What’s next after the US Supreme Court rejects Trump’s tariffs

Few things have been as important to Donald Trump in his second term as tariffs, a symbol of his authoritarian approach to the presidency. He enlarged and reduced them at willrewriting the rules of global trade and daring anyone to stop it.

Now, that may be over, with the president the victim of a surprising this Friday (20). After more than a year of expanding his power, Trump has hit a rare red line.

It was a defeat he was unable to accept, and the president stated that he would use other laws to impose alternative tariffs. He even said that the end of this particular legal battle would bring “great certainty” to the economy.

But in fact, Friday opened a new chapter in the drama of Trump’s tariffs and raised urgent questions about its ability to deliver on its promises of economic recovery. The decision is likely to prolong international trade chaos until the midterm elections, with many uncertain about Trump’s next steps and whether the roughly $175 billion in import taxes the Supreme Court struck down will be refunded.

The president chose, as he often does, to disregard the patriotism of those who disagree with him.

He said the ruling was “deeply disappointing” and “ridiculous,” adding that he was “absolutely ashamed” of the six Supreme Court justices who ruled against him “for not having the courage to do what is right for our country.”

Trump described the judges as “fools and lackeys,” people “very unpatriotic and disloyal to our Constitution.”

The president has said he plans to sign an executive order that allows him to bypass Congress and impose a 10% tax on imports from around the world. The government would launch national security investigations to levy new tariffs on specific products as well. The 10% tariffs have a legal limit of 150 days, but Trump ignored a question about the limit, saying, “We have the right to do pretty much whatever we want.”

All of this means that Trump’s tariff deadlines will likely conflict with the midterm elections for control of the House and Senate.

Tariffs have been politically unpopular

Trump learned of the Supreme Court’s decision during a private meeting with governors in the morning, when he received a note, according to two people with knowledge of the president’s reaction who spoke on condition of anonymity. They said he called the decision “a disgrace.”

Another person, who was briefed on the conversation, revealed that Trump said he needed to “do something about these courts.”

The meeting with the governors ended shortly afterwards.

Looming over Trump’s legal debacle is voter frustration with tariffs, which have been linked to higher prices and a slowdown in labor hiring.

The president has consistently misrepresented the issue of tariffs, claiming, despite evidence to the contrary, that foreign governments would pay them and that the revenues would be enough to pay off the national debt and give taxpayers a dividend check.

After Trump announced global tariffs last April, an AP-NORC poll found that 76% of Americans said the policies would increase the cost of consumer goods — a worrying sign for a president elected with a promise to combat inflation.

Another poll, conducted in January, revealed that about 6 in 10 Americans thought Trump had gone too far in imposing new tariffs on other countries.

Trump’s aggressive use of tariffs left many Republican lawmakers uneasy, both publicly and privately, forcing them to defend what was essentially a tax increase on the American public and businesses.

At various points during Trump’s second term, at least seven senators from the president’s party voiced their concerns. Earlier this month, six House Republicans joined Democrats to vote on a resolution opposing Trump’s tariffs on Canada.

In fact, free trade had long been a central platform of the Republican Party before Trump’s rise to power.

Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky described Trump’s claim that he can bypass Congress to implement tariffs as “illegal,” in a statement praising the Supreme Court’s decision.

“Congress’ role in trade policy, as I have repeatedly warned, is not an inconvenience to be avoided,” said the former Senate Republican leader. “If the Executive wants to enact trade policies that affect American producers and consumers, the path forward is very clear: convince its representatives under Article 1 of the Constitution.”

Mike Pence, Trump’s former vice president in his first term, celebrated the decision. “American families and businesses pay American tariffs, not foreign countries,” Pence wrote on social media. “With this decision, American families and businesses can breathe a sigh of relief.”

Democrats were quick to seize on the Supreme Court ruling to assert that Trump broke the law and middle class families suffered as a result.

Rep. Suzan DelBene, D-Washington, said Trump is “not a king” and that his “tariffs have always been illegal.” “Republicans in Congress could have easily ended this economic crisis by standing up for their communities,” said DelBene, chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. “Instead, they chose to bow to Trump while families, small businesses and farmers suffered from higher prices.”

Tariffs were fundamental to Trump’s economic speech

Trump claimed his tariffs were the difference between national prosperity and extreme poverty, a speech he delivered Thursday to voters in Georgia.

The president used the word “tariff” 28 times in his speech at a Georgian steel company, Coosa Steel, which credited import taxes with making its products more competitive compared to those from China.

“Without tariffs, this country would be in trouble right now,” Trump insisted.

The president also complained that he had to justify the use of tariffs before the Supreme Court.

“I have to wait for that decision. I’ve been waiting a long time, and the language is clear that I have the right to do this as president,” he said. “I have the right to impose tariffs for national security reasons on countries that have been exploiting us for years.”

By 6 votes to 3, the Supreme Court ruled no.

*Estadão Content