17 February 2026
The decision of the U.S. Supreme Court to declare Donald Trump’s tariff policy unconstitutional was intended to put an end to his efforts to use tariffs as a tool for reducing the trade deficit and as a political lever on the international stage.
By limiting the president’s instrument, the Court effectively moved it to the very center of the political arena. As often happens, the effect proved the opposite of what was intended.
Instead of retreating, the President of the United States raised the stakes, both tariff and political. First, he increased tariffs by 10 percent on all countries without exception, and then by 15 percent.
The introduction of tariffs for 150 days is not merely a legal tactic of a temporary measure, allowing the president under emergency powers to take such steps and thereby reduce their vulnerability to immediate judicial blocking.
It is a calculation that effectively brings the tariff agenda to the peak of the congressional campaign season. What at first glance appears to be an economic measure turns into an electoral weapon.
For Trump, tariffs are a symbol of rejecting the model under which the United States lived for years with a chronic trade deficit, financing the industrial growth of other countries. It is a policy of bringing production back, restoring industrial strength, and reclaiming economic sovereignty. And now, after judicial restriction, this rhetoric gains additional momentum: “If they are blocking us, it means we are right.”
Numbers become part of the argument. In December, the budget received $130 billion in tariff revenues. The trade balance improved by $28 billion compared to December 2024. For an economy as large as the American one, this is roughly 20 percent — a figure that is more than significant. Yet in politics, it is often not even the absolute figures that matter most, but the direction of movement. And it is precisely this dynamic that allows for a simple thesis: tariff policy is producing results.
The issue of tariffs may become one of the central elements in the struggle for a majority in Congress. I emphasize: one of them. Because tariffs are not the main piece on the chessboard.
The United States is in a state of full military readiness for a possible operation against Iran, which has effectively rejected the ultimatum to halt its nuclear program and support for proxy structures. External escalation in such circumstances is not only geopolitics. It is, above all, internal mobilization. The history of American politics shows that military decisions almost always generate a rally-around-the-president effect. Against this backdrop, judicial disputes and tariff restrictions recede into the shadows.
If regime change in Tehran does not occur, the administration will still be able to declare the operation a success. The destruction of nuclear and missile infrastructure and the temporary weakening of proxy financing will be presented as a strategic achievement. In politics, the narrative is often no less important than the outcome.
If regime change does occur, the consequences will extend far beyond the region. It would mean a restructuring of the global oil market. The lifting of sanctions would open the way for Iran to rapidly increase exports — similar to Venezuela, whose oil is already replacing Russian supplies even in India. Iran is geographically closer to key consumers in Asia — India, southern China, and even more so to Turkey and Pakistan. In energy markets, distance means money.
An increase in supply inevitably puts downward pressure on the price per barrel. And the price of oil affects inflation, household income in the United States, fuel costs, and thus voter sentiment. Here again, the factor of congressional elections reemerges.
For Russia, such a scenario would mean additional pressure. Oil already being sold at a discount would face competition from a geographically closer supplier. An economy dependent on oil and gas rents becomes even more vulnerable. This would alter Moscow’s calculations regarding the war in Ukraine, substantially increasing its cost for the Russian population.
Thus, tariff policy and military readiness combine into a single strategic linkage and transform into a powerful electoral resource.
In the coming months, the configuration, set in motion by the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court, has the potential to significantly reshape the political landscape, both within the United States and far beyond its borders.
