Pretty telling that to try and swing Bacon’s vote on tariffs GOP leadership is quietly admitting that the tariffs are so bad for local business they’re willing to cancel them for individual districts AND give more incentives on top of that. It’s a threat and a bribe all in one https://t.co/yOgbLJK2yy

— Blake Allen (@Blake_Allen13) February 12, 2026

Went straight to the source.
The Constitution is clear.
Article I, Section 8 gives Congress authority over taxes and tariffs. pic.twitter.com/TE5RHH0J1r

— Rep. Don Bacon 🇺🇸✈️🏍️⭐️🎖️ (@RepDonBacon) February 12, 2026

So, for the record: The trade deficit in the first 11 months of the Trump administration was $839.5B. In the same period in 2024, the final Biden year, it was $806.6B. And if you think this year's performance is a 78% reduction, see my previous tweet re Melania coins. https://t.co/u8ftzdRxzl

— Ian Shepherdson (@IanShepherdson) February 12, 2026

JUST IN: 🇺🇸🇹🇼 United States signs trade deal with Taiwan, cutting tariffs to 15%.

In return, Taiwan will remove "99%" of trade barriers on US and purchase $84 billion worth of American goods. pic.twitter.com/w3tnIqwbtQ

— Watcher.Guru (@WatcherGuru) February 13, 2026

CBO says President Trump's tariffs will pass almost entirely through (95%) to the US economy and on to American consumers. The tariffs affect 61% of US imports and will:

-reduce investment
-reduce employment
-lower efficiency
-lower the level of GDP pic.twitter.com/KhWRW2D8nf

— Erica York (@ericadyork) February 12, 2026

if successful, it would mean all the world's oil will be traded in USD.
Meanwhile, China has been steadily reducing its holdings of USD.
This admin really, really understands economic warfare.

BREAKING: Russia is considering moving back to the US Dollar as part of a wide-ranging economic partnership with President Trump, per Bloomberg.

The partnership would include:

1. US and Russia working together on fossil fuels

2. Joint investments in natural gas

3. Offshore…

— The Kobeissi Letter (@KobeissiLetter) February 12, 2026

BOMBSHELL @FT scoop: Trump admin mulls cutting steel/aluminum tariffs bc these taxes 1) raise US prices; 2) are insanely complicated; 3) had other unintented consequences (incl lobbying).

They're admitting, in other words, that gravity exists. Good. pic.twitter.com/o4RkfMWxlF

— Scott Lincicome (@scottlincicome) February 13, 2026

According to the @FT, the Trump administration now has realized its tariffs are increasing the price of everyday items (read: beer and soda cans) and it's planning to scale back some tariffs on steel and aluminium goods.

Link: https://t.co/YZh67QCaa4 https://t.co/EBE0ZuTDbG

— Javier Blas (@JavierBlas) February 13, 2026

whiterock said:

---

if successful, it would mean all the world's oil will be traded in USD.
Meanwhile, China has been steadily reducing its holdings of USD.
This admin really, really understands economic warfare.

BREAKING: Russia is considering moving back to the US Dollar as part of a wide-ranging economic partnership with President Trump, per Bloomberg.

The partnership would include:

1. US and Russia working together on fossil fuels

2. Joint investments in natural gas

3. Offshore…

— The Kobeissi Letter (@KobeissiLetter) February 12, 2026

---

That is huge news!

Of course the usual characters are saying things are terrible. Most of the current group at the Federal Reserve as well as the CBO want GDP growth to be in the 1-2% range because they foolishly believe that with economic growth you get resulting inflation. The CBO has been wrong in its predictions on the economy for as far back as I can remember. Economic growth does not automatically lead to inflation. With pro growth policies that produce more supply of products through increased productivity and keeping a stable money supply, there is no reason we should not be able to have GDP in the 3- 4% range as more of a norm. And growth in the 3-4% range over a long period of time would begin to solve many of the issues we are dealing with now.

It is the economic policies themselves that make the difference. President Trump has an excellent team in place that is doing an excellent job on many economic fronts at the same time. I believe we should applaud that, not denigrate it. And to all of those who said the tariffs would collapse the economy; they have been wrong. Trump has used the tariffs to negotiate better trade deals for the United States, creating an atmosphere where investment capital from other countries and corporations is being used to build factories that will employ American workers in the future. To me this is a recipe for the making of a wealthy country and high standard of living for its citizens.

Most if not all of the indicators for our economy are for strong economic growth. To those that disagree, I say we'll talk at the end of the year and see who is correct. I am very confident in Trump and his team.

ATL Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

if successful, it would mean all the world's oil will be traded in USD.
Meanwhile, China has been steadily reducing its holdings of USD.
This admin really, really understands economic warfare.

BREAKING: Russia is considering moving back to the US Dollar as part of a wide-ranging economic partnership with President Trump, per Bloomberg.

The partnership would include:

1. US and Russia working together on fossil fuels

2. Joint investments in natural gas

3. Offshore…

— The Kobeissi Letter (@KobeissiLetter) February 12, 2026

---

This is a direct effort to get out of Western sanctions. Sanctions were the reason they weren't/couldn't trade in dollars in the first place. And speaking of warfare, where are the Russian concessions on Ukraine as we pull the economic pressure off of them? You used to care about that, but whatever direction Trump's wind blows, you pivot.

---

so you're saying that sanctions work......

Consumers and businesses paid nearly 90% of Trump tariffs in 2025, new analysis found https://t.co/v1HnSl4Pkx

— CBS News (@CBSNews) February 13, 2026

This is one reason why Congress needs to debate and vote for or against tariffs. Tariffs are a tax on consumers.

Trump's tariffs cost American households $1,000 last year: Research group https://t.co/j1k24a5tSv

— Rep. Don Bacon 🇺🇸✈️🏍️⭐️🎖️ (@RepDonBacon) February 15, 2026

boognish_bear said:

---

Consumers and businesses paid nearly 90% of Trump tariffs in 2025, new analysis found https://t.co/v1HnSl4Pkx

— CBS News (@CBSNews) February 13, 2026

---

That has proven to be BS over and over. The most common figure is in the 20s passed to the consumer

Checks and balances ftw

"The [Supreme] 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."

Get ready for a really messy tariff refund situation... https://t.co/pegQVwOfrP

— Heather Long (@byHeatherLong) February 20, 2026

The Supreme Court’s decision against Trump’s emergency tariffs is a complete mess, both as a matter of logic and construction, as the opinion has different majorities in different sections. The justices themselves couldn’t even consistently agree on the ruling.

As Kavanaugh… pic.twitter.com/ndwMeIpBb5

— Sean Davis (@seanmdav) February 20, 2026

Assassin said:

---

The Supreme Court’s decision against Trump’s emergency tariffs is a complete mess, both as a matter of logic and construction, as the opinion has different majorities in different sections. The justices themselves couldn’t even consistently agree on the ruling.

As Kavanaugh… pic.twitter.com/ndwMeIpBb5

— Sean Davis (@seanmdav) February 20, 2026

---

Doesn't matter.

The SC was made its ruling and it's up to everyone to adjust to the consequences.

Kavanaugh points out that even if today's mess of a ruling creates all sorts of chaos for previously imposed tariffs, Trump has many other options for imposing tariffs going forward. pic.twitter.com/Rdw2ab4o1G

— Mollie (@MZHemingway) February 20, 2026

Reading the opinions leads to only one reasonable conclusion……..SCOTUS has now done for tariffs what they previously did for college sports. Created a huge mess and left the mess for others to clean up and the general public to suffer within.

And they created a massive lawyer feeding trough that will last for at least a decade.

Today, the Supreme Court decided that Congress, despite giving the president the ability to "regulate imports", didn't actually mean it. This is lawlessness from the Court, plain and simple. And its only effect will be to make it harder for the president to protect American…

— JD Vance (@JDVance) February 20, 2026

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

iReading the opinions leads to only one reasonable conclusion……..SCOTUS has now done for tariffs what they previously did for college sports. Created a huge mess and left the mess for others to clean up and the general public to suffer within.

And they created a massive lawyer feeding trough that will last for at least a decade.

---

The Chief Justice confirmed that. They just created the greatest legal mess in US history. And Trump can still, effectively tariff according to the one dissent. Wont be quite the same, but it accomplish the same goal

Assassin said:

---

Kavanaugh points out that even if today's mess of a ruling creates all sorts of chaos for previously imposed tariffs, Trump has many other options for imposing tariffs going forward. pic.twitter.com/Rdw2ab4o1G

— Mollie (@MZHemingway) February 20, 2026

---

This is what people will ignore.

The President's approach was chaotic and overreaching. But the court gave him the avenue to renengage tariffs if he wants. He just might have to be more strategic and have a process of enactment more complicated than how he felt after a phone call with a world leader.

White House to seek 'alternative' tariff moves after Supreme Court ruling, Bessent says
In Dallas, the Treasury Secretary said he was "surprised" by the top court's decision, but insisted the administration would not back away from its signature policy.


Feb. 20, 2026
|
Updated 41 minutes ago
|
2 min. read
reasury secretary Scott Bessent shares his remarks before the Economic club of Dallas, on Friday, Feb. 20, 2026, at Old Parkland in Dallas.

The Trump Administration will "invoke alternative legal authorities" for tariffs, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said in Dallas on Friday, hours after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the President's far-reaching import duties.

Hosted by the Economic Club of Dallas, Bessent spoke Friday at Old Parkland hours after the high court issued the opinion, pushing back on Donald Trump's signature economic policy since he returned to office 13 months ago.

"Let's be clear about what today's ruling was and what it wasn't," the administration's top finance official said in prepared remarks.

"Despite the misplaced quoting from Democrats, ill-informed media outlets and the very people who gutted our industrial base, the court did not rule against President Trump's tariffs. Six justices simply ruled that IEEPA authorities cannot be used to raise even $1 of revenue," Bessent added.

"This administration will invoke alternative legal authorities to replace the IEEPA tariffs," citing Section 232, 301, and 122, parts of trade acts that give limited tariff powers to the executive branch. He said that tariffs pursued through these means will "result in virtually unchanged tariff revenue in 2026."

In a question and answer session with local real estate developer Ray Washburne, Bessent conceded that he was "a little surprised" by the Supreme Court's decision, but said the Administration is already in the process of pursuing tariffs through processes outlined by the aforementioned sections.

ATL Bear said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Kavanaugh points out that even if today's mess of a ruling creates all sorts of chaos for previously imposed tariffs, Trump has many other options for imposing tariffs going forward. pic.twitter.com/Rdw2ab4o1G

— Mollie (@MZHemingway) February 20, 2026

---

This is what people will ignore.

The President's approach was chaotic and overreaching. But the court gave him the avenue to renengage tariffs if he wants. He just might have to be more strategic and have a process of enactment more complicated than how he felt after a phone call with a world leader.

---

I like strategic. But true to Trump form, he could throw a temper tantrum and make things worse.

Trump made it pretty clear he has no desire or intention of working with Congress on tariffs.

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/live/tariff-ruling-live-coverage-trump-attacks-supreme-court-says-hes-imposing-10-global-tariff-184403193.html

[In a separate dissent, Thomas insisted that the high court's majority got it wrong.

The legendary conservative justice argued that while Congress may not delegate its "core legislative power," it may delegate (and many times has delegated) enumerated powers such as the tariff-making power.
"Because the Constitution assigns Congress many powers that do not implicate the nondelegation doctrine, Congress may delegate the exercise of many powers to the President. Congress has done so repeatedly since the founding, with this Court's blessing," Thomas wrote. "The power to impose duties on imports can be delegated."

In 2025, Trump invoked IEEPA as a statutory justification for his sweeping tariffs.

Crucially, IEEPA's Sec. 203 authorized the president to "investigate, regulate, direct and compel, nullify, void, prevent or prohibit, any acquisition, holding, withholding, use, transfer, withdrawal, transportation, importation or exportation of, or dealing in, or exercising any right, power, or privilege with respect to, or transactions involving, any property in which any foreign country or a national thereof has any interest; by any person, or with respect to any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States."

Assuming one could even imagine a broader delegation of emergency powers, one wonders if human language could express it.

Indeed, both Thomas and Justice Brett Kavanaugh placed proper emphasis on the words "regulate" and "importation."

"I join Justice Kavanaugh's principal dissent in full," Thomas began. "As he explains, the Court's decision today cannot be justified as a matter of statutory interpretation. Congress authorized the president to "regulate...importation."

Moreover -- and here lies the key -- "[t]hroughout American history, the authority to 'regulate importation' has been understood to include the authority to impose duties on imports."]

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

Reading the opinions leads to only one reasonable conclusion……..SCOTUS has now done for tariffs what they previously did for college sports. Created a huge mess and left the mess for others to clean up and the general public to suffer within.

And they created a massive lawyer feeding trough that will last for at least a decade.

---

Trump is responsible for all that by doing it with the knowledge that it was very possible (most likely, even) that it wasn't constitutional. The SC just rules on what is and what is not constitutional.

Assassin said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

iReading the opinions leads to only one reasonable conclusion……..SCOTUS has now done for tariffs what they previously did for college sports. Created a huge mess and left the mess for others to clean up and the general public to suffer within.

And they created a massive lawyer feeding trough that will last for at least a decade.

---

The Chief Justice confirmed that. They just created the greatest legal mess in US history. And Trump can still, effectively tariff according to the one dissent. Wont be quite the same, but it accomplish the same goal

---

Donald Trump created this mess. Let's see what he does to fix it. Like the old saying goes, "You break it....you buy it!

Bestweekeverr said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

Reading the opinions leads to only one reasonable conclusion……..SCOTUS has now done for tariffs what they previously did for college sports. Created a huge mess and left the mess for others to clean up and the general public to suffer within.

And they created a massive lawyer feeding trough that will last for at least a decade.

---

Trump is responsible for all that by doing it with the knowledge that it was very possible (most likely, even) that it wasn't constitutional. The SC just rules on what is and what is not constitutional.

---

Nice simplistic view that SCOTUS merely calls balls and strikes.
Reality is that SCOTUS has repeatedly created schemes or processes to achieve desired aims. If they can create schemes for social impact cases they can do it when hundreds of billions of dollars are involved.

Keep in mind that this ruling from SCOTUS came after a lot of time available to consider wording and explanation.

They left it muddy on purpose.