Trump announces new "global tariffs of 10%" after the Supreme Court overturns them

WashingtonThe US Supreme Court has ruled illegal the tariffs imposed by Donald Trump under emergency economic powers last year. After weeks of delaying the decision, the high court ruled this Friday with a 6-3 vote. The three justices who dissented the sentence The justices are conservatives Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr., and Brett M. Kavanaugh. Beyond being a setback for one of the fundamental pillars of Trump's policies, the ruling also unleashes a global economic earthquake. The court issued its decision after the US president appealed the ruling of the Washington appeals court, which determined that most of the tariffs were illegal, arguing that the Republican had abused his emergency powers to impose them. Despite the impact of the blow for Trump, the ruling does not guarantee an end to the tariff war. It is the president's major political gamble, and, as his subsequent reaction has shown, he does not intend to abandon it. The Republican has attacked the ruling and the conservative justices who supported it, and has already stated that he will sign new global tariffs of 10%, using another power to reinstate all the tariffs that have been struck down. "The [Supreme Court's] decision is incorrect. But that's okay because we have very powerful alternatives that have been endorsed by this same ruling," the tycoon said, before announcing his response: "Today I will sign an order to impose global tariffs of 10% under Section 122, in addition to those already in place." If the new White House team has demonstrated anything, it's their imagination when it comes to rescuing authorities and reinterpreting them to their advantage.

Trump doesn't intend to back down. In yet another symptom of his absolutist aspirations, the Republican asserted that he doesn't need to work with Congress to implement his tariff policy, which contradicts the Supreme Court's decision. In the 170-page majority opinion, written by conservative Justice John Roberts, it is considered that the "extraordinary power to impose unilateral and untimely tariffs" is an authority that the president cannot exercise without congressional authorization. "Given the breadth, history, and constitutional context of the authority being claimed, it must have clear authorization from Congress to exercise it," Roberts writes. Far from backing down in the face of the Supreme Court's ruling, Trump has made it clear that he will now be even more aggressive in implementing his agenda and has discredited the conservative justices who struck down his tariffs. "The ruling is deeply disappointing, and I am ashamed of some of the justices," said the president, who believes that the lawyers who opposed him are "politicized." As if the magnitude of his anger with the rebel conservative justices weren't enough, the president also made sure to point out that he already has a list of the names of those who voted against him. Right at the start of his remarks, Trump congratulated Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr., and Brett M. Kavanaugh for opposing the ruling, making it obvious who the other three who stood up to him are. After the conservative majority ruled in his favor in other cases, Trump expected the same outcome with the tariffs. In fact, he hinted at this when he took the case to the Supreme Court, saying he was counting on "the justices' help." The ruling, despite striking down the so-called reciprocal tariffs of April, doesn't explain what happens to the more than $130 billion the government has already collected. Trump has also not clarified what he will do with that money and has criticized the decision for not specifying it. "Don't you think it would have been nice if they put a sentence saying whether we can keep the money or not?" the Republican asked reporters, adding that he assumes "this will have to be litigated for the next two years." The appeals court ruling affects both the so-called reciprocal tariffs—which include the entire range of taxes imposed on the EU and other countries—and those imposed on Mexico, Canada, and China. All of these were approved under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a law that grants the president the authority to address "unusual and extraordinary threats" during national emergencies. The judges concluded that the IEEPA "does not authorize imposing taxes through executive orders." The tariffs, which Trump defends as the magic bullet for solving the US fiscal deficit, have also served as a tool to pressure other countries into making economic concessions. Conversely, they have weakened the dollar and increased volatility in financial markets. The court's decision does not affect tariffs issued under other legal authority, such as those the government imposed on steel and aluminum imports.

The European Union has already reacted. The European Commission's trade spokesperson, Olof Gill, assures that the EU executive "is already carefully analyzing the situation." "We are in contact with the US administration as we seek to clarify the steps it intends to take in response to the ruling," he adds in a statement. Gill also takes the opportunity to reiterate that the EU "advocates for low tariffs and will continue working to reduce them." The Spanish Ministry of Economy is closely monitoring the decision on the new tariffs and remains in coordination with Europe regarding its response. The Spanish government maintains that "businesses on both sides of the Atlantic need a stable environment."

In Washington, Democrats have also celebrated the decision. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer stated that it is a "victory" for Americans' wallets. He does not overlook the fact that the ruling coincides with the publication of macroeconomic data by the Department of CommerceThe report details how the growth of the US economy slowed in the last quarter of 2025. According to the report, GDP grew at an annual rate of 1.4% in the fourth quarter, well below the 4.4% recorded between July and September, and the 3.8% of the second quarter of last year. Beyond the expectations generated by the ruling due to its economic impact, the decision was also a test to see to what extent the court continues to maintain a degree of impartiality. The conservative bloc, comprised of Justices John G. Roberts, Neil M. Gorsuch, Brett M. Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel A. Alito, ultimately fractured on this decision. Roberts, Gorsuch, and Barrett voted alongside the liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

The division of the bench in this ruling is a glimmer of hope for the case of Fed Governor Lisa Cook, which is also before the Supreme Court. The high court, which has already heard opening arguments in the case, must also rule on whether Trump can fire a Federal Reserve governor based solely on an unproven accusation. The founding charters of the U.S. central bank stipulate that the president only has the authority to do so in cases proven in court. The justices' ruling will be crucial for the future of the Fed's independence.

A law to punish enemies

The IEEPA, which dates back to 1977, had historically been used to sanction adversaries or freeze their assets. Trump was the first president to use it to impose tariffs. In the case of Mexico and Canada, the president sought to justify the tariffs by declaring a border crisis due to immigration and fentanyl trafficking. He did the same with China, in this case solely regarding fentanyl, stating that the Asian giant had not done enough to prevent the drug from reaching the United States. It's important to remember that this law does not explicitly mention tariffs, although it allows the president to take a wide range of actions in response to a crisis. Trump's Justice Department has argued that the law permits the application of tariffs within the emergency provisions that authorize the president to "regulate" imports or block them entirely. The Supreme Court's decision stems from two cases that had reached the appeals court: one brought by five small American businesses and another by twelve Democratic-led states, both arguing that the IEEPA does not authorize the tariffs. The Constitution grants Congress, not the president, the authority to set taxes and tariffs, and any delegation of this authority must be explicit and limited, according to the lawsuits. The U.S. Court of International Trade, based in New York, ruled against the tariff policies on May 28 of last year, stating that Trump had exceeded his authority in the case concerning the challenged tariffs. The three-judge panel included one judge appointed by the president himself during his first term. Another Washington court also ruled that the IEEPA does not authorize Trump to approve the tariffs, and the administration has appealed this decision as well. At least eight lawsuits have challenged Trump's tariff policies, including one filed by the state of California.