Trump doubles down after SCOTUS blocks global tariffs

• Check the timeline of all tariffs implemented by Trump to datehere
• Read the transcript of Trump's response to the court decisionhere

The U.S. Supreme Courton Friday determined that U.S. PresidentDonald Trumpexceeded his presidential power by enforcingtariffsin Canada, Mexico, and other nations utilizing emergency powers, invalidating a key economic and diplomatic approach that has disrupted international trade.

Trump reacted to the decisionby implementing a new 10 percent worldwide tax through a different regulatory body, following a harsh critique of the court's ruling during an intense press briefing at the White House.

The updated tariff, effective for 150 days, begins on Tuesday and will not affect products that meet the standards of the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement on free trade (CUSMA), which is scheduled for evaluation this summer.

Trump also noted that additional tariffs he has implemented on different sectors — such as steel, aluminum, vehicles, and wood — are still in effect even after the Supreme Court's decision.

A majority of the judgessupported lower courts that had determined Trump unlawfully applied tariffsTo address national emergencies, he issued measures targeting fentanyl trafficking across North America and international trade imbalances, the latter resulting in so-called "reciprocal" tariffs imposed on numerous countries.

The law that Trump relied on to exercise that power, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEPPA), "does not allow the President to impose tariffs," stated Chief Justice John Roberts in the majority opinion.

Two of Trump's judicial appointees, Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gorsuch, aligned with Roberts and the three liberal judges in invalidating the tariffs.

"I feel deeply embarrassed by some members of the court, completely embarrassed, for lacking the bravery to do what is correct for our nation," he stated, referring to the liberal justices as "a disgrace" and describing Barrett and Gorsuch as "an embarrassment to their families" for supporting them.

In my view, the court has been influenced by foreign interests and a political movement that is much smaller than most people assume.

The decision is a setback for Trump, who has described his ability to swiftly impose tariffs as a "critical" bargaining asset. He argues that these tariffs are aiding in reducing the national debt and funding specific domestic policy goals, even though recent figures indicate that the historic U.S. trade deficit keeps increasing.

On Friday night, Trump issued an executive order formally terminating the IEEPA tariffs, stating that they will cease to be collected "as soon as possible."

Video: U.S. Supreme Court overturns Trump's international tariffs

Trump stated he plans to initiate further investigations regarding foreign imports under Section 301 of the U.S. Trade Act, a provision akin to the one in Section 232 of the U.S. Trade Expansion Act that he has previously utilized to implement targeted tariffs — increasing the chances of additional duties being introduced.

The 10 percent tariff introduced is covered under Section 122 of the U.S. Trade Act. The White House stated that it will not affect products already subject to tariffs under Section 232, along with specific agricultural items that are not capable of being produced within the United States.

Some electronic, aerospace, and pharmaceutical products, along with certain vehicles and vehicle components, will also be exempt.

Most products from Canada and Mexico were already avoiding the fentanyl-related taxes because of CUSMA. Several nations have also entered into new trade agreements with the U.S., replacing the "reciprocal" tariffs with reduced duties.

Nevertheless, the decision removes a crucial bargaining and diplomatic tool that Trump has employed to pressure nations with tariffs in return for trade and foreign policy concessions. However, Trump stated he would resort to "other alternatives" instead.

"In reality, although I believe they didn't intend to, the Supreme Court's ruling today has made a president's power to regulate commerce and set tariffs more evident and stronger, rather than less," he stated.

The decision also fails to resolve the matter of reimbursing tariffs collected from American companies on imported goods, which Trump has indicated might require legal action.

The Penn-Wharton Budget Model from the University of Pennsylvania forecasted on Fridaythat the U.S. government has generated $164.7 billion in income from IEEPA tariffs by itself, making up 52 percent of all customs duties since last January.

The case included two legal actions that questioned Trump's application of the IEEPA, a 1977 law granting the president authority over financial dealings in times of crisis.

Trump initially invoked the law in February to establish a national emergency concerning fentanyl smuggling into the United States, and implemented broad tariffs on Canada, Mexico, and China to compel those nations to take measures against the problem.

He subsequently labeled ongoing U.S. trade deficits as a national emergency in April, which resulted in what he referred to as "Liberation Day" and the implementation of "reciprocal" tariffs on much of the rest of the world.

The court supported the plaintiffs, who claimed that the IEEPA does not explicitly reference tariffs as a solution for national emergencies, that Trump's tariffs are an unsuitable reaction to the particular emergencies he declared—especially the one related to the fentanyl crisis—and that ongoing trade deficits do not constitute an "emergency" in the first place.

Roberts and the other justices in the majority also consistently highlighted that the U.S. Constitution grants Congress exclusive power over domestic and foreign taxes, including tariffs imposed on entire countries.

Video: Trump claims the Supreme Court's decision opposing tariffs would be "devastating"

The administration of President Trump presented in court that the law's wording permitting the president to control imports during a national emergency encompasses tariffs, a claim the court did not endorse.

"Based on two words separated by 16 others" within the IEEPA, Roberts wrote —“'regulate' and 'importation'—the President claims the autonomous authority to levy tariffs on imports from any nation, on any item, at any level, for any duration.

Those statements are not capable of carrying such burden.

Gorsuch expressed in his concurring opinion that the White House should recognize the significance of addressing critical matters such as trade and international relations through Congress, enacting laws that remain effective beyond the "momentary" preferences of a president.

To those who believe it is crucial for the country to implement additional tariffs, I recognize that today's decision may be disappointing," he wrote. "All I can provide them with is the understanding that most significant decisions impacting the rights and obligations of American citizens (such as the responsibility to pay taxes and tariffs) are directed through the legislative process for a purpose.

Indeed, passing laws can be challenging and time-consuming. And, certainly, it may be appealing to skip Congress when an urgent issue emerges. However, the careful and thoughtful process of legislation was precisely the intention behind its creation.

Ontario's Premier Doug Ford used X to respond to the tariff ruling on Friday, referring to the outcome as a significant win.

More on Canada

• Flight from Edmonton loses control, veers off taxiway at Hamilton airport
• Coffee-hockey mix — or morning ales? — for sleep-deprived Olympic viewers
• Canada advises Indigenous people to have a passport when traveling across the U.S. border

"Today's decision by the U.S. Supreme Court represents another significant win in the ongoing effort to challenge President Trump's tariffs, but the struggle is far from finished," Ford stated.

We must continue the battle against tariffs on automobiles, steel, aluminum, and forestry, which are still in effect and are harming our workers. I will not cease fighting until all tariffs imposed on Canada are removed, allowing our economies to expand and jobs to be created on both sides of the border.

Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre also used social media to react, stating the decision was "a step in the right direction," but cautioned that additional efforts are needed to remove existing tariffs in Canada.

In a positive CUSMA review, we anticipate the removal of lumber, aluminum, steel, and auto tariffs," he stated on X. "Any outcome short of this would mean our workers keep facing difficulties.

The court's decision on Friday represents an unusual criticism from the high court, which saw its conservative majority grow during Trump's initial term, against Trump's attempt to increase presidential authority while undermining congressional supervision.

In his dissenting opinion, Justice Brett Kavanaugh highlighted numerous unresolved issues stemming from the decision, such as the possible "chaos" surrounding future tariff reimbursements—a point that was recognized during the oral arguments in November.

"The Court remains silent today on whether, and if so, how the government should proceed with returning the billions of dollars it has gathered from importers," he wrote.

A second concern is the impact of the decision on existing trade agreements. IEEPA tariffs have played a role in enabling trade deals valued at trillions of dollars — ranging from countries like China, the United Kingdom, and Japan. The Court’s ruling might introduce uncertainty into these various trade pacts. This process could also prove challenging.

Canadian-U.S. Trade Minister Dominic LeBlanc stated in a social media update that the decision "supports Canada's stance that the IEEPA taxes imposed by the United States are not justified."

Nevertheless, he pointed out that the government continues to strive for the elimination of remaining tariffs on essential industries, through both direct discussions and during the upcoming summer assessment of CUSMA.

"Although Canada has the most favorable trade agreement with the United States among all its trading partners, we acknowledge that significant efforts are still needed to assist Canadian businesses and workers impacted by Section 232 tariffs on steel, aluminum, and automotive industries," he wrote.

Canadian business and industry leaders reacted to the decision on Friday, cautioning that the difficulties are far from resolved.

The Canadian Chamber of Commerce stated that Canada needs to be ready for "more direct measures."

"The Supreme Court's ruling to eliminate the use of IEEPA tariff authorities is a legal decision, not a shift in U.S. trade policy. This is definitely not the final part of this ongoing situation. Canada needs to get ready for new, more forceful methods to apply trade pressure, which could have wider and more damaging consequences," stated Candace Laing, president and CEO of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, in a written statement.

U.S. tariffs have particularly affected Canada's automotive and auto parts industries, withjob cuts recently observed at General Motors in Ontario.

Flavio Volpe, head of the Automotive Parts Manufacturers' Association, stated that he recognizes the "value" in the decision made on Friday, although the industry continues to deal with import duties.

"There is merit in understanding that the Supreme Court was ready to support the law despite an overreaching President," stated Volpe in a written statement.

It is widely recognized that the President has been abusing the law through unprecedented trade actions against other countries. However, this decision only addresses the IEEPA tariffs, with national security tariffs on industrial goods from Canada still in effect.

The president of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, Dan Kelly, stated that while this decision will not remove the feeling of uncertainty among Canadian business owners, it is still "positive news," particularly as important trade discussions approach.

"Unfortunately, this decision will not resolve the uncertainty surrounding Canada-U.S. trade, nor the severe tariffs on steel and aluminum that both nations have implemented," stated Kelly in a written statement.

Although we shouldn't anticipate the administration ceasing its attempts to implement tariffs, this choice could influence other U.S. political figures to oppose this damaging strategy as both nations reassess the CUSMA agreement. Despite ongoing uncertainty, it's a positive day for Canadian businesses.

Berbagi :