US Supreme Court Strikes Down Trump's Sweeping Tariff Policy: Economist Jeffrey D Sachs

US Supreme Court’s decision to strike down President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariff policy has, according to economist Jeffrey D Sachs, exposed what he calls the “fallacies” at the heart of Trump’s economic and foreign policy approach. In a 6–3 ruling led by Chief Justice John Roberts, the court held that the president had overstepped his authority in imposing tariffs under emergency provisions, reaffirming that tariff powers lie with Congress under Article I of the US Constitution. Sachs said the judgment makes clear that the president acted beyond his legal mandate. “He exceeded his authority. He did not have the constitutional authority to impose tariffs. That belongs to Congress,” Sachs said in an exclusive interaction with Republic World. According to him, the decision “makes void the whole past year of tariffs,” including unilateral duties imposed on multiple countries and trade arrangements reached under that framework. The tariffs, he said, revert to pre-policy levels. For Sachs, the core fallacy was the assumption that emergency economic powers gave the president unlimited discretion over trade. The court’s ruling, he argued, firmly rejected that interpretation. Sachs also challenged Trump’s claim that tariffs would significantly reduce America’s large budget deficit. “Yes. It means that the U.S. will not collect the revenues,” Sachs said, referring to the expected tariff income. He added that rebates may now have to be issued to importers. However, he dismissed the idea that tariff revenues were ever large enough to fix the deficit in a $30 trillion economy. “From a macroeconomic point of view, modestly so,” he said of the economic impact of the ruling, adding that the deficit problem existed “with or without this decision.” He described the portrayal of tariffs as a major fiscal solution as misleading, calling it one of the central economic misconceptions of the policy. Another fallacy, Sachs argued, was the highly personalised nature of trade decisions. “At one moment he would say, ‘India’s misbehaving, I put on an extra penalty,’ or ‘This country is misbehaving,’” Sachs said. He described the approach as “thuggery and destructive,” arguing that trade policy appeared driven by grievance rather than consistent economic strategy. He maintained that there is no alternative legislation that would justify such sweeping and personalised tariff actions. Sachs said the ruling damages Trump’s global credibility, particularly after a year of aggressive trade diplomacy. “Trump acted all during last year as the world emperor,” he said, suggesting that world leaders had been cautious in responding due to fear of further tariff escalation. With the court now limiting executive authority, Sachs expressed hope that international leaders would feel emboldened to push back more openly against unilateral U.S. actions. Sachs also linked what he sees as policy fallacies to broader risks in foreign policy, warning that domestic political pressure can sometimes lead leaders to seek external confrontation. “It wouldn’t be the first time that a political leader hemmed in domestically does something externally to show who’s who,” he said, while stopping short of making a direct prediction. Looking ahead to upcoming elections, Sachs said the ruling reinforces public skepticism about Trump’s leadership. “This exposes the fallacies of Trump’s policies,” he said, arguing that the decision strengthens criticism that the tariff strategy was unconstitutional, economically overstated, and politically destabilising.