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.