Tariff Theatrics
Kabuki theater, anyone?
Hi friends,
The Supreme Court’s recent decision limiting President Trump’s use of emergency powers for tariffs is being framed as a major loss. I don’t think so. Read carefully, and the ruling looks more like a reset—one that reins in a risky shortcut, preserves the tariff strategy itself, and strengthens guardrails against future abuse of executive power. In plain terms: tariffs aren’t going away, the economy didn’t stumble, and the Court quietly reinforced a constitutional framework that protects everyday Americans over the long haul.
If you’ve felt whiplash from the headlines this week, you’re not alone. The news cycle quickly declared that the Supreme Court had dealt a crippling blow to President Trump’s tariff agenda. Progressive leaders celebrated, commentators rushed to call it a turning point, and many Americans were left wondering whether another pillar of economic stability had just been kicked out from under them.
But step back from the noise for a moment. What the Court actually did—and just as importantly, what it chose not to do—tells a far calmer and more constructive story.
At the center of the case was whether the president could use a sweeping emergency law, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, to impose tariffs. In a 6–3 decision, the Court said no: that particular statute doesn’t clearly authorize tariffs, and when Congress intends to give that power, it usually says so outright. That’s the narrow holding. The Court did not rule that tariffs themselves are unconstitutional. It did not dismantle Trump’s trade strategy. And it did not accuse the administration of acting recklessly or in bad faith.
So why the celebration? Because many critics assumed that emergency authority was the whole foundation for Trump’s tariff program. It wasn’t. And the Court knew that.
A key concern—raised openly during oral arguments—was what would happen if this precedent were left standing for the next president. If vague emergency language can be stretched to justify tariffs today, it could just as easily be stretched tomorrow to impose sweeping economic controls under the banner of a “climate emergency” or some other crisis. Once that door is opened, it doesn’t close neatly.
Seen this way, the ruling functions less like a rebuke and more like a firewall. It shuts down a dangerous shortcut before it can be misused, while leaving intact the broader authority Congress has already granted presidents through other, more specific trade laws. That distinction matters—not just for Trump, but for anyone who cares about limits on executive power.
The dissents make this even clearer. Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito argued forcefully that Trump’s reading of the emergency statute was reasonable, grounded in history and common sense. Their message was not that the majority was malicious, but that this was a serious legal disagreement—not a condemnation of presidential overreach. That distinction gives the administration something important: legitimacy. It undercuts the narrative that the first months of tariff policy were lawless or reckless.
As they interpret the statute, the President could, for example, block all imports from China but cannot order even a $1 tariff on goods imported from China. That approach does not make much sense.
-Justice Kavanaugh
Meanwhile, the practical effects were telling. Within hours of the decision, President Donald Trump shifted to other existing trade authorities—ones Congress explicitly designed for tariffs. Markets barely reacted. Trading partners abroad signaled that they expect little to change. Treasury officials acknowledged that tariff revenue is projected to remain largely steady. In other words, the real-world impact was measured, not disruptive.
There’s also a deeper legal thread here that often gets lost in the headlines. The Court relied on what’s known as the “Major Questions Doctrine,” a principle that says agencies and presidents can’t conjure sweeping powers from ambiguous statutory language. This doctrine has already been used to rein in federal overreach in areas like workplace mandates and environmental regulation. By refusing to stretch emergency powers beyond their clear text, the Court strengthened that rule. It’s a quiet but significant step in restoring balance between Congress, the executive branch, and the courts.
We will focus on a key moment from November’s oral arguments that lifts the curtain, letting us see what’s really happening behind the scenes. In paraphrase, at page 69 in the transcript, Justice Gorsuch asked, If we let THIS president use IEEPA for tariffs, what stops the NEXT president from declaring a climate emergency and taxing gas-powered pickup trucks out of existence?
Here’s the thing: don’t miss this. When Gorsuch asked him about the peril of future presidents, the DOJ’s lawyer —Trump’s lawyer— agreed. If IEEPA allows Trump tariffing, then a future Democrat president could also use it, for whatever insane progressive agenda they felt like, just by declaring a “state of emergency.” Nobody disputed that; everybody agreed.
-Coffee and Covid, Tariff Turnabout
All of this helps explain why the decision felt dramatic on the surface but stable underneath. The Court earned public credibility by saying “no” in one narrow context, even as it preserved the legal architecture that allows trade policy to continue. The administration absorbed a short-term inconvenience while keeping its long-term strategy intact. And the country avoided setting a precedent that could have been far more dangerous down the road.
For everyday Americans, this moment matters because it shows something rare in modern governance: a system correcting itself without panic. Prices didn’t spike overnight. Jobs didn’t evaporate. And an overly broad emergency power was narrowed before it could be abused. Progress like this doesn’t always arrive with fanfare—but it does move the country toward steadier ground.
Sources:
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/607/24-1287/
coffeeandcovid.com/p/tariff-turnabout-saturday-february
https://thefederalist.com/2026/02/20/supreme-court-rules-against-trump-in-emergency-tariffs-cases/
As always, do your own research and make up your own mind.
White paper on land and water rights: Property Rights and Freedom: A White Paper on America’s Disappearing Land
United we stand. Divided we fall. We must not let America fall.
VoteTexas.gov, https://www.votetexas.gov/get-involved/index.html
Disclaimer:
As always, do your own research and make up your own mind. This Substack is provided for informational and commentary purposes only. All claims or statements are based on publicly available sources and are presented as analysis and opinion, not legal conclusions.
No assertion is made of unlawful conduct by any individual, company, or government entity unless such claims are supported by formal public records or verified legal documents. The views expressed here reflect my personal perspective on property rights and land use issues.
While I strive for accuracy and transparency, readers are encouraged to verify all details using the official sources and references provided. Any references to third-party material are included solely for your consideration and do not necessarily reflect my views or imply endorsement.
If you share this content, please include this disclaimer to preserve context and clarity for all readers.
Until next time…
Please share your thoughts in the comments. Or email me, and let’s have a problem-solving conversation. I welcome ‘letters to the editor’ type emails and may publish yours. I hope we can create a caucus with positive, back-to-the-founders’-dream-for-America results. Have a topic you want to know more about?
Some housekeeping…
Going forward, you may need to check your spam folder. And please mark this address as ‘not spam.’ If the newsletter isn’t in your spam folder either, you should look in the Promotions tab.
You can always see everything on the website, RationalAmerican.org.
Thanks again for reading! I’m glad you’re here!
Ellen: The hate Trump crowd and Democratic Socialists are celebrating the Supreme court knocking down Trump's use of tariffs.
But once again, President Trump out thought and out maneuvered those useful idiots. Their mania is hilarious. I propose a new meaning to the acronym TACO: Trump Always Calculates Outcomes.
The issue is about the authority granted to the POTUS under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The Supreme Court ruled that tariffs represent a tax, and only congress has the power to levy taxes, and they sure love to do that don't they.
IEEPA gives the POTUS power to regulate imports, but it also gives him power to prohibit them. He's calculated the outcome of the court ruling against the "tariff tax" and his plan B is right there in IEEPA, because it authorizes the POTUS to: "investigate, block... regulate, direct and compel, nullify, void, prevent or prohibit" transactions involving foreign interests." It goes on to say he can do so "by means of instructions, licenses, or otherwise". There it is. TACO Plan B.
President Trump can legally charge foreign powers for licenses to control imports instead of tariffs. IEEPA grants POTUS the power set the cost of licenses and those costs can be negotiated like tariff levels. If a country makes joint-venture investments in the US, maybe they’ll get a lower license fee. If they insist on buying Russian oil, the license fee goes up. Time will tell if President Trump will revert to using licenses, but he has that option and it's legal.
He has out maneuvered the Supreme Court and the stupid TDS crowd into setting a legal precedent because the court has defined a tariff as a tax. But the IEEPA language is clear that he may issue licenses, and they cannot turn around and say the licenses are effectively tariffs. BAM! Case closed.