In a move that stunned global markets and legal observers alike, President Donald Trump raised tariffs on all US imports from 10% to 15% just hours after the Supreme Court struck down his previous trade authority. The ruling, decided 6-3, found that Trump had overstepped his powers under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). Rather than accepting the court’s decision, Trump pivoted swiftly to a different legal mechanism — Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 — to justify the new levy.
The 1974 law, which has never previously been used, permits a president to impose tariffs of up to 15% for a period of 150 days without congressional approval. After that window closes, the administration must seek legislative backing. Trump declared on Truth Social that the new rate was “fully allowed and legally tested,” signaling his determination to press forward despite mounting legal and international resistance.
European leaders responded sharply. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz announced he would travel to Washington carrying a unified European position, describing the ongoing tariff uncertainty as a form of economic “poison.” French President Emmanuel Macron, meanwhile, used the moment to champion the rule of law, noting that having a supreme court to check executive power is a sign of democratic strength, not weakness.
The new tariffs raise significant complications for countries that had already struck deals with the US. The United Kingdom, for instance, had previously negotiated a 10% tariff arrangement, only to find that rate suddenly rendered obsolete. British business leaders warned that the hike would damage trade on both sides of the Atlantic and undermine the economic stability that businesses desperately need.
Despite the global backlash, Trump remained defiant and deeply personal in his criticism of the justices who ruled against him. He called them “unpatriotic” and an “embarrassment,” singling out his own appointees Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gorsuch for particular condemnation. Studies suggest that approximately 90% of tariff costs are ultimately borne by American consumers and businesses — a figure that critics say undermines the administration’s core justification for the policy.