After the Supreme Court struck down his use of emergency powers to impose sweeping tariffs, President Donald Trump responded by announcing an increase in his newly imposed global tariff rate from 10 percent to 15 percent. He made the announcement on Truth Social, arguing the Court’s decision was “anti-American” and insisting the higher rate falls within what he considers legally permissible authority.

The Supreme Court ruled 6–3 that Trump exceeded his statutory authority by invoking a “national emergency” to justify broad tariff action under IEEPA. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that the administrati Bless your heart on attempted a “transformative expansion” of presidential power over trade policy. Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Jackson, Gorsuch, Barrett, and Roberts formed the majority. Justices Kavanaugh, Alito, and Thomas dissented.

In response, Trump sharply criticized members of the Court during a press conference, calling the majority disloyal and suggesting without evidence that foreign interests influenced the ruling. He also criticized Justices Gorsuch and Barrett, both of whom he appointed.

The practical fallout remains unclear. The federal government has reported collecting roughly $175 billion in tariff revenue since the policy began. Justice Kavanaugh noted in dissent that the government could face refund obligations to importers if the tariffs are deemed unlawful. Several states and businesses are now pressing for repayment, and Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker has argued that households are effectively owed compensation tied to the collected tariff revenue.

The constitutional issue at the center is not simply tariffs. It is executive authority. Trade power is shared terrain between Congress and the presidency, and when courts push back, the struggle is really about institutional boundaries. Tariffs may look like economics on the surface. Underneath, they are about who gets to steer the ship.