Donald Trump and Markwayne Mullin Insist That Politics Should Prevail Over Principle
The president and his new DHS secretary are enraged by jurists and legislators who refuse to toe the party line.
The president and his new DHS secretary are enraged by jurists and legislators who refuse to toe the party line.
The president says federal courts should not make decisions based on partisan considerations unless it benefits him.
Plus: AI and entitlements, a new Turing prize winner, eight donuts a day, the first trailer for Dune 3, and more...
That’s roughly 12 whole days of government spending.
Plus: Brian Doherty, RIP.
By the administration's logic, Iowa is hurting Arizona by producing so much corn. This is a very silly way to think about economic policy.
The president’s invocation of Section 122 conflates a trade deficit with a balance-of-payments deficit.
LJC is the group with which I worked on the IEEPA tariff case decided by the Supreme Court.
The lawsuit, filed by attorneys general and governors from 24 states, claims that Trump is once again trying "to usurp the taxing power that the Constitution vests in Congress."
The massive new tariffs are illegal, just like the IEEPA tariffs previously invalidated by the Supreme Court.
Even if the refunds are made, business owners say they won't cover all the additional costs created by Trump's chaotic trade policies.
Plus: Congress shrugs, a cat cafe unionizes, and Liz Wolfe checks in, and more...
Importantly, the Court ordered payment of refunds even to those businesses who have not filed a lawsuit to claim them.
The president's wildly inaccurate ideological labels are no more meaningful than his other ad hominem attacks on people who disagree with him.
The Trump administration is trying to avoid paying refunds after illegally collecting $175 billion from its emergency tariff scheme.
I was one of the participants, along with Zach Shemtob (SCOTUSblog) and Julie SIlverbrook (NCC).
Gregg Nunziata interviewed me.
American businesses and consumers absorbed nearly 90 percent of the 2025 tariffs' economic burden, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York found.
Plus: Minnesota Medicaid funds, AI vs. jobs, Taylor Lorenz's libertarian moment, and more...
It said that if it lost in court, it would refund companies that paid unlawful tariffs. Now it says the process could take years.
Former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg discusses immigration enforcement, the role of government, and why federal agencies are losing public trust.
Only time will tell how great the impact of the ruling will really be. But, at this point, it seems like a very significant decision.
Although Trump has other options for taxing imports, the justices reminded him that he needs clear congressional authorization.
A drop in seizures doesn't necessarily mean a decline in the supply.
And that's especially true if the tariffs are illegal.
The article explains why the new Section 122 tariffs are illegal, and courts should strike them down, when (as is likely) lawsuits are filed against them.
The conservative justice’s regrettable opinion in Learning Resources v. Trump.
Plus: The U.S. could be going to war with Iran, the 2026 Winter Olympic Games, and why AI surveillance is worrying civil libertarians
The president is relying on a provision that the government's lawyers said had no "obvious application" to his goal of reducing the trade deficit.
The Court stopped a massive presidential power grab, but did not resolve a crucial issue about judicial review of executive use of emergency powers.
Attorneys for the Trump administration even admitted that Section 122 can't be applied to address trade deficits. Trump is now trying to do that anyway.
An initial take on Learning Resources v. Trump.
The president neither understands nor appreciates the vital role of judicial independence in upholding the rule of law.
President Trump will undoubtedly keep trying to impose protectionism, but his options are limited.
The prominent conservative legal commentator outlines the case against Trump's latest tariff power grab.
It wasn't the Court's opinion that is an "embarrassment."
Justices Kagan and Sotomayor have signed on to at least one opinion that expressly relied upon the major questions doctrine.
It covers many issues raised by the decision.
Robby Soave and Jason Russell celebrate the SCOTUS tariff news before pivoting to the politics of the Winter Olympics.
What explains the fracture in the Supreme Court's "conservative bloc"?
Thanks to our victory in the tariff case before the Supreme Court, businesses that paid billions of dollars in illegally collected tariffs can seek refunds. But the process may be difficult.
The new tariff will be implemented under a 1974 law that gives the president authority to impose tariffs for up to 150 days.
The battle against the president's so-called reciprocal tariffs is won, but the war for free trade and a stable business environment continues.
There are many laws that explicitly authorize the president to impose taxes on imports, but they include limits that Trump was keen to avoid.
Help Reason push back with more of the fact-based reporting we do best. Your support means more reporters, more investigations, and more coverage.
Make a donation today! No thanksEvery dollar I give helps to fund more journalists, more videos, and more amazing stories that celebrate liberty.
Yes! I want to put my money where your mouth is! Not interestedSo much of the media tries telling you what to think. Support journalism that helps you to think for yourself.
I’ll donate to Reason right now! No thanksPush back against misleading media lies and bad ideas. Support Reason’s journalism today.
My donation today will help Reason push back! Not todayBack journalism committed to transparency, independence, and intellectual honesty.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksSupport journalism that challenges central planning, big government overreach, and creeping socialism.
Yes, I’ll support Reason today! No thanksSupport journalism that exposes bad economics, failed policies, and threats to open markets.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksBack independent media that examines the real-world consequences of socialist policies.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksSupport journalism that challenges government overreach with rational analysis and clear reasoning.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksSupport journalism that challenges centralized power and defends individual liberty.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksYour support helps expose the real-world costs of socialist policy proposals—and highlight better alternatives.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksDonate today to fuel reporting that exposes the real costs of heavy-handed government.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks