- Trump canceled tariffs struck down by the US Supreme Court, yet quickly imposed a new temporary 10% tariff on global imports, escalating the dispute over presidential trade authority.
- The court ruled that the 1977 IEEPA does not grant a president authority to impose tariffs, affirming that taxation powers belong to Congress under the US Constitution.
- The newly announced tariffs will begin Tuesday and may last up to 150 days, with exemptions for certain food items, critical minerals, and products already subject to separate tariff measures.
- Trump condemned the ruling as “disappointing,” attacked several justices — including some he appointed — and warned that additional or even higher trade measures could follow.
- Trump has used tariffs to pressure trading partners on economic and political issues, and officials say the administration may pursue alternative legal mechanisms to maintain similar trade restrictions.
- Economists argue US consumers and businesses bear most tariff costs, while international partners call for trade stability; analysts say tariff uncertainty is reshaping alliances and has not reduced the US trade
US President Donald Trump has ended a series of tariffs ruled illegal by the US Supreme Court, while simultaneously announcing a new temporary 10% global tariff on imports, escalating tensions over presidential trade powers.
The White House confirmed that tariffs imposed under emergency authority would immediately cease following the court’s ruling, stating they would “no longer be in effect” and would stop being collected as soon as possible.
However, only hours after the decision, Trump declared on his Truth Social platform that he had signed an order introducing a fresh 10% tariff on global imports, describing the move as a “great honor.” The new duty is scheduled to take effect at 12:01 a.m. Tuesday and may remain in place for up to 150 days, reports dw,com.
Certain food products, critical minerals, and goods already covered by separate tariff measures will be exempt from the new policy.
Supreme Court limits presidential tariff authority
The ruling centered on Trump’s use of the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a law traditionally used to impose sanctions during national emergencies. The court concluded that the legislation does not authorize a president to impose tariffs, affirming a lower court decision that Trump had exceeded his authority.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion that the US Constitution grants taxation powers to Congress, not the executive branch, emphasizing that lawmakers would have explicitly stated such authority if they intended to allow tariffs under the emergency law.
The decision marked the first time the Supreme Court has directly moved to curb Trump’s executive powers. Conservative justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Brett Kavanaugh dissented, with Kavanaugh arguing the ruling may not significantly restrict future presidential tariff authority.
Trump attacks ruling and vows stronger measures
Trump reacted sharply, calling the decision “deeply disappointing” and criticizing justices who ruled against him as a “disgrace.” He singled out two of his own appointees, Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gorsuch, accusing them of failing to support his authority.
He also labeled liberal members of the court “unpatriotic” and claimed foreign countries were celebrating the ruling, warning that additional trade measures were being prepared.
Despite the judgment, Trump insisted he retained the right to impose tariffs and suggested even higher duties could follow.
Tariffs used as political leverage
Trump has repeatedly used tariffs — or threats of tariffs — to pressure trading partners over issues ranging from trade disputes to political objectives abroad. While previous presidents used the IEEPA mainly for sanctions, Trump became the first to apply it to import taxes.
Administration officials indicated that although tariffs under the emergency law must end, alternative legal pathways could be used to maintain similar trade restrictions.
The Congressional Budget Office previously projected Trump’s tariff policies could generate up to $3 trillion in revenue over a decade, while the US Treasury reported collecting about $133 billion in tariff income by December.
However, economists and business groups argue that American consumers and companies — not foreign exporters — bear most of the financial burden. Studies cited by analysts show US buyers paying more than 90% of tariff costs through higher prices.
Major retailers, including Costco, have sought refunds for losses linked to the tariffs, warning of economic strain on businesses.
Global reactions and economic implications
US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said the ruling removed some of Trump’s negotiating leverage but suggested the president could pursue tougher alternatives, including embargoes targeting countries or entire product categories.
European officials urged stability in transatlantic trade relations. EU Trade spokesman Olof Gil emphasized that businesses depend on predictable trade policies and reiterated support for lower tariffs.
Analysts say ongoing tariff uncertainty has already encouraged some US trading partners to strengthen economic ties with China and India.
German lawmaker Jürgen Hardt said it remains unclear whether the ruling will change US trade behavior but suggested it could revive negotiations between Washington and the European Union.
Meanwhile, policy experts argue the tariffs have failed to deliver the promised economic boost. Data cited by analysts show the US trade deficit rose to a record $1.23 trillion, while imports continued increasing despite tariff measures.
