this post was submitted on 03 Mar 2026
931 points (97.9% liked)

World News

54464 readers
3445 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ChadGPT2@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It was legally limited but he immediately imposed new tariffs anyway.

[–] andallthat@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I thought that was under a different legal pretext that caps them at max 15% and for a limited time

[–] Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 day ago

Correct. The USSC rejected his claim to be able to impose unlimited tariffs (under a law that says no such thing), which forced him to then rely on an entirely different law that potentially offers him the ability to impose much more restricted tariffs; 15%, for 90 days, and he has to impose them equally across all trading partners. Which is threatening to upend a bunch of the deals they already made.

It's also likely not legal either, but it'll have to go through the courts again. This time around it's because the law he's now using only applies where there is a "balance of payments" issue; basically, where the US is in danger of running out of actual physical money to make payments with. This literally cannot happen with fiat currencies; it's a law that was designed to handle issues that can only occur with precious metal backed currencies. This a very real problem that used to happen. I think the most famous example I can bring to mind is the Opium Wars, which basically happened because Britain was buying so much tea from China, while selling them almost nothing in return, that they were running out silver to pay the Chinese with.