Trump Imposes Temporary 10% Global Tariff After Supreme Court Ruling

U.S. President Donald Trump announced Friday the imposition of a temporary 10% global tariff for a period of 150 days, moving swiftly to replace portions of his previous tariff regime that were struck down by the Supreme Court of the United States.

Trump said the new duties would be enacted under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 and would apply in addition to existing tariffs currently in force.

Section 122 authorizes the president to impose tariffs of up to 15% for a maximum of 150 days if there are “large and serious” balance-of-payments concerns. Unlike other trade mechanisms, the provision does not require a formal investigation or lengthy procedural steps before implementation.

The move follows the Supreme Court’s ruling earlier Friday that invalidated Trump’s sweeping tariffs previously imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), finding that he had exceeded the authority granted under that statute.

“We have alternatives, great alternatives,” Trump said, signaling that his administration had prepared contingency legal tools. “We may get even more money. We’ll collect more revenue and be much stronger because of it,” he added.

In parallel, Trump confirmed that his administration has initiated several new investigations under Section 301 of the Trade Act, aimed at addressing what he described as unfair trade practices by foreign governments and companies.

Section 301 investigations, which typically take months to complete, can serve as a basis for longer-term tariff measures. However, the 10% global tariff unveiled Friday can remain in effect for no longer than 150 days under Section 122 authority.

Markets and trade partners are now assessing the implications of the temporary measure, which revives elements of Trump’s assertive trade agenda even as the judiciary reasserts limits on executive power.

The rapid shift underscores the administration’s determination to maintain tariff leverage while navigating the legal constraints imposed by the Court’s landmark decision.