- 9 minutes ago
Supreme Court Just STRIPPED Trump's Power. His OWN Justices Voted Against Him. 7-2
Category
🗞
NewsTranscript
00:00The Supreme Court of the United States just told Donald Trump that he broke the law.
00:05Not a lower court, not a liberal judge in a blue state, the highest court in the country.
00:11The institution Trump himself reshaped with three of his own appointments
00:15just ruled that his tariff agenda was unconstitutional from the beginning.
00:21And Trump's response was not to accept the ruling.
00:24It was not to work with Congress.
00:26It was not to respect the constitutional framework that every president before him
00:32has acknowledged at minimum in public.
00:36His response was to call the Supreme Court a disgrace
00:39and then announce that he has a backup plan, a backup plan for when the Supreme Court tells him no.
00:48That sentence should stop you cold.
00:50Because what we are watching right now is not a policy disagreement.
00:54This is not a fight about trade economics or import taxes or manufacturing jobs.
01:00What we are watching is a sitting president publicly refusing to accept the limits the Constitution places on his power.
01:09And he is saying it out loud without apology, daring the system to stop him.
01:17In the next 10 minutes, I am going to break down exactly what the court ruled,
01:21exactly why it matters more than any tariff number you have seen in the headlines,
01:25exactly what Trump's so-called backup plan actually means for the separation of powers,
01:31and exactly what is at stake for every person watching this video.
01:37Because this is not a story about trade.
01:40This is a story about whether the Constitution still means anything in 2025.
01:47To understand what just happened, you need to understand the legal architecture Trump has been operating inside,
01:52and why the court decided that architecture was built on sand.
01:57When Trump imposed sweeping tariffs on imports from dozens of countries,
02:02his administration cited the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, IEPA, as the legal authority.
02:10The argument was straightforward.
02:12The president declared a national economic emergency,
02:15and IEPA gives the executive branch broad authority to regulate commerce during a national emergency.
02:22Therefore, the tariffs are legal.
02:24No congressional vote required.
02:27No legislative approval.
02:28Just an executive declaration and a signature.
02:31That argument worked in the lower courts long enough for the tariffs to take effect
02:35and reshape global trade relationships.
02:38Companies restructured supply chains.
02:41Countries signed emergency deals.
02:43Prices shifted.
02:44Entire industries recalibrated based on tariff rates that, it turns out,
02:49were never constitutionally authorized in the first place.
02:54The Supreme Court looked at that argument and rejected it.
02:58The ruling came down on the question of the non-delegation doctrine,
03:02a constitutional principle that says Congress cannot hand its legislative powers
03:07to the executive branch without clear, specific limits on how those powers can be used.
03:13The Constitution gives Congress, not the president,
03:16the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations.
03:19That is Article 1, Section 8.
03:21It is explicit.
03:23It is foundational.
03:23It is one of the clearest grants of authority in the entire document.
03:28What the court found is that IEPA, as applied by this administration,
03:32was being used not as an emergency tool with defined limits,
03:36but as a blank check,
03:38a mechanism for the executive branch to assume a power
03:41that the Constitution assigns exclusively to Congress.
03:45The justices determined that allowing IEPA to serve as the legal basis for economy-wide tariff policy
03:53would effectively transfer Congress's trade authority to the president permanently
03:58because any future president could declare any economic condition an emergency
04:03and impose any tariff at any level without a single congressional vote.
04:10The court said no.
04:12The Constitution means what it says.
04:16Congress makes trade law.
04:18The president enforces it.
04:21Those two functions are not interchangeable.
04:25And that ruling landed on an administration
04:28that had built its entire economic identity around those tariffs.
04:33The reaction from Trump was immediate.
04:36It was public.
04:38And it was extraordinary in what it revealed
04:40about how this administration understands its own authority.
04:48Trump took to truth social within hours of the ruling
04:51and called it a disgrace.
04:53He accused the justices of being politically motivated.
04:57He suggested the court was being weaponized against him by his enemies.
05:01He framed the ruling not as a constitutional correction,
05:05but as an attack, an act of judicial aggression
05:08against a president trying to protect the American economy.
05:13Then he said he has a backup plan.
05:17Now, before we get to what that backup plan might be,
05:20let's sit with the political reality of what just happened for a moment.
05:24Because this is not a straightforward partisan story.
05:30Three of the justices on this court were appointed by Donald Trump.
05:34Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett.
05:38He put them there.
05:40He spent enormous political capital confirming them.
05:43He told his supporters they were going to protect his agenda.
05:47And at least some of them just ruled against him
05:50on one of the most significant executive power questions of his presidency.
05:54That is not a liberal court attacking a conservative president.
05:58That is a court doing its job,
06:02applying constitutional limits regardless of who appointed the justices.
06:07And the fact that Trump's response is to call that a disgrace
06:11tells you everything you need to know
06:13about how he views the role of the judiciary.
06:15In his framework, courts that rule for him are good courts.
06:21Courts that rule against him are corrupt, political, and illegitimate.
06:27The independence of the judiciary is only legitimate
06:31when the judiciary agrees with him.
06:36That is not how constitutional democracy works.
06:39That is how it breaks.
06:43Now let's talk about what this ruling actually means
06:46for the tariffs themselves.
06:47Because the legal consequence is not theoretical.
06:50It is immediate, and it is massive.
06:53If the Supreme Court has ruled
06:55that the IEPA-based tariffs exceed presidential authority,
06:59those tariffs are constitutionally invalid.
07:03That means any tariff imposed under that authority
07:07is legally unenforceable.
07:09That means every company that paid those tariffs
07:13has a potential legal claim for reimbursement.
07:18That means every trade agreement built around those tariff rates
07:21is now built on a foundation that does not legally exist.
07:27That means the entire economic architecture
07:30Trump constructed over the past year,
07:32the negotiations, the pressure campaigns,
07:35the bilateral deals structured around American tariff leverage,
07:39just had its legal floor removed.
07:44The economic ripple effects of this ruling
07:46are going to take months to fully materialize.
07:49But the direction is clear.
07:51The tariffs that were reshaping global trade,
07:54that were forcing countries to the negotiating table,
07:57that were being used as the primary tool
07:59of American economic foreign policy,
08:03they just lost their legal basis.
08:05And Trump's answer is a backup plan.
08:09Let's break down what that backup plan could actually be,
08:12because this is where the constitutional crisis gets real.
08:15There are essentially three pathways available
08:18to the administration in the wake of this ruling.
08:21The first is the legitimate constitutional pathway.
08:25Trump goes to Congress,
08:26asks for explicit legislative authority to impose tariffs,
08:30and works through the normal democratic process
08:33to get trade legislation passed.
08:35Congress writes a law.
08:37The law sets specific tariff rates
08:39or authorizes specific presidential tariff powers
08:43within defined limits.
08:45The president signs it.
08:46The tariffs become law.
08:48That is how the Constitution designed this to work.
08:51The problem with that pathway
08:53is that it requires Congress to act.
08:56It requires the House and Senate to agree.
08:58It takes time, it takes compromise,
09:01and it removes the unilateral control
09:04that has been central to how this administration
09:07uses tariffs as a foreign policy weapon.
09:12A tariff authorized by statute is a tariff with limits.
09:17Trump has shown no interest in limits.
09:21The second pathway is finding alternative legal authority.
09:26The administration could attempt
09:27to reroute the tariff program
09:30through Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act,
09:33which allows tariffs based on national security threats,
09:37or through Section 301 of the Trade Act,
09:40which addresses unfair foreign trade practices.
09:44Those statutes have different legal frameworks
09:47and might survive constitutional challenge
09:50in ways IEPA did not.
09:53The administration would essentially be
09:55rebuilding the tariff architecture
09:57on a different legal foundation
09:59and daring the courts to strike it down again.
10:03The problem with that pathway is that it is slow,
10:05it is legally uncertain,
10:07and it signals to every trading partner in the world
10:11that American tariff policy is in legal chaos.
10:15Countries that are currently complying
10:18with tariff-driven negotiations
10:20now have every reason to wait, to delay,
10:24to see whether the new legal basis
10:26survives its own court challenges
10:28before making any concessions.
10:32The third pathway is the dangerous one,
10:35and based on Trump's public language,
10:38calling the ruling a disgrace,
10:40suggesting he has already prepared a workaround,
10:43framing the court as an enemy,
10:45it is the one you need to watch most closely.
10:48The third pathway is defiance.
10:52Not formal, explicit defiance.
10:55Not a press conference where Trump says
10:57he is ignoring the Supreme Court.
10:59It would be subtler than that.
11:01It would be continued enforcement of the tariffs
11:05through executive agencies,
11:07while the legal challenges work through the system.
11:10It would be using the slow machinery
11:13of federal bureaucracy
11:14to maintain the economic reality of the tariffs,
11:18even while their legal status is contested.
11:22It would be betting
11:24that no enforcement mechanism exists
11:27that can physically compel a president
11:30to stop collecting tariffs
11:32that the court has ruled unconstitutional.
11:36And here is the terrifying thing.
11:39That bet might not be wrong.
11:42The Supreme Court can issue rulings.
11:45It cannot enforce them directly.
11:48It has no army.
11:49It has no treasury.
11:51It depends entirely on the executive branch,
11:54on the president,
11:55to give its rulings effect.
11:58When Andrew Jackson famously dismissed
12:00a Supreme Court ruling
12:01by saying the court had made its decision
12:04and now let them enforce it,
12:06he was describing a real vulnerability
12:08in the constitutional architecture.
12:10The court's authority is ultimately
12:12moral and institutional,
12:15not physical.
12:18If this administration decides
12:19to treat the tariff ruling
12:21the way it has treated
12:22other inconvenient legal constraints,
12:25as an obstacle to be managed
12:27rather than a limit to be respected,
12:29the court has limited practical tools
12:32to compel compliance.
12:35That is the scenario
12:36that constitutional lawyers
12:38are losing sleep over tonight.
12:40Here is what most of the coverage
12:41you are seeing right now is missing.
12:44The tariff ruling is significant.
12:47The constitutional question about IEPA
12:49is important.
12:51But the truly historic moment
12:54in what is happening right now
12:55is not the ruling itself.
12:57It is Trump's response to the ruling.
13:02Every president who has faced
13:04an adverse Supreme Court decision
13:06has faced a choice.
13:08They have not always loved the ruling.
13:10They have not always agreed with it.
13:12Some have thought the court was wrong.
13:15But the institutional norm,
13:17the practice that has held
13:19American democracy together
13:20through wars,
13:22through economic crises,
13:23through genuine constitutional emergencies,
13:25has been that presidents
13:27accept Supreme Court rulings
13:30as final.
13:31They work within them.
13:33They push back through legal channels.
13:36They ask Congress
13:37to pass new legislation.
13:38They challenge the ruling's scope
13:40in future cases.
13:42But they accept the court's authority
13:44to say what the law is.
13:48That norm is the load-bearing wall
13:51of American constitutionalism.
13:53Trump is not attacking
13:54a policy outcome right now.
13:56He is attacking the norm itself.
13:59When he calls the ruling a disgrace
14:01and announces a backup plan
14:03in the same breath,
14:04he is signaling that he views
14:06Supreme Court authority
14:08as conditional,
14:10as legitimate,
14:11only when it produces outcomes
14:13he approves of.
14:16He is telling the country
14:18and the world
14:18that he will work around
14:21constitutional limits
14:22rather than within them.
14:25Think about what that means
14:26for every institution
14:28downstream of this moment.
14:30If the president can dismiss
14:32a Supreme Court ruling
14:34as a disgrace
14:35and announce plans
14:36to circumvent it,
14:38what happens the next time
14:39a court challenges
14:40executive action?
14:42What happens when a lower court
14:44issues an injunction?
14:46What happens when Congress
14:48tries to reassert
14:49its constitutional authority
14:50through legislation?
14:52At what point
14:53does the pattern
14:54become so clear
14:55that the question
14:56is no longer
14:57whether a constitutional crisis
14:59is coming,
15:00but whether it is already here?
15:02The non-delegation doctrine ruling
15:04is not the end of this story.
15:05It is the beginning
15:06of a confrontation
15:07that the framers
15:08of the Constitution
15:09tried to prevent
15:10by designing
15:11three co-equal branches
15:13with distinct
15:14non-transferable powers.
15:17What we are watching
15:19right now
15:19is one branch
15:21testing whether
15:22those limits
15:22are real
15:23or merely theoretical.
15:26And the backup plan
15:28is the tell.
15:29Because backup plans
15:31are what you prepare
15:32when you have already decided
15:33that the primary outcome,
15:35in this case,
15:36respecting the court's ruling,
15:38is not acceptable.
15:41Former constitutional law scholars
15:43across the political spectrum
15:45are sounding alarms today
15:47that transcend partisan lines.
15:49This is not about tariffs
15:51being good or bad policy.
15:53Economists can argue
15:54about that forever.
15:55This is about whether
15:56the constitutional framework
15:58that has governed
15:59American executive power
16:01for two and a half centuries
16:02can survive a president
16:04who treats it as optional.
16:06Here is where things stand
16:08right now
16:08and why you need to stay
16:09locked in on this story.
16:12Congress is now facing
16:14a moment of genuine
16:15constitutional responsibility.
16:18If Trump's tariff authority
16:20has been struck down,
16:22Congress can restore
16:23some version of it
16:24through legislation,
16:25but only if it is willing
16:28to assert its own
16:29institutional role.
16:30If Congress passes a law
16:33giving the president
16:34broad, essentially unlimited
16:36tariff authority,
16:38it would effectively hand
16:40its own constitutional power
16:42away,
16:43which the Supreme Court
16:44has now ruled
16:45is itself unconstitutional.
16:48The only path forward
16:50that survives legal scrutiny
16:51is a statute with real limits,
16:55real legislative oversight,
16:56and real congressional control
16:58over trade policy.
17:00That is what the Constitution requires.
17:04Whether this Congress
17:06is willing to do that,
17:08or whether it will simply
17:09find a way to rubber stamp
17:11whatever the executive branch wants,
17:14is the question that will define
17:15this chapter of American history.
17:18The markets are already reacting
17:20to the legal uncertainty.
17:21Trading partners are recalibrating.
17:24Companies that restructured
17:26their supply chains
17:27around tariff assumptions
17:28are now facing a landscape
17:30where those assumptions
17:31have been legally invalidated.
17:33The economic disruption
17:35from this ruling
17:36will be real,
17:37and it will be felt
17:38by ordinary people
17:39in the form of uncertainty,
17:42price volatility,
17:43and investment hesitation.
17:48But the deeper disruption,
17:50the one that matters
17:51more than any quarterly
17:53earnings report
17:54or trade deficit number,
17:56is the disruption
17:57to the constitutional order itself.
18:00Because if the precedent
18:01set by this administration's
18:03response to this ruling
18:04is that Supreme Court decisions
18:06are optional
18:07for presidents
18:08who disagree with them,
18:10then the next president
18:12will know that too.
18:13And the one after that.
18:16And the damage done
18:17to institutional authority
18:19by that precedent
18:20will outlast
18:21any tariff regime
18:23by generations.
18:24Donald Trump called
18:26the Supreme Court's
18:27ruling a disgrace.
18:28The justices he appointed
18:30joined in striking down
18:32his tariff authority.
18:33He announced a backup plan
18:35rather than compliance.
18:37And the question
18:38that every American
18:39needs to sit with tonight
18:40is simple and serious.
18:42If the highest court
18:44in the land
18:45can tell a president
18:46he exceeded
18:47his constitutional authority,
18:49and that president's
18:51response
18:52is to call it
18:53a disgrace
18:54and start working
18:55around it.
18:57Who exactly
18:59is enforcing
19:00the Constitution?
19:02The answer
19:03to that question
19:03is not a judge.
19:05It is not a senator.
19:06It is not a general
19:08or a bureaucrat
19:09or a White House lawyer.
19:11The answer
19:12is the American people.
19:13It has always been
19:15the American people.
19:16Because constitutional democracy
19:18does not survive
19:19on parchment.
19:20It survives
19:21on the willingness
19:22of citizens
19:23to demand
19:24that the people
19:25they elect
19:26operate within the rules.
19:28The moment
19:29a population decides
19:30that outcome
19:31matters more than process,
19:32that winning
19:33is more important
19:34than how you win,
19:36is the moment
19:37the Constitution
19:37becomes a historical document
19:39rather than
19:40a living constraint.
19:42We are at that moment
19:44right now.
19:45And how this country
19:46responds to it
19:47will matter long
19:49after the tariff numbers
19:50are forgotten.
19:53Stay engaged.
19:54Stay informed.
19:56Share this video
19:56with someone
19:57who needs to understand
19:58what is actually
19:59at stake here.
20:00Not the politics,
20:02not the trade economics,
20:03but the constitutional
20:05architecture
20:05that holds
20:06everything else together.
20:08Because this story
20:09is not over.
20:11The backup plan
20:12is coming.
20:14And when it does,
20:16you need to understand
20:17exactly
20:18what you are looking at.
Comments