Skip to content
View in the app

A better way to browse. Learn more.

Thailand News and Discussion Forum | ASEANNOW

A full-screen app on your home screen with push notifications, badges and more.

To install this app on iOS and iPadOS
  1. Tap the Share icon in Safari
  2. Scroll the menu and tap Add to Home Screen.
  3. Tap Add in the top-right corner.
To install this app on Android
  1. Tap the 3-dot menu (⋮) in the top-right corner of the browser.
  2. Tap Add to Home screen or Install app.
  3. Confirm by tapping Install.

Trump Introduces New 10% Tariff Following Supreme Court Ruling

Featured Replies

28 minutes ago, newnative said:

Correct. Said that today. Stand by it. And, last February, I posted that his tariffs were illegal. Supreme Court has now agreed that they are.

It has been determined that a small number of tariffs are allowed to stand, about 25% of the tariffs imposed. eg Steel and aluminium tariffs were allowed to stay. The response, a blanket 150 day 10% tariff indicates that the intent is a taxation by the back door, because no American corporation will plan strategy based on a 150 day horizon.

It is likely that the US government will be forced to reimburse corporations ($200bn?) monies that were never escrowed. Here is where the plot thickens. If you wanted to enrich corporate supporters, then you could pass tariffs that you know wouldn't make it through a conservative-dominated court (traditionally, its the left who are in favour of protectionism, and its the right who are in favour of tariff elimination). Companies would get a reimbursement, with no requirement for them to refund their customers. Easier than passing corporate tax cuts. Moreover, the money collected has already been spent, providing a cover to enact further budgetry cuts to programmes that some members of the present government have a dogmatic opposition to, notably public healthcare, education, social security, veterans administration spend. They can blame the judges.

  • Replies 91
  • Views 2.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Most Popular Posts

  • JimHuaHin
    JimHuaHin

    So, the US Supreme Court announces that Trump's tariffs are illegal, and Trump immediately announces new tariffs - is that not contempt of court and illegal? Time for the US Criminal in Chief to go t

  • Claims to be the law and order president ehh lmao 🤣 the dudes a clown it’s time to flush!enough!

  • spidermike007
    spidermike007

    Prison certainly seems like the most appropriate place for this career criminal and fraudster who continues to resist anything resembling Law and Order even though he falsely ran as that type of candi

Posted Images

2 minutes ago, Roadsternut said:

It has been determined that a small number of tariffs are allowed to stand, about 25% of the tariffs imposed. eg Steel and aluminium tariffs were allowed to stay. The response, a blanket 150 day 10% tariff indicates that the intent is a taxation by the back door, because no American corporation will plan strategy based on a 150 day horizon.

It is likely that the US government will be forced to reimburse corporations ($200bn?) monies that were never escrowed. Here is where the plot thickens. If you wanted to enrich corporate supporters, then you could pass tariffs that you know wouldn't make it through a conservative-dominated court (traditionally, its the left who are in favour of protectionism, and its the right who are in favour of tariff elimination). Companies would get a reimbursement, with no requirement for them to refund their customers. Easier than passing corporate tax cuts. Moreover, the money collected has already been spent, providing a cover to enact further budgetry cuts to programmes that some members of the present government have a dogmatic opposition to, notably public healthcare, education, social security, veterans administration spend. They can blame the judges.

An indication that you are not a native English speaker. For native English speakers, it is commonly understood that "25%" generally does not mean "a small number". Someone whose (who's?) first language was not English would understandably fail to understand that nuance.

It is widely reported that only ~75% of the tariffs imposed by the American government were through IEEPA. It's (Its?) these tariffs that have been declared as illegal. Thus, a significant (not small) number of tariffs were legal.

12 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

An indication that you are not a native English speaker. For native English speakers, it is commonly understood that "25%" generally does not mean "a small number". Someone whose (who's?) first language was not English would understandably fail to understand that nuance.

It is widely reported that only ~75% of the tariffs imposed by the American government were through IEEPA. It's (Its?) these tariffs that have been declared as illegal. Thus, a significant (not small) number of tariffs were legal.

Change of shift, right? Handover notes lacking? Ask the boss what's the blazes is going on. Dmitri is making you look bad.

53 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Some of his tariffs were illegal

4 minutes ago, Roadsternut said:

Change of shift, right? Handover notes lacking? Ask the boss what's the blazes is going on. Dmitri is making you look bad.

Is 25% not some of the tariffs?

I think it's "What the blazes" Not "What's the blazes". I guess What're the blazes might work

3 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Is 25% not some of the tariffs?

I think it's "What the blazes" Not "What's the blazes". I guess What're the blazes might work

You originally stated, or at least a person using your account, that some of the tariffs were illegal. Suggest you change your passwords etc, someone is hacking your account, and posting things you disagree with in your name.

If you haven't been the victim of a hacking attempt, then you concede that most of the Americanski government's tariffs were illegal and that you told an untruth.

.

What in the blazes, Sergei/Ivan/Vladimir/Boris.

2 minutes ago, Roadsternut said:

You originally stated, or at least a person using your account, that some of the tariffs were illegal. Suggest you change your passwords etc, someone is hacking your account, and posting things you disagree with in your name.

If you haven't been the victim of a hacking attempt, then you concede that most of the Americanski government's tariffs were illegal and that you told an untruth.

.

What in the blazes, Sergei/Ivan/Vladimir/Boris.

Are you claiming none of the tariffs are not illegal? Or are some legal, and some illegal? Which is it comrade?

  • Popular Post
2 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

Are you claiming none of the tariffs are not illegal? Or are some legal, and some illegal? Which is it comrade?

Trump just upped the Section 122 global tariff to the full 15%. Not a happy chappy.

https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/116109447886304328

Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump

Based on a thorough, detailed, and complete review of the ridiculous, poorly written, and extraordinarily anti-American decision on Tariffs issued yesterday, after MANY months of contemplation, by the United States Supreme Court, please let this statement serve to represent that I, as President of the United States of America, will be, effective immediately, raising the 10% Worldwide Tariff on Countries, many of which have been “ripping” the U.S. off for decades, without retribution (until I came along!), to the fully allowed, and legally tested, 15% level. During the next short number of months, the Trump Administration will determine and issue the new and legally permissible Tariffs, which will continue our extraordinarily successful process of Making America Great Again - GREATER THAN EVER BEFORE!!! Thank you for your attention to this matter. President DONALD J. TRUMP

  • Popular Post

Trump misses the opportunity to walk away from the tariffs that are hurting Americans and undermining the GOP prospects at the mid terms.

  • Popular Post
40 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Trump misses the opportunity to walk away from the tariffs that are hurting Americans and undermining the GOP prospects at the mid terms.

Do you realize what you are suggesting? That Trump would have to admit he was wrong. I think this is one TACO that will never happen.

17 hours ago, mushroomdave said:

Strikes back like a little baby saying 10% now.

(which will get struck down also....likely faster)

Good seeing him have to pay back $ isn't it?

And his favorite thing to do is to drag it out and appeal.

Sorry idiot, no appealing these guys!!

And in his own words one day said:

"You mean MY Supreme Court?

Not today it wasn't Ja***ss!!!

Not today!!

55555555

12f26234-57b8-4a50-8f6e-ead761d4acc6.png

15% now. The guy is all over the shop. He’ll be impeached or shot before long. Enough already. It’s ridiculous. Love em or hate em, this is the type of thing a donkey ‘leader’ wouldn’t get away with under a monarchy, where one has to explain themselves.

  • Popular Post

Reckon attack on Iran is imminent so people will forget about the tariffs. Or perhaps he’s saving that one when the Epstein files thing fires back up again.

  • Popular Post
16 minutes ago, daveAustin said:

Reckon attack on Iran is imminent so people will forget about the tariffs. Or perhaps he’s saving that one when the Epstein files thing fires back up again.

Forget all that. Its all about the aliens now.

  • Popular Post

10 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

Are you claiming none of the tariffs are not illegal? Or are some legal, and some illegal? Which is it comrade?

Check yourself into a dementia clinic. You need help. Your short term memory is shot to <deleted>.

It is widely reported that most of the tariffs imposed by the American government were through IEEPA, at about 75% of all tariffs. It's these tariffs that have been declared as illegal.

  • Popular Post
12 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

Some of his tariffs were illegal

Key word for me, 'illegal'. Trump knew they were, from Day 1, but broke the law anyway, because he has no respect for the law, and never has. We've seen that time and again, all through his life, and now that he's old, he could care even less.

11 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

An indication that you are not a native English speaker. For native English speakers, it is commonly understood that "25%" generally does not mean "a small number". Someone whose (who's?) first language was not English would understandably fail to understand that nuance.

It is widely reported that only ~75% of the tariffs imposed by the American government were through IEEPA. It's (Its?) these tariffs that have been declared as illegal. Thus, a significant (not small) number of tariffs were legal.

Seriously? You're making that lame argument? You and I have just won $100 in the lottery. I'll take $75 and you can have $25--which you should be very happy with, since it's not a 'small number'. Back to reality, the vast majority of Trump's tariffs were illegal, and he knew they were when he illegally imposed them.

This is an edit of the 20 APR 2025 Trump Executive Order:

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the(IEEPA) ... I hereby declare a national emergency with respect to this threat.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/04/regulating-imports-with-a-reciprocal-tariff-to-rectify-trade-practices-that-contribute-to-large-and-persistent-annual-united-states-goods-trade-deficits/

NB The dissenting opinion argues that restricting as to what can be declared as an 'emergency' per the President's discretion, interferes with the President's ability to act on foreign policy.

(In the oral arguments) Sauer, who is defending the tariff policy as grounded in the power to regulate foreign commerce, said “these are regulatory tariffs. They are not revenue-raising tariffs.”

“The fact that they raise revenue was only incidental,” Sauer said, shortly after oral arguments in the case began.

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/11/05/supreme-court-trump-trade-tarrifs-vos.html

NB2 At least per view of Trump, an 'emergency' is what I say is an 'emergency'.

  • Popular Post
18 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

He is not now, nor has he ever ignored the Supreme Court.

The international & Domestic left just can't or refuse to submit that their Get Trump efforts have been futile , President Trump had/has a Plan B.

google ai overview:

"As of February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that President Trump's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose sweeping tariffs on global imports exceeded his authority. While calling the ruling a "disgrace," the administration took steps to comply by revoking the specific orders, but signaled plans to use other authorities to re-impose tariffs".

  • Popular Post
3 hours ago, newnative said:

Seriously? You're making that lame argument? You and I have just won $100 in the lottery. I'll take $75 and you can have $25--which you should be very happy with, since it's not a 'small number'. Back to reality, the vast majority of Trump's tariffs were illegal, and he knew they were when he illegally imposed them.

In my opinion, Trump did not know they were illegal when he imposed them. His dementia is such that he lives in his own personal, but fictional, reality. His reality has no room for the truth or for his own advisors.

22 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

So, when each new president comes in, they can appoint all new judges

No.

POTUS nominates new judges and the Senate appoints judges. Appointment is not automatic usually follows Senate/DOJ background investigation, cross examination under oath by Senate.

1 hour ago, LarryLEB said:

In my opinion, Trump did not know they were illegal when he imposed them. His dementia is such that he lives in his own personal, but fictional, reality. His reality has no room for the truth or for his own advisors.

So, take your choice, folks! Still lucid enough, just barely, to know legal from illegal, but always choosing illegal, or, nutty as a fruitcake, living his dwindling twilight years in the alternate reality of Trump World.

6 hours ago, newnative said:

Seriously? You're making that lame argument? You an-d I have just won $100 in the lottery. I'll take $75 and you can have $25--which you should be very happy with, since it's not a 'small number'.

I don't think you have been following the discussion.

6 hours ago, newnative said:

Back to reality, the vast majority of Trump's tariffs were illegal, and he knew they were when he illegally imposed them.

I think "vast majority" overstates it, but yes, ~75% were judged illegal.

How can you claim he knew they were illegal? The court would have to have ruled 9-0 for that to be the case.

1 hour ago, newnative said:

So, take your choice, folks! Still lucid enough, just barely, to know legal from illegal, but always choosing illegal, or, nutty as a fruitcake, living his dwindling twilight years in the alternate reality of Trump World.

You are making it up. Had it been a clear decision the court would have ruled 9-0

On 2/21/2026 at 8:26 AM, JimHuaHin said:

So, the US Supreme Court announces that Trump's tariffs are illegal, and Trump immediately announces new tariffs - is that not contempt of court and illegal?

Time for the US Criminal in Chief to go to prison.

NO! Supreme Court did NOT say tariffs are illegal. The SC said the law that POTUS Trump used was wrong and that he had to use a different law of which he has plenty to choose from. A SC Justice even gave him a list of laws he could use. Trump used the same law that Nixon used, and it was ok THEN but now it's not ok NOW. This was all about politics and the left's hatred and loathing of Trump. What a monumental waste of time. Bottom line: Tariffs are legal and will continue.

1 hour ago, kimothai said:

Trump used the same law that Nixon used, and it was ok THEN but now it's not ok NOW.

Please provide a link to that with some front end detail!

12 minutes ago, kimothai said:

Nixon and Trump: United by Tough Talk and Even Tougher Tariffs | Tax Notes

You might also try using chat gpt if that's not too much trouble for you.

Thank you for a link that does not answer my request and for your unwarranted sarcastic comments!

32 minutes ago, scottiejohn said:

Thank you for a link that does not answer my request and for your unwarranted sarcastic comments!

Which comment are you referring to?

10 hours ago, kimothai said:

Trump used the same law that Nixon used, and it was ok THEN but now it's not ok NOW.

One of the Trump admin's main arguments is that the tariff decision in 1971 with Nixon in the so-called Yoshida (zipper) case supports their position .

But the Nixon official * who over 50 years ago wrote the case for Nixon is against the government position in a submitted supreme court amicus brief.

* Ambassador Alan Wm. Wolff

17 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

I don't think you have been following the discussion.

I think "vast majority" overstates it, but yes, ~75% were judged illegal.

How can you claim he knew they were illegal? The court would have to have ruled 9-0 for that to be the case.

Huh??? You're really saying that? You're really saying that the 3 judges who ruled in favor of Trump did so because they thought Trump believed the tariffs to be legal and, thus, that automatically made the tariffs LEGAL in their three small minds? And, conversely, if the 3 judges had thought Trump knew the tariffs were illegal, then, that also automatically made the tariffs ILLEGAL in their 3 small minds, and the ruling would have then been 9-0? If that were actually the case, those 3 judges should be impeached.

Crossing back across the border from Trump World to Reality World, what Trump thought didn't enter into the verdict. From Google:

Based on the Supreme Court's February 2026 ruling, Donald Trump's belief in the legality of his tariffs would not have changed the outcome, as the 6-3 decision focused on whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) authorized his actions, not his intent. The court ruled that IEEPA does not authorize such presidential power.

Create an account or sign in to comment

Recently Browsing 0

  • No registered users viewing this page.

Account

Navigation

Search

Search

Configure browser push notifications

Chrome (Android)
  1. Tap the lock icon next to the address bar.
  2. Tap Permissions → Notifications.
  3. Adjust your preference.
Chrome (Desktop)
  1. Click the padlock icon in the address bar.
  2. Select Site settings.
  3. Find Notifications and adjust your preference.