As political systems tend to get more opaque, their analysis also becomes increasingly speculative. This is precisely why deciphering political currents — such as the shifting loyalties and impending purges within the Chinese Communist Party — is still referred to as reading the tea leaves. On the other side of the world, both geographically and philosophically, as one begins to ignore the noise from the White House, there isn’t much left to interpret. This effectively means that understanding political shifts in the US is also akin to reading the tea leaves.As the United States Supreme Court struck down the government’s “Liberation Day” tariffs — implemented using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) of 1977 — President Donald Trump responded with an expected hissy, irritated by the fact that even some of the conservative members of the judiciary, a few of whom he’d appointed also sided against his expansionary tariff agenda. In substantive terms, following the judgment on Friday, he first signed an executive order implementing a 10 per cent worldwide tariff using Section 122 of the Trade Powers Act of 1974.AdvertisementSomething changed overnight, and on Saturday, Trump put out a social media post that said, “effective immediately, raising the 10 per cent Worldwide Tariff on Countries, many of which have been ‘ripping’ the US off for decades, without retribution (until I came along!), to the fully allowed, and legally tested, 15 per cent level.” Section 122 allows the US executive to implement tariffs without congressional assent for 150 days in response to a serious balance of payments imbalance or crisis.Also Read | Space opens up in tariff saga. India can use itOn the face of it, Trump’s actions are exactly how the world expected them to be. But they hide the government’s gradually shifting stance on tariffs. Developments over the past few weeks make it clear that parts of his administration, including Trump himself, are at least beginning to rethink the utility of this dramatic shift towards a variety of protectionism not seen in almost a century. However, unlike Trump’s first term, his current government has been a tightly run ship. There have been fewer press leaks, nor have we seen a flurry of high-level appointees resign in frustration or be fired. Behind this is a man in charge of both his executive and, moreover, the Republican Party itself.In populist political systems, opposing opinions are not exactly encouraged and are generally a recipe for purges. This explains why most of the GOP have been reluctant to call out Trump’s tariffs, even as the gains of industrialisation they promised are nowhere to be seen, leaving behind a lingering fear of an inflationary spike. Thus, in a relatively closed political set-up — which the Trumpian order is — one has to read the tea leaves to understand shifting political and policy positions. And some good old tasseography tells us that long before the US Supreme Court struck down these tariffs, Trump’s position on them had already shifted.Consider these four recent instances.AdvertisementFirst, and closer to home, the recent joint statement following the India–US trade deal (more like an understanding) makes for interesting reading. Here is the list of products mentioned in the joint statement, which will now be charged a lower (18 per cent) tariff: “Textile and apparel, leather and footwear, plastic and rubber, organic chemicals, home décor, artisanal products, and certain machinery.” It’s hard to miss that every single one of these products is something that either average households consume or that goes into their production.Second, even more starkly, the US–Bangladesh trade deal took the tariffs down to zero per cent for textiles. Sure, they came with some important caveats, but the underlying theme is again obvious. Textiles and apparel are things average Americans consume, and they ought to stay affordable.Third, according to the Financial Times, the US government is planning to scale back its steel and aluminium tariffs, which were hiked to 50 per cent this past summer. Steel and aluminium are key inputs for several US industries and can be quite inflationary if they stay in place over a prolonged period.Finally, a couple of weeks back, in an extraordinary move, six House Republicans sided with the Democrats to strike down the US tariffs on Canada. This didn’t mean much in practical terms, as Trump could still veto it. But the political optics of it were quite revealing. Almost all six Republican members of the House of Representatives are either overtly anti-Trump or don’t seek re-election. This makes it less politically costly for them to openly rebuke the White House.you may likeRegardless, open denunciation of Trumpian tariffs by even a small section of Republicans highlights how the fears of inflation are beginning to bother congressional members, given the midterms later this year. After all, most models also predicted that it would take about a year for prices to rise following Trump’s tariffs. We are getting closer to that mark. However, it was Trump’s reaction to the House vote that was far more insightful. Unlike the deal with India and Bangladesh and the decision to roll back steel and aluminium tariffs, this decision was not made by Trump. Consequently, Trump openly berated the six dissenting Republicans.The recent Supreme Court decision should also be seen in the same light. The tariff-induced pain threshold of the US citizenry and political class is beginning to surface. They all realise this can’t go on for too long. Trump also gets it. But given that he’s built his entire political persona around this one trade policy instrument, he can’t openly abandon it, even if he recognises its political costs.In an ideal world, Trump would have liked to gradually phase out tariffs himself. But then the Supreme Court decision came along. Now, Trump has little choice but to return to his combative best. For the time being, the rest of the world should brace for more uncertainty.The writer is associate fellow, Observer Research Foundation (ORF)