What Trump’s shifting tariffs, price hikes and Supreme Court battles really mean for US consumers

US President Donald Trump

US President Donald Trump’s second-term tariff regime has expanded rapidly and unpredictably. The White House has introduced new levies, modified existing ones and rolled others back, sometimes within weeks. Recent executive orders have added fees on goods ranging from computer chips and steel to Brazilian exports and British products, while carving out exemptions for companies willing to boost American manufacturing. On Friday, Trump paused tariffs on a wide range of food and agricultural products, adding another layer of complexity, the Washington Post reported.

As a result, importers often have trouble keeping track of what they owe, and shoppers are left guessing why familiar items suddenly cost more. The lack of a single coherent framework has turned tariff policy into a moving target that depends on economic goals, national security arguments and negotiations with individual countries.

The Supreme Court challenge that could upend the system The most significant threat to the tariff regime now sits before the US Supreme Court. Two high-profile cases, backed by small businesses and heavyweight political supporters, argue that Trump exceeded his authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. That law allows the president to respond to national emergencies, but it has never been used by any administration to impose sweeping tariffs.

During oral arguments, the challengers warned that allowing the president to treat tariffs as an emergency tool would give the executive branch unchecked taxation power. The Justice Department countered that Trump’s declaration of a national emergency over the trade deficit gave him the legal basis to act. The stakes are unusually high: if the court rules against the administration, most of the tariffs imposed through IEEPA may collapse at once, reshaping trade policy overnight.

Tariffs that are not in danger Even if the Supreme Court strikes down the IEEPA tariffs, several major levies will stay intact. The administration also uses long-standing trade laws to target specific industries, most notably steel, aluminium, copper and various manufacturing inputs. These sector-based tariffs rely on authorities that previous presidents have used for decades, making them immune from the current legal challenge.

This fallback gives the administration room to reimpose some version of its countrywide tariffs through alternative channels if necessary. But for now, the uncertainty has businesses watching the court closely to understand how much exposure they face.

Why everyday prices have risen Tariffs have filtered through the economy in predictable ways: higher import costs, tighter supply chains and elevated retail prices. Toys, cars, bananas, coffee and home goods are among the items that have become noticeably more expensive. Retailers including Walmart and Home Depot have publicly acknowledged that the levies forced them to raise prices, and economists note that companies ultimately cannot absorb these added costs for long.

A Tax Foundation analysis of Harvard data suggests that tariffs have pushed retail prices almost five percentage points higher. The Budget Lab at Yale estimates an average household income loss of about $1,800 this year from tariff-related inflation. Trump’s recent exemption of agricultural goods may ease grocery prices slightly, but the broader inflationary effect will take time to unwind.

Trade negotiations that shape who pays To offset the tariff burden, the administration has reached preliminary trade understandings with dozens of countries, promising lower levies in return for better market access and manufacturing commitments. The European Union accepted a 15 percent tariff rate, and the United Kingdom agreed to a 10 percent rate after bilateral talks.

However, negotiations with China and Canada remain strained. The United States and China recently struck a one-year deal to secure rare earth minerals, but the narrow scope of the agreement leaves strategic uncertainty. Talks with Canada stalled after an Ontario advertisement criticizing tariffs angered Trump, prompting threats of an additional 10 percent levy. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney apologized, but discussions have not resumed.

What new tariffs may be on the way Several industry investigations are already underway, covering sectors such as commercial aircraft, wind turbines, robotics and specific medical equipment. These inquiries could lead to new tariffs imposed under laws unrelated to the current court challenge. Even if the IEEPA-based tariffs fall, these industry-specific actions ensure that Trump’s tariff agenda will continue to evolve.

Will consumers receive refunds? It is highly unlikely. While Trump has floated the idea of rebates to individual Americans, such a program would be costly, complicated and politically contentious. Most tariff payments are made by importers, not consumers, and no mechanism exists to pass refunds along to households.

Will businesses receive refunds? Refunds are possible but would depend heavily on the Supreme Court’s ruling. Under existing customs law, importers can dispute duties and seek refunds within set deadlines. If the court invalidates the tariffs, businesses may file thousands of claims unless the government creates a streamlined refund process. Congress could step in, but even then, payouts may take years. During oral arguments, the government agreed to repay the companies directly involved in the case, but for the broader business community, the outcome is far from certain.

A tariff system with growing risks The combined uncertainty from rapid policy shifts, legal battles and fraying alliances has created a trade landscape that is harder to navigate than at any time in decades. While the administration argues that tariffs protect national security and revive American manufacturing, the costs are already visible in store aisles, grocery bills and business balance sheets. Consumers, importers and foreign governments are all adjusting to a system whose rules can change overnight—and whose future may depend on a single Supreme Court decision.