Tuesday, February 24, 2026

Somali Fraud Mn 2-24-26

January 2026 | Volume 55, Issue 1

Learning From Minnesota’s Somali Fraud Scandal

Scott W. Johnson

Power Line 

The massive public programs fraud committed almost entirely by Somali perpetrators has recently exploded in the national news. The controversy is centered in Minnesota, where the amount of money bilked from American taxpayers could prove to be as high as $9 billion. But the scandal is spreading to other states as well. When Ryan Thorpe and Chris Rufo published an article in the November 2025 issue of City Journal linking the fraud to the funding of Al-Shabaab—a Somali-based Sunni Islamist organization that is designated a terrorist group by several nations, including the U.S.—President Trump took notice and announced the termination of Temporary Protected Status for Somali immigrants. In late December, YouTuber Nick Shirley posted a 42-minute video that showed him knocking on the doors of Somali-run day care centers in the Minneapolis-Saint Paul area that seemed to have no children in attendance. The video went viral, quickly garnering more than 130 million views on X and 2.5 million views on YouTube. But while this story is new to most Americans, it is anything but new to Minnesotans and others who have been paying it the attention it deserves.

Long known for having a largely Scandinavian population, Minnesota is now home to the largest Somali population in North America, numbering roughly 100,000, most of whom are congregated in the Twin Cities metropolitan area. The seeds of this community were planted in the early 1990s, when the State Department directed thousands of refugees from Somalia’s civil war to Minnesota. Except for a dip in 2008, the immigration of Somalis into Minnesota has continued unabated, augmented by Somalis arriving from other states. The latter likely has to do with Minnesota’s generous welfare and charity policies. As Professor Ahmed Samatar of Saint Paul’s Macalester College was quoted as saying in a 2015 Washington Times story, Minnesota is “the closest thing in the United States to a true social democratic state.”

The massive fraud currently in the news was not the first controversy surrounding the Somali immigrant community. Around 2015, it proved to be a fertile source of ISIS recruits. The FBI’s Minneapolis field office devoted substantial resources to terrorism-related issues. A September 2015 report of the House Homeland Security Committee revealed that Minnesota led all other states in contributing foreign fighters to ISIS. Reviewing the public cases of 58 Americans who joined or attempted to join ISIS, it found that 26 percent of them came from Minnesota. Of ten Minnesota Somalis charged with seeking to join ISIS in Syria, six pleaded guilty and three were convicted at trial in June 2016.

During the trial of the three Somalis who contested the charges, it became clear, primarily from recordings introduced into evidence, that although they gave the outward appearance of American assimilation, they hated America. They took advantage of educational and employment opportunities and moved into and out of the workforce at will. At one time, all three worked at a UPS facility in a leafy Saint Paul suburb, where they enjoyed watching ISIS videos of beheadings during their breaks.

Foreshadowing the fraud scandals of today, the Somalis involved in terrorism showed themselves to be sophisticated in their creative use of social welfare benefits. Two of four Somali ISIS recruits intercepted at New York’s JFK airport while en route to Syria had used federal financial aid funds to pay for their travel. One financed his planned trip to Syria with a $5,000 debit card withdrawal on his student loan account.

In the decade since, the controversy over terrorist recruitment of Somalis has receded and the Somali abuse of social welfare programs has proliferated.

Child Care Fraud

The defrauding of Minnesota’s Child Care Assistance Program for day care services, although brought dramatically to national attention by Nick Shirley in late December, goes back more than ten years. Jeff Baillon, a Twin Cities TV reporter, reported on day care frauds in 2013 and 2015. A year ago this month Jay Kolls, another local reporter, went to two of the ten sites Shirley visited and reported that one of them was guilty of 95 violations—including “no records for 16 children”—between 2019 and 2023. But taxpayer funds continued to flow to these programs.

An illustrative case that arose in 2017 involved Fozia Sheik Ali, whose day care center in south Minneapolis was suspected of billing the government over $1 million for bogus child care services. According to Special Agent Craig Lisher, the FBI “found records that she was collecting a significant amount of money for a much larger number of children than were actually attending the center.” Ali’s case had an international component as well. She used a phone app to charge Minnesota taxpayers for her stay at an $800 per night hotel in Nairobi, and some of the illegally obtained funds were found to have been transferred overseas, although the FBI declined to specify for what purpose. Ali pleaded guilty in March 2018 to a charge of wire fraud and was sentenced to federal prison.

Minnesota’s Office of the Legislative Auditor issued a detailed report on child care fraud in 2019. On the question of how much had been stolen, the report restricted itself to amounts established in convictions. Because convictions were few and far between, that only came to between $5 million and $6 million. But the report concluded, citing the lax administration of the day care program, that the level of fraud was likely higher. Indeed! And the laxity continues. Jim Nobles, the legislative auditor at the time of the 2019 report, wrote a recent column in The Minnesota Star Tribune decrying the “permissive approach” of Minnesota’s state government that makes it “easy for fraudsters to steal” and questioning why nothing had been done over many years to “implement standard financial controls and oversight.”

Feeding Our Future Fraud

In that same Star Tribune column, Nobles wrote: “We now know that the fraud scheme used in the state’s child care program has been used frequently in other state human service programs.” A dramatic example of this is the case that has become known as the Feeding Our Future fraud.

Feeding Our Future is a nonprofit organization that served as a sponsor of sites like day care centers and restaurants that participated in two federal nutrition programs. During the peak Covid period, from April 2020 until January 2022, Feeding Our Future and its sites and their vendors found it remarkably easy to bilk these programs by filing false claims for reimbursement supported by false meal counts, fake rosters, and bogus invoices.

Aimee Bock was the founder and executive director of Feeding Our Future as well as the ringleader of the fraud scheme. As the sponsor of more than 250 Feeding Our Future sites around the state, Bock certified the accuracy of the ludicrously inflated meal claims she submitted for reimbursement. While Feeding Our Future’s sites and vendors are mostly Somali—as are those who have so far been convicted in the trials involving Feeding Our Future—Bock is white, adding a multicultural liberal element to the massive fraud.

The free food programs were administered by the Minnesota Department of Education (MDE) and funded by the federal Department of Agriculture. Operating under the law adopted by Congress on account of Covid, the MDE proved a remarkably easy mark. Feeding Our Future sites multiplied like rabbits, and funds kept rolling out the door. In 2021 alone, Feeding Our Future siphoned off nearly $200 million of taxpayer money.

It is important to note that suspected fraud was often never fully investigated because government overseers were easily scared off by absurd claims of racism—charges that continue to be leveled even today.

In February 2021 the FBI passed on allegations of fraud in the programs to the MDE. In April 2021 a frustrated MDE official tipped off the FBI regarding her own suspicions. FBI forensic accountant Pauline Roase followed up in the ensuing months by collecting relevant bank records to track the flow of funds. FBI Special Agents Jared Kary and Travis Wilmer followed up in the field. In the last six weeks of the investigation they posted surveillance cameras outside twelve Feeding Our Future sites that were supposedly feeding thousands of kids a day. The kids were nowhere to be seen.

On January 20, 2022, the investigation went public when federal agents raided sites in the largest such operation ever conducted in Minnesota. The following September, United States Attorney Andrew Luger called a press conference to announce the charges brought against the first 47 defendants in the case. Charges have now been brought against a total of 78 defendants. The latest of the 78 cases were charged this past November.

In the cases resolved so far, there have been 50 guilty pleas, seven guilty verdicts, and two acquittals. Five fugitives remain at large. One defendant has died. Thirteen unresolved cases await trial. Bock was convicted on seven counts of wire fraud, conspiracy, and federal programs bribery and will be sentenced to a long prison term. The total fraud in these cases comes to some $300 million.

Medicaid Fraud

The Feeding Our Future fraud cases opened a window on scams involving several Minnesota Medicaid programs. After the FBI executed search warrants in one such case in July of last year, then-Acting United States Attorney Joe Thompson—who until very recently was leading both the Feeding Our Future and the Medicaid fraud prosecutions—called a press conference in September to announce criminal charges against the first eight Medicaid fraud defendants, all of whom are Somali.

These initial cases were tied to Minnesota’s Housing Stabilization Services (HSS) program, the purpose of which was to help people with disabilities find housing using Medicaid funds. “Most of these cases, unlike a lot of Medicare and Medicaid fraud cases nationally, aren’t just overbilling,” Thompson said at the press conference. “These are often just purely fictitious companies solely created to defraud the system, and that’s unique in the extent to which we have that here in Minnesota.” The press release distributed at the press conference suggested that the HSS program seems to have been designed to facilitate fraud: “By design, the Program had low barriers to entry for new providers and for beneficiaries. The Program also had minimal requirements for reimbursement.”

Uncovering fraud in Minnesota is like playing with Russian nesting dolls. “Many of the owners of [the involved HSS] companies,” Thompson said, “had one or more other companies through which they billed other Medicaid programs such as the [Early Intensive Developmental and Behavioral Intervention] program, the Adult Rehabilitative Mental Health Services program, the Integrated Community Support program, the Community Access for Disability Inclusion program, [Personal Care Assistance] services, and other Medicaid-waivered services.” The details of these cases were almost incidental to Thompson’s main point—that “Minnesota is drowning in fraud.”

“It feels never-ending,” Thompson said. “I have spent my career as a fraud prosecutor and the depth of fraud in Minnesota takes my breath away.”

On December 18 of last year, Thompson called another press conference to announce charges against six more defendants in connection with Minnesota’s Medicaid programs. The new cases involved allegedly fraudulent claims in programs for housing, autism services, and assistance for disabled adults seeking to live independently. “Every day we look under a rock and find a new $50 million fraud scheme,” Thompson said.

The total amount of money disbursed through these programs since 2018 is $18 billion. Based on his ongoing investigations, Thompson estimated that as much as half that amount—$9 billion!—may have been paid out on fraudulent claims. “The magnitude cannot be overstated,” Thompson said. “What we see in Minnesota is not a handful of bad actors committing crimes. It’s a staggering, industrial-scale fraud.” Four of the six defendants charged in December are Minnesotan Somalis, and those involved in the uncharged cases under investigation are almost entirely Somali.

Political Responsibility

Two defendants from Philadelphia, Anthony Waddell Jefferson and Lester Brown, undertook what Thompson called “fraud tourism.” Having heard that Minnesota’s HSS program presented an easy mark, they set up in Minnesota to become fraudulent service providers. One wonders how word of this was able to make its way to Philadelphia but not to the State Capitol in Saint Paul, where the people’s elected officials are charged with protecting the public interest.

In a Star Tribune interview, Thompson cast the net widely in terms of responsibility: “This fraud crisis didn’t come out of nowhere. It’s the result of widespread failure across nearly every level of leadership in Minnesota: Politicians who turned a blind eye. Agencies that failed to act. Prosecutors and law enforcement who didn’t push hard enough. Reporters who ignored the story. Community leaders who stayed silent. And a public that wanted to believe it couldn’t happen here.”

Partly because it’s a problem that the people can solve directly, I would focus on the politicians. Three in particular.

The first is Governor Tim Walz. In November 2020, Feeding Our Future sued the Minnesota Department of Education for suspending the processing of Feeding Our Future site applications—an action MDE officials had taken because they had good reason to suspect that Feeding Our Future was defrauding the state. The MDE was represented in this lawsuit by the office of Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, which resolved the lawsuit—not under court order, but voluntarily—by backing down and agreeing to continue processing site applications. Two years later in 2022, when the Feeding Our Future scandal erupted and indictments were announced, Walz falsely blamed a state district court judge—rather than his attorney general—for compelling the state to continue payments. This was only the first of many of Walz’s dishonest deflections of responsibility that continue to the present day. Walz will never live down the frauds committed on the agencies under his jurisdiction.

The second is Attorney General Ellison himself. This past December he released a widely mocked video in which he declared, “Scammers think Minnesotans are easy targets. They are wrong.” No, it is abundantly and increasingly clear that the scammers have been right—in large part due to Ellison’s nonfeasance, as seen in the story of his failure to back the MDE against Feeding Our Future in 2020. Like Walz, Ellison continues to refuse to sit for an interview with a serious reporter to answer questions about what he knew about the fraud and when he knew it. Nor has anyone in the mainstream media made an issue of that fact, which is a scandal in its own right.

The third is U.S. Representative Ilhan Omar. Even if we leave aside the fact that she immigrated to the U.S. as a fraudulent member of the Omar family and later married her biological brother in her own Elmi family for further fraudulent purposes, we could still fairly describe her as Somali Fraud Exhibit A. She sponsored the MEALS Act that facilitated the Feeding Our Future fraud, and her congressional district served as its epicenter. She was a friend of Salim Said, Aimee Bock’s co-defendant in the second Feeding Our Future trial. She filmed a promotional video at Said’s restaurant that was introduced by Said’s lawyer at trial, although it actually served to support the charges against Said. Yet despite these facts, Omar claims to have known nothing about the fraud.

Public programs fraud on the scale we see today in Minnesota—and to a lesser degree (so far at least) in other states—indicates a leadership class that has either forgotten or no longer takes seriously the idea that public office is a public trust. What more fitting time could there be than the 250th anniversary year of the Declaration of Independence to restore the moral power of that idea in irresponsible state governments like that of Minnesota?

PreviousThe Dangers of Undermining U.S. Civil–Military Relations

Scott W. Johnson is a co-founder of and contributor to PowerLineblog.com. He earned his B.A. at Dartmouth College and his J.D. at the University of Minnesota Law School and practiced law for 35 years in the Twin Cities. A fellow of the Claremont Institute, he has published widely on issues of public policy, including in National Review, The Wall Street Journal, the New York Post, The Minnesota Star Tribune, and the Washington Free Beacon. For more than ten years he has covered Minnesota Fifth District U.S. Representative Ilhan Omar and three major trials in Minnesota involving Somali defendants.

https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/learning-from-minnesotas-somali-fraud-scandal/

Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader

Antifa Funded ICE Riots 2-24-26

As of late 2025, investigations by the Trump administration have alleged that "Antifa" is involved in organizing and funding, or providing material support for, protests and violent actions targeting U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facilities.  

The White House (.gov) +1

However, the nature of this "funding" and the organization of Antifa is a subject of intense debate and, according to many experts, often misunderstood: 

Ideology vs. Organization: Most researchers, the FBI, and various experts define "Antifa" (short for anti-fascist) as a decentralized, leaderless ideology or movement rather than a single, formal organization with bank accounts or revenue streams.

Allegations of "Dark Money": The 2025 administration and some reports have alleged that "dark money" networks, including some liberal or progressive nonprofits, are funding "Riot Inc." or other loosely affiliated groups that take part in, or are accused of infiltrating, anti-ICE protests.

"Affinity Groups": Protests, including anti-ICE demonstrations, are often organized by "affinity groups"—small, informal, independent units that may share an anti-fascist, anti-state ideology.

Criminal Charges: The Department of Justice (DOJ) has pursued investigations into the funding behind these activities, aiming to use RICO statutes to target alleged networks. Some individuals identified as Antifa have been charged in connection with violence at ICE facilities.

Legal Challenges: The designation of Antifa as a "domestic terrorist organization" by the Trump administration in September 2025 has faced legal criticism, with some experts noting that such a move infringes on First Amendment protections. 

Brennan Center for Justice +6

In summary, while the Trump administration has alleged that Antifa is a "well-funded" actor behind anti-ICE violence, it is not a traditional, centrally funded organization. Instead, it is better described as a network of loosely organized activists, with some reports suggesting they are connected to broader progressive, or anti-ICE, donation networks. 

Determining whether "Antifa" is funding anti-ICE (U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement) activity depends on how the term is defined: as an  organization ideology or a centralized. 

Key Findings on Funding and Organization

Decentralized Nature: Law enforcement and academic experts generally describe Antifa as a decentralized movement or ideology rather than a single organization with leaders, bank accounts, or a formal treasury. Because it lacks a central structure, there is no evidence of a unified "Antifa" budget funding external causes.

Government Allegations: The Trump administration has characterized Antifa as a "domestic terrorist organization" and a "militarist, anarchist enterprise". Officials have alleged that individuals associated with Antifa coordinate with other entities to advance political violence against ICE officers.

Investigation into "Dark Money": Federal authorities are currently investigating what they describe as a "protest industrial complex" or "Riot Inc," seeking to trace funding from nonprofit and "dark money" networks to far-left activists. Some reports suggest groups like the Open Society Foundations or the Tides Network fund organizations that engage in anti-ICE protests, though these foundations state they only support nonviolent activity and do not pay people to protest.

Specific Anti-ICE Incidents:

Federal officials have alleged that Antifa activists "embedded" into the "No Kings" protests in Los Angeles and other cities, which targeted ICE facilities.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) has brought terrorism-related charges against individuals for attacks on ICE facilities, linking them to Antifa-related ideologies.

A group in Portland reportedly doxed ICE officers, with federal fact sheets attributing this to an "Antifa-affiliated group". 

https://www.google.com/search?q=is+antifa+funding+organized+anti+ice

Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader

Mexican Cartel Leader Killed 2-24-26

Based on reports as of February 22, 2026, Nemesio Oseguera Cervantes, known as "El Mencho" and leader of the Jalisco New Generation Cartel (CJNG), was reported killed during a Jalisco Operation by Mexican Armed Forces in Tapalpa, Jalisco, Mexico. 

Wikipedia 

Key Details Regarding Reported Event:

Leader: Nemesio Oseguera Cervantes (El Mencho).

Organization: Jalisco New Generation Cartel (CJNG).

Date of Death: February 22, 2026.

Cause: Gunshot wounds.

Location: Tapalpa, Jalisco, Mexico. 

Wikipedia

Note: This information is based on search results indicating an event on 22 February 2026.

Mexican authorities, with intelligence support from the United States, killed Nemesio "El Mencho" Oseguera Cervantes on Sunday, February 22, 2026. As the leader of the Jalisco New Generation Cartel (CJNG), he was widely considered Mexico's most powerful and wanted drug kingpin. 

Los Angeles Times +5

Details of the Operation

The Raid: The operation took place in the town of Tapalpa, in the western state of Jalisco. It involved Mexican special forces, the Air Force, and the Army.

The Death: "El Mencho" was severely wounded during a fierce firefight at his home. He died while being airlifted to Mexico City for medical treatment.

Casualties: At least six other cartel operatives were killed in the raid, and three Mexican soldiers were injured. 

BBC +5

Immediate Aftermath

Retaliatory Violence: Following news of his death, cartel members unleashed a massive wave of violence across at least 20 Mexican states. This included setting vehicles on fire and erecting burning roadblocks to paralyze major transit routes.

Civilian Impact: Residents in Guadalajara and other major cities were urged to stay indoors. Schools were canceled in several states, and international flights to regions like Puerto Vallarta and Baja California were disrupted.

Security Alerts: Mexico's security forces remain on high alert nationwide, and neighboring Guatemala has reinforced its border to prevent a spillover of violence. 

BBC +5

Context and Significance

Most Wanted: The U.S. had previously designated the CJNG as a terrorist organization and offered a $15 million reward for Oseguera's capture.

Political Pressure: The successful operation follows significant pressure from the U.S. government on Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum to curb the flow of fentanyl into the United States.

A "High-Profile Blow": Analysts describe this as the most significant blow to Mexican organized crime since the recapture of Joaquín "El Chapo" Guzmán a decade ago. 

Los Angeles Times +6

https://www.google.com/search?q=mexican+cartel+leader+killed+today+google+ai

Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader

Monday, February 23, 2026

Supreme Court Decision on Tariffs 2-23-26

On February 20, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that President Donald Trump's sweeping global tariffs were illegal, striking down his use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose them. Chief Justice Roberts stated that the 1977 law does not authorize the President to impose tariffs, restricting his power to bypass Congress on trade policy. 

San Francisco Chronicle +3 

Key Aspects of the Ruling:

Decision: The 6-3 ruling found that Congress, not the executive branch, has the power to impose tariffs, a significant blow to a core, second-term economic agenda.

Impact on Tariffs: The ruling invalidated widespread tariffs, including those on steel, aluminum, and Chinese imports enacted in 2025.

Refunds: The decision puts over $175 billion in collected tariffs at risk, with potential, though complex, refunds for businesses.

Dissent: Justices Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh, and Clarence Thomas dissented, with Kavanaugh noting the potential for a "mess" regarding the refund process.

Scope: While the 2025 "Liberation Day" and reciprocal tariffs are affected, other, more specific trade remedies (like Section 232) were not part of this specific ruling, according to Canadian Trade Minister Dominic LeBlanc

Evrim Ağacı +5

This decision is seen as a major check on presidential authority over international commerce. 

Evrim Ağacı

In a landmark 6-3 decision on February 20, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a significant portion of President Donald Trump's global tariffs, ruling that he exceeded his executive authority. 

Evrim Ağacı +1

Key Details of the Ruling

The Decision: The Court ruled 6-3 that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) of 1977 does not grant the President the power to unilaterally impose trade tariffs.

Constitutional Basis: Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, emphasized that the Constitution vests the power to "lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises" exclusively in Congress.

Major Questions Doctrine: The Court applied this doctrine, asserting that for matters of such vast "economic and political significance," a clear and specific delegation of power from Congress is required.

Dissenting Voices: Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Brett Kavanaugh dissented. Justice Kavanaugh argued that tariffs are a traditional tool for regulating importation and that the ruling could cause significant economic disruption. 

Evrim Ağacı +7

Scope and Impact

Affected Tariffs: The ruling specifically targets tariffs enacted under IEEPA, including the "reciprocal" tariffs and levies on steel, aluminum, and various Chinese imports.

Unaffected Tariffs: Tariffs imposed under other legal authorities (such as Section 232 or Section 301) remain in place for now, as they were not the focus of this specific case.

Financial Consequences: Economists estimate that over $175 billion in collected tariff revenue may now be subject to refund, though the Court's opinion did not provide a specific mechanism for how or if these refunds should be processed.

Political Reaction: President Trump reportedly labeled the decision a "disgrace," while business groups and trade organizations hailed it as a victory for market stability.

https://www.google.com/search?q=us+supreme+court+decision+on+tariffs+2-20-26+google+ai

Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader

Tariff Decision Implications 2-23-26

Key Aspects of the Struck-Down IEEPA Regime (2025-2026): 

Reciprocal Tariffs (10%–25%+): Initially aimed at all countries to offset trade deficits, later adjusted to 15% for various countries including the DRC and Equatorial Guinea.

Canada/Mexico/China Focus: Included 25% tariffs on Canadian/Mexican goods (due to illegal drug influx) and specific, often higher, duties on Chinese goods.

Sector-Specific Increases: Effective Oct 14, 2025, to Jan 1, 2026,, tariffs were set for specific items: Softwood timber/lumber (+10% rising to 30%), upholstered wooden products (+25% rising to 50%), and kitchen cabinets (+25%).

Energy Imports: A 10% tariff was applied to Canadian energy imports, including crude oil, natural gas, and coal.

Legal Status: Following court rulings, importers have been seeking refunds, as the legal basis for these specific IEEPA-based tariffs was deemed invalid. 

As of February 20, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not authorize the President to impose tariffs. Consequently, all tariffs previously enacted under IEEPA authority have been invalidated and terminated. 

Trade Compliance Resource Hub +4

While the IEEPA-specific tariff list is no longer in effect, the administration immediately transitioned to alternative legal authorities. 

Status of Major Tariff Programs (Post-Feb 20, 2026)

Active

Section 122  A 10% dury on most imports took effect 2-24-26 for 150 day period.

Section 232  Tariffs on steel, aluminum and automobiles remain at 25%.

Section 301 Existing tariffs on Chinese goods remain in full effect.

Summary of Terminated IEEPA Tariffs

Before being struck down, the IEEPA regime included the following primary measures that are no longer active: 

Reciprocal Tariffs: A baseline 10% duty applied to most trading partners, with higher rates for specific countries.

Trafficking & Immigration Tariffs: High-rate duties targeting imports from China, Mexico, and Canada intended to address fentanyl and border security.

De Minimis Change: IEEPA was used to suspend duty-free treatment for low-value imports; however, a new February 20, 2026 Executive Order has re-established this suspension under separate authority. 

Trade Compliance Resource Hub +4

New Replacement: Section 122 Surcharge 

Following the court ruling, a 10% surcharge was imposed under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. This applies to most imports starting February 24, 2026, with notable exemptions for: 

USMCA-compliant goods from Canada and Mexico (commercial shipments).

Critical sectors: Pharmaceuticals, certain electronics, energy products, and specific agricultural goods. 

O'Melveny +2

Importer Refunds

The Supreme Court remanded the issue of refunds for the estimated $160 billion in IEEPA duties already collected back to the U.S. Court of International Trade. Importers may be eligible for refunds, though U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) guidance on the process is currently pending. 

https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=3c5cf73ee52ef95e&q=IEEPA

Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader

Congressional Action on Tariffs 2-23-26

Yes, Congress is expected to heavily weigh in on tariff policy in 2026, driven by a landmark Supreme Court ruling on February 20, 2026, which struck down President Trump's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose broad tariffs. The Court affirmed that the constitutional authority to levy tariffs rests with Congress.  

The Conference Board +3

Here is the outlook for Congressional action on tariffs in 2026:

Reclaiming Authority: The ruling forces Congress back into the "driver's seat" on trade policy. Lawmakers, particularly Republicans in swing districts or from farming states, are now under pressure to vote on whether to support or oppose new, narrower tariffs proposed by the administration.

Legislative Efforts to Counter Tariffs: In response to the ruling, lawmakers have introduced legislation to act. This includes:

The RELIEF Act: Aims to provide automatic tariff refunds.

The Prevent Tariff Abuse Act: Would stop the president from imposing tariffs under the guise of a national emergency without Congressional approval.

The Congressional Trade Authority Act: Requires the president to submit to Congress any proposal to adjust tariffs under Section 232.

Potential for New Legislation: While the administration has signaled it will use alternative statutes (Section 122 and Section 301) to replace the struck-down tariffs, Congress may move to limit these tools.

Divided Views: The issue is a major point of contention within the GOP, with some Republicans celebrating the ruling as a win for constitutional separation of powers, while others face pressure from the administration to support new duties. 

Congressman Greg Stanton (.gov) +4

Contextual Factors for 2026:

Economic Impact: The Supreme Court ruling creates uncertainty regarding whether billions of dollars in tariffs already collected will be refunded.

2026 Midterms: With midterm elections approaching, the economic consequences of tariffs—such as higher prices for consumers—are expected to be a major campaign theme.

Future Legal Battles: Experts suggest the 2026 ruling is not the last time the Supreme Court will be involved, as the administration tests alternative legal avenues for trade restrictions. 

Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget +4

https://www.google.com/search?q=is+congress+planning+to+weigh+in+on+the+tariff+issue+in+2026+google+ai

Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader

Trump Response 2-23-26

Following a February 2026 Supreme Court ruling limiting his use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), President Trump is implementing a "Plan B" centered on imposing a 10% universal baseline tariff on most imports using Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. This temporary, 150-day measure aims to address balance-of-payments issues, while his administration simultaneously initiates longer-term investigations under Section 301 for unfair trade practices.  

Michael Best & Friedrich LLP +5

Key Components of Trump's "Plan B" (as of Feb 21, 2026):

Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974: This allows the President to impose up to 15% tariffs for 150 days to address "fundamental international payment problems" or major trade deficits.

10% Universal Tariff: An executive order will enforce a 10% duty on most imports, supplementing existing tariffs.

Section 301 Investigations: Long-term, permanent tariffs are expected to be established through new investigations into foreign trade practices, similar to actions taken in his first term.

Expansion of Section 232: The administration plans to broaden the definition of national security to cover more products under existing 232 authorities.

Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930: This rarely-used,, 96-year-old provision is being considered for penalties up to 50% on countries discriminating against U.S. commerce. 

Michael Best & Friedrich LLP +5

These actions are designed to keep significant import taxes in place while navigating the new legal restrictions on IEEPA, say Axios and Investor's Business Daily. 

Following the February 20, 2026, Supreme Court ruling that struck down President Trump’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) for tariffs, the administration immediately transitioned to a "Plan B" centered on alternative legal authorities. 

Eversheds Sutherland +1

Trump's "Plan B" consists of the following key measures:

Global 10% Tariff: Trump signed an executive order late on February 20 to impose an across-the-board 10% global tariff under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. This authority allows for tariffs of up to 15% to address balance-of-payment deficits, but is strictly limited to 150 days unless extended by Congress.

New Section 301 Investigations: The administration is launching new investigations under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 to address "unfair trade practices". These allow for more permanent duties but require a lengthy procedural process, including public hearings and investigations that typically take 9 months to complete.

Expansion of Section 232 Tariffs: Trump confirmed that sector-specific "national security" tariffs—such as those on steel, aluminum, copper, and semiconductors—remain in full effect. He has indicated he may expand these to cover more products or increase rates.

Potential Use of Section 338: The administration is considering invoking Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (a "Depression-era" law). This would allow for tariffs of up to 50% on countries found to discriminate against U.S. commerce, with no automatic expiration date. 

Investopedia +9

Key Exemptions and Constraints:

Exemptions: The new 10% global tariff reportedly exempts Canadian and Mexican goods that comply with the USMCA, as well as specific items like critical minerals, pharmaceuticals, and certain energy products.

Refund Uncertainty: While the Supreme Court ruling invalidated billions in previously collected IEEPA tariffs, Trump has cast doubt on immediate refunds, suggesting the issue will be litigated for years.

Procedural Hurdles: Unlike the "Plan A" IEEPA tariffs, these alternative "Plan B" authorities are more narrow, often time-limited, and require specific administrative findings or investigations before they can be fully implemented. 

Eversheds Sutherland +5

https://www.google.com/search?q=what+is+trump%27s+plan+b+for+tariffs

Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader