At its core, President Trump’s decision to raise tariffs to 15% in the immediate wake of the Supreme Court’s ruling against him was as much a political gamble as an economic policy choice. It was a statement to his base that no court could stop him, a signal to trading partners that the trade war was intensifying, and a direct challenge to the constitutional norms that govern the relationship between the executive branch and the judiciary.
The political calculation rests on a premise that has proven durable throughout Trump’s presidency: his supporters reward defiance, not accommodation. By framing the Supreme Court ruling as an act of judicial overreach and immediately deploying a new legal authority to continue his tariff policy, Trump demonstrated the core of his political brand — an executive who fights for what he believes, regardless of opposition.
The economic costs of that political posture are, however, real. With over $130 billion collected in IEEPA tariffs — 90% of which was borne by American businesses and consumers — and business groups demanding refunds, the gap between the political narrative and the economic reality is substantial. The new 15% tariff, if it holds, will add further costs to an already strained economic environment.
International allies are losing patience. Germany and France have both signaled they will push back through coordinated diplomatic channels. The UK, which believed it had a stable trade arrangement with Washington, now faces renewed uncertainty. Countries that had been quietly accommodating US tariff demands are reassessing whether that approach is viable given the administration’s evident willingness to escalate at any moment.
The constitutional dimensions of the episode are equally significant. Trump’s personal attacks on Supreme Court justices — including his own nominees — represent an assault on judicial independence that crosses lines most presidents have carefully observed. The question of whether Congress will eventually step in to assert its constitutional role in trade policy remains unanswered, but the events of this weekend make that intervention look increasingly necessary.