After the Supreme Court invalidated President Donald Trump's use of emergency powers to impose tariffs, the president refuses to retreat, instead vowing to escalate duties even higher — a defiant move that exposes deep ideological commitments and poses significant political risks, according to an analyst.
The 79-year-old president intends to circumvent the court's ruling by employing alternative legal instruments – Section 232 national security tariffs and Section 301 trade practice tariffs – that Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent framed as a temporary "bridge" to a more permanent tariff regime, wrote CNN's Stephen Collinson.
"True to his philosophy of never accepting a defeat, he’s already battling back after the Supreme Court declared his exercise of emergency trade war powers unlawful," the columnist wrote. "Trump is vowing to avenge the most damaging loss of his second term by promising even higher duties on imports. Many Republicans, however, would prefer a course correction as midterm elections loom."
Collinson identified two core reasons for Trump's refusal to compromise. First, he maintains an "evangelical intensity" belief in tariffs despite contradictory evidence. Data shows the trade deficit remains static and manufacturing jobs are declining — facts Trump dismisses while claiming tariffs have "effectively" revitalized America.
Second, and more fundamentally, tariffs represent Trump's broader pursuit of unchecked presidential authority, Collinson wrote. When asked why he doesn't work with Congress, Trump responded bluntly: "I don't have to. I have the right to do tariffs."
This reveals tariffs transcend economic policy — they're vehicles for presidential dominance and rejection of constitutional power-sharing, Collinson wrote.
Democrats are preparing legislation forcing tariff refunds, citing costs of $1,700 per family, while Republicans face growing internal pressure, with some lawmakers joining Democrats in opposition.
"Bessent dodged on whether the government should refund corporations and consumers hit by higher tariffs — which are effectively a tax," Collinson wrote. "He said this was 'not up to the administration, it is up to the lower court.' This may be a legally tenable position for now. But it’s politically perilous."