by Malek Dudakov
[REGNUM] Donald Trump's trade wars have put the United States on the brink of another split. It will soon be two months since America's so-called "Liberation Day," when the White House announced sweeping tariffs on all countries around the world.
Since then, financial markets have been shaking, and Trump's team has had to back down and sharply adjust its policies. Now, the front line against tariff wars has opened up within America itself.
The current American president's initiatives have once again encountered legal obstacles. American businesses, which suffered from the tariffs, have begun to actively sue the White House.
Trump's opponents consider the very practice of introducing tariffs unilaterally by presidential decrees to be illegal and in violation of the US Constitution. After all, historically, trade regulation is considered the prerogative of Congress, that is, the legislative branch of government.
However, in recent decades, the executive branch in America has taken over many powers from Congress.
For example, in the past, wars could not be started without the go-ahead from legislators. Since Richard Nixon, this has become possible. Now, US presidents can send troops anywhere for a limited period of time without seeking congressional approval. The same applies to the tariff situation.
The White House declared a special trade emergency immediately after Trump's inauguration. The reason for this was the colossal US trade deficit, which in 2024 reached a record $1 trillion.
Then, already within the framework of the emergency regime, Trump’s team began to use special powers to introduce tariffs of tens or sometimes hundreds of percent.
Now, the Court of International Trade in New York has ruled that it is unconstitutional. And the decision was unanimous — even though the court included appointees of Ronald Reagan, Barack Obama, and Trump himself.
This does not close the possibility of introducing higher tariffs permanently. There are other grounds - for example, one can accuse other countries of creating a threat to US national security.
But using other routes will be technically more difficult, it will take more time and reduce the room for maneuver. In addition, you will have to accept the fact that the maximum amount and duration of duties will already be seriously limited.
Right now, White House lawyers are hoping to prevail in an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. It formally has a Republican majority — six conservative justices against three liberals. But even in that scenario, it is far from certain that the Supreme Court will side with Trump.
The fact is that right-wing judges in the US, as a rule, adhere to the concept of so-called "originalism". Its essence lies in the literal interpretation of the American constitution. At the same time, liberal judges like to interpret the country's basic law based on current realities, adjusting it to their views.
In this regard, conservative judges may well strip the White House of its power to impose tariffs and return that privilege back to Congress, as the Founding Fathers originally intended.
This development would be a powerful blow to the Trump team's position, which is already seriously weakened by the current legal battles. After all, any US trading partner now understands that it only takes a little time for the tariffs to be lifted by themselves due to internal discord in America.
For example, in July there were threats to increase tariff pressure on the European Union by introducing duties of up to 50%. Now the implementation of these plans is in question. Similar questions arise regarding the "anti-Chinese" tariffs, which were reduced only for a period of up to 90 days.
And any country will now seek a more advantageous deal with the US, since the tariff baton is no longer hanging over it.
A separate issue is the future of the secondary tariffs on Russia being discussed in the Senate. Hawks are pressing Trump to impose these tariffs, hoping to undermine the negotiating process.
However, the White House retains control over the Republican agenda, which has a majority in both houses of Congress.
This is a far cry from Trump's first term, when John McCain was still alive and neocon hawks were the mainstream of Washington Republicans.
Since then, the party has undergone a major ideological transformation, with MAGA Republicans now in control, many of whom lean toward isolationism.
Hawks, on the other hand, have to adapt to the new realities. As Secretary of State Marco Rubio, a former ardent neocon and now a true foreign policy realist, is doing.
So without Trump's go-ahead, the sanctions bill is unlikely to be put to a vote in Congress. And even if it is passed, the bill does not oblige the White House to immediately introduce new sanctions and tariffs.
There is room for maneuver - it is only necessary to conduct an investigation into the possibility of achieving a ceasefire in Ukraine. And only then make a decision on the implementation of tariffs.
While the realists in Trump's team hope to reach an agreement with Russia, sanctions are not to be expected. The latest statements by hawks like Keith Kellogg, who ruled out the possibility of Ukraine joining NATO, show that even they understand the need to conduct a dialogue with Russia on normal terms.
It would be desirable to extrapolate this experience to negotiations with other countries - not to wave a tariff baton at them, but to conduct a sensible dialogue. And then there is a chance to achieve something worthwhile.
At the same time, the prospects for America's reindustrialization are becoming even more obscure. Some production will indeed be able to be pulled to the US, but there is no point in expecting mass construction of enterprises and factories for the most banal reasons.
There are not enough skilled workers and engineers, the experience and necessary competencies have long been lost, and production in America is too difficult and expensive.
There is one silver lining for Trump in the current tariff wars, however: They could offset the impact of the toughest tariffs, making it less likely that the U.S. economy will slide into another crisis.
The introduction of protective tariffs is not particularly popular among Americans: in surveys, only about a third of the population supports Trump's protectionist policy. But attitudes toward the state of their economy have begun to improve - the pessimism of April and May is beginning to go away.
Trump can ultimately tell his base that he really did try to revolutionize trade. But the judicial deep state has once again thwarted it.
Some tariffs of 10-15% will, of course, remain in force. Import prices will rise slightly, and individual industries inside America will earn money from this.
But a radical break in the US economic development trends that could really lead to an acute crisis will not happen.
The inertia of development in today's America is such that even non-systemic politicians like Trump are unable to overcome it.
...a theocratic Shiite state divided among the Medes, the Persians, and the (Arab) Elamites. Formerly a fairly civilized nation ruled by a Shah, it became a victim of Islamic revolution in 1979. The nation is today noted for 
...a kingdom taking up the bulk of the Arabian peninsula, largely made up of sand and oil rigs. Its primary economic activity involves exporting oil and soaking Islamic rubes on the annual haj pilgrimage. The country supports a large number of princes in whatcha might call princely splendor. Formerly dictatorial and steeped in Olde Tyme Religion, deferring to Salafist holy men on all issues, it has now done a 180 and is making a serious effort to modernize, so as not to be left in the sand by its Gulf Arab neighbors. The holy men have been shoved to the background and the nation is now still dictatorial but somewhat rational. That doesn't make them trustworthy, but it's a start...
