The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to strike down a large portion of former President Donald Trump’s tariffs has reduced his ability to impose sudden trade levies, but analysts say uncertainty for global companies and trade partners persists.
Within hours of Friday’s ruling, Trump imposed a new 10 percent tariff on all imports and announced fresh trade investigations that could result in additional levies. Less than a day later, he raised the rate to 15 percent, the maximum allowed under law. The president insisted that trade and investment deals negotiated with nearly 20 countries, most of which involve higher tariffs, would remain in effect.
Wendy Cutler, a former U.S. trade official and senior vice president at the Asia Society Policy Institute, said the rapid adjustments reflect Trump’s approach to keeping trading partners off balance. “The uncertainty, in his view, just gives him enormous additional leverage beyond the actual tariffs. Because people are worried about what he’ll do,” she said.
At the same time, experts agree that Trump’s tools have been constrained. The replacement 10 percent tariff is temporary, lasting 150 days, and other tariffs under alternative statutes will take longer to implement. “He’s lost his favourite tool,” Cutler said. “Particularly for foreign policy matters and things that irk him on other countries that have nothing to do with trade, he’s lost the ability to offer a credible threat.”
William Reinsch, a former senior U.S. government official now at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said the 6-3 Supreme Court ruling “takes away his ability to wave the big stick around.” Michael Froman, president of the Council on Foreign Relations and former chief trade negotiator under President Barack Obama, said the ruling leaves questions about duties collected illegally and the scope of future tariffs. He added that the court decision may curb the president’s use of tariffs as a tool of leverage or punishment outside trade policy.
Trump’s prior use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) had allowed him to impose tariffs on countries over non-trade issues, including Greenland, Canada, and Brazil, heightening uncertainty for companies worldwide. Josh Lipsky, chair of international economics at the Atlantic Council, described the Supreme Court decision as a significant but not crippling setback for Trump’s economic agenda.
Nearly 20 trade framework deals reached under the IEEPA authority are expected to remain in place, though analysts say countries now have slightly more bargaining power in ongoing or new negotiations. Miriam Sapiro, a former senior U.S. trade official, said, “Countries do have a bit more leverage than they might have felt they had previously,” though she did not expect existing deals to unravel.
Initial international reactions were cautious. South Korea said it would review the ruling while continuing discussions on a tariff agreement signed in November, valued at $350 billion in investment pledges. Observers noted that the administration’s ability to impose other tariffs may encourage countries to honor their commitments despite the Supreme Court setback.
The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to strike down a large swath of President Donald Trump’s tariffs has weakened his ability to threaten and impose tariffs at a moment’s notice, but it will not end the lingering uncertainty for trade partners or companies navigating the U.S. market.
