‘So it’s a loss, then?’: Donald Trump's first reaction after Supreme court struck down his tariff plan

‘So it’s a loss, then?’: Moment Trump was told Supreme Court struck his tariff plan. How he reacted

• US Supreme Court strikes down Trump's global tariff program
• Trump imposes new 10% tariff under Section 122 after ruling
• Court ruling sparks legal and economic uncertainty over tariffs

Did our AI summary help?

US President Donald Trump learned that the Supreme Court of the United States had struck down his global tariff programme while meeting state governors behind closed doors at the White House, according to The Wall Street Journal.

During the session in the State Dining Room on Friday, a trade adviser handed Trump a note informing him of the court’s 6-3 decision. “So it's a loss, then?” Trump asked, according to The Wall Street Journal.

After being told the tariffs had been ruled illegal, Trump told governors he appeared calm but was angry internally. He described the decision as a disgrace and soon cut short a question-and-answer session, saying he needed to prepare a response.

In a ruling authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, the court found that Trump had exceeded his authority in imposing sweeping global tariffs. The justices said the legal framework used by the administration did not permit such broad trade measures. The court did not address whether tariff revenue already collected must be refunded.

This marks the first time the Supreme Court has invalidated a major policy initiative of Trump’s second term. Administration officials had reportedly prepared for the possibility of an adverse ruling for months.

Earlier in Georgia, Trump had expressed confidence in his authority. “I've been waiting forever, forever,” he said. “And the language is clear that I have the right to do it as president.”

Hours after the verdict, Trump defended his trade agenda at a White House news conference. He announced plans to impose “a 10 per cent global tariff under Section 122” of a 1974 trade law, adding that other tariffs would “remain in place, fully in place and in full force and effect”.

“Potentially higher... It depends on whatever we want them to be,” he said when asked about future tariff rates.

Trump called the court’s ruling “deeply disappointing” and praised Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh for dissenting. He also alleged that “foreign interests” had influenced the court, though he did not provide evidence.

Linking tariffs to domestic economic priorities, Trump said, “Last week I gave them $12 billion out of tariff money,” referring to farm aid. On trade with India, he said, “Nothing changes,” adding that “they'll be paying tariffs and we will not be paying tariffs”. He also stated that he had imposed “a 20 per cent tariff” on China “as a penalty for sending fentanyl in,” claiming inflows were down “more than 30 per cent”.

Legal and economic uncertainty ahead

The Supreme Court’s decision closes one chapter of tariff-related uncertainty but opens another. Although the court ruled against the emergency tariffs imposed under the International Economic Emergency Powers Act (IEEPA), Trump quickly moved to introduce replacement measures.

He ordered a new 10 percent tariff on all imports under Section 122, effective 12:01 a.m. Tuesday, and later raised the levy to 15 percent in a social media post. Section 122 allows temporary trade actions for up to 150 days.

The ruling also raises unresolved legal and financial questions. The administration previously indicated in court filings that refunds could be issued if the tariffs were invalidated. However, following the judgment, Trump warned that importers and the government “will end up being in court for the next five years” disputing the matter.

Trade experts say refund claims, if pursued, could create complex disputes across supply chains, as companies that paid tariffs may face repayment demands from customers affected by higher prices.

Economists suggest the removal of the IEEPA tariffs, which generated more than $100 billion last year, could provide short-term economic relief. At the same time, continued tariff adjustments may prolong policy uncertainty for businesses and investors.

Despite the legal setback, Trump signalled he would continue reshaping US trade policy using alternative statutory authorities, conceding at his news conference that this new path was “probably the direction I should have gone the first time.”