Trump Says Foreign Interests May Be Involved In SCOTUS Tariff Ruling
President Donald J. Trump helped shape the modern Supreme Court, appointing three justices during his first term. But on Friday, the president made clear that loyalty to constitutional principles — not personal history — is what matters most after the high court delivered a 6-3 ruling against his administration’s tariff authority.
According to NBC News, the Court held that under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), the president does not possess unilateral authority to impose sweeping tariffs. The majority concluded that such power rests with Congress under the Constitution.
Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Brett Kavanaugh dissented. Chief Justice John Roberts joined Justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett — both Trump appointees — along with the Court’s three liberal justices in the majority.
“Deeply Disappointing”
The president did not hide his frustration.
“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,” Trump said, according to Politico.
When asked whether he regretted nominating Gorsuch and Barrett, Trump responded bluntly.
“I think it’s an embarrassment to their families, you want to know the truth — the two of them,” he said.
The ruling marks a serious legal setback for an economic strategy that has relied heavily on tariffs as leverage to rebalance trade and protect American industry.
Allegations of Outside Influence
Trump went further, suggesting the Court’s decision may not have been made in a vacuum.
“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,” Trump said, according to The Guardian.
When pressed for specifics, he told reporters, “You’re going to find out,” according to Politico.
“I think that foreign interests are represented by people that I believe have undue influence,” he added, according to NBC News. “They have a lot of influence over the Supreme Court, whether it’s through fear or respect or friendships, I don’t know.”
He also criticized what he described as “the other side.”
“But I know some of the people that were involved on the other side, and I don’t like them,” he said. “I think they’re real slimeballs.”
A Forceful Dissent
Justice Clarence Thomas delivered a sweeping dissent defending the president’s authority.
“Neither the statutory text nor the Constitution provides a basis for ruling against the President. Congress authorized the President to ‘regulate . . . importation.’ Throughout American history, the authority to ‘regulate importation’ has been understood to include the authority to impose duties on imports,” Thomas declared.
“The meaning of that phrase was beyond doubt by the time that Congress enacted this statute, shortly after President Nixon’s highly publicized duties on imports were UPHELD based on identical language. The statute that the President relied on, therefore, authorized him to impose the duties on imports at issue in these cases,” Thomas added.
He continued, “Because the Constitution assigns Congress many powers that do not implicate the nondelegation doctrine, Congress may delegate the exercise of many powers to the President. Congress has done so repeatedly since the founding, with this court’s blessing.”
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, in a separate dissent, warned of “serious practical consequences” stemming from the majority’s ruling.
“The United States may be required to refund billions of dollars to importers who paid the IEEPA tariffs, even though some importers may have already passed on costs to consumers or others,” Kavanaugh wrote. “As was acknowledged at oral argument, the refund process is likely to be a ‘mess.’”
Not the End of the Fight
Legal scholars suggest the administration retains significant options.
Jonathan Turley, a professor at George Washington University Law School, said the ruling does not close the door on future tariff actions.
“The administration has other tools in its toolbox. It can actually impose tariffs under other statutes,” Turley said, adding that there’s plenty of runway for the Trump White House in this area of economic policy.
The Trump administration has already indicated it will pursue alternative legal avenues to sustain its broader tariff strategy.
While the Court’s ruling reshapes the immediate legal landscape, the larger debate over executive authority, economic sovereignty, and Congress’s role in trade policy is far from settled. For President Trump and his supporters, the decision may represent a setback — but not surrender.