Event20 February 2026Action

After the Supreme Court strikes down his emergency tariffs, Trump calls the Court's Democrats 'a Disgrace to our Nation' and proclaims a 10% global Section 122 surcharge (Proclamation 11012) the same day

On February 20, 2026, after the Supreme Court ruled in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump against his tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, Trump said in a statement he was "ashamed of certain Members of the Court" and that "The Democrats on the Court" were "a Disgrace to our Nation", and announced "a 10% GLOBAL TARIFF, under Section 122". Proclamation 11012, signed that day, imposes a 10% import surcharge for 150 days from February 24, 2026 to deal with a "large and serious balance-of-payments deficit"; goods entering duty-free from Canada or Mexico under the USMCA are exempt, as are energy, certain critical minerals and some fertilizers. The new surcharge rests on the balance of payments, not fentanyl. In our reading, because the switch was forced by the ruling and the surcharge applies to all countries, it says little about US intent toward Canada in particular.

Date: 20 February 2026
Kind: Tariff action
Where: United States
Evidence: Action: Something was done: a law switched on, a tariff imposed, money committed. How evidence is weighed
Who: Donald Trump (acted); Supreme Court of the United States (subject)

Evidence for

In the foresight thought experiment, most hard US actions also fit 'foreseen and wanted' and plain self-interest equally: tariffs that spare raw resources (a …

Latest articles

No article cites this record yet.

Sources

American Presidency Project (UCSB), “Statement on the United States Supreme Court Decision in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump Concerning Tariff Policy” (external site), 20 February 2026. source record
Federal Register, “Proclamation 11012 of February 20, 2026: Imposing a Temporary Import Surcharge To Address Fundamental International Payments Problems (91 FR 9339)” (external site), 25 February 2026. source record
White & Case, “Trump Administration Imposes 10% Section 122 Tariff in Plan to Replace IEEPA Tariffs” (external site), 2 March 2026. source record

Quotes

“a Disgrace to our Nation”

From American Presidency Project (UCSB): Statement on the United States Supreme Court Decision in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump Concerning Tariff Policy, para. 1

Claims that rest on this event

SupportsTested hypothesis: intent
In the foresight thought experiment, most hard US actions also fit 'foreseen and wanted' and plain self-interest equally: tariffs that spare raw resources (a pattern applied worldwide), the replacement tariffs after the US Supreme Court struck down the emergency tariffs in February 2026 (under laws that apply to all countries), the Bridger pipeline permit reusing Keystone XL assets (a private project US refiners want), and US takeovers and private-equity stakes.
Tariffs rebuilt through a surcharge on all countries.

Tested hypotheses: a thought experiment

Suppose Washington foresaw and wanted this. Would this event look any different than under the rival readings? This is a deliberately contrarian test, explained here, not the author’s belief. Judgments, not measurements.

Judged to fit the plain self-interest reading better than the foresight reading. What this means

Reading	Fit	Why
I0a Accident Tested hypothesis (intent)	Fits weak	The angry statement about the Court is consistent with grudges colouring policy, though the switch to Section 122 was forced by the ruling and applies to all countries.
I0b Plain self-interest; Canada's response not considered Tested hypothesis (intent)	Fits weak	Exempting energy, certain critical minerals and USMCA goods is consistent with plain US interest in keeping those imports cheap; other readings expect it too.
I1 Foreseen and welcomed, not the reason Tested hypothesis (intent)	Neutral weak	A global surcharge forced by a court ruling says little about foresight of Canada's response.
I2 Foreseen and wanted (this level or higher) Tested hypothesis (intent)	Neutral weak	A global surcharge forced by a court ruling says little about foresight of Canada's response.
I3 Worked-out plan with specific targets Tested hypothesis (intent)	Neutral weak	A global surcharge forced by a court ruling says little about foresight of Canada's response.
R-annex Annexation Rival reading	Neutral weak	A global measure that exempts USMCA goods does not bear on aims toward Canada as a country.
R-frag Fragmentation Rival reading	Neutral weak	A global measure that exempts USMCA goods does not bear on aims toward Canada as a country.
R-weaken Weaken-Canada rivals (annexation or fragmentation) Rival reading	Neutral weak	A global measure that exempts USMCA goods does not bear on aims toward Canada as a country.