Washington D.C. – US President Donald Trump on escalated a trade dispute by raising global tariffs to 15 percent, less than 24 hours after a Supreme Court ruling curtailed his authority to impose such levies. The move, announced via a post on his social media platform, represents a swift response to the court’s decision and signals a continued commitment to protectionist trade policies.
The increase from the previously announced 10 percent tariff, reinstated on following the Supreme Court’s judgment, was framed by Trump as a legally permissible escalation. “Based on a thorough, detailed, and complete review of the ridiculous, poorly written, and extraordinarily anti-American decision on Tariffs issued yesterday…I, as President of the United States of America, will be, effective immediately, raising the 10% Worldwide Tariff…to the fully allowed, and legally tested, 15% level,” he wrote.
The Supreme Court’s ruling, delivered in a 6-3 decision, invalidated most of Trump’s sweeping tariffs, which had been justified under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The court determined that the 1977 law, intended for national emergencies, had been improperly used to impose broad trade tariffs.
The initial reinstatement of a 10 percent tariff across the board had been presented as a direct consequence of the court’s decision, a move intended to quickly re-establish trade barriers. However, Saturday’s increase to 15 percent demonstrates a willingness to push the boundaries of permissible tariffs, even in the wake of legal challenges.
The legal basis for the 15 percent tariff remains a point of contention. Trump asserted in his statement that the new level is “fully allowed, and legally tested,” but legal experts have suggested that the scope of presidential authority in this area remains significantly constrained by the Supreme Court’s ruling. The administration indicated it would issue new tariffs in the coming months that are “legally permissible.”
Prior to the Supreme Court’s intervention, tariffs varied significantly depending on the trading partner. Imports from Japan and the European Union’s 27 member states already faced a 15 percent duty. The ruling, before Trump’s subsequent actions, was expected to lead to a reduction in tariffs for major trading partners like Mexico, Canada, and China, which had previously been subject to higher rates under the earlier IEEPA-based tariffs.
The impact of the 15 percent global tariff will likely be widespread, affecting a broad range of goods and potentially leading to increased costs for consumers and businesses. The ports of Long Beach, California, and others across the country could see shifts in trade volumes as importers adjust to the new tariff structure. Dealerships, such as those in Bedford, Ohio, selling imported vehicles like Subarus and Mercedes-Benz, may also experience changes in demand and pricing.
The Supreme Court’s decision followed a series of legal challenges initiated in by businesses, including wine importer V.O.S. Selections, Inc., Learning Resources, and hand2mind, who argued that Trump’s tariffs were illegal. The US trade court initially ruled against the tariffs in , a decision that was temporarily blocked on appeal before ultimately being addressed by the Supreme Court.
The timeline of events leading to the current situation began with Trump’s inauguration for a second term in , followed by the imposition of a 25 percent tariff on imports from Canada and Mexico in . The subsequent “Liberation Day” tariffs, announced in , established a baseline 10 percent tariff on nearly all countries, with some facing higher rates. A 90-day pause was briefly implemented in before the legal battles intensified.
The long-term implications of Trump’s actions and the Supreme Court’s ruling remain uncertain. The administration’s commitment to revising and issuing new tariffs suggests that trade tensions are likely to persist, potentially impacting global economic growth and international relations. The situation will be closely watched by trading partners and businesses alike as they navigate the evolving landscape of US trade policy.
