Trade Court Rules U.S. President Can Set De Minimis Rules/Rates and Foreign Nations Cannot Interfere

August 13, 2026 | Sundance |

This would seem like a no-brainer, butmultiple nations are so dependent on abusing the de minimis process the multinationals actually sued the United States for eliminating the $800 de minimis tariff exception.

On August 29, 2025, the U.S. government eliminated the de minimis threshold for all countries via Executive Order 14324, making the rule apply regardless of origin. {SEE HERE} Chinese companies like Shein and Temu are subject to paying import taxes to ship cheap products into the USA.

Truth Social – BIG WIN today at the U.S. Court of International Trade on one ofthe most DESPICABLE loopholes in American Trade Policy — The so-called “de minimis” exemption.

For years, Foreign Shippers could send packages worth up to $800 into our Country, DUTY FREE, NO TARIFF, far less scrutiny.It became a giant loophole for TARIFF Cheats— and a Pipeline exploited by Fentanyl Traffickers, Counterfeiters, and other Criminals shipping dangerous and illegal products into America.The numbers were staggering. In 2024 alone, de minimis cost America an estimated 10.8 BILLION DOLLRS in foregone TARIFF Revenue, and an astonishing share of narcotics and counterfeit seizurescame through the de minimis channel. So, we CLOSED IT. With the stroke of my mighty pen — NO AUTOPEN!!! — we ended this ridiculous giveaway,and made Foreign Goods play by the rules. The Importers sued. Today, THEY LOST. The Court ruled thatthe President had the Legal Authority to rescind this so-called “privilege.

America is now SAFER, our Workers are better protected,and BILLIONS in TARIFF Revenue that used to slip through this loophole can instead help pay for our Great Military, Tax Relief, NO TAX ON TIPS, and NO TAX ON SOCIAL SECURITY. AMERICA FIRST TRADE — AND AMERICA FIRST LAW ENFORCEMENT!

~ President Donald J Trump

(The panda represents China)

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2026/08/13/trade-court-rules-u-s-president-can-set-de-minimis-rules-rates-and-foreign-nations-cannot-interfere/#more-286048

Former MSNBC Host Chris Matthews DOES NOT Have a Thrill Running Up His Leg for the DSA: ‘All This Crap’ (VIDEO)

By Mike LaChance Aug. 12, 2026

You can count former MSNBC host Chris Matthews among the Democrats who are not happy about the DSA takeover of the party.

Appearing on MSNOW’s Morning Joethis morning, Matthews reacted to the Wisconsin Democrat primary last night and lashed out at the DSA for forcing all Democrats to have to defend ‘all this crap’ that they have introduced in this election cycle.

Matthews went as far as to suggest that the DSA people have done a favor to the non-DSA Democrats by setting themselves apart.

He ripped the DSA on their desire to get rid of ICE and the border, defund the Pentagon and more. You know things are bad when Chris Matthews starts sounding like one of the reasonable ones.

Partial transcript via Townhall:

MATTHEWS: “We’re going to get rid of ICE. Not just ICE. We’re going to get rid of the border. We’re not going to have a border anymore. We’re not going to effectively control people entering and leaving the country… We’re going to get rid of prisons. We’re going to get rid of the Pentagon.”

“Well, what happens when your hostages are your former diplomats — like what happened with President Carter? People take your diplomats hostage. What do you do then? You need an army. You don’t like to have an army, but you do need to have one.”

“AOC… came out and said, ‘We’re just a big tent party.'”

“Well, the problem with the big tent defense is every Democrat has to defend all this crap coming from the left. They’ve got to say, ‘I believe in all this crazy stuff, and that makes me a Democrat.’ You’ve got to say, ‘No, no, I’m not a member of the DSA, and here’s why,’ and make it very clear.”

Watch the whole thing below:

There is a major rift happening within the Democrat Party, whether they are willing to admit it or not.

The DSA may have taken a beating in Wisconsin, but they are far from finished.

@VigilantFox

Chris Matthews lists everything the DSA believes on MSNBC, then calls it CRAP.

Even he can't stomach what's happening to his own party.

MATTHEWS: "We're going to get rid of ICE. Not just ICE. We're going to get rid of the border. We're not going to have a border anymore. We're not going to effectively control people entering and leaving the country… We're going to get rid of prisons. We're going to get rid of the Pentagon."

"Well, what happens when your hostages are your former diplomats — like what happened with President Carter? People take your diplomats hostage. What do you do then? You need an army. You don't like to have an army, but you do need to have one."

"AOC… came out and said, 'We're just a big tent party.'"

“Well, the problem with the big tent defense is every Democrat has to defend all this CRAP coming from the left. They've got to say, 'I believe in all this CRAZY STUFF, and that makes me a Democrat.' You've got to say, 'No, no, I'm not a member of the DSA, and here's why,' and make it very clear."

Chris Matthews spent more than 50 years in Democratic politics and liberal media.

He joins James Carville on the list of longtime liberals who don't even recognize their party anymore.

Gallup found last August that 66% of Democrats view socialism positively. Just 42% view capitalism positively.

(https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2026/08/former-msnbc-host-chris-matthews-does-not-have/

>>24931784. When the democrats that are not crazy lefties there’s got to fighting back by the less nuts as the democrats now. Neither are good because they lie all the time but they are totally insane as DSA is now

Trump administration urges Supreme Court to issue a decision in mail-in voting dispute

ByAmy Howe.1/2

Aug 12, 2026

The Trump administration on Wednesday reiterated its request for the Supreme Court tomove quickly to block a ruling by a federal judge in Massachusetts that prohibits the government from implementing part of an executive order on mail-in voting in 23 states and the District of Columbia for the November elections. U.S. Solicitor General D. JohnSauer told the justices that “it is critical that the Court act promptly on the pending” request, which was filed on July 27 and has now been fully briefed for more than a week. “Otherwise,” Sauer wrote, U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani’s “erroneous orders will effectively run out the clock on the government’s ability to implement Section 3 of the Executive Order,” which (among other things)bars the U.S. Postal Service from mailing ballots to voters who are not on the lists of eligible voters that the USPS will create “for the federal elections in November.” And that in turn, Sauer contended, will “caus[e] irreparable harm to the federal government, the public, and election integrity.”==

President Donald Trump signed the executive order, which bears thetitle “Ensuring Citizenship Verification and Integrity in Federal Elections,” on March 31.As it came to the court in late July, the focus of the case was on three different provisions of the order.The first instructs the Department of Homeland Security to create lists of the adult U.S. citizens in each state and to send those lists to states at least 60 days before a federal election.

The second provision commands the U.S. attorney general to “prioritize the investigation and, as appropriate, the prosecution of State and local officials … who issue Federal ballots to individuals not eligible to vote in a Federal election.”

And thethird provision, known as Section 3, requires states to give the U.S. Postal Service a list of voters to whom the states intend to send mail ballots,and it prohibits the USPS from mailing ballots to voters who are not on the lists of “enrolled” voters that the USPS will create.

A group of 23 states, led by California, and the District of Columbia challenged the government’s implementation of the order in a federal court in Massachusetts. Talwani ruled that it was too soon for her to review the challengers’ claims as they applied to federal elections scheduled after Nov. 3, 2026.However, she said, the challengers’ claims with regard to the upcoming midterm elections were “ripe” – that is, ready for review– because the order “created a ‘direct and immediate dilemma’” for them.In a decision issued on June 25, she barred the federal government from implementing the challenged restrictions on or before Nov. 3, 2026, in the District of Columbia and the 23 states.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit turned down the government’s request to pause Talwani’s June 25 ruling while the litigation continued. It emphasized that neither the federal government nor 12 states, led by Alabama,that had joined the case on the Trump administration’s side had argued that the executive order was legal. That court also rejected the contention that the challengers did not have a right to sue or that the case was not yet ripe.

https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/08/trump-administration-urges-supreme-court-to-issue-a-decision-in-mail-in-voting-dispute/

>>24931932

2/2

=On July 27, the Trump administration came to the Supreme Court, asking the justices to intervene. Calling Talwani’s decision “extraordinary,” Sauer renewed his argumentthat the challengers’ claims are not yet ripe for review because the agencies haven’t yet decided how they will implement the order.He also contended that unless the court steps in and puts Talwani’s ruling on hold, the government will be permanently harmed – one factor that courts consider in deciding whether to grant temporary relief – because it “blocks the government’s ability to finalize and implement the President’s proposed policiesto promote election integrity for the upcoming federal elections in November.” Moreover, he added, “every day that it remains in place irreparably harms the government, as the start of mail-in and absentee voting in some States is now just one month away.”

In a filing on Aug. 3, thechallengers countered that blocking Talwani’s ruling “would allow the federal government to rush out an unprecedented, legally indefensible voter-verificationand ballot-interception program that would, among other things, give the U.S. Postal Service far-reaching new powers and responsibilities.” They also emphasized that the 1st Circuit had agreed with them that “the specificity of the EO’s stated timelines and the inescapable legal requirements and impending deadlines that States currently face in facilitating mail-in and absentee balloting for immediately upcoming elections together establish”the kind of “concrete injury” that allows them to sue.

The catalyst for Wednesday’s supplemental brief was Talwani’s decision on Tuesday in a separate challenge to the executive order, this time brought by (among others)the League of Women Voters, that temporarily bars the U.S. Postal Service from implementing Section 3 of the executive order. Sauer stressed that Tuesday’s ruling sweeps even more broadly than Talwani’s June 25 decision because it applies “nationwide on behalf of” the various groups who are plaintiffs in the new case.

Talwani’s Aug. 11 ruling, Sauer argued, “confirms the urgent need for this Court to grant the stay of” her June 25 ruling “and to explain its rationale for doing so.”In particular, Sauer emphasized, Tuesday’s ruling suffers from the same problem as its predecessor: “Courts cannot enjoin implementation of an Executive Order that merely instructs agencies to pursue a proposed policy in a manner that is consistent with laws… unless and until those agencies actually take concrete actions that injure the plaintiffs.”

https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/08/trump-administration-urges-supreme-court-to-issue-a-decision-in-mail-in-voting-dispute/