US President Trump signs executive order imposing a 10 per cent global tariff on imports, hours after the US Supreme Court struck down most of his earlier wide-ranging tariffs, vowing alternative legal authority as trade tensions intensify.

On 20 February 2026, the United States Supreme Court delivered a 6–3 decision that struck down key elements of President Donald Trump’s sweeping global tariffs, ruling that he had exceeded his authority by using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) of 1977 to impose broad import duties without clear congressional authorisation.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion, emphasising that tariff powers are constitutionally assigned to the legislature, not the executive.

Within hours of the judgement, Trump signed a new executive order from the Oval Office to impose a 10 per cent tariff on most imports from all countries, citing other trade law provisions especially Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974.

The White House said the global tariff is temporary, valid for up to 150 days unless Congress extends it, and intended to address massive US trade deficits.

In a Truth Social post, Trump described the move as a continuation of his trade agenda: “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.”

A Contested Response: US Officials and Global Reaction

Trump’s announcement drew mixed reactions domestically and internationally. The administration defended the new tariffs as legally viable and economically necessary after the court’s decision, with US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer calling the strategy “legally durable” and aimed at reducing deficits.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent predicted that combined tariff measures would keep tariff revenue broadly unchanged in 2026, despite the earlier setback.

Domestic political responses were sharply divided. Some Republicans and trade hawks backed Trump’s stance, seeing it as a strong defence of American industry and worker interests. Others, including Democrats and free-trade advocates, praised the Supreme Court ruling as a reaffirmation of constitutional balance and legislative oversight on trade issues.

Internationally, the metric has also raised concerns. India and other exporters, previously subject to high duties, will now face a uniform 10 per cent tariff on their goods entering the US until the statute expires or is modified.

The White House clarified that this global tariff replaces, rather than eliminates, other existing levies, complicating export planning for many trading partners.

Background: Trump’s Trade Strategy and Legal Challenge

President Trump’s trade policy has centred on higher tariffs to reshape global commerce, a hallmark since his first administration and intensified in his ongoing political platform. Prior to the Supreme Court’s ruling, Trump had invoked emergency powers under IEEPA to levy broad “reciprocal” tariffs on imports from China, the European Union, India, and other countries.

These measures formed a central pillar of his approach to reduce trade deficits and counter what his administration termed unfair trade practices.

However, critics including economists and legal scholars challenged the legality of using emergency powers for tariffs, arguing that import duties are fundamentally a congressional power under the US Constitution.

The Supreme Court’s decision underscored this principle, stating that broad tariff imposition under IEEPA was beyond the president’s authority.

In response, Trump and his advisers pivoted to other statutory authorities. Under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, the president can impose temporary import controls in cases of a severe imbalance of payments.

Additionally, the administration signalled renewed use of Section 301 (addressing unfair trade practices) and Section 232 (national security grounds) to sustain aspects of his trade toolkit. Together, they form a multi-layered defence strategy against future legal challenges.

The legal dispute has implications beyond tariffs. With billions of dollars collected under the now-overturned regime, questions loom over potential refunds and litigation on past trade duties a process likely to unfold over years and influence investment and pricing decisions in global markets.

The Logical Indian’s Perspective

As global trade policy evolves, the most profound impacts are felt by ordinary people from producers in export-dependent regions to consumers facing potential price shifts on imported goods.

While sovereign nations have every right to safeguard their economic interests, policies that heighten trade barriers must be weighed against their effects on cooperation, mutual growth, and global stability.

The recent US tariff manoeuvres reflect deep tensions within domestic constitutional processes and international economic relations. Decisions that spark diplomatic friction and market volatility can ripple far beyond US borders, affecting jobs, prices, and livelihoods in countries, including India.

Rather than defaulting to measures that escalate tension, a balanced approach that honours constitutional governance and prioritises dialogue, collaboration, and sustainable trade partnerships is essential for peace and shared prosperity.