President Donald Trump Signs Order Imposing 10% Global Tariff on All Imports After Supreme Court Strikes Down His Tariffs

President Donald Trump signed an executive order hours after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that his prior, broader tariffs exceeded presidential authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).

“PHILADELPHIA (WPVI) --Small business owners say there's uncertainty after President Trump announced plans to impose a new global tarifffollowing a Supreme Court decisionthat struck down most of his broader tariff agenda”

6abc Philadelphia

The White House and multiple outlets described the new measure as a 10% global tariff or surcharge.

6abc Philadelphia

The administration announced the measure on social media and in the Oval Office, framing it as a temporary levy to address trade imbalances and preserve tariff revenue while it pivots to alternate legal authorities.

The proclamation/ order is reported to take effect Feb. 24 (or "almost immediately" in some accounts) and to last 150 days unless Congress acts to extend it.

The legal backdrop was the Supreme Court's 6–3 decision that the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not authorize the president to impose tariffs or duties, a ruling that multiple outlets characterize as a major rebuke and a separation-of-powers assertion.

Chief Justice John Roberts' majority opinion, repeatedly quoted in the coverage, emphasized that IEEPA contains no reference to tariffs and that Congress would have to delegate such fiscal powers explicitly.

@globaltimesnews

The Court left open narrower authorities and sector-specific statutes not grounded in emergency powers, so targeted tariffs under other laws remain a live option.

Coverage converges on the administration’s chosen legal vehicle for the new 10% duty: Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974.

Commentators note that Section 122 permits ad valorem duties for up to 150 days to address balance-of-payments problems but is untested for a blanket global tariff and would require congressional action for extension.

Outlets also report numerous exemptions and carve-outs in the proclamation, including goods covered by other probes (like pharmaceuticals), items under the USMCA with Canada and Mexico, and sometimes vaguely defined critical minerals, electronics and certain agricultural products.

The administration said existing Section 301 and Section 232 measures would remain in place and that negotiated concessions may still be honored.

Reactions in the press and among officials differed sharply.

Business groups and markets showed modest relief in some accounts after the Court limited the president's emergency powers.

ABC7 Los Angeles

Trade partners and EU officials said they would 'analyse carefully' and keep options open.

Trump publicly denounced the justices who ruled against him in strong terms in many outlets' reporting.

Some regional outlets documented his claims that tariff threats had achieved geopolitical outcomes, for example averting an India–Pakistan escalation.

The coverage consistently attributes those claims to Trump rather than endorsing them as fact.

Legal and economic uncertainty remains: coverage repeatedly flags unresolved questions about refunds for duties already collected, with some estimates of very large potential liabilities, the prospect of new litigation, and whether the Section 122 proclamation will withstand court review.

“Former President Trump said tariffs had stopped a potentially nuclear India–Pakistan war, claiming Pakistan’s prime minister told him Trump “saved 35 million lives” by threatening 200% tariffs”

ABP Live English

Analysts and legal experts cited in multiple pieces suggest the aftermath could be 'a mess' for refunds and litigation, and outlets note that other statutory routes, including Section 301 and Section 232, remain available and could be used to pursue country-specific tariffs or probes instead.

ABP Live English