160. TRUMP’S TARIFFS RULED ILLEGAL

Summary

---

The Rest Is Politics: US – Episode 160

"TRUMP’S TARIFFS RULED ILLEGAL"

Released: February 20, 2026
Hosts: Anthony Scaramucci (“The Mooch”) and Katty Kay

---

Overview

This emergency episode dives into a landmark Supreme Court decision that invalidates President Trump's sweeping tariffs—particularly those imposed under the guise of “national emergency.” Anthony Scaramucci and Katty Kay analyze the constitutional, economic, and political ramifications, discuss the reactions inside and outside the US, and respond to live audience questions. The tone is urgent yet hopeful, with both hosts framing the moment as a crucial test of America’s checks and balances.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

Supreme Court’s Ruling: Details and Implications

[00:45–03:32]

• The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that President Trump’s use of emergency powers to impose major tariffs was unconstitutional.
  • “This is also a lot of the Chinese tariffs… Approximately $175 billion worth of tariffs have been invalidated.”
    — Scaramucci [00:56]
  • Justice Kavanaugh’s siding with the majority was surprising; the expectation was a less lopsided decision.
  • The ruling underscores that the powers of taxation (including tariffs) belong to Congress, not the president.

Landmark Decision on Presidential Emergency Powers

• The ruling asserts limits to the president’s authority during “national emergencies,” especially regarding economic measures.
• “The Supreme Court is saying to Congress: guys, you’ve been asleep at the wheel. This shouldn’t have to be up to us.”
  — Kay [03:32]

---

Context: Trump’s Use of National Emergencies

[03:32–06:41]

• Trump repeatedly invoked national emergency powers for executive actions—immigration, tariffs, even outlandish moves like attempting to buy Greenland.

  • Katty Kay: “This idea of a Unitarian presidency where he tries to grab as much power as he can… The premise of an emergency has been central to his overreach of power.” [04:04]

• The Court’s ruling checks this trend—though it's uncertain if this sets a precedent beyond tariffs.

• Scaramucci references the Youngstown Steel case, a historic Supreme Court ruling that set boundaries for the president’s emergency powers.

  • “This is the court telling you, back the F up. You don’t have this authority and you’re not a king.”
    — Scaramucci [07:14]

---

The Tariffs: Refunds, Chaos, and Wall Street Action

[08:19–12:20]

• Refunds: Businesses and individuals who paid the invalidated tariffs can now claim refunds from the US government.

  • “Whoever paid that tariff has the right to go to the IRS, go to the Department of Treasury and say… you owe that back to me.”
    — Scaramucci [09:47]
  • Third parties have purchased the rights to these refunds, often for pennies on the dollar, creating a secondary market.
  • The total refunds could reach $175 billion, putting further pressure on the US deficit.

• Katty Kay: “I don’t think those small businesses are suddenly going to get a whole load of refund checks.” [14:26]

• Trump already “spent” much of this money politically—via farm payments and promises—which worsens fiscal chaos.

  • “How many times can you spend this money?” — Kay [14:44]

---

Economic Effects and Political Fallout

[15:48–18:29]

• Short-term: Lifting tariffs could save US consumers $1,300–$1,700 each—a real benefit, especially for poorer Americans.
• On the deficit: The US can borrow this money if needed, but Wall Street will profit from arbitraging refunds.
• The Supreme Court’s action boosts global confidence in the US legal system and debt reliability.
  • “The system is holding against Trumpism. Can I say, I think that’s very important.”
    — Scaramucci [17:53]

International Perspective & Trade Relationships [18:29–20:55]

• Relief in the EU and other countries: US unpredictability on tariffs upended global trade; partners now hope for stability.
  • Kay: “You can hear a sigh of relief coming from many countries in the world, particularly from the European Union… They see a vindication.” [18:47]
• Lasting damage: Even if the tariffs go away, trade relationships and global trust in the US have been undermined.
  • “Other countries have already done big trade deals that they weren’t able to do before… All because of this Liberation Day.”
    — Kay [19:50]

---

Does the Ruling Mark the End of Trumpism?

[20:55–23:43]

• Scaramucci frames the decision as a clear setback for authoritarianism and for Trump’s personal power.
  • “He really has limited backup options… This is a big, big blow to him.”
    — Scaramucci [22:45]
• The ruling imposes legal constraints on how high and for how long tariffs can be independently imposed.
• However, both hosts caution that Trump’s “instinct is to fight,” and he may still pursue “roguish” action globally or look for loopholes.

---

Will the System Hold? Audience Poll & Legal Enforcement

[26:54–29:01]

• Live poll: “Do you think the system will ultimately hold against Trumpism?” 66% Yes / 34% No.
• Kay notes, referencing Sen. Coons, that state attorneys general have successfully challenged Trump’s executive power roughly 75% of the time:
  • “The system is holding, at this headline level from the Supreme Court, the system is holding.”
    — Kay [27:08]
• What if Trump ignores the ruling? Kay and Scaramucci agree that officials would go to jail for helping him flout the Court, and that public tolerance for executive overreach is exhausted.
  • Scaramucci: “The people around him will end up going to jail... The people have had enough.” [28:29]

---

Economic and Political Legacy of Trump's Tariffs

[23:46–25:21]

• Trump’s justification has always been nostalgic—trying to revive US manufacturing by fiats like tariffs.
  • “The whole premise...was that he was going to recreate an America that manufactured T-shirts and shoes… and it hasn’t actually worked.”
    — Kay [24:04]
• Both hosts and economists consider the tariffs a failed, regressive policy that hurt manufacturing and consumers alike.

---

Notable Quotes & Moments

• Anthony Scaramucci:

  • “The age of Trump is ending. I just want to repeat that to everybody. The age of Trump is ending.” [02:09]
  • “This is a pounding. This is an ass kicking by the Supreme Court of the executive branch.” [11:21]
  • “Trump was driving around in a Ferrari Caddy, but it turns out it’s just a golf cart. That’s the irony of the whole thing.” [29:34]

• Katty Kay:

  • “Congress needs to reassert itself. There are three branches of government, and one of those branches has been kind of AWOL for the last year.” [03:32]
  • “Even his own judges wouldn’t bail him out on this. And so, you know, that’s the big thing.” [22:43]
  • “I have always believed that the American system will hold.” [26:54]

---

Timestamps for Important Segments

• 00:45–03:32 — Introduction to Supreme Court decision and its implications
• 03:32–06:41 — Trump’s record with emergency powers; limits set by the Court
• 08:19–12:20 — Tariff refunds, Wall Street’s role, and budget impacts
• 15:48–18:29 — Consumer impacts, US borrowing power, and international views
• 18:29–20:55 — Global repercussions and lasting trade damage
• 23:46–25:21 — Economic reality of Trump’s tariffs, myth vs. outcome
• 26:54–29:01 — Will the system hold? Audience poll, legal accountability
• 29:34–30:09 — Final thoughts: Presidency checked but grifting continues

---

Conclusion

This episode presents a pivotal moment of constitutional resilience, with Scaramucci and Kay dissecting the end of Trump’s unchecked tariff regime. While the ruling reasserts the separation of powers and restores optimism in the rule of law, both hosts caution that Trump’s political and economic influence remains dangerous. The overwhelming sentiment: the American system, though battered, is holding—proving the durability of its institutions, even in challenging times.

---

For further episodes and bonus content, visit therestispoliticsus.com

Transcript

[A]

What if you could use your home to build more home? It's possible with a SOFI Home Equity Loan. A home equity loan allows you to leverage your home's equity at a typically lower rate than a personal loan with low fixed monthly payments and all without increasing your mortgage rate. Whether it's a new bathroom, updated kitchen deck, or more, your home could help grow itself. View your [e-mail] homeupgrade today, mortgages originated by SoFi bank and a member FDIC. NMLS number 696891. Terms and conditions apply. Equal housing lender Foreign.

[B]

We have a live stream. Where are you, Caddy?

[C]

I'm actually in Switzerland.

[B]

Today is this historic day on a number.

[C]

We are doing better than the Trump administration today.

[B]

So let me, let me, let me, let me bring in some of the highlights and then we'll get Caddy's reaction. But in a 6, 3 decision. I was surprised by Justice Kavanaugh, actually. I thought this thing was going to go seven to two. But the Supreme Court has agreed with the appeals court. And so the tariffs are invalidated. And I want to explain that just briefly. Caddy, there's something called the ieepa. This is the authorization that Trump used to put these tariffs in place, particularly the Liberation day tariffs on April 2nd. So this represents about 60% of the tariffs that we're talking about. Approximately $175 billion worth of tariffs have been invalidated. Okay. And this is also a lot of the Chinese tariffs that were put in place in February of 2025 invalidated. And before I bring you in, I'm just going to say three very quick things. Number one, for those of you living outside of the United States, the rule of law is still existing in the United States. China, 24 cases the court ruled with Trump. In this case, they say no. And it's pretty much a landmark decision about where the authority lies in taxation and the powers of taxation. Now, the court is partisan. Very surprising that this was not a 90 decision, because if you just look

[C]

at it, which is what the chief

[B]

justice wanted, he wanted, which is why he was lobbying for it. He probably was 5, 4 and got Amy Comey Barrett towards the end, which is why he released the case once he realized he wasn't going to go more than 6:3. But this should have been a 9:0 decision. And I'll just say one last thing. Turn it over to Caddy. For those of you that are worried about the United States, you should be very optimistic today. The age of Trump is ending. I just Want to repeat that to everybody. The age of Trump is ending. Trump is going to be nasty about this. He's already called it a disgrace on Truth Social. He'll probably be acrimonious and whiny at the State of the Union address and maybe even Castig some of the Supreme Court justices that'll be present in the nation's capital. But I think it's very important for people to understand the age of Trump is ending and the United States. Between the Minnesota ridiculousness with ice, the Supreme Court people are taking a stand against authoritarianism and Trumpism. And I view this as incredibly positive. And I see Trump now going into full on grifting mode. Katie K. And trying to avoid the scandal related to Jeff Epstein. I'll turn it over to you.

[C]

Okay, so I think all of that is valid. I think it's worth people still remembering he has another three years and we're facing the prospect of America taking military action against Iran. So even though the era of Trump may be ending, that doesn't mean that on the international stage, Trump can still not try and wreak havoc around the world and take action around the world. Back to these tariffs. The key here in this Supreme Court ruling is that the Supreme Court has said to the White House, you cannot use this idea of a national emergency to impose tariffs. Tariffs are a form of taxation, and taxation has to go through Congress. So in a way, the Supreme Court is saying to Congress, guys, you've been asleep at the wheel. This shouldn't have to be up to us. But Congress needs to reassert itself. There are three branches of government, and one of those branches have been kind of AWOL for the last year. I think the interesting question, and we can dive into the tariffs in a second, is that Donald Trump has used this idea, Anthony, of emergency powers or a national emergency frequently, right? In his presidency, he has expanded as much as he can the power of the presidency. This idea of a Unitarian presidency where he tries to grab as much power as he can. And the reason he is giving when he writes all of those little executive orders with that big Donald Trump signature that we keep seeing time and again, repeatedly. The reason that he gives for having to bypass Congress and write an executive order and get something dramatic done in the country. What do we keep hearing? Well, there's a national emergency. There's a national emergency. On immigration, Scott Besant went on television and said, we have to have Greenland because it's a national emergency to stop a national emergency. I mean, it got that sort of bizarrely Orwellian when it was around Greenland. But I think what the Supreme Court has said here, and I've reached out to a constitutional lawyer in the last kind of half hour to check this on the issue of tariffs, and we don't know how the Supreme Court, as you pointed out, the Supreme Court has actually ruled in Donald Trump's favor very many times. But on this particular issue of tariffs, and we don't know how much this extends to other issues, the Supreme Court is saying, no, that this. You cannot say that there is a national emergency and impose these sweeping tariffs. And we heard it specifically. Right. Trump said around China that there was a national emergency, around Brazil that there was an emergency. He's invoking this idea, why is he sending National Guard troops into Washington, D.C. and Los Angeles? There's an emergency. And that premise of an emergency has been central to his overreach of power during his presidency. I guess my question for you would be, do you think, as this constitutional lawyer I just spoke to seems to be saying that this is just about the tariffs, should we see this as a narrow ruling around tariffs, or is this Supreme Court trying to say, Justice Roberts trying to say, okay, this whole idea of emergency as a reason for executive overreach, we actually don't think that's valid. What do you think, Anthony?

[B]

Well, listen, I don't want to bring my constitutional legal background into it because I'm not a constitutional lawyer, but there was a very famous case called Youngstown Steel where the court said, hey, there is a delineated separation of powers. It's a very flat, decentralized system, and you can't step into the lane of the other article of the Constitution. And so the court, Court is basically upholding the Youngstown Steel case. And so I'm going to respectfully disagree with that. Man, this is a huge case. This is a repudiation of Trumpism. This is a repudiation of authoritarianism. Trump will try to make it like it's a microscopic case, but it's not a microscopic case. This is the court telling you, back the F up. You don't have this authority and you're not a king. Okay? And I think it's an interesting thing because it's coming at a historical time. You know, they gave him a break on 24 cases. This one, they said, no, Gorsuch and Barrett, he's going to excoriate them because he put them on the court, sided with Roberts. Okay. Kavanaugh is a weenie, by the way. And so Kavanaugh used to be A George Bush, Reagan conservative. Okay. The other two guys are, you know, packed and gone, Alito and Thomas. But Kavanaugh is a weenie, by the way. And Kavanaugh writes in the dissent category, because I read the dissent in preparation for this, that the refunds would be messy. Dude, it's not about that.

[C]

Anthony, back up a little bit and explain that, because I think a lot of people are asking questions. We've got people in the chat asking about whether they're going to get some money back and around the world. But back up this whole premise of refund.

[B]

Explain what we mean by that on this program. Katty and I told you that the Supreme Court was going to rule against Trump, prima facie was just against the Constitution. The law that he's citing had no tariff power. Tariffs are a tax. Despite the president's rhetoric, nobody pays the tariffs other than the American people. Somehow, some way, the consumer pays them. And the court saw that. I would have thought that the court would have taken a split the baby approach and said, okay, listen, we're going to grant that the president use this authority erroneously, a result of which the refunds are not going to take place.

[C]

So the underlying reforms, just to be clear to everybody, this is already. America has brought in like 100 to something. Between 100 to 200 billion dollars is a little bit in tariff revenues. The question is, okay, so the CBOs, we get the money back now.

[B]

Yeah, exactly. So the cbo estimate is $175 billion. That's the estimate. It could be plus or minus that. But what basically is happening is there was a duty paid at the port to bring the goods in. If that duty was on your wine, let's say you bought some wine from France and it was held up by dhl. Or.

[C]

Okay, not that we're going to call up my French wine habit, but anyway, yeah, okay, okay.

[B]

But. Okay, but you may have had a duty at the, at the port, and now you can go and apply for a refund. Okay. A lot of people probably won't do that. There will now be places on Wall street that will suck up all these refunds. They'll call people and say, hey, you got a refund coming. You don't want to go through the hassle of it. We'll go through the hassle of it. Sort of like a class action suit, if you will. And they'll get the money from the government. But. But it's 175 billion, which is not great for the US deficit, by the way. I'm not Saying that it is, but it is great for the rule of law in the country. So what's going to happen now? Whoever paid that tariff has the right to go to the irs, go to the Department of Treasury said, by the way, I paid this after Liberation Day. You owe that back to me. Now there are tariffs in place that were voted on by the US Congress. Those tariffs are in place. You know, there's $296 billion worth of revenues that have come in from the tariffs being, you know, in place. 175 of them are the Trump erroneous tariffs. Now, you guys, somebody is, Alex here in the chat is saying, weren't the Lutnick kids buying tariff refunds? They were. And so a lot of people were buying the tariff refunds and they were trading at 10 cents on a dollar. So some poor corporation that paid the tariffs, like, I'm never getting this money back. How much did you pay? A hundred thousand. Okay, we'll offer you $10,000 and it'll give us the right to claim your refund. So those, those, those things are in the money now. So anybody that made those bets are correct. And you know, listen, I mean, I'm, I'm not gonna, I'm not. We're, you know, Trump said we're in a golden age. You guys know, we're in the golden age of corruption. That's the golden age that we happen to be in. But there's something going on in the United States. People should really listen to me on this. This shit is over. Okay? This is a pounding. This is an ass kicking by the Supreme Court of the executive branch. And I'm going to tell you right now, these Republicans that met with Trump's people over the election strategy, knock it off. Back the F up. We're gonna get smoked in the midterms. And you're doing things outside of this system that has made us, by and large, very free and very prosperous.

[C]

Okay, we're gonna take a quick break and come back and take more of your questions. We're not going to do this for a terribly long time because of course we'll be back with next week with more on this, but we'll take a quick break and come back and answer some of your questions.

[B]

Lifelock, how can I help?

[C]

The IRS said I filed my return, but I haven't.

[A]

One in four tax paying has paid the price of identity fraud.

[C]

What do I do?

[B]

My refund, though, I'm freaking out. Don't worry, I can fix this.

[A]

Lifelock fixes identity theft, guaranteed and gets your money back with up to $3 million in coverage.

[C]

I'm so relieved.

[B]

No problem. I'll be with you every step of the way.

[A]

One in four was a fraud. Paying American. Not anymore. Save up to 40% your first year. Visit lifelock.com podcast terms apply.

[C]

I think that's all right, Anthony. That this is a blow to the Trump administration. This is a containing strategy from the Supreme Court. We have several checks and balances that are kicking in. We're still waiting to see whether Republicans in Congress stand up to Donald Trump. He has ever since 2016, had this curious hold over the party, which hasn't broken. But I don't think that we should be saying to audiences around the world that this suddenly means that Trump, Donald Trump is not still going to be a hu erratic, potentially wayward player on the global stage because I think there is a ch he has three more years left in office. I don't see him just deciding to go down to Mar a Lago and play golf. I think we're going to see more of the grift. We're going to see more of the kinds of actions that we might be on the doorstep of in Iran. I don't think the whole issue of Greenland has necessarily gone away. And I don't think. And if it's not Greenland, it's going to be something else. The Donald Trump himself has said that he thinks this is a disgrace. He's told people he's in a meeting in the White House. It's being reported. He also says that he has a backup plan. So I think he is going to try and carry on implementing these tariffs. But I still think we have. It's not like this ruling is going to suddenly make Donald Trump a normal, calm, moderate president who's going to turn around to the Republican Party in Congress and suddenly say, okay, guys, you know, let's get back to normal. I just don't think that is where he's going to go. When Donald Trump's back is up against the wall, his instinct is to fight. So I still think we could have other actions around the world on the tariffs and these refunds. There's a lot of people asking about the refunds. Is the money still there? Sam Riseter is asking. Already funneled to the rich friends. I think you're right. It's what you said recently, that people are already buying these for 10 cents on the dollar. Some people are going to get very rich on this. I don't think many of the businesses that paid the tariffs and it was businesses, often small businesses in Italy, France, China, Norway, you know, Brazil, who swallowed the cost of these tariffs. I don't think those small businesses are suddenly going to get a whole load of refund checks. But Donald Trump, he has a bit of a problem because he's already promised quite a lot of this money. I mean, he's promised it in payments to farmers, he's promised it in Trump bonds, he's promised it in refunds to people. What's he going to do, for example, with those farm payments, Anthony? I mean, how many times can you spend this money? And if he's already spent it, what happens then? I mean, as Justice Kavanaugh said, this is messy. Yeah, it's going to be messy. It doesn't mean it shouldn't happen, but it is going to be messy. So what happens?

[B]

Well, listen, it's going to be. It's going to be messy. But, you know, the government obviously has taxing power, Caddy. The government also has borrowing power, and if necessary, they'll end up borrowing the money. And again, despite the deficit in the United States, we can step into, the United States can step into the capital markets and more or less borrow at will. So I don't see that as the problem. The benefit here to the US Consumer, depending on which statistical study you're looking at, it's 1300 to $1700 per consumer. You and I have always told people that these tariffs are very regressive. That's real money for the working po and so that will be a positive. I think one of the things that Trump's got to be very, very careful of, if his economic team has any brains left, they'll be saying, hey, listen, this is going to widen the deficit due to refunds. If you start to impose replacement tariffs, you're going to create even more chaos and you're going to potentially create even higher inflation expectations, which is going to make it harder for the Federal Reserve to cut rates. You'd be better off yielding to the Supreme Court on this, going to the Congress and trying to get some taxing power if you can. The chances of that are unlikely because of people like Rand Paul and Thomas Massie and normal Republicans. But Caddy, I hear you that he'll still act like a rogue with Greenland and Canada and things like that. But this has weakened him, trust me, in the corridors of power, they are talking to each other and saying, thank God. And there are economic people. There are people on his economic team that are saying, okay, good, this is good for the US economy that we're not going to have this tariff imposition over the next three years. And so, you know, and listen, I mean, Tony's asking, I just want to address this Mooch, news flash, who on the planet wants to buy U.S. bonds in treasury at the moment? But the honest answer is everybody, because just go into the capital, just go into the capital markets and take a look. Despite our problems, and we have many, many problems, the confidence level in the US Paying back that debt is enormously high. And this actually, this case, if you don't mind me saying so this case makes that even more confident. Caddy, the system is holding against Trumpism. Can I say, I think that's very important.

[C]

There's a couple. Let's look a little bit at the politics of this, both the domestic and the international politics of this. Becauseter rooster is asking, how does America recover from the global relationships he has destroyed? How do we revalidate ourselves? He's already blown up the neighborhood. The neighbors aren't going to want to move back. I think you've got a very good point there, that even if I think in terms of the. You can hear a sigh of relief coming from many countries in the world, particularly from the European Union. I've been texting with people from the EU in the last hour who are saying, and the official version is we're just looking at this, but there is definitely relief. They were the ones that were finding it trickiest negotiate with Donald Trump around tariffs. They see a vindication for having tried to hold the line against tariffs, against Trump on tariffs, and they hope that there will now be more stability. So countries around the world are hoping that this could lead to more stability, at least on the tariff front. It's been a nightmare for them for the last eight months trying to deal with this. But even if he can't, even though he's saying right now, today, I have a backup plan, even if he can't reimpose these tariffs, even if that backup plan fails and we get back to some degree of normality this has caused, as you and I found, Anthony, right when we went to the World Economic Forum in Davos. This tariff policy combined with Greenland, combined with bombing Venezuela combined with are we going to bomb Iran, take out their nuclear program? We've obliterated their nuclear program. Oh, sorry. Six months later, we've got to go back in again. All of that. I think the damage from Liberation Day has been done. I think that it's going to be very hard. It's part of what has undermined the dollar, undermined confidence in the United States as a global leader. And even if this gets unwound, even if there were to be refunds for countries around the world, we know this other countries have already done big trade deals that they weren't able to do before. The EU with Latin American America, the EU with India, the Canadians with the Europeans on supply chains. And that is all because of this liberation date. Would it have been better if the Supreme Court had ruled on this? Much faster, this delay, every time. The longer this went on, the more damage was being done to America's reputation and confidence in America Inc.

[B]

Yes, I think that it was. That's the process. Unfortunately, it had to go through the district court and the court of appeals. He moved it. If you remember, this is a case that should have hit the docket in February of this year with the decision rendered in June of 2026. So he moved the case to the end of 2025 to get the decision out. This is six months early for the Supreme Court. But yes, you're right. This is definitely something that we wish we didn't have to deal with. But, but I just want to say to the people, because I'm reading some of the comments here, I just want to say to people, listen, we're in a tough spot. The US I'm not going to say otherwise. We have this miscreant running the White House. He's got willing sycophants and he has a spineless Republican Congress, and he has a very disorganized opposition. So the opposition is fighting with itself as opposed to consolidating to fight him. So we're in a very, very tough spot. But if you think about the Constitution Caddy, the Constitution is holding because these nine people, six of them just said, hey, we're not going to go in that direction. And so, you know, Trump is sitting there muttering to himself that he only got a 33% return on his investment, meaning he, he had three Supreme Court justices that he picked.

[C]

The only one he likes is the middle pick.

[D]

Right?

[B]

Right, exactly. The one that likes beer. I like beer. I like beer. This dope. Okay? But in any event, you know, you just have to think about that. Even his own judges wouldn't bail him out on this. And so, you know that that's the big thing. You know, I, I, I think that,

[C]

I think that is a big deal. It's a big deal.

[B]

Somebody just said that we're going to overcome this period of chaos. I absolutely believe that. But this is a big blow to them. And I just want to point out to you guys, I know we have to go. He really has limited backup options. Okay? You know, in section 22 of the Trade deals, the Cariffs would have to be capped at 15%. So this nonsense of going to 25 and 35 and all this other stuff is crazy. He can only do that, by the way, for 150 days. Okay? And the other sections 301 and 232, they require formal investigations and congressional oversight. So this is a big, big blow to him. But, you know, Trump is also a lucky sop. Okay? This is a big blow to him. But weirdly, this is gonna help him. Katty K. Because this is gonna improve the economy.

[C]

Right? So it's a good question.

[B]

Besant is saying to himself, okay, thank God this is happening, right?

[C]

Cause actually what happened last year, the trade deficit went up. Guess what happened to manufacturing? It went down in the United States. The whole premise of these tariffs. Donald Trump. There's one word that Donald Trump goes round and round his head all the time, and it's nostalgia, a feeling that he has that things used to be better. And the underlying reason for these tariffs was that he was going to recreate an America that manufactured T shirts and shoes and all these things, that it stopped manufacturing, that it's outsourced long ago, and Americans were going to go back and work in factories. And it hasn't actually worked. I mean, maybe the administration would say, well, we didn't have enough time. It was too choppy, it was too up and down. We needed longer in the tariffs. This was going to be the year that it worked. But every economist that you speak to said it was never going to happen. That was a pipe dream that we were never going to recreate the manufacturing dream of Donald Trump's 1970s and 1960s, which is what he was sort of the whole premise of these tariffs were. So Matthew Byrne, 4223 is asking, does this. This indirectly benefit Trump now that he may have to reverse his tariffs, this may benefit the economy, or is this the latest violent swing of the tariffs, which will further chaos? I think, Matthew, you're right. And I think the latest numbers that we've seen, those numbers around the trade deficit going up last year and the manufacturing jobs going down last year in the United States are a reminder of why the tariff policy. I mean, I don't know. Are we wrong? Anthony, could the tariff policy have produced a manufacturing glory days back in the United States?

[B]

Of course it didn't massive.

[C]

It didn't and it wasn't going to.

[B]

The Wall Street Journal had a great article about this last week. If anything, it hurt manufacturing in the US because lots of components that are coming into the United States have been tariffed. They've increased the prices of the goods that are being made here in the United States. An example, if you have a flat screen in your car or an airplane, well, guess what, Caddy K, you got to import that. We don't make those anymore. So, so, you know, listen, I'm with the people that are still upset at the US I'm with the people that are upset at the culture in the United States. I understand many Canadians are boycotting travel into the US or boycotting purchases. A lot of people have turned on us because of the way we've turned on them. But I think the message here from the United States is that this is a group of people that are running the executive branch temporarily. The Constitution, which is, you know, it's going to be 236 years old. The country is going to be 250 years old, but the constitution is 236, 237 years old is holding. And I think this is a really big thing. And I just want to point out that the, the recourse that the president has is very, very limited on these. And he's now, because I know his personality, he's now going to be, he's going to be more sheepish with these political leaders. He doesn't have the power. Well, maybe that he tried to pretend that he had it and maybe those

[C]

political leaders will feel a little emboldened. So we asked you guys a poll question during this live stream. Thank you for joining you, all of you, particularly those of you who are founding members. We love having you with us. If you're not a founding member, you can join us at the restispolitics us.com Anyway, here's the poll results. The question was do you think the system will ultimately hold against Trumpism? Results 66 Yes. 35 no, I agree. And I've, I have always believed that the American system will hold. And this reminds me of something that Senator Coons said to you and I that has not got a lot of attention in the press, but I think is really worth people knowing. Over the course of the last year, attorneys general around the country have brought how many lawsuits was it, Anthony? Hundreds of lawsuits against the Trump administration. And they have won 75% of the time. And all of those lawsuits have been checks on executive power, the misuse of executive power. So at a quiet level, the system is holding, at this headline level from the Supreme Court, the system is holding. One person has asked us on the chat. I just want to take this last question. And this is from Elie Pheasants. So what happens if posters just ignores the ruling? Didn't they themselves basically give him a free pass to obeying any laws while in office? He's not going to ignore the ruling. My, my prediction here is he's not going to ignore the ruling. And I think if he did ignore the ruling, this is what constitutional lawyers have said to me right from the beginning of this administration. The moment to pull the rip cord is when Donald Trump ignores a Supreme Court ruling. I don't think he's going to, I

[B]

mean, the people around him will end up going to jail. Maybe, maybe Trump and I get the point of the question, maybe Trump will have immunity for that, but the people that he'll need to execute ignoring the ruling will all end up in jail. Caddy. And by the way, people, the people have had enough. You know, the people have had enough. I mean, and, and I'm seeing that

[C]

in votes, by the way. We're seeing that in votes. There have been dozens of votes that

[B]

are swinging against bad for the world, bad for the economy, bad for the world. And the people have had enough.

[C]

And we're seeing that in votes around the country. You're getting state Senate votes, special elections, and time and again there has been this 13 point swing away from Republicans to Democrats. So the people are making it clear that they're not happy. The polls are making it clear they're not happy. And now we have this very important Supreme Court ruling which will be a containment on the president and his use, I think, of trying to use this idea of emergencies to expand presidential power in a way that the American Constitution doesn't understand.

[B]

Trump was driving around in a Ferrari Caddy, but it turns out it's just a golf cart. That's the irony of the whole thing. He doesn't have the power that he

[C]

thought, which doesn't mean he is not going to make his presence felt both domestically and on the international stage. There is still going to be an awful lot for us to cover because this president is not going to shift

[B]

to more grifting Gatti. Trust me, he's going to shift to more grifting. His goal right now is to keep the FT spot file suppressed and make himself a couple billion dollars. That's, that's his goal now. He's going to shift to the grifting.

[C]

Okay, guys, we'll be back next week. Thank you so much for joining us. We just thought this was worth hopping on and doing a quick emergency pod on. Thanks for joining us, guys.

[B]

Thank you, guys.

[E]

To some, he is the revolutionary hero who restored China to its rightful place on the global stage.

[D]

To others, he's a brutal despot accused of presiding over more civilian deaths than he'd either Stalin or Hitler.

[E]

Mao Zedong has one of the most recognizable faces in the world. Yet he started life in a muddy provincial village.

[D]

A rebel son who hated his father, survived a 6,000 mile walk across China and rose to become a figure of titanic proportions.

[E]

From Empire, the Goal Hanger World History Show. I'm Anita Anand.

[D]

And I'm William Duranpool.

[E]

In this six part series, we're joined joined by world renowned expert Rana Mitter to explore the life of the father of communist China, Mao Zedong.

[D]

We'll track his rise from a bookstore owner to a guerrilla commander. And we'll witness his ruthless elimination to secure total power. And we'll descend into the dark experiment of the Cultural Revolution. A time when ancient temples were burnt, children denounced their parents and a nation worshipped a mango as a sacred relic.

[E]

Subscribe to Empire Wherever you get your podcasts to listen now.