As Donald Trump continues to advance sweeping tariff policies in defiance of judicial rulings, the nation finds itself confronting a deeper constitutional question: Are we governed by laws, or by the will of one man?
Courts exist to interpret and uphold the Constitution, not to serve as advisory panels that can be ignored when inconvenient. When executive authority presses forward despite judicial constraint, it tests the structural balance the framers designed to prevent the very concentration of power Americans rejected in 1776. The issue is no longer simply tariffs. It is whether checks and balances remain meaningful.
Equally significant is the court of public opinion. Voters may ultimately decide whether economic nationalism and confrontation with the judiciary represent strength—or overreach. History suggests that when leaders appear to elevate personal authority above institutional limits, backlash can follow, particularly in midterm elections where accountability often sharpens.
America was founded in rejection of kingship. Any policy dispute that begins to resemble a struggle between centralized personal power and constitutional restraint should concern citizens across party lines.