Not literally, but on wood pulp used for TP? Implicitly, SecTreas Bessent is suggesting that if the IEEPA tariffs are struck down by the Supreme Court.
“We can recreate the exact tariff structure with 301s, with 232s, with the—I think they’re called 122s,” he said, referring to three separate statutory authorities governing trade actions.
Well, I don’t think market access arguments (Sec 301) are going to work for wood pulp. Pretty sure wood pulp imports are not a basis for a balance of payments problem (Sec 122) — not that we have a balance of payments problem as far as I can tell. So Sec 232 it is! Wood pulp joins bathroom vanities as a national security trade issue.
Probabilities of a Supreme Court decision against the IEEPA tariffs? 77% as of 1pm CT.
Source: Kalshi, access 12/4/2025, 1pm CT.
Polymarket has the corresponding probabilty at 72%.
See Wolff/PIIE for more.
Speaking of the Supreme Court, a decision on the racial gerrymander in Texas is due this week. The filing deadline for the 2026 election is next Monday.
Ta Da!
The conservative majority of the Supreme Court has once again shown themselves to be an entirely partisan group of Republican stooges. Racial gerrymandering is fine and the Voting Rights act doesn’t mean a damned thing:
https://www.bostonglobe.com/2025/12/04/nation/supreme-court-texas-congressional-map/
Yes, if it had been a Democratic gerrymander, does anybody believe they wouldn’t have found it to be a violation of the VRA? I mean, “race” was written all over the documentation!!
This is why folks like trump use double speak all the time. It puts in the record a statement that may be beneficial sometime in the future.
Which is why this & so many decisions are shadow docket decisions. They don’t have to give a rationale for the decision nor when the decide to block pro-Democratic gerrymandering. I also think we are underestimating how far John Roberts is in the tank for Trump. I see a 5-4 decision upholding the tariffs with Barrett writing a separate concurrence full of legal gooblygook.