The Supreme Court ruled Friday that Congress, not the president, holds the power to levy taxes on imports, striking down a significant portion of President Donald Trump’s global tariff regime. But by Saturday morning, Trump announced a new 15% global import tax under a law that has never been invoked in this manner before.
The move ensures Republicans will have to answer for Trump’s tariffs through the midterm elections, deepening party divisions on trade policy and complicating GOP leaders’ attempts to distance themselves from the protectionist approach.
The Court’s decision
On Friday morning, the Supreme Court struck down a significant portion of President Donald Trump’s global tariff regime. The justices ruled that Congress, not the president, holds the constitutional power to levy taxes on imports. The decision was a blow to one of Trump’s signature policies and offered a brief opening for Republicans who had grown uncomfortable with the tariffs.
“The empty merits of sweeping trade wars with America’s friends were evident long before today’s decision,” said Mitch McConnell, the former longtime Senate Republican leader. He noted that tariffs raise house prices and disrupt industries important to his home state of Kentucky.
Trump circumvents the ruling
By Friday afternoon, Trump made clear he had no intention of accepting the Court’s decision. He announced a new 10% global import tax, saying he would impose it without congressional approval. On Saturday morning, he escalated further, raising the rate to 15%.
Trump invoked the Trade Act of 1974, a law that authorizes the president to impose temporary import taxes when there are large trade deficits or other international payment problems. The authority has never been invoked and never tested in court in this manner before. The law restricts any such tariffs to 150 days.
“I have the right to do tariffs, and I’ve always had the right to do tariffs,” Trump said at a news conference. He added that he does not need Congress.
Republicans divide
The Trump administration moved swiftly to enforce party discipline. On Saturday, Trump withdrew his endorsement of Colorado Rep. Jeff Hurd, who had voted against tariffs on Canada. Trump announced his support for Hurd’s Republican primary challenger, Hope Scheppelman.
“Congressman Hurd is one of a small number of Legislators who have let me and our Country down,” Trump posted on Truth Social. He said Hurd was more interested in protecting foreign countries than the United States.
The move signaled Trump’s determination to maintain control over the Republican Party’s trade posture. Yet the party remains divided. Some lawmakers embrace Trump’s protectionist approach; others view the tariffs as economically harmful.
Sen. Bernie Moreno of Ohio, a Republican freshman, slammed the Court’s decision and called for his colleagues to “codify the tariffs that had made our country the hottest country on earth!”
Rep. Don Bacon, a Republican critic of the administration who is not seeking reelection, took the opposite view. “Congress must stand on its own two feet, take tough votes and defend its authorities,” Bacon said on social media.
Democrats plan midterm strategy
Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer challenged Republicans to stop the new tariffs. “Trump’s new tariffs will still raise people’s costs and they will hurt the American people as much as his old tariffs did,” Schumer said at a Friday news conference.
Senator Elizabeth Warren called on Congress to order refunds to consumers who paid the tariffs that the Supreme Court had struck down. “The American people paid for these tariffs and the American people should get their money back,” Warren posted on social media.
For Democrats, the tariff dispute offers a powerful campaign narrative heading into midterm elections: that Trump has failed to make living costs more affordable and instead driven prices higher with trade barriers.
Midsize U.S. businesses have absorbed the import taxes by passing them along to customers in higher prices, employing fewer workers, or accepting lower profits, according to an analysis by the JPMorgan Chase Institute.