President Donald Trump accuses Supreme Court justices of bowing to foreign influence after tariff ruling at the White House in Washington DC

President Donald Trump spoke out from the White House on Friday, insisting that foreign influence and political maneuvering affected the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down his sweeping tariff plans.

The tariffs, introduced in April 2025 under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977, were meant to adjust trade policy across multiple sectors, but the court blocked them in a 6-3 ruling.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority that the Constitution clearly gives Congress—not the President—the authority to impose taxes and tariffs.

Trump described the ruling as an embarrassment and suggested that some justices acted out of fear of unnamed foreign actors.

Allegations of Shadowy Influence

Speaking in the White House Briefing Room, Trump said, “Foreign interests are represented by people that I believe have undue influence…whether it’s through fear or respect or friendships, I don’t know, but I know some of the people that were involved on the other side, and I don’t like them.”

When pressed to clarify who these foreign actors or political movements were, he gave no specifics, teasing, “You’ll find out,” leaving journalists and analysts speculating about possible international lobbying or behind-the-scenes pressure.

Trump also criticized the justices personally, including Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gorsuch, two conservative justices he appointed.

“I think it’s an embarrassment to their families,” he said.

He added that they would still be invited to his upcoming State of the Union speech, “but barely.”

Financial Consequences of the Ruling

The Supreme Court decision may require the administration to return up to $175 billion in tariff revenues collected over the past year.

This could have significant implications for the federal budget and trade policy, as well as for the President’s broader economic agenda.

Despite the setback, Trump insisted the White House still has options.

He hinted at “powerful alternatives” to enforce trade policy and generate revenue from foreign nations, even announcing plans to impose a 10 percent global tariff shortly after his briefing.

Political and Legal Reactions

Legal experts say the ruling reinforces the separation of powers, emphasizing that Congress, not the executive branch, controls taxation and tariffs.

Some commentators have also noted the unusual public accusations against sitting justices, which could fuel debates over judicial independence and the role of the executive in influencing courts.

Meanwhile, political analysts are watching how Trump’s comments might play with his base ahead of upcoming midterms and his ongoing influence in Republican politics.

Critics argue that alleging foreign influence without evidence could further polarize the political climate.

What’s Next?

The White House could pursue alternative tariff mechanisms or trade policies within the limits of congressional authority.

Lawmakers in both parties may weigh in, potentially leading to legislative efforts to clarify or expand presidential power over tariffs.

Meanwhile, the courts may continue to review related challenges or appeals, leaving uncertainty in international trade negotiations.

Observers will also watch how Trump’s public criticisms of the Supreme Court affect the perception of judicial independence and the broader political environment.

Summary

President Donald Trump claimed that foreign influence and a small political movement pressured certain Supreme Court justices to strike down his 2025 tariff program.

The 6-3 ruling blocked his ability to set unilateral tariffs and could force the return of $175 billion in collected revenue.

Trump criticized appointed justices Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gorsuch, described the court’s decision as an embarrassment, and teased unspecified foreign interference.

Despite the ruling, he vowed to pursue “powerful alternatives” to maintain revenue from foreign trade.

The situation raises questions about executive authority, judicial independence, and potential legislative responses.