Steelworkers need a future, not another merger war



Roxanne Brown, the head of the United Steelworkers, must recognize the reality of her members and consider the recent history of the steel industry. If she remembers what happened when steel mills closed and factory towns devolved into ghost towns, she must distinguish herself from her predecessor, David McCall, whose intransigence during his tenure was neither shrewd nor productive. To set her union on a renewed path forward, Brown must distance herself from McCall’s troubling legacy and avoid jeopardizing the very workers she claims to represent.

Brown has reportedly rejected U.S. Steel’s initial contract offer, setting the stage for the next round of negotiations beginning July. If talks go south again this summer, workers could face lost wages, disrupted health benefits, and uncertainty over retirement security. Their families would feel the pressure through tighter household budgets, delayed bills, strained child care and health care decisions, and the emotional toll that comes with prolonged economic uncertainty.

Steelworkers deserve leadership focused on jobs, wages, benefits, and retirement security — not reputation management or corporate alliances.

In steel towns and surrounding communities, the impact would ripple through local businesses, schools, churches, charities, and public services that depend on steady paychecks and a stable industrial base. A lockout would not just pause production; it would threaten livelihoods, family stability, and the economic backbone of communities built around American steel.

McCall's reckless efforts to tank the Nippon-U.S. Steel merger led to a revolt among steelworkers, and his alliance with competitor Cleveland-Cliffs’ CEO Lourenco Goncalves showed he prioritizes his own reputation and corporate alliances over his members. In the next round of contract talks, McCall should not be allowed anywhere near the negotiating table from the union side.

For decades, steelworkers have been heavily affected by market swings and fluctuating steel production demands. 2026 has been a welcome relief of slow but steady growth, aided by investments like those from Nippon, shifts toward modernization, and economic tailwinds, but history shows this tide can turn anytime.

When the steel industry turns down, it faces facility idling, facility closures, layoffs, and industry upheaval. Despite recent upturn, this volatility has contributed to a public perception that blue-collar jobs like those of steelworkers are unstable, making the upcoming contract negotiations in July that much more significant.

The past tells us quite a bit about what could be ahead for steelworkers. Last year’s high-profile Nippon-U.S. Steel merger carried major consequences for American steel production and steelworkers’ jobs. Yet as the deal progressed through the approval process, McCall chose to advance his own interests rather than champion union members’ security and prosperity, revealing deeply troubling behavior.

In 2023, when the merger was proposed, U.S. mills produced about 89.7 million net tons of raw steel, supporting 70,000 workers in iron and steel manufacturing. The deal promised substantial benefits to American steelworkers, including: $2.7 billion in capital investments exclusively dedicated to USW facilities; a 10-year commitment to maintain steel production levels at existing facilities, protecting union jobs; a $5,000 signing bonus for union workers and eligible nonunion employees below the senior-manager level upon deal closure; and written, enforceable commitments to honor existing union contracts and labor agreements.

RELATED: The AI bubble is about to pop. Here’s how to prepare yourself.

Just_Super/Getty Images

Despite clear support among many rank-and-file members for the merger’s approval, McCall staked out firm personal opposition that did not reflect union workers’ input. In a February 2024 phone interview, McCall stated bluntly: “I want to kill this deal.”

McCall also took advantage of the Biden administration’s likely politically partisan, election-driven opposition to the merger. A lawsuit alleged that Biden sought to kill the deal to “curry favor with the USW leadership in [Pennsylvania] in his bid for re-election ... motivated by ‘purely political reasons.’”

Perhaps most damning is that McCall’s opposition clashed with the interests of steelworkers.

This is a pivotal time for the future of the American steel industry. The industry can only thrive if USW and the companies that employ its members can reach a commonsense agreement that both protects workers and allows companies to continue operating.

Brown must capitalize on this unique opportunity to move the union past the destructiveness of McCall’s leadership by participating in good faith in the upcoming negotiations and avoiding prolonging the contract talks at the expense of her members’ well-being. America’s steelworkers deserve better than their fate still being in the shadows of David McCall.

Jerome Powell is out — for good reason. Here are 4 of his top blunders.



Kevin Warsh, the primary intermediary between the Federal Reserve and Wall Street during the 2008 financial crisis, was confirmed on Tuesday to a 14-year term as Federal Reserve governor and confirmed on Wednesday as Jerome Powell's successor as chairman of the U.S. central bank.

Powell, who was first nominated to the Federal Board of Governors by former President Barack Obama and whose term as chair ends on Friday, wished Warsh well. However, he also provided his replacement with something more valuable than a nice sentiment: examples of what not to do, or at least, what to avoid doing.

Powell has, after all, dropped the ball on numerous occasions — sometimes with catastrophic consequences for the country. Here are just four examples.

1. Don't worry, it's 'transitory.'

Powell stated on March 4, 2021, in the second year of the pandemic, that inflation might increase but that it would likely be "transitory" and not enough for the central bank to raise record-low interest rates — a decision some suspect was geared toward pleasing then-President Joe Biden and thereby securing Powell's reappointment.

'Most of the expected GDP slowdown — from over 3% to 1.5% — was due to Powell's blunder.'

MarketWatch's Greg Robb noted that Powell's wrong-headed "transitory" view of inflation — one that would define his eight years as Fed chair — precluded the Fed from raising interest rates until 2022 while the Fed was also buying up bonds "and swelling its balance sheet."

Thanks to Powell's mistake — which economist Mohamed El-Erian, former PIMCO chief executive, said was "probably the worst inflation call in the history of the Federal Reserve" — the Fed was consistently on the back foot.

RELATED: Your bank can shut you down overnight — here’s how to protect yourself

Elif Acar/Anadolu/Getty Images

Facing the highest inflation Americans had seen in 40 years — inflation that no longer appeared to be "transitory" — Powell ended up raising interest rates 11 times between March 2022 and July 2023, when its benchmark rate reached a range of 5.25% to 5.5%.

Powell told "60 Minutes" in a Feb. 1, 2024, interview:

In hindsight, it would've been better to have tightened policy earlier. I'm happy to say that. Really, it was this. We saw what we thought was that this inflation, which seemed to be mostly limited to the goods sector and to the supply chain story. We thought that the economy was so dynamic that it would fix itself fairly quickly. And we thought that inflation would go away fairly quickly without an intervention by us. That it would be transitory.

Powell leaves office with inflation well above the Fed's 2% target for five consecutive years.

2. Betting against Trump's tariffs, tax cuts

While reluctant initially to raise interest rates when Biden was in office, Powell previously demonstrated an eagerness to raise rates in 2018 when President Donald Trump was in office and the economy was booming.

"Every time we do something great, he raises the interest rates," Trump said at the time. Powell "almost looks like he's happy raising interest rates."

The repeated hikes, which Trump blamed for coinciding stock market turmoil, were supposedly prompted by concerns that the Republican president's tariffs and tax cuts, the latter of which were framed as a $1.5 trillion fiscal stimulus, might together contribute to inflation.

Powell stated that "fiscal policy is becoming more stimulative. In this environment, we anticipate that inflation ... will move up this year."

Economist Donald Luskin, chief investment officer for Trand Macrolytics LLC, recently noted that "there is no evidence that Mr. Trump’s tariffs in 2018 and 2019 led to any inflation at all."

Economist and Trump trade adviser Peter Navarro wrote last year, "Powell's audition for 'worst Fed chair' began shortly after his February 2018 appointment. Promising President Trump in the Oval Office a supportive posture to secure his nomination, Powell instead aggressively raised rates into the low-inflation, high-growth Trump economy. Powell wrongly believed Trump's tax cuts and tariffs would spark inflation — they didn't."

Powell's bet against Trump's tariffs and tax cuts proved consequential.

"As Powell's Fed hiked interest rates four times in 2018 — despite muted inflation and strong labor market gains — economic momentum slowed sharply," wrote Navarro. "According to the Fed's own September Tealbook, most of the expected GDP slowdown — from over 3% to 1.5% — was due to Powell's blunder."

"It would cost the American economy hundreds of thousands of jobs and hundreds of billions of dollars in lost economic output and tax revenues," added the trade adviser.

3. Fed renovation scandal

Powell reportedly greenlit luxury renovations to the Fed's Washington, D.C, headquarters that exceeded the original budget by roughly $700 million and is set to cost around $2.5 billion.

Controversy over the renovations — which include a rooftop terrace with gardens, VIP dining rooms, "premium" marble, and water features — came to a head in January, several months after U.S. Federal Housing Finance Agency Director William Pulte called for an investigation into Powell and his removal as Fed chair.

RELATED: Debit card company promises to pay your bill ... sometimes: 'Buy now, pay maybe'

Sophie Park/Getty Images

Powell said in a Jan. 11 statement that "the Department of Justice served the Federal Reserve with grand jury subpoenas, threatening a criminal indictment related to my testimony before the Senate Banking Committee last June. That testimony concerned in part a multiyear project to renovate historic Federal Reserve office buildings."

An activist Biden-appointed judge quashed the grand jury subpoenas in March.

"Jerome Powell today is now bathed in immunity, preventing my office from investigating the Federal Reserve," Jeanine Pirro, the U.S. attorney in Washington, said in response to U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg's rulings. "This is wrong, and it is without legal authority."

Last month, the Trump administration dropped the criminal investigation into Powell over his luxury renovation project.

While apparently off the hook, the controversy nevertheless hangs over Powell as another example of costly mismanagement.

4. Bank failures

Powell and his underlings also failed to prevent the March 2023 collapses of Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank — the third- and fourth-largest bank failures in American history, respectively.

Powell acknowledged weeks after the bank failures that the Fed's efforts to intervene were too little, too late.

"It does kind of suggest there's a need for ... regulatory and supervisory changes, just because supervision and regulation need to keep up with what's happening," said Powell. "My only interest is that we identify what went wrong here ... make an assessment of what are the right policies to put in place so that doesn't happen again, and then implement those policies."

One of Powell's lieutenants, then-Vice Chair Michael Barr, admitted that the "Federal Reserve supervisors failed to take forceful enough action."

A damning April 28, 2023, report on the Fed's bungled supervision and regulation of Silicon Valley Bank — the conclusions of which Powell ultimately accepted — said that:

  • "Federal Reserve supervisors did not fully appreciate the extent of the vulnerabilities as Silicon Valley Bank grew in size and complexity";
  • "When supervisors did identify vulnerabilities, they did not take sufficient steps to ensure that Silicon Valley Bank fixed those problems quickly enough"; and
  • "The Board's tailoring approach in response to the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act and a shift in the stance of supervisory policy impeded effective supervision by reducing standards, increasing complexity, and promoting a less assertive supervisory approach."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

'Golden age of the Middle East': Trump lays out plan for coming weeks after Iran agrees to temporary ceasefire



The world breathed a collective sigh of relief Tuesday evening after the United States and Iran reached a ceasefire agreement before President Trump's ominous deadline expired.

Late Tuesday night and early Wednesday morning, Trump and other leaders laid out the plan for the coming days.

'A Country supplying Military Weapons to Iran will be immediately tariffed.'

President Trump celebrated the two-week ceasefire and the "complete, immediate, and safe opening of the Strait of Hormuz" on Truth Social.

He called it a "big day for World Peace" in another post: "The United States of America will be helping with the traffic buildup in the Strait of Hormuz. There will be lots of positive action! Big money will be made. Iran can start the reconstruction process. We’ll be loading up with supplies of all kinds, and just 'hangin’ around' in order to make sure that everything goes well. I feel confident that it will."

RELATED: Trump announces CEASEFIRE with Iran ahead of deadline

Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call Inc/Getty Images

"Just like we are experiencing in the U.S., this could be the Golden Age of the Middle East!!!" Trump added.

Trump continued laying out the plan early on Wednesday morning: "The United States will work closely with Iran, which we have determined has gone through what will be a very productive Regime Change! There will be no enrichment of Uranium, and the United States will, working with Iran, dig up and remove all of the deeply buried (B-2 Bombers) Nuclear 'Dust.' It is now, and has been, under very exacting Satellite Surveillance (Space Force!). Nothing has been touched from the date of attack. We are, and will be, talking Tariff and Sanctions relief with Iran."

"Many of the 15 points have already been been [sic] agreed to," Trump said.

Some uncertainty remains, however, regarding the contents of the existing peace proposal. On Tuesday night, Trump alluded to a 10-point proposal provided by the Iranians, while the United States' proposal appears to have 15 points.

As promised, Trump quickly followed up with another post announcing the strict tariff policy that will be put in place: "A Country supplying Military Weapons to Iran will be immediately tariffed, on any and all goods sold to the United States of America, 50%, effective immediately. There will be no exclusions or exemptions!"

In a Wednesday morning press conference, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth lauded Operation Epic Fury as "a historic and overwhelming victory on the battlefield." He added: "President Trump forged this moment. Iran begged for this ceasefire, and we all know it."

The New York Times reported that while the strait is nominally open with the ceasefire, shipping companies are still wary of the risks involved with attempting the safe passage of the strait. Citing S&P Global Market Intelligence, the NYT reported that there are around 800 ships on either side of the strait.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Trump and Rubio are playing ‘the art of the squeal’ in Cuba



Commentators keep treating President Trump’s moves against Venezuela and Iran as random, emotional, or “impulsive.” They aren’t. They read like strategic actions aimed at the real peer adversary — China — which now finds itself short roughly 20% of a key commodity that powers everything from industrial output to military operations: oil.

Orange Man Bad managed to hit another long-term communist adversary at the same time: Cuba.

Trump isn’t sending Marines to Havana. He’s squeezing the regime into an economic takeover.

After the Maduro snatch-and-bag operation — and after Washington threatened heavy tariffs on Mexico if it kept shipping petroleum products to Cuba — Havana’s fuel supply has reportedly fallen to roughly 35% of its monthly needs.

In 2025, Cuba imported about 13.7 million barrels of oil — roughly 112,000 barrels per day of crude and refined petroleum products — supplied primarily by Venezuela (about 61% of imports) and Mexico (about 25%), with Russia and Algeria covering most of the rest.

Trump’s executive order in late January authorized heavy tariffs on any country supplying oil to Cuba. Mexico suspended shipments to avoid U.S. retaliation. At the same time, a de facto maritime quarantine has targeted “ghost tankers” attempting to evade sanctions. Even Russian deliveries have run into trouble. Reports say the tanker Sea Horse, carrying roughly 200,000 barrels of Russian gas and oil, diverted in late February to avoid seizure or sanctions risk.

Cuba now faces a severe fuel crunch.

International observers — including U.N.-linked agencies — have described the situation as catastrophic. The island’s power grid has slid toward collapse, and the global fuel spike tied to U.S. action in Iran has only tightened the vise.

The petroleum deficit has reportedly cut national electricity generation capacity by about 65%. That leaves roughly one-third of needed power available at any given time. In Santiago de Cuba and Guantánamo, residents report blackouts lasting more than 20 hours a day. In Havana, scheduled cuts reportedly jumped from four hours to as many as 18 hours a day. Hospitals have reportedly performed surgeries by cellphone light. Water systems that rely on electric pumps have failed across large areas. Garbage collection in Havana has stalled because the trucks are out of gas.

The communist government has responded with wartime austerity measures. Major airports have suspended refueling for international flights. Airlines such as Air Canada and Air France have canceled or rerouted flights, gutting tourism — one of the regime’s few remaining sources of cash. State companies have shifted to reduced schedules to conserve power.

RELATED: Iran, China, and Trump’s ‘art of the squeal’

Photo by the White House via X Account/Anadolu via Getty Images

Washington has offered one narrow escape valve. On February 25, the U.S. issued a limited license allowing American companies to sell oil to Cuba’s emerging private sector. Analysts have described it as “a drop in the bucket.” It isn’t enough to run the heavy thermoelectric plants the national grid needs.

Last week, Trump publicly floated the idea of a “friendly takeover” of Cuba. The phrase stays diplomatically vague, but the surrounding actions and rhetoric suggest a specific approach. Trump described Cuba as a failing nation because it has “no money. They have no anything right now.”

He isn’t going to send a Marine expeditionary force to Havana. He’s pressuring the regime to cut a deal that looks like gently coerced economic integration: end the communist monopoly over banking and energy, allow U.S. firms to buy and operate failing infrastructure (telecom, ports, the power grid), and expand the private sector until the Communist Party can’t enforce centralized control.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio has echoed that direction. He has argued that Cuba needs a “different economic model” and said the U.S. would welcome reforms that open space for economic and political freedom. Reports also suggest back-channel contact, though the administration has not confirmed details.

Cuba’s current leader, Communist Party chief Miguel Díaz-Canel, now sits in the position of a man about to get a colonoscopy. He should pray Orange Man Bad feels generous with the sedation — or he’ll learn the hard way what “the art of the squeal” means.

Glenn Beck: 'I was wrong' about Trump’s tariffs — here’s why he flipped



It’s been a little over a year since President Trump began his second term and enacted a wave of tariffs that rattled the global economy. After observing the impacts, Glenn Beck is finally ready to say three words: “I was wrong.”

For years, he opposed tariffs, believing that free markets were the answer. And while he still believes free markets are the ideal — as they’re “not just efficient” but also “moral” — he realizes in retrospect that they cease to work when the players cheat. Tariffs, he admits, are “not a sin” but a necessary “strategy” to protect American industry from nations that are attacking its economy through trade.

On this episode of “The Glenn Beck Program,” Glenn explains his change of heart.

He first recaps history: America's founders funded the government mainly through tariffs instead of income taxes, and Abraham Lincoln and early Republicans used them to protect young industries and build the nation into an industrial powerhouse. Tariffs only got a bad name after the 1913 income tax shift and the 1930 Smoot-Hawley tariffs (blamed for worsening the Depression), while post-World War II free trade succeeded because the U.S. dominated the global economy.

But that era of “effortlessness, American dominance” has ended.

“Here's what I failed to see,” says Glenn. “Free trade works when all of the players are playing free. ... It works when your trading partners are not subsidizing industries, manipulating currencies, stealing intellectual property, weaponizing supply chains, using slave labor.”

“There comes a time when you then have to look at it and say, ‘OK, wait a minute, wait a minute — now we own the markets, but everybody else has weaponized trade against us. And now we're hollowing out our own industrial base; we're financing our adversaries’ rise,’” he adds.

Today he sees “the bigger picture that Donald Trump is doing with tariffs.”

“I have had very long conversations with the president about tariffs. He has been remarkable ... because he’s been honest,” says Glenn.

“He has the vision to see the world economically as it truly is, but also the vision to see economically, business-wise, how it can be,” he explains.

“[Trump] understood tariffs are not just punishment and higher prices, OK? You use tariffs strategically as leverage, as negotiation — tariffs as industrial policy without the bureaucracy; tariffs used strategically, not universally; tariffs used as a tool to bring trading partners to the table; tariffs being used to build domestic capacity.”

Glenn highlights Trump's repeated claim that foreign countries have committed to investing $18 trillion in U.S. factories since the start of his second term (roughly half the national debt).

“Let's say half of that is true. That's pretty remarkable. You know what that will do? That will rebuild our industrial base, which we hollowed out because we didn't have tariffs!” he exclaims.

To hear more, watch the video above.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Striking Down Tariffs, SCOTUS Gives Congress Permission To Be Useless

The judges let Congress off the hook, further incentivizing the legislature’s dereliction while effectively usurping power from the political branches of government.

Trump Avoids Drama To Focus on Foreign Imminent Threats

State of the Union addresses are usually sedate affairs, but the Supreme Court turned this year’s into must-see TV. The 6-3 decision invalidating the Liberation Day tariffs landed like a bomb last Friday. Many expected President Trump to train his ire on Chief Justice John Roberts and his colleagues on Tuesday night, especially after his post-ruling outbursts.

The post Trump Avoids Drama To Focus on Foreign Imminent Threats appeared first on .

How the Supreme Court’s tariff split gives Trump an opening



On the question of President Trump’s emergency tariffs, the Supreme Court has spoken. In the court’s view, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not authorize the president to impose tariffs during a declared emergency, namely, the massive trade deficits that threaten our economic security.

But the court’s decision in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trumpwas highly fractured. Only three justices — Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson — held that the law, under normal principles of statutory construction, does not give the president authority to impose tariffs.

A tariff wears two hats. It can function as a tax, but it can also operate as an instrument of foreign policy.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s dissent, joined by Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, quite persuasively demonstrates why that is not the case. As Justice Thomas noted in his separate dissent, the power to “regulate … importation” has throughout American history “been understood to include the authority to impose duties on imports.”

The other three justices who formed the majority — Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett — resorted to the major questions doctrine. This principle of statutory interpretation holds that Congress must speak with super clarity on issues of “economic and political significance” for the Court to approve a delegation to the executive.

The turn to the major questions doctrine implies that the statute, under normal principles of statutory construction, authorizes the president’s action, a point that Justice Gorsuch explicitly conceded in his concurring opinion.

But here’s the rub. The court has never previously applied the major questions doctrine in the foreign policy arena — and for good reason. Under Article II of the Constitution, the president has the core responsibility for foreign policy. Chief Justice Roberts acknowledged as much, stating in the part of his opinion that garnered only three votes that “as a general matter, the President of course enjoys some ‘independent constitutional power[s]’ over foreign affairs ‘even without congressional authorization.'”

That’s quite an understatement. The failure to recognize the full measure of that fundamentally important piece of constitutional law is the first fatal flaw in the chief justice’s opinion.

The key Supreme Court case on this point is United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp. (1936), which Roberts does not mention. In that case, Justice George Sutherland, writing for a near-unanimous court, articulated the principled distinction between foreign and domestic powers: “In this vast external realm, with its important, complicated, delicate and manifold problems, the President alone has the power to speak or listen as a representative of the nation.”

Then, quoting John Marshall’s “great argument of March 7, 1800, in the House of Representatives,” Sutherland added, “The President is the sole organ of the nation in its external relations, and its sole representative with foreign nations.”

The main issue in the case was whether Congress could delegate to the president the authority to prohibit the sale of arms to either side in a war between Bolivia and Paraguay. But Sutherland did not rely solely on the act of Congress. He wrote:

It is important to bear in mind that we are here dealing not alone with an authority vested in the President by an exertion of legislative power, but with such an authority plus the very delicate, plenary and exclusive power of the President as the sole organ of the federal government in the field of international relations — a power which does not require as a basis for its exercise an act of Congress.

In other words, President Roosevelt had the power to ban the sale of arms even without the act of Congress at issue.

The same should be true in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump. Thomas’ dissenting opinion convincingly demonstrates why that is the case. While the chief justice claimed that Solicitor General D. John Sauer conceded that “the President enjoys no inherent authority to impose tariffs during peacetime,” that’s not exactly what Sauer said. Rather, he argued that the statute delegated such authority to the president. Under Curtiss-Wright, a claim of inherent authority over foreign policy should still be viable.

In the part of the Curtiss-Wright opinion I elided above, Sutherland noted that the president’s power over foreign affairs, “like every other governmental power, must be exercised in subordination to the applicable provisions of the Constitution.”

For Roberts, the fact that the taxing power is vested exclusively in Congress — and that any bill “for raising revenue” must originate in the House of Representatives — further confirmed that Congress had not delegated to the president any authority to impose tariffs. The point lands a bit oddly, given Roberts’ earlier willingness to treat Obamacare as a tax even though the bill originated in the Senate.

RELATED: ‘Even stronger’: President Trump optimistic even after SCOTUS strikes down tariffs

Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

That move exposes the court’s second fatal flaw: a tariff wears two hats. It can function as a tax, but it can also operate as an instrument of foreign policy.

President Trump’s tariffs plainly fell into the latter category, even if they also happened to raise substantial revenue. This dual character is not unique to presidential tariffs; the Constitution itself recognizes it in a related provision. Article I, Section 10, Clause 2 provides that “No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing its inspection Laws.”

That clause reflects the same two-hat reality. An impost or duty — akin to a tariff — can be a revenue measure, but it also can serve a regulatory end tied to a state’s police power. Congress’ exclusive authority to impose taxes under Article I, Section 8, does not erase the states’ limited ability to levy duties for a different purpose: enforcing inspection laws to protect health and safety.

So too with tariffs. The fact that duties and imposts fall within Congress’ taxing power does not negate the president’s authority to use tariffs as an instrument of foreign policy — a “plenary and exclusive” power that Curtiss-Wright describes as vested in the president as the nation’s “sole organ” in external affairs.

That distinction drives Thomas’ characteristically insightful dissent. He points, in effect, to a path by which the president may continue using tariffs while negotiating with and responding to foreign nations in his role as the sole organ of American foreign policy. Time will tell whether the court, if the president takes that route, will remain faithful to its landmark Curtiss-Wright precedent. It should.

Editor’s note: A version of this article appeared originally at the American Mind.

'Congressional action not necessary': Trump details new tariff plan after SCOTUS roadblock



In President Donald Trump's first State of the Union speech of his second term in office, his tariff policies were sure to be mentioned. And, as President Trump noted, February has been a significant month for tariffs, with many new developments occurring just days before the anticipated speech.

On Tuesday night, President Trump explained his plan for tariffs in the future and explained his critique of the recent Supreme Court decision striking down a particular use of a particular type of IEEPA tariffs.

'Congressional action will not be necessary; it's already time-tested and approved.'

Trump began by recounting the overall success of his administration's tariff policies since the beginning of his second term, noting that the United States is "making a lot of money": "The big story was how Donald Trump called the economy correctly and 22 Nobel Prize winners and economists didn't. They got it totally wrong. They got it really wrong."

However, these policies faced a challenge from the Supreme Court last week, as Trump lamented in his speech: "And then just four days ago, an unfortunate ruling from the United States Supreme Court. It just came down. Very unfortunate ruling."

RELATED: Trump finally gets his answer on legality of tariffs in new SCOTUS decision

Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images

Despite this potential setback, Trump offered his assurances that many companies wish to "keep the deal that they already made ... knowing that the legal power that I, as president, have to make a new deal could be far worse for them, and therefore they will continue to work along the same successful path that we had negotiated before the Supreme Court's unfortunate involvement."

Last Friday, the Supreme Court's 6-3 decision in Learning Resources Inc. v. Trump ruled that Trump's tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act were not within the president's authority. As a result, Trump's April 2 "Liberation Day" tariffs seemed doomed less than a year after they were announced.

Trump emphasized on Friday that despite his disagreement with the court over the IEEPA tariffs, the ruling had in fact clarified and strengthened the president's authority under other statutes, including the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, the Trade Act of 1974, and the Tariff Act of 1930. On Tuesday night, he said:

So despite the disappointing ruling, these powerful, country-saving ... peace-protecting — many of the wars I settled was because of the threat of tariffs ... will remain in place under fully approved and tested alternative legal statutes. And they have been tested for a long time. They're a little more complex, but they're actually probably better, leading to a solution that will be even stronger than before. Congressional action will not be necessary; it's already time-tested and approved.

On top of that, Trump signed a proclamation ordering the initiation of a temporary 10% global tariff, which he announced on Saturday would be raised to 15%. The 10% import surcharge will be effective for 150 days to "address fundamental payments problems."

However, as of Tuesday, the BBC reported that the additional tariff rate was only instated at the previously established 10%, citing a U.S. Customs and Border Protection document published Monday.

RELATED: Watch the State of the Union tonight on BlazeTV's YouTube channel

Concluding his remarks on tariffs, Trump said, "And as time goes by, I believe the tariffs, paid for by foreign countries, will, like in the past, substantially replace the modern-day system of income tax, taking a great financial burden off the people that I love."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Supreme Court Tariff Ruling Shows ‘No Guardrails’ Was a Lie, Puts Congress on the Spot

For much of the past year and a half you couldn’t open the New York Times or approach an elite university campus without hearing a panic about how President Donald Trump was becoming a dictator with “no guardrails” to curb him. After today’s 6-3 opinion from the Supreme Court striking down Trump’s tariffs, that complaint looks more foolish than ever. Trump called the opinion “terrible,” “a shame,” "ridiculous," and “totally defective.”

The post Supreme Court Tariff Ruling Shows ‘No Guardrails’ Was a Lie, Puts Congress on the Spot appeared first on .