President Donald Trump signed an executive order Friday imposing a 10% global tariff on all imports, hours after the Supreme Court struck down his earlier, more sweeping tariff measures. The move, announced following the Court’s 6-3 decision, aims to circumvent the ruling and maintain protectionist trade policies.
The Supreme Court found that Trump had overstepped his authority by enacting the initial tariffs using a 1970s emergency statute. The ruling represents a significant defeat for the administration’s economic agenda, throwing U.S. Trade policy into renewed uncertainty, according to the Associated Press.
The administration has been collecting approximately $30 billion in tariffs each month, four times the amount collected before Trump’s return to office. Despite this revenue, tariffs still account for just over 5% of overall federal government revenue as of January, according to NPR reporting. Exemptions for goods like coffee and bananas have limited the potential tariff income.
Prior to the Supreme Court’s decision, importers had begun shifting production to countries with lower tariff rates in an effort to mitigate costs. In 2024, 12% of U.S. Imports originated from China; by September of last year, that figure had fallen to around 8%, as reported by NPR.
Economic analysis suggests that U.S. Businesses, rather than foreign suppliers, are bearing the brunt of the tariff costs. A working paper from Harvard University professor Gita Gopinath and University of Chicago economist Brent Neiman estimates that nearly all of the costs associated with Trump’s tariffs are being absorbed by U.S. Importers, often resulting in reduced profits.
Trump, visibly frustrated by the Court’s decision, stated he was “absolutely ashamed” of the justices who voted against his tariffs, calling the ruling “deeply disappointing.” He indicated he is also exploring additional tariff measures through other legal avenues.
The latest 10% tariff will be implemented under Section 122 of federal law, a move the administration believes provides a legal basis for the levies. The long-term implications of this action, and potential challenges to its legality, remain unclear. No immediate response has been issued by the World Trade Organization or major trading partners.
