We have experienced what was probably the biggest presidential cover-up in history, with the measures taken to hide Joe Biden’s cognitive decline. These stealth actions resulted in the disastrous Afghan pullout, the highest inflation in forty years, two wars, and an attempt to forgive billions of student loans simply by executive order. Only James Buchanan’s Administration compares in failure.

Now I’m worried we’re seeing a repeat, possibly on a grander scale. Given some of his actions, we have to consider that Donald Trump is increasingly delusional. Compared to the tired and confused Biden, many people will point to Trump’s hyperactivity as proving that old age isn’t affecting him. This conclusion ignores the fact that manic activity itself is a danger sign.

It’s difficult to believe that the people closest to us are unaware of a person’s decline or their personality traits becoming extreme. Just as the Democrats in and out of the white house had to know Biden wasn’t up to the job and getting worse, Republicans and others in the white house and Congress seem to ignore a troubled Trump.

Even with visual knowledge of Biden’s decline, Democrats discouraged anyone else from running for President. Dean Phillips, the only one who mounted a challenge, was ultimately driven from the party. For reasons of personal ambition, misplaced loyalty, a devious plan, or fear of reprisal, Democrats stood with Biden until a disastrous debate made his failing clear to everybody. Could something similar be taking place on the other side?

Tariffs are the centerpiece of the Trump administration, so that’s a good place to start. While not the easiest subject for an average person, it is undoubtedly within the realm of administration experts. Afghanistan seemed far away and wasn’t much on the public’s mind until the situation escalated. Tariffs aren’t easily understood, but they can now harm businesses, disrupt the nation’s finances, and even lead to a Constitutional crisis.

At the beginning of April, Trump declared tariffs of greater scope than the notorious Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act. Basing his actions on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), he claimed that trade imbalances and the fentanyl crisis are present emergencies that demand the broad imposition of tariffs.

Almost immediately, various entities filed suit to block the tariffs. One was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia by Learning Resources and Hand2Mind, two small, family-owned companies that manufacture educational toys, with much of their production taking place in Asia. Another was brought in the U.S. Court of International Trade by several small businesses, including V.O.S. Selections, a New York wine importer, and Terry Precision Cycling. The plaintiffs in both cases were successful, but the courts granted stays to allow for government appeals.

At this point, things went off the rails for the Administration. Trump’s government attorneys were aware that the courts had ruled the Administration had exceeded its authority. Any reasonable reading of the opinions would reveal that they were well-founded. Even though the courts allowed the tariffs to proceed, there was a substantial likelihood that they would ultimately be blocked by the courts.

The prudent action under the circumstances was to hold off on the tariffs till the courts made a final decision. Taking in tens of billions of dollars from a wide range of domestic importers only to have to refund them would likely result in a chaotic situation.

Trump instead went roaring ahead, willy-nilly, placing tariffs on a slew of nations and negotiating what appeared to be one-sided trade deals with some countries. Billions flowed into the treasury, reducing the need for debt sales. The Administration and its supporters claimed success, but at least some were aware that the tariffs were subject to reversal. Just as some of Biden’s military and foreign relations advisors claim to have told him his Afghan policy was hazardous, somebody had to make Trump aware that he was racing down a perilous road. As in the Afghan case, there still is no public dissent.

This silence is strange because so many of Trump’s advisors are on record as opposing tariffs. Marco Rubio, who holds down four top administration jobs, including Secretary of State, has excoriated Trump over tariffs. All cheered when the Court applied its “major question rule” to ban Biden’s plan to forgive billions of student loans by executive action. Still, they are okay with Trump going far beyond that by executive action.

To make matters worse, Trump has gone beyond his perceived emergencies to expand the tariffs. For instance, he’s placed high tariffs on Brazil, even though it runs a trade deficit with the U.S. and has never been a fentanyl source. His high-handed behavior has alienated a slew of formerly friendly nations. The Prime Minister of India, the most populous country on earth, was last seen huddling in China with other U.S. antagonists. Canada is our enemy?

At the end of August, an Appeals Court sided with the Court of International Trade. For one thing, Article I, Section eight gives Congress, not the executive, the power to “lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and excises.” An amicus brief filed by a coalition of constitutional scholars made this and other points that the courts included in their decisions against the Administration. Being aware of this brief is essential because the authors’ judicial philosophies align with a majority of the Supreme Court justices. Many people think that because Trump appointed some of them, they’ll vote his way. They forget that these justices were selected from a Federalist list that Trump agreed to during his 2016 campaign, which was intended to appeal to traditional conservatives. There is no indication they’re Trump loyalists.

How is all of this the actions of someone with all his faculties? Why go so far down this path when the courts are likely to rule against you? The Administration has requested expedited action from the Supreme Court, and we can only hope the Court acts promptly to limit the damage.

While supposed experts believe we won’t have a Supreme Court decision until next June, a decision may come much sooner. The District of Columbia case has already bypassed the Court of Appeals and is now at the Supreme Court, and may receive a decision at the Court’s conference on September 29th. Although the case’s application is narrower, it encompasses all the same elements as the other two decisions, so it makes sense to consider all the cases together.

A quicker resolution will limit the chaos and move it away from the 2026 elections, but it should never have gone this far. The nation has every reason to ask what the President is thinking, or better yet, whether he even comprehends the likely upheaval. Biden was aged. What’s with Trump? His actions, or lack thereof, in other areas, such as immigration or Ukraine, seem as confused as his tariff policy.