In a 6 to 3 decision, the Supreme Court has ruled Friday that President Donald Trump’s attempt to impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, IEEPA, lacked constitutional footing because the statute does not clearly authorize tariffs of unlimited amount, duration, and scope. However, that does not mean that the presidency has been stripped of all trade policy tools. Justice Brett Kavanaugh rightly points out in his dissent that “numerous other federal statutes authorize the President to impose tariffs and might justify most (if not all) of the tariffs at issue in this case—albeit perhaps with a few additional procedural steps.” But there are several legitimate delegated, and often used, presidential authorities to address trade concerns. For example, Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 addresses issues like unfair practices, forced technology transfer, and intellectual property abuses. Additionally, Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 allows for tariffs pursuant to Commerce Department investigations on national security concerns. To address balance of payments issues (which were the crux of the Liberation Day tariffs), Trump has announced that he will use Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 to implement a 10% universal tariff. However, this tariff, if upheld, can only last for 150 days unless Congress reauthorizes it. Now, this is not to advocate for or against any of these tariffs; merely, that these are the options that the public should be aware of. This constitutionally legal toolset, even with IEEPA removed, is still useful to hold bad actors like China to account considering that they spend more than $400 billion in industrial subsidies, operate roughly half a million state-owned enterprises, and steal $600 billion in American intellectual property annually. Worryingly, China has also used its “government guidance funds” to keep almost a third of deeply unprofitable Chinese manufacturers alive from their market manipulation on key sectors like critical minerals. Rather than engage in a pyrrhic subsidy war like the Biden administration, it is more prudent to use properly calibrated tariffs to realign supply chains away from adversaries. However, while tariffs may be strategically necessary, they are still a blunt tool. For example, tariffs can “stack” by adding compounding costs on intermediate goods as they cross borders multiple times. As tariffs can hit this same value chain repeatedly, either foreign companies, import-exporters, domestic companies, or the consumer will end up paying for these taxes in ways that policymakers often do not intend and economists struggle to estimate in real time. Given that the Section 122 tariff, if upheld, will need continual reauthorization and still suffers from the stacking issue, The Heritage Foundation has advocated for a more balanced tool to adjudicate trade issues adroitly and fairly with limited market distortions. In fact, such a tool was remarked upon positively by Peter Navarro, current presidential senior counselor for trade and manufacturing, in his Project 2025 Trade Chapter and by Bob Lighthizer, former U.S. trade representative from 2017-2021 in Chapter 17 of his book “No Trade Is Free.” A congressionally passed Border Adjustment Tax, BAT, which taxes imports (like tariffs) but credits exports could reindustrialize America by addressing a key issue. Consider a grossly simplified example. Sweden applies a value added tax (similar to a sales tax) at the point of consumption, so an imported American Ford F-150 faces the VAT just like a locally sold vehicle. Now compare that to how VAT countries treat their own exporters. When Germany exports a Volkswagen to Sweden, Germany’s VAT is rebated at the border, and Sweden applies its VAT on import. This is called destination-based taxation where consumption is taxed where it occurs and zero rates exports. The United States with its origin-based system does not have a comparable border adjustment built into its tax system. Therefore, a BAT would move us closer to the model most of the world uses as it would tax imports, credit exports, and would do so through Congress rather than through emergency tariff authorization. If Congress is serious about addressing trade deficits and creating a low but broad tax on external consumption, then a BAT is the least damaging way to address these concerns. It can raise revenue in a predictable way that international businesses are more familiar with, and the resulting revenue can be paired with reforms like permanent full and immediate expensing for structures that rebuild industrial capacity, rather than simply punishing imports. If we want a Golden Age of American industry, trade enforcement must be married to domestic competitiveness. That means tax and regulatory reforms that make it easier to build, invest, and scale. As China’s statist model is not going away, the U.S. cannot afford legal ambiguity, whiplash policy, or temporary fixes. Make no mistake; the Supreme Court did not change the principle, simply the set of tools. Now Congress should do its job and build a trade and tax framework that lasts. The post SCOTUS Removes IEEPA Tariffs From Toolbox, Now Is Time for the BAT appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Virginia Democrats this week shelved legislation that would have raised costs on consumers to fund a solar energy promotion program. The decision to table HB 935 means that Virginians won’t be hit with an added fee on their electricity bills—at least for now. Democrat Gov. Abigail Spanberger promised to make affordability the centerpiece of her agenda, even though her fellow Democrats have proposed more than 50 tax hikes. The “clean energy” legislation would have imposed a fee of 2 cents per watt on solar energy and battery storage projects statewide. Even though developers would pay the charge upfront, industry experts predicted the costs would ultimately be passed on to ratepayers through higher electricity bills. Revenue generated from the legislation would create the Virginia Clean Energy and Battery Storage Promotion Program, which, according to the bill, would “promote the adoption, deployment, and understanding of solar energy and battery storage technologies.”  Similar measures are pending in other Democrat-led states, including California, Illinois, and Maryland. Politically Active Program Funded by Energy Fees  The proposed fee would fund a program explicitly authorized to engage in lobbying, political advocacy, and coordination with national organizations.  Jack Spencer, senior research fellow in the Center for Energy, Climate, and Environment at The Heritage Foundation, said the bill would put the government in a position of making energy decisions that should ultimately reside with consumers.   “The Virginia Clean Energy and Battery Storage Promotion Program is another attempt by government officials to use taxpayer money to decide how citizens should live their lives that will most assuredly wind up being another costly boondoggle,” Spencer told The Daily Signal. “The idea that a government board and a bureaucrat have the knowledge to develop markets and reduce prices flies in the face of every economic lesson learned over the past century.”  Spencer’s solution “is to allow battery firms to compete for the dollars of Virginians in a system of free enterprise. Such a system ensures that Virginians get the products they want at prices they are willing to pay.”  The Daily Signal spoke with another energy industry expert, who requested anonymity to speak candidly about the bill.  “What’s surprising is how open-ended the program is, with no clear direction on how the money would be used or who would ultimately benefit,” the industry expert said.  The bill does not specify how funds would be allocated among marketing, lobbying, or political activity, nor does it identify the national organization that would receive a portion of the revenue.  This is what led the expert to raise the question, “Who are the individuals that are behind it and pushing this?”  How the Solar Fee Would Affect Ratepayers   The proposed fee on all solar and battery installations would apply across Virginia and cover both local and out-of-state manufacturers. Developers are responsible for paying the charge at the point of purchase, but the cost is typically passed to ratepayers, raising electricity bills for households and businesses.  One example is Dominion Energy’s four solar projects, which are set to be completed this year. The projects total 329 MW, and at 2 cents per watt, would cost electric customers $6.48 million.  “If there’s a tax added to solar panels, that would get passed along to the installer and to the homeowner,” the energy industry expert said. “For a big utility-scale project, that’s adding millions of dollars to the cost [and] all ratepayers would have to incur those costs.”  How the Program Would Operate   The program would be overseen by a board appointed by the governor. Structured as a 501(c)(6) trade association, it could have the authority to promote solar and battery storage while also lobbying, contributing to PACs, and coordinating with national organizations.  The industry expert explained the program’s structure and use of funds, warning that it appeared driven more by ideology than consumer needs.  “Half of the funds would be utilized and spent in some manner, either marketing, lobbying, what have you; that’s still pretty vague,” the expert said. “In Virginia, the other half would go to a national entity, again, to be named later, of some sort of organization that would then do national marketing on clean energy.”  The legislation is sponsored by Delegate Alfonso Lopez, who represents parts of Arlington and Alexandria. After advancing in the House Labor and Commerce Committee, lawmakers decided Tuesday to table it until 2027.  Similar legislation in California, Illinois, and Maryland could still advance this year. Those Democrat-led states may be more likely to move forward with clean energy initiatives despite concerns about rising utility costs.  The post Virginia Democrats Shelve Solar Fee That Would Have Raised Electric Bills appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Editor’s note: This is a lightly edited transcript of a segment from today’s edition of “Victor Davis Hanson: In His Own Words” from Daily Signal Senior Contributor Victor Davis Hanson. Subscribe to Hanson’s own YouTube channel to watch past episodes. Jack Fowler: Why would Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez be invited to an international security conference? It boggles the mind. What gravitas she has. Victor Davis Hanson: Because she’s gonna run against Chuck Schumer for Senate, and she thinks she’s going to win, and then she thinks she’s going to, either in 2028 or in, I don’t know, 2030, 2032, she thinks she’s going to run for president. And moreover, she thinks that the Europeans, after the Greenland incident, are angry at President Donald Trump and therefore, they’re gonna be very receptive to someone like her who’s gonna come in and, like Hillary Clinton did there, and trash him. But the problem she has is twofold. She knows nothing. Nothing. She doesn’t know anything. She was a barista that was kind of cute and glib, and she got elected in a surprise win where nobody really took her seriously. And then she went into the Latina DEI and “the squad,” and she never did any homework. She doesn’t know anything. So, when they ask her a question about the defense of Taiwan—how long will we have an audience if you asked me just now about AOC and I act and I answer you like AOC did? I would say, “Jack. Um, well, uh, of course, as you know, it’s a very important question you asked. Uh, you know, uh, Jack, uh, and I’ve been thinking about the, the, the, the conference, and it’s important, and we worry about it. And it’s something, um, you know, you know, that, uh, um, that I, um, I’ve thought a lot about.” Fowler: Right. Davis Hanson: Well, we wouldn’t have an audience, and we shouldn’t have an audience in about 24 hours. Well, that’s what she did. She didn’t know anything about Taiwan. She knows nothing of the history of Taiwan. She doesn’t know the history of the Korean War. She doesn’t know the Nixon administration’s crisis with the islands off—she didn’t know anything about that. And so, she thought she was gonna have a presence, and she kind of, it kind of boomeranged. The other problem she had, the twofold, the second was, the Europeans are foxy, cagey. They’re not stupid people. They’re some of the smartest, most skilled, self-interested people in the world. Every time I talk to—you know, I think I’ve been to Europe almost every summer for 40 years. Every time I talk to a European, I always say to myself, this guy or this woman is the most, I don’t mean sneaky, but the most sophisticated, complex, careful, 500 alternate agendas, subtext. Why aren’t these people running the world like they used to? Because they’re very educated. You know what I mean? But the point I’m making is, their boilerplate about Trump is not the same about their subtext about Trump because they know deep down inside that Trump was right. That they, as former President Barack Obama called it, they leech off us. He said they were freeloaders, to be specific. And they have more people than we do. They have about 150 or more million people than does the United States. And yet they have no armament. And this was the embryo of the Western military tradition. And you know, they destroyed Europe twice. And when a Western army fights a Western army, it’s horrific, as they reminded us. So, they understand that they need deterrents. They understand that what former German Chancellor Angela Merkel did in Germany ruined the continent almost. They understand that Islamic populations are not acculturating, assimilating, integrating. They know all that. They know that you don’t really base an economy on Germany, in Germany, on solar power. Every time I’m there, I clap my hands when I see the sun, you know, for five minutes. So, my point is that when she went over there and schmoozed with everybody and thought she was gonna get—all she appealed to was the far left and maybe some opportunistic Europeans that would like to use her. But deep down inside, the idea that Trump is creating this huge economy, that he is gonna build up the military, that he’s gonna confront China, and that for all of his talk about backing out of Ukraine, he’s still there, they understand that. And what he did with Iran, they approve. And if he takes out that theocracy, they will talk about imperialism and undeclared wars and, you know, brinkmanship. But they will like it. And she doesn’t understand that. Well, Hillary too, Hillary was there, remember? And she attacked, she attacked a Czech diplomat, kind of, and said that— Fowler: He got into it with her. Yeah. Davis Hanson: And he said, you don’t like Trump. He said, no, I don’t. And then he was really good. And he was an illustration of what I’m talking about, it was much more nuanced. He understood that Trump—there was a reason why the head of NATO called Trump “daddy.” Fowler: Well, we saw again why she was unelectable also. Davis Hanson: Unelectable. Fowler: What a harpy. Davis Hanson: That’s a euphemism. Well, a harpy. You know, harpies were mythological creatures, you know, at Lake Stymphalus. Fowler: I’m sorry to detract the Stymphalian birds by comparing them to her. Davis Hanson: Yeah, that’s what I meant. I’ve been to Lake Stymphalus and the Stymphalian birds were, remember, one of the laborers of Hercules, and you see them on red and black figure, contemporary pottery of the fifth century. And they’re grotesque figures. But I would say that it’s unfair to them to compare them with Hillary. Fowler: My apologies. Davis Hanson: Medusa’s a better mythological. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post Glib Barista AOC’s Ignorance Front and Center at Munich Security Conference appeared first on The Daily Signal.

President Donald Trump’s State of the Union address is on Tuesday night. Here are some of the most memorable moments of his previous State of the Union addresses and joint addresses to Congress.  2025: Trump Swears in 13-Year-Old Cancer Survivor as Honorary Secret Service Agent In Trump’s 2025 Joint Address to Congress, he introduced DJ Daniel, a 13-year-old cancer survivor whose dream is to become a police officer.  “And tonight, DJ, we’re going to do you the biggest honor of them all,” Trump said. “I am asking our new Secret Service Director, Sean Curran, to officially make you an agent of the United States Secret Service.” Doctors believe Daniel’s cancer resulted from exposure to a harmful chemical, Trump said.  “Since 1975, rates of child cancer have increased by more than 40%,” Trump said. “Reversing this trend is one of the top priorities for our new Presidential Commission to Make America Healthy Again.” 2020: Trump Surprises Woman With Husband’s Return At his State of the Union address in 2020, Trump surprised Amy Williams, a mother of two, with the return of her husband from deployment in Afghanistan.  “Tonight, we have a very special surprise,” Trump said. “I am thrilled to inform you that your husband is back from deployment. He is here with us tonight, and we couldn’t keep him waiting any longer.” Trump said war places a burden on military families, including the Williams family. “For the past seven months, she has done it all while her husband, Sgt. 1st Class Townsend Williams, is in Afghanistan on his fourth deployment in the Middle East,” he said. “Amy’s kids haven’t seen their father’s face in many months.  Amy, your family’s sacrifice makes it possible for all of our families to live in safety and in peace, and we want to thank you.” 2019: Trump Declares War on Late-Term Abortion In 2019, Trump asked Congress to pass legislation to prohibit abortions past the age that unborn babies can feel pain. “Let us work together to build a culture that cherishes innocent life,” Trump said. “And let us reaffirm a fundamental truth: all children—born and unborn—are made in the holy image of God.” Trump criticized Democrats who support legal abortion up to birth.  “Lawmakers in New York cheered with delight upon the passage of legislation that would allow a baby to be ripped from the mother’s womb moments before birth,” he continued. “These are living, feeling, beautiful babies who will never get the chance to share their love and dreams with the world.”   2018: Trump Begins ‘New American Moment’ In Trump’s 2018 State of the Union address, he declared the start of a new “American moment.”  “There has never been a better time to start living the American dream,” he said.  Trump told viewers that anyone who works hard can succeed.  “So to every citizen watching at home tonight—no matter where you have been, or where you come from, this is your time,” Trump said. “If you work hard, if you believe in yourself, if you believe in America, then you can dream anything, you can be anything, and together, we can achieve anything.” Trump said under his leadership, the nation was “rediscovering the American way.” He said faith and family, not government and bureaucracy, were at the center of American life.  “Tonight, I want to talk about what kind of future we are going to have, and what kind of nation we are going to be,” he said. “All of us, together, as one team, one people, and one American family.”  2017: Trump Honors Victims of Illegal Immigrants In Trump’s 2017 joint address to Congress, he honored the family members of those killed by illegal immigrants. Jamiel Shaw’s 17-year-old son was killed by an illegal immigrant gang member who was released from prison. “Jamiel Shaw Jr. was an incredible young man, with unlimited potential who was getting ready to go to college where he would have excelled as a great college quarterback,” Trump said. “But he never got the chance.” He also honored Susan Oliver and Jessica Davis, whose husbands, Deputy Sheriff Danny Oliver and Detective Michael Davis, were killed in the line of duty in California by illegal immigrants. “They were pillars of their community,” he said. “These brave men were viciously gunned down by an illegal immigrant with a criminal record and two prior deportations.  Should have never been in our country.” “Sitting with Susan is her daughter, Jenna,” he added. “Jenna, I want you to know that your father was a hero, and that tonight you have the love of an entire country supporting you and praying for you.” Trump promised to fight for the victims’ memories. “To Jamiel, Jenna, Susan and Jessica, I want you to know that we will never stop fighting for justice,” he said. “Your loved ones will never, ever be forgotten.” The post Most Memorable Moments of Trump’s Previous State of the Union Addresses appeared first on The Daily Signal.

A new Pew Research Center study set out to learn why citizens of 25 different countries, including the United States, are proud of their nation. The study surveyed more than 30,000 people from various countries and found that “freedoms and liberties” were the two most common factors for why Americans said they are proud of their country. A total of 22% of Americans said the nation’s freedoms and liberties made them proud. The “U.S. is one of a few countries surveyed in which this is the case,” according to Pew. “I am proud that the United States has a commitment to individual liberty, freedom of religion, and speech for its citizens,” a 54-year-old American woman said on the survey. But Pew also found the U.S. is the “only country surveyed in which there are significant partisan differences in pride over the country’s freedoms.” Among those surveyed, 32% of Republicans mentioned freedoms and liberties being a source of national pride, while only 15% of Democrats used the words when describing why they are proud of the U.S. Pew found other common reasons U.S. citizens were proud of their country, including the economy, “the American dream,” the American people, and the opportunities present in the U.S. The other nations Pew surveyed are Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Mexico, the Netherlands, Nigeria, Poland, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Turkey, and the U.K. “Freedom” or “freedom of expression” was also a common source of national pride for 17% of respondents from Canada, 22% from France, 16% from Germany, 15% from Kenya, 11% from South Africa, and 24% from Sweden. Pew also notes that many Dutch praise the “large degree of freedom of speech” in the Netherlands. July 4, 2026, marks America’s 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, in which the signers called themselves “a free people.” The signers declared the Colonies “free and independent states … absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown.” While survey respondents from the U.K. did not mention “freedom” as a significant source of national pride, 25% did say they are proud of the British people for being “kind” and “honest.” The post Why Are US Citizens Proud of America? New Study Reveals 2 Key Reasons appeared first on The Daily Signal.