{"id":12858265,"date":"2026-02-20T14:37:56","date_gmt":"2026-02-20T19:37:56","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.philstockworld.com\/?p=12858265"},"modified":"2026-02-21T21:17:53","modified_gmt":"2026-02-22T02:17:53","slug":"the-supreme-court-just-ruled-trumps-tariffs-unconstitutional","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.philstockworld.com\/2026\/02\/20\/the-supreme-court-just-ruled-trumps-tariffs-unconstitutional\/","title":{"rendered":"The Supreme Court Just Ruled Trump&#8217;s Tariffs Unconstitutional"},"content":{"rendered":"<h2><a href=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=tHc4JZfZlu8\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">The Supreme Court Just Ruled Trump&#8217;s Tariffs Unconstitutional\u00a0<\/a><\/h2>\n<p>By Peter Zeihan, <a spellcheck=\"false\" href=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/@ZeihanonGeopolitics\">Zeihan on Geopolitics<\/a><\/p>\n<div class=\"badge-shape badge-shape-style-type-verified-artist style-scope ytd-badge-supported-renderer style-scope ytd-badge-supported-renderer\">\n<div class=\"yt-badge-shape__text\">\u00a0<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<p><iframe loading=\"lazy\" title=\"YouTube video player\" src=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/embed\/tHc4JZfZlu8?si=YwtvzgY2Y_2U-6dn\" width=\"560\" height=\"315\" frameborder=\"0\" allowfullscreen=\"allowfullscreen\"><\/iframe><\/p>\n<h4>Timeline<\/h4>\n<p>0:00 \u2013 \u201cThe news is that the U.S. Supreme Court just ruled that Donald Trump\u2019s tariffs \u2014 which have been basically the sum total of his economic policy since becoming president \u2014 are actually unconstitutional, and that only Congress has the authority to tariff countries over a prolonged period of time.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cThere may be exceptions, according to the ruling, where Congress can defer that power to the executive for a limited period of time, but it\u2019s always going to be subject to congressional review.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>0:37 \u2013 \u201cAt this moment, at the time of this recording, the Trump administration has not formally responded to the ruling, but I can guess what it\u2019s going to be. It\u2019s probably going to be a firm rejection of the ruling and a question of how to proceed.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>0:49 \u2013 \u201cStep one is that the administration will probably find justification in other laws that are actually fuzzier \u2014 because all of those explicitly sunset unless Congress acts.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cNumber two is that the Trump administration will go after the Supreme Court itself. The Trump administration has not shied \u2014 in fact, has gleefully gone after almost every institution in the United States, whether it\u2019s the SEC or the Federal Reserve or the U.S. military or the lower courts. The idea that it won\u2019t do that for the high court is ridiculous.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>1:20 \u2013 \u201cEven though in this 6\u20133 decision, only one of Trump\u2019s appointees actually sided with the minority \u2014 the rest of them sided with the majority here \u2014 that is irrelevant to his decision-making process.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cOne possibility is that the Trump administration will start to pack the court \u2014 basically pick judges that he thinks he can control and force them through Congress, where the Republicans still hold a majority.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>1:48 \u2013 \u201cThis is how it\u2019s going to go unless and until Congress actually starts legislating in a way that the body was designed by the Constitution, the Founding Fathers \u2014 which means standing up to the president.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>2:10 &#8211; \u201cAnd for that to happen, you have to have at least 20 Republican senators and a lot more Republican reps be willing to side opposite of Donald Trump. Because unless you can reach a two-thirds supermajority, what the president says goes \u2014 because the president can veto anything that is passed by a simple majority.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>2:27 &#8211; \u201cThe timing of this guarantees that American politics are about to get a lot spicier than they have been this last year, because we have midterm elections coming up in November. They\u2019re only seven, seven-and-a-half months away.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cTrump has made it very clear that any Republican who sides against him on any issue is going to face a primary challenge \u2014 and where he will support somebody who is functionally brain-dead but will do anything that he says.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>2:52 &#8211;\u00a0\u201cAnd so far, the MAGA core that supports the president has been broadly approving of his policies. So, we get a civil war within the Republican Party is probably the best-case scenario.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>3:05 \u2013 \u201cThat assumes that Trump doesn\u2019t try to do something like he\u2019s done with Immigration and Customs Enforcement and militarized parts of the federal government \u2014 which we cannot rule out.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cBut that\u2019s where we are right now. Trump is not going to abandon the tariffs. He\u2019s just going to rename them, which will start a new legal fight, which will take months \u2014 unless Congress acts. And if Congress starts to act, it guarantees that the political situation on the American right, among the Republicans, gets really crazy. That\u2019s where we are.\u201d<\/p>\n<h4>\nSummary<\/h4>\n<p data-start=\"100\" data-end=\"134\"><strong>What the Supreme Court Just Did<\/strong><\/p>\n<p data-start=\"136\" data-end=\"489\">The U.S. Supreme Court ruled President Trump\u2019s long-running tariff policy unconstitutional. The Court held that <strong data-start=\"268\" data-end=\"342\">only Congress has the authority to impose tariffs on a prolonged basis<\/strong>. While Congress may temporarily delegate that power to the executive branch, such delegation must be explicit and subject to congressional review.<\/p>\n<p data-start=\"491\" data-end=\"567\">In short: tariffs are a legislative power, not a permanent presidential one.<\/p>\n<p data-start=\"569\" data-end=\"657\">The ruling was 6\u20133, and notably, most of Trump\u2019s own appointees sided with the majority.<\/p>\n<p data-start=\"664\" data-end=\"689\"><strong>Why This Is a Big Deal<\/strong><\/p>\n<p data-start=\"691\" data-end=\"897\">Peter frames tariffs as essentially the backbone of Trump\u2019s economic policy. If those tariffs are struck down or severely limited, it removes the legal foundation for a major piece of his economic strategy.<\/p>\n<p data-start=\"899\" data-end=\"977\">However, Peter does not expect compliance.\u00a0<\/p>\n<p data-start=\"984\" data-end=\"1014\"><strong>What Happens Next<\/strong><\/p>\n<p data-start=\"1016\" data-end=\"1056\">Peter outlines several likely responses:<\/p>\n<p data-start=\"1058\" data-end=\"1110\">1. The Administration Searches for Workarounds<\/p>\n<p data-start=\"1111\" data-end=\"1389\">He expects the White House to justify tariffs under other, \u201cfuzzier\u201d statutes. Many trade and national security laws allow temporary executive tariff authority, but most require congressional action to extend them. That creates legal vulnerability and sets up new court battles.<\/p>\n<p data-start=\"1391\" data-end=\"1436\">2. The Administration Attacks the Court<\/p>\n<p data-start=\"1437\" data-end=\"1720\">Peter argues that the Trump administration has already challenged multiple U.S. institutions \u2014 the SEC, Federal Reserve, military leadership, and lower courts. He expects the Supreme Court will not be treated differently, even though most conservative justices sided with the ruling.<\/p>\n<p data-start=\"1722\" data-end=\"1772\">3. Court Expansion or Institutional Pressure<\/p>\n<p data-start=\"1773\" data-end=\"1925\">He floats the possibility of attempts to \u201cpack\u201d or reshape the Court if political conditions allow, though that would require congressional cooperation.<\/p>\n<p data-start=\"1932\" data-end=\"1971\"><strong>Why Congress Is the Real Pivot Point<\/strong><\/p>\n<p data-start=\"1973\" data-end=\"2071\">Peter emphasizes that the Constitution gives Congress control over tariffs. But Congress must act.<\/p>\n<p data-start=\"2073\" data-end=\"2312\">For Congress to override a presidential veto requires a two-thirds supermajority. That would mean roughly 20 Republican senators (plus House members) siding against Trump \u2014 a major political risk given his influence over primary elections.<\/p>\n<p data-start=\"2314\" data-end=\"2414\">Trump has made clear that Republicans who oppose him may face primary challenges backed by his base. So lawmakers face a dilemma:<\/p>\n<ul data-start=\"2445\" data-end=\"2559\">\n<li data-start=\"2445\" data-end=\"2492\">\n<p data-start=\"2447\" data-end=\"2492\">Support Trump and avoid primary threats, or<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<li data-start=\"2493\" data-end=\"2559\">\n<p data-start=\"2495\" data-end=\"2559\">Reassert congressional authority and risk political retaliation.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p data-start=\"2566\" data-end=\"2589\"><strong>The Political Timing<\/strong><\/p>\n<p data-start=\"2591\" data-end=\"2646\">This ruling lands only months before midterm elections. Peter believes this dramatically raises the stakes. If Congress asserts itself, it could trigger internal conflict within the Republican Party. If Congress does nothing, the executive branch continues to push legal boundaries and the issue moves back into the courts.<\/p>\n<p data-start=\"2917\" data-end=\"3203\">He calls a Republican \u201ccivil war\u201d the best-case scenario. He also notes the possibility of further executive escalation, drawing parallels to how immigration enforcement and federal authority have already been expanded.<\/p>\n<p data-start=\"3210\" data-end=\"3224\"><strong>Bottom Line<\/strong><\/p>\n<p data-start=\"3226\" data-end=\"3250\">Peter\u2019s core conclusion:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li data-start=\"3254\" data-end=\"3291\">Trump is unlikely to abandon tariffs.<\/li>\n<li data-start=\"3294\" data-end=\"3371\">He will likely rebrand or restructure them under different legal authorities.<\/li>\n<li data-start=\"3374\" data-end=\"3433\">That triggers new lawsuits and months of legal uncertainty.<\/li>\n<li data-start=\"3436\" data-end=\"3524\">If Congress intervenes, it risks destabilizing Republican party unity ahead of midterms.<\/li>\n<li data-start=\"3527\" data-end=\"3621\">If Congress does not intervene, the executive-legislative balance of power continues to erode.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p data-start=\"3623\" data-end=\"3756\">Peter&#8217;s closing message is that this ruling does not resolve the tariff fight \u2014 it simply shifts it into a more volatile political phase.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The Supreme Court Just Ruled Trump&#8217;s Tariffs Unconstitutional\u00a0 By Peter Zeihan, Zeihan on Geopolitics \u00a0 Timeline 0:00 \u2013 \u201cThe news is that the U.S. Supreme Court just ruled that Donald Trump\u2019s tariffs \u2014 which have been basically the sum total of his economic policy since becoming president \u2014 are actually unconstitutional, and that only Congress [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":183,"featured_media":12858268,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[45,26922,21,1,12,25391],"tags":[371,26300],"class_list":{"0":"post-12858265","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-appears-on-main-page","8":"category-market-news","9":"category-available","10":"category-uncategorized","11":"category-phils-favorites","12":"category-members-corner","13":"tag-politics","14":"tag-zeihan"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.philstockworld.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12858265","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.philstockworld.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.philstockworld.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.philstockworld.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/183"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.philstockworld.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=12858265"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/www.philstockworld.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12858265\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":12858313,"href":"https:\/\/www.philstockworld.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12858265\/revisions\/12858313"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.philstockworld.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/12858268"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.philstockworld.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=12858265"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.philstockworld.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=12858265"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.philstockworld.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=12858265"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}