Gavin Bade

This non-market economy that they come from, it's not as important for them to show profitability as quickly, right?

They are not going to have the same financing hiccups that other people do.

That's how the argument from the China hawks goes.

He has used emergency economic authority under a novel use of an emergency law to institute most of his tariffs.

And today, the Supreme Court said that he overstepped his bounds, that this should be a congressional authority, and that most of his tariffs were illegal.

So, raises a lot of questions for both the administration and, you know, the law firms here in Washington.

And for the U.S.

economy, quite frankly.

Yes, absolutely.

You know, there are many, many answers that still, you know, in the hours after this decision are still unknown.

But what we know now is that he overstepped his bounds in instituting a lot of these levies and is going to have to go back to the drawing board on many of them.

When you see him threatening tariffs at the drop of a hat, this is the legal authority he's using because it's the most flexible and it allows him to just instantaneously, with a presidential proclamation, change the tariff code.

The Supreme Court today said, you can't do that.

That is not an appropriate use of this law.

You're going to have to come up with another legal justification for these tariffs.

I think it's a big setback, so he's going to have to, you know, recalibrate his approach to economic diplomacy here.

Well, first and foremost, I think they've brought in a lot of money to the Treasury, right?

At last count, you know, tariffs as a whole have brought in about $250 billion.

Most of that has been through the IEPA tariffs.

You've also forced up costs for a lot of American businesses, right?