In response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s February decision in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, which held that the International Emergency Powers Act (IEEPA) does not authorize the President to impose tariffs, Joint Economic Committee (JEC) Chairman David Schweikert (AZ-01) issued a statement encouraging a shift toward a more stable and growth-oriented tax framework.
In a 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court invalidated sweeping tariffs imposed under IEEPA, concluding that the statute does not grant the executive branch authority to levy import duties. The Court reaffirmed that Congress holds constitutional authority over tariffs and taxation, rejecting arguments that IEEPA’s provisions governing economic measures during national emergencies extend to imposing duties.
Chairman Schweikert emphasized the broader implications for America’s tax system amid rising federal spending. “As our nation’s spending continues to grow, we must be honest about the math,” he stated. “To sustain essential programs and protect our fiscal health, we need a tax system that produces stable, predictable receipts without stifling growth. Today’s ruling underscores the uncertainty in our current tax framework, uncertainty that limits investment, hiring, and innovation.”
Schweikert advocated for transitioning to a border-adjusted, destination-based cash flow tax (DBCFT) as a superior alternative to tariffs for promoting domestic production and economic competitiveness. “To bring greater stability and competitiveness to our economy, and address tax arbitrage arising from other countries’ tax policies, I believe the U.S. should move toward a border-adjusted, destination-based cash flow tax. In line with the goals of tariffs, a DBCFT supports U.S.-based production and American workers. But tariffs distort markets and reduce overall output. A destination-based cash flow tax achieves these same objectives through a more economically rational, growth-oriented framework.”
He highlighted key advantages of the DBCFT, including immediate deductions for business investments to encourage reinvestment and growth, taxation based on where goods are consumed rather than where they are produced, and border adjustments that tax imports while exempting exports.
This approach, Schweikert noted, discourages offshoring, provides businesses with predictability for long-term planning, and helps ensure stable tax revenues to support increasing federal expenditures.
“I will be holding a hearing on this important topic in the coming weeks,” he added. “America’s long-term prosperity hinges on our ability to keep U.S. companies competitive both at home and globally. A destination-based cash flow tax strengthens that foundation.”
Ethan Faverino is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
Guess what! Inflation, growth, jobs: Conventional wisdom from America’s economic punditry was across-the-board wrong. Again.
At the year’s start the punditry predicted that Trump’s tariffs would cause a surge of inflation and would likely trigger recession. Well, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) released Consumer Price Index (CPI) numbers on Thursday. Reuters’ polling of private economists predicted inflation would accelerate to 3.1% year-over-year, the fastest pace since 2023. The actual BLS figure came in at 2.7%, with core inflation even lower at 2.6%.
But the news gets better. Year-over-year inflation means it includes inflationary pressures from the end of Biden’s presidency. It’s a very lagging figure.
To understand what inflation’s doing now, and to filter out some of the data’s noise, a better gauge is to look at inflation over the last two months, which came in at 1.2% annualized, well below the Federal Reserve’s 2% target.
There is a small caveat to this good news. Due to the Schumer government shutdown, BLS was unable to collect all the usual data for the CPI report, so some items were left out. The economists who predicted accelerating inflation are thus arguing that inflation would, with all the data, have been much higher and thus excusing their bad forecasts.
However, as New York Fed President John Williams points out, the missing data “pushed down the CPI reading, probably by a tenth or so.” OK, so topline inflation was 2.8% while the annualized two-month figure goes to 1.8%, still well below consensus forecast and still below the Fed’s target rate.
What about Trump’s tariffs? To be sure, they pushed some prices up faster than they otherwise would have. But the tariffs only applied to a small fraction of all the goods and services sold in America. So, when it comes to overall inflation, the net effect could never be more than a one-time rounding error.
Further, inflation is fundamentally a monetary phenomenon. These tariff-induced price bumps occurred against a background of the underlying inflationary impulse from money supply interacting with money demand. The Fed has run a moderately restrictive policy for years, so naturally inflation is falling.
Assuming at least one of the Fed’s legion of economists can do this two-month calculation and has the temerity to show it to Chair Powell and the rest of the Fed’s leadership, then further Fed rate cuts should be assured and imminent on the road to neutral.
And what about that predicted recession? After inflation, Gross Domestic Product (GDP) soared 3.8% in the second quarter of this year, while the Atlanta Fed’s “Nowcast” of third quarter GDP is a still-impressive 3.5%.
Some of Reuters’ economists will likely portray this slight slowdown in growth as “scary” and a sign of pending recession. Nonsense. The economy is ripping, with the only recession pending threatening the salaries of those economists making silly forecasts.
Finally, those still desperate to argue economic weakness might turn to the labor market. The economy generated about 166,000 jobs a month during Biden’s last year in office. So far under Trump the economy has generated about 50,000 jobs a month. Sounds scary, but much of that decline occurred because federal employment fell by 27,000 jobs a month.
The even bigger jobs story is that employment by foreign-born workers has fallen by about 100,000 a month under Trump. This is what happens when immigration laws are enforced and the border is secured. Put it all together and private-sector native-born employment is doing very well.
And the cherry on top is that after stagnating for the four years of the Biden presidency, median real wages are now rising at a 1.6% annualized rate. Rising wages and plentiful private-sector jobs, not gimmicks like Obamacare subsidies and rent controls, are how you prosper American workers or, in today’s parlance, address “affordability.”
Just don’t be surprised if you don’t hear that from the legacy media.
J.D. Foster is a contributor to the Daily Caller News Foundation. He is the former chief economist at the Office of Management and Budget and former chief economist and senior vice president at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. He now resides in relative freedom in the hills of Idaho.
The U.S. Treasury and the Joint Economic Committee released the Monthly Fiscal Update last week, highlighting a 2.8% reduction in the federal deficit for Fiscal Year 2025 (FY2025), totaling $1.776 trillion compared to $1.828 trillion in FY2024.
The decrease was driven by record-setting tariff collections, increased tax receipts, and modifications to the student loan program approved in the 2025 reconciliation act.
September 2025 concluded with a notable surplus of $197.950 billion, reflecting strong fiscal performance with net outlays of $345.713 billion and net receipts of $543.663 billion for the month.
In FY2025, total federal net outlays reached $7.010 trillion, a 3.91% increase from $6.746 trillion in FY2024. Net receipts rose to $5.235 trillion, up 6.42% from $4.919 trillion in the prior fiscal year.
Despite the robust revenue growth, 25.33% of FY2025 outlays were not covered by revenues, resulting in the federal government spending $1.34 for every dollar received. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects continued growth in outlays and receipts, forecasting net outlays of $7.294 trillion in FY2026, $7.622 trillion in FY2027, and $8.019 trillion in FY2028, with deficits projected at $1.713 trillion, $1.687 trillion, $1.911 trillion, respectively, over the same period.
Outlays by Category
Social Security remained the largest federal expenditure in FY2025, totaling $1.581 trillion (22.5%), followed by Income Security and Veterans Benefits at $1.079 trillion (15.4%), Medicare at $996.72 billion (14.2%), and Net Interest at $970.66 billion (13.8%).
Defense spending accounted for $868.41 billion (12.4%), while Medicaid outlays were $668.14 billion (9.5%). Foreign Aid and other outlays represented smaller shares, at $32.21 billion (0.5%) and $814.75 billion (11.6%), respectively.
Receipts by Category
Individual Income Taxes were the largest revenue source in FY2025, contributing $2.656 trillion (50.7%), followed by Social Insurance and Retirement Taxes at $1.748 trillion (33.4%).
Corporation Income Taxes added $452.09 billion (8.6%), while Customs Duties, boosted by record setting tariff collections, reached $194.87 billion (3.7%). Other receipts totaled $183.31 billion (3.5%).
Despite the deficit reduction, net interest payments on the national debt hit a record high of nearly $971 billion in FY2025, a $100 billion increase from FY2024. The Committee for a Responsible Budget projects that by 2051, interest payments will become the largest federal expense, surpassing Social Security.
Ethan Faverino is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes faced a setback last week in her legal challenge against President Donald Trump’s ‘Liberation Day’ Tariffs. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a favorable ruling for the President, allowing the tariffs challenged by Mayes’ and eleven other state Attorneys General to remain in effect pending appeal.
The appeals court blocked an order from the U.S. Court of International Trade, which struck down the tariffs on May 28th in State of Oregon, et al., v. Trump, et al. The appeals court acknowledged the Trump tariffs’ raise “issues of exceptional importance” and agreed to expedite the case. It will hear arguments before the entire court on July 31st. In the ruling, the court found that “both sides have made substantial arguments on the merits” and stated, “The court also concludes that these cases present issues of exceptional importance warranting expedited en banc consideration of the merits in the first instance.”
Responding to the ruling, President Trump wrote on Truth Social, “A Federal Appeals Court has just ruled that the United States can use TARIFFS to protect itself against other countries. A great and important win for the U.S.”
The May 28th ruling against the President resulted from two separate lawsuits, one brought by the Liberty Justice Center on behalf of five small U.S. businesses which depend on foreign imports and the second from a coalition of 12 states including Arizona.
I'm leading a coalition of attorneys general in urging the Court to step in and block the President’s reckless and unlawful tariff scheme before it does even more damage.
— AZ Attorney General Kris Mayes (@AZAGMayes) May 13, 2025
Mayes claimed in a post to X that “The president does not have the authority to implement tariffs unilaterally.”
Big news! The US Court of International Trade just struck down Trump’s illegal tariff scheme as invalid under IEEPA. The president does not have the authority to implement tariffs unilaterally. Glad to have co-led this case with Oregon to protect Arizona families and small biz. pic.twitter.com/wkN9R0m87U
— AZ Attorney General Kris Mayes (@AZAGMayes) May 28, 2025
White House spokesman Kush Desai responded to the ruling saying, “The Trump administration is legally using the powers granted to the executive branch by the Constitution and Congress to address our country’s national emergencies of persistent goods trade deficits and drug trafficking. The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ stay order is a welcome development, and we look forward to ultimately prevailing in court.”
At issue in the case are the discounted reciprocal tariffs that the Trump administration announced on April 2nd, which apply a 10% minimum tariff across the board, particularly in Europe, while applying more punitive tariffs, as high as 49%, in the case of Cambodia which charges the U.S. a 97% tariff or 34% initially for China, which at that point charged 67% on U.S. imports.
Through subsequent negotiations with China and a ratcheting upward of the tariffs, the U.S. duties on China stabilized at approximately 55% and will remain there under a new trade deal, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick told CNBC.
Despite the legal imbroglio with leftist State AGs, President Trump announced Wednesday that China’s duties on U.S. goods will remain at 10%, where they paused in May when both sides agreed to a 90-day reprieve, and he provided a glimpse into the new agreement pending with Beijing.
In a post to Truth Social, Trump wrote, “OUR DEAL WITH CHINA IS DONE, SUBJECT TO FINAL APPROVAL WITH PRESIDENT XI AND ME. FULL MAGNETS, AND ANY NECESSARY RARE EARTHS, WILL BE SUPPLIED, UP FRONT, BY CHINA. LIKEWISE, WE WILL PROVIDE TO CHINA WHAT WAS AGREED TO, INCLUDING CHINESE STUDENTS USING OUR COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES (WHICH HAS ALWAYS BEEN GOOD WITH ME!). WE ARE GETTING A TOTAL OF 55% TARIFFS, CHINA IS GETTING 10%. RELATIONSHIP IS EXCELLENT! THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS MATTER!”
President Trump, by his own declaration, loves tariffs. In fact, tariff is his “favorite word.” Tariffs purportedly produce funds, “billions and billions, more than anybody has ever seen before,” which can be used for essential spending or to reduce taxes and meanwhile will “bring back jobs.”
The president is all in on his enthusiasms. As matters now stand, he is imposing both universal baseline as well as country-specific tariffs, affecting more than $1 trillion of imports. This compares to the mere $380 billion in tariffs passed in 2018 and 2019 by the first Trump administration but will rise to $1.4 trillion when/if the temporary exemptions for Mexico and Canada expire in April.
There is a logic to tariffs which appeals to those with a protectionist bent. If foreign producers are selling in your country and taking profits which could otherwise be earned by domestic enterprises, why not make the cost of doing business higher for them and keep the profits at home?
Yet the history of tariffs is, to put it kindly, dismal. The 1930 Smoot-Harley tariff is America’s best known and most instructive experience with protectionism. In 1929, the League of Nations passed a resolution declaring that tariffs were destructive and should be ended by all. When Smoot-Hawley was introduced, Franklin Roosevelt campaigned against it. After the bill passed, 1,028 economists and even some business leaders like Henry Ford urged a veto.
President Hoover termed the measure “vicious, extortionate and obnoxious.” He signed it anyway at the urging of his advisors. Americans, especially the agricultural sector, were facing a perceived problem with overproduction, mainly due to electrification and other laborsaving innovations. Republicans generally agreed that prices were too low, and it would help pull us out of our economic slump if American producers were shielded from foreign competition.
Big mistake. Trading partners had warned of retaliation and indeed boycotts and reciprocal trading restrictions soon broke out. Canada, our most loyal trading partner, imposed tariffs on 30% of our products and formed closer economic ties to the British empire. France, Britain, and Germany all formed new trading alliances.
Yet initially, the medicine seemed to be working. Factory payrolls, construction contracts, and industrial production all profited from the reduced market competition.
But the loss of the inherent advantages of trading soon became clear. From 1929 to 1933, U.S. imports fell 66% and exports decreased 61%. World trade nearly ground to a halt, falling by two-thirds from 1929 to 1934.
Unemployment was about 8% when Smoot-Harley was enacted, but the promises to lower it further never panned out. The rate jumped to 16% in 1931 and 25% in 1932-33, falling back to pre-depression levels only during World War II.
Tariffs didn’t cause the Great Depression, but they clearly deepened and prolonged it. Without Smoot-Hawley, it might have just been another temporary recession, not much worse than many other economic downturns in our history.
The take-home message is that free trade is a voluntary interaction that reliably promotes prosperity, both in theory and in practice. It is a classic win-win for participants, in contrast to protectionism which is based on the principle that the stronger party wins by defeating the weaker one.
The 2018-19 tariffs imposed by Trump and expanded by the Biden administration proved the point once again, by reducing long-term GDP by 0.2% and resulting in the loss of 142,000 full-time equivalent jobs.
Still, Trump favors strength and domination, based on negotiations where he “holds the cards.” The lack of success last time has not dissuaded him from unleashing a barrage of tariffs with impositions, pauses, increases, suspensions, and escalations that have left producers around the world desperately scrambling to protect their businesses by anticipating his next move.
Trump is playing with fire here. If he does ignite a trade war that results in another downturn, he may find that the American economy is not as resilient as it once was. Decades of uncontrolled deficit spending have left us deeply in debt and without the reserves necessary to withstand much more fiscal abuse.
The lessons of history and the laws of economics are clear. Tariffs don’t work. Proceed with caution.
Dr. Thomas Patterson, former Chairman of the Goldwater Institute, is a retired emergency physician. He served as an Arizona State senator for 10 years in the 1990s, and as Majority Leader from 93-96. He is the author of Arizona’s original charter schools bill.
