President Donald Trump signed an executive order Friday evening imposing a 10% global tariff on all countries, moving within hours of the Supreme Court's 6-3 ruling that stripped his authority to levy sweeping tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The new order relies on a different legal mechanism entirely: Section 122.

The speed of the pivot tells you everything about how prepared the White House was for this outcome.

Trump announced during a White House press briefing that the tariff applies in addition to standard tariffs already in place and takes effect "almost immediately." He also announced the launch of several Section 301 investigations and other inquiries, signaling that the trade agenda isn't contracting. It's diversifying.

The Ruling and the Response

The Supreme Court's opinion was narrow in scope, whatever one thinks of its merits. The majority concluded that the power to "regulate importation," as granted to the president under IEEPA, does not extend to the power to impose tariffs. The Court framed it as a statutory question, not a constitutional referendum on trade policy, as Fox News reports.

"Our task today is to decide only whether the power to 'regulate… importation,' as granted to the President in IEEPA, embraces the power to impose tariffs. It does not."

Trump did not take the ruling quietly. At the briefing and later on Truth Social, he made clear he viewed the decision as both legally wrong and strategically harmful.

"I'm ashamed of certain members of the court, absolutely ashamed, for not having the courage to do what's right for our country."

He went further, accusing some justices of being "swayed by foreign interests and a political movement that is far smaller than people would ever think." He called the Democratic-appointed justices "unpatriotic and disloyal to our Constitution," while noting they would "automatically vote no" regardless.

Strong words. But they came paired with action, not paralysis. Within the same news conference, Trump laid out the alternative path and signed the order.

"We have alternatives. Great alternatives. Could be more money. We'll take in more money, and we'll be a lot stronger for it. We're taking in hundreds of billions of dollars. We'll continue to do so."

A Republican Party Split Three Ways

The ruling exposed a real ideological fault line within the GOP, and it's worth watching closely because it won't resolve itself quietly.

Rep. Buddy Carter of Georgia slammed the decision as "judicial overreach" that "undercut the President's ability to defend American workers." He framed it as the Court standing between Trump and the mandate voters gave him.

Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky took the opposite view, celebrating the ruling as a victory for constitutional structure. His argument was characteristically libertarian and, frankly, worth considering on its own terms:

"In defense of our Republic, the Supreme Court struck down using emergency powers to enact taxes. This ruling will also prevent a future President such as AOC from using emergency powers to enact socialism."

That's the constitutional conservative case in two sentences. The power you cheer today is the power your opponent wields tomorrow. It's a principled position, even if you disagree with Paul's broader skepticism of tariffs as policy.

Then there's Rep. Don Bacon of Nebraska, who went furthest in opposing the administration's approach. He called broad-based tariffs "bad economics" and said he felt "vindicated" by the ruling. But Bacon also made a structural point that cuts deeper than the tariff debate itself:

"In the future, Congress should defend its own authorities and not rely on the Supreme Court."

He's right about that, even if his policy conclusions diverge from the president's. Congress has spent decades shedding its own authority on trade, immigration, and war powers, then complaining when the executive branch fills the vacuum. If legislators want the power back, they should legislate. Novel concept.

The Path Forward

House Speaker Mike Johnson threaded the needle carefully, praising the results of Trump's tariff strategy while acknowledging that the legal landscape has shifted. He noted that tariffs have "brought in billions of dollars and created immense leverage for America's trade strategy" and for "securing strong, reciprocal America-first trade agreements with countries that had been taking advantage of American workers for decades."

Johnson said Congress and the administration will determine the "best path forward" in the coming weeks. That's a diplomatic way of saying: we need legislation now.

And that may be the most consequential outcome of Friday's ruling. The Supreme Court didn't end Trump's trade agenda. It rerouted it. The Section 122 order is already signed. The Section 301 investigations are underway. But the long-term play now requires Congress to act, to actually vote on trade authority rather than hiding behind executive discretion and then grumbling about it on cable news.

What the Court Actually Did

Lost in the political noise is a simple fact: the Court ruled on a statute, not the Constitution. It said IEEPA doesn't grant tariff authority. It did not say the president cannot impose tariffs. It did not say tariffs are unconstitutional. It said this particular law doesn't authorize them.

That distinction matters enormously. Trump's immediate pivot to Section 122 demonstrates that the legal toolkit is broader than one statute. The 10% global tariff is live. The trade posture is intact. The question is whether Congress will now build a durable statutory framework or continue its decades-long habit of outsourcing hard decisions to the executive branch and the judiciary.

An aide handed Trump a note about the ruling during a closed-door White House breakfast with governors on Friday morning. By the afternoon, he was at the briefing announcing the new order. By evening, it was signed.

The Court drew a line. Trump walked around it before the ink was dry.

With the State of the Union address scheduled for Tuesday, some of the Supreme Court's nine justices will likely be sitting in the audience. That should make for an interesting evening. Trump has never been one to let a grievance go unaired, and he now has a prime-time stage, a fresh ruling to contest, and a new tariff order to tout.

Whatever you think of the legal merits, the political chess is already several moves ahead.