Transcript of Uh Oh! Trump’s Own Lawyers Turn Against his Tariff Plan!! New

Okay, Nicolas.

Quizfrage: Homeoffice bei Stade oder Fahrtkosten. Was bringt uns mehr? Moment, ich check das kurz. Oha, Homeoffice gewinnt. Bringt uns 150 Euro mehr im Jahr. Ja, richtig. Aber wieso weißt du so was? Weil, wieso Steuer die Erstattung live anzeigt. Das ist einfach die Steuer-App für alle Fälle. Ja, und Fragen beantwortet sie auch. 247 und ohne Beamtendeutsch. Das ist einfach die App, die uns versteht. Steuern erledigt? Safe. Mit wieso Steuer. Jetzt kostenless ausprobieren. Up jetzt bestellst du à la carte, und zwar nach Hause. Mit dem E-Rezept auf deiner Krankenkassenkarte und der Shop Apotheke-App kommen deine verschreibungspflichtigen Medikamente direkt zu dir. Einfach App öffnen, Krankenkassenkarte mit E-Rezept ranhalten und mit dem E-Rezept Rabatt automatisch bis zu 20 € je Medikament sparen, auf Zuzahlungen und mitbestellte Produkte. Na, schmeckt dir die Idee? Dann probier's jetzt Dekra Epp.

Donald Trump and his lawyers have already destroyed any possible argument they can make in court to try to defend Trump's new 15% Tariffs against the world. As I'm sure you know by now, after Donald Trump lost the case before the Supreme Court, and they struck down his tariffs against the world under a 1977 statute called Aipa, Donald Trump then had a temper tantrum and then imposed 15% tariffs against the entire world under the Trade Act of 1974, Section 122. Now, the big problem for Trump invoking Section 122 is that it doesn't apply at all to a circumstance involving so-called trade deficits, which Donald Trump is complaining about. Donald Trump's lawyers argued before the Court of International Trade, the Federal Circuit Court, as well as the United States Supreme Court, that Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 doesn't apply. Specifically, the federal judges and the justices then on the Supreme Court asked Donald Trump's lawyers Does Section 122 apply instead of the statute that you've been using to impose tariffs against the world? Iepa, can you use Section 122? And Donald Trump's lawyer said, No. Section 122 cannot be invoked at all. That would be unlawful.

So what does Donald Trump do after the IEPA, emergency tariffs against the world, were struck down by the Supreme Court? He invokes Section 122. What I What we also want to discuss with you in this video is that Trump has also created all of the evidence against himself to strike down these new 15% tariffs against the world. You know how Donald Trump has made up that the United States has received trillions and trillions of dollars already in 2025, he claimed, from these countries because they just want to give him all their money. Remember, he said he's collected 17 trillion dollars, 18 trillion dollars, 22 trillion dollars. Well, by you making those statements, you are also demonstrating that there is not any balance of payment system controversy that would be needed to invoke Section 122 because you're saying all these countries are giving you their money and that America has never been stronger, so you have no basis to invoke Section 122 as well. Trump is going to lose, yet again, all of the cases that are going to be brought against him starting today based on his unlawful invocation of Section 122. And one of the things I want to highlight as well as it relates to the markets.

By Donald Trump invoking Section 122, he's essentially saying the United States is in a Great Depression-level crisis right this second. By invoking it, he's saying, he's admitting that the United States economy is worse than it's ever been before, folks. Section 122, which was created in 1974 after something called this big Nixon financial crisis situation and the Breton Wood system, which I'll talk about in just a moment. But the statute was created in 1974 to deal with potential currency manipulation, to deal with a potential run on gold, which never ended up happening. Nixon ended up imposing tariffs for a short period of time, and then certain situations were resolved back in the early '70s. But this statute has never been invoked before, ever. Through lots of crises that the United States have had, whether it was through the '80s, the dot-com bust, whether it was the Great Recession, this has never been invoked. And so by invoking it, you are also admitting that the United States basically is having a great depression-level crisis, the scale of which has never been seen before. And that's not a good look for the United States. So let's just do what we do here on the Midas Touch Network and go point by point.

Let's bring out the receipts. So Neil Katael Well, you know Neil, he's been on the show before. He was the lawyer who argued the case to the Supreme Court and the lower courts that ultimately struck down Donald Trump's Tariffs Against the World under the IEPA statute. And Katael explains, it seems pretty hard for Donald Trump to rely on this 15% statute, Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, when his Department of Justice, in our case, told the court the opposite. Now, this is a direct quote from Trump's lawyers. Nor does Section 122 have any obvious application here, where the concerns the President identified in declaring during an emergency arise from trade deficits, which are conceptually distinct from balance of payment deficits. And Kata Yal explains, Look, if Donald Trump wants sweeping tariffs, he should do the American thing and go to Congress. He controls both branches of Congress and the executive branch, so pass a law if you want tariffs against the world. Persuade Congress if you think this is such a good idea. As Peter President explains Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act, which I'll explain to you in just a moment, on which Trump's 10% tariff as base does not apply in the current macro environment.

A balance of payment deficit is not the same thing as a trade deficit. What Trump has been complaining of is a trade deficit with other countries. Section 122 of 1974 deals with balance of payment deficits, and I'll explain again what that means in a moment. You cannot have a balance of payment issue if you have a flexible exchange rate as the US currently does, or if, as Donald Trump says, he's bringing in all this money, and we've never been richer. As Steve Liseman explains, I'd like to submit that declaring a balance of payments crisis to enact tariffs under Section 122 is not the best look for the United States. We need to attract billions in capital daily. In a payment crisis, foreigners pull their money out. Interest rates soar and currencies collapse, none of which is happening. So Trump is saying that everyone's pulling their money out of our country. That's a balance of payment crisis that you need to invoke 1974, right? So by invoking it, he's saying money is being pulled out, but he's going on TV and saying money is being in. Do you get what I'm saying? He's saying we're receiving trillions, but for there to be this balance of payment crisis, it would mean that people are pulling their money out and you're having a currency collapse, and that's not what's happening.

Steve Leisman explains It's like going to the bank, declaring you're broke and that you've lost your job, but that they should give you the loan anyway. And you can't have a balance of payment crisis when foreigners are supposedly investing trillions of dollars into your economy, as Donald Trump says. But consistency is never his strong suit. So if you take a look right here, this is Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act. And here's where it says you can invoke this section to do 15 % tariffs against the world. It has to be blanket, basically, against the world. And it could only last 150 days. But you have to have these predicate situations in order to invoke it. Whenever fundamental international payment problems require special import measures to restrict imports. So what are the fundamental international payment problems? That doesn't exist. And by Trump's own words, there isn't one. We've never been richer. We're in the golden age. We've brought in trillions of dollars. That's what he says. So then it is to deal with a large and serious United States balance of payments deficits to prevent imminent and significant depreciation of the dollar in foreign exchange markets, or three, to cooperate with other countries in correcting an international balance of payment disequilibrium.

Then you can do a temporary import surcharge not to exceed 15 for a period of up to 150 days. So the United States has never, since 1974, experienced a balance of payment crisis severe enough to invoke Section of the Trade Act of 1974. Now, if you're just curious, why was this enacted? Well, it was enacted in 1974, partly in response to President Richard Nixon's 1971 imposition for a short period of time of a 10% supplemental import duty. It was called the Nixon Shock. During a genuine balance of payment and monetary crisis under the fixed exchange rate Breton system that existed post-World War II. So Nixon used authority from something called the Trading with the enemy Act, not Section 122, and the duty aimed to protect US reserves, curb speculation against the dollar, and pressure allies to revalue currencies, leading to something called the Smithsonian Agreement in 1971. Imposing the 10% Tariffs wasn't monetary policy. It was done very surgically for a short period of time, and it had to address this thing called the Nixon shock. One of the issues that happened was the system that existed post-World War II really grew with certain pressures that were developing, and a US balance of payment deficit widened, with heavy military spending, foreign aid programs, private US investment overseas.

And as Europe and Japan recovered economically, their exports became more competitive. Additive, reducing US trade surpluses and continuing to persist in current account deficits. This flooded the world with dollars, dollar glut, dollar overhang, while US gold reserves remained relatively fixed. The dollar became overvalued relative to other currencies, hurting US exports, worsening the trade balance. And what almost happened for a period of time is gold reserves fell sharply. There was this real risk of a run on gold, where foreign holders demanding gold in mass, and the US couldn't honor it because it was pegged to this gold standard. And so ultimately, an agreement was reached called the Smithsonian Agreement. And actions relating to the Smithsonian Agreement marked the beginning of the end to the Bretton Woods Fixed Exchange Rate System, which is different than what we have right now. And again, it really related to this unsustainable imbalance in the fixed rate system. I know that was a complicated explanation, but that doesn't exist right now. And if it did exist, a run on gold, we're conceding that we are in the biggest crisis imaginable right now. Now look, this is super important. If you used medicare.

Gov to get Medicare Advantage Plan information, you may want to double-check your plan. The provider directory had inaccurate information it, and it's possible you signed up for a plan that doesn't actually cover your existing doctors. Listen, folks, it's easy to choose the wrong Medicare plan, and unfortunately, Medicare mistakes can cost you thousands of dollars. That's why we partner with Chapter. When you need to choose a Medicare plan, call them. They're the only national advisor that compares and recommends every Medicare plan across Medicare supplement, Medicare Advantage, and in Part D. And they've helped people save over $1,100 on health care costs. In fact, they've helped hundreds of you in the Midas Touch community save thousands and get better coverage. These guys won't push you to buy a plan you don't want to, and their support is completely free. So if you're on Medicare or will be soon, call them at 82 Medicare. They'll help you understand enrollment options and find ways to save on your health care. Again, call them at 82 Medicare. But when you hear from Donald Trump or when he makes his post golden age, $21 trillion. I mean, here's what he said last year, By the time my first year ends, we're going to have $20 trillion in investments.

Here's what he said.

I would say right now more than $18 trillion. The biggest number ever is a tiny fraction of that for any country, China, the United States, the biggest number ever. If you look at the past administration, Biden, he did less than a trillion in four years. We're over 18 trillion. By the time my first year ends, we're going to have over $20 trillion of investment coming into the United States. It's unheard of. We have AI factories. We're leading China by a lot. We have cars and car plants coming in by more than we've ever had built before.

Now, here's also what Trump said when he was on Air Force One last year. Trillions of dollars have come into our country, and everything is better. He says, Everything is great. We're booming. So if you're saying those things, the predicate of Section 122 inherently can't be met. You all understand that, right? Here, play this clip.

So many successful meetings, and so many meetings great for our country with literally hundreds of billions, trillions of dollars have come into our country over the last four days represented by this meeting. But trillions of dollars where in God is going to build plans, $10 million worth of plans. I could go over so many different companies coming in. They're pouring money into the United States. So beyond even this meeting, this was an unbelievable trip, and I hope you're glad you were part of it. It was big.

Now, I also want to mention that something Donald Trump also did, which is going to hit you in the pocketbook, is he removed the so-called de minimis tariff exemption for things $800 or less. That exemption no longer apply, so all of those things get tariffed. Donald Trump is just lashing out right now. As Mike in the Box says, it's infuriating that every journalist since Trump's 2024 campaign has been incorrectly discussing Trump's tariffs as though they're economic policy. They're not. They're a primitive coping mechanism for him employed by a psychopathic toddler to soothe his pain when he feels fragile and wounded. There has never It's been a clearer example. Supreme Court humiliates Donald Trump, strikes down the IEPA Tariffs, the 1977 emergency tariff bases that he used. He feels wounded. So then he says 15% against the world by invoking the Trade Act of 1974. Brian Reilly also states, Trump cannot impose tariffs under Section 122. It only authorizes tariffs in the presence of a fundamental international payment problem. The US does not face such a problem, so it cannot be legally used to impose new tariffs. So what's this actually all about? How is he invoking this other law that he can't actually invoke?

Because the lessons that Trump learns is how to more perfectly or imperfectly, however you want to describe it, become more of a predator because that's who he is, become more of a fraud. So Trump's lesson from the Supreme Court striking down the IEPA Tariffs Against the World is, wow, I was able to keep this thing going for over a year, maybe 12, 13, 14 months before the Supreme Court finally struck it down. And then my unlawful actions were stayed by the federal courts and the circuit courts. They were paused, so I was allowed to keep doing the unlawful thing until it took a year and a half to get to the Supreme Court. So I'm just going to illegally invoke another statute. I'll say that I find that I'm going to argue that the language of the Trade Act applies, even though it doesn't. People will sue me. Businesses will sue me. I'll fight it out. It'll go to the Supreme Court. I'll lose But for that period of time, I will have imposed these tariffs against the world. Even when you look at Nixon's 1971 imposition of 10% tariffs, it was done very surgically.

It wasn't a monetary policy. It wasn't a trade policy. It wasn't a overall thing that you just keep in place for this long. That's why, notwithstanding what the Trump regime officials have said, the European Union will be freezing any ratification of its trade deal with the United States. The India Trade Representatives are not going to be visiting the United States. And why would they want to enter a trade deal? All of these other so-called deals that Donald Trump have said are all falling apart. And then you have Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent in his very arrogant Scott Bessent way, saying that he's not going to give refunds to people. He's not going to give tariff refunds to American companies that paid it. Instead, he's going to fight it in the courts, and they're going to litigate it and make it torturous and terrible for companies to try to collect the tariffs that they paid. Here's what Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent had to say when he was on CNN on Sunday. Let's play it. Question.

Will you refund the roughly $134 billion in revenue taken by these emergency tariffs? Well, Dana, that's not the big question. Let's just level set here. What the Supreme Court did was a very narrow reading of the President's authority under the IEPA Tariffs. We have other tariff authorities which have been functioning, Section 232 Tariffs, Section 301 Tariffs. Dana, when you say it's a big question, that's bad framing Because the Supreme Court didn't even address that. The Supreme Court remanded it down to a lower court, and we will follow what they say, but that could be weeks or months when we hear them. So the Supreme Court did not address refunds. Sure, they didn't address refund. That is clearly going to be up to you, which is why it is. No, Dana, it is not up to me. It is not up to the administration. It is up to the lower court. Let's just be clear on that. Okay. Well, the Justice Department government told a federal appeals court, in this very case last year, if tariffs imposed on plaintiffs during these appeals are ultimately held unlawful, then the government will issue refunds to plaintiffs. Again, I'm not going to get out ahead of the court.

We will follow the court's direction. But as I said, that could be weeks or months away. That decision was not rendered on Friday.

Here's what he said when he was doing this event that was covered on C-Span, where he says, I've got a feeling we're not going to return any of the money to people. That means you're stealing. Dude, that means you're stealing. The money doesn't belong to you. You unlawfully taxed Americans. You're not allowed to do that. Here, play this clip.

That's going to be a food fight going after $175 billion.

I got a feeling the American people won't see it. Yeah.

Okay. Now, finally, I had the opportunity to speak with Justin Wolfers, renowned economist from University of Michigan. Here's what he told me when I interviewed him very recently. Let's play it.

You're absolutely right, mate. I think what's actually worse than that is the President's immediate reaction was to issue, I think it's called Section 122, a 10% global across the board tariff. So that makes it sound to folks at home like, Oh, the Supreme Court took it away, but he was able to do it another way. No. Section 122 says that you can issue a tariff of up to 15% a cent, but it can only last for 150 days. So the President might be able to brag at night that he's reinstated his tariff regime, but he hasn't. What's more important is to understand these tariffs are a solution in search of a problem. Think about it this way. Why is it we have tariffs? Well, if it's to give the President leverage for these international deals, which has become his recent story, imagine calling up the Prime Minister of Canada and saying, Well, you better do what we want, or else we'll issue tariffs. Mark Kanye can count to 150. Mark Kanye is just going to say, I might just wait till the 150 days are over, and then you'll get rid of them. So there's absolutely no leverage you get out of this.

Okay, so then the President says, No, this is all about on-suring manufacturing. Okay, so the idea of on-suring manufacturing is you make it more profitable to do business in America. But this tariff that he just imposed closed in a fit of peak last for 150 days. So that means it'll be more profitable to do business in America for the next 150 days, but I won't have poured concrete on my factory till day 151. Therefore, no jobs are coming home as a result of this tariff. So then Trump's new 10 % across the board tariff, what is it? There's only one thing it is. It's a tax. It's a tax on Americans. What we now have is, I don't know what to make of this. We have a pro-tax Republican He doesn't. Maybe he's in favor of this tax because it's regressive, that it takes a bigger chunk out of the pay packet to the poor than it does to the rich. Maybe he thinks he can baffle us with bullshit and pretend that China's paying, but that's a story that people aren't buying. These are tremendously unpopular tariffs. And at a time when people are worried about affordability, and he said that on day one, he was going to bring down prices, and instead, what he did is redistributed from the poor to the rich, added tariffs, let Obamacare subsidies expire, undermined the Fed, he's done anything but address the affordability crisis.

Well, there you have it, everybody. Thanks for watching. Hit subscribe. I know that was in the weeds, but we get in the weeds here, right? That's what we like about this network. Hit subscribe. Let's get to 6 Million, and thanks so much for watching. Thanks for watching. Be sure to add the Midas Touch podcast on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcast for new updates every single day.