Thank you for the clarification. Sadly, you are the first to report this information which seems to be beyond the understanding of the rest of the media not to mention the President and his Administration of dopes.
I’m not certain about that given the lack of investment in journalism & the rush to be first to report. Forbes and similar ones should know the difference but political reporters, I’m doubtful. The ones who did accurately report are not ones most of the public reads but most specialize in finance.
Fortune did state the correct interpretation. ( “Trump's plan B on tariffs is also illegal as balance-of-payments deficit doesn't exist, experts say …”) As did Real Economy blog. “Are the new tariffs justified under section 122? No.”
The independent Council on Foreign Relations took a different tact, relying on finance experts for a very technical explanation leading to the same place with a long detailed discussion of the issues.
— Some commentators are already suggesting that Trump has not made and cannot make such a showing, as the law was drafted at a time when the United States operated under a fixed exchange rate regime, with the dollar being pegged to the value of gold. Now that the United States has adopted a floating exchange rate system, its currency values adjust to market forces, indicating that, as economist Milton Friedman explained, “a system of floating exchange rates completely eliminates the balance-of-payments problem. The [currency] price may fluctuate but there cannot be a deficit or a surplus threatening an exchange crisis.” —
In the sum up to that section, CFR said: “The success of any challenge may rest in large part on the degree of deference a court would give to a Presidential finding of fact—that the United States is suffering from fundamental international payment problems—particularly in light of the Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo which overruled Chevron deference and instead directed the courts to “exercise their independent judgment.” —
Writers and editors number one concern is not ruffling Corporate's feathers. And that means not diverging too far from RW zeitgeist long expressed by FOX News and others that the tariffs are some form of brilliant 3D chess.
Never mind that Trump's Tariffs *personally* cost you and your family $1,200 or so in FY2025. Show your devotion to the Best-President-Ever by taking one for the team. Oh, and buy a few grand of $TRUMP crypto while you're at it.
Political reporters are not legal, finance or trade experts. In the rush to be first a lot of times they use the statement from the WH. Forbes should know better. Other less read publications who are experts in that area did report correctly. Not much of the general public reads them.
(BTW, invoking the 25th Amendment is much more fraught & difficult than impeachment which has failed 2x. First, you have the fact that he chose a Cabinet & VP who would not invoke it. 2nd, if it became their goal, each knows trump can appeal to Congress and the trump penalty for failure. A 2/3 majority in each chamber would be needed to agree.)
Adam Tooze and Phil Magness were writing about this yesterday on Substack and Twitter, but kudos to Popular Info for amplifying this news. It's clear that the legacy media got a press release from the White House and didn't bother to fact check it before writing their stories.
Heh. We all know that the MSM is a dictation machine rather than a reporting one these days. If Trump said he was declaring pink unicorns the new national symbol, they'd all dutifully write and report it.
So, has there been a major presser from the Democratic Party pushing back, correcting Trump and all these lazy media to give them quotes they'll use as is?
How will we know what elected Democrats say about it? There’s almost no coverage of the leaders’ daily pressers, the people on relevant committees don’t seem to be asked when trump does something stupid or illegal, when Democrats give lengthy speeches analyzing some issue in depth it’s not covered, and since Congressional Republicans don’t show up to committee meetings that might expose their complicity with trump the one-sided hearings are largely invisible too.
All the media that’s been acquired by the billionaires cover for trump, and that includes not publishing criticism from the opposition.
Not a two year old, a traitor and criminal who behaves worse than a two year old, although I must say, I've never known a two year old that behaves worse than him.
The Big Fat Gaslight of the Nation. When Bush and Cheney did this, with the pliable Defense Secretary Colin Powell holding up aluminum pipe as evidence that we must expend billions of dollars and thousands of American lives, we went along BECAUSE the news agencies would vet this information and deliver the truth. When John Burns at the New York Times, who later apologized, wrote a news article with his opinion stuffed into it: even if Hussein hadn't done this, he had done enough for us to bomb the shit out of his country. Even though No Iraqis, or Iraqi money went into 9/11, we the people said: Okay, looks like we go to war with Iraq. That was our response to an illegal criminal act by a gang of bad men financed by a Saudi rich guy because our trusted sources said so. When did they become lemmings? Why do we have to go to the cliff's edge with them? Apparently we don't. Thank you, Judd Legum, you deserve a Pulitzer, or Peabody, or whatever journalism prize for reporting just this story alone.
Let's share Judd's reporting far and wide so his kind of reporting dominates. We the people have to crush the "mainstream" media by telling our friends and neighbors true journalists exists. Thanks again Judd.
MB: Not sure crushing the MSM is the way to go. We need them. We need them to do their job. When I hear a news person on TV talk about something they reported on ten, 15, 20 years ago in order to give context to something that is happening now, I feel like yeah, experience is everything. Journalists need to cut their teeth and learn as they go and NOT copy other stories as a shortcut to their story. Except for the NY Times I would not trust any news outlet to have done 100 per cent vetting on a story. The NY Times I trust because they are diligent and their reporters have miles on their shoes. I don't want to disparage other big city newspapers, it's just that I don't read them, except the Boston Globe. Remember that most of these independent journalists, with the exception of Judd, are all mixing fact with opinion and bias. That feeds our bias and makes us feel good about ourselves and our beliefs. That's okay, but it is not investigative journalism.
I do not agree that independent journalist are not of the caliber of NY Times or lack experience. Matt Stoller with https://www.thebignewsletter.com outstanding journalist. I learn more from reading his one weekly roundup than I every got from NY Times or the Washington Post. Chris Giedner at lawdork.com gosh, he is writing with great insight multiple times a week. Ken Klippenstein at https://www.kenklippenstein.com, amazing reporting. And all of these writers will interact with you in the comments so you have terrific conversations to be a part of. MSM can't come close to their level. I think unleashing journalists from corporate interests has opened a whole new world of good information and I like it.
Just called Senators Warnock and Warner offices to ask them to make the news aware of the facts you have mentioned. I realize ranking Democratic members don’t have the majority to change things as we would like. But they do have the power to make the facts clear to the American people and the media. Wish the A**hole president paid that much in taxes personally!
MSM is not now and has not been “independent” since the advent of Sinclair et al. Since Ronnie Raygun ditched the Fairness Doctrine, since “news” went from being a public service to an income generating commodity. All of these things need to be fixed if we are to have real news once again.
Interesting observation, I must admit that I too, did not catch the difference. As a result I will remove my Coastal Elite diploma from the wall over my bed for two weeks as an act of penance (I don’t observe Lent). So in addition to being pedos and incompetent this administration is little more than a band of muggers. But wait, the market is over 50,000 so we can forget about all this, on wait, no its not.
Paul Krugman explained the various laws that Trump is trying to use for his new tariffs (taxes). G. Elliott Morris in his Substack, Strength in Numbers, gave the data on just how unpopular Trump's tariffs are with the American people. Now Judd has explained the illegality. It's time to sue the administration yet again.
Will we now have another year in which the conservative Court majority refuses to stay the new illegal tariffs? And while Trump refuses to refund the tariffs already legally collected? You see the problem. Trump's version of Dodgeball -- "Delay, Defer, Duck, Dodge, and Defy" works every time when he has legislative and judicial majorities behind him.
I think the Section 122 tariffs would first go to the US Court of International Trade like last time. Then depending on the timeframe on to SCOTUS.
According to Center for Foreign Relations, there is precedent for refunding tariffs. “ The Supreme Court’s clean opinion leaves no room to argue that any of the IEEPA tariffs were ever valid. The obligation to pay refunds is well-established, as is the process for obtaining refunds.” (That is way down the page in their discussion under “Next Steps Refund Route” https://www.cfr.org/articles/the-supreme-court-clipped-trumps-tariff-powers-and-opened-new-trade-battle-fronts)
Given how the last tariff case turned out, and the difficulty of refunds, perhaps the Supreme Court will think twice about staying the illegal tariffs.
I have a faint hope that the stupid6 are beginning to understand that giving a criminal like Trump a free pass to rampage through the Constitution and our economy was not a rational decision. WE understand it with the help of Judd and others, but when are our so called “leaders” going to get it?
Center for Foreign Relations says there is precedent for returning tariffs and “The obligation to pay refunds is well-established, as is the process …” They are not referring to consumers but importers on record for paying the tariffs.
Thank you for the clarification. Sadly, you are the first to report this information which seems to be beyond the understanding of the rest of the media not to mention the President and his Administration of dopes.
They understand exactly and then report inadequately.
Hanlon's razor: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
I’m not certain about that given the lack of investment in journalism & the rush to be first to report. Forbes and similar ones should know the difference but political reporters, I’m doubtful. The ones who did accurately report are not ones most of the public reads but most specialize in finance.
Fortune did state the correct interpretation. ( “Trump's plan B on tariffs is also illegal as balance-of-payments deficit doesn't exist, experts say …”) As did Real Economy blog. “Are the new tariffs justified under section 122? No.”
https://realeconomy.rsmus.com/are-the-new-tariffs-justified-under-section-122-no/
The independent Council on Foreign Relations took a different tact, relying on finance experts for a very technical explanation leading to the same place with a long detailed discussion of the issues.
— Some commentators are already suggesting that Trump has not made and cannot make such a showing, as the law was drafted at a time when the United States operated under a fixed exchange rate regime, with the dollar being pegged to the value of gold. Now that the United States has adopted a floating exchange rate system, its currency values adjust to market forces, indicating that, as economist Milton Friedman explained, “a system of floating exchange rates completely eliminates the balance-of-payments problem. The [currency] price may fluctuate but there cannot be a deficit or a surplus threatening an exchange crisis.” —
In the sum up to that section, CFR said: “The success of any challenge may rest in large part on the degree of deference a court would give to a Presidential finding of fact—that the United States is suffering from fundamental international payment problems—particularly in light of the Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo which overruled Chevron deference and instead directed the courts to “exercise their independent judgment.” —
https://www.cfr.org/articles/the-supreme-court-clipped-trumps-tariff-powers-and-opened-new-trade-battle-fronts
This.
Writers and editors number one concern is not ruffling Corporate's feathers. And that means not diverging too far from RW zeitgeist long expressed by FOX News and others that the tariffs are some form of brilliant 3D chess.
Never mind that Trump's Tariffs *personally* cost you and your family $1,200 or so in FY2025. Show your devotion to the Best-President-Ever by taking one for the team. Oh, and buy a few grand of $TRUMP crypto while you're at it.
Those dopes know it. They are just allowing the Orange Spoiled Brat to “win” over SCOTUS and any laws that get in his way.
Why did we get a 25th Amendment? This moment is exactly what it was enacted for!
Political reporters are not legal, finance or trade experts. In the rush to be first a lot of times they use the statement from the WH. Forbes should know better. Other less read publications who are experts in that area did report correctly. Not much of the general public reads them.
(BTW, invoking the 25th Amendment is much more fraught & difficult than impeachment which has failed 2x. First, you have the fact that he chose a Cabinet & VP who would not invoke it. 2nd, if it became their goal, each knows trump can appeal to Congress and the trump penalty for failure. A 2/3 majority in each chamber would be needed to agree.)
Adam Tooze and Phil Magness were writing about this yesterday on Substack and Twitter, but kudos to Popular Info for amplifying this news. It's clear that the legacy media got a press release from the White House and didn't bother to fact check it before writing their stories.
Good to know our major media outlets are doing their due diligence on these tariffs. 🫠
Heh. We all know that the MSM is a dictation machine rather than a reporting one these days. If Trump said he was declaring pink unicorns the new national symbol, they'd all dutifully write and report it.
Indeed, diligently inaccurate.
So, has there been a major presser from the Democratic Party pushing back, correcting Trump and all these lazy media to give them quotes they'll use as is?
Exactly! The democratic party like to cherry pick their causes while people like Judd and other real people fight the real battles.
How will we know what elected Democrats say about it? There’s almost no coverage of the leaders’ daily pressers, the people on relevant committees don’t seem to be asked when trump does something stupid or illegal, when Democrats give lengthy speeches analyzing some issue in depth it’s not covered, and since Congressional Republicans don’t show up to committee meetings that might expose their complicity with trump the one-sided hearings are largely invisible too.
All the media that’s been acquired by the billionaires cover for trump, and that includes not publishing criticism from the opposition.
Great follow up… Now…what will news outlets say after Judd does their work for them!
Will they follow or play blind?
Another court case for sure.
More wasted money on lies by a two year old child!
Not a two year old, a traitor and criminal who behaves worse than a two year old, although I must say, I've never known a two year old that behaves worse than him.
Agree, and two year olds have charm to go with any cantankerousness!
They will call it 'Fake News' What would we do w/o Judd?
When billionaires own news&media outlets the news is twisted to their benefit.
I’m certainly not an economist, but it seems that Trump&cronies benefit from stock market fluctuations&moving money??
The Big Fat Gaslight of the Nation. When Bush and Cheney did this, with the pliable Defense Secretary Colin Powell holding up aluminum pipe as evidence that we must expend billions of dollars and thousands of American lives, we went along BECAUSE the news agencies would vet this information and deliver the truth. When John Burns at the New York Times, who later apologized, wrote a news article with his opinion stuffed into it: even if Hussein hadn't done this, he had done enough for us to bomb the shit out of his country. Even though No Iraqis, or Iraqi money went into 9/11, we the people said: Okay, looks like we go to war with Iraq. That was our response to an illegal criminal act by a gang of bad men financed by a Saudi rich guy because our trusted sources said so. When did they become lemmings? Why do we have to go to the cliff's edge with them? Apparently we don't. Thank you, Judd Legum, you deserve a Pulitzer, or Peabody, or whatever journalism prize for reporting just this story alone.
Let's share Judd's reporting far and wide so his kind of reporting dominates. We the people have to crush the "mainstream" media by telling our friends and neighbors true journalists exists. Thanks again Judd.
MB: Not sure crushing the MSM is the way to go. We need them. We need them to do their job. When I hear a news person on TV talk about something they reported on ten, 15, 20 years ago in order to give context to something that is happening now, I feel like yeah, experience is everything. Journalists need to cut their teeth and learn as they go and NOT copy other stories as a shortcut to their story. Except for the NY Times I would not trust any news outlet to have done 100 per cent vetting on a story. The NY Times I trust because they are diligent and their reporters have miles on their shoes. I don't want to disparage other big city newspapers, it's just that I don't read them, except the Boston Globe. Remember that most of these independent journalists, with the exception of Judd, are all mixing fact with opinion and bias. That feeds our bias and makes us feel good about ourselves and our beliefs. That's okay, but it is not investigative journalism.
I do not agree that independent journalist are not of the caliber of NY Times or lack experience. Matt Stoller with https://www.thebignewsletter.com outstanding journalist. I learn more from reading his one weekly roundup than I every got from NY Times or the Washington Post. Chris Giedner at lawdork.com gosh, he is writing with great insight multiple times a week. Ken Klippenstein at https://www.kenklippenstein.com, amazing reporting. And all of these writers will interact with you in the comments so you have terrific conversations to be a part of. MSM can't come close to their level. I think unleashing journalists from corporate interests has opened a whole new world of good information and I like it.
Not going to disagree with you, independent journalists are the best part of the internet.
Just called Senators Warnock and Warner offices to ask them to make the news aware of the facts you have mentioned. I realize ranking Democratic members don’t have the majority to change things as we would like. But they do have the power to make the facts clear to the American people and the media. Wish the A**hole president paid that much in taxes personally!
THIS is why Independent Media is so important! If MSM reported FACTS, Dick A’la Orange would not be in the WH.
MSM is not now and has not been “independent” since the advent of Sinclair et al. Since Ronnie Raygun ditched the Fairness Doctrine, since “news” went from being a public service to an income generating commodity. All of these things need to be fixed if we are to have real news once again.
Dick a l’Orange 🤣🤣🤣! I’m going to start using that!
Confusion. Carelessness. Contempt for the law. And a fourth estate that doesn’t report the truth. But nothing to see here…
Interesting observation, I must admit that I too, did not catch the difference. As a result I will remove my Coastal Elite diploma from the wall over my bed for two weeks as an act of penance (I don’t observe Lent). So in addition to being pedos and incompetent this administration is little more than a band of muggers. But wait, the market is over 50,000 so we can forget about all this, on wait, no its not.
Neal Kayak spoke of Sauer’s testimony after winning the case. Nobody else even expounded upon it.
(Spellcheck did you no favor — Neal Katyal 🤦♀️)
Please contact these outlets
This is sloppy journalism that needs to be corrected
Paul Krugman explained the various laws that Trump is trying to use for his new tariffs (taxes). G. Elliott Morris in his Substack, Strength in Numbers, gave the data on just how unpopular Trump's tariffs are with the American people. Now Judd has explained the illegality. It's time to sue the administration yet again.
Will we now have another year in which the conservative Court majority refuses to stay the new illegal tariffs? And while Trump refuses to refund the tariffs already legally collected? You see the problem. Trump's version of Dodgeball -- "Delay, Defer, Duck, Dodge, and Defy" works every time when he has legislative and judicial majorities behind him.
We’ve seen the problem for years.
I think the Section 122 tariffs would first go to the US Court of International Trade like last time. Then depending on the timeframe on to SCOTUS.
According to Center for Foreign Relations, there is precedent for refunding tariffs. “ The Supreme Court’s clean opinion leaves no room to argue that any of the IEEPA tariffs were ever valid. The obligation to pay refunds is well-established, as is the process for obtaining refunds.” (That is way down the page in their discussion under “Next Steps Refund Route” https://www.cfr.org/articles/the-supreme-court-clipped-trumps-tariff-powers-and-opened-new-trade-battle-fronts)
It looks like the courts will be very busy.
Given how the last tariff case turned out, and the difficulty of refunds, perhaps the Supreme Court will think twice about staying the illegal tariffs.
I have a faint hope that the stupid6 are beginning to understand that giving a criminal like Trump a free pass to rampage through the Constitution and our economy was not a rational decision. WE understand it with the help of Judd and others, but when are our so called “leaders” going to get it?
Center for Foreign Relations says there is precedent for returning tariffs and “The obligation to pay refunds is well-established, as is the process …” They are not referring to consumers but importers on record for paying the tariffs.
Once again Judd gets it right! Lets all look for the media corrections!
Again, very helpful. How do we pressure the major media outlets to do better?