Opinion - Trump's tariff house of cards collapses — one court ruling just ended the trade wars
The court didn't just strike down specific tariffs, either; they demolished the entire legal foundation upon which Trump's trade war was built. The president's house of cards didn't just wobble with this loss — it has collapsed entirely.
Trump's entire negotiating philosophy was built on the premise that he could threaten economic chaos if other countries didn't bend to his will. The credibility behind those threats just evaporated entirely, because credible threats require actual authority to carry them out.
The timing couldn't be more politically devastating.
If Trump appeals to the Supreme Court, as he almost certainly will do, the most optimistic timeline has a ruling coming down in late 2025 or early 2026. More realistically, we're looking at a final result being delayed until the summer of 2026. This means that Trump faces a choice between accepting defeat or spending the next year and a half as a raging lame duck on trade policy, totally unable to continue making credible threats while his international counterparts watch him flail helplessly through the courts.
Even worse for Trump, the Supreme Court's recent jurisprudence on executive power suggests he faces an uphill battle. The court's development of the Major Questions Doctrine shows an increasing skepticism toward sweeping executive claims of authority, requiring Congress to speak very clearly when delegating powers of vast economic significance — like, for example, tariffs on almost all imported goods. Trump's appeal is a long shot at best.
Moreover, the political timeline puts Trump in an impossible position in that, even if he somehow wins at the Supreme Court, he can't credibly restart his tariff offensive in 2026 without looking economically reckless right before the midterm elections. The markets uniformly tanked when he kicked off his trade war the first time. Threatening to restart that chaos just months before Americans head to the polls would be political suicide for his party, which already maintains bare majorities in both houses.
America's international trading partners are undoubtedly celebrating this decision, because they now hold all the cards. Every economic negotiation Trump enters will now be conducted from a position of obvious weakness. His counterparts know he can't escalate, can't credibly threaten retaliation, and is legally constrained from the heavy-handed tactics that defined his primary negotiating approach.
The psychological impact of this loss cannot be overstated. For years, foreign leaders have had to calculate whether Trump's tariff threats were bluster or genuine policy. That uncertainty gave him leverage even when his legal authority was questionable. Now, every world leader knows he's been legally neutered on his signature issue. They can simply wait him out, knowing that any aggressive moves will likely be struck down by courts that have already declared his approach unlawful.
This constitutional straightjacket comes as Trump's broader economic strategy is already teetering on the edge of disaster. As I've previously documented, his fiscal policies are driving America toward a cliff at breakneck speed, with Treasury rates and dollar values diverging in ways that signal dangerous erosion of international confidence in American economic stewardship. The markets have been flashing red warning lights about unsustainable debt loads just as Republicans push forward with multitrillion-dollar tax cuts for the wealthy.
With tariffs now off the table, Trump is left holding only the most fiscally destructive tools in his arsenal — the very deficit-exploding policies that are already spooking bond markets and driving up borrowing costs. In order to have a second-term accomplishment to hang his hat on, he's essentially been forced to double down on the economic suicide mission I've been warning about, at exactly the moment when fiscal prudence has become most critical.
Nicholas Creel is an associate professor of business law and ethics at Georgia College and State University. The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect those of the university or any other institution.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
a few seconds ago
- Los Angeles Times
California has new congressional maps coming. Here's how they become law
Gov. Gavin Newsom said California voters will be asked in a Nov. 4 special election to temporarily suspend the congressional maps drawn by the state's independent redistricting commission. If the effort by Democrats is successful, it could blunt changes in GOP states to boost the number of Republicans in Congress.
Buzz Feed
a few seconds ago
- Buzz Feed
Jillian Michaels Has Meltdown During CNN Slavery Talk
Biggest Loser coach and Donald Trump supporter Jillian Michaels had a stunning meltdown Wednesday night while defending white people during a fiery debate about the president's efforts to rewrite US history. Michaels appeared on a CNN NewsNight panel with conservative commentator Scott Jennings, Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-N.Y.), Democratic strategist Julie Roginsky, and legal analyst Elie Honig to discuss Trump's pick for Kennedy Center honoree. The conversation took a sharp turn when Roginsky, discussing changes Trump has spearheaded at the Kennedy Center and the Smithsonian Institution, accused the president of 'trying to change culture' and revise history so it does not offend his MAGA base. 'Can you address some of those things in there? Because have you looked at some of the things in there?' Michaels asked, referring to historical displays at the Smithsonian Institution. 'Yeah. Yes, slavery was a bad thing we should talk about,' Roginsky said before Michaels interrupted. 'He's not whitewashing slavery,' the fitness guru argued. 'And you cannot tie imperialism and racism and slavery to just one race, which is pretty much what every single exhibit does.' Michaels: You cannot tie imperialism and racism and slavery to just one race, which is pretty much what every single exhibit does… Only less than 2% of white Americans own slaves. You realize that slavery is thousands of years old? Phillip: I'm very surprised you are trying to… — Acyn (@Acyn) August 14, 2025 @Acyn/ CNN / Via The CNN panel erupted in cross-talk, and Michaels turned to Torres and asked, 'Do you realize that only less than 2% of white Americans owned slaves?' citing a contested figure. 'But it was a system of white supremacy,' Torres responded. As people continued to talk over each other, Michaels added that slavery is thousands of years old, but was interrupted by a stunned Phillip, who said she was 'surprised' that her guest was 'trying to litigate who was the beneficiary of slavery.' 'In the context of American history, what are you saying is incorrect by saying it was white people oppressing Black people?' Phillip asked. 'Every single thing is like, oh, no, no, no, this is all because 'white people bad,' and that's just not the truth,' Michaels said. Michaels then characterized a Smithsonian exhibit as claiming that people 'migrated from Cuba because 'white people bad,'' before accusing Roginsky of not knowing what's in the museum. But the exhibit Michaels called out didn't actually appear to make that argument. Later that night, she posted a photo of an exhibit that names US foreign policy as a contributor to political instability in Cuba and the Dominican Republic. The pictured exhibit did not expressly mention white people at all, except to note that some of the first Cubans to immigrate to the US were 'wealthy White Cubans.' Ok... so for anyone watching me on @CNN tonight battling it out on Abby Phillip's show... this is one of the Smithsonian exhibits I was referencing. Trump is not trying to "erase slavery" by suggesting some of the instillations there are inaccurate and bias. Notice how it omits… — Jillian Michaels (@JillianMichaels) August 14, 2025 @jillianmichaels / Via During her appearance on CNN, the fitness influencer also griped about other elements of the Smithsonian.'Do you know that when you walk in the front door, the first thing you see is the gay flag?' asked Michaels, who is married to a woman. She then started to criticize an exhibit that touches on gender testing in sports before Phillip interjected, 'We don't have time to litigate all of this.' CNN / Via 'Of course we don't, because then you're going to lose the argument, and if everything is racialized, just like you're trying to do to me now,' Michaels told Phillip. 'Excuse me? Jillian, you brought up race,' Phillip said. 'This was a conversation about the arts, and you brought up race.' — Acyn (@Acyn) August 14, 2025 @Acyn/ CNN / Via
Engadget
a few seconds ago
- Engadget
The Supreme Court lets Mississippi's social media age-verification law go into effect
The Supreme Court has decided not to weigh in on one of the many state-level age-verification laws currently being reviewed across the country. Today, the top court chose not to intervene on legislation from Mississippi about checking the ages of social media users, denying an application to vacate stay from NetChoice. The Mississippi law requires all users to verify their ages in order to use social media sites. It also places responsibility on the social networks to prevent children from accessing "harmful materials" and it requires parental consent for minors to use any social media. NetChoice represents several tech companies — including social media platforms Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat and YouTube — and it sued to block the law on grounds that it violates the First Amendment. A district court ruled in favor of NetChoice, but the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals lifted its temporary block. Although Justice Brett Kavanaugh denied the application to vacate stay on the appeals court ruling, he also wrote that "NetChoice has, in my view, demonstrated that it is likely to succeed on the merits—namely, that enforcement of the Mississippi law would likely violate its members' First Amendment rights under this Court's precedents." He denied the application because NetChoice "has not sufficiently demonstrated that the balance of harms and equities favors it at this time." This decision means that, at least for now, Mississippi's law will be allowed to stand. "Justice Kavanaugh's concurrence makes clear that NetChoice will ultimately succeed in defending the First Amendment," said Paul Taske, co-director of the NetChoice Litigation Center. "This is merely an unfortunate procedural delay." There are several other state laws being assessed at various points in the US legal system. Some are centered on adult content providers such as pornography sites , while others are more broadly targeting social media use. Arkansas and Florida have seen federal judges block their laws, while Texas and Nebraska are working toward adopting their own rules about social media for minors. Yahoo, the parent company of Engadget, is a member of NetChoice.
