'People against tariffs are fools': Trump slams US Supreme Court; promises '$2000 benefit' to most Americans
US President Donald Trump launched a strong defence of his tariff policies on Sunday, calling opponents “fools” and asserting that the measures have made the United States “the richest, most respected country in the world.”
His comments came on Truth Social as the US Supreme Court heard a crucial case earlier this week, examining whether the president overstepped his authority in imposing sweeping import duties.
In a post on Truth Social, Trump said, “People that are against Tariffs are FOOLS! We are now the Richest, Most Respected Country In the World, With Almost No Inflation, and A Record Stock Market Price. 401k’s are the Highest EVER. We are taking in Trillions of Dollars and will soon begin paying down our ENORMOUS DEBT, $37 Trillion.”
Claiming that tariffs had triggered a surge in domestic investment, Trump added that “businesses are pouring into the USA ONLY BECAUSE OF TARIFFS” and that the administration planned “a dividend of at least $2000 a person (not including high income people!).”
He questioned the limits on presidential power in trade matters, stating, “So, let’s get this straight??? The President of the United States is allowed (and fully approved by Congress!) to stop ALL TRADE with a Foreign Country (Which is far more onerous than a Tariff!), and LICENSE a Foreign Country, but is not allowed to put a simple Tariff on a Foreign Country, even for purposes of NATIONAL SECURITY. That is NOT what our great Founders had in mind! The whole thing is ridiculous! Other Countries can Tariff us, but we can’t Tariff them??? It is their DREAM!!! Businesses are pouring into the USA ONLY BECAUSE OF TARIFFS. HAS THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT NOT BEEN TOLD THIS??? WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON??? “
He added, “without tariffs, we have nothing of the following.”
Trump’s remarks coincided with oral arguments before the US Supreme Court, where justices across the ideological spectrum raised doubts about the administration’s justification for the tariffs.
According to a BBC report, several conservative justices questioned the White House’s broad application of levies under the international emergency economic powers act (IEEPA) - a 1977 law allowing presidents to regulate trade during a national emergency.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked pointedly, “And so is it your contention that every country needed to be tariffed because of threats to the defense and industrial base? I mean, Spain? France?” She noted that if the administration lost, the US government could be forced to refund billions of dollars in collected tariffs, calling the process a potential “complete mess.”
The case - seen as a major test of presidential authority - challenges whether Trump’s imposition of tariffs on goods from dozens of countries, ranging from India to France, went beyond what Congress authorised. The White House has argued that the power to “regulate” trade includes the ability to impose tariffs, with solicitor general John Sauer warning that striking down the policy could invite “ruthless trade retaliation” and cause “ruinous economic and national security consequences.”
Appearing later on Fox News, Trump said he thought the hearing “went well” and described the dispute as “one of the most important cases in the history of our country.”
The Supreme Court’s ruling is expected to have sweeping implications for future presidents’ ability to unilaterally set trade policy.
In a post on Truth Social, Trump said, “People that are against Tariffs are FOOLS! We are now the Richest, Most Respected Country In the World, With Almost No Inflation, and A Record Stock Market Price. 401k’s are the Highest EVER. We are taking in Trillions of Dollars and will soon begin paying down our ENORMOUS DEBT, $37 Trillion.”
Claiming that tariffs had triggered a surge in domestic investment, Trump added that “businesses are pouring into the USA ONLY BECAUSE OF TARIFFS” and that the administration planned “a dividend of at least $2000 a person (not including high income people!).”
He questioned the limits on presidential power in trade matters, stating, “So, let’s get this straight??? The President of the United States is allowed (and fully approved by Congress!) to stop ALL TRADE with a Foreign Country (Which is far more onerous than a Tariff!), and LICENSE a Foreign Country, but is not allowed to put a simple Tariff on a Foreign Country, even for purposes of NATIONAL SECURITY. That is NOT what our great Founders had in mind! The whole thing is ridiculous! Other Countries can Tariff us, but we can’t Tariff them??? It is their DREAM!!! Businesses are pouring into the USA ONLY BECAUSE OF TARIFFS. HAS THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT NOT BEEN TOLD THIS??? WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON??? “
He added, “without tariffs, we have nothing of the following.”
According to a BBC report, several conservative justices questioned the White House’s broad application of levies under the international emergency economic powers act (IEEPA) - a 1977 law allowing presidents to regulate trade during a national emergency.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked pointedly, “And so is it your contention that every country needed to be tariffed because of threats to the defense and industrial base? I mean, Spain? France?” She noted that if the administration lost, the US government could be forced to refund billions of dollars in collected tariffs, calling the process a potential “complete mess.”
The case - seen as a major test of presidential authority - challenges whether Trump’s imposition of tariffs on goods from dozens of countries, ranging from India to France, went beyond what Congress authorised. The White House has argued that the power to “regulate” trade includes the ability to impose tariffs, with solicitor general John Sauer warning that striking down the policy could invite “ruthless trade retaliation” and cause “ruinous economic and national security consequences.”
Appearing later on Fox News, Trump said he thought the hearing “went well” and described the dispute as “one of the most important cases in the history of our country.”
The Supreme Court’s ruling is expected to have sweeping implications for future presidents’ ability to unilaterally set trade policy.
Popular from World
- From toasted to roasted: Trump wines sales in military cantonments invite flak
- Hundreds of cops resign ahead of Zohran Mamdani’s term in NYC: ‘How do you work for a mayor who wants to defund police?’
- US to deny visas to people with diabetes, heart disease and other chronic illnesses
- Tampa tragedy: Speeding car fleeing police ploughs into crowd outside bar in Ybor City; four dead, 11 injured
- YouTuber Candace Owens fires back at Ben Shapiro after he claims she accused Erika Kirk of killing Charlie Kirk
end of article
Trending Stories
- YouTuber Candace Owens fires back at Ben Shapiro after he claims she accused Erika Kirk of killing Charlie Kirk
- Jack Dorsey on Elon Musk's $1 trillion pay package: ‘This is not about compensation. It's about …’
- Connor McDavid’s wife Lauren Kyle drops ‘Oilers Collection 03’—A racing-inspired fashion release by Sports Club Atelier
- Hundreds of cops resign ahead of Zohran Mamdani’s term in NYC: ‘How do you work for a mayor who wants to defund police?’
- Megan Thee Stallion receives heartfelt apology from boyfriend Klay Thompson after airport pickup mishap
- US to deny visas to people with diabetes, heart disease and other chronic illnesses
- Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang to Mark Zuckerberg: I would have dropped out of college, if I had known …
Featured in world
- Can't move to Pakistan: Man who caused five-vehicle crash, killed 1, allowed to stay in Canada; wife says children don't know Urdu
- MAGA commentator pitches JD Vance–Sydney Sweeney 2028 run; TV host jokes ‘Rubio might not like that’
- UAE tightens freelance visa procedures, denies suspension rumours
- Nikki Glaser: What you need to know about her net worth and relationships
- Ukrainian strikes leave Russian cities in dark: Drone attacks disrupt power; thousands face blackout
- Dubai Ruler Sheikh Mohammed shares video revealing a day in the life of Dubai Metro
Photostories
- From not having enough money to buy a house to putting in their entire savings; Rohit Purohit and Sheena Bajaj’s white haven in Mumbai
- 5 foods that secretly make your face bloated and what to eat instead
- How to make mornings easier before school: 10 real-life tips for moms and dads that actually work
- 'Laal Singh Chaddha', 'Action Replayy', 'Dil Bole Hadippa!': Bollywood remakes of Hollywood hits that failed to impress at the box office
- Shopping a little too much online? 8 creative ways to use discarded delivery packaging
- Shanaya Kapoor to Janhvi Kapoor: 5 looks of the day that are setting major fashion goals
- Bigg Boss Malayalam 7: Finalist Nevin’s charming weekend looks
- Was walking the key to Steve Jobs’s genius? Stanford study reveals 4 ways it boosts creativity
- Bigg Boss Malayalam 7: Here’s a look at the stunning transformation of the finalists over the season
- Toll time: Dwarka E-way free ride ends next week; check how much you will have to pay
Videos
03:51 'Surrender Not In Our Playbook': Hamas Rejects Idea Of Laying Down Arms In Rafah Amid Tunnel Fight03:50 Lavrov Shows Trump The Mirror; ‘US Failed & Now Lecturing…’: Explosive Jab Over Truce Chaos04:41 'Another Gaza': Petro Calls Trump A 'Liar' | Blasts U.S. Missile Strikes In Caribbean On Alleged Drug Boats05:33 Monster Fung-Wong Storm Tears Into Philippines; 1,000,000 Obliterated By Super Typhoon04:38 Saudi Crown Prince Defies Trump Pressure, Refuses Israel Ties Without Palestinian Statehood Roadmap - Report12:10 'Don't Mess With Us': California Gov Newsom Pokes Fun At Trump In Savage Houston Speech06:35 U.S Senate Emergency: Chuck Schumer Makes Big Shutdown Offer To Republicans; 'Waiting For Yes'04:04 Trump Sends B-52 Subsonic Bombers To NATO Flank As Russia Mulls Retaliatory Nuke Tests04:23 US & Israel On Alert; Iran’s Russian-made Su-35 Fighter Jets To Be Armed With Deadly R-37M Missiles?
Up Next
Start a Conversation
Post comment