Here's a gift link to access it if you don't have a subscription:<p><a href="https://www.wsj.com/politics/policy/judge-orders-government-to-begin-refunding-more-than-130-billion-in-tariffs-fdc1e62c?st=r8gwJt&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink" rel="nofollow">https://www.wsj.com/politics/policy/judge-orders-government-...</a>
Cantor Fitzgerald, formerly led by Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and is now run by his son, went to various companies that were affected by tariffs and bought the rights to their potential tariff refunds for 20% of the value on the expectation that it'd be struck down by the courts.<p>Now they stand to make huge returns of 3 to 5x for being correct on that bet, while, of course, consumers get nothing. Now if this isn't insider trading (by the literal Commerce Secretary), I don't know what is.
Source? I saw this claim going around but the one actual source supporting the claim was more like “we have the cash to buy them if folks are willing to sell them” and didn’t go any further than that.<p>Via Newsweek, Cantor Fitzgerald has affirmed it “never executed any transactions or taken risk on the legality of tariffs.”<p><a href="https://www.newsweek.com/howard-lutnick-sons-may-make-money-supreme-court-ruling-tariffs-11558345" rel="nofollow">https://www.newsweek.com/howard-lutnick-sons-may-make-money-...</a>
This is contradicted by Cantor Fitzgerald documents obtained by Wired which said "We’ve already put a trade through representing about ~$10 million of IEEPA Rights and anticipate that number will balloon in the coming weeks".<p>- <a href="https://www.wired.com/story/cantor-fitzgerald-trump-tariff-refunds/" rel="nofollow">https://www.wired.com/story/cantor-fitzgerald-trump-tariff-r...</a><p>So we don't really know, someone is lying. I'd prefer to let the congressional investigation play out, but if I had to guess right now I would believe Wired over Cantor Fitzgerald.
[dead]
This is wrong. It's not insider trading. Lutnick didn't have inside information. His son just had a brain. Anyone who read the case knew which way the court was going, it was the least surprising decision ever. Perhaps the only surprising thing is that the court ever heard it.
He presumably did not have access to the court's opinion before it was released, but he did have access to internal White House legal opinions before the tariffs were announced ("Mr. President this is illegal and very likely to be overturned by the courts"), and he obviously had access to the entire federal legal team during the court cases.<p>I can't prove that there was any White House advisory memo before the tariffs were announced, but hypothetically, would this not be considered material nonpublic information? It seems the same as a corporate insider dumping stock because a company lawyer privately told them "we're definitely going to lose this case".
>I can't prove that there was any White House advisory memo before the tariffs were announced, but hypothetically, would this not be considered material nonpublic information?<p>Was the hypothetical "White House advisory memo" produced using any proprietary information? If not, why should it be any different than if I hired a bunch of top lawyers to produce a private report for me?
Because this hypothetical memo was paid for by our tax dollars, not your own private money! That means it belongs to the American people, not individuals for their private gain. Using it for your own gain would be theft from the American public.<p>In this hypothetical case, of course. There is no evidence that such a memo exists. But if it did...
> That means it belongs to the American people, not individuals for their private gain.<p>This is a strong case that there ought not to be any such thing as a secret opinion or confidential advice from the White House OLC - and I agree with that opinion if that's what you're saying.<p>But it doesn't transform the information contained therein to nonpublic.<p>I'm not saying this whole thing wasn't a total scumbag move - it was - but it's not quite the same crime as insider trading.
> But it doesn't transform the information contained therein to nonpublic.<p>The legal opinion itself was non public? If they couldn't use that they would first have to put up the money to pay the legal fees to find out how likely their bet was to pay off.<p>And just to put this in writing too, I would be shocked if we don't find out later that a lot of the volatility was a way for a few people to make a lot of money. You can make a lot of money when there's more volatility. So all the flip flopping on tariffs yes/no might very well be manipulating markets...
Not saying you're wrong, but note that in general attorney-client privilege is kind of important as well.
A travesty, to be sure, but not insider trading.
Yes, because it was produced by the same people that are going to argue the case in court. You can hire the best lawyers in the world but they will still have to speculate on what arguments the government is going to make, and whether there are confidential communications showing evidence that there was some consistent rational justification for the tariffs and not just the president's public posts that leader X was mean to him on the phone so he imposed a tariff.
What a week argument - your still making excuses for this nonsense. Ridiculous.
So a Whitehouse insider is going to get a bunch of tarrif refund money?
Not just a Whitehouse insider, the guy actively doing the policy he was probably being advised was illegal and would be overturned.<p>And also probably one of the guys most pushing for this policy which was probably advised would likely be overturned.<p>Tariff policy is ultimately implemented by the Secretary of Commerce. This isn't some random other staffer in the Whitehouse that heard these policies wouldn't go, it was <i>the guy actively doing it</i> likely stands to make significant financial gains for his actions being found to be illegal.<p>The level of corruption on that is just absolutely mindblowing.
Prediction markets already had it as more likely than not that the court would rule against the tariffs
White House legal opinions aren't any better than other legal opinions. Opinions are not "information".
I understand your position but I disagree. If I were trying to predict whether the government is going to win in court, I think reading what the government's own lawyers think about the case would be valuable. If it were possible to pay for this I think people would, that's why I think it is material. Some random person's opinion is not relevant information, but the opinion of people directly involved in a case is.
Yes it absolutely is valuable to have access to expert opinions and people do pay money to acquire opinions from experts.<p>But expert advice, even if material, is not the same as insider information.
That's fine, to each their own on trying to make predictions. I did try to predict it, did it accurately (along with many others, this wasn't the hardest thing ever), and wouldn't have had any interest in any internal memo.<p>It's a public arena on things like this. I don't think even the justices themselves have "material inside information" until a little ways through the hearing, and people are trying to predict the outcome well before that. On the surface that might sound absurd, but it isn't.
Is a lawyer working on a case allowed to short the stock of his client?<p>Why not?<p>(Hint: it creates a perverse incentive to see your side lose the legal argument for your own personal gain.)<p>And in this case, it's the actual secretary doing it.
The non-publicly known strategy they intend to use in court is “information”
The Lebowski conjecture.
You’re piling speculation on speculation. First of all, there was no such memo saying the tariffs were “very likely to be overturned.” The Supreme Court decision was 7-3, with two Bush appointees voting to uphold the tariffs. The appellate court decision was 7-4, with two Obama appointees and two Bush appointees dissenting. Second of all, there is no evidence that this legal analysis was leaked to Cantor.
Who cares? The Treasury Secretary shouldn't have family profiting off fixing illegal policy the Treasury Secretary enacted. That should never happen. It is wrong, it doesn't explicitly spelled out.
The two answers I'm hearing to my question so far are that either this decision was so obvious that anyone could have predicted it without insider information, or that this was a split decision that the administration could not have predicted ahead of time.<p>You're right that maybe there never was any internal memo, just thought this was funny.
In the business, even the appearance of impropriety is damaging. People who work in finance aren't allowed to trade the same stocks as their company is trading, whether they have any inside info or not. The assumption is that simply by being close to a source of information, you are compromised. The same restrictions should apply to those close to government. By being family, he is compromised by default.
Wrong. People who work in finance (I spent years there) are allowed to trade stocks their company is trading. There is a process to get approval. The equities division at an IB might be trading every single name in the S&P500. If you sit in the investment banking division and that division isn't doing anything related to a name, you are likely to get approval.<p>In this case, the idea that Cantor can't do something because the former head is now in a government job is crazy. No one "in the business" thinks Cantor is suddenly hobbled.
Oh - so the kid went out and he got permission to do this?<p>Where is that? Who approved his request?
> In this case, the idea that Cantor can't do something because the former head is now in a government job is crazy. No one "in the business" thinks Cantor is suddenly hobbled.<p>That's not the idea, and it almost seems like a straw man to be honest. The actual idea is that the current head of Cantor can't do something because he's a direct relative of a high ranking government official whose powers and job duties present a conflict of interest for this specific set of transactions.
Cantor Fitzgerald is an investment bank. Rather than claim a straw man, think about what they do and how it interacts with the administration. Everything they do is heavily regulated. If they couldn't do anything that gave an appearance of a conflict, they literally couldn't do a single thing that makes up their business and would be hobbled.
Almost all companies issuing stock to employees also ban them and their family members and fellow house residents from trading in the same stock to avoid insider style improprieties and the SEC has frequently prosecuted such cases. Wild that congress and WH staff have zero such restrictions even in 2026!
> In the business, even the appearance of impropriety is damaging.<p>It <i>was</i> damaging.<p>In 2015.<p>And then for a bit between 2021 and 2024.<p>Now it's not again.<p>You have to enforce these sorts of gentlemen's agreements. Just saying "it's damaging" isn't enough to actually make it damaging.
>People who work in finance aren't allowed to trade the same stocks as their company is trading, whether they have any inside info or not<p>But the supreme court is a separate branch of government from the executive, so the analogy doesn't really hold. To claim otherwise would require Lutnick playing some 4d chess where he's publicly pro tariffs, but secretly anti-tariffs and was sandbagging the government's legal defense (can he even do that?), all the while not tipping Trump or the MAGA base off for being disloyal.
> It's not insider trading.<p>One might argue it should fall under a <i>different</i> technical label, but whatever label one uses (A) it stinks of corruption and (B) it's only the tip of the iceberg.<p>People entrusted with government authority to do work for the public shouldn't be personally profiting from how they decide to wield that authority. Imagine a policeman that arrests people while <i>placing bets</i> about how long that person will be jailed, what they'll be charged with, or whether they'll be convicted.<p>The objection that "it's unfair, they know something other bettors don't" occurs first not because it's the biggest issue, but because it's easier to prove.<p>The bigger problem is making improper decisions with their work-powers in order to personally profit, a trust and separation which they've <i>already</i> destroyed by placing the bets in the first place.
is it not a conflict of interest if you facilitate the legislation of tarrifs that you knew are illegal?
>if you facilitate the legislation of tarrifs that you knew are illegal?<p>Did they know it was illegal? Any more than say, the Biden administration "knew" that forgiving student loans were illegal?
They literally spent a decent chunk of money spinning up a line of business that could only make money if the tariffs were illegal.
even if they were not sure 100%, the fact that introducing the legislation is connected to him making money is a conflict of interest.
That's not really the comparable here, you need to find a person with vested interest in the outcome of the student loan forgiveness program.* Someone that was working within the agency responsible for the program and actively was in the discussions where the legality was discussed. Then made a scheme to financially get rewarded. Not only that used his son as a way to create the illusion of separation.<p>* And not just a borrower that wouldn't be anywhere similar to this level of conflict.
No, it's not a conflict of interest. It's perhaps dumb, or morally bad, or several other things.
> dumb, or morally bad<p>This is easy to say in hindsight. There was a non-zero chance the decision could have went the other way. Also, companies aren't stupid. They don't buy insurance against things that are impossible.<p>And the supreme court doesn't hear cases that are 100% obviously illegal.
It was non-zero but close to zero.<p>Companies don't want to deal with the headache for many things. It's not a given over what time horizon and how much work is involved to get the refund. It's totally sensible to sell the claim for 70 cents on the dollar for example.<p>The supreme court absolutely hears cases that are obvious. They do it for several reasons - to create clarity, to narrow scope, to set a very clear precedent, and other reasons.
It wasn’t “close to zero.” The Supreme Court split 6-3, with two Trump appointees voting against him. And the Federal Circuit, which is the most boring appellate court and not political at all, split 7-4, with two democratic appointees and two republican appointees voting to uphold the tariffs.<p>This was a case that split both the liberal and conservative blocs. Obama’s former SG, Neal Katyal, went up there and argued for limiting presidential power over the economy. One of the justices quipped about the irony of Katyal’s major contribution to jurisprudence being revitalization of non-delegation doctrine, which has always been a conservative focus.
Did you read the ruling? Read Clarence Thomas's dissent. It's not clear if he <i>actually</i> thinks what he wrote, or he just voted that way so he could write a dissent and make a strange legal point which probably doesn't carry water but sort of maybe could one day maybe.<p>If it were close, I think he would have voted the other way. The folks on the court appear extremely inclined to take the other side on things just as a mental exercise, or to be able to write something on the record that they find interesting.<p>It was close to zero.
Did you read the ruling? And the appellate court decision below?<p>Thomas joined fully with Kavanaugh’s dissent. He wrote separately to articulate his view of the scope of non-delegation doctrine. He pointed out tariffs and taxes are different, in that tariffs implicate international relations, which is primarily within the province of the president. His analysis is extremely cogent. I was actually talking with my wife (we’re both Fed Soc people) that the administration should have pushed that angle much harder in the argument.<p>Did you read the Federal Circuit en banc decision? You don’t get two Obama appointees to vote in favor of the Trump’s administrations unprecedented tariffs when the legal issue “isn’t close.”
Yes, I read them all.<p>And, surely you understand that many see using the due process clause to make his argument was a stretch. Just saying "his analysis is extremely cogent" doesn't make it so.
I think the issue is that someone working in public office had influence to affect that probability, and their relatives stood to gain from it.<p>I don’t know enough about the ethics laws to know if it was strictly illegal, but it does create a smell.<p>Suppose a county engineer has influence on whether oil drilling will be allowed (they don’t make policy but consult those who do), and prior to approval their relatives buy up a lot of land in the area. That engineer may not have been the deciding factor, but it seems like it runs afoul of ethics laws/standards.
They weren't buying insurance. There's no insurance payout for the companies. They got a small amount of money in hand, and lost the chance to reclaim any of the tariff refund. That isn't insurance.<p>Also, the SCOTUS is not a criminal court, it is a constitutional court. If a case is heard there, both sides have not agreed on "obvious illegality". That is unsuprising since in general one side (in this case, the administrative branch of the US Government) is being accused of illegal behavior - when it comes to constitutional rather than criminal questions, most parties do not just accept their guilt, but push as far as they can towards exoneration.<p>Frequently, however to <i>everybody else</i>, the case concerns obvious illegality.
I agree, it's like "reverse insurance". I'm not sure what is the name.<p>In insurance, you pay [-$10] to avoid a potencial negative risk [-$100].<p>Here you get money [+$10] instead of waiting for a potencial positive benefit [+$100].<p>Very slightly related <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_mortgage" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_mortgage</a>
> And the supreme court doesn't hear cases that are 100% obviously illegal.<p>There is an argument in about two months' time as to whether or not the Birthright Citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment actually guarantees birthright citizenship in the US. There is no serious legal argument in favor of the interpretation being advanced by the Trump administration, that it does not. And yet here we are.
It’s sleazy because Lutnick’s son bet against the administration Lutnick was in, and against one of Trump’s signature policies. I’d be furious if I was Trump.
Cool! How much money did you yourself make on this (given that it was entirely obvious, and not leveraging knowledge seems silly)?
A lot. If you remember all the tariff announcements in the first months of 2025, the stock market tanked and it was an easy buy. The market then reasonably quickly realized many of these tariffs weren't going to persist. The payoff was fast, and the reason you didn't see a massive uptick in the market when the ruling came out was because it was already priced in at that point.<p>Just because something isn't obvious to you, it doesn't mean it wasn't obvious to a lot of people.
Why would you assume the parent would have both a betting addiction and enough side money available to make it worthwhile?
What’s happening is that the deal stinks, and people aren’t precisely analyzing exactly why it stinks so they’re just using it to confirm their priors.<p>The deal stinks because Cantor bet against the administration that its former head is a part of, and against the signature policy of the president its former head serves.
> This is wrong. It's not insider trading. Lutnick didn't have inside information. His son just had a brain. Anyone who read the case knew which way the court was going, it was the least surprising decision ever. Perhaps the only surprising thing is that the court ever heard it.<p>If this was so obvious, wouldn't there have been more competitors pushing down the value of it?
The people selling the debt thought there was a ~ 20% chance the money would be collected.<p>Is there any proof he <i>didn't</i> have insider information? With this administration + court, it's rare when some sort of fraud, bribes, or protection money payments aren't at play.
No chance you’d make this trade unless you had some unique insight to even consider setting it up in the first place.
It's not insider trading, but surely it's a conflict of interesting? If you ignore all the specific name calling, isn't it still quite wrong that one minister can financially bet against the administration?
Could this open Cantor Fitzgerald up to class action law suits from consumers who ultimately paid the refunded tariffs?
I'd imagine it'd open the federal government to such a suit.<p>It stole money from consumers in the form of illegal tariffs, then refunded the money to people with no obvious relationship to the victims.
Doubtful since any sane person knew the tariffs were not legal and would eventually be overturned.
If his son had half a brain he wouldn’t be trading in this quasi derivative
You mean the guy who kept talking about bringing back jobs to US - jobs requiring Americans to screw iPhone parts - wasn't debating in bad faith, like you are doing here? I am shocked, I tell you. I am really shocked.
Divestiture applies to the household.
The mental gymnastics people are performing in order to convince themselves that this isn't the most corrupt administration the US has seen in modern history is staggering.<p>If a fraction of the level of skepticism these people applied to Hunter Biden and Hillary Clinton were applied to Trump and his cronies, they'd be demanding impeachment.
Oh? You have some sort of insider knowledge here?
Technically it might not be "insider trading" since most information (we assume) was public knowledge.<p>But members of the government being able to trade on matters of government policy is exactly how government corruption works. Previous administrations understood this was important to prevent (Carter putting his peanut farm in a blind trust, the Bush's did the same) but now Trump has made clear corruption is just totally fine (why else become president or a government official).
such hopeful naivety was passable early 2025. having seen 1% of the epstein files, you'd have to be acting in bad faith to say there was no collusion.
[dead]
[dead]
Yeah it's not insider trading. It's just that someone on the inside engaged in trade... Cmon guys you know there's a difference!
Similar to how Noem gave a contract for 143 million to an 8 day old company with an address at her former political operative’s home.<p>The admin is just here to literally steal tax dollars.
<p><pre><code> > Now if this isn't insider trading (by the literal Commerce Secretary), I don't know what is.
</code></pre>
I agree that you don’t know what insider trading is.
You've been sucked in by an online lie and are spreading it as fact:<p>"Amid online claims Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick’s sons, Brandon and Kyle Lutnick, senior executives at Cantor Fitzgerald, could benefit from the Supreme Court’s tariff ruling, a firm spokesperson told Newsweek it has “never executed any transactions or taken risk on the legality of tariffs.""<p>[0] <a href="https://www.newsweek.com/howard-lutnick-sons-may-make-money-supreme-court-ruling-tariffs-11558345" rel="nofollow">https://www.newsweek.com/howard-lutnick-sons-may-make-money-...</a>
Not according to the letter obtained by WIRED, as written about up thread.
They’ve denied being involved in naked corruption, I suppose we have no choice but to take them at their word.
Is it insider trading to bet on a Supreme Court verdict? It's not like it was a slam dunk. The decision was 6-3.
Yeah, because he's the son of the commerce secretary, so (supposedly) has access to the internal deliberations within the government.
No, because "the government" isn't one blob. The court system is separate from the administration. And the supreme court justices aren't giving the internal deliberations to someone in the administration, especially when the administration is one of the parties in the case.
.... what? 3 of the justices were nominated by Trump. You think the people appointing them didn't have internal deliberations before they were appointed, including about things Trump had thought about like tariffs? Even FDR knew the 'separation' was a farce, that's how he magically got the court to go along with progressive programs they prior didn't support, after the 'Switch in time that saved nine.'<p>SCOTUS largely functions as a post-facto legitimization machine for those that appoint them. They do not interpret the constitution so much as serve as god-people in funny costumes that provide the cultural message from god that the actions of their political persuasion were legal (or illegal) even in cases where a historical and literal reading of the constitution would otherwise find you with no way to find them legitimate if not for man in black robe say so.<p>------ re: "2 of 3" below due to throttling--------<p>A vote to refund here was not a vote against the admin, it was a vote to simplify the laundering of the tax. It was a vote to put the money straight into the coffers of admin insiders like Lutnick et al financial engineering scheme. Meanhwile it did not invalidate tariffs, as Trump immediately pivoted to a different tariff structure.<p>As a second note, the profit here was actually not dependent nearly as much on the vote as the insider information. The fact the best any rebuttal can come up with is the vote might have been 'wrong' is basically totally defaulting to the insider trading element which means you are totally yielding the underlying premise.<p>That is, <i>the only 'vote' against the admin in this case would be one that went against their insider information. Failure to note this is how the justices and admin have swindled you and the public.</i> The very posing of this comment of <i>rayiner</i> et al reveals how they tricked you.
> what? 3 of the justices were nominated by Trump. You think the people appointing them didn't have internal deliberations before they were appointed, including about things Trump had thought about like tariffs?<p>They were nominated in Trump's first term, which had a very qualitatively different cabinet assembled around Trump, one much less focused on sycophancy and pleasing Trump. I don't think anybody in Trump's cabinet 6 years ago was thinking about the potential powers a president had in being able to change tariffs based on how he felt waking up in the morning, much less interrogation of judicial candidates based on how willing they were to go along with that.
But 2 of those 3 voted against Trump! And 2 of the ones who voted for him were nominated by a free-trader republican.
>.... what? 3 of the justices were nominated by Trump. You think the people appointing them didn't have internal deliberations before they were appointed, including about things Trump had thought about like tariffs?<p>Given that the 2/3 justices appointed by Trump voted against the tariffs, what's the implication here? That Trump deliberately picked anti-tariff justices just so he can engage in a rube goldberg plan to enact tariffs, buy tariff refunds on the cheap, and then have them revoked?
Trump can profit either way, the key is the insider knowledge to bet for or against them. Admin insiders financially engineered where they profited from refunds.<p>Any vote towards what the insider information pointed to was a vote 'for' the admin as they had financially engineered their winnings based on that. And meanwhile Trump immediately turned to a new tariff structure. The vote they gave was the strongest vote in favor of the admin insiders they could have given, and meanwhile didn't actually stop Trump from continuing on with the scheme.
> 3 of the justices were nominated by Trump.<p>You can blame RBG for one of those. It fascinates me that Biden made the same mistake RBG did, I’ll always wonder how different the would would be if she had stepped down and the democratic party had held a real primary.<p>I don’t like trump, I think he stinks. The democratic party has a few own-goals in this current game.
I can't blame Ginsurg. She was still capable of performing her duties even at the end. She resisted an overtly political retirement and it wasn't even clear if a compatible replacement would be confirmed even if she did retire early.<p>It's unfortunate how it went, but I respect her decision.
> I don’t like trump, I think he stinks. The democratic party has a few own-goals in this current game.<p>You guys should have nominated Amy Klobuchar as VP so you had a credible backup when it became apparent that Biden was too old to run again. That’s a mistake that’s going to continue holding you back, since Biden made South Carolina the first primary state: <a href="https://www.masslive.com/politics/2025/06/2028-dem-frontrunner-beating-kamala-harris-has-0-black-support-poll-finds.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.masslive.com/politics/2025/06/2028-dem-frontrunn...</a>.<p>As Obama said, “never underestimate Joe’s ability to fuck things up.”
Important to note that Republican does not automatically mean "Trumpist".<p>Ofcourse most American politicians are pathetic losers who immediately cave but judges are generally people who are used to dealing with thugs.<p>And if you ever wondered why judges cannot be fired by the Executive branch now you know.
> .... what? 3 of the justices were nominated by Trump. You think the people appointing them didn't have internal deliberations before they were appointed, including about things Trump had thought about like tariffs?<p>Following that logic, it make sense that those 3 voted with the administration.<p>Oh wait...
You're saying that he had access to all of the Supreme Court Justices' chambers?
You don't need to have access to everything for it to be insider trading, just more than the general public. Lutnick would know what case they are making to the court, perhaps the confidence of the attorneys in winning as well as information on how the case was going.
Supreme Court transcripts of arguments are posted to supreme court.gov the same day the arguments are made:<p><a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcript/2025" rel="nofollow">https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcr...</a><p>There’s no secret sauce here - their guess as to how the case is going is as good as any outside observer, and based on the questions made by the justices.
All of that is based on public knowledge, including the confidence of attorneys.
And the en banc appellate court decision was split 7-4, with two republican and two democratic appointees voting to uphold the tariffs.<p>This was a very complex decision that ideologically divided the courts.
I'm shocked you can't see how this is a potential conflict of interest. You don't need to know the exact outcome of the SC decision to have confidence that things will land in your favor. There are certainly all kinds of high level discussions with legal experts in the White House that could have hinted this outcome as likely. The real question is whether there's any personal involvement still with Cantor or this was something launched without influence. If there was influence though, there will of course be denials and bold-face lying (just like with the Epstein involvement).
You don't need a crystal ball to understand a conservative supreme court would require the government to refund what amounts to an illegal tax on American businesses. If you stick your hand into a fire you don't need to speculate as to whether you'll get burned.
If there was any justice at all left in this country, a class action lawsuit with the entire US population as the class would arrange for the tariff refunds to go to individuals, not companies.<p>That'd neatly address this particular instance of insider trading, and probably many other similar schemes that didn't make it into the press.
Could you go into detail about what you think happened? The tariffs were public knowledge, and the suits to invalidate them were public knowledge. Are you saying you think the Supreme Court justices secretly communicated to the Commerce Secretary how they intended to rule on the case, far in advance of publishing their ruling?
I'll turn this around: Do you think it is acceptable for policymakers, lawmakers or people involved in such a process to reap profits more or less directly with (partially non-public) knowledge they've acquired?<p>Because I think not. And I feel pretty strongly about this. The conflict of interest is so glaringly obvious that it should be completely self-evident why <i>every voter</i> should want to prevent, ban and punish any such action.<p>I feel that anyone involved in this tariff insurance business should be able to prove without a shadow of doubt that they had no political insider knowledge about the whole thing, and I'm extremely skeptical that this is the case (just from the pople involved alone!).
You mean these policymakers?<p>“ House kills effort to release all congressional sexual misconduct and harassment reports”<p><a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/house-kills-effort-release-congressional-sexual-misconduct-harassment-rcna261679" rel="nofollow">https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/house-kills-effort...</a>
>with (partially non-public) knowledge they've acquired<p>What partially non-public information did he have? Be specific.
> What partially non-public information did he have? Be specific.<p>How would I know? I'm neither Lutnick nor his son.<p>My point is that there is an extremely obvious conflict of interest here. If your family business is directly affected by decisions and information of the public office that you hold, then the very obvious risk is that you are going favor official decisions that help your business (possibly to the detriment of the majority), and that you leverage non-public information for personal gain.<p>For this specific case, insider knowledge could be a precise understanding on the "shakiness" of the initial tariffs combined with an insider picture of ongoing legal cases against them (progress and expected success rate).<p>I'm not saying that Lutnick & sons comitted some kind of crime, but if you let your family business overlap with your public office this much, then the resulting scrutiny is more than justified, and you could make a strong point that such a situation should be avoided in the first place.
That would be insane. That would mean people in the government talk to each other and also that they have conversations or make deals behind closed doors or that one or god forbid all of them are corrupt, which is utter nonsense!<p>Probably just a good guess. At least it wasn't based on intimate knowledge of things based on being in a position extremely close to everyone involved in all of it. Sheesh.
Well it's not, but that aside, how would consumers ever get a refund?<p>Show up with a banana peel at a grocery, and say you want a tariff refund for the banana you paid cash for, 6 months ago?<p>There's no tracking for almost all of tariff affected purchases.
might not be 'insider trading' with respect to the court decision, but Lutnick had influence with the president and could affect tariffs being paid by the various companies who were squeezed in to considering selling (or actually selling) their tariff refund rights. And tariffs changed many times over months, so... looking at what companies actually sold to CF might reveal some patterns that raise eyebrows. But nothing will be done about it.
This assumes companies would have refunded consumers.<p>Obviously if a company did this, refunding consumers was the last thing on their mind.
Best case consumers may be refunded for tariffs directly charged to them by shipping companies like FedEx and DHL (USPS too, but can you really see them having the competence to do this?!).<p>What consumers will presumably never be refunded for are the increased prices they've been paying for imports of any kind (from Walmart, Amazon, grocery store) where someone else was the importer.
It will trickle down!
That’s smart though. If you don’t want to lose your rights to tariff refunds, don’t sell them. Would the alternative be to forbid companies from selling those rights in this case?<p>As for whether consumers should get anything, I’m sympathetic. It’s a matter of implementation though. How would you refund so many people? You’d have to quantify how much overhead they’ve paid in tariffs, and that seems like an IRS-scale job. Dealing with it at the scale of individual companies is at least tractable.
It's not smart, it's extortion by someone connected to the state and self dealing.<p>If you think this is smart then you may as well go around clubbing old ladies over their heads, as long as you don't get caught it's like free money right?<p>The alternative is not to forbid companies from selling those rights, the alternative is to undo this deal and pay the whole amount back to those that originally forked it over and who needed to sell these 'rights' in order to keep their companies alive.
How is it extortion? They could have gotten a different deal from anybody else or no deal at all. Nobody was twisting there arm or forcing them to deal with this one company to sell their tariff claims.
If two companies come to you with an offer to sell the refunds, and one has strong ties to a central figure in the administration — which can, in the future, subject or exempt you from new tariffs and otherwise use the Federal government’s powers to mess with you - are you truly free to choose either offer? Or is there a risk and a benefit to taking the one that’s tied to the administration? (And frankly, can you even be certain either way?) This kind of conflict (even the appearance of this kind of conflict) is why we generally don’t want government officials <i>or their families</i> to be profiting directly off the policies they oversee. It is at best unseemly, and that’s being kind.
Thank you. Yes, this is the reason to be concerned. Not because it's extortion, or anything else like that, but because having to evaluate a counterparty's degree of connection to the State before doing a deal is not the way that free enterprise or open markets are supposed to work. Lutnik Jr's involvement puts every other bidder for these contracts at a disadvantage (even <i>if</i> it's illusory, and he's not personally acting badly), and distorts pricing signals. It's unfair not (or not primarily / directly) to customers, but to the rest of the legitimate players within an industry.<p>Yes, I know this isn't the first time this has happened, and that people likewise benefit from connections to governments led by other political parties. Those instances are also bad!
> If two companies come to you with an offer to sell the refunds, and one has strong ties to a central figure in the administration — which can, in the future, subject or exempt you from new tariffs and otherwise use the Federal government’s powers to mess with you - are you truly free to choose either offer?<p>Yes, because tariffs, like all taxes in the USA, are not imposed on individual people or entities. They’re on industries and specific materials.<p>If a company truly thought the chance of winning was low and needed the money now, they would pick the best offer. Regardless of who is making it.
This is naive. For larger firms, targeted product and industry-specific tariffs can be a game-changer. For example, Trump created a set of exemptions related to smartphones built in China that weren't officially aimed at Apple, but since Apple sells approximately 50% of US smartphones (for a much larger slice of profit) and 80% are made in China, this disproportionately affected a single company. But there are other areas where the administration can also use Federal power: see, for example, Trump's use of Federal approval to block the Netflix/WB merger as one example.
This is basically the government doing a protection racket. I swear, the amount of neoliberals in here lauding the move is a recession indicator. Did we all forget what corruption is?
Corruption is so endemic now that people stop seeing it. This was the same in the former USSR, when I was there I would be utterly amazed by the degree to which everybody had normalized corruption, it was not considered anything wrong or special at all, it was just the way business was done. You could effectively buy your way into or out of anything.
>It's not smart, it's extortion by someone connected to the state and self dealing.<p>Where's the extortion? The "it's a nice shop you got there..." racket only works if you can strongly influence whether the damages occur (ie. you tell your goons to attack the shop, or not). So far as I can tell however, that's not the case, because Trump wanted the tariffs to stay, and was sad that they got revoked. Going back to the mob analogy, it would be like if the mob boss asked for protection money, the goons didn't damage the shop, the mob boss was sad that the shop didn't get damaged, and then went to to find some other way to damage the shop (ie. section 122 tariffs).
You think businesses as a rule can all survive a 15 to 100% surcharge on their products without running into liquidity issues?
The stocks of major retailers haven't cratered, so maybe? You're going to have to present some figures rather than just asking rhetorical questions.
You have to present figures when you're arguing the hard-to-prove side of something not when it's plain obvious that business are not in a position to deal with such shocks in the market without having to reach for capital. This is not normal. Typical operating margins of business is anywhere from 5 to 20% with outliers in the digital domain but that's not the part that we are talking about here.<p>Anyway, you want figures, well, here are some figures:<p><a href="https://marketrealist.com/why-did-700-bu/" rel="nofollow">https://marketrealist.com/why-did-700-bu/</a><p>I'm sure there are other sources, better ones, worse ones but they all tell roughly the same story: willy nilly tarrifs have a negative effect on one's ability to operate a business. Businesses like predictable, stable climates to operate in.
Those are a sunk cost at this point though. The business likely is better off having sold and got the money now - vs risking they will never get a refund.
Extortion rackets come in many forms.<p>For example, NCR (National Cash Register) used to have their sales people "accidentally" break competitive machines (dropping them on the floor was common -- these were old precision mechanical adders), then offer an NCR machine as a "free" replacement.<p>You could argue this wasn't extortion. What are the damages? The replacement machine was higher value, so the shop was "made whole", and was only temporarily without a cash register. Of course, the competitor got screwed out of support contracts + renewal, and it was made very clear to the stores they had to play ball. (Unless they wanted to buy a replacement, and watch it also get smashed.)<p>It's the same with the tariffs:<p>Adopt a bunch of Trump dictated policies, or they steal your money (the mechanism is not providing exemptions). Later, they "refund" the payments (so, no further court action), but somehow the money does not go back to the people that it came from.<p>Ignoring the businesses that sold their rights to collect, all sorts of prices have skyrocketed in the last year. The consumers that are paying the increased amounts at retail are not going to see a cent of this settlement. Where is <i>my</i> check?<p>Also, it's unclear how many Supreme Court justices changed their votes <i>because of</i> the sold rights to collect refunds. The company involved gave a lot of money to Trump and conservative campaigns, and many of the justices are in his pocket. It's also unclear if they bribed the justices directly, since that's not public data.<p>On top of that, when these "securities" were sold, it could have been made clear that they would come with favoritism in the future. Did businesses that paid up get special exemptions? Were they threatened with intimidation that then didn't happen because they sold the rights?<p>All of the above is standard practice with this administration. They had the benefit of the doubt, but burned through it years ago.
Self-dealing by someone connected to the state, yes. Extortion, no.<p>It takes a fair amount of money to take a court case to the Supreme Court. You can pay it all (and still maybe lose), or you can let the law firm have part of what you win. This happens <i>all the time</i> in the US legal system. It's not extortion; it's essentially venture funding by the law firm. (Yes, I'm aware of the pattern in the previous sentence, but I'm in fact a human, and not even LLM-assisted.) If the company doesn't want to play that way, they don't have to. They can pay the full cost of the lawsuit themselves.
Wasn't the whole point of selling your right to refunds that the initial tariff was so onerous to businesses that they needed a cash injection to stay afloat.<p>Don't sell your right to your tariff refund is one of those things that sounds good in principle, but falls apart when you apply some sense to it.
>Wasn't the whole point of selling your right to refunds that the initial tariff was so onerous to businesses that they needed a cash injection to stay afloat.<p>No? You also do it for certainly. "One bird in hand beats two in the bush" and all that. You see this occurring outside of tariff refunds, with businesses selling debts to debt collectors for pennies on the dollar, or bond holders selling high risk bonds (eg. Argentina) for steep discounts.
Is a 20 cent on the dollar or so payment for the new tariff expense really going to save a company that much on the bubble?<p>I'm sure there are a few exceptional cases, but that doesn't seem to me like it would be the typical cases. A company needing to pay $100 in tariffs but then the $20 of cash infusion being the thing that saves the day seems rather unlikely.<p>I'd say it's more likely this was a profit center to more companies than it was a life line. As in they passed the tariff down to their consumers, and also collected the 20% as a cash payment to juice the bottom line.<p>More common though would be simply a way to help defray some costs and provide certainty.
It's enriching himself on the taxpayers expense.<p>Or would you trust someone on advising you, that has a pretty huge financial interest in proposing you policies that will fail because they are illegal?
> That’s smart though. If you don’t want to lose your rights to tariff refunds, don’t sell them. Would the alternative be to forbid companies from selling those rights in this case?<p>Definitely smart, but also sure looks like an insider play / corruption / self-dealing.
i guess there would be much more initiative for Lutnik not to refund (ignore courts order, or drag them out like in other cases) if no one would have sold their rights to refund.
Calling outright corruption at the expense of citizens as "smart" is quite a statement of morality O.o
I don't think anyone is disagreeing it's a shrewd decision by the corporations, just that it shouldn't benefit the <i>Secretary of Commerce</i>. We're a long way from having to put your peanut farm in a blind trust to avoid the perception of corruption.
Imagine instead if the government didn't do the illegal thing in the first place. Or if the supreme court had not intervened on the initial stay of the tariffs to allow them to go into place while the suit proceeded.<p>The fact that businesses were put in a position to make this choice is outrageous in the first place.
> It’s a matter of implementation though. How would you refund so many people?<p>This was the point of the tariffs, wasn't it? The White House now has a $130B slush fund to distribute more or less however they want, with no accountability because accountability is by-design impossible. Sure maybe half of it will go where it ought to as a fig leaf, but a very large chunk of that cash will be making its way to Trump's loyalty crew.
> The White House now has a $130B slush fund to distribute more or less however they want, with no accountability because accountability is by-design impossible.<p>The government knows exactly who paid what in duties, otherwise they couldn't tell if you were trying to avoid duties.<p>So they know exactly who to pay back and how much.
> The government knows exactly who paid what in duties<p>No, they have a record of who handed the money over to the government. This does <i>not</i> tell you who paid the duties. There's going to be a whole lot of Trump toadies & business owners in the chain, siphoning cash from refunds before they work their way back to the people who actually paid them. And that's not even getting into the open corruption & fraud that will be happening as part of this as well.
> No, they have a record of who handed the money over to the government. This does not tell you who paid the duties.<p>The entity that handed over the money to the government is the entity that paid the duties, and is the one the government must refund.<p>If an entity has passed those costs on does not change that, and does not turn the 130B into a slush fund.<p>However I agree that consumers will be likely be royally screwed by this debacle, that much was obvious from the start.
If the government charges the importer $20 and the importer charges me $20, then I am in effect the one who paid the duty. If the refund goes to the importer, and it does not come back to me, then the government and the importer have colluded to rob me of $20. This isn't an accident, the owners of the import companies who will benefit from this theft were almost certainly all Trump supporters.<p>In reality, half of the funds will go to that. Maybe even some tiny portion of it will genuinely make its way back to the people who actually paid the duties. This is the fig leaf to which I referred. The other half will go to Trump toadies in the form of "mistakes," fraud, corruption, skimming, unclaimed funds, etc. This is the slush fund to which I referred.<p>In the end, all of it is going to Trump toadies. It's a $130B transfer of wealth to Trump's financial backers.
That’s not how commerce works.<p>You agreed with your supplier on a price. You paid it.<p>Doesn’t matter that part of the price was tariffs or component costs or labor. Doesn’t matter if your supplier gets a tax rebate or a kickback from an upstream supplier after the fact. These things are entirely immaterial to the meeting of the minds when you execute the contract for sale.<p>The only moderately fuzzy case is going to be if there is an outright line item for “tariff charge” - I always thought companies were being a bit reckless explicitly adding these as line items due to this exact uncertainty. Very few companies are going to have a perfect 1:1 ratio here so there is some definite business risk in doing so.<p>And no, not even close to all companies that were charged tariffs are “trump toadies” - that’s an absurd claim on its face. The ones I know hurt the most and nearly put out of business due to needing to raise prices certainly were not. And there is zero way they could afford refunding at a 1:1 ratio now.
Maybe I'm naive, but if court orders tariff refunds cannot it also order that the importer must return it to individual buyers? That's only fair, right? Companies don't get to keep the money. If they want to sue government for some extra compensation for their trouble they can do that separately.
The corruptions of this administration are legion, but this isn't one of them. Unless you can point to something Lutnick did to create this outcome, I don't see how he had a better view of the whole thing than anyone else.
<a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/cantor-fitzgerald/summary?id=D000021889" rel="nofollow">https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/cantor-fitzgerald/summary?i...</a>
Isn't Lutnick literally the chief architect of Trump's tariff policy? I can hardly imagine anybody <i>more</i> responsible for creating this outcome besides Trump himself, who would presumably have appointed somebody else if Lutnick hadn't been available.<p>> I don't see how he had a better view of the whole thing than anyone else.<p>Given the above, you really don't think Lutnick had a "better view" of the likely outcomes and timelines, including the Trump admin's planned and gamed out <i>responses</i> to certain outcomes, than the average Joe on the street? I think that's extremely, uh, <i>naive</i>.
The executive class are out to get as much as they can as quickly as they can while the music plays, then retire to whatever luxury boltholt they can prepare. It's FIRE with private islands, and without even a figleaf of noblesse oblige any more.
Worse. They tend to stick around due to their inability to stop taking until they die.
>The executive class are out to get as much as they can [...]<p>This is just hollow populist anti-elite rhetoric. Who do you think sold them the tariff refunds? They're not buying them from granny who didn't know any better. They bought it from other executives who knew, or at least ought to know what was at stake.
Lol. Granny paid for the tarrif then the refund was sold by an elite to an elite for 20 cents on the dollar.<p>Everyone wins except granny.<p>To be fair, I think some companies didn't raise prices because they thought they would be overturned.
Jesus Christ, how pathetic you are. I severely doubt you’re just a bored billionaire, which leaves only the option of a bootlicker. Why do you simp for them? Do you expect a bread crump to fall off the table? Or are you a temporarily embarrassed millionaire thinking you belong to them?
Just about everyone on the left has been saying these tariffs were illegal since day one.<p>It's not insider trading that they acted on that consensus.
This type of financialization should be illegal
The CF rabbit hole is wild. Somehow he manages to make a lot of money during tragedies and economic downturns.<p>I don't buy into the conspiracies, but it is quite odd how he always manages to come up on top.<p><a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/911archive/comments/1r5rkk3/howard_lutnicks_evolving_911_story_the_cantor/" rel="nofollow">https://www.reddit.com/r/911archive/comments/1r5rkk3/howard_...</a>
This is collusion between the offices of POTUS, SCOTUS, and corporate friends that looks like insider trading, from a zoomed in lens.
For it to be insider trading, he would have had to have access to private information from the Supreme Court, which seems unlikely.
Why is that unlikely? It would seem to be a very easy thing to accomplish. For instance, he could just ask.
They could have used inside government legal analysis that other people didnt have. You could have predicted this with higher certainty if you knew the justices well enough.
> while, of course, consumers get nothing<p>This would have been the case no mattern what.
I fail to see the problem, people voted for this, did they not?
I believe, with huge disappointment, that this level of corruption has been normalised in this administration and that nothing will come out of this.
Look how many comments in this discussion are scrambling to support the corruption. It’s very normalized, to the point where we don’t call it corruption any more, we call it good business.
Yea, I'm done hearing "the wheels of justice turn slowly..." bullshit. People have had their lives ruined, far quicker, for far less.
The wheels of justice don't turn at all once you reach $1B or so. Their speed is essentially inversely proportional to the net worth of the individual under scrutiny. And if you're <i>really</i> rich you get to buy your own laws through a thing called lobbying. So you will get even more rich.
Life in prison for every single person working under this administration is the moderate position.
The reading I’ve done elsewhere suggests that it’s far from a done deal that companies will be able to extract refunds from the government. For example if doing so offends Trump and causes him to try to extract concessions elsewhere. Or if the government simply drags their feet on various ways.<p>“Trump’s buddy’s son offers 20c/$” does not seem like a terrible deal for getting your money out.
> ...bought the rights to their potential tariff refunds for 20% of the value...<p>So - with umpteen $billion on the line, and all the big-shot lobbyists and Washington insiders and experts that all those huge companies had on payroll to advise them - they decided to sell at 20 cents on the dollar.<p>Theory: When the far-smarter-than-us money bets big, they <i>might</i> know the actual odds.
But... who would make a bet with a counterparty like that? Hello, I'm a trump administration insider, here to make a bet with you about the future of one of Trump's policies. You'd have to be pretty stupid.
Cantor Fitzgerald lost most of its staff in the World Trade Center on 9/11. Lutnick sued American Airlines, eventually settling for $135 million [1]. He claimed this would largely go to the family of hte victims.<p>Turns out most (if not all) of it went to the senior executive team, wtih himself being the primary beneficiary [2].<p>This is also the same Howard Lutnick who the DoJ accidentally released a photo of with Jeffrey Epstein [3]. People noticed and they removed it. People noticed that too so they restored it.<p>Just so we're all clear who Howard Lutnick is.<p>[1]: <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/busine.ss/judge-approves-american-air-cantor-fitzgerald-sept-11-settlement-idUSL2N0KN1Y2/" rel="nofollow">https://www.reuters.com/article/busine.ss/judge-approves-ame...</a><p>[2]: <a href="https://x.com/FinanceLancelot/status/2022877480516813077" rel="nofollow">https://x.com/FinanceLancelot/status/2022877480516813077</a><p>[3]: <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/feb/27/howard-lutnick-jeffrey-epstein-photo" rel="nofollow">https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/feb/27/howard-lutni...</a>
> Now if this isn't insider trading [...], I don't know what is.<p>Correct.
>Now they stand to make huge returns of 3 to 5x for being correct on that bet<p>...assuming they held those rights on their books, rather than selling it off to other hedge funds.
But they are sticking it to the libs, so it’s all worth it?
You forgot to mention that Mr. Lutnik is also a close personal friend of a pedophile-turned-Mossad-agent-turned-pedophile named Jeffrey Epstein and visited his island. Mr. Lutnik deliberately and purposefully lied to congress about it, and faced no charges for lying to congress.<p>In a just world, someone like that would be jailed indefinitely and made to publicly take stand about his activities, and called out to his face during depositions about his lies.
Cantor Fitzgerald is sleezy, but you’ve got the reason wrong. They’re sleezy because they bet against the administration.<p>But it’s not “insider trading.” They didn’t have insider information on how the courts were going to rule—especially where it was a 6-3 split with three conservatives siding against the administration. And a split in the appellate court as well, with two republican and two democrat appointees siding for the administration.<p>And Cantor had nothing to do with imposing these tariffs in the first place. Trump loves tariffs. He has been wanting to do these tariffs since the 1980s. He imposed tariffs in his first term and campaigned on imposing them now.<p>So you’re taking a story about Cantor Fitzgerald displaying disloyalty to Trump and trying to turn it into a “corruption” story that makes no sense.
That's some third-world shit.
What they sold isn't a security regulated by the SEC. There is no "insider trading". There aren't enough facts to determine if what his sons did was ethical and/or legal.
It’s not that surprising. The entire tariff saga was one trading opportunity after another for insiders who knew which announcements were going to come out.<p>Lutnick is a particularly corrupt individual though. He’s in the Epstein files like Trump and Musk and Thiel. But he also took over Cantor by suing the widow of Cantor after his death. And now he hands the company to children and has no shame about openly nepotistical decisions like this.
[dead]
Side topic, but this number puts into how crazy it was for trump[0] to go on tariff war against enemies and friends alike. All the propaganda and extortionist language about how all countries will pay up to USA.<p>Astronomical tariffs in some cases, trade wars and dramas, alienate all allies and from all of this they got only $130B ?<p>$7T of spending, $1.77T in deficit[1] and they planned to fix this hole with $100B?!<p>Masterminds!<p>…and now they need to refund it.<p>NB: also puts into perspective how numb I became about reading AI and AI related sums of money, and how crazy actually those numbers are.<p>[0] off course many knew that it’s crazy way before it happened.<p>[1] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_United_States_federal_budget" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_United_States_federal_bud...</a>
<i>Astronomical tariffs in some cases, trade wars and dramas, alienate all allies and from all of this they got only $130B ?</i><p>Maybe that was never the point. You present it as retaliation against 'countries that are out to get us'. Introduce the tariffs, companies pay the tariffs by increasing prices for consumers, get the inevitable loss in court, return the tariff money to the companies.<p>You just transferred $130B of wealth from citizens to companies.<p>Bonus: people are now used to the higher prices, so post-tariffs your profits are also higher.
They also put out of business a bunch of upstart businesses that could threaten their oligopoly. In addition they acquired huge tracts of agricultural land for cheap from all the farms that went bankrupt.
It was also used to frame why the new tax cuts were justified, even though the optimistic math never worked out either.
The whole point is “$130B is chump change for the problems caused” and that’s true if companies as well
I had the same thought. Even if it wasn't the original intent, it sure is a preferable outcome.
Sounds like the opposite of trickle down economics.
No, they are not that smart.<p>Even if the tariffs are not a lot, they are potent negotiating leverage.<p>They def knew they were lying about much they were collecting<p>They def knew they were lying about who is paying<p>They lied to the public about that and got a bit of extra creme in the bag but the effect was mostly leverage, which 'kind of worked'.<p>They could have very effectively used illegal tariffs to actually do 90-deals-in-90 days, knowing the case would take time to draw out.<p>But - they have no plan.<p>Trump does not think 9 months ahead - he has grudges, grievances, and he pursues whatever grievance he wants to that day.<p>He doesn't forget and will push his staff to go against old enemies<p>The point is not to improve the economy, bring back jobs - the point is to 'Look Tough' and 'Stick it to the Libs and Foreigners' and to get elected again, failing that, rig the elections.<p>Remember that the 'high visiblity' of ICE is not a bad thing - it is mostly very much in purpose to show MAGA world that he's cracking liberal, immigrant and brown people heads.<p>Jamming those Somalis on the concrete is exactly the optics he wants for his base.<p>It was only until people started dying would be people start to question it.<p>Same thing here: he will play grievance, the 'Liberal Courts' are against him blah blah and MAGA will go for it.<p>The problem is that Core MAGA is maybe really only 20% and Soft MAGA another 15% and that's not enough to win anything.<p>But it's almost.<p>Narrative, performance, grievance, populism, social media, information sphere - that's it.<p>It's Post Truth.<p>People keep talking about this stuff through the lens of the 'issues', it's completely wrong headed - policies don't matter, only perception etc.<p>Reality does have a way of sneaking through though, and 'hardball reality' can change minds. People do understand Epstein, tariffs when they pay attention, unemployment, prices, 'war mostly bad' etc. etc..
Maybe I don't understand as I'm an outsider, but as per my recent comment on this topic [0], I fail to see the logic of how "other countries" pay the US when the tariffs are paid by the importer and not the other country which is exporting.<p>I do acknowledge that import taxes can in theory help local industries, especially if the other countries are subsidizing exported goods.<p>[0]: <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47238951">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47238951</a>
Tariffs almost never make sense, unless it's an industry that's super important for your own survival.<p>Capitalism is about efficiency, and eventually there are going countries where producing certain items will always be more efficient. East asian countries have spent decades innovating and investing in their manufacturing capabilities.<p>Also, one thing that grinds my nerves are the narratives of trade balances that only focus on physical goods but conveniently ignore services.<p>US exports trillions in software, ai, music, videogames, financial services, cloud, and that's conveniently ignored.<p>Eventually tariffs come back biting those who issue them, because the moment your local industries don't need to compete anymore to survive, they have no incentives to innovate.
Tariffs are a cost a country incurs upon itself to protect industries that are critical, not for their profits, but for the capabilities they offer.<p>It's paying more for something just to keep it domestically available for purposes of national security.
It's nonsense, that's why it's hard to understand.
Next time you wonder why a Trump supporter has a bad argument, remind yourself there was a nonzero number of them who literally drank bleach and Lysol after he told them too.
this reminds me of the Indian government's (read Modi's) demonetization efforts of 2016 which caused 80+ deaths and huge headaches for the common people. In the end, more than 99.3% of the demonetized money came back in circulation. Elect a clown, expect a circus. true for the oldest democracy in the world and also true for the largest democracy.
> tariff war against enemies<p>This is an interesting way to frame a tax on Americans, but it aligns with this administrations actions.
They need to refund it *with interest*, according to filings cited in the article.
The rest is financed by debt. The theft-class stole the rest from the govt thru debt, and expect the rest of us and the following generations to deal with the fallout while they sit on top of their obscene gobs of cash insulated from the fire they created.
I am old enough to remember when the great minds at DOGE found $10T a year of fraudulent Social Security spending which would have cut the total governement spending from $7T a year to negative $3T.<p>The DOGE refund cheque is of course, in the mail.
The point is to bankrupt the country so the robber barons can buy up all the assets for pennies on the dollar.
> Astronomical tariffs [...] and from all of this they got only $130B ?<p>Which is it? A number can't be small and large at the same time.
Friends? America has no friends, only client states.
I'm serious. The Trump/MAGA view of foreign policy is that the US sits at the top, we owe friendship to no one. We engage with other nations transactionally, zero sum, with the US always getting more.
Don't antropomorfize countries. Countries can't have friends. There are only common interests. Or opposite.
This isn't the Trump/MAGA foreign policy, american exceptionalism is a century old and only gotten stronger. If anything MAGA is the full blown expression of this phenomenon.<p>The difference was that in the past US understood that you "rule" better when you surround yourself with enemies.<p>Now the policy is to dictate conditions left and right.
From the 2nd half of the 20th century until Trump there was the view that the US lead a large group of "western" democracies (in the sense that Japan is "western") in a loose coalition that was NOT zero sum. The US provided a lot of benefits to others, this collaboration produced an overall surplus[1], which the US got a large share of.<p>The new view seems to be based on a zero sum, transactional view of international affairs. In this mode every interaction must clearly benefit the US more than any other participant. We have to clearly "win" every time.<p>[1] and this is not even counting 2nd order "surplus" from things like no longer having to fight world wars.
I had the same thought, but really I think a lot of it is just spectacle for his more gullible followers.<p>I mean, FFS--we have a nominally Republican candidate who campaigned on <i>raising</i> taxes and was elected anyway!<p>You'd have to be pretty gullible to think that raising taxes on imported goods won't result in price hikes at the checkout counter.
"Trump brags in Oval Office that his billionaire pals made a killing in stocks after he pulled the plug on tariffs"<p>> <i>“He made $2.5 billion, and he made $900 million! That’s not bad!” Trump said, pointing to financial investor Charles Schwab and then NASCAR team owner Roger Penske.</i><p><a href="https://sg.news.yahoo.com/trump-brags-oval-office-billionaire-052249693.html" rel="nofollow">https://sg.news.yahoo.com/trump-brags-oval-office-billionair...</a>
<i>> All the propaganda and extortionist language about how all countries will pay up to USA.</i><p>Sounds a bit like Brexit.
It's clear that there was no reasoned thought behind the tariff push. Tariffs <i>can</i> work if implemented in a principled way and coupled with a complementary industrial policy to develop critical sectors of the economy.<p>Instead, we had a completely chaotic implementation of tariffs which seemed to be completely at the whim of Trump with zero supportive industrial policy. So much so that the term 'Taco' <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_Always_Chickens_Out" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_Always_Chickens_Out</a> was coined to describe Trump's approach.<p>The charitable explanation is that Trump had no plan and was making it up as he went along. The less charitable explanation is that the chaos was an intentional feature to enable a quid pro quo of favourable policy in exchange for under the table payments via crypto or 'investments' in his family's various businesses.<p>When you couple completely illegal application of a supposed 'emergency' to invoke tariffs with a chaotic, whim based implementation, is there any wonder that they failed?
The studies I’ve seen seem to indicate that tariffs can work but are like running with scissors.<p>The artificially reduced competition will spur buying domestic products, but can also make domestic producers complacent. They don’t develop new features because they have an almost captive audience, until foreign producers advance enough that people will pay the tariff premium for better foreign products.<p>Then it’s a catch-22. Domestic producers are behind on technology so killing the tariffs will bankrupt them, but raising the tariffs only leans into their complacency.
It's unbelievable he's still given any semblance of credence for anything he does. Trump is just palpably stupid. He is bad at absorbing information, he is bad at analytical thinking, he is impatient, vain and rash. Aside from his tenuous legal justification, he never once publicly expressed even a fundamental understanding of the basic mechanics of tariff collection nor what balance of trade actually means. You'd constantly see his proxies on TV just put words in his mouth to bend his foolish policy into some coherent. And we're seeing it again with the attack on Iran. No strategy, no achievable objectives, no comprehension of basic facts on the ground. He's really really really just stupid.
Absolutely absurd that we’re at this point. The courts / SCOTUS let the government roll out a massive and obviously illegal tax on citizens for a long time. They should have stepped in earlier.<p>Now we the people probably don’t get our money back….
<i>courts / SCOTUS let the government roll out a massive and obviously illegal tax on citizens for a long time.</i><p>The don't forget about congress. 216 GOP congressional reps voted to handicap congress's ability to halt tariffs. For much of the current session of congress, their calendar wasn't counting days.<p><a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/us/house-republicans-block-congress-ability-challenge-trump-tariffs-2025-03-11/" rel="nofollow">https://www.reuters.com/world/us/house-republicans-block-con...</a>
> Absolutely absurd that we’re at this point.<p>It's not really, this is the result of having a flawed democratic system.<p>What do Turkey, Philippines, Russia, Belarus, Hungary, Nicaragua, etc and now US have all in common?<p>They are ALL presidential or semi-presidential republics where a single person "rules" without needing to face opposition in a parliament nor even requiring support from its own party.<p>Winner-takes-all democracies, aren't democracies if only part of the electors is represented in the executive.<p>Presidential republics are super dangerous, they combine the perils of dictatorships with a cherry on the cake of being able to claim popular mandate.<p>Seriously, it's not a coincidence that the last parliamentary republic to turn into an authocracy has been Sri Lanka 50+ years ago.
> probably<p>Hah, we are 100% not getting our money back. And the higher, tariff level, prices aren't going to go back down either.
The "Importer of Record" gets the refund. I read that a large fraction of those importer of record are Chinese companies.
read from where? Because over 92% of tariff costs were born by domestic importers. Thats american companies who then offload that tax through higher purchasing costs.<p><a href="https://libertystreeteconomics.newyorkfed.org/2026/02/who-is-paying-for-the-2025-u-s-tariffs/" rel="nofollow">https://libertystreeteconomics.newyorkfed.org/2026/02/who-is...</a>
That article doesn't even mention nonresident importers (NRIs). The percentage that are NRIs is not public information but it is believed to have grown during this trade conflict.<p>What got my attention on this was this HN comment by rstuart4133:<p>"There are Non-Resident Importers, which are foreign companies that import goods into the USA, but do not have a presence in the United States. About 15% of USA imports come through NRIs. For them this reversal sets up a true irony. Trump effectively forced US citizens to pay more the imported goods. He thought that money would go to the USA treasury. Now the US treasury has to pay it back, so it is a free gift to the exporting countries. Like China. Truly delicious."
Yes, but when the product costs went up to cover their fees who paid that? We did. So the "Importer of Record" will (maybe) get a refund from the government, while also getting the higher prices paid to them from the distributors/consumers.
It is <i>almost</i> as if this was a planned wealth transfer that was immensely succesful.
Yeah, most of us absolutely are not getting our money back.<p>The importers pay the tariffs, and they might get a refund, but it's unlikely they can distribute the money back to the people who they passed the price increase onto.<p>Imagine I imported 1 ton of rice and paid the tariff. Then I split that ton of rice into 2000 one pound bags and sold them to two super markets, with a higher price accounting for the tariff. Then one super market decided to absorb the price from their margins and sell it at the same price as before to avoid price shocks. Can I track down the other 1000 purchasers who paid a higher price? Is it even worth it?
Not only can’t you track down the 1,000 rice buyers, you don’t have any legal obligation to, so you 100% wouldn’t. (Not speaking of “you” just the general case of all importers who get refunds).
The other important point is that those 2000 one-pound bags sold, so the market accepted the new higher price. Even after the tariffs are removed, the higher prices are here to stay.
Did they actually raise prices, though? I haven't noticed any significant jumps; my understanding was that they were absorbing (for the most part) the tariffs for the time being, but planned to raise prices in the near future.
Tariffs don't work like that.<p>These are taxes that businesses have to pay and as a result, they pass on to the consumer.<p>Larger companies have some room (in some cases) to absorb some of these costs. While smaller companies do not. These can literally put people out of business overnight.<p>Here is a specific example: <a href="https://nypost.com/2025/04/08/us-news/idaho-business-owner-casey-ames-of-harkla-hit-with-huge-tariff-bill/" rel="nofollow">https://nypost.com/2025/04/08/us-news/idaho-business-owner-c...</a>
Look at the CPI chart and draw a trend line ignoring recent years. You'll see we're living under 2034 price levels currently.
Average family paid 1000 more last year due to tariffs. I definitely noticed things that jumped in price.
Source?
A large cap company I totally dont work at paid 4% of revenue in tariffs last year. Our bonuses were cut in half. I dont have visibility into our customer pricing. It is fucking obscene how stupid this tax is. And all for what? So billionaires can get a bit richer? How did this help us, like at all???
It depends on if one thinks 10-20 percent is significant. Do you cook your own food - some food items are imported during USA winter months and those items went up noticeably, also items that are not grown/harvested in significant quantities in USA went up. The only things I did not see a price increase were US sourced oatmeal, rice and flour, stuff where they are selling stuff that could be from before tariff times. Coffee went up due to bad harvests but the tariffs added to that, and now that harvests are back to normal, prices haven't gone back down commensurately.
I get more or less the same items from the grocery store every week. My grocery store shows me purchases going back a year.<p>3/9/25 - 45 items - $178.98<p>3/15/25 - 40 items - $187.13<p>3/22/25 - 59 items - $315.29<p>3/29/25 - 45 items - $131.36<p>...<p>2/14/25 - 48 items - $238.15<p>2/21/25 - 17 items - $117.49 (used $45 in coupons from store loyalty points, actual cost $162.49)<p>2/28/25 - 27 items - $165.27<p>My grocery bill definitely is feeling it, now is it 100% tariffs, probably not. But research points to it being some what related to tariffs [1,2,3] You'll notice in the most recent shops, I have been trying to skip the non-essentials when possible to keep my bill lower.<p>I don't have any other regular purchases with history to look back on. It's not like I replace all my consumer electronics every 6 months-1 year. Closest thing that I have to consistent historical data is 3D printer filament, which has gone from $15.99 to $16.99 on Amazon for my brand of choice from April 2025 to my most recent order last week.<p>[1] <a href="https://taxfoundation.org/blog/trump-tariffs-food-prices/" rel="nofollow">https://taxfoundation.org/blog/trump-tariffs-food-prices/</a><p>[2] <a href="https://budgetlab.yale.edu/research/state-us-tariffs-june-17-2025" rel="nofollow">https://budgetlab.yale.edu/research/state-us-tariffs-june-17...</a><p>[3] <a href="https://www.edelmanfinancialengines.com/education/life-events/tariffs-impacting-price-of-groceries/" rel="nofollow">https://www.edelmanfinancialengines.com/education/life-event...</a>
There is no probably; we not getting our money back. In fact, any of the money that has been spent in the meantime (say to make up for wealthy tax cuts or to expand military or border funding) we get to pay again!
Two things is that we won't get money back and price of stuff is still going up. add on to that the companies getting refunds are pocketing the money.
Congress needs to step up and take its power back from the executive. There was no good reason for the President to have this power in the first place. Why the hell do we have emergency powers to impose tariffs? Is there going to be a fleet of nuclear-armed bombers headed for the USA and the only way to stop them is to impose tariffs? It's ridiculous.<p>Congress has been gradually handing their power over to the executive for decades. For decades, people have been warning that this was setting up for major abuse if you got a particularly bad president. Well, guess what....
> Congress needs to step up and take its power back from the executive.<p>Won't happen with this administration at least; the expectation being that unless you are a yes-man, you'll be denounced as "not loyal" and voted out.
Just wait until the next Democratic president is elected. The current crop of Republicans will suddenly remember that Congress can exercise this power.
Still waiting on getting those freedoms back that we temporarily gave up after 9/11 via the patriot act so we could get the baddies.<p>Don't hold your breath for either to be given back.
I suspect that money is involved. We’re becoming numb to it.
There is no excuse for how long it took the Supreme court to decide this very obvious case.
I like Class Action lawsuits for $100 please
The latest temporary tariffs are also likely illegal.
Justice delayed is justice denied. There should be an express lane for litigation similar actions like this.
I thought those were on very solid ground commonly used by past administrations?
Well if it works, they’re gonna keep doing it.
In terms of policy this is a truly massive gift to importing companies. They had to pay massive amounts of tax to import goods. Analysis shows most (but not all) of the tariffs were passed on down the line to consumers of the imported goods or their derivatives.<p>And now they get it all back! If they can figure out the paperwork. Which I expect most will, because if you import things and pay tariffs, you have to be good at govt paperwork.<p>Wow. I don’t know what this means. But it’s a huge windfall to a very specific horizontal slice of the economy - cutting across industries and supply chains. Just whoever happened to be doing the importing gets a giant present. So bizarre. Economists will write about this case study for decades.
I hate the tariffs, but giving the money back to the corporations would be absolutely _grotesque_.<p>Every company that collected a tariff fee needs to refund it as they collect their own refunds.
I'm gonna have a stroke. The Congressional Budget Office found that consumers paid 70-80% of the tariffs, totaling more than $1000 per household. Where is my refund?
Not only that, the companies used the tariff excuse to raise prices which will not come back down even if tariffs are fully off the table. Just like the price inflation during COVID.
You did not pay the tariffs. You bore the cost of the tariffs. Those are not the same thing. The refund is due to the party that got the bill for the tariff and paid it-- the importer. What you paid for was for the business not to go bankrupt while this was occurring. If the business wants to refund you for that, they can choose to do so. But you are not owed a refund.
So on Earth 2 in which everything is the same except these tariffs hadn't been enacted, would today's consumer prices be the same or lower?
Look you can write the funny numbers in whatever accounting mumbo jumbo you want, but I paid more to cover the cost to the supplier == I paid the tariffs.
What businesses were legitimately going to go bankrupt by the increased tariffs? I'm not defending the tariffs, mind you, but I don't buy that every company had to increase prices to offset the additional taxes. Many could've taken the hit and been fine, except profits would be down and shareholders would be angry.
Let's call it what it is, a massive wealth transfer from the general public to companies, and transitively (primarily) to the super-rich. Just because it's legal that they are robbing us blind does not make it right.
This answer is the incarnation of capitalismmaxxing. Economically speaking you're correct - but morally definitely not, companies are for the bigger part not the harmed party here.
i personally paid, to UPS and DHL iirc, tariffs. so maybe i wasn’t actually directly billed the tariff as the importer, but i 100% paid it.
No one cares.
"I didn't kill him, officer. It was the bullet."
Congress can act to pay back the economically harmed party, the consumer. They won't because we live in an oligarchy.
In other words: the president can break the law and fuck you over by transferring a nice chunk of your money to big companies, and none of the lawbreakers will be held accountable in any way, and you're not owed a dime in restitution.
There's going to have to be class actions filed against the retailers if consumers want anything.
In practice, the entities who gave money directly to the US government are the ones who paid the tariff. Those entities should be pressured to refund the consumers, but in practice, that's unlikely.<p>I (unknowingly) ordered something on Etsy from another country. UPS delivered the items, then sent me a letter requiring I pay the tariff and an extra tariff handling fee. UPS paid the government, so UPS should get their money back from the government, then refund me. I'm not holding my breath.
Economically it is a direct redistribution of wealth. In crisis times, Congress acts swiftly to cure wrongs against corporations. What about this wrong against every single household?
UPS is definitely pocketing most of whatever refund they get. And golly gee gosh what a shocker, the company supports Republicans. I'm afraid you've been robbed.<p>> ‘Corporate and industry group political action committees have donated more than $44 million directly to the campaigns and leadership PACs of the 147 members of the Sedition Caucus. Companies and trade associations that pledged to suspend donations have given more than $12 million to the campaign and leadership PACs of the Sedition Caucus.<p>> Koch Industries ($626,500), American Crystal Sugar ($530,000), Home Depot ($525,000), Boeing ($488,000), and UPS ($479,500) have contributed the most money to members of the Sedition Caucus through their corporate PACs.’<p>> Tomé’s reconciliation with representatives who legitimized Trump’s attempted presidential coup — and who may control Congress after the November midterm elections — shouldn’t surprise us. Trump lavished huge gifts on UPS and Corporate America that have made them richer.”<p>> The second Trump presidency has the potential to be even more lucrative for UPS, given that the bulk of UPS’s unionized workers are Teamsters and led by prominent Trump ally Sean O’Brien<p><a href="https://joeallen-60224.medium.com/big-brown-and-the-fascists-an-update-54a6f2696f96" rel="nofollow">https://joeallen-60224.medium.com/big-brown-and-the-fascists...</a>
> UPS is definitely pocketing most of whatever refund they get. And golly gee gosh what a shocker, the company supports Republicans. I'm afraid you've been robbed.<p>Looks like they've given a pretty similar amount to both parties[1]. UPS charging a specific "Tariff Fee" is bound to have angered Trump.<p>[1]<a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/united-parcel-service/summary?id=D000000081" rel="nofollow">https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/united-parcel-service/summa...</a>
You'll need to ask companies that are going to get that government refund.
same place where your refund is for congress rolling out 10%+ inflation for years and now your dollar is worth less. its theft actually
Clearly, since calculating the individual refunds are impossible, the companies will be broadly discounting products going forward by their effective tariff rate for roughly the time the tariffs were in effect. /s
SCOTUS is entirely to blame for the chaos here, the courts quickly found the tariffs illegal but they used the shadow docket to stay the ruling causing the illegal behavior to continue for a year.
Any sensible administration implementing such an obviously suspect tariff regime could have easily put the tariffs in a kind of escrow instead of just pretending it's novel policy was trivially constitutional.<p>Blaming SCOTUS here is not out of the question, but they should not be "entirely" to blame, unless you think it's totally fine to run the Executive branch like you're trying to get away with something. It's not.
It's even more to blame given that it stripped the NEA and IEEPA acts of legislative guardrails in 1987.<p>[0] <a href="https://fivepoints.mattglassman.net/p/the-court-ieepa-and-the-legislative" rel="nofollow">https://fivepoints.mattglassman.net/p/the-court-ieepa-and-th...</a>
To blame in a second order but this is the admin's work overall, they shouldn't have tried to fund their PACs and pocket this money into their family & friends' bank accounts. Just shows how broken the system is.
The people harmed here were the US public and they are just going to continue to be harmed. The right answer is people go to jail. Until people start going to jail, being disbarred, etc, this will keep happening. This isn't a remedy. This is continuing the cycle.
There was an interesting case in Finland. Finnish customs used to apply a 22% tax (ELV) on top of the car tax for imported used cars from other EU countries. On top of that, Finnish law required VAT to be charged on the car tax itself.<p>There were multiple court cases and this practice was found unlawful (and actually against EU law). But the government did not issue automatic refunds, and instead requested that people "actively appeal" with some time limits. They also refused to pay interest on the money withheld.<p>AFAIK, only about 50M Euro was paid back. A lot of funds gathered between 2002–2005 was never returned.<p>I've been living in Finland for 10+ years, and this whole story was super surprising for me to learn because the prevailing notion among people here is that Finland is the land of law, and everything is done correctly and legally, always, and we can and should trust the authorities.
Hmm. The "active request" is quite common though. I agree that this is unfair, since it is theft, IMO, but Finland is not the only one forcing active engagement to get your money back. Even when the government stole that money from the people.<p>> we can and should trust the authorities.<p>Well, Finland has a fairly competent government usually for the most part. That mantra will not work in many other countries though - such as Germany. Just look at what Merz is doing; his left hand does not know what the right hand should do ...
every single so called "nation state" is in reality just a regime, they ALL do this. They are no different than the mafia. You can choose between so called "don socialist" and "don fiscally-resonsible", yet they are identical twins with a different haircut.<p>No organisations or regime has ever considered itself illegitimate. The big guys consider smaller guys legitimate or illegitimate, but its just ink on a page.<p>Finland (and _ALL_ other countries) is an illegitimate regime, collecting its protection money, telling you to pray it does not alter the deal any further
None of this matters; this is guaranteed to go to the Supreme Court. Too much money, too much precedent. The only thing being established now is the battleground as the procedure of getting up to the Supreme Court. The actual rulings on the way up to the Supreme Court are of minimal consequence.
The Supreme Court already invalidated the tariffs. That’s the context of this order (and the subtitle of the article).
As sibling says, the Court very definitely did not order them to refund anything. They could have, and they didn't. The Court knew from the beginning that this was coming back to them.<p>You may see other judges rule that the refunds don't have to be paid, for any of several reasons. Whatever your desired outcome is, none of it matters until this gets to the Supreme Court. Given the nature of money, it doesn't even matter if some higher court refuses to give an injunction against the refunds being issued until after the appeal is considered and some set of refunds goes all the way through... no company that gets any money from a pre-SC refund can really use it until the entire matter is resolved at the SC level.
> As sibling says, the Court very definitely did not order them to refund anything.<p>> You may see other judges rule that the refunds don't have to be paid, for any of several reasons.<p>I think the government might have a bit of an uphill battle given arguments they have previously made to courts. For example, consider this decision from the US Court of International Trade from 2025-12 [0]:<p>> However, as the Government notes in its response to Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction here, it “[has] made very clear—both in this case and in related cases—that [it] will not object to the [c]ourt ordering reliquidation of plaintiffs’ entries subject to the challenged IEEPA duties if such duties are found to be unlawful.”<p>> <snip><p>> Judicial estoppel would prevent the Government from taking an inconsistent approach after a final result in V.O.S. [] The Government has emphasized this point itself, citing to <i>Sumecht NA, Inc. v. United States</i>, which holds that “the Government would be judicially estopped from taking a contrary position” regarding a prior representation involving the availability of relief in the form of reliquidation. [] Having convinced this court to accept that importers who paid IEEPA tariffs will be able to receive refunds after reliquidation, and having benefited from the court’s subsequent conclusion that importers will not experience irreparable harm as a consequence of liquidation, the Government cannot later “assume a contrary position” to argue that refunds are not available after liquidation.<p>> <snip><p>> Additionally, the panel in <i>In re Section 301 Cases</i> unanimously agreed—as we do
now—that the USCIT has “the explicit power to order reliquidation and refunds where the government has unlawfully exacted duties.” [] The Government acknowledges that “a decision [to the contrary] would be inconsistent with years of [the court’s] precedent.”<p>Obviously all this doesn't prevent the government from appealing anyways, but they'll need to get creative to get around their previous representations.<p>[0]: <a href="https://www.cit.uscourts.gov/sites/cit/files/25-154.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://www.cit.uscourts.gov/sites/cit/files/25-154.pdf</a>
They didn't have to rule on it because there's already precedent that tariffs that shouldn't have been collected have to be repaid.
But they didn't say anything about refunding them and you can bet Trump will oppose that and ask the SCOTUS to decide on it. They of course have an option to take their time to render the decision and then just dismiss the case without a comment.<p>That's what the GP likely meant.<p>The circus must go on.
But (IIRC) the Supreme Court did <i>not</i> order that the tariffs be refunded. They left that issue open in their decision. So jerf may well be right.
The actual question is if Eaton overstepped his authority in this ruling.<p>Instead of ruling narrowly that named plaintiffs would get a refund<p>Eaton expressly said:<p>"all importers of record" which is all who were subject to the IEEPA duties.<p>It is unclear if this is lawful.<p>He didn't have to do this at all. He could stuck with tradition here. He specifies why he did it in this case, but this opens the door.<p>Also note that he did not open the door to "final liquidations" getting refunds (it is unclear how many tariffs more than 180 days ago were not officially protested).
I wonder if brands will have a "tariff refund" sale. Make everything 20% off until all of the brand's tariff refund is passed on to customers. Of course, this wouldn't help the customers that already paid the tariff but it could be a good marketing ploy.
Much more interesting would be if the tariffs were refunded equally to each person nationwide (interesting in that it very clearly then becomes an income redistribution scheme, even if on a limited basis).<p>Possibly a refund of about $500 per social security number. Doesn't even have to be in cash, could just directly go towards the social security fund if legislated that way.<p>Tons of ways to fix this quagmire in a way that's beneficial to people. But it won't happen.
And then Trump can sign the checks again....<p>Sarcasm aside, I agree the refunds should go back to consumers, not the importers. I don't have a source, but I have to imagine the lion's share of companies that were hit with tariffs increased their prices, and the consumer paid the bill.
Related <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47183719">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47183719</a>
I like this idea. It's a good pr move for the business too
Love this:<p>The judge said the repayment process should be straightforward and grew impatient when a Justice Department lawyer said the government hadn’t yet formalized its position on refunding the tariffs, which President Trump imposed by citing a decades-old law. “Your position is clear,” the judge said. “The Supreme Court told you what your position is.”
I have a few thousand dollars that I paid to a Chinese manufacturer who then used that money to pay an importer so that I could get my materials hassle free.<p>Looks like the hassle will now be on the backend...
I work in the customs industry. What you are describing was a common scheme (DDP Incoterms) to evade the tariffs (partially), and there is a carve out of the refunds that explicitly says DDP will not be refunded. So there's s chance you get nothing back.<p>Also contractually you didn't pay the duties so you wouldn't get refunds.
Yeah, I got the receipts even—with tariffs itemized.<p><i>I'll</i> never see that money.
So the consumer ate the tariff (I saw somewhere that they just got passed on for the most part). Now the companies are just gonna get the money back and either enrich their exec staff or shareholders?<p>It feels like a company should have to prove they didn't pass the tariff on to consumers in order to collect this.
One thing I don't see mentioned enough with the whole "the consumers paid these tariffs! we should get refunds!"... We "paid" not just in higher prices, but in many layoffs, reduction in working hours, skipped bonuses and raises. Companies that get 'refunds' will have an opportunity to use that money to rehire and repay workers. I'm cynical enough to think that will happen in large measures across the whole country, but I'm hopeful enough to want to see it happen nonetheless.<p>Delayed refunds won't even start to repair the damage done by bankruptcies triggered by high tariffs, the snowballed cost of tariffs impacting multiple steps in the supply chain, the emotional toll on families and communities having to deal with less money and rising prices. But rehiring and getting some regions and communities back to work might be a step in the right direction.<p>EXCEPT WE NOW HAVE A 15% GLOBAL TARIFF ONGOING. And a lunatic administration that will fight tooth and nail for years to keep this going as long as possible.<p>Trump "loves" this country so much it hurts me.
> Companies that get 'refunds' will have an opportunity to use that money to rehire and repay workers.<p>Why on Earth do you expect a single-time payment with no strings attached to make companies think some market is profitable so they should invest in it?
Unsure where you got that from? If a company that has had to lay off staff and reduce hours because of increase in expenses because of tariffs, then they get a chunk of money back, trying to 'get back' to where you were before - headcount, wages, etc - might be on your mind, and might be possible with a one-time refund of ideally a sizeable portion of your tax. However... <i>we still have extremely high tariffs in place</i> so the effects of higher input prices are still ongoing (and ramped up in some cases).<p>If our tariff structure went back to, say, October 2024, and companies who'd paid some inordinate tax - forcing layoffs and reductions - got a chunk of that back - and the taxes went back to what they were - there'd likely be some return to hiring and raises as before. But we can't get back to that any time soon with an administration hellbent on extracting as much from <i>us</i> via tariffs as possible.
The reason companies invest is not because they have money.<p>And edit because I explained it badly:<p>That means that yes, getting the tariffs back can make them hire, because there may be more people wanting to buy things. Sending them the tariffs money will do absolutely nothing.<p>But even the first part isn't guaranteed, because you can't rollback the economy, things don't return to where they were, they go into some other place.
"use that money to rehire and repay workers"<p>or give it to shareholders.
They only do that after tax, so there'll be more tax paid if they do that.
Everything is taxed including payroll.
I do find it kinda crazy that we had a specific policy surrounding tariffs (Smoot-Hawley) that was in the center of the worst economic collapse in US history.<p>And now, less than 100 years later we're like "hey let's try that again!"<p><a href="https://www.visualcapitalist.com/the-average-u-s-tariff-rate-since-1890/" rel="nofollow">https://www.visualcapitalist.com/the-average-u-s-tariff-rate...</a>
Wouldn't it be simpler to implement a 'spend-forward scheme' rather than returning? For example, spend that money on research grants and health care. It is returning the money to the people. A man can dream, no?
Lots of comments along the lines that tarrifs were mostly passed down indirectly to consumers, who aren't entitled to refunds.<p>I definitely agree on principle, it sounds pretty tricky to see how proving "I paid $x more for groceries because of tarrifs" would work in practice.<p>Does anyone know of policy suggestions for how that could work?
You put the money on an investment pool and pay the citizens back in:<p>* Direct Cash (using some equation for impoverished households)<p>* Infrastructure<p>* Better life conditions<p>No other uses for this money. The returns and the uses of this money must be public.
Most everything was probably bought with credit/debit cards. The individual records exist. Just using your Amazon etc order history should be dead simple
you would need to prove what part of the amounts you paid were due to tariffs, and which were ordinary price changes. All vendors would need to publish that information, and be honest about it. Don't see it coming.
So corporations get refunds, I'm sure they'll issue refunds to consumers any day now.
I don't usually like to get involved in US politics as I'm not American, nor do I live in the US. But I will say this: the dildo of consequences rarely arrives lubed.<p>Read from that what you will... as a voter, or the POTUS.
They will never pay this without a fight.<p>Good time to specialize in "tariff litigation", if you're a law firm.
The American people will be robbed blind and beaten into submission until there is a reason not to. It's that simple. They have NEVER been punished, why would they stop?
If you're an American consumer who had the tarrifs passed on in higher prices wouldn't you feel totally robbed by this whole ordeal?
I ache for the day we were governed by people who were competent and wanted to govern.
Justice delayed is justice denied.
At least our president made a lot of lawyers happier.
Unclear if the SC ruling is retro active. But of course, lawyers will try to make money out of this...
> Unclear if the SC ruling is retro active. But of course, lawyers will try to make money out of this...<p>What do you mean unclear? The ruling says that certain of the tariffs were always illegal.
It's 100% clear, and even if it weren't the government already conceded that the tariffs are refundable to get this far. If the tariffs were not refundable, that would mean that the injury from them is irreparable, and they would have had to be enjoined pending the decision.
“We live in the age of computers,” Eaton said. “It must be possible for Customs Service to program its computers so it doesn’t need a manual review.”<p>lol
If I illegally forced a bunch of people to give me $130 billion, the courts would not stop at making me pay them back. I and all my co-conspirators would go to prison forever. We should accept nothing less here.
Has anyone else noticed this? In our area, it seems in 2025 a lot of local businesses (ie local toy stores, etc) have closed. Presumably tariff pressures hurt (among other affordability issues).<p>The big players can restructure supply chains. Small businesses can't. The mom and pops seem to suffer.<p>I'm hoping there can be an infusion of $ into those companies and maybe stimulate a little growth, or at least survival through the Trump years.
Trump should be personally liable for this. He knew it was illegal but he still did it, to the harm of US citizens.
If consumers indirectly pay the cost of tariffs, who pays for the dead-weight loss of taxes on domestic employers?
Trump is not a competent person. How did he ever get rich?
Good. Perhaps the administration should follow the law.
So we don't have to pay taxes this year, right?
Wonder if the companies (who have been mostly passing on the tariffs to the end user) will just add the refunds to their profits or give back in some way
in other news:<p><a href="https://newrepublic.com/post/206882/trump-commerce-secretary-lutnick-sons-money-end-tariffs-supreme-court" rel="nofollow">https://newrepublic.com/post/206882/trump-commerce-secretary...</a>
Also in other news:<p>"Amid online claims Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick’s sons, Brandon and Kyle Lutnick, senior executives at Cantor Fitzgerald, could benefit from the Supreme Court’s tariff ruling, a firm spokesperson told Newsweek it has “never executed any transactions or taken risk on the legality of tariffs.""<p>[0] <a href="https://www.newsweek.com/howard-lutnick-sons-may-make-money-supreme-court-ruling-tariffs-11558345" rel="nofollow">https://www.newsweek.com/howard-lutnick-sons-may-make-money-...</a>
Worst president ever.
The past 20 years have been an endless series of wealth transfers from commoners to the wealthy. This is Oligarchy.
... refunded to the importer of record. Not the people the costs were passed to. Essentially turning it retroactively into a tax to private businesses. This is the worst case of all scenarios for the consumer.
I understand the frustration but I don't understand the logic. The businesses who paid the tariffs (who were literally sent an invoice that they paid) should be the ones refunded.<p>How would the government even be able to determine if a business increased product prices due to tariffs vs other factors, or even if the business increased prices at all? What if the product is a loss leader and the company was fine just eating the expense?
Or what about a nefarious company who manufacturers their stuff in Canada but used "tariffs" as an excuse to increase prices? What would they be refunded from?
> How would the government even be able to determine if a business increased product prices due to tariffs vs other factors, or even if the business increased prices at all? What if the product is a loss leader and the company was fine just eating the expense? Or what about a nefarious company who manufacturers their stuff in Canada but used "tariffs" as an excuse to increase prices? What would they be refunded from?<p>Gee, I don't know, receipts ?<p>Also simply revenue on the business end
Yes, you're almost there, just go one step further. Now you've got a big pile of money and no clear rules on where it should go. Who gets to decide where it will go? Given how this administration operates, where do you think it <i>will</i> go?
> I understand the frustration but I don't understand the logic. The businesses who paid the tariffs (who were literally sent an invoice that they paid) should be the ones refunded.<p>So if I'm the owner of Uncle Billy Bobs Autoparts and I ship from Madeupcountry. I billed you $500 extra for some new car part. The US government refunds me on the tariffs they charged me to import my product to you, and now your taxes is going into my refund. Who wins in this scenario? They're effectively giving every country a free bonus. I wouldn't be surprised if some people got scammed by the tariffs by being overcharged.<p>There's no serious paper trail to any of this to meaningfully return lost revenue to the American consumer, I would rather not waste tax dollars on refunds.<p>I guess the only "winners" are maybe businesses that didn't pass on the revenue loss on to the consumer? But how do you even correctly refund those businesses?
Since the cost was probably split between reduced profit and additional customer cost, it seems pretty impractical to determine who is due a refund - end users or businesses. Or the logistics of refunds to customers.<p>One possibility would be for businesses to return the fraction of the tariff paid by customers to future customers by offering the items affected with a negative tax until the refund is used up.
"Since the cost was probably split between reduced profit and additional customer cost…"<p>Ha ha, that's a good one. I have yet to hear about reduced profits anywhere. Instead, as I said in another comment, I have actual physical receipts with the additional tariff cost (itemized!) in a pile on my workshop (which I'll never see refunded).
If the amounts are under the limit you might sue the company who cut those invoices in small claims court for the amounts of the tariff line items on the invoices.<p>The invoices give you slam dunk evidence that you paid that amount in tariffs, and the supreme court decision says the payment was illegally collected, so seems like an easy win for you.
> Instead, as I said in another comment, I have actual physical receipts with the additional tariff cost (itemized!) in a pile on my workshop (which I'll never see refunded).<p>You could ask for a tariff refund from those suppliers.
You're thinking way too much like a programmer<p>It doesn't need to be a perfect solution, you could just give everyone a flat refund similar to class action payouts.
> Since the cost was probably split between reduced profit and additional customer<p>As someone who prices and sells labor and material for a living, nobody ate increased tariffs. They were passed along to the ultimate consumer of the tariffed product. Everyone was facing the same tariffs so they’re all incentivized to pass the cost along, line iteming the tariffs on the invoice would make it abundantly clear. I passed along all increased costs with a note on my proposal that said “Any and all additional tariffs will be paid for by the customer.”
Making people spend more money to "save" money is just a sale to increase profits even more.
That's not how capitalism works. Consumers ate the cost. Have you not bought anything in the last year?
Maybe this will finally be the impetus for the US to go for a VAT? Hell if we get a carbon based border adjustment tax out of this like people were talking about in Trump’s first term this might be a case of broken clocks.
It's COVID PPP all over again... Expect more asset inflation.
One thing that should happen moving forward, whether we keep tariffs in one way or the other, we need consumer protection laws. I assume companies abused the "oh yeah you owe us for the tariffs" as a way to overcharge consumers. I think additional costs driven by tariffs should be 100% spelled out to the consumer next to where you're shown the tax amount. This should allow for auditing later if companies overcharge. It also would make "refunding" more reasonable, since you could show a receipt if technically you paid for a tariff, otherwise, if the company swallows it, they would show the amount but 'discount' or 'omit' it as something they are choosing to pay for. Without a paper trail I don't see how refunding any of this is feasible.
> refunded to the importer of record. Not the people the costs were passed to<p>I mean the importers were the ones who paid the duties. It's not a given they passed it on, and if it was then in many cases it was spread out. That is importer paid for one container of items, which in turn got sold to individuals which the government has no record of.<p>If you ordered delivery by say FedEx and they paid the duty and passed it on to you, you should have a reasonable case to get it refunded from FedEx when they get the money back. Ideally they handle it automatically since they have all the necessary details.<p>For manufacturing companies it's less clear, as some might have swallowed all or some of the duties, and multiple components might have been affected by different rates etc.<p>Will be interesting to see how companies who passed it on will handle this, given it's a massive PITA to do anything but screw over their customers.
Yet another successful Republican transfer of wealth from the people who do the work (employees) to the people who don't (owners).
that was the plan all along
These people are evil, but also bumbling idiots, so sometimes there is no evil plan, just incompetence.
There are direct ties from the administration to companies offering hedges against tariffs. There was absolutely an evil plan, IMO.
Agree. But a few sure scrambled when they read the tea leaves and saw a chance to profit by it.
they are everything except incompetent when it comes to massively looting us and profiting.
Tax to businesses? You think the costs were only passed down once? Really?
[flagged]
Good luck with that.
And notice that the refunds are TO THE COMPANIES.<p>This was the plan from the get-go:<p><pre><code> 1. Illegal tariffs made
2. Companies pay tariffs
3. Companies sell goods with tariff passed on
4. tariffs deemed illegal
5. companies get refunds on tariffs
6. COMPANIES KEEP TARIFFS
7. The customers get fucked.</code></pre>
Paywalled.
Chaos is a ladder.<p>Trump doesn't care who went bankrupt or lost money, he was able to create a whole pile of red number buying opportunities for his friends in the know. And for himself.<p>It's now an age of oligarchy, stable corporate capitalism and gentlemanly bourgeois behaviour and the appearance of "rules based order" and equally brokered commerce is out, schoolyard bully attitude and "give me your lunch money" is in.<p>If you still want to profit, you make friends with the right people, kiss the ring, and get permission to become a highwayman or parasite like the rest of them.<p>At the bottom, is us. I don't think any election can put the cork back in this bottle. The only thing that will end this decline is an angry non-compliant populace that is sick of getting a very bad deal.
Private businesses get refunded and a payday, prices for the consumer stay high (because consumers have proven that they can bear them), and inflation goes up.<p>Clearly, this makes America great again. /s
[dead]
[flagged]
You could point out the inconsistency, but I really think the cognitive dissonance of constant and pervasive hypocrisy is the <i>point</i>. Truth is whatever the party tells you today, and we have always been at war with EastAsia.
> we have always been at war with EastAsia<p>Isn’t the new line that we’ve been at war with Iran for 47 years?
Yes, that is how cults operate.
How is it mind boggling? It's a regressive tax. That's literally their MO.<p>They've been pushing the national sales tax to replace income tax since the 2000s (and probably longer).
Every single proposal for a national sales tax, consumption tax, or 'flat' tax put forward by the right has been shown over and over again to <i>not</i> be regressive - usually through the implementation of prebates (literally a check written to lower income people every year/quarter to cover a portion of the taxes they will pay).<p>Whether or not these schemes would work is debatable, but to claim that they show an MO of regressive taxes is just false.
It's a smart play for a flat tax. Baseline at 15-20% on imports (proxy for flat tax on income). Then push to eliminate income tax. It's very much aligned with conservative view points on income tax and it's progressive nature.
Smart if you ignore mathematics
I don't necessarily disagree, a federal sales tax / VAT could make sense. But so far all it's been is conflicting objectives for tariffs: eliminating income tax, trade deal negotiations, and bringing jobs back. I don't think you can have all three of those simultaneously.
[flagged]
You're ranting.<p>Many governments, at least the ones that matter, are bankrupt. Quick google shows all G8 countries run a deficit.<p>My "smart play" wasn't on the merits of idea, largely the game theory aspect of moving forward to their policy goals after decades of having no traction. It's a unique idea, policy wise. Don't know if it will be effective. Neither do you.
>You're ranting.<p>Sadly I'm not. I'm objectively stating facts. This criminal cabal of spectacularly incompetent clowns is absolutely ransacking the final days of an empire. It is astonishing how Americans are unaware of this.<p>>Many governments, at least the ones that matter, are bankrupt. Quick google shows all G8 countries run a deficit.<p>The US ran a $2.3 <i>trillion</i> dollar deficit over the last 12 months, and spending has gone absolutely wild. At the same time it's handing out massive tax cuts to corporations, and has absolutely no path to get back on track. Quite the opposite, the Trump cabal is basically making it <i>impossible</i> to get back on track. Which is why they're looting everything they can as quickly as they can.<p>>Neither do you.<p>Yes, I know that it was harebrained and literally zero economists with a functioning brain have called it a "smart" play. Only absolute cultists or the most profoundly gullible ever found the arguments by the criminals convincing.<p>Further, as is classic with Trump's lies (that only <i>spectacularly</i> gullible and/or stupid people fall for), he sells every angle of the same play simultaneously. Not only will tariffs eliminate income tax -- a notion that is so mathematically stupid it is instantly dismissible -- simultaneously all of those jobs are going to be repatriated and there will be no imports. These two notions are absolutely at odds -- and <i>both</i> are just utter fantasy nonsense -- but stupid people believe what stupid people do.<p>And yeah, bro, tariffs are not a unique idea. There is no novelty here.
> It's laughable mathematical fantasy<p>I mean 2.5 / 3.4 = ~ 75%. A measly 75% tariffs will allow the abolition of income tax.
In 2023, 28% of U.S. adults scored at or below Level 1 literacy, indicating significant difficulty with everyday reading tasks. <a href="https://www.nu.edu/blog/49-adult-literacy-statistics-and-facts/" rel="nofollow">https://www.nu.edu/blog/49-adult-literacy-statistics-and-fac...</a><p>You guys are surrounded by other college-educated SWE, you have no idea how bad it is out there.<p>People without a college degree went Trump 56-43. People with a college degree went for Harris 56-42. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_United_States_presidential_election#Opinion_polling_and_forecasts" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_United_States_presidentia...</a>
How do we fix this should be the question asked. Is it even possible at this point?<p>I guess there is no free lunch, each person who realizes the importance of education has to start taking it seriously right now and spend their lives getting their community to start taking it seriously and maybe hopefully the next generation can emerge much better off. We let this mess fester for decades and now we are paying for it for the rest of our lives because there is no free lunch.
Education is a public good, therefore good education is socialist, and Americans are very hyper-individualist (aka antisocial). History suggests that Americans generally only move toward communal support systems during extreme crises, like the shift during the Great Depression. Even Covid wasn't enough to get people asking for universal healthcare, it has to be much worse.<p>Overcoming 'American Exceptionalism' to adopt a successful model like the Finnish education system would probably require a massive crisis. The current system will just limp along until then.
Yeah, it is an interesting bubble to be in. I worked with a company that could not keep up with the rising SWE salaries and thus attracted a different kind of SWE. I definitely felt the difference in education with the new hires. Reading comprehension/attention was weak. AI will easily replace them, I guess.<p>Finding the data on this would be convenient but its still unclear to me. I'm not a fan of how that article from NU cites its sources loosely, including lazily citing Wikipedia.
> People without a college degree went Trump 56-43. People with a college degree went for Harris 56-42.<p>One made more promises to the poor and working class. It seems baked into your comment that the distribution should be 50-50 which seems crazy. A swing of ~5 points isn't that much.<p>This math would work on any demographic.
Much of that was his lie that "other countries pay the tariffs" that, somehow, a huge number of his supporters swallowed completely.
It's really more complicated than this.<p>Onshoring manufacturing is something that has to be incentivized and that has positive externalities outside of dollars and cents.<p>But some tariffs were really dumb, like on bananas. We can't grow bananas here...
It should be more complicated but the way the Trump admin did this isn't complicated. Tariffs were used to punish countries that didn't bend the knee. When they did, the tariffs were removed. So no-one was ever going to build a factory in the US because of tariffs, everyone knew they might go away tomorrow.
This back and forth is the entire issue if you ask me. Whoever you ask in the administration on any given day is going to say the tariffs exist for different reasons. It’s on purpose though - it’s so whoever is arguing for the admin can curate the answer.<p>Don’t like the cost? It’s a negotiation tactic. Want manufacturing back? That’s what it’s doing actually, it’s definitely a longterm play to bring it back. Worried about the debt? The tariffs are going to be a huge, permanent revenue generator that gets back at countries that “cheated” us. It can't be all these as multiple elements contradict each other.<p>I’ll take my Fox News slot now please and thank you.
> We can’t grow bananas here…<p>We can’t? Are south Florida, southern California, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, are they not “here”? There is literally a banana variety called California Gold.
It’s not that complicated. People got mad that gay people existed and they had to press “2” for English and here we are.
> But some tariffs were really dumb, like on bananas. We can't grow bananas here...<p>Trump and his cabinet don't understand this.
Tariffs aren't incentives, the whole thing is upsidedown.
>Onshoring manufacturing is something that has to be incentivized and that has positive externalities outside of dollars and cents.<p>That's what the CHIPS act did. Indeed, everyone talking about TSMC, Intel, etc -- that's all because of the CHIPS act.<p>Toddler tantrum tariffs, which in reality are a vehicle for massive level corruption (see how Vietnam got a "deal" by approving a Trump resort. Or how every business leader is stuck to Trump's anus lest they be targeted by his tyrant tantrums), are not an incentive. It has had the <i>opposite</i> effect, and new builds have basically dried up.
Ironically I was mildly in favor of tariffs from the left pov. Reduced consumption and getting more taxes to help pay down the debt.<p>Consumption was likely mildly reduced (and still is with the 15% tax) but now we have more inflation coming our way when those billions start flowing and our debt just keeps going up.
Such a regressive tax to get behind.<p>Now if tariffs had only been applied to, I don't know, yachts, private jets…
From 1991-1993 there was a luxury tax on yachts, private jets...<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxury_tax#United_States" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxury_tax#United_States</a>
I'd go for a more progressive tax if it was on offer. But there is so much debt that I'm pretty worried that taxes are simply unsustainably low.
Rich people consume a lot more, so a consumption tax would be ideal if you eased other tax categories like income tax and/or capital gains. It's easy to administer and would boost investment across the economy IMO.
"Rich people consume a lot more…"<p>Working class often live paycheck to paycheck. Unless rich are also living paycheck to paycheck I'm not sure I the two really compare.<p>That's of course the idea behind a progressive tax: it scales to what an individual "can afford".
I wouldn't ease any taxes - we simply can't afford lower taxes. Debt is nearly $40T (125% of GDP)!
Well, government spending could go down along with that too. Obviously, that ain't happening with Republicans (see: the OBBB and failed DOGE project) but in theory you could do major reform and craft coherent policy while not triple dipping tax-wise. I think you could implement quite a high consumption tax model and be okay -- you'd have the added benefit of very simple collection and enforcement since it's all at the tail end.
Note that it's less than 15%, only what the importer pays, so less than a VAT would be
> Ironically I was mildly in favor of tariffs from the left pov.<p>The ironic part is not that you were mildly in favor from the left, the ironic part is that they came from the right.<p>Pre-Trump, the right was very anti-tariff and only a portion of the left was pro tariff, the Bernie Sanders type.
Eliminate income tax and replace with flat sales tax is a libertarian-conservative policy goal for some time
Anything flatter than a progressive tax means, by definition, that the poor will pay more, and the rich less.<p>I suppose that sounds pretty good if you're rich.
I don't see why this would be even slightly surprising: that is a common right-wing position and has been for a while? They even made a big run of it in 2023.<p><a href="https://pettersen.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=87" rel="nofollow">https://pettersen.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?Documen...</a>
Populist energy
What was the tax rate if you bought things made in the US with US materials?
Please direct me to the nearest grocery store that sells US bananas made with US materials
What if there was no alternative that was US-made?<p>Even if there was a US version, you'd still pay more regardless. This goes against one of the main grievances in the 2024 cycle: prices are too high.
The same as the tax rate on a blessing of unicorns that I also couldn't buy.<p>Our domestic manufacturing industry is so far gone, it's doubtful whether even skillfully-applied tariffs could encourage any of it to come back on their own. Never mind this clown show, which apparently didn't even do the basic political work to make sure the tariffs would stay in place more than a year, despite having both houses of Congress.
It's such an old and standard and basic playbook. They cultivated fear among the poor about immigrants or some bit of social progress like pronouns. To win power and take whatever actions they believed would enrich themselves. There's never anything more to it than that.
Even in the US, I don't think right wing == capitalist. There are the people in it for the economics and others for the ideas/values.
Tariffs (or something like land value tax) are one of the less intrusive forms of taxes since imported goods are already scrutinized and tabulated at the border anyway under the border 4A exception. In theory tariffs are a lot less dystopic in their financial surveillance than stuff like income tax, but you were supposed to drop the income tax when you pick up tariffs, not just use it to make the Swamp larger.
National sales tax would be significantly better than income tax. Per head would be even better
Unfortunately replacement doesn’t seem to be on the table for anyone.
Better for whom? Wealthy people?<p>If your argument is that taxation at sale is harder to dogdge than with income, and thus an obviously regressive scheme would still be advantageous for the average American, then I'm not buying it at all.<p>I see no evidence whatsoever that the wealthy would have any more difficulty in dodging sales tax than income/capital gains taxes.
[flagged]
[flagged]
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
...?<p>No, this is the consequence of having an actual stupid person in the Oval Office and the majority party being half coerced and half committed in cultlike devotion to POTUS.<p>Obviously the US has economic weapons. It's the largest economy in the world.<p>If anything this signals that POTUS himself cannot wield those weapons though, and the American public, political, and business apparatuses have little appetite for this use of those weapons.
[flagged]
[flagged]
Okay, I'll entertain it. How would you distinguish between the brilliant move of using illegal tariffs to disclose limited power and appetite for tariffs, versus someone displaying a 3rd grader level of economic understanding and saying "well of course we should charge people to sell stuff in 'my store' and I am now the manager of 'the store', so I get to set the rate"?<p>What specific pieces of evidence do you believe makes the former more likely than the latter?<p>+1 on nukes, though MAD has worked for decades so far. I agree people think this risk is far more remote than it actually is. Especially the risk of a catastrophic <i>accident</i> as nukes proliferate and forces get put on higher readiness.
Why would China immediately retaliate with a Rare Earth threat to tariffs? Why would we threaten Greenland, another rare earth hotbed? We , the general public , similar to the Cuban Missile crisis, are not being told shit.<p>There is a global cold/hot war where real pieces have moved. NATO is basically at war and we can’t know. There’s millions dying in Ukraine, and it’s basically Eurasia to us (virtualized, reported , broadcasted ).<p>Warships are being torpedoed. Nuclear subs from either side can’t be tracked, it is always a leveraged threat that one has to negotiate around.<p>Few are ready to live under 24 hour nuclear watch, but it’s possible that’s what many cities have been under and can never be told. Maybe I should just go ahead and write my great American novel?
> Few are ready to live under 24 hour nuclear watch, but it’s possible that’s what many cities have been under and can never be told.<p>Effectively every city on the planet is perpetually on 24 hour nuclear watch and has been for decades now. This is completely "known" to anyone who cares to know and has taken the time to understand modern nuclear doctrine.<p>You should read The Doomsday Machine! It'll help amp up your anxiety ;)
When Biden's student loan forgiveness program was determined to be illegal (twice) by the Supreme Court, nobody ordered that the recipients give it back.
What if this was the plan, so those importers can make money?
Ha, ha, ha. Someone, somewhere, ordering government to do something. Thank you for the best laugh today.