Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

Go Home

🚨 BREAKING: In a worrying development, the U.S. Supreme Court appears VERY skeptical of President Trump's emergency tariff powers, setting the stage for striking them down. GORSUCH: "Congress as a practical matter can’t get this power back once it’s handed it over. The president is a one way rachet...

EricLDaugh's profile picture

Eric Daugherty

1,159,472 subscribers

1,688,134 views • 9 months ago •via X (Twitter)

News & PoliticsEducationFinance
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

Gorsuch: So congress as a practical matter, can't get this power back once it's handed it over to the president.. one way ratchet toward the gradual but continual accretion of power in the executive branch and away from the people's elected representatives.
1:09

Gorsuch: So congress as a practical matter, can't get this power back once it's handed it over to the president.. one way ratchet toward the gradual but continual accretion of power in the executive branch and away from the people's elected representatives.

Acyn

330,715 views • 9 months ago

CNN montage from SCOTUS today. Roberts: The vehicle is imposition of taxes on Americans, and that has always been the core power of Congress. Gorsuch: Congress, as a practical matter, can't get this power back once it's handed it over to the president. It's a one-way ratchet toward the gradual but continual accretion of power in the executive branch.
0:37

CNN montage from SCOTUS today. Roberts: The vehicle is imposition of taxes on Americans, and that has always been the core power of Congress. Gorsuch: Congress, as a practical matter, can't get this power back once it's handed it over to the president. It's a one-way ratchet toward the gradual but continual accretion of power in the executive branch.

Blue Georgia

588,809 views • 9 months ago

"Congress clearly delegated this authority to the President and it makes sense that they would because tariffs are so interwoven with our economic negotiations with foreign countries... This was a bad ruling from the Supreme Court." Lawyer Will Chamberlain joins Megyn to discuss the Supreme Court striking down President Trump's tariffs.
1:05

"Congress clearly delegated this authority to the President and it makes sense that they would because tariffs are so interwoven with our economic negotiations with foreign countries... This was a bad ruling from the Supreme Court." Lawyer Will Chamberlain joins Megyn to discuss the Supreme Court striking down President Trump's tariffs.

The Megyn Kelly Show

22,572 views • 6 months ago

The UK is expected to be hit by US President Trump's tariffs, as a deal between the two countries will not be reached in time. Chief political correspondent @HZeffman explains why the tariffs could leave UK economy policies 'for dust' in terms of impact. #R4Today
2:18

The UK is expected to be hit by US President Trump's tariffs, as a deal between the two countries will not be reached in time. Chief political correspondent @HZeffman explains why the tariffs could leave UK economy policies 'for dust' in terms of impact. #R4Today

BBC Radio 4 Today

14,801 views • 1 year ago

BREAKING: President Trump announces reciprocal tariffs for countries currently charging the United States. "I have decided for purposes of fairness that I will charge a reciprocal tariff." "We will charge them no more, no less. In other words, they charge us a tax or tariff, and we charge them the exact same tax or tariff. Very simple." Video: Margo Martin
0:39

BREAKING: President Trump announces reciprocal tariffs for countries currently charging the United States. "I have decided for purposes of fairness that I will charge a reciprocal tariff." "We will charge them no more, no less. In other words, they charge us a tax or tariff, and we charge them the exact same tax or tariff. Very simple." Video: Margo Martin

Collin Rugg

592,171 views • 1 year ago

🇺🇸🚨Alastair Crooke: The Supreme Court striking down Trump’s tariffs would spark MAJOR CRISIS with geopolitical consequences ‘The Constitution says that the revenue raising in the United States is a prerogative of Congress, not of the President. The President contends he has the right to set tariffs on whom he wants, when he wants, as he wants, for as long as he wants under the one provision which is the act of declaring an emergency. But the Emergency Act says nothing about tariffs. It just says that in the case of an emergency, special measures are permitted. So what the Supreme Court will do, it could even order the repayment of all those tariffs, which are about $90 billion, that had been raised mostly from Americans. It would be a major crisis. The legal experts, many of them think that there’s a good chance that the court will side against the President on tariffs and return the authority to Congress. Imagine then the geopolitical consequences to this, because the whole of his geopolitical structure framework has been based on tariffs and using tariffs as a sort of weaponised, forcing agent to get more money, to shake down states in Southeast Asia or in Gulf states or anywhere he can, to modify the deficit a little.’ -Alastair Crooke, the former Middle East Advisor to the EU Foreign Policy Chief, joins us for Saturday’s episode of Going Underground Don’t miss it, follow our Rumble channel, link below in the replies👇
2:13

🇺🇸🚨Alastair Crooke: The Supreme Court striking down Trump’s tariffs would spark MAJOR CRISIS with geopolitical consequences ‘The Constitution says that the revenue raising in the United States is a prerogative of Congress, not of the President. The President contends he has the right to set tariffs on whom he wants, when he wants, as he wants, for as long as he wants under the one provision which is the act of declaring an emergency. But the Emergency Act says nothing about tariffs. It just says that in the case of an emergency, special measures are permitted. So what the Supreme Court will do, it could even order the repayment of all those tariffs, which are about $90 billion, that had been raised mostly from Americans. It would be a major crisis. The legal experts, many of them think that there’s a good chance that the court will side against the President on tariffs and return the authority to Congress. Imagine then the geopolitical consequences to this, because the whole of his geopolitical structure framework has been based on tariffs and using tariffs as a sort of weaponised, forcing agent to get more money, to shake down states in Southeast Asia or in Gulf states or anywhere he can, to modify the deficit a little.’ -Alastair Crooke, the former Middle East Advisor to the EU Foreign Policy Chief, joins us for Saturday’s episode of Going Underground Don’t miss it, follow our Rumble channel, link below in the replies👇

Going Underground

25,179 views • 9 months ago

The Supreme Court (6–3) just ruled that President Trump lacks authority under the IEEPA to impose certain tariffs. Chief Justice John Roberts joined by Gorsuch and Barrett invoked the “Major Questions Doctrine.” But here’s what the headlines won’t tell you: Justice Brett Kavanaugh — joined by Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito — argued that the plain meaning of “regulate importation” absolutely includes tariffs. And Trump immediately pivoted to Section 232, Section 301, and Section 122 authority — imposing a new 10% global tariff. This isn’t the end of the tariff fight. It may be the beginning of a stronger one. Separation of powers showdown incoming.
19:06

The Supreme Court (6–3) just ruled that President Trump lacks authority under the IEEPA to impose certain tariffs. Chief Justice John Roberts joined by Gorsuch and Barrett invoked the “Major Questions Doctrine.” But here’s what the headlines won’t tell you: Justice Brett Kavanaugh — joined by Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito — argued that the plain meaning of “regulate importation” absolutely includes tariffs. And Trump immediately pivoted to Section 232, Section 301, and Section 122 authority — imposing a new 10% global tariff. This isn’t the end of the tariff fight. It may be the beginning of a stronger one. Separation of powers showdown incoming.

Andrew Branca Show

105,598 views • 6 months ago

President Trump said existing tariffs imposed under other trade authorities known as Section 232 and Section 301 remain "in full force and effect." He also said he will sign an executive order Friday to impose a 10% global tariff under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which allows the president to impose a baseline tariff of up to 15% for no more than 150 days to deal with "large and serious" balance-of-payments deficits. The president also said he will initiate investigations under Section 301 of the Trade Act to protect the country from unfair trading practices from foreign countries and companies. Mr. Trump has invoked that law to impose tariffs before.
1:00

President Trump said existing tariffs imposed under other trade authorities known as Section 232 and Section 301 remain "in full force and effect." He also said he will sign an executive order Friday to impose a 10% global tariff under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which allows the president to impose a baseline tariff of up to 15% for no more than 150 days to deal with "large and serious" balance-of-payments deficits. The president also said he will initiate investigations under Section 301 of the Trade Act to protect the country from unfair trading practices from foreign countries and companies. Mr. Trump has invoked that law to impose tariffs before.

CBS News

41,476 views • 6 months ago

As President Donald J. Trump has said, there’s more at stake than just the tariff income. The President has used IEEPA to bring in trillions of dollars of overseas investment, and that could all be at risk of being reversed. I am very confident the Supreme Court is going to allow the signature economic policy and not throw a wrench into things. We are bringing in substantial revenue, representing trillions and trillions of dollars in investment. The economy is hot, and one of the reasons is massive overseas investment – and to reiterate, it is the President’s use of IEEPA tariffs which is driving this investment.
0:35

As President Donald J. Trump has said, there’s more at stake than just the tariff income. The President has used IEEPA to bring in trillions of dollars of overseas investment, and that could all be at risk of being reversed. I am very confident the Supreme Court is going to allow the signature economic policy and not throw a wrench into things. We are bringing in substantial revenue, representing trillions and trillions of dollars in investment. The economy is hot, and one of the reasons is massive overseas investment – and to reiterate, it is the President’s use of IEEPA tariffs which is driving this investment.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent

366,697 views • 7 months ago

.Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent: Tariffs are "a matter of national security and this is one of President Donald J. Trump' signature policies — and it would be very unusual for the Supreme Court to overrule a President's signature policy. The Supreme Court gave President Obama a lot of room on Obamacare..."
1:37

.Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent: Tariffs are "a matter of national security and this is one of President Donald J. Trump' signature policies — and it would be very unusual for the Supreme Court to overrule a President's signature policy. The Supreme Court gave President Obama a lot of room on Obamacare..."

Rapid Response 47

121,213 views • 9 months ago

Trump claims tariffs will make America rich again, but that’s not how it works. Tariffs aren’t paid by other countries—they’re paid by Americans. It’s not a tax on countries like China; it’s a tax on the stuff we buy. Here’s how it works: when the government puts a tariff on something, it raises the price of that product. The idea is to make imported goods more expensive so people buy American-made products instead. Sounds good, right? The problem is, most things we use in the U.S. are made overseas, and it would take years—or even decades—to make them here. And in some cases, it might never happen because it costs too much to produce those goods locally. For example, if something costs $50 and a tariff adds $5, the new price is $55. That extra cost comes out of your pocket. This can cause inflation, making everything more expensive, and people either stop buying or have to spend more because there are no cheaper options. So, who gets the money from tariffs? The U.S. government collects it, but it’s not paid by China or any other country. It’s paid by you—the American consumer. The U.S. can’t tax other countries directly, so the burden falls on taxpayers here. Tariffs can work if the product being taxed is already made in the U.S. For example, if China floods the market with super-cheap goods that hurt local manufacturers, tariffs can make those imports more expensive, giving American businesses a chance to compete. But slapping tariffs on goods we don’t make here—or won’t make for years—just makes things more expensive for everyone. That’s why no president has wanted to be known as a "tariff president." They knew tariffs are really just taxes on Americans and can backfire politically. If tariffs drive up prices and hurt voters’ wallets, it could mean big trouble in the next election. Republicans might certainly lose in 2026.
1:57

Trump claims tariffs will make America rich again, but that’s not how it works. Tariffs aren’t paid by other countries—they’re paid by Americans. It’s not a tax on countries like China; it’s a tax on the stuff we buy. Here’s how it works: when the government puts a tariff on something, it raises the price of that product. The idea is to make imported goods more expensive so people buy American-made products instead. Sounds good, right? The problem is, most things we use in the U.S. are made overseas, and it would take years—or even decades—to make them here. And in some cases, it might never happen because it costs too much to produce those goods locally. For example, if something costs $50 and a tariff adds $5, the new price is $55. That extra cost comes out of your pocket. This can cause inflation, making everything more expensive, and people either stop buying or have to spend more because there are no cheaper options. So, who gets the money from tariffs? The U.S. government collects it, but it’s not paid by China or any other country. It’s paid by you—the American consumer. The U.S. can’t tax other countries directly, so the burden falls on taxpayers here. Tariffs can work if the product being taxed is already made in the U.S. For example, if China floods the market with super-cheap goods that hurt local manufacturers, tariffs can make those imports more expensive, giving American businesses a chance to compete. But slapping tariffs on goods we don’t make here—or won’t make for years—just makes things more expensive for everyone. That’s why no president has wanted to be known as a "tariff president." They knew tariffs are really just taxes on Americans and can backfire politically. If tariffs drive up prices and hurt voters’ wallets, it could mean big trouble in the next election. Republicans might certainly lose in 2026.

Simon Ateba

50,090 views • 1 year ago

President Trump on Sean Hannity 🇺🇸: "I can create peace with tariffs. I'm using them for a lot of different reasons. If that power was taken away from the president of the United States, it would be a terrible terrible day for our country. I would say many of the things that I've done could be eradicated, and the United States would be in a very, very bad, vulnerable position."
0:38

President Trump on Sean Hannity 🇺🇸: "I can create peace with tariffs. I'm using them for a lot of different reasons. If that power was taken away from the president of the United States, it would be a terrible terrible day for our country. I would say many of the things that I've done could be eradicated, and the United States would be in a very, very bad, vulnerable position."

Fox News

189,561 views • 10 months ago

🚨 BREAKING: Treasury Sec. SCOTT BESSENT will be sitting in the FRONT ROW at the Supreme Court as they consider abolishing President Trump's sweeping tariffs "I am there to emphasize that this is an economic EMERGENCY. National security is economic security. Economic security is national security. As the Treasury secretary of the United States, I'm in charge of maintaining both." This is a LANDMARK case and central to Trump's foreign policy wins. "I'm actually going to go and sit hopefully in the front row and have a ringside seat!" "This is a matter of national security. If President Trump had not had the IEEPA, which is an emergency tariff authority, back in the spring, he put IEEPA tariffs on China. Last week in Korea, the Chinese agreed to start working to bring down the precursors for fentanyl. If fentanyl is not a national emergency, what is?!" 🔥🔥🔥 SCOTUS MUST do the right thing!
1:52

🚨 BREAKING: Treasury Sec. SCOTT BESSENT will be sitting in the FRONT ROW at the Supreme Court as they consider abolishing President Trump's sweeping tariffs "I am there to emphasize that this is an economic EMERGENCY. National security is economic security. Economic security is national security. As the Treasury secretary of the United States, I'm in charge of maintaining both." This is a LANDMARK case and central to Trump's foreign policy wins. "I'm actually going to go and sit hopefully in the front row and have a ringside seat!" "This is a matter of national security. If President Trump had not had the IEEPA, which is an emergency tariff authority, back in the spring, he put IEEPA tariffs on China. Last week in Korea, the Chinese agreed to start working to bring down the precursors for fentanyl. If fentanyl is not a national emergency, what is?!" 🔥🔥🔥 SCOTUS MUST do the right thing!

Eric Daugherty

146,712 views • 9 months ago

🚨 NOW: President Trump is slapping TARIFFS across a SWATH of 60 countries effective tonight at midnight because of forced labor use The Supreme Court struck his previous ones down, but TARIFFS ARE BACK! 🔥 DOOCY: "Lets them punish countries that are using forced labor 60 countries that import 99% of goods to this country, dealing with 10%-12.5% tariff at midnight."
0:35

🚨 NOW: President Trump is slapping TARIFFS across a SWATH of 60 countries effective tonight at midnight because of forced labor use The Supreme Court struck his previous ones down, but TARIFFS ARE BACK! 🔥 DOOCY: "Lets them punish countries that are using forced labor 60 countries that import 99% of goods to this country, dealing with 10%-12.5% tariff at midnight."

Eric Daugherty

145,727 views • 1 month ago

🚨 JUST IN — STEPHEN MILLER UNLEASHES: "As horrendous as the Supreme Court ruling was, as poorly as it reflects on John Roberts' court and the continued TORTURING of our statutes and our constitution, here's the good news!" "The court also affirmed the president has the authority under section 301, section 232, section 122, section 338, and many other provisions of federal law, that the president can levy tariffs on foreign nations." "So his program will not only be fully reconstituted, but it will be EXPANDED." "The Supreme Court also affirmed that under IEEPA, the president has authority to restrict, impede, deny, license, or even fully embargo any foreign trade." "So the net result of all this is we're going to keep and grow the tariffs to bring back American manufacturing, which keeps prices low by incentivizing products to be made here in America." "But it also means that President Trump has even more tools when it comes to dealing with foreign countries that undermine our security." Stephen Miller BOOM.
1:27

🚨 JUST IN — STEPHEN MILLER UNLEASHES: "As horrendous as the Supreme Court ruling was, as poorly as it reflects on John Roberts' court and the continued TORTURING of our statutes and our constitution, here's the good news!" "The court also affirmed the president has the authority under section 301, section 232, section 122, section 338, and many other provisions of federal law, that the president can levy tariffs on foreign nations." "So his program will not only be fully reconstituted, but it will be EXPANDED." "The Supreme Court also affirmed that under IEEPA, the president has authority to restrict, impede, deny, license, or even fully embargo any foreign trade." "So the net result of all this is we're going to keep and grow the tariffs to bring back American manufacturing, which keeps prices low by incentivizing products to be made here in America." "But it also means that President Trump has even more tools when it comes to dealing with foreign countries that undermine our security." Stephen Miller BOOM.

Eric Daugherty

863,030 views • 6 months ago

Lawyer who argued against Trump's tariffs at Supreme Court reacts to ruling: ‘I am focused on what the decision today is about which is it's saying very simply, in America in our constitutional system tariffs are taxes, and taxes are set by the Congress of the United States, not by the president. You can't just alter them at will up 150% for some countries down to 10% for others and the like. You've got to follow the rules set out by Congress.’
1:30

Lawyer who argued against Trump's tariffs at Supreme Court reacts to ruling: ‘I am focused on what the decision today is about which is it's saying very simply, in America in our constitutional system tariffs are taxes, and taxes are set by the Congress of the United States, not by the president. You can't just alter them at will up 150% for some countries down to 10% for others and the like. You've got to follow the rules set out by Congress.’

The Lead CNN

97,719 views • 6 months ago

Trump on Canada-US trade deal: "We may bring some of the tariffs down to a level where other countries are because Canada was paying a higher tariff. It was supposed to be a 50% straight across the board tariff. And I delayed it at the request of Canada for three days so we can iron out the details."
0:47

Trump on Canada-US trade deal: "We may bring some of the tariffs down to a level where other countries are because Canada was paying a higher tariff. It was supposed to be a 50% straight across the board tariff. And I delayed it at the request of Canada for three days so we can iron out the details."

Scott Robertson

74,567 views • 11 days ago