Alan Dershowitz told Newsmax that President Trump’s lawyers framed the tariff case poorly, and the Supreme Court’s 6–3 ruling that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not authorize tariffs highlights a constitutional tug of war over whether the president can use tariffs as a tool of foreign policy or is strictly limited to powers Congress assigns under Article One.
Harvard Law School professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz criticized the legal strategy the Trump team used before the Court, arguing it set them up to lose by treating tariffs as a congressional fundraising power rather than an executive foreign policy instrument. From a Republican perspective, that’s a tactical mistake more than a defeat of the idea that tariffs can be a smart national security lever. The decision draws a sharp line between Article One taxation powers and Article Two executive responsibilities, and the Court sided with a narrow statutory reading.
“I thought that the lawyers for Trump made the wrong argument to the Supreme Court, and I predicted they were going to lose based on their argument. Look, if you argue that it’s fundraising activity by Congress, of course you’re going to lose,” Dershowitz said, and those words landed like a rebuke to a strategy that tried to shoehorn tariffs into existing statutory language. Conservatives who back a robust executive stance on national security will see this as a lessons-learned moment about legal framing. The debate now shifts to how to ground tariff authority in a way that respects both constitutional lines and the need for swift foreign policy tools.
Dershowitz went on to highlight the constitutional distinction that tripped up the Trump argument. “This, the Article One of the Constitution, says that duties and taxes can be imposed only by Congress, and Congress can delegate that authority to the president.” That’s a clear-eyed constitutional observation and it explains why the Court rejected the broader interpretation of the statute. Republicans who favor strong border and trade defenses still have options, but they must craft arguments that squarely fit Article Two when they claim executive power.
He made a pointed alternative case for how tariffs can survive legal scrutiny when tied to foreign policy aims rather than revenue collection. “But if you argue that tariffs can be a weapon of foreign policy, a weapon of diplomacy, a weapon of preventing war, then it’s an Article II power of the president, and Congress has no power to limit it. And so I think what the president has said in his press conferences today is that we may have gone under the wrong statute, and maybe we have no power under that statute,” Dershowitz added. That shift in theory is exactly what many Republicans wanted to hear: use executive authority where national security demands it, not as a tax scheme thinly veiled as commerce regulation.
There are practical and political tradeoffs no matter which path is chosen. Using tariffs as a blunt foreign policy instrument can provoke retaliation, unsettle supply chains, and hit domestic businesses and consumers. Yet Republicans argue that strategic, targeted tariffs aimed at compelling adversaries or protecting supply lines remain a necessary tool when diplomacy and deterrence need teeth.
Dershowitz emphasized limits even as he defended the executive route, reminding listeners that constitutional boundaries exist. “It becomes within the president’s power, and I think he can still do it within limits. There are things he can’t do,” he said, underscoring the reality that any presidential move must respect clear constitutional constraints. That balance — robust authority within legal bounds — is the argument the conservative movement must sharpen if it wants durable tools for national security through trade policy.
The legal defeat in the Supreme Court won’t end the conversation; it will redirect it toward legislative fixes, clearer statutory language, or tighter Article Two arguments. Republicans who value executive flexibility will press for paths that enable decisive action while avoiding constitutional overreach. The next moves will matter: will the White House pivot to a constitutional Article Two framing, or will Congress step in to explicitly delegate the kind of authority the president seeks?
WATCH:
