All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 21, 2026 - Sean Hannity Show
29:44
Tariff Roadmap: Why the Supreme Court Didn’t Stop Trump
|

Time Text
Kavanaugh's Dissent on Tariffs 00:14:45
This is an iHeart podcast.
Guaranteed human.
Thanks to all of you for being with us.
Happy Friday.
Write down our toll-free telephone number.
You want to be a part of the program.
It's 800-941 Sean, if you want to join us.
I knew immediately, so I did something I rarely do.
And I, because it was a friend of mine was in town, and I just, I never take time during the week to ever deviate from my schedule.
I have a very rigid, rigid, rigid work schedule, workout schedule, et cetera.
But I don't get to see this friend very often.
And I got a chance to spend some time with him and have breakfast with him.
But my phone starts blowing up, and the Supreme Court ruled against tariffs.
I can't believe this.
And I'm like, okay, I had already a long time ago in my mind's eye thought that the odds were probably high that they would rule against this.
But I also knew that there are numerous other provisions within the law that would not, that it would make it impossible to take away the president's right to put in place tariffs.
And then, sure enough, I get home and I start reading the decision, start reading Justice Kavanaugh's dissent and Clarence Thomas's dissent.
And there it is right there, Justice Kavanaugh.
Before turning to the Pacifics, now the President used, you know, talked about the Tariff Act, the IEEPA.
Now, I don't want to get too into the weeds because if you do, it is the International Emergency Economic Powers Act from 1977.
And, you know, and right out of the box, Kavanaugh said these policy debates are not for the federal judiciary to resolve, rather, the judiciary's more limited roles to neutrally interpret and apply the law.
And he goes on to it.
Then, as he gets later in his dissent, he points to this, which I think is very, very critical in where this is now heading and what the president then later in his press conference had to say.
So, the first thing I want to say to you before I even get into the weeds here, because it gets into the weeds, is that there is no way the Supreme Court in any way has the power to stop the president from implementing the tariffs that are in place.
And there's, you know, I'm watching TV commentators talk about, oh, we're going to have to pay back $300 billion.
How are we ever going to get that money?
No.
Okay.
The only issue, as Justice Kavanaugh pointed out before the court is one of law.
In light of the statutory text, long-standing historical practice, and relevant Supreme Court precedents, he's concluded in this case, because this is the authority, this is what was brought before the court, is one particular interpretation, which is the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, the IEEPA for short.
He concluded, and rightly so, I believe it authorizes the president to regulate importation by imposing tariffs on foreign imports during declared national emergencies, which the president declared.
And then he says, I therefore respectfully dissent.
And then before he actually got to the specifics of all this, he said, I briefly review several fundamental constitutional principles about the roles of the three branches of the U.S. government.
And then he went on to give a long, well-thought-out explanation about how there are numerous instances under which the president has the right and the authority to impose these tariffs constitutionally.
And the plaintiffs echoed the court rhetorically, emphasizing Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, assigning Congress, not the president, the authority over tariffs.
And he points out, and he used the right language, the rhetoric is a red herring in this case because no one is disputing that point.
Everyone, including the president, agrees Congress possesses constitutional authority.
And he then turned it on its head by pointing out the obvious, which is the important principle that even everybody acknowledges is that Congress may in turn authorize the president to impose tariffs.
And he goes through a lot of statutory language and statutory examples, which the president then therefore cited also later when we had his press conference that gives the president the authority to do the very thing that he's doing.
For example, you know, the president can use section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, unfair trade practices.
The president can use section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act.
That's from 1962, on the issue of national security.
He can use Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, addressing trade deficits, which is limited to 15% for 150 days.
And there are probably other ways to counter this ruling.
But it does not affect or impact tariffs implemented under other statutory authorities.
And the president made that clear in his press conference that he gave earlier today.
Now, he started the press conference off, you know, talking about he's even ashamed of certain Supreme Court members and for not having the courage to do what's right.
Then he commended Justices Thomas.
And Thomas wrote a very intellectual dissent, echoing and reinforcing a lot of what Kavanaugh said and Alito and Kavanaugh for their strength and for their wisdom.
And he laid out the predicate for what caused his action in the first place.
These foreign countries have been ripping us off for years.
And he said they today, on hearing this ruling, are ecstatic and dancing in the streets.
He says, but they're not going to be dancing for long because the Democratic justices might be thrilled.
And then he points out something that is just a fact.
They're an automatic no, just like Democrats in Congress.
If Donald Trump came up with a bill that would guarantee the cure of cancer, they'd be an automatic no.
Doesn't matter.
No.
It's Donald Trump.
They don't like Donald Trump.
So, you know, there's a lot of politics that goes behind in everything with the court.
This is the danger of our legal system.
A lot of equal justice under the law will greatly depend on the jurisdiction and the judicial philosophy of the justice or the judge in a particular case or the jurisdiction of that judge and where they happen to be.
That's why Donald Trump had no shot at all whatsoever in a New York City courtroom.
The deck was stacked against him from day one.
He had, you know, in the case of Erdogan and that other judge, you know, they were dead set against him from the second he came out there.
So the president pointed out how the decision itself is incorrect and it doesn't matter and laid out the powerful alternatives, some of which I just mentioned, that the decision actually approves of.
The court says, I have the absolute right to license, but not the right to charge a license fee, which, by the way, is absurd.
You know, how is it possible you can get a license?
If you get one, usually, you know, a fee is charged and it's automatic.
Now, the court has given me unquestioned right to ban all sorts of things from coming into our country, a more powerful right than people may have thought we had, but not the right to charge a fee.
And then he quotes Justice Kavanaugh, who says, Although I firmly disagree with the court's holding today, the decision might not substantially constrain a president's ability to order tariffs going forward.
And he's right.
And the president laid out how he can charge more than he was charging, which I'll get to in a second, because the president now announced that he's going to put 10% more of a tariff on these other countries and that the tariffs had issues.
And then he goes on to cite the statutes that are applicable, the ones that I just mentioned: the Expansion Act 1962, Section 232, the Trade Act 1974, Sections 122, 201, and 301, the Tariff Act of 1930, Section 338.
It's a little longer process, as he pointed out, but Justice Kavanaugh gave him the answer to today's decision in his dissent.
And so there's absolutely zero worry or concern.
And then the president goes on to say, effective immediately, all national security tariffs under Section 232 and existing Section 301 tariff remain fully in place and in full force and effect.
And he said, I will impose today a 10% global tariff under Section 122, over and above our normal tariffs already being charged.
And we are initiating several Section 301 and other investigations to protect our country from unfair trade practices of other countries and companies.
And he ends with, like, thank you for your attention to this matter.
Quite simply, as I've said a long time, I've said for a long time, make America great again.
And we're doing that.
But I mean, that is the stupidity of the whole argument in the very beginning.
And I've known this for some time because I've talked to a lot of people.
And at one point, I was somewhat concerned, but I was attention was brought to me on these very sections that were cited in his dissent by Justice Kavanaugh.
And then the president just ups the ante by putting on the U.S. will impose a 10% global tariff.
And that he's citing the specific statutes that constitutionally allow him to do it.
By the way, Clarence Thomas blasted the Supreme Court's tariff decision in a blistering dissent, very intellectual in nature, or else I'd start citing it, but it gets very deep into the constitutional weeds and past precedents.
But he concludes that neither the statutory text nor the Constitution provide a basis for ruling against the president.
Congress authorized the president to regulate importation.
Throughout American history, the authority to regulate importation has been understood to include the authority to impose duties on imports.
The meaning of that phrase was beyond doubt by the time the Congress enacted this statute shortly after President Nixon's highly publicized duties on imports were upheld based on identical language.
It was just an intellectual beatdown.
The statute that the president relied on therefore authorized him to impose the duties on imports and issues in this cases.
And because the Constitution assigns Congress many powers that do not implicate the non-delegation doctrine, Congress may delegate the exercise of many powers to the president.
Congress has done so repeatedly since its founding with this court's blessing.
It was pretty well thought out on his part.
Now, with that said, Congress can also act.
Senator Bernie Moreno called on congressional Republicans to codify the Trump tariffs after the court's decision.
I don't think it's necessary.
Democrats were temporarily ecstatic, but that has now, I guess, the reality is beginning to sink in that it's not the win that they thought that it was.
I think the president openly challenging, I think that Jonathan Turley actually nailed this.
They are more afraid, and I think he's right in his analysis, of the fact that Donald Trump has the power that he has.
But, you know, in Justice Kavanaugh's word, acting pursuant to his statutory authority to regulate importation under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act, the president has imposed tariffs on imports and foreign goods.
There's one other argument to be made here.
This president has been using the power of tariffs as part of Article II powers as commander-in-chief, and that is to defend our country.
And when he says to other nations, well, you do this, this, or this, or X, Y, or Z, I will impose a massive tariff on your country for doing so.
That is in the best national security interest of the U.S. as well.
And even in kind of a really odd way, John Roberts acknowledged that power exists.
The president cited this owner of this Georgia steel company, said that Trump's tariff saved his business.
And he said this yesterday before this decision came out.
You know, the president of a family-owned full-line steel service center praised the president.
President said when speaking that the guy wanted to kiss him, he said, I wasn't interested.
But they're going to be working seven days a week and 24-hour shifts around the clock.
But, you know, the CUSA Steel president said that he began seeing massive influx of orders for tire racks in July of 2025 after the tire rack industry began really dropping off around 2010.
The tire rack industry was going to China.
There was no tariffs.
They were bringing them in, and they were decimating the tire rack business in America.
And this is the beauty, you know, where Barack Obama and Joe Biden and the likes of Democrats have been willing to unilaterally surrender our economy and manufacturing and boldly Obama proclaiming that those jobs aren't, they ain't never coming back.
Well, they're coming back.
Automobile manufacturing.
And now we're going to bring in-house pharmaceutical manufacturing.
We also will have our own semiconductor chip manufacturing.
The president referenced that today.
And moving on, I don't think there's, I think, honestly, in all practicality, for the rest of his presidency, this issue is dead, and the president won without winning the Supreme Court decision because he got a roadmap on how to do it, you know, four other different ways, citing very specific statutes to allow him to do it, which makes it interesting.
Adopting Shelter Cats 00:03:52
So by the time, you know, I started writing people back and saying, no, I'm telling you, there's an off-ramp here, and it's right there in Kavanaugh's dissent, and you can see it.
And that roadmap is a way to bypass what everybody thought was going to be a bad decision today.
I don't think it was bad.
And I kind of knew this and was given a heads up about this long before the decision came out today, which made me never be that concerned about it.
Now, your husband, Anthony, is in the private equity business, right?
He is.
He runs his own fund.
And so we're going to ask him about this decision and the impact, and we're going to have Greg Jarrett on.
Am I allowed to ask him about the cat that you overfed and had to send away?
He doesn't even like cats.
So I'm going to lose that argument with both of you.
So just leave it.
I think, well, maybe I'll bring it up later in the program with Joe Paggs because you make me sound like I'm being mean.
I think if you overfeed an animal, I think you're being mean.
You're just not telling the right story.
You're telling your version of the story.
So, you know, is it a true statement?
Let's go see if you can answer a question.
Is it a true statement that cat was like five times the size of a regular cat?
No, that is hyperbole.
No.
Challenge flag.
Is it true you had to send your cat away to a farm to get healthy?
She did not just go to get healthy, but she got healthier.
Yes.
Her feet hurt, maybe because it weighed too much.
No.
The cat had diabetes.
Just like people, I have a cat now that has diabetes.
Yes.
But some people carry their weight differently.
No, it just is a thing.
Like, it happens.
There's skinny people all over the place that have diabetes.
It's got nothing to do with what you eat.
Not really.
I mean, I guess it has something to do with it.
Most people, a lot of adult onset diabetes, in part, is caused by weight issues.
Yes.
A lot of people struggle with it.
And I sympathize.
I've struggled with it in my life, and I have to really, really pay attention to it.
But then you turn around, and we'll get to it later.
I'm not going to get into it now.
Then you criticize me for adopting a dog, a border collie, because I like the breed, and I'm sending the dog to be trained so that the dog will be well-behaved and safer around other people, unless, of course, I command otherwise.
Uh-huh.
I'm not critical of it.
I just would prefer that you adopt a shelter animal.
Well, I've donated to shelters before.
That's not what I'm saying.
I'm just saying.
I've adopted a shelter animal before.
Snowball was a shelter animal.
Right, but you're not right now.
Because I wanted this particular there's plenty of border collies in shelters.
Oh, my gosh.
Not the one I wanted.
I'm just saying.
I wanted a particular border collie.
Why is it so particular?
Because I love its coloring, it's absolutely stunning.
Okay.
When you see, I'm purposely not sending out pictures yet, but I'm going to.
That's a good question.
Listen, if you're happy, I am happy for you.
That's all I can say.
We're going to get into it later because this is, I'll let Joe Paggs decide.
Poor Joe.
Joe's going to take my side.
Well, yeah, because he was never really an animal person until he met me.
I mean, he's very good to them, but, you know, he's not really.
He doesn't like cats.
No guy wants to be in a house full of cats.
It's not full of cats.
I have two cats.
Okay.
State Budget Blues 00:09:38
Oh, that's right.
Because the other one had to be sent away.
Oh, my God.
Maybe they'll come up with, as Trump calls it, the fat shot for cats.
I don't know.
Might help them be healthier.
Listen, everything I've read about it.
She can still jump straight up in the air on a table.
So, in my opinion, she's doing just fine.
Well, that's the measure of whether or not your cat is healthy at five times the size of a normal cat.
When I can jump on a table, I can criticize.
I can't.
Multiple illegals arrested in North Carolina after a violent home invasion that included burglary, kidnapping, and rape.
And Democrats want to defund the Department of Homeland Security.
Tell me how that makes any sense at all whatsoever.
Tom Holman, responding to this idiocy of trying to abolish ICE, he said, good luck with that.
We do have something called the supremacy clause.
Why do I have to keep having to remind people of this?
In the supremacy clause, federal laws are enforced by the federal government.
And the fact that in the last year alone, our federal government arrested 2,100 illegals that were either convicted of or charged with murdering American citizens, but no Democrat ever gets questioned about it.
Or the fact that 5,400 illegals in this country were either convicted, I found them, convicted, or charged with rape or other violent sexual crimes against American citizens.
What is so hard about this issue?
And this is why I keep saying, this is why it is the single most important midterm election in your lifetime.
Illinois' lieutenant governor now seeking the U.S. Senate releasing a video of people saying F-Trump.
I think that is a very good campaign strategy.
I want to encourage this.
Other Democrats should do the same thing because all they will do is expose themselves as radicals.
I mean, now you have Bernie Sanders and AOC openly out there pitching, advocating, and fighting for a wealth tax in this country, which means you get taxed if you have a certain income more money after you've already paid your taxes.
And they wonder why everybody is leaving en masse these blue states because they don't want to be taxed to death.
It's unbelievable.
But they keep going down this dumb road.
And Democrats think, oh, we're going to boycott the state of the union.
Good.
Leave your canes home and you're screaming at home and your embarrassing moments at home, you know, and don't stand and clap for the family of victims of illegal immigrants that you allowed your president, Joe Biden,
to let into this country and either were complicit in the lie that they're not coming into the country and the borders closed and borders secure, or complicit in your silence, knowing damn well it was the most preventable national security failure in our nation's history for crying out loud.
Go boycott it.
Go and leave your cane at home and your impeachment screeching at home.
Who cares?
Unbelievable.
One plastic surgeon, this is interesting, who trained at NYU Langone, anyway, is apologizing for, quote, failing to speak up after witnessing minors as young as 13 undergo irreversible gender surgeries.
As a father to three young children and as a physician who took an oath to do no harm, I failed to speak up.
And I just want to thank President Trump for having more clarity on this.
He's not wrong.
He's not.
By the way, there is a Just the News.
This is John Solomon investigative report.
Prosecutors zeroing in on the CIA's John Brennan with a secret request for years-old evidence from the U.S. Senate and whether or not he lied to the Senate.
There have been rumors now out there for weeks that, in fact, John Brennan might be indicted.
I don't know if they're true.
I just have very good sources, and that's what they've been telling me.
As we watch this drama unfold in blue cities and blue states, I'll give you an example.
Boeing decided to flee Virginia only weeks after Abigail Spanberger became governor.
Weeks later, Boeing announced they're relocating their defense space security headquarters to St. Louis, where the division was based previously, and the company moved the unit to Chicago, then Virginia, during the administration of Glenn Young.
And during the Yunkin administration, the state enacted tax reform, regulatory changes aimed at attracting new industry.
The former governor was reportedly personally involved in securing Boeing's headquarters move at the time, calling the decision evidence that the Commonwealth is the premier location for the aerospace industry and aerospace companies.
Meanwhile, since taking office, Spamberger, Democratic-led state legislature, which made gains in the 2025 elections, are reversing many of Junckin's policies.
Well, that's not helping them.
I'll give you a case study in point here.
By the way, did you read that Steven Spielberg is the latest billionaire to flee California?
Even he's getting out.
He wants nothing to do with this wealth tax out in California.
There's a great article on FoxNews.com.
Last year, I left California to start my full-time job, my first full-time job elsewhere.
At the time, I thought my move was temporary.
Now, I'm sure aside from a miraculous piece of divine intervention, I'm not moving back.
Young professionals like me are fleeing the state in droves because driven by hope of better jobs, more affordable housing, better family environments.
And for some reason, the prospect of paying over $2,000 each month to live in a 500-square-foot studio apartment for the rest of one's life isn't that alluring to many.
That's especially true for the state like California, where it's become increasingly hard to find a job, any job.
They're chasing every business out.
Look at Mamdani.
You know, Mamdani, now $127 billion annual budget proposal.
Now, if you look at the state of Florida versus New York State, I mean, the Florida's fiscal year budget will be less for the entire state of Florida.
And I can tell you, having lived in New York City and now three years in the state of Florida, I can tell you the infrastructure is better, policing is better.
You're more safe, more secure.
It's not perfect.
There's no place that's perfect.
Your schools are dramatically better, usually ranking number one or number two.
And now Florida's state budget of $117.4 billion, what Mamdani is proposing through higher taxes will result in New York City alone having higher taxes.
Now, if you just look at, it makes absolutely, positively no sense at all whatsoever, especially when you start comparing population sizes, et cetera.
It is madness.
And Kathy Hochl is scared to death.
Now, what people are speculating is Kathy Hochul is going to pull a switcheroo.
She is beholden to the likes of Mamdani.
Kathy Hochl's not the real governor in the state of New York, just like Hakeem Jeffries, not the minority leader in the House, just like Chuck Schumer is not the minority leader in the Senate.
They are leaders in name only, but the radicals control them.
And Momdani controls Kathy Hochul.
He ostensibly is the governor in abstentia.
And Hokul will now pull a switcheroo, raise taxes after the November elections, and that is going to be her way of maintaining the support of Mamdani.
He's seeking reelection to a second term, a four-year term, and insisted she's not going to give in to Mamdani, but I don't believe a word she's saying.
You can't trust her.
You know, for example, she was saying that she wouldn't support congestion pricing.
And once she got elected, she did a U-term and then now started a congestion tax.
And that means if you come from outside of New York, you got to pay like 20 bucks.
Is it 20 bucks, 15 bucks, whatever it is?
Depending on which direction you go, it's insane.
But that is the model that Democrats have now imposed.
And this is absolute madness.
You know, New York City's fiscal budget more than the entire state of Florida, that is crazy.
New York, Florida has equal population to New York and New York State, and it is less than half of what New York State is spending on their budget every year.
Their infrastructure sucks.
Their schools suck.
The law and order doesn't exist, especially in places like New York City.
And you pay more than twice the amount.
And how is it these other states are able to manage on less than half?
There is no earthly explanation for this.
I'll give you another example.
D.C. Water's $520 Million Mystery 00:01:28
You know, D.C. Water spent $520 million on DEI contracts before this Potomac sewage spill, the largest in the country's history.
And they're trying to blame Donald Trump.
This is Maryland's fault, Wes Moore, not Donald Trump's fault.
Now we find out, for example, it's also the District of Columbia's fault.
It's not Donald Trump's fault.
Anyway, these DEI contracts came as a 2022 clip of the D.C. Water CEO, David L. Gaddis is his name, a champion of DEI initiatives, spent $520 million according to the post-millennial.
Under this guide, D.C. Water has pursued, quote, fair share of objectives in order to drive participation from disadvantaged minority and women-owned business enterprises, according to the Daily Caller.
With those objectives, D.C. Water put together business diversity and inclusion advisory councils in order to give out businesses to a disadvantaged and women-owned contractors and projects costing over a million dollars rather than fixing the infrastructure that would have prevented the worst ecological disaster ever to happen in the area.
And they're destroying the Potomac and the raw sewage is still pouring in there.
They can't even fix it.
This is an iHeart podcast.
Export Selection