Trump unbound: Defying courts, allies and now the world

M Santhananaban

Those who watched US President Donald Trump’s State of the Union address, delivered to an obviously polarised American nation on 24 February would have concluded that it carried the stain of the recycled, stale, snake-oil salesman’s self-congratulatory pitch.

His self-righteous, upbeat tone – of a turnaround to a golden era – was at odds with the country’s declining domestic economic situation. It also failed to acknowledge the deteriorating state of US global partnerships and prestige.

Yet his compliant Republicans gave him repeated standing ovations for a fantasy-filled speech erratically fused with some facts and much fiction.

The element of authentic statesmanship was remarkably absent, although Trump made a specious claim that he had ended several wars. He also failed to mention his undisguised ambitions over Gaza and Greenland – for profit, prospecting and, ultimately, private ownership. Nor did he mention what was already in the works: a massive joint military strike on Iran.

Reaction to court setback

This was the first major address since the US Supreme Court ruled on 20 February by a 6-3 majority, that Trump had exceeded his powers under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act by imposing unauthorised import tariffs on foreign goods. The act authorises the president to regulate imports or exports in an emergency, but confers no power to levy any tariff or tax.

The court ruled that the power to levy tariffs rests with the US Congress. The six justices in the majority found that the president had acted beyond the legitimate reach of his authority. They made this ruling on the basis of their reading of the US constitution, which vests tariff and taxing authority in the federal legislature.

The three dissenting justices found various reasons to conclude that the president had acted within the bounds of his powers. Trump praised the dissenters and excoriated the six.

At issue was the interpretation of the US constitution and its provisions. But more fundamentally, the Supreme Court had addressed a living, pressing and consequential question of governance.

The six justices were clearly driven by a duty to adhere strictly to the constitution – to which they were sworn. It was plain that they saw their role as the dutiful guardians of their nation’s founding document. They understood that their majority verdict went against what the current president desired. In delivering it, they displayed innate courage, independence, integrity, intellectual honesty and institutional impartiality. In doing so, they upheld the independence and dignity of the judiciary.

What the ruling means

In any functioning democracy, the executive, legislative and judicial branches each carry their own equally important responsibilities.

Customary deference to authority is often based on power and hierarchy – those lower in the structure are generally expected to obey those above them.

But this cannot apply when an instruction from a higher authority is defective, illegal or simply inappropriate. A subordinate has a mandatory obligation to comply with the law – not with an obviously defective or unlawful directive.

This principle has now been clearly affirmed by the Supreme Court, which heard concluding submissions from the US administration’s lawyers and the opposing parties – Learning Resources Inc and others – on 5 November.

It is a reminder that the law is supreme, sacred and sovereign, and applies equally to all. The Supreme Court deserves to be commended for this defining decision.

Defiance, diminishment and danger

Trump, who remains defiant, has imposed new tariffs of 15% — valid until around late July 2026 – under a different legal authority, Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974.

He appears deluded about his capacity to strengthen and consolidate his administration’s position. To the outside world, he cuts a Lear-like figure, yet refuses to acknowledge that his power is diminished.

He has sown divisions within his own Republican support base, upset the country’s closest allies – including Canada and other Nato partners – and embarked on aggressive foreign policy moves that have now tipped into open warfare.

Just four days after his address, on 28 February, the US and Israel struck Iran, killing Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. Iran retaliated, closed the Strait of Hormuz and sent oil prices surging.

These moves are unlikely to gain Trump the domestic support he so urgently needs.

If the US midterm elections in November (assuming they are held as scheduled) go badly for the Republicans – which is not unlikely – Trump may face a rebellion from within his own party.

A Senate and House of Representatives with a Democratic majority may also prove far less indulgent of presidential excess. That could well tempt an impeachment motion, terminating his presidency.

The situation is fast-moving and deeply unpredictable. But one thing is clear: the world can no longer afford the luxury of simply watching. In the meantime, we should not overreact to any fresh initiative from the Trump administration.

Dato M Santhananaban is a former Malaysian ambassador with 45 years of public sector experience.

Support our work by making a donation. Tap to download the QR code below and scan this QR code from Gallery by using TnG e-wallet or most banking apps: