My theory is not that Trump quietly looks for a legal substitute for tariffs. My theory is that he takes the ruling personally, treats it like humiliation, and responds with an escalation designed to make the Court, Congress, and U.S. trading partners regret stopping him.

In other words, not a workaround. A punishment.

The move I expect is an “oh yeah?” move: if you say he cannot use tariffs the way he wants, he pivots to tools that are more explicitly economic warfare, especially sanctions-style authorities and other national-security powers that are still legal. The point is not just to keep pressure on trade. The point is to show that tariffs were actually the gentler option.

That is the whole spite logic.

Tariffs are ugly, but they are still a market tool. They raise costs. They distort trade. But they still leave a lane open for buying, selling, and adapting. Sanctions and other wartime-style economic tools can be much harsher. They can freeze, block, prohibit, blacklist, and force companies and banks to choose sides. That is a different vibe entirely. That is not “pay more.” That is “you are cut off.”

So my prediction is that Trump, feeling persecuted and challenged, goes theatrical with it. He does not just replace the tariff mechanism. He upgrades the severity to make a point:

“You said I could not use tariffs. Fine. Here is something far more aggressive, and this one is legal.”

That is why I think the emotional engine matters more than the legal details. If he frames the ruling as a technical correction, he adjusts. If he frames it as betrayal, he escalates. And his political style has always been to turn limits into a stage. If one lever is removed, he reaches for a louder lever. If the Court closes one door, he kicks open a side door and makes sure everyone hears it.

So the prediction is not just “different policy tool.” It is a message strategy wrapped around a legal pivot. Use sanctions or sanctions-like powers against quasi-allies, increase the pain, then tell the public and business community:

“You should have let me do tariffs. That was the moderate version.”

That is the prediction. Not policy refinement. Not constitutional humility. Spite escalation through a more coercive legal lane.