Ryan Knudson

What impact have they had on the economy as far as we can tell so far?

Meanwhile, the tariffs don't seem to have created a big incentive for companies to bring manufacturing back to the U.S.

According to the Department of Labor, the U.S.

lost over 100,000 manufacturing jobs last year.

And then there's the trade deficit, the difference between how much the U.S.

buys from other countries versus how much it sells to other countries.

Shrinking the trade deficit has been something Trump has been really focused on, but it actually increased in 2025.

U.S.

businesses switched to other countries with lower tariffs or they'd been part of new trade deals.

Despite the mixed economic record, tariffs have played a big role in Trump's foreign policy,

So in other words, it's not just the economy that hinges on this, it's so many other aspects of Trump's foreign policy that hinge on his ability to use tariffs as a bludgeon.

The law Trump used to justify most of his tariffs, AIPA, doesn't specifically mention the word tariff, but it gives the president broad power over foreign imports during emergencies.

The Trump administration cited the trade deficit and the fentanyl epidemic as emergencies under the law.

In a 6-3 vote, the Supreme Court said that interpretation was wrong.

There are plenty of laws that give the president explicit power to impose tariffs, but not this one.

Chief Justice John Roberts also wrote in the majority opinion that the power to impose tariffs, a type of tax, rests squarely with Congress.

So none of those are going away.

The three justices that dissented in today's ruling were Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Brett Kavanaugh.

Kavanaugh wrote in his dissent that, quote, tariffs are a traditional and common tool to regulate importation, end quote.

He said IEPA allows the president to impose tariffs more efficiently.