The US Constitutional Court has classified the tariffs introduced by US President Donald Trump as inadmissible. The ruling thus strengthens the separation of powers and limits the president’s options for foreign policy action. In view of global uncertainties, Europe now has the responsibility to take decisive action against abuse of power – following the example of the US justice system.

The American Constitution provides for the separation of powers as the foundation of the political order; The Supreme Court impressively defended this principle with its decision. The majority, six of the nine justices, have declared Trump’s emergency tariffs unconstitutional because they were imposed without congressional approval.

In the video: Trump wants to raise global tariffs from 10 to 15 percent

Trump is losing his most effective foreign policy instrument

Because tax and tariff authority lies with Congress, not with the President. The Supreme Court’s ruling is a clear signal of limitations on executive power in the United States. The USA is thus gaining constitutional stability.

This means that the Trump administration is losing some of its foreign policy clout. The verdict deprives President Trump of his fastest and most politically effective instrument for asserting American interests abroad – the consequences for him and his work are still difficult to estimate.

Trump’s foreign policy weapon defused

Trump had established tariffs as a central element of his foreign policy and used them far beyond the classic framework of trade policy. He used tariffs not only to control trade flows, but also as a flexible means of pressure in a wide variety of political contexts.

Whether in dealing with China, Colombia or in geopolitically sensitive regions such as Gaza and Greenland – tariffs have always been linked to security, migration and geopolitical interests. This strategy enabled Tump to connect political issues and exert targeted international pressure.

The Supreme Court’s ruling now significantly restricts this practice and makes it clear that political arbitrariness must have no place in a functioning constitutional state.

Alternative instruments and their weaknesses

Although alternative legal options for collecting tariffs still exist, they are much weaker and more bureaucratic. The new procedures are not only slower, but also more controlled and tied to clear criteria.

This means that political decisions must be made more transparently and comprehensibly in the future. They require lengthy procedures, extensive justification and are often time-limited.

This has a direct impact on the ability of US foreign policy to act and makes it more difficult to implement short-term political goals – which have damaged not only the global economic order, but America itself.

Trump’s tariffs were borne by US households

The hope of the Trump administration, which, contrary to economic wisdom, claimed that foreigners and not Americans would pay the tariffs, has now been clearly refuted. Two recently published reports – the current report of Congressional Budget Office on budget and economic prospects as well as a study by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York — unanimously conclude that Trump’s tariffs will largely be borne by American households and businesses.

American consumers were burdened even more because Trump’s tariffs also devalued their purchasing power. The latest consumer price statistics shows relatively low inflation, which initially suggests that tariffs have a small impact on price levels. Although inflation remains low according to statistics, However, more detailed analyzes prove thisthat tariffs have actually increased prices by up to a percentage point.

Although the Supreme Court’s ruling would have given the Trump administration the opportunity to defuse a controversial economic and political issue and thus reassure investors, the president, who was offended by his vanity, consciously decided against it.

Instead of de-escalating, Trump imposed a new 10 percent global tariff based on Section 122 of another trade law. This law allows for temporary tariffs of up to 15 percent and is politically and legally controversial.

Trump’s reaction to the ruling was sharp and confrontational

This approach makes it clear that Trump was not interested in a sustainable détente, but rather in maintaining and expanding his position of power and dominant self-image. The personal insult prevailed, and instead of using the opportunity to de-escalate, the Trump administration continues to rely on confrontation.

Trump’s reaction to the ruling was sharp and confrontational. He publicly criticized Supreme Court justices and questioned their loyalty and motives.

In the USA, the boundaries between powers are becoming increasingly blurred

This dispute is symptomatic of the current political situation in the USA, in which the boundaries between the powers are increasingly blurred and the independence of the courts from the executive power of the president is repeatedly called into question.

The escalation shows how important a strong and independent judiciary is for preserving basic democratic principles.

Judges appointed by Trump faced social exclusion

Most Supreme Court justices have shown courage in their decision and defended the principles of law and order. The conservative judges in particular were in a quandary: a pro-Trump verdict would have jeopardized their legal credibility, while a verdict against him promised political and social pressure.

Judges appointed by Trump in particular had to expect social exclusion and loss of status. Their ruling dealt the president a severe political defeat and not only aroused the president’s ire, but will also incur the displeasure of his MAGA base.

However, most judges did not allow themselves to be intimidated by political threats, but instead decided in accordance with the constitution and democracy.

What Europe should learn from the judges’ decisions

In Europe, too, democratic institutions are increasingly confronted with attempts to concentrate power and weaken constitutional control. The challenges range from populist movements to autocratic tendencies to attacks on independent judicial bodies.

Europe must learn from the events in the USA and strengthen its own mechanisms to preserve the integrity of its political order.

European foreign policy experts should also counteract the US President’s influence and critically examine existing agreements, especially if they were created under illegal pressure.

Europe’s way of dealing with Trump: Political unity

On July 27, 2025, at a meeting in Scotland, Trump used his tariff threats to force concessions from the EU. His demands show a clear power strategy, but are based on a weak position domestically that is now considered illegal. The EU should use this and bring its self-confidence from Davos into new negotiations.

A coordinated and united appearance by European states at the recent World Economic Forum in Davos initially prevented Trump from implementing his military and economic threats in connection with Greenland. This example underlines that political unity and legal clarity are central instruments of power in democratic systems.

Preserving a rules-based international order and protecting democratic institutions are central tasks of our time. Only through joint and determined resistance to authoritarian tendencies can the freedom and stability of our societies be secured.