Return to Transcripts main page
One World with Zain Asher
President Trump Calls Ruling against his Tariffs "A Disgrace"; Chief Justice Roberts Wrote Majority Opinion: Court Agreed 6-3; How U.S. Markets are Reacting to Supreme Court Ruling; Issue has been Central to Trump's Foreign Policy and Economic Agenda; Supreme Court Rules Trump's Emergency Tariffs are Illegal. Aired 11-11:30a ET
Aired February 20, 2026 - 11:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[11:00:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BIANNA GOLODRYGA, CNN HOST, ONE WORLD: Hello, everyone. Live from New York. I'm Bianna Golodryga.
ZAIN ASHER, CNN HOST, ONE WORLD: And I'm Zain Asher. You are watching "One World".
GOLODRYGA: We begin this hour with breaking news. A major new ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court. In the last hour, Justices handed down a decision
on U.S. President Trump sweeping emergency tariffs, one of the corner storms of his economic agenda. They rule that the president violated
federal law when he unilaterally imposed those tariffs across the globe. We're told, President Trump has just reacted, calling the decision a quote
disgrace.
ASHER: The ruling marks a stinging loss for the White House and a stark contrast to last year, when the majority conservative Supreme Court
repeatedly sided with the administration. CNN's Paula Reid joins us live now from New York. Paula Newton, excuse me.
So, Paula, just in terms of how this decision was laid out. I mean, you had six Supreme Court Justices essentially saying that the IEEPA was not enough
to actually support President Donald Trump's sweeping decision on tariffs.
You had three conservative justices siding with liberal justices, and that sort of surprised a lot of people just walk us through what the main
argument here? What did they say specifically about why this particular act that started in 1977 the IEEPA Act, was not enough to justify Donald
Trump's sweeping ruling on trap Tariffs?
PAULA NEWTON, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Basically, Zain the Supreme Court is saying it was not properly applied, and that these tariffs were imposed and
it was too much of executive authority there without actually going to Congress.
I mean, basically the Supreme Court here Zain, was treating these tariffs as they were taxes, and they were saying that, look, no, Mr. President, you
do not have the authority to unilaterally impose taxes on the American people. That issue rests with Congress, and you must get Congressional
approval.
Now look, Zain, this was 6-3, I'd imagine that the Chief Justice who sided with the majority here assumes this is a win. They -- what they did not
want was a 5-4 decision. I think he feels as if, look, this looks like a very strong opinion. Remember, there is no appealing this now.
The Trump Administration has to deal with it. What does it mean Zain? This is a huge blow to the economic centerpiece of the Trump Administration. You
just heard the president call it a disgrace. The Supreme Court has now put a massive road block in front of President Trump to say, look, you cannot
impose these tariffs at will the way you have been doing under these emergency powers.
Trump Administration, including his Trade Representative, Jameson Greer, has already said, look, we've got to come back for this. We have other ways
to impose these tariffs that will be very difficult. But Zain, I do want to point out here. This is the Trump Administration. The Supreme Court has put
in a road block.
They will come at it with a tank to try and get through that road block. That's why you are seeing some caution in the markets right now, kind of
trying to understand where this ruling goes? And what else the Trump Administration could do?
Look it's almost unequivocal. Any economist you are going to talk to are going to say that tariffs are a tax. The come back from the Trump
Administration will say that certain industries need to be protected. Where do they go from here? It's that thing called remedy, right?
The Supreme Court didn't say to the Trump Administration, look, you now have to pay billions of dollars to the American companies that paid those
tariffs, but this will now head to the lower courts, where these class action suits, other suits, will go forward, and they'll have to work it
out.
Big question here, right? American consumers, they paid some of this in terms of higher prices. There may also be suits in front of courts now to
see if they get a piece of that action in terms of getting those tariffs, those so-called taxes back?
GOLODRYGA: Yeah, which is why Justice Kavanaugh, who ruled with a minority, said that undoing this law by the president in his act would be chaotic.
And again, they didn't offer a remedy into what happens to those tariffs that already been collected, hundreds of billions of dollars that gets
passed down to a lower court, and lower courts to decide going forward.
A lot of litigation, obviously, but writing for the majority, I do want to read what Justice Roberts wrote. He said, the president asserts the
extraordinary power to unilaterally impose tariffs of unlimited amount, duration and scope, in light of the breadth history and constitutional
context of that asserted authority, he must identify clear Congressional authority to exercise it.
So, it's pretty clear here, Paula, that the majority of these justices were concerned about the President of the United States, the executive, usurping
some of the power that had been constitutionally granted to Congress as well.
NEWTON: Yeah. Now, this goes back so much to American history, right? In terms of those powers, why they were put into place? And that it isn't just
Democrats that were really unsettled by this executive power being exerted in this way.
[11:05:00]
It is also some Republicans, especially Bianna, in those states, like a state like Kentucky, that has been so hurt by these tariffs. And really the
Supreme Court has said, look, we're done with this. We're going to let lower courts handle this. Yes, it will be a mess. It will be very chaotic.
Any legal expert you talk to will tell you that.
But what is really at stake here also Bianna, are all of these trade deals around the globe. Look, I mean, anyone who has already gone to the Trump
Administration and struck that trade deal, unlikely that it will hurt that but will they come back understanding that the Trump Administration no
longer has the power that it once did to threaten them with expensive tariffs, unilateral tariffs, punitive tariffs, that they did before.
And that also changes the balance of power when the Trump Administration is trying to negotiate with these countries. And again, not just geopolitics,
but geo-economics really here at play. Then we dwindle down to those individual economic sectors, right?
Retail will likely do quite well in the United States from this, but it will be interesting to see how steel is impacted by this? How aluminum is
impacted like this? And I do want to point out that, look, there was no data so far that said that these tariffs were even good for jobs in the
United States. If you point to the issue of manufacturing jobs in 2025 the U.S. lost manufacturing jobs. Didn't gain any.
ASHER: All right. Paula Newton live for us there. Thank you so much. Let's get some reaction now from the White House. I want to bring in CNN's Kevin
Liptak. And just in terms of you know how President Trump is reacting to this decision.
I mean, we've seen him obviously speaking out on "Truth Social" but we do have the State of Union Address on Tuesday, and if I know the U.S.
President, he is going to excoriate this decision, because it was such a signature policy for him throughout 2025.
The idea of potentially issuing refunds. I mean, he's obviously going to book at that. But just walk us through what other tricks the U.S. President
has up his sleeves, because he's not going to go quietly on this particular issue. Is he Kevin?
KEVIN LIPTAK, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: No. And he, in fact, has told Governors behind closed doors, just within the last few minutes, that
he does have a backup plan. You know, he was observing this decision up on the State Floor of the White House, someone informed him of what the court
ruled, and he called it a disgrace.
And certainly, the White House and the administration had been preparing themselves in a lot of ways for this very ruling. You know, I think it was
clear at least to many people during the oral arguments that this was at least a possibility, that these tariffs could be ruled illegal, and that
the administration would have to rely on other statutes if they were to try and revive some of the tariff regime.
Now, what exactly that plan B looks like? We don't know at this hour, but to be sure, officials have been working on it for quite some time. You
know, just yesterday, President Trump was in Georgia, kind of bemoaning that it was taking so long for the Supreme Court to rule. He said
essentially that he had been waiting weeks and weeks and weeks for some clarity here.
And I think there had been an expectation inside the White House that perhaps this ruling would have come a little earlier. But of course, now it
will be on the president and his advisors to lay out explicitly what exactly they plan to do going forward?
Because, you know, the tariffs certainly, they were the underpinning of the president's trade policy, his efforts to reduce the American trade deficit
and his efforts to broker these trade deals around the world. But they were much bigger than that, they were really the underpinning of his entire
foreign policy as well.
When you looked at what he used as leverage to, for example, try and get other countries to wean themselves off of Russian oil, he slapped a new
tariff on India. India later said that they would try and do that. He took the tariff off when it came to Brazil, he put this new tariff on place as
punishment, essentially for their treatment of the Former President Yair Bolsonaro.
So, there are all of these instances around the world where the president's use of tariffs expanded well beyond what he was trying to do in trade, and
more towards what he was trying to do to really sort of reshape the world in his own image.
The other example being fentanyl, the tariffs that he put in place on China to try and convince President Xi Jinping to reduce the shipments of the
precursor chemicals to fentanyl, all of these areas where now this leverage is removed.
And certainly, if you're a foreign leader who is trying to assess your own relative power compared to President Trump, you see yourself now having
stronger standing, which I think will be very, very interesting when the president goes to Beijing, starting on March 31st. And so, all of these
areas.
You know, you mentioned the State of the Union Address next week, the president's aides had clearly already been working on drafting that speech.
It will be a fraught dynamic, you know, traditionally, the Supreme Court Justices sit right up-front listening to that speech.
[11:10:00]
Not all of them expected to attend, but certainly a handful of them. And it will make for, I think, a fraught speech and a fraught moment, as the
president almost certainly rails against this decision. We'll have to see whether he puts in place some of this backup plan by the time he gets
before that joint session of Congress.
But I think it will have a lot of explaining to do about how exactly he plans to move forward? And how exactly he plans to fund all of these things
that he had promised to fund with the tariff revenue, whether it's the $2,000 rebate checks, you know, a lot, in some ways, this money has already
been spent.
You know, he had claims that that $12 billion bailout for farmers that he announced at the end of last year would be funded by these tariffs. That
money has already gone out the door. And so, when we talk about all of the complications here of foreign countries and businesses trying to recoup
some of that money after this ruling.
Of the added layer of complication is that some of this money, at least, according to the president's own calculus, has already been out the door.
GOLODRYGA: Yeah. And as you have noted, Kevin, the president already said that they have a plan B in place. Obviously, he does have expansive powers
over tariffs, like sectoral tariffs, section 122, section 338 as well, though they are limited in scope and not these wide, expansive tariffs that
the president had been using and announced on Liberation Day last year. Thank you so much.
The State of the Union will, in fact, be fascinating to watch, especially his interactions with whoever the justices end up coming to that State of
the Union Address. Thank you. Let's take a look now at how the markets are reacting. With Senior Reporter Matt Eagan.
And Matt, they were sort of all over the place. Now we see the DOW up nearly 100 points. But again, there's a lot to digest here, because on the
one hand, perhaps this ruling was not a surprise all the lower courts that had been overseeing these litigations had said that they were
unconstitutional.
And yet, as we heard from Justice Kavanaugh, this is going to be a mess in terms of deciding what happens to all of that money that had already been
taken in? And it's going to be very busy in lower courts across this country for months and perhaps years to come. Just talk about how Wall
Street is responding?
MATT EGAN, CNN SENIOR REPORTER: Well Bianna and Zain, I think that investors are breathing a sigh of relief that this played out largely as
expected, right? The betting markets were suggesting that there was something like a 65, 70 percent chance that the Supreme Court would strike
down the president's tariffs, and that is what's happened.
And so, I think investors can live with this for a few reasons. First of all, this does limit the president's ability to just unilaterally apply
tariffs across the board, right? He's going to have other authorities that he can rely on, but those do have some more limitations in size and scope
and timing, so maybe this will eventually lower some of the tariff volatility.
The other thing, though, I think, that investors are breathing a sigh of relief about, is that the Supreme Court has not ruled at this point that
all of the tariffs that have already been collected have to be refunded. And while that is potentially concerning to some of those businesses, those
U.S. businesses, paying the tariffs.
I think that investors are relief, because it means that it's not like this blows a giant hole in the U.S. budget right now. Because if the government
suddenly had to pay back all of those tariffs that have been collected that could cause them to have to borrow more, and that increased Treasury supply
could raise Treasury rates, which would be a negative for the economy and a negative for the stock market.
And that may happen, but it hasn't happened yet. And so, from investors perspective, they can kind of live with this. And that's why I think that
after bouncing around a bit, we see U.S. markets are solidly positive, but not a massive reaction, because again, Bianna, as you noted, this was not a
shocker of a decision. This was pretty well telegraphed.
ASHER: And just in terms of, you know how the U.S. economy is going to be faring, especially if it is deemed that the administration does have to
refund right some of these tariffs, what will that mean? I mean it will mean simply chaos Matt economically?
EGAN: Well, it does cause some significant uncertainty. I think one of the key questions if refunds are required would be, when does the government
have to pay those refunds? How much time do they have? And how -- what the pace of those refunds that the Treasury Department would plan would be?
Because if they could stretch it out over a significant amount of time, then that could sort of mitigate some of the damage in terms of blowing the
hole in the budget. But one of the other interesting consequences here is what it means for prices and for inflation?
[11:15:00]
Because, look, we know that many Americans are upset with the cost of living right now. We just learned this morning that the Fed's go to
inflation metric in December went in the wrong direction, up to a 21-month high, in part because of tariffs and so a lot of people are probably
wondering, well, does this mean that the prices I pay will go down?
And what's interesting is that a lot of the economists I'm talking to say, no, it probably doesn't mean all that much for prices, because a lot of the
companies they are listening to what the administration is saying, and the administration is making it clear that they plan on using these back up
plans to use tariffs and to still impose tariffs on imports, but under different authorities.
And so, the expectation at this point is that the overall tariff rate may not change all that dramatically, and even if companies are -- even if the
government is required to do tariff refunds, remember those refunds would only go to companies.
And as economist Stephanie Roth just told me, she said, look, if Walmart gets a refund of her their tariffs, they're not going to write you a check
for that 15 percent tariff on sneakers that you bought from them four months ago. They're probably going to keep that money. They could reinvest
it. It will boost their profits. Maybe they do stock buybacks, but it's probably not going to help consumers. Back to you guys.
GOLODRYGA: And a reminder that so many of these retailers had initially been saying that they were eating the cost of these tariffs in the early
months as well in hopes of not passing it on to the consumer. So that's a point to make as well. Matt Eagan, thank you. Busy day for you.
ASHER: Thank you.
EGAN: Thank you, guys. Yeah.
ASHER: And this will be welcome news to America's trade partners. Melissa Bell joins us live now from Paris. I mean, from the European perspective,
for the past year, the Trump Administration has used tariffs as leverage, not just economic leverage, but political leverage.
You think about how the Trump Administration initially tried to pressure European allies on issues like Greenland, for example. So, for a lot of
European countries, these tariffs have sort of been hanging over them like the sword of Damocles for about a year now. So, this news today will be
welcome Melissa?
MELISSA BELL, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: On one hand, you can imagine a touch of schadenfreude in the hearts of all of those leaders who
were targeted so brutally back on Liberation Day when the announcements of these tariffs were made.
But on the other it does add a huge layer of uncertainty to a world where essentially; unilateral levies are no longer the thing. All of these trade
agreements have been put in place as a result of that Liberation Day, and efforts on the parts of international governments to mitigate the
consequences of that by seeking deals with the United States.
So, I'm thinking here, for instance, the free trade deals between Canada and the United States, Mexico and the United States, the UK and the United
States Europe as well. What becomes of them? And it is that whole layer of uncertainty I think that is really on the minds of global leaders as they
watch this unfold from outside.
We've had a couple of early reactions to this. I think most people are just standing by to wait and see how Washington itself deals with the fallout of
this. We were just hearing the question of what the Trump Administration now decides to do in terms of continuing to impose those tariffs?
So, there is an element of wait and see until more clarity comes from the American side. But we've already heard in the initial reactions, one from
the Mexican Leader, suggesting, noting, first of all, that some of these tariffs are outside this decision, specifically those on steel and
aluminum.
But also suggesting that they're going to be looking very anxiously at what it means for the trade agreements between, say, Mexico and the United
States. Similarly, a commission spokesman just now reacting, saying that the European Commission is going to be analyzing this decision very
carefully.
But explaining that what is actually needed on both sides of the Atlantic for businesses is clarity and stability and certainty, precisely what we
seem to have less of as a result of this decision today. And of course, make no mistake, there isn't anyone involved in any kind of trade towards
the United States that is not considering whether it isn't best at this stage to wait and see.
ASHER: All right, Melissa Bell live for us there. Thank you so much. We're right back with more after this short break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[11:20:00]
GOLODRYGA: All right. Back to our breaking news. The Supreme Court striking down President Trump's sweeping emergency tariffs. Former Federal
Prosecutor Gene Rossi joins us now on the legal reasons for the court's decision.
And Gene this was an expedited decision, though it didn't feel like one from the Supreme Court, as we've been waiting for months to hear their
ruling. Just given the technical details here, it's not a surprise. It's what the lower courts all unanimously agreed to as well.
And yet, as Justice Kavanaugh said, who ruled with the minority here, this will create a mess in terms of what to do with that revenue, with the
tariffs that have already come in the hundreds of billions of dollars. This now goes back to lower courts. Where do they begin to start to work this
out, Gene?
GENE ROSSI, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Well, when it goes first off, this is a big win for small businesses that were hit very hard by these tariffs.
It's a big win for the separation of powers, and it's a big win for Congress.
And what Roberts essentially said is a tariff is a tax, and Congress has the authority, the fulsome authority, to impose taxes, not the president.
But when it goes back to the lower courts, the Department of Treasury is going to be working 24/7 because this is the final say on this issue.
So now these small businesses and other businesses that were affected by the tariffs, they're entitled to a refund. So, refunds have to be issued
with alacrity, as they say, and it's going to be a huge win for the businesses who had to pay these tariffs.
And I got to say this, I got to stress this, the countries who are sending goods into our country, they don't pay the tariffs, the cut. The businesses
in the United States pay the tariffs. And that's important for people to know, and that's why tariffs are considered a tax, and Congress has the
full authority to do this.
I want to just address something that Justice Kavanaugh mentioned in his dissent. There are other statutes that allow the president to impose a
similar type of tax or tariff, but the scope, duration and the contours of those actions are very limited and control.
For example, freezing assets during the Iranian hostage crisis or other, you know, emergencies, but here the tariffs were issued without any end
date. They were issued blanket and that was just a bridge too far for Chief Jackson Roberts and the other justices.
ASHER: Gene what was the original intention behind the IEEPA when it was first implemented in 1977? As I understand it, it gives the President of
the United States authorities to impose tariffs or sanctions or regulate, essentially, economic transactions after declaring a national emergency, or
if there is some kind of external or foreign threat. Can you break that down for our audience please?
ROSSI: Yes. IEEPA, I have to write it down. The International Emergency Economic Powers Act IEEPA. It was passed after Watergate and what it did
because of the Nixon crisis and the exercise of presidential powers, Congress passed IEEPA because it was putting, you know, rains on this
presidential power in times of emergency, crises such as the Iranian crisis.
[11:25:00]
Or instances where a drug cartel is causing havoc to our economy. But IEEPA was limited to emergency situations. And what President Trump and his
administration was arguing is that fentanyl and the influx of drugs into our country was creating this national pandemic in crisis therefore, I can
use IEEPA to impose tariffs.
Well, when you present the evidence of this emergency crisis, it came up short in the eyes of the Supreme Court. It didn't fit the Iranian crisis
and other emergency situations where you expect the president to take immediate action. And the other thing is, if you are going to take action
under IEEPA, it has to be very narrow focus, like a laser on the emergency, and not be a blanket tariff like this was, in this case.
GOLODRYGA: All right. Gene Rossi, a big decision day here. Thank you so much for helping break it down for us.
ASHER: Thank you.
GOLODRYGA: Do stay with CNN. There's more "One World" in about 30 minutes time, but first, CNN Creators is up next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[11:30:00]
(CNN CREATORS)
END
