Trump 10pc tariffs plan raises fresh uncertainty for global trade

Trump tariffs

Trump 10pc tariffs are emerging as a backup weapon in Washington’s trade arsenal as legal scrutiny intensifies. Trump 10pc tariffs would act as a temporary bridge if the Supreme Court strikes down his 2025 emergency duties, reshaping how the White House uses trade law. For companies exposed to cross-border supply chains, Trump 10pc tariffs add another layer of risk on top of already complex tariff regimes.

Legal uncertainty around Trump 10pc tariffs and emergency powers

The administration is preparing a fallback plan that would immediately impose a temporary 10pc duty on imports if the Supreme Court overturns current emergency tariffs. Officials signal that Trump 10pc tariffs would likely rely on Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act, which allows up to 15pc tariffs for 150 days to address balance-of-payments issues. However, any extension beyond that window would require explicit congressional approval, injecting political risk into what has so far been a unilateral tariff strategy.

At the same time, the White House is mapping a second phase based on well-tested authorities such as Section 232 and Section 301. These tools target specific products or countries on national security or unfair trade grounds but require investigations, public consultations and time. As a result, Trump 10pc tariffs would function as a legal stopgap while more targeted measures are built, rather than a permanent framework. The pending Supreme Court decision on the use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) will determine how far presidents can stretch emergency powers into broad-based tariff policy.

The court’s ruling will directly impact emergency tariffs on Mexico, Canada and China justified by fentanyl-related “economic emergencies,” along with broader duties of 10pc and higher on nearly all US trading partners. It will also affect emergency measures aimed at Brazil and India, where tariffs were tied to alleged speech suppression and Russian crude imports. But tariffs on steel, aluminium, cars and auto parts imposed under traditional authorities would remain intact, preserving some of the most consequential industry-specific barriers.

Revenue, refunds and the corporate “tariff overhang”

A critical question troubling even conservative justices is whether sweeping tariffs function as taxes that only Congress may levy. The US Treasury has collected nearly $260bn in customs duties during the first 11 months of Trump’s second term, creating a massive “tariff overhang.” Hundreds of companies have already filed lawsuits seeking refunds, turning the Supreme Court decision into a potential trigger for complex, multi-year repayment disputes.

The administration argues that tariffs are policy instruments, not taxes, and warns that broad refunds would be administratively chaotic and fiscally painful. Trump himself has said repaying duties “would be a complete mess,” signalling that even if the court limits IEEPA, the White House will resist rapid, sweeping restitution. For global manufacturers, traders and end-users, this means that current and historic tariff exposure may remain a financial and legal uncertainty for years.

The Metalnomist Commentary

For metals and industrial supply chains, the Trump 10pc tariffs debate is about far more than headline percentages. It is redefining the legal boundaries of presidential trade power, shaping how future administrations can weaponise tariffs in strategic sectors from steel and aluminium to critical minerals. Boardrooms should treat this not as a one-off legal drama, but as a structural shift toward more politicised, less predictable trade governance.