Trump Pivots to 15% Global Tariffs Following Supreme Court Rejection

The landscape of American trade policy underwent a seismic shift this week as the US Supreme Court issued a 6-3 ruling that invalidated the administration's primary mechanism for imposing global tariffs. The court found that President Donald Trump exceeded his constitutional authority by using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) of 1977 to levy taxes on nearly all imports. The justices emphasized that the power to raise revenue and regulate commerce resides with Congress, and that the IEEPA was intended for emergency trade regulation rather than broad revenue generation. This decision not only halts the current tariff regime but also opens a complex legal path for businesses to seek refunds for the estimated $130 billion already collected by the federal government.

In a rapid response that underscores the administration's commitment to protectionist economic policy, President Trump announced a pivot to Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. Initially proposing a 10% replacement tariff, the President quickly escalated the figure to 15%—the maximum allowed under this specific statute. This move is designed to bypass the court's restriction by utilizing a law specifically tailored to address balance-of-payment deficits. However, the legal reprieve offered by Section 122 is inherently temporary. The statute allows these tariffs to remain in place for only 150 days (approximately five months) before requiring explicit congressional approval, setting up a high-stakes legislative showdown in the coming months.

“

Allies such as the UK and Australia, which had previously negotiated specific 10% tariff deals with the US, now face uncertainty as the administration moves toward a blanket 15% rate.

For HR leaders and workforce strategists, this regulatory volatility introduces significant challenges in labor forecasting and domestic investment planning. The administration’s stated goal is to incentivize 'onshoring'—encouraging companies like Marlin Steel Wire Products to expand domestic production and hiring. Drew Greenblatt and other manufacturing executives have long argued that such protections are necessary to level the playing field against subsidized foreign competition. However, the sudden shift from a permanent-seeming tariff structure to a temporary 150-day window creates a 'wait-and-see' environment that may actually stifle long-term capital investment and permanent hiring. Companies are now forced to weigh the benefits of domestic expansion against the risk that Congress may not renew the tariffs later this year.

The impact extends beyond manufacturing into the agricultural and retail sectors. Organizations like the National Black Farmers Association, led by John Boyd, must navigate the potential for retaliatory tariffs from major trading partners like China, Mexico, and Canada. These retaliations often target American agricultural exports, directly affecting seasonal labor demand and the economic viability of domestic farming operations. Furthermore, the 15% levy on all imported goods is expected to exert upward pressure on consumer prices, potentially impacting the broader labor market through cost-push inflation and reduced consumer spending power.

International relations are equally strained by this development. Allies such as the UK and Australia, which had previously negotiated specific 10% tariff deals with the US, now face uncertainty as the administration moves toward a blanket 15% rate. This unpredictability complicates the operations of multinational corporations that rely on stable cross-border talent mobility and supply chain logistics. As the February 24 effective date approaches, the primary focus for the business community will be the potential for a massive refund process for the $130 billion in IEEPA-era duties, a process that legal experts suggest could take years to resolve in the lower courts. Workforce planners should prepare for a period of intense regulatory flux as the administration tests the limits of executive power against a newly assertive judiciary and an impending congressional deadline.