Defying Supreme Court Ruling, President Trump Announces 15% Global Tariff

Port of Long Beach

The recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling regarding the legality of President Trump’s tariff policies has sent shockwaves through the political and economic landscape. Rather than retreating, President Trump announced this past Saturday that he is raising the "global tariff" - which he had imposed just a day prior - from 10% to 15%.

Trump’s Response: Escalating to 15%

The decision followed Trump’s sharp criticism of the Supreme Court on February 20, in which he labeled the ruling “deeply disappointing.”

In a post on his Truth Social platform, President Trump asserted that “effective immediately,” he would be “raising the 10% Worldwide Tariff on Countries … to the fully allowed, and legally tested, 15% level.”

He further emphasized that his administration would “determine and issue the new and legally permissible Tariffs, which will continue our extraordinarily successful process of Making America Great Again.”

Strategy: Shifting the Legal Basis

Despite the Supreme Court’s ruling, market analysts suggest that Trump still holds several legal tools to maintain duties on imports. He is expected to invoke new trade authorities specifically to bypass Friday's decision.

On Truth Social, the President clarified his stance on alternative legal frameworks:

“Although I firmly disagree with the Court’s holding today, the decision might not substantially constrain a President’s ability to order tariffs going forward. That is because numerous other federal statutes authorize the President to impose tariffs and might justify most (if not all) of the tariffs issued in this case…Those statutes include, for example, the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (Section 232); the Trade Act of 1974 (Sections 122, 201, and 301); and the Tariff Act of 1930 (Section 338).”

The Supreme Court’s Argument on IEEPA

In the 177-page opinion released by the Court, the justices rejected the use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) as a tool for indiscriminate tariff imposition. The Court argued:

“The President asserts the extraordinary power to unilaterally impose tariffs of unlimited amount, duration, and scope. In light of the breadth, history, and constitutional context of that asserted authority, he must identify clear congressional authorization to exercise it."

The Court specifically highlighted a deficiency in the government's interpretation of the law:

“IEEPA’s grant of authority to “regulate…importation” falls short. IEEPA contains no reference to tariffs or duties."

“The Government points to no statute in which Congress used the word “regulate” to authorize taxation. And until now no President has read IEEPA to confer such power."

The justices also reaffirmed their constitutional role:

“We claim no special competence in matters of economics or foreign affairs. We claim only, as we must, the limited role assigned to us by Article III of the Constitution. Fulfilling that role, we hold that IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs.”

"Patchwork" Tariffs and New Orders Under Different Acts

Even before the ruling, industry experts predicted that Trump would quickly pivot to other legal pathways. His Friday statement on Truth Social confirmed this:

“The Good News is that there are methods, practices, Statutes, and other Authorities, as recognized by the entire Court and Congress, that are even stronger than the IEEPA TARIFFS, available to me as President of the United States of America and, in actuality, I was very modest in my “ask” of other Countries and Businesses because I wanted to do nothing that could sway the decision that has been rendered by the Court."

“TARIFFS have, likewise, been used to end five of the eight Wars that I settled, have given us Great National Security and, together with our Strong Border, reduced Fentanyl coming into our Country by 30%, when I use them as a penalty against Countries illegally sending this poison to us. All of those TARIFFS remain, but other alternatives will now be used to replace the ones that the Court incorrectly rejected. Based on longstanding Law and Hundreds of Victories to the contrary, the Supreme Court did not overrule TARIFFS, they merely overruled a particular use of IEEPA TARIFFS."

Based on this logic, Trump announced his immediate roadmap on Friday (before raising the rate to 15% on Saturday):

“Therefore, effective immediately, all National Security TARIFFS, Section 232 and existing Section 301 TARIFFS, remain in place, and in full force and effect. Today I will sign an Order to impose a 10% GLOBAL TARIFF, under Section 122, over and above our normal TARIFFS already being charged, and we are also initiating several Section 301 and other Investigations to protect our Country from unfair Trading practices.”

The Billion-Dollar Refund Dispute

One of the most significant implications of this case is the potential for the government to face massive tariff refund claims. The Supreme Court noted in its ruling:

“The Court’s decision is not likely to greatly restrict Presidential tariff authority going forward. But the Court’s decision is likely to generate other serious practical consequences in the near term. One issue will be refunds. Refunds of billions of dollars would have significant consequences for the U. S. Treasury. The Court says nothing today about whether, and if so how, the government should go about returning the billions of dollars that it has collected from importers.”

However, the justices did not explicitly order the Trump administration to issue refunds, nor did they provide a detailed guide on how to do so. This lack of clarity drew a sharp response from the President during Friday's press briefing:

“They take months and months to write an opinion and they don’t even discuss that point. We’ve taken hundreds of billions of dollars and what happens to that money? They don’t even talk about that,” Trump told reporters on Friday during a press conference.”

When asked directly about a refund plan, the President gave a defiant response, predicting a long road of litigation ahead:

“I told you the answer, it’s not discussed [in the ruling]. We’ll end up being in court for the next five years.”

See more:

• International Shipping and Logistics Market Update Week 8/2026 | Phaata
• DHL Group Expands Air Cold Chain Network: A Strategic Leap in Global Healthcare Logistics
• Port of Hamburg Intensifies Strategic Cooperation with India Following EU-India Free Trade Agreement
• APM Terminals Expands Middle East Footprint via Strategic Investment in Jeddah Port
• Trump Triggers 'Plan B': 10% Global Tariff Imposed After Supreme Court Strikes Down Emergency Trade Powers
• US Supreme Court Strikes Down Trump's Global Tariffs, Leaving Supply Chains at a Crossroads
• International Shipping and Logistics Market Update Week 7/2026 | Phaata
• MSC Sets New Record with 7.2 Million TEU, Capturing 21.4% of Global Market Share
• FedEx Targets $98 Billion Revenue and 14% Profit Growth by 2029
• CK Hutchison Warns Maersk of Legal Repercussions Over Potential Balboa and Cristobal Takeover
• COSCO Shipping Launches New CPV Service: Slashing Transit Time from Yangpu Port to North America by 10 Days
• SITC Lines Launches VTX8 Express Service: Direct Ho Chi Minh – Moji Connection in Just 8 Days
• HMM 2025: Maintaining 'Solid' Margins Amidst Rate Plunge and Oversupply Pressure
• COSCO schedules: Vietnam - North America in Feb 2026
• SITC updates Vietnam-Intra Asia sailing schedules in Feb 2026
• COSCO updates Vietnam-North Europe sailing schedules in Feb 2026

Source: Phaata.com (According to Shipping Telegraph)

► Find Better Freight Rates & Logistics Service Providers!