Feb 22, 2026

I just heard that the Supreme Court has struck down most of the tariffs imposed during former President Trump’s administration, ruling that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) did not give the president authority to levy those country-specific tariffs. This decision invalidates tariffs targeting major trading partners like Brazil and the European Union, which together made up nearly three-quarters of the tariff revenue during Trump’s second term. However, tariffs based on other laws, such as Section 232 dealing with national security and Section 301 addressing unfair trade practices, remain in place, so measures on steel, aluminum, and some other sectors continue unaffected.

Following the ruling, the current administration quickly moved to impose a uniform 10% tariff under Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act, replacing the struck-down tariffs. This new tariff is temporary, lasting only 150 days unless Congress approves an extension, and it must be applied equally across all countries without differentiation. Despite this stopgap measure, there are questions about its legal durability, and further legal challenges are expected. Going forward, the more formal and slower processes under Sections 232 and 301 are likely to become the main avenues for adjusting tariffs.

This ruling significantly restricts the executive branch’s ability to impose tariffs unilaterally without explicit congressional approval. It essentially ends the rapid and unpredictable tariff changes that characterized much of Trump’s trade policy, requiring more rigorous investigations and formal justification for tariff adjustments. While this may lead to a somewhat more stable trade environment, it still leaves businesses and trading partners dealing with considerable uncertainty.

Looking at the bigger picture, the tariffs have largely failed to meet their goals. Manufacturing jobs have continued to decline despite the tariffs, inflation on manufactured goods remains high, and American consumers have borne much of the cost. Investment in factory construction has not increased significantly outside of exempt sectors like computers and data centers. Meanwhile, the U.S. trade deficit hit record levels in 2025, showing that the tariff regime did not reduce the trade imbalance as intended.

Despite the Supreme Court’s effort to impose legal limits on tariff authority, uncertainty in U.S. trade policy remains. Ongoing threats of new tariffs and fluctuating relations with key partners like Canada, Mexico, and the EU continue to unsettle global businesses. Although the ruling imposes some discipline, it does not resolve the underlying tensions created by tariff-driven trade disputes, leaving companies worldwide to navigate a still unpredictable landscape.

Stay Well!