Feb. 27, 2026, 4:02 a.m. ET
To the chagrin of Americans’ wallets, President Donald Trump is forging ahead with a new suite of tariff policies in the wake of the Supreme Court’s significant ruling against his original policy.
Though these new policies are more limited than the authority he previously claimed, they still are unwise policy decisions that will hurt Americans’ wallets. Americans have soured on Trump’s tariff plan leading into the court’s ruling against it, and the last thing Americans want to hear is more tariffs.
The Supreme Court gave him a perfect off-ramp to leave his unwise policy in the past, but he is far too stubborn to take it. Pivoting away from his tariff regime would have been the best move for Trump, both economically and politically. So obviously he didn’t do that.
Trump recalibrating tariffs framework instead of moving on
The president has no inherent tariff authority derived from the Constitution; any authority he claims must come from a statute. His original tariffs were enacted under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which the court rejected.
Trump adored the unilateral authority that the administration’s reading of IEEPA gave him. Now that those have been struck down, however, the president found a new home for his tariffs, within more restrictive, cumbersome and procedural legislative sources.
The primary home for these new tariffs is Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. However, that legislation only allows the president to enact tariffs of up to 15% for up to 150 days to address a “large and serious United States balance-of-payments deficits,” to “prevent an imminent and significant depreciation of the dollar in foreign exchange markets,” or to “cooperate with other countries in correcting an international balance-of-payments disequilibrium.”
Trump has already levied 10% tariffs under Section 122 against every country in the world, and other nations will face a 15% rate, according to the administration. Though lower than what would have occurred under the IEEPA tariffs had they not been struck down, the additional tax burden from Trump’s tariffs is expected to cost American households about $600 in tax increases.
These tariffs are far more limited in scope and degree and have an end date. Anything beyond 150 days would need Congress to approve, and I find it hard to believe that Republicans in Congress, facing tough reelection races, are finally going to break their inaction in order to raise taxes on their constituents.
The most frustrating part of his new regime is that, in all likelihood, we are just resetting the clock on litigation on this matter. Certain conservative legal experts are already expecting skepticism over Trump’s new plan, and given the financial weight of the president’s tariff plans, it is a matter of when these arguments are made in court, rather than if.
Trump’s decision to go forward with tariffs is bad politics
Trump had the perfect out for his failed tariff plans. In response to this Supreme Court decision, he could have laid the blame on the courts for preventing him from carrying out his policy, and simply chose not to enact a follow-up. He’s done plenty of blame hurling, which I think is damaging to the court, but it’s inevitably a part of any Trump response.
Trump’s approval rating is historically bad, and Americans have soured on his handling of the economy, the issue he was reelected to handle.
Trump’s State of the Union messaging attacked the affordability crisis messaging that Democrats have levied against him, but came with the threat of more tariffs. I cannot imagine Americans receiving that message any better than they have Trump’s agenda to this point. Something needs to change, and finding workarounds for your signature policy, which 64% of Americans disapprove of, is not the answer.
The GOP is running out of time before the November midterm elections to change Americans’ perceptions about the economy, and Trump barreling ahead with more tariffs will hurt Republican chances.
Dace Potas is an opinion columnist for USA TODAY and a graduate of DePaul University with a degree in political science.
