Marie Isabella (@MarieIsabellaB) / X

More Leftist Violence? Several People Rushed to Hospital as Suspicious Package Filled with White Powder and ‘Political Propaganda’ Prompts Evacuation at Joint Base Andrews

Cullen Linebarger

Nov. 7, 2025 9:45 am

7 Comments

Around the World, People Are Pleading With Elon Musk To Send His Space X and Rescue the Chinese Astronauts Stranded in Space

Senator Rand Paul OBJECTS TWICE to Senator John Kennedy’s Proposal to STOP Congressional Pay During Schumer Shutdown

MORE PRAISE FOR TRUMP: Central Asian Leaders Travel to White House, Call Trump: “Great Leader, Statesman Sent by Heaven” and “We Call You President of the World!”

Cristiano Ronaldo Praises Donald Trump as a Leader Capable of Changing the World in Interview with Piers Morgan After Gifting Him a Jersey with a Message of Peace

Treasury Department

SCOTUS Expectations on Trump’s TariffsThe U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments on November 5, 2025, in Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc., challenging President Trump’s use of the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose sweeping global tariffs on nearly all imports (e.g., 10–25% on most countries, higher on adversaries like China). Lower courts ruled these exceeded presidential authority, as tariffs are a congressional power under the Constitution. A decision is expected by early 2026.The case is closely divided, with a “coin toss” likelihood of upholding the tariffs (per legal experts like former Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar). Key factors:

• Pro-uphold arguments: Conservative justices (e.g., Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch) may defer to executive power on national security/foreign policy, viewing tariffs as “regulation” of imports amid threats like trade deficits ($1.2T in 2024), fentanyl trafficking, and migration. Trump appointees Gorsuch and Kavanaugh lean toward broad presidential flexibility; even Justice Kagan (Obama appointee) has shown deference in past cases. Administration officials, including Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, express “confidence” in victory, citing historical precedents like Nixon’s 1971 tariffs.
• Against upholding: Several justices (including conservatives like Roberts and Barrett) expressed skepticism during arguments, questioning if IEEPA allows “taxation” without explicit congressional delegation. Liberals (Sotomayor, Kagan, Jackson) emphasized constitutional limits. Disruptions from refunds ($100B+ collected in 2025) could sway pragmatically, but experts predict 70–80% chance of partial or full strike-down.

A partial win (upholding targeted tariffs on China/Mexico for drugs/migration but striking global ones) is possible, preserving some revenue (~$300B projected by end-2025) and policy leverage.Trump’s Plan BThe White House has prepped contingencies, viewing IEEPA as ideal for speed but not irreplaceable. If struck down, Trump has stated he’ll develop a “game two plan” to reimpose duties quickly, potentially via these statutes (already in groundwork):

• Section 301 (Trade Act of 1974): Targets unfair practices (e.g., IP theft); used against China in Trump’s first term. Allows broad tariffs after investigation (months-long), no time limit.
• Section 232 (Trade Expansion Act of 1962): National security-based (e.g., steel/aluminum); quick but requires Commerce Dept. probe (45–270 days).
• Section 338 (Tariff Act of 1930): Up to 50% on discriminatory countries; no investigation needed, unlimited duration—floated as a direct “Plan B” by Bessent. Untested but potent for leverage.
• Other tools: Section 201 safeguards (injury-based, temporary) or reciprocal tariffs under new executive orders. These could cover 80–90% of current revenue but slow negotiations (e.g., recent China deal).

Refunds to importers would process via Customs (potentially $750B–$1T if delayed), causing short-term chaos, but aides say tariffs “stay in place long-term” under alternatives. Trading partners expect minimal policy shift.