Investors reacting to a Federal Trade Court ruling against President Trump's sweeping tariffs. The judge is citing a lack of authority to implement them. What this really shows is that the global deep state is real, this legal, deep state, this is their last line of defense. We have these unelected judges who are trying to force their own will [00:00:19] when it comes to tax policy, trade policy. And really, this shows the battle that we're in between American sovereignty and having the globalist takeover. Yes. Jason Miller, it turns out that in the American political system, there are in fact, some brakes on the car. [00:00:36] And it appears that the courts have now weighed in on Donald Trump's announcement on Liberation Day. Right. The announcement of this widespread trade war that he, you know, intended to engage in with a lot of our trade partners, [00:00:53] a lot of our allies. Then he kind of reneges or temporarily pauses some of these far ranging tariffs, and says that he's going to engage in negotiations to get better terms for the American people and US based companies. Look, it's been pretty chaotic. [00:01:10] And as I've said many times before, I'm not necessarily against targeted tariffs if they're well thought out and doesn't actually end up hurting Americans through inflation. However, a three judge panel on the Court of International Trade, I bet [00:01:27] you didn't even know that court existed. But it does. The Court of International Trade has dealt a severe blow to the Trump administration's trade wars. They made a ruling that was announced last night, essentially blocking the implementation of his sweeping tariffs. [00:01:43] However, an appeals court later weighed in and already temporarily paused the ruling by the Court of International Trade. But before we give you the details of that, I want to get to the original decision first. [00:02:00] Okay. So this is the original decision coming from the Court of International Trade. So here's the court's reasoning. Trump had used the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to enact these so-called Liberation Day tariffs. [00:02:17] Now, the 1977 law does grant the president emergency powers over the economy. Trump pointed to the trade deficit that the United States has run each year since 1975 as the emergency justifying his [00:02:34] sweeping tariffs and his citation of this Emergency Economic Powers Act in order to be able to implement those sweeping tariffs. Now, he also cited illegal immigration and fentanyl trafficking to justify additional tariffs on some of our closest trade partners, including [00:02:50] Canada, Mexico and China as well. But the judges, one of whom, by the way, is a Trump appointee, did not agree that the law applied in this instance. Okay. The Emergency Economic Powers Act does not apply in this instance. [00:03:07] So the court noted that the Ieepa says the president may only use his emergency powers to deal with an unusual and extraordinary threat with respect to which a national emergency has been declared. So Trump would turn around and say, well, there has been a national emergency, [00:03:26] the fentanyl and, you know, the drug trafficking and the trade deficit. I think the trade deficit is an emergency. That's what he would argue. But the court's not buying that. They also said the law didn't give him unlimited power to levy tariffs. [00:03:42] The president's assertion of tariff making authority in the instant case, unbounded as it is by any limitation in duration or scope, exceeds any tariff authority delegated to the president under Ieepa. [00:03:59] The worldwide and retaliatory tariffs are thus contrary to law. So that was their argument and their reasoning. And look, I gotta say it just the way Trump has gone about these tariffs [00:04:15] and the way he just kind of like pulls back and then threatens the tariffs again, then pulls back and then threatens them again. It just feels as though there's some market manipulation going on. You know when you have the president of the United States essentially telling people, hey, might be a good time to buy stocks. [00:04:34] And I get that people love that, because if you trust the president and you decided to take his advice and buy stocks, the last time he told you to buy stocks, well, you made some money in the stock market. So I get people who are like, Anna, shh. Just let him do what he's doing. Let him cook. [00:04:51] No, I don't want to let him cook. That's not okay. Okay. Manipulating the markets in that way opens up a can of worms that we should all be super uncomfortable with. And so that really made me question whether Trump is really worried about the trade deficit or if he sees this as an opportunity to engage [00:05:08] in market manipulation and essentially, you know, maybe even do some pump and dump schemes that, obviously, I'm very much against. Now, the judge has said that the Constitution gives Congress, not the president, the authority to impose tariffs under most circumstances. [00:05:26] So, look, Trump did do targeted tariffs in his first term. And look, for the most part, there were some issues with those tariffs. I mean, American farmers were harmed to some extent, which is why Trump took the, you know, revenue that the federal government raised through those tariffs [00:05:44] and helped to subsidize our farmers. So there were some issues with those tariffs. However, on the whole, the targeted tariffs toward China were actually very successful. The Biden administration kept them in place and even expanded upon them. [00:06:00] So those targeted tariffs did not run up against the courts at all. What he's doing now with these wide ranging sweeping tariffs, obviously, according to this court, brings up a pretty big problem. And he doesn't have the power to unilaterally do this. [00:06:16] You would need Congress to weigh in. And they argued that the limited conditions that would allow Trump to act alone, had not been met. Okay. So the court also shot down Trump's justification for the fentanyl tariffs, or implementing tariffs as a result of fentanyl trafficking, [00:06:35] which was that the tariffs will, you know, create leverage to get other countries to crack down on the drug trade. So the ingredients for the fentanyl that's sweeping across the country and causing a lot of damage. Well, it's sourced from China. [00:06:52] The drug is made in Mexico and then, I guess, brought across the border. That's the argument that the Trump administration is making. But under EPA, the judges wrote the tariff must directly deal with the emergency a president cites when imposing the tariff. [00:07:09] The fentanyl tariffs do not directly address the drug trade. The judges wrote, but instead merely attempt to create economic pressure within other countries. And it also feels as though after he made his announcement on Liberation Day, he just tried to justify those sweeping tariffs after the fact [00:07:28] by throwing anything he could at the wall. Oh, it's the fentanyl. Oh, it's the trade deficit. To be fair, he's complained about the trade deficit from the jump. But, you know, it just seemed like he tried to use things like the drug trade to make justifications for his sweeping tariffs after the fact. [00:07:47] Now the. The decision was issued across two cases. So one was filed by a group of small businesses which obviously are going to be hurt if these tariffs are enacted. Because a lot of what they sell at their stores or some of the parts [00:08:03] that they need for what they manufacture comes from foreign countries. Another was, a case that was filed by 12 Democratic attorneys general. So what the ruling applies to is what we should talk about next, because the Trade Court's decision applies to the reciprocal 10% tariffs [00:08:22] that Trump imposed on all foreign products, which is a big deal. By the way, the fact that the court struck that down is a huge deal. And the additional tariffs he imposed on China, Mexico and Canada, those were also impacted by this court's ruling. [00:08:38] Other targeted tariffs on steel, aluminum and cars were, were imposed under a separate law. Okay. Not the emergency law, a separate law. And therefore will remain in place. So it appears that the court's big issue. [00:08:53] Here is the fact that in order to justify the reciprocal 10% tariffs and the additional tariffs on some of our closest trade partners, like he justified it by citing this emergency act. And the court is saying that emergency act just does not apply. [00:09:09] You have not made a good case for why you believe that that emergency act applies to these tariffs. Now, the white House was ordered to take measures within ten days to remove the tariffs in order to comply with this court's ruling, but the Trump administration is already fighting back. [00:09:24] The white House immediately responded by rejecting the court's authority. White House spokesperson. Wow. His name is Kush. Kush, DC, said in a statement. It is not for unelected judges to decide how to properly address [00:09:41] a national emergency. But. But Kush. But Kush. He did not make a good case for a national emergency. That's the point. Okay, he. You can't. It's like Michael Scott just declaring bankruptcy. [00:09:56] You don't declare bankruptcy by screaming, I declare bankruptcy, okay? You have to. Actually, in the case of Donald Trump, you can't just say, oh, it's an emergency, and therefore I get to do what I want. You have to prove that there's an emergency and that what you're doing applies to the emergency that you're citing. [00:10:16] And he just hasn't really done that. But let's put that quote back up. Let's let's hear more from Kush. Who says President Trump pledged to put America first. And the administration is committed to using every lever of executive power to address this crisis and restore American greatness. [00:10:33] Okay, so that statement doesn't really tell you anything, but it does repeat a common talking point that you will hear from Trump's defenders about how, oh, these are unelected judges, okay. These are federal judges who are appointed by elected presidents [00:10:49] and confirmed by the Senate. And we have a system of government in which you don't have a king that gets to do everything he wants to do unilaterally. We have a system of checks and balances, which I would venture to say, the right wingers who defend Trump and say that he should just ignore the judges. [00:11:08] They probably won't say the same thing. If you have a Democrat in the white House who tries to unilaterally abuse his power the way that you're seeing right now with the Trump administration in regard to these, you know, far reaching tariffs. Now, the Department of Justice on Thursday requested a stay, [00:11:27] saying it's needed to avoid immediate, irreparable harm to United States foreign policy and national security. And this afternoon, a federal appeals court did agree to temporarily pause the ruling until at least June 9th, [00:11:43] so the court ordered that both sides provide written arguments on the question of blocking Trump's tariffs, and it is possible that the case could end up before the Supreme Court. A very curious to see what would happen if it does actually land [00:11:58] in the Supreme Court. Now, remember, the Supreme Court has ruled against Trump. Previously, they ruled against Donald Trump in regard to his unlawful deportation of Abrego Garcia. And they said that he needs to facilitate his return back to the United States. [00:12:16] And one thing that I know for sure when it comes to this Supreme Court is, yes, it definitely is slanted as socially conservative, but this is also a very pro corporate Supreme Court. I mean, the Federalist Society, which handpicks the conservative justices [00:12:34] and recommends them to a Republican president, as they did with Donald Trump. First and foremost, look for candidates who would be very much in favor of protecting corporate interests above anything else. And so in this case, these tariffs obviously would hurt, [00:12:50] some US based corporations, that would rely on cheap labor abroad or would need to import parts for products they manufacture here in the United States. So I wouldn't be surprised if the Supreme Court ruled against him in this case, if it does, in fact make its way to the Supreme Court. [00:13:09] And while the Trade Court's ruling was certainly a major blow to Trump's signature policies, there are other routes for him to take, to pursue these tariffs. So various other laws do grant the president power, to intervene on trade policy, though in a slower and more limited way. [00:13:27] And one thing we know about Trump is he's not interested in slower or more limited. He just wants to go full steam ahead without really thinking much about the consequences or ramifications of what he's doing now. It sounds like good news, but Trump has various other mechanisms to invoke tariffs [00:13:43] or have leverage in trade negotiations. It's just the speed of their rollout will be weeks, months rather than immediately, as he did with the EPA. That's the emergency act. Now, Trump did freak out at reporters on this issue. [00:14:01] So he's been having a rough week when it comes to trade policy. And the court's decision barring his tariffs from going into effect comes one day after a reporter basically triggered Trump by asking him about Wall Street's reaction to his policies. Take a look. [00:14:17] Mr. President, Wall Street analysts have coined a new term called the taco trade. They're saying Trump always chickens out on your tariff threats. And that's why markets are higher this week. - What's your response to that? - I kick out chicken out. Oh isn't that nice. Chicken out I've never heard that. [00:14:33] You mean because I reduced China from 145% that I set down to 100 and then down to another number, and I said, you have to open up your whole country. And because I, I gave the European Union a 50% tax tariff and they called up and [00:14:52] they said, please, let's meet right now. Please, let's meet right now. You call that chickening out? Six months ago, this country was stone cold dead. We had a dead country. We had a country. People didn't think it was going to survive. And you ask a nasty question like that? [00:15:08] It's called negotiation. But don't ever say what you said. That's a nasty question. Go ahead. Mr. President, to me, that's the nastiest question. You heard it here first, folks. You know, up until recently, this country was stone cold dead. [00:15:26] I don't even know what that means. But look, I want to understand. Like what? The people who? The people over at Wall Street that are accusing Trump of being a chicken. Like, what do you want? Are you trying to, like, goad the guy into being even more extreme [00:15:41] in his trade policies, which obviously hurts the stock market? I don't get it, I really don't. I get that people want to insult Trump. Like that's really what's behind calling him a chicken. But did they maybe consider that by calling him chicken [00:15:58] and clowning on him for pulling back on some of his trade policies that would maybe encourage him to double down, triple down, do things that are even more extreme. Like, what are you guys doing? And look, I think tariffs should be considered [00:16:13] in some cases in some instances. But now because of the chaos of this whole situation, I've said this before, I'll say it again. It has soured pretty much every American on the whole notion of tariffs, you know, except for maybe Trump's closest allies, [00:16:29] his biggest offenders who would turn around and trash tariffs if Trump did the same. But for people who might have been a little more open minded toward targeted tariffs. Not anymore. Right. Because it's left a very sour taste in people's mouths, [00:16:44] a bitter taste in people's mouths because of how chaotic this has all been, because of the uncertainty of the, you know, economic consequences of it. It's just dumb. I just wish that he was more targeted, a little smarter about this, and approached this in a more strategic way, kind of similar to what he did in his first term. [00:17:03] But obviously that wasn't the case in his second term. So there you have it. We'll tell you how this story develops, but for now, there is a temporary stay on that court's decision to block Trump's tariff policies. We're going to find out in early June how the Trump administration is going to [00:17:20] proceed, based on what the courts decide. Every time you ring the bell below, an angel gets its wings. Totally not true, but it does keep you updated on our live shows.