President Donald Trump has announced the introduction of a sweeping new 10 percent tariff on almost every category of imported goods entering the United States. This decision follows closely on the heels of a landmark Supreme Court judgment that nullified the majority of tariff measures enacted by his administration during the previous year. In response to the ruling, which significantly curtailed executive leeway in unilaterally imposing trade duties, Trump signed an executive order late Friday evening detailing the scope of the new policy. Within this order, he delineated a number of exemptions intended to cushion certain economic sectors deemed vital or politically sensitive. These include critical raw materials such as strategic minerals, key agricultural imports like beef and fruits, automobiles, medically essential pharmaceuticals, and goods originating from neighboring trade partners Canada and Mexico. According to the text of the directive, the new tariffs will formally come into force on February 24, 2026.
During an impassioned press briefing earlier that same day, the president expressed intense disapproval of the Supreme Court’s decision, framing it as an affront to his administration’s authority and economic agenda. Visibly animated, Trump directed sharp personal criticism at the six justices who opposed his trade policies, describing them as “a disgrace to our nation.” When fielding a question from a journalist about the fact that two of those justices, Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett—both of whom were his own appointees—had voted to overturn his tariffs, the president went further, referring to them as “an embarrassment to their families.” His remarks underscored his deep frustration with what he perceives as the judiciary’s obstruction of his aggressive trade posture.
The newly issued tariff framework draws its legal justification from Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, an infrequently invoked provision that grants the president temporary and direct authority to impose tariffs of up to 15 percent in cases where the United States is confronted with “large and serious” trade deficits. However, this statutory power is intrinsically limited: such tariffs automatically expire after 150 days unless Congress explicitly extends their duration. Comparable in spirit to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), yet distinct in scope, Section 122 has historically never been employed in precisely this manner by any prior U.S. president. Its use here therefore represents both a novel legal experiment and a bold assertion of executive discretion within the complex realm of U.S. trade law.
Legal experts and practitioners in international commerce note that once this 150-day threshold is reached, the administration could opt to repeatedly renew the tariffs through successive Section 122 declarations. Gregory Husisian, a partner at the legal firm Foley & Lardner LLP and an attorney with substantial experience assisting over a hundred companies in filing tariff refund claims, explains that the White House could also prepare alternative tariff mechanisms during that interim period. By shifting to other statutory authorities—such as those provided by Sections 301 or 232 of the trade code—the government could preserve similar regulatory effects while merely changing the formal legal basis. As Husisian observes, this temporary measure essentially serves as a “bridge authority,” designed to maintain policy continuity while the administration arranges a more permanent structure to justify the import duties.
Meanwhile, officials within the Trump administration appear to be accelerating efforts to initiate parallel trade investigations grounded in concerns over national security and unfair global trade practices. These inquiries are prerequisites for employing Section 301 tariffs, which target discriminatory or unjust international trade behavior, and Section 232 tariffs, which protect industries deemed crucial to national defense. “We are launching several Section 301 and related investigations to defend our country from unfair trade practices by foreign governments and corporations,” the president declared during his remarks, suggesting that these lengthier but more defensible mechanisms are already being set in motion.
In another executive order issued concurrently, the administration clarified that despite the Supreme Court’s nullification of IEEPA-based tariffs, the suspension of the so-called de minimis exemption remains in place. That exemption previously allowed individual online purchases valued under $800 to enter the United States without incurring customs duties. Its elimination in the past year had triggered widespread logistical problems, including massive slowdowns in processing low-value e-commerce shipments at ports of entry and noticeable price hikes across popular online retail platforms that depend on low-cost imports. The reaffirmation of its suspension signals the administration’s continued intent to limit this exemption despite judicial pushback in other areas.
One major area of uncertainty concerns the fate of companies seeking restitution for tariff payments now rendered legally void. The Supreme Court’s decision contained no explicit guidance on whether these payments must be refunded, nor how such a process should unfold. During the news conference, when pressed for clarification, President Trump replied that he anticipated extensive litigation would be required to resolve the matter, implying that affected importers would need to seek remedies through the courts. Trade analysts interviewed by WIRED predict that this refund process will be protracted and cumbersome, involving detailed company-by-company claims and potentially contentious government review. Importers may have to document and substantiate the amounts they believe they are owed, while federal authorities could contest these calculations. As a result, the reimbursement process might last anywhere from several months to more than two years, depending on the complexity of individual claims.
The Supreme Court’s ruling itself contained a nuanced delineation of presidential authority under IEEPA: while acknowledging that the president wields broad powers in responding to national emergencies, the Court clarified that these powers do not extend to the imposition of taxes or tariff-like measures, which remain within Congress’s economic domain. President Trump, however, appeared to misconstrue this legal distinction during his public remarks. “The Court has now given me absolute power to prohibit things from entering our country, to cripple foreign nations economically, but not the right to collect a simple fee,” he said rhetorically, adding, “How crazy is that?” This selective interpretation underscored both his grievance with judicial limitations and his insistence on expansive executive control over trade policy.
As the press conference continued, it increasingly drifted beyond the narrow topic of tariffs into broader, sometimes tangential reflections on other political grievances. At various points, Trump criticized what he characterized as the excessive political correctness of European governments and reiterated his disdain for Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell. In an extended digression, while discussing the Court’s textual reading of the IEEPA, the president abruptly began boasting about his intellectual aptitude and reading proficiency, proclaiming, “I read the paragraphs. I read very well. Great comprehension.” The comments, though unrelated to the legal or economic implications of the ruling, reflected his characteristic rhetorical style—defiant, improvisational, and openly dismissive of perceived critics—closing a day marked by both significant policy shifts and pointed political theater.
Sourse: https://www.wired.com/story/trump-imposes-new-tariffs-following-supreme-court-ruling/
