President Donald Trump has enacted a fresh 10 per cent tariff on imports into the United States, following a Supreme Court ruling that invalidated many of his sweeping and previously unpredictable trade duties. The move highlights both the former president’s tenacity and the continuing complexity of U.S. trade policy.
Trump signed the tariff order in the Oval Office, announcing on social media that it would take effect “almost immediately.” Over the past year, he had repeatedly applied tariffs on various countries, often without warning, creating uncertainty in global markets.
The conservative-majority Supreme Court ruled six to three that a 1977 law Trump relied upon does not give the President the authority to impose tariffs at will. This decision was a rare rebuke of his economic strategy, despite Trump having appointed two of the justices who voted against him.
“I’m ashamed of certain members of the court, absolutely ashamed, for not having the courage to do what’s right for our country,” Trump said in response, alleging—without evidence—that foreign interests influenced the ruling. Yet he insisted the decision would not weaken his position. “To protect our country, a president can actually charge more tariffs than I was charging in the past,” he added.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent reassured the public that the administration’s alternative measures would likely keep tariff revenue steady in 2026.
A Major Setback
While the ruling did not touch sector-specific tariffs on steel, aluminum, and other goods, it represents Trump’s most significant Supreme Court defeat since his return to the White House 13 months ago. Previously, the court had expanded his powers, including shielding him from prosecution over official acts during his first term.
Chief Justice John Roberts, writing the opinion, emphasized that if Congress had intended to grant such sweeping authority, it would have done so explicitly. “IEEPA contains no reference to tariffs or duties,” Roberts stated, referring to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.
Wall Street responded with modest gains, and business groups, including the National Retail Federation, praised the ruling for providing clarity in trade policy.
Questions Over Refunds
The ruling leaves open a significant question: will companies and consumers receive refunds for tariffs that may now be deemed unlawful? Trump anticipated prolonged litigation, while Justice Brett Kavanaugh warned the refund process could be “a mess.” Estimates suggest the refunds could reach up to $175 billion, according to the Penn Wharton Budget Model.
California Governor Gavin Newsom called for immediate repayment to Americans, labeling the tariffs an “illegal cash grab,” while Senator Elizabeth Warren cautioned there may be no legal mechanism for many to reclaim past payments. Yale’s Budget Lab noted that while the effective tariff rate falls to 9.1 per cent from 16.9 per cent, it remains historically high.
Close U.S. trading partners, including the European Union, Britain, Canada, and India, are carefully studying the decision. Canada, repeatedly targeted by Trump’s tariffs, described the Supreme Court ruling as a reminder that previous levies were “unjustified,” though new trade pressures may be looming.
