SCOTUS Hearing Today: The Real Trade Threat Is Keeping Trump’s Tariffs

Originally published on Substack. 

Today the U.S. Supreme Court hears Trump v. V.O.S. Selections — a case that could decide whether presidents can keep unilaterally taxing Americans through “emergency” tariffs.

​Donald Trump says this “is, literally, LIFE OR DEATH for our country.”

That’s not true.

It’s life or death for the illusion that tariffs make America stronger.

What the Case Is About

The question before the Court is simple:

Did President Trump exceed his authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) when he imposed sweeping tariffs on U.S. trading partners?

The administration argues these tariffs are essential to “economic security.” But 463 economists — myself included — told the Court the opposite:

"The biggest trade threat to America isn’t ending tariffs. It’s keeping them."

We made that case in a National Taxpayers Union coalition letter because it’s time to end this abuse of “emergency powers” that turns normal trade into a political weapon.

Tariffs Are Taxes That Distort Markets

Let’s be clear: tariffs don’t strengthen the economy — they distort it.

A tariff doesn’t raise the general level of prices known as inflation (that’s a monetary issue). Instead, it changes relative prices — making some goods more expensive and others less accessible.

When the government imposes tariffs, resources are redirected from where markets would have used them most efficiently to where politics wants them used.

That means higher input costs for manufacturers, higher prices for consumers, and fewer opportunities for exporters — all within the same “fixed” economic pie. If we pay more for steel, fertilizer, or machinery, we have less to spend on everything else.

So the result isn’t inflation; it’s misallocation — less productivity, slower growth, and a poorer society overall.

The Trade Deficit Myth

For decades, protectionists have tried to justify tariffs by pointing to the trade deficit. But as economists have explained for half a century, the trade deficit is just one side of the ledger.

When Americans import more than they export, foreigners reinvest the difference here — in our businesses, real estate, and Treasury bonds. That’s the capital account surplus offsetting the trade account deficit.

Trade deficits don’t signal failure. They reflect confidence in the U.S. economy. Over the past 50 years, we’ve run persistent trade deficits while real GDP, wealth, and living standards have soared.

Trying to “fix” the trade deficit with tariffs is like trying to fix your shadow by blocking the sun.

Bessent’s Comments Show the Real Problem

In a CNBC interview, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said the administration has “lots of other authorities” it could use if it loses the IEEPA case.

“There are lots of other authorities that can be used,” he said. “IEEPA is by far the cleanest, and it gives the president the most negotiating authority.”

He pointed to Section 232 of the 1962 Trade Expansion Act and Section 301 of the 1974 Trade Act as fallback options.
That’s the problem. Even if the Court reins in one abuse of power, Washington keeps looking for another. Both parties have turned “national security” and “unfair trade practices” into blank checks for intervention.

But trade policy isn’t a presidential plaything. It belongs to Congress — and, ideally, Congress should have the wisdom to do less, not more.

The Economics Are Simple

Tariffs don’t “bring jobs home.” They just move them around — while making the whole economy less productive.

• Producers face higher input costs.
• Consumers face fewer choices.
• Exporters face retaliation abroad.
• Investors face uncertainty that deters long-term planning.

It’s not strength — it’s self-sabotage.

As the National Taxpayers Union economists wrote:

“The greater threat to the economy of the United States is not that the Trump Administration’s tariffs will be struck down, but that they will be allowed to remain in place.”

The Real Choice Before the Court

As SCOTUSblog noted, this case is about more than tariffs. It’s about whether the president can declare an “economic emergency” whenever it’s politically convenient.

The IEEPA was never meant to give presidents a permanent green light to micromanage trade. That’s Congress’s role — and frankly, it’s one Congress should exercise sparingly if at all.

If the Court rules to limit presidential power here, it won’t harm the economy. It’ll restore balance and reaffirm that markets, not politicians, should direct trade and production.

As I wrote on X:

“The Supreme Court’s Trump v. V.O.S. Selections case isn’t just about executive power — it’s about whether America chooses free markets or managed decline.

Let’s call ‘Liberation Day’ what it should be: the day the U.S. economy is freed from fake emergencies and real tariffs.”

Both Parties Are to Blame

Republicans use tariffs to sound tough. Democrats use subsidies and regulation to sound compassionate. Both raise costs, distort incentives, and expand government.

The truth is simple: prosperity doesn’t come from managing the economy — it comes from freeing it.

Freedom Beats Force

If the Supreme Court strikes down these “emergency” tariffs, it won’t weaken America. It’ll strengthen it — by restoring constitutional limits and letting markets work again.

The path to prosperity is clear: freer trade, smaller government, and a renewed trust in the creativity and productivity of the American people.
​
That’s how we win — not through tariffs, but through freedom.