Peter Navarro Promised $700 Billion in Tariff Revenue. The Actual Amount Was About $240 Billion.
That’s roughly 12 whole days of government spending.
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.
"There is no exception to the major questions doctrine for emergency statutes," wrote Chief Justice John Roberts.
In a 6-3 decision, the Court ruled that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not authorize tariffs.
It's a good thing that trade deficits aren't actually a national emergency.
New from Reason: a look into what Javier Milei has accomplished and what it will take to make the most of Argentina’s window for real change. Out now for subscribers.