• Trump called two of the three justices he personally appointed to the Supreme Court "unpatriotic," "disloyal" and "lap dogs for RHINOS and the radical left"
• The president claimed without evidence that unnamed foreign interests swayed the court's 6-3 ruling striking down his IEEPA tariffs
• Hours after calling the ruling a "disgrace," Trump announced a replacement 10% global tariff under the Trade Act of 1974 — a significant downgrade from his previous rates

WASHINGTON, DC (TDR) — President Donald Trump turned his rhetorical fire on the Supreme Court Friday afternoon, calling justices who struck down his sweeping tariffs "unpatriotic" and "disloyal" — language aimed in part at two of the three justices he personally appointed to the nation's highest court. In a combative White House press conference, Trump also claimed without providing evidence that the court had been "swayed by foreign interests," a charge that drew immediate pushback from members of his own party.

"It's my opinion that the court has been swayed by foreign interests and a political movement that is far smaller than people would ever think. It's a small movement."

The remarks came hours after the court ruled 6-3 that Trump's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose global tariffs was unlawful. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion, finding that IEEPA contains no reference to tariffs and that no president in the law's nearly 50-year history had ever used it to impose import duties.

Freedom-Loving Beachwear by Red Beach Nation - Save 10% With Code RVM10

Two of Trump's own Supreme Court appointees — Justice Neil Gorsuch and Justice Amy Coney Barrett — joined the majority against him, while his third appointee, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, dissented in his favor.

The President's Words Against His Own Appointees

Trump did not distinguish between the justices he appointed and those he did not when delivering his criticism from the White House briefing room. His language escalated throughout the press conference.

"I'm deeply disappointed and I'm ashamed of certain members of the court, absolutely ashamed for not having the courage to do what's right for our country."

He called the majority justices "lap dogs for RHINOS and the radical left" and described them as "very unpatriotic and disloyal to our Constitution." He added that justices who voted against his tariffs are "against anything that makes America strong, healthy and great again."

Trump then offered pointed praise for the three dissenting justices — Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Kavanaugh.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE THE DUPREE REPORT

"I'd like to thank and congratulate Justices Thomas, Alito and Kavanaugh for their strength and wisdom and love of our country, which is, right now, very proud of those justices."

He singled out Kavanaugh, who wrote the principal dissent, suggesting the justice had lost money in the stock market due to the ruling. Trump called Kavanaugh's dissent evidence of "frankly, his genius and his great ability."

The contrast between the praise and the criticism creates a stark split among the three justices Trump personally placed on the bench. Gorsuch, whom Trump nominated in 2017 to fill the vacancy created by Justice Antonin Scalia's death, not only voted against Trump but wrote a concurrence that read as a direct rebuke of executive overreach.

"If history is any guide, the tables will turn and the day will come when those disappointed by today's result will appreciate the legislative process for the bulwark of liberty it is."

Gorsuch went further in his concurrence, writing a passage that read as a direct philosophical rebuke of unilateral executive power:

"Most major decisions affecting the rights and responsibilities of the American people are funnelled through the legislative process for a reason. Through that process, the nation can tap the combined wisdom of the people's elected representatives, not just that of one faction or man."

Barrett, whom Trump nominated in 2020 to fill the vacancy left by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's death, had signaled skepticism during oral arguments in November, questioning why nearly every country needed to be tariffed under a national security rationale.

The "Foreign Interests" Claim: No Evidence Offered

Trump's assertion that unnamed foreign interests swayed the court represents an extraordinary accusation against the judiciary. He offered no specifics about which interests he meant, which justices were allegedly influenced, or what mechanism of influence he was describing.

"These people are obnoxious, ignorant and loud. They're very loud, and I think certain justices are afraid of that. They don't want to do the right thing. They're afraid of it."

The claim drew immediate criticism from within his own party. Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky praised the ruling rather than echoing the president's attacks on the court, calling it a defense of constitutional principles.

"The Supreme Court makes plain what should have been obvious: 'The power to impose tariffs is very clearly a branch of the power to tax.'"

Rep. Don Bacon (R-NE) also broke from the president, calling the decision "common-sense and straightforward." And Rep. French Hill (R-AR), chairman of the Financial Services Committee, said the ruling "underscores the need for Congress to play a role in trade policy" — a polite endorsement of the court's central finding.

The president's rhetoric about judicial disloyalty stands in tension with his own history of championing the court's composition. During his first term, Trump frequently cited his three Supreme Court appointments as among his greatest accomplishments. The Senate confirmed Gorsuch 54-45, Kavanaugh 50-48 in one of the most contentious confirmation fights in modern history, and Barrett 52-48 just days before the 2020 election. All three confirmations were enabled by a Republican rules change allowing simple-majority votes on Supreme Court nominees.

The Backup Plan: A Significant Downgrade

Despite calling the ruling a "disgrace," Trump moved quickly to announce a replacement tariff strategy. He said he would impose a 10% global tariff under the Trade Act of 1974 — a separate law from the IEEPA that the court had just invalidated.

The announcement represents a significant reduction from the tariff rates that were struck down. Under IEEPA, Trump had imposed tariffs ranging from 10% on most countries to as high as 145% on Chinese goods, with 25-35% on imports from allies like Canada and Mexico. A flat 10% rate under the Trade Act would dramatically lower the effective tariff wall.

White House National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett had previously previewed this approach, telling Fox Business that the administration could "put a 10% tariff on right away to make up most of the room" and then use Section 232 and Section 301 authorities to "backfill" the rest.

The math, however, presents challenges. Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 — the provision most likely being invoked — caps tariffs at 15% and limits their duration to 150 days without congressional approval. Other alternative authorities like Section 232 and Section 301 require formal Commerce Department or Trade Representative investigations before tariffs can be imposed, meaning they cannot replicate the breadth and speed of the IEEPA approach the court just rejected.

As Kavanaugh himself noted in his dissent, the ruling may ultimately mean Trump "checked the wrong statutory box" rather than losing the power to tariff entirely. But the alternative boxes come with procedural guardrails that IEEPA did not — which was precisely the court's point.

The Refund Mess and What Congress Does Next

The ruling leaves unresolved the question of how to refund more than $130 billion in IEEPA tariff revenue already collected, with some estimates suggesting $175 billion or more may need to be returned. Kavanaugh warned in his dissent that the refund process would be "a mess," and the court explicitly declined to provide guidance on the mechanics.

Congressional reaction revealed the same intra-party divisions exposed by the ruling itself. House Speaker Mike Johnson praised Trump's tariffs and said Congress would "determine the best path forward." Sen. Bernie Moreno (R-OH) went further, calling the ruling "outrageous" and demanding a reconciliation bill to codify the tariffs legislatively.

But that path faces steep headwinds. The Senate has already voted twice in bipartisan fashion to undo specific Trump tariffs — once on Brazil, once on Canada — with Republicans joining Democrats both times. Pursuing a legislative tariff fight ahead of midterm elections, where affordability is a top voter concern, carries obvious political risks.

Democrats uniformly celebrated. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer called it "a win for the wallets of every American consumer."

"Trump's illegal tariff tax just collapsed — He tried to govern by decree and stuck families with the bill. Enough chaos. End the trade war."

Rep. Brendan Boyle of Pennsylvania warned that "Trump will try to do this again another way."

A Pattern of Praising Then Attacking His Own Judges

Trump's attack on Gorsuch and Barrett follows a pattern of praising his judicial appointees when they rule in his favor and criticizing them when they do not. The Supreme Court has largely been receptive to Trump's claims of presidential authority during his second term — in roughly two dozen cases on the court's emergency docket, justices allowed Trump policies to take effect temporarily while litigation proceeded. This tariff ruling represents the first time the full court rejected the legal merits of one of his second-term policies.

The court previously used the same "major questions doctrine" invoked in part here to block President Biden's student loan forgiveness plan — a ruling Trump and his supporters celebrated at the time. The three liberal justices, who dissented when the doctrine was used against Biden, notably reached the same result here through different reasoning, holding that IEEPA's plain text simply does not authorize tariffs regardless of the major questions framework.

The Business Roundtable, representing top U.S. CEOs, offered a measured response that captured the uncertainty ahead:

"A stable trading system with more focused tariffs would help unleash America's full economic potential."

The group's CEO, Joshua Bolten, acknowledged that "the Administration has made significant strides to strengthen America's competitiveness" while urging the White House to "recalibrate its approach."

Markets reflected cautious optimism — the Nasdaq rose about 1%, the S&P 500 gained 0.7%, and retail stocks like Nike, Target and Dollar Tree spiked between 4% and 6%.

The Federal Reserve Bank of New York had published research just last week finding that U.S. firms and consumers bore approximately 90% of the economic burden of tariffs imposed in 2025. The Yale University Budget Lab placed the current average effective tariff rate at 16.9% — the highest since 1932.

When a president publicly attacks the independence of justices he personally appointed, does that strengthen or weaken public confidence in the judiciary — and does the answer change depending on which party controls the White House?

Sources

This report was compiled using information from NBC News live updates on the ruling and Trump's press conference, NBC News reporting on the ruling's scope, SCOTUSblog's legal analysis, CBS News coverage of Trump's press conference, The Hill's reporting on Trump calling justices 'disloyal', CBC's coverage of Trump's remarks and Canadian reaction, NPR's reporting on the ruling, NPR's breakdown of seven key post-ruling questions, CNBC's sector-by-sector analysis of surviving tariffs, CNBC's consumer impact analysis, Common Dreams on tariff chaos remaining, and Wikipedia's summary of Trump's Supreme Court appointments.

Freedom-Loving Beachwear by Red Beach Nation - Save 10% With Code RVM10