How Trump’s tariff defeat exposed the limits of White House power
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.
This article was first published in Kommersant, and was translated and edited by the RT team.
