US Supreme Court’s recent striking down of President Donald Trump’s tariff framework could lift the policy outlook and influence the current climate of uncertainty. A recent report by SBI Research has suggested that countries may have to negotiate with a “counter-intuitive” approach in the interim phase, given that the final say on tariff matters rests with a closely divided US Congress.It further cautioned that the interaction between inter-sovereign treaties and the actions of juristic persons on tariff issues could complicate, and possibly disrupt, the effort to establish a consistent tariff regime.

“Unscrapping of the tariff structure by the Court(s) can upend uncertainty going forward while jurisdictions need to put in place counter intuitive negotiation to position themselves strategically in the intermittent period where ultimate power lies with a delicately balanced US Congress,” the report stated.The assessment comes after a landmark judgment by the US Supreme Court, which invalidated the President’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), 1977, to levy tariffs. SBI Research pointed out that the statute had never previously been deployed by any President for tariff imposition and has limited grounding during peacetime.Meanwhile, after the verdict, the executive branch has turned to Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 to introduce a temporary 10% global tariff on all imports into the United States. The report highlighted that this is the first time Section 122 powers have been exercised. The measure will come into force on 24 February 2026 and is set to run for 150 days, ending in July unless Congress approves its continuation.Under provisions of the Trade Act, the President may impose temporary import surcharges of up to 15% or apply quotas to address balance of payments concerns. Such actions, however, cannot extend beyond 150 days unless lawmakers pass legislation to prolong them.The newly imposed 10% tariff includes carve-outs. Goods from Canada and Mexico that meet the requirements of the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) are exempt, as are certain national security tariffs that are already operational.SBI Research expects the administration to use the interim window to complete investigations and potentially impose tariffs through Section 301 and Section 232 mechanisms.The report also observed that the court’s ruling may not fully block Trump from introducing similar tariffs under other statutory authorities.It further warned of implications for existing trade arrangements. Because IEEPA-related tariffs have supported trade agreements worth trillions of dollars, including those involving China, the United Kingdom and Japan, the judgment could create fresh uncertainty around several current deals, the report said.

Donald Trump has increased global tariffs to 15 per cent as he hit out at a Supreme Court ruling that struck down his previous import levies, calling the ruling “terrible” and branding the justices who rejected his trade policy as “fools”.

On Friday, the US president said he would replace the tariffs axed by the court with a 10 per cent tax on all goods entering the US. But in a post on Truth Social on Saturday he announced plans to increase this to 15 per cent.

The US president’s “reciprocal tariffs”, imposed on most of the rest of the world last April under an emergency powers law, were overturned by the US Supreme Court on Friday in a major blow to the president’s economic agenda.

But he doubled down on imposing levies following the decision, claiming the court “has been swayed by foreign interests” and other countries were “dancing in the streets, but they won’t be dancing for long, that I can assure you”.

The UK scrambled to respond in the wake of the announcement, with ministers saying they expect the country’s “privileged trading position with the US” to continue following the Supreme Court’s ruling.

The UK received the lowest tariff rate of 10 per cent, and a subsequent deal struck by Sir Keir Starmer and Mr Trump saw further carve-outs for Britain’s steel industry and car manufacturers.

The US president’s latest tariff announcements raise questions over whether those deals still stand, although officials are understood to believe it will not impact on most of the UK’s trade with America, including preferential deals on steel, cars and pharmaceuticals.

Posting on Truth Social on Saturday afternoon, Mr Trump said: “I, as President of the United States of America, will be, effective immediately, raising the 10% Worldwide Tariff on Countries, many of which have been ‘ripping’ the U.S. off for decades, without retribution (until I came along!), to the fully allowed, and legally tested, 15% level.”

It came after a post on Friday evening said: “It is my Great Honor to have just signed, from the Oval Office, a Global 10 per cent Tariff on all Countries, which will be effective almost immediately. Thank you for your attention to this matter! PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP”

He later added in a follow-up post criticising the Supreme Court Justices who ruled against his levies: “Their decision was ridiculous but, now the adjustment process begins, and we will do everything possible to take in even more money than we were taking in before!”

Speaking at the White House earlier, Mr Trump said the Supreme Court decision affirmed his ability to charge more tariffs under different statutes.

He said: “In order to protect our country, a president can actually charge more tariffs than I was charging in the past… period of a year.

“Under the various tariffs authorities, so we can use other of the statutes, other of the tariff authorities, which have also been confirmed and are fully allowed.

“Therefore, effective immediately, all national security tariffs under Section 232 and existing Section 301 tariffs, they’re existing, they’re there, remain in place, fully in place. And in full force.

“Today I will sign an order to impose a 10 per cent global tariff under Section 122, over and above our normal tariffs already being charged.

“And we’re also initiating several Section 301 and other investigations to protect our country from unfair trading practises of other countries and companies.”

A UK government spokesperson said: “This is a matter for the US to determine but we will continue to support UK businesses as further details are announced.

“Under any scenario, we expect our privileged trading position with the US to continue and will work with the administration to understand how the ruling will affect tariffs for the UK and the rest of the world.”

open image in gallery

It was an updated version of a statement released earlier in response to the court ruling, but removed a reference to the UK enjoying “the lowest reciprocal tariffs globally”.

In the wake of the announcement, Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey said the UK government should sue Mr Trump for $100bn for the damage caused to the UK by trade tariffs, arguing it is “the only language he understands”.

He branded Mr Trump the “most dangerous, damaging US president of modern times” as he welcomed the “brilliant” decision by the US Supreme Court on Friday.

It came after Mr Trump said that some trade deals negotiated after he imposed his reciprocal tariffs will no longer be valid after the US Supreme Court ruling.

“Some of them stand. Many of them stand. Some of them won’t, and they’ll be replaced with the other tariffs,” he said.

When he first announced the 10 per cent “global tariff”, the US president said it would be in place for around five months.

“We’re going straight ahead with 10 per cent straight across the board… and then during that period of about five months, we are doing the various investigations necessary to put fair tariffs, or tariffs period, on other countries.

“So we’re doing that, period, but we’re immediately instituting the 10 per cent provision, which we’re allowed to do. And in the end, I think we’re taking more money than we’ve taken in before.”

The US has collected more than $133bn (£98.4bn) since Mr Trump imposed the tariffs, but now faces the prospect of having to refund that money to importers.

Friday’s decision, approved by a 6-3 majority, found that a 1977 law did not give Mr Trump the power to impose tariffs without the approval of the US Congress.

The British Chambers of Commerce (BCC) said the decision did little to “clear the murky waters for business” around US tariffs.

William Bain, head of trade policy at the BCC, said Mr Trump could use other legislation to reimpose tariffs.

He said: “For the UK, the priority remains bringing tariffs down wherever possible. It’s important the UK government continues to negotiate on issues like steel and aluminium tariffs and reduces the scope of other possible duties.”

Campaign group Best for Britain said the decision “underlines the instability of doing deals with Trump’s USA and the importance of forging deeper, more reliable trade with our EU neighbours”.

Slovakia’s Prime Minister Robert Fico threatened on Saturday to cut off emergency electricity supplies to Ukraine unless Kyiv acts within two days to resume the pumping of Russian oil to Slovakia over Ukraine’s territory, cut off for nearly a month.

Slovakia, along with Hungary, is one of just two EU countries that still rely on significant amounts of Russian oil shipped via the Soviet-era Druzhba pipeline over Ukraine. Both also have leaders that have maintained close relations with Moscow, bucking a largely pro-Ukrainian European consensus.

Russian oil through the main Druzhba pipe has been cut off since January 27, when Kyiv says a Russian drone strike hit pipeline equipment in Western Ukraine. Slovakia and Hungary have become increasingly vocal this week in demanding it resume.

Slovakia, meanwhile, is also a major source of European electricity for Ukraine, needed as Russian attacks have damaged its grid. Energy sector experts say Slovakia provided 18% of record-setting Ukrainian electricity imports last month.

“If oil supplies to Slovakia are not resumed on Monday, I will ask SEPS, the state-owned joint-stock company, to stop emergency electricity supplies to Ukraine,” Fico said in a post on X.

Ukraine has proposed alternative transit routes to ship oil to Europe while emergency pipeline repair works are under way. In a letter seen by Reuters, the Ukrainian mission to the EU proposed shipments through Ukraine’s oil transportation system or a maritime route, potentially including the Odesa-Brody pipeline linking Ukraine’s main Black Sea port to the EU.