Donald Trump escalated his global trade fight on Friday night, announcing that the sweeping 10% tariffs he had just introduced would be increased to 15% effective immediately.
The move sent shockwaves through financial markets and reignited concerns about a deepening trade war. Business leaders and economists warned that abrupt tariff hikes can fuel inflation, disrupt supply chains, and create instability at a time when many industries are still recovering from past economic shocks.
What makes this escalation even more dramatic is the timing. Just days earlier, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6–3 that Trump’s tariff strategy was unlawful. The majority concluded that a 1977 statute did not grant the president unilateral authority to impose such broad tariffs without congressional approval. Notably, two of the justices who sided against the tariffs were appointed by Trump himself.
The ruling potentially leaves the federal government responsible for returning an estimated $133.5 billion in tariff-related payments to U.S. businesses companies that had already absorbed significant financial strain.
In response, Trump sharply criticized the Court on Truth Social, calling the decision “anti-American” and suggesting it was influenced by outside interests. He insisted that he has alternative statutory authorities that allow him to reimpose tariffs at even higher levels.
Legal experts, however, point out that attempting to sidestep the Court’s decision by invoking different statutes could spark another round of constitutional challenges. The core issue remains separation of powers: Congress holds authority over taxation and trade policy, and the Court reaffirmed that principle.
This moment highlights a broader contrast in governing philosophy. Democrats have consistently argued that durable economic policy should be rooted in congressional process, international coordination, and long-term stability not sudden unilateral actions that rattle markets and undermine confidence. Trade enforcement can be necessary, but it must be lawful, strategic, and economically sound.
As businesses brace for uncertainty and global partners react, the bigger question isn’t just about tariffs. It’s about whether economic policy will be driven by constitutional guardrails and stability or by escalating executive defiance.
0 Comments