トランプ関税は撤回される！？知っておくべきこと!!
President Trump’s tariffs just got hit with their
biggest threat yet. Not from foreign governments or angry CEOs, but from a federal judge with
a copy of the Constitution. Recently, the Court of International Trade dropped a bombshell
ruling that could unravel Trump’s most aggressive tariffs. And the Supreme Court has agreed to
fasttrack the appeal in a constitutional showdown that could refund billions in tariff revenue and
send markets soaring or hand Trump unlimited trade war powers. My name is Guy and you’re watching
the Coin Bureau. First things first though, none of this is financial or legal advice. It’s
just educational content intended to inform you about the court showdown that could cancel
Trump’s tariffs. If that sounds like stuff you want to know about, then smash that like button,
subscribe, and ping the notification bell so you don’t miss the next video. So then, two federal
courts just called BS on Trump’s tariffs. First, the Court of International Trade and then the
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that the International Emergency Economic Powers
Act doesn’t let presidents impose tariffs just by shouting emergency. The administration immediately
appealed and asked the Supreme Court to fasttrack the case. The court agreed and now it looks like
we’ll have a decision by early 2026. And all of this has put Treasury Secretary Scott Bessant in
quite a pickle. That’s because since February, thousands of importers have been paying these
tariffs, raking in a cash mountain of at least $159 billion so far. money that Bessant may now
have to refund. If the Supreme Court upholds this ruling, every company that has paid Trump’s
emergency tariffs since February, from toy companies to tech giants, gets their money back
with interest. Bessant is already calling this quote the largest unplanned government expenditure
in modern history. and his estimate of the bill is multiples higher than the tariff revenue to date
due to the court deadlines. $750 billion to $1 trillion in refunds by mid 2026. That’s nothing
compared to Trump’s forecast though. He says that a court ruling against him would quote literally
destroy the United States of America. So clearly the stakes are high. On a more positive note, the
Yale Budget Lab calculates that killing Trump’s tariffs would drop their inflationary impact from
1.7% to 0.5%, saving American households as much as $1,600 annually. The catch is, of course, that
companies, not consumers, would get those tariff refunds. Americans who already paid higher prices
get nothing but buyers remorse. But if Trump wins in the Supreme Court, he gets unlimited emergency
trade powers. No congressional approval needed. Just declare an emergency, impose tariffs, repeat.
It’s the kind of executive power that would make Nixon jealous. Now, while the courts debate
constitutionality, Trump’s tariff machine keeps grinding away. This machine technically consists
of two components. The first is the trafficking tariffs, those targeting China, Mexico, and
Canada, supposedly over fentinel and immigration. Trump justified these using the International
Emergency Economic Powers Act, EPA, claiming drug trafficking and immigration constitute
national emergencies requiring immediate economic warfare in the form of taxes. These
are the tariffs on trial at the Supreme Court. The second component is the reciprocal tariffs.
You’ll remember Trump nuking global markets back in April when he unveiled these tariffs on a
noveltyized cardboard sign. Now, these tariffs target basically everything from everywhere with
special punishment rates for countries Trump doesn’t like. They are far more extensive than
the trafficking tariffs, but the administration is using a different legal justification that isn’t
being challenged in this case. Whatever their constitutional fate will be, both sets of tariffs
have already left their mark, though. February and March saw $430 billion worth of Chinese imports
hit with new rates. Then on the 7th of August, the reciprocal tariffs kicked in with rates of
up to 41% charged on imports from 62 countries. The really devastating tariffs, like the comical
145% tax on imports from China, have been delayed until November. This has basically become the
administration’s signature move. Announced massive tariffs, pause them for negotiations, rinse and
repeat. They did it with the EU in May and July, and with Mexico multiple times. Then on the 8th
of August, they pushed China’s higher rates out 90 days to the 10th of November. And just three
weeks later, a federal appeals court declared those very tariffs illegal. One thing led to
another, and now the case is in the express lane at the Supreme Court. With arguments beginning
just days before the biggest tariffs kick in, importers are in the uncomfortable position of
paying massive new taxes while the government is still figuring out whether they’re even legal.
As most of you will know, markets hate uncertainty more than they hate bad news. And right now,
they’re drowning in uncertainty. Corporate bonds are getting hammered as companies can’t price in
costs that might disappear or double depending on nine justice’s opinions. Meanwhile, supply
chain managers report that it’s impossible to sign contracts when you don’t know if your imports
will cost 10% more or 100% more in 3 months time. The financial media have taken to calling them
shrodinger tariffs, simultaneously devastating and non-existent until the Supreme Court
opens the box. Meanwhile, US agriculture is getting crushed from left and right. The USDA
documented 27 billion in export losses just from retaliatory tariffs in Trump’s first trade war
in 2018. Now farmers are experiencing deja vu, paying Trump’s import taxes on fertilizer
and equipment while suffering the brunt of retaliatory tariffs on their exports. Then there’s
consumer electronics. The US Consumer Technology Association warns that while major items like
smartphones and laptops were granted lastminute exemptions, many other devices were not. Gaming
consoles, smart speakers, digital cameras, and a wide array of critical components used in
manufacturing consumer electronics are about to become a whole lot more expensive to import,
compressing margins across the entire sector. It’s the place to be when you’re in need of
amazing crypto deals and opportunities. It’s got savings that you won’t believe like
money off those pesky trading fees. It’s the Coin Bureau deals page. Sign of bonuses
and discounts, too. Coin Bureau Deals page. We put these deals together just for you. Now,
about the constitutional conundrum. In case it wasn’t clear enough, the International Emergency
Economic Powers Act was never meant to be used to impose tariffs arbitrarily. The EA passed in 1977
gives presidents power to freeze assets and block transactions during genuine emergencies. So, think
Iranian hostage crisis, not China sells us too many toasters. The administration’s legal case is
built on a very broad reading of the word regulate as it appears in this law. The law specifies
that after declaring a national emergency, presidents may quote, “Investigate, regulate,
direct, and compel, nullify, void, prevent, or prohibit any acquisition, holding, withholding,
use, transfer, withdrawal, transportation, importation, or exportation of, or dealing in,
or exercising any right, power, or privilege with respect to any property in which any foreign
country or a national thereof has any interest. What a mouthful. Anyway, the Court of Appeals was
not impressed with the administration’s reading of the law and put it bluntly. Using EA for permanent
tariffs transforms emergency powers into a general license to regulate the entire United States
economy, which is a big no no. The Federal Circuit wasn’t buying it either. Their majority opinion
read, quote, EA’s grant of presidential authority to regulate imports does not authorize the
tariffs imposed by the executive orders. Trump’s interpretation, the opinion said, would create
quote a functionally limitless delegation of congressional taxation authority and mean there is
quote no judicially enforcable limiting principle on presidential power. Indeed, no president
in the EA’s 48-year history has tried anything remotely like this. Yes, previous presidents have
used it to stretch their powers to the limit, permanently sanctioning, freezing transactions,
and seizing the assets of anyone they can get away with calling a terrorist or a hostile nation.
But importantly, those powers were prohibitions, telling people what they can’t do. Trump is
using the EA to make people pay the government for doing something that’s otherwise legal.
It’s the difference between saying you can’t buy Russian weapons and saying tip me 50% every
time you buy something from Teu. As the Federal Circuit Court pointed out, the EA conspicuously
omits any explicit authority for the president to quote lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts,
and excises. Even Trump’s lawyers couldn’t cite a single example of the EA having been used to
create a revenue stream. When your legal precedent is nobody’s ever been crazy enough to try this,
you might have a bit of a problem. Then there’s the non-delegation problem, which will be even
harder for government lawyers to wrigle out of. The Constitution says Congress, not the president,
gets to tax. It’s right there in article 1, section 8. Quote, “The Congress shall have
power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises.” Judge Jimmy Rainer argued that even
if the EA could be read to authorize tariffs, such a reading would violate the non-legation
doctrine, which forbids Congress from just handing its own powers to another branch of government.
Another federal judge called Trump’s use of the law an unconstitutional delegation that would
let presidents quote exercise a power the Constitution vests exclusively in Congress. The
Congressional Research Service has chimed in too, noting that the whole point of the EA was to reign
in the executive, which had for decades run a mock claiming near limitless emergency powers. Congress
passed the EA in 1977 specifically because they were fed up with presidents pulling crazy stunts
and getting away with them under a loophole in the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917. The last straw
for lawmakers was when President Nixon killed the gold standard, froze prices and wages, and yes,
imposed tariffs, all without consulting Congress. Congress said never again and decided to replace
the blank check of the Trading with the Enemy Act with a specific limited list of powers under
the EA. Yet here goes Trump using the never again law to do it all over again. The irony may have
escaped the White House, but the judiciary has a longer memory. So the Supreme Court will
hear arguments the first week of November, and everyone is trying to read the tea leaves.
The administration is sending in its big gun, Solicitor General D. John Sauer. He’s using a
strategy that can best be described as a hostage situation. First, he makes the obvious claim
that regulate means whatever President Trump wants it to mean. But then he drops the real
threat. strike down these tariffs and you’ll cause quote catastrophic economic consequences
and quote irrevocably disrupt highly impactful sensitive ongoing diplomatic trade negotiations.
Basically, he’s telling nine justices that if they follow the constitution, they’ll crash
the economy. Say, that’s a nice separation of powers you’ve got there. It would be a shame
if someone respected it. As for the court, it currently has a 6 to3 conservative majority,
but this doesn’t tell the whole story. That’s because this isn’t a standard leftright issue.
It’s about how much power presidents should have versus Congress. The court’s conservatives are
split between those who champion executive power, like judges Alito and Thomas, and those more
concerned about constitutional structure, like Gorish and sometimes Barrett. The Liberals will
almost certainly vote to strike down the tariffs, not necessarily because they hate Trump, but
because they consistently opposed expansive readings of emergency powers. So, the swing
votes are Roberts and Kavanaaugh. And recent history suggests they’re skeptical of executive
overreach. Just last year, Roberts authored a landmark opinion stripping federal agencies of
their power to interpret vague laws, returning that authority to the courts. That was a major
blow to executive power and a clear signal that Roberts believes that judges, not the president’s
administration, should decide what laws mean. Kavanaaugh, meanwhile, has repeatedly invoked the
major questions doctrine to strike down executive actions lacking clear congressional authorization.
Both justices have shown they care more about separation of powers than partisan outcomes.
So, you can expect the major questions doctrine to be invoked again to argue that if lawmakers
wanted to hand the president power to reshape the entire economy through tariffs, well, they’d
have said so explicitly. they wouldn’t have buried it in a 1977 emergency powers statute like some
Easter egg for the president to discover later. The Federal Circuit Court already noted that
imposing tariffs worth hundreds of billions annually is exactly the kind of vast economic
and political significance that requires clear congressional authorization. On this point, the
administration’s defense boils down to emergency means whatever we say it means. Their lawyers
argue drug trafficking and immigration constitute ongoing national emergencies justifying drastic
economic measures by the executive. When judges asked why these tariffs couldn’t continue
forever under this logic, government lawyers essentially said, “Trust us.” Now, the closest
precedent is Youngstown Sheet and Tube versus Sawyer from 1952 when President Truman tried to
seize steel mills during the Korean War, claiming national security. The court slapped him down 6
to3, ruling that emergencies don’t let presidents ignore Congress’s explicit constitutional powers.
Kavanaaugh has cited Youngstown favorably multiple times. If he sees Trump’s tariffs as Truman’s
steel grab reloaded, that’s bad news for the administration. Now, the immediate procedural
question is whether the court issues a stay, pausing tariff collection while they decide.
The Federal Circuit explicitly refused to stay its ruling, letting tariffs continue despite
finding them illegal. The Supreme Court could reverse that, immediately stopping collections
and letting Americans import stuff without the government fleecing them. Or they could let
the tariffs continue, allowing potentially illegal taxes to accumulate while they deliberate.
Either choice has massive consequences. Now, most court watchers expect a decision by early
2026, lightning speed for the Supreme Court, but an eternity for businesses trying to plan. As
of midepptember, betting markets are saying that the tariffs get struck down, though prediction
markets have been spectacularly wrong before. What’s clear is though that this case will define
presidential power for generations because either Congress controls the money or the president can
tax by decree. There is no middle ground. And now let’s take a look at how these two scenarios might
play out. If the Supreme Court slaps down the use of the EPA for tariffs, then the refund process
alone could break the government. Thousands of importers filing claims, each requiring
shipment documentation, duty receipts, entry forms. Customs and border protection would
need years to process it all. And Wall Street is already scheming up ways to make money out of all
of this. Trade lawyers and hedge funds are setting up specialurpose vehicles to feast on what could
be the greatest arbitrage play in history. Here’s the plan. Company paid $100 million in tariffs
they might get back in 3 years. Fund offers them $75 million cash today. Company takes the haircut
because they need liquidity now. Fund waits collects the full $100 million plus interest from
the treasury. It’s factoring receivables except the receivable is the government stole our money
and a court said give it back. Pure arbitrage, zero risk if the Supreme Court already ruled the
tariffs illegal. For importers, it’s choosing recouping cash at a loss today or potentially
waiting years for the government to process a refund. For funds, it’s printing money off of a
constitutional crisis. And should the tariffs be cancelled, markets would likely explode upwards
just on the removal of uncertainty. Every company that was affected by the trafficking tariffs sees
immediate margin expansion and the Federal Reserve could cut rates with the inflation pressure gone.
Also, every trade deal Trump negotiated using tariff threats becomes worthless. The EU, Japan,
even Canada, they all signed agreements under juress. Remove the gun from their heads and why on
earth would they sign highly disadvantageous trade deals? European negotiators are literally already
drafting renegotiation demands for if the tariffs fall. So, the wild card then becomes, what does
Trump do to maintain the coercion underpinning all of these trade deals? It could be simply to cook
up another legal justification for these tariffs, or it could be an even uglier form of
arm twisting. Now, with all that said, if the Supreme Court happens to validate the EPA
as a tariff tool, Trump not only gets to keep his emergency tariffs, he gets unlimited power to tax
and wage economic warfare by decree. Modeling by the Tax Foundation points to a 0.8% 8% permanent
GDP loss and 800,000 jobs gone if the tariffs are allowed to go as planned. The Congressional Budget
Office projects GDP growth cratering, unemployment hitting 4.5% and inflation stuck at 3.1% largely
thanks to the tariff chaos. Trump proponents meanwhile claim they will reduce deficits by
$3.3 trillion over a decade. But that’s before counting how many businesses fail and stop paying
taxes because they’ve filed for bankruptcy. With permanent tariffs validated, retaliation becomes
permanent, too, crushing many US exporters. You can expect a swift international response from
the EU, which is already preparing defensive trade measures, and China, which is already derisking
from its dependence on US markets. And once this constitutional precedent exists, you can’t put it
back in the bottle. As the Federal Circuit put it, there’d be quote no judicially enforcable limiting
principle on presidential power. That means any president, any party, any time just say the magic
word emergency and start taxing. Budget deficit emergency. Unemployment emergency. Too many people
buying Korean cars emergency. the constitutional requirement that Congress approves all taxes
dead. So there it is. In a few weeks time, nine justices will decide whether a federal judge
with a copy of the Constitution was right to call BS on Trump’s emergency tariffs. They’ll determine
if massive tariff payments flow back to importers or if presidents get a permanent break glass
for taxes button. Markets will either rally uncertainty or brace for escalation. Trade
partners will either renegotiate everything or prepare for permanent economic warfare.
The courtroom drama of the decade is about to get underway. And while you’re waiting for that
November hearing, why not find out which cryptos Trump’s team will be clinging to when stuff starts
hitting the fan? You’ll find that story over here. That’s all from me for now, though. So, as always,
thank you for watching and I’ll see you next time.
A federal judge just declared most of Trump’s tariffs illegal and unconstitutional, and the Supreme Court fast-tracked the case for November. If they agree, the Treasury has to refund $750 billion to $1 trillion. If they don’t, every future president gets unlimited power to tax imports by declaring fake emergencies. Nine justices are about to decide America is looking at the biggest refund in history or the end of congressional power over taxes.
~~~~~
🛒 Get The Hottest Crypto Deals 👉 https://www.coinbureau.com/deals/
♣️ Join The Coin Bureau Club 👉 https://hub.coinbureau.com/
💥 Coin Bureau Discord 👉 https://go.coinbureau.com/cb-discord
📲 Insider Info in our Socials 👉 https://www.coinbureau.com/socials/
👕 Best Crypto Merch 👉 https://store.coinbureau.com
🔥 TOP Crypto TIPS In our Newsletter 👉 https://www.coinbureau.com/newsletters/
⭐ More Coin Bureau Channel 👉 https://www.youtube.com/@morecoinbureau
📈 Coin Bureau Trading Channel 👉 https://www.youtube.com/@CoinBureauTrading
~~~~~
🔥OUR BRAND PARTNERS🔥
📈Bitget up to 50K USDT Deposit Bonus & GetAgent Plus Trial (Exclusive AI-powered Trading Assistant) 👉 https://go.coinbureau.com/bitget-getagent
🔒Get 10% Off Your Tangem Wallet 👉 https://go.coinbureau.com/tangem10
~~~~~
📺Essential Videos📺
Trump Insiders’ Crypto Holdings EXPOSED 👉 https://youtu.be/qclEBBniVVY
$324 Trillion Debt Bomb is Ticking 👉https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wix6ygkxlM0
Species COLLAPSE Incoming? 👉https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-pbaJLJ_7Q
~~~~~
– TIMESTAMPS –
0:00 Intro
0:57 Bessent in a Pickle
3:20 The Tariffs on Trial
7:56 Why The Courts Are Calling BS
12:51 The November Showdown
17:49 What Happens if the Tariffs Are Cancelled
~~~~~
📜 Disclaimer 📜
The information contained herein is for informational purposes only. Nothing herein shall be construed to be financial legal or tax advice. The content of this video is solely the opinions of the speaker who is not a licensed financial advisor or registered investment advisor. Trading cryptocurrencies poses considerable risk of loss. The speaker does not guarantee any particular outcome.
#Trump #US #economy