Businessman and TV personality Kevin O’Leary is defending President Donald Trump’s power to impose tariffs, warning that any attempt by the Supreme Court to restrict that authority could destabilize global commerce.
“You can debate the tariff levels themselves, but removing that power from the presidency is a dangerous precedent,” O’Leary wrote on X this week.
“It would create chaos in global trade and undermine our ability to respond to real economic threats.”
O’Leary also appeared on Fox Business, saying he doesn’t expect the Supreme Court to block Trump’s trade actions or force the government to repay up to $200 billion in collected tariffs.
“I think, fundamentally, the executive, the president, whoever that person is, has the right to implement trade policy,” he said. “Tariffs are part of trade policy.”
While O’Leary frames the president’s tariff authority as essential, critics argue that Trump’s use of tariffs has already caused chaos, economically and diplomatically.
Tariffs as a Tool—Or a Weapon?
Trump’s second term has brought a revival of aggressive tariff policies, headlined by the April 2 rollout of what he dubbed “Liberation Day” tariffs.
These new import taxes aimed to slash the U.S. trade deficit by applying steep duties on nearly all imports, including from countries with which the U.S. runs a surplus.
The administration’s math was simple but controversial: calculate the size of the trade deficit with a country, cut it in half, and apply that as a tariff.
A 10% baseline tariff was added across the board. Vietnam, for example, was hit with a 46% tariff despite having an average tariff rate of just 9%.
Critics argue that the logic behind these tariffs is flawed, noting that trade deficits are shaped more by fiscal and monetary policy than by trade barriers.
They say the rhetoric surrounding the tariff strategy hides internal contradictions and lacks a sound economic foundation.
Critics also point out that Trump’s tariff plans ignore how modern supply chains work. Many U.S. exports depend on imported components. When import costs rise, so do production costs for American manufacturers, making them less competitive abroad.
Global Pushback and Retaliation
America’s trading partners have not taken the new tariffs lightly. China retaliated with a 125% tariff before both countries agreed to a temporary truce in May.
India, a strategic U.S. ally, resisted demands to open its agricultural markets and proposed its own retaliatory tariffs in compliance with World Trade Organization rules.
While the Trump administration struck limited deals with the U.K., Japan, Vietnam and others, many countries remain skeptical of U.S. intentions. Trump’s prior withdrawal from trade agreements and sudden imposition of tariffs have made negotiating partners cautious.
That unpredictability has spilled into the business world. Companies need long-term stability to plan investments and manage supply chains.
But the constant tariff shifts and threats of new penalties have left markets on edge. Following the tariff announcement, global stocks dropped, and the U.S. bond market saw immediate stress.
A November report from El País added that companies and merchants are having to adapt on the fly to Trump’s shifting trade rules.
The Yale University Budget Laboratory found that the effective tariff rate peaked at nearly 28% in April, up from just 2.4% in January, before settling to around 14.4% by November, the highest since 1939.
The Costs at Home
While Trump promises tariffs will bring back American jobs, economists are doubtful. Manufacturing may return, but thanks to automation, not new hiring.
There’s also the issue of who pays the tariff bill. According to most economic studies, U.S. consumers and businesses, especially those relying on imported parts, absorb nearly all the costs.
That means higher prices at the checkout and thinner profit margins for small manufacturers.
Tariffs have become a growing concern for U.S. households and business owners. According to a Bank of America report, 77% of business owners say their costs have increased over the past year.
The Consumer Technology Association also noted that nearly half of Americans planning to cut spending during the holiday season blamed higher prices caused by tariffs.
Yale researchers say tariffs have a regressive impact. A recent study showed that low-income families lose a larger share of their income to tariff-related price hikes, about 2.4% for the bottom 10% of earners compared with just 0.8% for the wealthiest.
Constitutional Clash Brewing
Still, O’Leary insists the president’s power over trade should remain intact. On Fox Business, he said he was uncomfortable with the idea of the Supreme Court taking that right away.
“I don’t like the idea that all of a sudden the Supreme Court can take that right away. That doesn’t feel good to me, and I don’t think they will,” he said.
If the Court does intervene, O’Leary believes the administration could turn to existing trade statutes like Sections 122 and 338 of the Trade Act to maintain tariff authority.
In his words: “There are constitutional statutes… They’ll probably come out with those statutes within days, should the SCOTUS rule against them, to try to replace that money.”
For now, the Court has not made a move, and Trump’s tariff regime remains active.
But whether it brings strength or further instability to U.S. trade remains a question dividing experts, allies and businesses alike.