The Wall Street Journal's conservative editorial board rebuked arguments that the Trump administration's lawyers made in court about his tariff policy in a new op-ed on Tuesday......

On Friday, Trump warned on Truth Social that if judges rule against his tariff policy, then a "1929-style" depression would occur in the U.S. The warning shocked the WSJ's editorial board.

"Wow. Ending a tax increase means depression. Who knew?" the editorial board wrote.

The board was also shocked to see Trump's lawyers repeat Trump's logic in court.

"That’s the out-of-this-world argument that Solicitor General John Sauer and Assistant Attorney General Brett Shumate made this week in a letter to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit," the editorial reads in part. "The judges must give the President unilateral power to impose tariffs on any country at any time, or the end is nigh."

It’s a hallmark of Donald Trump’s presidency: Everyone around him must kiss his ass—publicly, lavishly, and without the slightest hint of embarrassment. The more obsequious the praise, the happier he is.....

In a letter urging the Supreme Court to uphold Trump’s supposed right to impose tariffs—even though the Constitution gives that power to Congress—Sauer outdoes himself in presidential flattery.

On July 27, after stating his intention to impose IEEPA tariffs, President Trump announced the largest trade agreement in history with the 27-nation European Union, America’s most significant trading partner.

That’s wrong on several counts. The EU is the United States’ second-largest trading partner, behind Canada. And there is no “largest trade agreement in history.” What Trump announced was a framework, not a binding treaty. These agreements take years to finalize, often require congressional approval, and must be ratified by EU members. None of that has happened......

Sauer’s letter goes on:

Suddenly revoking the President’s tariff authority under IEEPA would have catastrophic consequences for our national security, foreign policy, and economy. The President believes that our country would not be able to pay back the trillions of dollars that other countries have already committed to pay, which could lead to financial ruin.

If Trump’s actions are illegal, downstream consequences are irrelevant. If he believes having this power is vital, Congress can give it to him. What “the president believes” is not legal authority, precedent, or statute. Trump believes many things that are simply wrong. And, no, other countries have not “committed to pay trillions” to the United States. At best, they’ve made vague investment pledges that rarely materialize.......

Finally, Sauer warns:

If the United States were forced to unwind these historic agreements, the President believes that a forced dissolution of the agreements could lead to a 1929-style result. In such a scenario, people would be forced from their homes, millions of jobs would be eliminated, hard-working Americans would lose their savings, and even Social Security and Medicare could be threatened. In short, the economic consequences would be ruinous, instead of unprecedented success.

Social Security and Medicare are more threatened by GOP hostility than by losing Trump’s tariffs. They were fine before his trade war, and he has never claimed tariffs were critical to their survival. If unwinding these agreements happens, it will be because Trump broke the law.