‘Yam Tits Never Wrote This’: Trump’s Unhinged Rant About Tariffs Backfired When Readers Zeroed in on One ‘Big’ Word That Sticks Out Like a Sore Thumb
Former President Donald Trump’s Sunday morning social media post railing against the Supreme Court quickly spiraled into a spectacle — not for its policy argument, but for his use of a word many doubted he could spell, much less deploy in context.
At 7:22 a.m., Trump posted on Truth Social an angry, all-caps tirade defending his power to impose tariffs under an emergency law — part of his ongoing battle with the Supreme Court over his sweeping tariffs. But his choice of one word, “onerous,” set off a wave of disbelief online.
“So, let’s get this straight??? The President of the United States is allowed (and fully approved by Congress!) to stop ALL TRADE with a Foreign Country (Which is far more onerous than a Tariff!), and LICENSE a Foreign Country, but is not allowed to put a simple Tariff on a Foreign Country, even for purposes of NATIONAL SECURITY.
That is NOT what our great Founders had in mind! The whole thing is ridiculous! Other Countries can Tariff us, but we can’t Tariff them??? It is their DREAM!!! Businesses are pouring into the USA ONLY BECAUSE OF TARIFFS. HAS THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT NOT BEEN TOLD THIS??? WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON??? President DJT”
Whether written by Trump himself or a staffer with a thesaurus, the post had the opposite of its intended effect: instead of rallying support for his tariff policy, it spotlighted growing doubts about his judgment and grip on reality.
Within minutes, screenshots of the post went viral, especially on Threads and X, where users questioned who really authored it.
‘He Literally Gets Angry’: Trump Puts On a Cringe Performance Trying to Humiliate a Reporter — But Her Next Move Flips the Script and Leaves Him Seething
“Onerous? Yam tits never wrote this,” one person commented.“He didn’t write that. Onerous is too big of a word for him,” another critic wrote. “You are an idiot. That’s what’s going on,” a third chimed in.
The ridicule underscored a recurring suspicion among Trump’s critics — that his more coherent posts are ghostwritten, possibly by aides eager to add polish to his trademark rage. But this particular outburst also carried legal and political implications, coming just days after the Supreme Court heard arguments in a case challenging the legality of Trump’s emergency tariffs.
The duties, a signature policy of his second term, slapped a flat 10 percent tax on nearly all imports. He justified the measure by declaring the U.S. trade deficit a “national emergency” under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) — a 1977 law that allows presidents to take economic action during foreign threats.
That justification is now under intense judicial scrutiny. During oral arguments last week, justices — including several appointed by Trump — appeared skeptical that the IEEPA gives presidents the authority to impose tariffs at will.
The law grants power to “regulate importation” during a national emergency, but it never mentions tariffs or taxes. That omission formed the crux of the high court’s questioning, as justices probed whether Trump’s interpretation would blur the constitutional separation of powers by letting the executive branch unilaterally control taxation.
Questioning by the justices suggested that the court’s conservative bloc is uneasy about handing broad fiscal powers to the presidency — particularly when those powers are justified by an emergency declaration as vague as a trade deficit.
A ruling against Trump would mark a major setback for his trade agenda and could unravel his administration’s efforts to reshape the global economy through protectionist measures. The stakes are high: if the court finds that IEEPA does not authorize tariffs, it would force the White House to seek congressional approval for future trade restrictions, severely curbing Trump’s unilateral authority.
Trump’s Truth Social rant seemed to anticipate that possibility. In his post, Trump portrayed the court’s skepticism as an affront to presidential power, writing that his actions were “fully approved by Congress!” and in line with what “our great Founders had in mind.” His claim, however, conflicts with historical interpretations of the law and with testimony from trade experts who argue that IEEPA was never designed for tariff policy.
Economists have also warned that Trump’s tariffs have fueled inflation and disrupted global supply chains. Despite his repeated claim that “businesses are pouring into the USA ONLY BECAUSE OF TARIFFS,” federal data show manufacturing investment slowed amid trade uncertainty during his first term and only partially rebounded in recent years.
Trump’s message also reignited discussions about his health and mental acuity, which have become recurring themes among critics as he seeks to extend his presidency. The episode followed a string of public gaffes — slurred speeches, mid-sentence stumbles, and bizarre claims — that have left even some supporters uneasy.
The Supreme Court’s ruling will determine not only the fate of Trump’s tariffs but also how far any president can stretch emergency powers in the name of economic security.