Squawk Pod – “Blizzards & Tariffs Hit Washington” (2/23/26) CNBC’s Squawk Box with Joe Kernen, Andrew Ross Sorkin, Steve Liesman, Jamie Peterson, Natasha Sarin, Stephen Moore
Date: February 23, 2026

Episode Overview

This episode of the Squawk Pod dives into two dominant issues:

1. The Supreme Court’s decision to overturn President Trump’s tariffs, upending years of trade policy and introducing new uncertainty for businesses and trading partners worldwide.
2. A proposed millionaire income tax in Washington State, as state lawmakers weigh how new taxes might impact companies like Microsoft, Amazon, and Starbucks—and whether an income tax could prompt wealthy residents to flee.

Throughout, the hosts dissect the dilemmas facing investors, governments, and companies amid headline-grabbing economic turbulence, while a blizzard literally buries the Northeast.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Supreme Court Overturns Trump Tariffs ([01:02]–[43:32])

Tariffs: Legal Turmoil and Economic Fallout

• The Supreme Court ruled that Trump’s tariffs, imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), were illegal. As a result, U.S. Customs and Border Protection will halt collection of those tariffs, but other tariffs remain.
• Ongoing Uncertainty:
  • Administration is pivoting to tariffs under alternative authorities (Section 301 and Section 232), creating a patchwork system and short-term windows for legal cover (only 150 days under Section 122).
  • Uncertainty for American and foreign companies regarding future trade costs, investment decisions, and the likelihood of refunds for tariffs already paid.
• Cost to Business and Consumers:
  • Estimates suggest U.S. households faced a $1,000 tax increase in 2025 due to Trump-era tariffs; under new rules, it drops to $700 for 2026 ([19:13] Steve Liesman).
  • Economists expect less inflationary pressure going forward, but prices may not roll back, and uncertainty persists.
  • “We doubt that businesses which recently raised their prices due to tariffs will lower them back. They would likely wait for more clarity on the future tariff rates.” — Barclays (quoted by Steve Liesman [19:13]).
• Refund Questions:
  • Potential refunds of up to $175 billion are in limbo, pending lower court rulings and complex standing requirements ([01:52] Stephen Moore, [08:11] Joe Kernan, [34:48]–[39:42]).
  • “The big question that I'm being asked by all businesses ... will they be repaid the money that they paid in the tariff?...$175 billion that would have to be returned. I don't know the answer to this, but I know it's going to be a big, big issue that's debated.” — Stephen Moore ([39:09])
• International Ramifications:
  • Trade deals with countries like Japan, South Korea, and European partners may unravel as foreign governments reconsider their commitments (e.g., [09:20]–[10:09], [41:32]–[43:32]).
  • “The world looks less stable, and the United States looks less stable as a trading partner. And that's here with us for some time going forward.” — Natasha Sarin ([42:52])

Notable Quotes & Exchanges

• Joe Kernan:
  “You must be out of your mind to follow the rules here because it is so complicated, so complex, so changing every day. And this is antithetical to the administration’s own central initiative of deregulation and being pro and business friendly.” ([01:25])
• Andrew Ross Sorkin:
  “If you might recall, Joe, from the very beginning of this, I said if the president wants to put tariffs on for that reason, he must go to Congress to create a more stable regime. And it was not a question of whether or not tariffs good, tariffs bad. But you want people to make investment, you got to have stability.” ([30:24])
• Steve Liesman:
  “There will be greater uncertainty as we wait for how the administration ultimately fashions a new set of import tax measures.” ([19:13]) “Only a stable tariff regime can result in that kind of investment.” ([30:24])
• Natasha Sarin:
  “This is a moment of great uncertainty and volatility, not just for consumers, not just for businesses, but also for our trading partners and for adversaries.” ([02:09])
• Stephen Moore:
  “…as someone who's not a fan of tariffs, I am a fan of these trade deals that Trump has brought home ... now he's lost that negotiating tactic. So that's, I think, one of the reasons Trump is so angry about this decision.” ([33:53])
• On Political and Social Media Fallout:
  • President Trump publicly rebuked Supreme Court justices he appointed, saying on Truth Social he was ashamed of Barrett and Gorsuch ([05:54]).

Broader Economic and Political Analysis

• Market Impact:
  • Joe Kernan questioned whether the business uncertainty is as severe as some fear, given strong market performance and earnings ([27:32]–[28:46]).
• Long-term vs. Short-term:
  • Ongoing instability in the tariff regime could choke off long-term investments, as companies are unsure what supply chain decisions to make ([09:51], [41:32]).
• Congress’s Role:
  • The Supreme Court’s ruling makes clear that durable tariff policy should be legislated, not imposed by executive emergency powers ([35:30]–[36:02]).
  • “No president, not this president or an AOC or Kamala Harris, should have the authority to say, well, we have an emergency here, so we're going to raise taxes without any approval from Congress.” — Stephen Moore ([35:30])
• “Taxation without representation is so terrifying that this country was founded on the principles that you have to have some sort of deliberative process that goes through Congress.” — Natasha Sarin ([36:17])

2. Political Flashpoints: Susan Rice, Netflix, and De-banking ([11:22]–[16:43])

• President Trump called for Netflix to remove Susan Rice from its board after she made comments about companies facing consequences in a future Democratic administration.
  • Both hosts agreed such rhetoric is dangerous for both sides and should not factor into business decisions:
    • “I think it's terrible. I think it's terrible.” — Andrew Ross Sorkin ([12:42])
• Discussion overlapped with concerns of “de-banking” (J.P. Morgan, January 6th), highlighting how politics now often spill into business/financial realms.

3. Washington State Millionaire Income Tax Proposal ([44:00]–[56:41])

The Proposal, the Rationale, and the Pushback

• Washington State is considering a 9.9% income tax on individuals making over $1 million annually—an attempt to align the state with most peer states that already tax high earners. (It is NOT a wealth tax.)
  • “This is an income tax on very wealthy people ... the only people who would pay it are ones who have more than a million dollars in income.” — Jamie Peterson ([46:46])
• Migration Concerns:
  • Peterson downplayed fears that millionaires will flee Washington, noting the state would remain competitive with others and that similar taxes exist elsewhere.
    • “I don't think ... that it would cause many people to think about moving.” ([47:54])
    • “If you have somebody who's thinking about going to Idaho, they have to have more than $1.9 million of income for it to pencil out.” ([48:09])
• Impact on Major Employers:
  • The bill would reduce some corporate taxes; business leaders have been consulted and some support the package, as it would roll back prior increases and help small businesses ([50:31]).
• Spending Cuts as Well:
  • Peterson noted $7 billion in cuts last year and further cost reductions in the works ([51:45]).
• Out-migration Modeling:
  • State revenue estimates “build in an assumption” of some people leaving or tax avoidance, projecting about a 95% collection rate over time ([55:07]).
• Clarification:
  • The so-called “wealth tax” label is a misnomer; the current debate is purely about an income tax ([49:24]–[49:53]).

Notable Exchanges

• Joe Kernan:
  “You're not trying to tax intangible assets at least, right?” ([49:13])
  • “Even you aren't crazy enough to try to do that, are you, Senator?” ([49:25])
• Jamie Peterson:
  “We're a state that has a lot of natural advantages. We don't need to be exceptional in terms of our tax system. And what is really exceptional about our tax system right now is that we don't have any form of income tax at all.” ([49:28])
• Andrew Ross Sorkin:
  “When you do the math on this proposal, do you ... subtract anybody leaving? ... Do you say to yourself, okay, yes, some percentage ... are going to leave as a function of this and we're going to lose x amount of money but we're going to make it up on the other. Explain how you do it.” ([54:40])

Memorable Moments & Quotes

• “This is a moment of great uncertainty and volatility, not just for consumers, not just for businesses, but also for our trading partners and for adversaries.”
  — Natasha Sarin, [02:09]

• “If the tariffs were illegally imposed, then did these companies get their money back? And if so, we're talking about $175 billion that would have to be returned.”
  — Stephen Moore, [01:52]

• “Only a stable tariff regime can result in that kind of investment.”
  — Steve Liesman, [30:24]

• “Taxation without representation is so terrifying that this country was founded on the principles that you have to have some sort of deliberative process.”
  — Natasha Sarin, [36:17]

• “This is not a tax on intangible property ... This is an income tax on very wealthy people.”
  — Jamie Peterson, [46:46]

Important Timestamps

| Time | Segment | |----------|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 01:02 | Show opens; tariffs overturned by Supreme Court | | 01:25 | Complexity and unpredictability for businesses (Steve Liesman) | | 01:52 | Refunds for businesses discussed (Stephen Moore) | | 02:09 | Natasha Sarin on economic uncertainty | | 04:20 | Details on the transition from IEEPA tariffs to Section 301/232 (Jameson Greer) | | 19:13 | Steve Liesman on household impact, inflation, business response to tariffs | | 24:14 | Sorkin & Liesman on the international investment ramifications | | 33:53 | Moore & Sarin in debate: tariffs as tax, Congressional authority | | 36:17 | Sarin: “Taxation without representation is so terrifying that this country was founded…”| | 41:32 | Long-term investment risks for companies, supply chains | | 44:00 | WA State’s millionaire tax proposal introduced | | 46:46 | Peterson: Clarifies it is not a wealth tax | | 48:09 | Out-migration concerns: “they have to have more than $1.9 million ...” | | 50:31 | Impact and negotiations with big corporations | | 54:40 | Sorkin: Do you account for people leaving in your model? |

Summary Takeaway

This Squawk Pod episode captured the economic, legal, and political reverberations from the Supreme Court’s blockbuster decision overturning Trump’s tariffs—kicking off a new era of uncertainty where businesses, investors, and foreign governments must recalibrate. With the risk of $175 billion in potential refunds, shifting tariff authorities, and political tensions running high, stability remains elusive. Meanwhile, Washington’s proposed millionaire income tax ignites classic debates over taxation, migration, and the appropriate balance between fiscal competitiveness and public service funding. On a snowy Monday, the U.S. finds itself negotiating not just trade, but its own regulatory, political, and economic identity.