The United States is in a zone of high turbulence

Prof. V. Yu. Katasonov, Sovetskaya Rossiya, February 25, 2026 —

The Supreme Court’s decision on Trump’s tariffs is a major blow to the 47th US president.

The top story in global media in recent days has been the US Supreme Court’s February 20, 2026, decision to invalidate and lift most of the trade tariffs imposed by 47th US President Donald Trump.

As a reminder, even before entering the White House, Trump promised to significantly increase tariffs on imports from other countries. This was done both to restore “fairness” in trade relations with other countries and to stimulate US economic growth. According to his executive order, a base tariff rate of 10% on imported goods from almost all countries took effect on April 5, 2025. However, higher tariff rates were established for many countries, positioning them as “reciprocal” and as a response to the unfair trade policies of the countries in question. On August 1, 2025, the Trump administration announced differentiated import tariffs for dozens of countries, dividing trading partners into three categories based on the size of their trade deficits. On August 6, 2025, Trump signed an executive order imposing an additional 25% tariff on goods from India in retaliation for India’s purchases of Russian oil. For the sake of brevity, I will omit some of Trump’s other tariff initiatives.

Now, about the recent US Supreme Court decision. It found that the president had exceeded his authority by imposing tariffs without the consent of Congress. The court recalled that the US Constitution provides that matters of trade, taxes, and duties are the responsibility of the legislative branch. Trump and his team’s invocation of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) of 1977, which gives the president the authority to unilaterally impose import tariffs, is invalid. The import tariffs imposed by Trump, including those imposed on China, Canada, Mexico, India, and EU countries, were declared illegal. However, tariffs on goods such as steel, aluminum, and automobiles were found to be lawful, as they were enacted by the president on the basis of other legislation. The Supreme Court’s decision was made after a panel of judges voted six in favor and three against.

Incidentally, the Supreme Court’s ruling invalidating Trump’s tariffs isn’t the first court decision on this issue. As a reminder, on May 29 of last year, the U.S. Court of International Trade ruled that the IEEPA did not authorize Trump to impose global “mirror tariffs.” The court’s decision applied to all presidential executive orders related to tariffs. The ruling required the administration to take steps to repeal the tariffs within 10 days of the ruling’s publication. After the Court of International Trade’s decision was published, the administration almost immediately filed a notice of appeal. The case then moved to the Supreme Court.

As early as February 20, there were widespread reactions to the US Supreme Court’s decision, both domestically and internationally. Trump himself called the court’s decision a “disgrace” during a meeting with governors at the White House. At a press conference, he called the decision “extremely disappointing” and the justices “unpatriotic,” “unfaithful to the Constitution,” and “lacking the courage to do what’s best for the country.” On his social media account, he wrote that the Supreme Court justices “should be ashamed of themselves.”

US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent stated, “The American people suffered a defeat today, as the removal of President Trump’s critical leverage under the IEEPA is a grave loss for the entire country.” The Secretary called on US trading partners to disregard the Supreme Court’s decision (asking that it is an American matter) and to adhere to the tariff agreements reached last year.

The reaction to the Supreme Court’s decision abroad was generally positive, raising hopes that things would eventually return to the good old days of free trade. Dominic LeBlanc, Canada’s Minister of Trade and International Affairs, reiterated that the tariffs imposed by the US were “unjustified” and expressed hope that the US Supreme Court’s decision would strengthen Canada’s trade position.

Olof Gill, the European Commission’s spokesperson for trade and economic security, made a cautious statement on behalf of the European Union. He acknowledged that Brussels is unclear about Washington’s next steps regarding trade tariffs, but reiterated that the EU expects tariff reductions and continues to work toward that end.

The International Chamber of Commerce stated that businesses around the world “welcome” the US Supreme Court’s decision, but should not expect a “simple process” of returning to the original (pre-Trump) positions. Not everyone outside the US expressed optimism that there would be a return to the previous free trade arrangements with the US. Swissmem, the Swiss technology industry association, suggested that Trump’s team could use other legislation to maintain the protectionist tariffs it imposed.

Such doubts are reinforced by Trump’s statements that he has no intention of lifting the tariffs, and that he has a “backup plan” to maintain them. Commenting on the Supreme Court’s decision, Trump, on his social media account, specifically highlighted the words of Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who acknowledged that the US president has other legal grounds for imposing tariffs.

Trump also noted that the Supreme Court’s decision didn’t invalidate the tariffs imposed last year, but merely ruled that their implementation was inconsistent with the IEEPA. “The Supreme Court didn’t invalidate the tariffs themselves—it merely invalidated the specific application of the tariffs… Now there will be no doubt, and revenues to the budget, as well as protection for our companies and our country, will actually increase because of this decision,” Trump asserted confidently.

Experts often say that the presidential administration’s fallback option would be Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, which allows for the imposition of “emergency” tariffs to counter unfair trade practices.

Incidentally, experts point out that even if the US Supreme Court were to issue a direct ruling to overturn the tariffs imposed by Trump, the latter could simply ignore it. The theory is that the American legal system is structured in such a way that the US president stands above the judiciary and can disobey it. And if any court decisions are directed against the current occupant of the White House, they can only be enforced after that person leaves office. However, there is a more time-tested method for evading Supreme Court decisions: filing appeals and counterclaims, stalling for time. Experts argue that using this method will allow Trump to maintain the import tariffs imposed last year until the end of his presidential term.

Trump became so heated after the Supreme Court’s ruling that he even pointed out that the US president can not only unilaterally impose protectionist tariffs, but also, if necessary, completely block trade with a particular country if it threatens America’s national security. He wrote on his Twitter account: “…I am authorized to completely stop all trade or business with that same country, up to and including imposing a crippling embargo…”

Apparently, Trump adheres to the maxim that the best defense is a good offense. On February 20, he promised on his Twitter account to impose an additional 10% tariff on all countries, in addition to the existing import tariffs. He called it “global.” He stated that an “adjustment process” was beginning, and that the US government “will do everything to make even more money than before.”

Incidentally, this is one of many “Freudian slips” of current President Trump. In public appearances, he claims that his decisions on protectionist tariffs are motivated either by national security concerns or by a desire to restore “fairness” in trade with other countries. In reality, Trump, as a businessman, is primarily concerned with money. Incidentally, about a year ago, the 47th US President stated that he expected to raise $2 trillion for the US treasury through increased import tariffs. He claimed that with the new import tariffs, he would be able to stop the growth of the US national debt and even begin to reduce it. According to US media reports, last year the US collected approximately $287 billion in tariffs – almost three times more than it will in 2024. Experts estimate that Trump’s tariffs accounted for approximately $200 billion of this amount. That is, an order of magnitude less than Trump had hoped for. This is approximately 10 percent of the increase in the national debt during the year of the 47th US President’s tenure in the White House.

On February 21, Trump did indeed sign an executive order imposing a “global tariff.” The tariff will go into effect on February 24 for 150 days (and then we’ll see). The legal basis for the “global tariff” is Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which grants the president the sole authority to impose tariffs. “I’m honored to announce that I just signed a 10% global tariff on all countries in the Oval Office, effective immediately,” Trump posted on the social media platform TruthSocial.

The question arises as to whether the US Treasury will be forced to refund import duties paid last year. We’re talking about approximately $175 billion in duties that the US Supreme Court has deemed illegal. At an unscheduled press conference following the Supreme Court ruling, Trump stated that he has no intention of refunding these funds. Here’s his response: “It’s not up for debate. We’ll spend the next five years in the courts. Come on.”

It’s worth noting that even before the Supreme Court’s decision, many American importers had already challenged the legitimacy of Trump’s tariffs in court and sought refunds. According to Bloomberg estimates, by February, more than 1,500 American companies had filed lawsuits seeking refunds. Following the Supreme Court’s decision, a veritable flood of lawsuits from American businesses is expected, numbering not just in the thousands, but in the tens of thousands.

Moreover, the Supreme Court’s decision on Trump’s tariffs inspired many in America to file lawsuits against Trump and his administration in various courts on a wide range of issues. Incidentally, there were plenty of such lawsuits even before February 20th. As of May 1st, 2025, experts estimate that at least 328 lawsuits had been filed against the Trump administration. As of November 16th, 2025, the number of such lawsuits had already risen to 530. According to the latest available data (as of February 12th), 650 lawsuits against the Trump administration were pending in the courts (some against Trump personally, others against members of his team, in particular Elon Musk).

On February 19, The New York Times published a very extensive and in-depth article entitled “The Trump Administration Has Been Sued 650 Times. Track These Cases.” It provides an overview of the lawsuits filed by the plaintiffs, which range from state governments to large American banks and corporations to ordinary citizens. The lawsuits concern a wide range of issues: immigration policy, decisions to curtail various government programs and layoffs of government employees, the termination of funding for a number of American universities, and so on. Along with the very serious lawsuits, there are also some that may seem, at first glance, anecdotal. For example, a lawsuit filed by the Associated Press. It turns out that the Trump administration banned this well-known agency from attending certain press events because it uses the name “Gulf of Mexico” rather than “American Gulf” in its publications. Meanwhile, this lawsuit demonstrates that Trump and his team are deliberately turning all of America against themselves. Some of the lawsuits have already been ruled on. Notably, the majority of the rulings are not in favor of the Trump administration.

Following the Supreme Court’s ruling on Trump’s tariffs, America is expected to be hit with a gigantic wave of lawsuits against the 47th president and his administration. America is entering a period of high turbulence.