The Supreme Court’s Tariff Test: Executive Power, Emergency Statutes, and the Price of Leverage against Constitutional exploitation by foreign interests

The coining of money and the imposition of tariffs represent two interconnected levers of economic sovereignty that the framers of the Constitution intended to place firmly in the hands of the people’s representatives, yet the practical evolution of American governance has exposed persistent vulnerabilities in how these powers are exercised. Article I, Section 8 grants Congress the authority “to coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin,” establishing a clear congressional role in monetary matters, while the power to lay and collect duties, imposts, and excises—including tariffs—resides with the legislative branch as a core taxing function. In theory, this framework ensures democratic accountability: elected lawmakers, responsive to voters, would shape both the nation’s currency and its trade policies to protect domestic interests and maintain economic balance.

Yet, over more than two centuries, the regulation of money has slipped through constitutional cracks into an administrative realm dominated by extra-legislative influences. The creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913, while nominally under congressional charter, delegated vast monetary policy authority to a quasi-independent entity influenced by international banking interests and private financial networks. This backdoor arrangement has allowed unelected actors—often aligned with globalist priorities—to leverage America’s economic freedoms in ways that favor concentrated wealth over broad national prosperity. Congress retains oversight in name, but the practical ability to define how money is created, its value regulated, or interest rates set has been diluted, creating a loophole where monetary policy operates beyond direct electoral accountability. The result has been chronic trade imbalances, wealth redistribution upward through financial mechanisms, and a system where banking interests exert disproportionate sway, often at the expense of American workers and industries.

This monetary vacuum stands in stark contrast to the current debates over tariff authority, particularly in the context of recent executive actions upheld as necessary to restore trade equilibrium. While some argue that returning tariff regulation strictly to Congress aligns with separation of powers—emphasizing Congress’s constitutional primacy over taxation and commerce—such a move risks exacerbating existing imbalances. Justices like Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett have expressed concerns during oral arguments about unchecked executive overreach, questioning broad delegations that could allow presidents to impose sweeping tariffs without clear congressional limits, potentially eroding legislative authority. Roberts highlighted tariffs as fundamentally a form of taxation on Americans, a core congressional power, while Barrett probed whether statutes like the International Emergency Economic Powers Act truly confer such expansive authority, warning against interpretations that grant presidents near-unlimited discretion over imports from any nation.

These concerns about checks and balances are valid on paper, yet they overlook the deeper structural flaw: the Constitution’s under-specified framework for monetary regulation has already permitted centuries of exploitation by unaccountable financial elites. Upholding executive tariff powers in this instance—particularly when used to counter predatory trade practices and rectify persistent deficits—actually enhances overall balance. A strong executive, directly elected and subject to voter judgment every four years, provides a more immediate mechanism for the people’s will to influence financial and trade outcomes. Voters can reward or punish administrations based on tangible results in jobs, wages, and national wealth retention, bypassing the slower, more insulated congressional processes often swayed by lobbying and international pressures.

In contrast, rigid congressional control over tariffs, without addressing the monetary loophole, would likely perpetuate the status quo of unprofitable trade arrangements that have functioned as a stealth wealth pre-distribution scheme favoring global capital over domestic producers. The Trump-era tariffs, by leveraging executive action to force renegotiated deals and protect strategic industries, demonstrate how proactive leadership can begin to correct these distortions more swiftly than fragmented legislative efforts. While Roberts and Barrett rightly guard against executive aggrandizement in general, their emphasis on defined separations should not blind us to the reality that monetary policy’s administrative drift has created far greater long-term vulnerabilities than targeted executive trade interventions. True constitutional fidelity demands closing the money regulation gap—perhaps through renewed congressional assertion or structural reform—while recognizing that a vigorous executive, checked by elections, offers the quickest path to voter-driven corrections in trade and finance. Upholding such executive authority in the tariff realm thus restores a practical balance of power, empowering citizens to regulate their economic destiny more effectively than the current system ever has, and paving the way for genuine, profitable equilibrium in America’s global standing.

In mid-January 2026, the Supreme Court stands on the threshold of a consequential ruling that will define the practical limits of presidential power over trade and the durability of “emergency” tariff programs launched in 2025. The consolidated challenges—captioned in press and policy coverage as Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump and Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc.—ask whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA) authorizes the President to impose sweeping, global, and “reciprocal” tariffs without new, specific congressional direction. Oral argument on November 5, 2025, suggested significant skepticism from justices across the ideological spectrum about using IEEPA as the legal engine for across-the-board import duties. The Court has not yet issued a decision, after passing on its first January opinion day and again this week. That delay is notable because the Court purposely fast-tracked these cases from the Court of International Trade and the Federal Circuit. 1 2 3 4

The stakes are immediate and measurable. Customs authorities reported more than $200 billion in tariff collections during 2025 under the new suite of executive orders, while estimates of potential refund liability if the IEEPA tariffs fall range from roughly $150 billion upward, depending on how the Court structures remedies. Market and logistics watchers warn that an adverse ruling could trigger a surge in imports as firms rush to capture a “tariff holiday” window before any replacement system comes online. The freight cycle, inventory planning, and pricing strategies across large swaths of the economy will respond quickly to whatever the Court decides. 5 6 7

Here, we want to take a strictly factual, doctrinal, and quantitative approach to the pending decision, as many key players in the process will read it, perhaps ahead of time, to avert a disaster. Few people like the Supreme Court in the world as much as I do; I understand their role in all this very well. But these are history-making circumstances that require unique, new definitions. It (1) outlines the legal question presented and the Court’s apparent lines of concern; (2) catalogs the statutory scaffolding of U.S. tariff authority, distinguishing IEEPA from Section 232 (national security) and Section 301 (unfair practices); (3) quantifies revenue and exposure; (4) compares analogous Supreme Court and lower‑court precedents in the tariff/delegation space; and (5) sketches credible “Plan B” pathways if the Court curtails the 2025 IEEPA program, with attention to timing, procedures, and policy leverage.

—

I. What the Court Is Being Asked to Decide

The 2025 tariff program had two pillars: (a) “trafficking” tariffs, tied to fentanyl and illicit drug flows from China, Canada, and Mexico, and (b) “reciprocal” tariffs, including a 10% baseline global duty and higher rates calibrated to perceived imbalances. The Administration grounded both in IEEPA after declaring national emergencies affecting national security, foreign policy, and the economy. The lower courts held that the program exceeded statutory authority, and the Supreme Court granted expedited review. During the argument, justices repeatedly pressed the government for the textual hook in IEEPA authorizing the imposition of general import duties—tariffs—as opposed to targeted sanctions or restrictions. Several also raised the “major questions” and nondelegation doctrines, signaling discomfort with reading an emergency statute to confer a virtually open-ended tariff power, typically associated with Article I, rather than a more specific trade statute. 1 2

Press and legal analyses after the argument captured that mood: both liberal and conservative justices “appeared to cast doubt” on IEEPA’s suitability as a vehicle for comprehensive tariffs, even while recognizing that Congress has, in discrete statutes, granted presidents contingent tariff tools in specific contexts. Reuters and SCOTUSblog, among others, reported that a majority of the Court seemed skeptical that the 1977 law—long used for asset freezes and sanctions—also permitted an across-the-board import duty regime. 3 1

Since January’s first opinion day, the Court has released decisions in other argued cases but has not resolved the tariffs matter—leaving businesses, importers, and government accounts in limbo. Newsrooms tracking the Court’s calendar expect additional opinion days this month; still, no one outside the Court can reliably predict the exact release date of this decision, underscoring the need for scenario planning on both sides of Pennsylvania Avenue. 8 9

—

II. The Statutory Map: IEEPA vs. Section 232 vs. Section 301

IEEPA (50 U.S.C. §§ 1701‑1707). Enacted in 1977, IEEPA gives the President broad powers to regulate transactions involving “any property in which any foreign country or a national thereof has any interest” during a declared national emergency tied to national security, foreign policy, or the economy. Historically, administrations used IEEPA for targeted sanctions, asset blocks, and export/import prohibitions directed at specific adversaries or behaviors—not for comprehensive tariff schedules. The text does not use the words “tariff,” “duty,” or “tax.” Those omissions featured prominently in the justices’ questions and in lower‑court opinions that found the 2025 program ultra vires. 10 2

Section 232 (19 U.S.C. § 1862). By contrast, Section 232 expressly allows the President to act—after a Commerce Department investigation and finding—to “adjust” imports that “threaten to impair” national security. The Supreme Court held in Algonquin (1976) that the President may require licenses and impose fees within Section 232’s framework, and, in 2018‑- 2020 litigation, courts rejected nondelegation challenges to the 232 steel/aluminum tariffs. Yet the Court has never squarely blessed the use of IEEPA for general tariffs. Of note, since early 2025, the Administration increased and expanded 232 duties (e.g., raising aluminum to 25%, adding derivative products, eliminating country exemptions), and Commerce/BIS formalized derivative‑coverage procedures—moves that could support a post‑IEEPA “Plan B.” 11 12 13

Section 301 (19 U.S.C. § 2411). Section 301 authorizes the U.S. Trade Representative to investigate and respond to unfair trade practices with duties and other measures—after notice‑and‑comment and findings. The Federal Circuit in 2025 upheld the legality of the 2018‑- 2019 expansions of China 301 tariffs, confirming that 301 provides a durable (if slower) pathway for targeted tariffs. In 2024, USTR completed the statutory four-year review and locked in additional increases on strategic items (e.g., EVs, solar, semiconductors), underscoring that the policy machinery for 301 remains active and court-tested. 14 15

Policy think tanks and trade‑law advisories have, accordingly, framed three tiers of fallback authority if IEEPA tariffs are struck: (1) 232 (national security) investigations and proclamations; (2) 301 (unfair practices) investigations and tariff lists; and (3) narrower legacy tools (e.g., Section 338) in limited contexts. These paths differ sharply in speed, scope, and litigation risk—critical for planning if the Court narrows IEEPA. 16 17

—

III. Revenues, Effective Rates, and Refund Exposure

Collections. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) reported collecting “more than $200 billion” in tariffs between January 20 and December 15, 2025, attributing the surge to “more than 40” executive orders under the tariff program. Independent modeling by the Penn Wharton Budget Model suggests that from January to June 2025 alone, new tariffs raised $58.5 billion in customs revenue and lifted the average effective tariff rate from ~2.2% to ~9.1%, with China-linked flows facing the steepest increases. 5 18

Macro‑budget effects. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO), in an August 2025 update, estimated that if the higher tariff levels persist through 2035, primary deficits would fall by ~$3.3 trillion and total deficits by ~$4.0 trillion, with an ~18‑percentage‑point jump in the effective tariff rate relative to 2024 flows. CBO caveated that these are projections contingent on policy continuity and trade diversion dynamics. 19

Refund risk. Reuters reported companies, customs brokers, and trade counsel bracing for a potential refund fight “approaching $150 billion” if the Court voids IEEPA-based collections, a figure echoed across the trade press. The sheer transaction volume—hundreds of thousands of importers and tens of millions of entries—would make any refund program administratively complex, and CBP quietly prepared for electronic refund processing to take effect in February 2026. 6

Sectoral and logistics impact. Freight analysts warn that a ruling against IEEPA tariffs could quickly boost U.S. inbound volumes, particularly ahead of Lunar New Year and spring replenishment, after a 2025 “rate recession” and inventory drawdowns; Project44’s tariff report cited sharp year-over-year contractions in U.S.–China trade during 2025. A tariff‑pause window—even brief—could spur import front‑loading as firms hedge against whatever successor regime the Administration deploys. 7

Pre‑2025 baselines. To contextualize the 2025 spike, remember that the first-term 301 China tariffs and Section 232 actions already raised annual customs duties to historically high levels, with FY2024 customs receipts around the upper tens of billions. The 2025 additions layered global and reciprocal constructs on top of the existing 301/232 scaffolding, which helps explain the extraordinary jump in CBP collections in late FY2025. 20

—

IV. The Doctrinal Frame: Separation of Powers and Trade

The Court’s resolution will likely turn on statutory interpretation sharpened by separation‑of‑powers canons. Three strands matter:

1. Text and structure of IEEPA. IEEPA empowers the President to “investigate, regulate, or prohibit” transactions in foreign‑interest property during a declared emergency. Courts have long treated it as a sanctions statute—powerful, but not a blank check to “lay and collect” duties, a core Article I function typically exercised via detailed tariff statutes. If the government asks the Court to accept a reading that silently authorizes all-purpose tariff authority, skepticism follows. 10 2

2. Major Questions and Nondelegation. Recent terms saw the Court invoke “major questions” to require explicit congressional authorization for actions of vast economic significance. While that doctrine often polices agency interpretations, the logic—demanding a clear statement when the Executive claims vast new powers from old statutes—can carry over to IEEPA. Relatedly, nondelegation concerns lurk: if IEEPA were read to grant open-ended tariff authority, would that constitute an impermissible transfer of legislative power? Oral argument reflected precisely these themes. 2

3. Trade precedents: Algonquin, AIIS, and Transpacific. The Supreme Court in Algonquin upheld a then-current version of Section 232 and found no nondelegation problem where Congress set a process keyed to national security findings. More recently, the Federal Circuit in American Institute for International Steel rejected a facial nondelegation attack on Section 232 steel tariffs, and the Supreme Court denied certiorari. In Transpacific Steel, the Federal Circuit addressed the timing and scope of Section 232 and again denied review. Those decisions underscore that Congress can and does arm presidents with tariff levers—but by statute‑and by specific design. That makes the IEEPA controversy distinct: the question is not whether presidents may ever levy tariffs, but whether this emergency statute authorizes these tariffs, absent the procedural guardrails and more explicit statements found in 232/301. 11 21 22

—

V. If the Court Narrows IEEPA: Practical Plan‑B Pathways

Almost every serious brief and policy memo anticipates that an IEEPA loss would prompt tariff-makers to seek other authorities. The key considerations are speed, scope, and justiciability:

A. Section 232 (Trade Expansion Act).

Speed & process. A Commerce investigation, public comment, and report precede presidential action; “emergency‑fast” still means 60–90+ days, and complex cases can run longer. Scope. Security tethered and product-specific, but the 2025 expansions (including autos/parts and derivatives) show how 232 can reach large value streams—litigation risk. Algonquin remains a pillar, and AIIS / Transpacific litigation history suggests courts tolerate 232 if process and findings are followed. Operationally, Commerce/BIS’s 2025 inclusions process and expanded derivative codes would make a rapid, well-documented reprise feasible. 17 12 13

B. Section 301 (Trade Act).

Speed & process. Investigations are procedurally heavier (petitions, hearings, findings); typical timelines are measured in months, not weeks. Scope. Country‑ or practice‑specific (e.g., PRC IP/tech transfer), not a global baseline—litigation risk. The 2018–2019 expansions survived appellate scrutiny in 2025, reinforcing 301’s staying power for targeted regimes. Operationally, USTR’s 2024 four-year review and targeted increases in strategic sectors provide ready-to-deploy playbooks. 14 15

C. Hybrid and interim measures.

Refund/off‑ramp management. If the Court invalidates IEEPA tariffs, it may or may not dictate the mechanics of refunds. CBP planned electronic refunds beginning February 6, 2026, but Treasury and Justice could seek limiting constructions (e.g., net‑of‑pass-through, documentation thresholds) to moderate fiscal impact—market signaling. Agencies could announce immediate 232/301 initiations to compress any “holiday” window, dampening import surges and price whipsaw—foreign‑policy posture. Even in the absence of IEEPA, the Administration can combine export controls, procurement preferences, and inbound investment screening to maintain leverage while 232/301 spools up. 6 17

—

VI. If the Court Upholds IEEPA Tariffs: What That Would Mean

A win for the government would validate a novel reading of IEEPA as a general‑tariff instrument during a declared emergency. That would preserve the Administration’s preferred speed and scope and keep the reciprocal/baseline design intact. But it would also mark a meaningful shift in the balance of‑powers in trade, making the White House—any White House—the central actor for broad import duties absent new congressional limits. Expect reactions on several fronts:

• Congressional recalibration. A decision upholding IEEPA tariffs could spur bipartisan efforts to cabin emergency powers in trade, as we saw with attempts to reform Section 232 post-2018. 10

• Global response. Trading partners could challenge IEEPA-based tariffs at the WTO or retaliate; retaliatory cycles would depend on the scope, carve-outs, and negotiation dynamics. (Press coverage has already tied 2025 tariff moves to escalating global trade uncertainty.) 23

• Domestic litigation. Even with a green light from IEEPA authority, commodity‑ – or country-specific challenges would continue (e.g., exemptions, product coverage, due process), as seen under 232/301. 12 14

—

VII. The “Checks and Balances” Debate: Courts vs. Elections vs. Congress

This case has revived a perennial question: where are the real checks on economic power—in the elected presidency (via election cycles), in Congress’s Article I tariff prerogatives, or in judicially enforced statutory limits? On one side, skeptics of judicial intervention argue that a president elected on a mandate to renegotiate trade relationships should retain leverage tools—tariffs included—to force outcomes that Congress could not or would not legislate. On the other hand, the Constitution assigns tariff-taxing power to Congress, and emergency statutes like IEEPA are not presumed to displace that allocation absent clear text. The Court’s doctrinal trend—major questions, limits on agency adventurism—leans toward requiring Congress to speak plainly when it wishes to authorize sweeping economic moves. Oral argument reflected this balance: the justices queried whether IEEPA’s “regulate or prohibit” language could bear the weight of a global tariff system without a more specific, contemporary congressional say. 2 1

If the Court narrows IEEPA here, that doesn’t foreclose robust tariff policy; it pushes the Executive to use trade-specific statutes (232/301) that incorporate the processes and findings Congress designed. The Administration has plainly anticipated this outcome, and policy analyses across the spectrum acknowledge multiple “Plan B‑F” tracks already sketched out. The question is timing: how quickly can those processes be triggered to avoid leverage loss and economic whiplash if IEEPA collections stop? 17 16

Although Article I gives Congress authority “to coin Money [and] regulate the Value thereof,” the Constitution leaves the modern mechanics of monetary governance—and the interaction between domestic liquidity, cross‑border finance, and trade accounts—to a sprawling lattice of statutes and administrative actors developed long after the Founding. That institutional reality has produced a practical “administrative gap”: global banking and market infrastructures can shape capital flows and relative prices faster than Congress can legislate, yet courts lack obvious textual hooks to referee those dynamics ex ante. In that setting, shifting all broad tariff levers back to Congress may vindicate separation‑of‑powers in theory while still leaving intact the back‑door channels through which financial interests exert pressure on trade outcomes in practice. The constitutional allocation of tariff power and the constitutional silence on contemporary monetary intermediation simply do not map one‑to‑one.

Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Barrett have signaled, in different contexts, a premium on clear lines: Congress writes the big rules; the Executive executes those rules; courts enforce the boundaries. If they cabin IEEPA on that basis, they will reinforce an elegant blueprint—but they will not, by doing so, resolve the persistent vulnerability created by the Constitution’s sparse treatment of modern money and market plumbing. A strong, election‑checked Executive tariff tool operates as a direct, voter‑responsive counterweight to those vulnerabilities: it allows the White House to alter relative prices at the border in real time when global financing channels or state‑capitalist rivals tilt the playing field. In that sense, upholding the 2025 tariff architecture would not erase Congress’s role; it would supply a democratic “fast gear” that complements Congress’s slower, statute‑driven “torque.”

Nor is this an argument for unbounded presidential discretion. The point is that, where monetary and financial influences can exploit gaps the Framers could not fully specify, a court‑affirmed executive tariff lever—subject to judicial review for statutory fit and to electoral review by the public—can restore a measure of balance that monetary‑policy lawmaking alone has not delivered. For Roberts and Barrett, who prize administrable limits, the question is whether a narrowed but viable emergency‑trade instrument can coexist with Congress’s trade statutes to keep power distributed across branches and, critically, responsive to voters. Preserving that instrument would give citizens a more immediate say over how the United States defends its terms of trade—something the Constitution’s money clauses, standing alone, have never been able to guarantee.

—

VIII. Quantifying What’s at Risk—Short‑Run and Long‑Run

Short‑run (next 90‑180 days).

Revenue. A ‑less adverse decision could halt IEEPA collections immediately, potentially opening a short “free trade” interval before 232/301 measures kick in. That’s particularly salient with seasonal ordering cycles (apparel, consumer durables, autos) already in motion—trade volumes. Logistics managers expect a near-term import bounce if duties drop, especially in categories hit with elevated 2025 rates—fiscal exposure. Refund claims processing—if ordered—would begin amid questions of pass-through and interest. 7 6

Medium‑run (6‑18 months).

Replacement architecture. A sequenced deployment—232 for strategic categories (steel, aluminum, autos/parts, strategic minerals), 301 refreshes for PRC practices—could reconstruct much of the leverage with more procedural guardrails—market adaptation. Effective rates would likely settle below IEEPA’s 2025 peaks but above pre-2018 levels, depending on scope and carve-outs. Budget path. CBO’s $4 trillion decade-long deficit effect is explicitly conditional; a narrower regime reduces that top line. 12 15 19

Long‑run (multi-year).

Precedent. A Supreme Court ruling limiting IEEPA for tariffs would set an enduring boundary between “sanctions-style” emergency tools and the tariff‑taxing power, nudging big trade choices back toward Congress or trade-specific delegations—institutional response. Expect Congress to revisit emergency‑powers statutes and tariff‑process statutes, and expect administrations of both parties to plan with 232/301 front‑of‑mind for large-scale tariffs. 10

—

IX. Comparable Cases and Lessons

Three bodies of law are particularly instructive:

1. National‑security-linked tariff actions: Algonquin (1976) validated a 232 regime embedded in executive‑branch investigation and findings. Later challenges to 232 (2018–2022) failed on nondelegation grounds (AIIS) and on procedural‑timing theories (Transpacific), with SCOTUS denying cert. The through‑line: Congress can delegate tariff levers when it provides intelligible principles and procedures; courts tend to defer if the statute is specific and the Executive follows the steps. 11 21 22

2. Trade‑remedy statutes with administrative processes: Section 301 litigation in 2018–2025 resulted in a Federal Circuit decision upholding USTR’s authority to modify and expand China tariff lists. These cases show courts accept robust tariff countermeasures when Congress built the pathway and agencies compile the record. 14

3. Emergency powers repurposed for fiscal instruments: The novelty of using IEEPA to impose a generalized tariff schedule is what attracted the Court’s scrutiny. Post‑Loper Bright (Chevron’s demise), claims of broad executive power from ambiguous statutes face a steeper climb—especially when the asserted authority has vast economic consequences, and Congress has enacted detailed, alternative tariff statutes. 2

—

X. A Practical Note on Implementation, Regardless of Outcome

Whatever the decision, implementation choices will shape real-world impact:

• If IEEPA is curtailed: The Court could (a) invalidate prospectively, (b) remand with guidance while staying the mandate to allow transition, or (c) order broader remedies affecting past collections. A stay or phase‑out would blunt immediate shocks, though not remove refund fights. Agencies will likely announce rapid 232/301 steps to signal continuity of trade policy objectives. 6 17

• If IEEPA is upheld: Expect challenges to particular rates, categories, and exemptions, and congressional moves to refine emergency trade powers. International countermoves are likely. Agencies may still shift some weight to 232/301 to reduce litigation exposure while keeping IEEPA as a backstop. 23 12

—

The Court’s pending tariffs decision is not a referendum on whether the United States may use tariffs as leverage; it is a statutory and constitutional inquiry into which branch authorizes what, and under which law. If the justices read IEEPA narrowly—as the argument hints—they will be vindicating Congress’s primacy over tariff design while leaving the Executive ample room to pursue similar objectives through Section 232 and Section 301. Those alternatives are slower and more procedurally demanding, but they anchor policy in text and precedent the Court has historically respected. But it will cost a tremendous amount of revenue our country desperately needs, with no real recourse to fill the hole with a path forward.

From a policy‑operations standpoint, the Administration’s leverage need not evaporate with an IEEPA loss; it would, however, require a disciplined pivot to trade‑specific authorities and a careful choreography to avoid a damaging “shock‑gap” in collections and bargaining power. Conversely, an IEEPA win would secure maximum executive flexibility, while likely triggering congressional oversight and international friction that would re-enter the calculus.

Either outcome will echo beyond this term. It will signal how the Roberts Court balances emergency‑power claims against Congress’s Article I prerogatives in the economic sphere—an area where the Court has lately demanded clear legislative statements for actions of significant significance. That signal will guide not just tariff policy in 2026, but the larger architecture of U.S. economic statecraft in the years ahead. 1

—

Footnotes

1. Oral‑argument coverage and analysis emphasizing skepticism toward IEEPA tariffs: SCOTUSblog argument analysis; Holland & Knight post‑argument alert. 1 2

2. Docket timing and opinion‑day reporting indicating no tariff opinion yet and next windows: Reuters; USA Today; SCOTUSblog live coverage. 3 8 4

3. Overview of the 2025 tariff program and legal challenges: Reuters; The Center Square case roundup. 3 24

4. CBP 2025 collections announcement; PWBM practical rate analysis through June 2025. 5 18

5. CBO macro‑budget projections (Aug. 22, 2025). 19

6. Refund exposure and CBP’s electronic refund posture: Reuters; related trade‑press. 6

7. Logistics and freight impacts; evidence of 2025 bilateral contraction: CNBC trade‑volume preview. 7

8. Section 232 legal and policy background (Cong. Research Service); BIS derivative‑coverage rule; proclamations and expansions (2025). 12 13

9. Section 301 four-year review and 2024 increases (USTR/press), plus 2025 Fed. Cir. ruling on 2018–2019 expansions. 15 14

10. Historic Section 232 litigation: AIIS (cert denied); Transpacific (cert denied); Algonquin (Supreme Court). 21 22

11. IEEPA statutory analysis and CRS Legal Sidebar summarizing lower‑court holdings in Learning Resources / V.O.S. Selections. 10

12. Alternative‑authority mapping (Atlantic Council; GovFacts). 16 17

13. Continuing press chronology of January opinion‑day expectations and non-decisions. 8 9

—

Bibliography (selected)

• Primary Legal & Congressional Analyses

• Congressional Research Service, Court Decisions Regarding Tariffs Imposed Under IEEPA (LSB11332, Sept. 15, 2025). 10

• CRS Insight, Expanded Section 232 Tariffs on Steel and Aluminum (IN12519, Sept. 26, 2025). 12

• U.S. Dept. of Commerce/BIS, Adoption and Procedures of the Section 232 Steel and Aluminum Tariff Inclusions Process (Federal Register notice, Aug. 19, 2025). 13

• Supreme Court & Appellate Cases

• Fed. Energy Admin. v. Algonquin SNG, Inc., 426 U.S. 548 (1976). (discussed in sources). 11

• American Institute for International Steel v. United States, 806 F. App’x 982 (Fed. Cir. 2020), cert. denied, 141 S. Ct. 133 (2020). 21 11

• Transpacific Steel LLC v. United States, 4 F.4th 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2021), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 1414 (2022). 22 25

• Oral‑Argument & Docket Coverage

• SCOTUSblog, Court appears dubious of Trump’s tariffs (Nov. 5, 2025); No tariff opinion (Jan. 9, 2026). 1 4

• Reuters/US News & World Report, Supreme Court Plans Rulings … as Trump awaits fate of tariffs (Jan. 9, 2026). 3

• USA Today / NorthJersey, scheduling explainers (Jan. 14–15, 2026). 9 8

• Revenue, Rates, and Market Impact

• CBP, Record-breaking $200 billion in tariff revenue (Dec. 16, 2025). 5

• CBO, An Update About CBO’s Projections of the Budgetary Effects of Tariffs (Aug. 22, 2025). 19

• Penn Wharton Budget Model, Effective Tariff Rates and Revenues (through June 2025) (Aug. 14, 2025). 18

• Reuters, Importers brace for $150 billion refund fight if Trump loses at Supreme Court (Jan. 8, 2026). 6

• CNBC, Freight trade could hinge on decision; no tariff opinion issued Jan. 14 (Jan. 14, 2026). 7

• Alternative Authority & Policy Options

• Atlantic Council, The Supreme Court might slow Trump’s strategy. But he still has other tariff options (Nov. 7, 2025). 16

• GovFacts, Alternative Legal Paths for Tariffs If the Supreme Court Strikes Down IEEPA Use (Jan. 13, 2026). 17

• USTR, Four-Year Review of Section 301 (China) – report and 2024 action. 26 15

—

Supplemental: Quick Reference Data Points

• Collections under 2025 programs: $200 billion+ (Jan 20–Dec 15, 2025), per CBP. 5

• Projected refund exposure if IEEPA tariffs fall: ≈$150 billion (Reuters est.). 6

• Effective tariff rate shift (Jan→Jun 2025): ~2.2% → ~9.1% (PWBM). 18

• CBO 10-year deficit change if 2025 tariffs persist: −$4.0 trillion total deficits. 19

• Procedural pace—232: 60–90+ days for investigation/report before proclamation (faster than 301). 17

• Procedural pace—301: months (notice, hearing, findings), but durable against litigation. 14

Rich Hoffman

Click Here to Protect Yourself with Second Call Defense https://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707

The Department of War: Its time to take the fight to the enemy

In the realm of global power and national identity, the names we assign to our institutions carry profound meaning. They reflect not only the purpose of those institutions but also the philosophy and strategic posture of the nation itself. One such institution—the Department of Defense—has long stood as a symbol of American military might, yet its name belies a deeper issue. Originally known as the Department of War, its rebranding in 1947 marked a significant shift in how the United States viewed its role in the world. Today, as threats to American sovereignty and values grow more complex and aggressive, it is time to reconsider that change and restore the Department of War to its rightful place in our national framework.

The Department of War was established in 1789, shortly after the founding of the United States. Its mission was clear: to organize and execute military operations in defense of the nation’s sovereignty. It was a department built on the premise that America, as a free and independent republic, must be prepared to confront adversaries and secure its interests through strength and resolve. This clarity of purpose was essential in the early years of the republic, when threats were immediate and existential.

In 1947, following the end of World War II, the department was renamed the Department of Defense. This change was not merely semantic—it reflected a broader ideological shift. The United States, having emerged victorious and possessing unmatched military power, sought to reassure the world that it would not become an aggressor. The new name was intended to project restraint, signaling that America’s vast arsenal would be used only in defense. However, this rebranding coincided with the rise of globalism, the formation of the United Nations, and the beginning of America’s role as the world’s de facto police force. The Cold War, Korean War, Vietnam War, and numerous Middle Eastern conflicts followed, many of which were rooted in ideological battles stemming from the post-WWII global order. Ironically, the Department of Defense presided over some of the most prolonged and controversial military engagements in American history.

The term “defense” implies passivity. It suggests that the United States will only act when provoked, that it will wait for threats to materialize before responding. This posture has led to strategic ambiguity and has emboldened adversaries who perceive America as hesitant or unwilling to assert its interests proactively. Consider the psychological impact of the name “Department of Defense.” It evokes an image of a nation on its heels, waiting for an attack before it responds. It suggests a reluctance to engage, a preference for negotiation over action, and a tolerance for provocation. This perception has allowed hostile actors—whether state-sponsored or non-state entities like drug cartels—to operate with impunity, confident that the United States will not strike unless directly threatened.

In contrast, the name “Department of War” conveys strength, readiness, and resolve. It signals to the world that America is prepared to take decisive action against those who threaten its sovereignty, values, or citizens. It projects a posture of deterrence, not weakness—a message that is sorely needed in today’s geopolitical climate. The world has changed dramatically since 1947. The threats facing the United States are no longer confined to conventional warfare. They include cyberattacks, economic manipulation, ideological subversion, and transnational criminal enterprises. These threats require a proactive, assertive response—one that is better aligned with the mission of a Department of War.

Take, for example, the growing influence of drug cartels operating across the southern border. These organizations are not merely criminal; they are strategic threats to American stability. They poison communities, undermine law enforcement, and exploit weaknesses in border security. Yet under the current “defense” paradigm, the response is often reactive and constrained by diplomatic considerations. A Department of War would approach such threats differently. It would recognize them as hostile actors and treat their actions as acts of aggression. It would empower the United States to take the fight to the enemy’s doorstep, rather than waiting for the damage to be done. This shift in posture is not about promoting violence—it is about restoring deterrence and protecting American lives.

The renaming of the Department of War was part of a broader globalist agenda that sought to integrate the United States into a centralized international order. Institutions like the United Nations and NATO were created to manage global conflicts and promote collective security. While these organizations have had some success, they have also constrained American sovereignty and led to costly entanglements. Wars in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan were all influenced by globalist ideologies—fighting communism, securing oil, promoting democracy. These conflicts drained American resources, cost countless lives, and often failed to achieve lasting peace. They were not wars fought for direct national interest, but for abstract global ideals.

The Department of Defense, under this paradigm, became a tool of global management rather than national defense. It was used to enforce international norms, protect foreign borders, and stabilize regions far from American soil. Meanwhile, domestic threats—like the rise of socialism, the erosion of personal freedoms, and the spread of narcotics—were often neglected. Renaming the Department of Defense back to the Department of War is more than a symbolic gesture—it is a strategic realignment. It reasserts America’s commitment to its own sovereignty and sends a clear message to adversaries: aggression will be met with force.

This change also reflects a broader philosophical shift. It rejects the notion that peace is the ultimate goal at any cost. Peace is valuable, but not when it comes at the expense of justice, freedom, or national integrity. A nation must be willing to fight for its values, and it must make that willingness known. Critics may argue that such a change is provocative, that it sends the wrong message to the international community. But who decided that America’s role is to usher in peace while others plot its downfall? Who said that restraint is more virtuous than resolve? These are questions worth asking, especially in a world where hostile regimes and criminal networks operate without fear of reprisal.

President Trump’s executive order to restore the Department of War is a bold and necessary step. It acknowledges the failures of the post-WWII globalist framework and seeks to correct them. Congress’s support for this initiative indicates a growing recognition that America must reclaim its strategic identity. When one visits the Pentagon—a massive, imposing structure across from the National Mall—it should represent a nation prepared to defend itself through strength, not hesitation. The Department of War, housed within that building, would embody the spirit of a sovereign republic willing to confront threats head-on.

The renaming of the Department of Defense to the Department of War is not about glorifying conflict—it is about restoring clarity, purpose, and strength to America’s military posture. It is about recognizing that the world is not always peaceful, that threats are real, and that the United States must be prepared to act decisively. This change marks the end of an era defined by globalist entanglements and passive defense. It signals the beginning of a new chapter—one in which America reclaims its role as a sovereign power, committed to protecting its people, its values, and its future.

In a world filled with hostile actors, weak governments, and ideological adversaries, the Department of War stands as a beacon of resolve. It tells the world that America will no longer wait to be attacked—it will act to prevent aggression, secure its interests, and defend its way of life. And that, ultimately, is the message that must be sent—not just through words, but through the very institutions that define our national character.

Rich Hoffman

Click Here to Protect Yourself with Second Call Defense https://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707

Don’t Cry for Obama: They opened the door for punishment of their many crimes

A lot of people are asking me if it’s possible to arrest Obama. I would say that because of what they left did to Steve Bannon, General Flynn, Peter Navarro, and President Trump, they opened the door to mass prosecutions like what Obama is clearly guilty of. So yes, we have to… pic.twitter.com/HkewbgVTEi
— Rich Hoffman (@overmanwarrior) July 22, 2025

Don’t cry for Obama; he put himself in this mess. And certainly don’t think that Obama is too privileged to do a perp walk in handcuffs in front of the media. I will never forget it, or forgive it, when they marched Steve Bannon, Trump’s former chief strategist, down a hall in handcuffs and put him in jail for four months, as they did Peter Navarro. I will never forget the Trump mug shot when they booked him in Fulton County. And when they did everything they could to destroy him with legal cases meant to kill his entire family, I will never forget what they did to Alex Jones, to Roger Stone, to Rudi Guiliani, Sydney Powell, and General Flynn. What I watched happen over the last several years was nothing short of a coup against our form of government, and it was a communist revolutionary type like Barack Obama who was dead set to use all the powers of government to destroy our government in just the same way that Che and Fidel Castro did in Cuba. Or any communist revolution for that matter, around the world, whether it be in China or Russia. What they tried to do in the United States was every bit as bad, and they went for our jugular. So now the shoe is on the other foot. We have extensive evidence of what Obama directly did as president, which only confirms what we already suspected. The evidence is significantly worse. They didn’t just talk about destroying the people around Trump; they tried actually to do it, and where they could, they did. So yes, when people ask me if it’s even possible to prosecute Barack Obama, a former president, it is because Democrats already opened the door to the possibility in the way they handled Trump. Remember, the goal here is to define who runs our country, and if we let Obama and his gang of thugs loose, we surrender to their domestic terrorism in a way that will encourage others to do so in the future. So I would argue that we can’t afford to let them get away with it.

This is what they did to Steve Bannon, a member of the Trump White House. It can be done now to Obama and his partners Comey, Clapper, and Brennon. They opened the door to it. https://t.co/EIwp32lntK
— Rich Hoffman (@overmanwarrior) July 22, 2025

After Trump made his feelings very clear about what Tulsi Gabbard had released to the public about what Obama’s role in the Russiagate scandal was, Obama released a statement essentially trying to hide his crime behind the dignity of the Oval Office, just as it was expected that the Deep State would hide his terrorist intentions behind his skin color. Obama was created to undo the notion of a free country run by free people who picked their elected representatives. And there are a whole bunch of malicious characters behind Barack Obama who need to be snuffed out and destroyed within American society. It doesn’t just end with Obama. But, Obama was caught trying to hold power as he was a sitting president, and he orchestrated a coup against the incoming administration that was every bit as radical as when the Castro brothers overtook Cuban society. And Comey, Clapper, Clinton, Brennan, and many, many others deep within the CIA and FBI were in on it, and they paid for a doctored-up dossier working with foreign governments to undo a sitting president. They broke every kind of protocol to destroy the results of a free election. And all those involved must be punished because they didn’t respect our system the first time. They laughed at our sense of justice and counted on their ability to hold office and control the legal outcome. And when they had power, which people took away from them in the 2024 election, they abused their power, making it so that a counteraction is now mandated. It’s not compassionate to let them go with all we know; it would be foolish.

This is what they did to Peter Navarro, a member of the Trump White House. And is still a member. They arrested him. Put him in cuffs at the airport. Humiliated him and put him in jail for four months. Yes, Obama can be arrested and put in jail for what he did, because what…
— Rich Hoffman (@overmanwarrior) July 22, 2025

There was always a notion behind the crimes Obama committed during his presidency that by the time everything caught up to him and his partners, America would be a different country. In no scenario did they think that a person like Trump would become president, let alone twice. And there were no calculations that Trump would survive all they threw at him to stop him from running for a second term. Because they understand this, they know they have been winning elections through election fraud for years, and they are aware of what I have been saying about elections, whether we are talking about 2020, 2024, or any of the upcoming elections, such as 2026 or 2028. If we keep Democrats from cheating, or make it harder for them, they can’t win elections because they are a dramatic minority, just as in the communist uprisings around the world had been, minorities taking control of majorities through the illusion of force. And that was tried here in the United States by many members of our intelligence departments, and Obama was put in place to be the inserted wrecking ball, hiding his communist intentions behind his skin color, so that we couldn’t have an opinion on his actions because we had to prove we weren’t a racist country. Or that we couldn’t prosecute him for what he did during his term, or as a puppeteer during the Biden years, because of some respectability of the office he held as a former president. Trump was a former president, and they tried to destroy him and all his associates ruthlessly. So now that the shoe is clearly on the other foot, we must have justice, and that means Obama in handcuffs, a mug shot, and jail time for the gross abuses of government he used to keep his party in power.

This is what they did to President Trump. Yes, they arrest and put Barrack Obama in jail. And publish his mug shot. https://t.co/7knsh9fnN9
— Rich Hoffman (@overmanwarrior) July 22, 2025

Here’s what they did to Rudy Giuliani. Of course we can put Barack Obama in jail. And prosecute all his partners. https://t.co/S2FVscpO2y
— Rich Hoffman (@overmanwarrior) July 23, 2025

Here’s what they did to Sydney Powell. Of course we can and must prosecute Barack Obama. https://t.co/jGyFLMJQYJ
— Rich Hoffman (@overmanwarrior) July 23, 2025

Remember when they raided Trump’s home and went through the underwear drawer of Melania? Of course we can prosecute Barack Obama and throw him in jail. https://t.co/vOk2O9bSmr
— Rich Hoffman (@overmanwarrior) July 23, 2025

Don’t forget, if not for the whole Russiagate issue that Obama started, there would not be a war between Russia and Ukraine right now. It was because of this deteriorated relationship with Russia that diplomacy crumbled, and a war was started that has killed many millions of people. The war was always a cover story for the Steele Dossier and the people behind it, who were guilty of committing treason against our country to remove an elected president from office. Trump isn’t the first time; they did it to Nixon, and they outright killed President Kennedy. Many of us have long suspected that those things happened, but now we have the proof, and we can’t just turn away from it. We can’t allow a Deep State to think it’s in charge of our government. And we have to punish their agents as we catch them, and Obama has been caught, without question. Trump didn’t enter office looking to punish his political rivals. However, he can’t disregard the crimes committed against him leading up to this point. He has no obligation to turn away from justice, and that’s what we elected him to do. People want to run a self-ruled government. They don’t want a bunch of loser Deep Staters running their country for the benefit of globalism. We have been too lenient in the past, which has given these people a false sense of security, leading them to believe they could get away with anything. So yes, we have to send a message. But don’t fret over the methods. Obama and many others already went too far with Trump, and now the shoe is on the other foot. So don’t cry for Obama. It won’t start color revolutions in the streets to see him arrested and marched down the street in chains. He did it to himself, and now he and many others must pay for the crimes they committed. And no amount of fancy talk will help him now. He’s busted! And if people take to the streets to protest the arrest of Obama, we will bust them too, arrest by arrest, and if they get violent, with bone-crushing force.

Look what they did to General Flynn. Of course we can arrest and prosecute Barrack Obama https://t.co/OsbIeebDZE
— Rich Hoffman (@overmanwarrior) July 23, 2025

Remember what they did to Paul Manafort? Yes, Barack Obama can go to jail. https://t.co/TVn5zRDgxn
— Rich Hoffman (@overmanwarrior) July 23, 2025

Remember what they did to Alex Jones. Of course we can prosecute Barack Obama. https://t.co/RcHl88oBGy
— Rich Hoffman (@overmanwarrior) July 23, 2025

Rich Hoffman

Click Here to Protect Yourself with Second Call Defense https://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707

There Won’t Be A War with Iran: They can’t afford it

There is all this talk about war with Iran, and America getting sucked into a prolonged war that will further entangle us into a mess of foreign commitment. And there are all these war hawks like Lindsey Graham who want to go to war and bomb Iran into destruction. And then there are people like Tucker Carlson who want complete involvement in Israel’s business, at all. But everyone is missing the point, and Trump gets it. You have to know your leverage points, and just to burst everyone’s bubble, Iran has already lost any potential war. Iran is another hostile country, much like Antifa or Black Lives Matter in America, that is propped up with foreign money to create a grand distraction in the world. Iran is the number 1 sponsor of terrorism in the world. They don’t call it terrorism; however, they instead call it “revolutionary activities,” using almost the same kind of logic as we saw from the No Kings riots in America. Iran exists to fight capitalism behind the façade of radical Islamic Fundamentalism. And they can’t be reasoned with. There is nothing about them that exists to protect the indigenous rights of the Palestinian people, and their continued protest to fight and destroy the creation of Israel as a country in the post-World War II environment. Remember when the Obama administration left behind 1.7 billion dollars on an airport runway to Iran? Or when Joe Biden lifted sanctions against Iran that were there from Trump’s first term? Iran is not a country; it’s an Occupy Wall Street endeavor by radical leftist lunatics to destabilize the world. Here are the facts: Iran can’t win a war with the United States. I can’t win a war against a turtle. And the threat of calling their bluff will shatter them completely.

$1.7 billion might sound like a lot of money, but ground troops cost significantly more than that for just a few weeks of war. And with all those missiles that they have launched against Israel, those are very expensive. Additionally, Iran has its entire power grid concentrated in a small area, which would be very easy to target and disrupt. Iran has an essentially oil-based economy, but not much else. You don’t see people rushing out to buy the latest Iranian television or a new pair of jeans. Iran could be brought to its knees without America firing a single shot, by just forcing the price of oil too low to compete with by exporting American oil. And that is the way Trump is going to destroy hostile markets like Venezuela and Iran, through economics. There is no reason to engage in a military conflict. Iran doesn’t have the money to fight a war, and their entire infrastructure could be destroyed easily. And with all the missiles they have launched recently toward Israel, they are going to run out of rockets fast. And where are they going to get more of them? Who is going to supply Iran with more weapons while the world’s eyes are on them? Typically, Iran manufactures missiles on assembly lines, but it has to import the technology that powers them, which comes from North Korea and China. Who thinks that either country is going to supply Iran with anything while Trump is in office? They want to appease Trump, rather than risk being on the wrong side of the negotiating table with him. Iran is currently on its own, and it can’t last long. The Revolutionaries who run the country are not very deep in number, and the people in general in Iran do not support the current regime, so they only hold onto power with the threat of violence. And they’ll lose that with any fight against Israel.

The Army Parade came at the perfect time, because it showed the world what the riches of capitalism can produce in such a display in the very nice city of Washington, D.C. It took off the table any thought of engagement in a ground war with America, and the rest of the world doesn’t have the money to keep up. The wars we have been dealing with were largely creations by centralized banking, not countries fighting over borders and ideology. Trump knows he can crush Iran economically. They are already reeling from the short conflict with Israel. And when Iran falls, that will put pressure on Russia to settle things with Ukraine, which is also propped up entirely by globalist money. And China is in a delicate situation with its economy. They are propped up by globalism, and now that people are onto the scam, they are in a preventive defense mode. They can’t afford any sustained competition along economic lines. They’d love to attack Taiwan and take all its resources. They’d love to do the same in Japan. However, they dare not do it, because they would be economically destroyed. So they have to play nice. There won’t be any war. And while many of these countries have their militaries, they can also hold parades. They have to work a lot harder to have those militaries than America does. In any engagement, they will run out of gas and come up short on missiles really fast. But America can produce weapons like candy. And when it was put on display, as it was at the Army Parade, it was disheartening to those in the world who want to intimidate by puffing up their feathers, only for everyone to learn that it was just a skinny, weak bird in the middle.

Iran is going to fall, and they should. They are evil. And once they do, there won’t be any place left in the world for all these terrorist organizations to hide behind. If you take out the number one sponsor of terrorism, a world with a lot less terrorism would be a good one. And when you look around at the hostile places of the world, who are just as close to falling as Iran currently is, they can’t hang onto power unless people are scared of them. China is at risk of losing Hong Kong, for instance. If Iran falls apart, the rest of them will likely follow suit. And Trump, or America, doesn’t have to do much of anything for it to happen. We certainly don’t need to send troops into Israel. I love Israel, and I think they deserve revenge for what happened at that music festival. A lot of people were killed and tortured who didn’t deserve it, and what was done to them, with Iran backing the activity in the background, was terrible. But forget about this idea of ground engagement. Those are not the fights we are fighting anymore. When Iran falls, the Ukraine War will likely end shortly thereafter, due to the resulting pressure. And China will struggle to maintain its current economic strength because it needs American markets to sell its products to. They are dependent on America for their power, which can be turned off quickly. And ruthlessly. Which is what Trump will do to Iran, and once that vulnerability is exposed, all the other dominoes in the world fall too. Therefore, there will be no military engagement. Iran has already lost, and I believe they are aware of it. It’s just taking the media a while to figure it out, because they need the subject matter. However, the war with Iran never even began. And Israel will easily triumph over their enemies with the power of economics. Not missiles.

Rich Hoffman

Click Here to Protect Yourself with Second Call Defense https://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707

Don’t Worry About the Moody’s Downgrade: A fight that has to happen

Don’t worry about the Moody’s downgrade of the U.S. credit rating. Much of the problem starts with the Iranian apologist Mark Zandi and background anti-Trumpers like Warren Buffett using Berkshire Hathaway as a front for the story. This is a game that has been ongoing in the background for a long time, and the concept is that you want them to want you. Not where they want you to want them in the balance of power in a relationship, and the course Trump is taking with the American economy will force them to crawl like dogs into the Oval Office begging to be affiliated with the success story that is coming. But for too long, a lot of weak, stupid people have groveled to these losers of finance who have giggled at the idea of American freedom in the background because they know they control everyone’s money. And there has been peace, somewhat so, as long as the credit card works. However, these are power-hungry entities, and this is a common strategy they employ in finance to exert control over domestic policy in favor of globalist intentions. There are a lot of businesses that have been victims to just this kind of predatory lending and power struggle for control of those companies and what we are seeing applied to the Trump administration is a hatred for the America First policy of Trump and a refocus of their hatred for him and the MAGA movement in general. The downgrade by Moody’s is not a surprise, and the result will be similar to everything the Never Trumpers have tried to do to Trump and those who support him. They are attempting to regain control of the world, utilizing traditional financial tactics to achieve this. And those tricks are baked into the system as it was built.

This behavior from finance, not just by Moody’s but around the world, is a communist playbook that is precisely how China was set up as a communist country, propped up by these same financial, international monsters. Their tongue-in-cheek statements about how countries should be run are that people can beat on their chest and declare independence all they want, but it would be central banking that would control people and their lives. Like fish, they lure people into buying into their credit controls with the bait of easy money, then they snare them with a deep hook, allowing them to control every aspect of their lives. And they make a lot of money from the debt of the countries to which they have loaned money. And they believe that control has given them considerable power to override domestic policy on all fronts. So they use credit ratings to control behavior. It’s just another variation of the Chinese social media score. If you exhibit behavior that the government dislikes, they will restrict your access to funds, which in a world where everything is paid for by credit card, could be devastating. Which is why it has been set up that way, to get everyone addicted to easy cash at a low rate, so they could establish a deep-seated control hook in everyone’s life to run every aspect of their life. And don’t kid yourself, they mean to do just that. It’s a power trip that has always been a problem. They are not our friends, these tyrants who work in finance. They delude themselves about their actual value, and this impasse was always inevitable. It has taken this long for a President to occupy the White House who truly represents the needs of the people, as the republic was designed.

Moody’s cited the growing national debt, with projections exceeding $36 trillion, as one of its reasons, after it became apparent that Trump’s proposed budget would pass through Congress. They also cited persistent fiscal deficits that are expected to worsen as government spending is outpacing revenue. This is a shot at Trump’s tax cuts, aimed at extending the tax cuts from his previous term. Moody’s people want more taxes on individuals, as they are unhappy about the lack of revenue. They also don’t like that Trump plans to recover revenue by shifting it to tariffs, which has taken advantage of America’s economic power by reallocating wealth around the world to socialist and communist countries with unearned merit. Moody’s wants that practice of unfairness to benefit them because globalism has set that system up to their advantage. Moody’s also indicated that rising interest rates are crowding out other fiscal priorities. However, those rates are directly tied to the Federal Reserve, which has painted itself into a corner with currency manipulation that it had counted on going in an entirely different direction. Entitlement spending is expected to increase due to an aging population that lacks a sufficient birthrate to support the next generation, thereby requiring additional funding. Most of what Moody’s indicated as justification for the downgrade are fears of what might happen. But not so disguised is a hatred for Trump’s domestic policies that turn the power of the American economy back into a nationalist system that runs counter to all the manipulations of globalism have enacted to control all countries through fiscal policy. It is the same communist controls they have in China and North Korea, even in Iran, where Marxism runs in the background of everything they do. And in America, that was always the fate they intended for us, and they are angry that we aren’t doing what they expected us to do.

This fight goes back to even before the Presidency of Andrew Jackson, who I think was one of America’s greatest presidents. The battle with the banks needed to happen, and all this time, there has been a kind of stalemate. But in the finance industry, if you have had to work with them, there is an obvious power struggle that laughs at the Constitution and the premise that people can run themselves as a government. Moody’s downgrade is essentially a social credit score designed to put pressure on Americans to comply with international expectations. But Trump knows how to play this poker game, which essentially is what it is. And the power of the American economy will force Moody’s to retract its position; it won’t be able to draw a hard line in the sand, as it hopes. Because they will have a business need to affiliate themselves with success, don’t give a second thought to the Moody’s downgrade. Those losers will have egg on their face in a much-deserved way for their pro-Communist China affiliation. But remember that China would be nowhere if not for the money that has been stolen from the United States to prop it up as a communist state and example of the kind of government that central finance, with the option of a digital currency, always wanted. They wanted to destroy the dollar, destroy American capitalism, and buy up all the debt so they could control all domestic policy around the world. What these big banks have been doing is nothing short of a military incursion. And they were out for blood, and Trump is taking all that away from them. They are losing control, and all they have left is a downgrade to our credit rating. But when you gain control of your economy so that revenue surpasses their fears, that power returns to the people who run the country. And those banks and credit agencies will be forced to grovel at our feet. And when they do, we’ll make a footstool of their cheesy haircuts and golf shirts. They are going to lose control and there is nothing they can do to stop it.

Rich Hoffman

Click Here to Protect Yourself with Second Call Defense https://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707

The White House Called Me: What I said

Ahead of Liberation Day, on April 2^nd, the White House called me to ask my thoughts on how Trump’s tariffs would be beneficial. They were compiling a list of names for people to attend Liberation Day, and at that time, they were thinking more in terms of a town hall presentation. However, what they ended up doing was more traditional Trump. In that process, they called me as they were setting up for the day, and I was more than happy to share my thoughts, as always. I usually don’t discuss those kinds of things when they happen, but this was an excellent conversation that I think is a fitting follow-up to what they ended up doing at the White House for Liberation Day. And that is the discussion about supply chains, which is the number one issue hidden behind the noise of personal investments. It’s one thing to complain as a company that has invested in globalism to be afraid of Trump setting tariffs to defend our values from a world built on socialism. So many countries have completely sustained themselves off American capitalism, then throw all that money into a dumpster fire of losses caused by Marxist politics. Many investors, to their shame, have invested a lot of money in bad ideas and hoped that somehow it would all work out. And they’d make up for it patriotically on Memorial Day or the Fourth of July by cooking an extra hot dog on the grill for the holiday to celebrate American independence. But many financial firms have been looting our system for years and hiding their treachery behind an American flag, hoping nobody would notice. But we have, and that is precisely why Trump had to liberate America from the terrorist implementation that has been quite ostentatious in the background.

The main problem I conveyed to the White House was that, with all the transfer of wealth, the world has become complacent with its supply chains, taking too many vacations, and has lost its sense of providing a service to customers due to the accumulation of unearned merit. What I said specifically was that the world was now filled with a bunch of slack jawed losers who have gotten used to easy money given to them for wealth redistribution, stolen from the value of capitalism and given to the looting nature of Marxism, and they no longer feel like they have to compete to earn the money, because governments have given it to them for nothing. When you need something in the world, given all this global trade and the numerous time zones, what you get more than ever now are excuses. In France, I think they are only working about 20 minutes a week now, and they are always on vacation. Most people have 6 weeks of vacation, it seems, and are rarely in the office. There is no expectation to even pick up the phone while on vacation; the world is suddenly allergic to all forms of work, and it is a global crisis. As a result, if you need something from Malaysia, what used to take four or five days to arrive is now six months or more. And in many cases, if you think you need something for manufacturing, you have to order it more than a year in advance. Even then, the supplier is likely to push out their schedule multiple times, without even having any expectation of fulfilling their timeline targets. As I told the White House, this is the biggest crisis in the world that nobody is talking about: subsidized laziness and the perpetuation of lazy people to profit off the demise of the world. Trump’s tariffs would immediately help that condition, and it couldn’t happen sooner.

Now I understand, and we discussed it on the phone, that this kind of thing takes longer to explain than a typical media snippet on tariff talk. Our media is why the White House has shifted its focus away from the traditional establishment and toward alternative media to convey its message. We have a lot of people in the same category as the global slack-jawed losers who are lazy and have an expectation of not working nearly enough. Many of these types now work in traditional media. So they can’t delve deeply into the tangible benefits of the Trump tariff necessity for a Liberation Day. A liberation from lazy, slack-jawed losers who order their lunch for the business day at 9 AM and by noon are already checking out and getting ready to pick up their kid at day care and thinking about how they can call off for the rest of the week and still get paid. If you’ve ever dealt with government, and this is the case with all of Washington D.C., they are very eager in the morning to get to work and park in their parking garages between the hours of 8 and 9 AM. But by 1 PM, the parking garages are mostly cleared out. Government workers, if they go to work at all and aren’t working from home, are only putting in 4 or 5 hours of work per day and expecting to get paid a king’s ransom in wages. This is the hidden cost of globalism, and it is a real problem.

I’ve said it a million times, and I’ve certainly discussed it with the White House, but supply chains before COVID and after are entirely different. If you needed a fuse or a new alternator for your car, it was always readily available on the shelf before COVID-19. However, it has taken months to obtain it afterwards. If you wanted to have a special Corvette built from a dealer, it was usually on the lot, or you’d get it in a few weeks. Now, it might take a year, and everyone seems to be okay with that, as if that’s the new normal. No, that is not acceptable, and it has been detrimental to all economies worldwide. And it all starts with globalism, rather than competitive nationalism, and these tariffs had to happen to reset the world order established after World War II. People all over the world need to work harder, longer, and much, much faster. And when you call them, they need to pick up the phone because they need the money. Not to have an arrogant attitude, as they know their socialist government will compensate them anyway with the proceeds from the trade imbalances. That’s certainly a more profound discussion than just talking about the price of eggs. It’s more of a psychological problem of wealth redistribution, which, to Trump’s point, we have been getting ripped off. And it has to stop; Liberation Day is the moment in history when it did. And the world will thank us later for forcing them not to be a bunch of slack-jawed, entitled losers short on ambition and full of excuses as to why our supply chains are too slow and inefficient. And for the Trump people at the White House, it was nice speaking to everyone. I’m happy to do it anytime. Trump is doing great, and if he needs anything, don’t hesitate to call. Liberation Day was great, and very much needed!

Rich Hoffman

Click Here to Protect Yourself with Second Call Defense https://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707

‘Serpent in Eden’: Whats really behind all the foreign meddling and partisan politics

I read a great book while on my recent trip to Washington D.C. It wasn’t a book specific to Washington politics and history, and it is generally available by Tyson Reeder called Serpent in Eden. I found it at Mt. Vernon, Washington’s home, and it seemed like something I’d be interested in since it dealt with foreign meddling and partisan politics in James Madison’s America, a kind of not much talked-about period between the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812. A lot of political activity during this period got lost in the various wars that essentially shaped America as a new nation that is worth discussing. I think people assume that they know American history if they know the basics of the Revolutionary War, that the Constitution was signed soon thereafter, and that George Washington was the first president. But that really doesn’t begin to cover it all. The Serpent in Eden is a really remarkable, tightly packed book with a lot of detail and would take a general understanding of history before really absorbing it. It views the world through the eyes of James Madison, the tiny man but brilliant mind who shaped the Constitution and served as the fourth president of the United States. But he was writing the Constitution as America was trying to figure itself out, and Washington was trying to preside over everything as a country was trying to start from scratch on an idea of individual liberty, which was a completely foreign concept at that time. In many ways, it is because of one straightforward term: “We the People.” The world didn’t understand what that meant, so they didn’t have much respect for the new country. They did respect George Washington, but they didn’t understand the idea of willfully giving up power and returning to the farm after service to the people was completed.

To understand the problem we have today with foreign meddling, which George Soros would be a good example, and just one of many, this particular period at the start of the country is an interesting story. Because America had its original 13 colonies that it was trying to make a country out of, but there were still French holdings along the Mississippi River, Spanish in Florida, and England smarting from their Revolutionary loss and plotting to retake its colonies once a few years wore down the rebels hanging out in Canada, where the French were still hostile and had alliances with the many Indian tribes. All those forces were plotting and scheming to use America to leverage their enemies, specifically the French against the English, and all early politics centered around these factions of Anti-Federalists, who became Republicans against Federalists, the early version of the big government advocates. The trick was how to have a big enough government to deal with all these hostile countries that weren’t too big to suppress the will of the people it was supposed to serve. The English and French thought such a concept was hilarious, so they posed a constant threat by looming in the background attempting to tamper with elections to swing policy in a direction of their liking. There are a lot of lessons in the truly remarkable story of how America survived all this tampering to win the War of 1812 with Madison in the White House and having to escape before the British burnt it from the inside out. It was a tight walk on a razor’s edge to build the kind of government we see today, and given the ambitions of globalism and not wanting America to exist at all, you can understand the real problems of our day by seeing how people saw things from the very beginning.

I was in the right mood to read Tyson’s new book, as it had just recently come out. It was available at all the leading book outlets, but Mt. Vernon has a wonderful gift shop, as you would expect, and it was the kind of book you could get as a souvenir that captured the area and circumstances of America’s birth. I was at Mt. Vernon trying to see the start of the country the way that George Washington would have seen it. Not the way that historians with a very shallow grasp of history would have. These were real problems that reside in the hands of our current Supreme Court as they try to keep our country as close to that razor’s edge as possible. But it’s hard on a good day because America was never respected, and it still isn’t today. What is respected is our version of capitalism, which produced a lot of wealth, and people around the world wanted a piece of that wealth. But our system of government for the people was never understood. Because nations were built around the concept of sovereignty, such as Napoleon Bonapart, who was Emperor of France, he could speak as a representative of the whole French people. Or King George in England. If George Washington was going to give power back after two terms in office, then who represented the government? These fighting politicians in Adams, Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison, and others? So, of course, in the chaos of all that political contemplation, the nations of the world plotted our demise, as they still do because they don’t understand how a government can serve the people rather than the people serving the government as one people who then dealt with the world. It was not an easy idea to flush out.

So, the Serpent in the book is all these foreign whispers trying to steer America in a direction beneficial to them, just as the serpent tempted Eve to eat from the apple. So, too, is the business of foreign lobbying, which is a big problem today and is at the heart of the tariff war Trump puts forth. But there’s a secret in the background of all that, which really emerged from this period with Madison and the War of 1812. And the Louisiana Purchase and Westward expansion in general. The world does not know what to do with free people, who a regional monarch or emperor can’t control. It hadn’t ever been done in the world, and it’s still perplexing to all nations. And their only defense against it isn’t armies, but in political narrative. They had infiltrated both political parties in America. As a result, essentially leaving “We the People” without any accurate representation, violating the Constitutional merits Madison and others worked so hard to perfect and for our Supreme Court to hold so tightly to the vest, as a matter of principle. The defense against the various serpents in our political system of foreign meddling and influence was that the American concept was too big to alter. That’s how Jefferson ended up with the Louisiana Purchase. Napoleon never thought America would survive long enough to do anything with the land, so he thought it was a safe bet. But he lost power before America fell. The English were trying to push everyone into decline and never thought a country without a military could win a war against them, but Andrew Jackson ruined all their days, and the Spanish too. All the hostile elements, including the conspiring Indians, were betting on America to fail, but it survived anyway. Because the brilliance of the Constitution made us too big as a country to fall into such minor grabs of power. The idea was more significant than the military plots of conspiring nations, which makes us more important than other nations. Our ideas for personal freedom are more lofty than any other government on the face of the earth or in human history. It is extraordinary and a big step for the human race. And it was a real work of a miracle coming from human minds during a very tumultuous time.

Rich Hoffman

Click Here to Protect Yourself with Second Call Defense https://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707

What a Miracle to see RFK Jr. Confirmed: The hidden war against Americans through poisoned food

It was different this time, whenever I go to political fundraisers, there’s always hope lurking in the background that if only we could get this person elected, or that, that maybe, just maybe, we might save the world. But a kind of dismal smoke always makes everything political seem out of reach, even diabolical. Things never quite work out how you want them to, and the political efforts always come out feeling short on the results. However, the atmosphere was dramatically different this year at the Nancy Nix fundraiser for February of 2025. Trump had been back in the White House for a month, but things were already feeling dramatically different. Kash Patel had just been confirmed as the new Director of the FBI, which I never thought possible, and it is a topic of its own. Most of Trump’s presidential picks had received confirmation votes in the Senate. But the one I think is astonishing, and that I thought was even less of a possibility than Kash Patel, is Robert F. Kennedy Jr. The Senate confirmed RFK Jr. into his new role as Secretary of Health and Human Services, and I am very excited to see what he can do with our food supply. After reading his books on Anthony Fauci, I never thought he’d be in any government role. It just seemed like a fantasy that could never come true. But he did get confirmed, and that will be his new job, and I think great things will happen from that position. Not that I am suddenly about government regulations or supportive of Democrats. But in a tough time, when I was reading Bobby’s books about the origin and villains of COVID-19, I thought it took a lot of guts to say what he did and that all those things have stood up to time legally.

Let’s not play patty cake with this issue; COVID was the most diabolical menace created as a bioweapon that has so far been unleashed on the human race within the context of mass scale. It was created in a lab in Wuhan and released to the world during an election year when China was very upset about Trump’s trade tariffs, and there is only one way to view that kind of thing: as a terrorist weapon meant to drive a World Economic Forum Great Reset of the global economy into a communist-controlled menace. And that’s saying it all nicely. For those who think we can turn the page and forget what Covid was, who made it, and why, forget about it. Those involved in creating and distributing COVID-19 must be punished for what they did. The pharma companies that perpetuated the destruction must also be dealt with. We can’t let it go. Time and distance can’t make the guilty less guilty. They have to pay, and RFK Jr. laid out the case in his two books on the subject, The Real Anthoney Fauci and The Wuhan Cover-up. As the new HHS secretary, the author of those books gets to drive health policy in America, knowing what we do now about all the diabolical forces in the background who used health care as a global power grab to install a one-world government driven ultimately by the United Nations, through their sub-tier, The World Health Organization. These are all bad people from socialist and communist countries, and they have been trying to destroy our nation through policy regulation for years, and with COVID-19, they went too far. Trump knows it, and his new HHS secretary wrote the book on the matter.

Regarding poison, I have become very skeptical of our food supply and how our water is treated across America. Watching what many evil characters without refute did during COVID-19 has opened the door to everything, such as fluoride and corn syrup, as known catastrophic mechanisms of doom. Even if the government pinheads did everything on accident, just trying to meet the market needs of a capitalist public, allowing known killers to poison our food just can’t occur. As an example, a good friend of mine just traveled to England, where a week there lowered his blood sugar dramatically as he has diabetes, just through diet. I have had a similar experience and complained about it a lot. The food in Europe has all kinds of regulations and doesn’t taste nearly as good as it does in America. Usually, after I take a trip to Europe or Asia, I look forward to my layover flights in either Chicago, Detroit, or Charlette upon re-entering the United States because I pig out on double combo meals from the nearest Burger King just to get my usual food intake levels back to what they are used to in America. But maybe that shouldn’t be the case. Our food is making us unhealthy, and not that Europe or Asia is doing something better than us with tight market controls over the food supply, but perhaps in this case, their admission to the health crises is far more than just being a nanny state over their citizens. We’re at a point where you can’t have any discussions about healthcare policy without dealing with the poison that is in most foods, hidden behind our free market system with the same intentions as drug dealers seek to poison our citizens slowly. Who needs war to kill off your enemy when you can just encourage them to poison themselves with drugs and poorly constructed food?

I was with a large group of affiliates at the P.F. Chang’s in West Chester where we were talking about this very issue, and we were all sharing some lettuce wraps and talking about all the harmful ingredients that were in American Chinese food that you wouldn’t find in the country of origin. And my attitude was, “Who cares?” because this food had to be good for you because I wouldn’t be eating a leaf if not for all the good stuff that you poor over it to make it taste good. So, indeed, the leaf had health value. But, when you think of the vast amounts of food we eat where those kinds of concessions are constantly being made, our bodies can’t keep up with all the lousy processing, destroying our population. So we needed to have a serious discussion on food, and we need to set some standards that are going to be rough on companies taking advantage of the freedom they have had because we can’t poison our population and hide laziness and a lack of innovation behind a mask of capitalism, and to call it good. Because so many companies have gotten away with literal murder, the pharma companies thought they were going to get away with COVID-19 and the vaccines that caused so much trouble with ridiculous immunity deals from any prosecution. The solution to all in RFK was to be in some position to help. And to have a Trump administration that would have the guts to turn him loose. And now he is, Robert F. Kenndy Jr. is getting the chance of a lifetime, and he won’t waste it. Which, of course, we will all benefit from. Our food might taste different, but we’ll get used to it. Because ultimately, we all want to be healthier and not let our enemies laugh at us while we poison ourselves recklessly and without regard for a prosperous future.

Rich Hoffman

Click Here to Protect Yourself with Second Call Defense https://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707

The Armour of God: Being the arbriter of divine justice

I understood Melania Trump’s outfit for the Inauguration. Retribution comes to mind, and appropriately so. Nobody should expect to get away with what they did to the Trumps under any circumstances. And being a person who expresses herself through fashion, I understood Melania’s message clearly. She’s the same age as my wife, so culturally, we all share the same references, and the first thing that came to my mind was the Clint Eastwood film, High Plains Drifter. Melania says what she needs to tell through fashion, and she was holding the Bibles for Trump at his swearing-in; her look was undoubtedly expressive. It was stylish and, for most people, very stunning. Indeed, she did not take the safe road. However, after I saw Trump’s speech to Davos, I knew precisely what they were doing, and it was undoubtedly the appropriate message.

Now, what have I been telling you all along?

You can tell that, as a couple, they have talked about this moment and what they would do if they had the opportunity to return to the White House. And by the way that Trump spoke to the very people who had plotted his destruction, the people I call the Desecrators of Davos, Trump knew what he needed to do. With her big wide-brimmed hat, Melania Trump might have been the visual expression of President Trump himself. But President Trump personally delivered the much-deserved rebuke right in front of their faces to some of the most evil people on planet Earth. He was doing on a large scale what the movie High Plains Drifter did in a fictional sense to a much smaller town called Lago, set in the old west and the efforts of western expansion that explored the challenges psychologically of a people trying to settle in a remote part of the world while trying to manage the temptations of a lack of law and order.

In the movie, a wonderfully psychological thriller that was one of the early directing efforts by Clint Eastwood, which he also starred in, a stranger rides into town, and he appears to have very superior gunfighting skills, for which the city wants to hire him to protect them from three bandits that are about to be released from jail. The three criminals want revenge for what the town did to them. They hired them to kill Marshal Duncan over mining rights to the city, and in the process, the entire town was a little bit guilty of the murder. Once the killers were put in jail for the crime, they swore revenge upon release, which is why the town now was seeking to kill the killers by hiring the strange gunman, Clint Eastwood. It’s a very good movie and certainly one of my favorites. I don’t mind saying that I loved the film so much that it inspired the contents of my book, The Gunfighter’s Guide to Business, because, in both cases, the contents are about much more than what is shown at face value. I talk about being a ghost in my book and life because of the lessons I learned from that great movie, High Plains Drifter. You can often do much more in the world as a ghost than as a flesh and blood, earthly figure. The town is paralyzed with fear and guilt by all they have done to the point where they will do anything the Stranger says. Anything. And when I saw Trump talking to the Davos crowd, it was the same thing as Clint Eastwood showed in that movie, where the entire town served him, hoping to erase their guilt for past crimes by committing all new ones and appeasing a power they recognize as being superior to them.

Of course, the Stranger punishes everyone in town who has revenge coming. And we find out at the end that the Stranger all along looks to have been the ghost of Marshal Duncan. He knew what he was doing because he was the person that they had all killed. And he came back to life to get revenge on them all. And I know that look on Trump’s face, the confidence that comes from surviving death and getting another chance to get revenge on the people who hurt you. I try not to make all these stories about me, but I use my personal experience to give a foundation to any testimony. And I know what it feels like to survive circumstances where you were almost killed but are spared by the Armour of God to bring to the world revenge in the way that God understands it. It is a very satisfying feeling when you realize that God puts his hand on you to be his instrument of retribution. And, after the assassination attempts against Trump right before the election, you can tell he’s feeling it. I have walked away from major, major, very devastating car crashes at high speeds, over 100 miles an hour, and slept like a baby that was unharmed just a few hours later except for a few bumps and bruises. I have been shot at lots of times. I have had many plots for my demise fail spectacularly by people who are very good at those kinds of things, and I was able to make complete fools of them over and over again. It was amazing that Trump’s assassin missed his head by just millimeters. Such a close call certainly gets your attention and shows divine intervention. But I can count more than 50 times I have experienced such a rare occurrence, which is statistically impossible once, let alone that much. I don’t think about it much daily, but watching Trump at Davos reminded me of all those times, and statistically speaking, it’s far more than luck at work. That’s why I talk about the Book of Ephesians so much; it is the best literature in the world at describing the power and need for the Armour of God. It’s a very real thing for a few select people fortunate enough to experience it. But to feel it, you essentially have to face death and survive. And once you realize that the hand of God is on you, you fear nothing.

In High Plains Drifter, it isn’t revealed until the end of the movie that the Stranger is the ghost of Marshal Duncan, which then explains why he knew so much about the characters he was torturing throughout the movie, using the guilt of their crimes as a weapon to destroy them personally. It also explains why the Stranger had no fear of death because he had already gone through that ordeal and was resurrected by the hand of God to enact revenge on the wicked. It’s a wonderful story, and retribution is a morality of its own. Trump, dealing with the most sinful people on planet Earth all collected together, did precisely what he needed to do. And all they could do was sit there and take it. Trump, with the Armour of God on him, knew what they had all done, and he was intent on making them all choke on their guilt. This is precisely what happened at Davos at the end of his speech. They clapped like fools toward their own demise. And Trump earned the right to do it because they tried to kill him many times over. He survived to come back to the White House and give retribution to all those worldwide who were in on the many crimes against him. Whether it’s a little fictional town called Lago from High Plains Drifter or the entire global community of politicians and business leaders plotting to rule over us all, retribution was the theme. And a well-deserved theme defined best by Melania Trump’s fantastic attire at the Inauguration. A retribution well deserved by an executor of justice for which Trump became the Hell-hound from the grave to bring justice to those who deserve severe punishment for the crimes they committed against all humanity.

Rich Hoffman

Click Here to Protect Yourself with Second Call Defense https://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707

Trump is Back: When they can’t kill you, everyone wants to be your friend

It’s a statement I always make and live by: if people aren’t trying to kill you, you aren’t doing a good enough job. The goal in life isn’t to make friends with everyone; they should want rather to kill you instead, and when they fail, as we are seeing with Trump, then they’ll want to be your friend. And when everyone is wondering where the resistance is to Trump this time, in 2025 as opposed to 2017 at this same time of year, at the Inauguration for another four years as president, my old gunfighter analysis of the bar and the room certainly applies. And I know that Trump doesn’t want to send the wrong signal and let the bad guys out there know he had to take measures to protect himself. Even as risky as I am, I would never advise someone like Trump to give a speech from the steps of the Capitol, where for miles around there are thousands of places within a mile or so that could take a shot at him out in the open or for a drone to lock on his position and do its menace. It’s always a good idea to move locations and schedule times when you have a lot of bad guys out there who want to kill you; it is just as good practice.

Powerful: Michigan Pastor Lorenzo Sewell Leads Inauguration Crowd In Prayer

Thanks God For The "Millimeter Miracle" In Reference To The Bullet That Nearly Took Trump's Life In 2024.

More Life Inauguration Coverage Here: https://t.co/CtC9YWf3Vx pic.twitter.com/o6V1X8ttAB
— Alex Jones (@RealAlexJones) January 20, 2025

Just because they want to do something doesn’t mean you let them do it. After the last eight years, they have thrown everything they could at the President, and Trump is still doing what I have wanted to see for many years now: return to the White House. His enemies were reduced to a whimper, certainly not a roar like last time. This time was very different, and Trump played it all right. When you conquer your enemies, keep them close and let them serve you, as was the obvious case with Jeff Bezos, Snoop Dogg, and Mark Zuckerberg, along with many others who made sure they were making friends with this new power, rather than fighting against it, as they had in the past.

But even with all that said, moving the Inauguration into the Capitol Rotunda was brilliant because of the bitter cold. As if Trump needed a reason to say it, the cold weather was setting up a no-win situation for the crowd that traveled all over the country to share in the Inauguration experience. Having a million people in the mall would look great for the cameras, but there are always people who would freeze, even if the percentage was less than 1%. Once everyone starts using porta potties outside in temperatures below zero, you will have big problems, and it was better to avoid all those for obvious reasons. The crowd would either be huge, but you would lose some people in the cold, or it would be smaller than usual because of the cold, and Trump would be criticized for a smaller crowd. When you take all that and consider that there are people from all over the world who do want to kill Trump so he doesn’t change things in a way they can’t deal with, it was best just to move everything inside. All that matters is that Trump gets sworn in, and we start to fix the mess that a lot of flawed characters put forward to destroy our country. Trump’s swearing-in makes everything official and corrects a course that should have never been disrupted in the first place.

But let’s answer the question that everyone who was an enemy is now asking: where is the resistance to Trump? Well, I said all this initially, the first time around in January of 2021, when Trump won clearly and decisively, and we witnessed a coup in America, but a lot of evil people who stole the election, sent Trump packing, then inserted Joe Biden into the office. And they never let him make the decisions. Instead, the White House was run by a globalist committee, and a lot of bad stuff was started, like canceling the Keystone Pipeline, undoing all the patriotic events Trump had planned, disgracing our offices with transgender radicals, Marxist kingpins, and an energy policy that robbed money right out of our wallets.

I understand Melania. And yes, she has great taste in fashion. She gets it.

Elon Musk is fired up about America's future! 🔥🇺🇸

"This is what victory feels like!"

"This was no ordinary victory. This was a fork in the road of human civilization."

"This one really mattered. Thank you for making it happen! My heart goes out to you. It is thanks to you… pic.twitter.com/866AvQFrbY
— KanekoaTheGreat (@KanekoaTheGreat) January 20, 2025

It was a war against us all by a few very manipulative soothsayers who were committed to globalism and a China-first policy. And it was raw and malicious. They never dreamed there would be a day that Trump would return to the White House with the full support of a country that came together for the effort. But here we are. I said it all along and am very proud to see it all come together exactly as I said. Yes, I was invited to several VIP events in Washington, D.C. I did other events but decided not to go to Washington because I didn’t think I’d get close to Trump this time. It’s much more complicated than it used to be. And I’m not the second fiddle type. So, knowing it was going to be so cold, I stayed regional so I could enjoy all the festivities from relative comfort because I had been waiting for this for a long time. I never just liked to be a face in the crowd; that is essentially what traveling to Washington, D.C., would have been like.

I have several friends who did go, and they had a good time. But when it comes to something like this, which is truly historic, I like to see everything, and watching it on television was the best way to see the details. And I couldn’t get enough of it. I watched the coverage all weekend, especially on Monday, without taking my eyes away, except to shake hands with people I barely recognized because I enjoyed the Inauguration so much, every incredible detail. After Biden was put in place in 2021 with COVID lockdowns imposed everywhere, I was so angry that I packed up my wife and my RV, and we headed out into the desert to write a book and get my mind right. I stayed out there for weeks and returned with a fresh perspective on how to fight this battle. And what happened at the inauguration was a dream come true. And it was gratifying to see all of Trump’s enemies licking his shoes. That’s what real power is, the kind of power that makes people want to kill you. And when they fail, and only when they fail, do they want to be your friend. But Trump isn’t a sucker. He knows this game, and the bad guys won’t sucker him. Instead, we will see what we deserve for sticking with Trump through tough times. We earned the good things that are coming because we had the guts to vote for it. But this time, we didn’t let them steal it from us as we had done in the previous election. And the world should be concerned. They know what they did, and now they are caught, and the shoe is on the other foot. And justice is coming as it always should have.

Rich Hoffman

Click Here to Protect Yourself with Second Call Defense https://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707

	vwells34 on Where Evil Lives in Butler Cou…
	Rich Hoffman on The Blurry Bigfoot in Ohio: Pa…
	Anonymous on The Blurry Bigfoot in Ohio: Pa…
	Anonymous on The Mysterious London Stone: S…
	Anonymous on ‘Prehistoric Worlds Or,…
	Rich Hoffman on ‘Prehistoric Worlds Or,…
	Anonymous on ‘Prehistoric Worlds Or,…
	Anonymous on ‘Forbidden Archaeology…
	Rich Hoffman on Amanda Ortiz the Termite of We…
	Anonymous on Amanda Ortiz the Termite of We…

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: