PRESIDENT Donald Trump on Friday imposed an additional 10 per cent tariff on imports into the United States, hours after the Supreme Court struck down many of his duties under a 1977 law.
Trump signed the order in the Oval Office and said on social media it was “effective almost immediately.” Over the past year, he had imposed different tariff rates on countries.
The new 10 per cent duty is set to take effect on February 24 for 150 days. Exemptions will remain for sectors under separate probes, including pharma, and for goods entering the United States under the US-Mexico-Canada agreement, according to a White House factsheet.
The White House said countries that had reached tariff agreements with the administration will also face the 10 per cent duty, even if they had earlier agreed to higher levels.
A White House official told AFP that the administration would seek ways to “implement more appropriate or pre-negotiated tariff rates” later.
Earlier on Friday, the Supreme Court ruled six to three that the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act “does not authorise the President to impose tariffs.” Trump had relied on the law to impose rates on individual countries.
Trump, who nominated two of the justices who ruled against him, criticised the decision and alleged without evidence that the court was influenced by foreign interests.
“I’m ashamed of certain members of the court, absolutely ashamed, for not having the courage to do what’s right for our country,” Trump told reporters.
“In order to protect our country, a president can actually charge more tariffs than I was charging in the past,” Trump said, adding that the ruling left him “more powerful.”
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, speaking at the Economic Club of Dallas, said the alternative approach “will result in virtually unchanged tariff revenue in 2026.”
The ruling did not affect sector-specific duties imposed on steel, aluminium and other goods. Ongoing government probes could result in additional sectoral tariffs.
The decision marked Trump’s biggest defeat at the Supreme Court since returning to the White House 13 months ago. The court has generally expanded his power.
The justices said that “had Congress intended to convey the distinct and extraordinary power to impose tariffs” through the 1977 law, “it would have done so expressly, as it consistently has in other tariff statutes.”
“IEEPA contains no reference to tariffs or duties,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in his opinion.
Wall Street share prices rose modestly after the ruling, which had been expected.
Business groups welcomed the decision. The National Retail Federation said it “provides much-needed certainty” for companies.
During court arguments, the administration said companies would receive refunds if the tariffs were ruled unlawful. The decision did not address refunds.
Trump said he expected years of litigation over refunds. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the only Trump nominee to side with him, said the refund process could be a “mess.”
The University of Pennsylvania’s Penn Wharton Budget Model projected the decision could generate up to $175 billion in refunds.
California Governor Gavin Newsom, who is widely expected to seek the Democratic presidential nomination in 2028, said Americans deserved refunds from the “illegal cash grab.”
“Every dollar unlawfully taken must be refunded immediately — with interest. Cough up!”
Senator Elizabeth Warren, the top Democrat on the Senate Banking Committee, said there remained “no legal mechanism for consumers and many small businesses to recoup the money they have already paid.”
The Budget Lab at Yale University estimated that consumers face an average effective tariff rate of 9.1 per cent following Friday’s decision, down from 16.9 per cent.
The rate “remains the highest since 1946,” excluding 2025, it said.
Close US trading partners, including the European Union and Britain, said they were studying the decision.
Canada, which has faced repeated tariff threats as Trump questioned its sovereignty, said the Supreme Court showed the levies were “unjustified,” but it was preparing for further disruption.
“Canada should prepare for new, blunter mechanisms to be used to reassert trade pressure, potentially with broader and more disruptive effects,” said Candace Laing, president of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce.
(With inputs from agencies)
