Despite the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that President Donald Trump‘s sweeping global tariffs were unlawful, administration officials are strategizing ways to keep at least some of the $133 billion already collected — even after the Trump Justice Department told the courts the funds would be paid back, plus interest, if he lost the case.

“Early ideas include policies to discourage companies from claiming their refunds, prevent the government from paying the money back or otherwise preserve at least some of the tariff revenue, according to five people familiar with the conversations, granted anonymity to discuss them,” according to Politico.

Another idea would be to claim that the funds are now lawfully held, after the administration announced its would use alternate legal vehicles to support collecting the tariffs going forward.

Yet another possible plan would be to allow companies that agree to forfeit a portion of the funds to obtain faster refunds.

READ MORE: Florida Bill Spurs Political Persecution and Surveillance Fears — Sponsor Says ‘Trust Me’

“Trump is trying to paint a blurry picture that the courts haven’t decided what to do with the money,” one of the people familiar with the strategies told Politico. They added that the normal refund process takes about two-and-a-half years, which would give the Trump administration “two years before there’s real question marks that they’re being insincere in returning that money.”

Should the Trump administration attempt to slow-walk refunds, Politico reports, its attempts would be challenged in the courts — and challenged by Democrats who see the refunds as a winning issue in a consequential political year.

“Trade lawyers and customs experts are skeptical that any mechanism the administration devises would hold up in court,” Politico noted. Judges at the Court of International Trade “are likely to scrutinize any effort that appears designed to sidestep repayment.”

“Obviously courts will not like it if the government not only doesn’t honor its word, but then makes everybody file a lawsuit to get the refund,” said Jeffrey Schwab, a lawyer for one of the companies that sued the Trump administration over the tariffs.

“What is fair in this case is the people that were harmed get the money back because that money was illegal,” Schwab told Yahoo Finance. “That money that they were charged was illegal.”

READ MORE: Trump Slammed for ‘Bragging’ He Kicked Millions Off Food Stamps

Image via Reuters 

Controversial Florida legislation is raising alarms over issues including free speech, political persecution, surveillance, and viewpoint discrimination. But the bill’s sponsor says opponents should trust him to alter what critics charge is broad language that could be used to target alleged subversives based on their opinions.

The bill, which advanced in committee on Tuesday, “would allow secretive government surveillance and arrests of Floridians based on views, opinions or actions,” according to the Florida Trident.

The “primary mission” of what would be a new Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) unit “would include the detection, identification, and neutralization of ‘adversary intelligence entities,’ which include a ‘person whose demonstrated actions, views, or opinions are a threat of are inimical to the interests of the this state and the United States of America.'”

The bill’s sponsor, Republican state Rep. Danny Alvarez, “told the committee Tuesday that an amendment was in the works addressing concerns that he said had arisen in recent days over dangers the bill posed to free speech and risks of political persecution.”

READ MORE: Trump Vows Retirement Boost for Millions — Expert Questions His Fiscal Authority

Rep. Alvarez says he is “very aware” of the concerns surrounding First Amendment rights. “But just understand, this is going after terrorists, nation state bad actors, not political speech.” He defended the need for the new legislation, citing the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001.

“People are looking for boogeymen here,” Alvarez said of the bill’s critics, according to The Intercept.

“There’s no boogeyman. I’m going to strip everything that makes you question it. You just have to trust me to get to the next committee,” he said. “But while you look for boogeymen, I need to be looking for terrorists. I need to prevent the next bomb.”

Alvarez disputed critics’ concerns, telling The Intercept that his bill “does not authorize investigations based solely on speech.”

“Any action must be tied to demonstrable conduct and constitutional standards. The First Amendment remains fully intact, and the unit operates under strong statutory safeguards and oversight.”

But critics see a “civil liberties nightmare in the making that could be used to target Muslims and alleged subversives based solely on their views or opinions, much like the FBI’s notorious COINTELPRO program,” The Intercept noted.

Adversary Intelligence Entities

“According to the bill,” The Intercept reports, “adversary intelligence entities” are entities that “include but are not limited to ‘any national, foreign, multinational, friendly, competitor, opponent, adversary, or recognized enemy government or nongovernmental organization, company, business, corporation, consortium, group, agency, cell, terrorist, insurgent, guerrilla entity, or person whose demonstrated actions, views, or opinions are a threat or are inimical to the interests of this state and the United States of America.”

Bobby Block, the executive director of the Florida First Amendment Foundation, “said the bill’s sweeping language leaves open the possibility that the new unit could target people simply based on their views, citing the language about actors who hold views deemed ‘inimical’ to Florida,” meaning harmful or hostile.

“What does that mean? If I’m not a white Christian nationalist, does that mean my views are inimical to the values? It begs a lot of questions,” Block said.

READ MORE: Trump Slammed for ‘Bragging’ He Kicked Millions Off Food Stamps

Image: Official Florida House photo

56 million Americans without an employer-backed retirement saving plan, like a 401(k), could benefit from a proposal President Donald Trump made during Tuesday night’s State of the Union address, but one expert warns he may not have the authority to do so.

Declaring that he wanted to fix a “gross disparity” in America’s retirement system, as CBS News reported, Trump said that “half of all of working Americans still do not have access to a retirement plan with matching contributions from an employer.”

Trump appears to be using a plan provided to federal government employees, the Thrift Savings Plan, as the template for the new retirement accounts.

“The current retirement system effectively excludes millions of Americans who lack access to 401(k) and similar plans, according to a recent report from the National Institute on Retirement Security (NIRS),” CBS News noted. “The nonpartisan group found that most Americans without an employer-sponsored plan are unlikely to put any money away for retirement.”

These new plans would “ensure that all Americans can profit from a rising stock market,” Trump said.

Some financial experts lauded the idea.

“The time has come because so many people are now older and they realize the promise of the 401(k) just didn’t materialize,” retirement expert Teresa Ghilarducci, director of The New School for Social Research’s Wealth Equity Lab, told CBS News. “This goes much further than any other legislation in the last 45 years to get money into low-income workers’ retirement accounts.”

But one expert disagreed with Trump’s plan, and his authority to fund it.

“Not only does the administration lack the fiscal authority to seed 401(k)s with a $1,000 taxpayer match, nor is this a good idea,” Romina Boccia, director of budget and entitlement policy at the Cato Institute, told CBS News. “Americans need a simpler system of tax-advantaged savings via universal savings accounts, not more tax-advantaged accounts (ie Trump accounts) or related handouts.”

Meanwhile, according to Semafor, Trump’s plan may end up not even being his own.

“One option: resurrecting former President Barack Obama’s MyRA program, which Trump shuttered in 2017, citing high costs. Obama announced that plan, which eventually drew 30,000 participants, during his 2014 State of the Union.”

Image via Reuters