“I can do anything I want,” declared Donald Trump, quickly venting his anger at the US Supreme Court’s landmark ruling on February 20 rebuking his use of emergency powers to impose sweeping import duties, one of the most consequential defeats of his second term.The ruling invalidated his use of emergency powers to impose the largest increase in US tariffs since the 1930s, a cornerstone of his trade and economic strategy.
“There are methods that are even stronger available to me,” he further roared in his White House address, even as he ordered a 10% global tariff over and above normal tariffs already being charged.Frustrated and agitated by the Supreme Court ruling, Trump doubled down on Truth Social, “It is my Great Honor to have just signed, from the Oval Office, a Global 10% Tariff on all Countries, which will be effective almost immediately.”Invoking Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, he announced an executive order imposing the additional levy, a provision that allows a temporary import surcharge of up to 15% for 150 days to address balance-of-payments deficits.“Effective immediately, all the national security tariffs under Section 232 and existing Section 301 tariffs remain in place,” Trump added.A day later, he escalated. Blasting the court’s judgment as “ridiculous and poorly written” and “extraordinarily anti-American,” Trump raised the global tariff to the “fully allowed, and legally tested” 15%.“Based on a thorough, detailed, and complete review of the ridiculous, poorly written, and extraordinarily anti-American decision on tariffs issued yesterday, after MANY months of contemplation, by the United States Supreme Court, please let this statement serve to represent that I, as President of the United States of America, will be, effective immediately, raising the 10% Worldwide Tariff on Countries… to the fully allowed, and legally tested, 15% level,” he posted.His defiance underscored a broader political reality! Even constrained, Trump is unlikely to retreat from tariffs as an economic and geopolitical instrument.Could the court’s intervention paradoxically offer Trump a strategic reset?
What did the Supreme Court say?
In a 6–3 ruling, the Supreme Court examined tariffs imposed under IEEPA, a statute typically used to freeze assets or block financial transactions during national emergencies.Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts delivered a pointed rebuke. The President, the court held, does not have authority under IEEPA to impose import tariffs.The judgment stated that “had Congress intended to convey the distinct and extraordinary power to impose tariffs, it would have done so expressly.”The ruling upheld earlier findings by the US Court of International Trade and a federal appeals court, both of which had concluded that IEEPA does not automatically grant the president unilateral tariff authority.Crucially, the decision invalidated the use of the 1977 statute that had been responsible for nearly two-thirds of the $200 billion in tariff revenue collected in 2025.In constitutional terms, the court reasserted Congress’ authority over taxation and placed clear boundaries on presidential emergency powers.
The Kavanaugh factor: SC ruling strengthen presidential tariff authority
Trump was quick to highlight dissenting opinions. He praised Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh for voting to preserve his tariff authority.He gave special attention to Kavanaugh.Addressing the briefing Trump said, “As Justice Kavanaugh whose stock has gone so up, you have to see, I’m so proud of him wrote in his 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 seized on that line.“So think of that, ‘the decision might not substantially constrain.’ And it doesn’t. He’s right. In fact, I can charge much more than I was charging. So I’m going to just start,” he said.“That’s because numerous other federal statutes” which is so true” authorize the president to impose tariffs and might justify most, if not all, of the tariffs issued in this case.” Even more tariffs, actually,” he added.“‘Those statutes include’ think of that ‘those statutes include, for example, the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, Section 232’ all of these things I know so well ‘the Trade Act of 1974, Sections 122, 201, 301, and the Tariff Act of 1930, Section 338.’”“I would also like to thank Justice Kavanaugh for his, frankly, his genius and his great ability. Very proud of that appointment,” Trump said.“In actuality, while I am sure that they did not mean to do so, the Supreme Court’s decision today made a president’s ability to both regulate trade and impose tariffs more powerful and more crystal clear, rather than less. I don’t think they meant that. I’m sure they didn’t. It’s terrible,” he added.Whether rhetorical flourish or legal strategy, Trump appears determined to treat the ruling as a clarification rather than a constraint.
A political slap or strategic cover?
From a domestic political standpoint, the verdict was widely interpreted as a blow to Trump. The court includes several justices appointed during his tenure, and its ruling targeted what many saw as his favourite executive lever, the ability to rapidly impose tariffs as economic pressure or geopolitical retaliation.
The decision temporarily removes his ability to threaten immediate tariff action against European nations opposing his Greenland plan or countries such as India for maintaining oil trade with Russia.Yet the ruling is narrower than it first appears.While the court invalidated tariffs under IEEPA, it did not strike down other statutory authorities available to the president. Trump has already pivoted to Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. Trade experts note he can also rely on Sections 232 and 301 for sector-specific duties.US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer signalled as much in December. “From the outset of these negotiations, at least internally, there’s been a view that there would be recalibrations at some point,” he said.Greer maintained the administration remains committed to tariffs as a tool to manage trade deficits and counter unfair practices. “I’m confident that with other tools we have related to unfair trading practices we can produce the tariff rates we need,” he added.Seen through this lens, what appears to be a humiliating judicial defeat may provide political cover to refine an unpopular tariff regime while preserving its strategic objectives.The economic consequences of Trump’s tariff policies have been debated intensely. While inflation and consumer prices dominate headlines, economists argue the more corrosive impact lies in growth, investment and labour markets.Kent Smetters of the Penn Wharton Budget Model argues that tariffs made the US less attractive for investment by raising business costs. “There’s very little evidence that a big renaissance of US production is happening,” Smetters says.He compares the tariffs to a substantial corporate tax hike, akin to raising the rate from 21% to 36%, cutting profits by a similar magnitude.Research from the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City estimates that the direct impact of the import taxes led to 19,000 fewer jobs per month from January to August 2025 — likely an understatement.Meanwhile, analysts at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center estimate that if the invalidated tariffs are not replaced, real incomes could rise by $1,200 per family in 2026.Public sentiment reflects the strain. A December NPR-PBS News-Marist survey found only 36% of Americans approved of Trump’s handling of the economy, with two-thirds concerned about tariffs’ impact on their finances.In this context, the court ruling could allow Trump to recalibrate without appearing to capitulate.“Yes there is a loophole as you know that as he has again put a tariff of 15% across the world through a different law,” Rajan Kumar, a professor at Jawaharlal Nehru University told TOI.
Does the ruling give India more room to negotiate?
On August 6, the US had announced an additional 25% tariff linked to India’s Russian oil purchases, taking the total tariff burden on Indian exports to 50%, effective August 27, 2025.In early February, the two countries agreed to an interim trade deal cutting US tariffs on Indian goods to 18%, down from 25%. India, in turn, reduced tariffs on US goods to zero.After the Supreme Court deemed the country-specific tariffs illegal, Trump imposed a 10% global tariff applicable to all countries — later raised to 15% under Section 122.For now, India pays the universal rate “until another authority is invoked,” according to a White House official quoted by ANI.
Yet Trump had earlier said nothing “changed” for India and that trade deal terms would continue.The result is a diplomatic grey zone.“From a broader American domestic political view it is a slap on the face of Trump without any doubt but Trump being Trump, the way he takes. And there is huge uncertainty and everything that has been negotiated now has to be renegotiated,” Rajan Kumar told TOI.He also noted that if the tariff regime is deemed illegal, prior negotiated reductions may face scrutiny. “So far as India is concerned this is a phase of uncertainty because if the entire process is illegal the entire negotiation of tariff coming from earlier 50% to 18% is illegal, with a total lack of clarity,” he said.Uncertainty, in trade diplomacy, can cut both ways. It may weaken credibility, but it also reopens bargaining space.
So is the Supreme Court’s tariff ruling secretly a gift to the president?
Legally, it reasserts congressional authority and restricts executive overreach under emergency powers.Politically, it allows Trump to blame the judiciary for economic friction while reconstructing his tariff framework under alternative statutes.As Kumar observes, Trump “will definitely try to mould the uncertainty into a gift negotiating with the countries on his terms again.”
