President Donald Trump on Friday unveiled a new 10% worldwide tariff set to take effect immediately, responding to a Supreme Court ruling that restricted his ability to impose certain trade duties under emergency powers. While criticizing the decision, Trump said his administration would move forward using other legal avenues and confirmed that previously enacted national security and China-related tariffs will remain in force.

At a press conference following the Court’s 6-3 decision, Trump described the ruling as “deeply disappointing” and declared, “Today I will sign an order to impose a 10% global tariff under Section 122 over and above our normal tariffs already being charged.”

He singled out Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Brett Kavanaugh for their dissents, commending their positions, while expressing frustration with other members of the Court. Trump said he was “ashamed of certain members of the court” for their rulings.

The majority opinion included Justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, both appointed by Trump, who joined Chief Justice John Roberts in applying the major questions doctrine. Justice Elena Kagan, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, agreed that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not authorize tariffs but argued that the matter could have been resolved through traditional statutory interpretation rather than invoking the major questions doctrine.

Trump claimed that foreign governments were reacting positively to the ruling but predicted that their satisfaction would be short-lived. “They’re so happy, and they’re dancing in the streets, but they won’t be dancing for long,” he said.

He also took aim at the Court’s liberal justices, calling them “an automatic no” and comparing their stance to that of congressional Democrats. Trump further alleged that some justices are swayed by political pressure and foreign interests, though he offered no specific evidence to support that claim.

The president said he refrained from public commentary while the case was under review, asserting that he did not want to influence the Court’s deliberations. “I didn’t want to do anything that would affect the decision of the court, because I understand the court,” Trump said, adding that he believes the court can be “very easily swayed.”

He also remarked that he had attempted to conduct himself appropriately during the process. “I want to be a good boy.”

Defending his broader trade strategy, Trump cited recent stock market performance as proof of the effectiveness of his tariff policies. “Our stock market has just recently broken 50,000 on the Dow and … broken 7,000 on the S&P,” he said. “Nobody thought it was possible to do it within four years. And we did it in one year.”

Trump further credited tariffs with influencing geopolitical outcomes, stating they helped resolve “five of the eight wars that I settled,” including tensions between India and Pakistan. He reiterated his belief that the conflict could have escalated into nuclear confrontation and said Pakistan’s prime minister told him he could have “saved 35 million lives” by helping bring the fighting to an end.

He also tied tariffs to domestic security concerns, arguing that trade penalties combined with stricter border measures reduced fentanyl entering the United States by 30%. He characterized the duties as a consequence for countries “illegally sending this poison into our country.”

Trump stressed that tariffs linked to fentanyl enforcement remain unaffected by the Court’s ruling. “All of those tariffs remain,” he said. “They all remain. We’re still getting them, and we will after the decision.”

Although he disagreed with the Court’s reasoning, Trump argued that the ruling still leaves significant authority for imposing tariffs through alternative statutes, quoting from what he described as language in Kavanaugh’s dissent. “Although I firmly disagree with the court’s holding today, the decision might not substantially constrain a president’s ability to order tariffs going forward,” Trump said, reading from the dissent. “And it doesn’t.”

He then cited several other trade laws — including the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, the Trade Act of 1974, and the Tariff Act of 1930 — as mechanisms that can be used to implement duties, describing them as involving a “little bit longer process” but capable of broader application. “In fact, I can charge much more than I was charging,” Trump said.

Calling the decision contradictory, Trump argued that while the Court limited his ability to impose minimal tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, it left open the possibility of sweeping trade restrictions. “To show you how ridiculous the opinion is,” Trump said, “the court said that I’m not allowed to charge even $1 … but I am allowed to cut off any and all trade or business with that same country.”

He maintained that the ruling ultimately clarified presidential authority rather than diminishing it. “The Supreme Court did not overrule tariffs,” Trump said. “They merely overruled a particular use of tariffs.”

Trump reiterated that tariffs enacted for national security reasons and other enforcement measures remain active. “Therefore, effective immediately, all national security tariffs under section 232 and existing Section 301 tariffs … remain in place, fully in place and in full force and effect,” he said.

In addition, the administration is initiating new trade reviews. “We’re also initiating Section 301 and other investigations to protect our country from unfair trading practices of other countries and companies,” Trump said.

He concluded by pledging further steps to compensate for the tools invalidated by the Court. “But other alternatives will now be used to replace the ones that the court incorrectly rejected,” he said. “We have alternatives. Great alternatives.”

{Matzav.com}