Ahmed Kamel – Egypt Daily News
President Donald Trump intensified his trade offensive on Saturday, announcing plans to impose a new 15 percent global tariff just hours after signing a proclamation that had set the rate at 10 percent. The abrupt escalation followed a sharp rebuke from the U.S. Supreme Court, which struck down the legal foundation for many of the tariffs that have defined Trump’s second-term economic agenda.
In a social media post, Trump denounced the Court’s 6–3 ruling as “ridiculous, poorly written, and extraordinarily anti-American,” and pledged to move swiftly under alternative legal authorities. “During the next short number of months, the Trump Administration will determine and issue the new and legally permissible Tariffs,” he wrote, framing the move as a continuation of his “Making America Great Again” platform.
The president said the 15 percent rate would be imposed under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, a statute that permits temporary tariffs of up to 15 percent to address balance-of-payments problems. However, such tariffs are limited to 150 days unless Congress approves an extension. Trump dismissed concerns about the time restriction, telling reporters at the White House that he could “do pretty much what we want to do.”
The legal pivot comes after the Supreme Court ruled that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not authorize a president to unilaterally impose sweeping tariffs. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts concluded that the Constitution grants Congress not the executive branch, the authority to levy taxes and tariffs. The decision marked a significant setback for Trump, who had relied on the emergency-powers statute to justify broad import duties during his first and second terms.
Three conservative justices joined the Court’s liberal wing in invalidating the tariffs, including two Trump appointees, Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gorsuch. The ruling underscored tensions within the conservative legal movement over the scope of presidential authority in economic policy.
Trump reacted angrily, accusing members of the Court of lacking “the courage to do what’s right for our country.” He suggested that foreign governments were celebrating the decision and warned that new trade measures were imminent.
Under the executive order signed Friday evening, tariffs on nearly all countries were set at 10 percent, effective Tuesday. It remains unclear whether the new 15 percent rate will take effect on the same timeline or supersede the earlier order. According to a White House official, the global tariff would apply even to countries that have recently negotiated trade agreements with Washington, including the United Kingdom, India, Japan and the European Union.
That could complicate carefully negotiated deals that established country-specific rates, 15 percent for Japan and 18 percent for India and potentially lower some of those tariffs under the new global framework. A White House fact sheet indicated exemptions for certain goods, including beef, pharmaceuticals, automobiles and select electronics. Imports from Canada and Mexico covered under the United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement would not be subject to the new global tariff.
In addition to the tariff shift, Trump signed an order extending the suspension of the so-called de minimis exemption, which had allowed goods valued under $800 to enter the United States duty-free. The suspension, first implemented last year, affects low-cost imports often shipped by major e-commerce retailers and will now subject them to the 10 percent tariff.
The administration also signaled plans to launch investigations under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, a tool used to respond to unfair trade practices by foreign governments. Section 301 investigations, which were central to Trump’s trade war with China during his first term, can take months and often precede targeted tariffs on specific sectors.
Legal scholars quickly questioned the administration’s reliance on Section 122. Neal Katyal, the attorney who successfully challenged the previous tariffs before the Supreme Court, argued that the Justice Department had previously told the Court that Section 122 was not applicable to trade deficits of the kind Trump cited. “If he wants sweeping tariffs, he should do the American thing and go to Congress,” Katyal wrote, invoking constitutional separation of powers.
Business groups expressed concern that the rapid shifts in policy would create renewed uncertainty for global supply chains already strained by years of tariff volatility. Economists have warned that broad-based tariffs risk raising consumer prices and inviting retaliatory measures from trading partners, potentially slowing growth at a delicate moment for the global economy.
At the same time, Trump and his advisers argue that tariff revenue strengthens U.S. leverage and protects domestic manufacturing. “We’ll take in more money and we’ll be a lot stronger for it,” the president said Friday, previewing the move before formally announcing the 15 percent rate.
The coming weeks are likely to test both the administration’s legal strategy and the political appetite in Congress to codify or constrain the president’s trade ambitions. With Republicans holding majorities in both chambers, lawmakers face pressure from competing factions, pro-business conservatives wary of trade disruptions and populist allies who view tariffs as essential to economic nationalism.
For now, the administration appears determined to press forward. “We’re going forward,” Trump said, signaling that the latest judicial setback may reshape, but not derail, his aggressive trade agenda.
