Fact check: Delusional dementia donny wants to use the illegal tariffs to bail out the farmers. Congress is the only one that can approve tariffs.

1. The Announcement That Sounded Like a Bailout — What Trump Actually Said and Reporters Documented

Multiple news organizations captured President Trump’s statement that proceeds from tariff collections would be directed to farmers facing losses amid trade disruptions and low crop prices, framing the move as a temporary cash support mechanism until tariffs “kick in” to farmers’ benefit ^{[1] [2] [3]}. Politico, Reuters, and Fortune published accounts on September 25, 2025 describing the administration’s pitch that tariff receipts would be repurposed for agricultural relief, noting both the vagueness of the plan and its political intent to cushion rural voters. These contemporaneous reports provide direct documentation that the administration publicly tied tariff revenue to farmer aid ^{[1] [2] [3]}.

2. The Constitutional Claim — “Only Congress Can Approve Tariffs” Has a Solid Textual Basis

The U.S. Constitution vests Congress with the power to regulate commerce and to impose tariffs, and that allocation establishes a prevailing constitutional presumption that tariff-setting is a legislative power. Legal analysts summarize that the Constitution’s text supports the view that Congress holds primary authority over tariffs, which underlies arguments that unilateral executive tariff actions raise separation-of-powers concerns ^[4]. The phrase “only Congress can approve tariffs” therefore reflects a strong constitutional starting point, even as statutory delegations complicate the practical allocation of authority ^[4].

3. Statutory Delegations — Laws That Let Presidents Act on Trade in Specific Circumstances

Congress has enacted statutes that delegate certain emergency or security-related trade authorities to the executive branch, notably provisions tied to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and sections of the Trade Act of 1974, which have been interpreted to permit presidential tariffs under defined conditions. Legal summaries note that these delegations give the president considerable authority to impose tariffs in declared emergencies or where specific statutory triggers apply, creating space for executive action without a new act of Congress ^[4]. The presence of these statutes is the legal hinge for the administration’s approach to tariffs and revenue use.

4. Court Conflicts — Lower Courts Push Back, But a Supreme Court Trip Is Plausible

Lower federal courts have at times ruled that the power of the purse remains primarily congressional and have questioned the scope of executive tariff authority, but law professors and analysts argue the Supreme Court could ultimately sustain broader executive power in a case hinging on emergency economic authority—particularly if the administration frames tariffs as emergency measures ^[5]. The administration’s legal strategy has identified emergency predicates that it says justify tariffs under existing statutes; whether the Court will defer to that interpretation or reaffirm congressional primacy remains an open legal contest ^[5]. A high-court resolution is plausibly decisive.

5. Real-World Effects — Tariffs, Trade War Fallout, and Evasion Schemes

Economic reporting highlights that U.S. tariffs have strained export markets and contributed to lower commodity prices, motivating government offers of aid to farmers as mitigation. Businesses and traders respond to tariffs by seeking workarounds, such as routing goods through third countries to sidestep U.S. duties, and customs authorities have already intercepted schemes to reroute imports—indicating enforcement complexity and revenue leakage ^{[6] [2] [3]}. These dynamics mean that even if tariff receipts are pledged for farmer aid, the predictable distortions and evasion risks complicate the projected revenue stream.

6. Policy Tradeoffs — Temporary Relief Versus Durable Market Solutions

Using tariff revenue to fund agricultural payments offers short-term political and financial relief for farmers but does not address underlying market access losses caused by retaliatory tariffs and trade disputes. News coverage frames the administration’s proposal as an attempt to offset immediate pain, while legal analyses caution that reliance on executive tariff revenues creates uncertain fiscal baselines and constitutional contestation ^{[1] [2] [4]}. Lawful deployment of such funds, sustainable financing, and enforcement against evasion are separate policy challenges that Congress, courts, and agencies will face.

7. Bottom Line — Accurate Claim, But Not the Whole Story

The core claims are supported by available reporting: the president announced intent to use tariff proceeds for farmer aid, and constitutional text vests tariff authority in Congress; however, federal statutes have delegated certain tariff powers to the president, making the question legally contested rather than settled ^{[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]}. Enforcement realities and trade-evasion behavior underscore that the policy’s fiscal and economic outcomes remain uncertain, and a likely judicial challenge could determine whether the executive can lawfully impose tariffs and direct their proceeds without new congressional authorization ^{[5] [6]}.