Triumph of the dumb-arses: "The Right returned culturally, but with an intellectual vacuum at its centre"

“This ... has come to define much of the New Right across the West. And ultimately, it is a problem of ideas. The return of the Right in 2016 and again in 2024 was not an intellectual revival. It was not driven by theory or political philosophy, but by visibility and reach: Jordan Peterson debating feminists, Charlie Kirk confronting campus socialists, Donald Trump dominating the podcast circuit. The Right returned culturally, but with an intellectual vacuum at its centre: most notably, a lack of serious economics.

For classical liberals looking back decades from now, this revival of the Right is unlikely to inspire them in the way Thatcher and Reagan still do today. The politicians of the 1980s were what George Will called ‘conviction politicians’: figures who entered politics with a coherent social creed. Politics for them was not merely about remaining in power, but about pursuing a broader mission of prosperity. That mission was not to control the economy toward a collective goal, but to empower individuals to make their own decisions.

Today’s Right, by contrast, is dominated by political entrepreneurs: figures highly skilled at attracting attention and mobilising voters. By nature, they are populists, and populism is the direct translation of public emotion into government policy. Without intellectual grounding, politics becomes purely oppositional. Today, lacking any clear sense of direction in economics, the Right is often effective at identifying problems but incapable of solving them.”

~ Mani Basharzad from his article 'Has the Right given up on economics?' [hat tip Samizdata]

And meanwhile, the Iranian regime continues political executions at the rate of nearly 6 per week ... [updated]

"Only Trump could be stupid, ignorant and immoral enough to start a (just) war against an evil regime, and to leave them better off and more powerful than before the war. What a complete pile of shit he is."

~ @RyanSchenck

"I am still shocked that Secretary Rubio announced that 'The operation is over - Epic Fury,' without achieving any of their war objectives: 

(1) no removal of enriched uranium and elimination forever of Iran's nuclear program, 

(2) no constraints on missile production, 

(3) no end of funding for terrorists & 

(4) without liberating the Iranian people..

"Epic Fury is going to be remembered as Epic Failure."

~ @MichaelMcFaul

TRUMP, Jan 13: "Iranian Patriots, KEEP PROTESTING - TAKE OVER YOUR INSTITUTIONS!!!... HELP IS ON ITS WAY"

"Donald Trump promised to come to the aid of Iranian protesters if the regime used lethal force against them. This undoubtedly played a role in their rising up. Now, possibly thousands lie dead ... this is another low point in a presidency of low points: making promises without the means to back them up, and now people lie dead. Shameful. This is the issue with a presidency incapable of thinking through second- and third-order effects. ...
    "Trump was very specific in the support he offered. 'Knock hell' out of the regime. It is clear that promise was made when the US was not in a position to deliver."

~ @AndrewFox

"If this deal is actually signed, it would be a fitting end to a campaign that began as 'Epic Fury' and is ending as 'Epic Disaster.' What started as a war supposedly aimed at toppling the regime and dismantling its nuclear and ballistic missile capabilities may instead leave Iran’s regime stronger than before — empowered by sanctions relief, still retaining significant missile capabilities, continuing support for its proxies, and almost certainly preserving uranium enrichment on its own soil. And then there’s the additional 'bonus' nobody even mentioned at the outset: the Strait of Hormuz is now firmly back at the centre of global strategic risk. The truly grim reality is that this may still be the best available option for the administration out of a set of deeply flawed alternatives. At least Iran is [possibly] unlikely to obtain a nuclear weapon in the immediate future. But the central question remains: what was the strategic logic of launching a war whose end state may ultimately be worse than the conditions that existed before it began? A failure from beginning to end."

~ @Danny(Dennis)Citrinowicz

"Of all the objectives floated before and after the war began, almost none have been achieved.
    "Yes, the US and Israel destroyed a lot of Iranian military assets. But strategically, Iran still holds the uranium, the regime, and the Strait. ...
    "What I see is an American president desperately looking for a way out of the mess he created. So the administration is trying to put a bow on it ...
    "This whole catastrophe rested on a false assumption that the regime would collapse once the supreme leader was killed. Everybody knew Iran would try to block the Strait. You cannot just bluster through everything and expect reality to bend to you."

~ former Commander General USArmyEurope Ben Hodges

"[A]n end to the conflict and long-term peace requires an end to the evil Islamic regime of Iran. Any 'agreement' is just a new Munich Pact of 1938 with the failed promise of 'peace in our time'."

~ @AdamMossoff 

UPDATE:

We're all still talking about Iran as if the only relevant thing is the price of a barrel of oil ...

Trump’s “victory timeline” claims (actual quotes)

June 25, 2025: "Iran's nuclear facilities have been obliterated."
Jan 2, 2026: threatens a "locked and loaded" military intervention if Iran kills peaceful protesters.
Jan 13: "Iranian Patriots, KEEP PROTESTING - TAKE OVER YOUR INSTITUTIONS!!!... HELP IS ON ITS WAY"
Feb 13: Regime change "would be the best thing that could happen" in Iran
Feb 24: "We are in negotiations with them. They want to make a deal, but we haven't heard those secret words, 'We will never have a nuclear weapon.'" "My preference is to solve this problem through diplomacy. But one thing is certain, I will never allow the world's No. 1 sponsor of terror to have a nuclear weapon."
Late Feb: "I'm not happy with the fact that they're not willing to give us what we have to have."

Feb 28: [Oman says a deal is "within reach."]

[IRGC kills 36,000 protestors to March. No "help" appears.]

Also Feb 28: Trump releases an 8-minute video on Truth Social announcing strikes have begun, saying Iran's "menacing activities" endangered the US and its allies; cites the Iran hostage crisis, support for Hamas and Hezbollah, the killing of protesters, and Iran's chanting of "Death to America." He called on the Iranian people to overthrow their government.
Mar 2: "First, we're destroying Iran's missile capabilities… and their capacity to produce brand new ones. Second, we're annihilating their navy… Third, we're ensuring that the world's number one sponsor of terror can never obtain a nuclear weapon… And finally, we're ensuring that the Iranian regime cannot continue to arm, fund, and direct terrorist armies outside of their borders."
Mar 3: Iran is building "powerful missiles and drones to create a conventional shield for their nuclear blackmail ambitions."

Mar 3: Iran poses an "imminent threat" because it is going to retaliate against US forces when Israel attacks.

Mar 3: "We won the war." 

Mar 7: "We defeated Iran." 

Mar 9: "We must attack Iran." 

Mar 9: "The war is ending almost completely, and very beautifully. 

Mar 10: practically nothing left to target 

Mar 11: “You never like to say too ⁠early you won. We won. In ​the first hour it was over.” 

Mar 12: "We did win, but we haven't won completely yet." 

Mar 13: "We won the war." 

Mar 14: "Please help us." 

Mar 15: "If you don't help us, I will certainly remember it." 

Mar 16: "Actually, we don't need any help at all." 

Mar 16: "I was just testing to see who's listening to me." 

Mar 16: "If NATO doesn't help, they will suffer something very bad." 

Mar 17: "We neither need nor want NATO's help." 

Mar 17: "I don't need Congressional approval to withdraw from NATO." 

Mar 18: "Our allies must cooperate in reopening the Strait of Hormuz." 

Mar 19: "US allies need to get a grip - step up and help open the Strait of Hormuz." 

Mar 20: "NATO are cowards." 

Mar 21: "The Strait of Hormuz must be protected by the countries that use it. We don't use it, we don't need to open it." 

Mar 22: "This is the last time. I will give Iran 48 hours. Open the strait" 

Mar 22: "Iran is Dead" 

Mar 23: "VERY GOOD AND PRODUCTIVE CONVERSATIONS REGARDING A COMPLETE AND TOTAL RESOLUTION OF OUR HOSTILITIES IN THE MIDDLE EAST." 

Mar 24: "We’re making progress." 

Mar 24: We "won" the war. Iran wants "to make a deal so badly."

Mar 25: “They gave us a present and the present arrived today. And it was a very big present worth a tremendous amount of money. I’m not going to tell you what that present is, but it was a very significant prize.” 

Mar 26: "Make a deal, or we’ll just keep blowing them away." 

Mar 27: "We don’t have to be there for NATO." 

Mar 28: No major quote 

Mar 29: Claimed talks were progressing 

Mar 30: "Open the Strait of Hormuz immediately, or face devastating consequences." 

Mar 31: Claimed a deal was "very close" and that Iran would "do the right thing" 

Apr 1: "Regime change was not our goal. We never said regime change, but regime change has occurred because of all of their original leaders' death. They're all dead,"

Apr 1: "We’ll see what happens very soon." 

Apr 2: Repeated that a deal was likely, while warning of continued strikes if not 

Apr 3: "Something big is going to happen." 

Apr 4: Said Iran must comply "immediately" or face further consequences. 

Apr 5: "Open the fuckin' Strait, you crazy bastards, or you'll be living in Hell - JUST WATCH! Praise be to Allah." 

Apr 6 : "...a whole civilization will die"

Apr 6: "We may even get involved with helping them rebuild their nation."

Apr 7: Total and complete victory 

Apr 8: "Double ceasefire ... We have already met and exceeded all Military objectives" 

[Hormuz Straits that were formerly open will now be tolled. Iranian regime continues nuclear programme. Iran regime continues political executions at the rate of nearly 6 per week.]

So what was achieved ... ?

It's Shitty Anniversary time

A year ago, Donald Trump stood in the Rose Garden, surrounded by charts nobody understood, and declared war on mathematics. One year later, not even the Rose Garden remains.

It's being called "The Greatest Economic Own Goal in Living Memory" -- and that was before the same goal-scorer launched a war without a strategy that's locked up twenty percent of the world's traded oil behind the mullahs' missiles. 

This, above, was one year ago today when Donald Trump stood in the White House's Rose Garden to shoot himself and world trade in the foot. 

Today, we 'celebrate' the anniversary of  one man's gut feelings over economic reality...

One Year On: The Greatest Economic Own Goal in Living Memory
by Gandalv 

One year ago, Donald Trump stood in the Rose Garden, surrounded by charts nobody understood, and declared war on mathematics. He called it Liberation Day. 

The Financial Times, along with every economist who has read more than a bus ticket, is marking the anniversary with a verdict that should be carved into marble: it failed. On every single front. Spectacularly. Completely. Embarrassingly. 

Let us be precise about this. 

Measured against Trump’s own three stated goals, making foreigners pay for doing business with America, narrowing the trade deficit, and punishing China, the tariffs have clearly failed. Not partially failed. Not failed with asterisks. Failed the way a man fails when he drives a Reliant Robin the wrong way onto a motorway and acts surprised when it rolls. 

And everyone said so. Economists said so. Trading partners said so. His own party said so. The entire field of international trade theory, developed over roughly two centuries by people who actually read things, screamed it from the rooftops. [Even this humble blog said so.] But Donald Trump, a man whose relationship with economics appears to consist entirely of gut feeling, cable television and 6 casino bankruptcies knew better. 

The average American household paid an extra $1,700 due to tariffs. Over 65 percent of Americans reported that everyday goods became significantly less affordable. This is what happens when you run the world’s largest economy on instinct and vibes. 

One year after the Rose Garden ceremony, factory jobs are down and inflation is up. The precise opposite of what was promised. And promised with extraordinary (and wholly unjustified) confidence. 

Then the lawyers arrived. 

The Supreme Court found that Trump had exceeded his authority, ruling that the declared emergency bore no rational connection to the trade measures imposed. In other words, the legal foundation was nonsense. The government had collected $166 billion in tariffs from over 330,000 businesses on grounds the Supreme Court found unconstitutional. The refund process is now underway.  One hundred and sixty-six billion dollars. Collected illegally. From American businesses. 

The financial markets, bless them, responded with the only appropriate tool available: mockery. The meme “Trump Always Chickens Out” refuses to go away, and the TACO index is now actively used by analysts to price in the president’s chronic habit of retreating. 

Every serious voice warned this disaster would happen. Trade economists. Former Treasury secretaries. The IMF. The WTO. The EU. Canada. Japan. Basically anyone who had spent more than forty minutes studying how global trade actually works. The man who ignored all of them had previously run a casino into bankruptcy and considered that a learning experience. He was not, it turns out, a fast learner. 

One year. 

Zero of three goals achieved. 

One Supreme Court ruling. 

One $170 billion refund. 

A world economy paying more for everything and making less of it. 

Liberation Day. What a name for it.

Was there a strategy?

UPDATED 8:53am: We said last week the risk, once started, is Trump chickening out. As of this morning our time, Trump chickened out. Trump always chickens out (TACO). Which, here, long term, is disastrous.

"President Trump has created the conditions for another quagmire in the Middle East, and the question is whether American military excellence can rescue him from his own impulsiveness and incompetence.

"Here is the present situation, in a nutshell: The United States and Israel have established absolute air dominance over the nation of Iran. ... The intention of the air campaign is clear: to destroy the regime’s capacity to harm its neighbours while also creating the conditions for a revolution on the ground. ...

"So why, then, is Trump lashing out at American allies? Why was he 'shocked' that Iran struck Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Kuwait in response to American attacks?

"Perhaps the answer lies in a Wall Street Journal report from last Friday. According to The Journal, Gen. Dan Caine, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, warned Trump that Iran might attempt to close the Strait of Hormuz and Trump shrugged off the threat and launched the attack anyway. ...

"But Iran did not capitulate. ... Instead, it has effectively closed the strait, and it’s reportedly done so without choking off its own oil exports. In other words, while other nations can’t ship oil through the strait, Iran still is.

"Iran ... could well emerge from the conflict with its regime intact (and perhaps even more hard-line) and its power over the world economy undiminished. ...

"Trump launched a major war on his own initiative while announcing competing and potentially contradictory war aims. Is the goal regime change? Unconditional surrender? Or is it much narrower — the destruction of Iran’s missile and drone forces, sinking its navy, stopping its nuclear programme and destroying its ability to wage war through its proxy forces, including Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthis and the kaleidoscope of allied militias in Syria and Iraq. ...

"Even when wars are carefully planned, with allies brought on board and a majority of the public in support, they are still highly volatile and unpredictable. ...

"My great concern is that Trump has [instead] created the conditions for failure. ... And now, dismayed that the war has not resulted in the regime’s immediate capitulation or destruction, he’s flailing about, once again threatening the viability of NATO if our allies don’t come and bail him out from a war they did not start and did not ask for.

"As an American, I want our forces to succeed, once they are committed. I want to see the military open the Strait of Hormuz as quickly and painlessly as possible. I want to see the Iranian regime collapse and replaced by a democracy. That regime is loathsome. It’s an enemy of the United States. It deserves to fall. If it does, I will cheer its demise.

"At the same time, however, my patriotism can’t blind me to reality. This is not how our democracy should go to war. Trump is not the right man to lead our nation into battle. People I respect applaud Trump for his courage in taking on Iran. But I don’t see courage. I see recklessness. I see thoughtlessness.

"I see a man who plunged a nation into a conflict without fully comprehending the risks. I see a man full of hubris after achieving success in much more limited military engagements. And he’s now counting on two of the world’s most competent militaries to essentially bail him out.

"He’s counting on them accomplishing a mission without clear precedent in military history: destroying a hostile regime and forcing its compliance entirely from the air and sea, and to do so quickly enough that the economic pain doesn’t overshadow the military gains. ...

"Trump has only himself to blame. He led America into an unconstitutional war. And now he’s compounding that sin by proving to be every bit as reckless a commander as he is a president."

~ David French from his column 'Trump Has Only Himself to Blame' 

"Either Donald Trump holds his nerve, crushes the Iranian regime, rides out the oil shock and reopens the Strait of Hormuz, or he and America are finished, exposed as unserious, fickle and incapable of forward planning, a superpower manquée felled by drone-wielding barbarians."

~ Allister Heath from his column 'This is a turning point in history, the moment the West could be lost'

"Morally it was entirely justifiable to attack the Islamic Republic of Iran. ... Whether or not it was tactically correct [or strategically mapped out] ... only history will tell.

"As much as those against the war will be wanting Trump to lose, to embarrass him, this is a very narrow and suicidal position. ...

"Overthrowing the regime would be a success; weakening it so it falls due to domestic pressure (including from the Kurdish north) would be a partial success --- but emboldening it even if its ability to project abroad is significantly weakened, would be ... a victory for the regime, and a victory for its proxies.

"For it would embolden Iran and its proxies to attack not just in the Middle East, but beyond ... This would make us all less safe, it would embolden Islamists across the world to promote their ideology, and for a few to be willing to use force to terrify us all. ...

"At this stage the biggest risk is that Trump chickens out, and wants a 'deal.' There is no 'deal' with those who want you dead, who want your country dead and another dead. As much as the international law purists want pontification from the Western world about the legality of the war on Iran ..., that horse has bolted."

~ Liberty Scott from his post 'Whether your agree with it or not, the US has to win in Iran'

"But as with Bush II's Iraq War, the question to come is: do they know what the hell they're going to do next. With this administration, that's unlikely .... So it will need every circumstance to go the way of those Iranians celebrating [in these photos]. As Eliot Cohen says, 'Something of an exercise in ambivalence here. I would like to see the Iranian regime go down hard -- and am not confident Trump knows what he is doing.'

"Let's [still] hope with crossed fingers for a lion of freedom to arise from the attacks."

~ PC from the 2 March post Iranians: Yearning to breathe free!

UPDATE: Posted last night from the White House press corps, and now going viral on Twitter:

 

Iran: The risk is TACO

"It's 2029 [the Iranian regime] was bloodied and enraged, but not defeated, in a 3-week aerial campaign in 2026. They've had 3 years to rebuild. Not their civilian infrastructure -- their arsenal of drones and hypersononic missiles. Plus their capacity to manufacture them.

"Now the hardened underground facilities where they make, store, and launch them are now safely below the penetration depth of US bunker-busting bombs.

"In technology development, three years is an eternity.

"The new drones are faster, have a smaller radar signature, and are much smarter. Their hypersononic missiles have much longer range. They can hit anywhere in Europe. From a ship, they can hit anywhere in the US.

"Three years was also enough for [the regime] to enrich uranium to weapons grade. And to perfect their warhead design. And to manufacture dozens of them

"One fine morning -- Sep 11, by purest coincidence -- the US Fifth Fleet is hit by a swarm of drones. In the chaos, distracting the US military, three salvos of hypersonic missiles are launched. Tel Aviv goes up in radioactive smoke six minutes later. 15 to 20 minutes later, countries friendly to the US -- Germany and the UK -- get hit.

"And ships disguised as tankers launch at the US from both oceans.

"The survivors wonder what happened. They had confused two different things:

1. the 2026 war had an unconstitutional start;
2. Iran was not a serious threat.

"And nuclear. ...

"This is what the next Iran war would look like if the US abandons this one (i.e. loses) now. ...

"There is an elephant in the room. Let's acknowledge it. If we lose now, [the Iranian regime] will be emboldened. It may take them a year to rebuild their arsenal and make longer range missiles, and nuclear warheads. But they will do it, and unleash terror on a global scale. ...

"I did not say that I think the US will do this. I say if the US does this, then the result is predictable. ... 

Not immediately. [The regime's] capability has been degraded. They will rebuild capability, and add much more (including nukes). And start the next war, at the moment they choose.

"I have made no secret of the fact that I think Trump is a terrible president, a dishonest narcissist who operates on whim and whose whims change ten times a minute. 

"The major risk of a war like this with a terrible Commander in Chief like this is that his whim will change. ...

"The risk is TACO [i.e., Trump always chickens out]: the risk of Trump leading this attack is that he will chicken out, and give up. 

"[Now it's begun] we shouldn't work to push him to do that. ...

"This is an argument for not going to war in the first place. But once the war is going, it is not an argument for abandoning it!

"'When you're going through hell--keep going!' (Winston Churchill)."

~ Donal Coyote

Iranians: Yearning to breathe free!

In Auckland yesterday we woke to news that Iran's theocratic rulers were dead and dying. 

Within hours, Iranians in Auckland had gathered to celebrate. (Yes, those are Israeli and US flags being waved below, and pictures of a dead Ayatollah being celebrated). 

This was in complete contrast to the hand wringing going on in the homes of (to pick just two people) Helen Clark and Antōnio Guterres, who were quick to bemoan attacks on the regime that had slaughtered at least 35, 000 Iranian innocents -- which they'd ignored.

So too had Iranians in many other parts of the world. Not least in Iran. (Click through for posts and videos.)

It seems the only place these murdering bastards are mourned are in the homes and offices of people with Pro-Palestinian t-shirts in the cupboard and keffiyeh on their hat rack. These people "have no shame," observes Brendan O'Neill. "They said nothing when thousands of Iranians were slaughtered by the theocratic regime. Yet now they’re crying because some regime goons were killed in airstrikes. These people are just apologists for tyranny."

Given the Iranian regime's role in supporting world terrorism, Islamofascism and in trying to destroy western life (in every way possible) -- on raining death and destruction on the world for 47 years -- then if regime change is successful in Iran -- if! -- then it would be the single most momentous geopolitical change for the better since the fall of the Berlin Wall.

But as with Bush II's Iraq War, the question to come is: do they know what the hell they're going to do next. With this administration, that's unlikely (it hasn't even bothered to seek Congressional approval, which is constitutionally required). So it will need every circumstance to go the way of those Iranians celebrating above people. As Eliot Cohen says,  "Something of an exercise in ambivalence here. I would like to see the Iranian regime go down hard -- and am not confident Trump knows what he is doing."

Let's hope with crossed fingers for a lion of freedom to arise from the attacks.

"...unhinged bragging about a booming economy, which isn’t; wars he has settled, which he didn’t; falling gas prices & inflation rates that were none of his doing; winning so much that imaginary people are begging for less; & touting an utterly delusional golden age future that is not even remotely on the horizon."

"Well, if there was ever any doubt, now we know. Donald J. Trump is a very badly deformed personality, who is a walking grievance machine. And he has turned his own demons into a toxic form of Rightwing Statism, which threatens to ruin what is left of free market prosperity and constitutional liberty in America.

"Having apparently accumulated 79 years worth of wrongs, slights, rebukes, disses and disappointments, the Donald is now, and for most of his adult life has been, all about getting even. He pursues his revenges via a combination of self-glorifying braggadocio and pugilistic verbal aggression against any and all designated enemies who come to top of mind at any given moment.

"That was on full display Tuesday night in the form of his unhinged bragging about a booming economy, which isn’t; wars he has settled, which he didn’t; falling gas prices and inflation rates that were none of his doing; winning so much that imaginary people are begging for less; and touting an utterly delusional golden age future that is not even remotely on the horizon. ...

"We have had the privilege of viewing every State of the Union address for the last 56 years, including 13 of them from the very floor of the House of Representatives that the Donald defiled Tuesday night.

"Over that span we have heard them all: Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush the Elder, Clinton, Bush the Younger, Obama, Trump 1.0 and Biden. But no US president before him has even remotely approached the level of vitriol, rancour, bombast, rudeness, raw partisanship and bully-boy acrimony that flooded the Chamber in ill-tempered bursts for the better part of the Donald’s two hours at the podium.

"At the end of the day, therefore, Trump finally did it. Not only is he a loud-mouth egomaniac who sports no compass except his own fame, fortune and glory, as we have long understood. But now he has made himself a National Disgrace like no other leader in the very 250 years that he claimed to be celebrating last night."

~ former Reagan Budget Director David Stockman on 'Trump's State of the Union: Two Hours Of Demons Unbound And Rightwing Statism On The Boil'

"The president is not a king, and is not entitled to practically unlimited power to impose tariffs. The Supreme Court was right to deny it to him."

"The ruling against Trump’s tariffs is a major victory for the constitutional separation of powers, rule of law, and millions of American consumers and businesses.

"In a 6–3 decision yesterday, the Supreme Court rightly ruled that, under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977, the president does not have the power to 'impose tariffs on imports from any country, of any product, at any rate, for any amount of time.' The ruling is a major victory for the constitutional separation of powers, rule of law, and millions of American consumers and businesses harmed by these tariffs.

"This decision spared America from a dangerous, unconstitutional path. Under President Trump’s interpretation of the law, the president would have had nearly unlimited tariff authority, similar to that of an absolute monarch. That undermines basic constitutional principles. The Framers of the Constitution had sought to ensure that the president would not be able to repeat the abuses of English kings, who imposed taxes without legislative authorisation. ...

"In addition to upholding the separation of powers, the decision is a victory for the rule of law, which requires that major legal rules be clearly established by legislation, not subject to the whims of one person. Since first imposing the Liberation Day tariffs, Trump has repeatedly suspended and reimposed various elements of them. He has also imposed or threatened to impose IEEPA tariffs for a variety of other purposes, such as countering the supposed threat of foreign-made movies, punishing Brazil for prosecuting its former president for attempting to launch a coup to stay in power after losing an election, and most recently castigating eight European nations opposed to his plan to seize Greenland. Such gyrations undermine the stable legal environment essential for businesses, consumers, and investors, and create endless opportunities to reward cronies and punish political adversaries ...

"The administration may try to reimpose many of the tariffs using other statutes, such as Section 232 and Section 301. But those laws have various constraintsthat would make it hard for the president to simply impose unlimited tariffs, as he could have done under his interpretation of IEEPA. As Chief Justice Roberts noted in his opinion yesterday, “When Congress has delegated its tariff powers, it has done so in explicit terms, and subject to strict limits,” and these others statutes all have limitations on the amount and duration of the tariffs they authorize, plus “demanding procedural prerequisites.” If Trump or a future president does claim that those other statutes give him unlimited power, tariffs imposed based on any such theory would themselves be subject to legal challenges. Yesterday’s decision signals that a majority of the Court is seriously skeptical of claims of sweeping executive tariff authority.

"Following the release of the Court’s decision, Trump announced his intention to use Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 to impose 10 percent global tariffs. But Section 122 authorizes tariffs only in response to 'fundamental international payments problems” that cause 'large and serious United States balance-of-payments deficits' (which are not the same as trade deficits used to justify the IEEPA Liberation Day tariffs), or “an imminent or significant depreciation of the dollar,' or if they are needed to cooperate with other countries in addressing an 'international balance-of-payments disequilibrium.' And Section 122 tariffs can remain in force for only up to 150 days, unless extended by Congress.

"The president is not a king, and is not entitled to practically unlimited power to impose tariffs. The Supreme Court was right to deny it to him."

~ co-litigant Ilya Somin on 'How the Supreme Court Spared America'

REUTERS: ''Embarrassment to their families': Trump denounces Supreme Court justices after tariffs ruling'
WASHINGTON, Feb 20 (Reuters) - President Donald Trump lashed out on Friday at the U.S. Supreme Court and the six justices who struck down his signature global tariffs - including two he appointed - in remarkably personal terms while hailing the three justices who backed him.
"Although previous presidents have sharply criticised Supreme Court rulings against them, Trump's lengthy tirade to reporters at the White House stood out for its contemptuous tone, as well as the personal nature of his scorn and praise...."

 

"Today’s ruling reinforces a basic constitutional principle: emergency powers are not a blank check for economic policymaking. The Court correctly recognized that tariffs function as taxes on Americans, and that authority belongs to Congress, not the executive acting alone under a perpetual state of emergency. Despite dire warnings, there was never going to be a financial crisis if these tariffs were struck down.
    "Ending the IEEPA tariffs restores predictability and reduces the uncertainty that has weighed on investment and supply chains. Businesses and consumers now get a reprieve from a costly policy mistake. Far from leaving the United States defenceless, the decision strengthens the institutional credibility that matters most when real emergencies arise."

~ Kyle Handley, Cato Adjunct Trade Scholar

"I rise today to address [Supreme Court Justice] Neil Gorsuch's concurrence.
    "The dude stuck a big red hot poker into the nether regions of no fewer than SIX of his colleagues.
    "For Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson (I’m paraphrasing, and tendentiously so, but it’s more fun): “You folks supported every cockamamie ‘emergency’ theory the Dems could come up. You gave the Biden administration clearly unconstitutional and unjustified powers during COVID, and you accepted a definition of ‘emergency’ so encompassing that the US has apparently been in an ‘emergency’ since before the Declaration of Independence. Now that a Republican is office, you have belatedly discovered that an declaration of an emergency is more plausible if there is actually some emergency. You people are clowns, and you should be embarrassed.” (Remember, these three are Justices that Gorsuch is JOINING, in his opinion; they are on his side!)
    "For Alito, Kavanaugh, and Thomas (again, I’m not quoting, not even close): “You folks opposed very action the Biden administration tried to take. Sure, the Bidenites claimed excessive powers. But COVID was at least plausibly an emergency, with both an urgent timeline and potentially dangerous outcomes. Yet you still had this very restrictive doctrine you kept parroting, about how the President can’t do things. That meant that you were basically playing “Calvinball,” with made up rules for why Democrats can’t do things. And now you say none of those rules (some of which were admittedly dumb) don’t apply when a Republicanis in office? And when there is no conceivable justification for invoking an emergency? You people are clowns, and you should be embarrassed.” (In fairness to Gorsuch, Kavanaugh in particular wrote an opinion so bizarrely self-contradictory that anyone would have had this reaction privately. But to put it in your concurrence? Damn!)
    "UPDATE: An afterthought: IEEPA was passed with a 'legislative veto.' Whatever else is true, the implied delegation was much less than Kavanaugh is claiming in his nonsensical screed."

~ Michael Munger from his post 'Gorsuch! A concurrence for the ages'

"Today the Supreme Court did something simple and radical at the same time: it read and applied the Constitution. In Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, the Court held that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not authorise a President to impose tariffs. Article I vests the taxing power—explicitly including duties and tariffs—in Congress alone. The Executive has no inherent peacetime authority to reach into “the pockets of the people.” If Congress wishes to delegate tariff authority, it must do so clearly and within limits, because that is the structure of our constitutional republic.
    "This ruling is not about whether tariffs are good policy. It is about who has the lawful authority to impose them. The Court reaffirmed a basic principle: the power to tax belongs to the legislature, and it cannot be assumed, implied, or creatively inferred by the Executive. If we are to remain a government of laws rather than men, structural limits must bind even when they are inconvenient. Today, thankfully, the Court enforced that boundary." 

~ Nicholas Provenzo

"The court’s decision is welcome news for American importers, the United States economy, and the rule of law, but there’s much more work to be done. Most immediately, the federal government must refund the tens of billions of dollars in customs duties that it illegally collected from American companies pursuant to an “IEEPA tariff authority” it never actually had. That refund process could be easy, but it appears more likely that more litigation and paperwork will be required – a particularly unfair burden for smaller importers that lack the resources to litigate tariff refund claims, yet never did anything wrong.
    "Even without IEEPA, moreover, other U.S. laws and the Trump administration’s repeated promises all but ensure that much higher tariffs will remain the norm, damaging the economy and foreign relations in the process. Implementing new tariff protection will take a little longer than it did in 2025 and, perhaps, will be a little more predictable. Overall, however, the tariff beatings will continue until Congress reclaims some of its constitutional authority over U.S. trade policy and checks the administration’s worst tariff impulses." 

~ Scott Lincicome, Cato Vice President of General Economics and Cato’s Herbert A. Stiefel Center for Trade Policy Studies

"This expansive use of presidential 'emergency' powers to

impose taxes without representation would have made King

George III blush -- and offend the very sensibilities of

liberty that once sent tea into Boston Harbor." 

~ Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch in his concurring decision

.....aaaaand,

"Totalitarian and authoritarian leaders seem to always presume that they should have and try to assert unlimited power, to do what they want, when they want, as they want, even when guided by any emotional whim that crosses their mind. And lash out at anything and anyone who presumes to say otherwise."

"Trump asserted that he could impose tariffs when he wanted, on any country he wanted, and to any extent he wanted. And could do so guided by any changing whim when some foreign leader did or said anything he did not like and was 'offended' by. And when the Supreme Court said 'No!' And took his power to do so away, he lashed out at them in rude and crude ways in response. And said he would try to keep doing it in different ways." 

~ Richard Ebeling

... aaaaaaaand, "it took less than 24 hours and Mad King Donald directly defied the Supreme Court."

"[Fri]day's ruling held that IEEPA does not authorise ANY tariff power. It was explicit in doing so and rebuked Trump's previous exercises.
"Late last night, Trump issued a new executive order reinstating the suspension of the de minimis tariff exemption on mail order packages. The new order reimposes these tariffs by using IEEPA in the face of the explicit direction of the Supreme Court.
"This is grounds for impeachment." 

~ Phil Magness

CATO: 'The Supreme Court Got It Right on IEEPA—But Don’t Pop the Champagne Yet'

"But the end of the IEEPA tariffs does not mean an end to unilateral trade policy. The administration has already been eyeing other, largely overlooked statutes that could produce a similar result.

Section 122

Faced with a possible Supreme Court defeat over IEEPA, administration officials have been readying alternative authorities under which to impose tariffs. One such statute is Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. The provision empowers the president to address “large and serious” balance-of-payments deficits through import surcharges of up to 15 percent, import quotas, or some combination of the two. That surely holds considerable appeal for a president who has consistently (and mistakenly) railed against the alleged dangers of US trade deficits.

As Stan Veuger of the American Enterprise Institute and I explained in December in Foreign Policy, the administration could replicate most of the IEEPA tariff structure through Section 122 in short order. Countries currently facing rates above 15 percent would see some reduction, but for every other country, the hit would be nearly identical. And crucially, Section 122 doesn’t require the lengthy investigations that other trade statutes demand. The president could act fast.

But there’s a catch: Section 122 tariffs expire after 150 days unless Congress votes to extend them. How much of a constraint this is, however, remains to be seen. If Congress declines to act, the administration could, at least in theory, allow the tariffs to lapse, declare a new balance-of-payments emergency, and restart the clock. The maneuver would raise serious separation-of-powers concerns, but nothing in the statute clearly forbids it.

With the statute never previously invoked, there’s no judicial precedent clarifying its limits.

Section 338

There’s also Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (the infamous Smoot-Hawley Act) that, like Section 122, has never been deployed. It authorizes the president to impose tariffs of up to 50 percent on imports from any country that “discriminates” against US commerce as compared to other nations.

The statute is remarkably short and vague. It assigns a role to the US International Trade Commission (USITC), which has a duty to “ascertain and at all times to be informed” whether discrimination is occurring and to “bring the matter to the attention of the President, together with recommendations.”

But whether this functions as a procedural prerequisite or merely an advisory channel is unclear. The statute separately authorizes the president to impose tariffs “whenever he shall find as a fact” that discrimination exists. Does that language empower the president to act unilaterally, or must he await Commission findings? The text doesn’t say.

The Congressional Research Service has suggested that Section 338 falls into a category of tariff authorities that “do not contain” requirements for a federal agency to “conduct an investigation and make certain findings before tariffs may be imposed.” But this interpretation has never been tested by any administration or any court.

And what counts as discrimination in the first place? The law doesn’t say with any precision. Proving discrimination could be challenging when targeting World Trade Organization members bound by most-favored-nation requirements. Or would it? The administration could argue that any country maintaining tariffs on American goods—or any country with trade practices the president dislikes—is “discriminating” against US commerce.

The United States threatened to invoke Section 338 several times during the 1950s to advance foreign policy goals, but never followed through. The statute hasn’t been meaningfully tested in modern courts, which means its boundaries remain undefined. Would courts defer to an aggressive interpretation of the president’s authority? Would they require USITC involvement? No one knows. For an administration intent on maximizing its discretion, that ambiguity could be a feature, not a bug.

The Underlying Problem

Unfettered use of Sections 122 and 338—along with better-known statutes like Sections 301 and 232—could essentially recreate the IEEPA predicament. In practice, this means the president can continue reshaping tax policy and the business environment on a whim, redistributing hundreds of billions of dollars and imposing pervasive uncertainty, without express congressional authorization.

The Court did important work by reining in the misuse of IEEPA. But judicial intervention can only go so far. Congress spent decades handing off its constitutional trade authority to the executive branch, and these delegations remain largely intact. Until lawmakers reclaim some of that authority and add serious procedural safeguards, the risk of arbitrary tariffs will continue.

The Court did its job. Now Congress needs to do its own.

Summing up

"Just a reminder that as of now, Iran is still run by cruel theocrats, Venezuela is still run by far-left socialists, Russia is still run by a destructive dictatorship, and Ukraine is still run by a vibrant democracy that is is basically left alone to fight.

"Meanwhile, Donald Trump's priority is to invade Denmark and Minnesota. And to invite Putin to help run Gaza."

~ composite quote by Phillips O'Brien, Dan Smith, Clotilde I. & Alastair Twin

"Trump is nothing if not the King of Distractions."

"With his Venezuelan Victory fresh in the news again due to his new award for protecting world peace, the president also happily announced this week that he had already sold his first half-billion dollars worth of Venezuelan crude oil to an unnamed recipient. As further evidence of the transparency of the Trump regime, he also said the money from the redacted sale would all go into an offshore bank account somewhere in Qatar, as is now standard Trump Treasury protocol. ...

"Not disclosing the buyer of this US oil—now that the US [government] owns all Venezuelan oil—is also how businesses is properly done by the transparent Trump regime because they’ve realised that redacting names ahead of time will make it easier to comply with likely congressional mandates to release files about these offshore oil transactions ... Protection of the name of the buyer also helps assure that the public will never know if the oil went to one of Trump’s top billionaire campaign supporters, a guy Paul Singer, who recently bought Citgo, the American arm of Venezuela’s state-owned oil company. ...

"Singer bought Citgo for a song, paying dimes on the dollar for the Venezuelan-oil producer when US courts ordered its sale to one of Singer’s companies shortly ahead of Trump’s invasion. The court-ordered sale came because the Venezuela state-owned rig was unable to pay its bonds due to typical commie mismanagement … and possible due to Trump’s embargo on Venezuelan oil. The president keeps his reputation clear of sending billion-dollar windfall deals to his most loyal supporters by keeping their names well-redacted out of his deal disclosures.

"If the president of the United States of Armerica proved nothing else this week, it is that using American arms to change the press news cycle away from the topics you are tired of—a long-favoured ploy of many a US president—really does work well because, outside of Blondi boasting about her Republican Redactors, there was not a second left in the week for news about the Epstain Files.

"Trump is nothing if not the King of Distractions.

"It was practically a stain-free week … other than the American bloodstains inside of an SUV where a mother was shot in the head ...

"The need to battle the fires of internal insurrection by trying to turn the nation into a police state is clear proof of a peaceful president, meriting his coveted Nobel prize."

~ David Haggith from his post 'A DEEPER DIVE into the Chaos'

"One of the main differences between this Trump Administration and the previous term: he is currently surrounded by people who take his craziest ideas and then come up with elaborate rationalisations for why he should do them."

"One of the main differences between this Trump Administration and the previous term: ... the adults from the first term either said 'enough' after Jan 6th and walked away, or they found themselves driven out because they refused to budge on one or more of Trump's craziest ideas.

"That means the 2nd term self-selected for people who, through their own lack of virtue, are unbothered by the ethical failures of the first term, and people who are True Believers (tm) in the craziest schemes of Trumpism today. Or both. ...

"[So h]e is currently surrounded by people who take his craziest ideas and then come up with elaborate rationalisations for why he should do them.

"Trump wants tariffs on everyone and everything? 'You know, Mr. President, there's this law called IEEPA...'

"Trump proposes some bonkers scheme to invade Greenland because he wants to make the country larger? 'You know, Mr. President, Greenland is actually important for US national security...'

"In the previous Administration, there were at least a few adults who shut down the wackiest impulses of Trump or deflected them to other areas. Now, flattering Trump's wackiest impulses is a pathway to promotion."

~ Phil Magness

"The adults in his previous term were people who believed in real governance—whether one liked their particular ideological or policy leanings or not—and thought Trump could be moderated with intelligent guidance. They were patriotic people who wanted to serve their country whether or not they approved of who has been elected.

"This time, every adult knew Trump could not be moderated, that they could not effectively serve their country, but could only support the crazy or be destroyed. So the stayed away in droves.

"And of course that suited Trump just fine. The first time around he was uncertain, and he wanted the patina of serious expert people around him. But he chafed at not being able to control them, and he came to realise all he needed (personally, with certainty, and possibly politically) was the continued adoration of the MAGA crowd. So he has been happy to not have any qualified people on board, but to have sycophants who both inflate his ego and keep the MAGA folks swooning in political ecstasy.

"And the adults are just sitting by thinking about whether an actual seizure of power through cancelled or rigged elections is [possible], and how to prevent it if there's a real danger of it, and how to restore some sanity, decency, and global trust when this passes."

~ James Hanley