Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

LetMyPeopleVote

(177,624 posts)
34. Why Trump's Section 122 Tariffs Are Illegal
Sat Feb 21, 2026, 02:41 PM
2 hrs ago

trump's new replacement tariffs are illegal. These tariffs can only be used when there is a balance-of-payments deficit which is very different from a balance of trade deficit. Since the US is no longer on a currency fixed exchange rate there have not been any balance of payment deficits for a couple of decades. These tariffs will be challenged and trump will lose again

Fascinating National Review post on Trump's latest Tariff gambit. Archive link here (it's pay walled, please don't give them money lol)

archive.is/r4Xdf

Rude Law Dog (@esghound.com) 2026-02-21T19:01:57.437Z

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/trumps-section-122-tariffs-are-illegal/

In Section 122, Congress endowed the president with narrow, temporary authority to impose tariffs “to deal with large and serious United States balance-of-payments deficits” (emphasis added). What Trump is complaining about — something he insists is a crisis but is not — is the balance of trade, not of payments. The United States does not have an overall balance of payments deficit, much less a large and serious one.

A trade deficit between the U.S. and a foreign nation occurs, mainly in connection with goods (which is just one aspect of international commerce), when imports are greater than exports. This is not really a problem for a variety of reasons — e.g., a trade deficit results in an investment surplus, the U.S. is a major services economy and often runs exported services surpluses that mitigate the imports deficit in goods, etc.

The balance of payments is a broader concept than the balance of trade. It accounts for all the economic transactions that take place between the United States and the rest of the world. Even without getting into every kind of transaction that entails, suffice it to say that foreign investment in the United States, coupled with the advantages our nation accrues because the dollar is the world’s reserve currency, more than make up for the longstanding trade deficit in goods.

Our overall payments are in balance. There is no crisis.

It’s vital to understand why Section 122 was enacted. There was a financial crisis in the late 60s and early 70s under the Bretton Woods system, when the dollar was tied to gold. Foreign countries that held dollar reserves could exchange them for gold at a fixed rate. Meanwhile, our government was spending at a high clip due to the Vietnam War and Great Society programs. This and the obligation to pay out gold put enormous pressure on the dollar. In response, in 1971, President Nixon severed the dollar’s tie to gold and — as several justices recounted in Friday’s Learning Resources opinions — imposed a temporary 10 percent import surcharge (a tariff) to stabilize the economy......

There is no rationale under Section 122 to impose tariffs. Because President Trump has no unilateral authority to order tariffs, he must meet the preconditions of Section 122 to justify levying them. He cannot. Not even close.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Um... how does that work? The executive branch will have to pay 10% more for supplies it gets via imports? ck4829 Yesterday #1
Really? UpInArms Yesterday #2
thats something he legally can do moonshinegnomie Yesterday #3
He's gone insane, remove Blues Heron Yesterday #4
Flush... MarcoZandrini Yesterday #18
Thank you for your attention to this fecal matter! Blues Heron Yesterday #22
Yup. Well said! Mr. Evil Yesterday #29
"We have the right to do pretty much what we want to do." Wednesdays Yesterday #5
Ali Baba and his 40 thieves Justice matters. Yesterday #19
Ooooh... BadgerKid Yesterday #6
And there it is Miguelito Loveless Yesterday #7
I'd say it's a solid F U SCOTUS. flashman13 Yesterday #21
Of course popsdenver 21 hrs ago #32
Translation: Ray Bruns Yesterday #8
The most basic question: what we tariffs supposed to accomplish? Bluetus 22 hrs ago #31
He's such a spoiled child sakabatou Yesterday #9
And we're paying for his tantrums. StarryNite Yesterday #14
Legal basis? We don't need no stinking legal basis!! moniss Yesterday #10
I read your words, and you laid out a perfect picture of bluestarone Yesterday #12
We have the right to do what we want to do. choie Yesterday #11
"We" being "me, myself and I" in the fat asses case! KPN Yesterday #17
Will the spineless republican shitbirds in congress and the senate FINALLY do something? NoMoreRepugs Yesterday #13
They'll kneel down and pucker up some more durablend Yesterday #15
Why doesn't he just fucking die? Orrex Yesterday #16
CBS showed the babbling fool. Olympics on NBC. Watch people go downhill one at a time rather than the twodogsbarking Yesterday #20
He's just declared himself king. Next up: God. Grokenstein Yesterday #23
With no policing entity willing to step up, why would he heed the court's admonition? Magoo48 Yesterday #24
Does his new tariff include Penguin Island? Hassler Yesterday #25
Hasn't anyone figured how to make them a tax deduction? /nt bucolic_frolic Yesterday #26
So now we've reached the point where he is Figarosmom Yesterday #27
149 days left of this BS also........he does any and everything to circumvent the rule of law and the adjoining turbinetree Yesterday #28
The legal ground to use this act to impose such broad tariffs like this, is D. Spaulding 23 hrs ago #30
Thank you for this rational, informative reply. KY_EnviroGuy 18 hrs ago #33
Why Trump's Section 122 Tariffs Are Illegal LetMyPeopleVote 2 hrs ago #34
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Trump announces new 10% g...»Reply #34