On February 20, 2026, President Trump issued a series of executive orders for a surcharge, effective this coming Tuesday, February 24. As all know this was a response to the decision of the Supreme Court. The politics of Trump and the decision of the Supreme Court are not only current affairs but need to be seen in their historical context. As the United States marks its 250th anniversary, it is proper to look beyond the headlines to the historical DNA of the Republic to understand why Europe’s current trajectory is so profoundly out of sync with its greatest ally.

The War of the Surcharge: A 250-Year Tradition

The American Revolution was sparked by the rejection of arbitrary economic control. During the lead-up to the American Revolution in the 1760s and 1770s, tariffs, referred to then as import duties or taxes on goods, played a central role in escalating tensions between the American colonies and Great Britain. The British Parliament imposed a series of tariffs on the colonies to raise revenue, primarily to cover debts from the French and Indian War and to fund British troops stationed in North America. Key examples included the Sugar Act of 1764, which taxed sugar, molasses, and other goods; the Stamp Act of 1765, which required stamps on legal documents and printed materials; and the Townshend Acts of 1767, which levied duties on imports like glass, lead, paint, paper, and tea. These measures were enacted without colonial representation in Parliament, fueling the rallying cry of “no taxation without representation.”

Colonists viewed these tariffs not just as financial burdens but as assertions of British control over colonial affairs. Resistance grew through boycotts, protests, and smuggling. The Townshend Acts, for instance, led to widespread non-importation agreements among merchants. The Tea Act of 1773, which effectively gave the British East India Company a monopoly on tea sales while maintaining a duty on it, culminated in the Boston Tea Party, where colonists dumped tea into Boston Harbor in protest. Britain’s punitive response, including the Coercive Acts (known as the Intolerable Acts in the colonies), further united the colonies and pushed them toward independence. The Declaration of Independence itself accused King George III of “cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world” and imposing taxes without consent. Thus, tariffs were a key catalyst in the revolutionary movement, symbolizing broader issues of autonomy and rights.

Reflection in the US Constitution

The experiences with British tariffs heavily influenced the framing of the US Constitution in 1787. To prevent the abuses of unchecked taxation and to centralize economic authority, the Constitution grants Congress exclusive power over tariffs and trade. Specifically, Article I, Section 8 empowers Congress “To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.” This clause ensures that tariffs (duties and imposts) are a federal prerogative, used for revenue and regulation of commerce, while requiring uniformity to avoid favoritism among states.

Additionally, to address fears of export taxes that could harm agrarian Southern states, Article I, Section 9 prohibits Congress from taxing exports: “No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.” Article I, Section 10 further restricts states from imposing their own duties on imports or exports without congressional consent, except for necessary inspection fees, and requires any net proceeds from such duties to go to the US Treasury. These provisions reflect the Founders’ intent to unify trade policy, prevent interstate economic conflicts, and limit executive overreach in taxation—lessons drawn directly from colonial grievances.

Post-ratification, the Tariff Act of 1789 became one of the first laws passed by Congress, establishing tariffs as a primary revenue source for the new government while protecting nascent industries.

As we can see the British Parliament’s imposition of duties without colonial consent was the primary catalyst for independence. However, the Founding Fathers were not “free traders” in the modern, borderless sense. They understood that a nation without the power to control its borders and its commerce is not a nation at all. The U.S. Constitution was thus designed specifically to fix the weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation, which allowed states to impose their own conflicting tariffs.

Europe’s Failed Response: Bureaucracy vs. Market Reality

While the U.S. leans into its constitutional roots of small government and national sovereignty, the European Union has drifted toward a bureaucratic elitism that prioritizes political and social engineering over economic vitality. This can be seen in three very clear ways.

1. The Manufacturing Crisis
   The 15% surcharge will hit European exports—particularly German automobiles—at a time when the EU is already hamstrung by its own “Green Deal” regulations. Instead of deregulating to compete, Brussels’ reflex is more along the lines of a trade war, further isolating European consumers.
2. The Digital Divide
   Look at the presence of Microsoft, Google, and Meta in Ireland. They are there because of tax competition and a relative distance from the heavy-handed bureaucracy of the Commission. Yet, the EU continues to target these American innovators with “digital service taxes” and restrictive AI regulations (the AI Act). Europe seems to be regulating itself into irrelevance while the U.S. builds the future in AI in a strong competition with China.
3. The Myth of the “Regulator”
   The EU system allows for the Commission to act as a government without the accountability of an electorate. Unlike the U.S. system, where the President is directly answerable for the economic state of the union, the Brussels bureaucracy is insulated. Speaking of the state of the union, we can look forward to the address on Tuesday February 24th.This construction of the EU has allowed for a focus on “what-not-rights” signaling and politics while the demographic and economic base erodes.

A Thatcherite realignment as path forward

As we face a 15% tariff wall on Tuesday, Europe must decide: How will it move forward, double down on the failed policies of the past, or to return to the European roots of liberty and subsidiarity?
A “Thatcherite” Europe would recognize that the U.S. is not our enemy, but our mirror. Europe needs to dismantle the bureaucratic silos that stifle innovation. It needs to stop regulating away problems like unemployment and instead change the incentives. If Europe wants American companies to stay and invest in Europe, it must offer them a market that values freedom as much as the U.S. Constitution does.
Everybody knows that the era of European “freeloading” on American security and trade openness is over. Europe must now adapt or be left behind in the history books.