Paul Krugman

I mean, obviously there's a myriad that we could name, but what comes to mind to you as most urgent?

Well, the reason that Trump went with IHIPA when he was warned that it might not hold up in court, there was a big risk, everybody understood, of what just happened happening.

And the reason he went with that as opposed to other more conventional trade tariffs, aside from the fact that

He needed something that didn't have to pass Congress because Congress wouldn't have approved his tariffs.

But the point about what does IEPA say about the conditions under which you can impose tariffs?

And the answer is it says nothing.

The legislation doesn't even mention tariffs.

And because it was so not really about tariffs, Trump took it as a license to impose tariffs whenever he felt like it.

He used it as a license to impose tariffs on Brazil because they convicted Jair Bolsonaro.

He took it as a license to threaten Europe with tariffs because they sent troops to Greenland.

And the other things that are out there which might be able to replace the revenue will not give him the same amount of discretion.

And of course, that also implies trade deals.

All of the trade deals that were made on the basis of we will scale back the IEPA tariffs that we imposed on you if you give us the following things are now null and void because it doesn't have that discretion anymore.

Yeah, well, look at what he just said with the Section 122 tariffs, which is, boy, I didn't, that's a very, you know, I never thought anybody would invoke that.

It's really kind of a Bretton Woods era thinking.

It's

It's a flat 10% tariff on everything.

That's very, very different from saying, I'm doing 50% on Brazil because I don't like what they're doing domestically.

It's very different from saying, I'm going to go after France, Germany, and the UK because I don't like what they're doing in Greenland.

So although it may be able to replace the revenue.