The good news for the United States and the world is that democratic institutions will outlive the current president.
14ymedio, Federico Hernández Aguilar, San Salvador, 27 February 2026 — In April 2025, in this same opinion column, we shared our astonishment at the US president’s threat to impose barriers to free trade on much of the world. Calling it “inexplicable,” we warned that the “reasons” given by the White House to justify its tariff offensive were, in reality, mere excuses, because neither the logic of bravado as a tool of intimidation nor the hypothetical desire to lower interest rates on US debt through recession made sense. The potential benefits of these measures would not outweigh the risks involved.
The three outcomes we predicted came to pass exactly as predicted: increased bilateral trade responses; new alliances centered around development hubs alternative to the United States; and an inflationary wave that has devastated the stability of thousands of American households. Trump’s argument regarding supposed “trade balances” was untenable, aberrant, and illiberal. That is why its effects are hurting the president in the polls and creating unnecessary holes in his country’s image as a reliable partner.
Trump’s argument regarding supposed “trade balances” was untenable, aberrant, and anti-liberal.
However, the icing on the cake was still missing. Was the Supreme Court going to rule against Trump’s economic agenda, overturning his tariff strategy? Because the truth was that no president before him, at least in the last half-century, had gone so far in challenging judicial independence. Just last September, we recalled that the courts were flooded with executive orders and that, of twenty-one cases brought before the Supreme Court, only in three had the Court not ruled in favor of granting the president greater leeway at the expense of the lower court’s decisions.
While none of the above yet constituted a flagrant violation of the Constitution, it was clear that Trump was undermining the system. In his second term, therefore, only the bulwark of the rule of law could prevent him from abusing his power, in the manner of autocrats in South America or sub-Saharan Africa. continue reading
On February 20, finally, with a majority of six to three, the justices of the highest court did their job, reminding Donald Trump that the independence of the branches of government is a pillar of American democracy and that his executive powers cannot exceed the legal framework in which those powers originate.
At the end of his concurring opinion, Justice Neil Gorsuch, alluding to the need for Trump to abide by constitutional procedures, wrote: “Yes, legislating can be hard and take time. And, yes, it can be tempting to bypass Congress when some pressing problem arises. But the deliberative nature of the legislative process was the whole point of its design. Through that process, the Nation can tap the combined wisdom of the people’s elected representatives, not just that of one faction or man. There, deliberation tempers impulse, and compromise hammers disagreements into workable solutions. And because laws must earn such broad support to survive the legislative process, they tend to endure, allowing ordinary people to plan their lives in ways they cannot when the rules shift from day to day.”
Three justices whom the American press calls “conservatives”—John Roberts, Amy Coney Barrett, and Gorsuch—have offered the world proof of what makes the United States great: its institutional strength. And they did so, not out of animosity toward President Trump or a desire to give more power to Congress, but because they understand that posterity will judge them harshly for their decisions, decisions that must be grounded in the Constitution and the tradition of great liberal values.
Aside from sending a message to members of Congress (mostly Republicans) to understand and defend their legislative power, the Supreme Court was consistent in respecting the letter of the law.
Joining the majority of the Court’s justices, Justice Ketanji B. Jackson emphasized that U.S. legislative history provides clear evidence of what Congress intended when it enacted the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), on which Trump sought to base his tariff offensive. Jackson added, “Given that evidence, we need not speculate or, worse, step into Congress’s shoes and formulate our own views about what powers would be best to delegate to the President for use during an emergency.”
In other words, aside from sending a message to members of Congress (mostly Republicans) to understand and defend their legislative power, the Supreme Court was consistent in respecting the letter of the law and avoiding encroaching on the constitutional powers of the Capitol, which would have been a huge inconsistency.
Donald Trump, of course, in denouncing the Supreme Court’s decision, has been particularly rude to the two justices he appointed: Barrett and Gorsuch. As is typical of his rhetoric, he targets the reputations of those he cannot defeat with arguments. But his furious diatribe is also aimed at members of his own party in Congress, who will now have to provide the president with a legal recourse just months before they themselves are up for reelection in November.
Whatever happens, the good news for the United States and the world is that American democratic institutions will survive Donald Trump.
______________________
COLLABORATE WITH OUR WORK: The 14ymedio team is committed to practicing serious journalism that reflects Cuba’s reality in all its depth. Thank you for joining us on this long journey. We invite you to continue supporting us by becoming a member of 14ymedio now. Together we can continue transforming journalism in Cuba.