President Donald Trump has lifted a temporary across-the-board tariff to 15% under Section 122 after the Supreme Court curtailed his earlier program, setting up a 150-day window that could redefine the limits of executive trade power.
President Donald Trump said Saturday he will increase a temporary tariff on U.S. imports from 10% to 15% on goods from all countries, invoking Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, a day after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down his previous tariff framework.
The 15% rate is the maximum permitted under Section 122 and can remain in place for 150 days unless Congress votes to extend it. No president has previously used this authority, making Trump’s move both legally novel and politically consequential.
The action follows the court’s ruling that Trump exceeded his authority when he imposed sweeping tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). In an opinion authored by Chief Justice John Roberts and joined by Justices Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett, and the court’s three liberal members, the court concluded that IEEPA did not grant the president the broad tariff powers he claimed.
Less than 24 hours before announcing the 15% rate, Trump had unveiled a 10% universal tariff in response to the ruling. In a post on Truth Social, he said he would now raise that rate to the “fully allowed, and legally tested, 15% level,” effective immediately.
A Temporary Tool With Built-In Limits
Section 122 is narrower than IEEPA and was designed to address balance-of-payments concerns. Its constraints are explicit: tariffs imposed under it expire after 150 days unless lawmakers approve an extension. That requirement shifts the political calculus to Capitol Hill.
Trade experts and congressional aides have expressed doubt that Congress — even with a Republican majority — would extend the tariffs, particularly amid voter concern about prices. A Reuters/Ipsos poll that closed Monday showed 34% approval for Trump’s handling of the economy and 57% disapproval, with affordability ranking as a leading issue.
The White House said certain goods, including critical minerals, metals, and energy products, will be exempt from the Section 122 tariffs, suggesting an effort to shield key supply chains and industrial inputs from immediate disruption.
An across-the-board 15% tariff affects a broad range of imports, from consumer goods to intermediate industrial components. Economists generally note that tariffs function as import taxes, often passed through at least partially to businesses and consumers. Retailers and manufacturers that rely on global supply chains may face higher costs, depending on the scope of exemptions and their ability to absorb or shift expenses.
Financial markets are likely to focus on the duration of the measure. Because Section 122 is time-limited, companies may treat the tariff as temporary in pricing and sourcing decisions. However, uncertainty over whether Congress will extend the tariffs — or whether the administration will layer additional measures under other statutes — could weigh on investment planning.
Administration Signals Broader Strategy
Trump said he intends to use the 150-day window to pursue other “legally permissible” tariffs. The administration has pointed to authorities such as Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act, which allows tariffs tied to national security investigations, and Section 301 of the Trade Act, which addresses unfair trade practices.
Unlike Section 122, those tools are product- or country-specific and require formal investigations. If deployed, they could result in a more targeted tariff regime replacing or supplementing the universal 15% rate.
The president has repeatedly used tariffs as leverage in bilateral negotiations. After the Supreme Court ruling, U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said countries must honor existing trade agreements with Washington, even if those agreements include tariff rates higher than the new universal rate, according to Reuters.
He cited Malaysia and Cambodia as examples, noting that their negotiated 19% rates would remain in place. Indonesia’s chief negotiator, Airlangga Hartarto, said a trade agreement signed on Friday setting U.S. tariffs at 19% would remain in force.
By contrast, countries such as Brazil that have not secured bilateral reductions — and have faced tariff rates as high as 40% — could see temporary relief under the 15% universal framework.
The Supreme Court’s ruling drew praise from some foreign leaders. French President Emmanuel Macron said the decision showed the value of democratic checks and balances. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said he expected the ruling would ease pressure on German exporters and reiterated that “tariffs harm everyone.”
Trump sharply criticized the court’s majority, calling the justices “fools” and singling out Gorsuch and Barrett as “embarrassments,” while pledging to continue pursuing aggressive trade measures.
Domestically, the tariff escalation intersects with electoral politics. Democrats need to flip three Republican-held seats in the U.S. House of Representatives to secure a majority in November’s midterm elections. They have argued that tariffs contribute to higher consumer prices. Whether voters attribute price increases directly to import duties could influence the campaign narrative.
A Constitutional Test Case
Beyond immediate economic effects, the episode represents a significant test of executive authority in trade policy. The Constitution assigns tariff powers to Congress, but lawmakers have delegated portions of that authority to the executive branch through statutes. The Supreme Court’s rejection of Trump’s use of IEEPA narrows the scope of emergency-based tariff powers and may shape how future administrations frame trade actions.
Section 122’s untested status means further litigation is possible. Courts may be asked to assess whether its use in this context aligns with statutory intent and procedural requirements.
However, the administration has secured a temporary legal pathway to maintain elevated tariffs. But the durability of that strategy will depend on congressional action, judicial review, and the broader economic impact during the 150-day window.
