President Donald Trump on Friday imposed an additional 10 per cent tariff on imports into the United States after the Supreme Court struck down many of his sweeping duties, delivering a major rebuke to his signature economic policy.
Trump signed the tariff order in the Oval Office, saying on social media it would be “effective almost immediately,” after spending the past year imposing various rates to cajole or punish countries, both allies and rivals.
The new duty is scheduled to take effect on 24 February for 150 days, with exemptions for sectors under separate investigations—including pharmaceuticals—and goods entering under the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement, according to a White House factsheet.
US trading partners that had previously reached tariff deals with the administration will now face a 10 per cent duty, even if higher rates were agreed upon before, the White House said. A White House official added that the administration would seek ways to “implement more appropriate or pre-negotiated tariff rates” in the future.
Earlier on Friday, the conservative-majority Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that a 1977 law Trump had relied on to impose sudden tariffs on individual countries—disrupting global trade—"does not authorise the President to impose tariffs.”
Trump, who nominated two of the justices who ruled against him, responded furiously, claiming without evidence that the court was influenced by foreign interests.
“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 told reporters. “In order to protect our country, a president can actually charge more tariffs than I was charging in the past,” he added, insisting that the ruling left him “more powerful.”
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, speaking at the Economic Club of Dallas, said the alternative method “will result in virtually unchanged tariff revenue in 2026.”
Major setback
The ruling did not affect sector-specific duties. Trump had separately imposed them on steel, aluminium and other goods. Ongoing government investigations could still result in additional sectoral tariffs.
Nevertheless, the decision marked Trump’s biggest Supreme Court defeat since returning to the White House 13 months ago. The justices ruled that “had Congress intended to convey the distinct and extraordinary power to impose tariffs” through the 1977 law—the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA)—"it would have done so expressly, as it consistently has in other tariff statutes.” Chief Justice John Roberts noted, “IEEPA contains no reference to tariffs or duties.”
Wall Street saw modest gains following the decision, which had largely been expected. Business groups welcomed the ruling, with the National Retail Federation saying it “provides much-needed certainty” for companies.
Doubts on refunds
The Trump administration had argued in court that companies would receive refunds if tariffs were deemed unlawful, but the ruling did not clarify this. Trump said he expected years of litigation over potential refunds. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the sole Trump nominee siding with him, warned the process could be a "mess".
The University of Pennsylvania’s Penn Wharton Budget Model projected the decision could trigger up to $175 billion in refunds. California Governor Gavin Newsom, widely expected to seek the Democratic presidential nomination in 2028, demanded that Americans receive refunds, saying, “Every dollar unlawfully taken must be refunded immediately—with interest. Cough up!”
Senator Elizabeth Warren cautioned that there remains “no legal mechanism for consumers and many small businesses to recoup the money they have already paid.” Yale’s Budget Lab estimates the effective average tariff rate for consumers is 9.1 per cent following Friday’s ruling, down from 16.9 per cent, though still “the highest since 1946", excluding 2025.
Close US trading partners, including the European Union and the United Kingdom, said they were reviewing the decision. Canada, repeatedly threatened with tariffs by Trump, called the Supreme Court’s ruling “unjustified” while preparing for further trade pressures. “Canada should prepare for new, blunter mechanisms to be used to reassert trade pressure, potentially with broader and more disruptive effects,” said Candace Laing, president of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce.
