Thank you for watching! In the face of unrelenting disinformation and authoritarian actions, clear truth-telling and independent media are a necessity. If you value pro-democracy journalism, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber to my newsletter. Paid subscribers empower this work and gain access to exclusive benefits. Your support makes a difference.
In my latest Substack live, I broke down the breaking news: the Supreme Court, in a 6–3 decision, struck down most of Donald Trump’s tariffs.
It can’t be overstated how massive an L this is for Trump. This was Trump’s signature economic policy, the centerpiece of the leverage he uses against foreign countries, and it just got rejected by a conservative Supreme Court. Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, and Justice Neil Gorsuch joined liberals.
But the deeper significance is what this ruling represents. This is not just a rejection of Trump’s key economic tool. This is a direct hit to Trump’s larger authoritarian theory of the presidency: using fake emergencies to expand executive power and impose his will.
So I broke down the ruling, what it means for Trump’s authoritarian project, what it reveals about his political weakness heading into the midterms, and why I keep coming back to one core point: if we want an actual pro-democracy ecosystem, independent journalism has to be funded.
You can watch the full live above and read the key takeaways below.
The Supreme Court Just Struck Down Trump’s Signature Economic Policy
This was not a small procedural ruling. It was a major rebuke of Trump’s attempt to unilaterally reshape the economy through emergency powers, and it landed as a political gut punch to the administration.
Key takeaways:
The Court ruled 6–3 that Trump cannot use the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to unilaterally impose these tariffs.
Chief Justice Roberts authored the decision, and Gorsuch and Barrett joined the majority alongside the Court’s liberals.
Kavanaugh, Alito, and Clarence Thomas dissented, with the dissent essentially arguing that reversing the policy could create “chaos” because refunds might be complicated.
The ruling doesn’t just strike down IEEPA tariffs. It signals that this Supreme Court is not automatically signing off on every executive-power expansion Trump attempts.
This Was A Blow To The “Unitary Executive” Playbook
Trump’s entire governing model is built on a theory: that the president is effectively all-powerful, and “emergency authority” is the loophole to do whatever he wants.
This ruling is a direct rejection of that logic.
Key takeaways:
Trump’s broader strategy has been to declare fake emergencies and then govern as if the Constitution doesn’t apply.
I framed this ruling as part of a pattern: Trump’s “emergency” power grabs are being eroded, not just by lower courts, but now by the Supreme Court too.
I connected this to earlier episodes where courts pushed back on Trump’s use of emergency-style authority to bypass due process and legal constraints.
The Court’s message here is simple and foundational: taxation is Congress’s job. A president cannot unilaterally tax the country because he declares an “economic emergency.”
The Dissent Was A Tell
The dissent’s central idea was basically: undoing this abuse of power will be messy, so let it stand. That’s not a legal argument. It’s an excuse.
Key takeaways:
The dissent warned that the U.S. might have to refund billions to importers who already paid tariffs, and that those importers may have passed costs onto consumers.
I acknowledged the practical complication, but made the obvious point: messy refunds are not a justification for unconstitutional executive power.
If consumers ultimately bore costs, then policy should be designed so consumers benefit from refunds, not corporations getting a windfall.
I contrasted the “chaos” argument with the Court’s comfort, creating real chaos in other arenas when it suits their ideology, like their overturning of Roe v. Wade.
This Is Another Data Point In Trump’s Political Weakness
I kept coming back to one theme: Trump wants the country to believe he is unstoppable. But the evidence keeps pointing in the opposite direction.
Key takeaways:
Lower courts have repeatedly blocked or paused Trump actions, and this ruling adds to the sense that the administration is not on a strong legal footing.
I argued this is part of a broader pattern: polling, special elections, and the accumulation of losses are signaling a presidency that is weakening rapidly.
I talked about how even Republicans publicly complaining about the ruling are likely doing performative loyalty. Many of them know tariffs are economically damaging, but they’re trapped in a personality cult.
Trump’s own team reportedly knows he will be off-message, and their internal strategy is basically: “we’ll stay disciplined even if he won’t.” I said what needs to be said: that’s not how reality works.
The Midterms Aren’t “Already Stolen,” And Trump’s Threat Posture Is Part Of The Game
A lot of people feel fatalistic. I’m not there. I think Trump will try things, but I don’t believe the midterms are pre-determined.
Key takeaways:
I said plainly: Trump is going to try to steal or sabotage, but he is not going to succeed.
One reason: the more politically weak he gets, the more desperate and erratic he becomes, and the more visible the scheme gets.
Another reason: this ruling suggests there are at least some justices who may not go along with truly extreme anti-democratic moves.
I also noted the Court has previously rejected certain 2020 election-subversion efforts, which matters as we look toward 2026.
The Corruption And Grift Never Stops, And It Would Tank Any Normal Administration
Even as we focused on tariffs, the Live kept circling back to the surreal volume of scandal and corruption.
Key takeaways:
I reacted to new reporting about yet another disgusting scandal inside the administration’s orbit, emphasizing how, in any normal presidency, these stories would dominate the news cycle.
I talked about how Trump’s governance model includes slush-fund logic, loyalty networks, and zero accountability, and how it’s all downstream of the same principle: power without constraint.
The important contrast: in the tariff case, he did not get away with it. The system actually held, at least in this instance.
What This Means For The Economy: Relief, But The Instability Has Already Done Damage
Even if this ruling reduces some pain, the last year of chaos mattered.
Key takeaways:
Many retailers and companies stocked inventory ahead of tariffs, meaning some of the worst consumer impacts were delayed and could still show up.
I emphasized that the broader economic harm isn’t just tariffs themselves, it’s the uncertainty and instability that damages confidence and planning.
I acknowledged reporting that the administration may try to find other legal authorities to impose tariffs, but stressed that many of those tools are more limited and time-bound.
Independent Journalism Is Under Assault, And It Has To Be Funded Like Democracy Depends On It
In the second half of the Live, I zoomed out. Because this is the throughline. If we want accountability, we need an ecosystem that can sustain it.
Key takeaways:
I argued that we pour enormous money into political candidates, then watch that money disappear after election day, while the media ecosystem that informs voters is left underfunded.
I raised a blunt reality: there’s more money on the right, and right-wing sponsorship infrastructure is real, aggressive, and flush.
I talked about how easy it is for creators, especially Black creators, to get pulled into that funding stream if they even slightly bend their content rightward.
I shared the core question I’ve been wrestling with: what does a real funding structure look like for independent pro-democracy media that preserves editorial independence?
I floated potential models: cooperative approaches, consortiums, umbrella systems, and even a funding vehicle that can support creators’ business gaps (design, operations, scaling) without controlling their voice.
Honoring Ms. Joanne Bland
I closed by honoring Ms. Joanne Bland, a civil rights icon and foot soldier who was on the Edmund Pettus Bridge as a child, and spent her life fighting for voting rights and justice.
Key takeaways:
I shared my gratitude for having met her and for the work she did in Selma, including her leadership tied to voting rights history and education.
I reminded viewers that we stand on the shoulders of people like her, and that the fight we’re in now is part of a much longer arc.
I ended with the call that felt true to her legacy: get in good trouble, keep pushing back, keep fighting.
The Bottom Line
Trump just had his signature economic policy at the Supreme Court struck down. But the bigger story is that the “emergency powers” shortcut he’s been using to expand authoritarian control is getting checked.
This ruling won’t fix the damage Trump has already done. It won’t solve the cruelty, the corruption, or the propaganda machine.
But it is a crack in the project. A reminder that even now, there are still moments where the rule of law holds.
And if we want more of those moments, we cannot treat independent journalism like a hobby. It is infrastructure. It is defense. It is how people learn what’s being done in their name.
If you watched live, thank you. If you’re reading this after, thank you for being here. And if you’re able, consider becoming a paid subscriber. The entire conversation today was about power and accountability. Independent journalism is one of those mechanisms that makes accountability possible.
