And then just four days ago an unfortunate ruling from the United States Supreme Court, it just came down... very unfortunate ruling. But the good news is that almost all countries and corporations want to keep the deal that they already made.... Knowing that the legal power that I as president have to make a new deal could be far worse for them. And therefore they will continue to work along the same successful path that we had negotiated before the Supreme Court’s unfortunate involvement. So despite the disappointing ruling, these powerful, country-saving [tariffs]... will remain in place under fully approved and tested alternative legal statutes, and they’ve been tested for a long time. They’re a little more complex, but they’re actually probably better, leading to a solution that will be even stronger than before. Congressional action will not be necessary. It’s already time-tested and approved. And as time goes by, I believe the tariffs, paid for by foreign countries, will, like in the past, substantially replace the modern-day system of income tax, taking a great financial burden off the people that I love. Right? Moving forward, factories, jobs, investment and trillions and trillions of dollars will continue pouring into the United States of America. Because we finally have a president who puts America first. I put America first. I love America.
February 25, 2026
With 4 Supreme Court Justices in attendance at the SOTU, Trump called the tariff opinion "unfortunate" and "disappointing."
He didn't condemn the Court or even say it got the law wrong. Here's the transcript (NYT). You can see that he accepts the Court's role in saying what the law is, and he's processed the loss and has moved on to finding new ways to win:
Posts
42 comments:
According to Coffee and Covid this is in reality a big win for Trump and the Supreme Court.
https://www.coffeeandcovid.com/p/tariff-turnabout-saturday-february
FDR & Obama got their way. Trump will too.
As a King slash Dictator, he's doing a pretty lousy job.
The tariffs are Trump’s Afghanistan withdrawal. An ill-conceived action that turned the entire tenor of his administration negative.
His delusional insistence that tariffs are not paid by Americans is bizarre.
SCOTUS gave him a great opportunity to reset on a 70-30 issue that he is on the wrong side of.
The courts will stop the new tariffs as the underlying law calls for balance of payments issues as the prerequisite, not balance of trade, to invoke the tariffs. They will also be forced to issue and immediate injunction since the Trump administration lies to the courts when they said they would quickly refund the IEEPA tariffs if they lost that case.
Is this a first where only a fraction of the Justices surface at the SOTU? Or is this another example of Robert’s fracturing the court?
That was a very mild rebuke (do better next time)
"The tariffs are Trump’s Afghanistan withdrawal. An ill-conceived action that turned the entire tenor of his administration negative."
How long did you want to stay in Afghanistan?
Only one President in history paid down the debt. Andrew Jackson, and he did it through tariffs and selling land. Trump could do the same. It will take longer than his term, but it's a method that could work. Anybody got a better one?
That was a stretch as long as the english channel
He also ended the central bank of its day the bank of the united states and that stood for three quarter of a century
"The tariffs are Trump’s Afghanistan withdrawal."
Joe Biden managed the Afghanistan withdrawal, I believe.
One might say the court surrendered the tariff tool for a time
"Congressional action will not be necessary."
You have both houses. This should be a slam dunk. You know what is "time tested and approved"? Going to fucking Congress numbnuts. 🤦♂️
Just do it the right way. Republicans used to be in favor of doing it "the right way." I miss those guys.
And, if you can't get your great idea through Congress that is because the American people don't want your horseshit and the system is working.
The laws were past nearly 50 years ago, we dont need new ones
"And, if you can't get your great idea through Congress that is because the American people don't want your horseshit and the system is working."
Now do Voter ID.
Actually, I'm pretty sure the Bill Clinton paid down some of the debt toward the end of his term. As I recall, there was a short term panic over a possible "shortage" of Treasury debt to invest in.
Trump wasn't real upset by the court's opinion. They long expected this was possible. They have known what their response would be for months. They announced it within a couple hours of the ruling. Trump is a fighter and he fights every squabble, because that's how you dissuade attacks, and nobody is more of a target. It's like his outer perimeter barbed wire. Not expected to stop, only to dissuade and slow down the enemy.
Clinton's pay down never materialized. It only existed in forecasted estimates.
It was written down by franklin rainea future fannie mae fraudster
The courts will stop the new tariffs as the underlying law calls for balance of payments issues as the prerequisite, not balance of trade, to invoke the tariffs.
Section 122 is balance of payments. Section 301 is unfair trade practices. Section 232 is national security. Section 338 is discriminatory trade practices. Those are just a few.
Congress has the power but really doesn't have the "nimbleness" to handle tariff issues. Which is why they have consistently delegated tariff and trade matters to the Executive.
Do you think that Congress decreed that the courts should decide how to handle these issues, based on their extensive experience in international trade, foreign policy and national security?
And "Congress" can, anytime "Congress" wants to, repeal tariff authorization. Isn't that what the courts should tell Congress? Or do you prefer that some judge decide what America's tariff policies should be?
Your TDS blinds you.
"Or do you prefer that some judge decide what America's tariff policies should be?"
Not just "some judge", but one who has been shopped, bought and paid for.
the hack D press are desperate to spread the "allegations!" lie about Trump and Epstein.
Everything has shown the dems and leftists to be in bed withe epstein ...
but the media soviets just skip by.
Another day ending in y
AMDG said...
SCOTUS gave him a great opportunity to reset on a 70-30 issue that he is on the wrong side of.
What retard thinks making globalist oligarchs pay taxes instead of Americans is unpopular?
Some of the Americans who watched the SOTU must be puzzled, Trump didn't sound like a Dictator or Fascist, not a single member of Congress who catcalled him was arrested, during or after, he asked Congress to pass several laws he proffered would help America. They might be wondering about the credibility of Democrats, however.
"They might be wondering about the credibility of Democrats, however."
This guy isn't, anymore.
"Going to the State of the Union was one of the most radicalizing moments of my life.
I watched in horror from the balcony as Democrats refused to stand for BASIC AMERICAN PRINCIPLES.
They refused to stand for Americans… for me and for you.
Ok Democrats… message recieved."
Your TDS blinds you.
Nope. It's his colon.
Sentiment of the Day= You have both houses. This should be a slam dunk. You know what is "time tested and approved"? Going to fucking Congress numbnuts. 🤦♂️ :) boom... mic drop
I don’t think we should shift our country’s federal tax burden from income taxes to consumption taxes, but it is a respectable political position. Europe has done it with the VAT, and several U.S. states are financed primarily with sales taxes and property taxes.
Spare me the dishonest sales job. It’s bullshit to suggest that transition could be accomplished just with taxes on imports. Federal individual income taxes take in $2.4 trillion a year, $3 trillion if corporate income taxes are included, and $4.6 trillion if payroll taxes are included. The U.S. imports $4.3 trillion in goods and services.
We’d either have to keep a substantial portion of the income and payroll taxes, or tax domestically-produced consumption too.
In any case, the power to make that transition rests with Congress not the President, as the Supreme Court has affirmed. Trump is creating an illegal tax collection mess that will take years and cost hundreds of billions to sort out.
D.D. Driver said.."You have both houses. This should be a slam dunk. You know what is "time tested and approved"? Going to fucking Congress numbnuts.
I agree, it should be a slam dunk. But look at voter ID—supported by 85% of the public, including every single demographic group, and yet we can’t get it passed into law. Democrats are too obstructionist and Republicans are too cowardly to stand up to Democrats even when they’re in the majority.
I miss those guys.
I don’t believe you.
It’s bullshit to suggest that transition could be accomplished just with taxes on imports.
I agree. We need to cut federal spending on NGOs and welfare for illegal aliens. Trump, with the help of DOGE, has done a great job reducing the overall size of the federal government. Spending discipline is as important as raising funds, perhaps more important.
Leland, without touching entitlements and defense there is no meaningful reduction in our deficit spending.
Cutting government employees ala DOGE is pissing in the wind, nevermind so many of the claimed savings were vastly overestimated.
DOGE was a perfect example of Chestertons Fence in action,and you fell for it.
Leland said...
“We need to cut federal spending on NGOs and welfare for illegal aliens. Trump, with the help of DOGE, has done a great job reducing the overall size of the federal government. Spending discipline is as important as raising funds, perhaps more important.”
I’ve long been of the opinion that it should be illegal for governments to send money to NGOs. If it wants to fund a good or service, it should do so directly. Using cutouts makes graft too easy.
Mark said...
“DOGE was a perfect example of Chesterton’s Fence in action, and you fell for it.”
AMDG said…
“…A 70/30 issue [Trump] is on the wrong side of.”
Have the online leftists gotten their marching orders to use the normies’ rhetoric despite not understanding their meaning?
Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 gives the president authority to impose tariffs to address a balance of payments deficit. However, the law has never been used. Moreover, the United States does not have a balance of payments deficit. Rather, it has a trade deficit. These are very different things. When a country has a fixed exchange rate, it must intervene in currency markets to maintain the fixed rate. This leads to either balance of payments deficits or surpluses. Yet the United States allows the dollar to float, in which case the balance of payments is roughly zero.
Following last week’s 6–3 Supreme Court decision in Trump v. V.O.S Selections et al holding that the Administration lacked authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose sweeping tariffs, the Liberty Justice Center and co-counsel Neal Katyal today filed coordinated motions in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) to enforce the ruling and initiate refunds.
We can now expect that Katyal and company will sue for refunds under Trump's new temporary "balance of payments" tariffs.
https://www.hellenicshippingnews.com/us-supreme-court-disrupts-the-global-trade-regime/
Mark said...
"Leland, without touching entitlements and defense there is no meaningful reduction in our deficit spending.
Cutting government employees ala DOGE is pissing in the wind, nevermind so many of the claimed savings were vastly overestimated."
This is a typical lefty argument which breaks down to, "why even try".
But you miss the intended result. Less bureaucrats burdening the American taxpayer. The monetary improvements will come with time.
As a public sector worker I know you cannot fathom this reasoning but it resonates with the rest of us.
Katyal the terrorists mouthpiece (including bin ladens driver)
Democrats are super big mad that their billionaire Oligarchs have to pay some taxes.
Democrats are mad that people think the government should serve the Americans that support it.
Democrats are just leaches who work for government or HR. They don't build anything. They are takers and thieves.
Only 4 Justices attended. Did the others pull the right straws or is the number 4 sending a message? At least Trump didn't yell at the Justices the way Obama piled it on and got Roberts surprising response. That was Roberts back then?
Post a Comment
Please use the comments forum to respond to the post. Don't fight with each other. Be substantive... or interesting... or funny. Comments should go up immediately... unless you're commenting on a post older than 2 days. Then you have to wait for us to moderate you through. It's also possible to get shunted into spam by the machine. We try to keep an eye on that and release the miscaught good stuff. We do delete some comments, but not for viewpoint... for bad faith.