SCOTUS Strikes Down Tariffs 6–3. Langworthy Says They 'Proven Effective.' The Numbers Disagree.

Economy / Trade Source: Facebook Statement FALSE / MISLEADING

The Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump on February 20, 2026 struck down all tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, finding that “IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs.” Rep. Nick Langworthy’s Facebook statement responding to the ruling contains four core claims. Three are misleading or contradicted by available evidence; one is narrowly accurate but strategically framed to minimize a historic judicial rebuke of executive overreach.

Why This Matters for NY-23

Langworthy’s own constituents are among the tariff regime’s clearest losers. NY dairy exports fell 12% in the first half of 2025. Canada’s retaliatory tariffs hit dairy, poultry, vegetables, and other NY-23 agricultural products. The Finger Lakes wine industry watched as every Canadian province pulled American alcohol from shelves in retaliation. Fertilizer prices rose 4.7–37.6% because 100% of potash used by NY farmers is imported from Canada. Western New York lost 1,000 manufacturing jobs in the year ending December 2025. Langworthy voted against H.J.Res. 72 to end Canada tariffs on February 11, 2026 — nine days before the Supreme Court ruled the tariffs illegal.

Claim 1: Tariffs “leveled the playing field”

Verdict: FALSE

Langworthy asserts tariffs “have proven to be an effective tool to level the playing field and promote American products abroad.” Every major metric tells the opposite story.

The U.S. goods trade deficit hit an all-time record of $1.24 trillion in 2025, up 2.1% from 2024, according to Bureau of Economic Analysis data released the day before the ruling. The overall goods-and-services deficit of $901.5 billion was essentially unchanged from 2024’s $903.5 billion — and 78% larger than the pre-tariff 2016 baseline of $504.8 billion. While the bilateral deficit with China fell sharply to $202.1 billion (a 21-year low), this was almost entirely offset by surging deficits with Vietnam (+44%), Taiwan (+99%), and Mexico — classic trade diversion rather than trade reduction.

Manufacturing employment, the stated beneficiary of tariff protection, declined by approximately 103,000–108,000 jobs between January 2025 and January 2026, according to revised BLS data. The sector suffered 13 consecutive months of job losses before a modest 5,000-job gain in January 2026.

The economic consensus is overwhelming. A Stanford/SIEPR survey found 93% of economic experts disagreed that steel and aluminum tariffs would improve Americans’ welfare. The Tax Foundation calculated that Trump’s tariffs constituted the largest U.S. tax increase as a share of GDP since 1993, costing the average household $1,000 in 2025 and a projected $1,300 in 2026. The New York Fed’s February 12, 2026 analysis found a 94% pass-through rate, meaning a 10% tariff resulted in foreign exporters cutting prices by just 0.6%.

Claim 2: The ruling addressed only IEEPA authority, not tariff merits

Verdict: NARROWLY TRUE BUT MISLEADINGLY FRAMED

Chief Justice Roberts did write: “We claim no special competence in matters of economics or foreign affairs.” The majority opinion focused narrowly on statutory interpretation, holding that two words in IEEPA — “regulate” and “importation” — “cannot bear such weight” as to authorize unlimited tariff power.

However, the ruling’s practical effect was devastating: it immediately invalidated all IEEPA tariffs, which represented approximately half of all customs duties being collected. The effective U.S. tariff rate dropped from roughly 17% to 7–9.1% overnight. The Tax Foundation estimated the now-voided IEEPA tariffs would have raised $1.4 trillion over a decade. The ruling also created potential refund liability of $160–175 billion for tariffs the Court deemed unlawful from inception.

Verdict: PARTIALLY TRUE BUT SIGNIFICANTLY OVERSTATED

Within hours of the ruling, Trump invoked Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 to impose a 10% global tariff. This authority is capped at 15% and expires after 150 days unless Congress extends it — a severe constraint compared to the uncapped, indefinite IEEPA tariffs. All existing Section 232 tariffs (steel at 50%, aluminum at 50%, automobiles at 25%) and Section 301 tariffs on Chinese imports remain in force.

The remaining tools each carry significant limitations. Section 232 requires Commerce Department investigations taking up to 270 days. Section 301 requires USTR investigations that can take approximately nine months. No single authority — or combination — can replicate the blanket, country-specific, uncapped nature of the struck-down IEEPA tariffs.

Claim 4: Western NY was “hollowed out” by free trade agreements

Verdict: PARTIALLY TRUE BUT SIGNIFICANTLY OVERSIMPLIFIED

The economic devastation in Langworthy’s district is undeniable. Dunkirk’s poverty rate stands at 24.9% — double the national average — with a child poverty rate of 47.3%. Olean’s poverty rate is 24.1%, and its median income of $47,553 is roughly 63% of the national figure.

But the evidence on causation is far more complex. A Ball State University study found that 88% of manufacturing job losses between 2000 and 2010 resulted from automation and technological change, not trade. The United States lost half its manufacturing jobs before NAFTA was signed in 1994. Additional factors included the Federal Reserve’s high-interest-rate policies of 1979–1984, corporate decisions to relocate to the American South, and the broader structural shift to a service and knowledge economy.

Trade agreements did play a role — the “China Shock” literature documented severe localized impacts after 2001. But tariffs address only one strand of a multi-causal crisis, and the evidence from 2025 shows tariffs are actively harming the very communities Langworthy says he wants to help.

The Refund Question Langworthy Didn’t Address

The Court declared IEEPA tariffs “unlawful ab initio” — illegal from the start — creating potential refund liability of $160–175 billion. Over 1,000 lawsuits have already been filed. Critically, refunds would flow to importers, not consumers. American consumers who paid higher prices will almost certainly never see that money returned.

Sources

BEA · BLS · NY Federal Reserve · Tax Foundation · Penn Wharton Budget Model · SCOTUSblog · NY State Comptroller · USDA · House Clerk Roll Call #65

Last updated: February 20, 2026