Trump to impose 10% global tariffs after Supreme Court overturns country-specific tariffs

US President Donald Trump announced he would sign an order on Feb. 20 to impose a 10% stackable global tariff following the Supreme Court's decision to overturn his administration's country-specific tariffs.

These tariffs will be imposed under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which authorizes a president to impose temporary tariffs of up to 15% for 150 days. At the end of that time, Congress would have to vote to extend the tariff.

He also announced his administration would be issuing several investigations under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 to protect the US "from unfair trading practices of other countries and companies."

On Feb. 20, the Supreme Court struck down Trump's country-specific tariffs, determining he exceeded presidential authority when imposing duties on products from nearly all US trading partners. US Customs and Border Protection collected $142 billion in duties under IEEPA in 2025, according to an analysis of CBP data by the Yale University Budget Lab.

Trump called the Supreme Court's decision "deeply disappointing."

"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 said.

Trump referenced other methods and statutes that are "even stronger than the [International Emergency Economic Powers Act] tariffs" that he can impose, such as issuing export licenses or imposing embargos.

"We have very powerful alternatives that have been approved by this decision," Trump said.

Trump referenced statutes like Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, Sections 122, 201 and 301 from the Trade Act of 1974 and the Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930, all of which have additional requirements or limitations, most notably the time limit on the Section 122 duties Trump promised on Feb. 20.

"But it's a little bit longer process," Trump said.

Energy sector impacts

The ruling, and Trump's decision to immediately implement alternative tariffs, left uncertainty for the energy industry.

"Right now, the question that's ricocheting around the energy sector surrounds the alternative tariffs" that the administration will impose, Josh Zive, a partner at the law firm Bracewell said. "Namely, will they find a way to provide exceptions or exclusions for the energy products that were already excluded from the reciprocal tariffs," he said. It is unclear, according to Zive, whether those types of product exemptions are allowed under the statute.

Another outstanding question is how the Supreme Court ruling will impact commitments from trading partners to buy US energy products, made as part of the trade deals and frameworks announced alongside tariff relief over the past year.

"I think that's going to be an open diplomatic question of whether those countries seek to revisit some of those commitments that they've made either in final form or in frameworks," Zive said.

Like other sectors, energy companies also have questions about the refund process for tariffs already paid on products like the equipment that goes into their facilities, according to Zive.

Metals effects

Metals industry groups reiterated that metals tariffs, including 50% rates on steel, aluminum and copper, remain in place because they were not considered as part of the Supreme Court's decision and are imposed under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act.

"President Trump has taken decisive action in his second term to rebalance global trade and fulfill his promise to put American workers and American industry first," Philip Bell, president of the Steel Manufacturers Association, a trade group, said in a statement. "Today's Supreme Court decision does not diminish the undeniable impact of the president's policies, which have driven significant new investment into the United States, reopened markets long closed to American producers and torn down trade barriers that stood for generations."

Kevin Dempsey, president and CEO of the American Iron and Steel Institute, reiterated that the Supreme Court's ruling does not apply to steel tariffs.

"In fact, the majority opinion distinguishes the authority granted to the president under Section 232 from the authority granted under IEEPA, noting that the Section 232 statute contains 'sweeping, discretion-conferring language' that IEEPA does not contain," Dempsey said in a statement.

Reactions

Following the Supreme Court's decision, leaders from other countries and within the US issued statements on the high court's ruling.

"We are going to thoroughly review the resolution, and we will give our opinion afterward. Let's wait to see the scope," President of Mexico Claudia Sheinbaum told reporters on Feb. 20.

Canada also applauded the decision.

"The United States Supreme Court's decision reinforces Canada's position that the IEEPA tariffs imposed by the United States are unjustified," Dominic LeBlanc, Canada's minister of internal trade, said on X. "While Canada has the best trade deal with the United States of any trading partner, we recognize that critical work lies ahead to support Canadian businesses and workers who remain affected by Section 232 tariffs on steel, aluminum and automotive sectors."

US Democratic officials applauded the Supreme Court's rejection of the IEEPA tariffs, while Republican leaders offered mixed reactions.

"A victory for the wallets of every American consumer," Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer said in a post on X. "Trump's illegal tariff tax just collapsed—He tried to govern by decree and stuck families with the bill."

House Speaker Mike Johnson said that Trump's use of tariffs "created immense leverage for America's trade strategy and for securing strong, reciprocal America-first trade agreements with countries that had been taking advantage of American workers for decades."

"Congress and the Administration will determine the best path forward in the coming weeks," Johnson added.