Trump Pivots to Section 122 for 10% Global Tariff After Supreme Court Defeat

The Trump administration has executed a rapid legal pivot following a significant rebuke from the U.S. Supreme Court regarding the limits of executive trade authority. By invoking Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, the President is attempting to bypass the court's restriction on using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) for broad-based tariffs. This move introduces a 10% global surcharge, effective February 24, specifically aimed at addressing balance-of-payments deficits. For supply chain leaders, this represents a shift from permanent emergency-based duties to a temporary, high-impact surcharge that complicates long-term cost modeling and procurement strategies.

The Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision in the case represents a rare instance of the conservative-leaning court checking executive authority on trade. Chief Justice John Roberts, joined by Justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, held that the IEEPA does not grant the President the explicit power to levy duties—a power constitutionally reserved for Congress. This ruling threatened to dismantle the administration's protectionist framework, but the immediate invocation of Section 122 suggests the White House was prepared with a contingency plan to maintain its trade agenda despite the legal setback.

“

The new 10% global tariff actually represents a nominal reduction in the immediate levy for Indian goods compared to the previous 18% rate, yet the White House has been quick to signal that this is not a softening of its stance.

Section 122 is a distinct legal instrument that allows for a temporary import surcharge of up to 15% for a duration of 150 days. While it provides the President with a legal workaround, it is inherently time-limited and requires a specific justification related to the national balance of payments. This creates a period of intense volatility for global logistics. Importers must now navigate a landscape where tariffs are applied over and above existing Section 232 national security duties and Section 301 unfair trade practice duties. The cumulative effect on landed costs could be staggering for industries reliant on raw materials and intermediate goods from overseas markets.

The impact on India is particularly noteworthy in this regulatory shift. Under the previous IEEPA-based regime, Indian imports were facing an 18% tariff as part of an interim trade deal. The new 10% global tariff actually represents a nominal reduction in the immediate levy for Indian goods compared to the previous 18% rate, yet the White House has been quick to signal that this is not a softening of its stance. President Trump’s comments regarding Prime Minister Narendra Modi suggest a transactional relationship where the U.S. expects strict adherence to trade deals. The administration’s insistence that India will continue to pay tariffs while the U.S. does not underscores a protectionist philosophy that remains the cornerstone of current U.S. trade policy.

From a logistics perspective, the 150-day window mandated by Section 122 is the most critical factor for operational planning. Supply chain managers typically plan in six-to-twelve-month cycles; a 150-day surcharge creates a fiscal cliff that makes pricing and inventory strategy nearly impossible to stabilize. If the administration cannot find a more permanent legal footing or reach new legislative agreements with Congress within this window, the tariffs could lapse or be subject to further litigation. This approach of governing trade via executive order keeps global partners in a state of perpetual negotiation and uncertainty.

Looking ahead, the industry should prepare for potential retaliatory measures from major trade partners who may view the pivot to Section 122 as an aggressive use of a temporary tool for permanent policy goals. While India has maintained a diplomatic tone, other nations may not be as restrained. The global supply chain must now account for not just the 10% surcharge, but the administrative burden of navigating a rapidly shifting regulatory environment where the legal basis for trade costs can change over a single weekend. Analysts should watch for whether Congress attempts to reclaim its constitutional authority over trade or if the 150-day surcharge becomes a recurring temporary fixture.