The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on February 20, 2026, that President Trump lacked authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose broad tariffs, leading him to implement a temporary 15% import surcharge under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 as a short-term substitute. This surcharge applies to nearly all imports, including low-value consignments, and has created uncertainty for trade agreements with the UK and EU, raising concerns about market stability and compliance with previously negotiated tariff commitments. The surcharge is intended to last up to 150 days, after which the administration may pursue other statutory measures like Sections 232 and 301 to enforce tariffs.
The U.S. Supreme Court's 6-3 ruling deemed Trump's tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act illegal, prompting U.S. authorities to stop charging IEEPA duties while maintaining tariffs under other authorities, including steel, aluminum, and copper. The decision has prompted reassessment by U.S. trade partners, with some questioning the ratification of recent trade deals and calling for tariff adjustments, while China urged the U.S. to lift unilateral tariffs. Meanwhile, Mexico successfully conducted an operation against a cartel boss with U.S. support, and geopolitical issues such as disputes over Russian oil flow through Ukraine and ongoing U.S.-Iran nuclear talks continue to unfold globally.
President Trump has warned that the U.S. may impose higher tariffs on countries that "play games" with the Supreme Court's decision, according to CNBC's Eamon Javers. This statement suggests potential trade actions depending on how other nations respond to the judicial ruling. No further details on the specific decision or targeted countries were provided.
President Donald Trump threatened to impose higher tariffs on countries that he believes are "playing games" following a Supreme Court ruling that limited his authority to impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The court's 6-3 decision ruled that Trump did not have the authority to unilaterally impose such tariffs, prompting Trump to consider using other laws to maintain tariffs and to threaten a 10% global tariff as a response. Trump criticized the court's decision and expressed his intention to increase tariffs to recover additional revenue.
President Donald Trump threatened to impose higher tariffs on other countries in response to a recent Supreme Court ruling that limited his authority to do so under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. He expressed intent to use other laws to maintain tariffs and previously announced a 10% global tariff, criticizing the court's decision and calling certain justices unpatriotic.
Commissioner Dubravka Šuica's participation in the inaugural meeting of the Board of Peace in Washington has drawn criticism from EU Member States and Parliament groups due to her lack of a clear mandate, raising legal and institutional questions regarding EU representation and adherence to EU law and principles. The event, linked to a contested initiative initiated by the Trump administration and associated with questions of EU constitutional compliance, highlights tensions over the division of external action responsibilities between EU institutions, particularly concerning the scope of the Commission's role versus the High Representative's. Critics argue that her unilateral participation may impact the EU's credibility and raises concerns about adherence to the EU's legal frameworks and collaborative decision-making processes.
The article discusses President Trump's warning to Iran about the impending possibility of military action amid increased U.S. military buildup and economic sanctions aimed at regime change. It criticizes U.S. policies of sanctions and interventions that have caused widespread suffering in Iran, including recent violent repression of protests, and argues that any future war would result in regional and global catastrophe. The piece emphasizes that the Iranian people seek change through internal efforts rather than external military threats.
EU top diplomats are scheduled to meet with the director of the Board of Peace in Brussels to discuss Gaza's future amid controversy over U.S. efforts led by Donald Trump to rebuild the Gaza Strip. The meeting follows the U.S.-established Board of Peace, managed by Nikolay Mladenov, with varying support within the EU, as some member states and officials have voiced concerns over the board's legitimacy and the EU's participation. While the EU supports the UN's mandate in Gaza, there is internal disagreement on engaging with the Trump-led initiative, with debates about legal and institutional protocols.
World Bank President Ajay Banga's decision to join the Trump-led Board of Peace has sparked criticism over concerns about its political implications and impact on the bank's neutrality. Meanwhile, U.S. Senator Chris Coons acknowledged that despite recent development funding setbacks, more money than expected remains available for global aid initiatives. Additionally, the article discusses the aftermath of a 2025 aid suspension by the Trump administration and debates over U.S. food assistance policies in conflict regions like Afghanistan and Yemen.
The article discusses Iran's shift towards accepting a prolonged regional conflict with the United States following increased US military actions, including a 2025 attack on Iran's nuclear facilities. It highlights Iran's growing resolve to avoid rapid escalation and its willingness to endure sustained conflict, contrasting with US hesitance due to the risk of a costly, uncontrollable war. Current negotiations over Iran's nuclear program reflect Washington's limited options—either escalating to full-scale war or pursuing a negotiated settlement—while Iran has recalibrated its strategic stance, favoring resilience over decisive confrontation.
The article summarizes a 50-minute Week in Review on Times Radio discussing recent events, including the arrest of Prince Andrew in Norfolk related to Jeffrey Epstein, the killing of a cartel leader in Mexico, and Donald Trump's actions and behaviors, such as his "Board of Peace" event in Washington. The discussion also covers the political and legal implications for survivors and society, highlighting concerns over accountability and transparency in both the UK and US.
The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that President Trump could not unilaterally impose tariffs on U.S. imports without congressional approval, significantly limiting the executive's trade powers. Some Republican lawmakers called for legislation to codify Trump's tariffs into law, while others suggested the administration could rely on other legal statutes to justify tariffs. Democrats praised the decision as a defense of congressional authority, emphasizing that tariffs require legislative approval.
