General Discussion

Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin

(134,308 posts) Fri Feb 20, 2026, 05:52 PM Yesterday

Trump says he'll enact a 10% global tariff by executive order

The Supreme Court struck down President Donald Trump’s far-reaching global tariffs in a 6-3 decision on Friday, handing him a stinging loss on an issue crucial to his economic agenda.

Furious about the defeat, Trump said he will impose a global 10% tariff as an alternative while pressing his trade policies by other means. The new tariffs would come under a law that restricts them to 150 days.

He made that announcement after lashing out at the Supreme Court for striking down much of his sweeping tariff infrastructure as an illegal use of emergency power. Trump said he was “absolutely ashamed” of justices who voted to strike down his tariffs and called the ruling “deeply disappointing.”

“Their decision is incorrect,” he said. “But it doesn’t matter because we have very powerful alternatives.”

https://apnews.com/live/supreme-court-tariff-ruling-updates

9 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Trump says he'll enact a 10% global tariff by executive order (Original Post) Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin Yesterday OP

Oh, I get it.................... MyOwnPeace Yesterday #1

Ha. SCrOTUS tries to save MAGATS from midterm calamity BUT B.See Yesterday #2

Checks and balances.... GONE FalloutShelter Yesterday #3

Make it 50%. That ought to teach them dalton99a Yesterday #4

Invoking the statutory "balance of payments" tariff authority has a good chance of surviving legal challenge onenote Yesterday #5

There is a difference between balance of payments deficit and a trade deficit LetMyPeopleVote 8 hrs ago #7

Neal Katyal does not think that Section 122 works LetMyPeopleVote 8 hrs ago #8

What do you think the odds are that a court enjoins the tariffs and the SCOTUS let's the inunction stand? onenote 7 hrs ago #9

Why Trump's Section 122 Tariffs Are Illegal LetMyPeopleVote 9 hrs ago #6

MyOwnPeace

(17,491 posts)

1. Oh, I get it....................

Reply to Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin (Original post)

Fri Feb 20, 2026, 06:00 PM

Yesterday

he's found a DIFFERENT way to break the law.
And the CHICKENSHITS in CONGRESS will continue to allow him to strip them of their rights/power just so he won't say anything mean about them.........

B.See

(8,152 posts)

2. Ha. SCrOTUS tries to save MAGATS from midterm calamity BUT

Reply to Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin (Original post)

Fri Feb 20, 2026, 06:08 PM

Yesterday

Trump responds by DOUBLING DOWN ON STUPID.

riiiiight... "That'll show em."

He's YOUR 'chosen one' assholes. Go down in flames with him.

FalloutShelter

(14,350 posts)

3. Checks and balances.... GONE

Reply to Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin (Original post)

Fri Feb 20, 2026, 06:08 PM

Yesterday

Do we even have a constitution anymore?

dalton99a

(93,185 posts)

4. Make it 50%. That ought to teach them

Reply to Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin (Original post)

Fri Feb 20, 2026, 06:20 PM

Yesterday

onenote

(46,090 posts)

5. Invoking the statutory "balance of payments" tariff authority has a good chance of surviving legal challenge

Reply to Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin (Original post)

Fri Feb 20, 2026, 07:24 PM

Yesterday

It is authorized by Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act - 19 USC 2132. Even the plaintiffs that successfully challenged his IEEEPA tariffs suggested that Section 122 would have been an appropriate basis for the "Liberation Day" tariffs. These tariffs can only be in place for 150 days and can't be used to target specific countries.

LetMyPeopleVote

(177,634 posts)

7. There is a difference between balance of payments deficit and a trade deficit

Reply to onenote (Reply #5)

Sat Feb 21, 2026, 02:53 PM

8 hrs ago

Section 122 only applies to balance of payment deficits which are not possible since the US is off the gold standard.

Link to tweet

Milton Friedman in 1967, explaining why a balance of payments deficit can only occur under a fixed exchange rate.

The US formally abandoned fixed exchange rates in March 1973.

There cannot be a balance of payments deficit now, by definition. Section 122 tariffs are illegal.

trump's new tariffs will fail

LetMyPeopleVote

(177,634 posts)

8. Neal Katyal does not think that Section 122 works

Reply to onenote (Reply #5)

Sat Feb 21, 2026, 02:59 PM

8 hrs ago

Trade deficits are very different from balance of payment deficits

Link to tweet

Seems hard for the President to rely on the 15 percent statute (sec 122) when his DOJ in our case told the Court the opposite: “Nor does [122] have any obvious application here, where the concerns the President identified in declaring an emergency arise from trade deficits, which are conceptually distinct from balance-of-payments deficits."

If he wants sweeping tariffs, he should do the American thing and go to Congress. If his tariffs are such a good idea, he should have no problem persuading Congress. That’s what our Constitution requires.

onenote

(46,090 posts)

9. What do you think the odds are that a court enjoins the tariffs and the SCOTUS let's the inunction stand?

Reply to LetMyPeopleVote (Reply #8)

Sat Feb 21, 2026, 04:36 PM

7 hrs ago

They only are in effect for 150 days. If a court doesn't grant a preliminary injunction, the clock could run out before a final decision on their legality.

LetMyPeopleVote

(177,634 posts)

6. Why Trump's Section 122 Tariffs Are Illegal

Reply to Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin (Original post)

Sat Feb 21, 2026, 02:44 PM

9 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.

Reply to this discussion