SNAPSHOT: A federal trade court has delivered a sharp check on presidential power, ruling that the across-the-board tariffs envisioned by the Trump administration lack legal authority, a decision with seismic implications for global trade.

S - Stakeholders: The ruling directly impacts the executive authority of the White House and the legislative power of the U.S. Congress on trade. It’s a crucial decision for American importers, manufacturing associations, and multinational corporations who have long fought the tariffs in court.

I - Individuals: This decision is a direct blow to President Donald Trump's signature economic policy and a significant point of contention for President Joe Biden's administration, which had defended the executive's tariff-setting authority. The judges of the U.S. Court of International Trade now stand as key arbiters.

G - Gaps: The immediate fallout remains unclear. Will the administration appeal this decision to the Supreme Court? Certainly. How will this ruling affect existing tariffs, and what does it mean for future presidents seeking to use national security as a basis for broad trade restrictions?

N - Nuance: The court didn't just strike down a single policy; it reasserted a fundamental separation of powers. The ruling subtly challenges the decades-long trend of ceding congressional authority on trade to the executive branch, framing it as a constitutional issue rather than mere economic disagreement.

A - Analysis: This is more than a legal skirmish; it's a foundational challenge to the weaponization of trade policy under the guise of national security. The court has drawn a line in the sand, suggesting that while the president has power, it is not absolute and must operate within the framework Congress provides.

L - Lens: View this not as a simple legal defeat for a former president, but as a potential turning point in the tug-of-war between the White House and Congress over economic statecraft. It may signal a judicial re-engagement in policing the boundaries of executive power in an era of growing protectionism.

Source: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-05-28/trump-s-global-tariffs-blocked-by-us-trade-court?srnd=homepage-americas

Occam's Sledgehammer

When facing a nuanced problem requiring precision and care, the simplest solution is to use maximum force and destroy everything in the vicinity until the original issue stops moving.

For years, the White House has treated global economics like a stubborn jar of pickles, opting for the biggest, dumbest rock available. This is Occam's Sledgehammer: when faced with the delicate clockwork of global supply chains, the simplest solution is to smash the entire clock and call it “negotiating.” 

A deep state trade court has just attacked our great leader’s most powerful tool: the power to be powerful! They say he can’t just decide to fix trade with big, beautiful tariffs. What's next? Saying he can't fix a hurricane by yelling at it?

The ruling simply points out the obvious: you can’t declare war on the world’s supply chain with a Sharpie and a bad mood. It’s like trying to cure a headache by setting your own hair on fire. Sure, it’s a distraction, but the original problem is still there, and now you’re also bald.

A foundational promise lies at the heart of our system of government: power will not be absolute. This commitment ensures the rules for commerce and daily life are grounded in stable laws, not in the shifting moods of a single office. The very architecture of a free republic is built on the principle of ambition meeting necessary checks.

No authority, regardless of its station, can stand above the law that binds everyone else. This isn't a matter of political preference, but of fundamental structure. The immense power to tax and regulate trade was strategically given to a deliberative body to prevent its use as an arbitrary weapon.

When a court reaffirms executive action must operate within its granted authority, it isn't engaging in a political squabble. It is fulfilling its most profound duty…to ensure the promise of a government of laws—not of individuals—is kept, providing the anchor of stability and the ultimate safeguard of liberty in a just society.

Next time someone complains about "activist judges," remind them the judges who actually read the law aren't activists—they're librarians with gavels. The real activists are the ones trying to govern by tweet and executive tantrum.

Call your representatives and ask them when they plan to remember they work in the legislative branch, not the cheerleading goon squad. Bonus points if you can get them to explain what "separation of powers" means without asking ChatGPT.

Meaningful change is often forged in local elections, which select the judges and attorneys general who serve on the front lines. These are the individuals tasked with enforcing the rules, especially when powerful figures attempt to sidestep them. Participating in every election is a direct investment in the rule of law.

And send a fruit basket to the US Court of International Trade—they're the only ones in Washington still reading the Constitution instead of skipping to the executive summary. Better yet, send them a copy of Schoolhouse Rock's "How a Bill Becomes a Law" to distribute around Washington.