The Unwavering Nature of Trumpian Economics, and the Future Implications of these Decisions From a Global Economic Standpoint.

Samuel Zimmerman

Throughout his second presidential term, President Donald J. Trump has continued to rely on tariffs as a primary revenue generation mechanism. Since his inauguration in January ‌2025, Trump has taken sweeping executive actions, levying tariffs on imports from China, Mexico, Canada, European Union members, and Indo-Pacific nations. The Trump administration argues that tariffs will generate federal revenue without increasing domestic taxes. Overall, these maneuvers are multifaceted in their effects and serve as crucial components of Trump’s effort to maintain public support. At the same time, the tariffs enforced by the President have imposed substantial costs on domestic businesses. American companies saw their production costs increase significantly as a result of foreign duties that drove up importation costs.

Last February, Learning Resources Inc won a lawsuit against Trump after the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in favor of the claim that President Trump exceeded his statutory authority by invoking the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to justify the tariffs. [1] [2] The suit Learning Resources brought to the court claimed that the tariffs imposed by Trump on their East Asia manufacturing base caused the companies’ production costs to rise substantially. Despite the Supreme Court's ruling, Trump has since reintroduced a new wave of tariffs, utilizing the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative to investigate the ethics of the manufacturing sectors of over 50 different international economies. This paper examines the implications of Learning Resources Inc. vs Trump and the subsequent tariff policies that have since been imposed by President Trump, juxtaposed with a critique of the ways in which Trump has prioritized his public standing amongst his own constituents over the betterment of the economic future of America as a whole, showcasing foreign economic aggression to do so.

Decision and Aftermath

President Trump, despite the Supreme Court's decision on Learning Resources Inc. v. Trump, claims he will not stop levying tariffs, solidifying his intention to generate revenue by way of foreign duties through alternative statutory authorities. With the Supreme Court ruling 6-3 in favor of Learning Resources, Chief Justice John G. Roberts in his majority opinion cited Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) [3], reaffirming the constitutional provision that “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises.” [4] The majority concluded that President Trump exceeded the statutory authority granted under the IEEPA, as Congress retains the constitutional authority to levy taxes. In this situation, taxation by way of the IEEPA is unconstitutional. In dissent, Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote “Although I firmly disagree with the court’s holding today, the decision might not substantially constrain a president’s ability to order tariffs going forward.” [5] President Trump echoed the rhetoric of Justice Kavanaugh in a subsequent press release he gave following the Supreme Court's decision. Trump stated, “today I will sign an order to impose a 10 percent global tariff under Section 122 [6] over and above our normal tariffs already being charged.” [7] Although Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 would only allow Trump to enact new tariffs for 150 days, that grants him ample time for his administration to carry out Section 301 investigations, where if unethical trade practices by foreign states are identified, then he could continue to impose retaliatory tariffs at his own discretion.

Implications for the Remainder of President Trump's Term

Over the course of his second term, President Trump has utilized tariffs not only as a form of revenue generation, but as a method to pressure foreign states. Retaliatory tariffs have become a common tool in American foreign policy despite their historically limited use as a tactic. Trump pointed to President William McKinley's use of tariffs, saying, “He was the big ‘tariff sheriff,’” and that “he made a lot of money. Our country became very rich.” [8] McKinley’s tariffs were reciprocal in nature, as they corresponded with a price hike in foreign industry, [9] compared to Trump’s, which have been utilized as a form of coercion and punishment to foreign countries who do not cooperate with his political agenda. [10] Trump’s tariff plans stretch beyond foreign policy objectives, as reports from a June 2024 meeting demonstrate Trump’s willingness to turn to an ‘all tariff policy’ that would ultimately enable the U.S. to get rid of the income tax. [11]While deeper examination into U.S. census data makes this claim unfounded, it points to Trump’s intent to entirely alter the American model of revenue generation. To do so, he would need to account for the nearly 92% of federal revenue derived from income taxes annually. [12] In comparison, only 4% of federal revenue in 2025 came from customs duties, which was an increase from 1.5% in 2024, but would still require a monumental transformation in policy to come close to the numbers provided from income tax.

The reluctance of President Trump to pivot amid legal ramifications is foreshadowing of his intention to continue to enforce more duties on foreign entities, in spite of potential legal troubles and foreign conflicts that may arise as a result of them. Although increased revenue could feasibly be expected, the gains may be outweighed by the costs placed not only on American companies, but consumers by default. Increased barriers on foreign trade would hinder the economic position of both parties, pointing to the heightened effects of a tumultuous, and perhaps reckless, representation of America on a foreign stage. As Trump continues to utilize foreign tariffs, America’s standing as a global industrial power will continue to decline, giving rise to powers the likes of China who have seen significant growth as they have strengthened global economic ties, and has vaulted them into the forefront of global trade; all the while, Trump, in contradiction to his campaign promises, has championed an “America first” [13] agenda that has in actuality has plummeted the global standing of a nation long regarded as the preeminent global power.

[1] International Emergency Economic Powers Act, Pub. L. 91 Stat. 1626 (1977)

[2] Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, 597 U.S. 2, (2026).

[3] Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 1, 201 (1824)

[4] U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 3

[5] Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, 597 U.S. 112, (2026)

[6] Trade Act of 1974, Pub. L. No. 93-618, § 122, 88 Stat. 1978, 1987 (1975)

[7] Sean Boynton, “Full Transcript: Trump Reacts to Supreme Court Tariff Ruling,” Global News, February 24, 2025, https://globalnews.ca/news/11676133/donald-trump-tariffs-supreme-court-reaction-transcript/

[8] Donald J. Trump, “Remarks at a House Republican Conference Dinner in Miami, Florida,” The American Presidency Project, January 27, 2025, https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/remarks-house-republican-conference-dinner-miami-florida

[9] “The McKinley Tariff of 1890,” History, Art & Archives: United States House of Representatives, accessed May 17, 2026, https://history.house.gov/Historical-Highlights/1851-1900/The-McKinley-Tariff-of-1890/

[10] Sean Boynton, “Full Transcript: Trump Reacts to Supreme Court Tariff Ruling,” Global News, February 24, 2025, https://globalnews.ca/news/11676133/donald-trump-tariffs-supreme-court-reaction-transcript/

[11] Emily Wilkins and Kevin Breuninger, “Trump Floats ‘All Tariff Policy’ to Replace Income Tax,” CNBC, June 13, 2024, https://www.cnbc.com/2024/06/13/trump-all-tariff-policy-to-replace-income-tax.html

[12] U.S. Department of the Treasury, Bureau of the Fiscal Service, “Statements of Operations and Changes in Net Position,” U.S. Government Financial Report, accessed May 17, 2026, https://fiscal.treasury.gov/accounting/us-financial-report/statements-operations-changes-in-net-position

[13] Caroline Vakil and Julia Manchester, “Trump Frames 2024 as Existential Fight: ‘This Is the Final Battle,’” The Hill, March 4, 2023. https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/3881788-trump-frames-2024-as-existential-fight-this-is-the-final-battle/