The White House is trying to put out a fire that threatens to spread throughout the global economy: a Supreme Court ruling in the United States has knocked down a significant part of the legal framework that the Administration used to push forward a wave of broad tariffs. The official message, reiterated over the weekend by senior officials, is reassuring: current trade agreements remain in effect and Washington intends to honor them. However, the immediate market reaction has been the opposite of what was intended: more uncertainty, increased calls among capitals, and an awkward question for businesses and partners: What rules apply today, and what will apply tomorrow?
The core of the issue is that the Supreme Court has determined that the president overstepped authority by imposing a substantial portion of these tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a 1977 law designed for emergency situations. The practical implications are immediate: the Customs and Border Protection Agency (CBP) has announced that it will stop collecting tariffs related to those orders starting Tuesday at midnight (Eastern Time), deactivating the associated tariff codes. Yet, the announcement opens another Pandora’s box: it’s unclear what will happen with potential refunds and what the definitive framework will be to replace the lost revenue.
A sudden turn… and an immediate follow-up
The effort to “stabilize” the system becomes more complicated because, just hours after the ruling, the Administration announced a new 15% global tariff based on a different legal basis, reintroducing the risk of further litigation and, above all, the sense of improvisation. From the perspective of trading partners, the problem is no longer just the tariff itself but the volatility of the terrain on which agreements are negotiated.
To gauge the impact, economists quoted in U.S. reports estimate that the ruling could leave over $175 billion in tariffs collected under that scheme in question, with an income flow exceeding $500 million daily prior to the announced suspension. On a macro level, the Global Trade Alert monitor calculated that the ruling alone could cut the weighted average tariff almost in half—from 15.4% to 8.3%.
Europe: “an agreement is an agreement”
The European Union has reacted with an unusually direct tone. Brussels has called for “full clarity” and has reminded Washington that the agreed conditions must be respected, referencing the framework scheduled for August 2025. According to data cited by the EU itself, bilateral trade in goods and services reached €1.7 trillion in 2024, a figure that explains why any tariff uncertainty immediately translates into political pressure.
At the heart of the European debate is the credibility of the agreed tariff cap: the Commission insists that European products should continue to enjoy the “most competitive treatment” and that no price increases beyond the agreed ceiling should be imposed. Simultaneously, voices in the European Parliament are already hinting at the possibility of freezing ratification processes if uncertainty persists.
China and Asia: assessment, nervousness, and supply chains
Beijing, for its part, has stated that it is conducting a “comprehensive assessment” of the ruling and has urged the United States to lift measures it considers unilateral and harmful. The case is especially sensitive because the judicial blow affects tariffs that impacted Asian export powers and economies deeply integrated into the global technology supply chain.
Concern is evident in Seoul. The South Korean government has expressed worries about sectors like automotive, batteries, and semiconductors, an industrial triangle where tariff changes are almost immediately reflected in investment decisions, logistical planning, and prices. India has also taken action: sources within its administration, cited by international media, indicate that New Delhi has delayed sending a trade delegation to Washington amid the new uncertainty, despite ongoing conversations and commitments for large-scale purchases and imports.
At this point, political noise becomes a business cost. For the tech industry, what matters isn’t just the tariff percentage but the domino effect: if trade flows shift lanes every few weeks, companies don’t optimize—they protect themselves, increase inventories, delay product launches, or shift costs elsewhere.
What remains in effect (and why the conflict isn’t over)
Another key nuance: the suspension announced by CBP does not affect all tariffs. For instance, tariffs tied to frameworks like the Section 232 (national security) or the Section 301 (unfair trade practices) remain in place, meaning the tariff landscape isn’t “reset” but only reorganized.
For partners, the U.S. message remains “trade agreements stay in place.” Trade Representative Jamieson Greer clarified this: Washington expects to uphold the pacts and for counterparts to do the same. But the underlying issue persists: a trade agreement is as stable as the legal and political system supporting it. And that system has just demonstrated it can change overnight—by court verdict and executive action.
A minimal timeline to understand the rollercoaster
| Milestone | What changes |
|---|---|
| Supreme Court ruling | Invalidates broad tariffs implemented under IEEPA |
| CBP announces end of collection | Stops collecting those tariffs from Tuesday midnight (ET) |
| New global tariff announced | Proposes 15% under a different legal basis, with uncertainties about its longevity |
A “shaking” trade scenario
The great paradox is that the White House talks about stability, while partners and the business fabric perceive structural uncertainty. Europe demands predictability. China calls for clarity and warns against “fighting” instead of cooperating. Asia watches its export sectors—chips, cars, batteries—with concern. And amid all this, companies need one very simple thing to operate: knowing the rules and how long they will last.
By 2026, with strained supply chains and technology as the backbone of competitiveness, the question is no longer whether tariffs will exist. The real question is whether the world can plan trade when the framework shifts through court rulings and announcements.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which tariffs cease to be collected by the U.S. after the Supreme Court ruling, and which remain in effect?
The suspension affects tariffs linked to orders based on IEEPA. Other tariffs, such as those under Section 232 or Section 301, are not covered by this measure.
Will refunds be issued for tariffs paid by importers after the suspension?
There is no definitive public guidance on refunds yet; estimates suggest over $175 billion in potentially reclaimable tariffs, but the process may be complex.
Why is Asia concerned about the change in U.S. tariff policy?
Because it impacts highly export-oriented economies deeply integrated into the semiconductor, automotive, and electronics supply chains, where tariff uncertainty affects costs, planning, and pricing.
What impact could this have on the tech industry and consumer electronics prices?
Sudden tariff changes can transfer to logistical and import costs, pressuring margins or final prices, especially for products with global components and distributed manufacturing.