Trump’s Steady Loss of Support From Republicans and Courts

This morning, as long anticipated by oral arguments, the Supreme Court struck down Trump’s bogus use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, to justify his crazy quilt of tantrum tariffs.

Writing for a 6-3 majority, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said the statute does not authorize the president to impose tariffs. “The President asserts the extraordinary power to unilaterally impose tariffs of unlimited amount, duration, and scope. In light of the breadth, history, and constitutional context of that asserted authority, he must identify clear congressional authorization to exercise it,” the chief justice wrote.

More from Robert Kuttner

The ruling is a sharp rejection of one of the president’s primary policy tools, but it was telegraphed enough that the administration has some possible contingencies in place. Under a different authority, tariffs of 15 percent can be imposed to deal with trade deficits for 150 days. In that time, the administration can impose Section 301 and Section 232 investigations to extend tariffs on select goods or against select countries further. But Trump would have to justify these with data. And the days of unilaterally announcing tariffs that take immediate effect are dead and buried.

The president does have somewhat more open-ended general authority to impose tariffs against countries that discriminate against U.S. exports, but to invoke that now would be a poke in the eye of the Supreme Court and would invite more litigation.

The bigger problem for Trump is the thousands of companies that will ask for refunds from the tariffs imposed under IEEPA. That will be a huge mess, and the Supreme Court offered no guidance on how to proceed with it.

With the unilateral tariff regime over, we can assess its value, and there really wasn’t any. Yesterday, the latest U.S. trade deficit numbers came in well above expectations. The merchandise trade deficit hit a record $1.2 trillion in 2025, according to Thursday’s Commerce Department report.

Basically, imports of Chinese goods fell by nearly 30 percent, but imports from other nations more than made up the difference. The deficit in manufacturing was especially severe, as U.S. production jobs fell by 88,000 in 2025.

So despite constant pronouncements of tariffs allegedly designed to boost domestic production, create jobs, and lower the trade deficit, the entire effort amounted to nothing.

Elsewhere in trade, Trump has proposed renegotiating the U.S.-Mexico-Canada free-trade agreement (USMCA) without Canada, and raising tariffs on Canada to 100 percent (though the Supreme Court ruling puts this in question). He also wants to block the opening of the new international bridge between Detroit and Windsor, Ontario, financed by the Canadians. This is being done mainly because Trump is mad at Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney’s bullying.

The Wall Street Journal editorial page, usually in Trump’s corner, acidly commented: “What a political gift to Democrats, including in Michigan, where voters this November will replace Gov. Gretchen Whitmer and fill an open Senate seat.”

The tantrums also invite opposition from Republican senators whose support Trump needs. At last week’s hearing on trade in the Senate Finance Committee, the Idaho Republican chair Mike Crapo pointedly said, “Mexico and Canada are two of our most important trading partners,” and called for the USMCA to be extended. Not a single Republican on the committee supported Trump’s position.

This is becoming a pattern. Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) has repeatedly broken with Trump, as he tries to carve out a right-wing populism that actually helps working people. Hawley recently co-sponsored, with Elizabeth Warren no less, the Break Up Big Medicine Act, which goes far beyond Trump’s token gestures.

Among other provisions, the measure would prohibit a parent company from owning a medical provider or management services organization and a PBM or an insurer; and prohibit a parent company of a prescription drug or medical device wholesaler from owning a medical provider such as a hospital or physician group.

Hawley initially voted against the Trump administration’s position on a Venezuela war powers resolution in early 2026, though he later shifted his stance. And he has pushed for legislation to ban stock trading by members of Congress, the president, and vice president. Trump lashed out, labeling Hawley a “second-tier Senator.”

Meanwhile, the bipartisan duo of Ro Khanna (D-CA) and Thomas Massie (R-KY), who forced the vote on making the Epstein files public, continue their joint efforts to restrain Trump, most recently on planning to force a war powers resolution vote on Trump’s threat of a war on Iran. They have also worked together on digital privacy.

Massie recently said that numerous Republican colleagues who privately support his efforts will go public in their criticisms once primary season is over. As it happens, 29 states have their primaries between March and June. Massie, with the help of another Kentucky libertarian, Sen. Rand Paul, is expected to win his own primary.

Once Trump’s threats are overtaken by the calendar, Republican incumbents will be much more concerned about Democrats hanging the president’s crazy and unpopular policies around their own necks in the midterms. Defections will feed on themselves.

Taking stock of the several firebreaks against Trump, Republican defections and a growing volume of court losses lead the list, along with broad civic outrage against police-state excesses. This Republic may yet hold.

The post Trump’s Steady Loss of Support From Republicans and Courts appeared first on The American Prospect.