juan Orlando Hernández, now pardoned by Donald Trump after being sentenced to 45 years in prison for drug trafficking and weapons charges) watered down environmental protections on Honduran land and approved illegal contracts to sell Indigenous and protected land to the highest bidder.

Among other corrupt dealings and land grabs, the government approved a law that enabled the creation of Peter Thiel’s Zones for Employment and Economic Development (ZEDEs). ZEDEs derive from the idea of “charter cities.” Proposed by former World Bank executive and economist Paul Romer, these proposed cities are enclaves within lower-income nations that “promote economic growth” through privatization and the disposal of national regulations, while gifting major tax incentives for foreign nations to invest in businesses. Special economic zones in Kenya, Bangladesh, and Ethiopia have faced criticism due to low wages, harsh working conditions, and threats to rights to free association and collective bargaining. Romer, one of the initial proponents of ZEDEs in Honduras, expressed criticism in 2015 regarding the Honduran ZEDEs and their lack of accountability to local laws, and anti-democratic governance.

These ZEDEs are a project of Praxis, a tech billionaire-funded start-up that aims to create libertarian city-states to “restore Western Civilization.” The ZEDEs are allowed to have their own government, police force, courts, laws, and any taxes collected would not be paid to the Honduran government but to the ZEDEs themselves. ZEDEs are a tech billionaire’s dream: unbridled power, tech fantasy, and resource hoarding, where the government is run by AI and cryptocurrency is the main currency.


Who Gained the Most During Trump’s First Year? Billionaires and Corporations.
Big banks saw their stocks skyrocket by 29 percent during Trump’s first year. Here’s who else cashed in. 
By Derek Seidman , Truthout January 20, 2026

Próspera (one of the three ZEDEs in Honduras) even has a Bitcoin center paired with tech companies that offer $25,000 gene therapy and “subdermal implantation services and a variety of cybernetic upgrades.” Próspera is located in Roatan, a Honduran island named one of the World’s Greatest Places in 2023 by TIME magazine. Roatan is a Caribbean tropical beauty surrounded by the second-largest coral reef in the world, and home to rich Afro-descendant culture, the Garifuna people who have been fighting threats to their sovereignty for centuries. A sought-after spot for foreign luxury tourism and investment, Roatan saw the foundation of Próspera in 2017 with funding from the likes of Peter Thiel and Pronomos Capital led by Patri Friedman, a grandson of Milton Friedman, seen by many as the father of neoliberalism, deregulation, and privatization.

There are endless reasons why ZEDEs are dangerous for the Honduran people. Human rights organizations have rung the alarm on how they have been displacing Indigenous communities who have ancestral ties to the land and expropriating their territory.

Greicy, an Indigenous Garífuna woman from Triunfo de la Cruz on the coast of Honduras, identifies similarities between the ZEDE in Próspera and other illegal land grabs and land dispossession in her ancestral hometown. Due to safety concerns, Greicy is only sharing her first name for this article.

“Even though they say otherwise, I see that only the rich are benefiting, knowing full well that we Garífuna people live off the beach, we live off tourism, we live off fishing, and we also live off growing our own food, cultivating our own food, harvesting and planting our own food. Right? But now we don’t have any land left,” she said.

Harassment, violence, and threats from the Honduran police force led Greicy to migrate North to New Orleans, standing as a living testimony of how neocolonialism has displaced millions of families in the Global South.

Greicy’s family was part of the 2015 Inter-American Court ruling that found the state of Honduras guilty of violating the rights of the Garifuna people in Triunfo de la Cruz and Punta Piedra, and ordered the state to pay restitution for their communal land rights. Despite the ruling, the Honduran state has not started any process of restitution, with threats and violence towards Garifuna leaders persisting. Greicy sees ZEDEs as the ultimate tool to dispossess the Garifuna people of their ancestral homeland.

“In Honduras, the ruling has not been carried out, the demands have not been met. And I imagine there would be even more land dispossession [with more ZEDES], dispossession not only of homes, but of people’s very means of survival. Yes, it would be worse because we know that all these special economic development zones benefit high-ranking officials, wealthy individuals with investments, and foreign investors who attend political meetings. And how does this benefit the people? Not at all. Exactly,” she explained.

Concerns regarding ZEDEs and neocolonialist dispossession of communities on the North coast of Honduras often involve drug-trafficking activity, including money laundering, says Greicy.

“Those who are going to invest there are Americans. One reason is to bring in their prohibited substances, because we know that’s also included in the deal. Money laundering is also involved, right? When they go to the beaches, supposedly for tourists, and all that, that’s also money laundering, because the beach is a free zone, merchandise is smuggled there, everything is sold there. And someone like me, living in the town, just stays quiet because of fear…. If I were in Honduras, I tell you, I wouldn’t be telling you this,” she said.

Greicy’s fear is not unfounded: Research on special economic zones such as the ones in China has documented “economic gray zones” inside the enclaves where drugs, money laundering, and human trafficking abound. Others are concerned about how ZEDEs have the power to create inhumane labor laws to exploit Hondurans, but let’s take a moment to look at the big picture.

ZEDEs are the tech billionaire representation of neocolonialism; taking hold of Honduran land, resources, and a workforce to build playground empires for tech billionaires to avoid constitutional protections, government accountability, or even human rights protections.

In 2022, the new government of Honduras repealed the ZEDEs law, which led to a $10.7 billion lawsuit from Thiel’s Próspera that could bankrupt an already struggling country. Unfortunately, the ZEDEs law has a loophole that has allowed the so-called “digital nations” like Próspera to continue.

In December 2025, Honduras concluded a presidential election completely tainted by U.S. intervention via Donald Trump’s public support for the right-wing Nationalist Party candidate Nasry Asfura, as well as Trump’s threats to cut U.S. aid to Honduras if another candidate won. The connection of special interests between Trump, his tech billionaire friends, and ZEDEs are clear, and Nasry stands as the champion that will do Trump’s and Thiel’s bidding at the expense of the lives and rights of the Honduran people.

Greicy explained the dire position of immigrants facing dispossession in their ancestral homeland — and detention, surveillance, and violence in the United States at the hand of the same powerful forces.

If the expansion of more ZEDEs in Honduras were to happen, “immigration is going to get worse, because we know that those of us who are here want to leave, and the people who are there are being forced out and will come here. They will come seeking political asylum, something that will be denied to them,” she said.

It is not the first time Thiel has used people of color in crisis as a laboratory for his monstrous oligarchic fantasies. Thiel’s Palantir is one of the main providers of advanced AI targeting software and hardware to Israeli forces; the technology is used to target, surveil, and murder Palestinians. As a genocide continues under a ceasefire that has not been respected by Israel, Palantir continues to, as its CEO Alex Karp said in an understatement, “occasionally kill people.” Palantir not only provides the technology to massacre Palestinians but also trained its AI models with secretly received National Security Agency raw data of emails and phone conversations between Palestinians in occupied territories and their family in the U.S.

In 2020, Karp admitted that Palantir “[finds] people in our country who are undocumented,” referring to contracts with the Department of Homeland Security to use Palantir to surveil undocumented immigrants. Thiel and his billionaire gang are building a new profit frontier off of the livelihoods of people of color. The theft of land and resources, the mass surveillance and endless data collection — Thiel’s pet projects regard immigrants and people of color as expendable. We are one more resource they will gladly extract, whether it is our land, labor, data, or our own lives. As data centers gobble up resources in the form of drinkable water and energy, the technology they house exploits people of color, whether it’s through biased facial recognition tech or predictive policing technology that tries to criminalize us.

Just like the Spanish colonized Latin America through forced labor, extraction of resources, and subjugation of the Indigenous peoples, Peter Thiel and his gang of tech billionaires are drafting up plans to re-colonize Latin America, occupying land, displacing native inhabitants, and then profiting from surveilling and incarcerating them after they are forced to flee to the United States. Thiel, conveniently, has lately been preaching the coming of an “antichrist” in the guise of environmentalism, guardrails on technology, and international agencies, even singling out Greta Thunberg as the possible antichrist. On the topic of the libertarian utopia of “charter cities” like Próspera, Thiel has said “the nature of government is about to change at a very fundamental level.”

Ultimately, Palantir’s ImmigrationOS is a weapon that ICE and other government agencies use to detain kidnapped immigrants under inhumane conditions and force them to perform manual labor in detention centers. A trans detainee in a Louisiana ICE jail denounced this forced manual labor in 2025 — in his case, he was force to carry cinder blocks — and then faced sexual harassment after speaking out against this unsanctioned practice. As Palantir facilitates forced labor schemes, Thiel amasses power through his investments in Facebook, Donald Trump, and ZEDEs.

From the U.S. to Honduras, tech billionaires are waging a war on people of color. These oligarchs are employing the old and overused re-packaging of neocolonialism and repression as “development” and “progress” — even labeling AI tech as “inevitable.” When feeling overwhelmed by the power and influence of tech billionaires who care not about our lives or the planet but only about endless profit, I remind myself that they are quite literally a 1 percent. We are an undeniable winning force if we come together.

Tech billionaires are not the future. They are just another colonizer looking for a scheme to grow power and wealth on our backs. To start, we can always hit them where they care the most, their money — boycott generative AI, fight against data centers, fight against and denounce Palantir contracts being paid with our tax money, and support Indigenous communities fighting against ZEDEs. Let’s ditch the glorification of billionaires like Thiel and Musk who care only about power and profit. Let’s call them what they are: colonizers that see us, people of color, as their new profit frontier.


This article is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), and you are free to share and republish under the terms of the license.

Edith Romero is a Honduran community organizer, researcher, writer, and a Public Voices fellow of The OpEd Project, The National Latina Institute for Reproductive Justice, and the Every Page Foundation.



Pëtr Kropotkin The State: Its Historic Role 1896 Note for the marxists ... plain PDF A4 imposed PDF Letter imposed PDF EPUB (for mobile devices) ...


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.
This key factor is fueling rampant inequality under Trump

Robert Reich
February 22, 2026  
RAW STORY


Donald Trump holds a board sourced from Bureau of Labour Statistics. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst

I was secretary of labor 30 years ago when the U.S. economy was producing an average of 200,000 new jobs a month.

I remember holding news conferences on “jobs days” each month. I felt confident about the strength of the economy. What worried me then was that the new jobs didn’t pay well. (A disgruntled worker once called out to me, “Sure, Mr. Secretary, lots of new jobs. I’m doing three of them to make ends meet!”)

Last Wednesday, the Labor Department reported that the United States produced an average of just 15,000 new jobs per month last year — a record low. And most paid sh--.

January showed an uptick in jobs, but almost all of the new jobs were in health care and construction. The rest of the economy seems to be shrinking. And wages are still stuck in the mud.

Profits of big corporations have soared. The stock market values attached to these profits have risen even more. Yet average workers are barely making it.

The U.S. economy is more distorted than ever.


The widening gap between corporate profits and average workers — between capital and labor — helps explain the disconnect between a buoyant economy and pessimistic households. Consumer confidence is in the basement.

The gap was widening before Donald Trump was elected. It explains in part the rise of MAGA and why Trump won in 2016 and again in 2024.

But Trump hasn’t done a thing to alter these trends. In fact, since he became president again, corporate profits (and the stock market) have done even better than before, while average workers have seen almost no gains in jobs or wages.

“I think we have the greatest economy actually ever in history,” Trump said in an interview with Fox Business’s Larry Kudlow that aired Tuesday.

That’s not what most Americans think. Even most young men — central to Trump’s wins in 2016 and 2024 — now believe they were better off under Joe Biden.

We’re not powerless to alter these trends. The “free market” doesn’t run on automatic. The rules of the economy depend on political decisions — such as tax laws, antitrust laws, and labor laws.

Since Ronald Reagan was president, the nation has lowered taxes on the wealthy and raised them (especially Social Security and state sales taxes) on average Americans.

America has also allowed big corporations to monopolize the economy — which has given them the power to raise prices without worrying that a competitor will grab consumers away.

And what about labor laws?


Take a look at this chart.


The blue line represents the percentage of the national income going to the richest 10 percent — that is, how much of every dollar earned in the United States goes into the pockets of the wealthiest tenth of Americans.

The red line represents the percentage of workers that belong to a union.

Notice a pattern?

The 1940s and 50s saw a dramatic rise in union membership. Laws and public policies encouraged unionization.

That was also a time when a growing portion of the nation’s income went into the pockets of ordinary working people instead of the pockets of the richest 10 percent.

That’s because unions give workers more bargaining power to get a larger share of the profits they helped generate. The benefits of unions helped nonunion workers too. In order to attract workers, corporations that didn’t have unions had to increase the pay of their workers, too.

As a result, by the mid-1950s, America’s economy was powered by the biggest middle class this nation had ever seen. Racial and gender disparities were still a big problem, but America was making progress on them as income inequality trended downward.

So what happened?

As you can see, union membership started to decline in the 1970s.

That was after Lewis Powell — soon to be a justice on the Supreme Court, then an attorney in Richmond, Virginia — urged the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the leaders of American corporations to pour great wads of money into American politics.

Corporations doubled-down on busting unions, while their allies in government weakened labor laws.

Then, starting with Reagan in the early 1980s, corporate attacks on unions got turbocharged. Reagan fired the striking air-traffic controllers. Legally, they had no right to strike, but Reagan’s move legitimized a far broader assault on American unions.

Since then, unions have steadily shrunk, and the gap between the rich and everyone else has taken off. I saw it when I was secretary of labor in the 1990s. I was worried then. I’m far more worried now.

Today, the top 10 percent are doing okay, largely because they own 92 percent of the value of all the shares of stock owned by Americans, and the stock market is doing just fine. The real wealth of the nation has now concentrated in the richest one-tenth of 1 percent.

And the bottom 90 percent are barely holding on.

My friends, this is not bad only for the bottom 90 percent. It’s also bad for the economy and dangerous for our democracy. If unaddressed, it could lead to more demagogues like Trump as far as the eye can see.

As the great jurist Louis Brandeis is reputed to have said: America has a choice. We can have great wealth in the hands of a few, or we can have a democracy, but we cannot have both.

If we want to make sure our economy works for everyone, not just the super-rich, we need to build back union power.

A resurgence of labor unions would go a long way toward fighting inequality, rebuilding a large and vibrant middle class, and making life better for all Americans.

Which is why it’s vital that we support unions.


Please take a look below, and share:


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

Economist calls out Trump while dropping stark warning about US dollar: 'Will happen soon'

David McAfee
February 22, 2026
RAW STORY


U.S. President Donald Trump gestures during the White House Faith Office Luncheon at the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S., July 14, 2025. REUTERS/Nathan Howard

An economist said on Sunday that Donald Trump was wrong to claim he "can destroy the economy of any foreign country" using various trade embargos.

Peter Schiff, a financial commentator and radio personality who has been raising alarms about America’s affordability crisis, weighed in over the weekend. Previously, Trump himself went nuclear when Schiff did an appearance on Fox News.

“Why would Fox and Friends Weekend (of all things?) put on a ‘Stockbroker’ named Peter Schiff, a Trump hating loser who has already proven to be wrong. Either the show made a mistake, or it is heading in a different direction,” Trump wrote in December.

More recently, Schiff issued an ominous prediction to the president.

Now, stockbroker Schiff is dropping a correction.

"Trump claims that he can destroy the economy of any foreign country by putting an embargo on our imports," Schiff wrote. "If Trump cuts off American consumers, there is an entire world of foreign consumers who would gladly buy what Americans can’t. It’s the U.S. economy that would be destroyed."

When a detractor said to Schiff, "No country in the world has the consuming power of the US!" the economist responded with, "They will as the dollar falls and their currencies rise. Ultimately consuming power comes from producing power, which foreign countries have and America lacks. Supply creates its own demand."

Another user asked, "If foreign companies have so many other buyers lined up, then why don’t they walk?" to which he replied, "They should and they will. But not until the dollar tanks, which will happen soon."

In a separate post, he added, "The Trump administration is threatening to use presidential authority to impose full embargoes that prevent Americans from buying any imported products from particular countries or from all countries. This would be even more harmful to Americans and the U.S. economy than tariffs."




'Literally a lie': Economist thrashes Trump's 'best story' about the economy


Robert Davis
February 22, 2026 
RAW STORY

A prominent economist thrashed President Donald Trump's "best story" about the U.S. economy during a new interview on Sunday.

Last week, Trump claimed that he had "won affordability" during a speech in Rome, Georgia. But that claim appears to contradict the latest economic data released by his administration, which showed that U.S. economic growth slowed to 2.2% in 2025 from 2.8% in 2024, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Meanwhile, inflation increased more than expected in December, Reuters reported.

Justin Wolfers, economics and public policy professor at the University of Michigan, said during an interview on MS NOW's "Alex Witt Reports" that the data proved Trump's story about the economy is "literally a lie."


"We all know it's a lie," Wolfers said.

"There are people in his White House who are printing signs with lies for people to hold up, because a lie is the best story that they've got to tell right now," he continued, referring to signs Trump supporters have held up at rallies declaring that prices for consumers are coming down.

"Morally, I find lying disgusting," Wolfers added. "Economically, I think the answer here is very simple, which is he's losing on affordability. He always declares victory. I'm not going to give the man's words any credence, but the reality is utterly clear to every one of us who goes to the store."



Sunday, February 22, 2026

After Supreme Court Kills Tariffs, Trump Plots ‘15% Tax Out of YOUR Pockets to Feed HIS Deranged Ego’

“Donald Trump is a gangster with no respect for the rule of law and no understanding of economics,” said former Democratic presidential candidate Tom Steyer.



President Donald Trump’s press conference on tariffs is displayed on a television as traders work on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange on February 20, 2026 in New York City.
(Photo by Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images)

Jessica Corbett
Feb 21, 2026
COMMON DREAMS

Shortly after the US Supreme Court on Friday ruled against President Donald Trump’s use of emergency powers to impose sweeping tariffs, the Republican announced plans for a 10% global import tax under another law. By Saturday, he’d hiked it to 15%.

In a 6-3 decision penned by Chief Justice John Roberts, the high court found that “nothing” in the text of the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) “enables the president to unilaterally impose tariffs.” Trump responded by not only lashing out at the justices but also invoking Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 for a 10% global tariff beginning February 24.

Then, in a Saturday morning Truth Social post, Trump said:
Based on a thorough, detailed, and complete review of the ridiculous, poorly written, and extraordinarily anti-American decision on tariffs issued yesterday, after MANY months of contemplation, by the United States Supreme Court, please let this statement serve to represent that I, as President of the United States of America, will be, effective immediately, raising the 10% Worldwide Tariff on Countries, many of which have been ‘ripping’ the US off for decades, without retribution (until I came along!), to the fully allowed, and legally tested, 15% level. During the next short number of months, the Trump Administration will determine and issue the new and legally permissible Tariffs, which will continue our extraordinarily successful process of Making America Great Again GREATER THAN EVER BEFORE!!! Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Critics across the country swiftly blasted the announcement. Democratic strategist Jon Cooper argued that “Trump CANNOT legally impose a 15% global tariff because the US doesn’t meet the clear emergency economic conditions envisioned by Section 122. If Trump tries to invoke it, it would certainly face immediate legal challenges, economic pushback, and potential congressional scrutiny.”

Former Democratic presidential candidate Tom Steyer declared that “Donald Trump is a gangster with no respect for the rule of law and no understanding of economics. This is a 15% tax out of YOUR pockets to feed HIS deranged ego.”

California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who’s expected to seek the Democratic presidential nomination in 2028, similarly said that “Donald Trump just announced a NEW 15% TAX on the American people. He does not care about you.”

Another California Democrat, Congressman Ted Lieu, quipped that “crybaby Trump woke up this morning and still feels hurt from the Supreme Court slapping him. So he’s taking it out on the American people by increasing his 10% tax increase to 15%. These temporary tariffs will be challenged in court and Democrats will kill them when they expire.”




Elected Democrats have often spoken out against Trump’s legally dubious duties, but the GOP-controlled Congress hadn’t forcefully countered them. As Politico detailed Friday:
Before the ruling, while congressional Republicans had occasionally grumbled about the policy, they had largely fallen in line when actually required to vote on it. Now, the Supreme Court’s decision could put more pressure on them to break with the president...

Six House Republicans voted alongside Democrats last week to condemn Trump’s tariffs on Canada, sending the measure to the Senate, which has already seen significant GOP defection in other votes on the duty measures. Senior House Democrats have vowed to bring up at least three more similar resolutions that will force GOP members to choose between their adherence to free trade principles and their MAGA base.

Last week, Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), ranking member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, released a report laying out how Trump’s economic policies, particularly the tariffs, “are making life unaffordable for millions of American small businesses, their workers, and their customers.”

Markey held a virtual press conference with Massachusetts small business owners celebrating the Supreme Court’s Friday ruling. The senator said that “for the last year, Trump has created Pain on Main with an affordability crisis plaguing communities across the country. At the heart of it are Trump’s tariff taxes.”

“The Supreme Court did what was right and struck down these illegal tariffs. Trump said the small businesses who brought this case hate our country. He’s wrong. Small businesses are our country,” Markey continued. “I will keep fighting until every cent illegally collected from small businesses, consumers, and families in Massachusetts and across the country has been returned.”

'Brilliant' Costco to reap rewards for opposing Trump early: report


People shop at a Costco store in the Staten Island borough of New York City, U.S., January 16, 2026. Brendan McDermid/File Photo
February 20, 2026 
ALTERNET

Costco’s decision to buck President Donald Trump appears to have paid off now that a majority od Supreme Court Justices have destroyed his self-appointed power to impose arbitrary international tariffs at the whim of a social media post

“Back in December, I wrote about how Costco became the first major retailer — and the largest company — to sue the Trump administration over tariffs. At the time, the question practically asked itself: brilliant or insane?” said Inc. reporter Bill Murphy. “Two months later, there is a much clearer answer.”

 When SCOTUS deemed Trump’s tariffs to be illegal on Friday it left open the door of what exactly to do about the tens of billions of dollars the Trump administration has been slurping up from U.S. consumers and businesses with its import tax.

“If the refunds materialize as many companies hope, Costco’s decision to jump into court early could look less like a gamble and more like sharp strategic timing,” said Murphy.

Costco was not the only company to sue the Trump administration over its tariffs, but it was the most visible among similar filings by similar tariff challenges EssilorLuxottica, Kawasaki Motors, Revlon, Bumble Bee Foods, Goodyear, and others.

But the Supreme Court’s decision was primitive and singular. It delivered no plans or tactic for Trump to return his ill-gained money to companies, nor for companies to reimburse their consumers the added fees they were forced to collect for tariffed purchases. So, Murphy predicted the administrative process to be “complex.”

Murphy pointed out that the mechanics of tariff refunds likely will depend on “preserving claims while entries are still legally contestable,” which is something early filers have already worked out.

The result, he said, is not a literal “front of the line” reimbursement in the way creditors recoup their fees. However, companies that moved first “may face fewer procedural hurdles as the government unwinds what could be more than $170 billion in collected duties.”

Costco, by being one of the first companies to speak up against the Trump administration in defense of their consumers, could conceivably benefit from direct cash recovery on tariffs that it has already paid, earlier administrative positioning because it recorded and kept tabs on its claims for its attorneys, and “strategic credibility with investors for having acted decisively,” said Murphy.


Trump hikes global tariffs while still fuming over Supreme Court’s ‘ridiculous’ ruling

Alexander Willis
February 21, 2026
RAW STORY


U.S. President Donald Trump speaks with members of the media aboard Air Force One en route from Florida to Washington, U.S., January 11, 2026. REUTERS/Nathan Howard

President Donald Trump announced a dramatic increase to global tariffs on Saturday in response to the Supreme Court’s ruling the day before against his so-called “reciprocal tariffs,” a ruling he slammed as “ridiculous” and “poorly written.”

“Based on a thorough, detailed, and complete review of the ridiculous, poorly written, and extraordinarily anti-American decision on Tariffs issued yesterday, after MANY months of contemplation, by the United States Supreme Court, please let this statement serve to represent that I, as President of the United States of America, will be, effective immediately, raising the 10% Worldwide Tariff on Countries, many of which have been ‘ripping’ the U.S. off for decades, without retribution (until I came along!), to the fully allowed, and legally tested, 15% level,” Trump wrote on his social media platform Truth Social.

“During the next short number of months, the Trump Administration will determine and issue the new and legally permissible Tariffs, which will continue our extraordinarily successful process of Making America Great Again - GREATER THAN EVER BEFORE!!!”

Shortly after the Supreme Court’s ruling Friday, Trump vowed to pursue “alternative” paths to imposing tariffs on other nations in an effort to circumvent the court’s decision. He also raged against the justices that ruled against his tariffs, including two of his own appointees, who he said he was "ashamed " of.



Economist flags Trump's one-day flip flop after having 'months to prepare' his next move

David McAfee
February 21, 2026
RAW STORY


Donald Trump (Reuters)

Donald Trump had "literally months to prepare" a response but still fumbled it, changing his mind after one day, according to an economist on Saturday.

The Supreme Court smacked down Trump's tariff policies in a stunning rebuke from the most conservative high court in modern history, and Trump responded by waffling his new plan, according to noted economist Justin Wolfers.

In response to the decision, Trump first said he had enacted a 10% global tariff by executive order. Then on Saturday, he raised it to 15% via a Truth Social Post.

"Based on a thorough, detailed, and complete review of the ridiculous, poorly written, and extraordinarily anti-American decision on Tariffs issued yesterday, after MANY months of contemplation, by the United States Supreme Court, please let this statement serve to represent that I, as President of the United States of America, will be, effective immediately, raising the 10% Worldwide Tariff on Countries, many of which have been 'ripping' the U.S. off for decades, without retribution (until I came along!), to the fully allowed, and legally tested, 15% level," Trump wrote this weekend.

Wolfers flagged the chaotic nature of the response, saying on X, "The President had literally months to prepare his response to the Supreme Court ruling, yet couldn't even stick with his decision on the s.122 (temporary) tariff from Friday to Saturday, raising it from 10% to 15%."



'Trump became enraged' and used expletives after news of Supreme Court smackdown: report

Nicole Charky-Chami
February 20, 2026 
RAW STORY


President Donald Trump holds a working breakfast with governors at the White House in Washington, D.C. on Feb. 20, 2026. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque

President Donald Trump was reportedly infuriated Friday after the Supreme Court ruled that his tariffs were illegal.

Trump was hosting the National Governor's Association breakfast with a room full of the nation's governors at the White House when he found out about the high court's decision to strike down Trump's tariffs in a 6-3 vote.

"Apparently the gov breakfast had been going well, they were working together, and then President Trump became enraged. He started ranting about the decision, not only calling it a disgrace, but started attacking the courts at one point saying, these 'f------ courts,'" said CNN senior White House correspondent Kristen Holmes.


"This tariff policy — this could not be a bigger decision for President Trump — this could not be a bigger loss for President Trump," Holmes added. "Not only is so much of his economic agenda based on these tariffs, so much of his foreign policy is based on these tariffs. He has used these tariffs as leverage in almost every meeting that he has had around the world. He has touted them as the most important part of the economic agenda. So clearly, a huge loss, and he recognizes that today."

Trump and his administration have not yet made an official announcement in response. His team was reportedly meeting to determine next moves, Holmes said.


Farmers giddy as Trump dealt 'big loss' at Supreme Court

Matthew Chapman
February 20, 2026
RAW STORY


​GOP senator accuses Trump of having poor 'bedtime manners' after he's caught napping

John Boyd, Jr., the head of the National Black Farmers Association, celebrated Friday on MS NOW following the Supreme Court's decision invalidating President Donald Trump's authority to use emergency powers to enact tariffs.

"So, John, this morning you were feeling pretty positive," said anchor Antonia Hylton. "But now that President Trump says he's going to keep pushing these tariffs through no matter what, how are you doing?"

"Well, you know, I don't care how you look at it today — it's a big win for me and a big loss for this president," said Boyd, who has previously warned the tariffs are devastating farmers to the point of suicide. "That's why he was screaming to the top of his lungs at this press conference. He knows he lost in a big way today. And this is the first step in the right direction."

The ruling, he continued, is "the first real hard note that this president has heard from the Supreme Court since he became elected. 6 to 3 is a pretty sweeping, you know, victory. I don't care how you look at it."

The next step, said Boyd, is "we want to turn to Congress to see how we can get compensated for lost revenue from all of the hardship that these tariffs have cost us. In the soybean market alone, we lost $54 billion, and the president is proposing $12 billion. I mean, people, you can do the math there. What the Supreme Court didn't do is lay out how farmers like myself are going to recoup our losses based on the damage from the president's tariffs."

"But I don't care how you look at it today, this president lost and John Boyd won today, because I've been on your show saying that these tariffs are illegal," he added. "And the courts agreed with me today. And what the president said to the Supreme Court today was deplorable. He called them lapdogs and fools and RINOs. How does he think that other world leaders are looking at this decision and rating him today? It shows his lack of leadership skills."



Historian breathes sigh of relief over Trump's crippling blow: 'James Madison is smiling'


Nicole Charky-Chami
February 20, 2026 
RAW STORY


Tim Naftali, CNN's presidential historian, described why the nation's founding fathers would have approved of the Supreme Court's decision to strike back President Donald Trump's tariffs. (CNN/Screenshot)

A historian Friday described the historic impact of the Supreme Court's decision in its ruling against President Donald Trump's tariffs — something the nation's founders would have appreciated.

Tim Naftali, CNN's presidential historian and former head of the Nixon Presidential Library, explained why the high court's ruling was an active practice of what the Constitution was intended to do.

"Well, wherever he is, James Madison is smiling today. Tariffs are a tax. The founders decided that taxes should be the responsibility of the Article One branch, which is Congress," Naftali said.

"And today the U.S. Constitution worked as it's supposed to work, which is to keep various parts of the government in check when they overstep constitutional bounds," he added.

The court's decision was also one of many times throughout history that the Supreme Court has pushed back on a president.

"This is a huge moment in American history," Naftali said. "Donald Trump is not the first president to have been disappointed by the court. The courts in the 1930s invalidated Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal. That's what led to the first push to pack the court that was Roosevelt's response to the fact that he was so angry at the court for undermining the New Deal.


"In the end, the court changed, and the New Deal stayed. Richard Nixon was furious at the court for forcing him to turn over the tapes when he lost the case. U.S. v Nixon. Well, the Dobbs decision really unsettled the Biden presidency. And Obama was not happy with Citizens United."

He said it's not new for presidents to be unhappy about a Supreme Court decision, but it is American.

"It's the way that it works. Our system is supposed to work this way every so often. One of the branches is supposed to be disappointed when it can't engage in a power grab that is unconstitutional."



Even Without the 'Emergency' Powers SCOTUS Rejected, Trump Has a Bunch of Tariff Options

Jacob Sullum
Fri, February 20, 2026 
REASON



President Trump's claim of sweeping tariff authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) was rejected by the Supreme Court, leading to a major setback for him.See more

President Donald Trump suffered a major setback today at the Supreme Court, which rejected his claim of sweeping tariff authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). Trump could have avoided that embarrassing defeat if he was not so keen on asserting broad, unbridled powers based on a dubious legal interpretation, which is part of a pattern with him.

"When Congress grants the power to impose tariffs, it does so clearly and with careful constraints," Chief Justice John Roberts notes in Learning Resources v. Trump, the decision rejecting Trump's interpretation of IEEPA. As that observation suggests, there is no shortage of statutes that empower the president to impose tariffs. Trump himself already has used some of them and can be expected to do so again now that the Supreme Court has closed off this particular route. But all of those laws restrict presidential action by specifying acceptable rationales, requiring agency investigations, or limiting the size, scope, or duration of tariff hikes.

Because Trump wanted to avoid those restrictions, he instead latched onto IEEPA, a 1977 law that does not even mention tariffs and had never before been used to impose them. The government's lawyers cited an IEEPA provision that authorizes the president to "regulate" imports in certain circumstances. That provision, they claimed, included a hitherto unnoticed power to completely rewrite the tariff schedule approved by Congress. Trump maintained that IEEPA authorizes the president to impose any taxes he wants on any imports he chooses from any country he decides to target for any length of time he considers appropriate whenever he deems it necessary to "deal with" an "unusual and extraordinary threat" from abroad that constitutes a "national emergency."

That reading of the law was implausible for several reasons, not least because it rendered superfluous the many statutes that explicitly allow the president to impose tariffs. Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, for example, authorizes taxes on imports that "threaten to impair the U.S. national security." During his first term, Trump used that law to impose tariffs on steel and aluminum, which he expanded last year, raising the rate and applying the taxes to home appliances made from those materials. He also invoked Section 232 to justify tariffs on cars and car parts.

Unlike the power that Trump unsuccessfully claimed under IEEPA, his Section 232 authority is limited. It requires a Commerce Department investigation that must be completed within 270 days after it is initiated, focused on specific goods that supposedly implicate national security. While such determinations are frequently dubious, the resulting tariffs are much more narrowly targeted than the steep, indiscriminate "Liberation Day" tariffs that Trump announced last April, which applied to myriad categories of goods from scores of countries.

According to Trump, those tariffs were aimed (if that is the right word) at addressing the "unusual and extraordinary threat" posed by the overall gap between exported and imported goods. Leaving aside the question of whether that long-standing deficit qualifies as an emergency or even a problem, you might wonder why Trump invoked IEEPA to deal with it rather than a law that is much more obviously relevant.

Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 authorizes tariffs to address "large and serious United States balance-of-payments deficits" that present "fundamental international payments problems." That law was inapposite, the Trump administration's lawyers argued, because balance-of-payments deficits are different from trade deficits. But as trade policy experts Marc L. Busch and Daniel Trefler noted in response to that argument, "goods trade is the dominant component of the current account, which is at the heart of the balance of payments." The upshot is that "more than 90 percent of the balance of payments is the trade deficit."

Why would the government obscure that reality? Possibly because, as the U.S. Court on International Trade (CIT) noted when it rejected Trump's interpretation of IEEPA last May, "Congress's enactment of Section 122 indicates that even 'large and serious United States balance-of-payments deficits' do not necessitate the use of emergency powers and justify only the President's imposition of limited remedies subject to enumerated procedural constraints."

Those constraints include a 15 percent rate cap and a maximum duration of 150 days, which can be extended only with congressional approval. The CIT concluded that "Section 122 removes the President's power to impose remedies in response to balance-of-payments deficits, and specifically trade deficits, from the broader powers granted to a president during a national emergency under IEEPA by establishing an explicit non-emergency statute with greater limitations."

Another seemingly germane law is Section 201 of the Trade Act, which authorizes tariffs when a good "is being imported into the United States in such increased quantities as to be a substantial cause of serious injury" to U.S. manufacturers. Such tariffs are supposed to "facilitate positive adjustment to import competition." Trump is clearly aware of that provision, which he invoked in 2018 to impose tariffs on solar cells and modules. He also targeted imports of residential washing machines under Section 201. But like Section 232 and Section 122, Section 201 includes limits that evidently irked Trump.

Section 201 tariffs require an investigation by the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC), which must be completed within 180 days after the ITC receives a petition from aggrieved domestic manufacturers. That process includes public hearings and solicitation of public comments, and any resulting tariffs, which can be no higher than 50 percent, are supposed to target a specific industry, as opposed to all goods from a given country or set of countries. The tariffs initially can be imposed for four years, which can be extended to eight years, but they must be gradually reduced if they last longer than a year.

Section 301 of the same law authorizes tariffs when the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) determines, in response to a petition, that "an act, policy, or practice of a foreign country" either violates a trade agreement or "is unjustifiable and burdens or restricts United States commerce." We know Trump is familiar with Section 301 because he used it to impose tariffs on imports from China in 2018. But the pesky process it requires is a bit more complicated than simply issuing an executive order.

A Section 301 committee considers petitions, conducts hearings, and makes recommendations to the USTR, which has to consult with the relevant foreign government to investigate the possibility of a voluntary resolution. Any resulting tariffs automatically end after four years unless the USTR receives a request to extend them.

During the first Trump administration, the USTR looked into digital services taxes imposed by France and other countries. Last July, it launched an investigation of Brazil's "acts, policies, and practices" related to "unfair, preferential tariffs," "anti-corruption enforcement," "illegal deforestation," "ethanol market access," "intellectual property protection," "digital trade," and "electronic payment services." But instead of waiting for the outcome of that investigation, Trump suddenly, unilaterally, and sharply hiked tariffs on various Brazilian imports, including beef, based on his alleged authority under IEEPA.

Section 338 of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 likewise targets "discrimination by foreign countries," but it may be more appealing to Trump because it seems to give him broader discretion. It authorizes the president to impose tariffs "whenever he shall find as fact" that a foreign country "discriminates in fact against the commerce of the United States, directly or indirectly," or that it is imposing "any unreasonable charge, exaction, regulation, or limitation which is not equally enforced upon the like articles of every foreign country." Based on such a finding, the president "shall by proclamation specify and declare new or additional duties" up to 50 percent.

Although the president's authority under this provision "appears to overlap with that of USTR under Section 301 of the Trade Act," the Congressional Research Service notes, "Section 338 does not appear to require any agency investigation or determination as a prerequisite to imposing tariffs." But it does charge the ITC with identifying practices that discriminate against U.S. commerce and informing the president about them, which "may raise a question as to whether the ITC must find that discrimination has occurred before the President may impose tariffs."

U.S. officials, including President Franklin D. Roosevelt, threatened tariffs under Section 338 on various occasions from 1935 to 1949, but none were actually imposed. "There appears to be no activity under Section 338 provisions since 1949," the Institute of Geoeconomics reports. It notes that "Section 338 measures would seem to run counter to the frameworks provided under the World Trade Organization and other trade agreements, allowing for the possibility that members may be permitted to impose retaliatory measures against the United States if Section 338 was used to impose tariffs."

Since Trump was unfazed by the fact that no president had ever used IEEPA to impose tariffs in the 48 years since that law was enacted, he is unlikely to be deterred by the fact that Section 338 has been dormant even longer. And even without Section 338, there are plenty of ways he can pursue his protectionist agenda, which is driven by a long-standing hostility to free trade rooted in fundamental economic misconceptions. Although opponents of that worldview scored a big victory today, they will have to continue their fight against the painful policies that Trump is determined to impose on American businesses and consumers.

The post Even Without the 'Emergency' Powers SCOTUS Rejected, Trump Has a Bunch of Tariff Options appeared first on Reason.com.