US Senator Chuck Schumer has launched a blistering attack on President Donald Trump's tariff regime, branding it "illegal" and demanding the immediate return of all collected funds.

Speaking in Washington DC on 21 February 2026, Schumer accused the president of flouting constitutional limits on executive power, following a landmark 6-3 Supreme Court decision the previous day that struck down Trump's sweeping global tariffs.

The Supreme Court ruled that Trump had overstepped his authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). Justices emphasised that tariff-setting powers reside firmly with Congress, not the executive branch. 

This verdict delivered a significant setback to Trump's trade agenda, which had imposed broad levies on imports from numerous countries, including key partners like China, the European Union, and even allies such as Canada and India.

Schumer did not mince words in his assessment. "First, the Supreme Court did what everyone knew was the right thing," he declared, lambasting the tariffs for failing to deliver on Trump's promises. He pointed out that manufacturing jobs had not returned as pledged; instead, prices had surged, exacerbating inflation—a top concern for American households. "The number one thing people in America care about is prices—tariffs have caused them," Schumer noted, highlighting how everyday costs for goods from electronics to clothing had risen sharply.

Trump's response to the ruling was swift and defiant. Dismissing the decision as a "disgrace," he signed an executive order imposing a temporary 10 per cent global tariff under a separate statute. This move aims to sustain import duties while his administration scrambles for legal workarounds. Critics, including Schumer, warn it merely postpones the inevitable, predicting renewed court challenges and prolonged economic uncertainty.

In a heated address, Trump reportedly resorted to name-calling and foot-stomping, berating Supreme Court justices without addressing the core issue of rising prices. Schumer likened the president's behaviour to that of a "ten-year-old," urging him to accept the ruling gracefully. "What he should have done... is say, 'Hey, okay, the Supreme Court ruled, I'm getting rid of them.' But he can't," Schumer remarked, forecasting that the new tariffs would perpetuate high prices, erode manufacturing jobs further, widen the trade deficit, and fuel inflation.

The senator was unequivocal on remedies: if the original tariffs prove unlawful, "the money must be returned." He envisioned a barrage of lawsuits, stating, "See you in court. They will be back in court." Schumer cited Trump's track record, noting that in about two-thirds of legal challenges against his administration—not just from Senate Democrats but from various plaintiffs—courts had ruled against him, including this instance where two judges sided with the challengers.

This saga underscores deeper tensions over trade policy and separation of powers in the United States. Trump's tariff strategy, launched in his second term, sought to revive domestic industry by shielding it from foreign competition. Proponents argued it countered unfair practices like dumping and intellectual property theft. Yet detractors, bolstered by the Supreme Court, contend it bypassed Congress's constitutional prerogative under Article I, Section 8, which grants it authority "to lay and collect... Duties."

Economic fallout has been pronounced. Data from the US Bureau of Labour Statistics, referenced in recent analyses, shows manufacturing employment stagnating or declining in tariff-hit sectors, while consumer prices for imported goods climbed by an average of 12-15 per cent in 2025. Businesses, from small retailers to large manufacturers reliant on global supply chains, have passed these costs to consumers, stoking public discontent amid persistent inflation hovering above the Federal Reserve's two per cent target.

Internationally, the ruling reverberates. Nations hit hardest by the tariffs—China foremost, but also India with duties on steel, pharmaceuticals, and textiles—may pursue refunds through the World Trade Organization or bilateral channels. India's commerce ministry has already signalled interest in joining US importers' refund claims, potentially straining bilateral ties despite recent defence and technology pacts.

Lawmakers' reactions split along partisan lines. Republican allies of Trump decry the ruling as judicial overreach, vowing legislative action to expand presidential trade powers. Democrats, led by Schumer, celebrate it as a restoration of checks and balances. House Speaker figures have floated emergency bills to refund affected parties, though passage remains uncertain in a divided Congress.

As legal battles loom, questions swirl around refunds' mechanics. The US Customs and Border Protection collected billions in tariff revenue—estimated at over $80 billion since implementation. Distributing it back to importers could involve complex audits and claims processes, reminiscent of past trade disputes like the 2002 steel tariffs under George W. Bush, which required similar repayments after WTO censure.

Trump's pivot to alternative statutes invites scrutiny. Legal experts question whether provisions like Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act—invoked for national security—can sustain broad global tariffs without fresh congressional buy-in. Past precedents suggest courts may again intervene if the measures exceed narrow intent.

For American consumers and businesses, the chaos persists. Grocery bills, auto parts, and tech gadgets bear the brunt, with no quick relief in sight. Schumer's call for accountability resonates amid polls showing trade policy as a vulnerability for the administration, particularly as midterm elections approach.

Ultimately, this episode tests the resilience of US institutions against executive ambition. While Trump vows to "fight on," the Supreme Court's rebuke signals limits to unilateral trade warfare, potentially reshaping global commerce for years to come.

ANI