In January 2026, right after overthrowing the President of Venezuela but just before launching a war with Iran, the Trump Administration ramped up its efforts to annex Greenland. During this period, President Trump’s rhetoric surrounding the Danish territory reached a fever pitch, with erratic threats of both a military invasion of Greenland and the imposition of tariffs on European goods. While responses differed across Europe, by January 18, France lobbied the European Union for the implementation of reciprocal tariffs, and on January 19, Denmark announced the deployment of additional troops to Greenland. Two days later, the European Parliament published a press release raising “serious concerns” over the United States threats to Greenland’s sovereignty and its “transactional approach” to foreign policy. While the events surrounding Greenland might appear uniquely volatile, they illustrated a broader, ongoing shift in global politics. As President Trump’s threats showed, tariffs are increasingly deployed as an instrument of geopolitical pressure. Greenland is not the only example of this shift, as the world is entering an era of increased tariff-based economic conflicts.

To the public, Learning Resources v. Trump was a fierce condemnation by the Roberts Court of President Donald Trump’s brash assertions of constitutional power. The Supreme Court flatly rejected the claim that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) provision empowering the President to “regulate . . . importation” in the face of emergency unlocked tariff powers. The New York Times pronounced the decision as a “Declaration of Independence” by the high court. Slate praised the thirteen pages of the Chief’s opinion backed by a majority as “a withering rebuke . . . [a] crisp, confident opinion.” But if you look deeper—for instance, at the remaining 157 pages—it becomes clear that the Court’s conservative majority experienced a catastrophic meltdown. The major questions doctrine exploded on the page, receiving a different interpretation in each of the case’s seven opinions. And the lower courts will have to handle the fallout.