ABC's Martha Raddatz thought she had him.
She'd spent the entire interview trying to convince America that the Supreme Court's tariff ruling was a catastrophic defeat for Donald Trump – that the president had been humiliated, his trade agenda shattered, his economic legacy in ruins.
Then Jamieson Greer said five words that made her whole argument collapse: "more powerful than a tariff."
Jamieson Greer Exposes What the Supreme Court Actually Gave Trump
The media spent 72 hours celebrating the Supreme Court's 6-3 decision in Learning Resources v. Trump as the death blow to Trump's trade agenda.
What they buried: Trump's team had a Plan B ready before the ink dried.
Within hours of the February 20 ruling, Trump signed an executive order under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 – a separate tariff authority with no successful legal challenge on record.
The 15 percent global tariff went live February 24.
By Sunday morning, Greer was on ABC explaining the legal logic that the mainstream media refused to report.
His point was surgical: the Supreme Court didn't strip the president of power – it clarified it.
Under IEEPA, the same law the Court struck down for tariffs, the president retains authority to fully embargo countries – not just charge tariffs, but ban all trade entirely.
"The Supreme Court coming out and saying the president has the authority to have full embargos," Greer told Raddatz, "which is much more powerful than a tariff."
Raddatz didn't have an answer for that.
Section 232 and Section 301 Tariffs Were Never Touched
Here's what the liberal media's three-day victory lap missed completely.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent had publicly stated in December 2025 that the administration could re-create its tariff structure using Section 232 and Section 301 authorities if IEEPA was struck down.
That wasn't spin. It was a roadmap.
Section 232 – already covering steel, aluminum, copper, automobiles, and lumber – never faced a legal challenge from this ruling.
Section 301 tariffs on China – in place since Trump's first term, maintained by Biden, now being expanded – are also untouched.
Greer told Raddatz he's already opening new Section 301 investigations into Brazil and China, and plans to launch more targeting countries engaged in industrial overcapacity – the practice of flooding global markets with below-cost goods to wipe out American competition.
"They make more than they can consume and they crush prices throughout the world," Greer said, "because they're not following basic economics."
Section 301 actions, once imposed, are historically difficult to unwind – the Biden administration reviewed Trump's first-term China tariffs and kept them in place despite industry pressure to repeal them.
Trump's Embargo Power and the 15 Percent Tariff Nobody Expected
The Section 122 tariff expires in 150 days – right before the midterm elections.
Raddatz pounced on that, telling Greer that two-thirds of Americans oppose the tariffs according to ABC's own polling.
Greer's answer was direct: Trump has campaigned on this for years, he won on it, and the policy isn't changing.
But here's what neither Raddatz nor any mainstream coverage explained.
Chief Justice Roberts' majority opinion specifically described Section 232 as containing language that "naturally" authorizes tariffs because it explicitly mentions duties – effectively flagging it as the administration's most legally durable tool.
That's not a defeat. That's the Court handing Trump a roadmap for what to use next.
The administration is also accelerating Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930 – a provision authorizing up to 50 percent tariffs on any country discriminating against American commerce, with almost no procedural hurdles and no court precedent against it.
Meanwhile, even Justice Kavanaugh – writing in dissent – acknowledged the ruling would likely not substantially constrain presidential tariff authority going forward, pointing to Section 232, Section 301, Section 122, and Section 338 as alternative legal foundations.
Trump said it himself from the White House podium: "I'm allowed to destroy the country, but I can't charge them a little fee."
That's not a man who lost. That's a man who already knows how this ends.
Sources:
- Jamieson Greer, "This Week with Martha Raddatz," ABC News, February 22, 2026.
- Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, 607 U.S. ___ (2026), Supreme Court of the United States, February 20, 2026.
- "Supreme Court Holds IEEPA Tariffs Unlawful," Perkins Coie, February 20, 2026.
- "Supreme Court Strikes Down IEEPA Tariffs – What Now?" WilmerHale, February 21, 2026.
- "From IEEPA to Section 122," Global Trade Alert, February 20, 2026.
- "Supreme Court Restricts Presidential Tariff Authority Under IEEPA," Brownstein, February 20, 2026.
- "Trump Defiant After Supreme Court Strikes Down IEEPA Tariffs," Wichita Liberty, February 20, 2026.
