“ALL TARIFFS ARE STILL IN EFFECT! Today a Highly Partisan Appeals Court incorrectly said that our Tariffs should be removed, but they know the United States of America will win in the end. If these Tariffs ever went away, it would be a total disaster for the Country. It would make us financially weak, and we have to be strong. The U.S.A. will no longer tolerate enormous Trade Deficits and unfair Tariffs and Non Tariff Trade Barriers imposed by other Countries, friend or foe, that undermine our Manufacturers, Farmers, and everyone else. If allowed to stand, this Decision would literally destroy the United States of America. At the start of this Labor Day weekend, we should all remember that TARIFFS are the best tool to help our Workers, and support Companies that produce great MADE IN AMERICA products. For many years, Tariffs were allowed to be used against us by our uncaring and unwise Politicians. Now, with the help of the United States Supreme Court, we will use them to the benefit of our Nation, and Make America Rich, Strong, and Powerful Again! Thank you for your attention to this matter.” @realDonaldTrump

Fact-Check Summary

President Trump’s statement that “ALL TARIFFS ARE STILL IN EFFECT” is correct in the current legal context: a federal appellate court ruled much of his tariff program exceeded statutory authority but stayed its decision, so tariffs remain while appeals are pending. His characterization of the appeals court as “Highly Partisan” is opinion, not a factual legal assessment. Statements predicting disaster or asserting that removal of tariffs would “destroy the USA” are exaggerated and unsupported by mainstream economic analysis. Other elements—such as appeals to patriotism or blaming previous politicians—are opinion or advocacy, not verifiable fact. The post accurately identifies the legal state of Trump-issued tariffs, but relies heavily on speculative, hyperbolic rhetoric about economic and national consequences.

Belief Alignment Analysis

The post uses divisive language, casting the judiciary in a partisan light and framing legal checks as threats to national survival. This rhetoric undermines public trust in democratic institutions and fails to foster civil, inclusive discourse. While policy advocacy is a legitimate democratic activity, presenting legal opposition as almost traitorous and predicting existential disaster violates norms of respect for the rule of law and balanced public reasoning.

Opinion

While it is valid for political leaders to defend their policies, effective democratic communication requires distinguishing legal facts, policy rationale, and political opinion. Overstating negative consequences and disparaging independent courts for adverse rulings diminishes constructive debate and public understanding. It is important for leaders to engage robustly yet honestly, especially when legal authority and economic policy are at issue.

TLDR

Trump accurately states that his tariffs remain in effect pending appeal, but much of the post is dominated by unsubstantiated hyperbole and opinion. Statements about total disaster, destruction of America, and judicial partisanship are misleading and not supported by current legal or economic facts.

Claim: Trump’s tariffs remain in effect despite a new appellate court decision; removing them would destroy America; the appeals court is highly partisan.

Fact: The tariffs do still apply because the appeals court stayed its ruling; the legal process is ongoing; no credible evidence supports that tariff removal would destroy the country, and there is no consensus that the court acted out of partisanship.

Opinion: The claim correctly describes the current legal status of the tariffs but employs exaggeration, unfounded economic predictions, and divisive framing that undermines trust in core democratic processes.

TruthScore: 5

True: Tariffs remain in effect due to a court-issued stay pending Supreme Court appeal.

Hyperbole: Asserting that removing tariffs would “destroy the United States of America” or represent a “total disaster” is unsupported, exaggerated political rhetoric.

Lies: There is no direct falsehood, but implying the appeals court acted solely out of partisan interest and that national destruction is at stake lacks any factual basis.