Trump Won’t Back Down in His Global Trade War
Washington has imposed new tariffs on imports from 80 countries. But the justification for this move is so thin that the Supreme Court will almost certainly overturn it.
The president doesn't let such things slide. Especially since he has been convinced of the benefits of protectionist policies for decades, despite evidence to the contrary.
During a meeting in February with governors, when an aide handed him a note that the Supreme Court had declared that the wave of tariffs introduced on "Liberation Day" in April 2025 were illegal, Donald Trump called the decision “deeply disappointing.”
Trump Accused the Justices of Treason
Trump launched an attack on the justices who voted against his tariffs, saying they “lacked the courage to do the right thing." He referred to Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gorsuch in particular, both of whom he appointed and who joined Chief Justice John Roberts, who leads the nine-member court, in standing up to the White House. The six justices who struck down Trump’s tariffs were equally divided among the court’s liberal and conservative wings.
The matter goes far beyond trade-related issues. At stake is the country's political system, the defense of democracy and the rule of law. The president declared a trade war on practically the entire world, relying on the 1977 International Emergency Powers Act, claiming he had authority due to the country's huge trade deficit. However, the justices rejected that reasoning and declared there was no such emergency. The ruling further noted that the Constitution says that Congress imposes tariffs. In its ruling, the Supreme Court set limits on the president’s executive power and thwarted his broader campaign to assume control over immigration and military policies.
Trump immediately responded by temporarily reinstating the tariffs for 150 days, citing new legal authority. When that extension expired on Friday, the president directed Trade Representative Jamieson Greer to analyze how countries import goods produced using slave labor. Greer concluded that 99% of U.S. imports should be subject to duties for using such labor.
The U.S. imposed a 10% tariff on one such group that includes the United Kingdom, the European Union and Japan, where laws against forced labor exist, but which Washington contends are not being implemented. The administration imposed a 12.5% tariff against a second group of countries that are said to have no laws in this area at all. The tariffs did not cover strategic products for the U.S., such as oil and fertilizer, or products not produced in the United States.
Trump previously imposed high tariffs on imports from Brazil (in retaliation for the alleged persecution by President Luiz Lula da Silva of Lula’s predecessor, Jair Bolsonaro, who attempted to stage a coup). Trump also also waited until the end of the World Cup to impose 50% tariffs on imports from Canada of products such as cars and honey.
"These new tariffs would represent another case of presidential overreach. If they were challenged in court, the Supreme Court would likely overturn them," said Alan Wolff, former deputy director-general of the World Trade Organization.
Americans Paid for the Tariffs with Higher Prices
Greer made the far-fetched claim that the U.S. is the only country in the world that effectively halts the import of products made with the use of slave labor. Meanwhile, for decades, America has been the leading importer of goods from China. In fact, due to the trade war between the U.S. and China, imports fell dramatically but still amounted to more than $300 billion in the last year.
But Greer is preparing a new strategy in case the remaining tariffs are eliminated. This time, the U.S. will argue that it is imposing additional tariffs due to "overproduction" by U.S. trading partners.
Nevertheless, it could cost the president dearly on a political level. According to a Harris poll, 74% of Americans object to the tariff policy. Not only has the White House failed to deliver on its promise that tariffs would boost U.S. manufacturing, but inflation has also surged to 3.5%, compared to 2.5% in Poland, because, as economists estimate, importers passed on 90% of their additional costs to American consumers. When the prices of imported products did not go up, their quality deteriorated.
A huge legal problem has also emerged. Between April 2025 and last February, the U.S. levied tariffs on $130 billion worth of imports. Now that the tariffs have been ruled illegal, should the U.S. refund that money? More than 300,000 importers are seeking reimbursement, and the litigation will paralyze American courts for years.
The customs policy also did not help the U.S in its rivalry with China. Yes, in the past year, the U.S. trade deficit with China indeed fell to $200 billion, but the Chinese simply began to ship their products through other countries, such as Vietnam or Mexico. They also found new markets. Thus, China's trade surplus in 2025 reached a record $1.2 trillion.
Other entities, such as the EU and the U.K., have abandoned open protest. But at the same time, they have taken quite an assertive stance where America is particularly hurt, the 890 million euro (approximately $1.013 billion) fine imposed by Brussels on Google last Thursday, for example. The EU recognized that the information technology giant is taking advantage of its dominant position. It is in the exchange of services — unlike in the trade of goods — that the U.S. has a strong competitive advantage.
The president doesn't let such things slide. Especially since he has been convinced of the benefits of protectionist policies for decades, despite evidence to the contrary.
During a meeting in February with governors, when an aide handed him a note that the Supreme Court had declared that the wave of tariffs introduced on "Liberation Day" in April 2025 were illegal, Donald Trump called the decision “deeply disappointing.”
Trump Accused the Justices of Treason
Trump launched an attack on the justices who voted against his tariffs, saying they “lacked the courage to do the right thing." He referred to Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gorsuch in particular, both of whom he appointed and who joined Chief Justice John Roberts, who leads the nine-member court, in standing up to the White House. The six justices who struck down Trump’s tariffs were equally divided among the court’s liberal and conservative wings.
The matter goes far beyond trade-related issues. At stake is the country's political system, the defense of democracy and the rule of law. The president declared a trade war on practically the entire world, relying on the 1977 International Emergency Powers Act, claiming he had authority due to the country's huge trade deficit. However, the justices rejected that reasoning and declared there was no such emergency. The ruling further noted that the Constitution says that Congress imposes tariffs. In its ruling, the Supreme Court set limits on the president’s executive power and thwarted his broader campaign to assume control over immigration and military policies.
Trump immediately responded by temporarily reinstating the tariffs for 150 days, citing new legal authority. When that extension expired on Friday, the president directed Trade Representative Jamieson Greer to analyze how countries import goods produced using slave labor. Greer concluded that 99% of U.S. imports should be subject to duties for using such labor.
The U.S. imposed a 10% tariff on one such group that includes the United Kingdom, the European Union and Japan, where laws against forced labor exist, but which Washington contends are not being implemented. The administration imposed a 12.5% tariff against a second group of countries that are said to have no laws in this area at all. The tariffs did not cover strategic products for the U.S., such as oil and fertilizer, or products not produced in the United States.
Trump previously imposed high tariffs on imports from Brazil (in retaliation for the alleged persecution by President Luiz Lula da Silva of Lula’s predecessor, Jair Bolsonaro, who attempted to stage a coup). Trump also also waited until the end of the World Cup to impose 50% tariffs on imports from Canada of products such as cars and honey.
"These new tariffs would represent another case of presidential overreach. If they were challenged in court, the Supreme Court would likely overturn them," said Alan Wolff, former deputy director-general of the World Trade Organization.
Americans Paid for the Tariffs with Higher Prices
Greer made the far-fetched claim that the U.S. is the only country in the world that effectively halts the import of products made with the use of slave labor. Meanwhile, for decades, America has been the leading importer of goods from China. In fact, due to the trade war between the U.S. and China, imports fell dramatically but still amounted to more than $300 billion in the last year.
But Greer is preparing a new strategy in case the remaining tariffs are eliminated. This time, the U.S. will argue that it is imposing additional tariffs due to "overproduction" by U.S. trading partners.
Nevertheless, it could cost the president dearly on a political level. According to a Harris poll, 74% of Americans object to the tariff policy. Not only has the White House failed to deliver on its promise that tariffs would boost U.S. manufacturing, but inflation has also surged to 3.5%, compared to 2.5% in Poland, because, as economists estimate, importers passed on 90% of their additional costs to American consumers. When the prices of imported products did not go up, their quality deteriorated.
A huge legal problem has also emerged. Between April 2025 and last February, the U.S. levied tariffs on $130 billion worth of imports. Now that the tariffs have been ruled illegal, should the U.S. refund that money? More than 300,000 importers are seeking reimbursement, and the litigation will paralyze American courts for years.
The customs policy also did not help the U.S in its rivalry with China. Yes, in the past year, the U.S. trade deficit with China indeed fell to $200 billion, but the Chinese simply began to ship their products through other countries, such as Vietnam or Mexico. They also found new markets. Thus, China's trade surplus in 2025 reached a record $1.2 trillion.
Other entities, such as the EU and the U.K., have abandoned open protest. But at the same time, they have taken quite an assertive stance where America is particularly hurt, the 890 million euro (approximately $1.013 billion) fine imposed by Brussels on Google last Thursday, for example. The EU recognized that the information technology giant is taking advantage of its dominant position. It is in the exchange of services — unlike in the trade of goods — that the U.S. has a strong competitive advantage.
Previous article![]( "Trump’s Iran Disaster")