The president took time out of his speech at a fundraising dinner to rail against the judges.
In his hour-long speech at Wednesday night’s National Republican Congressional Committee fundraising dinner, the 79-year-old devoted several minutes to venting his frustrations about the Supreme Court justices he feels betrayed him by Trump ramped up his attacks in his speech, notably on the Supreme Court, after it ruled against sparing the U.
S. government from refunding billions in tariffs paid by American importers. “I got a decision on tariffs that’s going to cost our country... hundreds of billions, potentially, of refunds,” Trump told attendees at the dinner, which was held in Washington D.C’s Union Station. “Giving them back to people that have been ripping off our country because the Supreme Court didn’t want to put one little sentence that all money taken in up till this date doesn’t have to be paid back,” he continued. “Going to cost us hundreds of billions of dollars. So sad to see.” President Donald Trump attends the National Republican Congressional Committee's annual fundraising dinner at Union Station on March 25, 2026 in Washington, DC.“Courts, bad courts in this country are costing us a tremendous amount of money,” Trump said. “And the Supreme Court, that’s right, of the United States, cost our country—all they needed was a sentence—hundreds of billions of dollars and they couldn’t care less. They couldn’t care less.” “And not that it matters, doesn’t matter at all,” he continued. “But two of the people that voted for that I appointed and they sicken me. They sicken me because they’re bad for our country,” he added, referring to Justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, both of whom he appointed during his first term.in which the court found that Trump had overstepped his authority by attempting to impose wide-ranging tariffs on countries around the world, ruling that he could not impose them using a 1977 law designed to address national emergencies. “The President asserts the extraordinary power to unilaterally impose tariffs of unlimited amount, duration, and scope. In light of the breadth, history, and constitutional context of that asserted authority, he must identify clear congressional authorization to exercise it,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote in the decision. Trump said in his speech on Wednesday night that Supreme Court Justices Neil Gorsuch, left, and Amy Coney Barrett, right, sickened him.Conservative justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh dissented. Kavanaugh was also appointed by Trump during his first term.the judges as “lap dogs,” adding that they were a “disgrace to our nation” and “disloyal to the Constitution.” He also accused them of being swayed by foreign interests and unidentified “slimeballs” from other countries.“The Supreme Court’s ruling on tariffs is deeply disappointing, and I’m ashamed of certain members of the Court—absolutely ashamed for not having the courage to do what’s right for our country,” he told reporters.to TruthSocial in which he said that the ruling was one that “mattered most to me” and suggested that it was the reason the U.S. has been in “such major decline.”to the increasing number of attacks on the judiciary during a public appearance a day later, with many interpreting his remarks as a thinly-veiled response to the president in particular. “Judges around the country work very hard to get it right, and if they don’t, their opinions are subject to criticism,” Roberts said.
Supreme-Court-Of-The-United-States
United States Latest News, United States Headlines
Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.
As Trump blocks asylum seekers, Supreme Court to decide if US must review claimsThe justices are weighing whether migrants can be turned back at ports of entry.
Read more »
The Trump Administration Wants the Supreme Court to Permanently Close the Border to Asylum SeekersAt stake in Noem v. Al Otro Lado is whether the U.S. can shut asylum seekers out at the border and evade both domestic and international law.
Read more »
Supreme Court considers allowing Trump administration to revive restrictive immigration policyThe Supreme Court grappled Tuesday with an immigration policy that has been used to turn back migrants seeking asylum at the U.S.-Mexico border and whether the Trump administration should be able to revive it. Some conservative justices seemed receptive to the Justice Department's push to overturn a ruling against the practice known as metering.
Read more »
Supreme Court Grapples with Trump-Era Asylum PolicyThe Supreme Court heard arguments on whether the Trump administration should be allowed to reinstate a policy that limited the number of migrants seeking asylum at the U.S.-Mexico border. The policy, known as metering, faced scrutiny from justices with differing viewpoints on its legality and potential impact.
Read more »
Supreme Court Considers Revival of Trump-Era Asylum PolicyThe Supreme Court heard arguments Tuesday on whether the Trump administration should be allowed to reinstate a policy that limited the number of migrants seeking asylum at the U.S.-Mexico border. The policy, known as metering, faced pushback from advocates who argued it created a humanitarian crisis. The court explored arguments from the Justice Department and questions about the legality and fairness of the policy.
Read more »
Supreme Court Considers Trump-Era Asylum PolicyThe Supreme Court heard arguments regarding the Trump administration's attempt to reinstate a policy limiting asylum applications at the U.S.-Mexico border, known as metering. Justices debated the legality and implications of the policy, which limited the number of asylum seekers, potentially leading to humanitarian concerns. The administration argues the policy is a necessary tool used by both parties.
Read more »