Ian Millhiser

Trump claims that the reason we need these tariffs is because the United States has trade deficits. It buys more stuff from many countries than it sells. And we've had trade deficits for decades. Like trade deficits aren't really an unusual thing. I have a trade deficit with the grocery store. I buy more stuff from them than, you know, than I sell. So the argument is pretty straightforward here.

Trump claims that the reason we need these tariffs is because the United States has trade deficits. It buys more stuff from many countries than it sells. And we've had trade deficits for decades. Like trade deficits aren't really an unusual thing. I have a trade deficit with the grocery store. I buy more stuff from them than, you know, than I sell. So the argument is pretty straightforward here.

Trump claims that the reason we need these tariffs is because the United States has trade deficits. It buys more stuff from many countries than it sells. And we've had trade deficits for decades. Like trade deficits aren't really an unusual thing. I have a trade deficit with the grocery store. I buy more stuff from them than, you know, than I sell. So the argument is pretty straightforward here.

It's just like trade deficits are ordinary, right? Like, even if you think that trade deficits are bad, they're not unusual or extraordinary. And so the argument is that this statute, which only lets Trump respond to unusual and extraordinary threats, doesn't apply in this case.

It's just like trade deficits are ordinary, right? Like, even if you think that trade deficits are bad, they're not unusual or extraordinary. And so the argument is that this statute, which only lets Trump respond to unusual and extraordinary threats, doesn't apply in this case.

It's just like trade deficits are ordinary, right? Like, even if you think that trade deficits are bad, they're not unusual or extraordinary. And so the argument is that this statute, which only lets Trump respond to unusual and extraordinary threats, doesn't apply in this case.

So the government's primary response to this argument is essentially to tell the courts, you can't touch us, ha ha ha. They put that in a legalistic way. They claim that the question of whether such a threat exists is what's called a political question. And political question is legalese for the courts don't get to decide it. You know, it has to be decided by the other two branches of government.

So the government's primary response to this argument is essentially to tell the courts, you can't touch us, ha ha ha. They put that in a legalistic way. They claim that the question of whether such a threat exists is what's called a political question. And political question is legalese for the courts don't get to decide it. You know, it has to be decided by the other two branches of government.

So the government's primary response to this argument is essentially to tell the courts, you can't touch us, ha ha ha. They put that in a legalistic way. They claim that the question of whether such a threat exists is what's called a political question. And political question is legalese for the courts don't get to decide it. You know, it has to be decided by the other two branches of government.

And so they're primarily just saying, look, courts, it doesn't matter if this is an unusual threat or not. You don't get to make that decision. Donald Trump gets to make that decision. The president gets to make that decision. You know, often, especially in constitutional cases, the core question is who gets the final word on this?

And so they're primarily just saying, look, courts, it doesn't matter if this is an unusual threat or not. You don't get to make that decision. Donald Trump gets to make that decision. The president gets to make that decision. You know, often, especially in constitutional cases, the core question is who gets the final word on this?

And so they're primarily just saying, look, courts, it doesn't matter if this is an unusual threat or not. You don't get to make that decision. Donald Trump gets to make that decision. The president gets to make that decision. You know, often, especially in constitutional cases, the core question is who gets the final word on this?

And the plaintiffs say that the court should have the final word on this. And Trump says that he should have the final word on it.

And the plaintiffs say that the court should have the final word on this. And Trump says that he should have the final word on it.

And the plaintiffs say that the court should have the final word on this. And Trump says that he should have the final word on it.

But since no one has yet cited a dictionary definition for unusual or extraordinary, I thought I would offer one. Unusual just means not usual. That's the Merriam-Webster dictionary definition, and extraordinary is going beyond what is unusual, regular, or customary. That fits with the state of affairs that this executive order describes. It explains, again,

But since no one has yet cited a dictionary definition for unusual or extraordinary, I thought I would offer one. Unusual just means not usual. That's the Merriam-Webster dictionary definition, and extraordinary is going beyond what is unusual, regular, or customary. That fits with the state of affairs that this executive order describes. It explains, again,

But since no one has yet cited a dictionary definition for unusual or extraordinary, I thought I would offer one. Unusual just means not usual. That's the Merriam-Webster dictionary definition, and extraordinary is going beyond what is unusual, regular, or customary. That fits with the state of affairs that this executive order describes. It explains, again,

So broadly speaking, there's three ways this could turn out. One, they could just uphold the tariffs and then the tariffs stick around, assuming that a higher court doesn't step in. The second is that they just think this wall that Trump relied on doesn't allow these particular tariffs to exist. That would be a very narrow opinion.

So broadly speaking, there's three ways this could turn out. One, they could just uphold the tariffs and then the tariffs stick around, assuming that a higher court doesn't step in. The second is that they just think this wall that Trump relied on doesn't allow these particular tariffs to exist. That would be a very narrow opinion.