US Supreme Court verdict unlikely to end uncertainty over Trump’s trade agenda

New Delhi- More than a year after taking office as the 47th President of the United States on January 20 last year, Donald Trump has repeatedly unsettled the global economic landscape with frequent shifts in his trade and tariff policies.

One of his earliest moves was the introduction of so-called “reciprocal tariffs,” which pushed several countries into hurried trade talks with Washington or forced them to reopen negotiations, as the terms appeared heavily tilted in America’s favour.

Commenting on the fallout, UK newspaper The Guardian noted that after the US President disrupted the global economic order in 2025, countries like Japan rushed to strike deals, even pledging major investments in the US in exchange for reduced tariffs on their exports.

However, Trump’s attempt to reshape international trade suffered a setback when the US Supreme Court ruled against him. On February 20, in a 6–3 decision, the court held that the President had exceeded his authority by imposing sweeping global tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), clarifying that the law was meant for national security emergencies, not broad trade actions. The ruling effectively struck down many of Trump’s earlier tariff measures.

Unfazed by the judgment, Trump quickly announced a 10 per cent global tariff, later raising it to 15 per cent by invoking Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. While this provision allows the President to impose temporary import duties, it is limited to 150 days and requires congressional approval for extension — something that may prove difficult with mid-term elections approaching.

As a result, businesses and trading partners remain uncertain about which tariffs apply, complicating long-term planning. At the same time, the court ruling has emboldened several US allies, who now believe they can renegotiate terms.

According to The Guardian, countries such as India, Brazil and China have already secured notable tariff relief without offering concessions, while others like the UK may still face higher duties despite compromises.

India has reportedly paused negotiations that were close to concluding a trade deal, triggering concern among exporters, particularly in textiles, chemicals and auto components. The European Union is also seeking clarity, with Brussels considering consultations at the WTO and warning of possible countermeasures.

Brazilian agricultural exporters fear rising costs, and President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, during a recent visit to Delhi, called for countries to form collective negotiating blocs when dealing with Washington.

China, meanwhile, may gain additional leverage ahead of President Xi Jinping’s expected talks with Trump during the latter’s visit to Beijing from March 31 to April 2. China’s Commerce Ministry has said it is studying the Supreme Court ruling and assessing its implications, adding that unilateral US tariffs violate both international trade rules and domestic American law.

The ruling could also limit Trump’s ability to press China for larger purchases of US goods such as soybeans, Boeing aircraft and energy. In response, Beijing may slow approvals for exports of rare earth minerals — a critical input for US high-tech and AI manufacturing — though any major retaliation may wait until the Xi-Trump summit.

Overall, while the Supreme Court decision curbs some of Trump’s powers, it has not yet brought clarity or stability to US trade policy, leaving global markets navigating continued uncertainty.

With inputs from IANS