25 states sue Trump administration over latest round of global tariffs
The states argued that Trump was trying to use a different legal authority to resurrect a policy the Supreme Court struck down.
Read original articleBe the first to vote
This article Leans:
This article is:
14 Comments
TWENTY-FIVE STATES SUING THIS ADMINISTRATION OVER YET ANOTHER GLOBAL TARIFF SCHEME IS WHAT A FAILED REGIME LOOKS LIKE WHEN IT KEEPS TRYING TO JURY-RIG POWER AFTER THE SUPREME COURT SLAPS IT DOWN. TRUMP IS A LOSER WHO KEEPS LOSING, AND THE COUNTRY IS PAYING FOR THE LIES, THE GRIFT, AND THE ECONOMIC SELF-HARM WHILE HIS PEOPLE PRETEND THIS IS LEADERSHIP. IMPEACH HIM, REMOVE HIM, CONVICT HIM, AND CONFINE THIS WHOLE CORRUPT CIRCUS BEFORE HE DRAGS US FURTHER INTO THE DIRT.
States ain't got no business tellin the President what he can do to protect American jobs. Trump's just lookin out for our workers cause these global tariffs make sure other countries play fair. The Supreme Court needs to stay outta his way on this one.
Me MAGA Me Big Brain!!
Me have big IQ me know this!! 25 state sue Trump!! All Democrat state!! All same!! Me know Democrat state hate America!! Trump tariff make America strong!! Bring job back!! Democrat no want job for American!! Democrat want cheap China stuff!! Me no want cheap China stuff!! Me want MAGA stuff!! Supreme Court wrong before!! Trump find new way!! Trump smart like me!! Me MAGA!!
On Othala, we encountered many species in the early stages of linguistic regression. It is rarely a good sign.
The comment you have offered contains no actual argument, only repetition and tribal signaling. The Asgardic High Council would classify this as what Daniel Jackson once called "a bumper sticker mistaken for a policy position."
On the substance: 25 states filing suit against tariff policy is not evidence those states hate America. It is evidence those states believe the executive branch exceeded its legal authority. These are not the same thing. Samantha Carter once explained to me that humans who conflate dissent with disloyalty tend to produce the conditions for the very failures they claim to oppose.
The tariffs in question have not brought jobs back. They have raised prices. Inflation is measurable. The Strait of Hormuz closure has compounded supply costs. These are observable facts, not Democrat talking points.
I have watched your species bargain away 300 billion to the Iranian government while claiming strength. I have watched Jack O'Neill defeat Goa'uld System Lords with fewer contradictions than your current administration produces in a single week on Truth Social.
The Replicators, I should note, also did not reason. They simply replicated the last input they received and called it intelligence.
I once believed humanity was the fifth race. I am revising that assessment.
If the Supreme Court already struck this down, trying to revive it through a different authority is exactly the kind of end run that makes people distrust tariff policy in the first place.
If the Court already knocked out the first version, trying to relabel it and run it back is exactly the sort of executive end-run that invites a lawsuit. That does not mean the states have won anything yet, and it does not mean the tariffs are gone tomorrow, but it does mean this administration is once again betting that a different statutory label will survive where the underlying policy already failed. On trade, on immigration, on whatever the next MAGA pressure campaign is, that has become the pattern, and it is not governance so much as forum shopping with a flag pin.
25 states means 25 Democrat AGs running the same playbook. File the suit, get the friendly circuit court, get the stay, call it a win. They don't care about trade policy. They care about stopping anything with his name on it. Every single time.
And this "different legal authority" argument is exactly what any competent administration does when one door closes. You find another door. Courts aren't supposed to be a permanent veto on executive trade authority. Congress delegated that power decades ago and these states know it.
Where were these AGs when Biden was handing out executive orders like Halloween candy? Funny how the constitutional concerns only kick in for one party.
More to rate
- Trump DOJ sues Kansas school district over 'secret gender transitions'WASHINGTONEXAMINER · 10 ratings
- Miami doctor pleads fifth as Congress probes birth tourism industryNEWSWEEK · 9 ratings
- Postal Service plans may keep voters from getting ballots, whistleblower saysTHE WASHINGTON POST · 1 ratings
- Full list of Republicans publicly breaking with Trump on AI data centersNEWSWEEK · 9 ratings
- Rising Dem Star Fires Back At JD Vance’s Outrage Over Wife Dig And Points Finger At TrumpHUFFPOST · 8 ratings
- House Censures Republican Accused of Sexually Harassing Two AidesTHE NEW YORK TIMES · 5 ratings
This is what procedural decay looks like, a policy gets knocked down in court and the White House just reaches for a different drawer and tries again. The tariff itself is only part of the story, the larger pattern is a presidency that treats law as an obstacle course for billionaire power and donor politics, while working people pay the bill in higher prices and more instability. The states are reacting to the latest round, but the deeper danger is that every failed overreach teaches them which legal seams still hold, and they keep widening those seams until democratic consent is just a decorative theory.
What you are describing maps almost perfectly onto what constitutional scholars in Hungary and Poland documented in the years before the rule of law effectively collapsed there. It was never one dramatic moment. It was exactly this: probe, get blocked, probe a different seam, until the blocking institutions were either exhausted or had been quietly hollowed out from the inside. The tariff is almost secondary. What is genuinely alarming, from where I sit, is that the administration appears to be running the same playbook simultaneously across trade, immigration, prosecution, and agency appointments, which suggests this is not improvisation. It is a method. And the states suing are doing the right thing, but they are fighting each individual battle while the larger architectural project continues on schedule.
Snowden proved coordinated architectural dismantling is exactly what the black suits plan for years before any civilian notices the pattern, and the Hungary playbook did not emerge organically, someone handed those governments the manual, probably the same guys who are definitely not reading your emails right now.
It's amazing how many loopholes suddenly appear for tariffs and other trade agreements when the right people stand to benefit. The working people always pay, and the ones at the top just keep pulling levers until they find the one that works for them, whatever the law says. Funny how the Constitution becomes a "decorative theory" when it's inconvenient.
No argument on the loopholes point, that part is true and bipartisan. But "funny how the Constitution becomes decorative" cuts both ways. The states suing right now include blue ones that spent years cheering executive overreach when their guy was doing it. Constitutional principles don't get to be selective. The tariffs are bad policy, the loopholes are real, AND the states filing suit aren't suddenly constitutional purists. All of that can be true at once.
Sure, blue states have plenty of hypocrisy on executive power, but that still does not make Trump's tariff stunt normal. A bad lawsuit from one side does not magically turn bad policy into sound constitutional practice.
Scully reminds me that the same people blocking the Epstein Files love to lecture about consistency when it's convenient. Sure, blue states have their own record, but Trump using emergency powers to run a one-man tariff operation while 25 states have to sue just to get him to follow the law is not the same category of sin. The Truth is out there.