A day after the US Supreme Court struck down his sweeping import taxes, US President Donald Trump unveiled a fresh plan to impose a 15 percent tariff on goods entering the United States, escalating a confrontation over the limits of presidential trade powers and deepening uncertainty for global markets.
Trump had first indicated that a 10 percent duty would replace the invalidated tariffs. But on Saturday, he said the rate would be lifted to 15 percent under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, a rarely used provision that allows temporary trade measures for roughly five months without immediate approval from Congress.
The earlier 10 percent tariff had been scheduled to begin on Tuesday, 24 February. It remains unclear whether the higher 15 percent rate will take effect on the same day. The BBC has reached out to the White House for clarification.
In defending the move, Trump said the increase followed what he described as the Supreme Court’s “ridiculous, poorly written, and extraordinarily anti-American decision on Tariffs issued yesterday”.
In a 6-3 verdict, the court ruled that Trump exceeded his authority when he introduced broad global tariffs last year under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977. The justices determined that the emergency law did not grant him sweeping authority to impose worldwide import taxes.
The majority opinion brought together the court’s three liberal justices, Chief Justice John Roberts, and two appointees of Trump, Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gorsuch. Conservative justices Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh and Samuel Alito dissented.
According to the latest government figures, at least 130 billion dollars has already been collected under the 1977 law.
Trump reacted sharply, saying he was “ashamed of certain members of the court” and branding those who opposed his tariff policy as “fools”.
Import duties have been a central feature of his economic programme. He maintains that tariffs will push companies to shift production back to American soil and narrow the trade deficit, the gap between what the US buys from abroad and what it sells overseas. However, new data shows the trade deficit widened by 2.1 percent compared to 2024, reaching about 1.2 trillion dollars.
The ruling has drawn mixed responses from business leaders. Drew Greenblatt, who runs Marlin Steel Wire Products in Baltimore, said he was “very disappointed” by the outcome.
“It is a setback for poor people in America that had a chance to climb into the middle class with great manufacturing jobs,” he told the BBC.
John Boyd, a soybean farmer from Virginia and head of the National Black Farmers Association, welcomed the decision.
“This is a huge win for me and a big loss for the president.
“I don't care how you look at it, President Trump lost on this.”
Allie Renison, a former UK government trade adviser and director at SEC Newgate, said: “While it may seem like a good day for free trade, I think trade actually just got a lot messier.”
She noted that companies now face “much more of a patchwork approach” to tariffs as different legal tools are used to impose duties.
Under the new arrangement, most imports would attract the 15 percent charge, although key goods such as critical minerals, certain metals and pharmaceuticals would not be affected. Other tariffs on steel, aluminium, lumber and automotive products, introduced under separate laws, remain in force and were not touched by the court’s decision.
The shift has raised concerns among countries that had already struck tariff arrangements with Washington, including the UK and Australia. A White House official said nations that negotiated earlier deals would now fall under the Section 122 tariff rather than previously agreed rates.
Even so, sector-based agreements covering UK exports in steel, aluminium, pharmaceuticals, autos and aerospace, which make up the bulk of its trade with the US, remain unchanged. The UK government said it expects Britain’s “privileged trading position with the US” to continue and added that it is “a matter for the US to determine” whether the broader deals still apply.
William Bain, head of trade policy at the British Chambers of Commerce, cautioned that the administration’s response to the court ruling “could be worse for British businesses”. He said the 15 percent import tax is “bad for trade, bad for US consumers and businesses” and will “weaken global economic growth”.
In Europe, leaders voiced unease. French President Emmanuel Macron said France would adjust and stressed that the “fairest possible rules involve reciprocity, not suffering unilateral decisions”. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz warned that ongoing instability around tariffs acts as “poison” for both European and American economies.
“The biggest poison for the economies of Europe and the US is this constant uncertainty about tariffs. And this uncertainty must end,” Merz said, adding that he would coordinate with other European Union members before his forthcoming trip to Washington.
The Supreme Court’s judgment has also cleared the way for companies and consumers to pursue refunds for tariffs collected under the invalidated law, although the justices did not issue a direct order on repayments.
Trump suggested that any refund effort would be tied up in court and could drag on for years. Several business groups have already indicated they will push for reimbursement.
Neil Bradley, chief policy officer at the US Chamber of Commerce, said: “Swift refunds of the impermissible tariffs will be meaningful for the more than 200,000 small business importers in this country and will help support stronger economic growth this year.”
The National Retail Federation urged the courts “to ensure a seamless process to refund the tariffs to US importers”.
“The refunds will serve as an economic boost and allow companies to reinvest in their operations, their employees and their customers,” it said.
Senator Maria Cantwell of Washington state has written to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent seeking clarity on how the administration plans to handle repayments.
“Given this Administration has illegally collected hundreds of billions of dollars from American businesses, that now must be refunded, I am requesting detailed information about how the Administration plans to fairly and expeditiously reimburse the payors of those tariffs,” she wrote.
Republican Senator John Kennedy of Louisiana argued that efforts to force refunds could have political ripple effects, saying it might energise businesses and help the economy ahead of the November midterm elections.
With the 15 percent tariff now set to take effect under a temporary legal path, attention turns to whether Congress will back the measure once the five month window closes and how trading partners will respond to the renewed wave of US import duties.
