WASHINGTON, Feb. 20 — U.S. President Donald Trump announced plans to impose 10% global tariffs under a different legal authority following a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that struck down his earlier broad tariff regime, Reuters reported Friday.
The move comes after the Supreme Court found that the emergency powers law used to justify the original tariffs did not grant the executive branch authority to impose duties unilaterally, marking a major legal setback for Trump’s trade agenda.
Trump told reporters that he would sign an order to impose the 10% global tariffs under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 — a statute that allows temporary import duties related to “large and serious” balance-of-payments issues.
10% Global Tariffs After Court Limits Previous Authority
The Supreme Court’s 6–3 decision this week ruled that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which Trump had cited for his earlier “Liberation Day” tariffs, does not authorize the imposition of broad-based global tariffs on imports.
That ruling invalidated large portions of the tariff program that had applied duties to imports from a wide range of trading partners — tariffs that included levies of 10%, 25%, and higher rates on goods from countries such as China, Canada and Mexico.
In response, the Trump administration said it will turn to Section 122 of the Trade Act, which allows the president to impose temporary tariffs of up to 15% for up to 150 days without requiring extensive procedural investigations.
President Trump said the 10% global tariffs would be over and above the existing duties already in place, indicating a continued aggressive stance on trade policy despite the legal rebuke.
Legal Backdrop and Supreme Court Ruling
The legal fight over Trump’s tariff power has been underway for more than a year.
Initially, the Commerce Department used IEEPA — a 1977 national emergency statute — to justify broad reciprocal tariffs, a strategy that was challenged in multiple courts by importers and states.
Lower federal courts had previously ruled that IEEPA did not authorize tariff imposition and permanently enjoined enforcement of the tariffs, a decision that the government appealed.
On Feb. 20, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld those lower court rulings, finding that the president exceeded his authority under IEEPA by using it to impose tariffs — asserting that authority properly resides with Congress under the Constitution’s trade and taxing powers.
Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, stressed that significant economic policies such as tariff levels require clear legislative authorization.
Section 122 Authority and the New Tariff Plan
Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 gives the president temporary powers to impose duties related to serious balance-of-payments issues without elaborate investigations or other procedural hurdles, but only for a limited duration.
Trump indicated his intention to use Section 122 as the basis for the 10% global tariffs, arguing it provides clear statutory authority and is constitutional.
Legal analysts say this approach could allow the administration to maintain tariff pressure while navigating around the Supreme Court’s limits on IEEPA usage.
Political and Economic Reactions
Reactions to the announcement were sharply divided.
Supporters of Trump’s trade agenda applauded efforts to sustain protectionist measures aimed at reducing trade deficits and supporting U.S. industry.
Critics, including free-trade advocates and consumer groups, argued that imposing broad global tariffs — even at 10% — could further raise costs for American consumers and disrupt international commerce.
Business associations also expressed concerns over the uncertainty created by shifting legal bases for tariffs and the potential for retaliatory measures from trading partners.
Impact on Global Trade
Global trading partners are likely to watch the implementation of the 10% global tariffs closely as markets react to the shift in U.S. policy.
Countries previously hit by higher tariff rates under the older regime may challenge the new duties under World Trade Organization (WTO) dispute mechanisms if they are deemed inconsistent with trade agreements.
Analysts say the diplomatic fallout and potential for retaliation could have implications for supply chains, export markets and broader economic growth.
Outlook for Tariff Enforcement and Next Steps
Implementation of the 10% global tariffs under Section 122 will need to be detailed in forthcoming executive orders and regulatory guidance.
Importers and trading partners will be watching for specifics such as tariff application criteria, affected product categories, and potential exemptions.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court’s decision reinforced constitutional limits on presidential action in trade policy, setting a precedent for future legal challenges and congressional oversight.
As the U.S. prepares to deploy this new tariff authority, debates over executive power, trade policy and economic impact are expected to continue across political and business circles.