By Ben Meiselas
Hi all, we made it to the weekend. Donald Trump just had what may have been the worst week of his presidency yet. Let me fill you in on the latest news.
The Court’s ruling striking down Trump’s sweeping tariff regime marked a turning point. But Trump, in usual fashion, responded by attempting to double down.
Within hours of the decision, Trump announced a new 10 percent worldwide tariff. By this morning, he had already raised it to 15 percent. He claims to be invoking Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. As I explained in my report, that statute does not provide him the authority he is asserting. Swing and a miss, Donald.
Section 122 allows for a temporary import surcharge of up to 15 percent for no more than 150 days. However, the statute is triggered only under narrow conditions tied to serious international balance of payments crises. The United States is not facing the type of international payment emergency contemplated by the law. Section 122 tariffs require the condition of “large and serious United States balance-of-payments deficits.” The current U.S. balance of payments deficit is zero. Currency remains convertible. Global payments are functioning. The legal predicate required for invoking this authority simply is not present.
Trump’s prior tariff regime was already ruled unlawful. The Supreme Court made clear that the president does not possess unchecked power to impose global taxes under the guise of emergency authority. The rule of law prevailed in that decision.
Rather than comply with the ruling in substance, Trump appears to be pursuing a new workaround built on the same flawed (illegal) premise. The strategy, as I discussed in my report, is straightforward. The previous tariffs remained in place for roughly sixteen months before the Court invalidated them. Trump is now attempting another legally unsupported move that may take time to challenge and resolve.
At the same time, the economic news continues to deteriorate. The latest data released Friday showed core PCE inflation running around 3 percent and GDP growth at just 1.4 percent during Trump’s first year back in office. These figures fall far short of the growth projections Trump repeatedly promised. The tariffs he is now escalating will function as taxes on American families and businesses at a moment when the economy is already under strain.
The international consequences are also becoming clearer.
The United States Ambassador to the European Union issued a statement this morning criticizing the EU for considering procurement rules that would favor European-made defense equipment. This comes after months of rhetoric and actions from the Trump regime that have strained transatlantic relations.
European leaders are increasingly pursuing self-reliance in defense production. That shift reflects growing uncertainty about the reliability of the United States as a partner. When the United States threatens traditional allies and undermines longstanding alliances, it should not be surprising that those allies reconsider their dependencies.
The ambassador’s statement warned that European preference policies could “undermine member state flexibility” and create barriers to meeting NATO targets. Yet this criticism lands differently in a context where the United States has questioned and disrupted core alliance commitments.
The broader trend is one that economists have warned about for months. The long-term damage of erratic trade policy does not show up solely in quarterly statistics. It manifests in shifting alliances, weakened confidence in U.S. leadership, and changing perceptions of American economic stability. Treasury yields, currency dynamics, and global investment patterns are already reflecting these shifts.
In my conversation with California Governor Gavin Newsom, he underscored the finality of the Court’s decision. “It’s the last stop,” he said. “There is no higher ruling.” He added that Trump “cannot operate as an imperial president” and remains subject to co-equal branches of government.
The legal analysis of Section 122 reinforces that point. The statute’s language is specific. It addresses balance of payments crises, not generalized trade deficits. It requires an identifiable international payment problem. It authorizes only temporary measures tied to those conditions.
None of those prerequisites are currently met.
What Trump is doing is an attempt to repackage a rejected policy under a different label. The lesson from the Supreme Court’s decision should have been that sweeping global tariffs imposed without statutory authority are unlawful. The regime’s response shows that lesson has not been absorbed.
This moment is not only about tariffs. It is about institutional limits, economic stability, and the credibility of American commitments abroad. Trade policy conducted through improvisation and legal shortcuts carries consequences that extend beyond short-term politics. This whole saga also is exposing how weak of a leader Trump truly is. If he was a capable president, he’d easily be able to convince the Republican-controlled Congress to pass his tariffs the legal way. But he can’t.
I hope you enjoy your Saturday. Stay tuned for more updates on our YouTube channel and podcast feed throughout the day.
