Trump warns of 'total chaos' ahead of Supreme Court ruling on tariffs

President Donald Trump warned of a “total mess” if the U.S. Supreme Court strikes down his global trade tariffs, claiming in a social media post that the country would be “done” if the justices rule against his administration.

The pending decision marks a pivotal legal test for presidential authority and Trump’s cornerstone economic strategy. Trump argued that attempting to refund the collected duties would be nearly impossible and could take years to process.

The Supreme Court previously expressed skepticism regarding the administration's legal justification for the levies. The government has relied on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) of 1977 to implement the trade barriers.

A coalition of 12 states and various small businesses filed the lawsuit, alleging the president exceeded his constitutional power. Two lower courts have already ruled against Trump in the matter.

Amid the legal battle, Trump announced this week a new 25% tariff on any country that conducts business with Iran.

The economic fallout of the trade policy is already appearing in corporate earnings. Volkswagen reported a decline in 2025 U.S. sales, citing the tariffs as a primary cause for the slump.

An upcoming U.S. Supreme Court ruling is set to serve as a definitive test of executive overreach, determining not only the future of Trump-era trade policy but also the statutory limits of presidential authority. At the heart of the legal battle is the administration’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA)—a tool traditionally reserved for national security crises—to implement broad economic tariffs. This expansive interpretation has sparked a profound legal debate over whether emergency mandates can be leveraged to fundamentally restructure global trade.

Former President Trump’s aggressive rhetoric on social media highlights a clear political strategy: framing a constitutional legal dispute as a binary choice between his policy and economic catastrophe. By exerting public pressure on the judiciary, the former president is attempting to shape public perception ahead of the verdict, transforming a technical question of administrative law into a populist narrative of economic survival.

The economic fallout of these tariffs has moved beyond the theoretical. Recent reporting from Volkswagen underscores the tangible damage to multinational corporations, illustrating how supply chain disruptions and escalating input costs are being passed down the value chain. Ultimately, these systemic frictions threaten to manifest as higher prices for the end consumer, undermining global price stability.

For Vietnam, the stakes are uniquely high. As an export-led economy with the United States as its primary destination market, Hanoi faces acute vulnerability to this prolonged period of trade volatility. A legal precedent that permanently grants the executive branch the power to impose blanket tariffs under the guise of national emergencies would create an unpredictable business environment. Such a shift directly threatens the stability of Vietnam’s core industrial pillars, most notably the garment, furniture, and electronics sectors, which rely on clear and consistent access to the American market.

Vietnamese-American small businesses, particularly those reliant on Asian imports, are facing direct economic repercussions. Rising tariffs have driven up overhead costs for the nail salon industry—which depends on imported tools and chemicals—as well as for phở restaurants and retail shops sourcing authentic ingredients and products from abroad. The litigation spearheaded by small business owners and twelve states underscores just how widespread these concerns are within the community. For entrepreneurs in hubs like Little Saigon, the uncertainty surrounding the Supreme Court’s eventual ruling makes financial forecasting and long-term planning nearly impossible, ultimately stifling business expansion and local hiring.