The Dictatorship
Trump’s tariffs keep losing battles in court — but he may still win the war
ByRay Brescia
The U.S. Supreme Court in February struck down the Trump administration’s “Liberation Day” tariffs as illegal and unconstitutional. Soon thereafter, the administration invoked a different provision of federal law to impose new tariffs. Now, the U.S. Court of International Trade, which has jurisdiction over these issues, has ruled that the administration’s second effort to impose tariffs under this different legal provision is also flawed.
But before American small businesses and consumers can breathe a sigh of relief, the administration is likely to appeal. And instead of using the Supreme Court’s decision as cover for a retreat from tariffs, the administration seems committed to pursuing unpopular policies that are bad for an economy which is also seeing consumer prices spike because of events in the Middle East.
Even if this effort to impose ill-advised tariffs on American businesses and consumers should ultimately fail once again in the courts, the administration is determined to press on.
When the Supreme Court ruled against the administration’s first effort at imposing tariffs, it found that the plain text of the Constitution vested Congress with the power to levy tariffs, and the limited authority the legislature had granted the executive under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act did not authorize the tariffs.
Despite the fact that the tariffs had taken roughly $166 billion out of the pockets of domestic business and, by extension, American consumers, the administration pressed ahead to take another swing at tariffs, this time invoking a provision passed by Congress in the early 1970s to deal with a different kind of crisis, what lawmakers back then described as a “balance-of-payments” deficit.
To understand why the administration’s efforts have failed so far the second time around, one has to understand the context in which Congress passed the provision that the administration invoked when issuing them. At the time Congress passed this authority, what is referred to as Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974the U.S. had just come off the gold standard and the global economy was adjusting to a new economic monetary system. Members of Congress expressed concerns that this new system might harm U.S. economic interests if money did not flow smoothly throughout the global economy, sort of like a game of economic musical chairs.
Fifty years later, the new global economy functions far better than Congress expected it would, and there are no balance-of-payments concerns that could justify the tariffs imposed under Section 122. The language in the statute, written for a different time, empowers the president to impose temporary tariffs when there is a balance-of-payments issue. Making such an argument today is sort of like claiming the decline in the use of leaded gasoline, largely taken out of the economy in the 1970s, is a basis for justifying the new tariffs. More importantly, , and as the Court of International Trade ruled, there simply isn’t a balance-of-payments issue that would justify invoking Section 122.
Admittedly, the language in Section 122 is vague. But that’s where the administration is in a legal bind, one similar to that which it found itself in when it argued in favor of the IEEPA tariffs.
Indeed, either the plain text of Section 122 cannot be invoked unless there is a clear balance-of-payments problem (which there isn’t), o the administration can say the term “balance of payments” means whatever the administration wants it to mean. Under that interpretation, the statute delegates too much authority to the executive, and is unconstitutional. In either case, the administration loses.
Still, even if this effort to impose ill-advised tariffs on American businesses and consumers should ultimately fail once again in the courts, the administration is determined to press on. It has commenced steps designed to impose tariffs under more and different provisions of federal law.
At some point, the administration will likely succeed in imposing new tariffs in a way that is consistent with the laws that might authorize them, even if such tariffs might be a mere shadow of the sweeping tariffs the administration issued in April 2025.
We saw something like this occur in the first Trump administration, when it issued a ban on travel from predominantly Muslim countries. A series of orders issued by the administration were halted in the courts at firstbut the administration reissued new orders several times in an effort to pass legal and constitutional muster. In June 2018, nearly 18 months after the first such order went into effect, the Supreme Court, in a narrow, 5-4 decisionfound for the administration, concluding that the revised approach was not inconsistent with federal law or the Constitution.
At some point, the administration will likely succeed in imposing new tariffs in a way that is consistent with the laws that might authorize them.
A similar pattern is likely to emerge here. Despite the evidence that the tariffs are unpopular, that the price of goods continues to soar and that the American people are unhappy with the state of the economythe administration seems committed to imposing some kind of tariffs, perhaps for no other reason than to say that it did. Much as it was with the first Trump administration’s travel bans, when it comes to tariffs, the second Trump administration is likely to get something through that the courts will no longer block.
Of course, the administration can always simply go to Congress to seek approval for new tariffs. Such efforts are likely to fail even now, and if the Democrats should retake even one chamber in the 2026 midterms, new tariffs are most certainly doomed.
Perhaps that is why the administration keeps trying its hand at tariffs, hoping it can slip something through the courts. Whether it is through Section 122 or not, it is likely to succeed in some measure in the end.
While the current effort is stalled in the courts for now, at some point, the administration might get tariffs right, regardless of whether they are wrong for American businesses, consumers and the economy. For now, at least the Court of International Trade has given these tariffs the judicial thumbs down. But it seems unlikely the administration is going to take that as the final word on its mission to impose tariffs, regardless of how unpopular they are with the American people.
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.”
Over the course of June, Donald Trump spent nearly every day focusing attention on assorted construction and beautification projects, emphasizing the unavoidable conclusion that the president takes his renovation crusade very seriously.
His allies aren’t necessarily pleased. The Hill recently reported that Republican officials, worried about the midterm elections and maintaining partisan control, have been “thrown off-balance” by, among other things, Trump’s focus on “pet projects” instead of more meaningful national priorities.
The list of projects keeps growing nevertheless. It includes (but is by no means limited to) the ballroomthe Reflecting Poolthe “triumphal arch,” the fountainsthe horse statuesthe “Trump Promenade,” the “statue garden” and the dozen or so additional renovation projects he’s prioritized in and around the White House complex.
But let’s also not forget the helipad.
A couple of months ago, The Washington PostThe Wall Street Journal and The New York Times separately published similar reports about Trump hoping to build a permanent helicopter landing site on the White House grounds. Evidently, those plans have now advanced to the construction stage. The Post reported this week:
President Donald Trump has begun construction on a new White House helipad, his latest change to the historic grounds, according to three people who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the project publicly.
Construction crews worked into the night Monday on the White House’s South Lawn, with the project blocked off by a large fence.
The report, which has not been independently verified by MS NOW, added that the project hasn’t yet been formally announced by the White House, even as construction is apparently underway.
It’s not yet clear how much the project will cost, who will pick the tab and whether this has joined the growing list of no-bid contracts.
Unlike some of the president’s other priorities, there is a legitimate issue here — the latest generation of helicopters really do damage the White House lawn — although this doesn’t answer the other lingering questions or explain why Team Trump hasn’t acknowledged the existence of the project.
What’s more, this almost certainly won’t be the last of the Republican’s projects.
Earlier this week, the president used his social media platform to promote an artificial intelligence-generated image of a gold eagle affixed to the White House exterior. Trump added in his online image, “A Golden Gift to the White House for its 250th Birthday Year!”
The text (which erroneously said the White House is celebrating its semiquincentennial) suggested the president intends to add this gaudy addition to his ambitious renovation agenda.
Recent polling has found two-thirds of Americans are convinced their unpopular president simply has the wrong priorities. Trump could take steps to change their mind, but he apparently doesn’t want to.
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
Hegseth blasts protesters at ceremony for D.C. Safe and Beautiful Task Force: ‘Ingrates’
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Thursday derided protesters at an event in Washington, D.C., tied to the America 250 celebrationscalling the demonstrators “ingrates” who are “blinded by ideology.”
The D.C. Safe and Beautiful Task Force event in Meridian Hill Park was set to begin at 9 a.m. ET but did not start until roughly 30 minutes later, as members of the National Guard waited for Hegseth’s arrival amid a brutal heat wave. Protesters shouted during his brief address, in which he said he was to blame for the delay and praised the troops for their service.
“In fact, this background noise this morning is perfect,” Hegseth said about the protesters, with White House adviser Stephen Miller and acting Attorney General Todd Blanche standing behind him.
“It’s the sound of ingrates, of ingratitude of people who are so blinded by ideology they can’t see law and order and common sense in front of them,” Hegseth said. “That there’s nothing ideological about this group, there’s nothing political about this exercise.”
Some protesters could be heard shouting “Shame!” and “Guard, go home!”
Pete Hegseth: “This background noise is perfect. It’s the sound of ingrates, of ingratitude, of people who are so blinded by ideology they can’t see law and order and common sense in front of them.” pic.twitter.com/aWt5ciuRG3
—Aaron Rupar (@atrupar)”https://x.com/atrupar/status/2072679604184109222?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw”>July 2, 2026
National Guard troops have been deployed to assist with America 250 celebrations in the capital, though some Democratic governors have warned against their guard members being utilized for a larger federal joint task force to tackle what the Trump administration has called“rampant crime” in Washington.
Many Washington residents are not thrilled with the National Guard’s presence. The controversial America 250 festivities have also sparked criticism from Democrats who accuse President Donald Trump of putting himself at the center of the celebrations.
At the Thursday ceremony, Hegseth suggested the protesters were not from Washington.
“These ingrates will fade away; they’ll go back to wherever they came from,” he said, before asserting that National Guard troops have brought the crime rate down in the capital — a claim that at least one study has found to be inaccurate.
“The crime rate here has dropped in staggering amounts, and the media won’t want to admit it because, of course, they’d have to give credit to President Trump, and then they’d have to give credit to the Department of War or to Stephen Miller,” Hegseth said. “But courageous men like President Trump and Stephen, who said enough is enough, are the reason why this city is a safe and beautiful place.”
Clarissa-Jan Lim is a breaking news reporter for MS NOW. She was previously a senior reporter and editor at BuzzFeed News.
Stephanie Ruhle said she was left “almost speechless” after the release of Donald Trump’s new financial disclosureswhich reported he raked in more than $2 billion since returning to the White House. “Man, it looks good to be president,” the “Money, Power, Politics” host said Wednesday.
According to the 927-page document released Tuesday, Trump’s income has only increased since retaking the White House. The president reported almost $575 million in real estate and golf-related income and another $68.6 million in royalties and licensing fees.
But, as Ruhle pointed out, $1.4 billion of Trump’s 2025 total comes directly from one industry: crypto.
Despite having called that industry a “scam” and a “disaster waiting to happen” in 2021, Trump has in recent years appeared to have a change of heart about digital currency.
“That was just five years ago, but now he is a major crypto industry operator and essentially its top policy maker,” the MS NOW host said. “Remember, he is the one who appointed regulators that changed the rules to hugely benefit the crypto industry, and since he came back to office, he has either completely dropped or settled a whole lot of cases with crypto companies.”
As Trump rakes in more cash, Ruhle said the American people are not experiencing the same kind of prosperity, in part because of the administration’s policies. “[They] are suffering, whether it’s because of tariffs, whether it’s because of inflation, whether it’s because of increased costs, because of the war in Iran,” she said.
While Ruhle noted the president has said he does not choose his investments and has said they are in a “blind account,” she said the American people should not ignore how much Trump has profited since returning to the White House.
“Here’s what you need to know: All of this would be a major conflict of interest — a huge scandal — if it were any other presidency,” she argued.
You can watch Ruhle’s full breakdown in the clip below.
Allison Detzel is an editor/producer for MS NOW. She was previously a segment producer for “AYMAN” and “The Mehdi Hasan Show.”
- Trump’s record-setting July 4 fireworks could shower the city with pollution
- Work reportedly begins on White House helipad as part of Trump’s renovation agenda
- Hegseth blasts protesters at ceremony for D.C. Safe and Beautiful Task Force: ‘Ingrates’
- Stephanie Ruhle breaks down what to know about Trump’s financial disclosures
- The stock market is not the litmus test the American public wants
- Despite his recent antics, acting DNI Bill Pulte gets broad declassification powers
- The European sports host with the most
- When a World Cup exit becomes a political crisis
- House Ethics says it doesn’t have information to share on lawmaker sexual misconduct settlements
- AOC endorses El-Sayed in Michigan Senate race
-
Politics1 year agoFormer ‘Squad’ members launching ‘Bowman and Bush’ YouTube show
-
The Dictatorship1 year agoLuigi Mangione acknowledges public support in first official statement since arrest
-
Politics1 year agoFormer Kentucky AG Daniel Cameron launches Senate bid
-
The Josh Fourrier Show2 years agoDOOMSDAY: Trump won, now what?
-
Uncategorized2 years ago
Bob Good to step down as Freedom Caucus chair this week
-
The Dictatorship1 year agoPete Hegseth’s tenure at the Pentagon goes from bad to worse
-
Politics1 year agoBlue Light News’s Editorial Director Ryan Hutchins speaks at Blue Light News’s 2025 Governors Summit
-
The Dictatorship10 months agoMike Johnson sums up the GOP’s arrogant position on military occupation with two words