‘Have backup plan’: Trump’s first reaction to US Supreme Court’s tariff ruling

US President Donald Trump has slammed a ruling by the US Supreme Court striking down his sweeping tariff regime, calling the decision a “disgrace” and signalling that his administration is preparing a “backup plan,” according to a report by Reuters citing sources familiar with the matter.  

In a 6-3 judgment authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, the court held that Trump’s use of a 1977 emergency economic law to impose broad tariffs exceeded presidential authority, affirming a lower court’s earlier decision.  

Court blocks use of emergency powers  

The ruling invalidates tariffs introduced under emergency economic powers, concluding that measures of such sweeping scope require clear authorisation from Congress rather than unilateral executive action.  

The decision represents a significant legal setback for a trade strategy that relied on expansive interpretations of presidential authority to quickly impose duties across multiple sectors.  

Administration dignals alternative routes  

Despite the judgment, officials indicated the administration had long prepared contingency plans. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said as early as last September that Washington had “multiple fallback options” if courts curtailed the use of emergency powers.  

One pathway involves shifting to established trade statutes that allow tariffs after formal investigations into unfair practices or national security risks. These mechanisms are slower and require procedural steps, but they are firmly grounded in existing law and have been used previously to justify duties on steel, aluminium and a wide range of imports.  

Sector-specific tariffs unaffected  

The Supreme Court’s decision does not disturb tariffs already imposed through sector-specific investigations. Ongoing probes into various industries could still lead to new targeted duties, offering what officials see as a narrower yet legally sturdier approach to maintaining trade pressure.  

Possible shift to targeted measures  

Another strategy under discussion is to redesign tariffs so they are tied to specific countries, products or alleged trade violations rather than applying across the board. Such tailoring could help the administration pursue similar economic goals while reducing exposure to legal challenges.  

Congressional approval  

The administration could also seek explicit congressional authorisation for broader tariff powers. While politically difficult and time-consuming, legislation would provide the strongest legal footing for future trade actions—something the court signalled is necessary for far-reaching measures.  

‘Other tools available’  

Bessent had previously emphasised that the administration would not be left without recourse if the emergency-powers route failed. “We have other tools available,” he said, underscoring confidence that US trade policy could continue through more traditional legal channels.