Trump offers fiery defense of tariffs as Supreme Court prepares to rule on his agenda

California Post ^ | 2/19/26 | Emily Goodin, Victor Nava

[Libloather]

President Trump kicked off a campaign rally in Georgia with a fiery defense of his tariff policy, arguing he has the “right,” as president, to set them.

The Supreme Court could rule as soon as Friday on the legality of Trump’s tariff agenda.

“I have to wait for this decision. I’ve been waiting forever, forever, and the language is clear that I have the right to do it as President, I have the right to put tariffs on for national security,” Trump said.

He argued the tariffs against countries like China and Canada were targeting nations that have “ripped us off for years.”

Trump visited a steel factory in Georgia to defend his economic record ahead of the midterm election.

The administration is trying to tout all its done to keep the cost of living at affordable levels in order to keep Republican control of Congress.

Coosa Steel President Andrew Saville, whose company manufactures rack storage products, argued that the president’s tariffs have been a “game-changer” for his business.

“We saw the tire rack industry really dropping off around 2010 … the tire rack industry was going to China. There were no tariffs. They were bringing them in and they were decimating the tire rack business in America,” Saville explained, with Trump standing on stage nearby.

“Your first term, we saw some things come back,” the businessman continued.

---

TOPICS: Business/Economy; History; Local News; Society
KEYWORDS: agenda; debt; inflation; supreme; tariffs

[exnavy]

Separation of powers.

[Rockingham]

Congress has the power to tax, while the President is in control of foreign relations. Separation of powers becomes problematic in that tariffs are both a tax and an aspect of foreign relations.

The best resolution is that Congress may lay out various tariff rates and regimes, with the President able to defer to Congress or adopt his own plans and measures in reliance on his power over foreign relations. In a pinch, the President wins, unless Congress exercises its singular and peremptory power over the purse.

Unfortunately, since I do not have a seat on the Court, they may well come to a different and less sound resolution.

[exnavy]

Any solution that any court comes to is out of bounds. Courts are not executive branch or legislative branch. No standing in court speak.

[Skwor]

Separation of Ppwers would be an issue if congress had literally not created a bill that gave those powers to the president. The correct ruling would be congress can legislate a new bill revoking those powers, it is not justiciable.

That would be the legal ruling and if the court is not corrupted completely what would happen. I see this as a litmus test, if the court rules against Trump we know the shadow powers own it because this will be a full-on directive of the globalist to rule against Trump.

[odawg]

“...unless Congress exercises its singular and peremptory power over the purse.”

The Supreme Court, constitutionally, has no say in this matter.

[Right_Wing_Madman]

Congress has the power to tax, while the President is in control of foreign relations. Separation of powers becomes problematic in that tariffs are both a tax and an aspect of foreign relations.

My guess is that the Supreme Court will declare the blanket 10% tariff across all countries as unconstitutional as a taxation power reserved only for Congress, but allow the President to keep all the country-specific tariffs in place (Canada, Mexico, China, etc.) as the executive's authority in foreign affairs.

[Skwor]

I’d take that as it would be a null ruling. Trump can easily re-assert the 10% specifically to each country.

[Rockingham]

As in the Vietnam era war power cases, the Supreme Court is obliged to set the boundaries and terms but must step aside when it comes to who wins the battle.

[AZJeep]

Congress seems to be quite useless.
Its reaction time is approaching infinity!
They cannot even make the budget!
We need to swiftly asses tariffs to react to foreign threats.

[Rockingham]

That is one possibility, but the Court could find that Trump and Congress both have the power to impose a general tariff, with neither ordinarily able to negate the other’s exercise of its distinct constitutional power. The exception would be that Congress could use the power of the purse (annual appropriation bills) to forbid the executive from spending money to establish and enforce a general tariff.

[Rockingham]

True, assuming that Congress enacts such a restriction. So far, they have not taken that approach.

[quantim]

“The Supreme Court, constitutionally, has no say in this matter.”

Hope that is the ruling, said another way, SCOTUS may strike down the left/democrat attempts to attack President Trump on tariffs. When Trump was speaking about this yesterday he kinda’ smirked a little bit (my take anyway) about tariffs and he was waiting for the ruling from SCOTUS - he went on to talk of the economy, trade, ripped off by other countries over the decades etc.

Got the idea Trump already had a good idea what was coming, the typical ruling from the skanks on the left but will get slapped down is a fair guess. But regardless of the reason it goes to show how WORTHLESS Congress and previous Presidents have been as long as we have been alive. Didn’t think I could despise the GOPe/uniparty any greater, was I ever wrong.