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
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhy Trump's Section 122 Tariffs Are Illegal
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/
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 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.
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.
7 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Why Trump's Section 122 Tariffs Are Illegal (Original Post)
LetMyPeopleVote
10 hrs ago
OP
Per the statute, Section 122 tariffs may only be imposed when there are "United States balance-of-payments deficits."
LetMyPeopleVote
10 hrs ago
#1
Neal Katyal does not think that Section 122 works for trump's new tariffs
LetMyPeopleVote
9 hrs ago
#2
According to Neal Katyal, Trump's new 15% tariffs won't hold up either.
LetMyPeopleVote
6 hrs ago
#7
LetMyPeopleVote
(177,634 posts)1. Per the statute, Section 122 tariffs may only be imposed when there are "United States balance-of-payments deficits."
Link to tweet
Per the statute, Section 122 tariffs may only be imposed when there are "United States balance-of-payments deficits."
The US does not have a balance-of-payments deficit.
Trump cannot just say "well, they really meant a balance-of-trade deficit" and enact tariffs.
The US does not have a balance-of-payments deficit.
Trump cannot just say "well, they really meant a balance-of-trade deficit" and enact tariffs.
Link to tweet

LetMyPeopleVote
(177,634 posts)2. Neal Katyal does not think that Section 122 works for trump's new tariffs
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. Thats what our Constitution requires.
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. Thats what our Constitution requires.
harumph
(3,177 posts)3. That's likey; but our glacial justice system will not provide a timely remedy.
enough of this bullshit. more suo motu.
SunSeeker
(58,018 posts)4. K & R
dalton99a
(93,185 posts)5. Kick
MichMan
(16,947 posts)6. Sec 122 was passed three years after the dollar and gold were decoupled.
Not understanding the connection on why that was the reason behind it.
LetMyPeopleVote
(177,634 posts)7. According to Neal Katyal, Trump's new 15% tariffs won't hold up either.
