Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Miles Archer

(22,451 posts)
Fri Feb 20, 2026, 03:00 PM Yesterday

Trump 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

5 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Trump responds to SCOTUS telling him he can't impose tariffs by imposing a 10% "global tariff" (Original Post) Miles Archer Yesterday OP
Trump Economic Crisis - Never been used to impose tariffs because it is an emergency power for severe money problems ck4829 Yesterday #1
Didn't know that semiconductors existed in 1962 MichMan Yesterday #2
Have to pass a new law for each new product? dpibel Yesterday #3
Because he is too stupid to just take the win Johonny Yesterday #4
Why Trump's Section 122 Tariffs Are Illegal LetMyPeopleVote 4 hrs ago #5

ck4829

(37,554 posts)
1. Trump Economic Crisis - Never been used to impose tariffs because it is an emergency power for severe money problems
Fri Feb 20, 2026, 03:05 PM
Yesterday
https://democraticunderground.com/100221035541

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)
2. Didn't know that semiconductors existed in 1962
Fri Feb 20, 2026, 03:31 PM
Yesterday
The Supreme Court's ruling on Friday leaves tariffs implemented under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 — which cite national-security concerns — unchanged, keeping in place a range of import duties on products ranging from copper and semiconductors to automobiles and wood products such as cabinetry.

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)
3. Have to pass a new law for each new product?
Fri Feb 20, 2026, 04:02 PM
Yesterday

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)
4. Because he is too stupid to just take the win
Fri Feb 20, 2026, 04:18 PM
Yesterday

Plus, too lazy to actually negotiate. Worst president ever.

LetMyPeopleVote

(177,634 posts)
5. Why Trump's Section 122 Tariffs Are Illegal
Sat Feb 21, 2026, 02:42 PM
4 hrs ago

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)

archive.is/r4Xdf

Rude Law Dog (@esghound.com) 2026-02-21T19:01:57.437Z

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/trumps-section-122-tariffs-are-illegal/

In Section 122, Congress endowed the president with narrow, temporary authority to impose tariffs “to deal with large and serious United States balance-of-payments deficits” (emphasis added). What Trump is complaining about — something he insists is a crisis but is not — is the balance of trade, not of payments. The United States does not have an overall balance of payments deficit, much less a large and serious one.

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 world’s reserve currency, more than make up for the longstanding trade deficit in goods.

Our overall payments are in balance. There is no crisis.

It’s 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 dollar’s tie to gold and — as several justices recounted in Friday’s 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.
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Trump responds to SCOTUS ...