President Donald Trump announced an increase in the global tariff from 10% to 15%, after calling Friday's Supreme Court decision overturning his trade policy "ridiculous" and "un-American." The White House announced that in the coming months new "legally permissible" levies will be issued as part of its renewed economic agenda, promoted under a 1974 law.

First modification: 02/21/2026 - 17:28 Last modification: 02/21/2026 - 22:05

US President Donald Trump announced on Saturday, February 21, on his social network, Truth, that he will immediately raise the global tariff from 10% to 15%, after the Supreme Court invalidated the scaffolding of his tariff policy based on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).

The Republican, who called the Supreme Court decision "ridiculous, poorly worded and extraordinarily un-American", has renewed his imposition of tariffs under another rule: the Trade Act of 1974.

Under this new legal umbrella, on Friday, February 20, he signed an executive order to impose a temporary 10% import tariff on all countries, with the aim of "addressing fundamental international payments problems" and continuing to "rebalance" United States trade relations. But that amount was not enough for that reckoning, judging by Saturday's percentage update.

Dr. Sergio Ocampo, professor at the University of Western Ontario (Canada) and PhD in Economics at the University of Minnesota, explained to France 24 that "these tariffs are motivated in law by a need to control the balance of payments and, therefore, they cannot be used against a specific country or applied specifically to a product, but must be broad in action (for all countries and all products)."

In the coming months, the Trump Administration will determine and issue new "legally permissible" tariffs, under what the president described as an "extraordinarily successful" process to "make America great again, greater than ever before."

In his message, the Republican stated that several countries have been "swindling" the United States for decades "without retaliation."

To display this Truth Social content, you must allow advertising and audience measurement cookies.

Ocampo warned that "potential legal problems with these new tariffs would come when the 150-day limit imposed by law is met, or if the administration tries to interpret the law to impose tariffs on a single country or on a single product."

Trump digs into the folds of the law

Donald Trump is looking for options in legislation to shield his tariff policy, after the Supreme Court struck down – in a vote of 6 to 3 – his massive impositions under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), considering that this text "does not authorize the president to impose tariffs."

This Saturday, Trump defended that his new tariff on a planetary scale is "fully permitted and legally proven."

The Republican now relies on Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. That regulation gives the president temporary authority to impose restrictive measures on imports in response to "serious international payments problems", a tool designed for macroeconomic crises, such as persistent deficits in the balance of payments or imminent depreciation of the dollar.

The law allows Trump to impose tariffs of up to 15% on imports, import quotas, or both, applied broadly and uniformly to products, with exceptions limited by U.S. economic needs.

Sergio Ocampo considers it "very unlikely that the Supreme Court will annul the new measures taken by the Administration", as it did with the IEEPA, since "they are based on statutes that directly grant the president the power to impose tariffs", although this power is more "restricted".

The rule establishes that the validity of the measure cannot exceed 150 days. After this, it will only be extendable through Congress.

To display this YouTube content, you must allow advertising and audience measurement cookies.

An extension on your browser appears to be blocking the video player from loading. In order to view this content, you must disable it on this site.

Trump can suspend, modify or terminate the imposition of tariffs at any time during this period, something that is not entirely unusual for the Republican, who is accustomed to renegotiating or suspending tariffs shortly after imposing them.

An example of this was the trade clash with China, which escalated to mutual tariffs of up to 145% in May 2025, before an agreement between both economic powers reduced the increase for China to 30% and for the US to 10%, for 90 days.

Read alsoTrump threatens a 100% tariff on Chinese products

Mexico, the United Kingdom and the European Union are other US trade partners that have managed to renegotiate the White House's tariff rates, although today they doubt that it is a stable guarantee over time.

Uncertainty between business partners

Some White House trade partners who had renegotiated their deals with Trump in 2025 are now caught between relief from the end of the IEEPA tariffs and the uncertainty of the new global tax.

Canada, Mexico, the United Kingdom and the European Union (EU) are especially sensitive due to the volume of trade involved and the political capital invested in recent pacts with the White House.

Canada and Mexico, for example, have renegotiated some tariff impositions with the United States, but are now holding their breath until Washington details whether those items will be exempt from the newly announced global tariff.

Sergio Ocampo, PhD in economics, maintains that "in the case of Canada and Mexico, the North American trade agreement that replaced NAFTA in Trump's first term remains in place and, therefore, the vast majority of products remain exempt."

The analyst emphasizes that the sectors contemplated in that agreement, which were not affected by the tariffs imposed under IEEPA, "represent between 80% and 90% of the trade of these countries with the United States."

Likewise, the United Kingdom agreed with Trump to limit part of the “reciprocal” IEEPA tariffs in May 2025. The agreement implied a reduction to 10% of taxes on British cars and the total elimination of taxes on steel.

A White House spokesperson revealed to the BBC on Friday that the United Kingdom will pay the new 10% global rate, replacing the negotiated rates, which de facto erases the advantages agreed to last year.

The European Union, which agreed to tariff "ceilings" under IEEPA, also remains expectant in the face of Washington's new economic offensive.

The European Commission on Friday asked the United States to reduce tariffs. "Companies on both sides of the Atlantic depend on the stability and predictability of the commercial relationship," said the Community Executive's Commerce spokesperson, Olof Gil, in writing.

Millionaire train crash

The confrontation between the Executive and Judicial branches of the United States over Trump's tariff impositions compromises millionaire funds collected by Washington in the last fiscal year.

The Supreme Court ruling does not order automatic refunds of tariffs collected under that Trump policy, but by declaring IEEPA rates illegal it opens the door to massive claims by importers before Customs and trade courts.

Thus, some $175 billion in tariff revenue collected in 2025 would be subject to possible refunds, according to estimates provided to Reuters by economists at Penn-Wharton Budget Model, a figure that exceeds the combined annual spending of the United States Departments of Transportation and Justice.

"That is a large part of the total tariffs collected in 2025, which together are 264 billion dollars," highlights Dr. Sergio Ocampo, professor at the University of Ontario, which means that the United States is at risk for close to 60% of the taxes collected in the last year.

An independent public policy research center at Yale University estimated Friday that if the 10% global tariff remained in effect for the 150 days allowed by law, the United States would raise an additional $30 billion.

However, the entity noted that "given the negative effects of tariffs on production, these new revenues will be partially offset by reductions in tax collection as a result of lower growth."

Related keywords

The content you requested does not exist or is no longer available.