← The Parnas Perspective
The Parnas Perspective
Breaking: Trump Panics as Companies Sue to Get Their Tariff Money Back and Allies Freeze Trade Deals
00:17:59
Loading summary
Transcript31 lines
- [00:02]
T-Mobile Spokesperson
I'm gonna pull over and ask that man for directions.
- [00:05]
Aaron Parnas
Hi there.
- [00:06]
T-Mobile Spokesperson
We're looking to get to the campground. Well, you're gonna take a left at the old oak tree end of this here road. No, I'm just kidding. Let me get my phone out.
- [00:13]
Aaron Parnas
How are you getting a signal out here?
- [00:14]
T-Mobile Spokesperson
T Mobile and US Cellular decided to merge. So the network out here is huge. We're getting the same great signal as the city and saving a boatload with all the benefits. Oh, and a five year price guarantee. Okay, here's those directions. Actually, can you point us in the
- [00:27]
Aaron Parnas
direction of a T Mobile store?
- [00:29]
Rick Waldenberg
America's best network just got bigger. Switch to T Mobile today and get built in benefits the other guys leave out plus our five year price guarantee. And now T Mobile is available in US Cellular stores.
- [00:45]
T-Mobile Spokesperson
Best mobile network based on analysis by Oogle of speed test intelligence data 2H2025 bigger network. The combination of T Mobile's and US Cellular's network footprints will enhance the T Mobile network's coverage price guarantee on talk, text and data. Exclusions like taxes and fees apply. CT T mobile.com for details.
- [01:00]
Aaron Parnas
We have breaking news this evening. The first company has filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration to get its tariff refund. FedEx. FedEx has filed a lawsuit this evening demanding that the Trump administration give back the money it took from FedEx under Donald Trump's unconstitutional IPA tariffs. This evening I actually spoke with the person who sued Donald Trump in the Supreme Court and one, the head of Learning Resources Inc. The company that beat Donald Trump on tariffs. So stay tuned for that now. Meanwhile, Trump's EU trade deal is about to fall apart and a major whistleblower from ICE is speaking out, exposing how the administration, how the agency pushed ICE agents to violate the constitutional rights of individuals it dealt with. Make sure to like, comment, share and subscribe. This is a really important update that I need people to see. The more you like, the more people see and subscribe to my substack. Click the link below to support my work as I get you more exclusive interviews like the one you're going to see in this video. I want to start by talking about FedEx Global transportation company FedEx today filed a lawsuit in the U.S. court of International Trade seeking a refund for Donald Trump's emergency tariffs, which the U.S. supreme Court deemed illegal last week. Quote, plaintiffs seek for themselves a full refund from defendants of all IPA duties plaintiffs have paid to the United States. FedEx said in a lawsuit, referring to the tariffs Trump imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers act put this in perspective. There's anywhere between 140 to $175 billion in tariff revenue that the United States government collected starting in April of last year through January, through, actually through most of February. Most of the companies paid that. Yes, it cost them a hell of a lot more money, but they paid it and now they want their money back. And while it comes as Donald Trump's precious EU trade deal is hanging in the balance, today the European Union froze that trade deal. Quote, nobody knows what will happen. And it's unclear if there will be additional measures or how the United States will really guarantee its end of the agreement. As the announcement was being made, Trump used social media to threaten any country that wants to play games saying buyer beware. But the truth is countries are saying we don't want to deal with your trade deals anymore because there are tariffs that trade deals are predicated on. Well, they're wrong and they're unconstitutional. And your own Supreme Court just decided that to be the case. Now, trade and tariffs are going to be a big topic of conversation during tomorrow night's State of the Union address, which I will be covering for you, watching it so that you don't have to. I'll watch the State of the Union. I'll watch the alternative people, State of the Union, which I'll be on the ground for in Washington D.C. interviewing members of Congress and other lawmakers. And well, it comes at a very precarious time for this administration. Blow after blow after blow. For Donald Trump, this tariffs was just the latest. And the tariffs are really, I mean the entire Trump economic policy was based on one word, tariff. Now that word doesn't really exist anymore. Now meanwhile, ICE is facing some calamity inside the administration because we now have a whistleblower exposing the truth about what ICE is telling its agents to do. Take a listen to this.
- [04:12]
T-Mobile Spokesperson
Swore an oath to uphold the Constitution. When I joined ICE on August 1, 2021 as an assistant Chief Counsel, I followed that oath for four and a half years working side by side with ICE officers. And I followed it when I resigned on February 13, 2026, a little over a week ago so that I could speak to you today. For the last five months, I watched ICE dismantle the training program, cutting 240 hours of vital classes from a 584 hour program. Classes that teach the Constitution, our legal system, firearms training, the use of force, lawful arrests, proper detention and the limits of officers authority. ICE is teaching cadets to violate the Constitution and they were attempting to cloak it in secrecy by demanding that I lie about it.
- [05:12]
Aaron Parnas
Hmm. That's powerful. That's powerful. From Ryan Schwenk, who previously served at ice, we have a lot of news to cover today, from tariff issues to ICE to the fact that tomorrow's State of the Union comes during a government shutdown. The president will be the first president and in American history to be giving a State of the Union during government shutdown, partial or full. Also comes as Epstein survivors continue to demand answers and I continue to dig. I'll be with the survivors tomorrow afternoon speaking with them ahead of the State of the Union as well. But this evening I honestly had the pleasure speaking with a man named Rick Waldenberg. You may not know that name because it's not a household name. Well, he is the chief executive officer of a company called Learning Resources Inc. Learning Resources, Inc. If you know that name, was the company that sued the president and the Trump administration in April of last year following the initiation of the IPA tariffs. They took it all the way to the Supreme Court and Rick and his company won. Rick's company is a small company. It's not a giant conglomerate, has about 500 folks. And he says that no king, no one person can dictate the law the way the president tried to do. And while now companies are taking on the Trump administration again to try to get their tariff refunds, FedEx being the first, they may not be the last. So before I get to the interview, make sure to like, comment, share and subscribe. Please support my work, subscribe to my subset, click the link below or consider buying me a coffee to keep me caffeinated. Venmo Aaron Parnas. Here's my interview with Rick. Excited to be joined this afternoon by Rick Waldenberg, the CEO of Learning Resources and Elite plaintiff. And in Learning Resources versus Donald Trump, the recent tariffs case. Now, Rick, I want to get your reaction to the ruling. When did you find out? How did you find out? And what's your reaction to the major win that your company had in front of the Supreme Court?
- [07:08]
Rick Waldenberg
Well, I didn't think the ruling was going to come down ahead of the State of the Union. And so I completely ignored the fact that Friday was potentially the day. So I had a normal one on one schedule with my son who runs our sales organization. And we were talking about the New York Toy Fair and at about 9:03 says, hold on, hold on, says they're deciding our case, said we won our case, which was good news. But after that it's a blur. Obviously excited and gratified we felt very strongly that the tax was unlawful and unconstitutional. That's what I thought in April when I started looking for the litigation. And I still feel it that the case has grown in its significance and sort of taken with the case as a validation of our rule of law system. And also the interplay between the issues that we raised and the actual way our government is organized, I think that's really important. So we were associated with very important issues and I was excited to have brought the case under our name.
- [08:13]
Aaron Parnas
I want to take a step back. Tell us more about your company and the impact of the original tariffs on learning resources.
- [08:22]
Rick Waldenberg
Well, we have. It's our family business. I'm third generation kids in the business, they're fourth generation. We have about 500 employees globally. We make hands on learning materials that are used in schools and educational toys that are used at home. We design the products here. We make them generally overseas. Although we do some US manufacturing and we sell in over 100 countries. We're mission driven business. Those are the two things that I think tell you a lot about how I look at the world. I'm part of a family business legacy that goes back to 1916 and we are a purpose driven business committed to helping kids get a great start in life. That's why our business exists. And so when a politician comes up with a scheme that can put us out of business, I'm fighting for both legacies and it matters a lot to me. So we generally stand up and fight to protect our ourselves.
- [09:19]
Aaron Parnas
Well, back in April when the first tariffs were handed down, what made you go forward and actually sue the administration?
- [09:29]
Rick Waldenberg
Well, I was mad. The our tariff rate based on our 2025 plan would have gone up 44x over 2024. Clearly not affordable. It would have kind of been game over. I spent time looking out the window thinking what else can we sell to benefit kids? Because we can't make the things that we make now. So it was that kind of threat. There was no math to run our business. We couldn't absorb that amount of money and we couldn't raise it through new prices. Prices would go up 70%. So you know, this is the consequence of tarring everyone with the same brush. So if the government had an interest in having more steel plants or they wanted a chip fab plant in Phoenix, fine, get it. Create the conditions where you get those things. But they don't have to take us down as if we don't matter as a consequence of trying to get another car plant or chip fab the truth is, it's demeaning to feel like your own government, the government you pay for your rounding error. And it's profoundly frustrating to communicate that to your employees. Our company is a rounding error, and you are rounding error. Well, I won't say that. I don't believe that, and I won't stand for that. And so when the math changed, I just decided that the risk were far worse standing still than going forward. So we decided to take action.
- [11:01]
Aaron Parnas
Well, what would have happened if you lost the case? If the tariffs were upheld, what would happen to your company?
- [11:07]
Rick Waldenberg
Actually, a different question is more interesting to me. What would have happened to you if we'd lost the case, which I never considered possible? What you consider to be the American way of life would have gone out the window because that meant there would be no rule of the law. And so the powerful and the elite and the people with money would always win. And it doesn't matter what the law says, they get to win. So that's not the American way. And in addition, it's worth reflecting on the fact that this country was born out of a tariff dispute. That's what the Boston Tea Party was. That was the issue of the day. So when the American Constitution was drafted and signed in 1787, they were trying to address the fact that a single individual at that time, the King of England, set tax rates and imposed it on us. And we didn't have a representative form of government. So if we had lost this case, which is unthinkable, then you would have lost the protection of representative government, particularly as it relates to how you're taxed. So if, for instance, a single individual, let's just say hypothetically, a single individual on Friday, two days ago, decides to tax you 10% based on a capriciously designated national emergency, and then they wake up Saturday morning, go, ah, you know, 15% sounds better. That kind of reminds me of the King of England. So if we'd lost the case, that's what you would have lost? Forget what I would have lost. And your personal liberties would have gone with it, too, because there would be no rule of law. So forget about your freedoms and your right to rely on protections, because if they break this law, they can break any law.
- [12:49]
Aaron Parnas
Well, you mentioned the raise to 15%, and that brings me to an important point for a lot of businesses, is that the President just came out and said, we're going to put 15% global tariffs under this new statutory authority for a period of time of a few months. What's your Reaction to the new tariffs.
- [13:06]
Rick Waldenberg
Well, so on Friday at 9:00am Chicago time, our case was decided and said that the IPA tariffs were illegal when imposed. I've been paying those tariffs for years. So have hundreds of thousands of other companies. And it added up to about $150 billion. No one knows exactly how much. A lot. So presumably if the remedy to a trade deficit is to impose tariffs on American businesses to cause them to change their behavior, and if Congress thinks that should only last for 150 days without legislative approval, we kind of already did that. So I'm wondering how they figured out at 9am on Friday, oh my God, we're in a trade deficit national emergency. And then they set the perfect remedy, which they instantaneously Knew was a 10% tax. I get that. But then what happened between dinner time when they signed the executive order on Friday and Saturday morning when they woke up? What executive branch activity occurred to analyze this emergency and determine that 10% wasn't good enough and it really had to be 15% to solve this problem. I'd like to understand what that process was, because otherwise they're not following the law. This is not about a kingdom. We have representative government where taxes are governed by Congress. And it's time for Congress to take this over. And it's time for all of us to stop accepting sham declarations of tax just because a single individual wants some of our money. If it sounds like I'm angry, the basis of our country is anger over taxes imposed by an individual on the populace, what is this
- [14:56]
Aaron Parnas
makes sense. And so you bring up violation of the law. If you don't get the answers you want, Is going back to the courts a remedy that you're going to pursue?
- [15:05]
Rick Waldenberg
Potentially, I think going back to the courts is a remedy that people will consider. And there's a process by which an effort like this is mounted. So we need to gather the facts, we need to look at the particulars. I'm an ex lawyer, so my general response to these kinds of things is let me read it first and then I'll decide.
- [15:27]
Aaron Parnas
Now, I do have to ask you, do you ever expect to get that revenue back that you've paid into the tariffs over the past many months or so?
- [15:35]
Rick Waldenberg
Well, do you expect to get back an overpayment on your income tax?
- [15:39]
Aaron Parnas
I do.
- [15:40]
Rick Waldenberg
Of course I expect to get it back. They aren't entitled to it. So when you pay too much in taxes, you expect to get it back? The Supreme Court said that the government was not entitled to any of these taxes that they extracted from me at the border. That's black and white. That's what they said. Six to three decision. Read it. So like, if that's the decision, there is law on the books, doesn't have to be written that says if the government over collects taxes, they have to pay it back with interest because they shouldn't have taken in the first place. And it's no mystery. And the US government does this millions of times a year for people that overpay their income tax. They don't need this explained to them, nor do I have to demonstrate that I would be better at running the government than them. They know how to do this. They have computers. They know what money they took from me, when, how and why. Reverse the gears and give it back. It's just that simple. So yes, I'm getting the money back and they have to pay me. By the way, there are filings in our case and there are filings in other related cases where the government has said exactly that the Supreme Court says it's unlawful, they'll give the money back. And the Court of International Trade has said in writing in rulings in other cases that they will allow all importers to reliquidate their entries to collect the full amount of unlawfully collected taxes. Simple. Get to work. They have work to do
- [17:07]
Aaron Parnas
that they
- [17:07]
Rick Waldenberg
pay them to do.
- [17:09]
Aaron Parnas
It's very true. And on that note, thank you so much for joining me this afternoon for taking a few minutes. I appreciate it.
- [17:15]
Rick Waldenberg
Thank you.
- [17:16]
Aaron Parnas
Hey folks, thanks so much for watching. Feel free to add this podcast on Apple Podcasts, Spotify or anywhere you watch for the latest breaking news and daily hits throughout the day. Make sure to follow subscribe. See you soon for more.