Donald Trump makes second major move just one day after Supreme Court blocks him

In a swift and controversial response to a major judicial setback, Donald Trump has announced plans to raise tariffs on imports from all countries to 15 percent, just one day after the Supreme Court of the United States struck down his previous tariff framework.

The court’s 6–3 ruling determined that the earlier tariff program was unlawful—not because tariffs themselves are prohibited, but because the administration relied on emergency economic authority to impose broad, sweeping duties on global imports. The decision marked a significant legal constraint on executive power in trade policy, especially in cases where emergency statutes are invoked without clear justification tied to statutory requirements.

A New Legal Pathway

Despite the ruling, Trump moved quickly to outline a new approach. In a public statement released on his Truth Social platform, he declared that his administration would raise the existing global tariff rate from 10 percent to 15 percent. This time, however, the administration intends to rely on a different legal basis—Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974.

That provision permits a U.S. president to impose temporary tariffs of up to 15 percent if there is a “large and serious balance-of-payments deficit.” It allows such measures to remain in effect for up to 150 days without requiring prior congressional approval.

Trump’s move represents the first time a sitting president has invoked this specific authority. While the statute has existed for decades, it has rarely been used, largely due to concerns about its economic implications and the limited timeframe it allows for enforcement.

Trump’s Justification

In his statement, Trump framed the tariff increase as a necessary step to correct what he described as longstanding imbalances in international trade. He argued that many countries have benefited unfairly at the expense of the United States and said that raising tariffs would help restore economic fairness.

He also criticized the Supreme Court’s decision in unusually direct terms, calling it misguided and asserting that it undermines the country’s economic interests. Trump suggested that the court had failed to recognize what he sees as the necessity of assertive trade measures, and he expressed frustration that his administration’s earlier approach had been blocked.

Speaking to reporters following the ruling, Trump reiterated his dissatisfaction with the court’s decision and defended his broader tariff strategy. He claimed that tariffs are a legitimate tool of economic policy and argued that they can help protect domestic industries, reduce trade deficits, and strengthen national economic security.

The Court’s Ruling

The Supreme Court’s decision centered on the legal basis Trump had previously used to implement his signature tariff program. The administration had invoked an emergency economic statute to justify sweeping tariffs across multiple sectors and countries.

In its ruling, the court concluded that the statute in question did not authorize such a broad application of tariff authority. The justices emphasized that while Congress has granted the executive branch certain powers in times of economic emergency, those powers must be exercised within clearly defined statutory limits.

The ruling did not invalidate the concept of tariffs themselves. Instead, it clarified that the specific legal mechanism used by the administration was not appropriate for the scale and scope of the policy that had been implemented.

Observers noted that the decision included votes from both conservative and liberal justices, suggesting that the ruling was grounded more in statutory interpretation than in ideological alignment.

Economic and Policy Implications

If implemented, the proposed increase to a 15 percent global tariff rate would likely have immediate economic consequences. Import prices could rise across a wide range of goods, from consumer electronics and clothing to industrial materials and agricultural products.

Higher import costs often translate into higher retail prices for consumers and increased input costs for businesses. Economists warn that such effects can contribute to inflationary pressure, particularly if applied broadly across all trading partners.

Supporters of tariffs argue that higher duties can protect domestic industries from foreign competition and encourage companies to produce goods within the United States. Critics, however, contend that broad tariffs risk triggering retaliatory measures from other countries, potentially leading to trade disputes that could harm exporters and disrupt global supply chains.

The temporary nature of Section 122 authority adds another layer of uncertainty. Because tariffs imposed under this provision can remain in place for only 150 days without congressional approval, businesses and trading partners may face an unclear outlook regarding long-term policy stability.

Political Reactions

The announcement has already generated a range of political responses. Supporters of the administration’s trade agenda have praised the decision as a necessary corrective to perceived trade imbalances and as evidence of the president’s willingness to pursue alternative legal avenues to achieve policy goals.

Opponents, meanwhile, have raised concerns about both the economic impact of the proposed tariffs and the administration’s willingness to push the boundaries of executive authority in trade policy. Some lawmakers have suggested that Congress should play a more active role in determining tariff policy, particularly when measures have broad and global implications.

The Supreme Court’s decision, combined with the administration’s rapid pivot to a different legal mechanism, underscores the ongoing tension between the executive branch and the judiciary over the scope of presidential powers in economic and trade matters.

What Happens Next

Although Trump has announced the tariff increase, the policy has not yet been formally implemented by the executive branch. The administration is expected to undertake a regulatory process to define the specific tariffs, categories of goods affected, and enforcement mechanisms.

In the coming weeks, officials are likely to provide additional details about how the tariffs will be applied and how the administration plans to address potential economic and diplomatic repercussions.

At the same time, legal experts are already debating whether the use of Section 122 could face further challenges in court, particularly if critics argue that the statutory criteria for invoking the provision have not been adequately met.

For now, the situation remains fluid. The administration’s decision to pursue a new tariff strategy following a judicial setback sets the stage for continued legal, economic, and political debate over the role of tariffs in U.S. policy—and the limits of presidential authority in shaping it.