Trump Loses A Big One

Of course, we have no idea what Trump will decide to do. But - also of course - there's some likelihood that he'll largely ignore the ruling. Especially considering the lack of any real order or guidance coming from the ruling.

Supreme Court rules Trump doesn’t have the tariff authority he claimed

The justices expressed skepticism in November that the administration could impose sweeping tariffs under a federal law granting emergency powers.

The Supreme Court ruled Friday that President Donald Trump doesn’t have the tariff authority he claimed, in a decision authored by Chief Justice John Roberts.

The ruling addressed a key Donald Trump policy as the high court considers the scope of presidential power across several cases this term. The court’s Republican-appointed majority has broadly empowered the Republican president but has occasionally checked him.

The justices agreed in September to consider the tariff issue on an expedited basis, granting review in two separate cases, both of which the administration lost in the lower courts. One of them came through a specialized trade and appeals court, and the other came through a general federal court in Washington.

When the high court heard oral arguments in November, the justices sounded skeptical of the administration’s position that Trump was authorized to impose the sweeping tariffs under a federal law called the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).

The president cited the law when he announced the so-called trafficking tariffs on products from Mexico, Canada and China due to what he said was their failure to stop fentanyl from coming to the United States. He also cited that law when he announced the so-called reciprocal tariffs on “all trading partners.”

At the November hearing, Trump appointee Amy Coney Barrett questioned U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer on the latter, worldwide tariffs. “And so is it your contention that every country needed to be tariffed because of threats to the defense and industrial base? I mean, Spain, France? I mean, I could see it with some countries, but explain to me why as many countries needed to be subject to the reciprocal tariff policy as are,” Barrett said. Sauer said “asymmetric treatment” from other countries “is a global problem.”

In the case called Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, the Federal Circuit ruled that Trump overstepped his authority in attempting to rely on IEEPA. “The statute neither mentions tariffs (or any of its synonyms) nor has procedural safeguards that contain clear limits on the President’s power to impose tariffs,” the circuit court wrote in a divided ruling that split the court 7-4, though not strictly along the party lines of the presidents who appointed the judges.

In the other case, Learning Resources v. Trump, U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras, an Obama appointee, wrote that if Congress “had intended to delegate to the President the power of taxing ordinary commerce from any country at any rate for virtually any reason, it would have had to say so.” He wrote that no other president “has ever purported to impose tariffs under IEEPA.”

And it's going to be a big fucking mess just to unwind all the refunds on tax payments and surety bonds and all the other collateral shit. Get ready for some more major fuckery as the grifters flock to the smell of even more easy money at taxpayer expense.

So, who exactly is losing here?

Supreme Court Trump tariff decision impact: What to expect as fight for billions in refunds begins

• The Supreme Court ruling that many of President Trump’s tariffs are illegal will lead to a process where billions of dollars in refunds will be sought by companies.
• Importers also laid out billions for bonds and collateral required by U.S. Customs and Border Protection to guarantee payment of trade duties.
• The ruling provided no guidance on refunds, and in his dissent, Justice Brett Kavanaugh made a point of noting this and he referred to comments during the oral arguments that the refund process may be a “mess.”

U.S. importers will be facing double hurdles trying to recover billions in tariff costs now that the Supreme Court has ruled President Donald Trump’s IEEPA tariffs are illegal.

Companies large and small may be eligible for refund payments that in total could reach hundreds of billions of dollars, but trade attorneys have warned that tariff refunds could be delayed, depending on how U.S. courts rule and how U.S. Customs goes about issuing the payments.

Trump wrote in a social media post on Jan. 12 that “it would take many years to figure out what number we are talking about and even, who, when, and where, to pay.” He added: “It would be a complete mess, and almost impossible for our Country to pay.”

Record tariff revenue has been recorded by the U.S. government, with tariff collections surging in January to $30 billion and reaching a year-to-date total of $124 billion. That is up 304% from the same period in 2025.

The ruling was silent on whether tariffs that have been paid under the higher rates will need to be refunded.

But in his dissent from the majority SCOTUS decision on Friday, Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote, “the Court’s decision is not likely to greatly restrict Presidential tariff authority going forward. But the Court’s decision is likely to generate other serious practical consequences in the near term. One issue will be refunds. Refunds of billions of dollars would have significant consequences for the U. S. Treasury. The Court says nothing today about whether, and if so how, the Government should go about returning the billions of dollars that it has collected from importers. But that process is likely to be a ‘mess,’ as was acknowledged at oral argument.”

In the lead-up to the decision, importers and customs experts have been pushing back on claims about refunds being a “messy” process, saying that because the tariffs being paid are itemized, the process for refunding the money should be straightforward.

But importers betting on a cash infusion from tariff refunds should be aware there’s no set timeline and any rush for refunds could overwhelm the system and likely lead to long delays, Tim Keeler, partner and co-leader of international trade at Mayer Brown and former chief of staff for U.S. Trade Representative Susan Schwab, recently told CNBC.

The Court of International Trade is typically in charge of refund processes.

Companies will not only be seeking billions in tariff refunds, but billions are tied up in customs bonds and collateral. Tariffs not only lead to additional import taxes, but by inflating the cost of the products, result in the need for importers to increase the value of customs bonds the government requires them to hold.

International trade experts told CNBC that with some tariffs increasing from 10%-25% or more for certain products, importers are facing customs bond amounts that now range from the minimum bond amount by regulation of $50,000 to as high as $450 million.

The increase in bond values have left some companies forced to put up additional money in the form of collateral to ensure they could pay the tariffs.

The rise in tariffs and related need for bonds and collateral has led to a historic number of “bond insufficiencies.” U.S. Customs told CNBC they identified over 24,000 customs bond “insufficiencies” valued at nearly $3.6 billion. That’s double the 2019 level when insufficiencies first soared due to Trump’s first-term tariffs under Section 301 of the 1974 Trade Act.

Importers have told CNBC because tariffs are itemized, as are their customs bonds and collateral documentation, in theory they should be able to receive their refunds quickly. However, trade attorneys also say it may also be difficult for companies to get any refunds on bond overpayment or collateral quickly because the insurers will want to make sure they are not exposed to any tariff payments.

Vincent Moy, international surety leader for Marsh Risk, recently told CNBC that companies should expect some lag time in receiving these customs bond funds due to insurance paperwork requirements. The insurance company will need to verify and audit the paper trail before it releases any collateral.

Some sureties have collateral return review procedures that can take 30 to 60 days for them to go back to underwriting to review. Many small and medium-sized businesses were expected to be reaching out to their insurers ahead of the decision to get the process of review started. “If you are hoping that the collateral will just be returned in due course, the squeaky wheel may make this happen a little bit faster,” Jennifer Diaz, board-certified international attorney at Diaz Trade Law, recently told CNBC.

Affordability

Fed’s Preferred Gauge Shows Accelerating December Inflation Trends

The personal-consumption expenditures price index increased by 0.4% in December

Key inflation metrics tracked by the Federal Reserve accelerated at the end of last year, underscoring why many Fed officials have turned cautious about supporting further interest-rate cuts.

The personal-consumption expenditures price index increased by 0.4% in December, after rising by 0.2% in November, the Commerce Department said Friday.

That lifted the 12-month PCE inflation rate to 2.9%, up from 2.8% in November. Core PCE inflation—which excludes volatile food and energy prices—ticked up to 3% in the 12 months through December, from 2.8% a month earlier.

The numbers are roughly aligned with forecasts from analysts, who can use other inflation metrics to forecast PCE inflation with great accuracy. The report also is more lagged than usual, because last fall’s government shutdown has caused cascading delays in the Bureau of Economic Analysis’s publication calendar.

But the figures point to one reason many Fed officials have turned hesitant about easing their policy stance further despite January’s decline in the consumer-price index, now at 2.4%. PCE inflation, not the CPI, is the metric against which the Fed gauges progress toward its 2% inflation target, and it has consistently hovered above that target for most of half a decade.

Much of the time, PCE inflation tends to run cooler than CPI inflation, but for now, the pattern has reversed. That is in large part because housing inflation, which has cooled steadily, plays a bigger part in the CPI calculation than in the PCE calculation, UBS economist Alan Detmeister has observed.

Minutes from the Fed’s January meeting published Wednesday showed that a contingent of Fed officials thinks that at 3.5% to 3.75%, the Fed’s current rate target is near a neutral level that is no longer working to restrain economic growth and rising prices. At last month’s Fed meeting, the minutes showed, one set of officials urged the group to consider communicating that going forward, rate increases may be as much a possibility as further cuts.

The December PCE inflation numbers are unlikely to be very impactful for traders, who are largely already focused on what the January PCE inflation reading will show when released on March 13. That will be the latest PCE data the Fed will have in hand at its next policy meeting, March 17-18.

Using numbers available from the January CPI report, many economists are estimating that the January PCE data will show 12-month core inflation steady at 3% or even increasing to 3.1%.

The report also showed that Americans’ personal income rose by 0.3% in December, while their consumer spending increased by 0.4%.

Bad Health Outcome

Doctors, and researchers, and other

highly qualified healthcare professionals

from around the world tell us

vaccinating kids is essential in order

to keep everybody as healthy as possible.

But a drugged up nepo-baby who BBQs

dogs and snorts cocaine off of

public toilet seats tells us vaccines

make our kids autistic and

vulnerable to 5G radiation.

So hard to figure out who we should believe.

MAHA Moms Turn Against Trump: ‘Women Feel Like They Were Lied To’

President Trump’s executive order aimed at spurring production of a pesticide has infuriated leaders of Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s MAHA movement.

The MAHA Moms have turned on President Trump.

When Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. threw his support behind Mr. Trump’s 2024 campaign for the White House, his corps of health conscious, mostly female, followers embraced the president, who pledged to address Americans’ concerns about “toxins in our environments and pesticides in our food.”

Some of the women, who call themselves the MAHA Moms after Mr. Kennedy’s Make America Healthy Again movement, abandoned the Democratic Party to vote for Mr. Trump.

But the executive order Mr. Trump issued Wednesday to increase domestic production of glyphosate — a widely used weedkiller and possible carcinogen that has been the target of thousands of lawsuits, including one brought by Mr. Kennedy — stunned and infuriated the activists.

It now threatens to turn the brief MAHA-Trump marriage into a divorce.

“Women feel like they were lied to, that MAHA movement is a sham,” said Alex Clark, a health and wellness podcaster for the conservative group Turning Point U.S.A., which is closely allied with the president. “How am I supposed to rally these women to vote red in the midterms? How can we win their trust back? I am unsure if we can.”

Across the country on Thursday, many women who identified with the movement expressed similar feelings of betrayal from the president. But Mr. Kennedy, who issued a statement saying that Mr. Trump’s order would strengthen “our defense readiness and our food supply,” was spared the wrath of the movement’s leaders, if not its rank and file.

“Secretary Kennedy has done everything he said he’s going to do,” said Vani Hari, a healthy eating activist and one-time Democrat (she worked to elect President Barack Obama) who has advised the administration on food policy. “He has upheld his commitment to the American people. Now, whether his boss is doing that is another story.”

Ms. Hari has millions of social media followers. “There is a level of anger and frustration like I’ve never witnessed before,” she said.

On her Instagram page, some of that anger was directed at Mr. Kennedy. “This begs the question why didn’t sec Kennedy have a say and stop it,” one commenter wrote.

It is unclear whether the secretary was consulted on the order before it was issued. The White House and a spokesman for Mr. Kennedy would not say.

“Where is RFK Jr.?” another commenter asked.

In issuing his order, Mr. Trump invoked the Defense Production Act, a Korean-war era law that allows the government to compel the manufacture of supplies that are critical for national defense.

The order is aimed at boosting domestic supplies of phosphorous, which is necessary for the manufacture of certain munitions, as well as for glyphosate, which has been deemed “probably carcinogenic to humans” by the International Agency for Research on Cancer. Glyphosate is marketed as the weedkiller Roundup. In 2018, Mr. Kennedy helped win a $289 million jury award against Roundup’s maker, Monsanto, now owned by Bayer.

“Ensuring an adequate supply of elemental phosphorus and glyphosate-based herbicides is thus crucial to the national security and defense, including food-supply security,” the order said. Kush Desai, a White House spokesman, defended the order, saying it was “not an endorsement of any product or practice.”

In a statement on behalf of Monsanto, a Bayer spokesman said Mr. Trump’s executive order “reinforces the critical need for U.S. farmers to have access to essential, domestically produced crop protection tools.” The company will “comply with this order to produce glyphosate and elemental phosphorus,” he said.

The order provides limited legal immunity to glyphosate’s makers, though it is unlikely to protect them against product liability lawsuits. Mr. Trump’s critics see the president helping the chemical industry and question whether there is legal justification for the order.

“Invoking the Defense Production Act to spur the domestic production of glyphosate is a gross abuse of presidential authority,” said Lawrence O. Gostin, a public health law expert at Georgetown University. “There is scant evidence that the United States’ agricultural sector and its ability to ensure a stable food supply is at risk.”

Mr. Trump also faced pushback from Representative Thomas Massie, a Republican of Kentucky, who last month helped scuttle legislation that would have effectively given legal immunity to glyphosate manufacturers. Mr. Massie said Thursday that he would introduce legislation seeking to undo Mr. Trump’s order.

The campaign against glyphosate has been central to the MAHA movement. Zen Honeycutt, the founder of the advocacy group Moms Across America, has been a leader in that campaign, commissioning private laboratory testing for pesticide residue and petitioning retailers to remove the chemicals from their shelves by framing it as a risk to children.

In an interview, Ms. Honeycutt called Mr. Trump’s order “an egregious offense to what he promised” and “a betrayal.” As for Mr. Kennedy, she said his hands are tied: “Bobby is not in charge of Trump.”

Representatives of MAHA Action and the MAHA Institute, part of a constellation of groups that support Mr. Kennedy’s agenda, did not respond to requests for comment.

Environmental groups, which had been sidelined under the current administration, said the MAHA movement was to blame for throwing its support behind a president that had proven himself to be disastrous for health and the environment in his first term. “They voted for Trump, and they own this,” said Ken Cook, president and co-founder of the Environmental Working Group, an advocacy organization that has worked on pesticide issues. “Of course they were betrayed. And they betrayed the rest of us,” he said, adding, “There were plenty of warning signs.”

There had indeed been red flags.

Last year, the Trump administration supported Bayer in a case that seeks to determine whether federal law shields pesticide manufacturers from lawsuits. Republicans in Congress have also proposed measures that would have effectively shielded Bayer and other pesticides makers from payouts to plaintiffs. That measure was defeated by a coalition of environmental groups, but a similar provision has been added to a draft of the farm bill.

The Trump administration has appointed former chemical industry executives and lobbyists to senior roles overseeing pesticides and toxic chemicals, angering several prominent MAHA activists who circulated a petition last fall calling for E.P.A. Administrator Lee Zeldin to be fired. Mr. Zeldin has since promised that the agency would adopt a “MAHA agenda.” That agenda has not been released.

Now, there is “a widening disconnect” between the voters who want to reduce chemicals and pesticides and the Trump administration, said Kelly Ryerson, an influencer and former investment banker who attended the meeting with Mr. Zeldin.

A loose confederation that brings together some people on the environmental left and the libertarian right, the movement has rallied around three primary issues: “health freedom,” including skepticism of vaccines and opposition to vaccine mandates; healthy eating; and reducing exposure to toxic chemicals.

In October, a KFF/Washington Post survey of nearly 3,000 parents found that about 38 percent identified as supporters of the MAHA movement. That figure rose to 62 percent among parents who identified as Republican, and to 81 percent among parents who identified as MAGA Republicans.

“There is a level of anger and frustration like I’ve never witnessed before,” said Vani Hari, who has advised the Trump administration on food policy.Credit...Al Drago for The New York Times
Advertisement

With polls showing that Mr. Kennedy’s healthy eating agenda is far more popular than his push to scale back the childhood vaccination schedule, the secretary is making a conscious pivot away from vaccines.

Instead, he has been promoting an “Eat Real Food” message with celebrities like the boxer Mike Tyson and the singer Kid Rock, whose recent video with Mr. Kennedy is raising eyebrows on social media. The men, both bare-chested (Mr. Kennedy wears jeans, his standard workout uniform) drink whole milk and perform push-ups and other exercises, while Mr. Rock gives Americans the middle finger.

It is too soon to tell the extent of the fallout from Mr. Trump’s backing of glyphosate, Ms. Hari said. Still, “it is likely going to be something that the Trump administration deeply regrets being part of.”

Today's Pix

click it to pick it

⇩