Gage Skidmore / Flickr
The president’s tariff war faces opposition within his own camp
Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, a Republican, has earned a reputation as a professional troublemaker and heretic. Is this reputation a reflection of his contradictory libertarian nature or a calculated strategy to impress the public with provocative statements? Perhaps both. Paul called Trump a «delusional narcissist and an orange-faced windbag» and blocked debates on a nearly $40 billion aid package for Ukraine in May 2022.
Currently, Paul is campaigning against Trump’s tariff wars from the Senate floor and in the media. In an emotionally charged speech at the Capitol on April 2, Paul criticized Trump for exceeding his authority and undermining the constitutional powers of Congress.
«I’m a Republican. I support Donald Trump», Paul explained. «But I don’t want to live under emergency conditions». The senator from a state best known for bourbon and fried chicken insists that the Founding Fathers didn’t create the system of checks and balances for the executive to act unilaterally, ignoring lawmakers.
Another prominent Republican dissident is George Allen, the former governor of Virginia who later represented the state in the U.S. Senate. Allen joined a collective petition to the U.S. Court of International Trade demanding a halt to Trump’s tariffs. He argues that such decisions rest solely with Congress, according to the Constitution.
Allen’s logic is sound: «We must strive to make manufacturing in the United States more attractive through competitive taxes, sensible regulation, abundant energy resources, skilled labor, and free and fair trade — not protectionism».
To illustrate the threat of authoritarian presidential powers, Allen presented a hypothetical scenario in which a future president, in response to the cumulative effects of extreme climate change, imposes a 100% tax on coal, oil, and natural gas. This would severely limit hydrocarbon fuel consumption and cause an economic disaster due to the absence of viable alternatives.
As Allen succinctly stated, «Emergency powers can lead to emergency situations».
Criticism of Trump, who labeled the start of his tariff wars «Liberation Day», sets the stage for hearings that began on May 13 at the U.S. Court of International Trade. The hearings focus on proposals to block Trump’s tariff orders on imports.
A favorable court decision for the plaintiffs seems likely, given the market’s immediate negative reaction. After the introduction of tariffs, the S&P 500’s market capitalization plummeted by nearly $1 trillion, prompting a reduction in tariffs during a 90-day pause.
However, an opposite outcome isn’t ruled out. Judges might consider that reducing the punitive 145% tariff on Chinese goods to 30% and the general tariff to 10% mitigates risks to the national economy during the pause.
Notably, the Pacific Legal Foundation, a significant law firm founded by Reagan administration officials, filed a collective lawsuit representing small businesses. The lawsuit accuses Trump’s tariff policies of being arbitrary and constantly shifting. It alleges that the president acted unilaterally and violated the U.S. Constitution.
Importantly, the lawsuit includes politically independent organizations such as the Center for Freedom and Justice and the New Alliance for Civil Liberties. All of these organizations share a conservative ideological platform. The Pacific Legal Foundation has even been characterized by the press as «far-right».
Thus, Trump’s administration, which declared a crusade against «far-left» opponents, now faces resistance from its ideological allies. This opposition includes traditionalists like Rand Paul and George Allen who cite the principles of the Founding Fathers, as well as inherently conservative groups that defend small businesses — the patriotic backbone of the middle class.
This opposition signals trouble for Trump, whose aggressive tariff policies, designed to pressure allies and adversaries alike, have not yielded quick successes, but have instead raised alarms among his conservative base.
There is evident consumer skepticism toward Trump’s actions. According to a Harris/Guardian poll, six out of ten Americans have postponed major personal purchases due to economic uncertainty and predictions of an impending recession.
Public sentiment is complex. An I&I/TIPP poll shows the strongest support for tariffs in the industrialized Northeast (50%) and the South (56%). Support is slightly lower in the Midwest, home to outspoken farmers (45%), and lowest in the West, where the economy is oriented toward technology and entertainment (43%).
Surprisingly, Democrats and Republicans have switched traditional roles. Historically pro-protectionist Democrats now oppose tariffs, while Republicans, the traditional free-market advocates, support them.
What’s next? Local analysts predict that the losing side — whether Trump’s administration, concerned small businesses, or separation-of-powers advocates — will likely appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals and possibly the Supreme Court. Given America’s complex judicial system, the battle could last months or years.
Furthermore, Trump’s lawyers will rely on historical precedents from the past 70 years when Congress delegated tariff-setting powers to presidents in response to economic or national security challenges.
For Trump, who secured a hard-fought second term, the stakes are high. He can’t afford to back down, especially since «deep state» conspiracists may try to circumvent presidential immunity and target him with lawsuits again.
Facing mounting pressure, Trump may make tactical retreats, like reducing tariffs, but he generally prefers offense to defense. «Mr. Trump is delivering what he promised», commented the Democratic-leaning New York Times, «even at the expense of Congress’s authority and constitutional status as an equal branch of government».
Wyoming Senator John Barrasso, who secured a third term in November 2024 and is sometimes called the GOP’s number two, predicts: «President Trump clearly ran for office to disrupt the system, and he intends to keep doing it». The question is how far Trump will go in challenging the system of checks and balances.
Meanwhile, actor Robert De Niro, receiving a Palme d’Or for lifetime achievement at the 78th Cannes Film Festival, accused Trump of cutting funding for arts and humanities in the U.S. and imposing a 100% tariff on foreign films. «You can’t put a price on creativity, but apparently, you can put a tariff on it», quipped the 81-year-old Hollywood legend, aiming at President Trump.