The U.S. Supreme Court's tariff ruling is imminent, and Trump frequently warns that he has a premonition of losing?

The fate of the Trump administration's signature tariff policy hangs on a key ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court. Despite senior officials in the U.S. government attempting to downplay the potential legal setback, President Trump’s increasingly anxious remarks, combined with widespread predictions from the market and analysts, point to an increasingly clear possibility: the government may lose this lawsuit, and the subsequent remedies will be far more complex than officials have portrayed. The ruling, expected to be announced in January next year, centers on determining whether the government has the authority to impose broadly-based "reciprocal tariffs" under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). Recently, Trump has made heated statements on social media, claiming that "evil, hate-America forces are fighting us in the Supreme Court," and urging the justices to "do the right thing for America." This rare expression has been interpreted by the market as a deep concern over the potential overturning of his policies. On November 6 of this year, Trump also told reporters that if he loses this lawsuit in the Supreme Court, it would be "a devastating blow to our country." Trump stated that if that were the case, "we would have to come up with a second plan." In contrast to Trump's anxiety, cabinet members have displayed a posture of "confidence." Treasury Secretary Mnuchin warned on Tuesday (December 16) that overturning the tariffs would "harm national security," as "economic security is national security." However, he also stated that the government has "many other ways to increase fiscal revenue." Risk of Losing Approaches: An Anxious President and a "Calm" Cabinet Currently, the market's confidence in the Trump administration winning the tariff lawsuit is not high. According to a report released by Goldman Sachs on December 16, based on the questions posed by justices during the oral arguments in November, the Supreme Court is "very likely" to rule that most of the tariffs imposed by the government this year are illegal early next year. This view is also reflected in the general expectations of the prediction markets. The two core cases currently being reviewed by the Supreme Court are Learning Resources Inc. v. Trump and V.O.S. Selections Inc. v. Trump, which challenge the core issue of whether the president has overstepped constitutional boundaries by using the IEEPA to exercise Congress's exclusive power to tax. Faced with the looming risk of losing, the public statements within the White House show a clear temperature difference. Trump's rhetoric is filled with urgency, while officials, represented by Treasury Secretary Mnuchin, are trying to convey a message to the outside world: even in the worst-case scenario, the government still has backup plans. While emphasizing national security, Mnuchin also acknowledged the existence of alternative plans, suggesting that the government is preparing for a possible defeat. However, this public calm demeanor sharply contrasts with his claim in court documents that overturning the tariffs would trigger a "fiscal disaster." "Plan B" is Not Easy: Alternative Solutions Face Numerous Legal Obstacles Although government officials claim they can easily pivot to other trade regulations to rebuild the tariff system, legal experts and analysts point out that this path is fraught with thorns. According to Politico, any alternative plan will face new legal and political obstacles, and the process is far from smooth The two main legal tools that the government may resort to have significant limitations: Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974: This provision authorizes the president to impose tariffs of up to 15% to address "serious international balance of payments deficits." This could temporarily replace the current 10% baseline tariff, but the problem is: first, the tariff must be "non-discriminatory," which contradicts the Trump administration's practice of reaching exemption agreements with specific countries; second, its effective period is only 150 days unless extended by Congress, which is nearly impossible in the current political environment. Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930: This provision allows the president to impose tariffs of up to 50% on countries that discriminate against U.S. trade. However, this provision has never been used since its enactment, and its legal issues have not been tested in court. A key controversy is whether the president must first conduct an investigation by the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) before taking action. If an investigation is required, it will take a considerable amount of time, making it impossible to achieve an immediate tariff replacement. Law professor Timothy Meyer told Politico that although the U.S. International Trade Court generally shows deference to the executive branch when interpreting tariff laws, every step taken to activate these alternatives could trigger new lawsuits. Goldman Sachs Forecast: Tariff Rates May Decline, Long Road to Refunds For investors, the most direct impact is the change in tariff costs. Goldman Sachs' report predicts that if the IEEPA tariffs are overturned, the risks will "tend toward lower tariff rates." Analyst Alec Phillips noted that even if the government turns to Section 122 as a temporary measure, its 15% tariff cap means that the higher tariffs currently imposed on certain trading partners (such as India, with rates as high as 50%) will have to be reduced. Furthermore, imposing higher tariffs on specific countries under Section 301 would require time-consuming and complex investigations, making it impractical to investigate all trading partners. Goldman Sachs expects that by the end of 2026, the effective tariff rate in the U.S. will decline by about 2 percentage points from current levels. In addition, a loss would also trigger a massive tariff refund issue. Goldman Sachs estimates that the government has collected about $130 billion in tariffs through IEEPA and is still increasing at a rate of about $20 billion per month. Companies (such as Costco) have filed lawsuits to ensure they receive refunds. However, the refund process could be very lengthy and require subsequent legal actions. According to Politico, the government is accelerating the deposit of tariff revenues into the U.S. Treasury, which is seen as an attempt to increase the difficulty for companies to obtain refunds. Dual Test of Political and Diplomatic Credibility A legal defeat would also bring serious political and diplomatic consequences for the Trump administration. On the diplomatic front, many "trade agreements" reached under the threat of IEEPA tariffs are not legally binding. Once the tariff basis is undermined, foreign governments may demand renegotiation and withdraw previous concessions, which will test the government's negotiation capabilities and credibility In China, the credibility of high-ranking government officials will be undermined. Several officials, including Bessent, have claimed in court documents that overturning tariffs would lead the United States into "domestic and international turmoil." If such scenarios do not materialize after a defeat in court, they will face accusations of misleading the court and the public. At the same time, this will put Republican lawmakers in an awkward position ahead of the 2026 midterm elections, as they will have to make a difficult choice between supporting a tariff policy that polls show is extremely unpopular (with about two-thirds of Americans opposing it) and alienating Trump