Trump: ‘Deeply Ashamed’ of Certain SCOTUS Justices, Use Alternatives to Impose Tariffs
SCOTUS ruled that the IEEPA does not give the president authorization to impose tariffs.
President Donald Trump is scheduled to hold a press briefing to address the Supreme Court’s striking down of his tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).
Trump didn’t hold back, expressing disappointment in Justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, who he nominated. Trump even suggested foreign interests have invaded SCOTUS:
“The Supreme Court’s ruling on tariffs is deeply disappointing and I’m ashamed of certain members of the Court — absolutely ashamed — for not having the courage to do what’s right for our country. 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. When you read the dissenting opinions, there is no way that anyone can argue against them. There’s no way foreign countries that have been ripping us off for years are ecstatic. They’re so happy, and they’re dancing in the streets, but they won’t be dancing for long. That I can assure you.”
“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. 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. But you can’t knock their loyalty. It’s one thing you can do with some of our people.”
“Others think they’re being politically correct, which has happened before, far too often with certain members of this court. And it’s happened so often with this court. What a shame — having to do with voting in particular, when in fact they’re just being fools and lapdogs for the RINOs and the radical left Democrats. And not that this should have anything at all to do with it. They’re very unpatriotic and disloyal to our Constitution. 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. It’s a small 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. Too big to rig. But these people are obnoxious, ignorant, and loud. They’re very loud. And I think certain justices are afraid of that. They don’t want to do the right thing. They’re afraid of it.”
WATCH: President Trump on the Supreme Court striking down most of his tariffs, says the six justices who voted again the administration for lacking “courage to do what’s right,” “been swayed by foreign interests,” and are “very unpatriotic and disloyal to our Constitution”…… pic.twitter.com/okcYjJRX4f
— Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) February 20, 2026
But at the same time, Trump said the ruling allows him to take other routes, and possibly impose stronger tariffs. So I cannot tell if he is happy or mad, especially since he said he should have used these alternative routes in the first place:
“Effective immediately, all national security tariffs under Section 232 and existing Section 301 tariffs remain in place… Today, I will sign an order to impose a 10% global tariff under Section 122 over and above our normal tariffs already being charged.”
.@POTUS: "Effective immediately, all national security tariffs under Section 232 and existing Section 301 tariffs remain in place… Today, I will sign an order to impose a 10% global tariff under Section 122 over and above our normal tariffs already being charged." pic.twitter.com/LLMeyj92SE
— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) February 20, 2026
Trump on those that filed the tariff lawsuits that won out at the Supreme Court: “We’re going forward. We will be able to take in more money and they'll no longer be doubt because there was always doubt…[W]e have a totally firm decision now, and I don't think the Court meant it… pic.twitter.com/6Crlgynh1S
— Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) February 20, 2026
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Can’t hate the SC , all judicial courts enough
There are some of the most ignorant, radical people on earth sitting in our courts
I am still pissed. I want to affirm a favorite Obama progressive tactic. Let’s reimagine SCOTUS and the entire Federal judiciary, shall we? Let’s defund the judicial branch and the corrupt courts. If Madami can defund the police and Omar can abolish ICE, let’s reduce the size andfunding of the courts and target all the Obama and Biden judges.
Nothing in the constitution protects NYPD or ICE, but the federal judiciary is protected. You can’t fire them except for bad behavior, and you can’t reduce their salaries.
So what happens now?
A lot of of the foreign countries came around to our point of view on tariffs
Only because of Trump‘s threats of retaliatory tariffs.
Now we can sell cars and agricultural products to the countries that formally kept our products out
Will all those trade deals now come unraveled?
Wha happens now is that Trump uses other mechanisms to maintain the tariff pressure.
As one avenue is closed off, another is used in its place. End result, no change.
What is our dually elected Republican executive supposed to do in the normal course of doing his job? Before any policy decision, executive order, or military action is he supposed to ask the SCOTUS or Judge Boasberg if what he wants to do is okay and does he have their approval?
It appears that Trump has to get approval from District Judges for all his policies.
He can address the underlying statutory problem created by the Court in various ways, although the harms caused by this decision will reverberate for years. More immediately, President Trump should use part of his State of the Union address to break down the abysmal disgrace of incoherent logic and political overreach of that decision. He should expose clearly and understandable the absurd logic of the justices in the majority. Really embarrass these clowns. If these justices want to insert themselves in the politics, they should face the political consequences.
Democrat Rules! 😁
“Now we can sell cars and agricultural products to the countries that formerly kept our products”
Nope. China bought all the soybeans it needed from our competitors Brazil) and will not be coming back.
And I can’t say I blame them one bit.
Not for 3 years
They do fear the Donald
As I said in the other thread, my main issue is that they screwed around for a YEAR while tariffs stayed in place, then finally ruled them illegal… with no process or remedy for the money collected.
If this is the nonsense you were going to do then you needed to actually do it in a reasonable period of time. This is an issue they have been running negotiations, diplomacy and foreign policy on FOR A YEAR, and now SCOTUS has screwed it up. And if Trump uses a different rationale to put tariffs on, now other countries will refuse to negotiate until SCOTUS finally deigns to rule on it in another year.
SCOTUS is a joke, but not a funny one.
Olinser, the plaintiffs asked for an injunction, but the administration took the position that there should be no injunction because if it lost it could simply refund all the money, no harm, no foul. That’s why it was allowed to go on with this illegal policy so long. Now that it’s been finally held illegal, everyone who paid can sue for a refund.
Other countries were well aware of the case pending, and that Trump was likely to lose it, and they’ve already factored that into their negotiations.
And of course if Trump issues a tariff based on a statute that actually authorizes him to do so then it will obviously be valid, so no one’s going to pretend to be waiting for a court decision to uphold it.
SCOTUS rules and American citizens are mad to pay even more for less. Did you vote for that too?
we pay more for socialists agenda
a capitalist agenda would have competition >>lower pricing
again,,its the female ( angry black women/black matriarchy) mindset that is winning
not sure why you would support that
unless you believe that emotion should win out over logic
“I’m smart, and I want respect!”
Seymour “Fredo” Butz.
Sad little see more is a butt
Trump gonna flex his
Alterego Andrew Jackson
Trump is gonna have to learn to accept the reality that SCOTUS or at least five votes constitute a co equal branch of gov’t. Disagreement is fine, deployment of alternative strategies is fine but the characterization as ‘unpatriotic’ is not helpful. If for no other reason than it is always a bad idea to deliberately antagonize the Judge hearing your case and SCOTUS is gonna hear a lot more cases involving the Trump Admin. IMO that portion of Trump’s statement comes across as petulant.
Their twisted logic arguments make no sense. They are absolutely twisting themselves into pretzel logic to deny something that had already been used before and was a matter of settled law.
Not really. Way over simplified the question boiled down to whether the current statute allows the Executive to undertake a lesser action than those specifically outlined. So a basic question of textulism.
There’s a good argument to be made (Trump Solicitor made it spectacularly well) that other less severe but unspecified actions were implicitly authorized. The prior statute, which the current statute replaced, was used this way by Nixon.
SCOTUS didn’t buy it. Granted it was a.disjointed majority opinion but basically came down to two things:
1. text of the statute didn’t specifically authorize it
2. it couldn’t be presumed as implied b/c Congress can’t delegate a core power aka taxation.
Those form a reasonable basis for the holding. The Trump Administration chose this route b/c it was the path of least resistance for quicker action but it came with serious risk of legal overreach. Now the Trump Admin is facing the consequences of that risk. The Admin has already shifted to their other options they previously bypassed.
It will be fine in the end. Tariffs will be imposed and trade deals won’t be undone.
On the contrary, the dissent arguments make no sense, and employ pretzel logic to explain why they upheld the major questions doctrine when it was Biden, but ignore it when it’s Trump.
It was NEVER used before and was NOT settled law.
Chief, Nixon did NOT use it that way, and the dissent claim that he did is simply not true.
well if they cant get past that emotional “my fweelings re hurt”
then it wouldnt matter anyways
the female mindset is at work here when it comes to emotions winning out over logic
the black matriarchy is feared for their street violence
thats whats winning them the war
You are unintentionally describing how another prominent person chose to behave…emotionally lashing out, name calling….
Bull poop Chief; think Obamacare. Ignore the decisions of this leftist court
I’d say your proposed solution of ‘ignore SCOTUS’ is not an example of prudential governance and instead an emotional overreaction. This is the same SCOTUS that overturned Roe v Wade and gutted the underpinning of the administrative state be ending undue deference to Agency interpretations..it ain’t a far right court to be sure but it ain’t leftist.
Tbf Obamacare had to get rammed through Congress
This is NOT a leftist court, and NO previous administration has ignored its decisions.
Andrew Jackson effectively ignored a court decision. He wasn’t ordered to protect Native Americans in GA, but when GA ignored the court, Jackson (the POTUS/Chief Executive, the person with the ability to enforce the court’s decree) decided to not take action.
The reality is Democrats pretty much will always have a 3-0 head start for every case regardless of what that hearing is for.
That’s not how the Supreme Court is supposed to operate. But it’s where we are and, another reality, if Democrats can ignore SCOTUS then two can play at that game 🤷♂️
Yes and the ‘right’ also generally begins with three votes in Thomas, Alito and at least one of Gorsuch or Kavanaugh.
No. The Democrat justices have very rarely voted against Democrats and the only reason you’ve paid attention to them voting for Trump is because of the rarity of those votes.
Conservatives don’t have the luxury of guaranteed votes, which is the way it should actually be regardless of who nominated a Justice.
Sure they do, here’s but one example. Let’s imagine Justice Thomas and a hypothetical case involving the same old, tired anti 2A restrictions that SCOTUS has broadly ruled against. As a practical matter Justice Thomas is gonna be against nearly any anti 2A statute and will rule/vote that way.
again,,at the local levels little has changed in favor of the maga agenda
the left continues to run over maga ( or in the case of goode and pretti attempting to ) and the red states are moving blue enough
to whereas any election day cheating by the dems will be considered an upset victory as opposed to outright theft
the whole setup is the same as 2020
plausible deniability
the “midterms are going to be a gop disaster” rhetoric is just the right amount of fuel needed for that
plausible deniability to take hold
see I told you so,,will the be call from lukewarm gop>rinos types as the pounce on trump for
“being too mean” etc
we need a patriot who wants to win
that includes being “mean” to win the war
but most of you wont understand that level of commitment to victory
So the democrats want all tariffs repaid to everyone who paid them?
What would be fun is to require any company that paid tariffs and gets a refund must pass through that refund to every person who bought one of their items or used their products since the economists say they were passed on. I bet all of a sudden we will discover that any costs actually passed on were either minimal or non-existent
The Democrats have nothing to do with this.
Yes, all the money STOLEN will have to be refunded to the people from whom it was stolen. And no one has any authority to require them to pass on the refund to their customers. Congress can’t do it, the president certainly can’t do it. If YOU were illegally charged a tax, and had to raise your prices, and then you got a refund would YOU track down your customers and give them money out of the goodness of your heart?! NO, you wouldn’t. And nor would you have to.
The newest pr epstein file……
refunds!
they will make us believe that people /companies are owed refunds for failed(??) policies
hmmm
in that case you owe me 40 million for your failed welfare food stamps ebt etc policies
pay up
What are you babbling about now? No one thinks anyone can get a refund for bad policies. But when money is STOLEN from you, of COURSE you are entitled to a refund.
https://x.com/SecScottBessent/status/2024936786301256127?s=20
I have ten bucks that says the Supreme Court will rule any tariff that Trump imposes as illegal. The SC is seeking to protect the Chicoms and woke corporations from even a slight loss of power and money.
Can we finally dispense with the “conservative Supreme Court” myth once and for all?
You are a fucking liar. I demand that ten bucks, and you will never pay it.
Trump led on Liberation Day with his path of least resistance: IEEPA tariffs. SCOTUS pissed him off, and now he’s going nuclear.
He also established that SCOTUS (and the federal judiciary) is as compromised as Congress. Roberts “suddenly” changed his mind on Obamacare at the last minute, handing the globalists a 5-4 victory. And now this mess of a decision about tariffs.
I am convinced that Roberts is compromised and a RINO. Notice that Trump stated: “It is my opinion that the Court has been swayed by Foreign Interests, . . .” using a lawyer’s gloss “it is my opinion” to minimize charges of defamation. But I think we will see shortly how corrupt the exalted SCOTUS is.
My dream? During the State of the Union address in a few days, Trump will enter the chamber and take the podium. The first thing he says is: “Please stay seated. Federal marshals are outside the chamber and will be entering to issue warrants for the arrest of many members of Congress and SCOTUS for crimes against the government, national security and a host of corrupt acts”. Well, shoot—it’s a dream, anyway . . .
Keep the faith, everyone! The fact that Trump, Bessent, and Vance were so well-prepared on a moment’s notice to rebuke SCOTUS and move forward with even more onerous tariffs means they had planned this contingency.
Trust Trump. He’s just getting started.
Hugo L. Black, an attorney and senator from Alabama, wasn’t the pseudo conservative many thought he was. How Alabama elected him to the Senate is a mystery given his record in law but FDR nominated him to the SC and a conservative justice he wasn’t. If he leaned right before the SC, he definitely didn’t afterward. Some Alabamians considered him a traitor. They can and often do change after they don that robe.
.
This ruling on tariffs isn’t as big a blow as many believe. First the Trump Admin knew this was a strong possibility and they set up secondary and tertiary course of action contingency plans ready to execute if/when SCOTUS ruled against them.
An overlooked aspect is that this is yet another case where SCOTUS has pushed back against the uniparty favorite playbook; use EO, Agency rule making and Judicial rulings to govern v Congress taking responsibility for making tough votes and requiring the Executive and Congress to pass/sign statutes. Every case limiting Trump also sets the same limit on any future d/prog POTUS. For those of us who truly want limited gov’t and a Judiciary that adheres to the text/history/context of statutes instead of ‘discovering’ new rights/powers in unwritten ‘penumbra’ this is a good thing.
Your point about unwritten penumbras is important, one that I intended to write about, but you beat me to it. As long as SCOTUS is consistent in restricting additional powers to the executive to only those that are explicitly delegated by Congress in federal law, then I am content with this ruling.
However, Trump is right to be suspicious of Roberts, who somehow found that Obamacare is constitutional, but Trump’s tariffs through IEEPA are not. I have to wonder if Roberts would have reached a different conclusion if the lawsuit had been filed against Obama rather than Trump.
Bullshit.
First of all. the obamacare decision was about the constitution. This is about a statute. That’s a fundamental difference that you cannot ignore.
And Roberts was right about 0bamacare. As he correctly wrote, a mandate to buy insurance, and a penalty for failing to do so, would have been unconstitutional. But he proved thoroughly that there was no mandate, and that the so-called “penalty” was not a penalty at all, but just an ordinary tax. That was the reality.
Literally the ONLY argument against it was that 0bama and the Congress had called it a penalty, and had denied that it was a tax. So are you seriously taking the view that the courts should take the president’s and congress’s word for things?! Because if you strike down a tax simply because they lied and called it a penalty, then you must also uphold a penalty if they lie and call it a tax. And in fact Roberts’s decision relied on a precedent from the 1930s (IIRC) where Congress imposed an unconstitutional penalty but called it a tax, and the court saw through the lie and struck it down. By that same reasoning, when Congress calls a tax a penalty the court must also see through the lie and uphold it.
Roberts’ underlying priorities are to protect the Court and then the Constitution, in that order. He shows deference to the Dems, probably due to their public threats to stack the Court.
So your interpretation is reasonable, except that Roberts could have found constitutionally based arguments to support the opposing viewpoint if he had chosen to do so.
There were credible reports that Roberts agreed to overturn Obamacare but changed his mind at the last moment.
“”Every case limiting Trump also sets the same limit on any future d/prog POTUS.””
I don’t think so. This court has had no qualms about overturning precedent, and neither will some future court for a future president.
That’s not true. When has this court ever overturned an earlier statutory interpretation? Stare decisis says that if Congress changes its mind it should pass a new law.
I like your approach and hope you are right. Otherwise, it all just sucks.
The Supreme Court makes an egregious decision. Again. It’s disturbing what they can do. A bad look for Trump and the midterms as if he doesn’t have enough to think about.
On the contrary, this was the conservative decision, and anyone who condemns it exposes themselves as not conservatives, and thus must go back and apologize to Biden for cheering when the court did the exact same thing to him.