The recent Supreme Court ruling striking down President Donald Trump's tariff policy has revealed cracks in his authority, according to experts. Professor Rajneesh Narula of International Business Regulation suggests that this decision could intensify domestic pressure on Trump.

Get the latest headlines in your email

The court deemed it unconstitutional for the president to unilaterally set and change tariffs. In response, Trump announced a 10% levy, quickly increasing it to 15% on imports, despite the ruling. This move highlighted Trump's intention to find workarounds to maintain his economic strategies.

Narula, an expert in global trade policy, noted that Trump's tariff initiatives have strained US consumers more than achieving intended foreign impacts. He remarked that the tariffs failed to deliver promised outcomes, and there’s a growing need for acknowledgment of this reality.

Trump expressed disappointment with the Supreme Court decision, labeling it "deeply disappointing" and the justices as "absolutely ashamed". He contended that the ruling was incorrect but insisted that "very powerful alternatives" remain.

Narula pointed out that many Americans believed tariffs would reduce prices and bolster the domestic economy, which hasn't occurred. He suggested that the Supreme Court's decision could spark broader resistance to Trump's economic policies, undermining his perceived supremacy.

A YouGov poll showed 60% of Americans approve of the court's decision, with only 23% in opposition. Furthermore, Pew Research Center found that most Americans expect the tariff policy to have negative effects on both the country and themselves.

The ruling has prompted discussions about Trump's domestic power dynamics. As domestic resistance builds, Narula believes it might shape and constrain Trump's authority further. He emphasized that while immediate changes might be minimal if Trump pursues workarounds, the underlying policy foundation is beginning to show signs of weakness.

Despite fierce reactions and attempts to circumvent the legal obstacles, Trump's presidency faces potential challenges as public sentiment shifts and legal constraints tighten, questioning the future viability of his tariff strategy.

Join the discussion?

Already a member?

  Adapted by ASEAN Now · Source · 21 Feb 2026

View full article

Honestly, puerile pieces like this always amuse me. Any time a political story breaks, you can find an “expert” predicting total collapse and another “expert” insisting it’s all meaningless noise.

That seems to be the nature of political commentary, rarely neutral, and almost never predictive.

In this case, the article is really just one analyst offering an interpretation of a court ruling. Whether someone agrees or disagrees tends to depend more on their existing views than on the ruling itself.

Current U.S. politics is just far too complex, polarized, and unpredictable for any single legal decision to “crumble” a presidency on its own.

If anything, the only safe conclusion is that the ruling adds another layer of legal and political complication.

How significant it becomes will depend on future court actions, public reaction, and how the administration responds, not on one commentator’s forecast.

So Trump added 15% to all imports. That 15% is a tax that comes out of the pockets or US consumers which in turn makes life even more difficult for the 70% of Americans now living paycheck to paycheck - or on the street.

Yes things are indeed falling apart very rapidly for Trump but the downside of that is the more desperate he gets, the more DANGEROUS he becomes.

3 minutes ago, connda said:

So Trump added 15% to all imports. That 15% is a tax that comes out of the pockets or US consumers which in turn makes life even more difficult for the 70% of Americans now living paycheck to paycheck - or on the street.

Low-income people in the US spend about 90% of their income on food, housing and energy, none of which are impacted significantly by tariffs.

Are you for eliminating corporate income taxes? If not, why not? Consumers have to pay those as well.

How about that VAT the poor shmucks in the EU have to pay? Why are the left not howling about that if they care so much about the poor?

42 minutes ago, connda said:

So Trump added 15% to all imports. That 15% is a tax that comes out of the pockets or US consumers which in turn makes life even more difficult for the 70% of Americas living paycheck to paycheck.

And SCOTUS said in clear words that tariffs are a tax and need congressional approval.

He’s on Walter Reed Watch.

Well if Professor Rajneesh Narula says Trump's presidency is crunmbling, it must be crunmbling!

8 minutes ago, CallumWK said:

And SCOTUS said in clear words that tariffs are a tax and need congressional approval.

Like the current situation, where congress abdicated and transferred authority to the president.

The global tariffs are revenue-generating taxes allowed by law, up to 15% for up to 150 days. Unclear what happens after that. Can Trump let the 150-day period expire, declare another emergency, and apply a new set of global tariffs? It seems the way the law is written, he can do that.

.....until congress passes new legislation rescinding that law, with a margin capable of overriding a presidential veto.

In most EU and non-EU countries, VAT on food is zero rated or substantially reduced. eg the UK is 0% on food.

Similarly in the US, only a few states levy standard sales tax on groceries. For instance, Idaho charges 6% on all food, Mississippi levies 7%. Attempts to denigrate other countries through spreading false rumours about VAT/taxation on food are either evil, or based on profound ignorance of the world around them.

So are such people malicious, or stupid?

1 minute ago, Yellowtail said:

Well if Professor Rajneesh Narula says Trump's presidency is crunmbling, it must be crunmbling!

His hand picked SCOTUS judges ruling against him, Republican Reps voting against him.

That’s not happening for no reason.

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

He’s on Walter Reed Watch.

Trump is "sharp as a tack", and he's "the best Trump ever", apparently the interns are not able to keep up with the breakneck pace he sets.

Just now, Chomper Higgot said:

His hand picked SCOTUS judges ruling against him, Republican Reps voting against him.

That’s not happening for no reason.

Three judges ruled with him. That’s not happening for no reason.

3 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Trump is "sharp as a tack", and he's "the best Trump ever", apparently the interns are not able to keep up with the breakneck pace he sets.

I’ll give you this.

Take a good look at Trump today.

You won’t ever see him looking better.

2 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Three judges ruled with him. That’s not happening for no reason.

Yeh, hand picked and corrupt.

Does the expert also think proof reading is crunmbling i wonder ?

3 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Yeh, hand picked and corrupt.

You said the hand picked ones voted against him.

1 minute ago, Yellowtail said:

You said the hand picked ones voted against him.

Hand picked judges did vote against him.

Not all his hand picked judges wish to continue with the corruption

14 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Hand picked judges did vote against him.

Not all his hand picked judges wish to continue with the corruption

Are not all the judges hand-picked?

It always the same with leftists, the ruling goes their way, it great, it doesn't, it's corruption and the end of democracy.

2 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Are not all the judges hand-picked?

It always the same with leftists, the ruling goes their way, it great, it doesn't, it's corruption and the end of democracy.

Here you go again with idiot questions.

Not all judges were hand picked by Trump.

4 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Here you go again with idiot questions.

Not all judges were hand picked by Trump.

And here you come with your idiot responses. Most of the judges that ruled in Trump's favor were not appointed by Trump.

1 hour ago, Roadsternut said:

In most EU and non-EU countries, VAT on food is zero rated or substantially reduced. eg the UK is 0% on food.

Similarly in the US, only a few states levy standard sales tax on groceries. For instance, Idaho charges 6% on all food, Mississippi levies 7%. Attempts to denigrate other countries through spreading false rumours about VAT/taxation on food are either evil, or based on profound ignorance of the world around them.

So are such people malicious, or stupid?

Quite right I would just add that the 0% rate even applies to imported food. Now all imported food to the US is going to be 15% more expensive than it needs to be.

Tariffs are only really effective if they are targeted. Imposing blanket tariffs on things that the US can’t grow or produce itself is counterproductive, like tropical agricultural products (coffee, cocoa, spices, specific fruits), for instance, or raw materials needed to produce goods it just increases the cost to the US consumer and makes US goods more expensive when exported.

In the end blanket tariffs on everything the US imports only hurts its citizens and makes any exports that have used materials or components that had to be imported more expensive and less competitive.

The only positive is that the government raises a lot more tax (paid by the US citizens) how that money is spent is the big question.

Will it be spent by reducing the taxes billionaires pay or improving the lives of the vast majority of its citizens.

14 minutes ago, Bannoi said:

Quite right I would just add that the 0% rate even applies to imported food. Now all imported food to the US is going to be 15% more expensive than it needs to be.

Tariffs are only really effective if they are targeted. Imposing blanket tariffs on things that the US can’t grow or produce itself is counterproductive, like tropical agricultural products (coffee, cocoa, spices, specific fruits), for instance, or raw materials needed to produce goods it just increases the cost to the US consumer and makes US goods more expensive when exported.

In the end blanket tariffs on everything the US imports only hurts its citizens and makes any exports that have used materials or components that had to be imported more expensive and less competitive.

The only positive is that the government raises a lot more tax (paid by the US citizens) how that money is spent is the big question.

Will it be spent by reducing the taxes billionaires pay or improving the lives of the vast majority of its citizens.

I should add that VAT is applied at every stage of the value chain, reducing evasion. Sales taxes though are easy to evade. Tariffs don't just apply to finished goods, but also to subassemblies, so are analogous to VAT.

Changes in VAT rates are approved by parliament. In the UK, the Chancellor presents their budget, where they might apply different VAT rates to goods, as needs require. But Parliament always votes on that budget. It need that oversight.

Its a brave politician who campaigns on the premise of increasing regressive taxes. They usually don't win.

No Taxation without Representation is Magna Carta stuff. But John Hampden is the one who should be credited to taking a stand against that. It drove him to civil war, and to pay the ultimate sacrifice.

3 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

Low-income people in the US spend about 90% of their income on food, housing and energy, none of which are impacted significantly by tariffs.

Are you for eliminating corporate income taxes? If not, why not? Consumers have to pay those as well.

How about that VAT the poor shmucks in the EU have to pay? Why are the left not howling about that if they care so much about the poor?

Sorry. Individuals don't have to pay all of the taxes imposed on corporations. You should look up "price elasticity" If the price is too much, consumers may be able to get along without it.

Which brings up the second point. Maybe in a world without competition If a company raises its prices to cover taxes, that's the case that corporations can pass the full tax along to the consumer. . And Trump sure is trying to help that along by imposing tariffs and making foreign goods less competitive. But the fact is that there is still competition in the USA, although a lot less than there used to be thanks to lax enforcement of antitrust laws.

As for "that VAT poor shmucks in the EU have to pay", in the fully developed EU nations there's a stronger social safety net and education is a lot cheaper than in the USA. And VAT is imposed by individual countries. The EU doesn't set the rates.

2 minutes ago, Alan Zweibel said:

Sorry. Individuals don't have to pay all of the taxes imposed on corporations.

If the consumer doesn't pay it, who does?

2 minutes ago, Alan Zweibel said:

You should look up "price elasticity" If the price is too much, consumers may be able to get along without it.

Oh, except when it's tariffs, right?

2 minutes ago, Alan Zweibel said:

Which brings up the second point. Maybe in a world without competition If a company raises its prices to cover taxes, that's the case that corporations can pass the full tax along to the consumer. . And Trump sure is trying to help that along by imposing tariffs and making foreign goods less competitive. But the fact is that there is still competition in the USA, although a lot less than there used to be thanks to lax enforcement of antitrust laws.

Both tariffs and corporate taxes are paid by consumers.

Corporate taxes benefit foreign manufacturers and workers.

Tariffs benefit domestic manufacturers and workers.

2 minutes ago, Alan Zweibel said:

As for "that VAT poor shmucks in the EU have to pay", in the fully developed EU nations there's a stronger social safety net and education is a lot cheaper than in the USA. And VAT is imposed by individual countries. The EU doesn't set the rates.

Yeah, more welfare, which we in the US need less of.

Tell the truth, the EU sets a 15% minimum VAT.

4 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

How about that VAT the poor shmucks in the EU have to pay? Why are the left not howling about that if they care so much about the poor?

In Europe food, medicines, energy and educational supplies, along with many other things which are a burden on people on or near the poverty line are largely VAT exempt or zero rated.

Secondly, most of the population ( poor schmucks) in Europe understand that their largely: filthy social democratic/thieving socialist/murderous commie bastard governments (select whichever fits your level of frothy mouthedness!) collect taxes to fund healthcare, education, infrastructure and social programmes from which they (the poor schmucks) benefit.

Of course other taxes are wildly, obscenely progressive - the wealthy pay more, and the very wealthy pay even more! They don't even get to sit in the front row at various inaugurations and (horror of horrors) coronations!

On the count of three, clutch your pearls!

18 minutes ago, JAG said:

In Europe food, medicines, energy and educational supplies, along with many other things which are a burden on people on or near the poverty line are largely VAT exempt or zero rated.

Secondly, most of the population ( poor schmucks) in Europe understand that their largely: filthy social democratic/thieving socialist/murderous commie bastard governments (select whichever fits your level of frothy mouthedness!) collect taxes to fund healthcare, educatioYearn, infrastructure and social programmes from which they (the poor schmucks) benefit.

Of course other taxes are wildly, obscenely progressive - the wealthy pay more, and the very wealthy pay even more! They don't even get to sit in the front row at various augurations and ( horror of horrors) coronations!

On the count of three, clutch your pearls!

Yeah, we don't VAT in the US and we do not need more welfare programs for the lazy

Trump watched the Karate Kid too much. Tariff on tariff off!

A post with a negative comment toward the news article has been removed @Yellowtail :

• Disrespectful comments about the articles, the use of AI, or the news team (e.g. “clickbait,” “slow news day,” mocking grammar, or AI taunts) are not permitted.

2 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

If the consumer doesn't pay it, who does?

Oh, except when it's tariffs, right?

Both tariffs and corporate taxes are paid by consumers.

Corporate taxes benefit foreign manufacturers and workers.

Tariffs benefit domestic manufacturers and workers.

Yeah, more welfare, which we in the US need less of.

Tell the truth, the EU sets a 15% minimum VAT.

If there's competition, then corporations may have to swallow at least some of the tax increase. As an example, take brand names vs house brands. If Cheerios get too expensive consumers switch to a house brand.

Or, if some product becomes too expensive, the end consumer may stop consuming it or consume less. So a corporation has to make a choice whether to pass along the full tax or swallow some portion of it. The is what's called by economists Demand Elasticity.

Tariffs protect companies from competition. If you think competition is a bad thing, then you''ve made an excellent point.

I stand corrected. The EU does require a minimum VAT of 15%.