Annotating President Trump's Press Conference About The Tariffs Ruling
Much has been written about President Trump's press conference in the wake of Learning Resources. The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board charged that the "rant in response to his tariff defeat at the Court was arguably the worst moment of his Presidency." Ed Whelan said the speech was "stupid and vile."
I quite deliberately waited a bit to watch Trump's remarks. I wanted to actually read the opinion first, and let the tumult of Friday settle down. It helps that I am not on social media, and completely turn off the internet on shabbat.
Now, with some distance from Friday, I watched the press conference. This might be one of the most important presidential remarks about the Supreme Court since FDR's Court-Packing address. Of course, it is done in Trump's inimitable style with dripping vitriol, but as Trump often does, he says the things we all think but are simply unsayable in polite company. People need to focus less on how Trump says things and more on what he actually says.
Rather than trying to summarize it, I will offer a passage-by-passage annotation.
Wow. That's a lot of people. That's a new record, we set a record every time.
Well thank you very much for being here.
The Supreme Court's ruling on tariffs is deeply disappointing, 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.
"Courage" is a theme I have developed at some length. My article, Judicial Courage, traces how Justices Thomas and Alito have charged that the three Trump appointees lacked courage. It is telling that Trump sees this case in a similar fashion. Indeed, as I'll explain in a future post, there are shades of this charge in Justice Kavanaugh's dissent. Kavanaugh writes this is not an "ordinary statutory interpretation case." Kavanaugh insists that "Like cases should be treated alike," but that is not the case here. Kavanaugh asks if "this a ticket good for one day and one train only." And so on.
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.
When you read the dissenting opinions, there's no way that anyone can argue against them. There's no way.
I recently wrote that Justice Kavanaugh would be Trump's most likely selection for Chief Justice in the (unlikely) event that Roberts steps down. The Justice Kavanaugh of today is not the Justice Kavanaugh we saw in 2018-2020.
Foreign countries that have been ripping us off for years are ecstatic. They're so happy, and they're dancing in the streets, but they won't be dancing for long, that I can assure you.
The Democrats on the court are thrilled, but they will automatically vote no. They're an automatic no, just like in Congress, they're an automatic no. They're against anything that makes America, strong, healthy and great again. They also are a, frankly, disgrace to our nation, those justices.
Trump isn't wrong. I struggle to think of any significant case where the Court's progressive justices cast a dispositive vote against the progressive side. Sure, in some cases, Justice Kagan has a free vote where there are already five or six votes in the bank. But when has Kagan or Sotomayor or Jackson cast a decisive fifth vote for a serious case? I would not include NFIB v. Sebelius on that list. Justices Breyer and Kagan only joined the Chief's ruling that states can opt into the Medicaid expansion as part of a compromise to avoid invalidating the entire program. I think Justice Gorsuch's dissent ably shows how Justice Kagan has flip-flopped on the issue depending on whose ox is being gored. Cass Sunstein praised both Justices Barrett and Kagan for their lawyerly virtues. He wrote "They are not ideological; you read their opinions and you do not know anything about their politics." Well, I think this is likely true about Barrett.
Trump isn't wrong here either.
They're an automatic no, no matter how good a case you have, it's a no. You can't knock their loyalty, one thing you can do with some of our people.
Trump contrasts the progressive Justices from the conservative Justices. The progressive justices never break rank when it counts. But "some of our people," that is, the conservative Justices, do.
Others think they're being politically correct, which has happened before far too often with certain members of this court, and it's happened so often with this court
He think Trump is using "politically correct" as a way of saying the Justices are being swayed by elite interests. It brings to mind Trump's tweet about Chief Justice Roberts after the Obamacare case: "Wow, the Supreme Court passed @ObamaCare. I guess @JusticeRoberts wanted to be a part of Georgetown society more than anyone knew."
This is the passage that has gotten the most attention.
What a shame — having to do with voting in particular, when in fact they're just being fools and lapdogs for the RINOs and the radical left Democrats and, not that this should have anything at all to do with it, they're very unpatriotic and disloyal to our Constitution. 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. I won by millions of votes, we won in a landslide. With all the cheating that went on, there was a lot of it, we still won in a landslide. Too big to rig.
But 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.
Trump is simply wrong here. He has a difficult time understanding that Justices can rule in a certain way based on certain legal positions. In his view, the Justices can only reach this result by being under the sway of shadowy interests on the right and the left. I wish he hadn't used the "fools and lapdogs" line, as he made so many other important points. But trying to get Trump to control his language is a fool's errand. Solicitor General Sauer, who was standing right next to the President, likely had to hold back any emotion. And as I've noted before, Sauer is the most likely pick should a Justice retire. It will certainly not be someone who favors restoring power to Congress. Did any of the President's lawyers tell him he would be weakened by appointing Justices who wanted to overrule Chevron, enforce the non-delegation doctrine, and weaken agencies? Which branch of government did those lawyers work for?
This might be one of the most important lines in the entire press conference.
I wanted to be very well-behaved because I wanted to do anything, I didn't want to do anything, that would affect the decision of the court, because I understand the court.
I understand how they are very easily swayed. I want to be a good boy.
Trump, likely on advice of counsel, was told to not say anything bad about the Court while the case was pending lest he sway the decision. The implication here is clear: if Trump criticizes the Court, he is more likely to lose. Trump even acknowledged this point in his roast at the Alfalfa Club.
"I had the nastiest, most vicious joke about John Roberts," he said of the Supreme Court chief justice. "If you think I'm going to tell that joke you can forget it."
"I'm going to kiss his ass for a long time," he added, an apparent reference to the role Roberts could play in deciding current and future cases involving Trump and his administration.
Do you see the problem? Judges are supposed to decide cases without fear or favor. Whatever a litigant says about the Judge should have no bearing, whatsoever, on the outcome of the case. But of course we know this isn't true. The clear import of some of the commentary about Trump's press conference is that he made it less likely that Justices Barrett will rule in his favor in future cases. Do you see the problem? Judges are human. Indeed, judges are even more sensitive than mere mortals. So much of the commentary you read about the Supreme Court involves kissing ass, in an attempt to curry favor. I've never followed that approach. I speak my mind, especially for the Justices on the right. Does that make it less likely my petition gets granted or my article get cited? You bet it does. But speaking the truth is always more important than kissing ass. And I'm glad Trump is not trying to be a good boy anymore.
All of those tariffs remain. They all remain. I don't know if you know that or not. They all remain. We're still getting them and we will after the decision. I guess there's nobody left to appeal to.
But again, those three people, such respect. I've had a lot of respect for them anyway, but such great respect.
Well, there is always the "Appeal to Heaven." Maybe Martha Ann Alito could donate a flag to be raised over the new East Wing?
Next, Trump makes an important legal point, which (at least to me) suggests he understands the legal analysis.
To show you how ridiculous the opinion is, however, the court said that I'm not allowed to charge even one dollar. I can't charge one dollar, can't charge a dollar. I would have used one penny, but we don't make the pennies anymore. We save money.
Can't charge one dollar to any country under IEEPA, not one dollar, I assume to protect other countries. This must have been done to protect those other countries. Certainly not the United States of America, which they should be interested in protecting. That's what they're supposed to be protecting.
But I am allowed to cut off any and all trade or business with that same country. In other words, I can destroy the trade, I can destroy the country. I'm even allowed to impose a foreign country-destroying embargo. I can embargo, I can do anything I want, but I can't charge one dollar because that's not what it says, and that's not the way it even reads. I can do anything I want to do to them, but I can't charge any money. So I'm allowed to destroy the country, but I can't charge them a little fee. I could give them a little two cent fee, but I cannot charge under any circumstances. I cannot charge them anything.
Think of that. How ridiculous is that? I'm allowed to embargo them, I'm allowed to tell them you can't do business in the United States anymore, "we want you out of here," but I want to charge them $10. I can't do that.
Justice Kavanaugh made this precise point in his dissent, which Trump internalized:
Context and common sense buttress that interpretation of IEEPA. The plaintiffs and the Court acknowledge that IEEPA authorizes the President to impose quotas or embargoes on foreign imports—meaning that a President could completely block some or all imports. But they say that IEEPA does not authorize the President to employ the lesser power of tariffs, which simply condition imports on a payment. As they interpret the statute, the President could, for example, block all imports from China but cannot order even a $1 tariff on goods imported from China.
That approach does not make much sense.
The greater power to embargo should include the lesser power to tariff.
Next, Trump turned to licenses.
It's incorrect, their decision is incorrect. But it doesn't matter because we have very powerful alternatives that have been approved by this decision. You know, they've been approved by the decision for those that thought they had us.
And they're saying that I have the absolute right to license, but not the right to charge a license fee. So think of that. I have the right to license. It's a very powerful word in many ways, licenses more powerful than tariffs. In fact, I was thinking about using it, but they came up with the idea that I can license just like the people that were opposing me told them to do, but not the right to charge a license fee.
Think of that. Who ever heard of such a thing? What licence has ever been issued without the right to charge a fee? You get a licence, you charge a fee. It's automatic, but not with this court.
But now the court has given me the unquestioned right to ban all sorts of things from coming into our country, to destroy foreign countries, but a much more powerful right than many people ever thought we even had. But not the right to charge a fee. How crazy is that?
During the oral arguments, there was extensive discussion of licensees. Justices Gorsuch and Barrett both pressed Neal Katyal on licenses. But licenses were barely mentioned in the majority or dissent. Something happened here. And it is strange that Trump fixated on this part of the case, even though it was not in the opinion. He must have remembered it from some earlier juncture. Again, underestimate Trump at your own peril.
Indeed, Trump suggests he actually read the opinion. If so, he did something that most pundits did not actually do:
Our country is the hottest country anywhere in the world right now, and it was a dead country one-and-a-half years ago under an incompetent president. But now I'm going to go in a different direction, probably the direction that I should have gone the first time.
But I read the language. I'm very good at reading language, and it read our way 100 per cent. But now I'll go the way I could have gone originally, which is even stronger than our original choice.
Again, Kavanaugh's stock has gone way up in the past year or so.
As Justice Kavanaugh — whose stock has gone so up, you have to see, I'm so proud of him — wrote in his dissent, "Although I firmly disagree with the court's holding today, the decision might not substantially constrain a president's ability to order tariffs going forward." So think of that, "the decision might not substantially constrain." And it doesn't. He's right. In fact, I can charge much more than I was charging. So I'm going to just start.
"Although I firmly disagree with the court's holding today, the decision might not substantially constrain a president's ability to order tariffs going forward. That's because numerous other federal statutes" — which is so true" — authorize the president to impose tariffs and might justify most, if not all, of the tariffs issued in this case." Even more tariffs, actually.
"Those statutes include" — think of that — "those statutes include, for example, the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, Section 232" — all of these things I know so well — "the Trade Act of 1974, Sections 122, 201, 301, and the Tariff Act of 1930, Section 338."
All clear, but it's a little bit longer process. I thought I'd make things simple, but they didn't let us do that.
I would like to thank Justice Kavanaugh for his, frankly, his genius and his great ability. Very proud of that appointment.
Later in the Q&A, he would suggest he is not proud of his appointment of Justice Gorsuch and Barrett. Tariffs are probably Trump's most important issue. What is #2? Illegal immigration and birthright citizenship. Wait to see if Trump behaves like a "good boy" after Barbara.
Trump seems convinced that the Court blessed his ability to impose fees under other authorities. And, Trump thinks that Chief Justice Roberts didn't even realize what he was doing. I doubt it, but that is an issue for another day.
In actuality, while I am sure that they did not mean to do so, the Supreme Court's decision today made a president's ability to both regulate trade and impose tariffs more powerful and more crystal clear, rather than less. I don't think they meant that. I'm sure they didn't. It's terrible.
The next point is key. Democrats worked so hard to oppose Trump's three appointees. And when that failed, they favored packing the Court. But why pack the Court when Republican appointees vote the way they do?
And to think that the Democrats who oppose this, only because they want to go the opposite way, they'd like to pack the court. They want to put on 21 people. They want to pack the court, pack the Supreme Court. Maybe they should do it. Maybe they would be better off if they did it. They want to pack the court. They want to do anything to hurt our country.
Trump continues to say the Court blessed his use of different statutes to impose fees. And he returns to the license point, which really seems to be in stuck his craw.
There will no longer be any doubt, and the income coming in and the protection of our companies and country will actually increase because of this decision.
I don't think the court meant that, but it's the way it is.
Based on long-standing law and hundreds of victories — and even, as I was pointed out before, even thousands of victories over the years — to the contrary, the Supreme Court did not overrule tariffs. They merely overruled a particularly use of IEEPA tariffs.
And essentially it's, they used to get a fee. I can do anything I want with IEEPA, anything. I just can't charge anybody for it. I could licence, I just can't charge them. It's ridiculous. But it's OK because we have other ways, numerous other ways.
The ability to block embargo, restrict, licence or impose any other condition on a foreign country's ability to conduct trade with the United States under IEEPA has been fully confirmed by this decision.
So now there's no doubt, because, you know, there were a lot of questions about tariffs, because no president was smart enough to use them to protect our country from those countries and businesses that were ripping us off. You took a look at the deficits that we had with some of these countries, it was disgraceful what they got away with for many, many decades.
But now we know, because this decision affirms all those things that some people weren't sure about.
In order to protect — and it says so — in order to protect our country, a president can actually charge more tariffs than I was charging in the past period of a year under the various tariff authorities. So we can use other of the statutes, other of the tariff authorities, which have also been confirmed and are fully allowed.
Therefore, effective immediately, all national security tariffs under Section 232 and existing Section 301 tariffs — they're existing, they're there — remain in place, fully in place, and in full force and effect.
Today I will sign an order to impose a 10 per cent global tariff under Section 122 over and above our normal tariffs already being charged. And we're also initiating several Section 301 and other investigations to protect our country from unfair trading practices of other countries and companies.
Thank you for your attention to this matter, and I say quite simply, which I've said for a long time, make America great again. And interestingly, we've already made it great, so I don't have to use that. But I don't think we'll ever give up on MAGA. MAGA is always going to be with us.
If you have a few questions, you can let us know. But just to end so, we're going forward, we will be able to take in more money, and there will no longer be doubt — because there was always doubt.
Trump returns by calling the people who brought the lawsuit a "sleazebag."
I know the people that brought the lawsuit and, you know, they're sleazebags, major sleazebags. But I know them, and they're foreign country-centric. They were sending things into our country, and the people representing them knew full well, but they were sending things into our country, and they were beneficial to other countries, but very, very bad for us. And I stopped it. And we'll just keep it going.
You might recall that in May 2025, after the Court of International Trade halted the tariffs, Trump called Leonard Leo a "sleazebag."
So we have more of a, we have a totally firm decision now, and I don't think the court meant it because the court doesn't show great spirit toward our country, in my opinion. A lot of bad decisions, but there are usually ways around it.
This is something we could have done, as Justice Kavanaugh said, we could have done this originally, but we're doing it now, and the numbers could be far greater than the hundreds of billions we've already taken in.
Trump took nearly 30 minutes of questions. Here are some of the more important exchanges:
Thank you so much, Mr. President. Justice Thomas and Alito, as you know, are the most conservative constitutional justices. Do you think that you'll get to a point two more justices later this term with similar ideologies? And what type of vetting process will they go through to ensure they uphold the constitution?
I don't know, but they're great justices. That's all I can say and I hope they're going to be around a long time. I hope they're going to stay healthy. They're great people, they're great -- and Justice Alito too, to add to the group. These are great -- these are great men with a great love of our country and a great understanding of the law.
I recently observed that Trump has no incentive for Alito or Thomas to step down. Trump's time horizon ends on January 20, 2029. Why would he push out the two Justices who are most likely to rule in his favor?
Thank you, Mr. President -- You said ahead of the decision that if the Supreme Court -- Yeah, please. Go ahead. Thank you, Mr. President. What will you say to foreign nations who seek to renegotiate their deals? And what did you mean a moment ago when you said that the Supreme Court has been swayed by foreign interests?
Well, I think that foreign interests are represented by people that I believe have undue influence. They have a lot of influence over the Supreme Court, 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. I think they're real slimeballs. And, uh, got to do what's right for the country. You got to do what's right for the Constitution. That's why I respect so much, Justice Thomas and Alito, Kavanaugh, because they not only dissented, their dissent is so strong. When you read their dissent, you know, a lot of times you'll read a dissent and it's like, well, you don't know. It could go either way. There's no other way. The good news is it's like Justice Kavanaugh said, very strongly said, you have other ways you can go. You don't have to go that way. You can go other way. There are numerous other ways you can go. And frankly, this should have been done by presidents many years ago.
I really wonder how often Trump reads dissents, and thinks the case can go either way.
Do you regret appointing Amy Coney Barrett --
-- I'm not -- I'm not talking to you -- -- I'm talking -- I don't talk -- I don't talk to CNN. It's fake news. Go ahead.
He did not answer this question. A reporter came back to it later. Trump deflected again:
Mr. President, Justices Gorsuch and Barrett, are you surprised in particular by their decision today?
I am.
And do you regret nominating them?I don't want to say whether or not I regret. I think their decision was terrible. Yeah. I think it's an embarrassment to their families, you want to know the truth, the two of them. Yeah.
It is unfortunate Trump brought in their families. The Justices have faced death threats, and Justice Barrett's family has also received threats. Leave the family out of it.
Trump did say something we were all thinking. How could the Court take as much time as it did and say absolutely nothing about the remedy. It's almost like Chief Justice Roberts does not care at all about the practical consequences of his ruling. He just wants to get it off his plate.
Well, thank you for the question. And I will say this, we really are at a very important point. I've been waiting for this decision so long. They could have made this decision a long time ago, not complex. They're wrong on it. It's a ridiculous decision. But they should have released this a long time ago. We waited months and that gave uncertainty. Now we have certainty and I think you're going to see the country get much stronger because of it. Look, we were ripped off by almost every country in the world. If you look at the surpluses, almost every country in the world that did business with us, our people were stupid.
Trump returned to the remedial question again.
Thank you, President Trump. So since Liberation Day, there's about $175 billion in tariff revenue that is now in limbo. Do you have to refund $175 billion?
Think of it. Think of it, Peter. Very fair question. They take months and months to write an opinion and they don't even discuss that point. We've taken in hundreds of billions of dollars, not millions, hundreds of billions of dollars. And so I said, well, what happens to all the money that we took in? It wasn't discussed. Wouldn't you think they would have put one sentence in there saying that keep the money or don't keep the money, right? I guess it has to get litigated for the next two years. So they write this terrible, defective decision, totally defective. It's almost like not written by smart people. And what they do? They don't even talk about that. Your question is very basic. That was the first question I asked, also, to make you feel good. I said what about all the money that we've taken in? Sir, they don't discuss that. How crazy is that?
Mr. President -- -- Mr. President, what you're saying is, are you saying that you don't plan to honor refunds for companies that file for them?
I just told you the answer, right? I told you the answer. It's not discussed. We'll end up being in court for the next five years.
One sentence would have been helpful. But we didn't even get that.
If Justice Barrett does not come to the State of the Union, will it be in protest of the "lapdog" comment? And if so, wouldn't that mean Trump's broader point was right--that the Justices are swayed by political pressure.
Mr. President, on the tariff check -- Supreme court justices who ruled against this -- the policy, striking it down, are they still invited to your State of the Union next week? And will you speak with them?
They are invited, barely, barely. Three are happily invited, no, no, they're barely -- they're barely invited. Honestly, I couldn't care less if they come. OK?
At least Trump's grammar is correct.
Thank you for reading this far. I suspect there are many typos here. Sorry. You'll have to deal with them.
Much more to come soon.