The Dictatorship

This no-nonsense judge is working to resolve Trump’s $165 billion tariff mess

Published

3 months ago

March 23, 2026

Mar. 22, 2026, 6:00 AM EDT

ByRay Brescia

When the Supreme Court issued its landmark decision in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump this past February, one had to sift through seven different judicial opinions spanning 170 pages to understand that the court invalidated the sweeping tariffs imposed by the Trump administration under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Still, that decision left many issues unresolved, the most important of which was how the administration was supposed to refund billions in illegal tariffs to those who paid them.

Instead of answering that important question, it returned the case to the relatively obscure Court of International Trade, a body created by Congress in 1980 to help resolve issues affecting, as its name suggests, international trade.

While one might think this was a recipe for mischief, an unlikely hero has arisen, Judge Richard Eaton of that court, who appears to be holding the administration’s feet to the fire and does not appear like he is about to tolerate many shenanigans should the administration seek to drag those feet in an effort to evade the law.

While Trump administration officials may have believed they could tie the case up in the courts for months, even years, Eaton has different thoughts about how, and when, to refund those who paid these illegal tariffs, and he has laid it all out in two opinions spanning no more than six pages of text combined.

At a time when lawyers and judges gravitate toward complex reasoning, obscuring jargon and legal briefs and opinions that seemingly go on forever, Eaton has taught a masterclass in simple, concise and clear language. What this straightforward approach has done is not only made it patently clear what the administration’s legal obligations are, he has left little wiggle room for the administration to avoid reparations.

Eaton, a 77-year-old jurist who once served as a village justice in rural upstate New York, has taken the reins of this sprawling, high-stakes legal battle. In the case of Atmus Filtration, Inc. v. United States, the plaintiff is seeking an immediate refund of the payments it made under the illegal tariff scheme. Eaton’s first opinion in the case is a model of judicial brevity and clarity. And he has also shown no patience for bureaucratic stonewalling.

The first decision was issued on March 4, 2026. Importers across the country may have been bracing for a convoluted, multiyear slog to get their money back, but Eaton quickly eased those fears. In a simple, three-page order, he directed Customs and Border Protection to refund the illegal tariffs paid by American companies.

At a time when lawyers and judges gravitate toward complex reasoning, obscuring jargon and legal briefs and opinions that seemingly go on forever, Eaton has taught a masterclass in simple, concise and clear language.

But that’s not all he did. He also brushed aside the government’s possible procedural defenses. Despite the Supreme Court’s recent holding in Trump v. CASA, Inc. — that frowned upon so-called “universal” or nationwide injunctions — in just a few plainspoken sentences, Eaton dismantled this hurdle. He pointed out that Congress provided the CIT with “national geographic jurisdiction” and “exclusive subject matter jurisdiction” over these very claims. Because he is the only judge hearing these refund cases, there is no risk of conflicting decisions from other courts.

He also extended the benefit of the Supreme Court’s ruling to all importers whose entries were subject to the illegal tariffs, declaring that finding otherwise would “thwart the efficient administration of justice.” There was no bloated dicta. No attempt at soaring or purple prose. No contortionist logic to reach a preferred decision or to justify refraining from reaching a decision. Just clear directives that have paved the way for nationwide relief.

Naturally, the government balked. On March 6, a representative of the CBP, the entity responsible for collecting, and now refunding, the tariffs, submitted a sworn statement to Judge Eaton that the agency could not comply immediately with the court’s order to refund those American companies that paid the illegal tariffs. Instead, CBP is now saying it is going to create a mechanism for facilitating refunds of the tariffs, but that it needs 45 days to implement the system.

Rather than letting the government use this excuse to indefinitely stall, Eaton issued his second order later that same day.

If his first order was brief, his March 6 order was a paragon of judicial economy — weighing in at just two pages. Acknowledging that CBP has proposed the creation of an automated process, he temporarily suspended the demand for immediate compliance but kept the agency on an incredibly tight leash.

He bluntly laid out the stakes to justify his speed: The $165 billion in collected duties is currently accruing approximately $650 million in interest every single month. If the entries are not liquidated by the end of the year, he explained, American taxpayers will be on the hook for an estimated $10 billion in interest alone. With that staggering figure stalking the administration’s processes, Eaton accepted the complexity of the task at hand but also ordered the government to file a progress report by March 12, promising to keep tabs on the CBP, which he has done. That March 12 briefing has come and gone, and Eaton is expecting regular briefings from the government to ensure it is making progress, including receiving one such briefing Thursday.

When it too often seems like the legal system is paralyzed by procedural gamesmanship and judicial opinions frequently span hundreds of pages, and sometimes constitute tales of sound and fury signifying little, Eaton’s approach is a breath of fresh air. His rulings demonstrate that the most effective jurisprudence is often the most direct. He saw a problem — billions of dollars in illegally collected taxes and an administration reluctant to return them — and he used his court’s unique jurisdictional power to solve it.

He didn’t write for the history books, even as he made history; he wrote to get American businesses their money back and to protect American taxpayers from footing a multibillion-dollar interest bill.

The Constitution requires that tariffs be lawful, and the Supreme Court has confirmed that these were not. But rights without remedies are meaningless. Thanks to the brevity, clarity and undeniable courage of a seasoned judge in lower Manhattan, who no doubt has seen his share of litigant mischief in his court for decades, the rule of law is being enforced in as straightforward and efficient a manner as possible.

In a world where the courts must serve as a significant check on abuses of power, particularly executive power, we need more judges like Eaton: those with the courage, and the willingness, to, in the words of Chief Justice John Marshall from over 200 years ago, “say what the law is” and to do so in a concise, fair, clear and accessible manner.

Ray Brescia

Ray Brescia is a professor of law at Albany Law School and author of the book “The Private Is Political: Identity and Democracy in the Age of Surveillance Capitalism.”

The Dictatorship

Monday’s Campaign Round-Up, 6.22.26: Why Trump backed both Republicans in a key S.C. race

Published

1 hour ago

June 22, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Monday’s Campaign Round-Up, 6.22.26: Why Trump backed both Republicans in a key S.C. race

Today’s installment of campaign-related news items from across the country.

* In South Carolina’s gubernatorial raceDonald Trump endorsed Lt. Gov. Pam Evette last month. Last week, however, ahead of this week’s primary runoff election in the race, the president published an online item telling voters that “you can’t go wrong” with either Evette or state Attorney General Alan Wilson.

If this sounds at all familiar, it’s because Trump has done this before. Around this time two years ago, for example, he endorsed both Republicans running in a congressional primary in Arizona. And two years before that, he endorsed two leading contenders in a Senate primary in Missouri.

Only the president can say for sure why he ended up endorsing Evette and Wilson in the South Carolina race, though it’s worth emphasizing for context that GOP primary voters have already ignored his direction into two gubernatorial primaries this month, and it stands to reason that he hoped to avoid a third.

* We’re one day away from a variety of notable racesincluding but not limited to South Carolina’s gubernatorial race. There are also some congressional primaries in a handful of statesincluding Maryland, New York and Utah.

* In took a while, but the ballots have been tallied under Maine’s ranked-choice systemand we now know that Democrat Hannah Pingree, the former state House speaker, will face off against Republican Bobby Charles, who worked at the State Department during the Bush-Cheney era.

* As for Maine’s closely watched congressional racestate Auditor Matt Dunlap won the Democratic nomination in the battleground 2nd District, defeating state Sen. Joe Baldacci, who enjoyed the backing of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Dunlap will run in the fall against a familiar figure: former Republican Gov. Paul LePage, who had moved to Florida a few years ago, but who returned to run for Congress.

* In California’s congressional special electiontwo Democratic candidates — state Sen. Aisha Wahab and Melissa Hernandez, a Bay Area Rapid Transit director — have advanced to an Aug. 18 special general election. The winner will fill the vacancy left by disgraced former Rep. Eric Swalwell, who resigned in April.

* In a new commercial shared first with MS NOWDemocrat James Talarico has launched his campaign’s first multimillion-dollar ad buy in Texas’ gubernatorial race. In the 30-second spot, Talarico focuses on affordability and the cost of living. The state lawmaker will face scandal-plagued state Attorney General Ken Paxton in the fall.

* And in New Jersey, Republican Rep. Tom Kean Jr.who has been missing from Capitol Hill since early March, will reportedly return to work on June 30according to a statement from his spokesperson. Neither Kean nor his office have offered any public information about why he has been away.

Steve Benen is a producer for “The Rachel Maddow Show,” the editor of MaddowBlog and an MS NOW political contributor. He’s also the bestselling author of “Ministry of Truth: Democracy, Reality, and the Republicans’ War on the Recent Past.”

The Dictatorship

Trump tries dual endorsement in South Carolina as his pick for governor flounders in polls

Published

1 hour ago

June 22, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Trump tries dual endorsement in South Carolina as his pick for governor flounders in polls

Jun. 22, 2026, 11:39 AM EDT

After President Donald Trump’s pick for governor in Iowa lost in the Republican primary earlier this month, the president argued that he “would have endorsed the other person” if he had “the proper information.”

Trump is taking no chances in the South Carolina gubernatorial primary. Over the weekend he rescinded his exclusive endorsement of Pamela Evette, the lieutenant governor, announcing instead that he would support both Evette and her runoff opponent, Alan Wilson, the state’s attorney general.

The move put Evette’s political future in jeopardy: Even before Trump’s dual endorsement, she trailed in limited public polling and was seen by political observers in South Carolina as a weak candidate with little to show besides the president’s coveted endorsement.

“Her chief distinction from Alan Wilson was that Trump endorsed her,” said Dr. Dubose Kapeluck, a professor of political science at the Citadel Military College of South Carolina.

Trump’s dual endorsement “was a kiss of death,” he told MS NOW.

Evette, who moved to South Carolina from Ohio to found a successful payroll and HR company in 2000, has been lieutenant governor since 2019, serving under Gov. Henry McMaster, who is term-limited.

In office, she has pursued meaningful but little-celebrated policies, like a key tort reform bill, according to Gil Gatch, a Republican member of the South Carolina state House and an Evette supporter.

But voters could be forgiven for knowing little about Evette besides the fact that Trump endorsed her, which he did just days before the June 9 primary. Visitors to her campaign website are greeted with a full-screen message labeling Evette as “Trump-endorsed.” The first line in her X bio states the same. Pro-Evette television ads are quick to tout the endorsement.

An accomplishment like tort reform, while noted on Evette’s website, “maybe could have been something that was highlighted more heavily,” Gatch told MS NOW.

The political makeup of South Carolina nearly guarantees the next governor will be whoever emerges on Tuesday between Evette and Wilson. They survived a crowded primary field on June 9, and nearly every challenger who fell short of the runoff publicly endorsed the attorney general.

“She’s just not a good candidate,” Josh Kimbrell, a state senator who failed to make the runoff and has since said he’d back Wilson, said of Evette.

“She kind of assumed this was a coronation, and that was never going to go over that well,” he added.

Even some pro-Trump voters were confused by the president’s initial endorsement of Evette, whom he called “a good friend, fighter, and WINNER” in a social media post in May.

“I have no clue why Trump would endorse Pamela Evette,” Leland Lemmons, a 30-year-old Trump supporter told MS NOW as he exited a polling site in the Greenville suburb of Easley on June 9.

“She’s served, you know, a decent time. I just haven’t seen much fruition of what she’s done in office,” he added.

In a post on Truth Social Friday announcing his dual endorsement, Trump wrote, “I can’t hurt one of them by only Endorsing the other, so, therefore, I am going to Endorse, for Governor of South Carolina, both Pam Evette and Alan Wilson!”

In a subsequent statement on X, Evette said, “I was proud to come in first as [Trump’s] endorsed candidate for Governor on June 9th. Looking forward to doing it again on June 23rd.”

After The Washington Post foreshadowed the dual endorsement last Tuesday, allies of Evette were quick to denounce the possibility.

“I would guess that’s fake news,” Suzanne Pucci, a member of Evette’s finance committee, told MS NOW of the chance Trump would also endorse Wilson. “She’s probably not real worried about it.”

Another close ally and supporter told MS NOW at the time the report was “a total, fabricated lie.”

“[Trump] is invested in Pamela Evette because she invested in him. He’s a loyal guy. That kind of stuff is important to him,” added the supporter, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

“With or without Trump, I think she is going to win,” they said.

On Thursday, a senior campaign aide, who spoke on condition of anonymity, brushed off the idea of a dual endorsement, telling MS NOW in a statement, “Pamela Evette has earned the complete and total endorsement of President Trump. She is the only Trump-endorsed candidate in this race and we look forward to delivering a big win for the president on Tuesday.”

Roughly 24 hours later, Trump retracted the exclusive endorsement.

Will McDuffie is a reporter for MS NOW.

The Dictatorship

Fears of an ‘economic catastrophe’ helped push Trump toward an Iran deal

Published

1 hour ago

June 22, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Fears of an ‘economic catastrophe’ helped push Trump toward an Iran deal

As last week’s G7 summit in France got underway, a reporter asked Donald Trump whether his purported deal with Iran was final. “No, it’s not final,” the president replied. Later that day — during a visit to Versaillesof all places — he signed the framework anyway.

But moments after signing his name to the memorandum of understanding, Trump offered an unsubtle hint about what he was thinking at the time. Amid applause from those around him, the American president pointed down and then up while saying“Oil down, stocks up.”

In other words, Trump’s focus had nothing to do with natural security and everything to do with the economy. What’s more, the four-word phrase was part of a larger and underappreciated pattern. The Washington Post reported:

In the more than 100 days since President Donald Trump launched a war with Iran, he has offered a shifting list of reasons for why he started the conflict. But in explaining his push for peace, he named a priority much closer to home: protecting the stock market.

“I didn’t want to see economic catastrophe,” Trump told reporters gathered in the Alpine spa town of Évian-les-Bains, France, after the Group of Seven summit.

As the summit wrapped up, the Republican similarly said“I’ve studied presidents, some good, some bad, some great. Not too many are great and some really bad. … And the one president I did not want to be was the late, great Herbert Hoover. I didn’t want that and who knows what would have happened.”

He pushed the same point in an interview with Axios, which was released over the weekend.

“If I went further, the stock market would be much lower,” the president said. “Now think of this: I have one primary wish as president, in terms of people: I never want to be the late, great Herbert Hoover.”

The comments came days after Trump similarly argued“The alternative to this deal was a global recession. There are stupid people who want to see a global recession. They are just stupid people.”

Whether the president fully appreciates the implications of his own rhetoric, this string of comments doesn’t just shed light on his motivations for accepting a defeat, it also suggests he saw his failed policy in Iran as pushing the global economy toward a dangerous cliff.

In other words, based on Trump’s own comments, the war he started was poised to create an “economic catastrophe,” which he was desperate to avoid — and which led him to accept a framework that empowered Iran to get what it wanted in exchange for effectively no concessions at all.