What If…..? Part Two; "Now You See ‘Em, Now You Don’t Tariffs"

                                                    DOD Secretary Hegseth      Bizarre chart introduced by Trump on “Liberation Day”

                                          in a patriotic suit made in Thailand

What If…..? Part Two; “Now You See ‘Em, Now You Don’t Tariffs”

A Mentally Unstable, Uninformed Megalomaniac is Addicted to Micromanaging Serial Chaos?

“But don’t ever say what you said… That’s a nasty question. To me, that’s the nastiest question.” Trump in the Oval Office, after a reporter asked him about a Financial Times columnist dubbed as the TACO trade, an acronym that stands for “Trump Always Chickens Out.”

“The judicial coup is out of control.” 

White House Senior Advisor and major scofflaw, Stephen Miller wrote on X after the U.S. Court of International Trade ruled that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 could not be the basis for Trump’s tariffs

The litany of Presidential tariffs is not dead notwithstanding the above referenced ruling by the US Court of International trade, a unanimous vote including judges appointed by Reagan and Trump. There are other statutory provisions with lesser standards that could be used, or Congress could vote to give Trump the tariff power he seeks without a necessity of finding an applicable “international emergency.” While the Supreme Court could reverse the decision, no one expects that Court to ignore the plain language of the 1977 statute. The power to pass taxes and tariffs is a constitutional power accorded to Congress in Article 1, and with limited exceptions (mostly approved by Congress) to the President. Of course, the White House asked the International Trade Court for a delay pending appeal, and an appellate court has temporarily agreed to this pause. How this will work remains to be seen. More on this decision and the alternative road to Trump’s ability to pass tariffs later.

But as Trump attempts to consolidate his power under one-man rule, there is a particularly evil and corrupt corollary that seems to delight the President and encourage insiders, in violation of federal law (which Trump appears unlikely to enforce), to sell or short share sales miraculously immediately before a Trump announcement to impose a stiff tariff… and buy (or go long) on those same stocks immediately after an announcement to reduce or postpone such tariffs. Trump seems to be having fun, pulling a string and watching the global stock markets jolt immediately.

The pattern is obvious, as noted by LA Times OpEd writer, Michael Hiltzik (May 28th):

“[Here’s] the way to profit from stock trades in an uncertain environment was underscored by the market's response over the last few trading days to Trump's threat to levy a 50% tariff on imports from the European Union. The tariffs were to begin on June 1, or nine days later. Trump issued that threat on Friday, May 23. That day the Standard & Poor's 500 index fell more than 39 points, or 0.67%, and the Nasdaq index fell 188.53 points, or 1%.

“Two days later, on Sunday, Trump announced that he would defer the tariff increase until July 9. On Tuesday, the first trading day following the Memorial Day holiday, stocks jumped back up. The S&P rose 118.72 points, or 2.05%, and the Nasdaq rose nearly 462 points, or 2.47%... See how the TACO trade works? It's a two-step process: Buy the dip — the lowered prices following a Trump tariff announcement — and sell at the higher prices after Trump's inevitable chickening-out pushes stocks back up… You'll notice that the fall and rise weren't symmetrical — the strength of the recovery was greater than that of the decline. That can't be easily explained, except that it may suggest that hope is a stronger emotion than despair.”

The Trump administration complained that this ruling would interfere with their numerous tariffs deals and negotiations, even though to date, Trump has achieved only one incomplete agreement with the UK. The Trade Court clearly reversed the trade slavery imposed by Trump on his so-called “Liberation Day” announcement in early April. Let’s start with the fact that Congress passed “Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (19 U.S.C. §1862, as amended), which authorizes the President to impose trade restrictions if the Secretary of Commerce determines that imports of a good ‘threaten to impair’ U.S. national security… In 2018, President Trump proclaimed a 25% tariff on steel and a 10% tariff on aluminum imports from most trading partners under Section 232… On February 10, 2025, President Trump made changes to the Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs…” Congress.gov. “National Security” from the entire world?

So, what else could the President do: “The administration could replace the 10% across-the-board tariffs with similar duties of up to 15% under Section 122 of the Trade Act. They would last up to six months, after which Trump would require Congressional approval to extend them… The law authorises the president to address a balance of payments deficit or to prevent an imminent and significant depreciation in the dollar, but it does not require any formal investigation or process, so the administration could implement it within days if deemed necessary.

“The U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) could launch investigations under Section 301 on unfair trade practices of the 1974 Trade Act, on key trading partners, laying the groundwork for tariffs at a later date… It would require a probe and public comment, which can take months. There is no limit to the level or duration of tariffs… In his first term, Trump invoked the same unfair trade practices statute to impose tariffs of up to 25% on some $370 billion worth of Chinese imports in 2018 and 2019, triggering a nearly three-year trade war with Beijing…

“Trump could also dust off a 1930 trade law largely forgotten for decades, which allows him to impose duties of up to 50% on imports from countries found to discriminate against U.S. commerce… The authority, which has been threatened but never used to impose tariffs, is similar to that under Section 301, except that it limits the size of tariffs. But it does not require a formal investigation.” Reuters, May 28th. But Trump’s basis for tariffs to date skates on thin ice as reported by Tony Romm and Ana Swanson in the May 28th NY Times: “A panel of federal judges on Wednesday [5/27] blocked President Trump from imposing some of his steepest tariffs on China and other U.S. trading partners, finding that federal law did not grant him ‘unbounded authority’ to tax imports from nearly every country around the world.

“The ruling, by the U.S. Court of International Trade, delivered an early yet significant setback to Mr. Trump, undercutting his primary leverage as he looks to pressure other nations into striking trade deals more beneficial to the United States… Before Mr. Trump took office, no president had sought to invoke the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, a 1977 law, to impose tariffs on other nations. The law, which primarily concerns trade embargoes and sanctions, does not even mention tariffs… But Mr. Trump adopted a novel interpretation of its powers as he announced, and then suspended, high levies on scores of countries in April. He also used the law to impose tariffs on products from Canada and Mexico in return for what he said was their role in sending fentanyl to the United States.” Huh? Canada’s contribution to fentanyl is miniscule.

Trump, in his unconstitutional quest for total power, will continue exerted efforts to maximize his authority or… perhaps… if he is willing to ignore court orders, to achieve his autocratic goals and his ability to benefit his “wink-wink” oligarchical and ultra-loyalist buddies with special treatment and inside information.

I’m Peter Dekom, and Trump’s tariff, tax and budgetary agenda, combined with his attack on law firms, universities, etc., so far have unraveled the stable economy he inherited and threaten long-term, if not permanent damage on the power, influence and economic solidity of the United States, with literally little or no benefit outside of a small coterie of ultra-loyalists and a rapidly decreasing number of corporations and Wall Street mavens.