Politics
Trump calls justices ‘fools,’ announces new 10% global tariff after Supreme Court setback
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.
Politics
Gorsuch says ideological divides on Supreme Court come down to ‘how you read law,’ not politics
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch said differences among his colleagues on the high court are often less about politics than they are about diverging approaches to constitutional interpretation — a dynamic, he said, that influences both the court’s rulings and its internal relations.
“That has nothing to do with politics,” Gorsuch told Fox News Digital in a recent interview. “That has to do [with] how you read law. Interpretive methodologies.”
Gorsuch, who was nominated by President Donald Trump in 2017, has described himself as a “textualist,” noting his approach focuses on interpreting legal texts based on the ordinary meaning of the words as written. The philosophy is linked to originalism — or the view that the Constitution should be interpreted based on its original public meaning when it was adopted.
Other justices have different interpretations, including ones that allow for evolving interpretations over time. Gorsuch stressed that differences, while significant, are not inherently personal.
JUSTICE THOMAS WARNS PROGRESSIVISM IS A THREAT TO AMERICA IN RARE PUBLIC REMARKS
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch speaks at the Reagan Library on May 5, 2026, in Simi Valley, Calif. (Getty Images)
“At the end of the day, you’re trying to get to the right answer under the law,” he said, adding that disagreement is an expected, and healthy, part of the process.
His remarks come as the federal judiciary and members of the Supreme Court have come under increasing scrutiny in recent years, including by Trump and his allies, who have criticized the courts for impinging on what they see as the duties of the executive branch.
Trump took to Truth Social last month to criticize the Supreme Court’s conservative majority for showing him “very little loyalty” in blocking his so-called “Liberation Day” tariffs in February.
He also suggested they might block his executive order seeking to end so-called “birthright citizenship” in the U.S.
“Certain ‘Republican’ Justices have just gone weak, stupid, and bad, completely violating what they ‘supposedly’ stood for,” Trump said.
JUSTICE GORSUCH HIGHLIGHTS HUMANITY, HISTORY IN CHILDREN’S BOOK CELEBRATING AMERICA’S 250TH ANNIVERSARY
President Donald Trump greets Chief Supreme Court Justice John Roberts as he arrives to deliver an address to a joint session of Congress in 2025. (Win McNamee/Getty Images)
He contrasted this with liberal justices on the court, whom Trump said “stick together like glue, totally loyal to the people and ideology that got them there.”
Gorsuch, for his part, stressed that the justices often share plenty of common ground, even if their interpretation of the Constitution prompts them to reach different conclusions.
That approach, he suggested, carries over into how the justices work together behind closed doors — where collaboration and debate are central to the high court to perform its constitutional duties.
FEDERAL JUDGE BLOCKS TRUMP’S BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP BAN FOR ALL INFANTS, TESTING LOWER COURT POWERS
The U.S. Supreme Court building is shown in Washington, D.C., on Nov. 13, 2023, as the court unveiled a new ethics code following scandals involving gifts and vacations received by some justices. (Mandel Ngan/AFP)
“The framers understood that people would come to the table with different views,” Gorsuch told Fox News Digital. “The goal is to reason together.”
While ideological divides can be sharp, Gorsuch emphasized that culture at the high court is built on mutual respect.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
“If you sit and listen to someone long enough, you’re going to find something you can agree on,” he added. “Maybe you start there.”
Two press freedom groups that own shares in Paramount Skydance are demanding to see the company’s books and internal documents, citing allegations that the company’s leaders may have promised favors to the White House to win approval for Paramount’s deal to acquire Warner Bros. Discovery.
The letter, sent Thursday to Paramount chief legal officer Makan Delrahim, says that media reports alleging that Paramount owner David Ellison and others promised favors to the Trump administration “create credible concern that Paramount leadership has offered, solicited, or effectuated a corrupt exchange,” which the groups argue would “constitute a breach of fiduciary duties” and open the company up to a “range of potential civil and criminal penalties.”
The letter cites Delaware law that allows stockholders to inspect the company’s books and records “for any proper purpose.”
Paramount declined to comment on the letter.
Among the issues raised in the letter are promises reportedly made by David Ellison and his father, Oracle billionaire Larry Ellison, that they would make “sweeping” changes at the news network CNN, which is owned by Warner Bros. Discovery.
The Ellison family acquired Paramount, which includes CBS and the storied Melrose Avenue film studio, last summer.
The letter cites changes implemented in CBS since their acquisition, including their decision to end late night television house Stephen Colbert’s show days after he characterized a settlement Paramount reached with Trump as a “big fat bribe.”
Under Ellison’s ownership, the letter says, numerous high-profile reporters have left the network and its ratings have dropped to “historic lows.”
Larry Ellison, who is backing the financing of Paramount’s proposed takeover of Warner, reportedly told White House officials that Paramount would “implement the CBS playbook” at CNN if the merger is approved, and remove anchors and commentators at the cable news network that Trump doesn’t like, according to the letter.
The effort comes just two weeks after Warner Bros. Discovery shareholders overwhelmingly approved the proposed merger. Investors have supported the Larry Ellison family takeover, which would become the biggest Hollywood merger in nearly a decade. The deal would pay Warner stockholders $31 per share — four times the stock price a year ago.
The letter was written on behalf of the Freedom of the Press Foundation, which develops secure communication tools for journalists and tracks violations of press freedom, and Reporters Without Borders, which tracks press freedom globally.
The organizations are being represented by former federal prosecutor Brendan Ballou, who established the Public Integrity Project this year to challenged alleged government corruption, as well as Delaware attorney Ronald Poliquin.
The missive, which could be a precursor to a lawsuit, opens another avenue of attack against the controversial $111-billion deal, which would transform the smaller Paramount into an industry titan.
With Warner Bros. Discovery, the Ellisons would also control HBO, TBS and the vast film and TV library of Warner Bros., which includes the Harry Potter, DC Comics, and Scooby-Doo, in addition to CNN.
Paramount, led 43-year-old David Ellison, wants to finalize its Warner Bros. takeover by the end of September. President Trump favors the deal; he has long agitated for changes at CNN.
But the proposed merger would saddle the combined company with $79 billion in debt, stoking fears that Paramount would be forced to make steep cost cuts to juggle such a large debt load.
Politicians, unions and progressive groups separately have pressed California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta to scrutinize the proposed merger, hoping that he brings an antitrust lawsuit in an attempt to upend the deal.
More than 4,000 film industry workers, including Ben Stiller, Bryan Cranston, Ted Danson, J.J. Abrams, Jane Fonda and Kristen Stewart, have signed an open letter imploring Bonta and other regulators to block the merger. The group lamented the proposed tie-up, saying it “would reduce the number of major U.S. film studios to just four.”
Opponents fear the consolidation would lead to massive layoffs and diminish the quality of programming that Warner Bros., CNN and HBO are known for.
Hollywood has sustained thousands of layoffs over the last seven years since Walt Disney Co. swallowed Fox’s entertainment assets in another huge merger. In addition, the film production economy hasn’t recovered from shutdowns during the 2023 labor strikes. An estimated 42,000 entertainment industry jobs were lost from 2022 and 2024.
On Thursday, 34 California Democrats in Congress also sent a letter to Bonta, encouraging him to look closely at the merger.
The deal is expected to become one of the largest leveraged buyouts ever.
Ballou, who is working with the press freedom groups, previously served as a Justice Department special counsel with expertise in private equity transactions.
He resigned from the Justice Department in January 2025 when Trump returned to office. In his book, “Plunder: Private Equity’s Plan to Pillage America,” Ballou examined large leveraged buyouts and found that many of which resulted in bankruptcies.
The United States and Iran traded missile fire and accusations on Thursday as tensions in the Strait of Hormuz ratcheted up, threatening an already fragile cease-fire.
U.S. Central Command said that American forces had “intercepted unprovoked Iranian attacks and responded with self-defense strikes” while U.S. Navy guided-missile destroyers were traversing the strait to the Gulf of Oman on Thursday.
In a statement, Central Command said Iranian forces launched multiple missiles, drones and small-boat attacks as three U.S. warships were transiting the strait. None of the American naval vessels were hit, Central Command said.
The U.S. vessels that were traversing the strait were the U.S.S. Truxtun, the U.S.S. Rafael Peralta and the U.S.S. Mason. The warships had steamed into the Persian Gulf earlier in the week as part of the Navy’s short-lived effort to guide merchant ships stranded in the Persian Gulf through the strait.
In response, U.S. forces struck targets on Qeshm Island and Bandar Abbas along the Iranian coast in the strait, U.S. officials said.
It was the latest twist in a head-spinning week in the region, as President Trump, searching for an off-ramp in the war that he started Feb. 28, has contradicted his senior administration officials on the state of the war, the state of American efforts to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, and the status of peace talks with Iran.
After the exchange of fire on Thursday, the president said the cease-fire was still in effect and downplayed the Iranian attacks.
“They trifled with us today,” Mr. Trump told reporters late Thursday. “We blew them away.”
The president added, however, that Iran needed to sign on “fast” to a proposal from the United States that would have both sides reach an agreement to reopen the Strait of Hormuz and refrain from fighting for 30 days while they try to reach a comprehensive deal.
Even as the president and senior officials described peace negotiations that they said were advancing, Central Command has forcefully hit Iranian vessels that it says have violated an American-imposed blockade of the strait.
Central Command “eliminated inbound threats and targeted Iranian military facilities responsible for attacking U.S. forces, including missile and drone launch sites; command and control locations; and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance nodes,” the command’s Thursday statement said. It added that Central Command “does not seek escalation but remains positioned and ready to protect American forces.”
Iran, for its part, accused the United States of launching “unprovoked” attacks as the U.S. ships traversed the strait.
In a statement carried by state media, Iran’s armed forces said the U.S. military had violated the month-old cease-fire by carrying out airstrikes on Qeshm Island and two other cities on the country’s southern coast. Central Command said the ship attacks had emanated from those sites.
When asked if the U.S. response to the Iranian drone, missile and small-boat attacks went beyond self-defense, a senior U.S. military official said that an effective defense sometimes involves a carefully calibrated offense.
Erica L. Green contributed reporting.
-
Culture5 minutes agoHow ‘The Sheep Detectives’ Brought its Ovine Sleuths to Life
-
Lifestyle11 minutes agoWhy Everyone Was So Mad About the Met Gala
-
Education17 minutes agoShe Tried to Help Schools Build Healthier Playgrounds. Then Her E.P.A. Grant Was Canceled.
-
Technology23 minutes agoThe Steam Controller’s reservation queue is open
-
World29 minutes agoIsraeli police say Iran using WhatsApp, Facebook, blackmail to recruit spies as latest attempt foiled
-
Politics35 minutes agoGorsuch says ideological divides on Supreme Court come down to ‘how you read law,’ not politics
-
Health41 minutes agoCan wearables detect heart problems early? Doctor breaks down real data
-
Sports47 minutes agoWNBA season tips off today with Liberty favored and some intriguing futures bets to consider