**Former President Obama Says the Supreme Court’s Decision to Strike Down President Trump’s Tariffs Is “A BIG VICTORY for the American People”**

Washington, D.C. — February 17, 2026

Former President Barack Obama delivered a rare and pointed public statement this afternoon, hailing the U.S. Supreme Court’s 6–3 decision yesterday to strike down key elements of President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariffs on Canada and Mexico as “a big victory for the American people and for common-sense economics.”

Speaking from Chicago in a pre-recorded video posted to his official X account and the Obama Foundation’s platforms, Obama described the ruling — which invalidated large portions of the Section 232 national-security tariffs on Canadian softwood lumber, steel, aluminum and energy products, as well as the 25% duties on Mexican agricultural goods — as “a long-overdue correction to misguided policy that was hurting working families and small businesses far more than it was helping them.”

“The Court has reminded us that national-security exceptions cannot be used as a catch-all to impose taxes on our closest allies and trading partners without real evidence or due process,” Obama said, his tone measured but firm. “These tariffs were never about protecting American workers — they were about political theater. They raised prices on everything from lumber for new homes to gasoline at the pump to groceries at the store. American consumers paid the bill. Today the Supreme Court said enough is enough.”

The former president went on to praise Acting President JD Vance’s decision not to immediately appeal the ruling, calling it “a responsible step toward de-escalation.” He also took a thinly veiled swipe at Trump’s continued influence from Mar-a-Lago: “When former leaders refuse to accept constitutional limits and keep trying to dictate policy from the sidelines, it creates unnecessary uncertainty and division. We need leaders who put the country first — not their own egos or their own comeback narratives.”

The statement — Obama’s most direct public commentary on Trump’s second-term economic agenda — drew immediate and polarized reactions. Within minutes, #ObamaOnTariffs became the top trending topic on X in the United States, with more than 29 million impressions in the first two hours. Progressive accounts and mainstream economists praised the former president for “calling out economic malpractice,” while Trump loyalists and conservative commentators accused Obama of “sore-loser interference” and “coordinating with the deep state to sabotage American manufacturing.”

Trump responded within the hour on Truth Social with a 26-post thread:

“Barack Hussein Obama — the man who shipped jobs to China and spied on my campaign — now wants to lecture ME about tariffs? SAD! The Supreme Court was WRONG. Canada and Mexico have ripped us off for decades. I made them pay up once — we’ll make them pay again! Obama is jealous because I’m the greatest jobs president ever! MAGA will WIN despite him!!!”

The post garnered more than 3.9 million engagements but also triggered a flood of community notes and fact-check overlays pointing to independent studies (Peterson Institute, Tax Foundation, Federal Reserve) that found the original 2018–2020 tariffs raised U.S. consumer prices by $51 billion annually while producing only modest manufacturing job gains.

Acting President Vance, who has so far avoided direct criticism of Trump’s tariff rhetoric, issued a brief statement: “The Supreme Court has spoken and its rulings must be respected. My administration will continue to pursue fair, reciprocal trade policies that protect American workers without unnecessary escalation.” Behind the scenes, White House sources say Vance is privately relieved: the ruling gives him political cover to de-escalate the Canada dispute without appearing to contradict Trump.

Economic fallout from the tariffs had been mounting rapidly. U.S. gasoline prices rose 38 cents per gallon in the Midwest over the past three weeks, new-home construction costs increased 7–11% in lumber-dependent regions, and quick-service restaurant chains quietly raised combo-meal prices by 4–9 cents in anticipation of higher fry and packaging costs. Canadian retaliatory tariffs on U.S. corn, soybeans, pork and whiskey had already cost American farmers an estimated $1.4 billion in lost exports since January.

The Supreme Court’s majority opinion, authored by Chief Justice John Roberts and joined by Justices Kavanaugh, Barrett, Gorsuch, Kagan and Sotomayor, held that the Section 232 national-security justification for tariffs on Canadian energy and lumber was “insufficiently supported by the administrative record” and that the executive branch had failed to demonstrate a “genuine threat to national security.” The dissent, led by Justice Alito and joined by Justices Thomas and Gorsuch in part, argued the Court overstepped its role in second-guessing presidential trade authority.

President’s Day weekend polls released this morning show growing public fatigue with the tariff fight: 57% of registered voters now say the tariffs have hurt the economy more than helped, up 11 points from January. Among Republicans the shift is even sharper — 39% now agree, compared with 24% last month.

As Carney’s government in Ottawa signals willingness to de-escalate if the U.S. drops its threats, and as Vance’s team quietly explores back-channel talks, Obama’s intervention has crystallized the national mood: relief that the Court stepped in, frustration at the needless economic pain, and a clear message that unilateral tariffs — even when championed by a figure as powerful as Trump — no longer enjoy automatic deference.

For Trump, the ruling and Obama’s public praise of it represent a double humiliation: a policy he championed struck down, and his successor’s predecessor declaring victory. In the middle of impeachment proceedings, property seizures, lawyer resignations and disqualification hearings, the former president’s tariff crusade has become one more front where his once-dominant influence is visibly waning.

The question now is whether the setback forces a strategic retreat — or fuels an even more aggressive counterattack. The markets, the voters and history itself are waiting for the answer.