By K Raveendran
There are increasing signals that Trump’s weaponised tariffs will most likely be his nemesis. A US court of appeals has thrown out his tariffs against other nations, ruling that he exceeded his authority in declaring an emergency to justify the draconian measures. The development is more than a legal setback; it strikes at the heart of Trump’s strategy of using trade as a blunt instrument of power. For years, he has argued that tariffs serve the national interest, protecting American workers and industries from what he has described as unfair foreign competition. But the courts, much like the markets, are beginning to reflect the limits of presidential overreach, and the consequences are now feeding back into the economy in ways that could prove politically costly.
The notion of weaponising tariffs was one of the cornerstones of Trump’s economic nationalism. He repeatedly claimed that other countries were taking advantage of the United States, siphoning jobs, wealth, and technology. By slapping punitive tariffs on imports, he believed he could tilt the balance of trade back in America’s favour, forcing adversaries and allies alike to the negotiating table. But what was promoted as a grand strategy to restore American strength has increasingly looked like a dangerous experiment with the global trading system. By declaring economic measures as national security emergencies, Trump attempted to bypass congressional authority and traditional trade law safeguards. The courts have now called out this tactic, asserting that the president cannot unilaterally stretch the definition of national security to fit his own political agenda.
Even as he fought legal battles to sustain his tariffs, Trump compounded his position by seeking to control the narrative around the consequences of his policies. Reports have emerged that he pressured institutions tasked with providing authentic economic data to adjust their figures so that his initiatives appeared to be working. The attempt to bend facts to politics reflects a disturbing trend in governance, where truth becomes an inconvenience. But numbers, unlike political rhetoric, do not bend easily. The economic picture that has unfolded tells a very different story from the one the White House sought to paint. Inflation has been climbing steadily, eating into household incomes. Jobs in certain sectors, particularly those dependent on global supply chains, have been lost rather than saved. And consumers are facing higher prices, as companies pass on the costs of tariffs to the public.
The lived reality of ordinary Americans is therefore becoming the strongest counterargument to the administration’s claims. When groceries cost more, when manufactured goods become pricier, and when small businesses struggle to source affordable components, the political rhetoric of national revival begins to sound hollow. Tariffs may have been presented as patriotic shields, but they are functioning more as invisible taxes, hitting citizens who were promised relief and prosperity. For Trump, whose political brand was built on projecting economic strength, this creates a dangerous dissonance.
An earlier round of court intervention had already forced him to suspend penal tariffs against China, Mexico, and Canada. Those battles should have been warning enough that the judiciary would not accept unlimited executive latitude in trade policy. Yet the president persisted with the same approach, convinced that defiance was a badge of strength. The latest court setback therefore underscores both legal and political obstinacy, revealing a White House unwilling to learn from its missteps. What remains unclear is whether the administration will attempt to appeal further or find ways to reframe its tariff policies under different legal justifications. Either way, the signal is unmistakable: Trump’s grand economic war is being gradually dismantled, not only by foreign resistance but by domestic institutions designed to check abuse of power.
The fallout is not confined to the United States alone. International partners, weary of unpredictable policy swings from Washington, have begun to recalibrate their economic strategies. Countries targeted by tariffs have retaliated with counter-measures, leading to tit-for-tat increases in trade barriers that disrupt global markets. Supply chains have become more fragile, businesses more hesitant to invest, and the overall environment more uncertain. Instead of making America the dominant player in trade negotiations, tariffs have often isolated it, pushing allies to seek alternative partnerships. The irony is that the very strategy meant to secure American supremacy has left it exposed to the unintended consequences of its own belligerence.
Meanwhile, the domestic political calculus is shifting. Farmers, once courted as staunch supporters, have been among the hardest hit by retaliatory tariffs on agricultural products. Subsidy packages offered as relief have been insufficient to cover long-term losses, leaving many in despair. Manufacturers who rely on imported steel and aluminium have also found themselves squeezed, facing higher input costs that make their products less competitive. These are not fringe constituencies but vital parts of Trump’s political base. The longer the pain lingers, the more likely disillusionment will seep into electoral outcomes.
The inflationary spiral is another troubling dimension. While the administration continues to insist that tariffs are temporary and necessary tools to secure better deals, the reality is that higher import costs have translated into sustained inflationary pressure. For households already struggling with wages that have not kept pace with living expenses, this pressure feels like a betrayal. Every shopping bill, every rent payment, every health expense becomes a reminder of policies that were sold as protective but delivered pain. Unlike foreign policy debates or abstract political controversies, the economic impact of tariffs is tangible, visible in everyday transactions. It is here that Trump’s strategy may find its most lethal undoing.
Politically, the narrative of being a maverick president who dares to challenge the status quo worked effectively in the past. But governing by perpetual defiance is not a sustainable model, particularly when institutions such as the courts assert their authority and when economic consequences become impossible to mask. The presidency thrives not only on the charisma of the individual but on the credibility of results. If the results are inflation, job losses, and eroding consumer confidence, no amount of rhetorical bravado can conceal the underlying weakness.
It is too early to say how the latest legal battles will ultimately reshape Trump’s economic policies, but the direction of travel is clear. The courts have punctured the illusion of unlimited executive power in trade, while the economy itself has punctured the illusion of tariffs as a cure-all. Both domestic and international audiences are coming to the same conclusion: things are not working out the way the maverick president envisaged. In the end, it may not be political opponents, media critics, or foreign adversaries who define the limits of Trump’s power. It may well be the cold arithmetic of economic pain and the firm hand of judicial oversight that turn tariffs from his chosen weapon into his ultimate undoing. (IPA Service)