Politics
Furious Trump imposes new 10% tariff after Supreme Court upends his global levies
- Trump signs signs executive order repealing struck down tariffs.
- President imposes new 10% tariff on imports from all countries.
- Investors lament new dose of uncertainty.
US President Donald Trump responded with fury to Friday’s Supreme Court ruling that he lacked the power to unilaterally set tariffs on imports, denouncing individual justices as he vowed to continue a global trade war that has kept the world on edge for a year.
Saying he was undeterred by what he repeatedly called a ridiculous ruling, Trump announced an immediate new 10% tariff on imports from all countries, on top of any existing tariffs, and then issued a proclamation putting them into effect. The law allows him to impose a levy of up to 15% for 150 days, although it could face legal challenges.
The court’s landmark 6-3 ruling upended the leverage Trump and his trade envoys have wielded over foreign governments at negotiating tables to reshape diplomatic relations and global markets.
The ruling briefly sent US stock indexes surging, before ending modestly higher as analysts warned of renewed confusion in global markets while they await Trump’s next moves.
Hours after the ruling, Trump signed an executive order repealing the tariffs that the court struck down, and he also issued a proclamation imposing a 10% duty on most goods imported into the US for 150 days, granting exemptions for certain items including critical minerals, metals and energy products, the White House said.
Trade deals, revenue in question
The ruling called into question the trade deals Trump’s envoys have negotiated in recent months under the threat of high tariffs. It left open the fate of the $175 billion Trump has collected from US importers under what the court said was his incorrect reading of the law.
“I’m ashamed of certain members of the court, absolutely ashamed, for not having the courage to do what’s right for our country,” Trump told reporters at the White House, complaining that foreign countries were ecstatic and “dancing in the street”.
He insinuated, without evidence, that the majority of the court caved to foreign influence: “They’re very unpatriotic and disloyal to our Constitution. It’s my opinion that the court has been swayed by foreign interests and a political movement that is far smaller than people would ever think.”
Since returning to the White House 13 months ago, Trump has said he had what the court summarised as the “extraordinary power to unilaterally impose tariffs of unlimited amount, duration, and scope.” Citing a national emergency, he said the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) meant he could set tariffs at any rate he chose.
The court grounded its opinion, which was written by Chief Justice John Roberts, with a quote from the US Constitution: “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises.”
The argument by the Trump administration that it had identified a war-like emergency to justify a loophole failed to persuade the court.
“The Government thus concedes, as it must, that the President enjoys no inherent authority to impose tariffs during peacetime,” Roberts wrote.
“And it does not defend the challenged tariffs as an exercise of the President’s warmaking powers. The United States, after all, is not at war with every nation in the world.”
Despite the court’s bluntness in ruling the president had exceeded his authority, Trump told reporters: “It’s ridiculous, but it’s OK, because we have other ways, numerous other ways.”
Economic uncertainty rises
After a year of Trump’s often ad hoc tariff announcements whipsawing markets and the global economy, the ruling and Trump’s response reintroduced a hefty dose of uncertainty that economists, investors and policymakers had hoped was in the rearview mirror.
“I think it will just bring in a new period of high uncertainty in world trade, as everybody tries to figure out what the US tariff policy will be going forward,” said Varg Folkman, analyst at the European Policy Centre think tank.
US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said the court ruling could have mixed results.
“The Supreme Court has taken away the President’s leverage, but in a way, they have made the leverage that he has more draconian because they agreed he does have the right to a full embargo,” Bessent told “The Will Cain Show” on Fox News.
“We will get back to the same tariff level for the countries. It will just be in a less direct and slightly more convoluted manner,” he said.
In announcing his new temporary 10% tariff, Trump became the first president to invoke Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which allows the president to levy tariffs of up to 15% for up to 150 days to fix “fundamental international payments problems.” That, too, could draw legal challenges. Such tariffs can only be extended with Congress’ authorisation.
DUBAI: Dubai Police have fined a child’s guardian AED50,000 after a minor was caught riding a recreational electric motorbike on a public street, officials said.
Traffic patrol officers stopped the child, who was accompanied by another minor, to prevent any risk to them and other road users. The bike was impounded.
Police said the guardian was summoned and must pay a 50,000 dirham fee to release the vehicle, in line with Dubai traffic rules that allow authorities to seize vehicles involved in dangerous behaviour.
Officials added that legal action was also taken under the UAE’s child protection law, which makes it a crime to put children in danger or neglect their safety.
Police warned parents not to allow underage children to ride or drive any vehicle on public roads, saying children are not physically or mentally prepared to handle traffic.
Dubai Police said strict action will continue against anyone who endangers children or public safety.
The US Supreme Court has ruled President Donald Trump’s global trade tariff measures unconstitutional and invalid, delivering a major setback to his economic agenda.The court, in its Friday ruling, stated that Trump exceeded his authority when imposing tariffs, which had significantly disrupted international trade.
It clarified that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not grant the president the power to unilaterally impose tariffs without congressional approval.
Experts say the decision is a serious blow to Trump’s economic strategy, as tariffs were a key tool in his trade policy. The ruling could also affect trade agreements implemented earlier this year and sets a precedent limiting the president’s ability to act without Congress.
It is noteworthy that President Trump had imposed tariffs on several countries, including Pakistan. Last month, he had warned that a court ruling against his tariffs could create economic challenges for the United States.
- Washington does not push for complete enrichment halt.
- “Confidence building measures” would be enacted: Iranian FM.
- US president sets 10-15 day deadline for Iran nuclear deal.
PARIS: US President Donald Trump said he was considering a limited strike on Iran after ordering a major naval buildup in the Middle East aimed at heaping pressure on Tehran to cut a deal to curb its nuclear programme.
The latest threat came after Iran’s foreign minister said a draft proposal for an agreement with Washington would be ready in a matter of days following negotiations between the two sides in Geneva earlier this week.
Trump had suggesting on Thursday that “bad things” would happen if Tehran did not strike a deal within 10 days, which he subsequently extended to 15.
Asked by a reporter on Friday whether he was contemplating a limited military strike, Trump answered: “The most I can say — I am considering it.”
After the talks in Geneva, Tehran said the two sides had agreed to submit drafts of a potential agreement, which Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi told US media would be the “next step”.
“I believe that in the next two, three days, that would be ready, and after final confirmation by my superiors, that would be handed over to Steve Witkoff,” he said, referring to Trump´s main Middle East negotiator.
Araghchi also said US negotiators had not requested that Tehran end its nuclear enrichment programme, contradicting statements from American officials.
“We have not offered any suspension, and the US side has not asked for zero enrichment,” he said in an interview released Friday by US TV network MS NOW.
“What we are now talking about is how to make sure that Iran’s nuclear programme, including enrichment, is peaceful and would remain peaceful forever,” he added.
His comments stand in contrast to information relayed by high-ranking US officials, including Trump, who has repeatedly said Iran must not be allowed to enrich uranium at any level.
Western countries accuse the Islamic republic of seeking to acquire nuclear weapons, which Tehran denies, though it insists on its right to enrichment for civilian purposes.
Iran, for its part, is seeking to negotiate an end to sanctions that have proven to be a massive drag on its economy.
Economic hardships sparked protests in December that evolved into a nationwide anti-government movement last month, prompting a crackdown from authorities that left thousands dead, rights groups say.
‘No ultimatum’
The two foes held an initial round of discussions on February 6 in Oman, the first since previous talks collapsed during the 12-day Iran-Israel war last June, which the US joined by striking Iranian nuclear facilities.
Washington has pursued a major military build-up in the region in tandem with the talks, and both sides have traded threats of military action for weeks.
On Thursday, Trump again suggested the US would attack Iran if it did not make a deal within the timeframe he laid out.
“We have to make a meaningful deal otherwise bad things happen,” Trump told the inaugural meeting of the “Board of Peace”, his initiative for the post-war Gaza Strip.
Iran’s ambassador to the UN, Amir Saeid Iravani, warned that US bases, facilities and assets would be “legitimate targets” if the United States followed through on its threats.
Araghchi, however, insisted that “there is no ultimatum”.
“We only talk with each other how we can have a fast deal. And a fast deal is something that both sides are interested about,” he said.
“We are under sanctions, (so) obviously any day that sanctions are terminated sooner it would be better for us,” he said, adding Iran had “no reason to delay”.
Cruz Beckham marks 21st birthday with romantic serenade for girlfriend
Michelle Keegan channels Hollywood glam with Jennifer Aniston’s inspired look
Explained: 10% US tariffs for 150 days globally under Section 122
-
Business1 week agoTop stocks to buy today: Stock recommendations for February 13, 2026 – check list – The Times of India
-
Politics1 week agoIndia clears proposal to buy French Rafale jets
-
Fashion1 week ago$10→ $12.10 FOB: The real price of zero-duty apparel
-
Tech1 week agoElon Musk’s X Appears to Be Violating US Sanctions by Selling Premium Accounts to Iranian Leaders
-
Tech4 days agoRakuten Mobile proposal selected for Jaxa space strategy | Computer Weekly
-
Entertainment4 days agoQueen Camilla reveals her sister’s connection to Princess Diana
-
Entertainment4 days agoRobert Duvall, known for his roles in "The Godfather" and "Apocalypse Now," dies at 95
-
Politics4 days agoRamadan moon sighted in Saudi Arabia, other Gulf countries