When businesses in other countries produce more goods than their domestic markets can use, is that a conspiracy against America? Of course not.
A guest post by Georgetown legal scholar Peter E. Harrell.
The ruling is flawed on both substantive and procedural grounds.
The president has repeatedly argued that courts have no business deciding whether his actions are legal.
The ruling relies in part on the Supreme Court's decision in the tariff case.
The administration has paid $20 billion in refunds. Now, it is asking a federal appeals court to limit which businesses will get the rest.
They appear to be yet another illegal power grab, one that should be challenged in court.
Even as the White House backs away from its foolish tariff plans, the Trump administration keeps revealing why it should never have had these powers in the first place.
The Great American Cotton Plan will shell out millions in taxpayer funds, continuing the Trump administration’s pattern of paying off industries harmed by the president’s economic policies.
The only winning move is not to play. But if you must, a new book offers some suggestions.
They claim the injunction requiring refunds cannot be universal, and can only apply to those businesses who filed lawsuits seeking recovery.
The U.S. Treasury is trying to fight the kind of trade embargo that it usually imposes on other countries.
Though some of their products may have been redirected elsewhere, American farmers are likely eating most of the losses.
He famously said the Founders had created "a republic, if you can keep it." How have we kept it? And can we continue?
I gave the talk earlier this week.
They cost each American household roughly $1,000 in 2025, with more coming in 2026.
The decision means the injunction blocking collection of the tariffs will not be blocked while litigation continues.
Johan Norberg discusses what makes societies prosperous, why protectionism and nostalgia keep returning, and how populism feeds cultural decline.
Trump's signature policies are pushing prices higher—and voters are pushing back.
Another example of the flawed logic behind the Trump administration's tariff policies: You can't make a tire without rubber, and the U.S. doesn't produce rubber.
Videos of my presentation and interview on this topic at a major Italian university.
Chinese cars are cheap and widely popular, but Americans can't buy them.
Nominees include stories on America's gerontocracy, the war on chocolate, how Texas beat California on housing, and more.
Plus: A "supremely cringe" viral tweet about the Supreme Court
A recent YouGov poll shows the Court is likely less unpopular than before. The tariff ruling may have given it a boost. The poll has several other notable findings, as well.
Democratic state lawmakers want to give tax carveouts to certain restaurants. The real problem is New Jersey's tax code itself.
Trump's use of Section 122 ignored the plain language of the law and invoked a broad executive power where Congress clearly provided a narrow one.
The 2-1 decision concludes Trump's massive new tariffs are illegal because there is no "balance of payments deficit" of the kind needed to authorize them.
A trade deal that can be terminated by one person at any time and for any reason isn't really a trade deal at all.
However, the tariffs did shift supply chains away from China and towards other countries with low-cost manufacturing, like Vietnam, Malaysia, and India.
Conservative legal commentator Gregg Nunziata outlines reasons why conservatives should reject broad views of executive power.
The burden of Trump's illegal tariffs was spread across the American economy. The refunds likely won't cover all those costs.
When it costs more to build a house, it also costs more to rebuild one.
Before joining the Trump administration last year, U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer lobbied for tariffs that limited fertilizer imports and drove up prices for American farmers.
I will be giving multiple talks in these two countries in late April and May.
Republicans and Democrats preach about food affordability. Yet their policies continue to make it worse.
America gets 90 percent of its fresh tomatoes from Mexico, and those imports were tariff-free until last year.
The plan is not completely terrible. But many importers may still have difficulty getting the refund money owed to them.
New study finds that tariffs were responsible for the "entirety of the excess inflation in the core goods category."
The outcome is unclear. But the judges seemed skeptical of the Trump Administration's claims that Section 122 grants them sweeping tariff powers.
The Court of International Trade is weighing the legality of the import taxes that the president wants to impose under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974.
Any time government has greater control over commerce, there is an increased incentive to buy off officials or lobby for special treatment.
I submitted the brief on behalf of the Cato Institute and myself.
Plus: pro-tech media sells to big tech, Trump's new tariffs, jobs numbers, and more...
The reversal wasn't because the economics changed. It is because their biggest shareholders turned toward industrial policy.
Consider it a boozy, tariff-themed version of "I, Pencil."
Plus: back to the moon, one year since "Liberation Day," birthright citizenship at the Supreme Court, Jonathan lives, and more...
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 thanks
Every 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 interested
So 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 thanks
Push back against misleading media lies and bad ideas. Support Reason’s journalism today.
My donation today will help Reason push back! Not today
Back journalism committed to transparency, independence, and intellectual honesty.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Support journalism that challenges central planning, big government overreach, and creeping socialism.
Yes, I’ll support Reason today! No thanks
Support journalism that exposes bad economics, failed policies, and threats to open markets.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Back independent media that examines the real-world consequences of socialist policies.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Support journalism that challenges government overreach with rational analysis and clear reasoning.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Support journalism that challenges centralized power and defends individual liberty.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Your support helps expose the real-world costs of socialist policy proposals—and highlight better alternatives.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Donate today to fuel reporting that exposes the real costs of heavy-handed government.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks