Singapore Faces 10% US Tariff Despite Trump’s Tariff Policy Ruling

Washington D.C. – Despite a landmark Supreme Court ruling striking down President Donald Trump’s signature “reciprocal” tariffs, a 10 per cent global tariff on goods – including those from Singapore – is set to take effect imminently. The move underscores a continuing commitment to protectionist trade policies, even after a significant legal defeat.

The Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision on February 20, 2026, ruled that the President does not have the authority to unilaterally impose broad-based tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The court found that IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs of the scale and duration attempted by the Trump administration. This decision invalidates what was described as the administration’s most expansive use of emergency powers to reshape global trade.

However, just hours after the ruling, President Trump announced a new 10 per cent global tariff, invoking Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which permits temporary import surcharges or quotas to address serious trade deficits. This new tariff is framed as a stopgap measure while longer investigations are conducted, with a maximum duration of 150 days and a maximum rate of 15 per cent.

The President reacted to the court’s decision with sharp criticism, calling it “deeply disappointing” and accusing some justices of lacking “the courage to do what is right for our country.” He further stated, “Foreign countries that have been ripping us off for years are ecstatic, and dancing in the streets. But they won’t be dancing for long!” He went on to label the justices as “fools and lapdogs” and accused them of being swayed by “foreign interests.”

While the Supreme Court’s decision represents a significant setback for the Trump administration’s trade agenda, the swift implementation of the new 10 per cent tariff demonstrates a determination to maintain a protectionist stance. The shift in legal justification, however, necessitates a more rule-bound approach to trade policy, moving away from the sweeping, unilateral actions previously taken under IEEPA.

For Singapore, which has a free trade agreement with the United States dating back to 2004, the immediate impact of the new tariff is expected to be limited. According to veteran US trade negotiator Wendy Cutler, senior vice-president at the Asia Society Policy Institute, “Given that Singapore is already subjected to a 10 per cent tariff, things should remain stable.” However, specific tariffs on sectors like pharmaceuticals and semiconductors will continue to apply.

Approximately 75 per cent of Singapore’s semiconductor exports to the US already benefit from duty-free or reduced rates due to exemptions for US data centres, research and development, consumer applications, and supply chain buildout. Singapore-based pharmaceutical companies, however, are subject to a 100 per cent tariff on branded or patented products unless they establish manufacturing facilities within the United States. Implementation of this pharmaceutical tariff has been delayed.

Beyond the immediate impact on Singapore, the ruling and subsequent tariff announcement will have broader implications for trade relations in Southeast Asia. The region had previously faced some of the highest reciprocal tariff rates – between 46 per cent and 49 per cent – announced in April 2025. Some of these rates were subsequently lowered through negotiated trade deals with Indonesia, Malaysia, and Cambodia, which also addressed trade enforcement and efforts to counter transshipment from China.

Brian McFeeters, president and chief executive officer of the US-ASEAN Business Council, emphasized the need for clarity given the added uncertainty. However, he expressed confidence that the broader US-ASEAN economic ties would remain intact, noting the pragmatic approach of Southeast Asian leaders and the importance of the US market and investment.

The ruling also casts a shadow over trade agreements reached with other nations. The July 2025 trade deal with the European Union, which imposed a 15 per cent tariff on EU goods while granting tariff-free access to the US market, is now facing scrutiny. Analysts at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) suggest the agreement could collapse, potentially jeopardizing US$600 billion in investment commitments and US$750 billion in natural gas purchases.

the decision impacts tariffs imposed on China, Canada, and Mexico related to fentanyl trafficking concerns, as well as tariffs on India linked to its purchase of Russian oil. These tariffs, previously justified under IEEPA, will now require alternative legal foundations.

The shift to Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 and Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, while offering alternative avenues for imposing tariffs, are more cumbersome and require investigations into unfair trade practices. This will likely result in a slower and more deliberate approach to trade policy.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent estimates that the combined use of Section 122, Section 232, and Section 301 authorities will result in “virtually unchanged tariff revenue in 2026.” A YouGov survey conducted on February 20, 2026, found that 60 per cent of Americans approved of the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down President Trump’s tariffs.

Businesses are bracing for potential disruptions and delays as they navigate the evolving trade landscape. The US government is likely to face demands for refunds of tariffs already collected, potentially amounting to an estimated US$175 billion. Despite the legal setback, the Trump administration remains committed to reshaping global trade, even if it requires a different legal pathway.