America is barreling towards authoritarianism at such a breakneck pace that it should alarm every single one of us. But instead of meeting this moment with courage and integrity, the corporate media has utterly capitulated, stuffing money in Trump's pockets, spiking stories that might offend the regime, and firing journalists who refuse to go along and get along. That is not journalism. That’s complicity.
Our model of reader-funded journalism has survived for one reason only: people like you. Please help us with a gift of $8, $13, $27, $75, or whatever amount you can afford, which will help keep Common Dreams strong now and into the future.
Why Your Support Matters Now
Our model of reader-funded journalism has survived for one reason only: people like you. Please help us with a gift of $8, $13, $27, $75, or whatever amount you can afford, which will help keep Common Dreams strong now and into the future.
Supreme Court Ruling Curbs Trump’s Authority, But Tariff Chaos and Higher Prices Remain
The Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision today striking down Donald Trump’s authority to impose sweeping tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act will do little to deliver meaningful relief to American consumers or businesses still paying the price for his chaotic trade agenda. Prices driven up by Trump’s tariffs will remain high, and the Court’s decision falls far short of restoring certainty to an economy warped by months of trade policy whiplash.
Tariffs affected by this decision amount to over $175 billion so far, with higher costs passed directly onto consumers while businesses pulled back on hiring and investment. Those costs are now baked into supply chains and balance sheets, and prices that have climbed since Trump took office are unlikely to come back down. The Trump administration has already signaled it will cobble together a patchwork of alternative legal authorities to preserve its trade regime, guaranteeing continued instability for businesses trying to plan, hire, and invest.
“Any consumer looking for relief from tariff-driven price hikes did not find it at the Supreme Court today. The economic damage Trump has already done to business investment, manufacturing, and working families’ budgets will linger for years to come. Refunds for impacted businesses will take months or even years to process, and there is little reason to believe companies will pass those savings on to consumers. Trump must set aside his erratic tariff policy and instead pursue a trade agenda that protects workers, supports manufacturers, and doesn’t punish consumers.”
The Groundwork Collaborative is dedicated to advancing a coherent and persuasive progressive economic worldview and narrative capable of delivering meaningful opportunity and prosperity for everyone. Our work is driven by a core guiding principle: We are the economy. Groundwork Collaborative envisions an economic system that produces strong, broadly shared prosperity and power for all people, not just a wealthy few.
SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
"I know that a deal is achievable, but it should be fair and based on a win-win solution," said Abbas Araghchi. "A military option would only complicate this, would only bring about disastrous consequences."
As President Donald Trump continued to threaten a potentially massive war, Iran's foreign minister stressed his commitment to peaceful negotiations over Iran's nuclear program.
Amid the largest military buildup in the Middle East since the invasion of Iraq, Trump said on Thursday that he was weighing an initial, limited strike in order to force Iran to negotiate a new deal to limit its nuclear enrichment and would launch a broader attack—potentially aimed at toppling the entire government—if the country refused to do so.
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi responded to these demands in a lengthy interview on MS NOW's "Morning Joe" on Friday, discussing recent talks with the US in Geneva.
"One thing I have to emphasize is that there is no military solution for Iran's nuclear program," Araghchi said. "That was tested last year, and there was a huge attack on our facilities. They killed and assassinated our scientists, but they couldn't kill our nuclear program."
After his strikes on three Iranian nuclear sites in June, Trump claimed to have “obliterated” Iran's nuclear program and enrichment capabilities. But less than a year later, he is once again threatening a much bigger attack on Iran using the same justification.
Iran's Masoud Pezeshkian insisted earlier this week that his country is “absolutely not seeking nuclear weapons” and invited international inspectors in to verify it. Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, meanwhile, has reiterated that Iran has the right to a nuclear industry.
"If they want a solution for Iran's nuclear program, if they want to ensure that Iran's nuclear program would remain peaceful forever," Araghchi said on Friday, "the only solution is diplomatic negotiation."
Although Iran is allowed to pursue nuclear power for peaceful means under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), Trump publicly declared that he would not accept a deal that allows "any enrichment” by Iran.
Araghchi, however, said that's not what the discussion has looked like behind the scenes. "The US side has not asked for zero enrichment,” he said.
Instead, he said they discussed "political commitments and technical measures" to "make sure that this program is only for peaceful purposes" and said the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the UN's nuclear watchdog, was involved in helping to craft them.
"This is what we have already done in 2015," Araghchi said, referring to the first nuclear deal between Iran and the US, which Trump ripped up during his first term, even though Iran was complying with its strict enrichment limits. "I believe that we can do it again, even a better one," he said.
Although the US president warned on Thursday that Iran must agree to a deal within 10 days or "bad things happen," Araghchi said there has been "no ultimatum" from Trump and that the only discussion between the two sides was on how to reach a "fast deal."
"We are under sanctions. Obviously, any day the sanctions are terminated sooner would be better for us. So we have no reason to delay a possible deal," Araghchi said. "For the US side also, President Trump and his team are interested in a quick deal. So we agreed to work with each other to achieve a deal as soon as possible. The only question is how to make it a fair deal, a win-win deal, an equitable deal."
Trump has also demanded that Iran surrender its ballistic missile program and support for regional allies in Gaza, Lebanon, and Yemen, which Iran has said are nonstarters. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has nudged Trump keep pushing these maximal demands and has been accused of attempting to goad the US into war with its number one adversary by injecting "poison pills" into the negotiations.
Araghchi did not clarify the extent to which these demands have come up as sticking points during recent talks.
"I know that a deal is achievable, but it should be fair and based on a win-win solution," Araghchi said. "[A] military option would only complicate this, would only bring about disastrous consequences, not only for us, perhaps for the whole region and for the whole international community, which is fed up with different escalations and wars in our region and beyond."
Soon after Araghchi's interview aired, Trump told reporters he was considering a military strike to force Iran into a deal.
“I guess I can say I am considering that,” he said at the start of a meeting with governors at the White House.
The US Supreme Court on Friday ruled that President Donald Trump exceeded his authority when he invoked an emergency law to impose sweeping global tariffs, sparking a disastrous trade war and burdening American consumers and businesses with higher costs.
The 6-3 decision, authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, states that "nothing" in the text of the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) "enables the president to unilaterally impose tariffs."
"And needless to say," Roberts wrote, "without statutory authority, the president’s tariffs cannot stand." Justices Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh, and Samuel Alito dissented in the case, Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump.
The ruling deals a massive blow to Trump's tariff regime, which he placed at the center of his economic policy agenda despite warnings that the sweeping import taxes would drive up costs for US consumers and businesses—which is precisely what happened.
An analysis released by congressional Democrats just after the Supreme Court handed down its ruling estimated that the average US family has paid more than $1,700 in tariff costs since the start of Trump's second White House term. While businesses may be eligible for tariff refunds in the wake of the high court's decision, it's far from clear that consumers who paid higher costs for groceries and other goods affected by the levies will have any such recourse.
The Supreme Court's decision does not directly address the issue of refunds for tariff costs, which tripled for midsize US companies last year.
"Any consumer looking for relief from tariff-driven price hikes did not find it at the Supreme Court today," said Alex Jacquez, chief of policy and advocacy at the Groundwork Collaborative. "The economic damage Trump has already done to business investment, manufacturing, and working families’ budgets will linger for years to come."
"Refunds for impacted businesses will take months or even years to process, and there is little reason to believe companies will pass those savings on to consumers," Jacquez added. "Trump must set aside his erratic tariff policy and instead pursue a trade agenda that protects workers, supports manufacturers, and doesn’t punish consumers.”
"Trump will try to do this again another way, because he is intent on continuing his unhinged economic sabotage."
Most of the tariffs Trump has imposed during his second term will be impacted by the Supreme Court's decision. NBC Newsnoted that the decision "upends his tariffs in two categories. One is country-by-country or 'reciprocal' tariffs, which range from 34% for China to a 10% baseline for the rest of the world."
"The other is a 25% tariff Trump imposed on some goods from Canada, China, and Mexico for what the administration said was their failure to curb the flow of fentanyl," the outlet added.
On top of driving up costs for American consumers and businesses, Trump's tariffs failed to make a dent in the US trade deficit and did not stop the loss of manufacturing jobs, which declined by an estimated 108,000 during the president's first year back in the White House.
Fearing a negative Supreme Court ruling, Trump administration officials have reportedly been exploring alternatives to the IEEPA, prompting concerns that the president could swiftly pursue similar tariffs under a different authority.
"This decision is unlikely to alter US tariff rates or policies much because there are other statutes that could provide broad authority for Trump to impose tariffs," said Lori Wallach, director of the Rethink Trade program at the American Economic Liberties Project.
"In the immediate term, Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 explicitly authorizes a president to impose tariffs up to 15% for up to 150 days on any and all countries related to 'large and serious' balance of payments issues, which relates to the huge chronic US trade deficit," Wallach observed. "Section 122 does not require investigations or impose other procedural limits."
US Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.), the ranking member of the House Budget Committee, welcomed the Supreme Court's decision but warned that "Trump will try to do this again another way, because he is intent on continuing his unhinged economic sabotage."
Rep. Pramila Jayapal on Thursday expressed fury at the Trump administration after she was prohibited from conducting oversight at a immigration detention center in Tacoma, Washington despite giving the facility the required eight days notice prior to her visit.
In a statement posted on social media, Jayapal (D-Wash.) said that officials at the the Northwest Detention Center blocked her from meeting with people being held at the facility, even in cases where she had obtained privacy release forms.
Jayapal said that she refused to leave the facility until she could meet with "one of the individuals for whom I had a privacy waver... and whose attorney was there waiting for me to meet with them."
The Washington Democrat was told that she could meet with this person, but only in a public visitation area instead of a private attorney room.
After agreeing to the detention center's terms, Jayapal got to meet with the detainee, whom she described as "the sole caregiver for his 8-year-old US citizen daughter" who also has "serious medical issues himself."
"He has been hospitalized in the emergency room three times since being detained on January 11," Jayapal continued, "and is still experiencing serious pain and medical issues for his condition which are not yet resolved."
Jayapal said that she spoke with several immigration attorneys who were at the facility, who told her that they were often made to wait up to five hours to see their clients, as there are just seven attorney rooms available for a detention center that holds roughly 1,300 people.
Jayapal said she also heard complaints from people at the facility about "inadequate medical treatment, overcrowding, and inedible food," and then lashed out at the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for impeding members of Congress from conducting proper oversight of its detention centers.
"I am simply outraged that [Homeland Security Secretary] Kristi Noem's DHS continues to try and block me and other members of Congress from speaking with detained people and conducting meaningful oversight," she said. "This only makes me more certain that DHS and these private for-profit contractors have a lot to hide as they incarcerate around 70,000 people every night."
DHS has consistently denied congressional Democrats access to immigration detention centers since Trump returned to the White House last year, even though federal laws such as Section 527 of the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act state that members of the legislative branch are allowed to conduct "robust and effective oversight" of such facilities.
