.webp?height=700&t=1769523540&width=800)
President Donald Trump says the administration will use a combination of statutes to replicate some of the emergency tariffs that the Supreme Court struck down, starting with a new 10% baseline tariff to kick in Tuesday.
Trump signed a proclamation to impose a 10% global tariff using Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 just hours after the ruling. A White House fact sheet published Friday night said the new duty will take effect Tuesday.
The measure would replicate the 10% baseline tariff that the administration unveiled last February. Fertilizers, certain products not grown or produced in the U.S., beef, tomatoes, oranges and goods covered by the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement will be exempt from the duties, the fact sheet said, replicating similar carveouts previously issued from Trump's emergency tariffs.
Under Section 122, the president can impose tariffs of up to 15% for a period of 150 days to address balance-of-payment issues. The new duties will also not apply to imports currently subject to product-specific tariffs imposed for national security reasons, like autos, aluminum, steel and lumber, among others.
Further, Trump said he plans to open investigations into countries’ unfair trade practices under Section 301 of the same act. This is the same legal instrument he used to impose tariffs on China during his first term. Tariffs under the measure have no ceiling, but the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative has to complete an investigation before duties are applied, which can take months -- although it can be expedited.
The Trump administration announced broad 301 probes on China and Brazil last year for Beijing's failure to live up to the Phase One Agreement and on Brazil over deforestation and other practices.
U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said during the same press event that his agency would announce additional section 301 investigations in the coming days and weeks. In a statement Friday night, USTR said that the forthcoming investigations would cover "most major trading partners" and focus on issues like unfair trade practices in international rice and seafood markets, excess industrial capacity and forced labor, among other issues.
"If these investigations conclude that there are unfair trading practices and that responsive action is warranted, tariffs are one tool that may be imposed," the statement reads.
The Supreme Court on Friday struck down a slate of tariffs Trump imposed last year using emergency powers, including his so-called “reciprocal” tariffs on individual countries, as well as tariff hikes on Canada, Mexico and China over concerns for fentanyl and illegal migration and Brazil over its prosecution of its former president, among others.
Supreme Court rules against Trump on tariffs
Farmers say no more tariffs on ag inputs, call for certainty following SCOTUS ruling
“In the end, I think we’ll take in more money than we’ve taken in before,” Trump told reporters on Friday, adding that the new duties could end up being “potentially higher.”
Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins weighed in on X on Friday evening.
"Despite the Supreme Court’s ruling against one form of tariff, we are not backing down — not even for a second," she wrote. "We’re doubling down on rebalancing global trade so it finally works for America."
What comes next?
Trump needled the Supreme Court justices over their lack of clarity on how and whether refunds would be issued.
“It wasn't discussed,” he said. “Wouldn't you think they would have put one sentence in there saying that keep the money or don't keep the money?”
Everett Eissenstat, a former Trump administration economic official, told Agri-Pulse Friday that procedures around issuing refunds could take some time to take shape. Eissenstat is now a trade lawyer at the Squire Patton Boggs law firm.
“You’re talking billions and billions of dollars, so it’s a big deal. And finding the right mechanism to reallocate all that money can be very challenging,” Eissenstat said.
The administration could come up with its own procedure for issuing refunds, said Mayur Patel a partner at the Hogan Lovells law firm.
If it doesn’t, firms may have to pursue their own legal action to access reimbursements.
Trump also speculated on Friday that companies could have to mount their own legal challenges to secure tariff refunds.
“I guess it has to get litigated for the next two years,” he said.
The lower courts, including the Court of International Trade, may also provide refund procedures, Eissenstat said.
“We have been counseling clients to prepare for this possibility and have their data in order,” he added.
The scope of the administration’s next steps could also impact refunds, Patel said. If officials adopt retroactive measures, they may try to get out of awarding refunds.
Companies should “make sure that we know exactly what the replacement measure is” before seeking refunds in the courts, he said.
If trade lawyers were the biggest beneficiaries from the tariffs in 2025, they will "continue to be big winners of Trump's trade policy in 2026," said Peter Harrell, a former trade offical in the Biden White House, during a webinar on Fiday.
Where are the deals?
Trump also stressed that the ruling does not affect the recent deals the administration has struck with U.S. trading partners.
“Many of them stand,” he said, including an announced deal with India. “Nothing changes,” the president added.
Analysts told Agri-Pulse Friday that countries would be unlikely to renege on their deals, given that the administration has other tariffs at its disposal to levy against countries seeking to use the ruling to reopen deals.
Trump in his comments hinted at future tariffs for any country that goes back on their U.S. deals. Any deals that fall, he said, will be replaced with “other tariffs.”
Patel said that the administration could face pushback where countries haven’t yet finalized the terms of their deals. They could use the ruling to reassess negotiations, but he added that completed deals are unlikely to unravel.
Deputy Agriculture Secretary Stephen Vaden declined to answer a question from Agri-Pulse on Friday at the Agricultural Outlook Forum on what the impacts of the ruling might be for completed trade deals. “That's for [the White House] to react in the first instance, and us to go from there,” he said.
For more news, go to Agri-Pulse.com.
