Washington's constitutional crisis and the global fallout

Editor's note: Imran Khalid, a special commentator on current affairs for CGTN, is a freelance columnist on international affairs. The article reflects the author's opinions and not necessarily the views of CGTN.

The United States is currently witnessing a collision between two irreconcilable forces: A presidency built on the expansive use of executive will and a judiciary finally reasserting the boundaries of the Constitution. On February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court of the United States delivered a stunning 6-3 rebuke to President Donald Trump, invalidating the cornerstone of his second-term economic agenda. The ruling in Learning Resources Inc. v. Trump struck down sweeping tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), signaling that even in an era of "national emergencies," the power to tax remains a prerogative of Congress, not the White House.

The immediate reaction from the Oval Office was as predictable as it was corrosive. President Trump labeled the decision a "disgrace" and directed personal vitriol at Justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, lamenting their lack of "courage." This is more than just a typical Washington turf war. It is a moment of profound institutional decay that threatens to undermine America's global standing and the predictability of the international trading system.

For over a year, the Trump administration has operated on the radical premise that the 1977 IEEPA – a law designed to freeze the assets of foreign adversaries – could be used as a magic wand to bypass the "power of the purse." By declaring emergencies over everything from fentanyl to trade deficits, the administration effectively bypassed the legislative process to collect more than $160 billion in "illegal" duties.

Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts was surgical in his assessment. He noted that "the framers did not vest any part of the taxing power in the executive branch" and that the word "regulate" in the statute cannot be stretched to include "tax." By attempting to govern through decree rather than deliberation, the administration did not just alienate its trading partners; it alienated the very constitutionalists it spent years appointing to the bench.

In the wake of the ruling, the President has doubled down, vowing to reimpose the duties through Section 122 of the Trade Act. However, this "backup plan" is a pale shadow of the authority he once claimed. Unlike the open-ended nature of IEEPA, Section 122 is strictly limited to 150 days unless Congress provides explicit approval.

This tit-for-tat between the White House and the Court creates a state of permanent economic whiplash. For global markets and domestic businesses, the "rule of law" has been replaced by a "rule of litigation." We are entering a period where American trade policy is dictated by the latest executive order and the subsequent injunction that follows it 48 hours later. This volatility is the antithesis of the "stability and predictability" that allies like Germany are now desperately seeking.

The long-term implications of this crisis extend far beyond the borders of the United States. For decades, the primary "product" of the American system was not just its technology or its military, but its institutional reliability. When the President of the United States openly attacks the families of Supreme Court justices and suggests that the highest court in the land is "swayed by foreign interests," he erodes the soft power that sustains Washington's leadership.

Furthermore, the fiscal fallout is catastrophic. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates that losing these revenues will add $2 trillion to the national debt over the next decade. At a time when the U.S. debt already equals the size of its entire economy, the administration is fighting for the right to keep an unconstitutional tax while the nation's fiscal house burns.

The "Liberation Day" tariffs were sold as a tool for national strength, yet they have produced only domestic division and judicial defeat. The Supreme Court has correctly identified that a president cannot be a king, especially in the realm of commerce.

If the United States wishes to remain a credible actor on the world stage, it must return to a trade policy rooted in consensus and legal rigor, rather than emergency declarations and Twitter-based threats. Until then, the world will watch as the world's largest economy struggles to define who, exactly, is in charge of its borders and its checkbook.

(If you want to contribute and have specific expertise, please contact us at opinions@cgtn.com. Follow @thouse_opinions on X, formerly Twitter, to discover the latest commentaries in the CGTN Opinion Section.)