ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-cmd2hIgUE SEC. BESSENT’S BOMBSHELL: $600B Fraud & Your 2026 Tax Windfall!
Share
Trumps Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent joins Scott Hennen in Minneapolis, MN, to expose a massive $600 billion fraud scheme and announce an early January 26th tax season with record refunds.
He details the new $1,000 “Trump Accounts” for newborns and the “no tax on overtime” policy designed to crush the affordability crisis.
Bessent also outlines a plan to fund a $500 billion defense boost by clawing back stolen taxpayer money.
President Donald Trump’s unprecedented use of tariffs has injected enormous uncertainty into the global economy, depressing US job growth and raising prices along the way.
The Supreme Court on Friday gave Trump an off ramp from his tariff adventure. But Trump almost immediately made clear he’s not taking it.
The justices ruled in a 6-3 decision that many (though not all) of Trump’s tariffs are illegal, giving the White House a way to exit the most aggressive of his import levies and potentially lower the cost of living.
Trump, however, is not backing down from his favorite economic weapon.
Trump suggested the Supreme Court gave him permission to escalate his global trade war by using different tariff authorities to potentially boost tariffs even higher than they were before the historic ruling.
“While I am sure that they did not mean to do so, the Supreme Court’s decision today made a president’s ability to both regulate trade and impose tariffs more powerful and more crystal clear rather than less,” Trump said in a press briefing at the White House Friday.
All of this suggests the cloud of uncertainty over tariffs is not going away – and could get even thicker.
“Unfortunately, we’re going to have another year of uncertainty and chaos. Trump loves tariffs and he will use whatever laws are available to keep them,” Scott Lincicome, vice president of general economics and trade at the Cato Institute, told CNN in a phone interview.
New tariffs
Hours after the Supreme Court handed down its tariff ruling, Trump announced that he will slap a 10% global tariff on imports under Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act, a different authority that was not struck down by the high court. Trump over the weekend raised that tariff to 15% – the maximum level allowed for Section 122 tariffs, which also require Congressional approval beyond 150 days, although Trump seemed to brush off that limitation.
Trump added that his administration is already exploring using other laws that can be used to impose tariffs.
One option Trump mentioned is Section 301 of the 1974 Trade Act, which requires investigations to be conducted by the US Trade Representative into burdensome trade actions by foreign countries – but contains no limit to the level or duration of tariffs imposed as a result of those investigations.
Another option Trump discussed Friday was Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930, which could allow the president to impose tariffs of up to 50% on countries’ imports if he believes they’re engaging in discriminatory trade practices. Section 338 stems from the infamous Smoot-Hawley act that is widely attributed for exacerbating the effects of the Great Depression.
Chief Justice John Roberts. – Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc./Getty Images
Trump also claimed the Supreme Court decision permitted him to levy a total embargo on foreign countries’ goods. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent on Fox News Friday reiterated that claim and called on countries to honor prior trade agreements struck with the administration.
Asked if at the end of implementing new levies the tariff rate will ultimately be higher than currently, Trump said: “Potentially higher. It depends. Whatever we want them to be. But we want them to be fair for other countries.”
The effective tariff rate was roughly 10% before the Supreme Court’s ruling and currently sits at around 4.5%, said Erica York, vice president of federal tax policy at the conservative-leaning Tax Foundation. That could rise back above 10% if Trump applies Section 122 tariffs at 15% globally without exemptions for the 150-day limit.
Michael Feroli, chief economist at JPMorgan Chase, told clients Friday that a “reasonable” scenario is that the administration uses various legal authorities to keep the average effective tariff rate unchanged.
“Even this outcome would entail a significant realignment of tariffs placed on different products from different countries, thereby creating winners and losers,” Feroli wrote in a report. “This would also mean a material increase in trade policy uncertainty, creating a new wind to” capital spending.
He also noted that outside of technology, business investment last year contracted, “a very rare occurrence outside of a recession.”
Last year was the worst year for job growth, outside of a recession, since 2003. Many economists suspect that the chaos and uncertainty caused by tariffs paralyzed some businesses, causing them to hold off on hiring. Employment in manufacturing – the sector that Trump’s tariffs are designed to boost – was particularly weak, losing more than 80,000 jobs last year.
However, Trump officials have largely dismissed these concerns, focusing instead on the vast amounts of revenue the tariffs have generated and promises of a manufacturing boom on the horizon.
“They don’t believe the economic data. They think these tariffs are amazing,” Cato’s Lincicome said.
What this means for prices
Economists don’t expect the Supreme Court decision will be a gamechanger for consumer prices – especially because Trump made clear he’s not retreating.
“Companies are always reluctant to lower prices. Now Trump has given them a perfect excuse not to,” Lincicome said.
Stephanie Roth, chief economist at Wolfe Research, was blunt when asked what the Supreme Court ruling would mean for consumer prices.
“Nothing,” she said.
The Supreme Court didn’t weigh in on whether the administration will be required to refund companies the $134 billion they were charged in tariffs that were overturned. A lower court will take that up. But even if those refunds start coming in, that doesn’t mean consumers will get any relief in the form of discounts or lower prices.
“Companies are highly unlikely to start trimming their prices as a result,” Roth said. “Walmart is not going to give you a check for the 15% tariff on sneakers you bought from them four months ago.”
Trump’s tariffs added $1,000 in tax expenses for the average US household in 2025, according to the Tax Foundation. That number was expected to rise to $1,300 this year before the Supreme Court ruling.
But the future remains unclear. Trump officials haven’t decided yet how they plan to rebuild his tariff agenda. They could implement other tariffs under different authorities, and, in theory, the administration could extend the Section 122 tariffs beyond the 150-day limit by restarting the clock.
The irony is that voters have made clear they don’t like tariffs, which have gotten less popular the more Americans are exposed to them.
Voters are also deeply frustrated by the level of prices, which in some cases have been raised by Trump’s tariffs.
Although the Supreme Court delivered a blow to the president’s tariff agenda, this historic decision is unlikely to be the gamechanger many voters are hoping for.
NATIONAL Kavanaugh Warns of Fallout From Supreme Court Tariff Ruling By Jesus Mesa Newsweek Updated February 20, 2026 11:09 AM Gift Article
Justice Brett Kavanaugh dissented Thursday after the Supreme Court struck down President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariffs and warned the majority’s ruling could unleash an economic mess the Court did nothing to prepare for.
In a 6-3 decision, the Court held that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not authorize the President to impose tariffs, gutting a cornerstone of Trump’s economic agenda. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority, joined by Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, Barrett, and Jackson. Kavanaugh, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, pushed back sharply, arguing the Court wasn’t just wrong on the law, but had opened the door to immediate disruption.
He contended that tariffs are a traditional tool presidents have long used to “regulate…importation,” and that the majority’s approach contravenes “text, history, and precedent.”
Reading the following article – no matter how they try to balance the scales of justice – the court can’t seem to open their minds and leave the liberal/conservative hardware at the door. The stark realization is our country has been dismantled by the left with DOGE proof. The tariffs were put in play to put our country on sound footing and should have been part of reasoning when making the decision. The country was abused by the left, plain ad simple and did not follow the Constitution.
Why isn’t this court ever rattling the chains of the Constitution and the fact Obama/Biden never used it during their time (12 years) in office which caused the over-spending and the tariffs were the result to try to drag our country back on track. They called out the Constitution when they said it did not give President Trump the power and the power belonged to Congress. Yet, Biden used the auto pen and no one opened their mouths. And, the process takes months for the wheels in Congress/the Supreme Court to work a problem.
In my opinion, before the Supreme Court start their deliberations, they need to start with a clean plate by discussing how their individual conservative/liberal thought process comes into play with the final decision so the whole court knows from the beginning what is engrained in each mind. After that happens, a fresh start can come into play. In other words, the base would be the lawsuit is tied to the Constitution and the fact tariffs were used to generate more money for the country. We know all countries charge us tariffs.
Very simple – the court could have responded to help the country in its need which was to state: Yes, you can have the tariffs if you remedy the situation by sending the lawsuit back to the President and have Congress in the form of a bill with emergency orders to save our country. Our dollar is evaporating – isn’t that an emergency?
Does the court ever make a decision with an adjustment – rather than make a cold-turkey decisions because they just drop the hammer and make an end-all decision. This doesn’t solve the country’s problem that was brought before them. The court always throws the baby out with the bath water.
ShareShare Article via FacebookShare Article via TwitterShare Article via LinkedInShare Article via Email
Key Points
Tariff collections surged in January, with the U.S. collecting some $30 billion in customs duties. This put the year-to-date tally at $124 billion, up 304% from the same period in 2025.
The tariffs have helped put a dent in the pace of the budget deficit. The shortfall in January totaled roughly $95 billion, down about 26% from the year-ago period.
A cargo ship is loading and unloading foreign trade containers at Qingdao Port in Qingdao, Shandong Province, China, Jan. 13, 2026.
Cfoto | Future Publishing | Getty Images
The U.S. government in January ran up a smaller deficit than a year ago, while tariff collections surged and provided a reminder of how pivotal a long-awaited Supreme Court decision could be to federal fiscal health.
Customs duties collected through tariffs totaled $30 billion for the month, putting the fiscal year-to-date tally at $124 billion, or 304% more than the same period in 2025.
President Donald Trump first levied the duties in April 2025 with an across-the-board rate on all goods and services entering the U.S. along with a menu of so-called reciprocal tariffs on individual countries. Since then, the White House has been negotiating with its trading partners, backing off on some of the more aggressive charges while maintaining tough talk on issues.
Last November, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments challenging the auspices under which Trump justified the tariffs. The decision was expected in January. The high court hasn’t ruled yet, and there’s concern in the White House that a negative ruling could force the U.S. into reimbursing the duties collected so far.
The tariffs helped put a dent in the pace of the budget deficit.
In the fourth month of the fiscal year, the shortfall totaled roughly $95 billion, down about 26% from the same period a year ago, the Treasury Department reported
Year to date, that put federal red ink at $697 billion, or down 17% from the same period of fiscal 2025, according to numbers not adjusted for calendar. Calendar adjustments put the deficit reduction at 21%.
Interest on the $38.6 trillion U.S. debt continues to be a burden on the national finances. Net interest paid totaled $76 billion for the month, more than all other expenditures except Medicare, Social Security and health care. Year to date, gross interest has totaled $426.5 billion, up from $392.2 billion the year before.
The Motley Fool·
kommonsentsjane 