An armed man has been shot dead after entering the secure perimeter of US President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence in Florida, the Secret Service has said.

The man was carrying a shotgun and fuel can when he was stopped and shot by Secret Service agents and a Sheriff’s deputy, authorities said.

The incident happened around 01:30 ET (06:30 GMT) on Sunday morning, when the president was in Washington DC.

The suspect has been named as Austin T Martin of Cameron, North Carolina, according to the BBC’s US partner CBS.

His family in North Carolina had reported him missing in the early hours of Sunday morning, the Moore County Sheriff’s Office said in a statement to the BBC.

The missing persons information has since been turned over to federal authorities, the sheriff’s office said.

They added that the department had no prior history involving Martin and it was not involved in the Florida investigation.

Officials are looking into whether he bought the gun along the driving route he took from North Carolina to Florida, according to CBS.

Secret Service agents fired at him after they saw him “unlawfully entering the secure perimeter at Mar-a-Lago early this morning”, agency spokesman Anthony Guglielmi posted on X.

The suspect “was observed by the north gate of the Mar-a-Lago property carrying what appeared to be a shotgun and a fuel can”, the agency said in a statement.

The man was then shot after refusing orders, Palm Beach County sheriff Ric Bradshaw said.

“The only words that we said to him was ‘drop the items’ which means the gas can and the shotgun,” Bradshaw told a news conference.

“At which time he put down the gas can, raised the shotgun to a shooting position,” he said.

At that point, agents fired their weapons to “neutralise the threat”, he said.

The officers were wearing body cameras and no law enforcement officers were injured, he added.

Bradshaw said that he does not know if the suspect’s gun was loaded, and that will form part of an investigation, which the FBI will be assisting in.

US Secret Service Director Sean Curran travelled to Florida on Sunday for “after-actions” and has “reinvigorated operational communication and agency response to critical incidents”, the agency said in a post on X.

Security at Mar-a-Lago is extremely tight, with an outer cordon of local Palm Beach sheriffs and an inner one maintained by the Secret Service. Visitors are searched, and cars and bags are swept by dogs and metal detectors.

Trump has been the target of several assassination plots or attempts.

In July 2024, Trump was shot in the ear as he stood in front of crowds in Butler, Pennsylvania. One bystander was killed and two were injured in the shooting. The shooter, 20-year-old Matthew Crooks, was immediately shot and killed by security forces and his motive remains unknown.

Months later, a US Secret Service agent spotted a rifle sticking out of bushes at Trump International Golf Club in West Palm Beach. The man, later identified as Ryan Routh, fled but was caught. The 59-year-old was sentenced to life in prison earlier this month for attempting to assassinate the president.

During an appearance on Fox Business after the fatal incident, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent blamed the the political left for “normalising” political violence, citing the two attempts on Trump’s life in 2024,

“Two would-be assassins dead, one in jail for life, and this venom coming from the other side,” Bessent said, adding: “They are normalising this violence. It’s got to stop.”

Political violence has become a prominent issue in the US, sparking debate after a series of other high-profile incidents last year, including Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro’s mansion being set on fire, the fatal shootings of a Democratic lawmaker and her husband in Minnesota and the public shooting of right-wing activist Charlie Kirk.

Donald Trump

Paris (Imran Y. CHOUDHRY) :- Former Press Secretary to the President, Former Press Minister to the Embassy of Pakistan to France, Former MD, SRBC Mr. Qamar Bashir analysis : On February 20, 2026, the United States Supreme Court delivered a historic rebuke to presidential power, striking down the sweeping tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). By a 6–3 vote, the Court ruled that the 1977 law—designed to address extraordinary foreign threats during national emergencies—does not authorize a president to impose broad, open-ended tariffs. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that while the president may “regulate” commerce under IEEPA, the statute contains no explicit reference to tariffs or duties. To read such vast taxing authority into two scattered words would, the Court concluded, represent a transformative expansion of executive power.
The decision did not touch tariffs imposed under other statutes, but it invalidated the most sweeping component of President Donald Trump’s tariff regime. Importantly, the Court declined to rule on whether or how the federal government must refund the enormous sums already collected. That question now looms as the most explosive consequence of the ruling.
For President Trump, tariffs were not merely policy—they were the centerpiece of his election campaign and a defining feature of his mandate. He framed them as a weapon to reclaim economic leverage from countries he argued had exploited American workers and industries. The message resonated with voters who felt the brunt of globalization. Tariffs were presented as a tool to rebuild manufacturing, force fair trade, and reassert American dominance.
Yet the mechanics of tariffs tell a different story. Tariffs are not paid by foreign governments; they are paid at U.S. ports by American importers. Over time, those costs either reduce corporate profit margins or are passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices. By late 2025 and early 2026, estimates suggested that more than $200 billion had been collected under the IEEPA-based tariffs alone. That staggering figure now hangs in legal limbo.
If the courts ultimately require refunds, the financial implications will be enormous. Even if a conservative estimate of $160–175 billion is used, the repayment obligation would constitute one of the largest refund processes in modern U.S. fiscal history. The U.S. Treasury would face a substantial budgetary shock. For small and medium-sized businesses, however, refunds could represent desperately needed relief.
Consider the arithmetic: if $160 billion were distributed across even 200,000 importing firms, the average recovery would approach $800,000 per business. For many small manufacturers, wholesalers, and retailers operating on thin margins, such sums could mean rehiring workers, paying down debt, restoring inventory levels, or reinvesting in domestic operations.
Consumers, too, stand to benefit—though less directly. If even half of the tariff burden was passed on through price increases, households may have absorbed tens of billions of dollars in higher costs across groceries, appliances, auto parts, clothing, and everyday goods. The removal of unlawful tariffs could reduce price pressures and contribute to a modest easing of inflationary strain. While not a silver bullet, it would remove a structural cost layer embedded in supply chains.
Internationally, the ruling has complex implications. Countries such as Canada, Mexico, China, and members of the European Union were among the largest trading partners affected by the IEEPA tariffs. While they will not receive refund checks—because tariffs were paid by U.S. importers—the decision reduces friction in trade relationships. Canada, whose political relationship with Washington had grown tense over tariff disputes, may see this as an opportunity to recalibrate economic ties. European officials have already emphasized stability and predictability as priorities.
China, the largest source of targeted tariff revenue, will interpret the ruling as a constraint on unilateral American economic pressure. However, the decision does not eliminate other statutory tools such as Section 232 or Section 301, which remain available for targeted trade actions. Thus, the global message is not that America is retreating from trade leverage, but that its use must operate within clearer legal boundaries.
Domestically, the political impact is profound. Trump’s tariffs symbolized strength to his supporters and disruption to his critics. Now, the Supreme Court has reframed the issue from policy preference to constitutional authority. Democrats are likely to argue that the president imposed an unlawful tax on American businesses and consumers. Republicans may counter that the Court has weakened the executive’s ability to defend national economic interests.
Midterm elections will test which narrative prevails. If businesses begin receiving refunds and consumer prices ease, opponents of the tariff strategy may gain momentum. If, however, the administration pivots successfully to alternative statutory authorities and reestablishes elements of its trade framework, Trump may argue that the Court merely required procedural adjustments rather than policy abandonment.
Financial markets reacted swiftly and positively to the ruling, with equities rising on expectations of reduced trade uncertainty. Investors interpreted the decision as a move toward stability. Markets favor predictability, and the invalidation of sweeping emergency tariffs reduces the risk of abrupt cost shocks.
The ruling may also ripple through broader geopolitical calculations. In disputes involving Iran, Ukraine, NATO commitments, and trade alignments, allies and adversaries alike will note that American executive power is subject to judicial limits. The image of unrestrained economic unilateralism has been tempered. That could encourage diplomatic recalibration on multiple fronts.
Yet this is far from the end of tariff politics. Several federal statutes still grant the president authority to impose tariffs under defined conditions. Congress itself could legislate new trade measures. Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s dissent emphasized that the ruling might not significantly constrain future tariff actions if grounded in other statutory frameworks. In other words, the strategy may evolve rather than disappear.
The broader lesson extends beyond trade. The Court’s decision underscores a foundational principle of the American constitutional system: Congress holds the power to tax, and any delegation of that power must be explicit and limited. Emergency authority cannot become a blank check for transformative economic policy.
This moment may serve as a wake-up call. For the presidency, it is a reminder that campaign mandates must operate within constitutional boundaries. For Congress, it is a challenge to reclaim and exercise its Article I powers responsibly. For the United States globally, it signals that even in matters of economic warfare, the rule-based system still functions.
Trade disputes, geopolitical tensions, and domestic political battles will continue. But the Supreme Court’s ruling has drawn a bright line: power, however forcefully claimed, must rest on lawful authority. In doing so, the Court has not merely reshaped a tariff regime. It has reaffirmed the principle that in the United States, economic strategy—no matter how popular—cannot outrun the Constitution.

US President Donald Trump has said he will impose global tariffs of 15%, as he has continued to rail against a Supreme Court ruling that struck down his previous import taxes.

Trump said on Friday that he would replace the tariffs scrapped by the court with a 10% levy on all goods coming into the US.

But on Saturday, he announced on Truth Social that this would be increased to the maximum allowed under a never-used trade law.

That law allows these new tariffs to stay in place for around five months before the administration must seek congressional approval.

The 10% tariffs were set to come into force on Tuesday, 24 February. It’s unclear if the increased 15% would also be imposed starting then. The BBC has contacted the White House.

The new 15% tax rate – a temporary solution under Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act – raises questions for countries such as the UK and Australia, which had agreed a 10% tariff deal with the US.

Trump said his administration had reached the decision to raise the levy following a review of the Supreme Court’s “ridiculous, poorly written, and extraordinarily anti-American decision on Tariffs issued yesterday”.

In a 6-3 decision, justices on the highest US court found that the president had overstepped his powers when he introduced sweeping global tariffs last year using a 1977 law known as the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).

The US has already collected at least $130bn (£96.4bn) in tariffs using IEEPA, according to the most recent government data.

Immediately following the ruling, Trump said that he was “ashamed of certain members of the court” and called the justices who rejected his trade policy “fools”.

Trump’s tariffs are a key plank of his economic policy, which he has said will encourage businesses to invest and produce goods in the US rather than overseas. But the high court’s decision marked a significant check on his power and a major blow to his second-term agenda.

The US president has argued his tariffs are necessary to reduce the trade deficit – the amount by which imports exceed exports – but the US trade deficit reached a fresh high this week, widening by 2.1% compared to 2024 and hitting roughly $1.2 trillion (£890bn).

Drew Greenblatt, owner of Marlin Steel Wire Products, a steel fabrication plant in Baltimore, said he was “very disappointed” by the Supreme Court’s decision.

“It is a setback for poor people in America that had a chance to climb into the middle class with great manufacturing jobs,” he told the BBC.

But John Boyd, a soybean farmer from Virginia and founder of the National Black Farmers Association, said: “This is a huge win for me and a big loss for the president.

“I don’t care how you look at it, President Trump lost on this.”

Yet Allie Renison, a former UK government trade adviser and director at SEC Newgate, said: “While it may seem like a good day for free trade, I think trade actually just got a lot messier.”

She said that businesses are now facing “much more of a patchwork approach” to tariffs under the Trump administration.

It means that US businesses will have to pay a 15% tariff to import most goods into America under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974.

But some products will be exempted such as critical minerals, metals and pharmaceuticals.

Meanwhile, separate tariffs on steel, aluminium, lumber and auto-motives – introduced using a different US law – remain in place, untouched by the Supreme Court’s ruling.

On Friday, a White House official said countries that previously reached trade deals with the US, including the UK, would face the global tariff under Section 122 rather than the tariff rate they had previously negotiated.

However, the UK’s deals around steel, aluminium, pharmaceuticals, autos, and aerospace sectors – which represent most of its trade with the US – were not impacted.

The UK government said it expects Britain’s “privileged trading position with the US” to continue and that it is a “matter for the US to determine” whether those deals still stand.

William Bain, head of trade policy at the British Chambers of Commerce, has said he feared that the president’s response to the Supreme Court ruling “could be worse for British businesses”.

The new 15% import tariffs are “bad for trade, bad for US consumers and businesses” and will “weaken global economic growth”, the leader of a UK business group said.

The chairman of the European Parliament International Trade Committee told BBC Newshour he would call for a pause in ratifying a trade deal between the EU and US after Trump’s announcement.

The committee was due to vote on the deal on Tuesday, but German Social Democrat MEP Bernd Lange said fresh tariffs raised “several issues” that needed clarifying.

The Supreme Court ruling opened the door for consumers and businesses to seek refunds from the unlawful tariffs, though the high court did not make a decision on whether reimbursements should be issued.

On Friday, Trump indicated that refunds would not come without a legal battle which, he claimed, could take years. Companies and trade groups have already vowed to seek such reimbursements.

But Neil Bradley, chief policy officer at the US Chamber of Commerce, said: “Swift refunds of the impermissible tariffs will be meaningful for the more than 200,000 small business importers in this country and will help support stronger economic growth this year.”

While the National Retail Federation, which represents millions of American businesses, urged the courts “to ensure a seamless process to refund the tariffs to US importers”.

US Senator Maria Cantwell, a Democrat representing Washington state, has written a letter to US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, asking whether the administration has a plan to refund businesses.

“Given this Administration has illegally collected hundreds of billions of dollars from American businesses, that now must be refunded, I am requesting detailed information about how the Administration plans to fairly and expeditiously reimburse the payors of those tariffs,” she wrote in a letter to Bessent.

But Senator John Kennedy, a Republican from Louisiana, argued that if Democrats push for refunds, it could backfire and help Republicans in the next election cycle.

He said it could be a boon for the US business community that would make the economy “roar” ahead of the midterm elections in November.