Why Trump is doubling down on tariffs despite the US Supreme Court ruling

Why Trump is doubling down on tariffs despite the US Supreme Court ruling

• Supreme Court blocks Trump's emergency tariff powers
• Trump imposes new tariffs using a different trade law
• Tariff uncertainty creates challenges for US businesses

Did our AI summary help?

The US Supreme Court’s 6-3 ruling against President Donald Trump’s use of emergency powers to impose sweeping tariffs was meant to be a hard stop. Instead, it has become a detour. Within hours of the decision, Trump made clear that he has no intention of backing away from tariffs as the central tool of his trade agenda.

The ruling struck down tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, saying the law does not give a president the authority to unilaterally tax imports. But it did not rule on tariffs imposed under other statutes. Trump is now leaning heavily on that gap, the New York Times reported.

What the court actually blocked

The judges ruled narrowly. They did not say tariffs themselves are illegal. They said this specific method was.

Trump had declared America’s trade deficit an “international economic emergency” and used that claim to impose tariffs on countries around the world. No previous president had interpreted the law that way. The court rejected that interpretation, effectively dismantling the legal foundation of Trump’s most aggressive tariff move.

What it did not do was limit US Congress-approved trade laws that allow presidents to impose tariffs under defined conditions.

How Trump is keeping tariffs alive

Within a day of the ruling, Trump announced a new across-the-board tariff using a different law, Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. That provision allows temporary tariffs of up to 15 percent for a limited period, without declaring an emergency.

Trump initially set the new levy at 10 percent, then quickly raised it to the maximum 15 percent. He has also signalled that additional tariffs could follow under other authorities, including laws tied to national security and unfair trade practices.

The strategy is clear. If one legal door closes, he will try another.

Why Trump insists tariffs are working

Trump argues that tariffs are forcing companies to bring manufacturing back to the United States, shrinking the trade deficit and raising revenue. He regularly cites record collections of tariff income and claims the deficit is collapsing.

The government’s own data tells a more complicated story. While imports from China dropped sharply last year, imports from countries like Vietnam, India and Mexico surged. The overall goods trade deficit hit a record high in 2025, even as some monthly figures temporarily dipped.

Those dips were driven less by structural change and more by quirks, such as companies stockpiling goods ahead of tariffs and volatile swings in gold and pharmaceutical imports.

What the data actually shows

Some parts of US manufacturing are doing well, particularly electronics and aerospace, which are largely shielded from tariffs. Other sectors hit directly by tariffs, including autos, have struggled. Manufacturing employment fell by more than 80,000 jobs over the past year.

Economists say tariffs can reduce a trade deficit, but usually by slowing the economy and reducing consumers’ ability to buy imports. That is not the kind of “success” Trump advertises.

Why uncertainty is now the real problem

The bigger impact may be instability. Businesses do not know which tariffs will stick, which will be overturned, or how long any new duties will last. Trump’s new tariffs under Section 122 expire after 150 days unless Congress steps in.

That stop-start approach makes planning difficult for companies that depend on global supply chains. It also raises the risk that tariffs become a permanent source of uncertainty rather than a clear policy lever.

The Supreme Court blocked one path. Trump is determined to keep moving forward anyway. The gamble is that persistence will eventually deliver results. The evidence so far suggests the costs are rising faster than the gains.