Return to Transcripts main page
The Source with Kaitlan Collins
Supreme Court: Trump's Tariffs Are Unconstitutional; Trump Signs New 10 Percent Global Tariff After Supreme Court Loss; Trump Vows Tariff "Alternatives" After Supreme Court Ruling. Aired 9-10p ET
Aired February 20, 2026 - 21:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[21:00:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MATTHEW MCCONAUGHEY, ACTOR: Yes. Get -- own yourself. So when it comes, not if it comes, no one can steal you, but they're going to have to come to you to go, can I? Or they're going to be in breach and you'll have the chance to be your own agency, and go, Yes, for this amount, or, No. OK? It's coming.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST, ANDERSON COOPER 360: The special CNN & Variety Town Hall Event with Timothee Chalamet, and Matthew McConaughey, premieres Saturday, 07:00 p.m. Eastern, Pacific, on CNN and on the CNN app.
That's it for us. The news continues. "THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS" starts now.
KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, CNN HOST, THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS: President Trump says the justices who struck down his tariffs are a disgrace to the nation and an embarrassment to their families. What does Senator Elizabeth Warren have to say? She'll join me live here.
I'm Kaitlan Collins. And this is THE SOURCE.
President Trump has just endured one of the biggest blows to any president's agenda in modern American history. The blockbuster decision, by the Supreme Court, struck at the heart of his philosophy when it comes to presidential power. That for him, essentially, there are no limits.
The court, though, including conservatives and two of his own nominees to the High Court, ruled otherwise, resulting in the President furiously accusing them of being unpatriotic.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: The Supreme Court's ruling on tariffs is deeply disappointing. And I'm ashamed of certain members of the court, absolutely ashamed, for not having the courage to do what's right for our country. They also are a frankly, disgrace to our nation, those justices.
They're just being fools and lapdogs for the RINOs and the radical- left Democrats, and not that they should have anything at all to do with it. They're very unpatriotic and disloyal to our Constitution. It's my opinion that the court has been swayed by foreign interests.
I think it's an embarrassment to their families, you want to know the truth, the two of them.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: If you thought he was just blowing off steam, that screed continued against the justices, even on Truth Social tonight, with the President naming some of them directly and adding, at one point, At least I didn't appoint Roberts, in reference to the Chief Justice, John Roberts, who wrote that majority opinion today.
The Wall Street Journal editorial board says the President has gone too far in those comments, you just heard. They say, he owes an apology to the individual justices that he smeared on Friday and the institution itself. Adding, quote, "Mr. Trump doubtless won't offer one, but his rant in response to his tariff defeat at the Court was arguably the worst moment of his Presidency."
The two justices that the President was describing as an embarrassment to their families, that's Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gorsuch. They were both appointed to the court by President Trump. They joined with the Chief Justice, and the court's progressives, in that six-three decision, finding that what's known as the International Emergency Economic Powers Act did not authorize the President to unilaterally impose his tariffs, any tariffs, actually.
The President had a very different tone, though, when it came to his other pick to the Supreme Court, Brett Kavanaugh, the Justice who dissented and might have written the President a roadmap when it comes to plan B for his tariffs.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: As Justice Kavanaugh, who stuck to his gun so -- you have to see -- I'm so proud of him -- wrote in his dissent: Although I firmly disagree with the court's holding today, the decision might not substantially constrain a president's ability to order tariffs going forward.
Today I will sign an order to impose a 10 percent global tariff under Section 122 over and above our normal tariffs already being charged.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Tonight, he's done just that, writing, It is my Great Honor to have just signed, from the Oval Office, a Global 10 percent Tariff on all Countries, which will be effective almost immediately.
Unlike the tariffs that were just struck down today, these new tariffs can only be in place for 150 days max before they tap congressional approval.
But the President said today, he doesn't think that he'll need Congress.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: A few people.
REPORTER: There's several Republicans have said that.
TRUMP: Yes, a few people.
REPORTER: Well why wouldn't you just work with Congress to come up with a plan--
TRUMP: I don't have to.
REPORTER: --to push tariffs through?
TRUMP: I have the right to do tariffs, and I've always had the right to do tariffs, and it's all been approved by Congress, so there's no reason to do it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: That brings us to the $134 billion question tonight. Refunds to American consumers and businesses who have paid these tariffs, which are taxes on the businesses and the consumers.
[21:05:00]
Several governors, senators and state attorneys general are already demanding that the Trump administration begin to pay everyone back. The Illinois governor, JB Pritzker posted an $8.6 billion invoice, saying, he is billing the President on behalf of every family in Illinois.
When asked about the possibility of refunds, something that the White House has been grappling with behind the scenes, in light of today's ruling, the President indicated that people should not hold their breath.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: They take months and months to write an opinion, and they don't even discuss that point. We've taken in hundreds of billions of dollars, not millions, hundreds of billions of dollars. And so, I said, Well, what happens to all the money that we took in? It wasn't discussed. Wouldn't you think they would have put one sentence in there saying that, Keep the money, or, Don't keep the money, right? I guess it has to get litigated for the next two years.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: My lead source tonight is the Democratic senator of Massachusetts, Elizabeth Warren. And thank you, Senator, for being here.
I want to ask you about what is going to happen to the money in a moment. But first off, just in your view, what message does this ruling from the Supreme Court today send?
SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN (D-MA): Well, the Supreme Court has said that even Donald Trump has to abide by the law.
The majority opinion here is not very fancy. It's no surprise to anybody who has listened to the arguments. It's no surprise to anybody who's read the law.
And that is, that Donald Trump does not have the ability, no president has the ability, just to go around and say: I don't like you. Your tariffs are high. I'm mad at you. Your tariffs will be even higher. Keep a dictator out of jail, or I will raise your tariffs.
He doesn't have that power. He doesn't have that power under the law. And it took us a year to get here. But finally, the Supreme Court, unequivocally, has said, Donald Trump does not have that power. And that means the money that he has collected has been stolen from the American people. It has been stolen from the businesses that paid those tariffs, stolen from the businesses that then passed those costs along to the American consumers.
And what the Trump administration should have been doing, over the past several months, knowing that this opinion was coming, is start putting in place a way to refund the money, directly to the American families who've paid for it.
COLLINS: So, you think that they should refund that $130 billion -- $140 billion?
WARREN: I'm sorry, when somebody takes money from you illegally, that's called stealing in the United States, and the first rule is you got to give the money back. That money was not legally taken from the American people. It was stolen by Donald Trump.
And make no mistake, that it has been the American consumer is the one that has paid. The studies show over 90 percent of the costs of these tariffs have been borne by American families. Well, it's time for American families to get their money back, and it's up to the Trump administration to make that happen.
COLLINS: Well, we heard from one of the top officials in the Trump administration on this. That's the Treasury Secretary, Scott Bessent. Here's what he said about this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RAY WASHBURNE, FORMER PRESIDENT, OVERSEAS PRIVATE INVESTMENT CORPORATION: Well, that's going to be a food fight going after $175 billion in it, so.
SCOTT BESSENT, UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY: I got a feeling the American people won't see it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: So now what?
WARREN: Yes, did you see his smirk? I mean, that just seems to be what Scott Bessent thinks, his job is just to please Donald Trump and get out there and perform for Donald Trump.
It is the job of the Secretary of the Treasury to put in place, a way for the American people to get the money that was illegally taken from them. That is Scott Bessent's job.
And for him to sit there, and put his fingers together, and smirk about the fact that the American people have lost, on average, somewhere around $1,500, $1,800, $2,000 per family, and that that's just OK with him, because he sure doesn't intend to send it back? That is fundamentally wrong.
Scott Bessent is not there just to lick the boots of Donald Trump. He is there to represent the people of the United States of America, and to give them back their money.
COLLINS: If they were going to give the money back, which, I mean, the President said today, this is going to be litigated for five years, in his view. I don't think he's wrong that -- to rightly point out that the Supreme Court didn't say what should happen here.
But if they were going to do this, I think a question is, what would that look like? Would the money go to the businesses? Would it go to the consumers who paid the tariffs, if they were passed on to them? I mean, how would that even -- how would that even work?
[21:10:00]
WARREN: Well, let's be clear. It should not just go to a handful of giant corporations, who have the legal capacity to go in and sue the federal government. In that case, they win twice. That is, that they get the tariff refund, but they also got the higher prices when they passed those tariff costs along.
This money needs to go back to the American people. The studies are out there now. They show, the American people are the ones who actually paid the cost. And, yes, we've done refunds before. This is an opportunity to give this money back to the American people.
And right now, it is the responsibility of the Treasury Department to sit down and work out a plan, to give that money back to American families. This is -- this is not rocket science. Give them back the money. You know how much you took in. You know that American families paid for it. Give them back the money.
COLLINS: I don't believe you voted for the President's Supreme Court picks. But I wonder what you made of--
WARREN: Excuse me. COLLINS: --of his attacks today, particularly on Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gorsuch, saying that they're an embarrassment to their families.
WARREN: They were totally out of line -- excuse me.
The President's comments weren't a -- were a temper tantrum. And they did not respect the fact that these were jurists who applied the law as it is written.
I get it. Donald Trump doesn't like how something came out. He thinks no rules apply to him. He thinks there are no constraints on his power. But he is wrong. We still live in a democracy. We still abide by the Constitution of the United States.
And the disrespect that he showed, by a personal attack on each of the justices, shows just how out of touch Donald Trump is, and how much he thinks he is king of this country, king of the world. And he is fundamentally wrong.
People across this country are showing him. They are showing him in Minneapolis, they are showing him, like Governor Pritzker is in Illinois, they are showing him that people are willing to stand up and say, No, even you, Donald Trump, have got to follow the law. That's the most important part of what happened today.
He can have a temper tantrum. But it doesn't change the fact that the ruling holds, and Donald Trump has now been ruled to have taken this money illegally from the American people, and that means he needs to give it back to them.
COLLINS: On that front, he is saying there -- it was a bit of a contradiction today, where he was criticizing the court for this, saying, it was an attack on the United States, it weakened the United States. But then he also argued that it strengthens his hand, and he's got a backup plan.
And tonight, he signed that 10 percent global tariff for the next 150 days, max. He says, they're going to go into investigations, where they could potentially put in other tariffs. It's not going to work the same as these did.
But did you believe that the ruling makes the President stronger, as he argued today?
WARREN: No. I mean, that's just detached from reality. Yes, there are other ways that tariffs can be put in place temporarily. But as you rightly point out, they're limited in the amount, they're limited in the length of time, Congress has to play a role in this.
Donald Trump is now under greater constraint than he was before the Supreme Court ruled today, and he just doesn't want to face that. It's a bad economy out there. Donald Trump is in a lot of trouble. He started out, remember, promising, when he ran for office, that on day one he would lower costs for American people. Instead, here we are, over a year into his administration. Costs are up for housing. Costs are up for health care. Costs are up for groceries. Costs are up for utilities.
He is foundering around, trying to find a way that, through his own will, he can get everyone to believe that somehow he is delivering for the American people. And reality is catching up with him. It is not happening, and the American people understand that.
So, Donald Trump can describe this decision from the Supreme Court any way he wants. He can -- he can make up some foreign conspiracy. He can claim he's stronger than ever. But the reality is bearing down on him.
[21:15:00]
And that reality is that Americans across this country know that he has taken their money. He has taken it through higher prices. He has taken it through tariffs that he illegally collected. He is taking it through one regulation after another that helps big businesses and kicks working families in the teeth. And the American people have had, I think, just about enough of Donald Trump.
COLLINS: On his power, overall, do you think that this shows that there is a check on it by an institution? Because, I mean, that's obviously the argument we hear so much.
WARREN: Sure.
COLLINS: The President has had a very expanded view of his power. But I mean, even as angry as he was today, and calling the justices, disloyal to the Constitution, I mean, he was acquiescing to their decision here, when it came to these tariffs.
WARREN: Yes. Yes.
And look, I don't want to overread this. The Supreme Court has ducked and bowed and dodged and weaved to avoid crossing Donald Trump. It has been an obscene display, over the last year. But they finally sat down, read a statute, and said, This is the law, and it applies to Donald Trump. And that is a really important moment.
And Donald Trump, for all his temper tantrums, for all his bluster, has acknowledged the power of the Supreme Court.
Look, I worry a lot about our democracy. But at this moment, it looks like the pieces are holding the way they should.
COLLINS: Senator Elizabeth Warren, thank you for your time tonight. Thanks for joining us here on THE SOURCE.
WARREN: You bet. Thank you.
COLLINS: Up next. My lead source is someone you're going to want to hear from. It's the attorney, for the plaintiffs, who challenged the President's tariffs in this case. He was one who argued in front of the Supreme Court. His response to this ruling today.
Also, the President's backup plan for tariffs. How exactly will that work? How will it affect you? And also, two of the President's handpicked justices ruled against him. What is that going to look like when they potentially come face- to-face on Tuesday night?
[21:20:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Tonight, the Trump administration is working on plan B, after the Supreme Court struck down plan A and ruled that his sweeping emergency tariffs are illegal and not an emergency.
The rare and stinging loss for the President at the High Court is a major victory, actually, for my next source. He argued this very case against the President's tariffs in front of these justices, and won.
Neal Katyal is the plaintiffs' lead attorney, the former acting Solicitor General, and who has argued more than 50 cases before the Supreme Court.
Neal, I think a big question people have is, where does this one rank for you?
NEAL KATYAL, ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS IN TARIFF CASE: Well, I don't think, Kaitlan -- first of all, thank you for having me on.
I don't think this is about me or my victory. I think it's a victory for the Constitution, for our Founders' vision of what America is, which is to recognize that sometimes our leaders are going to be overly ambitious, overly aggressive, and the system, they designed, creates the opportunities for self-correction.
And it takes guts. And here we had guts, not by me, but by a group of small businesses that stood up, and said, Hey, this isn't who -- what America is about. And so, they did what a lot of our nation's biggest companies were afraid to do, which is take the President on, on these sweeping, unprecedented tariffs. And they won.
And they won not just in some partisan decision or something like that by a bunch of Democrats. No. They won in the Supreme Court of the United States, which is -- you know, and they won, with two of Trump's -- of President Trump's three appointees to the Supreme Court siding against President Trump. So, it was a sweeping victory, not for us, but for the rule of law.
COLLINS: Well, and how did those small businesses feel when this came down today? I mean, obviously everyone had been waiting and waiting to see what the court would decide. When they were looking through this decision, what was their reaction?
KATYAL: Yes, I mean, gratified and vindicated. And it's hard for these businesses to do this. It's not like they're fancy with a lot of money and extra cash lying around. So, this is, you know, it's hard, it's hard on their families. And yet, they stepped up and did the right thing, and they made an incredible difference. And for me, it was just the privilege of a lifetime, as the son of immigrants, to be standing before the Supreme Court, making an argument, rooted in our constitutional history, rooted in what Alexander Hamilton and James Madison thought about the way our Constitution is supposed to work. There's no greater honor that I could imagine.
COLLINS: I think you make a good point about how it affected these small businesses on a day-to-day basis, to deal with not just the tariffs, but also the uncertainty of them, and how much they changed, and they would go up and go down, or, kind of on the President's whims. I was reading about one small businessowner who spent $50,000 in tariffs, as they were just building their products.
For them tonight, the question about a refund is a real one. It's some $134 billion. What did you make of the fact that the Supreme Court left that unsettled in the ruling today?
KATYAL: So, the Supreme Court, Kaitlan, gave us everything we asked for. I mean, we made six basic arguments in the case. They accepted all of them, not at 90 percent, but at a 100 percent.
With respect to the refunds, our plaintiffs in our case, the government has already conceded, will get the refunds.
And with respect to everyone else, I think the court did the right thing by saying, Look, there's a process. We're going to go back to the lower courts, let that unfold, and didn't prematurely weigh in on those questions. But the Supreme Court today said, This money was wrongfully taken from the American people.
[21:25:00]
And so, there's always a remedy for that under the laws of Congress, which is the money comes back to the rightful owner. And so, I suspect that money will all come back to the American people, as it should.
COLLINS: What stood out to you from the ruling in terms of, you know, was it reading Gorsuch when he was talking about, This is the purpose of legislating. Yes, sometimes it's slow and it takes forever, but that's kind of the point, is that you can know what the process is going to look like. You don't have to guess. It's not on a whim every day. Or, is there something else in there that really stood out to you?
KATYAL: Yes, I do think Justice Gorsuch's opinion is one place to look, and it's very similar to an opinion written 70 years ago by Justice Robert Jackson, one of our greatest justices, who wrote, I think, the most important opinion in the 20th century, in the Steel Seizure Case.
And Jackson made the same very point that Gorsuch made here toward the end of his opinion, which is, Look, the Constitution is cumbersome. Sometimes it's slow. Sometimes it's frustrating. But there's a wisdom to what our Framers said, and that wisdom requires you to go to Congress and not to have such major decisions made by one person. I ended my brief to the Supreme Court, my written brief, with that quote from Justice Jackson. I ended my oral argument on November 5th with that quote. And I saw Justice Gorsuch today picking up that mantle and bringing it forward. I think it's a really important opinion, one that will be studied for, I suspect, centuries.
COLLINS: Yes.
KATYAL: And so, that's one thing I thought was important. And the other, I thought was just the lineup. Oftentimes, in these high- profile cases, they're five-four. But this one was six-three, and notably, with two of President Trump's three appointees voting against him.
COLLINS: Well, and the President, he almost came to the arguments, as you know, and then he was talked out of it by some advisers.
Today, he was saying he tried to be well-behaved ahead of this ruling. I want you to listen to what he told reporters.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: I wanted to be very well-behaved because I wanted to do anything -- I didn't want to do anything, that would affect the decision of the court. Because I understand the court. I understand how they are very easily swayed. I want to be a good boy.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Is there anything that you think that he could have done that would have actually swayed them or changed their minds?
KATYAL: Yes, act in a constitutional way. I mean, not to do this kind of ridiculous, I'm the president, I can do whatever I want, type stuff.
You know that -- it's really hard to win a case against the President in the Supreme Court on a major policy initiative. It maybe has happened once or twice in American history. I mean, it's really tough to do. But we managed to do it today because the President took such an extreme position.
And from our perspective, this isn't about partisanship. We had a lot of Republican plaintiffs in our case. We didn't care about that. We just cared about one thing, the Constitution and the presidency being confined to the dictates of the Constitution.
And here, what the President did just blew past that so much, that we were able to convince the Supreme Court, and an overwhelming majority of the court that what they did was -- what the President did was unconstitutional.
COLLINS: Neal Katyal, thank you so much for joining us tonight.
KATYAL: Thank you. COLLINS: Up next. My colleague, Joan Biskupic, was in the room when the justices made this major ruling. She's going to join me to share what that moment was like.
[21:30:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Today's extraordinary Supreme Court ruling sparked this extraordinary personal attack on the justices who ruled against President Trump, two of whom he nominated.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: They're just being fools and lapdogs for the RINOs and the radical-left Democrats.
They're very unpatriotic and disloyal to our Constitution.
REPORTER: Mr. President. The Supreme Court justices who ruled against this -- the policy, striking it down. Are they still invited to your State of the Union next week?
TRUMP: Yes.
REPORTER: And will you speak with them?
TRUMP: Yes, they are invited. Barely. Barely.
REPORTER: Mr. President--
(CROSSTALK)
TRUMP: Three are happily invited. No, no, they're barely -- they're barely invited.
REPORTER: Mr. President--
(CROSSTALK)
TRUMP: Honestly, I couldn't care less if they come. OK?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: OK. So, we may see the President come face-to-face with some of these justices on Tuesday, when they take what is typically a front-row seat for his State of the Union address, here in Washington.
Republicans on Capitol Hill have been pretty mum on the President's direct and searing attacks on the justices.
But when President Barack Obama criticized a Supreme Court ruling in 2010, during his State of the Union address, he was quickly rebuked by the GOP, as they called the moment, an Outrageous statement, a Breach of decorum, and Kind of rude.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BARACK OBAMA, 44TH U.S. PRESIDENT: With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests -- including foreign corporations -- to spend without limit in our elections.
(APPLAUSE)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Could get awkward.
I'm joined now by CNN Chief Supreme Court Analyst, Joan Biskupic.
My political source is Shermichael Singleton, a Republican strategist.
And also, the Republican congressman of California, Kevin Kiley.
[21:35:00]
I'm so glad to have all of you here, but especially you, Joan, because I know you remember that moment well. I don't even know what's going to happen--
JOAN BISKUPIC, CNN CHIEF SUPREME COURT ANALYST: Well you know that--
COLLINS: --on Tuesday.
BISKUPIC: --Justice Alito has not returned to the State of the Union since that moment, because he was caught on camera saying, Not true. Was so angry. Everybody was angry about it. The Chief was really mad about that too.
COLLINS: I mean, so how do you imagine he feels after -- I mean, you wrote an entire book on him. How do you imagine he feels after the President saying tonight, Well, I'm glad I at least didn't pick him--
BISKUPIC: Yes.
COLLINS: --to be on the court.
BISKUPIC: Well, the scene in the courtroom today was so different from the scene that Donald Trump displayed in front of everyone at the White House.
In the Supreme Court, the Chief Justice comes in.
And one thing I don't think everybody knows is we do not know what ruling is coming on what day. We've been expecting this one for a while. But the courtroom was pretty empty today. There were lots of seats left in the bar section, in the press section, even in the Justices' special seat section.
And then the Chief takes the bench, and the first thing he says is, I have the decision to announce, in Learning Resources versus Trump. The tariff case. And it was 10 minutes of a steady recitation about how Donald Trump exceeded his authority under the Constitution, exceeded his power under this statute, this emergency power statute, because the power to tax, the power to impose tariffs, is squarely that of Congress. And he portrayed it as very clear-cut. Tried to -- not to make Donald Trump his nemesis in any way, just to say, These were essentially the facts.
That six-three margin was actually wider than I thought it was going to be. I thought it was going to be a closer case, just by virtue of the fact that the President often has extra power in foreign affairs.
But then to see Donald Trump do what we just witnessed. What a contrast, Kaitlan.
COLLINS: Well, and we're laughing about the awkward moment. But I mean, you made the great point earlier. A lot of these justices, conservative and the progressive ones, have faced really serious threats and--
BISKUPIC: Oh.
COLLINS: --targeted attacks.
BISKUPIC: And Donald Trump specifically referred to the families of two of his appointees, Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, when he said that they should be embarrassed.
So, security is a very big issue for them. You know, they can take the criticism generally about their rulings. Probably the justices weren't even watching the TV today. Some of their clerks might have been. But I think they are really troubled by these attacks that inspire members of the public against them.
COLLINS: Yes.
Shermichael, I was on a plane, when this decision came down, so I had time to read all 170 or so pages of it. It's actually really fascinating to look through.
SHERMICHAEL SINGLETON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: It is.
COLLINS: But when you do, to Joan's point, John Roberts and the others, they go to make the point of striking down things that President Biden did, or other presidents have done, where they did not have the authority simply to do it. They talked about the president -- President Biden's student loans attempts.
SINGLETON: Yes. Yes.
COLLINS: I mean, they made the point that this isn't just targeted or specific to Donald Trump.
SINGLETON: Yes, it's interesting to me, the Chief Justice did not see Obamacare as a tax, which I, as a conservative, wrote about and argued at the time, was an unfair tax. But then he found that this was a tax that the President didn't have the authority to authorize.
I'm kind of mixed on this. I'm certainly aware that Congress has the purse. I know that, right? That's just basic governance in our country.
But I do think that Justice Thomas made an interesting point, in terms of the President's emergency powers not being explicitly and expressly outlined by Congress, therefore him siding against what the majority did in this case.
And I think that's his -- his ruling, or his decision, rather, was an interesting one, and I think it's one that probably Joan could come back up at some point in the future. That being, Justice Thomas saying, Wait a minute here, Congress. You guys haven't really expressly outlined how far the president can or cannot go as it pertains to these Emergency Powers Act. So, if a president were to try this again, could a president get a court that rules in a different matter? I think that's possible.
COLLINS: Congressman Kiley, I wonder what your take on this, because you were one of the six House Republicans who ruled against or voted against the President's tariffs on Canada. He was not happy with that. He didn't go as hard at y'all as he did at the Supreme Court today. But when you listen to what the President said in his response to this, what was your reaction?
REP. KEVIN KILEY (R-CA): Well, I didn't care for it.
I mean, it's true, there's actually a long history in American politics, of politicians sort of attacking the court in one way or another. I actually read a book, when I was in law school, called American Politicians Confront the Court, and the idea is it's an easy punching bag, because they can't really fight back in any way.
[21:40:00]
But with that being said, criticism has generally been, sort of, in terms of the actual decisions and the reasoning, as opposed to the personal attacks. And so, when the governor of my state, Gavin Newsom, has attacked judges in very vicious terms on the Ninth Circuit, after decisions he doesn't like, dealing with the Second Amendment? I've been very critical of that.
And so, I would say the same thing here. I think that if you want to criticize the court and its decisions? That's perfectly fine. That's fair game. But it shouldn't be done in personal terms.
COLLINS: Joan, I mean, just in terms of this moment and what this means. The Supreme Court, despite what you heard from the President today, actually hasn't ruled against him that much, if at all. They've actually ruled in his favor.
I wonder what you make of what it says about how they viewed this. And also the other decisions that we know would still have to come, including birthright citizenship and others. They're not as central to his beliefs as tariffs.
BISKUPIC: Right.
COLLINS: But still.
BISKUPIC: Right. Bottom line is that Donald Trump has been winning, and winning by a lot, all the way back to the 2024 decision, in which, by six-three vote, the Supreme Court gave him substantial immunity from criminal prosecution.
COLLINS: Which could be part of how he's back in office. I mean, he didn't go to--
BISKUPIC: Yes. Yes.
COLLINS: --he didn't go to trial because of that.
BISKUPIC: That's exactly right. And they have sided with him on multiple issues that have come up on an emergency basis. Last year, he won a major decision, having to do with lower courts trying to block his policies through injunctions. So, Donald Trump actually doesn't have much to complain about with this court. Now obviously, this was a signature economic issue here, but he was pushing the boundaries.
And what I think, Kaitlan, is that he will lose when he really, really pushes those boundaries. For example, in the birthright citizenship effort that he's doing, he wants to eviscerate a provision of the 14th Amendment that automatically makes anyone who -- any baby born here, irrespective of his or her parents and their immigration status, automatically citizens. That is really a dramatic move, unprecedented, along the lines of what he tried to do here with tariffs. When he does that, he's going to lose.
But plenty of other things that a more moderate court might have objected to? He's going to get through, because this is basically a conservative court that believes in expanded presidential power.
COLLINS: Yes.
I mean, and Shermichael, just to -- how the President was thinking of coming out today. This was not a press conference they were expecting to happen. He was in the middle of meeting with governors, this morning, when an aide handed him a piece of paper, and he realized that he lost. One of the governors in the room texted me that he called it a disgrace, and then left the room to go prepare for this press conference.
We were watching today, as they were lowering the lights in the Briefing Room. You can watch this moment, as it happened in real-time.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
(VIDEO - WHITE HOUSE DIMS LIGHTS AS PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP TAKES STAGE TO BASH RULING)
(END VIDEO CLIP) COLLINS: I mean, obviously, this is a president, he cares about lighting.
SINGLETON: Yes.
COLLINS: He cares about what that's going to look like when he comes into the room. Obviously, it doesn't normally look like that during the press briefings.
But it also shows you, this is a big moment for his presidency, and he clearly knew whatever he was about to say was going to be watched by a lot of people.
SINGLETON: Look, this was a key point of the President's argument to the American people, levying taxes, one, because the President has long-argued, going back 30-plus years ago, that other countries were taking advantage of the United States. Maybe you disagree with that. But that was a central part of his premise when he was on the campaign trail.
But also, focusing on China, which, last year I have strongly supported the President's tariff strategy, because my opinion on this was that we should work with our European allies, to really try to cripple China as much as we possibly can, as I personally see them as our greatest adversary. They want to ultimately usurp the United States in international order. And so, in that regard, I thought the President was spot on.
He still has a couple different mechanisms, Section 122, which he announced today, 10 percent tariffs. So, I think there's still some authority that the Executive maintains, to keep moving forward that still benefits the country overall.
COLLINS: Well, on that front, Congressman Kiley, the President said today he doesn't need to go to Congress. Then he put on these 10 percent tariffs. Obviously, they've only got about a 150 days to figure out what comes next. Do you think he needs to come to Congress?
KILEY: Well, even the President acknowledges that this authority is ultimately coming from Congress. He's relying on statutes that were passed by previous congresses. So, the question in this case before the court today was whether a particular statute had designated the power to impose tariffs in the context of a declared national emergency.
And so, now, the President will be relying on other statutes. And whether or not he can make use of those will probably depend on the particular context. I mean, there is clearly some statutory authority to impose tariffs, in some circumstances. So, I think it's something that will have to be examined on a case-by-case basis.
But regardless of that, Congress does ultimately have the authority here. And so, Congress can, out of its own accord, debate and consider trade policy at any time.
[21:45:00] And one of the reasons that I voted the way I did last week, because I think the time has come, and as Justice Gorsuch explained very well in his concurring opinion, to bring to bear the full capacity and perspectives of the legislature on this really important policy area.
COLLINS: Congressman Kevin Kiley. Joan Biskupic. Shermichael Singleton. It's so great to have all of you here on a big night. Thank you so much for joining us.
Also, up next. After this ruling, are you thinking that prices will come down? Is that really the case? My economic source is here to explain what does this mean, actually, for you.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[21:50:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: The Good News is that there are methods, practices, statutes, and authorities, as recognized by the entire Court, in this terrible decision, and also is recognized by Congress, which they refer to, that are even stronger than the IEEPA TARIFFS, available to me as President of the United States.
But other alternatives will now be used to replace the ones that the court incorrectly rejected.
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.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: That was the President today, after the Supreme Court ruled that his sweeping emergency tariffs are illegal. He seems to argue there are bigger and better options out there for imposing tariffs on other countries.
My economic source tonight is a Professor of Economics and Public Policy at the University of Michigan. Justin Wolfers joins me now.
I think that is a question of what options the President does actually have now. Because he's announcing this 10 percent tariff. It's only got a time limit on it, though. What does he actually have before him as his plan B?
JUSTIN WOLFERS, ECONOMICS & PUBLIC POLICY PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN: I mean, the fundamental question for the President is, what does he want a tariff to achieve? To which question is a tariff the answer?
The tariff he's just put in place will last for 150 days. The President's main claim has been he wants to tariff other countries, so that he can get leverage over them. Guess what? You can just wait a guy out a 150 days. That's not giving you a whole lot of leverage. The President's other claim is that he wants to onshore manufacturing to the United States. No one is going to break ground on a factory in the hope of getting tariffs that run out before you've even managed to get your -- the first bit of concrete poured.
So, the only thing that this round of tariffs is going to do is raise revenue, and it's going to raise revenue from American consumers, and it's going to do so in the lead up to the midterms.
COLLINS: Well, I think the question also, in terms of what you said about leverage, is how other countries see this, because he used it as a pretty effective bargaining tool to get people to the table about a year ago. I mean, do they even honor those agreements now? What does that look like?
WOLFERS: Well, actually, I think I disagree with you there, Kaitlan. I don't think it was ever an effective bargaining tool. He managed to get people in a room, and he managed to get them to walk outside and give press conferences where he would hold up big charts with bullet points. But I have never, ever seen a signature on an agreement that's come out of the President's meetings. I've seen boasts and bluff, and I bet the same is true for you as well.
So, and then subsequently, having signed these agreements, the President's already breached many of them already. You agree with the Brits on one thing, and then you impose steel tariffs the next day, on and on it goes. So really, what we were calling agreements was other countries offering just enough to someone that they understood wasn't going to stick -- hold up their end of the deal. That is, they weren't offering very much more than PR.
The President's always got the ability to get someone to come to the table. He's the President of the United States, for crying out loud. But what he doesn't have is leverage to get real deals, real access or real change.
COLLINS: What does this mean for Americans tonight? I mean, are they going to see prices change? Are they going to see any of this? What does that look like, do you think?
WOLFERS: Prices aren't going to change in a hurry. The Supreme Court rules one set of tariffs illegal, one set that potentially had some upside, and then he puts in a different set of temporary tariffs that have no upside whatsoever. That doesn't reduce business' costs. This is just season two of this soap opera that we've already seen running for boy, it's been a long year, hasn't it, Kaitlan?
COLLINS: Now we're over a year.
Justin Wolfers, thanks so much for joining us tonight to break it down.
WOLFERS: My pleasure mate.
COLLINS: Up next here for us on THE SOURCE. There's a school where teachers have been working to raise kids to transform U.S. into what they want to see, a Christian nation. More, right after this.
[21:55:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: On a new episode of CNN's "THE WHOLE STORY," Pamela Brown takes us inside a Texas community, where students don't pledge allegiance to the American flag, but the Christian flag, and teachers describe a mission to raise a generation of Americans who will transform the country into a Christian nation.
Here is a preview of Pam's report.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
PAMELA BROWN, CNN ANCHOR/CHIEF INVESTIGATIVE CORRESPONDENT (voice- over): At Classical Christian Schools, religion isn't a standalone subject. It shapes every lesson, from science to history, through a strict and literal biblical worldview.
Each morning at this school, they even pledge allegiance to the Christian flag, not the American flag.
DAVID GOODWIN, PRESIDENT, ASSOCIATION OF CLASSICAL CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS: We want to enculturate Christian kids. And when we say that, we mean deeply Christian kids, ones who think like biblical Christians all the way down.
BROWN (on camera): So, do you teach the kids here, this is a Christian nation, this was founded as a Christian nation?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Absolutely, yes.
BROWN (voice-over): Pastor Jeff's (ph) son Caleb (ph) and daughter-in- law EJ (ph) are the headmaster and headmistress at the school where they plan to send their nine children. Kinley (ph) is also a teacher.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We want to equip students to go to higher places than we've gone to influence culture. Like, we want to make more Christians. We want to spread the Gospel. So, as they're infiltrating into culture, they're influencing the culture to Christ.
BROWN (on camera): And so basically, it's all part of a mission to make this a Christian nation?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Absolutely.
BROWN (voice-over): For some, the choice to place your kids in public schools isn't just wrong. It can be a sin.
BROWN (on camera): You think it is a sin?
[22:00:00] GOODWIN: Yes, I think it is because, in most areas, the education is coming from the state. And that was not what God intended from the beginning. They don't raise children in the fear and admonition of the Lord. If you're a Christian, what justification do you have for putting your child in a situation where they're not getting that?
(END VIDEOTAPE)
COLLINS: The Whole Story: The Rise of Christian Nationalism, airs this Sunday, 08:00 p.m. Eastern, here on CNN.
Thanks so much for joining us on a busy night.
"CNN NEWSNIGHT WITH ABBY PHILLIP" starts right now.
