Saturday, January 10, 2026

Newsom taunts Trump after tariffs loss: ‘It’s raining tacos’

 https://www.politico.com/news/2025/05/29/blue-states-cheer-trumps-tariff-setbacks-00375415 

 

Newsom taunts Trump after tariffs loss: ‘It’s raining tacos’

Democratic governors are taking a victory lap after a pair of court rulings against the president’s import tariffs.

Donald Trump speaks in the Oval Office.

SAN FRANCISCO — Of all the blue state legal challenges to President Donald Trump, none have delivered as big a blow as two court rulings striking down his tariffs on imports from dozens of countries.

Democratic governors and attorneys general seized the pair of rulings on Thursday as an affirmation of their warnings about the economic toll of rising prices on consumer goods and emptying shipping containers at ports along the East and West coasts.

It was a stinging rebuke of Trump — and a rare victory for Democrats out of power in Washington and increasingly dependent on the courts system and Democratic-controlled state capitals to mount their resistance to the president.

“It’s raining tacos today,” California Gov. Gavin Newsom said on the MeidasTouch Podcast on Thursday, an apparent reference to the TACO acronym that Wall Street investors have used to refer to whiplash over Trump’s see-sawing import taxes. The president has bristled at the name, which stands for “Trump always chickens out.”

Newsom, whose state was among more than 14 that sued to challenge the tariffs, added, “It’s not a good day for Donald Trump and his central economic program. We’re very, very pleased at this moment, this brief moment.”

Colorado Gov. Jared Polis, basking in the victory for blue states, told POLITICO that of all the lawsuits Democrats have filed to challenge Trump’s policies, the tariffs issue is “the most substantial for our economy, for our prosperity.”

Democrats’ victory lap came after the New York-based U.S. Court of International Trade struck down Trump’s tariffs on Wednesday, concluding his actions were not authorized by the emergency economic powers he cited in signing four executive orders earlier this year — a major blow to his strategy to use tariffs as leverage to strike trade deals around the world. A second federal court issued a similar ruling invalidating Trump’s tariffs on Thursday morning, when a D.C. District Court judge ordered a halt to duties collected from two toy companies that brought the case.

“It’s interesting watching the president flail around here; he proposes tariffs and then he backs off,” said New York Rep. Joe Morelle, a Democrat from the Rochester area along the Canadian border. “If this is people’s idea of a master negotiator, I don’t know what people think a bad negotiator is.”

Wednesday’s decision covered a case filed by Oregon and 11 other Democrat-led states, including Colorado, New York, Illinois and Minnesota, challenging the constitutionality of Trump’s actions. California, the first state to sue over Trump’s tariffs, is challenging his actions in a separate but related lawsuit in U.S. District Court in San Francisco.

The Trump administration immediately appealed the rulings, and a federal appeals court temporarily reinstated his sweeping “reciprocal” tariffs as it considers the administration’s request to leave the tariffs in place while litigation plays out. However, that pause only applies to the ruling from the Court of International Trade.

The economic effects of the rulings are still far from certain. And even as Democratic politicians rejoiced, a pervasive sense that Trump’s trade war could still go wrong permeated the nation’s largest ports in Los Angeles and Long Beach.

Port of Los Angeles Executive Director Gene Seroka told KNX Radio that although the court ruling is encouraging, it added to the “whipsaw effect of information” that has left even the most seasoned international trade experts scrambling.

“It’s not going to open up the gates of American imports just yet,” he said.

Port of Long Beach CEO Mario Cordero shared those concerns, saying shipping companies have told him they need time to assess the potential impacts of the court ruling before deciding whether to bring in more imports.

“We expect the canceled sailings at the Port of Long Beach in June to remain canceled until there is additional clarity about collection of tariffs,” Cordero said in a statement.

Seroka said the port has seen a recent uptick in activity after Trump lowered a 145 percent tariff on Chinese goods to 30 percent, as American importers moved to scoop up products that had already arrived but were sitting on the docks. The initial 145 percent levy resulted in 17 ships canceling bookings and a 30 percent drop in imports over the first two weeks of May.

But it could still be weeks or months until the ports see imports pick up, Seroka warned, and lagging trade comes at a critical time for American businesses, which typically would already have orders placed for Christmas and year-end holiday shopping season.

Still, Democratic officials on Capitol Hill and in states across the country relished the chance to check Trump’s executive powers.

New York Attorney General Letitia James, one of the 12 attorneys general who sued the Trump administration in April, hailed Wednesday’s trade court ruling in a social media post: “The president cannot ignore the Constitution and impose massive tax hikes on the American people.”

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer sought to reclaim the label Trump put on his tariffs announcement by posting “Liberation Day.”

Xavier Becerra, a Democrat who served as both California attorney general and a member of the House Committee on Ways and Means, which deals extensively with tariffs, noted the weight of the trade court’s ruling coming from a three-judge panel.

“It wasn’t just significant. It was consequential,” Becerra said. “This decision, especially because it was unanimous — and especially because it included two judges appointed by Republicans — I think this crystallized what many of us have said: ‘The president has a lot of authority, but it’s not omnipotent, and he has to respect laws.’”

Becerra, who is running for California governor in 2026, told POLITICO that the result of the judges’ decision will provide a measure of predictability for industry and businesses.

“The president has some authority to help implement or execute on the tariffs, but it’s got to be within those margins,” he said. “And they went way beyond the margins.”

Mike Frerichs, the Democratic Illinois state treasurer, said the rulings could stave off the most severe economic effects of Trump’s tariffs on vulnerable industries, including corn and soybean farmers. Moreover, Frerichs said whiplash with Trump’s trade policies has already undermined his supposed goal to bring manufacturing jobs back to the middle of the country.

“No company is going to make a long-term commitment when there is no belief that they will stay in place,” Frerichs said. “Wall Street has been talking about TACO this week… So why would you shut down a factory in China and move it to the U.S. if, two weeks from now, the tariffs are going to disappear?”

Christopher Cadelago, Liz Crampton, Emily Ngo, Nick Reisman and Shia Kapos contributed to this report.

Federal court strikes down Trump’s tariffs on countries around the world

 https://www.politico.com/news/2025/05/28/federal-court-strikes-down-trumps-april-2-tariffs-00373843

 

Federal court strikes down Trump’s tariffs on countries around the world

The U.S. Court of International Trade ruled unanimously that the president overstepped his powers in imposing the tariffs on dozens of trading partners, most of which he’s since paused.

U.S. President Donald Trump holds up a chart while speaking during a “Make America Wealthy Again” trade announcement event.

The unanimous ruling of a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of International Trade strikes a blow to one of the central planks of Trump’s economic agenda at a time he is seeking to use tariffs as leverage to strike trade deals around the world.

“Today’s court order is a victory not just for Oregon, but for working families, small businesses, and everyday Americans. President Trump’s sweeping tariffs were unlawful, reckless, and economically devastating,” said Oregon’s Attorney General Dan Rayfield, who filed one of the lawsuits challenging Trump’s tariffs, along with 11 other state attorneys general. “We brought this case because the Constitution doesn’t give any president unchecked authority to upend the economy. This ruling reaffirms that our laws matter, and that trade decisions can’t be made on the president’s whim.”

The court’s ruling also means that the government may have to pay back duties it has already collected. “Anybody that has had to pay tariffs so far will be able to get them refunded,” said Ilya Somin, a professor of law at George Mason University, who helped argue a case against the tariffs brought by several small businesses.

The Justice Department quickly filed an appeal, setting the stage for more legal arguments over the extent of Trump’s tariff authorities. Ultimately, the case could end up at the Supreme Court.

Trump had justified his imposition of tariffs on dozens of countries based on declarations of national emergencies related to fentanyl trafficking and the threat of persistent trade deficits. Trump also imposed retaliatory tariffs on countries that responded in kind.

But the court found that the federal law that authorizes the president to impose tariffs, embargoes and sanctions in response to national emergencies — the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 — “does not authorize the President to impose unbounded tariffs.”

“The Worldwide and Retaliatory Tariff Orders exceed any authority granted to the President by IEEPA to regulate importation by means of tariffs,” the New York-based federal court, which hears cases on trade laws, said in its opinion.

The court’s ruling nullified Trump’s executive orders imposing 25 percent duties on Canadian and Mexican products and a 20 percent tariff on Chinese products in response to a purported national emergency on drug trafficking. It also struck down a 10 percent tariff imposed on all U.S. trading partners to address trade deficits, as well as Trump’s paused “reciprocal” tariffs of between 20 and 50 percent on 60-odd trading partners, which are now scheduled to go into effect on July 9 if foreign governments can’t reach a deal with the White House before then.

Deputy Assistant Attorney General Brett Shumate, in arguments last week before the CIT, said a ruling that barred Trump from collecting the tariffs would “kneecap” the president’s efforts to strike new trade deals between now and July 8, including with leading trading partners such as Japan, India and the European Union.

“An injunction would be extremely disruptive while the president is in the middle of foreign negotiations with other countries about trade deficits and about the fentanyl crisis,” Shumate added.

It’s the latest legal rejection for Trump on a centerpiece of his policy agenda. Federal judges have blocked key planks of his mass deportation agenda, restricted efforts to dismantle several federal agencies and slowed efforts to mass terminate federal employees from some agencies.

A spokesperson for the White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The Wednesday evening ruling covers a case brought by V.O.S. Selections, a New York-based wine company, and several other small businesses, and a separate case filed by Oregon and 11 other Democrat-led states challenging the constitutionality of Trump’s actions. It was delivered by a three-judge panel that included Obama appointee Gary Katzmann, Reagan appointee Jane Restani and Trump appointee Timothy Reif. No specific judge was identified as the author of the court’s opinion.

Trump could also attempt to impose the same tariffs under other laws, said Nazak Nikakhtar, who worked on trade issues at the Commerce Department during the first Trump administration and is now a partner at the law firm Wiley Rein. “The president still has ample authority to impose reciprocal tariffs, just through other legal means,” Nikakhtar said.

But Somin, the George Mason University law professor, was skeptical that Trump would be able to use other authorities to replicate his reciprocal tariff program.

“I don’t think they could impose anything this sweeping under another statute,” Somin said. “The reason why they wanted to use IEEPA in the first place is because they thought that it could grant them this vast, sweeping authority they couldn’t get otherwise.”

The ruling does not affect other tariffs Trump has imposed, such as those under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, which allows the president to levy new duties on national security grounds. Trump used the provision in March to widen existing steel and aluminum tariffs and slap a 25 percent duty on foreign auto imports. The administration has launched several other Section 232 investigations that could lead to future tariffs on semiconductors, pharmaceuticals and a number of other products.

That process is slower, however, requiring the administration to first conduct a national security review and solicit public comment before moving forward with the duties. Using the emergency law allowed the White House to act much more quickly.

“Enacting broad-based tariffs via IEEPA was always legally risky, but to enjoin them is surprising and an immense relief for importers at the moment,” said Scott Lincicome, the director of economics at the Cato Institute, a free market think tank. “The big question is whether it will hold up on appeal.”

Several other suits challenging Trump’s tariffs have been filed in federal district courts around the country, including one brought by the state of California and another by members of the Blackfeet Nation tribe who live in Montana and Canada.

Earlier this month, a judge in Florida ordered a case brought by a local paper products company to be transferred to the CIT and a judge in another case filed in the District Court for Washington, D.C. heard oral arguments on Tuesday.

The Justice Department has been pressing to move all of the cases to the CIT in New York, arguing that it was established by Congress to hear cases involving tariffs and had exclusive jurisdiction. However, any hopes it may have had for a more sympathetic reception in the CIT than in the federal district courts evaporated on Wednesday.

“The U.S. Court of International Trade agreed with what I and others have said for months: Trump was clearly abusing emergency authorities in ways not authorized by Congress to impose damaging tariffs on other countries, with obviously pretextual excuses,” Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.) said in a statement. He has introduced legislation with Rep. Suzan DelBene (D-Wash.) that challenged Trump’s use of IEEPA to impose tariffs.

Beyer and DelBene said the court’s ruling reinforced their calls for Congress to act to reassert its constitutional authority over trade deals.

Megan Messerly, Hassan Kanu and Ari Hawkins contributed to this report.

Don't trust Trump's team to tell truth about Portland shooting

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2026/1/9/2362252/-Don-t-trust-Trump-s-team-to-tell-truth-about-Portland-shooting?pm_campaign=front_page&pm_source=top_news_slot_4&pm_medium=web 

77
Comments
77 New

Share options




no image description available
A damaged car is seen as law enforcement officials work the scene following reports that federal immigration officers shot and wounded people in Portland, Oregon, on Jan. 8.

A Border Patrol agent on Thursday shot two people during a vehicle stop in Portland, bringing the number of people shot by federal immigration officials to three since Wednesday morning.

The Department of Homeland Security, which oversees Border Patrol, claimed that the two people shot on Thursday afternoon were members of the Tren de Aragua gang—the administration’s favorite scapegoat to justify its evil immigration enforcement actions.

However, nothing DHS or anyone in the Trump administration says can be taken at face value. They have lied time and again—even when their lies are easily disprovable by video evidence.

Here's what DHS spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin claimed happened in Portland on Thursday:

At 2:19 PST, US Border Patrol agents were conducting a targeted vehicle stop in Portland, Oregon. The passenger of the vehicle and target is a Venezuelan illegal alien affiliated with the transnational Tren de Aragua prostitution ring and involved in a recent shooting in Portland. The vehicle driver is believed to be a member of the vicious Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua. When agents identified themselves to the vehicle occupants, the driver weaponized his vehicle and attempted to run over the law enforcement agents. 

Fearing for his life and safety, an agent fired defensive shots. The driver drove off with the passenger, fleeing the scene. 

This situation is evolving and more information is forthcoming.

However, McLaughlin’s statement is virtually worthless. Just one day earlier, she flagrantly lied about the circumstances around the shooting death of 37-year-old Renee Nicole Good in Minneapolis. Immediately after an Immigration and Customs Enforcement shot and killed Good in her car, McLaughlin issued a statement accusing Good of domestic terrorism.

People gather around a makeshift memorial honoring Renee Good who was fatally shot by a federal law enforcement agent near the site of the shooting in Minneapolis, Thursday, Jan. 8, 2026. (AP Photo/Tom Baker)
People gather around a makeshift memorial honoring Renee Good, who was fatally shot by a federal law enforcement agent in Minneapolis.

"Today, ICE officers in Minneapolis were conducting targeted operations when rioters began blocking  ICE officers and one of these violent rioters weaponized her vehicle, attempting to run over our law enforcement officers in an attempt to kill them—an act of domestic terrorism," she wrote in a post on X. "An ICE officer, fearing for his life, the lives of his fellow law enforcement and the safety of the public, fired defensive shots. He used his training and saved his own life and that of his fellow officers."

And yet, as video footage of the horrific killing surfaced, McLaughlin's lies fell apart. 

As evidence shows, Good was not trying to run anyone over, and the ICE agent fired at her while she drove past him. No agents were in grave danger. Instead, a woman's life was snuffed out by a masked goon.

Unsurprisingly, that’s not the only time the Trump administration lied about an ICE-involved shooting.

In October, federal immigration agents shot 30-year-old U.S. citizen Marimar Martinez five times while she was in her car. Notorious liar McLaughlin claimed Martinez “rammed” law enforcement agents with her car, which led to an officer shooting her five times. 

The Department of Justice charged Martinez but later dropped those charges. The officer who shot her drove his supposedly rammed vehicle out of state before it could be inspected, and he even reportedly texted his friends to brag about shooting the victim. 

What's more, McLaughlin's claim that the two latest victims of immigration official violence in Portland were members of Tren de Aragua also can't be trusted, since DHS has wrongly accused multiple people of being part of the gang to justify their efforts to deport them.

Kilmar Abrego Garcia speaks during a rally ahead of a mandatory check at the Immigration and Customs Enforcement office in Baltimore, Friday, Dec. 12, 2025, after he was released from detention on Thursday under a judge's order. (AP Photo/Stephanie Scarbrough)
Kilmar Abrego Garcia, shown this past December.

Who can forget Andry Hernández Romero, the gay makeup artist who was sent to the notorious CECOT prison in El Salvador after the Trump administration accused him of being a violent Tren de Aragua member based on a tattoo he had?

Anyone with eyes and even a shred of common sense could tell that Romero—a legal asylum-seeker in the United States—was not a violent gang member. And yet he was brutalized at CECOT for months due to the Trump administration's anti-immigrant bigotry.

There was also the time in September when DHS conducted a raid on an apartment complex in Chicago, which they claimed was "filled" with Tren de Aragua members. To appear to be tough, they sickeningly had the raid filmed. However, as of November, not a single person they rounded up had been charged with a crime

On top of all that, President Donald Trump himself has lied to justify his cruel immigration policy, repeatedly showing doctored images of Kilmar Abrego Garcia to justify his deportation to the CECOT torture prison. Eventually, Abrego Garcia was returned to the U.S., and in December, a judge ordered him to be released from custody as the case against him collapsed.

Information is still coming out about the Portland shooting. But early evidence suggests the people who were shot may not have been gang members, since one reportedly called the police for help.

Bad news: Daily Kos’ revenue is down.

Good news: You are a big part of the solution, and small donors have never let us down.

Donating $5 today can help us out in a big way so we can continue to bring you the coverage you enjoy most!

$
ORDonate with
1 group republished

Was this story worth reading?

Recommending and sharing stories helps us decide which stories are most
important to show our readers.

Share options




76Comments