Social media claims that US troops were enjoying a lavish meal ahead of a potential conflict with Iran have sparked speculation online, but there has been no official confirmation to support the theory.
The claim taps into a long-standing Internet theory that providing service members with “land, sea, and air” meals is a sign of an upcoming deployment. (X/@InterceptorNews)
On February 21, former U.S. military aide Buzz Patterson retweeted a post from Interceptor News claiming “Breaking: U.S. troops received menu including steak, pie, crab legs and lobster,” adding the cryptic caption: “IYKYK. IT’S GOING.”
These remarks triggered speculation from the outside world military operations Possibly imminent.
The U.S. Department of Defense has not issued a statement confirming any operational link to the reported meals or indicating that new military action will be taken.
The resurgent claim taps into a long-standing Internet theory that “land, sea, and air” meals for service members are a sign of impending deployment or heightened danger.
In 2025, rumors of a steak and lobster meal spread online after a video of soldiers enjoying a meal at a high-end restaurant went viral, the Daily Dot reported. Some commenters speculated that these meals were the previous “last meal” deploywhile others associate it with long missions or dangerous missions.
The theory has been circulating on forums and social media for years, often resurrecting during the pandemic. geopolitical tensions.
However, there is currently no official military policy linking luxury meals to combat deployments, the Daily Dot reported. Military members and online commenters note that land, sea and air meals are often served during holidays, special commemorations or as a morale booster.
In a widely circulated 2025 video cited by the outlet, a soldier clarified that the steak and lobster dinner coincided with a U.S. Army birthday celebration and not any combat deployment.
The latest claims circulate amid rising geopolitical tensions. Experts warn that such claims have not been officially confirmed and should not be interpreted as evidence of imminent military action.
Before he was sworn in as secretary of Health and Human Services in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, President Donald Trump and Supreme Court Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch stood with Robert F. Kennedy Jr., his wife Sheryl Hines and other family members as they accepted his appointment. (AP/PTI)
On February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court overturned Donald Trump’s sweeping global tariffs in a 6-3 decision, a landmark ruling that reshaped the limits of the power of the American president. The decision was historic not only because it invalidated one of Trump’s most aggressive economic policies, but also because two justices he personally appointed joined the majority against him. The case quickly became a defining moment in the ongoing constitutional debate over the extent to which the president of the United States can exercise economic power without Congress.
what the court ruled
The case centers on whether Trump can use emergency powers under the national security law to impose broad tariffs on imported products. The Supreme Court ruled that the statute did not authorize such sweeping action. It held that tariffs were essentially a form of taxation and that the power to tax rested with Congress under the Constitution.Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, framed the case as a basic separation of powers issue. He warned that allowing the president to impose tariffs without explicit legislative approval would give the executive branch virtually unlimited power to reshape the economy.
Trump’s iconoclast appointees
Two of Trump’s own nominees, Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, joined the majority in issuing stunning institutional condemnations.Gorsuch, who took office in 2017, has long advocated strict constitutional limits on executive power. In this context, he emphasized that major economic actions require clear authorization from Congress and cannot rely on vague statutory language. His views reflect a consistent judicial philosophy that prioritizes constitutional structures over political alignments.Barrett, Trump’s 2020 appointee, also sided with the majority. She agreed that Congress must give a clear mandate before the president can make decisions with huge economic consequences. Her vote is particularly important because she is widely considered one of the court’s most conservative members.
conservative divide
The ruling exposed deep divisions within the court’s conservative bloc. Chief Justice Roberts, although appointed by a Republican president, joined Gorsuch and Barrett in striking down the tariffs, forming a three-member conservative majority that opposed Trump.On the other hand, conservatives Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh dissented. They argue that Congress has given the president broad powers to regulate foreign commerce, and Trump’s tariffs are consistent with that tradition. Their dissents reflected a long-standing judicial approach favoring strong executive power, particularly on national security and foreign policy issues.All three liberal justices voted in the majority, making the final alliance a rare cross-ideological alliance driven more by constitutional interpretation than partisan ideology.
political influence
The ruling prompted an angry response from Trump, who publicly criticized the judges who opposed him, including his own nominees. Within hours, he said he planned to impose new tariffs under alternative legal authorities, stressing that the political battle over trade powers was far from over.
Why the ruling is important
Aside from trade policy, the decision is widely seen as one of the most significant limits on presidential power in decades. It reinforces the constitutional principle that economic taxation power remains firmly in the hands of Congress, even during national emergencies.The decision also highlights broader philosophical differences within the conservative legal movement over how far executive power should extend.
bottom line
The Supreme Court’s tariff ruling is more than just a legal setback for Donald Trump. It was a decisive constitutional moment that reaffirmed Congress’s authority over taxes and revealed that even the president’s own appointees can end up siding with institutional limits on political loyalty.
The ‘martyrdom’ of a young man in Iran as family and friends sing, dance and give gifts. (Source: from Iran)
As Muslims around the world begin celebrating Ramadan from Wednesday, Iranians living in India and Western countries say the usual enthusiasm associated with Ramadan is highly downplayed in Iran, reports Kayan Das. Members of the diaspora told TOI that many families back home are struggling with grief following recent anti-regime protests and the death of loved ones, leading to significant changes in how the holy month is celebrated. Mohammad (who asked that his first name be used), an Iranian who has lived in Delhi for nearly a decade, said conversations with his family reflected deep pain and anger. “How do we mark this month when so many people have died in recent anti-regime protests?” he said.As Muslims around the world begin celebrating Ramadan from Wednesday, the enthusiasm usually associated with the holiday in Iran is highly subdued, according to Iranians living in India and Western countries. Members of the diaspora told TOI that many families back home are struggling with grief following recent anti-regime protests and the death of loved ones, leading to significant changes in how the holy month is celebrated.
The parents of a young man killed in the protests cut a black cake and celebrated with lots of money during a grieving protest. (Source: from Iran)
Mohammad (who asked that his first name be used), an Iranian who has lived in Delhi for nearly a decade, said conversations with his family reflected deep pain and anger. “How do we mark this month when so many people have died in recent anti-regime protests?” he said. “People instead focus on the martyrdom of their loved ones – gathering at graves, singing and even dancing. It’s an act of defiance meant to show the regime that killing protesters doesn’t suppress dissent but inspires more people to stand up peacefully.“He added that videos shared by his relatives showed family members clapping and singing at the cemetery. “Previously, families would wear black to mourn. Now, many are suppressing their visible grief and opting for symbolic gestures of resistance. Through this act, they are challenging the regime,” he said.The Times of India independently verified the claims and found several videos in which families appeared to sing and clap near the graves of relatives allegedly killed in the riots.Bahaar Ghorbani, another Iranian living in India, claimed that nearly 40,000 people, including women and children, died during the protests. “In recent years, more and more people have been eating openly during fasting as a sign of dissent. The authorities are no longer cracking down on those who don’t observe the fast. This time, emotions are more tense because of mass killings. Ramadan feels different,” she said.Helma, an Iranian living in Hyderabad, pointed to economic difficulties as another reason for the sour atmosphere. “Many people cannot afford basic food. There are also concerns about a possible war with the United States, which people fear will worsen the situation. In this situation, it is difficult for people to focus on religious rituals,” she added.Demonstrations broke out in several Iranian cities in December amid widespread unrest against the government and growing economic woes. Observers say the unrest is the most significant challenge to the establishment since the 1979 Islamic Revolution.The ensuing security crackdown involved the use of live ammunition against protesters.Rights groups and activists claim the violence killed tens of thousands of people, calling it one of the deadliest episodes in the country’s modern history.
A legal gamble by a small Illinois toy maker has culminated in a ruling that could reshape President Donald Trump’s tariff policy and potentially lead to billions of dollars in refunds for U.S. importers.
Court battle over learning resources exposes limits of Trump’s tariff powers
A court on Friday struck down sweeping tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, dealing a major blow to the Trump administration’s trade policy. The decision follows a wave of lawsuits from importers, U.S. state governments and other stakeholders challenging the legality of the move.
One of the earliest challengers was toymaker Learning Resources, a relatively small but determined player that helped kick off the legal battle.
Toy industry responds to Trump tariffs
Learning Resources, which imports most of its educational toys from China, filed the lawsuit shortly after the tariffs were announced last April. The company argued that the tariffs would severely harm small businesses that rely on imports.
Learning Resources CEO Rick Woldenberg celebrated the ruling, saying it provided a moment to pause and reassess. “I hope this ruling is an opportunity for everyone to take a breath and think about what is important and what needs to be done,” he told Reuters on Friday.
If the decision ultimately results in refunds, learning resources and other importers may be entitled to a share of the billions of dollars collected through tariffs. However, the Supreme Court did not clarify how or when such repayments would occur.
“Give me the money back”
“They have a record of what they took from me, guys, just reverse the gears and give me the money back,” Bloomberg quoted the toy company’s CEO as saying.
“The U.S. government hands out millions of dollars in tax refunds every year, and when they open the check, no one says, ‘Oh my gosh, how did they do that? It’s a miracle.’ They know what to do. They can do it. It’s our money. Give it back to me.”
For Waldenberg, the case has less to do with politics and more to do with taxes. He told Reuters in a separate interview on Thursday local time that he felt the need to take action.
“I think not taking action is going to be more difficult than taking action,” he said, emphasizing that he did not view the lawsuit as political. “It’s about taxes. They owe us money…Every American agrees that we pay too much in taxes and no one wants to pay taxes that they don’t have to pay.”
He added that if the state needs more revenue, lawmakers should openly debate it. “If the country needs revenue, then debate it in Congress,” he said. He called the ruling a positive development, “I’m excited. Hopefully everyone feels like they won. It’s a win for everyone.”
‘We scaled back last year’
Learning Resources and its sister company hand2mind are part of a larger ecosystem. Waldenberg said his company is feeling the impact directly. “We shrank last year,” he noted.
According to a 2025 report by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, small businesses account for approximately 97% of U.S. importers and collectively import approximately $868 billion worth of goods annually. The report described the tariffs as an existential threat.
The Learning Resources CEO said the Trump administration’s key argument that companies can move manufacturing back to the United States ignores the reality of the situation.
“Emergencyly moving supply chains out of a country is like a bomb falling on your head, and it’s a project that no one is prepared for,” he said.
The toymaker is feeling the blow as it operates more than 30 heavy-duty injection molding machines from China, each weighing several tons, used to pump molten plastic into steel shells to make toys.
Relocating such equipment would require dozens of flatbed trucks and cranes, making it costly and logistically difficult, the CEO said.
The company’s long-term partner factories in China have a skilled workforce familiar with strict toy safety standards. Waldenberg said it could take months or even years to replicate that capability in the United States.
Now, he remains optimistic that the tariffs already paid will eventually be refunded. “Once they do that, we’ll start spending money,” he said. “We want to run our company again,” he added, according to Reuters.
Since April, the U.S. Court of International Trade has received more than 1,800 tariff-related lawsuits, a significant increase from less than two dozen in all of 2024.
Hardik Pandya and Mahieka Sharma (Image source: Instagram)
New Delhi: India’s star all-rounder Hardik Pandya Mahieka Sharma made her 25th birthday special with a heartfelt post on Instagram – but it was Mahieka’s reply that really stole the show.Pandya shared an unseen video of the couple celebrating together, capturing candid moments of laughter, warm embraces and walking hand-in-hand in an outdoor setting illuminated by fireworks. The video ends on a romantic note, with the couple releasing a floating lantern into the night sky.
New Zealand remain strong ahead of Super Eights clash against Pakistan, T20 World Cup
He captioned the video: “Happy birthday my princess.”Pandya also added an emotional message: “Thank you for coming into this world 25 years ago. You are the most amazing person I know. I love you.”Mahika’s response quickly caught people’s attention. Replying to Pandya’s post, she wrote: “You are my best gift this year.”Taking a step further, Mahika shared a beautiful collage depicting her special moment with Pandya and poured her heart out in the caption.“I love my man. Thank you baby for giving me the best birthday. I am the luckiest girl in the world,” she said.The couple have made several public appearances together in recent months. Earlier this year, they attended Manchester United’s Triumph event in Mumbai, posing for the cameras, wearing black outfits and walking hand in hand. Pandya confirmed their relationship in October 2025, soon after dating rumors started circulating. The two were later spotted together at the Mumbai airport and vacationing together.
Pandya was previously married to an actor Natasha Stankovic. The couple tied the knot in 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic and welcomed their son Agastya on July 30, 2020. After months of speculation, their separation was confirmed in July 2025.They said in a joint statement at the time: “After four years together, Natasha and I have decided to go our separate ways. We have tried our best and put our best foot forward and we believe it is in the best interests of both of us. This has been a difficult decision given the joy, mutual respect and companionship we have shared while building our family.”
Patidar community meeting held in Mehsana last month. Leaders of the Patida group say they want strict laws to crack down on “fake marriages”
The Gujarat government’s proposal that couples must notify their parents before marrying has not yet become law, but in parts of the state, “orders” to this effect are already in force, and some villages and communities have formulated detailed “regulations” aimed at governing how their members marry.The amendments proposed in the state assembly on Friday reflect local demands and actions, scattered village resolutions fortified into community-level “constitutions” – resolutions and declarations that threaten couples who marry for love to be boycotted, ostracized and excluded from public life.From the gram sabhas of Kheda district to the caste organizations of Patidar and Thaks, the consensus driving such declarations is that marriage without parental consent threatens tradition, disrupts social order and harms women.“Breaking ban, facing boycott”The gram sabha of Nand village in Mahudha taluka recently passed a resolution imposing a total social boycott against couples who get married despite family objections. The couples were banned from community facilities, religious gatherings and social events. The resolution also limits wedding and funeral expenses, bans DJs and “objectionable songs” and imposes fines for violations.
Notice
Village chief Bharat Solanki said rising cases of matrimonial disputes led to the decision. “We are a village of 5,000 people, mostly Thaks and Darbars. There used to be Sargotra (intra-tribal) marriages, which were not allowed. When a couple eloped, it put the parents in an awkward position. With such incidents increasing, we decided to declare a ban on such marriages. Violate the ban and you will face boycott.“Solanki insisted that the rules spared no one. All communities in the village – including minority OBC and SC families – must comply. “These rules apply to everyone. We are not targeting any particular group. Violators will have to pay a fine of Rs 21,000 and will be banned from attending village gatherings,” he said.Similar “rules” are cropping up elsewhere, foreshadowing wider social unrest. Village elders believe the eloping couple – whose union is known locally as “bhgedu lagan” – destroys social harmony and brings shame to their families.Banaskantha MP Geni Thakor, who is spearheading the Thakor community’s movement against such unions, said “the decision was taken because (they) keep seeing fraudulent marriages”.“Girls marrying outside their community weakens its social fabric. In some cases, women are cheated by men, abused and in some cases even forced to commit suicide. Our goal is to protect our daughters,” Thakor said. He also cited demographic factors, saying “the sex ratio is collapsing in Patidhar”. Following the proposed amendment, Thakor said, “She was the first to raise the issue of ‘bhagedu lagan’ when the ‘Love Jihad’ Bill (Gujarat Freedom of Religion (Amendment) Bill, 2021) was tabled in Parliament”. She insists that “99% of love marriages fail and cause pain to the girl.” Asked about the basis for her claim, she said: “I’ve seen this happen in rural areas; that may not be the case in big cities.”“Parents should say” Among the Patidas, opposition to such self-selected marriages has been brewing for years. Sardar Patel Group (SPG) chief Lalji Patel said the campaign was built around the anguish of parents. “During the COVID-19 pandemic, parents came to us and begged us to save their daughters who were trapped in fake marriages,” said Patel. “That’s why we are initiating these measures.” He said that although he acknowledged that the constitution allows adults to choose to marry, the SPG has been demanding that the legal age of marriage for women be raised from 18 to 21. “But society is important. Parents are everything. They should have a say.” A pamphlet circulated by the Patidar Sena in Mehsana goes beyond parental consent and calls for sweeping changes, including requiring parental signatures on marriage registrations for those aged 30 or below. It also wants palace marriages to be limited to the bride’s local jurisdiction, with 40 being the minimum age for witnesses and couples who choose to marry after 30 depositing Rs 10 lakh in their parents’ accounts and giving up any claim to family property.“These demands stem from the pain that parents have gone through,” said Satish Patel, leader of the Mehsana Patidar Sena. Asked about the proposed rules, he said they were “not completely satisfied” as they also wanted “only blood relatives of the girl to sign the marriage registration to ensure that parents and relatives take full responsibility for every such union”. Community leaders who support the demands insist they are not opposed to people choosing who they want to marry, but rather secrecy and deception. “If a couple wants to get married and the parents agree, we will not object,” said Lalji Patel. “But parents have to be involved. They are the ones who will always protect their daughters.” He also said that the latest proposal did not meet their requirements. “The government is saying it is just ‘notifying’ parents, as if notification is enough. We are demanding mandatory parental consent.”“There is no crime in love marriage” Legal experts warn that such measures infringe on the core of constitutional freedoms, but those who violate such orders say they must face serious difficulties in their daily lives.A Dalit man from northern Gujarat, who married a woman from the Darbar community (who are higher up in the social hierarchy) in 2015, said they had to move at least 50 times and stay off social media to avoid being tracked. Both had graduate degrees but could not find steady employment.“We cannot work in one place. Although we all have PG degrees, we are still dependent on daily wages,” the man said. “We work for an NGO, but my wife’s family or relatives approached me during fieldwork.”Kaushik Parmar, a lawyer from Mehsana who serves inter-caste couples, slammed the proposed changes in marriage registration rules, saying “love marriage is not an enemy of society; it is the right of free citizens”. “Every attempt to curb it weakens the constitution and strengthens the caste hierarchy. If we truly want a progressive, equal and just society, we must view love marriage as a tool for social change, not a crime.” These rules amount to murder of democracy,” he said.
Three conservative justices warned on Friday that the court overstepped its boundaries in its decision to block President Donald Trump from imposing emergency tariffs, arguing that the president should be able to impose them under his authority over foreign affairs. In a 63-page dissent written by Judge Brett Kavanaugh, dissenters also expressed concern that the decision would lead to chaos, at least in the short term, as importers who have already paid tariffs seek refunds. “The United States may be required to refund billions of dollars to importers who paid IEEPA tariffs, although some importers may have passed on the costs to consumers or others,” Kavanaugh wrote, referring to the acronym for the 1970s emergency regulations Trump invoked to impose tariffs. He noted that oral arguments discussed how such a refund process could become “a mess.” He also noted that the administration has used tariff leverage to strike important trade deals with other countries. Trump, he wrote, “helped broker trillions of dollars’ worth of trade deals — including with China, the United Kingdom, Japan and others.” The court’s ruling “could create uncertainty about these trading arrangements,” he wrote. While Kavanaugh warned of dire consequences from the court’s ruling, he expressed optimism about Trump’s ability to continue imposing tariffs. Kavanaugh wrote that while he “firmly” disagreed with the outcome, “this decision may not significantly limit the president’s ability to order tariffs in the future.” He laid out several potential avenues for the president to impose tariffs, adding that these other federal regulations “could justify most, if not all, of the tariffs at issue in this case.” However, he added that the regulations may require additional measures not required by the emergency laws Trump has invoked so far. He listed specific sections of several federal laws, including the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, the Trade Act of 1974 and the Tariff Act of 1930, and wrote that the majority concluded that “the President checked the wrong statutory box in relying on emergency laws.”
Anne Guthrie and husband Tommaso Scioni Pima County Sheriff Chris Nanos made it clear that none of the family members were suspects in the case, and days later the matter became a topic of discussion again. Nancy Guthrie case.
Tommaso Cioni was the son-in-law of Nancy Guthrie and his wife was Annie Guthrie. (X/@McCannCase tweet)
Previously, social media posts claimed the pair were Guthrie’s “official caregivers.”
The 84-year-old’s daughter and son-in-law have been in the public eye for some time after former NewsNation reporter Ashley Banfield claimed Cione was a suspect. According to reports, Guthrie and Anne The night she was taken, Sione dropped her off at her home. Her family reported her missing on February 1, making Sione one of the last people to see her before her abduction.
Now, interest in the pair appears to be reignited amid the viral announcement.
“Why didn’t Nancy Guthrie police tell us… that Tommaso and Anne were #NancyGuthrie’s official caretakers? Why all the secrecy? Why were they protected?” one person wrote on the X.
They shared a clip from a news report, in which the following quote can be seen: “Annie and Tommy were amazing people and dedicated parents who also loved and cared for Nancy every day.”
Reaction to virus claims
Many people reacted to this man’s statement. “If your mum is 84 and lives a few miles from you, you probably ‘care’ for her on a daily basis too. Carers don’t express this in a formal way,” one person said. commented About X.another additional”, “Doesn’t mean they are family caregivers. Could mean many things. She may need help getting to the grocery store. Or clean the room, etc. “
There is another post famous “It was mentioned at the beginning that they were moving near Nancy so they could help take care of her.”
Fact-checking virus claims
While Sione and Anne may be caring for Guthrie on a daily basis, they have not yet been officially recognized as caregivers. Therefore, the suggestion that they are official caregivers appears to have originated from the Internet and is unfounded.
The person who shared the post seemed to interpret “love and care for Nancy” as being a caregiver. This was criticized, with one commenting: “Some people love their parents and help them. Is this a foreign concept to you?”.
Likewise, there is no indication that Anne and Sione are “official carers” and, despite being geographically closest to Guthrie, they may no longer be caring for the 84-year-old.
The charges against Guthrie and Cione come as the Pima County Sheriff’s Department provides an update on the suspects. Police expect there may be more than one suspect. Sheriff Chris Nanos’ office told Fox News: “The Sheriff has consistently stated that while investigators are working to identify the person seen in the doorbell video, they have not ruled out that this is the only person involved.”
NEW DELHI: Congress on Friday welcomed the US Supreme Court’s ruling against President Donald Trump’s imposition of sweeping tariffs on various countries, saying the decision showed that “the US system of checks and balances appears to still be working.“Hours after the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated the tariffs imposed by Trump in a 6-3 ruling, Congressional Secretary Jairam Ramesh said: “Hats off to the U.S. Supreme Court for striking down President Trump’s entire tariff strategy! This is a pretty astonishing decision given its ideological makeup. The 6-3 ruling is decisive.”“The U.S. system of checks and balances appears to be still functioning,” he added.Veteran Congress leader and former finance minister P Chidambaram also demanded that the government explain the impact of the judgment on the “agreement” announced by the United States and India on February 6.Chidambaram said he had said that if the Supreme Court overturns the tariffs imposed by President Trump, the result will be that the United States and India will return to the status quo ante before April 2, 2025.“At the same time, the United States has proposed multiple concessions to India without any concessions. What will happen with these concessions? The joint statement announced that the United States will impose zero tariffs on many goods exported to India; India intends to import goods worth $500 billion from the United States; India will not buy Russian oil; India will address non-tariff barriers to U.S. goods and so on,” the former finance minister said.“What will happen with these commitments? The Indian team is now in the United States finalizing the text of the framework agreement. What will the team do now?” Chidambaram said.The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday struck down President Donald Trump’s far-reaching global tariffs, dealing him a major loss on an issue central to his economic agenda.The 6-3 decision focused on tariffs imposed under emergency powers laws, including sweeping reciprocal tariffs that Trump has imposed on nearly all other countries.Most agree that the Constitution very clearly gives Congress the power to impose taxes, including tariffs. However, Trump said after the Supreme Court ruling that “nothing has changed” in the trade deal with India and announced an additional 10% global tariff on goods imported into the United States in response to the ruling.Trump lashed out at the Supreme Court justices who ruled against him, calling them “fools and stooges.” “The Supreme Court’s ruling on tariffs is deeply disappointing, and I’m ashamed of some members of the court and absolutely ashamed that they don’t have the courage to do the right thing for our country,” Trump said at a news conference at the White House on Friday, just hours after the ruling was announced.
President Donald Trump lashed out at the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday after it struck down his administration’s reciprocal tariffs, saying the ruling meant he “cannot charge even $1” to other countries. Within hours of the setback, he announced new “global tariffs” of 10% on all U.S. trading partners.
U.S. President Donald Trump speaks during a news conference at the White House in Washington, D.C., after the Supreme Court ruled that Trump exceeded his authority when imposing tariffs (Reuters)
Trump spoke to reporters after the ruling, framing the court’s decision around what he said were fundamental contradictions.
“However, just to give you an idea of how ridiculous that argument is, the court said I’m not even allowed to charge a dollar. I can’t charge a dollar… You can’t charge a dollar to any country under IEEPA. Not a dollar,” he said.
The Supreme Court earlier invalidated reciprocal tariffs imposed in April under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), dealing a blow to one of Trump’s key trade measures.
“I can do whatever I want but don’t charge $1”
Trump argued that the decision limited his ability to impose minimal tariffs while allowing for tougher action.
“But I’m allowed to cut off any and all trade or business with the same country. In other words, I can destroy trade. I can destroy this country. I’m even allowed to impose breaking embargoes on foreign countries. I can embargo. I can do whatever I want, but I can’t charge a dollar,” Trump said.
“I assume, [the court’s order is] to protect other countries. This must be done to protect other countries. Certainly not the United States of America, which they should be interested in protecting,” he said.
After court setback, vows to have alternatives
Despite the ruling, Trump made clear he would pursue other options to keep the tariffs in place. He insists that early tariffs generated huge revenue. “We’ve made hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue. We’re going to continue to do that,” he added.
“But now other alternatives will be used to replace the alternatives that the court wrongly rejected. We have alternatives, great alternatives, that will probably bring in more money. We will receive more money and we will be stronger for it,” he said.
India deal remains unchanged
Earlier in the day, Trump said the Supreme Court’s ruling would not change the terms of the U.S. trade deal with India.
“Nothing has changed. They will pay tariffs and we will not pay tariffs. The agreement with India is that they pay tariffs. This is the opposite of what has happened in the past,” he said.
White House officials clarified that for countries that have signed trade agreements with the United States, such as India, the tariff level will be temporarily reduced to 10% before the new tax rate is determined.
Signed the 10% global tariff order
Within hours of the court order, Trump announced a new trade initiative.
“I am deeply honored to have just signed a global 10% tariff on all countries in the Oval Office that goes into effect almost immediately. Thank you for your attention!” he posted on Truth Social.
The new tariffs were authorized under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which allows the president to impose tariffs of up to 15% for up to 150 days to address “large and serious” balance of payments problems.
Authorities do not require a formal investigation. However, any extension beyond 150 days will require congressional approval. After that deadline, the tariffs can only go forward if lawmakers sign off.
However, legal experts say the newly announced tariffs may also face court review. However, since the obligations under Section 122 are limited to 150 days (unless extended by Congress), any legal challenge is likely to last longer than the measure itself.
