“A seismic ruling today from the Supreme Court”

Summary

---

Podcast Summary: "A Seismic Ruling Today from the Supreme Court"

Deadline: White House with Nicolle Wallace | MS NOW | February 20, 2026

---

Overview

This episode covers the Supreme Court's landmark 6-3 ruling limiting the president’s unilateral authority to impose tariffs—directly rebuking former President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariff policy. Host Nicolle Wallace and her panel break down the ruling’s legal, economic, and political implications, Trump’s reaction, and next steps for consumers, businesses, and Congress. The episode features legal experts (Neal Katyal, Andrew Weissman), economic analysis (Steve Liesman), political commentary (John Heilemann), and insights from Senator Maria Cantwell.

---

Main Theme

A pivotal Supreme Court decision curbs presidential power over tariffs, marking a rare check on Donald Trump’s economic policy and reinforcing the constitutional separation of powers. The fallout includes uncertainty for businesses, questions about economic impact and refunds, and bipartisan calls for Congressional oversight.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. What the Supreme Court Ruled

• The Court ruled 6-3 that the President cannot unilaterally impose tariffs without explicit Congressional authorization.
• Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that “the President asserts the extraordinary power to unilaterally impose tariffs of unlimited amount, duration and scope... he must identify clear congressional authorization to exercise it.”
  (Roberts opinion, quoted at 01:02)
• The ruling cuts to the heart of Trump's economic approach and asserts the importance of Congressional approval for taxation and tariffs.

Neal Katyal (argued the case for 50+ businesses):

"The stroke of the president's pen is not enough to impose taxes on the American people. And tariffs are nothing else but taxes." (06:09)

• Even Trump-appointed Justices Gorsuch and Barrett sided with the majority.
• All of Katyal’s arguments to the Court were adopted by the majority.

2. Trump’s Public Reaction & Political Fallout

• Trump responded live and on camera, moving through “the seven stages of grief”—shock, denial, bargaining, anger, and eventually, grudging acceptance.
• Delivered personal attacks against the Justices who ruled against him:

"They're an automatic no, no matter how good a case you have... unpatriotic and disloyal to our Constitution." — Donald Trump (02:17)

• Trump vowed to pursue a new global tariff under different legislative authority, leaving his legal grounds unclear.

Nicolle Wallace reacted:

"For those keeping score at home, that was a new low, even for him... Trump says, your family should be embarrassed of you." (03:16, 09:11)

• Panelists noted the unprecedented nature of such direct attacks on the Court from a sitting or former president.

3. Economic Impact: Business & Markets

• U.S. businesses have paid roughly $240 billion in extra tariffs since April 2025; refunding could cost $120 billion.
• The prospect of refunds is logistically and legally messy, with the Treasury and businesses left in limbo.
• Uncertainties remain for new tariffs and for small businesses less able to absorb costs or pursue litigation.

Steve Liesman (CNBC):

"From a business standpoint, that's probably a good thing... But a new patchwork of tariffs will now be assembled, which has been very, very difficult for businesses, especially small businesses, to navigate. So I'd say the amount of uncertainty alleviation is de minimis." (22:38)

• The ruling's immediate market impact was minimal; major indexes held steady.
• Continued tariff confusion may worsen inflation for American consumers, pushing up prices at stores like Walmart and Target.

4. Legal and Constitutional Analysis

• The dissent (Justice Kavanaugh) argued for broader presidential discretion but was overridden by the majority.
• The ruling was seen as a reaffirmation of the separation of powers, contrasting with previous Court decisions that expanded presidential immunity.

Andrew Weissman:

"This is one of the most remarkable passages... For the bulwark of liberty, it is... the design of the Constitution was that you secure liberty by diffusing power." (17:24)

• Panelists agreed this judgment might signal a Supreme Court shift away from rubber-stamping Trump’s actions, at least when constitutional clarity exists.

5. Congressional & Policy Response

• Democrats, led by Senator Maria Cantwell (WA), called for immediate refunds for tariffs businesses paid, regardless of whether they initiate lawsuits.
• Bipartisan support exists in Congress for reclaiming oversight of trade, especially with pressure from agricultural states.

Senator Cantwell:

"It's important now that consumers get some relief, that businesses... not pay more money than they should have to. It does affect our economy and it does affect our long term opportunities." (32:29)

• Concerns remain that Trump could resist implementing refunds or continue strong-arm tactics.

Andrew Weissman:

"For the small fry, for the people who have paid for importing goods... ongoing litigation... same kind of litigation that ended up with Neil winning in the Supreme Court today." (35:12)

6. Ethical and Governance Scandals

• A New York Times exposé reports that the husband of Trump’s Secretary of Labor has been barred from the department after sexual assault allegations, with further misconduct under investigation.
• The panel discussed the broader erosion of the rule of law and accountability in the Trump administration.

John Heilemann:

"If this wasn't the government of the United States, you'd be like, this is a wild party... How bad does it have to be... for this to actually meet some standard where people think you've gone too far?" (39:58)

7. Rule of Law & The Broader Moment

• Nicolle and her guests return repeatedly to the theme that unchecked attacks on institutions and the judiciary are eroding foundational principles.

Nicolle Wallace:

"When you end... the rule of law, this is what ensues." (42:37)

Andrew Weissman:

"Unwilling to listen and not being willing to understand that there are experts... he's still going to be taking steps that most economists think are going to really hurt the economy." (42:37)

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

"This was not a decision about any particular president, it's a decision about the presidency."
— Neal Katyal (06:09)

"One of the great things about the American system is what just happened today... You might be the most powerful man in the world, but you still can't break the Constitution."
— Neal Katyal (09:55)

"This is a win for the Constitution... There have been every day, literally every day... opportunities aplenty for any CEO... to come out and say something. And the fact that they haven't is telling."
— John Heilemann (14:13, 28:42)

"For others, it may not seem so obvious. But if history is any God, the tables will turn and the day will come when those disappointed by today's result will appreciate the legislative process. For the bulwark of liberty, it is." — Justice Gorsuch, read by Andrew Weissman (17:24)

"There is no good out now. He's made such a giant mess that tariffs on, tariffs off, trying to pull out of this regime. It's also going to be a mess for the economy. There's no happy ending here."
— John Heilemann (44:00)

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• [01:02] – Nicolle Wallace’s Introduction & Summary of the Supreme Court Decision
• [02:17] – Donald Trump’s Reaction Clip
• [05:59] – Interview: Neal Katyal on Legal Arguments & Court’s Reasoning
• [11:40] – Small Business Concerns & Future Uncertainty
• [13:47] – Panel Discussion Begins: John Heilemann, Andrew Weissman
• [14:13] – Heilemann on the Politics and Precedent of the Ruling
• [17:24] – Weissman’s Constitution Analysis, Quotes Justice Gorsuch
• [22:38] – Steve Liesman on Economic & Market Impact
• [24:29] – Effect on Everyday Consumers
• [26:19] – Liesman on Business Leaders’ Reluctance to Speak Out
• [32:29] – Sen. Maria Cantwell on Refunds & Congressional Response
• [35:12] – Weissman on Legal Mechanisms for Enforcing Refunds
• [39:58] – Labor Department Scandal Coverage
• [42:37] – Panel on Rule of Law & Ethical Governance
• [44:00] – Concluding Thoughts: No Easy Solution Ahead

---

Structure & Flow

• The episode opens with the SCOTUS decision, transitions to Trump’s response and public fallout, and moves into legal, economic, and political repercussions.
• Expert guests provide in-depth legal and economic perspective.
• The latter sections tackle questions about implementing refunds, future Congressional actions, and the broader ramifications for the rule of law and political norms.

---

This episode is essential listening for anyone tracking U.S. governance, the limits of executive power, and how disruptions at the highest levels ripple through law, economics, and everyday life.

Transcript

[Neal Katyal]

Sling is the live TV service that

[Nicole Wallace]

puts you in charge.

[Neal Katyal]

Choose your plan.

[John Heilman]

Orange for sports and entertainment favorites, blue for news and reality or select for the essentials. Only pay for the stuff you actually watch and pause your subscription anytime because paying for TV or not watching that's just rude.

[Neal Katyal]

No long term contracts, no nonsense.

[Nicole Wallace]

Pick your plan, add what you want. Sling lets you do that.

[John Heilman]

Visit sling.com to learn more.

[Nicole Wallace]

Shipping, billing, admin, Payroll, marketing.

[Senator Maria Cantwell]

You're managing all the things, so why waste time sending important documents the old fashioned way? Mail and ship when you want, how you want with stamps.com print postage on demand 247 and schedule pickups from your office or home.

[Nicole Wallace]

Save up to 90% with automated rate shopping.

[Senator Maria Cantwell]

That's why over 1 million small businesses trust stamps.com go to stamps.com and use code podcast to try stamps.com risk free for 60 days.

[Nicole Wallace]

Hi there everyone. Happy Friday. Four o' clock in New York. A seismic ruling today from the United States Supreme Court, of monumental consequence, one that not only forcibly upends a core pillar of Donald Trump's economic policy, but also in rare form for this court of late, limits the scope of Donald Trump's presidential power. Writing for the 6:3 majority, Chief Justice John Roberts explains why Trump does not have the tariff authority he's asserted these past several months. Quote, the President asserts the extraordinary power to unilaterally impose tariffs of unlimited amount, duration and scope. In light of the breadth, history and constitutional context of that asserted authority, he he must identify clear congressional authorization to exercise it. Basically, if Congress doesn't pass a law saying he can do it, he can't do it. In response, Donald Trump, live and on camera, seemed to go about the seven stages of grief in front of an assembled press and obviously the world. First, shock, denial, anger, rage, really, at the Supreme Court. It took the form of a disgusting new line of attack on the six justices who ruled against him.

[John Heilman]

Watch.

[Donald Trump]

They're against anything that makes America strong, healthy and great again. They also are a frankly disgrace to our nation. Those justices. They're an automatic no, no matter how good a case you have it said no. You can't knock their loyalty. It's one thing you can do with some of our people. Others think they're being politically correct, which has happened before far too often with certain members of this court. And it's happened so often with this court. What a shame having to do with voting in particular, when in fact they're just being fools and lapdogs for the rhinos and the radical left. Democrats and not that this should have anything at all to do with it. They're very unpatriotic and disloyal to our Constitution.

[Nicole Wallace]

For those keeping score at home, that was a new low, even for him. Trump's seven stages of grief processed from there. Bargaining, depression, I dare say testing, and ultimately acceptance, as he announced that he'd attempt to invoke a new 10% global tariff, citing an act passed in 1974. Although once again, there are questions about his legal authority to do it that way. Despite Donald Trump's assertion today that this was some sort of twisted victory for the administration, it's actually a win for those who have argued that he'd overstepped his authorities. And for advocates of our 250-year-old separation of powers tradition, this was our third branch of government ordering the second to seek approval from the first. The short, medium and long term consequences of this development are still taking shape even as we come on the air. It is more uncertainty for American businesses, large and small. They have already paid a price, literally and figuratively. So what about refunds for those businesses and their customers? How will the administration put the toothpaste back in the tube? In his dissent, conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh writes this quote, unquote, the court says nothing today about whether, and if so, how the government should go about returning the billions of dollars that it has collected from importers. But that process is likely to be a mess, as was acknowledged at oral argument on that point, the New York Times writes this quote, so far, the U.S. treasury has collected roughly $240 billion in tariff revenue since April 2, 2025, a date Trump labeled Liberation Day. And as he imposed his sweeping tariffs, the research firm Capital Economics estimates that if the treasury is forced to issue refunds, the costs would run to about $120 billion, or 0.5% of GDP. The blast radius of this landmark decision extends outward from there. What about the stock market? Trump insisted our economy would suffer if the court struck down tariffs. But look at that at close. A few moments ago, things held steady. The Dow, the S and P and the Nasdaq ended the day up slightly. What about Trump's trade deals struck under penalty of a mechanism over which he has no control anymore? But for the moment, the White House must scheme its way forward, following an increasingly rare directive from the Supreme Court. It told Donald Trump, no. That's where we start today with Neal Katyal. He argued against the tariffs before the United States Supreme Court, representing a group of more than 50 businesses. He's also the Former principal Deputy Solicitor General of the United States. He's also a former close friend of our show. We're happy to see you, Neil. Congratulations on your win today.

[Neal Katyal]

Thank you. Wonderful to see you, Nicole.

[Nicole Wallace]

So take me inside what the court decided, and then we'll deal with what happens next.

[Neal Katyal]

Yeah. So the court, I think today really strongly said President Trump's tariffs policy is unconstitutional and illegal. They said, look, if you want to get tariffs, the way to do it is to go to Congress and ask for authorization.

[Donald Trump]

And.

[Neal Katyal]

And so it's not a decision about any particular president, it's a decision about the presidency. And the Chief justice, writing for six justices, used very strong language about the president to the president saying, the Constitution requires you to get this affirmative approval of the Congress, and you can't just do this on your own in America. The stroke of the president's pen is not enough to impose taxes on the American people. And terrorists are nothing else but taxes. The Chief justice said, And I think it's notable that this. This decision wasn't just written by some group of lefty justices, to the extent there even are any. It was written and joined by six justices, including two justices appointed by Donald Trump himself, Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, both of them saying in full that these terrorists were unconstitutional. And so when I presented the argument to the Supreme Court on November 5, I made about six key points. Every single one, Nicole, of those six points was accepted 100% by all six justices today on the Supreme Court.

[Nicole Wallace]

So explain the dissent to me.

[Neal Katyal]

Yeah, so the dissent written by Justice Kavanaugh says that presidents have flexibility. And if the president is able to, for example, blockade goods, then he should be able to impose taxes on goods. And the fundamental problem with that, as the Chief justice said, echoing what I said at the argument, is the tariffs are fundamentally different than blockades. Blockades stop some goods from coming in, but they don't impose taxes on the American people. They don't take money out of your wallet in order for you to get something. So that's very different than a blockade. And that's why, you know, going all the way back to the Boston Tea Party. And this is something that the Chief justice, again, recognized in his opinion for the Court. We've always understood the taxation power to be special and different. And so I think the court today sends a clear message to the president, to future presidents, hey, you got to color within the lines. And, Nicole, you know, I've had the privilege of being the government's top lawyer. The federal government's top lawyer in the Supreme Court. It's frankly, you know, a big deal whenever any federal policy is challenged. But it's incredibly rare to have one of the president's signature initiatives challenged and go to the Supreme Court. And rarer still to have the Supreme Court say no. Normally, presidents get all sorts of deference. And I think here the president got deference. But the policy that he chose was so blatantly unconstitutional and illegal that the Supreme Court said no.

[Nicole Wallace]

6 members of the Supreme Court said no. 3 seem to give him a ton of money.

[Neal Katyal]

You only need five in this business to burrow under. You only need five in this business.

[Nicole Wallace]

Well, I want to turn to, I want to turn to his reaction. We, I think were on the air together through the duration of his really unprecedented smears against Robert Mueller and the people who investigated him. He seemed to use that category of smears for the six Supreme Court justices who delivered this ruling. Really, you know, I'm not a lawyer, never argued before the Supreme Court, but they seem to say this is illegal and unconstitutional. And in response, Donald Trump says, your family should be embarrassed of you. You were a disgrace to Amy Coney Barrett, to Chief Justice Roberts, to Justice Gorsuch and to the three liberal justices. Have you heard that before in your career?

[Neal Katyal]

Look, I'm not going to Nicole, respond to the President's comments. I mean, I'm focused on what the decision said, which is a, well, it's a resounding win for the American people and for the Constitution. I mean, I can tell you that I personally, I've been on the losing end of Supreme Court decisions, both as the government's top lawyer and in private practice or representing pro bono clients. You know, I deep respect for the court and always do, whether I win or lose. One of the great things about the American system is what just happened today. I mean, just think about it like I was able to go to court, the son of immigrants able to go to court and say on behalf of American small businesses, hey, this president is acting illegally. And I was able to present my case, have them ask really hard questions at me. It was a really intense oral argument and at the end of it, they voted and we won. That is something so extraordinary about this country. The idea that we have a system that self corrects that allows us to say, you might be the most powerful man in the world, but you still can't break the Constitution. I mean, that to me is what today is about.

[Nicole Wallace]

What do you make of the fact that the ruling in spirit and resoundingness as you said, you only need five. Six justices delivered this ruling today, this decision again to the, to the non expert public. Three of them were appointed by Democratic presidents. Three of them were appointed by Republican presidents, two, as you said, by Donald Trump. And his response was to figure out a workaround. Do those same small businesses feel like the storm has passed or are they still concerned about Donald Trump and tariffs?

[Neal Katyal]

Well, I think you always have to be concerned when you have a president who, you know, signals some disrespect for the law and the judicial system. So, you know, I suspect that, you know, that some of our clients are still concerned. The decision today, you know, like any court decision, isn't going to put every concern to rest. But I think it's a really clear statement by the Supreme Court that the president's got a color within the lines and can't just adopt extravagant tariff policies without going to Congress first. And I think that's a really important point here, which is we weren't saying you can never have tariffs. We were saying that the American way is to go and get them approved by the Congress. And if the president is so right that we need these tariffs, that we are suckers and all the other language he used, if that's right today, he has a very clear path indeed, I believe he's going there on Tuesday to the State of the Union. He could ask for Congress to impose such legislation. He's been able to do that for more than a year and he hasn't now. Notably when he was president the first time he did try and get legislation passed by Congress and they said no. And I think that tells you all you need to know about where this tariff policy is headed.

[Nicole Wallace]

You mentioned once serving as the department, the country's top layer, and that's the solicitor general post inside the Department of Justice. We haven't had a chance to talk to you since. Donald Trump has turned that department inside out, has gone around Pam Bondi and Todd Blanche and installed Lindsey Halligan to bring about cases against Jim Comey and Tish James to seek the political prosecutions of six Democratic lawmakers for making a video telling men and women of the military to not obey an illegal order. What is your analysis of the current state of the Department of Justice with Donald Trump's face now flanking it in a large banner for the first time in America's history?

[Neal Katyal]

Hey again, Nicole. I'm here to talk about tariffs and the Supreme Court and an incredible decision today. The Justice Department conversation I'd love to have with you, but it will be another day because I am focused on one thing today and one thing only.

[Nicole Wallace]

We'll look forward to it. Neil Katiel, congratulations on your win and thanks for being here.

[Steve Liesman]

Thank you.

[Nicole Wallace]

I want to bring in my panel. Former top DOJ official legal analyst Andrew Weissman's here. Puck News senior political columnist national affairs analyst John Heilman is here as well. Heilman. Donald Trump had a complete meltdown. And as much as Neil Katyal didn't want to talk about it, I'm not sure I understand exactly why. It is something that the world saw on display today that I think brings about the next question. What if he ignores the Supreme Court?

[John Heilman]

Well, let's just start with Neil made the point that this is a win. And you made the point, this win for the Constitution. It is. He also said it's a win for the American people. And I think there's a whole economic discussion to have about the fact that what an enormous win this is going to be for the American economy. The politics of that are a lot more confusing and it will depend a lot on what Trump decides to do. To your point, we don't really know what he's going to do. Trump has thrown fits before. Sometimes that leads him to do things, sometimes that leads him not to do things. I just struck watching that you will remember as well as anybody Al Gore losing a decision of even greater consequence than this in Bush v. Gore. And just anybody who has YouTube, go back and watch Al Gore as a picture of someone who bitterly, bitterly disagreed with the court, thought the court was acting not in line with the Constitution, acting in a totally partisan way, and who stood up and basically did exactly the opposite. The mirror image of what Donald Trump did there, which was to stand up and say, you know, I lost and, and I, I'm going to have to honor this decision and respect the decision of the court. Didn't, didn't trash anybody's family, didn't say anybody was a disgrace, didn't say anybody had done anything due to political correctness, didn't do any of that kind of stuff. And to your point also to Neil, of course, we've never seen that before, never seen a president behave like this before. And I do think part of what's interesting about it is this, Nicole, is that I think Trump, this is a deviation for the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has been basically giving Donald Trump what he wants mostly through the shadow docket. This has been the first big case they've taken on in the traditional Supreme Court fashion. Andrew will talk about this, I'm sure. But Trump, I think, had come reasonably to the expectation that this court had become a rubber stamp for him, much like Congress has been, because what it had been doing over and over again through the shadow docket is basically quietly, in the dead of night, with no explanation, rubber stamping his policies. So I think he came to the conclusion that how is this any different? These people are all in my pocket. So I think a lot of his, I think the kids say butthurt ness in this situation has to do with that, has to do with the fact that he really would just thought they're now in my pocket. I have no reason to expect anything to the contrary. And yet they did this and the last and that they did the right thing. According to the Constitution. This was a slam dunk case. If you on the plane reading the Constitution again, not to dismiss in any way denigrate Neil's efforts as an incredible Supreme Court litigator. But this was not a hard call case. This is not a case that's like on the line.

[Nicole Wallace]

It's a good point.

[John Heilman]

And the reality is it's like it gives people hope. In another case that should be a slam dunk case, which is the birthright citizenship case, we wondered how far gone is the Supreme Court? This suggests that Supreme Court, at least on cases where the Constitution is really quite clear, its language is quite clear, that they may end up doing the right thing on that case when we get there. And I think those are all heartening developments for our day today. The court still is doing things regularly that are deeply problematic. But at least on these cases where it's like flagrantly not unconstitutional, what Donald Trump is doing, they at least showed this week that, that they were willing to stand up and side with the Constitution of the American people rather than with any partisan political interest, at least six of them are willing to do that.

[Nicole Wallace]

Andrew Weissman, your thoughts?

[Andrew Weissman]

So, you know, we talked a lot about the Trump versus United States immunity decision and how that sort of unleashed a lot of what we were seeing because the court was saying that the presidency is not going to be held to account. And they specifically said in that case, even where a grand jury had indicted a president for allegedly having sham investigations into Georgia fraud, they said that cannot be charged even, just think about that, even if it's a sham investigation, that the president has immunity and cannot be prosecuted. And there was this sense that the sort of three branches of government were really not being respected, that the court was saying, just do what you want, that the Legislature cannot impose in any limit. And I think one of the things that I am taking away from this decision is how much the court seems to be cutting back on that view and realizing what it has wrought. And I just want to. This is, this is one of, I think, the most remarkable passages. And it comes from Justice Gorsuch. Let me just repeat that. It comes from Justice Gorsuch where he is saying that the president can't do this, that it's up to the legislature to tax people. We are not giving that power to the president unless Congress has clearly and specifically said that they want to do that, which he says they didn't do that here. And he says at the very end of his opinion, he says, you know, people may not like that. They may think that that takes a lot of time. But he says that reason you want the legislature to do this is so that we're not subjected to the whim of one faction or one man. And he said, for, he said for some today the weight of those virtues, the virtue of having Congress act may be apparent. He said, for others, it may not seem so obvious. But if history is any God, the tables will turn and the day will come when those disappointed by today's result will appreciate the legislative process. For the bulwark of liberty, it is. That's the key phrase. For the bulwark of liberty, it is that is saying, and I think a real recognition and a change from where they were in the immunity decision, saying there we actually are here, that you have to have three branches of government, that the design of the Constitution was that you secure, secure liberty by diffusing power. And to me, this, I really think, is such an important decision because of what it is signaling about where the court is going to be. And I just want to point one thing out about, because you asked Neil a very good question, which is about what Donald Trump has said about these justices. I'd just like to point out that it was 9, 0, including the three liberal justices who all said when there was a challenge to Donald Trump being able to run this time as president, that remember, there was a challenge by Colorado saying they should be disqualified 9 to 0. The three liberal justices who he smeared today all ruled in his favor. So it's just simply inaccurate to say that these are people who are acting only out of political whimsical.

[Nicole Wallace]

It's a good point. We'll talk more about the Supreme Court and what we learned about the court today from this decision. No one's going anywhere. When we come back. Will this decision do anything to help the American consumers and American businesses, or did Trump just create more uncertainty in how he responded to it? We'll talk to our friend Steve Liesman about that on the other side of the break. Also ahead, how this check on Donald Trump's power will play out in Congress where the Republic Republicans there don't like tariffs very much either. Republicans are vowing tariff alternatives for Trump and Democrats are looking for ways to make it right for the American people to pay them back. They've been the ones hurt the most. We'll talk to a leading Democrat on that effort. And later in the broadcast, we'll continue to unpack today's ruling with special coverage, joined by some of my primetime colleagues. Quick break. Don't go anywhere.

[Steve Liesman]

A KFC tale in the pursuit of flavor, the colonel despised the word empty. Empty plates, empty tables, empty stomachs. That's why he made the KFC five

[John Heilman]

dollar bowls like the famous bowl, creamy

[Steve Liesman]

mashed potatoes, crispy chicken, corn gravy and cheese.

[John Heilman]

Because the only empty the colonel liked was when you reached the bottom of that bowl.

[Steve Liesman]

The colonel lived so we could chicken five KFC bowls for just $5 each.

[John Heilman]

Prices and participation may vary. Taxes, tips and fees extra.

[Nicole Wallace]

I'm going to bring into our coverage CNBC senior economics reporter Steve Liesman on whether any uncertainty has been alleviated by this decision today. Just more broadly, your reaction to what the Supreme Court decided on tariffs?

[Steve Liesman]

Well, it's good, I think ultimately for the restoration of the separation of powers. I think from a business standpoint, that's probably a good thing that you don't have a president who can raise as much revenue as he wants in any particular way, basically levy a massive tax on the American public. I think they do have to still deal with the question of whether or not the president can spend any money he wants without the authorization of Congress. But right now, the revenue thing and this idea, I think to the extent to which some uncertainty has been lifted, this particular emergency tariff rule allowed the president to impose almost any tariff he wanted immediately and with no congressional review. Now, what's not been removed, Nicole, is this idea that he's now saying, and the treasury secretary said this, they intend to replace all of the revenue that they have raised and will raise from the emergency tariffs in other sections. So this is not going away. And in many respects it may be even worse from an uncertainty standpoint in that a new patchwork of tariffs will now be assembled, which has been very, very difficult for businesses, especially small businesses, to navigate. So there's that one aspect right there. And these sometimes take time. So the whole process now could be extended over many months. So I would say that the amount of uncertainty alleviation is de minimis.

[Nicole Wallace]

And the Wall Street Journal alerted a story this morning about how the economy cooled was weaker by the end of last year. Some of it was a government shutdown, but some of it is this uncertainty that we've talked about now for the better part of a year. How does this impact with all of the uncertainty that remains the experience of the everyday American who's shopping for things at Walmart or Target?

[Steve Liesman]

Well, I don't think they're going to get much price relief here. What you saw in the data that came out this morning was goods inflation has now been on the way up and we had more of it in December than in prior months. And that made me a little bit nervous because one of the stories out there is that people say, where's the tariff inflation? Well, it's slowly been creeping into the economy and the year over year rate for Goods Inflation, it's just 2%. But what you need to understand by context here is that over the prior months before the tariffs were imposed, goods inflation was negative. It was deflation and it was keeping a check on inflation overall. So now that downward pressure on inflation from goods is gone and now it's upward pressure from inflation. And the idea that it accelerated in December tells me that maybe it's going to be worse in January and February as essentially businesses have tried to hold the line on passing those tariffs along to consumers. They passed some of it along, but not all of it. And they're saying publicly that they're going to try to pass more of it along to consumers.

[Nicole Wallace]

It's been a minute since we've had a chance to talk to you about the near daily assault on the rule of law. And I've often been curious about how titans of industry and business leaders have felt immune from those blows, how having a company headquartered in this country that does business around the world, not being a country where the rule of law matters or not being a country where the Justice Department means justice is an issue they feel they have any skin in the game in. Do you think his response to the Supreme Court calling the six justices, three appointed by Republicans or three appointed by Democrats, will cause any business leaders unease, where he basically calls him disgraceful?

[Steve Liesman]

You know, Nicole, not a day goes by that I think about the question that you ask me all the time that we're on, which is where is business in this whole Trump administration thing here. And there was a day not too long ago when the president tweeted out that very, very racist video that he tweeted out and the market went up by 1200 points. And I think, Nicole, the answer is, where is businesses? They're either making money or afraid they're not going to make money if they open their mouths. And so the question for business is they are nowhere on this. And what I think business might be missing here is, is if indeed this Trump regime were to come down, there could be retribution for the cooperation that business is now providing and their failure to speak up. So I'm not sure, as I think long term about this, that business is making the smartest decision. It may be the smart decision for now, but I think long term, they're not necessarily keeping their interest at doing what is in their best interest, because I think when the public gets around and thinking, well, where was business and all this? And, oh, they were funding the ballroom and they were funding the inauguration and they were spending all this money really essentially making deals with the president, I don't think that's gonna be a good look.

[Nicole Wallace]

I'm so heartened that I'm not the only person that thinks about it every day. I mean, I just, you know, I guess the last time we had this conversation, it was more than three years away from it being over. It's now two years and change from it being over. There will be another side of this. Everything ends. The pendulum will swing. And this is now an administration that has, that has killed two American citizens on the streets of Minneapolis, that has defied the Supreme Court's ruling 90 saying before you send people to seekot they are entitled to due process that today, after losing before the Supreme Court, called six justices unpatriotic and a disgrace and embarrassment to their families. So if you hear from anyone in business who says we care, call me. We'll get you right on the air. Steve Liesman, thank you. Thank you for joining us today. I'm always happy to see you, Heilman. I mean, it sort of gets back to a conversation you and I both had this week with Scott Galloway about the grassroots boycott. I mean, any message to business is going to have to come from their consumers and customers.

[John Heilman]

Yeah, I think, well, any business that, any message that, that has any effect on any potential of moving, of their behavior, of changing the case is going to have to come from the bottom up. And there's no question about that. There have been every day, literally every day from the time that Donald Trump took office in the second term. To today, there has been opportunities aplenty for any CEO. I don't want to say with courage because I don't think this actually requires courage, but with, with self interest in mind, the long term self interest of the rule of law and the state of the country, et cetera, et cetera, and the health and welfare of their customers. They've been had opportunities every day, every day to come out and say something. And the fact that they haven't is telling. And I think we should stop expecting them to change in that regard. The only way they're going to change is they're going to change. It is if consumers vote their feet, their pocketbook, whatever you want to call it, because their consciences to the extent they have them are not functional in this era.

[Nicole Wallace]

Yeah. Yeah. All right. We'll pick that up on the other side of the break. Also after the break, the damage has already been done to so many American businesses and American families who have been forced to pay higher prices for everything from groceries to toys to household goods. We'll talk with one of the leading senators calling for refunds to pay paid back to people. Our special coverage continues. Don't go anywhere.

[Tremfya Advertisement Voice]

Did you know about one in three people with plaque psoriasis may also develop psoriatic arthritis, which causes joint pain, stiffness and swelling? Does this sound like you listen to what it sounds like to be a million miles away. Trimfya Guselcomab, taken by injection, is a prescription medicine for adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis who may benefit from taking injections or pills or phototherapy. And for adults with active psoriatic arthritis, serious allergic reactions and increased risk of infections and liver problems may occur. Before treatment, your doctor should check you for infections and tuberculosis. Tell your doctor if you have an infection, flu like symptoms or if you need a vaccine, imagine being a million miles away. Explore what's possible. Ask your doctor about Tremphaya. Tap this ad to learn more about Tremphya, including important safety information.

[Nicole Wallace]

Democrats today are describing the Supreme Court ruling as a major win for American taxpayers and American business owners who have been bearing the brunt of Donald Trump's sweeping tariff policy. Last spring, Trump promised his tariffs would make them rich and bring them liberation, that he'd bring back manufacturing jobs and reduce U.S. imports. The opposite has happened.

[Donald Trump]

April 2, 2025, will forever be remembered as the day American industry was reborn. It's going to be liberation day in America and it's going to be a day that hopefully you're going to look back and years to come and you're going to say, you know, he was right, we're getting rich because of tariffs, by the way, I hope everyone understands that. They hate to report. All I know is this, we're going to take in hundreds of billions of dollars in tariffs and we're going to become so rich you're not going to know where to spend all that money.

[Nicole Wallace]

Except that's not what happened. I want to bring to our coverage Democratic Senator Maria Cantwell of Washington. She sent a letter to the Trump administration today demanding the prompt reimbursement of hundreds of billions of dollars to businesses who have paid the substantial tariffs. I wonder if you've had any reaction to your letter today.

[Senator Maria Cantwell]

Not yet, but obviously it's very important. We're happy what the Supreme Court said because we felt all along that this was a congressional authority, not something the executive branch could use, not this widely. And so it's important now that consumers get some relief, that businesses, small businesses and manufacturers not pay more money for the development of product or services than they should have to pay. And it does affect our economy and it does affect our long term opportunities. So as Mr. Gliesman was saying, you know, it's hard to say. You know, businesses have been struggling along trying to deal with this uncertainty, but the future hopefully will have a little more predictability now that the court has acted.

[Nicole Wallace]

You've written in the letter that should they arrive at the point where they agree to the refunds, quote, refunds must not be limited to those businesses that choose to litigate or who can afford to initiate litigation to seek the relief they are entitled to. In light of the Supreme Court's ruling, it seems that the businesses on Main street for whom price fluctuations can be the difference between surviving or not surviving are the ones that could really miss out. What can, what can you do or what can be done to protect them?

[Senator Maria Cantwell]

Well, that's why we sent the letter. So first of all, big retailers, Costco's and others like them have already filed cases. So those cases are going to be litigated. But now that this has been ruled illegal, then, yes, the treasury should say to Congress, what are the reliefs to those particular importers of product and what would we like to see in future relief for consumers? So that's where we're starting trying to get those answers out of Treasury. The Customs and Border Organization already does have a fund now where, I should say a process where electronically, where if they have overcharged importers, they can give them relief. So there is a structure that exists in our import export system. So we're simply asking the questions, how much money was collected, that was illegally collected? How much money are those individuals going to be, those individual importers going to be paid back? And how can we do our job in making sure that people have been hurt the most, the consumer get a little relief in the future from that?

[Nicole Wallace]

Let me bring in Andrew Weissman with a legal question that I have. How do you, as the senator saying, Andrew, I mean, the funds were illegally collected. The act was illegal at the time. And now that has been affirmed by the Supreme Court. How, who is, who enforces that if Donald Trump has made so abundantly clear that the Department of Justice works for him?

[Andrew Weissman]

Well, it depends who was paying. So for individuals who were hurt, they can bring a class action to say that this, that this money has to be paid back. I think for countries and large organizations, you may see this administration resort to the same kind of strong arm tactics that it's been using against universities, law firms, media organizations and foreign countries to say we're not going to pay you back and if you try to do something about it, we will take retaliatory action. In other words, they, they have. That is something that we've seen Donald Trump do. But I think for the small fry, for the people who have paid for importing goods for small businesses, I think you will see ongoing litigation, the same kind of litigation that ended up with Neil winning in the Supreme Court today. So I think you'll see a combination of things to try and get their money back.

[Nicole Wallace]

Senator Cantwell, please come back and keep us posted as this makes its way. If you hear from the administration, do let us know and come back and tell us.

[Senator Maria Cantwell]

I think I really want to hear, I want to hear from my colleagues, I want to hear from my colleagues in the Senate. I heard from the president today, I guess if you would say what he said on television, and it's to be expected in so many other policies where they've overreached. But it's time for my Senate colleagues to say, yes, we understand the court basically said it is our authority, it is our power. We are the ones who should be reviewing these things. And now you should also be reviewing how you're going to help the consumer who's been affected by this and how to help those individual businesses that were mentioned may not have all the weight or all the processes of a big corporation to weigh in on the legal front. But it's time for my Senate colleagues to weigh in on the trade debate. And I'm glad that seven Democrats and seven Republicans joined me and Senator Grassley in a letter a year ago, basically saying that this was Congress's authority. And so the president had an opportunity he could have in the big beautiful bill, come to Congress and said, this is what I want to do. Are you guys for it or not? And the truth is there's a lot of members of Congress who represent states with big agricultural products and who rely on export markets. And they never thought tariffs were a great idea. So it's time to hear from them now.

[Nicole Wallace]

Yeah. And they don't have anything nice to say about tariffs when they're out on tv, but we'll see. If Trump asks them to pass tariffs, do you think they'll say yes?

[Senator Maria Cantwell]

I personally do not think that the president is listening to the American people. And I think my Senate colleagues have a closer ear. I think that, you know, we all want open markets and we all want fair trade. I think the point is, is that he made these products more expensive for the American people, harder to compete. And I think you're going to hear from soybean growers and you're going to hear from small manufacturers and people are going to tell their senators we don't like this. That's what they've been telling them.

[Nicole Wallace]

Yeah. Senator Campbell, thank you for joining us today on this. We'll stay on top of it. One more break. Thank you. We'll be right back. Through an extraordinary piece of reporting in the New York Times, we learned this week that the husband of Donald Trump's secretary of labor, Lori Chavez de Remmer, has been barred from entering the department's building after two women accused him of sexually assaulting them on the premises. That's according to a source familiar with the matter who spoke anonymously. The New York Times was the first to report this story about Shonda Remmer, including one incident in December that was captured on camera and reported as, quote, sexual contact against her will, end quote. This would be front page news in any normal political moment. But it's not even the only scandal involving the labor secretary and her family. The New York Times is also reporting this. The, quote, inspector general's office is investigating a formal complaint that Secretary Chavez de Remmer was having an inappropriate sexual relationship with a subordinate, a member of her security detail, and abusing her office by taking staff to strip clubs, drinking alcohol on the job and taking personal trips at taxpayer expense. Her lawyer denies the allegations, end quote. We have reached out to the Labor Department, but haven't heard A response from them. We're back with Andrew and John Hammond. I mean, I don't, I don't have a lot of words to like, what is going on?

[John Heilman]

Well, one doesn't want to make light of this too much. Let this say, first of all, the Labor Department of Labor is in the Francis Perkins building in Washington, D.C. frances Perkins was the first female cabinet secretary in the history of the country. There's something kind of darkly ironic about the fact that tragic all of this is going on. There it is. You know, you've got a Labor secretary's husband who's accused of is apparently under criminal investigation for two sexual assault, two different women. You've got the labor secretary herself who was apparently listed underclab suspicion about having had sexual relation with her security official. She is accused she had two top aides who were placed on leave as the department's IG was inspecting. The allegations that she drank in the office and took her staff not just to strip clubs but to Las Vegas. And if this wasn't the government of the United States of America, you know, you'd be kind of like, you know, this apparently kind of wild party thing here. It sounds like spring breakers in D.C. but, you know, how bad does it have to be, Nicole, that a government that thinks it's okay for Pete Hegseth to be secretary of defense. How bad does this have to be at the Department of Labor to have your husband banned? How bad does it have to be for all this stuff for this to actually meet some standard where people think you've gone too far? I mean, you could go pretty far.

[Nicole Wallace]

Well, and Trump got rid of, Trump got rid of all the inspectors general. So this is, this is also whatever shell of an inspector general still exists that investigated her and found these things to be true.

[John Heilman]

And again, there's so much malfeasance and so much behavior that makes all of our heads explode in regular that this, if it hadn't gotten to this level, this might have gone just under the radar, given the scale of everything else is going on.

[Nicole Wallace]

And I guess the why is it's being done in our name. It's being done in all of our names. These people salaries to do these things, to go to strip clubs and drink and have relationships, sexual and otherwise, with their subordinates and sexually. So it's all being done in our names as American taxpayers.

[John Heilman]

Yes, that is a very fine point. And it's the reason why we could talk about it on the show. And it's not just merely gossip and

[Nicole Wallace]

tittle tattle we'll give Andrew the last word on this on the other side of a short break. Don't go anywhere, Andrew. I'm going to come back to the question I tried to get Neil Katiel to answer. And it's sort of why these two stories go together. In my mind, when you end, this is sort of what happens where the rule of law ends and when the rule of law ends with the people who are supposed to uphold the rule of law, the president of the United States, this is what ensues your thoughts?

[Andrew Weissman]

So when I was thinking about this decision today and the president's reaction to it, I thought he is looking at a tariff decision, sort of that tariff gift horse in the mouth. When this case was first brought, people thought, okay, the president is driving the economy off a cliff with these tariffs. Most reputable economists thought these were going to be a disaster. And the data so far indicates that is exactly what's going to happen. And people thought, okay, well, the courts are going to bail him out because they're going to say you can't do this. And that way the economy will not suffer at his hand. And then today being so stubborn and not being willing to listen and not being willing to understand that there are experts and people who may know just a thing or two more about the economy than he does is like, well, we're going to still do it. And so it's doubling down where he now has a Supreme Court with two justices he appointed, I think clearly signaling that they have had it with him and this idea of unfettered presidential power. And he's still going to be taking steps that most economies, economists think are going to really hurt the economy. So it is really like a lose lose, not a win win from his perspective.

[Nicole Wallace]

And for the American people.

[John Heilman]

Andrew, keep in mind what Steve Liesman said, though it's a mess either way. Yeah, there's no good out now. He's made such a giant mess that tariffs on, tariffs off, trying to pull out of this regime. It's also going to be a mess for the economy. There's no, there's no, there's no happy ending here given what he's unleashed.

[Nicole Wallace]

And that is sort of the quintessential statement about all things that we cover these days. John Heilman, thank you both for spending the hour with me. After the break, we've gathered a few of our primetime friends to join us on the Supreme Court's major rebuke of Donald Trump's tariff policy. The next hour of deadline White House starts after a Quick break. Stay with us.

[Tremfya Advertisement Voice]

Did you know? About one in three people with plaque psoriasis may also develop psoriatic arthritis, which causes joint pain, stiffness and swelling. Does this sound like you? Listen to what it sounds like to be a million miles away. Trimfaia Gusoqua, taken by injection, is a prescription medicine for adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis who may benefit from taking injections or pills or phototherapy. And for adults with active psoriatic arthritis, serious allergic reactions and increased risk of infections and liver problems may occur. Before treatment, your doctor should check you for infections and tuberculosis. Tell your doctor if you have an infection, flu like symptoms, or if you need a vaccine. Imagine being a million miles away. Explore what's possible. Ask your doctor about Trimfaya. Tap this ad to learn more about Tremphaya, including important safety information.