And the amount of money at stake here is massive — Trump’s lawyers estimate that the tariffs “will reduce federal deficits by $4 trillion in the coming years.” Yale’s Budget Lab estimates that they will raise $2.4 trillion if they remain in effect for 2026-35.
Trump, in other words, claims the power to levy trillions of dollars worth of new taxes without seeking new legislation from Congress.
The second case is Department of State v. AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition, which is currently pending on the Court’s “shadow docket,” a mix of emergency motions and other matters that the Court often decides without explanation. AIDS Vaccine involves “impoundment,” a president’s refusal to spend money that he is required to spend under a federal appropriations law.
Until very recently, there was widespread consensus that impoundment is illegal. In a 1969 Justice Department memo, future Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote that “it is in our view extremely difficult to formulate a constitutional theory to justify a refusal by the President to comply with a congressional directive to spend.” And even some members of the current Court’s Republican majority have expressed skepticism about impoundment in the past.
Yet, in an ominous sign that this Court may allow Trump to impound funds anyway, Chief Justice John Roberts issued a brief order last week permitting Trump to temporarily impound foreign aid funds while the Court considers the AIDS Vaccine case.
The final case is Trump v. Cook, which is likely to reach the Supreme Court as soon as Tuesday. Cook involves Trump’s attempt to fire a member of the Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors, in violation of a federal statute which only allows Fed governors to be fired “for cause.” Late on Monday, a federal appeals court denied Trump this power — although it did so over the dissent of a judge who previously worked in Trump’s White House.
The Fed wields tremendous power over the US economy, including the power to temporarily stimulate the economy at the expense of much greater economic turmoil down the road. For this reason, Congress insulated the Fed’s leaders from presidential control to prevent presidents from injecting cocaine into the economy at politically advantageous moments. If Trump gains the power to fire Fed governors, however, that insulation will end.
Trump, in other words, seeks total control over US monetary policy. He seeks the power to cancel federal grants or even eliminate entire federal programs at will. And he claims the power to raise trillions of dollars in new taxes by his mere decree.
Pretty much the only fiscal power Trump hasn’t claimed yet is the power to actually appropriate federal money – that is, the power to spend however he chooses. The Constitution provides that “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law,” meaning that it is unconstitutional for Trump to spend federal money unless that spending is allowed by an Act of Congress.
Realistically, however, if the Supreme Court gives Trump the other powers he is seeking, it would be child’s play for him to get around the Constitution’s Appropriations Clause. The mechanism that prevents federal officials from illegally spending money is the Antideficiency Act, which makes it a crime for federal employees to spend money in excess of the amount appropriated by Congress.
But Trump can pardon anyone who violates this criminal law. And the Republican justices already held, in Trump v. United States (2024), that Trump is immune from prosecution if he uses his official powers to commit crimes.
If Trump gets what he wants from the Supreme Court, in other words, he could wind up with dictatorial authority over US fiscal and monetary policy — fully empowered to tax and spend without any meaningful checks from the other branches of government. And there is a real risk that this Court, which has a Republican super majority that has shown extraordinary deference to the leader of their political party, will give Trump what he wants.
