When the U.S. Supreme Court turns its back on the economic sovereignty of the United States, it isn’t engaging in some lofty academic exercise. It is making a decision that lands squarely on the backs of American workers, manufacturers, and taxpayers.
And as someone who represented hardworking New Yorkers—small business owners, union families, immigrant entrepreneurs who built something from nothing—I find it astonishing that the Court would choose legal technicalities over America’s financial future.
President Trump understood something that too many in Washington, and apparently too many in black robes, still don’t: tariffs are not just numbers on a spreadsheet. They are leverage. They are strategy. They are the only language certain foreign governments understand.
For decades, our so-called “experts” let China, the EU, and a parade of global competitors eat our lunch. They flooded our markets, manipulated currency, subsidized their industries, and hollowed out American manufacturing towns from Ohio to Long Island. And what did we get? Empty factories, opioid crises, and politicians shrugging their shoulders.
Then came Trump.
Love him or hate him—though I proudly stand in the first category—the man had the courage to use tariffs as a negotiating weapon. Not as a permanent tax. Not as a blunt instrument. But as leverage to force better deals. And it worked.
We saw supply chains reconsidered. We saw companies rethink outsourcing. We saw China finally come to the table after years of pretending America was a pushover. Markets didn’t collapse. The sky didn’t fall. Instead, we regained a sense that America could defend its own economic interests.
Now the Supreme Court steps in and signals that the executive branch’s authority to protect the nation’s financial interests should be restrained. Restrained? Since when is defending American industry a radical act?
Let’s talk about what this really means. When the Court limits tariff authority, it isn’t just “interpreting statutes.” It is effectively tying the hands of any president who wants to respond quickly to economic aggression. Trade wars don’t wait for lengthy congressional debates. Currency manipulation doesn’t pause for procedural niceties. If America cannot respond decisively, we lose leverage. And leverage is everything in global trade.
Critics say tariffs raise prices. Sure, sometimes they do in the short term. But what’s the cost of dependency? What’s the cost of relying on adversarial regimes for semiconductors, pharmaceuticals, steel, and rare earth minerals? We learned during COVID exactly what happens when supply chains are controlled overseas.
National security and economic policy are not separate conversations. They are intertwined. When we cannot produce critical goods domestically, we are vulnerable. President Trump recognized that vulnerability. The Court’s ruling risks reinstating it.
And let’s address the elephant in the room: This is part of a broader pattern where institutions seem far more comfortable restraining American assertiveness than confronting foreign exploitation. Where was this aggressive scrutiny when multinational corporations shipped jobs overseas? Where was this concern for statutory purity when trade deals gutted entire industries? Somehow, when the goal is to defend American labor, that’s when we’re told to slow down.
I represented parts of New York that understand trade intimately: ports, small manufacturers, immigrant-owned businesses that compete every single day against cheaper foreign imports. These are not Wall Street titans—they’re the backbone of our economy.
When tariffs are used strategically, they create negotiating power. They create breathing room. They send a message: America is not for sale.
The Supreme Court should be mindful of that reality. Judicial restraint is a virtue when it prevents overreach. But when restraint becomes paralysis—when it undermines a president’s ability to defend the nation’s economic interests—it ceases to be neutral.
This isn’t about blind loyalty to one man. It’s about understanding that Trump’s tariff strategy was part of a larger doctrine: America First.
America First means American steel over foreign dumping. America First means American farmers getting fair access abroad. America First means American wages not undercut by slave labor overseas.
Tariffs were one tool—an imperfect one, yes—but an effective one in the right hands. By narrowing that authority, the Court risks signaling weakness at precisely the wrong moment in history.
Global competition is intensifying. China is not slowing down. Europe is subsidizing green industries aggressively. Other nations protect their markets ruthlessly while lecturing us about “free trade.” Free trade only works when it’s fair trade.
And here’s the uncomfortable truth: America’s financial interests are not automatically protected by global institutions or market forces. They must be defended deliberately. That requires flexibility in the executive branch, particularly in matters of trade and national security.
Some will cheer this ruling as a check on power. But I would ask them: whose power? The president elected by the American people? Or foreign competitors who benefit when we hesitate?
As a former member of Congress, I understand the importance of separation of powers. But Congress has repeatedly delegated trade authority to the executive branch precisely because trade is dynamic. It evolves daily. Negotiations require immediacy. If every tariff adjustment must survive a judicial gauntlet, we effectively disarm ourselves in economic combat.
President Trump’s approach wasn’t polite cocktail diplomacy. It was strategic pressure. It was using America’s market—the largest in the world—as leverage. That’s not reckless. That’s smart negotiating.
New Yorkers understand tough negotiation. We respect it. We expect it. And frankly, so do our adversaries.
The Court’s decision may satisfy legal scholars, but it does little to reassure American workers worried about another wave of offshoring. It does little for domestic manufacturers fighting state-backed foreign giants. It does little for families who want their country to compete aggressively, not apologize for defending itself.
America’s financial interests should never be secondary to procedural squeamishness. If the law needs clarification, Congress should act swiftly to restore strong trade authority. If future presidents—yes, including President Trump—are to protect our industries, they must have the tools to do so.
This is not about isolationism. It is about strength. It is about ensuring that when America sits at the negotiating table, we do so from a position of power—not permission.
History will not judge us kindly if we choose legal caution over economic survival. The world is competitive. It is strategic. It is unforgiving.
The question is simple: will America be bold enough to defend its own prosperity? President Trump answered that question with action. The Supreme Court, unfortunately, just made that answer harder to implement. And that is not a victory for the Constitution. It is a setback for American financial strength.