President Donald Trump made it official on Friday night, signing into effect a revised version of his global tariff regime mere hours after the Supreme Courtinvalidated his use of emergency economic powers.
Trump made the announcement on his Truth Social platform.
"It is my Great Honor to have just signed, from the Oval Office, a Global 10% Tariff on all Countries, which will be effective almost immediately," wrote the president. "Thank you for your attention to this matter! PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP"
This comes after both Trump and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent outlined their specific plan to use a number of other federal statutes to impose essentially the same tariffs, insisting that the court's ruling wasn't really a loss for the administration.
But some economic experts have already flagged major legal holes in those statutes that would appear to prohibit the kind of universal tariff scheme Trump is enacting.
The Supreme Court’s sweeping decision invalidating most of President Donald Trump’s tariffs is more than a legal defeat – it’s a warning sign for the long-term viability of Trumpism itself, according to a new analysis in The New Republic.
Trump’s devastating Supreme Court loss – backed by two of his hand-picked justices – signals that the foundations of his populist nationalist agenda are beginning to crack, wrote columnist Greg Sargent.
“The Supreme Court’s stunning decision invalidating Donald Trump’s tariffs isn’t just a major legal setback, though it certainly is that,” Sargent told readers Friday. “The loss before the high court is also another sign that the pillars of Trump’s right-wing nationalist agenda are crumbling in a much broader and deeper sense.”
Sargent identified two core pillars of Trumpism – sweeping tariffs and mass deportations – as now being in crisis. “Together they make up much of the foundation of Trumpism’s fantasy version of nationalist renewal,” he wrote. “Both of those are now in crisis.”
The high court’s 6-3 ruling struck down roughly 60 to 70 percent of Trump’s tariffs, forcing the administration to refund $175 billion plus interest, Sargent noted Friday. Meanwhile, Trump’s deportation agenda, the writer added, has been “widely discredited in the minds of all but the molten MAGA core” and has generated resistance across America.
“It’s also no accident that the tariffs and the deportations are the locus points of Trump’s most spectacular governing failures,” Sargent wrote.
The result, he argued Friday, is a major political setback to the president’s MAGA agenda – and an “unusual situation” for the Republican president.
“The economy and immigration are traditional GOP strengths, but Trump has managed the distinction of being a Republican president who is profoundly unpopular on both,” Sargent added.
The policies, he concluded, have become “the most important reasons that his entire presidency is sinking deeper and deeper into utter, monumental failure.”
Republican leaders are facing a new political dilemma – thanks to the Supreme Court’s devastating blow to President Donald Trump’s tariff agenda.
The ruling means any future votes on tariffs "will no longer be symbolic" as Congress will now be forced to decide whether to restore the president’s signature policy through legislation, according to Axios.
Speaker Mike Johnson and Senate Majority Leader John Thune must now confront a long-simmering divide inside their party over trade policy. “They'll be choosing between protecting vulnerable incumbents — and their own narrow majorities — or standing with a president whose help they'll need in the midterms,” Axios reported Friday.
Johnson praised the tariffs’ impact in a Friday post on X, citing billions in revenue and “immense leverage for America's trade strategy.”
But the Republican leader stopped short of calling for Congress to formally reinstate Trump’s tariff authority, instead saying it would work with the MAGA administration to find “the best path forward in the coming weeks.
“For most of Trump's presidency, Johnson has kept his party's divide on tariffs largely hidden with a procedural trick,” Axios said. But the divide is already on full display, the outlet added.
Several House Republicans recently joined Democrats to repeal tariffs on Canada, while others publicly welcomed the high court’s decision, which, according to Axios, "traps GOP leaders." They include Rep. Don Bacon (R-NE), Rep. Jeff Hurd (R-CO), and Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY).
Democrats, meanwhile, “framed the ruling as a rebuke of executive overreach and a win for consumers,” according to Axios.
The U.S. Supreme Court may have just handed President Donald Trump a political gift – one that’s deeply humiliating, according to The Atlantic’s David Frum.
In a ruling that struck down Trump’s sweeping tariff regime, the MAGAfied high court delivered a decisive check on presidential power, making clear that the Constitution assigns taxing authority to Congress, not the White House. His tariffs, which began in April, were projected to raise as much as $2.3 trillion over 10 years, Frum wrote Friday.
That’s where Frum, a former speechwriter for President George W. Bush, says the real political fallout begins.
“The ironic political question for 2026 is whether the U.S. Supreme Court acted in time to save Trump from himself,” Frum told readers. “Whether or not it was the justices’ intention to help Trump, a generally Trump-friendly Supreme Court has offered the president an exit from one of his most unpopular domestic policies.”
The question, according to the Atlantic writer, is whether Trump will take it.
“Will he accept the handout? Acceptance would be smart, but humiliating,” Frum added. The president advertised his tariffs “as a revenue source liberated from the restraints imposed by Article I of the Constitution.” But the court's rejection of that theory shut down what Frum warned would have amounted to “a constitutional revolution.”
He ended his Friday column by expressing optimism, telling readers that U.S. stocks surged after Trump’s devastating Supreme Court defeat.
And, he concluded, “American consumers may soon feel the benefit,” while allies may also see trade relations stabilize now that they are “liberated from this approach to economic warfare.”
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent hinted that the American people would never see the return of $175 billion in tariffs collected by the Trump administration after the Supreme Court struck down the president's ability to impose them.
During an event at the Economic Club of Dallas on Friday, Ray Washburne noted that the administration had collected about $175 billion in tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) before the court ruled it unconstitutional.
"But is that going to be in dispute?" Washburne asked. "Like who gets it back?"
"Yeah, it's in dispute," Bessent confirmed. "The Supreme Court did not rule on that today. They pushed it back down to the International Tax and Trade Court. And my sense is that could be dragged out for weeks, months, years."
"Well, that's going to be a food fight going after the $175 billion," Washburne observed.
"I got a feeling the American people won't see it," Bessent predicted.
Trump has vowed to continue imposing tariffs despite the court's ruling on Friday.
A historian Friday described the historic impact of the Supreme Court's decision in its ruling against President Donald Trump's tariffs — something the nation's founders would have appreciated.
Tim Naftali, CNN's presidential historian and former head of the Nixon Presidential Library, explained why the high court's ruling was an active practice of what the Constitution was intended to do.
"Well, wherever he is, James Madison is smiling today. Tariffs are a tax. The founders decided that taxes should be the responsibility of the Article One branch, which is Congress," Naftali said.
"And today the U.S. Constitution worked as it's supposed to work, which is to keep various parts of the government in check when they overstep constitutional bounds," he added.
The court's decision was also one of many times throughout history that the Supreme Court has pushed back on a president.
"This is a huge moment in American history," Naftali said. "Donald Trump is not the first president to have been disappointed by the court. The courts in the 1930s invalidated Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal. That's what led to the first push to pack the court that was Roosevelt's response to the fact that he was so angry at the court for undermining the New Deal.
"In the end, the court changed, and the New Deal stayed. Richard Nixon was furious at the court for forcing him to turn over the tapes when he lost the case. U.S. v Nixon. Well, the Dobbs decision really unsettled the Biden presidency. And Obama was not happy with Citizens United."
He said it's not new for presidents to be unhappy about a Supreme Court decision, but it is American.
"It's the way that it works. Our system is supposed to work this way every so often. One of the branches is supposed to be disappointed when it can't engage in a power grab that is unconstitutional."
President Donald Trump was dealt a huge blow by the Supreme Court on Friday as they eliminated his ability to impose tariffs under economic emergency powers — but he almost at once declared he will continue to charge global tariffs, using a number of alternative statutes. During his rant, he claimed under the ruling, he can't charge tariffs to foreign countries but can "destroy the country" by cutting off all trade to it instead.
Trump's bizarre diatribe, as well as his vow to keep all the same policies the Supreme Court eliminated in place by other means, provoked a stunned reaction from commenters on social media.
"Trump announces a new 10% global tariff. Happy midterms, @GOP," wrote progressive political commentator Brian Tyler Cohen.
"Did Donald Trump just openly defy the court’s decision?! He will now impose tariffs by other statutory means," wrote Princeton University professor Eddie Glaude.
"He's having a mental breakdown over this," said Chronicles writer Pedro Gonzalez.
"Dude is screaming 'I'm allowed to destroy the country' in a ramble about tariffs," wrote conspiracy theory expert Mike Rothschild. "He's absolutely cooked, but they need him to stay in office another 11 months, or JD Vance's campaign is DOA."
"What's amazing about Trump is that if you created a fictional character with as little subtext as him, they'd get rejected for being too cartoonishly unrealistic," wrote YouTuber Velodus. "'You can't just have him say he's allowed to destroy the country, that's too on the nose,' your editor would say."
CNN hosts were taken aback by how angry President Donald Trump was Friday after the Supreme Court struck down his tariffs.
Anchors Boris Sanchez and Brianna Keilar were talking to senior White House correspondent Kristen Holmes about Trump's reaction to the Supreme Court's ruling — and how noticeably upset he appeared to be during it. Trump called the move "deeply disappointing" during a press conference and his first public reaction to the high court's decision. He also said that the SCOTUS justices who voted against his tariffs are "barely" invited to his State of the Union address next week, saying, "I couldn't care less if they come."
"Yeah, he is clearly angry," Holmes said. "He's been seething about this decision. This is the real core tenet of not just his economic agenda, but really his foreign policy agenda as well. He has used these tariffs as leverage, and he said specifically yes, he is going this alternative route. Yes, he is going to be invoking this 10% global tariffs by using the section 122. We know that they are looking into also using section 301. Those are the things those trade law that they're talking about to get this done. But that being said, the reason that they had gone this route initially was because this was quicker. They wanted this to be done quicker. They wanted to be able to instate this quicker. And that is why you're seeing this frustration from President Trump."
Trump was vocal and expressed his annoyance that he wanted his tariffs to continue despite the high court's decision. He also refused to answer CNN questions during the press briefing, calling the network "fake news."
"And I will say there were several interesting things he said. One, he was asked specifically about the two justices that he appointed to the Supreme Court," Holmes said.
Trump had a scathing comment to the justices he had appointed who voted down his tariffs.
"The question that I had also tried to ask, which is whether or not he regretted it, he wouldn't answer that, but he said it was an embarrassment," Holmes said. "This decision to rule against the tariffs was an embarrassment to their families. We know that he has ranted in the past about Supreme Court justices, particularly those he has appointed, who don't rule in his favor, but it was very clear here today that he was incredibly angry; he was angry at the court. He was angry at the people that he put into place. And he said so much, saying that they should be ashamed of themselves and of this decision that they made."
Trump praised the three justices who dissented from the decision, including Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who issued a 63-page dissent.
"Now, one of the things we also saw him do was walk through the dissent from Kavanaugh, who obviously ruled in favor of keeping the tariffs or against them being illegal and said that he that Kavanaugh had sort of set up a roadmap for what they were going to be doing now to instate these tariffs and praised Kavanaugh as well also mentioning that all the Supreme Court justices are still invited to the State of the Union, but barely but again, you could see how angry he was," Holmes said. "This is a core part of what they do what he has been doing, both in terms of economic policy, paying for different programs, saying that these tariffs are going to various different programs and bailouts, as well as when he goes into meetings with these foreign leaders using the tariffs as an enormous amount of leverage and really doing so carte blanche until now."
President Donald Trump took a shot at two justices he nominated to be on the Supreme Court — Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett — after they ruled that he had illegally imposed massive tariffs.
"Are you surprised in particular by their decision today?" Trump was asked during a White House press conference on Friday.
"I am," the president stated.
"Do you regret nominating them?" the reporter pressed.
"I don't want to say whether or not I regret," Trump replied. "I think their decision was terrible. I think it's an embarrassment to their families. You want to know the truth, the two of them."
President Donald Trump blasted members of the Supreme Court who ruled against his ability to impose tariffs in a 6-3 decision.
During a White House news conference on Friday, Trump said he was "ashamed of certain members of the court."
"Absolutely ashamed, for not having the courage to do what's right for our country," the president explained. "I'd like to thank and congratulate justices Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh for their strength and wisdom and love of our country, which is right now very proud of those justices."
Trump argued that foreign countries were "dancing in the streets" because of the tariff ruling.
"The Democrats on the court are thrilled, but they will automatically vote no," he said. "They also are a, frankly, disgrace to our nation, those justices. They're an automatic no matter how good a case you have. It said no."
"They're very unpatriotic and disloyal to our Constitution," he continued. "It's my opinion that the Court has been swayed by foreign interests and a political movement that is far smaller than people would ever think. Movement. I won by millions of votes. We won in a landslide. With all the cheating that went on, there was a lot of it, but we still won in a landslide."
"But these people are obnoxious, ignorant, and loud. They don't want to do the right thing. They're afraid of it."
President Donald Trump erupted at the Supreme Court on Friday after it ruled against his authority to impose sweeping tariffs, vowing to circumvent its decision with “alternatives” and lambasting the justices for their "ridiculous opinion,” which he claimed permitted him to "destroy" countries.
The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 earlier on Friday that Trump acted outside his authority when imposing his sweeping tariffs, which his administration had justified under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). As such, a significant share of Trump’s tariffs have now been declared unlawful.
“The court said that I'm not allowed to charge even $1! Can't charge one dollar to any country under IEEPA!” Trump raged during an address from the White House.
“But I am allowed to cut off any and all trade or business with that same country; in other words, I can destroy the trade, I can destroy the country! I'm even allowed to impose a foreign country-destroying embargo, I can embargo! I can do anything I want, but I can't charge $1!”
Trump has staked much of his presidency on his tariff policy, warning over the past several months that a ruling against the policy could lead to a $2 trillion “catastrophe” and reduce the United States to “almost Third World status.”
Now that the Supreme Court has ruled against the tariffs, Trump appears ready to circumvent the order through alternative tariffs, tariffs that he argued could generate “more money.”
“I can do anything I want to do to them, but I can't charge any money,” Trump continued. “So I'm allowed to destroy the country, but I can't charge them a little fee. How ridiculous is that?”
Trump erupts at SCOTUS after ruling against tariffs:
"I can destroy the trade, I can destroy the country! I'm even allowed to impose a foreign country-destroying embargo, I can embargo! I can do anything I want, but I can't charge one dollar!” pic.twitter.com/shwto7FAcc — Alexander Willis (@ReporterWillis) February 20, 2026
President Donald Trump slammed liberal justices after the Supreme Court ruled against his tariffs on Friday.
In his first public comments since the decision, Trump called the high court's ruling "deeply disappointing" and described his frustration following the 6-3 vote during a White House press briefing.
"The Democrats on the court are thrilled but they will automatically vote 'no.' They're an automatic 'no' just like in Congress, they're an automatic 'no,'" Trump said.
"They're against anything that makes America strong, healthy and great again. They also are a, frankly, disgrace to our nation, those justices. They're an automatic 'no' no matter how good a case you have — it's a 'no.' You can't knock their loyalty. It's one thing you can do with some of our people."
Trump claimed he had tried to use discretion around his tariffs.
"I was very modest in my ask of other countries and businesses because I wanted to do and it's very important, I wanted to be very well-behaved because I... didn't want to do anything to affect the decision of the court," Trump said. "Because I understand the court. I understand how they're very easily swayed. I wanted to be a good boy."
Following a Supreme Court decision on tariffs, Andrew Kolvet, co-host of The Charlie Kirk show, admitted that consumers would get "screwed" because President Donald Trump had no intention of refunding the effective taxes paid due to his illegal policies.
During Friday's edition of The Charlie Kirk Show, Kolvet argued that consumers paid only 20% of the cost of Trump's tariffs, even though The Wall Street Journal foundit was at least 90%.
"But if, let's assume that they were right about that," Kolvet said, "then Americans are basically going to get double tax because of this court decision, which is hilarious."
Co-host Blake Neff read a question from a viewer: "Kathy asked, is the possibility of refunding tariffs to the importers. A lot of them have passed costs onto consumers. Do the consumers get a refund also?"
"The answer is no!" Neff admitted.
"Nope!" Kolvet agreed. "We know, it's consumers, the little man gets screwed."
"Get hosed," Neff remarked.
"Listen, you could make the argument that perhaps this was textually the right decision by the letter of the law," Kolvet said. "But it's, there's a measure of insanity to it because you could just ban all the imports. You can't tariff them a single penny!"
