Trump’s Swiss tariff story may have given his Supreme Court opponents a gift

Trump raised tariffs over phone call

President Donald Trump told Fox Business host Larry Kudlow in an interview that aired Feb. 10, 2026, that he raised tariffs on Switzerland because he didn’t like how a Swiss leader spoke to him.

Trump said he initially set a 30 percent tariff over what he called a $42 billion trade deficit. When the Swiss leader called to push back, Trump described her as “nice, but very aggressive.”

Instead of lowering the rate, he bumped it to 39 percent.

He later said he adjusted it to something more acceptable, referring to a deal that brought tariffs down to 15 percent.

Trump got key details wrong

Trump called the Swiss leader “the prime minister of Switzerland,” but Switzerland doesn’t have a prime minister. The leader was likely Karin Keller-Sutter, who served as President of the Swiss Confederation in 2025.

Switzerland runs on a seven-member Federal Council, and the presidency rotates each year among its members.

Trump had made similar remarks at the World Economic Forum in Davos in January, saying the Swiss leader had rubbed him the wrong way. The mix-up added to questions about how tariff decisions get made.

Critics say comments undermine legal case

The administration’s legal argument before the Supreme Court rests on a 1977 law called the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA.

The government has argued the tariffs address national emergencies tied to trade deficits and fentanyl trafficking.

Critics say Trump admitting he raised tariffs based on how someone spoke to him contradicts that emergency claim.

Members of Congress and legal commentators pointed to the interview as evidence that tariff decisions are driven by impulse rather than strategy.

Supreme Court case centers on IEEPA

The case, V.O.S. Selections v. Trump, asks whether IEEPA gives the president the power to impose broad tariffs.

IEEPA lets the president “regulate importation” during a declared national emergency, but the law never mentions the word “tariff.”

No president in the law’s nearly 50-year history had used it to impose tariffs before Trump.

The case also raises a constitutional question: whether granting this much tariff power to the president violates Congress’s authority to set taxes and duties.

Lower courts ruled against administration

The Court of International Trade ruled in May 2025 that IEEPA does not authorize the tariffs. The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that decision in August 2025 by a 7-4 vote.

The administration then appealed to the Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case on a fast-track schedule in September 2025.

Both rulings found that IEEPA was never designed to give presidents the power to set tariffs, setting up a high-stakes showdown at the nation’s highest court.

Justices appeared skeptical during arguments

During oral arguments on Nov. 5, 2025, both conservative and liberal justices pushed back on the government’s position.

Chief Justice John Roberts noted that IEEPA says nothing about tariffs and that tariffs amount to taxes, a core power of Congress. Justice Neil Gorsuch challenged the argument as a limitless grant of presidential power.

Justice Elena Kagan questioned whether a permanent state of emergency could justify bypassing Congress. Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas appeared more open to the administration’s side.

Decision expected but still pending

Legal experts widely expected a ruling in January, but the court has not yet issued one. The justices began a recess and are next scheduled to take the bench on Feb. 20.

Experts say the delay likely reflects the complexity of the case and the possibility of multiple opinions being written.

At over 100 days since oral arguments, the case has exceeded the typical timeline for fast-tracked Supreme Court decisions. A ruling could come on Feb. 20 or at any point after.

Refunds could reach hundreds of billions

If the Supreme Court strikes down the tariffs, companies that paid them could get refunds potentially reaching hundreds of billions of dollars.

Tariff revenue collected under IEEPA totaled $124 billion through January of fiscal year 2026, a more than 300 percent increase over the same period last year.

More than 1,000 refund cases have already landed in the Court of International Trade. Trade attorneys say the refund process could take up to two years depending on how the court rules.

Trade deficit claim misses key context

Trump has repeatedly cited a roughly $40 to $42 billion trade deficit with Switzerland, but that figure only counts goods. It ignores trade in services, where the U.S. runs a large surplus.

Federal data showed the U.S. services trade surplus with Switzerland was nearly $30 billion in 2024. When goods and services are counted together, the overall deficit was closer to $8 to $9 billion.

The gap between those numbers matters because the administration used the deficit to justify the tariff rate.

U.S. and Switzerland reached a deal

In November 2025, the U.S. and Switzerland reached a trade agreement that cut tariffs from 39 percent to 15 percent.

In exchange, Swiss companies pledged to invest at least $200 billion in the United States by the end of 2028. Switzerland also agreed to lower tariffs on some American products, including certain agricultural goods.

The 15 percent rate took effect retroactively to Nov. 14, 2025.

The deal came together despite the rocky phone call that had pushed tariffs higher in the first place.

House voted to overturn Canada tariffs

On Feb. 11, 2026, the House voted 219-211 to overturn Trump’s tariffs on Canada. Six Republicans crossed party lines to join Democrats.

The night before, three Republicans helped defeat a procedural move by Speaker Mike Johnson that would have blocked tariff repeal votes through July.

Trump warned on social media that any Republican voting against tariffs would “seriously suffer the consequences come Election time.”

The resolution is largely symbolic because Trump could veto it, and the vote fell short of a veto-proof majority.

What happens next

The Supreme Court could issue its ruling on Feb. 20 or any day after.

If the court strikes down the tariffs, the administration has said replacement tariffs under different legal authorities would take effect immediately.

Democrats have unlocked the ability to force more House votes on tariffs against other countries, including Mexico.

Trump told Fox News that if he loses the case, the administration will find another way to do something similar but that it would be more inconvenient.

This article was created with AI assistance and human editing.

Read more from this brand:

• Trump Tariff Revenue Falls for First Time, Threatening Debt Payoff Plan
• US Small Businesses Paying $25,000 Extra a Month Due to Tariffs
• Congress Wants to Send You $600 From Tariff Money But the Numbers Dont Work