"the vehicle is imposition of taxes on Americans, and that has always been the core power of Congress. It's been suggested that the tariffs are responsible for significant reduction in our deficit. I would say that's raising revenue domestically,"
"What it doesn't say is the president can raise revenue,"
"When it comes to the trade deficit emergency, if no one ever pays the tariff, but instead they direct their consumption domestically and spur the rebuilding of our hollowed-out manufacturing base, that directly addresses the crisis,"
Supreme Court scrutiny focused on whether presidentially imposed tariffs operate as taxes and thus infringe on Congress's taxation power. The governing statute permits banning imports but does not explicitly authorize raising revenue. The government portrayed the tariffs as regulatory tools to address foreign commerce and the trade deficit, invoking emergency authority and emphasizing domestic consumption and manufacturing rebuilding. The administration argued any revenue is incidental and that the measures succeed even if tariffs are never paid. Critics highlighted statements linking tariffs to deficit reduction and revenue as undermining the purely regulatory rationale.
Read at Axios
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]