From the questions and comments made by the justices during the Supreme Court hearing in which Democratic Party members sued the Trump administration (and its agreements with other countries) over the claim that its tariff policies violated the U.S. Constitution, one question stood out — particularly from Chief Justice Roberts: "Who is actually paying these newly imposed tariffs?"
It is clear that American citizens are also bearing a considerable portion of the tariff burden. According to the Constitution, the power and responsibility to impose taxes on the American people, as well as on other nations, lies with Congress.
However, it’s also clear that — now and historically — it has been very difficult for Congress to reach consensus on taxation affecting the American people. At the same time, Congress lacks both the resources and the capacity to negotiate reciprocal tariff agreements with other countries. That role falls to the U.S. Trade Representative, an official confirmed by Congress, who represents both Congress and the federal government in trade negotiations with other nations.
These negotiations include trade policy, reciprocal trade relationships, and mutual tariffs. Thus, the federal government does hold certain powers to represent both the United States and Congress in trade discussions with other nations. And this is not without precedent. Previous examples include the NAFTA negotiations, as well as talks surrounding the World Trade Organization and the CPTPP, all of which were led by the federal government — though ultimate approval rests with Congress.
During his presidential campaign, Donald Trump explicitly included in his platform the plan to impose (or increase) tariffs on other countries. After winning the election — including all major swing states — Trump’s tariff policies could be seen as a reflection of public will. In this sense, his tariff measures represent a new form of popular mandate, which also carries a degree of legal legitimacy.
Recall that during President Obama’s campaign, one of his key promises was "Universal healthcare". After winning, he urged Congress to pass the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), arguing that it represented a new popular mandate. However, the provision in the law that "required" Americans to purchase a federal product (health insurance) clearly appeared to violate the U.S. Constitution. Republicans brought a lawsuit challenging the law, which made its way to the Supreme Court.
When the Court finally ruled on the constitutionality of Obamacare, Chief Justice Roberts — a Republican appointee — unexpectedly sided with the four Democratic justices, creating a 5–4 majority that upheld the law.
Thus, the Supreme Court — especially its justices — has a precedent of "yielding to Democrats" and embracing so-called "new popular mandates". The question now is: why shouldn’t it also yield to Republicans and this new popular will?
As President Trump has pointed out, after more than half a year of new trade measures, the federal government has already collected nearly one trillion dollars in tariffs — the vast majority of which comes from other countries — and this revenue continues to grow.
Given the enormous federal budget deficit, the pressing question is: how will the U.S. repay its debts, and where will the money come from?
Therefore, I believe the Supreme Court’s eventual ruling will — and must — be a "compromise". Specifically, it will likely require the federal government to submit all the negotiated tariff agreements with each country to Congress, for Congress to vote on them one by one — either approving or rejecting each as law.
If Congress fails to pass a particular agreement, it should then vote again to decide whether to "abandon" that agreement or instruct the Trump administration to continue negotiations with that specific nation.
That, in my view, will be the Supreme Court’s ultimate and inevitable choice — there is no other possibility.
