ANDREW NEIL: Trump’s deranged rants present he’s shedding the plot – and determined Presidents do determined issues
President Trump’s public utterances are hardly noted for their accuracy, understatement, modesty, realism or compassion. But on Friday afternoon he managed to hit a new low, even for him, with a deranged rant against the US Supreme Court, the highest in the land. Among many to choose from, it was possibly the ugliest moment of his Presidency so far.
The Court had just ruled by a clear 6-3 majority that Trump’s use of emergency laws to slap tariffs on goods imported into America was illegal. Since tariffs have been the signature economic policy of his second term (he’s even claimed ‘tariff’ is his favourite word), he was understandably angry. It does not excuse the outrageous assault which followed.
Most Presidents have fallen foul of the Supreme Court at some stage. The nine justices are appointed for life and make rulings independent of the Presidency or Congress.
Most Presidents have sucked up their defeats, muted any criticism and moved on.
Not Trump. Speaking from a podium in the White House and surrounded by his usual flunkies, he launched into an unprecedented personal attack on the six justices who had defied him. They were ‘unpatriotic’ and ‘disloyal’. He was ‘ashamed’ of them.
He was especially furious with the three conservative judges –two of whom he’d appointed – who’d joined with the three remaining liberals on the court to produce such a convincing majority. They were ‘fools, lap dogs’ and even an ‘embarrassment to their families’.
In reality, Trump was lamenting that they hadn’t turned out to be his lap dogs. He had appointed them so why couldn’t they just do as they were told?
Because, claimed Trump, they had been ‘swayed by foreign interests’ and other nefarious influences which Trump, of course, did not name because it’s all a figment of his imagination. But there you have it: the President of the United States accusing Supreme Court judges of being traitors. It doesn’t get more bonkers than that.
Most Presidents have sucked up their defeats, muted any criticism and moved on, writes Andrew Neil. Not Trump.
Trump was lamenting that they hadn’t turned out to be his lap dogs. He had appointed them so why couldn’t they just do as they were told?
It was a vitriolic display of utter contempt for the very pinnacle of the US justice system and showed total disrespect for the American constitution, which tasks the Court with ensuring the President and Congress adhere to the law. A constitution which is unequivocal in giving Congress, not the President, the power to levy taxes (tariffs are taxes on imported goods).
For some time now my White House sources have been indicating that Trump is losing the plot. Not nearly as badly, of course, as Joe Biden when he occupied the Oval Office. But concerning nonetheless. They complain that it’s increasingly difficult to get him to focus or concentrate on whatever matter is at hand.
His tendency to ramble is worse than ever, they say, which often leads him not just to utter untruths (he’s always done that) but to wander into the realms of fantasy – including reminiscing about his ‘greatest hits’.
They fear it is impairing his judgment. When you have a President accusing the Supreme Court of treachery for merely doing its job, they might well have a point.
Some see a silver lining in all this: Trump’s tariffs are in tatters. So it’s the beginning of the end for his protectionist disruptions and we can now gradually return to good old free trade. After all, the tariffs haven’t worked. The US lost up to 100,000 more manufacturing jobs last year and its trade deficit in goods (tariffs don’t apply to services) rose to an all-time record of $1.23trillion. So much for the power of Trump to create jobs and reduce the trade deficit.
A return to trade normality would be great for Britain. America is our single biggest national market for exports. At a time when the biggest bloc with which we trade, the European Union, is stagnating, we need to export more to America, whose economy is still growing. In 2024 we exported £66billion of goods to the US. But with Trump’s tariffs playing havoc with trade flows, it looks like last year was closer to £60billion.
The good news is that we export a lot more in tariff-free services to America and that’s holding up well: £135billion worth in 2024, over £140billion last year. But lower US tariffs on British goods would give an added boost to our export drive.
Sadly, that looks unlikely in the short term. The Supreme Court has knocked back Trump’s use of emergency power to introduce tariffs on a whim but he has recourse to other measures to feed his obsession. The White House has already started work on them. Trans-Atlantic trade will be bedevilled by protectionism for some time, to Britain’s loss.
But it will be Trump’s loss too. The Supreme Court setback comes at a time when his economic policies are failing to impress US voters.
He boasts about presiding over an economic miracle but Americans don’t see it: his job approval rating is minus 13 percentage points (42 per cent approve, 55 per cent disapprove). Keir Starmer might give his left arm for the rating but it’s low for a US President when the economy is buoyant.
Even previously popular policies – such as his tough anti-immigration stance – are taking a hit. Voters liked the closing of the southern border with Mexico to illegal migrants.
But when his goons in Minneapolis shot dead first a poet, then a nurse, when they were protesting against the heavy-handed removal of migrants from the city by federal agents, support for Trump’s approach evaporated, not just among Democrats but among moderate Republicans and independents – the two key voting groups Trump needs to hold on to the House of Representatives in November’s mid-term elections.
As things stand Trump will lose the House badly. Those around him are even worried Republicans might lose the Senate, though that is more of a stretch.
All Presidents become something of a lame duck in the final two years of their second term. But the Supreme Court ruling – and his disgusting reaction to it – doesn’t help. It all adds to the general sense of drift surrounding the Trump administration and of a President slowly but surely losing his grip, which no amount of bumptious Trumpian invective can disguise.
At times like this it is not unknown for US Presidents to deflect from troubles on the home front and seek renewed popularity with an overseas adventure. For Trump this is fraught with difficulty because his isolationist MAGA base really doesn’t like foreign entanglements. But it has escaped nobody’s attention that he has assembled a massive armada (and other land-based military assets less well publicised) within striking distance of Iran.
Desultory talks with Iran about its nuclear bomb ambitions are still going on. US sources point out you don’t assemble the greatest gathering of US air and naval power in the Middle East/Arabian Sea region since the 2003 invasion of Iraq without intent to use it.
But when – and to what purpose? To disrupt or halt Iran’s bombed nuclear programme? To wipe out its ballistic missile arsenal, which it’s rebuilding after Israel degraded it last year? To topple the regime? All of the above?
The US has enough firepower to sustain weeks-long attacks on Iran and not just launch a one-and-done ‘Midnight Hammer’ strike like it carried out last June against three Iranian nuclear sites.
As Trump’s domestic woes worsen, the chances of such an attack are increasing. America’s allies, including Britain, are understandably nervous. The absence of clearly articulated objectives means Americans are also very wary. Given the recent history of US foreign interventions, they are hardly a guaranteed route to renewed popularity.
But desperate Presidents often do desperate things.
