Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick appears on NewsMax to discuss his perspective on the Supreme Court oral arguments surrounding the legal challenges to President Trump’s tariff authority.
Secretary Lutnick attended the court arguments today and is very optimistic about the outcome of the arguments. WATCH:
.
Posted in Banking and Finance, Big Government, Donald Trump, Economy, President Trump, Supreme Court, Trade Deal, Uncategorized
The original plaintiffs counsel never answered Kavanaugh’s question, to wit, if Congress gave the president the authority up to halting ALL trade, why does that not include the power to continue trade subject to a tariff?
Check mate!
I wasn’t so sure about the oral arguments for the USA- but I don’t speak much legalese.
This is a “Plain Talk” household, as well. I wonder what Nation-State it is that The Supremes that may not favor Tariffs plan on calling home from here on in?
Robert Barnes
@barnes_law
After listening to today’s oral arguments, Trump’s tariffs are cooked. Trump abandoned using tariffs for industrial policy related to the economic emergency of our trade deficit, instead choosing to use them like sanctions as a political toy. Free pick on
@Kalshi
— bet the NO.
https://x.com/barnes_law/status/1986131294317912126
I wish I could rebut him, but he’s the lawyer.
I think Robert Barnes is wrong.
If he’s seeing what Trump is doing as the use of a ‘political toy’, that really says it all about him.
One never really knows with SCOTUS. Not only Barnes but also Jonathan Turley were underwhelmed by the solicitor’s arguments. But perhaps important history here is how John Roberts intervened to save Obamacare, when a lot of legally savvy lawyer folk were saying it was deader than dead. It’s possible that Roberts could champion at least some measure of tariff acceptance based on a no-alternative line of thought. But unless Sheldon Snook releases Roberts’ internal correspondence on the subject, it’s hard to say. 😜
The problem here is that Article 1 very specifically grants the power to levy tariffs to Congress. The tariff issue is very likely dead. This is, unfortunately, the end result of a legislature that won’t do its job. And you KNOW the GOP is too bought-off to put together a legislative package. Especially with midterms coming up
Tariffs are effective if used strategically and predictably.
Using them as sanctions is counter productive. I see no long term considered plan to create a sound and predictable business environment for long term investment to create manufacturing in our country.
We also need to reform the education system to produce an educated work force.
Trump is wasting time and likely to lose mid terms. He is focused on continuing our war against Russia and starting another in Venezuela. This is costing him a lot of support.
Even with a Republican majority, as most Republican politicians are a joke, there isn’t much permanent being accomplished. A lot of drama and sound bytes.
The clip from Gorsuck sounded pretty grim. Remind me, where was he when the last Commander in Chief was making executive decisions that destroyed our economy? Thank God for Happy go Lutnick!
Or when they stole the 2020 election? Roberts hypocrisy; Obama care is not a tax but Trump’s tariff’s are.?Also a “plain talk household.” Explain it like I’m 5.
The decision will reflect whether the Supreme Court is fine with the destruction of the country or would like to see the Constitution live on. If the tariffs are stopped, the country will die. The Evil within will spread like wildfire.
Robert David Steele was a case officer for the CIA. He was very vocal during Trumps first term, spoke a lot about child trafficking, and other things. There are a lot of reels on the net of him giving very forthright opinions and warnings. Surprise, surprise, he suddenly died of COVID. In several of his reels he says that Marco Rubio is a homosexual and was/ is being blackmailed. He did not trust him. These accusations must be well known in the Trump administration and the knowledge is certainly out there amongst the MAGA crowd. You have to seriously wonder just what is going on in the Trump Administration.
I’m not sure I get your point, are you saying that Rubio is being blackmailed to support Trump?? I don’t care if he’s gay, didn’t Steele also say that there are child slave colonies on Mars . All that said I’m not sure of your point as far as Rubio goes.
I too was very optimistic, in listening to the arguments, for President Trump’s position
Dear lord, I do not want a government fully run by committee (congress).
More and more, it seems the committee is just working an oujia board.
What isn’t incomprehensible appears formulated by the most melevelant forces (or spirits) enacting the most policy most incongruient with the will of the people and those forced skating free as a lark and escaping earthly accountability.
The whole of government can’t be run by Ouija board.
One of the reasons a competent CEO/president is needed. Thamk the lord we have one.
Try this one I think you will find some answers, very interesting.
He describes why and how the government is infested with demonic influences. It’s old old so old people just accept it.
Congress is only run by committee when republicans are in the White House when a demonic democrat is president that President does anything he wants and basically spends us into oblivion. Look at school loan forgiveness and immigration. Demonic democrats don’t play by the rules but expects everyone else to play by them.
The problem with being okay with executive overreach because you don’t like congress is that you’re gonna have to live with it when the Dems run the government again – which, at some point, they will.
Grok’s having a bad morning:
Have tariffs ever been invoked by a sitting president other than trump?
Yes, tariffs have been invoked by numerous sitting U.S. presidents other than Donald Trump, dating back to the nation’s founding. Tariffs were the federal government’s primary revenue source in the early republic and have since been used for protectionism, retaliation, national security, and trade negotiations.
Economists generally note that while targeted tariffs can achieve short-term goals, broad ones risk inflation, retaliation, and slower growth.
Is American inflation higher under Trump with the tariffs or Biden without the tariffs?
To address your question directly: Inflation has been higher under Biden (without tariffs) than under Trump (with tariffs), based on historical data from their respective terms.
So it’s lower, thank you. Is the economy growing faster or slower under trump than biden?
To answer your question: The economy is growing faster under Trump than under Biden, based on real GDP growth rates (inflation-adjusted).
As for retaliation, how much has America collected in tariffs under Trump and what is the total commitment of countries to relocate or expand production in America?
1. Tariff Revenue Collected Under Trump
Tariffs have generated significant revenue, especially in Trump’s second term with broader rates (e.g., 10–60% on China, 25% on autos/steel from Mexico/Canada/EU). Grand Total Under Trump: ~$284 billion (first term + 2025 YTD). Projections for full FY2025: $215–220B if tariffs hold, potentially $3T over 2025–2035 (conventional scoring), though Supreme Court challenges could refund ~$90B and halve future gains.
2. Total Commitments to Relocate/Expand Production in the US
Trump’s tariffs have spurred “reshoring” pledges, often via negotiations (e.g., “pledge money or face higher tariffs”). These include foreign direct investment (FDI) for new factories, expansions, or relocations in sectors like semiconductors, autos, and pharma to avoid duties. Commitments are announcements (not yet fully realized), totaling ~$5–6T (corporate + country-level)
🤷🏻♂️
Ask grok, what happens if SCOTUS rules against Trump tarrifs.
I did… It says we are F’d!
That is what those challenging the President in court desire as an outcome.
Given that Roberts ruled that Obamacare “fines” were actually “taxes”, it is easy to predict that he will rule here that these tariffs are “taxes”, and that the Executive Branch DOES NOT have Constitutional authority to levy them.
I think Trump loses this case, 5-4, or even 6-3.
I sure hope he has a backup plan for using other authorities to lay on tariffs. If he doesn’t, then the primary lever he has to conduct foreign policy his way will be stripped from him.
From what I understand, the “other authorities” are much more narrow in what they allow. Generally agree that the case for tariff as “emergency” is weak and probably won’t survive. Especially as this court tends to take a “textualist” approach in construction and doesn’t like to look for broad intent, like “emanations” from “penumbras” as Justice Douglas would have it.
And that is what they want.
The overarching truth in play is that tariffs are the much preferred, adult method of exercising national power and relationships on the global scale, rather than those endless, bloody, Soviet-style proxy wars-and-rumors-of-war. Meanwhile, “Limited War” is replete with constraints, sanctuary borders and self-defeating, nice-guy ROEs, but alas, no time limit.
Don’t forget Sanctions. Sanctions are like tarrifs in that they restrict trade. They don’t bring in money, only hurt the little people and never work as intended yet our government flings them around all of the time. Mad at Cuba for being Communist? Sanctions on trade. Mad at Russia for defending itself from NATO agression? Sanctions. No one ever questions who can sanction or when and how?
It appears that we’re getting sucked into a lot of fake news and propaganda on how this all went- and the predictions for how they’ll rule.
Anyone associated with Team Trump thinks it went well.
Anyone not on our side says the opposite.
Consider The Source seems to be the name of the game on this one, for sure.
And don’t forget, just like what we’re seeing with Tucker right now, it seems that there are many people that were with us- until they weren’t.
I’m assuming they had some money waved in their faces and followed it.
From what I’ve read in the comment sections, which I tend to believe more than the ‘news’, there are plenty of laws on the books to support what Donald Trump is doing with tariffs.
BUT we’ve got a totally crooked, compromised and broken Supreme Court now that means it’s a toss up as to which way they’ll go.. and this is not right at all. As far as I’m concerned, this is a clear cut case.
I’m pretty pissed off about this because I see these tariffs as a national security issue that we voted for and to rule no on this is to take away our right to carry out the agenda we voted and won on.
Sorry, but like the late Rush I live in Realville. But if you want to live in the echo chamber, great.
I have no idea of how you’d interpret what I said as not living in Realville.. or in an echo chamber?
The Bottom Line: A Tariff is not a tax is it was underwhelming of the justices to try to frame their questions as such. This is Economics and American History 101.