Trump Defies Supreme Court, Pivots to 1962 Act for New 10% Global Tariffs

The United States has entered a period of intense constitutional and economic volatility following President Donald Trump’s defiant response to a landmark Supreme Court ruling. The court’s six-to-three decision, which effectively stripped the executive branch of its ability to use the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to unilaterally impose tariffs, represents one of the most significant judicial checks on trade policy in decades. By ruling that the power to levy tariffs in peacetime resides exclusively with Congress, the court has challenged the administration’s protectionist trade architecture. However, the President’s immediate pivot to the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 suggests that the administration is prepared to engage in a prolonged legal and political battle to maintain its agenda.

The President’s rhetoric following the decision was notably aggressive, even by historical standards. Labeling the Supreme Court a “disgrace” and accusing justices of being “swayed by foreign interests,” Trump has signaled a deepening rift between the White House and the judiciary. The fact that three conservative justices joined the liberal wing to form the majority underscores a growing judicial consensus that executive emergency powers have been stretched beyond their statutory intent. By characterizing these conservative justices as “unpatriotic and disloyal,” the President is not merely contesting a legal ruling but is challenging the institutional legitimacy of the court itself, a move that could have long-term implications for the separation of powers.

“

The United States has entered a period of intense constitutional and economic volatility following President Donald Trump’s defiant response to a landmark Supreme Court ruling.

From a market perspective, the pivot to a 10 percent global tariff for a 150-day window introduces a new layer of uncertainty for global supply chains. The administration’s reliance on the Trade Expansion Act of 1962—specifically Section 232, which pertains to national security—is a tactical shift designed to bypass the IEEPA restrictions. This stop-gap measure allows the administration to keep levies in place while conducting broader investigations into what it terms unfair trade practices. Economists at firms like Oxford Economics, including lead economist Bernard Yaros, have previously warned that such broad-based tariffs act as a regressive tax on domestic consumers and can lead to retaliatory measures from trading partners, potentially dampening global GDP growth.

The immediate impact on the private sector is likely to be a scramble for exemptions and a re-evaluation of import costs. A 10 percent across-the-board tariff, even if framed as temporary, disrupts the pricing models of industries ranging from automotive manufacturing to consumer electronics. The 150-day timeframe mentioned by the President suggests a period of intense lobbying and diplomatic friction. If the administration uses this window to launch Section 301 investigations—which allow for tariffs as a remedy for foreign trade barriers—the temporary 10 percent levy could evolve into a more permanent and complex web of duties.

Looking ahead, the central question for investors and policy analysts is whether the Trade Expansion Act will survive the same level of judicial scrutiny that felled the IEEPA-based tariffs. While the 1962 Act provides broader latitude for national security justifications, the current Supreme Court has shown an increasing appetite for the major questions doctrine, which requires clear congressional authorization for policies with vast economic and political significance. As the administration moves straight ahead with its 10 percent plan, the stage is set for a secondary round of litigation that will test the limits of executive authority in the modern global economy. For now, the administration’s strategy appears to be one of persistent escalation, using every available legal lever to maintain a high-tariff environment regardless of judicial setbacks.