Donald Trump announces 10% global tariffs after SC deems his reciprocal tariffs illegal
A furious Donald Trump on Friday announced that he would be signing an executive order imposing a 10% global tariff. Trump’s statement comes within hours of the US Supreme Court striking down his reciprocal tariffs and deeming them as illegal.
“Today, I will sign an order to impose a 10% global tariff under Section 122, over and above our normal tariffs already being charged and we're also initiating several Section 301 and other investigations to protect our country from unfair trading practices,” the US president said during his press conference.
Following the Supreme Court’s decision to invalidate his tariff measures, Trump said his administration would pursue different avenues to restore the trade duties that had been overturned. He also said that the issue of refunds could end up in courts for years. The Supreme Court verdict is being seen as a big setback to one of his central economic initiatives.
Speaking at a press briefing, Trump said that alternative mechanisms would be deployed to substitute those the court had, in his view, wrongly dismissed, and suggested that these new approaches might even generate higher revenues.
Trump reacted angrily to the verdict, calling it “deeply disappointing” and “ridiculous,”. Trump said he felt “absolutely ashamed” of the six justices who sided against him, accusing them of lacking the courage to act in the country’s best interests.
During an afternoon press conference, he criticized the court’s majority as “fools” and “lap dogs” for what he described as RINOs — “Republicans in Name Only” — and “radical left Democrats.”
He further alleged that their stance was unpatriotic and disloyal to the Constitution. Trump also indicated that he believes existing statutes may still allow him to introduce alternative tariffs.
The president has repeatedly asserted - contrary to available evidence - that foreign governments would bear the cost of his tariffs and that the resulting revenue would be substantial enough to reduce the national debt and even fund dividend payments to taxpayers.
However, fresh analysis linked to a major US bank showed on Thursday that tariff payments made by mid-sized American firms have tripled over the past year. These added costs have affected businesses employing a combined 48 million people nationwide — the very segment Trump had pledged to strengthen. To manage the higher tax burden, such companies have had to raise prices for consumers, cut back on hiring, or accept slimmer profit margins.
According to estimates from the Congressional Budget Office, the tariffs — not all of which were invalidated — were projected to raise $3 trillion over a decade. While significant, that amount would still fall short of offsetting anticipated budget deficits.
The Supreme Court has yet to provide guidance on how any potential reimbursement of tariffs might be handled.
The Supreme Court invalidated Trump’s tariff program, delivering a significant setback to a cornerstone of his economic strategy.
In a 6-3 ruling, the justices examined duties introduced under an emergency authority statute, including the broad “reciprocal” tariffs applied to almost every foreign nation. The Court concluded that invoking emergency powers to impose import taxes without congressional approval was unlawful.
The majority held that the Constitution does not permit a president to independently create or modify tariffs, as the authority to levy taxes is explicitly assigned to Congress. Writing for the Court, Chief Justice John Roberts stated that the nation’s founders did not allocate any portion of the taxing authority to the executive branch.
The conservative-led bench determined, by a six-to-three vote, that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not grant the president the power to impose tariffs.
Following the Supreme Court’s decision to invalidate his tariff measures, Trump said his administration would pursue different avenues to restore the trade duties that had been overturned. He also said that the issue of refunds could end up in courts for years. The Supreme Court verdict is being seen as a big setback to one of his central economic initiatives.
Trump's Reaction to SC striking Down Tariffs
Speaking at a press briefing, Trump said that alternative mechanisms would be deployed to substitute those the court had, in his view, wrongly dismissed, and suggested that these new approaches might even generate higher revenues.
Trump reacted angrily to the verdict, calling it “deeply disappointing” and “ridiculous,”. Trump said he felt “absolutely ashamed” of the six justices who sided against him, accusing them of lacking the courage to act in the country’s best interests.
He further alleged that their stance was unpatriotic and disloyal to the Constitution. Trump also indicated that he believes existing statutes may still allow him to introduce alternative tariffs.
The president has repeatedly asserted - contrary to available evidence - that foreign governments would bear the cost of his tariffs and that the resulting revenue would be substantial enough to reduce the national debt and even fund dividend payments to taxpayers.
However, fresh analysis linked to a major US bank showed on Thursday that tariff payments made by mid-sized American firms have tripled over the past year. These added costs have affected businesses employing a combined 48 million people nationwide — the very segment Trump had pledged to strengthen. To manage the higher tax burden, such companies have had to raise prices for consumers, cut back on hiring, or accept slimmer profit margins.
According to estimates from the Congressional Budget Office, the tariffs — not all of which were invalidated — were projected to raise $3 trillion over a decade. While significant, that amount would still fall short of offsetting anticipated budget deficits.
The Supreme Court has yet to provide guidance on how any potential reimbursement of tariffs might be handled.
The Supreme Court invalidated Trump’s tariff program, delivering a significant setback to a cornerstone of his economic strategy.
In a 6-3 ruling, the justices examined duties introduced under an emergency authority statute, including the broad “reciprocal” tariffs applied to almost every foreign nation. The Court concluded that invoking emergency powers to impose import taxes without congressional approval was unlawful.
The majority held that the Constitution does not permit a president to independently create or modify tariffs, as the authority to levy taxes is explicitly assigned to Congress. Writing for the Court, Chief Justice John Roberts stated that the nation’s founders did not allocate any portion of the taxing authority to the executive branch.
The conservative-led bench determined, by a six-to-three vote, that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not grant the president the power to impose tariffs.
Top Comment
S
S D
50 minutes ago
Many politicians, even within his own party, are keeping a low profile during the remaining days of the current term to allow for fresh perspectives to emerge. Democrats are publicly conveying this same message to other countries. Consequently, it is doubtful how much of his current policy will remain intact after Trump finishes his presidencyRead allPost comment
Popular from Business
- ‘James Bond-style’ bunker: Why a crypto firm is buying more gold than most central banks
- No cash payments at highway tolls from April 1? NHAI weighs FASTag, UPI-only payments
- 'India diversifying oil sourcing': US envoy Sergio Gor notes Russia shift - what he said on Venezuela option
- US GDP growth slows to 1.4% in Q4, misses estimates; Donald Trump blames government shutdown
- Gold price today: How much 22K, 24K gold costs in Delhi, Mumbai & other cities – check rates
end of article
Trending Stories
- Montreal Canadiens Could Break Rivalry Taboo on Trade Deadline Deal With Toronto Maple Leafs To Acquire Some Depth Pieces
- Travis Kelce’s luxurious mansions revealed: Inside his 6-bedroom, multi-floor $6 million property
- Rashee Rice net worth in 2026: Breaking down contract, salary, and career earnings
- US Supreme Court Ruling Trump Tariffs Live Updates: Top court's decision impacts some, but not all of Trump's levies
- Ronda Rousey vs Gina Carano: What makes the MMA showdown so special
- AUS vs OMAN, T20 WC: Australia beat Oman by nine wickets
- Alysa Liu family: Inside the story of Olympic figure skater's father Arthur Liu, surrogacy journey, and close bond with her siblings
Featured in Business
- Saudi crude imports narrow gap with Russia, set to become biggest supplier
- US envoy Sergio Gor: India committed to not buying Russian oil
- 'I can do anything I want': Trump warns of 'even stronger methods' after SC tariff blow
- SC verdict on Trump tariffs: Dissent highlights India in Russia oil context
- Income Tax Department Advisory: Warns of refund scam surge; report fake messages via email or helpline
- IndiGo fiasco fallout: Airline appoints new head of operations control centre
Photostories
- Just one month to go for ‘Dhurandhar 2’ vs ‘Toxic’: Here’s what the big box-office clash promises
- How to make classic Gobhi Matar Pulao for lunch
- From being bullied for making rotis to watching his mother clean gutters; When MasterChef India judge Vikas Khanna spoke about his early struggles
- 13 fermented dishes of India one absolutely needs to try
- From ‘The Kerala Story’ to ‘Pathaan’: 12 Indian films that faced massive controversy before release
- Top 5 Tier-2 cities in India driving real estate growth in 2026
- 5 fascinating facts about Indian hill stations
- 6 animals that have mastered cave life and are rarely seen by humans
- 10 best rated Jackfruit dishes from around the world
- Why is your expensive gold and silver always wrapped in pink paper? The surprising truth behind this tradition
Up Next