President Donald Trump on Wednesday accused the U.S. Supreme Court of costing the nation “trillions and trillions of dollars” by overturning two key policies of his administration: emergency tariffs and an executive order restricting birthright citizenship. In a post on his social media platform, Truth Social, Trump lamented the rulings, claiming they represented a massive loss of money and prestige for the United States. The Supreme Court's decisions came during its recent term, invalidating two pillars of Trump’s economic and immigration strategies. In February, the justices ruled that Trump lacked the authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to unilaterally impose tariffs on foreign nations. The ruling mandated that the Trump administration provide refunds to businesses that had paid higher prices for imported goods. By June 29, U.S. Customs and Border Protection had issued approximately $104.29 billion in such refunds, according to a court filing. Separately, the court struck down Trump’s order limiting birthright citizenship, which required a child born in the U.S. to have at least one parent with citizenship or permanent residency. The decision invalidated this policy, which Trump had argued was necessary to curb illegal immigration. Members of the court’s conservative majority opposed the administration’s stance in both cases, with Justice Amy Coney Barrett being the sole Trump appointee in the majority. Despite Trump’s public criticism, the administration has continued to pursue legal avenues to challenge the rulings. He had previously stated he intended to request a rehearing of the birthright citizenship case, but the deadline for the Justice Department to file such a motion expired earlier this week. Meanwhile, several Republican lawmakers have introduced legislation aimed at codifying the executive order. Trump has suggested that the Supreme Court’s actions favor U.S. adversaries, particularly Russia and China. However, research conducted by scholars from Princeton, Cornell, and Notre Dame universities estimated that individuals who benefited from birthright citizenship contributed $7.7 trillion to the U.S. economy between 1975 and 2024. The impact of the tariff rulings has been felt across industries, with companies receiving substantial refunds. For example, Apple announced in its third-quarter earnings report that it had received a favorable impact of $0.11 per share from tariff refunds. Analysts estimated that these refunds played a significant role in Apple’s better-than-expected financial performance. While the exact amount of refunds varies among reports, estimates range from $1.1 billion to $2.2 billion, with some suggesting the total could be closer to $3.3 billion based on the company’s known tariff payments. Other companies have taken steps to return some of the refunds to consumers. Costco, UPS, and FedEx have indicated plans to pass portions of the refunds to customers, who had indirectly borne the cost through higher prices. Walmart’s CFO, John David Rainey, emphasized that the company would prioritize price reductions when utilizing the refunds. In contrast, Apple has chosen to reinvest the funds into U.S. innovation and manufacturing, aligning with its broader strategy to increase domestic investment. Amazon, another major recipient of tariff refunds, disclosed that it received $600 million in such reimbursements. The company noted that the refunds were limited due to its practice of stockpiling inventory before the imposition of tariffs and its role as a marketplace rather than an importer of record for most products sold on its platform. These developments highlight the complex interplay between federal policy, corporate strategy, and consumer impact following the Supreme Court’s rulings. As the administration continues to navigate the fallout, the long-term implications for the U.S. economy remain a subject of ongoing analysis and debate.
6 poročil
SemaforNeodvisenSredinaDejstva 80Objektivnost 65pred 8 dneviČlanek poroča, da je bivši predsednik Donald Trump uvedel nove tarife, ki jih nekateri razlagajo kot poskus izogibanja neposrednemu soočenju z vrhovnim sodiščem.
Ocena pristranskosti (Sredina): Članek predstavlja izjavo o Trumpovih dejanjih, ne da bi jih odkrito podprl ali kritiziral.
Zakaj dejstva (80): The article accurately reports the imposition of tariffs on 60 countries, the USTR's investigation, and the rationale behind the tariffs. It includes the list of countries and the tariff rates, though it lacks some of the legal and procedural details from the primary source.
Zakaj objektivnost (65): The tone is somewhat critical of the tariffs, noting that key trading partners 'strongly rejected that accusation.' While it presents facts, it frames the situation in a way that suggests skepticism about the validity of the accusations.
AxiosNeodvisenSredinaDejstva 75Objektivnost 70pred 7 dneviBidenova administracija je uvedla nove pravne tarife, da bi delno nadomestila izgubo prihodkov iz prejšnjih nujnih tarif, ki jih je razveljavilo Vrhovno sodišče. Te nove tarife naj bi letno ustvarile približno 105 milijard dolarjev, kar pokriva približno 60% izgubljenih prihodkov. Vendar pa so bolj ozke in vključujejo več oprostitev, kar zmanjšuje njihov splošni vpliv na trgovino in prihodke v primerjavi s prejšnjimi nujnimi ukrepi.
Ocena pristranskosti (Sredina): Članek objektivno predstavlja informacije, navaja številke Odbora za odgovoren zvezni proračun in navaja uradnika Bele hiše.
Zakaj dejstva (75): The article discusses the financial implications of new tariffs but does not directly reference the White House's statement about the pending announcement by US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer. This makes it somewhat tangential to the main event.
Zakaj objektivnost (70): The article presents data and analysis but includes commentary on the effectiveness of the new tariffs, introducing a subtle bias.
Bloomberg NewsNeodvisen🔒KonservativnoDejstva 60Objektivnost 65pred 6 dneviPredsednik Donald Trump je 25. julija 2026 ponovno sprožil svojo agresivno trgovinsko politiko z grožnjami z novimi carinami, kar je označilo oživitev njegove strategije "carinskega napada". To sledi obdobju relativne tišine, saj je Vrhovno sodišče februarja in med trenutnim iranskim spopadom razveljavilo nekatere od njegovih prejšnjih tarif.
Ocena pristranskosti (Konservativno): V članku je Trumpova grožnja s carinami označena kot strateški korak, ki je v skladu z njegovim zgodovinsko usmerjenim pristopom k protekcionizmu in ekonomskemu nacionalizmu.
Zakaj dejstva (60): The article briefly mentions the impact of the tariffs on congressional races but does not provide detailed information about the USTR's actions on forced labor. It references the broader context of trade policies without delving into the specifics outlined in the primary source.
Zakaj objektivnost (65): The article remains neutral in tone, focusing on the political implications of the tariffs without expressing clear bias. It provides a concise overview of the situation without taking sides.
The HillNeodvisenKonservativnoDejstva 40Objektivnost 40včerajPredsednik Donald Trump je ameriško vrhovno sodišče kritiziral, ker je prevrnilo dve njegovi glavni politiki - izredne tarife in naročilo o rojstni pravici - in trdil, da sta državo stala "trilijonov in trilijonov dolarjev". Sodišče je februarja odločilo, da Trump nima pooblastil po Zakonu o mednarodnih izrednih gospodarskih pooblastilih, da bi uvedel tarife, kar je privedlo do povračila plačil v skupni vrednosti približno 104,29 milijarde dolarjev prizadetim podjetjem.
Ocena pristranskosti (Konservativno): V članku so sodbe vrhovnega sodišča označene kot škodljive Trumpovi agendi in jih prikazujejo kot koristi za tuje nasprotnike, z uporabo močnega jezika, kot je "trilijoni in trilijoni dolarjev" in namigujejo, da so sodne odločitve usklajene z nasprotujočimi interesom.
Zakaj dejstva (40): The article discusses the impact of the Supreme Court rulings on the Trump administration's policies but does not directly relate it to the USTR's actions on forced labor tariffs. It lacks specific details about the tariffs and their connection to the primary source document.
Zakaj objektivnost (40): The article presents a highly opinionated view of the Supreme Court's decisions, portraying them negatively and linking them to financial losses. The tone is clearly biased against the court and the administration's policies.
NewsweekNeodvisenSredinapred 5 uramiApple je prejel milijarde dolarjev v povračilnih dajatvah, potem ko je ameriško vrhovno sodišče februarja razveljavilo večino davkov bivšega predsednika Donalda Trumpa. Ta povračila so znatno prispevala k nedavni finančni uspešnosti Appla in ji pomagala presegati pričakovanja o zaslužku. Medtem ko so rezultati Appleovega tretjega četrtletja pokazali močno rast prihodkov in povečano dobiček, ni znakov, da bodo potrošniki videli neposredne koristi od teh povračil. Družba se je odločila, da bo absorbirala stroške dajatev z zmanjšanjem dobičkov, namesto da bi jih prenesla na potrošnike. Čeprav je bilo letos že razdeljenih več kot 80 milijard dolarjev v povračilnih dajatvah, je zaradi tekočih pravnih sporov še vedno neporavnanih približno 100,7 milijarde dolarjev.
Ocena pristranskosti (Sredina): V članku so predstavljene dejanske informacije o Appleovih dajatev in njihovem finančnem učinku, ne da bi se odkrito naklonil nobeni strani političnega spektra.
QuartzNeodvisenSredinapred 10 uramiDružba Amazon je objavila, da je prejela 600 milijonov ameriških dolarjev povračila carin in načrtuje, da bo del teh prihrankov prenesla nazaj na stranke.
Ocena pristranskosti (Sredina): V članku so predstavljene dejanske informacije o finančnih poslih Amazona v zvezi z dajatvami, ne da bi se očitno naklonil nobeni politični ideologiji.
★
Ohranimo novice poštene.
ObjectiveNews financirajo bralci in je brez oglasov – pristranskost vam pokažemo, ne skrijemo. Podprite neodvisno novinarstvo za 5 €/mesec.
Postani podpornik
United States
