Tracking Trump's Tariffs and Turbulent Trade Talks

Knowing Trump - this is exactly what he did...


I keep telling people that everything has changed and nothing can stop what’s coming.

The Supreme Court just “helped” Trump and most people can’t see it.

They struck down tariffs based on the IEEPA law, that has been abused by past presidents, especially Obama, as I just laid out in a two part thread.

That law is so broad, that it actually endangers America, when used by a corrupt president like Obama.

And this ruling did nothing to stop Trump from imposing tariffs.

Trump immediately declared that he would restore the tariffs struck down because of the IEEPA law.

How?

NATIONAL SECURITY.

And here’s what most people are missing in this Supreme Court decision.

The Supreme Court did not give a remedy.
They didn’t demand that the tariffs be given back or how.

Why?

I would argue that they knew what was coming.
The Supreme Court did not throw out the tariffs that Trump placed on countries because of “national security.”

Why?

The Constitution gives the president “plenary power” over “national security.”

The Supreme Court knew that was coming.

They literally DISTINGUISHED what tariffs are legal and what tariffs aren’t.

That’s a great PRECEDENT for the future.
Clear law instead of purposely ambiguous law, that allows for future abuse.

Trump just exposed the corrupt IEEPA law in order to set the table to get rid of it.

And trust me.
Go read my 2 Part on this Supreme Court decision.
Obama and Brennan just shit a brick.

GROK
The IEEPA, or International Emergency Economic Powers Act, is a United States federal law enacted in 1977 (Title II of Pub. L. 95–223, signed by President Jimmy Carter on December 28, 1977). It is codified at 50 U.S.C. §§ 1701–1707.This statute grants the President broad authority to regulate international economic transactions and commerce during a declared national emergency. Specifically, it allows the President to address any "unusual and extraordinary threat" to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States, provided the threat originates in whole or substantial part outside the country.Key Provisions and PowersThe President must first declare a national emergency under the National Emergencies Act with respect to the specific threat.

Once declared, the President can (under 50 U.S.C. § 1702) investigate, regulate, block, prohibit, or compel various actions related to property in which a foreign country or foreign national has an interest. This commonly includes:Freezing (blocking) assets.
Prohibiting or restricting financial transactions.

Regulating importation or exportation.

Imposing economic sanctions on countries, entities, or individuals.

The law requires periodic reporting to Congress (every 6 months) on the emergency, the threat, and actions taken.

In cases of actual armed attack on the U.S., additional powers (like confiscation of certain property) may apply.

IEEPA was created to limit and clarify the broader peacetime emergency powers previously available under the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917 (TWEA), restricting them more narrowly (e.g., excluding purely domestic transactions in many cases and requiring a foreign-source threat).

Typical UsesPresidents have frequently invoked IEEPA to implement economic sanctions programs (administered primarily by the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control, or OFAC). Examples include sanctions on Iran (starting with the 1979 hostage crisis), Russia, North Korea, certain terrorist organizations, and various other foreign actors or regimes.Recent Developments (as of February 20, 2026)On this date, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in cases such as Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump (and consolidated cases) that IEEPA does not authorize the President to unilaterally impose tariffs (import duties/taxes). In a 6-3 decision, the Court held that while IEEPA allows regulation of "importation" (e.g., blocking or prohibiting imports), it does not extend to imposing tariffs, which are a form of taxation constitutionally reserved to Congress under Article I. The ruling struck down broad tariffs imposed under IEEPA (including so-called "reciprocal" and "drug-trafficking" tariffs), though it does not affect tariffs imposed under other statutes (e.g., Section 232 or Section 301 authorities). This has significant implications for ongoing trade policy and potential refunds of previously collected duties.For the full statutory text, see the U.S. Code at sites like Cornell's Legal Information Institute or official government sources.

GROK: Explain the Supreme Court ruling in detail

Introduction to the Ruling
On February 20, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 6-3 decision in the consolidated cases of Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump (No. 24–1287) and Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc. (No. 25–250). The Court held that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), codified at 50 U.S.C. §§ 1701 et seq., does not authorize the President to impose tariffs. The judgment in Learning Resources was vacated and remanded with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, while the judgment in V.O.S. Selections was affirmed. This ruling struck down broad tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump under IEEPA, emphasizing that tariffs constitute a form of taxation constitutionally reserved to Congress under Article I, Section 8, and that IEEPA's language does not clearly delegate such authority to the executive branch.The majority opinion was authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, with partial joins by other justices, leading to a splintered decision. The ruling applied both textual statutory interpretation and the major questions doctrine to conclude that IEEPA's grant of power to "regulate... importation or exportation" (50 U.S.C. § 1702(a)(1)(B)) does not encompass the imposition of tariffs, which are unbounded in scope, amount, and duration. The Court did not address the issue of refunds for the estimated $200 billion in tariffs collected in 2025, leaving that to lower courts or potential congressional action.

Background and Context
Shortly after taking office for his second term, President Trump declared national emergencies under IEEPA to address two perceived foreign threats: (1) the influx of illegal drugs, particularly fentanyl, from Canada, Mexico, and China, which he deemed a public health crisis; and (2) "large and persistent" trade deficits that had "hollowed out" American manufacturing and undermined critical supply chains. Invoking IEEPA's authority, he issued executive orders imposing:

• Drug-trafficking tariffs: A 25% duty on most imports from Canada and Mexico, and a 10% duty on most imports from China.
• Reciprocal tariffs: At least a 10% duty on all imports from all trading partners, with higher rates for dozens of nations, aimed at reducing trade deficits.

These tariffs were frequently modified through subsequent orders. IEEPA requires the President to declare a national emergency for "unusual and extraordinary" threats originating substantially outside the U.S., and it grants powers to investigate, regulate, block, or prohibit transactions involving foreign interests. However, no prior president had used IEEPA to impose tariffs; instead, other statutes like Sections 232 and 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 were used for similar purposes.The plaintiffs in Learning Resources were two small businesses challenging the tariffs in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. In V.O.S. Selections, the plaintiffs included five small businesses and 12 states, filing in the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT).

Procedural History in Lower Courts

• In Learning Resources, the D.C. District Court denied the government's motion to transfer the case to the CIT and granted a preliminary injunction, holding that IEEPA did not authorize tariffs.
• In V.O.S. Selections, the CIT granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs. The Federal Circuit, sitting en banc, affirmed in relevant part, concluding that IEEPA's authority to "regulate... importation" did not extend to tariffs that were "unbounded in scope, amount, and duration" (149 F. 4th 1312, 1338).
• The Supreme Court granted certiorari in V.O.S. Selections and certiorari before judgment in Learning Resources, consolidating the cases. Oral arguments were held on November 5, 2025.

The Court also addressed jurisdiction, holding that the CIT has exclusive jurisdiction over such tariff challenges under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i)(1), as they arise from modifications to the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS).

Majority Opinion (Chief Justice Roberts)
The opinion was divided into parts, with varying joins reflecting divisions over the role of the major questions doctrine versus pure textualism.

• Part I (Background): Outlined the facts, tariffs, and lower court proceedings, citing precedents like Gibbons v. Ogden (9 Wheat. 1, 201) on the importance of congressional taxing power.
• Part II-A-1 (Constitutional and Statutory Context): Emphasized that Article I, §8 vests Congress alone with the power to lay taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, including tariffs. The executive has no inherent peacetime authority to impose tariffs (Nicol v. Ames, 173 U.S. 509, 515). The government conceded this, relying solely on IEEPA as a delegation.
• Part II-A-2 (Major Questions Doctrine): Applied the doctrine from West Virginia v. EPA (597 U.S. 697, 723), requiring clear congressional authorization for delegations of "vast economic and political significance." Tariffs under IEEPA would allow unbounded presidential power, transforming executive authority without limits (e.g., no caps, durations, or procedures, unlike other tariff statutes like 19 U.S.C. §§ 1338, 2132). The stakes were enormous, potentially reducing $4 trillion in deficits and affecting $15 trillion in trade deals, dwarfing cases like Biden v. Nebraska (600 U.S. 477). No exception for emergencies or foreign affairs when the power is congressionally derived. Key quote: "We claim no special competence in matters of economics or foreign affairs. We claim only... the limited role assigned to us by Article III."
• Part II-B (Statutory Interpretation): Even without the doctrine, ordinary interpretation shows IEEPA does not authorize tariffs. The text lists powers like "investigate, block, regulate importation/exportation" but omits "tariffs" or "duties," unlike explicit tariff statutes. "Regulate" means to control or adjust (Black’s Law Dictionary), not to tax. Taxes may regulate indirectly, but regulation does not imply taxation (Sonzinsky v. United States, 300 U.S. 506, 513). Neighboring verbs (e.g., "block/prohibit") are non-revenue focused. No presidential precedent for IEEPA tariffs in 50 years; other statutes were used instead. Rejects government analogies to Commerce Clause cases or wartime powers. Key quote: "IEEPA contains no reference to tariffs or duties. The Government points to no statute in which Congress used the word 'regulate' to authorize taxation."

Concurrences
The majority was supported by concurrences that highlighted different interpretive approaches.


Dissents
The dissenters argued for a broader reading of IEEPA, emphasizing historical practice and foreign affairs deference.

Implications
The ruling reinforces congressional primacy over tariffs, limiting executive overreach in economic policy. It expands the major questions doctrine's application, potentially constraining future delegations in foreign affairs or emergencies. Tariffs imposed under IEEPA are invalid, but the decision does not preclude using other statutes (e.g., Section 232 or 301) with procedural safeguards. Unresolved issues include refunds for importers (who may have passed costs to consumers) and potential disruptions to trade agreements worth trillions. The splintered opinions highlight ongoing debates over interpretive tools like the major questions doctrine versus textualism in high-stakes cases.