Trump seeks to fuck up the economy even further with raft of new tariffs

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

Trump seeks to close $1.6 trillion revenue gap with raft of new tariffs

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Trump administration this week stepped up its ambitious effort to replace about $1.6 trillion in lost tariff revenue that was eliminated by the Supreme Court's decision to strike down a range of the president's import taxes.

Recovering that lost revenue, which the White House was counting on to help offset the steep, multi-trillion dollar cost of its tax cuts, is possible but will be challenging, experts say. The administration has to use different legal provisions to impose new duties, and those provisions require longer, complex processes that U.S. companies can use to seek exemptions. It could be months or more before it is clear how much revenue the replacement tariffs will yield.

“I wouldn't bet against this administration being able to get back on paper the same effective tariff rate they had before," said Elena Patel, co-director of the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center. But the new approach will “make it easier for people to contest the tariffs, which is going to put a big asterisk on the revenue until all that is settled.”

On Wednesday, U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said the administration will investigate 16 economies — including the European Union — over whether their governments are subsidizing excessive factory capacity in a way that disadvantages U.S. manufacturing. The investigation will also cover China, South Korea, and Japan, Greer said.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/trump-seeks-close-1-6-231946848.html

The inmates are running the asylum.

[dalton99a]

1. And the piece of shit has no intention of returning the money he stole.

[Wiz Imp]

2. $1.6 trillion? WTF?

The total tariff revenue under Trump has been less than $300 billion. It would take at least 5 years to generate $1.6 trillion in tariff revenue. Why is the AP repeating blatantly obvious Trump lies?

[3_Limes]

3. What's with effing tarrifs? why won't he let go of this idiotic obsession??

Any guesses?

[jmowreader]

6. It's simple, really

Trump's entire income tax eradication plan revolves around tariffs replacing 1040s.

[WmChris]

4. Magic money?

This whole tarrif thing seems like counting your chickens before they hatch. Now we need to replace lost tarrifs that were going to replace lost tax income from the richest on the backs of the middle-class. For an added burden we have a ego driven war to pay for on top the lost tarrif and tax income. Maybe when Mexico pays us back for the wall the economy will self heal like the orange one keeps promising.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

5. Deadline Legal Blog-No, the Supreme Court didn't say Trump has 'absolute right to charge TARIFFS' differently

Kavanaugh’s dissent argued that the president’s backup plan might succeed, but the majority didn’t preapprove it.

MSNow : No, the US Supreme Court didn’t say trump has ‘absolute right to charge TARIFFS’ differently

www.ms.now/deadline-whi...

— Joe Public (@joepublic.bsky.social) 2026-03-16T17:05:56.633Z

https://www.ms.now/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-blog/no-the-supreme-court-didnt-say-trump-has-absolute-right-to-charge-tariffs-differently

President Donald Trump complained on Sunday night about some of his legal losses, including last month’s Supreme Court tariffs ruling, which said he didn’t have the power he claimed to have under a law called the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. One of the untrue things he wrote in lengthy Truth Social posts was that the court “pointed out” that he has “the absolute right to charge TARIFFS in another form.”

It’s true that Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s dissent said that “the Court’s decision might not prevent Presidents from imposing most if not all of these same sorts of tariffs under other statutory authorities.” But that musing only represented the view of the three dissenters on the nine-member court: Kavanaugh and Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.

In his majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts stressed that the court wasn’t weighing in on those other authorities.

Roberts wrote in a footnote that Kavanaugh’s dissent “surmises that the President could impose ‘most if not all’ of the tariffs at issue under statutes other than IEEPA.” The chief justice wrote that those other authorities “contain various combinations of procedural prerequisites, required agency determinations, and limits on the duration, amount, and scope of the tariffs they authorize.” Roberts concluded that the court doesn’t “speculate on hypothetical cases not before us.”

So, contrary to the president’s social media complaint, the court didn’t preapprove his tariffing backup plan, which is the subject of new litigation.

The high court could eventually be called on to settle that new litigation, as it did the IEEPA case. But the majority didn’t predetermine the outcome of future litigation in that case.