Posted on 02/20/2026 3:45:11 PM PST by Signalman
President Donald Trump on Friday escalated his criticism of the U.S. Supreme Court following its decision to strike down most of his sweeping global tariffs, suggesting that “foreign interests” may have influenced the justices who ruled against him.
The comments came just hours after the high court, in a 6–3 ruling, determined that Trump had exceeded his authority by imposing broad import duties under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts concluded that the statute does not grant a president the power to levy tariffs, a responsibility the Constitution assigns to Congress.
During a news conference in the James Brady Press Briefing Room, Trump reacted with visible frustration, reserving particular criticism for Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gorsuch, both of whom he appointed during his first term and who joined the majority.
Calling their votes “a disgrace to our nation,” Trump said he was “absolutely ashamed” of certain members of the court. He then went a step further, hinting that outside forces may have swayed the outcome.
“You’ve mentioned multiple times foreign influence over the Supreme Court, do you have evidence of that? Will you investigate that?” a reporter asked.
“You’re going to find out!” Trump replied.
Trump also lashed out at those who backed the legal challenge to his tariff authority, referring to them as “sleaze-bags” and accusing them of siding with foreign competitors over American workers. He singled out Leonard Leo, a longtime legal activist who advised Trump on Supreme Court nominations during his first term.
Leo, through nonprofit networks he supports, helped fund the lawsuit challenging the president’s use of emergency powers to impose the tariffs. Trump described Leo as a bad person, marking a sharp break from their past alliance.
The legal challenge centered on Trump’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose sweeping import duties on a wide range of foreign goods. The Supreme Court ruled that while the law allows a president to regulate certain economic transactions during a declared national emergency, it does not authorize the imposition of tariffs.
Despite the setback, Trump made clear that he has no intention of abandoning his trade agenda.
“We will be able to take in more money, because there’s always doubt,” Trump said.
During the briefing, he announced plans to pivot to alternative statutory authorities, including Section 122 of federal trade law, which permits temporary tariffs under certain conditions. He also signaled that his administration would initiate new Section 301 investigations into what he described as unfair trade practices by foreign nations.
The president argued that the court’s ruling would not meaningfully limit his ability to reshape U.S. trade policy, asserting that other legal pathways could provide even greater flexibility in setting tariffs.
For now, the Supreme Court’s decision stands as a significant check on presidential trade authority under emergency powers. But if Trump’s remarks are any indication, the political and legal battle over tariffs—and the forces behind them—is far from over.
It likely took must of his evening to decide whether he should use “your” or “you’re” in his post.
FRepublic is structured to “provide information.”
Information is posted. People read it.
Readers are permitted to do whatever they please with it.
You certainly posted information, which I fully support. Others seem to take umbrage at that.
Trump is way ahead of his enemies on the tariff issue. He caused them to burn up a year and big bucks fighting him plus he may have collected some useful info on the opposition in the process.
Nice take.
You certainly posted information, which I fully
support. Others seem to take umbrage at that.
Whatever.
I think I might have given you the impression that I was being critical of your post. I did not mean to do so.
“Just for the sake of argument:
Assuming what Trump said is at least remotely accurate, and the receipts are provided that indeed show foreign influence can be shown to be directing the decisions of Supreme Court justices, perhaps even direct evidence on several critical cases. Furthermore, its not refuted, and Congress refuses to act on that information?
What then?”
___________________________________________________________
The method for removing a Supreme Court Justice is the same as for removing a president. The party in majority in the House must first pass a bill of impeachment by a simple majority. It then goes to the Senate for trial.
If a Justice is impeached and convicted, they are automatically removed from the office and then subject to whatever criminal laws may apply.
“I’m not a lawyer. But especially considering that John Solomo is reporting that the foreign manipulation of election systems is about to be exposed, I think this will be proof that the entire us government has been taken over by hostile belligerents. That is the threshold for the .military to step in, re.ove the belligerent, and restore legitimate constitutional government”
____________________________________________________________
If the Supreme Court has been “compromised” by some foreign nation or actor, then what on earth makes you think the military isn’t similarly compromised?
It looks more like Trump shooting from the lip again, and stirring up problems we/he don’t need right now.
There is no “threshold” for our military to step in and usurp the national government. That’s just a coup de’etat in disguise.
You have a point, but we never know about the machinations in politics are not always known. It is like this thing with Iran; I am suspicious some things are going on we don’t know about.
I was not aware the democrats have actually tried lately to pack the court. It is something they will try next time they have the Senate.
Can you smell Fried Rice ?
—
No, but you can smell Susan Rice.
LOL! It’s schtick.
Read the Law of War Manual and get back to me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.