Legal AF by MeidasTouch - Trump White House in Tailspin as SCOTUS Dooms Term

Episode Date: March 4, 2026

Popok explains that the Trump administration continues to steal America’s money by refusing to dip into the $800 billion treasury department surplus to immediately pay back $140 billion in phony tariff tax dollars that they stole. And they’re trying to make Americans and their businesses jump through hoops maybe lasting up to seven years to get the refunds. That’s why Senate democrats are coming to the rescue to pass new legislation to force those refunds within the next 90 days and quash Trump‘s temper tantrum to punish the American people because he lost the Supreme Court. Sundays for Dogs: Get 50% OFF your first order of Sundays. Go to https://sundaysfordogs.com/LEGALAF50 or use code: LEGALAF50 at checkout. Visit https://meidasplus.com for more! Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcast Legal AF: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-af MissTrial: https://meidasnews.com/tag/miss-trial The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcast Cult Conversations: The Influence Continuum with Dr. Steve Hassan: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan The Weekend Show: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show The Ken Harbaugh Show: https://meidasnews.com/tag/the-ken-harbaugh-show Majority 54: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54 On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Trump administration stole $140 billion from the American people in illegal tariffs. There were really taxes on our goods and cost of goods. And now, despite the Supreme Court ordering them to return the money and finding that the money grab was illegal, they're sitting on the pile, dragging their feet and telling courts it may take up to seven years for American importers and ultimately the American consumers to get that refund. And it's not because the Treasury Department doesn't have the money. They have $800 billion, more than enough to pay the $140 billion back. They just don't want to because Donald Trump has throwing a temper tantrum about the fact that his tariffs were torn down.

They cite to future tariffs that he's going to impose or has imposed that are probably as illegal as the first ones as an excuse not to repay the refund. What does that have to do with the illegality of the money that was already stolen? That's like a bank robber saying, I'm not going to give you back the money I stole from you because I'm about to steal from you again. I'm Michael Popak. You're on the Midas Touch Network and Legal AF. All came to a head yesterday at the same time that the Department of Justice wrote into a federal appeals court,

socializing them, preparing them, that they're going to take the position. It's going to take up to seven years to refund the money. Senate Democrats, dozens of them have joined together behind Chuck Schumer and sent a letter to Scott Bessett, the Treasury Secretary, to demand answers. Scott Bissent said in January that there was no problem with returning the money, didn't think it was going to happen. I don't think those tariffs are going to get torn down wrong again, Scott. And if they are, we have the money. We'll refund it within a year or less. We're sitting on enough money. We've got enough money in the Treasury. Now, he's a big cheerleader for tariffs, even though he was not pro-tariff before he became Treasury Secretary,

certainly got on that bandwagon. Here's Scott Bessett trying to defend the tariffs in an interview on Sunday morning talk shows. Let's play the clip. Listen to earnings calls just like we do. You know what Walmart's saying, what Best Buy saying and what Target are saying. But Margaret, I also know what Home Depot and Amazon are saying. I know what the South China Morning Post wrote within the past 24 hours, that 65% of the tariffs will likely be eaten by the Chinese producers. So are there five or eight areas that you have identified, as you said back in March, where American consumers will be able to have lower prices or should be warned of higher prices? Well, a lot of it's already working its way through the system.

So we've seen a substantial decrease in gasoline and energy prices. So that's down 20% year over year. We've seen the food prices go down, you know, these notorious egg prices. Through the good work of President Trump and Secretary Rollins, egg prices have collapsed. So we're seeing more and more. And what we want to do is even that out across all sections of the economy. So inflation has been very tame. Consumer earnings were up 0.8% last month, which is a gigantic increase for one month.

So real earnings minus low inflation is great for the American people, and that's what we're seeing. But you know, because when you met with the Chinese earlier this month, and you went down from the 145% tariff down to about, it's like 30%. 30%'s not nothing. That tax on goods coming in here. Now you've got the new filing in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in which they remind the court, that on page two, that the coming process will take time to refund,

and they cite to a case of USU Corp versus United States in which the refund took seven years for money that was substantially less than the amounted issue here. So sit back, everybody. We're going to pay it back two administrations from now. Is that okay with you? No, it's not okay with us. We had this debate.

Amy Coney-Barratt led it. on the United States Supreme Court before she joined with the majority six to three to tear down the tariffs when she asked about the refund process. And here's her in oral argument. Play the clip. And then if you win, tell me how the reimbursement process would work. Would it be a complete mess? I mean, you're saying before the government promised reimbursement and now you're saying, you know, well, that's rich. But how would this work? It seems to me like it could be a mess. So the first thing I'd say is that just underscores just how major a question this is, the very fact that you were dealing with us with quotas. There's no refund process to the tunes of billions

of dollars or embargoes, but there is here. But for our case, the way it would work is, in this case, the government's just stipulated for the five plaintiffs that they would get the refunds. So for us, that's how it would work. Your question, I take it, is about everyone else. We don't have a class action or anything like that. With respect to everyone else, there's a whole specialized body of trade law. And it's 19 U.S.C. 1514, outlined. all these administrative procedures. It's a very complicated thing. There's got to be an administrative protest.

There was a harbor management case earlier that this court was involved with in the United States shoe in which, you know, the refund process took a long time. There were any number of claims and equitable relief. So a mess. So it's difficult. Absolutely. We don't deny that it's difficult. But I think what this court has said in the McKesson case in 1990 is that serious economic

dislocation isn't a reason to do something. Northern Pipeline, you guys stage your decision for a while in order to let the congressional process unfold. There may be a congressional process here as well. You may be able to also be that this court could limit its decision to prospective relief under the John Q. Hammond's case. There's lots of possibilities. When it comes to dog food, people often think they have to choose between fresh, healthy ingredients and convenience. But you don't have to choose anymore, thanks to Sundays. Sundays was founded by veterinarian and mom, Dr. Tori Waxman,

who got tired of seeing so-called premium dog food full of fillers and synthetics. So she designed Sundays. Air-dried, real food made in a human-grade kitchen using the same ingredients in care you'd use to cook for yourself and your family. Every bite of Sundays is clean and made for. from real meat, fruits, and veggies with no kibble. That means no weird ingredients you can't pronounce and no fillers compared to kibble or other brands out there.

Sundays invest 50 times more in its ingredients to ensure premium quality. And it's the dog food that I use for my rescue who just turned four Lily. If you're someone who wants dogs to eat the same quality food, you'd serve your own family, like me, Sundays makes that possible, and many dog owners report more energy, softer coats and happier meal times. And the best part, you just scoop and serve, no freezer, no thawing or prep, no mess, just nutrient-rich, clean food that fuels their happiest, healthiest days.

Make the switch to Sundays. Go right now to Sundays for Dogs.com slash legal AF50 and get 50% off your first order. or you can use code legal AF50 at checkout. That's 50% off your first order at Sundays for dogs.com slash legal AF50. That's Sundays for dogs.com slash legal AF50 or use code legal AF50 at checkout. Now, Supreme Court cases don't give the nitty gritty, the logistical process once they make a ruling on something like, well, the money's owed back. Good luck, go work it out. That's sort of how it works. A process can then be established through either another court,

you know, there's a lower court or in this case, Congress can just step in the middle and say, get your refunds out within 90 days. The problem is Maga Congress is currently in the control of the Republicans and they have no incentive whatsoever to stop stealing America's money, even though we keep reminding them that that's exactly what they're doing. So we've got the letter now that Chuck Schumer and dozens of other senators sent to Scott Bessent reminding him that he had said in January that he would be able to return the money almost immediately.

But then on the Sunday morning talk shows, he said, that's not going to happen. It's up to some lower court, and it could take years. Here's the clip of Scott Bessent that pissed off the Democrats. Despite the misplaced clothing from Democrats, ill-informed media outlets

and the very people who gutted our industrial base, the court did not rule against President Trump. Trump's tariffs. Six justices simply ruled that IEPA authorities cannot be used to raise even $1.00 of revenue. This administration will invoke alternative legal authorities to replace the IEPA tariffs. We will be leveraging Section 232 and Section 301 tariff authorities that have been validated through thousands of legal challenges. Treasury's estimates show that the use of Section 122 authority combined with potentially enhanced Section 232 and Section 301 tariffs will result in virtually unchanged tariff revenue in 2026.

And they remind him in the letter that you made a commitment, and that's a slap in the face of the American businesses and families, that you have, you said that the refunds won't be a problem for the Treasury, and that you would make the payments back. So they are demanding the Senate Democrats that Customs and Border Patrol, sorry, Customs and Border Patrol start an immediate refund process and complete it within 90 days.

See, Trump wants to use process to delay refunds. See, normally, if your tariffs are not torn down by and ruled illegal by the Supreme Court and you apply for a tariff refund, you go through Custom and Border Patrol, there's an online process. You know, you've got 180 days.

They've got time to respond. If you don't like the answer, now maybe you're out a year. Then you've got to file in the Court of International Trade. Then you file a lawsuit there. That can take a year or two. See, that was the process I knew they were going to try to use. Now, who can shortcut that process?

Congress. Right? Congress delegated. Congress handles tariffs and refunds under its Article 1 powers. It can set process for it. But the problem is, we're sort of stuck now because there's no will among the cowards in the House to do such a thing. So here now the Senate is stepping in demanding the Treasury does it, putting political pressure

on Trump. Sometimes he folds and bends because of it. Scott Besson, too, when people start sitting in chairs for oversight committee hearings, they're going to be grilled on this issue. And all in the name of trying to get back the money, back to the American people, people. Now, I don't know what the businesses are going to do when they get their refunds. Are they going to have a goodwill moment and have 30% off all their products for the next three months? I don't know. But it's not the government's money. And now they can't be collected

any longer. And I love them pointing out in their new brief, which I'll post on Legal IF substack for you, that, well, the tariffs that were torn down have been replaced by vigorous new tariffs. It's like the bank robber saying, I may rob you again, and I'm not going to give you back the money until I do. You know, it's this lack of ethics, this larceny in the heart of the Trump administration that's just mind-boggling. And we have to repay them by throwing them out of office and running them out on a rail at the midterms. And we will together here on my destitute. Of course, on Legal A-F, come over to Legal A-F for me, will you? Hit the free subscribe button.

Help us continue to grow that channel. without outside investors. Until my next report, I'm Michael Popok. Can't get your fill of LegalAF. Me neither. That's why we formed the LegalAF substack. Every time we mention something in a hot take, whether it's a court filing or a oral argument,

come over to the substack. You'll find the court filing and the oral argument there, including a daily roundup that I do call, wait for it, morning AF. What else? All the other contributors from LegalAF are there as well. We got some new reporting. We got interviews.

We got ad-free versions of the podcast and hot takes where legal a F on substack. Come over now to free subscribe.