How Trump’s tariff defeat exposed the limits of White House power
By Anton Grishanov, Chief Research Fellow at the Institute for Contemporary International Issues of the Diplomatic Academy of the Russian Foreign Ministry
RT composite. © Getty Images / Bill Chizek; Roberto Schmidt
The
constant change of scenery in President Donald Trump’s America has
trained observers not to overreact to each new sensation from across the
Atlantic. Yesterday’s battles fade quickly, replaced by fresh
headlines. Against that backdrop, it is tempting to dismiss Trump’s
latest clash with the US Supreme Court as a passing episode. Just
another skirmish in Washington’s endless political theatre. Surely one
court ruling cannot seriously reshape American policy?
In reality,
the opposite may be true. What we are witnessing is not a technical
legal dispute, but the exposure of a deeper failure: the Trump
administration’s inability to “hack the system.” Paradoxically,
the decision to strike down the president’s so-called emergency tariffs
could alter the entire balance of Trump’s remaining term, effectively
turning the White House into a lame-duck presidency.
American politics is unforgiving. Once a leader shows weakness, the cry of “Akela missed,”
borrowed from Kipling and widely understood in Washington, spreads
quickly. Authority drains away, and allies begin to hedge. Democrats
will have little reason to show mercy.
Over the past year, the
White House worked hard to project an image of total unity: a solid bloc
of Trump loyalists, independents, Republicans in Congress, a
conservative Supreme Court, major business interests, and a “silent majority”
of voters supposedly standing shoulder to shoulder behind the
president. Trump 2.0 was presented not as a lone disruptor, but as the
embodiment of a new governing consensus.
Foreign capitals were
expected to accept this shift and adjust accordingly. Tariffs became the
cornerstone of the MAGA worldview, a universal tool. They were marketed
as a cure for trade imbalances, a weapon to punish dissenters and
reward loyalty, and even a mechanism for forcing peace. Crucially, the
administration claimed the president could impose or lift tariffs at
will, bypassing the cumbersome checks and balances of the old system.
At first, America’s partners, and then its rivals, grudgingly played
along, treating this chaos as the new normal. But behind the scenes, the
picture was less impressive. The tariff campaign failed to deliver the
promised economic miracle. Domestic irritation grew. Business circles
and even parts of the Republican Party began to grasp the dead-end
nature of this erratic strategy. On Capitol Hill and in European
capitals, Trump’s impulsiveness increasingly provoked frustration rather
than fear.
Eventually, the spiral of silence broke. The court refused to rubber-stamp the president’s demands.
The
White House’s response was predictable. Judges were accused of serving
foreign interests, while Washington’s partners quietly began
recalculating losses and preparing countermeasures. Trump attempted to
project confidence by announcing fresh tariff initiatives. Yet here the
contradiction became unavoidable: under the very constitutional rules he
sought to circumvent, new tariffs require congressional approval.
The
likely result is a shift of initiative away from the executive branch
and back toward Congress in a development many senators and
representatives have been waiting for. While Republicans still control
both chambers, that balance could change within a year. With it, the
contours of the next presidential race may also shift.
Until
recently, J.D. Vance appeared to be the natural heir to Trumpism. But
disappointment among voters and elites with radical experimentation
could elevate more moderate figures. For Moscow, this matters.
Russian-American relations hinge not on slogans, but on stability and
predictability in Washington. Any hope of normalization depended on
Trump’s ability to manage succession and retain control of the system.
That
control now looks increasingly fragile. Slowly, methodically, the
American system is doing what it was designed to do: resisting capture.
And in doing so, it is taking its revenge.