Trump Warns "We're Screwed" If Supreme Court Strikes Down Tariffs

US President Donald Trump has issued a stark warning that the country would be "screwed" and face a "complete mess" costing trillions if the Supreme Court rules against his administration's tariff policies. The Court is set to rule on whether Trump could legally use emergency powers to impose tariffs without congressional approval. A ruling against Trump could force the rollback of his "Liberation Day" tariffs and undermine recent US trade deals with allies like the EU and UK. Trump argues the financial repayments and disruptions would be so vast they would take years to untangle.

Key Points: Trump: Supreme Court Tariff Ruling Could Cause "Complete Mess"

  • Trillion-dollar liabilities feared
  • SCOTUS to rule on presidential tariff authority
  • Global trade deals could be undermined
  • Tariff rollback may be required
3 min read

"We're screwed!": Trump warns of 'complete mess' if Supreme Court strikes down tariffs

Trump warns of trillion-dollar losses if SCOTUS rules against his tariff policies, saying the US would be "screwed" and face a global economic mess.

"In other words, if the Supreme Court rules against the United States of America on this National Security bonanza, WE'RE SCREWED! - Donald Trump"

Washington DC, January 13

US President Donald Trump on Monday said that the Country would be "screwed" if the Supreme Court rules against his administration's tariff policies, calling such a scenario a "complete mess" that could cost trillions of dollars in loss.

Trump's remarks come as the Supreme Court is expected to release opinions on Wednesday, with potential rulings on Trump's tariffs.

In a post on Truth Social, Trump said the amounts that the US could be forced to repay would run into "many Hundreds of Billions of Dollars".

"The actual numbers that we would have to pay back if, for any reason, the Supreme Court were to rule against the United States of America on Tariffs, would be many Hundreds of Billions of Dollars, and that doesn't include the amount of 'payback' that Countries and Companies would require for the Investments they are making on building Plants, Factories, and Equipment, for the purpose of being able to avoid the payment of Tariffs," Trump said in his post.

"When these Investments are added, we are talking about Trillions of Dollars! It would be a complete mess, and almost impossible for our Country to pay," he added.

Trump also pushed back against suggestions that any such financial liabilities could be resolved quickly, calling them misleading. "Anybody who says that it can be quickly and easily done would be making a false, inaccurate, or totally misunderstood answer to this very large and complex question," he said.

Emphasising the scale of the issue, the US President said that even if repayment were possible, it would take years to determine the exact amounts and beneficiaries.

"It may not be possible but, if it were, it would be Dollars that would be so large that it would take many years to figure out what number we are talking about and even, who, when, and where, to pay. Remember, when America shines brightly, the World shines brightly," he said, before adding, "In other words, if the Supreme Court rules against the United States of America on this National Security bonanza, WE'RE SCREWED!" he wrote.

Meanwhile, the legal decision could redefine Trump's presidential authority over trade and reshape global economic relations.

The case, Learning Resources Vs Trump, will determine whether a U.S. president can invoke emergency powers under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose tariffs without congressional approval.

The outcome could have sweeping implications for Donald Trump's "Liberation Day" tariffs and for global trade policy.

According to a note by the Global Trade Research Initiative (GTRI), if the Supreme Court rules against Trump, it could force the administration to withdraw tariffs imposed under IEEPA.

It stated, "Such a ruling would mean all 'Liberation Day' tariffs--and subsequent rate hikes--lack a lawful basis. The administration would have to roll them back or face injunctions halting their collection.

"Trump could attempt to reimpose similar tariffs under Section 301 or Section 232, but those statutes require new investigations and public justification, delaying action and inviting further legal challenges.

GTRI noted that if the Supreme Court strikes down Trump's use of emergency powers, the ruling would have far-reaching implications beyond the US.

The decision would undermine the foundations of several recently negotiated trade arrangements with key partners, including the European Union, Japan, South Korea, and the United Kingdom.

- ANI

Share this article:

Reader Comments

P
Priya S
Watching this from India, it's a reminder of why strong, independent institutions are so important. No single person should have unchecked power over something as critical as trade. Hope the SC does its duty. 🇮🇳
R
Rohit P
The language is so dramatic! "We're screwed!" 😅 But seriously, this affects everyone. US tariffs have ripple effects on global supply chains, including ours. If they have to roll them back, it could be good for Indian exports in the short term, no?
S
Sarah B
As someone who works in international trade, this is a huge moment. The IEEPA wasn't designed for blanket tariffs. A ruling against Trump would reaffirm the rule of law and could prevent future presidents from acting unilaterally. A necessary check.
V
Vikram M
Interesting perspective. He's essentially admitting his policy was on shaky legal ground from the start. If it causes a "complete mess," that's on the administration for not building a proper legal case. You can't bypass Congress and then complain about the consequences.
K
Karthik V
The part about other countries building plants to avoid tariffs is key. It shows how protectionism can backfire and actually push investment *out* of your country. A lesson for all economies, including India. We need to be competitive, not just put up walls.

We welcome thoughtful discussions from our readers. Please keep comments respectful and on-topic.

Leave a Comment

Minimum 50 characters 0/50