The Supreme Court’s February decision to strike down President Donald Trump’s International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) duties has been financially ruinous for the country, according to the Commander in Chief—and he’s aiming to reconstitute that revenue through other means, including targeting both America’s allies and adversaries.
“Does anybody have any idea how much Money and Prestige the United States Supreme Court has cost our Nation with their negative Rulings on Birthright Citizenship and TARIFFS? The answer, TRILLIONS AND TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS!” Trump wrote on Truth Social Wednesday.
The president is eager to see recently proposed legislation (championed by the late Senator Lindsey Graham) signed into law. Dubbed the Sanctioning Russia Act of 2026, the bipartisan bill would saddle bigtime American trading partners and competitors like India and China with fresh new duties worth up to 100 percent for buying Russian oil and natural gas. According to lawmakers, these purchases are funding Russia’s war in Ukraine, and cutting off the financial pipeline could usher an end to the conflict.
While the bill garnered widespread support, the president told reporters Wednesday that he wanted to see another one of the country’s adversaries added to the bill.
“I’d like them to add Iran as tariffs, not just as sanctions, I think that’s important, that’s what Lindsey wanted,” he told reporters in the Oval Office.
The Senate overwhelmingly passed the bill on Tuesday evening with an 86-12 vote prior to the inclusion of Iran, and a second vote, which added an extension of existing Iran sanctions for another five years, cleared with an 84-12 vote. It’s now being called the Lindsey O. Graham Sanctioning Russia and Iran Act of 2026.
Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wy.) spoke on the Senate floor about adding Iran to the Russia sanctions bill. “Together, Russia and Iran have built an axis of aggression, and we know where the aggression is headed,” he said, noting that “passing this bill will make our country safer.”
Some believe that amending the bill to include Iran, which has been embroiled in a war with the United States since February, could add a stumbling block to the bill’s path forward to a vote in the House of Representatives.
While lawmakers have mostly thrown their backing behind the bill, some are wary of granting the president even more leeway to impose import taxes as a foreign policy cudgel. In the past month alone, the White House has announced 25 percent tariffs on Brazil as the result of a year-long investigation; 50 percent tariffs on Canada that would impact products like textiles and apparel; and 10-12.5 percent duties on 60 U.S. trading partners over charges linked to forced labor.
Along with 11 Democrats, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ken.) voted against the proposal. In an op-ed published by Fox News, he wrote, “This legislation is a tariff bill that seems to have been written with such blind rage that, rather than compel a change in Vladimir Putin’s behavior, its punitive measures would make American families poorer and undermine our national interests.
Meanwhile, Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.) said she couldn’t support the legislation because it “gives the President new authority to impose tariffs, even on our allies.”
“I do not think tariffs, which are paid for by American businesses and consumers, will help Ukraine win this war. And over the last year, it’s become more clear that President Trump will use any legal—or illegal—mechanism to make families pay his reckless tariffs,” she wrote on X.
Sen. Jon Ossoff’s (D-Ga.) office said the lawmaker “does not support the provisions of this bill that delegate massive new tariff authorities to a President who has demonstrated he will wield tariffs recklessly and destructively.”
The president’s tariff policies have indeed proven unpopular with Americans, who largely believe they’ve increased costs at retail.
According to the Yale Budget Lab, as of July 24, the ultimate tariff policy consumer price impact will stand around 0.7 percent this year, and households are projected to spend $1,100 in 2026 on tariffs under the current statutes.
The average statutory tariff rate currently amounts to 11.1 percent—the highest rate seen since 1943 (excluding 2025, when Trump imposed the IEEPA duties), analysts wrote. With the scheduled tariff increases set to take effect, the figure will jump to 11.8 percent by the end of 2026, they believe.
While the tariffs could raise $1.9 trillion over the next decade, that number is lower than what it could be given the negative impacts tariffs are having and will continue to have on the country’s gross domestic product (GDP).
And, that figure only counts if the tariffs stick. At this point, it’s a big “if.”
Trump’s IEEPA tariffs were defeated in court in February, and his 10 percent duties levied under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which were found unlawful by the Court of International Trade in May. The federal government is in the process of refunding about $166 billion to importers that paid into the IEEPA tariff scheme, and while it was granted a stay on the Section 122 decision, allowing for the continued collection of duties until the appeal process is over, it will more than likely have to refund those, too.
With two legal losses under its belt, the administration’s tariff-dependent trade policies are vulnerable to legal challenges. On Friday, just hours after the forced labor Section 301 duties went into effect, the same small businesses that challenged the government over the IEEPA tariffs filed lawsuits alleging that the new tariffs were unlawfully imposed.
