this post was submitted on 08 Oct 2025
348 points (99.2% liked)

politics

26019 readers
2734 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. 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.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

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.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] plyth@feddit.org -5 points 4 days ago (2 children)

The law exists and it's old. The situation is not good but the article is rage bait.

Although the US Constitution grants Congress the sole authority to levy taxes, including tariffs, Congress has passed laws allowing the President to impose tariffs for national security reasons unilaterally.
...
Trump directed the USTR to initiate similar investigations to impose tariffs under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariffs_in_the_second_Trump_administration

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I don't understand how what you quoted is less concerning

[–] plyth@feddit.org 2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

That depends on your political affiliation. Democrats could have changed the law years ago but haven't.

Overall it's more concerning because it reveals that accumulation of power in the hands of the president has been happening for years with no opposition.

[–] SoftestSapphic@lemmy.world 3 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Exactly

The Dems could have also ended the tax rates Trump started. They could have expanded SCOTUS, removed the filibuster, or citizens united, and they chose not to try to push the needle back in any meaningful way.

Through their actions, Dems imply their longterm goals are alligned with Republicans.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Bullshit. We’ve gone through that months ago and your link states

Federal courts have ruled that the tariffs imposed under the IEEPA are illegal

And that has nothing to do with the President claiming he can allocate that money as he sees fit

[–] plyth@feddit.org 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

claiming he can allocate that money as he sees fit

I was not able to find any document about it but I remember reading that that's how it has been handled.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Here’s a place you could look

Or if you want something specific to that money, the search ai says

Tariff money collected in the U.S. goes to the U.S. Treasury's general fund, where it can be used for various government programs, but it is not earmarked for specific purposes. Congress must authorize any spending from this fund, similar to how income tax dollars are handled.

[–] plyth@feddit.org 1 points 2 days ago

Thanks. I must have remembered it wrongly.