---
layout: post
title: "Trump's Supreme Court Loss Sparks New Tariff Blitz: What Just Happened"
description: "After SCOTUS strikes down his tariff strategy, Trump pivots to a new 10% global tariff. Here's what it means for your wallet."
date: 2026-02-20 08:00:25 +0530
author: adam
image: 'https://images.unsplash.com/photo-1768663319879-e6a2b4c7408f?q=80&w=2070'
video_embed:
tags: [news, business]
tags_color: '#4caf50'
---
Things just got messy in the world of <a href="https://infeeds.com/tags/?tag=business">business</a> and trade policy. On Friday, the Supreme Court essentially told President Trump "no" on his tariff strategy, and his response was swift: sign a new executive order for a 10% global tariff that kicks in almost immediately.
Let's break down what just happened, because it matters for basically everyone buying stuff.
## The Court Said No to IEEPA Tariffs
The Supreme Court dealt Trump a 6-3 blow by striking down the legal foundation he'd been using to impose tariffs without Congress. The International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, doesn't actually give presidents the power to slap tariffs on imports, the court ruled. That's a pretty big deal.
Trump's reciprocal tariffs, which were supposed to make trading partners "fair" based on what they charge us, were built on this IEEPA authority. So were his drug-trafficking-related tariffs. All of that legal scaffolding just collapsed.
At a White House press briefing, Trump was not happy. He called the decision "deeply disappointing" and said he was "ashamed of certain members of the court." He even went after two justices he himself appointed, Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, saying their decision was "an embarrassment to their families." That's the kind of thing that tells you how frustrated he actually is.
## Enter Section 122
Here's the pivot: Trump signed a new executive order Friday evening creating a 10% global tariff under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. It's supposed to take effect almost immediately and has a 150-day time limit built in.
The White House was pretty clear about what this actually is: it's a replacement for the tariffs the court just invalidated. So instead of the higher tariffs many countries were facing under IEEPA, they're now looking at this flat 10% rate. At least for now.
But here's where it gets interesting. That 10% is probably temporary leverage. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent promised that the administration will "replace the rejected IEEPA tariffs by leveraging a number of other existing tariff laws." Translation: they're looking for other legal hooks to get those rates back up.
## Some Countries Get Cheaper, Others Get Stuck
The math shifts around depending on where you're trading with. China, for example, had been hit with two sets of 10% IEEPA tariffs on top of a 25% duty that stayed intact. Now those IEEPA tariffs are replaced by this new global 10%, so China's staring at 35% total. That's still high, just recalculated.
The European Union? They'd negotiated a 15% tariff as part of a trade deal, and most of that was under IEEPA. So they're looking at better terms under the new 10% global rate, at least temporarily.
It's a strange situation where getting good at trade negotiations might've just made things worse for you, because the legal underpinning just evaporated.
## Trump Doesn't Want to Ask Congress
When asked why he won't work with Congress on this, Trump's answer was pretty straightforward: "I don't have to. I have the right to do tariffs."
The thing is, Section 122 tariffs can only last 150 days without Congress approving an extension. So eventually, if Trump wants these to stick around, he's going to need legislative buy-in. He said "We have the right to do pretty much what we want to do," but that's not exactly how our system works once you hit that time limit.
Trump also confirmed that all existing tariffs under Section 232 and Section 301 will stay "in full force and effect." Those statutes give him more breathing room than IEEPA apparently does.
## The Revenue Question
Here's something people aren't talking about enough: most of the U.S. tariff revenue generated last year came from those IEEPA duties. That's now gone. Bessent tried to head off concerns by saying the administration will "result in virtually unchanged tariff revenue in 2026." No one should expect tariff revenue to go down, he said.
That's a bold promise. It means they're confident they can find other legal paths to impose tariffs at similar or higher rates than before. And based on what Trump said Friday, they're already working on it through Section 301 investigations into unfair trade practices.
The real question is whether these other legal pathways will actually hold up if they get challenged. The Supreme Court just showed its hand on how it reads executive power on tariffs, and it's not exactly a ringing endorsement of the administration's previous approach.
What happens when a court strikes down your entire tariff strategy and you scramble to rebuild it with duct tape and legal creativity?
