BRAVE MAG

President Donald Trump said Friday he has signed a proclamation implementing a new global 10% tariff -- hours after theSupreme Court struck down mostof his levies as illegal.

Trump confirmed in a social media post Friday evening that he signed the order in the Oval Office.

According to the order, the new tariff on global imports will take effect Tuesday.

Earlier Friday, Trump previewed his alternate plan to impose tariffs under a different legal authority, lambasting the Supreme Court's decision as "deeply disappointing."

Supreme Court invalidates most of Trump's tariffs

"Other alternatives will now be used to replace the ones that the court incorrectly rejected," Trump told reporters in the White House briefing room. "We have alternatives, great alternatives, could be more money. We'll take in more money and we'll be a lot stronger for it."

Trump said he would sign the order enacting a 10% global tariff under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974.

But such tariffs can only last for 150 days without congressional approval. When asked about that limitation, Trump claimed he could "do pretty much what we want to do."

Pressed more broadly on whether he was going to ask Congress (where Republicans currently hold a majority in the House and Senate) to take additional action on tariffs, Trump said he didn't believe he needed to.

The new 10% global tariff will apply to countries that already struck trade deals with the U.S., according to a White House official.

The official said that the countries covered under the 10% rate include the United Kingdom, India, Japan and the European Union -- though the list was not exhaustive.

This would lower tariffs on many deals he has negotiated; for example, the trade deals set tariff rates at 15% with Japan and 18% with India.

A fact sheet from the White House laid out a list of exemptions from the new tariffs, including on foods like beef, pharmaceuticals, cars and some electronics.

Imports from Canada and Mexico that fall under the U.S.-Mexico-Canada trade agreement struck during Trump's first term in office also will not face the new 10% tariff.

Advertisement

Trump also signed another executive order extending a suspension of what's known as the de minimis exemption, which previously allowed low value goods under $800 to be shipped the U.S. duty-free. Trump first suspended the de minimis exemption last year. The new order implements the 10% tariffs on those goods, which often come from retailers, such as Shein and Temu.

The Supreme Court's 6-3 ruling marked a major blow to what has been the cornerstone of Trump's economic agenda in his second term and one of his longtime political goals. Trump publicly lobbied the court for months to rule in his favor.

The court's majority deemed that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not give him the power to unilaterally impose tariffs. Congress, not the president, has the power to impose tariffs and taxes, the majority concluded.

"I'm ashamed of certain members of the court, absolutely ashamed, for not having the courage to do what's right for our country," Trump said.

Majority of Americans disapprove of how Trump is handling tariffs: ABC/Post/Ipsos poll

Three conservative justices joined the liberal justices in invalidating the IEEPA tariffs, including two justices nominated by Trump: Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gorsuch. The opinion was delivered by Chief Justice John Roberts.

Further attacking the court, Trump said "they're just being fools and lapdogs for the RINOs and the radical left Democrats." He said that the families of the conservative justices who ruled against the administration should be embarrassed, and called the liberal justices on the court a "disgrace to our nation."

Trump said that because of the ruling, "Foreign countries that have been ripping us off for years are ecstatic. They're so happy, and they're dancing in the streets, but they won't be dancing for long that, I can assure you."

The president also said he will start investigations under Section 301 of the 1974 Trade Act, though he did not specify which countries or sectors they would target. These investigations can take weeks or months, and are used in response to an adverse trade policy taken up by another country.

"We're going forward," Trump said.

Trump congratulated Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh for their dissents in this case. He specifically praised Kavanaugh, saying his "stock has gone so up."

From the White House briefing room podium, Trump read aloud part of Kavanaugh's dissent in which Kavanaugh said the court's decision "might not substantially constrain a President's ability to order tariffs going forward."

Kavanaugh also noted in his dissent the silence from the court's majority on the issue of refunds or how that process would work. As of December, the administration had collected $142 billion through the tariffs, according to the Yale Budget Lab.

"It's not discussed. We'll end up being in court for the next five years," Trump said, signaling he would not voluntarily pay out refunds.

ABC News' Elizabeth Schulze and Zunaira Zaki contributed to this report.

The Department of Justice fired longtime litigator James Hundley from his appointment to interim U.S. Attorney of the Eastern District of Virginia, just hours after federal judges unanimously appointed him to the position.

Chief U.S. District Judge M. Hannah Lauck signed off on Hundley's appointment Friday evening and administered the oath of office in Richmond, Virginia, according to court documents.

Deputy Attorney General Todd Blancheposted on Xshortly after, announcing Hundley had been fired.

"Here we go again. EDVA judges do not pick our US Attorney. POTUS does. James Hundley, you're fired!" Blanche said in the post.

Neither Hundley nor the DOJ responded to NBC News' requests for comment on the dismissal. The U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Virginia declined to comment.

Hundley's appointment to the Eastern District of Virginia followed thedeparture of Trump loyalist Lindsey Halligan, who left the job in late January after a federal judge ruled that she held the role unlawfully.

Halligan, who was a former insurance attorney with no prosecutorial experience, led unsuccessful cases against New York Attorney General Leticia James and former FBI Director James Comey, both perceived Trump foes.

Advertisement

Federal law allows judges to appoint a U.S. attorney if a presidential nominee has not been confirmed within 120 days of their appointment.

This is not the first time the Justice Department has fired a U.S. attorney appointed by federal judges.

In July, Attorney General Pam Bondi fired Desiree Leigh Grace after she was appointed asU.S. attorney for New Jersey. Grace was set to succeed the state's interim U.S. attorney, Alina Habba, a former personal lawyer to President Donald Trump.

Just last week,a New York prosecutor was firedby the Justice Department the same day he had been appointed by federal judges to serve as U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of New York.

Veteran attorney Donald Kinsella — who had been appointed U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of New York — told NBC News that he was fired after receiving an email from the White House stating that the "president directed that I be removed."

In both cases, federal judges appointed U.S. attorneys after a judge had ruled that the interim U.S. attorney appointed by Trump was serving in the role unlawfully.

Hundley has more than 30 years of experience litigating complex criminal and civil cases, having represented clients in state and federal courts across Virginia, Washington, D.C. and Maryland. He has successfully argued before the U.S. Supreme Court and has been appointed by the Virginia Supreme Court to serve as a Council Member at Large to the Virginia State Bar.

A federal judge ripped into the Justice Department on Friday for failing to inform him of the applicability of a law intended to protect journalists from government searches and seizures when it asked him for permission to raid a Washington Post reporter's home earlier this year.

"How could you miss it? How could you think it doesn't apply?" Magistrate Judge William Porter asked a DOJ lawyer during a hearing in Alexandria, Virginia.

"I find it hard to be that in any way this law did not apply," Porter added later.

The judge said during the hearing that he had declined to approve the warrant for materials from reporter Hannah Natanson several other times.

"I find it hard to be that in any way this law did not apply," Porter added later.

Justice Department attorney Christian Dibblee argued that the decision was made by department officials several rungs above him, but that he understood the judge's "frustration."

Porter shot back: "That's minimizing it!"

"Ms. Natanson has been deprived of basically her life's work," Porter said during the hearing, echoing comments from her lawyer that she's been unable to continue reporting and gathering confidential sources following the raid.

The Privacy Protection Act of 1980 is intended to protect journalists and newsrooms from government searches and seizures of a reporter's work product materials unless the reporter is themself the subject of a criminal investigation or prosecution.

CNN has previously reported that the Post reporter, Natanson, is not under investigation. But her communications with a government contractor who was charged with illegally leaking classified information are what led prosecutors to ask Porter to approve a search warrant for her Virginia home.

Last month, federal agents arrived at Natanson's home and seized a phone, two computers and a Garmin watch were seized. After Natanson and the Post sued in an effort to get the devices back, Porter temporarily blocked investigators from examining them.

Advertisement

Dibblee and DOJ attorney Gordon Kromberg tried to tell Porter on Friday that the department didn't believe the law was applicable in this case, with Dibblee at one point saying it's not the kind of "adverse authority" that lawyers are typically required to raise with a court when making requests for such warrants.

"You don't think you have an obligation to say that?" Porter said at one point. "I'm a little frustrated with how the process went down."

The alleged leaker,Aurelio Luis Perez-Lugones, pleaded not guilty late last month to five counts of unlawfully transmitting national defense information to Natanson through an encrypted messaging application and a single count of unlawfully retaining the defense information.

Press freedom advocates have raised alarm bells over the non-disclosure of the law, decrying the decision as a significant assault on key protections for newsrooms.

"The government appears to have ignored a crucial press freedom guardrail in searching a journalist's home and did not alert the magistrate judge to the law's application in this case, let alone show how or if it had complied with the statute's considerable protections," Gabe Rottman, the vice president of policy for the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, said earlier this month.

Porter is weighing a request from Natanson and the Post for him to order the government to return the seized devices and data back to them or set up a process through which the massive volume of information can be reviewed and the materials that relate to Perez-Lugones' can be separated from information that is not relevant to his case.

He appeared sympathetic to the reporter's argument that the government seized much more than it needed during its raid last month, but noted that in today's digital world, it's difficult to easily separate material that is responsive to a search warrant from material that is not.

"What's the government's need for all that information?" he asked at one point.

Dibblee quickly conceded "there is more information that was received than what was pursuant to the warrant," drawing a scoffing laugh from the judge.

Porter didn't appear ready to issue an order requiring the Justice Department to turn over all the devices, instead suggesting that the court could set up a "filter team" that would look through the data and determine what fit within the parameters of the search warrant and what may need to be returned to Natanson or shielded from the government's eyes

He said he would rule in the coming weeks.

For more CNN news and newsletters create an account atCNN.com