President Donald Trump‘s senior counselor for trade and manufacturing, Peter Navarro, who like the President insists that “tariffs are not taxes” — contradicting the majority of top economists around the world — appeared on the Fox News talk show Mornings with Maria on Wednesday.
Host Maria Bartiromo asked Navarro: “What’s your take on this IEEPA case, in terms of the courts trying to stop President Trump? Can you walk us through what could be a backup plan…if these courts go against the President?”
[Note: The President has used the IEEPA (the International Emergency Economic Powers Act), claiming that a national economic emergency exists, to impose broad tariffs on countries across the world purportedly to counter disadvantageous trade deficits. Numerous courts have ruled that the IEEPA-based tariffs are unlawful because their imposition exceeded presidential authority.]
Q: Can you walk us through what a backup plan could be if these courts go against Trump's tariffs?
— FactPost (@factpostnews) September 17, 2025
Navarro: Courts around America are needlessly politicized. So the backup plan is the Supreme Court basically ruling in our favor. pic.twitter.com/J2o2mfZswz
Navarro told Bartiromo: “Courts around America are needlessly politicized, making partisan decisions. The seven judges who ruled against the Trump administration, six of them were Democrats, one of them an H.W. Bush RINO who’s a free trader.”
He added: “So the backup plan is the Supreme Court basically ruling in our favor.” Navarro later added, “If the Supreme Court rules against us, it’ll be catastrophic.”
Navarro’s backup plan is being met with criticism on social media. “Our backup plan is not to have a backup plan” wrote one commenter. Another responded: “depending solely on the supreme court is risky the court can decline cases or rule narrowly leaving tariffs vulnerable.”
Others are voicing opposition to Trump’s “unlawful” use of the IEEPA while at the same time expressing a conviction that Navarro’s backup plan is a solid one — given Trump’s alleged influence over the majority of the Supreme Court Justices. Though critical of the policy, one commenter believing it won’t be reversed, replied: “Good job admitting that you have SCOTUS in your pocket.”
.jpg){kind=link}