Gotta keep the grift rolling along.

Besides, that is an insult to assholes.

Call them Republicrooks.

Trump charges/changes tariffs capriciously, most often with revenge/coercion, not based on economics.

He calls these ever-increasing taxes on Americans - "revenue".

Last edited Fri May 8, 2026, 07:00 AM - Edit history (1)

German Chancellor Merz makes one statement pointing out that Trump has completely screwed up with the Iran mess and *poof* Trump punishes him m withdrawing 5,000 troops.

are much like.............If you put basketfuls of hand grenades in a room, with a bunch of monkeys, and locked the door.......

Thinking he's more of a rabid bat these days

so tiresome

And he promises he will not do it again.

In a 6-3 ruling on February 20, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down many of Donald Trump's trade tariffs, holding that the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) did not authorize the president to impose tariffs. The Court ruled this was executive overreach, stating that the constitutional power to regulate commerce lies with Congress.

Administration Response: Following the ruling, the administration pivoted to alternate legal justifications, including imposing new tariffs under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974.
—-

Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 empowers the U.S. President to impose temporary, 150-day import restrictions—such as up to 15% tariffs or quotas—to address urgent balance-of-payments deficits, severe dollar depreciation, or international payments instability. Recently, it was invoked in February 2026 to apply 10% tariffs, following judicial limitations on alternative trade authorities.

——

Even the Cato Institute calls BS on Rule 122 saying it’s an anachronism

APRIL 14, 2026 1:57PM
Section 122 Is an Anachronism, Not a License for New Tariffs

The administration’s latest tariff move does not just rest on bad policy. It rests on a concept that no longer fits the world we live in. That is why I joined the economists’ amicus brief challenging the administration’s use of Section 122 in the US Court of International Trade, which can be found here. The core problem is simple: Section 122 was written for a monetary order that has passed. The administration is trying to revive it as if nothing important has changed in the international monetary system since the early 1970s.

https://www.cato.org/blog/section-122-anachronism-not-license-new-tariffs

good luck with that

Tariff's are not legal. His own Supreme Court said so.

Only himself.

how he can raise tariffs when all of his tariffs have been found illegal.

and is in denial of the fact that they are doomed/already dead.

European markets will just look elsewhere for more reliable trading partners.

from Epstein and the Fabulous Fuckup in the Straits of Hormuz