The Supreme Court was expected to curb Trump tariffs. Instead, the administration has rolled out a new 10% to 12.5% tariff regime on more than 80 countries that starts Friday morning.
The move landed late Thursday, just before a temporary global import levy was set to expire, according to Guardian World. The headline is trade policy. The deeper story is power: Trump is trying to keep broad import taxes alive without fresh approval from Congress, after the Supreme Court ruled in February that he had illegally used executive authority for earlier global tariffs.
Trump’s Friday tariff blitz turns trade policy into a constitutional stress test
The administration’s timing is the tell. A 150-day 10% global tariff under section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 was scheduled to expire at 12.01am, on 24 July. Rather than let that levy lapse cleanly, Trump shifted to a new legal track.
XOOMAR analysis: this is a bridge strategy. The White House lost one tariff tool at the Supreme Court, used a temporary tool to buy time, then moved to section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, which allows tariffs after US Trade Representative investigations into unfair trade practices affecting American commerce.
That turns the new Trump tariffs into more than a customs event. They test whether the executive branch can recreate broad tariff power statute by statute, even after the court said Congress controls peacetime taxing power.
Put differently, the legal center of the fight is whether a president can use delegated trade statutes to achieve what looks like a broad peacetime tax on imports.
The 10% to 12.5% tariff band puts more than 80 countries inside Trump’s new import dragnet
The Guardian says the new tariffs cover more than 80 countries, including Canada, Mexico, China, the United Kingdom, Australia, India, and the 27 countries in the European Union. Related source material citing the US Trade Representative describes 60 affected trading partners accounting for 99.4% of US imports.
XOOMAR analysis: that discrepancy looks like a counting-frame issue, countries versus trading partners or groupings. It still points to the same reality. This is broad coverage, not a narrow sector action.
The rate split is simple:
| Tariff rate | Countries described in source material | Stated basis |
|---|---|---|
| 10% | Canada, European Union, India, Mexico, United Kingdom | Countries that “have made commitments to adopt, and effectively enforce, forced labor import prohibitions” |
| 12.5% | Australia, Brazil, China, Japan | Countries that have “failed to adopt a forced labor import prohibition” |
The business effect does not need a huge rate to matter. A 10% levy can force importers to revisit landed costs, pricing terms, customs planning, inventory timing, and supplier contracts. Reported exemptions include oil and gas, fertilizer, some products that cannot be sourced domestically, and goods qualifying for duty-free treatment under the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement.
The missing details matter now: which product categories carry the largest exposure, how exemptions are documented, and how quickly Customs applies the new rates.
The legal fight over Trump’s tariff authority is now the center of the story
In February, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the 1977 law Trump invoked for his “Liberation Day” tariffs was not enough to justify the policy. The court said the power to enact tariffs during peacetime belongs to Congress.
The administration’s answer is section 301. That statute had been used sparingly before Trump’s presidency and requires USTR investigations. Source material says it is viewed by trade experts as more legally durable because it has survived previous court challenges, including Trump’s first-term China tariffs.
Still, the legal risk is not gone. Alan Wolff, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics and former deputy director-general of the World Trade Organization, wrote that the “new tariffs would represent another case of presidential overreach.”
“If they were challenged in court, the supreme court would likely overturn them,” Wolff added.
The court fight will likely turn on whether forced-labor findings can support tariffs this broad, and whether the administration is using section 301 as a targeted remedy or as a substitute for congressional tariff authority.
America has seen tariff nationalism before, but Trump’s 80-country approach is unusually sweeping
Trump has long argued that higher duties are needed to boost American manufacturing and jobs. The current package frames that argument through forced labor enforcement, not just trade deficits.
There is precedent for tougher tariffs under Trump. Source material says he used section 301 in his first term to impose large tariffs on China, and those survived court challenges. But this round reaches far beyond one country.
The scale also marks a sharp break from recent tariff levels. According to figures cited in the supplied material, the weighted average US tariff rate was around 1.4% when Trump took office in 2017, rose to 3% by the end of his first term, fell to 2.4% before Biden left office, then jumped under Trump’s “Liberation Day” policies to almost 23%, the highest level since 1909, according to the Yale Budget Lab. With the new section 301 duties factored in, the average rate is estimated at 12.8%, still the highest since World War II.
That is the real shift: tariffs are moving from episodic pressure tactic to standing feature of US economic policy.
Importers, manufacturers, consumers, and foreign governments will read the tariff order differently
For importers, the tariff is a direct cost. Source material states tariffs are paid by US companies importing foreign products, not by foreign governments. The New York Federal Reserve estimated that 90% of the economic burden from tariffs was passed to US consumers and businesses.
Consumers are already skeptical. A Harris Poll cited in the source material found 72% of Americans believe tariffs have hurt consumers, including 64% of Republican voters. The Yale Budget Lab estimates Trump’s current tariffs will cost the average US household an additional $1,100 per year.
Foreign governments now have several choices: negotiate, change forced-labor import rules, challenge the measures, or retaliate. Brazil has already rejected the 12.5% tariff on its goods in the supplied source material. Mexico’s economy minister said, “We do not see a change in the effective tariff Mexico is paying today.”
Canada is exposed in this package and in a separate tariff fight. For more on that pressure point, see XOOMAR’s coverage of Trump Canada Tariffs Drag US Buyers Into a 50% Trade Fight and 50% Trump Canada Tariffs Threaten Carney's Costly Call.
For markets and supply chains, Trump’s tariff order adds another layer of policy risk
The source material does not provide currency, bond, or equity market reactions. Any claim about immediate market pricing would be speculation.
The operational risk is clearer. Procurement teams must now model a tariff regime that may survive, change, or be blocked in court. Import-dependent companies have to decide whether to absorb costs, raise prices, front-load shipments where possible, seek exemptions, or renegotiate contracts.
The administration says business leaders want predictability. The new structure offers rates, but not certainty. If lawsuits move quickly, companies may face the same problem that followed the February ruling: tariffs paid today could become refund claims later.
Three tariff paths now dominate the next phase of Trump’s trade campaign
Three scenarios now matter.
- Court limit: judges suspend or narrow the new Trump tariffs, forcing the administration back to a tighter legal basis.
- Negotiation tool: the tariffs survive long enough to push country-by-country concessions on forced-labor import bans.
- Congressional fight: lawmakers are pulled in either to reclaim tariff authority or to codify a tougher tariff regime.
The evidence to watch is concrete: court filings, USTR country lists, exemption guidance, refund procedures, and whether trading partners move from statements to retaliation or concessions.
XOOMAR analysis: the largest consequence may not be the 10% to 12.5% rate itself. It may be the normalization of tariff policy as a permanent presidential instrument, unless courts or Congress draw a harder line.
Impact Analysis
- The tariffs could raise import costs across major US trading partners including Canada, Mexico, China, the UK, Australia, India and the EU.
- The policy tests how far a president can stretch delegated trade powers after the Supreme Court limited earlier tariff authority.
- Businesses face renewed uncertainty as a temporary global levy is replaced by a broader Section 301 strategy.
Originally published on XOOMAR. For more news and analysis, visit XOOMAR.
