General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsTrump responds to SCOTUS telling him he can't impose tariffs by imposing a 10% "global tariff"
IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs, read the decision, written by Chief Justice John Roberts.
Trump attacked the high court in his first response Friday, particularly the justices in the majority, saying they were a "disgrace to our nation." He hinted that the administration would pursue alternative methods toward implementing its trade goals.
His first move: Imposing a 10% "global tariff" under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. That statute allows the president to impose tariffs of up to 15% for up to 150 days to address trade deficits. That authority, however, has never been used to impose tariffs.
The ruling also raised the question of refunds, which could return over $100 billion to importers in the months ahead. It upholds two lower courts including the US Court of International Trade that previously found Trump did not have the authority to impose global tariffs using the 1977 law.
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/live/tariff-ruling-live-coverage-trump-attacks-supreme-court-says-hes-imposing-10-global-tariff-184403193.html
ck4829
(37,554 posts)It's the equivalent of Trump breaking the glass and pulling a lever down on a fire alarm for our economy. Not something you would see in a "golden age" for sure.
MichMan
(16,945 posts)Section 232 tariffs include 50% levies on imports of semi-finished copper products, 25% levies on certain imported semiconductors including Nvidia's (NVDA) H200 chips and automobile tariffs, including 25% levies on trucks and 10% levies on buses.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/live/tariff-ruling-live-coverage-trump-attacks-supreme-court-says-hes-imposing-10-global-tariff-184403193.html
dpibel
(3,843 posts)You're arguing that a law enacted in 1962 can't apply to semiconductors because those didn't exist in 1962?
That's some wild legal analysis.
Johonny
(25,844 posts)Plus, too lazy to actually negotiate. Worst president ever.
LetMyPeopleVote
(177,634 posts)trump's new replacement tariffs are illegal. These tariffs can only be used when there is a balance-of-payments deficit which is very different from a balance of trade deficit. Since the US is no longer on a currency fixed exchange rate there have not been any balance of payment deficits for a couple of decades. These tariffs will be challenged and trump will lose again
Fascinating National Review post on Trump's latest Tariff gambit. Archive link here (it's pay walled, please don't give them money lol)
— Rude Law Dog (@esghound.com) 2026-02-21T19:01:57.437Z
archive.is/r4Xdf
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/trumps-section-122-tariffs-are-illegal/
A trade deficit between the U.S. and a foreign nation occurs, mainly in connection with goods (which is just one aspect of international commerce), when imports are greater than exports. This is not really a problem for a variety of reasons e.g., a trade deficit results in an investment surplus, the U.S. is a major services economy and often runs exported services surpluses that mitigate the imports deficit in goods, etc.
The balance of payments is a broader concept than the balance of trade. It accounts for all the economic transactions that take place between the United States and the rest of the world. Even without getting into every kind of transaction that entails, suffice it to say that foreign investment in the United States, coupled with the advantages our nation accrues because the dollar is the worlds reserve currency, more than make up for the longstanding trade deficit in goods.
Our overall payments are in balance. There is no crisis.
Its vital to understand why Section 122 was enacted. There was a financial crisis in the late 60s and early 70s under the Bretton Woods system, when the dollar was tied to gold. Foreign countries that held dollar reserves could exchange them for gold at a fixed rate. Meanwhile, our government was spending at a high clip due to the Vietnam War and Great Society programs. This and the obligation to pay out gold put enormous pressure on the dollar. In response, in 1971, President Nixon severed the dollars tie to gold and as several justices recounted in Fridays Learning Resources opinions imposed a temporary 10 percent import surcharge (a tariff) to stabilize the economy......
There is no rationale under Section 122 to impose tariffs. Because President Trump has no unilateral authority to order tariffs, he must meet the preconditions of Section 122 to justify levying them. He cannot. Not even close.