TOPIC OF THE DAY:
TRUMP DEFIES APEX COURT, RAISES TARIFFS FURTHER
Trump Defies Apex Court, Raises Tariff Further
In a dramatic escalation of America’s trade policy battle, **U.S. President Donald Trump has defied a ruling by the nation’s highest court and moved to raise global tariffs further, thrusting the world into renewed uncertainty over trade, law, and executive power.
Supreme Court’s Historic Ruling: A Setback for the White House
The U.S. Supreme Court delivered a landmark judgment earlier this month — by a 6–3 margin — declaring that President Trump lacked constitutional authority to impose sweeping tariffs using emergency powers under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The court held that taxing powers — including tariffs — are the exclusive domain of Congress, not the President.
Chief Justice John Roberts, in the majority opinion, emphasized that the Constitution vests taxation powers with the legislative branch. In response, Trump’s original “Liberation Day” tariff regime — which imposed broad duties on imports from dozens of nations — was effectively struck down.
This represented a rare check on presidential authority in an era when the Court has otherwise sided frequently with executive power.
Trump’s Response: Raising Tariffs
Despite the Ruling
Rather than acquiescing, President Trump immediately retaliated against the Supreme Court’s decision:
On the very next business day, he announced a flat global tariff, initially at 10% on imports from all countries.
Within hours, that tariff was elevated to 15%, justified by his administration as falling within Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, a seldom-used statute that allows temporary tariffs for balance-of-payments concerns.
Trump also used social media and public statements to criticize the Court harshly, labeling some justices with scathing remarks and insisting his trade policy serves American interests.
The new tariff declaration is intended to take effect immediately, despite the legal blow to the earlier tariff structure.
Constitutional Clash: Executive vs. Judicial Power
This episode has ignited a profound constitutional debate:
Legal Interpretation:
The Supreme Court’s decision reaffirmed that emergency powers do not grant tariff-setting authority.
Tariffs, as forms of taxation, require either explicit congressional authorization or must be grounded in specific statutory authority.
Executive Pushback:
Trump and his advisers argue that alternative legal pathways — such as Sections 122 and even national security–based tariffs under Section 232 — provide valid authority. These measures, however, have time limits or may require further congressional approval.
Economic and Political Fallout
Market and Global Reaction
The markets reacted sharply to the developing standoff:
U.S. stock indices plunged, with the Dow dropping nearly 800 points in a single session — its worst slump in over a month.
Investors shifted toward safe havens such as gold, reflecting heightened risk sentiment.
Globally, governments and trade partners — from Europe to Asia — expressed confusion and concern about the future of trade agreements and tariff commitments.
Corporate Backlash
American companies have begun to push back legally:
FedEx launched a lawsuit demanding refunds for tariffs paid under the now-invalidated regime, highlighting corporate frustration and financial harm. �
Major firms such as Costco and Revlon are expected to pursue similar claims.
Political Divide
The political repercussions are equally intense:
Senate Democrats have introduced legislation demanding repayment of hundreds of billions in tariffs collected.
Editorial voices across the spectrum, including traditionally sympathetic outlets, have criticized Trump’s tactics as politically damaging.
Implications for India and Other Emerging Economies
The tariff escalation is not just a U.S. domestic story — it has significant global effects.
Countries like China have urged the U.S. to withdraw what they call “unilateral tariff measures” that violate global trade norms.
For India, the 15% global tariff modifies earlier negotiated rates and adds uncertainty to the bilateral trade framework, even as some exemptions persist.
What Happens Next?
As this story unfolds, several important questions remain:
1. Will Congress Intervene?
With tariffs vulnerable after 150 days under Section 122, a long-term trade strategy may require legislative approval.
2. Will Legal Challenges Multiply?
Corporate refund lawsuits and further constitutional challenges could tie up trade policy in court for years.
3. What Is the Global Response?
Trade partners may seek retaliatory measures or negotiate new terms to resolve tariff disruptions.
Conclusion
President Trump’s decision to raise tariffs in defiance of the Supreme Court’s ruling marks one of the most striking instances of executive–judicial friction in recent U.S. history. What began as a policy of trade protection has now evolved into a constitutional confrontation with powerful economic and geopolitical reverberations across the globe.
For policy watchers, business leaders, and citizens alike, this saga underscores a pivotal truth: in an interconnected world, trade policy is not merely economic — it’s constitutional, political, and deeply consequential.
Grateful thanks to ChatGPT for its great help and support in creating this blogpost!🙏
