President Donald Trump said that his administration's newly imposed U.S. tariffs are effectively the same as the tariffs the Supreme Court ruled illegal earlier this year.
On Tuesday, in an interview with Fox News, Trump said, "It's a shame that I have to go a harder way for the tariffs because the Supreme Court, in a very close decision, you know, ruled against me."
Trump said he has opted for alternative ways to achieve the same goal, but they are more complicated and less convenient.
Fox News host Brian Kilmeade asked Trump whether the tariffs he recently announced could hurt the U.S. economy in the short term as businesses adjust to shifting manufacturing back to the United States.
"The tariffs have made this country a fortune," Trump said, while claiming that his use of them has helped stopped numerous wars. "These tariffs — it's the greatest thing," he said.
The President said the tariffs are generating hundreds of billions of dollars and helping U.S. industries, claiming they have boosted automakers like General Motors Co. (GM) and spurred chipmakers to invest hundreds of billions in new semiconductor plants in Arizona.
"We are going to end up with 40 to 50% of the chip business from nothing in a year and a half from now," Trump added.
When asked about the USMCA negotiations, Trump said he would prefer the U.S. to exit the USMCA trade pact rather than renegotiate it, arguing that Canada and Mexico rely on the agreement far more than the U.S. does and that the U.S. does not need the deal.
Tariffs Face Fresh Legal Challenge
The Trump administration, last week, imposed new 10%–12.5% tariffs on imports from more than 80 countries, citing their failure to adequately prevent the use of forced labour. The duties, enacted under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, took effect as Trump's temporary global 10% tariff reached its 150-day limit and expired.
Hours later, two small businesses sued the Trump administration in the U.S. Court of International Trade, arguing the administration is using them to effectively reinstate the global tariff regime that the Supreme Court struck down five months earlier.
The lawsuit contends the tariffs are framed as targeting forced labor but are actually designed to preserve the invalidated tariff system, arguing Section 301 does not authorize broad tariffs on imports from nearly all trading partners.
Sara Albrecht of the Liberty Justice Center, the non-profit leading the lawsuit, said changing the statute or rationale cannot make "unlawful" Trump tariffs legal.
Why Experts Expect Tariffs To Survive
Trade attorney Robert Shapiro had told Forbes in February that future tariffs imposed under Section 301 are unlikely to be struck down by courts because the law explicitly authorizes tariffs.
Meanwhile, another trade attorney, Ryan Majerus, told Reuters on Thursday that courts may hesitate to overturn measures aimed at combating forced labor, adding that the administration has "a lot of flexibility" to adjust Section 301 tariffs.
Nick Baker, co-lead of the Trade and Customs practice at Kroll, a financial advisory firm, told Forbes on Friday, "While prior tariff programs stood on questionable legal grounds, this new initiative is expected to withstand any potential legal challenge and likely represent the new normal for U.S. trade policy."
