Trump Tariffs Cancelled: Impact on U.S. Trade, Consumer Prices & Global Markets Explained

USA Trends Now 🇺🇸||USA Pulse Network 🌐|US Viral

Trump Tariffs Cancelled: Impact on U.S. Trade, Consumer Prices & Global Markets Explained   **Trump Tariffs Cancelled: Impact on U.S. Trade, Consumer Prices & Global Markets Explained**  ---  ## ✅ Meta Description  **Trump cancels tariffs — what it means for U.S. trade, consumer prices, and global markets. Explore the full analysis, impacts, and future outlook.** (154 characters)  ---  ## ✅ Hashtags (trending + relevant)  \#TrumpTariffs #USTrade #GlobalMarkets #Inflation #EconomyNews #TradeWar #StockMarket #TariffUpdate #USPolitics #WorldEconomy  ---  ## ✅ SEO Keywords  ### Long-Tail Keywords  * what does Trump cancelling tariffs mean for U.S. economy * impact of Trump tariff removal on global trade and inflation * how cancelled tariffs will affect American consumer prices * Trump tariffs cancelled 2025 latest news and analysis * global stock market reaction to Trump ending tariffs  ### Mid-Tail Keywords  * Trump tariffs cancelled news * U.S. trade policy changes * impact of tariffs on consumer prices * global markets after U.S. tariff removal * U.S. economy and trade relations  ### Short-Tail Keywords  * Trump tariffs * U.S. trade * global markets * consumer prices * trade war  Trump tariffs, trade war, U.S. economy, China trade, supply chain, inflation, 2025 policy, global markets

Transcript

00:00President Trump's tariffs just got hit with their biggest threat yet, not from foreign governments or angry CEOs, but from a federal judge with a copy of the Constitution.

00:11Recently, the Court of International Trade dropped a bombshell ruling that could unravel Trump's most aggressive tariffs.

00:19And the Supreme Court has agreed to fast-track the appeal in a constitutional showdown that could refund billions in tariff revenue and send markets soaring or hand Trump unlimited trade war powers.

00:35My name is Guy, and you're watching The Coin Bureau.

00:38First things first, though, none of this is financial or legal advice.

00:41It's just educational content intended to inform you about the court showdown that could cancel Trump's tariffs.

00:48If that sounds like stuff you want to know about, then smash that like button, subscribe, and ping the notification bell so you don't miss the next video.

00:56So then, two federal courts just called BS on Trump's tariffs.

01:02First, the Court of International Trade, and then the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit,

01:08ruled that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act doesn't let presidents impose tariffs just by shouting emergency.

01:16The administration immediately appealed and asked the Supreme Court to fast-track the case.

01:23The court agreed, and now it looks like we'll have a decision by early 2026.

01:28And all of this has put Treasury Secretary Scott Besant in quite a pickle.

01:33That's because, since February, thousands of importers have been paying these tariffs,

01:39raking in a cash mountain of at least $159 billion so far, money that Besant may now have to refund.

01:49If the Supreme Court upholds this ruling, every company that has paid Trump's emergency tariffs since February,

01:56from toy companies to tech giants, gets their money back.

02:00With interest.

02:02Besant is already calling this, quote,

02:04the largest unplanned government expenditure in modern history.

02:09And his estimate of the bill is multiples higher than the tariff revenue to date,

02:15due to the court's deadlines.

02:17$750 billion to $1 trillion in refunds by mid-2026.

02:24That's nothing compared to Trump's forecast, though.

02:26He says that a court ruling against him would, quote,

02:30literally destroy the United States of America.

02:33So, clearly, the stakes are high.

02:36On a more positive note, the Yale Budget Lab calculates that killing Trump's tariffs

02:41would drop their inflationary impact from 1.7% to 0.5%,

02:46saving American households as much as $1,600 annually.

02:50The catch is, of course, that companies, not consumers, would get those tariff refunds.

02:57Americans who already paid higher prices get nothing but buyer's remorse.

03:02But if Trump wins in the Supreme Court, he gets unlimited emergency trade powers.

03:09No congressional approval needed.

03:11Just declare an emergency, impose tariffs, repeat.

03:15It's the kind of executive power that would make Nixon jealous.

03:19Now, while the courts debate constitutionality,

03:23Trump's tariff machine keeps grinding away.

03:27This machine technically consists of two components.

03:30The first is the trafficking tariffs,

03:33those targeting China, Mexico, and Canada,

03:36supposedly over fentanyl and immigration.

03:39Trump justified these using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act,

03:44i.e. EPA, claiming drug trafficking and immigration constitute national emergencies

03:50requiring immediate economic warfare in the form of taxes.

03:54These are the tariffs on trial at the Supreme Court.

03:58The second component is the reciprocal tariffs.

04:02You'll remember Trump nuking global markets back in April

04:05when he unveiled these tariffs on a novelty-sized cardboard sign.

04:09Now, these tariffs target basically everything from everywhere,

04:13with special punishment rates for countries Trump doesn't like.

04:17They are far more extensive than the trafficking tariffs,

04:20but the administration is using a different legal justification

04:24that isn't being challenged in this case.

04:26Whatever their constitutional fate will be,

04:30both sets of tariffs have already left their mark, though.

04:34February and March saw $430 billion worth of Chinese imports hit with new rates.

04:41Then, on the 7th of August, the reciprocal tariffs kicked in,

04:45with rates of up to 41% charged on imports from 62 countries.

04:50The really devastating tariffs, like the comical 145% tax on imports from China,

04:57have been delayed until November.

05:00This has basically become the administration's signature move.

05:04Announce massive tariffs, pause them for negotiations, rinse and repeat.

05:09They did it with the EU in May and July, and with Mexico multiple times.

05:14Then, on the 8th of August,

05:16they pushed China's higher rates out 90 days to the 10th of November.

05:22And, just three weeks later,

05:24a federal appeals court declared those very tariffs illegal.

05:29One thing led to another,

05:30and now the case is in the express lane at the Supreme Court.

05:34With arguments beginning just days before the biggest tariffs kick in,

05:38importers are in the uncomfortable position of paying massive new taxes,

05:43while the government is still figuring out whether they're even legal.

05:48As most of you will know,

05:49markets hate uncertainty more than they hate bad news,

05:53and right now, they're drowning in uncertainty.

05:56Corporate bonds are getting hammered,

05:58as companies can't price in costs that might disappear or double,

06:03depending on nine justices' opinions.

06:06Meanwhile, supply chain managers report

06:08that it's impossible to sign contracts

06:10when you don't know if your imports will cost 10% more

06:13or 100% more in three months' time.

06:17The financial media have taken to calling them

06:20Schrodinger's tariffs,

06:21simultaneously devastating and non-existent,

06:25until the Supreme Court opens the box.

06:28Meanwhile, U.S. agriculture is getting crushed from left and right.

06:32The USDA documented $27 billion in export losses

06:37just from retaliatory tariffs in Trump's first trade war in 2018.

06:42Now, farmers are experiencing déjà vu,

06:45paying Trump's import taxes on fertilizer and equipment

06:48while suffering the brunt of retaliatory tariffs on their exports.

06:53Then there's consumer electronics.

06:56The U.S. Consumer Technology Association

06:58warns that while major items like smartphones and laptops

07:02were granted last-minute exemptions,

07:04many other devices were not.

07:06Gaming consoles, smart speakers, digital cameras

07:09and a wide array of critical components

07:11used in manufacturing consumer electronics

07:14are about to become a whole lot more expensive to import,

07:18compressing margins across the entire sector.

07:22It's the place to be when you're in need

07:31of amazing crypto deals and opportunities.

07:35It's got savings that you won't believe,

07:38like money off those pesky trading fees.

07:41It's the Coin Bureau Deals page.

07:43Sign up bonuses and discounts too.

07:47The Coin Bureau Deals page.

07:50We put these deals together just for you.

07:53Just for you.

07:55Now, about the constitutional conundrum.

07:59In case it wasn't clear enough,

08:00the International Emergency Economic Powers Act

08:03was never meant to be used to impose tariffs arbitrarily.

08:07The IEEPA, passed in 1977,

08:10gives presidents power to freeze assets

08:13and block transactions during genuine emergencies.

08:17So, think Iranian hostage crisis,

08:19not China sells us too many toasters.

08:22The administration's legal case

08:24is built on a very broad reading

08:26of the word regulate as it appears in this law.

08:30The law specifies that after declaring a national emergency,

08:34presidents may, quote,

08:37investigate, regulate, direct and compel,

08:40nullify, void, prevent or prohibit

08:42any acquisition, holding, withholding,

08:45use, transfer, withdrawal, transportation,

08:47importation or exportation of

08:49or dealing in or exercising any right,

08:52power or privilege with respect to

08:54any property in which any foreign country

08:57or a national thereof has any interest.

09:00What a mouthful.

09:02Anyway, the Court of Appeals was not impressed

09:05with the administration's reading of the law

09:07and put it bluntly,

09:09using IEEPA for permanent tariffs

09:12transforms emergency powers into a general license

09:15to regulate the entire United States economy,

09:18which is a big no-no.

09:21The federal circuit wasn't buying it either.

09:23Their majority opinion read, quote,

09:26IEEPA's grant of presidential authority

09:29to regulate imports does not authorize

09:32the tariffs imposed by the executive orders.

09:35Trump's interpretation, the opinion said,

09:38would create, quote,

09:39a functionally limitless delegation

09:41of congressional taxation authority

09:43and mean there is, quote,

09:46no judicially enforceable limiting principle

09:48on presidential power.

09:50Indeed, no president in the IEEPA's 48-year history

09:55has tried anything remotely like this.

09:58Yes, previous presidents have used it

10:00to stretch their powers to the limit,

10:03permanently sanctioning, freezing transactions

10:05and seizing the assets of anyone they can get away

10:08with calling a terrorist or a hostile nation.

10:11But importantly, those powers were prohibitions,

10:14telling people what they can't do.

10:16Trump is using the IEEPA to make people pay the government

10:21for doing something that's otherwise legal.

10:24It's the difference between saying

10:26you can't buy Russian weapons

10:28and saying tip me 50%

10:30every time you buy something from Temu.

10:33As the federal circuit court pointed out,

10:35the IEEPA conspicuously omits any explicit authority

10:40for the president to, quote,

10:42lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises.

10:45Even Trump's lawyers couldn't cite a single example

10:50of the IEEPA having been used to create a revenue stream.

10:54When your legal precedent is

10:56nobody's ever been crazy enough to try this,

10:59you might have a bit of a problem.

11:01Then there's the non-delegation problem,

11:04which will be even harder

11:05for government lawyers to wriggle out of.

11:08The Constitution says Congress, not the president,

11:11gets to tax.

11:12It's right there in Article 1, Section 8, quote,

11:17The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes,

11:20duties, imposts and excises.

11:23Judge Jimmy Rayner argued that even if the IEEPA

11:27could be read to authorize tariffs,

11:30such a reading would violate the non-delegation doctrine,

11:33which forbids Congress from just handing its own powers

11:36to another branch of government.

11:38Another federal judge called Trump's use of the law

11:41an unconstitutional delegation

11:43that would let presidents, quote,

11:45exercise a power the Constitution vests exclusively in Congress.

11:50The Congressional Research Service has chimed in, too,

11:53noting that the whole point of the IEEPA

11:56was to rein in the executive,

11:58which had for decades run amok,

12:00claiming near-limitless emergency powers.

12:02Congress passed the IEEPA in 1977

12:06specifically because they were fed up

12:09with presidents pulling crazy stunts

12:11and getting away with them

12:12under a loophole in the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917.

12:17The last straw for lawmakers

12:19was when President Nixon killed the gold standard,

12:22froze prices and wages,

12:24and, yes, imposed tariffs,

12:26all without consulting Congress.

12:28Congress said never again

12:30and decided to replace the blank check

12:32of the Trading with the Enemy Act

12:34with a specific limited list of powers

12:37under the IEEPA.

12:39Yet here goes Trump using the never-again law

12:42to do it all over again.

12:45The irony may have escaped the White House,

12:47but the judiciary has a longer memory.

12:50So the Supreme Court will hear arguments

12:53the first week of November

12:54and everyone is trying to read the tea leaves.

12:57The administration is sending in its big gun,

13:00Solicitor General D. John Sauer.

13:03He's using a strategy

13:04that can best be described as a hostage situation.

13:08First, he makes the obvious claim

13:10that regulate means

13:12whatever President Trump wants it to mean.

13:15But then he drops the real threat.

13:17Strike down these tariffs

13:19and you'll cause, quote,

13:21catastrophic economic consequences

13:23and, quote,

13:24irrevocably disrupt,

13:26highly impactful, sensitive,

13:28ongoing diplomatic trade negotiations.

13:31Basically, he's telling nine justices

13:33that if they follow the Constitution,

13:35they'll crash the economy.

13:37Say, that's a nice separation of powers

13:40you've got there.

13:41It'd be a shame if someone respected it.

13:43As for the court,

13:44it currently has a 6-3 conservative majority,

13:48but this doesn't tell the whole story.

13:50That's because this isn't a standard left-right issue.

13:54It's about how much power

13:55presidents should have versus Congress.

13:58The court's conservatives are split

14:00between those who champion executive power,

14:03like Judges Alito and Thomas,

14:05and those more concerned

14:06about constitutional structure,

14:08like Gorosh and sometimes Barrett.

14:11The liberals will almost certainly vote

14:13to strike down the tariffs,

14:15not necessarily because they hate Trump,

14:17but because they consistently opposed

14:20expansive readings of emergency powers.

14:23So, the swing votes are Roberts and Kavanaugh,

14:27and recent history suggests

14:29they're skeptical of executive overreach.

14:32Just last year, Roberts authored a landmark opinion

14:35stripping federal agencies of their power

14:38to interpret vague laws,

14:40returning that authority to the courts.

14:42That was a major blow to executive power,

14:45and a clear signal that Roberts believes

14:48that judges, not the president's administration,

14:51should decide what laws mean.

14:53Kavanaugh, meanwhile,

14:54has repeatedly invoked

14:56the major questions doctrine

14:57to strike down executive actions

14:59lacking clear congressional authorization.

15:03Both justices have shown

15:04they care more about separation of powers

15:07than partisan outcomes.

15:09So, you can expect the major questions doctrine

15:12to be invoked again

15:13to argue that if lawmakers wanted

15:15to hand the president power

15:16to reshape the entire economy through tariffs,

15:19well, they'd have said so explicitly.

15:22They wouldn't have buried it

15:23in a 1977 emergency power statute

15:26like some Easter egg

15:27for the president to discover later.

15:29The Federal Circuit Court already noted

15:31that imposing tariffs

15:33worth hundreds of billions annually

15:35is exactly the kind of vast economic

15:38and political significance

15:39that requires clear congressional authorization.

15:43On this point,

15:44the administration's defense

15:45boils down to

15:46emergency means whatever we say it means.

15:50Their lawyers argue

15:51drug trafficking and immigration

15:52constitute ongoing national emergencies

15:55justifying drastic economic measures

15:58by the executive.

15:59When judges asked why these tariffs

16:01couldn't continue forever

16:03under this logic,

16:04government lawyers essentially said,

16:06trust us.

16:07Now, the closest precedent

16:09is Youngstown Sheet and Tube

16:12versus Sawyer from 1952

16:14when President Truman

16:15tried to seize steel mills

16:18during the Korean War

16:19claiming national security.

16:21The court slapped him down six to three

16:24ruling that emergencies

16:25don't let presidents ignore

16:27Congress's explicit constitutional powers.

16:30Kavanaugh has cited Youngstown

16:32favorably multiple times.

16:35If he sees Trump's tariffs

16:36as Truman's steel grab reloaded,

16:39that's bad news for the administration.

16:42Now, the immediate procedural question

16:44is whether the court issues a stay,

16:47pausing tariff collection

16:48while they decide.

16:50The Federal Circuit

16:50explicitly refused to stay its ruling,

16:53letting tariffs continue

16:55despite finding them illegal.

16:57The Supreme Court could reverse that,

16:59immediately stopping collections

17:01and letting Americans import stuff

17:03without the government fleecing them.

17:05Or they could let the tariffs continue,

17:08allowing potentially illegal taxes

17:10to accumulate

17:10while they deliberate.

17:12Either choice has massive consequences.

17:16Now, most court watchers

17:17expect a decision by early 2026,

17:20lightning speed for the Supreme Court,

17:23but an eternity for businesses

17:24trying to plan.

17:25As of mid-September,

17:28betting markets are saying

17:29that the tariffs get struck down,

17:31though prediction markets

17:32have been spectacularly wrong before.

17:35What's clear is, though,

17:36that this case will define

17:37presidential power for generations

17:40because either Congress

17:41controls the money

17:42or the president can tax by decree.

17:46There is no middle ground.

17:48And now, let's take a look

17:50at how these two scenarios

17:51might play out.

17:52If the Supreme Court

17:54slaps down the use

17:55of the IEEPA for tariffs,

17:57then the refund process alone

18:00could break the government.

18:02Thousands of importers

18:03filing claims,

18:05each requiring shipment documentation,

18:07duty receipts,

18:08entry forms.

18:09Customs and Border Protection

18:11would need years

18:12to process it all.

18:13And Wall Street

18:14is already scheming up ways

18:16to make money out of all of this.

18:19Trade lawyers and hedge funds

18:20are setting up special-purpose vehicles

18:22to feast on what could be

18:24the greatest arbitrage play in history.

18:27Here's the plan.

18:28Company paid $100 million in tariffs

18:31they might get back in three years.

18:33Fund offers them $75 million cash today.

18:37Company takes the haircut

18:39because they need liquidity now.

18:41Fund waits,

18:43collects the full $100 million

18:44plus interest from the Treasury.

18:47It's factoring receivables,

18:48except the receivable is

18:50the government stole our money

18:52and a court said give it back.

18:54Pure arbitrage.

18:55Zero risk if the Supreme Court

18:57already ruled the tariffs illegal.

19:00For importers,

19:01it's choosing recouping cash

19:03at a loss today

19:04or potentially waiting years

19:06for the government

19:07to process a refund.

19:09For funds,

19:09it's printing money

19:11off of a constitutional crisis.

19:13And should the tariffs be cancelled,

19:16markets would likely explode

19:18upwards just on the removal

19:20of uncertainty.

19:22Every company that was affected

19:23by the trafficking tariffs

19:25sees immediate margin expansion

19:27and the Federal Reserve

19:29could cut rates

19:30with the inflation pressure gone.

19:33Also,

19:33every trade deal

19:35Trump negotiated

19:35using tariff threats

19:37becomes worthless.

19:39The EU,

19:40Japan,

19:41even Canada,

19:41they all signed

19:43agreements under duress.

19:45Remove the gun from their heads

19:46and why on earth

19:47would they sign

19:48highly disadvantageous trade deals?

19:51European negotiators

19:52are literally already drafting

19:54renegotiation demands

19:55for if the tariffs fall.

19:58So,

19:58the wild card

19:59then becomes

20:00what does Trump

20:01do to maintain

20:02the coercion

20:03underpinning

20:04all of these trade deals?

20:05It could be

20:06simply to cook up

20:07another legal justification

20:09for these tariffs

20:10or it could be

20:12an even uglier

20:13form of arm twisting.

20:15Now,

20:15with all that said,

20:16if the Supreme Court

20:17happens to validate

20:18the IEEPA

20:19as a tariff tool,

20:21Trump not only gets

20:22to keep

20:23his emergency tariffs,

20:24he gets

20:25unlimited power

20:26to tax

20:26and wage

20:27economic warfare

20:28by decree.

20:30Modelling by

20:30the Tax Foundation

20:31points to a

20:320.8%

20:33permanent GDP loss

20:35and 800,000

20:37jobs gone

20:37if the tariffs

20:38are allowed

20:39to go as planned.

20:40The Congressional Budget Office

20:42projects GDP growth

20:44cratering,

20:45unemployment hitting

20:464.5%

20:47and inflation

20:48stuck at 3.1%

20:50largely thanks

20:51to the tariff chaos.

20:53Trump proponents,

20:54meanwhile,

20:55claim they will

20:55reduce deficits

20:57by $3.3 trillion

20:58over a decade,

21:00but that's before

21:01counting how many

21:02businesses fail

21:03and stop paying taxes

21:05because they've

21:06filed for bankruptcy.

21:08With permanent

21:08tariffs validated,

21:10retaliation becomes

21:11permanent too,

21:12crushing many

21:13US exporters.

21:15You can expect

21:16a swift

21:17international response

21:18from the EU,

21:19which is already

21:20preparing defensive

21:21trade measures,

21:22and China,

21:23which is already

21:24de-risking

21:25from its dependence

21:26on US markets.

21:27And once this

21:29constitutional precedent

21:30exists,

21:31you can't put it

21:32back in the bottle.

21:33As the Federal Circuit

21:34put it,

21:35there'd be

21:35no judicially

21:37enforceable

21:38limiting principle

21:39on presidential power.

21:41That means

21:42any president,

21:43any party,

21:44any time,

21:45just say the magic word

21:46emergency

21:47and start taxing.

21:49Budget deficit?

21:50Emergency.

21:51Unemployment?

21:52Emergency.

21:53Too many people

21:54buying Korean cars?

21:55Emergency.

21:56The constitutional requirement

21:58that Congress

21:59approves all taxes?

22:01Dead.

22:01So,

22:02there it is.

22:03In a few weeks' time,

22:05nine justices

22:06will decide

22:07whether a federal judge

22:08with a copy

22:09of the Constitution

22:09was right to call BS

22:11on Trump's

22:12emergency tariffs.

22:14They'll determine

22:14if massive tariff payments

22:16flow back to importers

22:18or if presidents

22:19get a permanent

22:20break glass

22:22for taxes button.

22:23Markets will either

22:24rally on certainty

22:25or brace for escalation.

22:28Trade partners

22:29will either

22:29renegotiate everything

22:30or prepare

22:31for permanent

22:32economic warfare.

22:34The courtroom drama

22:35of the decade

22:36is about to get underway.

22:39And while you're waiting

22:40for that November hearing,

22:41why not find out

22:42which cryptos

22:43Trump's team

22:44will be clinging to

22:45when stuff starts

22:46hitting the fan?

22:47You'll find that story

22:48over here.

22:49That's all from me

22:50for now though,

22:50so as always,

22:51thank you for watching

22:52and I'll see you next time.

22:54This is Guy

22:54over and out.

Category

Transcript

Be the first to comment

Recommended