WASHINGTON — President Trump on Friday lashed out at Supreme Court justices who struck down a key part of his tariffs agenda, calling them “fools” who made a “terrible, defective decision” that he plans to circumvent by imposing new levies in a different way.

In a defiant appearance at the White House, Trump told reporters that his administration will impose new tariffs by using alternative legal means. He cast the ruling as a technical, not permanent, setback for his trade policy, insisting that the “end result is going to get us more money.”

The president late Friday signed an executive order imposing a new 10% tariff, citing a 1974 law. Under that law, the tariffs can last for only 150 days. An extension would require congressional approval.

Asked by a reporter whether he planned to issue the 10% global tariffs for 150 days or indefinitely, Trump said: “We have a right to do pretty much what we want to do.”

The sharp response underscores how central tariffs have been to Trump’s economic and political identity. He portrayed the ruling as another example of institutional resistance to his “America First” agenda and pledged to continue fighting to hold on to his trade authority despite the ruling from the nation’s highest court.

Trump said the ruling was “deeply disappointing” and called the justices who voted against his policy — including Justices Neil M. Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, whom he nominated to the court — “fools,” “lapdogs” and a “disgrace to our nation.”

“I am ashamed of certain members of the court,” Trump told reporters. “Absolutely ashamed for not having the courage to do what’s right for our country.”

In a social media post, the president wrote that he believed the court opinion has been “swayed by Foreign Interests and a Political Movement,” though he did not provide any evidence for those claims.

“This was an important case to me, more as a symbol of Economic and National Security, than anything else,” Trump lamented in the post.

For years, Trump has insisted his tariffs policy is making the United States wealthier and giving his administration leverage to force better trade deals, even though the economic burden has mostly fallen on U.S. companies and consumers. On the campaign trail, he has turned to them again and again, casting sweeping levies as the economic engine for his administration’s second-term agenda.

Now, in the heat of an election year, the court’s decision scrambles that message.

The ruling from the nation’s highest court is a rude awakening for Trump at a time when his trade policies have already caused fractures among some Republicans and public polling shows a majority of Americans are increasingly concerned with the state of the economy.

But some of his top advisors maintain that his trade agenda, as promised, will continue in a different iteration.

“Despite the misplaced gloating from Democrats, ill-informed media outlets, and the very people who gutted our industrial base, the court did not rule against President Trump’s tariffs,” Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said in a speech in Texas shortly after the ruling was issued.

Bessent said the court has simply ruled he could not impose levies on imports under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA.

Ahead of the November elections, Republicans have urged Trump to stay focused on an economic message to help them keep control of Congress. The president tried to do that on Thursday, telling a crowd in northwest Georgia that “without tariffs, this country would be in so much trouble.”

As Trump attacked the court, Democrats across the country celebrated the ruling — with some arguing there should be a mechanism in place to allow Americans to recoup money lost through the president’s trade policy.

“No Supreme Court decision can undo the massive damage that Trump’s chaotic tariffs have caused,” Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) wrote in a post on X. “The American people paid for these tariffs and the American people should get their money back.”

California Gov. Gavin Newsom called the tariffs an illegal tax on consumers, ranchers and farmers and businesses, and said Trump is obligated to refund the $1,750 per family to make up for the cost increases driven by the tariffs.

“The rule of law won out,” Newsom said. “And what did Donald Trump do? He had a tantrum today, and he decided to tax you all again, across the board, 10% across the board, under some new authority. He’s unhinged.”

California Atty. General Rob Bonta said the ruling ends “months of chaos” that hurt farmers, manufacturers and other businesses in California.

While the Supreme Court ruling Friday centered on a lawsuit brought by a private party, Bonta and Newsom brought a separate lawsuit last year challenging the tariffs.

California’s large economy meant that the state bore the brunt of the unlawful tariffs, Bonta said, adding that it faced projected losses of more than $25 billion.

The president’s signature economic policy has long languished in the polls, and by a wide margin. Six in 10 Americans surveyed in a Pew Research poll this month said they do not support the tariff increases. Of that group, about 40% strongly disapproved. Just 37% surveyed said they supported the measures — 13% of whom expressed strong approval.

A majority of voters have opposed the policy since April, when Trump unveiled the far-reaching trade agenda, according to Pew.

The court decision lands as more than a policy setback to Trump’ s economic agenda.

It is also a rebuke of the governing style embraced by the president that has often treated Congress less as a partner and more as a body that can be bypassed by executive authority.

Trump has long tested the bounds of his executive authority, particularly on foreign policy, where he has heavily leaned on emergency and national security powers to impose tariffs and acts of war without congressional approval. In the court ruling, even some of his allies drew a bright line through that approach.

Gorsuch sided with the court’s liberals in striking down the tariffs policy. He wrote that while “it can be tempting to bypass Congress when some pressing problems arise,” the legislative branch should be taken into account with major policies, particularly those involving taxes and tariffs.

Despite the court ruling, Trump remained adamant that his trade policies will remain in effect. But now he is pivoting to plan B.

The strategy would allow the White House to impose tariffs up to 15% for 150 days on countries with a trade deficit with the U.S., according to legal analysts. He also invoked a section of the Trade Act of 1930, which could allow for additional levies of up to 50% with no time limit on countries that Trump deems has discriminated against U.S. trade or commerce.

“This means that Trump’s tariffs will continue to burden the U.S. economy, even if alternative instruments are not as agile or broad as the IEEPA tariffs,” UCLA economist Kimberly Clausing said in a statement.

The president argued that the court ruling will make his trade policies stronger.

“Now the court has given me the unquestioned right to ban all sort of things from coming into our country, to destroy foreign countries,” Trump said, as he lamented the court constraining his ability to “charge a fee.”

“How crazy is that?” Trump said.

Times staff writers Dakota Smith and Phil Willon contributed to this report.

The Pentagon is deploying USS Gerald R. Ford to the Middle East, creating a rare two-carrier presence in the region as tensions with Iran rise and questions swirl about possible U.S. military action.

The Ford will reinforce USS Abraham Lincoln already operating in the theater, significantly expanding American airpower at a moment of heightened regional uncertainty.

While officials have not announced imminent action, the dual-carrier presence increases the Pentagon’s flexibility — from deterrence patrols to sustained strike operations — should diplomacy falter.

The largest aircraft carrier in the world

The Gerald R. Ford is the largest and most advanced aircraft carrier ever built.

Commissioned in 2017, the nuclear-powered warship stretches more than 1,100 feet and displaces more than 100,000 tons of water. It serves as a floating air base that can operate in international waters without relying on host-nation approval — a key advantage in politically sensitive theaters.

Powered by two nuclear reactors, the ship has virtually unlimited range and endurance and is designed to serve for decades as the backbone of U.S. naval power projection.

WORLD’S LARGEST AIRCRAFT CARRIER HEADS TO MIDDLE EAST AS IRAN NUCLEAR TENSIONS SPIKE DRAMATICALLY

How much airpower does it carry?

A typical air wing aboard the Ford includes roughly 75 aircraft, though the exact mix depends on mission requirements.

Those aircraft can include F/A-18 Super Hornets, stealth F-35C Joint Strike Fighters, EA-18G Growler electronic warfare jets, E-2D Hawkeye early warning aircraft and MH-60 helicopters.

In a potential conflict with Iran, several of those platforms would be central. 

The F-35C is designed to penetrate contested airspace and carry out precision strikes against heavily defended targets. The Growler specializes in jamming enemy radar and communications — a critical capability against Iran’s layered air defense systems. 

The E-2D extends surveillance hundreds of miles, helping coordinate air and missile defense.

Together, they give commanders options ranging from deterrence patrols to sustained strike operations.

Built for higher combat tempo

What separates the Ford from earlier carriers is its ability to generate more sorties over time.

Instead of traditional steam catapults, it uses an electromagnetic aircraft launch system, or EMALS, allowing aircraft to launch more smoothly and at a faster pace. The system is designed to reduce stress on jets and increase operational tempo.

The ship also features advanced arresting gear and a redesigned flight deck that allows more aircraft to be staged and cycled efficiently.

In a high-intensity scenario — particularly one involving missile launches or rapid escalation — the ability to launch and recover aircraft quickly can be decisive.

How it compares to the Lincoln

While both the Ford and the Abraham Lincoln are 100,000-ton, nuclear-powered supercarriers capable of carrying roughly 60 aircraft to 75 aircraft, they represent different generations of naval design.

The Lincoln is a Nimitz-class carrier commissioned in 1989 and part of a fleet that has supported decades of operations in the Middle East. The Ford is the Navy’s next-generation carrier and the lead ship of its class.

The key differences are efficiency and output. 

The Ford was built to generate a higher sustained sortie rate using its electromagnetic launch system, along with a redesigned flight deck and upgraded power systems. In practical terms, both ships bring substantial strike capability — but the Ford is designed to launch and recover aircraft faster over extended operations, giving commanders greater flexibility if tensions escalate.

IRAN SIGNALS NUCLEAR PROGRESS IN GENEVA AS TRUMP CALLS FOR FULL DISMANTLEMENT

How it defends itself

The Ford does not sail alone. It operates as the centerpiece of a carrier strike group that typically includes guided-missile destroyers, cruisers and attack submarines.

Those escort ships provide layered air and missile defense, anti-submarine protection and additional strike capability.

The carrier itself carries defensive systems including Evolved Sea Sparrow Missiles, Rolling Airframe Missiles and the Phalanx Close-In Weapon System — designed to intercept incoming threats at close range.

That defensive posture is especially relevant in the Middle East.

Iran has invested heavily in anti-ship ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, armed drones, naval mines and fast-attack craft operated by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. The Gulf region presents a dense and complex threat environment, even for advanced U.S. warships.

Why two carriers matter

With both the Ford and the Lincoln in theater, commanders gain more than just added firepower. Two carriers allow the U.S. to sustain a higher tempo of operations, distribute aircraft across multiple areas or maintain a continuous presence if one ship needs to reposition or resupply.

Dual-carrier deployments are relatively uncommon and typically coincide with periods of heightened regional tension.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

The timing — as negotiations with Tehran continue — underscores the strategic message. Carriers are often deployed not only to fight wars, but to prevent them.

By positioning both ships in the region, Washington is signaling that if diplomacy falters, military options will already be in place.

Where are the statesmen when the state is under siege by the current head of state?

I’ve been mulling that question, hardly for the first time, but on three occasions just in the last few days.

On Monday, the federal holiday celebrating George Washington’s birth, former President George W. Bush posted an essay on the first U.S. president as part of a civic project commemorating the nation’s 250th year. Simply by hailing Washington for traits that Donald Trump utterly lacks — humility, integrity, dignity, self-restraint, willingness to forfeit power — the piece was widely read as a sneak attack on the current president. Bush never named Trump. He thus maintained his years-long, stupefying silence about the man who’s trashed him, his family, his party, his legacy PEPFAR program and, most of all, his country.

As Jonathan V. Last wrote for the right-of-center, anti-Trump Bulwark, if Bush’s words were a veiled attack on Trump, “the veil is so powerful that even light can’t escape it.”

Bush’s essay came two days after former President Obama finally responded to Trump’s week-old racist post that caricatured the first Black president and his wife as apes, thereby mainlining into the body politic one of the most toxic tropes against Black Americans. Asked about it in a podcast interview, Obama was, as usual, too cool. He called Trump’s behavior “deeply troubling” and said “there doesn’t seem to be any shame about this among people who used to feel like you had to have some sort of decorum and a sense of propriety and respect for the office.”

But, like Bush, he never named Trump. And it’s not even clear that Obama was referring to him. Certainly Trump never was one of those who, as Obama put it, “used to feel … some sort of decorum and a sense of propriety and respect for the office.”

Then there was the third trigger for my musings about America’s M.I.A. statesmen.

On Friday — ahead of the holiday honoring Washington, who as the first president and military commander established the indispensable tradition of a nonpartisan military — Trump yet again violated Washington’s precedent. At Ft. Bragg in North Carolina, he essentially pushed uniformed young troops to violate the military codes enshrining Washington’s legacy of nonpartisanship. Trump treated them like props at a MAGA rally, lauding Republican candidates and officeholders on hand, mocking past presidents and urging the troops to vote Republican in November.

“You have to vote for us,” the commander in chief ordered them.

This is unprecedented, except by Trump himself. In October, he prodded sailors at Norfolk, Va., to boo “Barack Hussein Obama.” In September, he told commanders summoned from around the world that the fight is here at home, a “war from within” American cities. In June, also at Ft. Bragg, Trump damned Democrats and sold MAGA merch, over Army objections.

There’s a darn good reason for the wall that Washington built between the military and civilian government. As the Army Field Manual instructs troops: “Nonpartisanship assures the public that our Army will always serve the Constitution and our people loyally and responsively.” Not just Republicans, and not just Trump.

But as multiple officers told the website Military.com, “holding troops to account when goaded by the president, who is ultimately the boss, would be impossible.” Commanders themselves are mute because, after all, Trump is the commander in chief. They’ve watched as one Pentagon purge has followed another, starting with Trump firing the chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the nation’s top military officer. He chose instead an officer who, he often claims, once donned a MAGA cap and said, “I love you, sir. … I’ll kill for you, sir.”

It’s understandable that active-duty officers don’t make a stand. But what about America’s roughly 7,500 retired generals and admirals? As veteran ML Cavanaugh wrote in the Los Angeles Times after Trump’s Ft. Bragg performance last year, “The military profession’s nonpartisan ethic is at a breaking point.” Sure, individuals have spoken out. But as the military knows better than anyone, there’s strength in numbers.

It’s past time for a large, united front of veteran commanders to challenge Trump. Why wait for him to make good on his talk of invoking the Insurrection Act to deploy troops at the polls in this midterm election year, based on trumped-up conspiracies about Democrats’ fraud?

You know who could give the veteran and active commanders some political cover? The former commanders in chief.

Even more conspicuous than the brass by their silence and virtual invisibility in the face of Trump’s assaults — on the rule of law, civil rights, elections, foreign alliances and America’s global reputation — are the nation’s four living former presidents: Democrats Joe Biden, Obama and Bill Clinton, and Republican Bush.

It’s past time for the not-so-fab four to come together to publicly demand that Trump honor the oath of office that each man took, and to school the electorate on the many ways in which he’s dishonoring it — including by continuing to justify his refusal to peacefully transfer power in 2021. But each man is so observant of the norm that former presidents should not publicly criticize the incumbent one — again, a precedent from George Washington — that they self-muzzle.

This is Americans’ quandary in these Trump times: Presidents and high-ranking veterans who could speak truth to power are so constrained by their devotion to norms and traditions that they won’t confront a president who’s daily shattering the norms, traditions and laws that form the foundation of this democratic nation.

“This is the master alarm flashing for our democracy,” Sen. Mark Kelly, an Arizona Democrat and veteran, said last week of Trump’s targeting of him and other critics.

That takes us back to my original question: Where are the statesmen to answer that alarm?

Answer: They’re following ordinary rules despite these extraordinary times. And they must stop.

Bluesky: @jackiecalmes
Threads: @jkcalmes
X: @jackiekcalmes