The United States imposes a 10% global tariff, Trump has not yet implemented the threat to raise it to 15%.

After the Supreme Court of the United States ruled last week that some tariff measures were illegal, the U.S. government quickly rebuilt the tariff system. On Tuesday, importers began applying a global uniform tariff rate of 10%, which is lower than the 15% threatened by President Trump over the weekend. Last Friday, the Supreme Court ruled that the Trump administration could not impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), declaring approximately 60% of last year's tariffs illegitimate and dealing a blow to a key part of Trump's economic agenda. White House officials emphasized that there were already "alternative plans" in place. Within hours of the ruling being announced, Trump announced that a 10% tariff would be imposed under Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act, and he signed an executive order to implement it. He later took to social media on Saturday to say that the rate would be raised to 15%. It's important to note that under Section 122, tariffs can only be maintained for a maximum of 150 days. The government stated that they are preparing to take more permanent tariff measures under Section 301 of the 1974 Trade Act after completing investigations and soliciting public opinion. This arrangement has raised new uncertainties, especially for countries that have already reached trade agreements with the United States. Since Section 122 requires a uniform tariff rate to be applied to all imports, raising the rate to 15% would violate tariff commitments in agreements already reached with the EU, the UK, South Korea, Japan, and others. On Tuesday, a notice issued by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to importers still showed a tariff rate of 10%, inconsistent with Trump's previous statement of raising it to 15%. The White House and the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative have not responded to whether they still plan to implement the 15% tariff rate. Policy experts point out that if the rate is to be raised, a new executive order will need to be signed and published in the Federal Register. However, Henrietta Treyz, Director of Economic Policy Research at Veda Partners, believes that the government is unlikely to increase this temporary tariff rate given the potential risks to existing agreements and the requirement that the Section 122 tariff rate must be universally applied. In the short term, most trading partners are expected to hold their ground. Industry insiders believe that what will truly drive countries to the negotiating table is not the tariffs already in place, but the threat of a significant increase in the future. Patrick Childress, a partner at Holland & Knight and former Assistant Chief Counsel at the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, stated that this threat still exists, and that even without bilateral agreements, the overall bargaining logic will not change significantly. At a policy conference of the National Association for Business Economics, Daniel Clifton, Director of Policy Research at Strategas, estimated that if tariffs remain at 10%, U.S. annual tariff revenue will decrease by about $140 billion; if raised to 15%, revenue will decrease by about $70 billion. He pointed out that under a 10% tariff rate, many countries including Brazil and India will receive short-term tariff relief. Clifton believes that Section 122 is more of a time-buying measure for future taxation under Section 301; at the same time, the government may use industry-specific tariffs under Section 232 as a supplement to make up for the tariff revenue lost through IEEPA. However, he also emphasized that he has never seen the Section 301 process completed within five months, which may lead the government to maintain the tariffs as a "transitional bridge" in the months leading up to the midterm elections, at which point the cost of living will become a focus of voter attention. Even though the tariff rate is temporarily lower, businesses still receive a clear signal that the government will continue to use tariffs as a tool. This means that businesses that initially chose to absorb the cost of tariffs may instead pass it on to consumers. Emily Blanchard, Associate Professor at the Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth College and former economic economist at the U.S. State Department, pointed out that businesses may increase their bargaining power with overseas suppliers and more actively adjust their supply chain layout. In terms of market expectations, institutions generally predict that tariff levels will fall this year. Ulrike Hoffmann-Burchardi, Global Equity Director at UBS Global Wealth Management, stated in a report that with Trump's tariff authority restricted, the overall effective tariff rate is expected to drop to the 10% to 15% range this year, which will marginally improve U.S. household spending capacity and alleviate inflation concerns. Prior estimates by the Yale Budget Lab indicated that before the Supreme Court ruling, the average effective tariff rate in the United States was around 16%.