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.
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.
You may also like
'Treated like criminals': Rahul Gandhi slams government for detaining protesters in Delhi, says citizens have right to clean air
Chhattisgarh: Accidental gunfire in Narayanpur forest; hunter injured, police launch probe
PM Modi hails youth fitness surge as BJP leaders Tejasvi Surya, Annamalai conquer Ironman 70.3 Goa
Is Chet Holmgren playing tonight vs the Memphis Grizzlies? Latest update on the Oklahoma City Thunder star's injury report (November 9, 2025)
F1 star left with egg on his face after falsely reporting rival at Brazilian GP
