Trump's Unhinged Attack on the Supreme Court for Tariff Decision Buries Any Claim to Patriotism or Competence
Anybody who ever believed Donald Trump was a savvy businessman or genuinely committed to America's well-being now has that illusion unquestionably shattered by his meltdown over the Supreme Court's tariff ruling. In a 6-3 decision on February 20, 2026, in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, the Court struck down his "emergency" tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), holding that this 1977 law—meant solely for "unusual and extraordinary threat[s]" from abroad to national security, foreign policy, or the economy—does not authorize tariffs at all, and certainly not broad tariffs. Trump declared "national emergencies" over longstanding trade deficits (persistent for decades with no evidence whatsoever of negative economic effect) and drug inflows, claiming these justified tariffs as a response.
But Trump didn't address the legal merits at all—he ignored the Court's clear explanation that IEEPA lacks any reference to tariffs or duties, and no prior president had ever read it that way. Instead, he lashed out personally, branding the majority justices (including his appointees Gorsuch and Barrett) "fools," "unpatriotic," and "disloyal to our Constitution"—even calling them "embarrassments to their families." By labeling Supreme Court justices "disloyal" for upholding the law he swore an oath to defend, Trump has basically told them to ignore the Constitution that both he as president and the justices have sworn to uphold as their sacred responsibility—demanding loyalty to him over their shared obligation to support and defend it. This shows a criminal neglect of his constitutional duty: the president must follow the Constitution, not demand the Court violate it for personal loyalty.
It is critically important that Trump lost, because if he had won, it would have eviscerated Article I's assignment of trade and taxing powers exclusively to Congress (including duties and imposts), giving future presidents unchecked authority to impose or alter tariffs at will without legislative input. The ruling was inevitable under IEEPA's text, which requires a genuine foreign-sourced emergency—not chronic trade imbalances that have been a staple of our economy for decades with no negative effects.
Trump's response was more of the same—no reflection, just new tariffs slapped on without explanation or analysis (like the 10% global one under Section 122, quickly hiked). Even if some emergency authority existed, it wouldn't justify changing tariffs on personal whims—such as 25% duties on Canada after Trudeau called his moves "very dumb," threats against Mexico over drug accusations from Sheinbaum, a 40% (totaling 50%) levy on Brazil amid frustration with Bolsonaro's "witch hunt" prosecution, or hiking Switzerland's rate to 39% after disliking its leader's tone before dropping it to 15% following Swiss corporate gifts. In none of these did Trump declare a new emergency or cite any statutory trigger; he simply reacted to criticisms, policy spats, or slights, treating tariffs as petty revenge tools rather than trade measures.
Tariffs aren't for settling personal scores—using them that way distorts markets and empowers executive caprice over free enterprise. Constant flip-flops make business planning impossible: companies can't set prices or supply chains when import costs swing daily on presidential mood. This chaos alienates business voters, inflates prices (0.4%–1.3% hikes per Peterson Institute studies), and dooms GOP midterm hopes. We can't afford a president who puts ego over Constitution and economy— we must demand better, or watch limited government crumble under this madness.