Trump tariffs threaten GOP 2026 election chances
Who benefits from this decision?
When the Supreme Court handed Donald Trump a political gift on Feb. 20, the president did what he almost always does with gifts: threw it back.
The court’s 6-3 ruling in Learning Resources Inc. v. Trump was, on its surface, a stinging legal rebuke. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, held that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, the 1977 emergency statute Trump had used as the legal foundation for his sweeping global tariffs, does not authorize the president to impose tariffs.
The word “tariff,” Roberts observed pointedly, does not appear anywhere in the law. Nor does the word “duty.” And until Trump, no president had ever read the statute as granting such authority.
By any measure, it was a significant loss. The IEEPA tariffs represented roughly half the import taxes the federal government had been collecting, which was about $30 billion a month.
The Tax Foundation estimates those tariffs added somewhere between $1,000 and $1,300 to the average American household’s annual costs. The U.S. effective tariff rate had climbed to nearly 17%, its highest level since the early 1930s. Factories cut 108,000 jobs in 2025. And nearly every business, supply chain expert, and economist who examined the data concluded that the costs fell almost entirely on American firms and consumers, not on foreign exporters.
In short, the court handed the president an off-ramp from one of the most unpopular economic policies of his second term, with a legitimate constitutional explanation attached. He could have accepted the ruling, expressed disappointment, and pivoted to the trade agenda items where his authority is clear and his political standing is stronger.
In a text exchange with NBC, Marc Short, who was chief of staff to Vice President Mike Pence during Trump’s first, nonconsecutive term, said on the day of the ruling that accepting the court’s decision could actually help Republicans heading into the midterms. Tax relief and deregulation were spurring the economy. The trade agenda, Short said, was holding it back.
Naturally, Trump was not about to take the news gracefully. Within hours of the ruling, standing in the White House briefing room, he called the decision a “disgrace,” described the justices in the majority as “very unpatriotic and disloyal to the Constitution,” and suggested they had been “swayed by foreign interests.”
Trump singled out two of his nominees, Justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, for what he called a …
Who benefits from this decision?
When the Supreme Court handed Donald Trump a political gift on Feb. 20, the president did what he almost always does with gifts: threw it back.
The court’s 6-3 ruling in Learning Resources Inc. v. Trump was, on its surface, a stinging legal rebuke. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, held that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, the 1977 emergency statute Trump had used as the legal foundation for his sweeping global tariffs, does not authorize the president to impose tariffs.
The word “tariff,” Roberts observed pointedly, does not appear anywhere in the law. Nor does the word “duty.” And until Trump, no president had ever read the statute as granting such authority.
By any measure, it was a significant loss. The IEEPA tariffs represented roughly half the import taxes the federal government had been collecting, which was about $30 billion a month.
The Tax Foundation estimates those tariffs added somewhere between $1,000 and $1,300 to the average American household’s annual costs. The U.S. effective tariff rate had climbed to nearly 17%, its highest level since the early 1930s. Factories cut 108,000 jobs in 2025. And nearly every business, supply chain expert, and economist who examined the data concluded that the costs fell almost entirely on American firms and consumers, not on foreign exporters.
In short, the court handed the president an off-ramp from one of the most unpopular economic policies of his second term, with a legitimate constitutional explanation attached. He could have accepted the ruling, expressed disappointment, and pivoted to the trade agenda items where his authority is clear and his political standing is stronger.
In a text exchange with NBC, Marc Short, who was chief of staff to Vice President Mike Pence during Trump’s first, nonconsecutive term, said on the day of the ruling that accepting the court’s decision could actually help Republicans heading into the midterms. Tax relief and deregulation were spurring the economy. The trade agenda, Short said, was holding it back.
Naturally, Trump was not about to take the news gracefully. Within hours of the ruling, standing in the White House briefing room, he called the decision a “disgrace,” described the justices in the majority as “very unpatriotic and disloyal to the Constitution,” and suggested they had been “swayed by foreign interests.”
Trump singled out two of his nominees, Justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, for what he called a …
Trump tariffs threaten GOP 2026 election chances
Who benefits from this decision?
When the Supreme Court handed Donald Trump a political gift on Feb. 20, the president did what he almost always does with gifts: threw it back.
The court’s 6-3 ruling in Learning Resources Inc. v. Trump was, on its surface, a stinging legal rebuke. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, held that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, the 1977 emergency statute Trump had used as the legal foundation for his sweeping global tariffs, does not authorize the president to impose tariffs.
The word “tariff,” Roberts observed pointedly, does not appear anywhere in the law. Nor does the word “duty.” And until Trump, no president had ever read the statute as granting such authority.
By any measure, it was a significant loss. The IEEPA tariffs represented roughly half the import taxes the federal government had been collecting, which was about $30 billion a month.
The Tax Foundation estimates those tariffs added somewhere between $1,000 and $1,300 to the average American household’s annual costs. The U.S. effective tariff rate had climbed to nearly 17%, its highest level since the early 1930s. Factories cut 108,000 jobs in 2025. And nearly every business, supply chain expert, and economist who examined the data concluded that the costs fell almost entirely on American firms and consumers, not on foreign exporters.
In short, the court handed the president an off-ramp from one of the most unpopular economic policies of his second term, with a legitimate constitutional explanation attached. He could have accepted the ruling, expressed disappointment, and pivoted to the trade agenda items where his authority is clear and his political standing is stronger.
In a text exchange with NBC, Marc Short, who was chief of staff to Vice President Mike Pence during Trump’s first, nonconsecutive term, said on the day of the ruling that accepting the court’s decision could actually help Republicans heading into the midterms. Tax relief and deregulation were spurring the economy. The trade agenda, Short said, was holding it back.
Naturally, Trump was not about to take the news gracefully. Within hours of the ruling, standing in the White House briefing room, he called the decision a “disgrace,” described the justices in the majority as “very unpatriotic and disloyal to the Constitution,” and suggested they had been “swayed by foreign interests.”
Trump singled out two of his nominees, Justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, for what he called a …
0 Comments
0 Shares
31 Views
0 Reviews
