Trump Blasts Supreme Court After 6-3 Decision Blocks His Tariff Emergency Powers
President Donald Trump reacted angrily after the Supreme Court of the United States ruled Friday that he did not have the authority to declare an economic emergency in order to impose broad new tariffs on imports.
The Supreme Court rules 6-3 that Trump lacked authority to impose sweeping tariffs, prompting sharp criticism and renewed debate over trade policy.
The 6-3 decision delivered an uncommon setback to Trump, who had built much of his economic message around tariffs ahead of the midterm elections. He frequently called tariffs his “favorite word in the dictionary,” arguing they would bring factories and jobs back from overseas. He also warned that eliminating the import taxes could push the United States toward a severe recession.
Evan Vucci/AP
The ruling is expected to extend political and economic uncertainty surrounding international trade during the election year.
Trump labeled the decision “deeply disappointing” and “ridiculous,” saying he was “absolutely ashamed” of the six justices who opposed him for lacking what he described as the courage to act in the country’s interest. Speaking at an afternoon briefing, he accused the majority of being aligned with “RINOs” and “radical left Democrats,” calling them unpatriotic and disloyal to the Constitution.
Despite the setback, the president said he would move forward by using existing laws to impose new tariffs without congressional approval. He also maintained that the ruling brought “great certainty” to the economy, though that outcome remains unclear.
Trump acknowledged that some recently negotiated trade agreements would remain intact, while others would not. He also predicted prolonged legal disputes over whether his administration must return billions of dollars already collected in tariff revenue.
According to individuals familiar with the situation, Trump was informed of the decision during a private meeting with governors after receiving a note. The gathering ended shortly afterward. One person briefed on the discussion said Trump remarked that he needed to “do something about these courts.”
Republican strategist Doug Heye said it was evident the president would be displeased and described the ruling as a significant rejection. Still, he suggested Trump would look for alternative paths to advance his trade agenda, though many uncertainties remain.
The White House intends to rely on other statutes to preserve tariffs, but such efforts could prolong debate over a policy that polls show is unpopular. An AP-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research survey in January found about 60% of Americans believed Trump had gone too far in imposing new tariffs. Another poll conducted last April showed 76% expected his tariff policies to raise consumer prices.
Trump’s assertive approach to trade unsettled some Republican lawmakers, who were forced to defend what critics characterized as tax increases. During his second term, at least seven Republican senators voiced concerns, and earlier this month six House Republicans joined Democrats in voting against tariffs on Canada.
Free trade had long been a foundational principle of the Republican Party before Trump reshaped its platform. Kentucky Sen. Mitch McConnell called Trump’s claim that he could bypass Congress “illegal,” emphasizing that trade authority under Article 1 of the Constitution rests with lawmakers.
Former Vice President Mike Pence welcomed the ruling, calling it a victory for constitutional separation of powers and free trade. He wrote that American families and businesses — not foreign governments — ultimately pay tariffs and said the decision offered relief.
Democrats also seized on the outcome. Rep. Suzan DelBene said Trump “is not a king” and argued his tariffs were unlawful from the outset. She criticized congressional Republicans for failing to intervene while higher prices affected families, farmers and small businesses.
The decision provides critics an opportunity to argue Trump broke the law and harmed middle-class households. Nevertheless, he has continued to portray tariffs as essential to economic strength, repeating that message during a speech in Georgia at a steel company, Coosa Steel, where he used the word “tariff” 28 times. He insisted that without import taxes, the country would face serious trouble.
Trump also expressed frustration that he had to await the Court’s ruling, asserting that the law clearly gave him authority to impose tariffs for national security reasons. The justices disagreed.
Throughout his presidency, Trump claimed foreign governments would bear the cost of tariffs and that the revenue could reduce national debt and provide dividends to taxpayers. Research connected to a major U.S. bank found that tariffs paid by midsize American companies tripled over the past year.
Businesses employing a combined 48 million workers have had to absorb the additional costs by raising prices, cutting jobs or accepting lower profits. According to the Congressional Budget Office, Trump’s tariffs were projected to generate $3 trillion over a decade — a substantial figure but not enough to offset expected deficits.
The Supreme Court has not addressed how any potential refunds of collected tariff revenue would be handled.
Comments
Post a Comment