Learning Resources CEO Rick Woldenberg and MGA Entertainment CEO Isaac Larian converse about President Donald Trump’s international customs policy and the High Court’s verdict during ‘The Claman Countdown.’
A litigant involved in the Supreme Court lawsuit that disputed President Donald Trump’s power to impose tariffs stated that Friday’s verdict, which went against the president’s prerogative, is “insufficient.”
On Friday, the High Court issued a 6-3 judgment in opposition to Trump’s import duties. Nevertheless, later that same day, Trump declared a 10% worldwide customs levy, a rate he subsequently elevated to 15% by Saturday.
One petitioner, Rick Woldenberg, an Illinois toy manufacturer and CEO of Learning Resources, described the verdict as a “minor betterment.” He became part of the lawsuit opposing Trump’s import duties after his toy production firm was negatively impacted, given that a significant portion of his products are sourced from China.
TRUMP REACTS TO SUPREME COURT VERDICT DISMISSING BROAD TARIFF AUTHORITY: ‘A DISGRACE’
Woldenberg’s firms, Learning Resources Inc. and hand2mind Inc., initiated legal action in April to nullify the customs duties, claiming they surpassed Trump’s authority. (Taylor Glascock/Bloomberg via Getty Images / Getty Images)
“A suffocating levy acts as a financial detriment,” he informed “The Claman Countdown” on Monday. “Federal, state, and IEPA customs duties imposed on our enterprise last year outstripped our earnings. Consequently, for every dollar generated, we paid more than a dollar in taxes.”
Woldenberg contended that Trump’s customs duty strategy over the past year has harmed shoppers and generated considerable disruption for his enterprise.
He explained that his enterprise confronted a difficult dilemma when managing the financial repercussions of Trump’s import duties.
“We either dissolve our operations and yield assets to the federal coffers, or we must transfer the expenses,” Woldenberg clarified. “Therefore, the import duty, which is imposed upon us, transforms into a proportional levy impacting individuals at the lower economic strata.”
“I am quite uneasy about that situation. I believe a proportional levy is unethical,” he further stated.
The toy manufacturer elucidated that his legal challenge to Trump was not motivated by personal reasons, but instead served as a plea for legal adherence and public civility.
President Trump’s urgent application of customs duties was deemed to contravene his executive prerogative by a 6-3 decision rendered on Friday. (Getty Images / Getty Images)
TRUMP UNVEILS HIS ‘RECENT CHAMPION’ HIGH COURT JUDGE FOLLOWING THE CUSTOMS DUTIES VERDICT
“We are neither proponents nor opponents of Mr. Trump; rather, we are opposed to the incorrect execution of legal principles,” he stated to FOX Business.
Woldenberg will be present at Trump’s Address on the State of the Nation on Tuesday.
FOX Business anchor Liz Claman inquired of Woldenberg if he believed it would be uncomfortable to encounter Trump face-to-face after the president labeled him and his co-petitioners “scoundrels.”
“I am not ashamed of my presence there – though I certainly do not value being subjected to insults,” he commented.
MGA Entertainment CEO Isaac Larian additionally participated in “The Claman Countdown” and stated Trump’s endeavor to repatriate U.S. production via customs duties was “unfeasible.”
Larian, whose company produces Bratz figurines, stated that relocating fabrication to the United States would render it unviable to preserve existing cost levels for U.S. buyers.
A worker is engaged at a toy factory focused on solar-powered plastic devices in Yiwu, China’s eastern Zhejiang province on April 11, 2025. (ADEK BERRY/AFP / Getty Images)
“This Bratz is currently the top-selling plaything…” Larian stated. “They are presently manufactured in China and retail for $25. There is no method to produce that within the United States, and should it be, the cost would be $50 rather than $25.”
CLICK HERE TO OBTAIN THE FOX NEWS APP
Larian further stated that Americans merit knowing whether they will receive reimbursements linked to the customs duty approach implemented over the past year.
“The Supreme Court asserts these import duties were unlawful. Should they be unlawful, they constitute an illicit levy upon Americans. And Americans merit precise information regarding the reimbursements,” he concluded.