Tangle Podcast Summary

Episode: Appeals court rules most of Trump's tariffs illegal
Host: Isaac Saul
Date: September 2, 2025

Overview

This episode examines the recent U.S. federal appeals court decision ruling that most of former President Trump's tariffs are illegal. The Tangle team breaks down the background of the case, reactions from across the political spectrum, constitutional debates about executive trade authority, and the likely impact on U.S. policy. The episode features insights from major publications, Isaac Saul’s own take, the debut of "Staff Dissent," and listener questions.

Main Story Breakdown

1. Background and The Ruling

[08:53]

• The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled 7-4 that President Trump overstepped his authority in imposing tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), upholding a lower court's position.
• The decision specifically targeted Trump’s so-called "Liberation Day tariffs" on virtually all U.S. trading partners, imposed after he declared a national emergency. The court, however, left industry-specific duties (invoked via other authority) unaddressed.
• The appeals court found that while the IEEPA grants the president significant authority in national emergencies, it does not include “the power to impose tariffs, duties or the like, or the power to tax,” as these are congressional prerogatives.
• Four dissenting judges argued that IEEPA's broad emergency language inherently includes authority over tariffs in foreign affairs.

Notable Quote:

"The IEEPA bestows significant authority on the president... but none of these actions explicitly include the power to impose tariffs, duties or... the power to tax. Furthermore, tariffs are unbounded in scope... and thus beyond the authority delegated by the president by the IEEPA."
– John Law, summary of the majority ruling [09:45]

• Trump immediately criticized the decision on Truth Social, calling the court “highly partisan,” and warning that removing the tariffs would be “a total disaster for the country.” The White House vowed to appeal to the Supreme Court.

2. Reactions from Across the Spectrum

A. The Left

[13:47]

• Generally supportive of the court's ruling, seeing it as a critical check on executive power.
• The Washington Post editorial board argued the administration should work through Congress to maintain tariffs instead of unilateral action.
• Economist Paul Krugman emphasized that the problem isn't tariffs per se, but Trump’s attempt to impose them without Congressional approval:

  “Just saying I’m the tariff man and here are my tariffs isn’t okay.”
  – Paul Krugman [Substack, summarized at 16:28]

• Critics question Trump’s logic of justifying sweeping measures with an “emergency” while also touting U.S. economic strength.
• Concerns persist over trade policy uncertainty, economic harm from tariffs, but also highlight rare bipartisan alignment on the limits of executive power.

B. The Right

[17:30]

• Mixed reactions.
• Some, like Rachel Alexander (Town Hall), criticize the court’s “twisted interpretation” of IEEPA as ignoring its broad grant of import regulation during emergencies.
• Others, like Dan McLaughlin (National Review), support the ruling, noting there’s no ongoing “global national emergency” justifying such presidential action.
• Jonathan Adler (Wall Street Journal) believes the Supreme Court could go either way due to longstanding deference to presidential authority in foreign affairs, though recent “major questions doctrine” cases may limit Trump’s power.

Notable Quote:

“It is grasping at straws to justify an open-ended national emergency power of the sort that should be disfavored in our laws unless it is granted in terms far more explicit than these.”
– Dan McLaughlin, National Review [19:22]

3. Host’s Analysis – Isaac Saul’s Take

[22:30]

• Isaac expresses skepticism that Trump’s tariffs are legal under IEEPA, emphasizing congressional authority over taxation and trade.
• Points out the danger of “emergency” declarations becoming tools for broad executive action, referencing Trump’s extensive use in past and current terms.
• Cites historical precedent (e.g., President Truman and the steel mills, 1952) to show that even in true emergencies, the executive cannot seize congressional powers.
• Notes that while tariffs have raised government revenue and spurred some reshoring, their unpredictable impact is harming small businesses and could drive up prices over time.
• Predicts the Supreme Court will affirm the appeals court’s decision, stating:

  “It is self-evidently outlandish and the Supreme Court should say so in no uncertain terms. But again, no such emergency exists.”
  – Isaac Saul [24:55]

Memorable Analogy:

[23:20]

“Trump imposed a 50% tariff on Brazil by declaring that its prosecution of Jair Bolsonaro... constituted a threat to U.S. national security. This is antithetical to the roles of the executive branch as described by the Constitution, and it’s also pretty novel.”

4. Debut of "Staff Dissent"

[28:34]

• Will Kbach, Senior Editor, politely pushes back on Isaac’s claim that Democrats might back a broad tariff policy:

  “While it’s true that some notable Democratic lawmakers... have said tariffs in the abstract can be an effective trade policy tool, I don’t think these comments have been consistent or substantive enough to suggest they would actually support this policy if it came to a vote.”
  – Will Kbach [28:58]

• Emphasizes that Democratic leaders have historically avoided broad tariffs, especially against traditional allies.

5. Listener Question

[32:04]

• Drew from Lancaster, PA asks about Trump’s executive orders restricting certain union rights and their impact on his blue-collar base.
• Isaac clarifies that recent orders mainly affect public-sector unions and agencies deemed “vital to national security,” not most blue-collar workers.
• Most unionized blue-collar occupations, like teachers and police, are unaffected; the orders largely target agency staff and public-sector union arrangements.

6. Data & Numbers

[34:42]

• $159 billion: U.S. tariff/excise tax revenue in 2025 (up from $63.7B in 2024).
• 69%: Share of U.S. goods imports affected by Trump’s second-term tariffs.
• 38%: Americans approving of increased tariffs; 61% disapprove (Pew, Aug 2025).
• 42 days: Time remaining for a Supreme Court appeal.

7. Notable Quotes & Moments

• On constitutional authority:

  “Congress’s authority over taxation has always been far broader, more explicitly explicit, and constitutionally foundational.”
  – Isaac Saul [23:00]

• On the spread of executive power:

  “He [Trump] wanted to start ruling as a dictator right away...”
  – Paul Krugman, via Isaac [16:57]

• On economic uncertainty:

  “Policy uncertainty has already crushed many small businesses who can’t operate in a world where import taxes are either (a) rising or (b) unpredictable.”
  – Isaac Saul [26:46]

8. Closing Segment: "Under the Radar" & "Have a Nice Day"

[34:42]

• Brief mention of new tax deduction law for tipped workers (the "Big Beautiful Bill Act").
• Inspiring story: Afghan women access online coding education despite Taliban bans on female schooling.

Timestamps for Key Segments

• [02:44] – Isaac introduces episode theme and new "Staff Dissent" feature
• [08:53] – Appeals court ruling background explained
• [13:47] – What the left is saying
• [17:30] – What the right is saying
• [22:30] – Isaac Saul’s analysis
• [28:34] – Will Kbach’s staff dissent
• [32:04] – Listener question: Trump’s union policy
• [34:42] – News tidbits, data points, and positive story of the day

Summary

This episode offers a comprehensive, non-partisan analysis of a major legal challenge to presidential trade authority, with the Tangle team examining legal, political, and economic implications. The cross-spectrum viewpoints stress constitutional limits, risks of unchecked executive power, and the real-world economic impact, as the country awaits a likely Supreme Court review.

For further reading and access to referenced essays/columns, listeners are directed to Tangle’s website.