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.
About 30 percent of the world's helium supply depends on the Strait of Hormuz. Its closure means higher prices for tech manufacturing and advanced medical care.
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.
The century-old law makes energy more expensive even when there isn't a war raging in the Middle East.
LJC is the group with which I worked on the IEEPA tariff case decided by the Supreme Court.
Plus: A seventh American has been killed in the Iran conflict, the U.S. is almost certainly responsible for school strike, how Lindsey Graham helped start the war, and more...
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...
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.
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.
And that's especially true if the tariffs are illegal.
The conservative justice’s regrettable opinion in Learning Resources v. Trump.
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.
President Trump will undoubtedly keep trying to impose protectionism, but his options are limited.
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.
Plus: Tariffs, tariffs, and even more news about tariffs! And George W. Bush has some interesting thoughts about George Washington.
In its effort to protect global forests, the E.U. is imposing complex tracking requirements that could raise prices and create new trade hurdles.
Finally given a chance to influence trade policy, the vast majority of House Republicans decided it was more important to keep President Donald Trump happy.
But the numbers are a long way from a veto-proof majority, so Wednesday's vote may be a purely symbolic victory for free traders.
The story is an exercise in pettiness but also a perfect reason why Congress and the Supreme Court should limit the president's power grab.
Three Republicans defected to vote down an arcane procedural rule that would have made it impossible for the House to vote on Trump’s tariffs until August.
Plus: An immigration court drops Rumeysa Ozturk's deportation case, Buddhist monks complete their "walk for peace," previously classified Nixon grand jury testimony is released, and more...
A new poll finds that even white men without college degrees, a key voting constituency for Trump, don’t approve of the president’s handling of the economy.
The president's article in The Wall Street Journal is wildly misleading.
A Canadian boycott and retaliatory trade barriers have wiped out U.S. wine and spirits sales abroad, costing American producers jobs, revenue, and entire export markets.
Limited government means those in power can do limited damage to the rest of us.
Meanwhile, Trump is touting low gas prices, which are due in part to the lack of tariffs on oil and gasoline.
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