By Lina Irawan 
In a dramatic escalation of his "America First" trade agenda, President Donald Trump declared on Saturday his immediate intention to raise a newly imposed global tariff from 10% to 15%. This swift and forceful pronouncement came just hours after the U.S. Supreme Court delivered a significant blow to his previous tariff strategy, ruling that his long-standing use of federal emergency powers to levy duties was unlawful. The President’s move underscores his unwavering commitment to using tariffs as a primary tool of economic policy, even as it forces him to navigate a new, and potentially more challenging, legal framework.
Through a post on his favored social-media platform, Trump articulated his rationale with characteristic vigor: “I, as President of the United States of America, will be, effective immediately, raising the 10% Worldwide Tariff on Countries, many of which have been ‘ripping’ the U.S. off for decades, without retribution (until I came along!), to the fully allowed, and legally tested, 15% level.” The message, steeped in his populist rhetoric, aimed to frame the decision as a necessary measure to protect American interests against what he perceives as unfair global trade practices, while simultaneously asserting his authority in the face of judicial review.
The President’s Saturday declaration followed an equally rapid response on Friday, when, mere hours after the Supreme Court’s adverse ruling, he announced a blanket 10% global tariff on foreign goods. That initial tariff, outlined in a White House fact sheet, was slated to take effect at 12:01 a.m. Washington time on February 24, coinciding with the evening of his highly anticipated State of the Union address to Congress. However, his subsequent social media post regarding the heightened 15% tariff offered no immediate details on its precise timing or implementation schedule, leaving businesses, consumers, and international trading partners in a state of heightened uncertainty.
The Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision on Friday represented a major legal setback for the Trump administration’s approach to trade policy. The high court ruled that the President had unlawfully invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to justify his "reciprocal" tariffs. IEEPA, enacted in 1977, grants the President broad authority to regulate international commerce during times of declared national emergency, typically in response to unusual and extraordinary threats to national security, foreign policy, or the economy, such as sanctions against hostile nations. Since April of last year, Trump had relied on this statute to impose duties ranging from 10% to a staggering 50% on a wide array of goods from numerous U.S. trading partners, including significant tariffs on steel and aluminum imports, and subsequent duties on a vast range of Chinese products.
Critics, including various trade organizations, importers, and a bipartisan group of lawmakers, had argued that the President’s expansive use of IEEPA for broad trade disputes fundamentally overstepped the statute’s original intent. They contended that IEEPA was designed for specific national security crises, not as a general tool for addressing long-standing trade imbalances or as leverage in complex trade negotiations. The Supreme Court’s majority, seemingly agreeing with this interpretation, effectively curtailed the President’s ability to unilaterally impose tariffs under this particular emergency power, underscoring the delicate balance of power between the executive and judicial branches. The ruling necessitated a swift pivot for the administration to preserve its aggressive trade agenda.
In response to the judicial constraint, Trump has now shifted his legal basis for imposing tariffs to Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act. This specific provision allows the President to impose temporary import surcharges for a period of up to 150 days without requiring prior congressional approval. The rationale for invoking Section 122, as stipulated in the act, is when the President determines that a "fundamental international payments problem" exists, which necessitates "appropriate action to deal with such fundamental disequilibrium." While this section provides a temporary workaround for the President, it comes with inherent limitations. The 150-day window means that any tariffs imposed under this authority would eventually require congressional buy-in to become permanent or extend beyond that period.
Securing such congressional approval for a permanent 15% global tariff regime could prove to be an arduous and politically charged undertaking. Historically, elements of President Trump’s trade policy have faced significant opposition not only from Democrats but also from a notable segment of his own Republican party. Many Republicans, traditionally proponents of free trade and lower tariffs, have voiced concerns over the potential economic repercussions of protectionist measures. They worry about retaliatory tariffs from other countries, which could harm American export industries, particularly agriculture. Furthermore, they highlight the increased costs for domestic manufacturers who rely on imported components and the potential inflationary impact on consumer goods, effectively acting as a tax on American families. Democrats, on the other hand, have consistently criticized the administration’s tariff approach, arguing that it alienates allies, disrupts global supply chains, and fails to address the root causes of trade imbalances. The legislative battle for extending these tariffs beyond 150 days is thus poised to be a contentious one, testing the President’s ability to rally sufficient support within a divided Congress.
The economic implications of a 15% global tariff are substantial and far-reaching. Economists largely agree that broad tariffs tend to act as a tax on domestic consumers and businesses, rather than solely on foreign producers. An increase to 15% would translate directly into higher import costs for a vast array of goods, from raw materials and intermediate components to finished consumer products. This escalation is likely to exert significant upward pressure on prices, contributing to inflation and potentially eroding consumer purchasing power. Industries heavily reliant on global supply chains, such as automotive, electronics, apparel, and retail, would face increased operational costs, which could lead to reduced profit margins, supply chain disruptions, or, more likely, be passed on to the end consumer.
Beyond domestic impacts, such tariffs risk further destabilizing global trade relations. Major trading partners like the European Union, China, Canada, Mexico, and Japan are likely to view the 15% tariff as an aggressive and potentially hostile move, inviting retaliatory measures. This could trigger a cycle of escalating protectionism, harming international cooperation and potentially leading to a full-blown trade war. Experts from institutions like the International Monetary Fund and the World Trade Organization have consistently warned against such "beggar-thy-neighbor" policies, emphasizing that they ultimately lead to reduced global trade volumes, slower economic growth, and increased geopolitical tensions. Companies that have already invested heavily in diversifying their supply chains to mitigate previous tariff risks may find themselves facing renewed challenges and pressure to further reconfigure their operations.
The political context surrounding this announcement is equally significant. President Trump has long championed tariffs as a cornerstone of his "America First" philosophy, viewing them as a potent instrument to reduce trade deficits, force favorable trade deals, and protect American jobs and industries from what he characterizes as unfair foreign competition. His decision to double down on tariffs, despite the Supreme Court’s ruling, reinforces this commitment. The timing of the announcement, just before his State of the Union address, suggests he intends to use the national platform to vigorously defend his trade policies, framing them as essential for national economic sovereignty and prosperity.
The immediate reactions from the White House and the U.S. Trade Representative’s office were not available, indicating the rapid nature of the President’s personal announcement and perhaps the ongoing internal discussions regarding the logistical and diplomatic complexities of implementing such a sweeping measure. However, the absence of detailed implementation guidance for the 15% tariff leaves businesses and markets grappling with uncertainty, awaiting official directives that will clarify which goods are affected, when the tariffs will precisely take effect, and how long they are intended to last under the Section 122 authority.
Looking ahead, the next few weeks will be critical. Congress will undoubtedly scrutinize the President’s use of Section 122, and debates over the necessity and wisdom of these tariffs are expected to dominate legislative discussions. International partners will also be closely monitoring the situation, preparing their potential responses. The President’s bold move, while asserting his continued resolve on trade, sets the stage for a period of intensified economic uncertainty, domestic political friction, and potentially strained international relations, as the United States navigates the complex interplay between executive power, judicial oversight, and the global trading system.