High court rejected it, Trump added more! What are U.S. tariff rates like now?

High court rejected it, Trump added more! What are U.S. tariff rates like now?

On February 20 local time, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on the Trump administration's tariff authority.

According to CCTV News, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Trump administration's large-scale tariff measures under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) lacked clear legal authorization.

This ruling has pushed a series of recent U.S. trade agreements with multiple parties into an "uncertain zone." The market is now more concerned with: which levels of tariffs will be revoked, which remain valid, and whether agreed tariff rates can still stand.

Tariff "layer cake": What is the status of the original agreements?

Media sorting and analysis show that many agreements reached by the U.S. in recent months set tariffs at around 15% or 20% in exchange for commitments on trade terms, investment, etc. from the other party. The Supreme Court's decision means the legal basis and implementation paths of these arrangements now need to be reclarified.

It is reported that the ruling "casts doubt on the fate of a series of trade agreements." When asked about the status of the agreements at a press conference, Trump said, "some agreements will remain valid," but he did not elaborate.

Looking by region, the report's "possible impact/limited impact" clues mainly include:

  • European Union: Agreement enforcement in doubt

Last year, the EU reached an agreement with the U.S. to cap tariffs at 15%. In exchange, the EU committed to buying $750 billion U.S. energy and increasing $600 billion in investments.

However, the agreement has not been fully implemented. The Federation of German Industries (BDI) urgently called on Friday for the EU to clarify the impact of the Supreme Court decision with the Trump administration as soon as possible. The business sector is in urgent need of "reliable trade conditions."

  • Canada and Mexico: Relatively safe

As the U.S.'s largest trading partners, Canada and Mexico are least affected by this ruling.

It is reported that the ruling has "little impact" on Canada, since most tariffs still in place are on sectors like steel and aluminum, which aren’t covered by this ruling; Moreover, about 90% of Canadian exports to the U.S. are currently tariff-free under the USMCA.

For Mexico, over 80% of its exports are already tariff-free under North American trade arrangements; however, industries like steel, aluminum, copper, heavy trucks, softwood lumber, and wood products are still subject to sectoral tariffs.

  • Japan: Huge investment can't change the tariff situation

Japan previously agreed to help fund U.S. projects worth $550 billion in exchange for a 15% package tariff. Despite the ruling, Japanese officials believe there is little room to renegotiate investment commitments. To assuage the Japanese public, Tokyo is trying to package these agreements as "win-win" projects, such as the $36 billion investment pledge announced this week, mainly for natural gas power plant construction in Ohio.

  • South Korea: Emergency stabilization, insists overall framework unchanged

South Korea previously agreed to invest $350 billion in exchange for lowering tariffs to 15%. After the ruling, the South Korean government held an emergency meeting on Saturday to assess the impact. The Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy stated that while the 15% reciprocal tariff is invalidated by the ruling, sectoral tariffs on autos and steel remain effective.

South Korean officials are trying to stabilize market expectations, stressing that although uncertainty for South Korean exports to the U.S. has increased, the overall framework of conditions guaranteed by the Korea-U.S. tariff agreement "will remain unchanged." In addition, South Korea pledged to continue talks on previously signed trade agreements and closely monitor the follow-up impact of Trump’s newly introduced 10% global tariff.

Southeast Asia and India: Some happy, some worried

  • Southeast Asia: Vietnam, Cambodia, and Indonesia previously faced the threat of extremely high tariffs (up to 49%), later reduced to around 19%. Indonesia just signed a trade agreement on Thursday. For the region, as the "world factory" for shoes, furniture, and apparel, the ruling may bring short-lived relief, but also increases uncertainty over "what comes next."
  • India: Trump previously ended punitive tariffs of 50% on India, replacing them with an 18% tariff, on the condition that India stop buying Russian oil and purchase $500 billion U.S. goods (including agricultural products). This agreement affects sensitive domestic agricultural interests, making enforcement extremely challenging.

Which tariffs have been overturned? Which remain effective?

The direct result of the Supreme Court ruling is that large-scale tariff measures under IEEPA are struck down; but this does not mean the entire U.S. tariff system is "reset." After the ruling, Trump made it clear he would transfer the "tariff baton" to other statutes while retaining existing industry and trade investigation tools.

According to CCTV News, on Friday, February 20 local time, Trump said he would sign an order, based on Section 122 of the U.S. Trade Act of 1974, to add an extra 10% global tariff on top of regular tariffs already imposed. This 10% tariff policy is expected to take effect in "about three days."

According to CCTV News, when asked whether he would require Congress to take further action on broad tariffs, Trump said: "I don't need to. (The authority sought) has already been approved."

According to CCTV News, Trump made these remarks at a press conference after the Supreme Court ruled his tariff policy illegal. He said he would launch multiple investigations to provide a basis for implementing other tariff measures, and indicated that all tariffs imposed under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 and so-called "national security tariffs" under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 would remain effective.

For the market, this means two key signals: first, the "struck down legal basis" does not equal "tariffs themselves disappearing"; second, short-term rates depend on implementation details under new statutes and their relationship with existing 232 and 301 tariffs.

Goldman Sachs: Uncertainty is far from over

Wallstreetcn wrote that Goldman Sachs warned in its November 2025 report on tariff hearings that even if U.S. courts struck down IEEPA tariffs, the government could rely on other statutes to "replace most tariffs," and judged "the actual tariff rate may only fall by about 1 percentage point."

At the same time, Goldman Sachs expects that by the time of the ruling, the amount of tariffs already collected will have reached $115-145 billion, with the refund process potentially taking several months or longer, highly dependent on subsequent legal actions.

Goldman Sachs points out that the current U.S. government holds various alternative tools:

If the Supreme Court finds IEEPA tariffs invalid, the Trump administration may use other authorities to replace most tariffs. The government can rely on other statutes including: Section 122 and 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, and Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930. These statutes authorize the president to impose tariffs in certain situations (such as unfair trade practices or international balance of payments deficits).

Perhaps for the market, volatility and inflationary pressures caused by tariffs will persist, with the so-called "positive" effect being more a legal victory than a substantial economic unbinding. Goldman Sachs analysts said:

"The ultimate result may be a slight reduction of tariffs for a few small trading partners, with negligible net impact for major trading partners."

Risk alert and disclaimerThe market has risks, investment should be cautious. This article does not constitute personal investment advice and does not take into account the special investment objectives, financial situation, or needs of individual users. Users should consider whether any opinions, views, or conclusions in this article meet their particular situation. Investing accordingly is at your own risk.