• When the Supreme Court made their ridiculous decision to nullify the import tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) use, the high court noted several alternate approaches would not be legally problematic.  One of those approaches would be the use of Section 301 trade tariffs.
  •  USTR Jamieson Greer quietly announced that a Section 301 review would be taking place for the following countries: China, the European Union, Singapore, Switzerland, Norway, Indonesia, Malaysia, Cambodia, Thailand, Korea, Vietnam, Taiwan, Bangladesh, Mexico, Japan, and India.”
  • ♦ Section 301 tariffs are a trade enforcement mechanism established under the Trade Act of 1974. They allow the U.S. government to impose tariffs on imports from countries that are found to be engaging in unfair trade practices. The Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) conducts investigations to determine if a country is violating trade agreements, and if so, it can impose tariffs as a corrective measure {SOURCE}
  • USTR PRESS RELEASE – WASHINGTON —

 

  • “The United States will no longer sacrifice its industrial base to other countries that may be exporting their problems with excess capacity and production to us. Today’s investigations underscore President Trump’s commitment to reshore critical supply chains and create good-paying jobs for American workers across our manufacturing sectors,” said Ambassador Greer.
  • “The Trump Administration’s reindustrialization efforts continue to face significant challenges due to foreign economies’ structural excess capacity and production in manufacturing sectors. Across numerous sectors, many U.S. trading partners are producing more goods than they can consume domestically. This overproduction displaces existing U.S. domestic production or prevents investment and expansion in U.S. manufacturing production that otherwise would have been brought online. In many sectors, the United States has lost substantial domestic production capacity or has fallen worryingly behind foreign competitors.” (read more)
  • Additionally, Section 232 [Steel and Aluminum examples] of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (19 U.S.C. §1862, as amended) authorizes the President to impose trade restrictions—such as a tariff or quota—if the Secretary of Commerce determines, following an investigation, that imports of a good “threaten to impair” U.S. national security. {SOURCE}
  • Section 232 is currently covering all the steel and aluminum import tariffs.
  • Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 allows the U.S. president to impose tariffs of up to 15% to address “large and serious” balance-of-payments deficits. This authority can be exercised without prior congressional approval for a limited duration of 150 days. After this period, any tariffs must be extended by Congress. {SOURCE}
  • USTR Greer is now walking through the process of deploying Section 301 and will eventually become the legal underpinning to replace Section 122 and retain all tariff status without congressional extension needed.   Most of this is technical and legal compliance as several of the aforementioned nations have already finalized free trade agreements.

source: theconservativetreehouse.com

Jeanine Pirro, serving as the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, initiated a criminal investigation through the Department of Justice into Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell and the Federal Reserve Board of Governors. The probe centers on allegations that Powell provided false or misleading testimony to Congress in June 2025 regarding massive cost overruns—exceeding $1 billion beyond the initial $1.9 billion estimate—for renovations to the Fed’s headquarters in Washington, D.C. Prosecutors were examining potential charges related to false statements, fraud, and lack of accountability in handling public funds, using grand jury subpoenas to seek related records from the Fed. The investigation stemmed from Powell’s congressional appearance, where his statements about the renovation costs reportedly conflicted with publicly available documents. Pirro’s office began gathering information in November 2025, attempted multiple contacts with the Fed in December 2025 and early January 2026 (which went unanswered), and issued two grand jury subpoenas to the Fed on January 9, 2026—not directly to Powell himself. Powell responded publicly with a video statement on January 11, 2026, claiming the probe was politically motivated harassment tied to President Trump’s repeated demands for lower interest rates, rather than genuine concerns over the building project. On March 13, 2026, U.S. District Chief Judge James Boasberg quashed the subpoenas in a strongly worded ruling, stating there was “a mountain of evidence” indicating they were issued with an “improper motive” to retaliate against Powell over monetary policy disagreements and pressure him to cut rates or resign. Boasberg emphasized that no credible evidence of criminal activity by Powell had been presented, describing the subpoenas as a pretext to undermine the Fed’s independence. During a press conference that day (as shown in the provided image and the X post), Pirro sharply criticized Boasberg as an “activist judge” with antipathy toward the Trump administration, arguing his decision illegally blocked the grand jury’s ability to investigate and granted Powell unwarranted “immunity.” She vowed that the DOJ would appeal the ruling and potentially seek Boasberg’s reconsideration, insisting that “no one is above the law” and that the probe was essential for transparency in federal spending.