New US tariffs came into effect on Tuesday as President Donald Trump moved to reassert his trade agenda following a Supreme Court ruling that curtailed his authority to impose sweeping global duties.
The new import tariffs, initially set at 10 per cent, are justified by the White House as a response to what it described as large and persistent United States balance-of-payments deficits. Trump has since pledged to increase the rate to 15 per cent while maintaining exemptions for goods covered under sector-specific investigations and the United States-Mexico-Canada trade agreement.
The development follows a decision by the conservative-majority Supreme Court, which ruled six to three that Trump had exceeded his authority by invoking a 1977 law to impose sudden tariffs on individual countries. The judgement invalidated a broad range of global duties introduced under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.
While sector-specific tariffs on steel, automobiles and other targeted goods remain in place, the ruling has halted enforcement of many country-based tariffs and triggered a potential wave of refund claims.
US Customs and Border Protection confirmed that it would cease collecting tariffs struck down by the court from Tuesday, while beginning collection of the new 10 per cent duty on eligible imports.
The temporary tariff measure will remain in force for 150 days unless extended by Congress. Analysts describe it as a bridging policy while the administration seeks a more durable legal framework for its trade strategy.
According to Erica York, vice president of federal tax policy at the Tax Foundation, the new tariff will apply to approximately $1.2 trillion in annual imports, representing about 34 per cent of total US goods imports. She estimated that earlier tariff measures amounted to an average tax increase of $1,000 per US household in 2025.
Despite the Supreme Court ruling, York said the revised tariff framework could still impose a household burden of roughly $700 in 2026.
Trump responded to the court’s decision by asserting that it provided him with expanded leverage, suggesting he could use licensing requirements as an alternative tool to influence foreign governments.
Trade policy experts have questioned the long-term sustainability of this approach. Wendy Cutler, a former US trade official and senior vice president at the Asia Society Policy Institute, said the administration may seek alternative mechanisms to exert pressure on trading partners, but warned that such measures may lack the clarity and scale of tariffs.
Trump has also signalled that he could raise duties further on countries that attempt to renegotiate trade arrangements following the ruling. Over the past year, his administration has adjusted tariff levels on multiple partners, sometimes with limited notice, using trade measures as leverage in negotiations.
US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer stated that existing trade agreements remain valid despite the court’s decision and said Washington expects its partners to honour commitments already reached.
However, the proposed increase to 15 per cent would exceed the 10 per cent rate previously applied to some countries, including the United Kingdom and Australia, potentially adding new strains to bilateral trade relations.
Analysts caution that while immediate retaliation from US partners appears unlikely, the evolving tariff landscape may accelerate efforts by other economies to diversify trade relationships and reduce reliance on the United States market.
The Supreme Court ruling represents a significant legal check on executive trade authority, but the broader trajectory of US trade policy remains uncertain as the administration recalibrates its approach under mounting domestic and international scrutiny.
