Hours after the Supreme Court handed down a 6-3 ruling striking down his tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, President Trump walked into a hastily scheduled White House press briefing and did what his critics never seem to anticipate: he found another way.

Breitbart reported that Trump announced he will sign an order imposing a 10 percent global tariff under Section 122, layered on top of existing duties already in effect. He made clear that tariffs previously established under other authorities aren't going anywhere.

"Effective immediately, all national security tariffs under Section 232, and existing Section 301, tariffs… remain in place, fully in place, and in full force and effect."

The president also announced the administration is initiating several Section 301 and other investigations to protect American interests from unfair trading practices by foreign countries and companies. The message was unmistakable: the trade agenda continues.

The Court Ruling and What It Actually Said

The Supreme Court's decision was narrow in scope, though you wouldn't know it from the celebratory tone across much of the media.

The Court ruled that IEEPA, specifically, could not serve as the legal basis for the tariffs Trump had imposed. It did not rule that the president lacks tariff authority. It did not dismantle the broader trade framework. It addressed one statute.

Trump framed it exactly that way during the briefing:

"The Supreme Court did not overrule tariffs. They merely overruled a particular use of IEEPA tariffs."

He went further, noting that IEEPA's broader powers remain intact for non-tariff trade actions.

"The ability to block, embargo, restrict license, or impose any other condition on a foreign country's ability to conduct trade with the United States under IEEPA has been fully confirmed by this decision."

In other words, the Court closed one door. It left several others wide open.

The 6-3 Split

Chief Justice John Roberts joined Justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett in siding with the three liberal justices to form the majority. That two of those three were nominated by Trump himself during his first term added a personal sting to the legal setback. Trump did not hide his frustration.

"Others think they're being politically correct, which has happened before, far too often with certain members of this court… when in fact, they're just being fools and lap dogs for the RINOs and the radical left Democrats."

He said he was "ashamed of certain members of the court." The sentiment will resonate with a conservative base that has watched too many Republican-appointed justices drift toward the institutional consensus the moment a case becomes politically charged.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, writing in dissent, did something more useful than simply disagreeing. He laid out the roadmap. Kavanaugh emphasized that Section 122 is another vehicle for imposing tariffs and pointed to multiple existing statutes that provide presidential authority over trade:

• Sections 201 and 301 of the Trade Act of 1974
• Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962
• Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930

The dissent read less like a lament and more like a blueprint. Trump appears to have taken the suggestion seriously and moved on it within hours.

Section 122 and the Path Forward

Section 122 allows for import surcharges of up to 15 percent. Trump chose 10 percent, leaving room to maneuver.

That's not an accident. It signals flexibility, not desperation. The authority exists, the rate is within statutory limits, and the legal footing is different from the IEEPA framework the Court just rejected.

The simultaneous launch of Section 301 investigations adds another dimension. These investigations target specific unfair trading practices by foreign nations and can serve as the predicate for additional targeted tariffs down the road. The administration isn't just replacing what it lost. It's building a broader, more legally diversified foundation for its trade policy.

This matters strategically. One of the persistent criticisms of the IEEPA approach was that it concentrated too much tariff authority under a single emergency statute.

Whether or not you agreed with that criticism, the practical result of the Court's ruling is that the administration now has an incentive to anchor its trade actions across multiple legal authorities. That's harder to challenge in a single lawsuit.

What the Left Misread

Within minutes of the Supreme Court ruling, the narrative congealed: Trump's trade agenda was finished. The tariffs were dead. The adults in the judiciary had finally stepped in. It lasted about as long as it took the White House to schedule the briefing.

This is a pattern. The assumption is always that legal or institutional resistance will stop the policy rather than redirect it. The assumption is always wrong, because it confuses the tool with the objective.

Trump's objective is reshaping America's trade relationships. IEEPA was one tool. The toolbox is deeper than his opponents imagine, or at least deeper than they bother to check before declaring victory.

The press briefing was called on short notice. That speed tells you the contingency planning was already in place. This wasn't improvisation. It was execution.

The Bigger Picture

Conservative supporters of tariff reform should take two things from this episode. First, the trade agenda is not dependent on any single legal mechanism.

The federal code is thick with trade authorities granted to the executive branch by Congress over nearly a century, from the Tariff Act of 1930 through the Trade Act of 1974 and beyond. Second, the speed of the pivot matters as much as the pivot itself. Trading partners watching from abroad saw a president absorb a Supreme Court loss and reimpose tariffs the same day.

That's not the behavior of a leader who's been stopped. It's the behavior of a leader who planned for the obstacle before it arrived.

The Court spoke. The president heard it. And then he signed the order anyway, on different paper, under a different statute, pointed at the same destination.