You are here > Home > News Columns HOME > NEWSPAPER COLUMNS>The Supreme Court Tariff Decision -- An Analysis
|
Election Integrity | An Analysis |
Trump Foreign Policy: Planned, Not Random | |
Published by The Galveston County Daily News Published: March 14, 2026 | |||
For thirteen months, President Donald Trump used tariffs to force America's trading partners to negotiate fair trade agreements. The Supreme Court struck down Trump's legal approach, but not its purpose or policy pursued. Constitutional law expert, Jonathan Turley said he wasn't surprised by the 6-3 decision. Even with the solicitor general making an extraordinarily good oral argument, Turley predicted Trump would lose based on the law he used in justifying his actions. Harvard law school professor and constitutional legal scholar Alan Dershowitz argues Trump still may impose steep trade penalties (tariffs). He argues that Trump used the wrong authority. Instead of focusing on the billions-of-dollars being raised, Trump should have based his actions upon his foreign policy authority under Article II of the Constitution. Article I of the Constitution grants Congress clear control of the purse (taxes and duties). With the focus on billions-of-dollars received into the United States treasury, the court may have been correct. Trump used tariffs to demand fairness from trading relationships. It worked! He used the tariffs for fixing years of trade injustices; the money flowing into the treasury is, or should be, a byproduct of his actions. Following the court's decision, Trump changed his approach, basing his actions on foreign and trade policies which brings his actions clearly under his Article II authority. With this shift, the Supreme Court is likely to uphold his policies. The impact of Trump's actions created trade agreements that favor America, agreements that our trading partners must continue to honor. Trump made promises to the American people (e.g., securing the border and improving the economy). On day-one, he acted. The promises weren't idle campaign slogans, he meant them. Like it or not, unlike so many politicians we see these days, he kept his promises. The legacy media will tell you Trump's tariffs are costing Americans money through higher prices. The truth? Most of the increased cost are being absorbed by foreign exporters and some by U.S. middleman. We are experiencing economic growth not seen in years because of Trump's trade policies which encourage investment in the United States; a direct consequence of the trade agreements. With a few exceptions, we are seeing a trend toward lower inflation. (2.5% versus 9.1% under the Biden Administration). The United States is seeing major investments with automobiles being built in America and within the technology sector (e.g., with Apple investing $600 billion in United States data centers). The private gross domestic product is steadily increasing. The number of government jobs is decreasing month-after-month and job creation in the private sector continues to beat "expert's" predictions. In summary: Congress has the power of the purse. Historically it delegated much of that authority to presidents who have used it for foreign and domestic policy purposes. That's what Trump did. Those who oppose the President's "America First" agenda want to stop him. They've failed because there are numerous laws available to him to accomplish his policies. The proof of his success are the trade agreements, the investment we are seeing, the growth of our Gross Domestic Product, and the growth of private sector jobs. The court's decision doesn't stop this. | |||
About the Authors and Columnists 2026 Bill and Mansius have written over 300 guest columns and editorials together over the last ten years for numerous publications across the country and they continue to do so. Bill lives in Texas and Mark in Utah. Both gentlemen ran against each other in the 2012 Republican Primary for Texas Congressional District 14. Since then they have become close friends and colleagues. In addition to formerly being responsible for overseeing elections in Galveston County as Galveston's Chief Deputy Clerk for Elections, Bill has worked with the Texas State Legislature to improve and craft election legislation. | |||
 FEEDBACK from a retired minister living in Pennsylvania: Your inflation numbers are a little misleading. Granted, inflation peaked at 9.1% under President Biden but it was only 3.0 when he left office, so it wasn’t that much of a contrast between (2.5% verses 3.0%). Trump then hasn't done enough to lower inflation. Food prices are still up though gas has come down most everywhere but Pennsylvania. Lucky us! OUR RESPONSE: Thanks. In one sense you are absolutely correct. The inflation rate when Biden left office was around 3%. The problem is that when inflation spikes to 9.1% the prices rise and, never seem come down again. It’s kind of like politicians saying “We’ve cut federal spending” when what they’ve really done is cut the “rate” of increased spending. The inflationary increases of the past are still there and one of the big drivers was the government spending more than it takes in in revenues, thereby requiring the FED to print money that has no connection to productivity and making the value of our money less (e.g., inflation). That is why Trump (helped by Elon Musk) worked so hard to bring down the level of unneeded federal spending. One of the remaining challenges is overcoming the insatiable hunger of those in Congress to spend, spend, spend! One glimmer of hope -- as our President tries to pull us out of the mess we experienced in the last four years -- is the increase we are seeing in productivity. It’s hovering around 5% when previous administrations said we should be happy with 1%-2% growth. We may never see the prices go back to what they used to be, but hey, at least the price of eggs has returned to normal! Again, thanks for the feedback. FEEDBACK from an attorney in the Midwest: Good piece as far as it goes, but you failed to address what happens to the money collected by the Trump Tariffs. Will it need to be paid back? How would one implement doing so? What impact would this have on the U.S. economy? Again, thanks for sharing. I look forward to any insight you may have about the questions raised here. OUR RESPONSE: Thanks for your comment and questions! Let us start by saying we are limited by the publication to 500 words; so sometimes it’s a challenge covering everything we’d like to say in the space allowed. You raise some very thought-provoking points; thanks again for doing so. Let us try to address them and see that is helpful to you. Background: Judge Richard Eaton was appointed in 1999 by Bill Clinton to the U.S. Court of International Trade. In that position he has ordered that the tariffs collected under the IEEPA statute be refunded. As you pointed out, there are some major issues with this happening:
| |||