Ahmed Kamel – Egypt Daily News
U.S. President Donald Trump has pledged to impose a sweeping 10 percent global tariff through executive action, just hours after the Supreme Court of the United States struck down a central pillar of his trade policy.
In remarks delivered at the White House following the court’s 6–3 decision, Trump described the ruling as “extremely disappointing” and signaled a more aggressive turn in his administration’s trade strategy. “I have the right to suspend trade entirely with any country,” he said, adding that he would likely pursue “the path I should have taken from the beginning.”
The court invalidated the administration’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to justify a broad set of reciprocal global tariffs, ruling that Trump had exceeded his authority under the emergency statute. However, the justices did not nullify all existing tariffs, nor did they address whether importers are entitled to refunds, leaving that question to a lower court.
Within hours of the ruling, Trump announced he would sign an executive order imposing a 10 percent global tariff under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, a provision that grants the president limited authority to enact temporary trade measures without congressional approval. The statute allows such tariffs to remain in effect for up to 150 days and has rarely been tested in modern trade disputes.
National Security and Alternative Authorities
Trump emphasized that other tariff mechanisms remain fully in force, particularly those imposed under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 and Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. Section 232 tariffs, justified on national security grounds, have previously targeted steel, aluminum, and autos, while Section 301 has been used to address alleged unfair trade practices, particularly by China.
In a post on his Truth Social platform, Trump said all national security-related tariffs and Section 301 measures remain “fully in effect,” adding that additional investigations under those provisions would be launched to protect the United States from unfair trade practices.
He also renewed threats to impose tariffs ranging from 15 to 30 percent on the automotive sector and suggested he could suspend trade entirely with specific countries if deemed necessary. Trump argued that the Supreme Court’s ruling addressed only the emergency powers statute and did not significantly curtail his broader authority to levy import duties under other federal laws.
Legal and Fiscal Fallout
The decision marks the most significant legal setback for Trump’s economic agenda since his return to the White House. According to reports from Bloomberg, the president initially reacted to the ruling in a closed-door meeting with governors, calling it a “disgrace” and vowing to implement a contingency plan.
The financial implications could be substantial. If lower courts ultimately determine that importers are entitled to refunds, reimbursements could total as much as $170 billion, more than half of the revenue generated by Trump’s tariffs to date.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent sought to calm market concerns, stating that the administration would rely on the legally established authorities of Sections 232 and 301 to maintain tariff revenues. He added that preliminary Treasury estimates indicate that, even with the shift to Section 122 and enhanced use of other trade tools, tariff revenues in 2026 would remain largely unaffected.
Market Reaction and Economic Stakes
Financial markets reacted swiftly. U.S. Treasury bonds declined, led by longer-dated securities sensitive to fiscal risk, pushing 30-year yields up by as much as six basis points to 4.75 percent. The dollar retreated, reversing gains recorded over the previous four sessions. Investors expressed concern that prolonged trade uncertainty could widen the federal deficit and exacerbate inflationary pressures in an economy already grappling with elevated price levels.
Trump, however, defended his tariff program as a cornerstone of both economic and foreign policy. He reiterated claims that tariffs have reduced the U.S. trade deficit, citing a 78 percent decline and credited tariff threats with pressuring foreign governments in diplomatic disputes. He also argued that the measures had helped combat fentanyl trafficking and attract billions of dollars in planned foreign investment into U.S. manufacturing.
Strategic Shift or Escalation?
The administration’s pivot underscores the centrality of trade policy to Trump’s broader political and economic platform. Since his first term, he has framed tariffs not only as a tool to revive domestic industry but also as leverage in geopolitical negotiations.
The legal battle over executive trade powers now raises fundamental questions about the scope of presidential authority in economic emergencies. While the Supreme Court curtailed the use of IEEPA for tariff purposes, it left open a wide array of statutory pathways that future administrations, including Trump’s may continue to test.
As the White House prepares new executive actions and further trade investigations, the confrontation between the executive branch and the judiciary is likely to intensify. For businesses, investors, and trading partners, the message is clear: despite the court’s intervention, U.S. trade policy remains in flux — and further tariff measures are imminent.
