Trump Tariffs Struck Down by Supreme Court, Global Trade in Flux

The US Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that President Donald Trump overstepped his authority by imposing global tariffs using national security emergency powers, striking down his earlier "reciprocal tariffs." In response, Trump quickly announced a new 15% global tariff using a temporary provision of the Trade Act of 1974. The ruling has created widespread confusion, with trading partners like the EU seeking WTO consultations and India pausing its trade deal negotiations. Meanwhile, the decision has shifted dynamics, handing tariff concessions to some countries like India and China while strengthening President Xi Jinping's negotiating position ahead of a summit with Trump.

Key Points: US Supreme Court Rules Against Trump Tariffs, Trade Chaos Looms

  • Supreme Court rules tariffs overstepped authority
  • Trump imposes new 15% global tariff
  • India, Brazil, China gain tariff cuts
  • EU seeks WTO consultation, warns of countermeasures
  • Xi Jinping gains leverage ahead of Beijing summit
4 min read

US Supreme Court ruling may not yet calm choppy waters around Trump trade policy

US Supreme Court strikes down Trump's "reciprocal tariffs," creating global trade uncertainty. India, EU, China reassess deals as Trump imposes new temporary tariffs.

"After the US President tore up the global economic order in 2025, Japan was one among the countries scrambling to strike a deal. - The Guardian"

New Delhi, Feb 24

In a little over a year since he took office as the 47th President of the United States on January 20 last year, Donald Trump has managed to stir the world order a few times with frequent changes made using two of his favourite words - trade and tariffs.

First, he introduced a set of "reciprocal tariffs" last year that forced several countries to scurry for inking trade deals with Washington or agree to negotiations as the dice appeared to be loaded against them.

"After the US President tore up the global economic order in 2025, Japan was one among the countries scrambling to strike a deal. They pledged to dramatically increase investment in the US in exchange for lower US tariffs on Japanese exports," observed the UK's liberal-leaning 'The Guardian' newspaper.

"But two days after Trump's declared victory, his bid to reshape international trade suffered a damaging defeat at the US Supreme Court," it added.

On February 20, the US Supreme Court, in a 6-3 judgment, ruled that President Trump overstepped his authority when he imposed global tariffs using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The court clarified that IEEPA was designed for national security emergencies, not broad trade measures. This effectively struck down many of Trump's earlier "reciprocal tariffs".

True to his style, with contempt towards judges who ruled that much of his tariff regime was illegal, Trump soon announced a 10 per cent global tariff, then quickly raised it to 15 per cent by invoking Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974.

While it allows the US President to impose this import duty, it is a temporary adjustment for a maximum of 150 days. This provision is meant to be used to address balance-of-payments deficits, and needs to be extended by Congress.

With mid-term elections looming ahead this year, the House may not want to vote in a hurry.

Meanwhile, businesses and trading partners face confusion about what tariffs apply, making long-term planning difficult. But the dynamics have shifted, with allies feeling confident that they can renegotiate a few clauses.

India, Brazil, and China have been handed significant tariff cuts without making a single compromise, The Guardian report said, adding that at the same time, countries like the UK may now face higher tariffs, despite making concessions.

New Delhi has hit the pause button on the ongoing negotiation before an imminent closure of a trade deal. Exporters in India are alarmed, especially in the textiles, chemicals, and auto parts sectors.

The European Union, too, is seeking clarifications after the European Commission had reached an understanding in an initial trade deal with Washington. According to reports, Brussels wants to consult the WTO and has warned of possible countermeasures.

Agricultural exporters in Brazil are reportedly worried about higher costs, where President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, while in Delhi, urged countries to unite and form collective negotiating blocs for talks with the US.

Meanwhile, President Xi Jinping of China will carry some extra leverage when he sits at the negotiating table across his US counterpart during the latter's Beijing visit from March 31 to April 2. China's Ministry of Commerce this week said that it has noted the US Supreme Court's ruling and is conducting a comprehensive assessment of its relevant content and impact.

The unilateral measures, it added, such as the imposition of reciprocal tariffs and fentanyl tariffs, not only violate international economic and trade rules but also contravene domestic laws of the United States, and are not in the interests of any party.

Trump may not now be able to push Xi for larger purchases of American soybeans, Boeing aircraft, and energy.

China may go slow on allowing a steady flow of rare earth minerals, a crucial component of the American hi-tech and AI-based manufacturing. Some reports are already hinting at Beijing attempting retaliation. But that may wait till the Xi-Trump Beijing summit.

- IANS

Share this article:

Reader Comments

R
Rohit P
Good to see the US Supreme Court upholding the rule of law. Even a powerful President can't just do anything he wants. This ruling gives countries like India some breathing room. Maybe now we can negotiate from a position of strength, especially if we form blocs as Brazil's President suggested. Collective bargaining is the way forward.
A
Aman W
While I'm no fan of Trump's unpredictable methods, one has to admit he has shaken up a global trade system that was often unfair. The old order needed a jolt. However, using national security laws for plain trade wars was wrong, and the court was correct to stop that. Hope this leads to more balanced and predictable rules for everyone.
S
Sarah B
The article mentions India got tariff cuts without compromise? That sounds like a rare win in this mess! But the pause in negotiations shows our officials are being cautious, which is smart. We shouldn't rush into a long-term deal when the other side's policies change with every court ruling or tweet.
V
Vikram M
China holding back rare earth minerals is a major power move. This whole situation shows the world is moving away from a single superpower dictating terms. For India, it's a complex moment—potential short-term pain for our exporters, but a chance to build stronger, more diversified trade partnerships for the long run. Jai Hind!
K
Karthik V
Respectfully, I think the article and some comments are too focused on reacting to the US. We need our own strong, consistent trade policy. Whether Trump wins or loses in court, India's strategy should be based on our national interest, not on waiting to see what Washington does next.

We welcome thoughtful discussions from our readers. Please keep comments respectful and on-topic.

Leave a Comment

Minimum 50 characters 0/50