Trump doubles down after U.S. Supreme Court strikes down global tariffs

• Read the timeline of all Trump’s tariffs imposed so far here
• Read the transcript of Trump’s reaction to the court ruling here

The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday ruled that U.S. President Donald Trump overstepped his presidential authority by imposing tariffs on Canada, Mexico and other countries under emergency powers, striking down a central economic and diplomatic strategy that has upended global trade.

Trump responded to the ruling by imposing a new 10 per cent global tariff under a different authority, after blasting the court’s decision in a scathing press conference at the White House.

The new tariff, which lasts 150 days, starts Tuesday and does not apply to goods compliant with the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement on free trade (CUSMA), which is due to be reviewed this summer.

Trump also pointed out that other tariffs he has imposed on various industries — including steel, aluminum, autos and lumber — remain in place despite the Supreme Court’s ruling.

A majority of the justices sided with lower courts that had found Trump improperly used tariffs to respond to national emergencies he declared over fentanyl trafficking in North America and international trade deficits, the latter of which led to so-called “reciprocal” tariffs against dozens of nations.

The law Trump used to exercise that authority, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEPPA), “does not authorize the President to impose tariffs,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion.

Two of Trump’s appointees to the court, Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gorsuch, joined Roberts and the three liberal justices in striking down the tariffs.

“I’m ashamed of certain members of the court, absolutely ashamed, for not having the courage to do what’s right for our country,” he said, calling the liberal justices “a disgrace” and Barrett and Gorsuch “an embarrassment to their families” for siding with them.

“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.”

The ruling is a blow to Trump, who has called his apparent power to quickly impose tariffs a “vital” negotiating tool. He has claimed the tariffs are helping reduce the national debt and pay for certain domestic policy priorities, despite recent data showing the historic U.S. trade deficit has continued to grow.

Trump on Friday night signed an executive order officially ending the IEEPA tariffs, saying they will no longer be collected “as soon as practicable.”

0:42 Supreme Court strikes down Trump’s global tariffs

Trump said he will launch additional investigations into foreign imports under Section 301 of the U.S. Trade Act, which is similar to the statute under Section 232 of the U.S. Trade Expansion Act that he has used to impose sector-specific tariffs — raising the likelihood of even more tariffs ahead.

The new 10 per cent tariff comes under Section 122 of the U.S. Trade Act. The White House said it will not apply to goods already tariffed under Section 232, as well as certain agricultural goods including those that cannot be produced in the U.S.

Certain electronic, aerospace and pharmaceutical goods, as well as some autos and auto parts, will also be exempt.

A vast majority of goods from Canada and Mexico were already bypassing the fentanyl-related tariffs due to CUSMA. Several countries have also since struck new trade deals with the U.S. that replaced the “reciprocal” tariffs with lower duties.

Still, the ruling takes away a key negotiating and diplomacy tool Trump has used to threaten countries with tariffs in exchange for concessions on trade and foreign policy. Yet Trump said he would use “other alternatives” instead.

“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,” he said.

The ruling also doesn’t address the issue of refunding tariffs paid by American businesses for foreign imports, which Trump acknowledged may have to be litigated.

Get breaking National news

For news impacting Canada and around the world, sign up for breaking news alerts delivered directly to you when they happen.

Sign up for breaking National newsletter Sign Up

By providing your email address, you have read and agree to Global News' Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.

The Penn-Wharton Budget Model at the University of Pennsylvania projected Friday that the U.S. government has collected US$164.7 billion in revenue from the IEEPA tariffs alone, accounting for 52 per cent of all customs duties since last January.

2:27 Business Matters: U.S. House votes against Trump’s tariffs on Canada

The case involved a pair of lawsuits that challenged Trump’s use of IEEPA, a 1977 law that allows the president to manage economic transactions during an emergency.

Trump first used the law in February to declare a national emergency over fentanyl trafficked into the U.S., and imposed economy-wide tariffs on Canada, Mexico and China to force action from those countries on the issue.

He then declared persistent U.S. trade deficits a national emergency in April, leading to what he called “Liberation Day” and the “reciprocal” tariffs on most of the rest of the world.

The court sided with the plaintiffs who argued the IEEPA makes no specific mention of tariffs as a remedy to national emergencies, that Trump’s tariffs are an inappropriate response to the specific emergencies he declared — particularly the one over the fentanyl crisis — and that persistent trade deficits aren’t an “emergency” at all.

Roberts and the other justices in the majority also repeatedly pointed out that the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the sole authority over domestic and foreign taxes, which includes tariffs on countries as a whole.

0:43 Trump says SCOTUS ruling against tariffs would be ‘devastating’

The Trump administration argued in court that the law’s language allowing the president to regulate imports in response to a national emergency includes tariffs, which the court didn’t accept.

“Based on two words separated by 16 others” within the IEEPA, Roberts wrote —“’regulate’ and ‘importation’—the President asserts the independent power to impose tariffs on imports from any country, of any product, at any rate, for any amount of time.

“Those words cannot bear such weight.”

Gorsuch used his concurring opinion to remind the White House of the importance of legislating important issues like trade and foreign policy through Congress, with laws that can endure beyond the “day to day” whims of a president.

“For those who think it important for the Nation to impose more tariffs, I understand that today’s decision will be disappointing,” he wrote. “All I can offer them is that most major decisions affecting the rights and responsibilities of the American people (including the duty to pay taxes and tariffs) are funneled through the legislative process for a reason.

“Yes, legislating can be hard and take time. And, yes, it can be tempting to bypass Congress when some pressing problem arises. But the deliberative nature of the legislative process was the whole point of its design.”

Ontario Premier Doug Ford took to X to react to the news of the tariff ruling Friday, and called the decision an “important victory.”

“Today’s U.S. Supreme Court decision is another important victory in the fight against President Trump’s tariffs but the battle isn’t over yet. We need to watch how the White House reacts,” said Ford.

“We need to keep up the fight against tariffs on auto, steel, aluminum and forestry, which remain in place and continue to hurt our workers. I won’t stop fighting until every last tariff against Canada is dropped so we can grow our economies and create jobs on both sides of the border.”

Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre also took to social media to respond, and called the ruling “a step in the right direction,” but warned more work lies ahead to eliminate remaining tariffs on Canada.

“In a successful CUSMA review, we expect lumber, aluminum, steel, and auto tariffs to be lifted,” he said on X. “Anything less than this means our workers will continue to suffer.”

Friday’s ruling marks a rare rebuke by the high court, whose conservative majority was strengthened during Trump’s first term, of Trump’s push to expand the powers of the presidency at the expense of congressional oversight.

In his dissenting opinion, Justice Brett Kavanaugh pointed to many questions left unanswered by the ruling, including the potential “mess” of future tariff refunds — something acknowledged during oral arguments in November.

“The Court says nothing today about whether, and if so how, the government should go about returning the billions of dollars that it has collected from importers,” he wrote.

“A second issue is the decision’s effect on the current trade deals. Because IEEPA tariffs have helped facilitate trade deals worth trillions of dollars — including with foreign nations from China to the United Kingdom to Japan, the Court’s decision could generate uncertainty regarding various trade agreements. That process, too, could be difficult.”

Canada-U.S. Trade Minister Dominic LeBlanc said in a social media post that the ruling “reinforces Canada’s position that the IEEPA tariffs imposed by the United States are unjustified.”

Yet he noted the government is still working to get remaining tariffs removed on critical sectors, both in direct negotiations and in this summer’s review of CUSMA.

“While Canada has the best trade deal with the United States of any trading partner, we recognize that critical work lies ahead to support Canadian businesses and workers who remain affected by Section 232 tariffs on steel, aluminum and automotive sectors,” he wrote.

Canada’s business and industry leaders responded to the ruling on Friday, warning the challenges are not over yet.

The Canadian Chamber of Commerce said Canada should be prepared for “blunter mechanisms.”

“The Supreme Court’s decision to strike down the use of IEEPA tariff powers is a legal ruling, not a reset of U.S. trade policy. This is certainly not the last chapter of this never-ending story. Canada should prepare for new, blunter mechanisms to be used to reassert trade pressure, potentially with broader and more disruptive effects,” said Candace Laing, president and CEO of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, in a written statement.

U.S. tariffs have especially impacted Canada’s autos and auto parts sectors, with layoffs seen most recently at General Motors in Ontario.

Flavio Volpe, president of the Automotive Parts Manufacturers’ Association, said he sees the “value” in the ruling announced Friday, but the the industry is still faced with tariffs.

“There is some value in knowing now that the Supreme Court was prepared to uphold the law with an overreaching President,” said Volpe in a written statement.

“We all know that the President was misusing the law in unprecedented trade aggression with the rest of the world. This decision though only deals with the IEEPA tariffs, national security tariffs on industrial Canada remain in place.”

The Canadian Federation of Independent Business’s president, Dan Kelly, said although this ruling won’t eliminate the sense of uncertainty facing Canadian business owners, this is still “good news,” especially with upcoming trade negotiations.

“Unfortunately, this ruling will not help address the uncertainty related to Canada/U.S. trade, nor the crippling tariffs on steel and aluminum that have been imposed by both countries,” said Kelly in a written statement.

“While we should not expect the administration to end its efforts to impose tariffs, this decision may help sway other U.S. political leaders against this harmful approach as both countries review the CUSMA agreement. While uncertainty continues, this is a good day for Canadian businesses.”