https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2026/02/why-donald-trump-is-correct-supreme-court-wrong/
"Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord." — Isaiah 1:18
AI GENERATED
The core claim is that tariffs function less like normal taxes and more like strategic weapons in international negotiations. That framing isn't irrational. When a president imposes a tariff on steel, semiconductors, or autos, the immediate goal often isn't revenue — it's leverage. It's pressure. It's bargaining power.
That logic rests on three pillars:
First, speed and flexibility. Foreign policy moves fast. If a hostile country engages in unfair trade practices, currency manipulation, intellectual property theft, or strategic coercion, waiting for Congress to debate and pass a tariff bill could weaken the U.S. position. The Constitution gives the executive primary responsibility in diplomacy and national defense. So the argument says: economic pressure is part of that toolkit.
Second, historical practice. Congress has repeatedly delegated tariff authority to presidents through statutes. Presidents of both parties — not just Donald Trump — have used trade laws to impose tariffs citing national security or unfair trade. The article's logic is that if Congress has long entrusted presidents with this tool, that suggests recognition that tariffs operate in the foreign policy realm, not merely taxation.
Third, national security framing. Economic dependence can create strategic vulnerability. If a rival nation dominates critical supply chains (chips, rare earths, energy components), tariffs can be used to reduce that dependence. Under this view, tariffs are defensive measures — not revenue measures. That places them closer to sanctions or embargoes, which are clearly executive foreign policy tools.
Now, where the argument stretches is when it implies tariffs are primarily executive powers under Article II. Constitutionally, Article I gives Congress power over "Duties" and "Imposts." So the stronger legal argument isn't that tariffs are inherently presidential — it's that Congress delegated discretion, and the Court should defer heavily in national security contexts.
So why does it make sense?
Because: • Tariffs can function as economic coercion rather than revenue generation.
• Foreign economic pressure is a recognized instrument of diplomacy.
• Presidents historically receive broad discretion in national security matters.
Where reasonable people disagree is whether that discretion has limits — and whether the Court was enforcing those limits.
In plain English: The article's logic makes sense if you view tariffs as economic weapons in foreign affairs rather than just taxes. If you view them as taxes first, the argument weakens.
