Trump tariffs updates: US president slams Supreme Court, vows more tariffs

The live page is now closed.

If you’d like to learn more about the US Supreme Court’s ruling and what it could mean for global trade, you can read our explainer here.

You can also read our story about questions over possible reimbursements for people and companies here.

We’ll soon be closing this live page. Here’s a rundown of the day’s key events:

• In a 6-3 decision, the US Supreme Court ruled that President Donald Trump did not have the legal authority to enact his April 2 sweeping “Liberation Day” tariffs.
• The president’s tariffs relied on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a law ⁠meant for national emergencies. But the court determined the US Constitution “very clearly” gives Congress the sole power to impose taxes, which include tariffs.
• Trump called the Supreme Court justices who ruled against him “fools and lapdogs” and claimed, without providing evidence, that they were “swayed” by foreign interests.
• He pledged to enact a blanket 10 percent tariff globally and launch new investigations to impose others, invoking Sections 122 and 301 of the Trade Act of 1974.
• Although Democrats and foreign governments welcomed the court’s decision, key questions remain unanswered after the ruling, including whether and how companies would be refunded for the billions they have already paid since Liberation Day.

We have more lines from US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent.

Speaking to the Will Cain Show on Fox News, Bessent conceded the Supreme Court “has taken away the president’s leverage”.

“But in a way, they have made the leverage that he has more draconian because they agreed he does have the right to a full embargo,” Bessent said, adding that Trump’s new tariffs will “just be in a less direct and slightly more convoluted manner”.

Bessent also claimed that the US economy could grow by at least 3.5 percent in 2026.

As we reported, Bessent earlier told the Economic Club of Dallas that the Trump administration’s embrace of Section 122 and Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 would “result in virtually unchanged tariff revenue”.

Responding to the Supreme Court ruling, Vice President and Industry Minister Geraldo Alckmin said that the decision will “strengthen” continued negotiations between Brazil and the US.

“The 10 percent [tariffs imposed later] are for all. We don’t lose competitiveness if it is 10 percent for all. What was happening was Brazil getting a 40 percent tariff that no one else had,” said Alckmin, the country’s lead trade negotiator.

Trump and Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva are expected to discuss trade relations during a meeting in March.

Main Street Alliance (MSA), a national network of small business owners, has applauded the ruling.

“In rejecting the use of IEEPA as a broad trade tool, the Court delivered a significant rebuke to one of the most aggressive assertions of presidential economic authority in modern history,” MSA said in a statement provided to Al Jazeera.

“All year long … our members have been clear. This was a raw deal”, said Richard Trent, executive director of MSA. “They were forced to absorb higher costs or pass them on to customers. That is not economic strength. That is a squeeze on Main Street.”

Marcelo Ebrard has said that it remains to be seen how the court’s ruling will affect trade relations between Mexico and the US, which could leave numerous sector-specific tariffs in place.

Trump’s erratic and aggressive approach to tariffs has unnerved countries and businesses seeking clarity on trade rules, and analysts have said that the ruling may not be enough to address those concerns.

“I don’t know how it will end,” he said.

“In the case of Mexico, only some of the tariff measures have to do with that legal provision; others do not.”

While most Republican lawmakers have rallied behind Trump and his tariffs following the court’s announcement, several conservatives have praised the ruling as an example of appropriate constitutional limitations on executive power.

“Today’s Supreme Court decision reinforced the Constitutional separation of powers: Congress—not the President alone—holds the power to regulate international trade, including by imposing tariffs, under Article I, Section 8,” Ohio Representative Mike Turner said in a social media post.

While Trump maintains firm control over the Republican Party and has lashed out at figures who criticise his tariffs, growing discontent over cost-of-living issues before the upcoming midterm elections may give some politicians more confidence to voice their opposition.

“President Trump obviously didn’t read Supreme Court Justice Gorsuch’s majority ruling on tariffs,” said Nebraska Representative Don Bacon. “Congress has the authority over tariffs.”

While Mexico has been a frequent subject of Trump’s tariff threats, the Mexican government’s reaction to the ruling has been cautious and dispassionate.

“So far, what we’re hearing is not entirely dissimilar from what we’ve heard from the EU. The president said her government would be carefully reading the court’s decision and seeing how it would actually affect or not affect Mexico,” said Al Jazeera correspondent Julia Galiano in Mexico City.

“That’s really in tune with how President Claudia Sheinbaum usually reacts to these things. Throughout the Trump administration, she’s been very careful not to get ahead of herself and to be very cool, calm and collected when it comes to her dealings with the US administration.”

As concerns about the economy and the cost of living top the list of issues cited by people in the US, previous polls found that Trump’s tariffs were largely unpopular and that many believed the president overstepped his authority to implement them.

A January AP-NORC poll found that six in 10 respondents said Trump went “too far” in his imposition of widespread tariffs, including 25 percent of Republicans and 60 percent of independents.

Another AP-NORC poll from April 2025 found that just 30 percent of respondents favoured Trump’s tariffs, with about 50 percent opposed. Around 76 percent of people also said that the tariffs would increase the price of goods.

Trump cabinet member Scott Bessent has said that the department’s estimates import duty revenue remain “virtually unchanged” since the president has a variety of tools through which he can try to keep tariffs in place on many countries.

“We will be leveraging Section 232 and Section 301 tariff authorities that have been validated through thousands of legal challenges,” Bessent said in remarks before the Economic Club of Dallas.

“Treasury’s estimates show that the use of Section 122 authority, combined with potentially enhanced Section 232 and Section 301 tariffs, will result in virtually unchanged tariff revenue in 2026,” he added.

The comments suggest that the White House will double down on Trump’s tariff policy, seeking alternative ways to keep them in place despite a stinging legal setback and growing dissent over his approach to trade and commerce.

US Vice President JD Vance has weighed in with a brief comment after Trump’s news conference.

“This is lawlessness from the Court, plain and simple,” Vance wrote on social media platform X. “And its only effect will be to make it harder for the president to protect American industries and supply chain resiliency.”

The vice president added that Trump will rely on a “wide range of other tariff powers” to “advance this administration’s trade priorities”.

• The president announced he planned to implement a 10 percent global tariff “straight across the board” immediately, invoking Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. “In the end, I think we’ll take in more money than before,” he said.
• At the same time, the Trump administration will launch “various investigations” under Section 301 of the same act, which allows the US Trade Representative to investigate and impose tariffs when foreign trade practices are “unjustifiable” and “burdens or restricts” US commerce.
• Trump spent much of the news conference sharply criticising the Supreme Court, saying he was “absolutely ashamed” of “certain members of the court” and claiming without evidence the court was “swayed by foreign interests”.
• The president also expressed confidence in his own power to set economic policy, saying at one point, “I can do anything I want.”
• He doesn’t plan to work with Congress on new tariffs or upcoming investigations, he added, because “I have the right to do tariffs, and I’ve always had the right to do tariffs”.

Trump was always going to be upset by this decision, but it had been flagged by the Supreme Court that it was likely to go this way.

He says that it’s taken too long. It’s been more than 300 days since Donald Trump stood in the Rose Garden at the White House and announced that it was “liberation day” for the United States, so it’s taken a while for this to make its way to the court.

But what’s interesting is his quite vitriolic attack on the Supreme Court, saying they were swayed by foreign influence.

That’s something we’ve never really heard from a president before, and may get lost in all of the noise about tariffs. But that’s quite a spectacular attack on members of the Supreme Court who are meant to be above politics.