Trump orders global tariff rise to 15% after court setback

President Donald Trump has declared an immediate increase of the global tariff rate to 15 per cent, intensifying a high-stakes confrontation over trade policy following a ruling by the United States Supreme Court that he exceeded his authority with earlier broad tariff measures. The move comes as he invoked a different legal framework to maintain pressure on foreign producers and to limit what he describes as unfair trade practices that have widened the US trade deficit and hurt domestic industries.

The Supreme Court’s 6–3 majority opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, determined that Trump’s earlier sweeping tariff regime lacked the necessary congressional authorisation and therefore could not stand, sharply curbing executive power over trade prerogatives traditionally reserved for lawmakers in the Capitol. Trump responded by turning to Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which allows the executive to impose tariffs on all imports at a maximum rate of 15 per cent for a limited period, a rarely used statute that now underpins his latest declaration.

Addressing reporters and posting on his social media platform, Trump said the new tariff would take effect “immediately” and insisted it remained well within his legal authority, blaming the Supreme Court’s decision for what he characterised as a judicial overreach that impedes economic sovereignty. He lambasted the justices in personal terms, dismissing the ruling as “poorly written” and “extraordinarily anti-American”, and reiterated his commitment to safeguarding US jobs and manufacturing from what he deems exploitative foreign practices.

Trade economists and business groups have expressed alarm at the sudden escalation in duties, warning that an across-the-board 15 per cent tariff on imports could reverberate through global supply chains, raise prices for consumers and inject fresh volatility into markets still sensitive after the Supreme Court’s decision. Some experts argue that tariff-induced costs could funnel back into American companies and households, complicating inflationary dynamics that policymakers have been struggling to manage.

Trump’s administration has maintained that elevated import taxes are essential to counter persistent trade imbalances that have seen the US register one of its largest goods deficits in decades. Officials argue that this approach will eventually spur domestic investment and reduce dependence on foreign manufacturing, even as critics counter that unilateral tariffs tend to invite reciprocal measures and disrupt international cooperation.

The political fallout from the tariff escalation has been swift. Members of Trump’s own Republican Party have expressed mixed reactions, with some endorsing tougher trade policies and others cautioning against punitive measures that could strain relations with key allies and trading partners. Democratic legislators have condemned the tariffs as a tax on American consumers that will disproportionately affect lower- and middle-income households.

International responses have varied, reflecting concern over the potential economic impact and legal complexity of the US action. Leaders in Europe and Asia warned that elevated tariffs could undermine global growth and destabilise supply networks already adapting to geopolitical tensions. Some governments have indicated they will pursue negotiation or dispute mechanisms within multilateral institutions to challenge or mitigate the effects of the new duties.

Analysts note that Trump’s choice to use Section 122 — which limits tariff authority to 150 days unless extended by Congress — could prompt legal challenges and legislative scrutiny as opponents in the US capital debate whether to curtail or endorse the president’s expanded trade powers. Congress has historically guarded tariff setting as a core legislative function, and Trump’s assertive use of statutory exceptions continues to fuel debate about the balance of power between executive and legislative branches.

Beyond legal wrangling, domestic businesses are grappling with the implications of the tariff shift. A coalition of small enterprises that had already been pressing for tariff refunds after the court invalidated the previous regime is now also urging clear guidance on how future levies will be applied and whether relief mechanisms will be available. Some import-dependent firms have warned that sustained high tariffs could force supply chain adjustments, layoffs, or price increases to stay viable in a more protectionist environment.

The broader backdrop to these developments includes ongoing trade tensions with major partners such as China, Canada and Mexico, where tit-for-tat duties have already reshaped investment and export patterns. Elevated tariffs have been a central theme of Trump’s economic strategy, and his latest action underscores the high priority he places on restructuring international trade arrangements, even as legal and political obstacles mount.