10% global tariff, Trump’s pushback

US President Donald Trump doubled down rather than back off after the Supreme Court struck down many of his sweeping, often arbitrary duties, imposing a new uniform 10-percent tariff on imports into the United States.

Trump signed the tariff order in the Oval Office, saying on social media that it was “effective almost immediately,” after he spent the past year imposing various tariff rates to cajole and punish countries, both friend and foe.

The new duty is slated to take effect on 24 February for 150 days, with exemptions remaining for sectors under separate probes, including pharma and for goods entering the US under the US-Mexico-Canada agreement, according to a White House fact sheet.

US trading partners that reached tariff deals with Trump’s administration will now also face a 10-percent duty, despite higher levels they may have agreed on previously, the White House said.

The disallowed old tariffs might lead to billions in refunds for companies and possibly consumers, but it’s unclear how or when, and it could take years of lawsuits. Experts say average US tariff rates have dropped a bit but remain historically high.

The new development is expected to have minimal effect on the Philippines’ trade.

In a statement, Palace Press Officer Claire Castro said the majority of exports already enjoyed zero tariff in the US even before the latest decision on Trump’s far-reaching tariff agenda.

Philippine exports worth over P1 billion bound for the US were spared the 19-percent headline tariff following the new exemption for certain goods, mainly agricultural products, contained in the executive order issued by Trump in November 2025.

“(Finance) Secretary (Frederick) Go had previously explained that the majority of our exports were already exempted even before this US Supreme Court decision,” Castro said.

But a White House official said the Trump administration will seek ways to “implement more appropriate or pre-negotiated tariff rates” down the line.

Earlier Friday, the conservative-majority high court ruled six to three that a 1977 law Trump has relied on to slap sudden rates on individual countries, upending global trade, “does not authorize the President to impose tariffs,” delivering a stinging rebuke to his signature economic policy.

Trump, who had nominated two of the justices who repudiated him, responded furiously, alleging without evidence that the court was influenced by foreign interests.

“I’m ashamed of certain members of the court, absolutely ashamed, for not having the courage to do what’s right for our country,” Trump told reporters.

“In order to protect our country, a president can actually charge more tariffs than I was charging in the past,” Trump said, insisting that the ruling left him “more powerful.”

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, addressing the Economic Club of Dallas, said the alternative method “will result in virtually unchanged tariff revenue in 2026.”

Huge setback

The ruling did not impact sector-specific duties Trump separately imposed on steel, aluminum, and various other goods. Government probes still underway could lead to additional sectoral tariffs.

Still, it marked Trump’s biggest defeat at the Supreme Court since returning to the White House 13 months ago. The court has generally expanded his power.

The justices ruled Friday that “had Congress intended to convey the distinct and extraordinary power to impose tariffs” through the 1977 law, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, “it would have done so expressly, as it consistently has in other tariff statutes.”

“The IEEPA contains no reference to tariffs or duties,” Chief Justice John Roberts said in his opinion.

Business groups largely cheered the ruling, with the National Retail Federation saying this “provides much-needed certainty” for companies.

Doubts on refunds

In court arguments, the Trump administration said companies would receive refunds if the tariffs were deemed unlawful. But the ruling did not address the issue.

Trump said he expected years of litigation on whether to provide refunds. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the one Trump nominee to side with him, noted the refund process could be a “mess.”

The University of Pennsylvania’s Penn Wharton Budget Model projected that the court’s decision on tariffs could yield up to $175 billion in refunds.

California Governor Gavin Newsom, who is widely expected to seek the Democratic presidential nomination in 2028, said Americans deserved refunds from the “illegal cash grab.”