President Trump signed a proclamation from the Oval Office imposing a ten percent tariff on imports from every country in the world, moving within hours of a Supreme Court decision that struck down his broader tariff regime built on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The new duties, authorized under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, take effect February 24 at 12:01 a.m. Eastern time and will remain in place for 150 days.
The speed of the response tells you everything about the White House's posture. The Court closed one door. Trump walked through another before the ink was dry.
According to Breitbart, the Court ruled 6-3 that Trump's sweeping tariffs imposed under IEEPA, a 1977 law granting the president emergency economic powers, exceeded the statute's authority. Chief Justice John Roberts joined Justices Barrett, Gorsuch, Jackson, Kagan, and Sotomayor in the majority. Justices Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh dissented.
The ruling marked the first time the high court has definitively struck down one of Trump's second-term policies. That distinction matters, not because it signals weakness, but because it clarifies the legal terrain. IEEPA was a blunt instrument for trade policy. The Court said so. The question was always what comes next.
Kavanaugh, in his dissent, suggested there may be a "path forward for future tariffs." That language is worth watching. It signals that even among the dissenters, the legal argument isn't about whether a president can impose tariffs. It's about which statute authorizes them.
Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 gives the president authority to impose temporary surcharges and special import restrictions to address what the White House described as "certain fundamental international payment problems." It is a narrower tool than IEEPA, with a built-in 150-day shelf life. But it is a tool Congress explicitly placed in the president's hands.
Trump framed the move in characteristically direct terms. Announcing the signing on Truth Social, he wrote:
"It is my Great Honor to have just signed, from the Oval Office, a Global 10% Tariff on all Countries, which will be effective almost immediately. Thank you for your attention to this matter!"
In a separate statement, Trump laid out the broader strategy beyond the Section 122 proclamation:
"Effective immediately, all national security tariffs under Section 232 and existing Section 301 tariffs remain in place — fully in place, and in full force and effect. Today, I will sign an order to impose a ten percent global tariff under Section 122, over and above our normal tariffs already being charged. And, we're also initiating several Section 301 and other investigations, to protect our country from unfair trading practices of other countries and companies."
That last detail deserves attention. The Section 301 investigations are the longer game. Section 122 buys 150 days. The investigations lay the groundwork for permanent, country-specific trade actions with independent legal authority. This isn't a stopgap. It's a transition.
The Supreme Court's decision was significant, but it wasn't total. The tariffs built on IEEPA fell. Everything else stayed standing:
What the Court actually removed was the April "Liberation Day" framework: the general ten percent tariff on imports from nearly all countries and the steeper rates on nations the administration deemed trade violators. Trump's response was to reimpose the baseline ten percent rate under a different legal authority within hours.
The net effect, at least for the next 150 days, is that the general tariff rate snaps back to roughly where it was before the ruling. The targeted, higher rates on specific countries are gone for now. The investigations Trump announced are how those come back on firmer legal footing.
There is a legitimate constitutional conversation embedded in this story, and conservatives should engage it honestly. The Court's majority concluded that IEEPA was not designed to be a general-purpose tariff authority. That is a textual argument, and textualism is supposed to be our thing. Congress wrote IEEPA for financial sanctions and asset freezes during genuine emergencies. Using it to restructure global trade was always going to invite judicial scrutiny.
The more interesting question is why Congress has left trade authority so fragmented across decades-old statutes in the first place. Section 122 exists because Congress recognized the president needs flexibility on trade. Section 301 exists for the same reason. IEEPA was a stretch, but the impulse behind it, that America needs tools to confront predatory trading partners, is not controversial outside of Washington think tanks and faculty lounges.
If Congress wants to clarify the boundaries of presidential trade authority, it can pass a law. It has had decades to do so. The fact that it hasn't is Trump's problem. It's Congress's abdication.
The clock is now running. Section 122's 150-day limit means this tariff expires unless Congress acts or the administration transitions to permanent authorities through the Section 301 investigations now underway. That timeline is the story to watch over the coming months.
Critics will frame this as improvisation. It reads more like a legal contingency plan executed at speed. The White House had the proclamation ready. The fact sheet was drafted. The Section 301 investigations were lined up. This was not a scramble. It was the next page in the playbook.
The Supreme Court told the administration it picked the wrong statute. The administration picked a different one the same afternoon.