Full Analysis Summary
Court ruling on tariffs
On Feb. 20–21, 2026 the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 6–3 decision striking down the broad tariff program President Donald Trump had imposed using emergency economic powers.
Within a day the White House announced it would immediately raise a temporary worldwide import levy from the 10% rate announced earlier to the 15% maximum allowed under a separate statute.
Multiple outlets reported the Court found the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) did not authorize the sweeping tariffs the administration had tried to impose.
Those outlets also reported the administration moved to Section 122 (or similar trade statutes) to claim a 15% cap that lasts 150 days unless Congress acts.
Sources described the decision and the rapid shift to a 15% temporary duty as legally contentious and politically charged.
Coverage Differences
Legal framing
Most outlets report the Court’s 6–3 finding that IEEPA did not authorize blanket tariffs, but they differ on the title used for Trump (some call him 'President' while others say 'former President') and on whether the new step is framed as 'circumventing' the ruling or as a lawful, routine statutory alternative. Some pieces treat the 15% move as an immediate executive action, others note the proclamation or updated order was not yet signed or may require amendment.
Tone
Some outlets emphasize the urgency and legal tightrope (France 24, The Hindu), while others foreground Trump’s political messaging and characterization of the ruling as 'anti‑American' or 'ridiculous' (The Hindu, Republic World).
Legal basis for tariffs
The administration cited Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 as the legal route for the 15% rate.
Multiple outlets say Section 122 permits up to 15% duties for 150 days without prior congressional approval, and that extensions beyond that window would require Congress.
The administration also signaled it will pursue other authorities such as Section 301 investigations to design narrower, 'legally permissible' tariffs and to target specific unfair trade practices.
Several reports stress Section 122 is temporary and could be used repeatedly to create rolling measures.
Legal analysts in other pieces warn the step is narrower than the broad emergency power that the Court struck down.
Coverage Differences
Legal detail
Outlets concur that Section 122 allows a temporary 15% cap for 150 days, but they differ on emphasis: some (Odisha TV, pmnewsnigeria, Sandhills Express) emphasize the statutory limit and need for congressional action after 150 days, while others (pmnewsnigeria, CoinGape) note observers see it as repeatable for rolling measures.
Certainty of implementation
Some outlets report the 15% increase as already in effect or 'effective immediately' (Odisha TV, Sandhills Express, LiveNOW from FOX), while others note the White House has not yet published an updated signed proclamation and legal challenges are likely (Sandhills Express, CityNews Halifax).
Trump response to ruling
Trump’s immediate public response on Truth Social mixed legal defiance with sharp personal attacks on several justices.
Multiple outlets recorded him calling the decision 'ridiculous,' 'poorly written' and 'extraordinarily anti‑American,' and said he used epithets such as 'lapdogs,' called some justices 'an embarrassment,' and said he was 'ashamed' of certain members.
He also praised the three dissenting justices in the 6–3 ruling; some reports say he singled out Justice Brett Kavanaugh as a 'new hero' and commended Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.
Coverage varies on whether the rhetoric is presented as a political performance, a legal strategy, or both.
Coverage Differences
Rhetoric focus
Tabloid and local outlets highlight personal insults and vivid language (Fine Day 102.3, The Irish Sun, CityNews Halifax), while mainstream outlets report the same quotes in a more restrained legal-news context (Marketscreener, NBC News, The Hindu).
Presentation
Some sources (Republic World, WION) quote Trump's posts with the insulting language verbatim; others (marketscreener, NBC News) summarize his criticism and note he insisted on legal permissibility without reproducing the most colorful insults.
Coverage of tariff changes
Coverage differs on the immediate economic effects and the practicalities of enforcement.
Several mainstream business-oriented outlets report companies preparing to seek refunds and warn of market and supply‑chain disruption.
Other outlets highlight the revenue already collected and the likelihood of litigation over duties and refunds.
Some pieces underline that sector‑specific duties tied to other statutes — steel, aluminium, autos and semiconductors — remain intact and that exemptions for critical sectors are being retained as the administration refines its approach.
Coverage Differences
Market impact
Business and mainstream sources stress market uncertainty and potential consumer costs (LA Times, The Sunday Guardian), while financial/crypto outlets point to short‑term market moves (CoinGape).
Refunds & litigation
Forbes and LiveNOW from FOX emphasize companies seeking refunds and the uncertainty of that process, while other outlets focus more on the political and legal battle rather than immediate corporate claims.
Exemptions noted
Some outlets explicitly note exemptions and sector‑specific measures remain (Straits Times, Gulf News, Sandhills Express), whereas others present the 15% as a near‑universal change.
Regional media reactions
International and regional outlets emphasise different geopolitical and country impacts.
Asian outlets focus on consequences for India and trade partners.
West Asian and European outlets highlight the move as an attempt to sidestep the Court’s limit and note industry and diplomatic reactions.
Latin American and African outlets report the factual sequence and possible follow-on measures.
Indian and regional papers underline that the 15% temporary duty interacts with existing MFN and negotiated rates.
They add that New Delhi is reviewing the implications.
Other outlets point out the ruling reduces one executive route for tariffs while leaving other statutory tools intact.
Coverage Differences
Regional emphasis
Asian sources such as Hindustan Times and The Hindu stress India‑specific tariff math and diplomatic reactions, West Asian and European sources (Gulf News, Times Kuwait, France 24) stress the ruling’s implications for the rules‑based system and industry calls for predictability, and Latin American/African outlets largely report the factual change and administrative next steps.
Interpretation of scope
Some outlets portray the 15% move as a way to 'sidestep' the Court (France 24, Gulf News), while others emphasize it as a lawful, short‑term statutory step and note that longer‑term measures would require further investigations or congressional action.