By John Q. Hosedrinker 
In a significant blow to executive authority, the Supreme Court has ruled President Trump’s use of emergency powers to impose tariffs fundamentally illegal. The decision invalidates tariffs enacted under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) for balance of payments and drug trafficking emergencies, impacting billions in accumulated revenue. This ruling forces a shift away from the administration’s previous negotiating leverage, as future tariff impositions will be significantly more restricted and time-consuming. The Treasury now faces the daunting prospect of issuing approximately $120 billion in refunds to importers.
Read the original article here
The notion that the Supreme Court has somehow crippled Donald Trump’s ability to honor his negotiated “deals” is a fascinating one, but it hinges on a rather generous interpretation of both his past actions and the Court’s role. The more pragmatic view, supported by a considerable amount of evidence and commentary, is that Trump was never truly invested in honoring many of the agreements he struck. Instead, the Supreme Court’s intervention, in cases concerning actions like imposing tariffs, has served more to highlight the legal and constitutional boundaries he consistently sought to disregard, rather than to dismantle a functioning negotiation apparatus he actually possessed.
Many observers have long pointed out that Trump’s approach to negotiation was less about mutual benefit and more about asserting dominance and extracting immediate concessions. The idea of him being a shrewd negotiator, a “negotiator in chief,” often felt more like a self-aggrandizing title than an accurate description of his methods. His strategy frequently involved bluster, threats, and a disregard for established protocols, which, while perhaps effective in certain real estate dealings, proved problematic on the international stage and within the framework of American law. The Supreme Court’s rulings, in essence, are not creating a new impediment for Trump, but rather reinforcing existing legal structures that he seemingly believed he was above.
The core of the issue lies in how these “deals” were often conceived and executed. When Trump initiated significant policy changes, such as imposing tariffs, without the explicit authorization of Congress, he was operating outside his constitutional purview. The argument isn’t that the Supreme Court has “crippled” his ability to negotiate, but rather that it has affirmed that his ability to unilaterally enact policies that resemble “deals” is limited by law. If his proposed agreements were truly beneficial and legally sound, they would likely withstand scrutiny and potentially gain legislative approval. The fact that they often relied on executive overreach suggests they were built on shaky legal foundations from the outset.
Furthermore, the commentary often points to a pattern of behavior where Trump’s primary objective seemed to be achieving a perceived victory in the moment, rather than ensuring the long-term viability or adherence to the terms of any agreement. This makes the concept of him “honoring” these deals even more questionable. The “Art of the Deal,” in this context, appears to have been interpreted by some as a blueprint for aggressive tactics rather than for durable partnerships. The Supreme Court’s role, then, is not to invalidate his negotiation skills, but to ensure that his actions fall within the established legal framework of the United States.
The idea that Trump was a “disaster” as a negotiator, or that his claims of deal-making were mere “bluster,” is a sentiment echoed by many who witnessed his presidency. The Supreme Court’s decisions, by enforcing existing laws, are essentially preventing the United States from engaging in international agreements that are based on unconstitutional authority. This is not about handicapping a skilled negotiator, but about upholding the rule of law. It’s a fundamental aspect of American governance that the executive branch operates within defined boundaries, and when those boundaries are challenged, the courts are expected to intervene.
The criticism often leveled is not that the Supreme Court has unduly restricted Trump’s negotiating power, but rather that it took too long to address actions that were already perceived as illegal. The rulings often affirm what many believed to be clear violations of existing law. To suggest that the court has “crippled” him implies that he possessed a legitimate power that has now been taken away. The alternative interpretation is that he was attempting to exercise power he never legally possessed, and the Supreme Court has simply confirmed that reality.
Ultimately, the narrative of Trump as a master negotiator whose abilities have been curtailed by the Supreme Court requires a significant suspension of disbelief. His approach was often characterized by unilateral action and a disregard for established legal processes. The Supreme Court’s interventions, particularly in cases of executive overreach, serve to reinforce the constitutional order. They are not disabling a highly effective negotiator, but rather ensuring that the nation’s agreements are forged within the bounds of its own laws. The “deals” in question, when viewed through this lens, were less about skillful negotiation and more about the exercise of questionable executive authority, an authority that the Supreme Court has, in many instances, rightly curtailed.