World reacts as US top court limits Trump’s tariff powers | Donald Trump News
Trump Imposes 10 Percent Global Tariff Following Supreme Court Ruling
President Donald Trump announced Friday the implementation of a 10 percent global tariff after the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated his previous trade measures. The decision, conveyed via Trump’s social media platform Truth Social, has instigated swift reactions from international governments and financial markets.
The Supreme Court’s ruling has left countries to navigate the potential legal and economic implications. Concerns have emerged regarding the status of ongoing trade agreements, tariff reductions, and the legality of previously imposed duties.
Governments are assessing how this new tariff will impact vital industries, investment strategies, and trade negotiations. Analysts caution that uncertainty may linger until legal and trade frameworks are clarified.
South Korea
In South Korea, a key U.S. ally, the presidential office issued a statement indicating a review of the existing trade deal, which had reduced certain tariffs from 25 percent to 15 percent in exchange for substantial investments from South Korea into the U.S.
Jack Barton, an Al Jazeera correspondent in Seoul, noted that while larger companies in sectors such as chemicals and pharmaceuticals may benefit, the auto industry remains under strain. More than half of South Korea’s automotive exports go to the U.S., where they are subject to a 25 percent tariff. Additionally, steel exports are facing duties of 50 percent under different regulations.
Due to the critical nature of exports, which constitute 85 percent of South Korea’s GDP, the government is expected to proceed cautiously. Officials have indicated that rapid changes could jeopardize significant agreements, including a recent multibillion-dollar shipbuilding deal with the U.S.
India
India has encountered some of the highest tariffs under Trump’s previous trade policies. Trump initially imposed a 25 percent levy on Indian imports and subsequently added a 25 percent tariff on purchases of Russian oil, totaling a 50 percent tariff.
Earlier this month, the U.S. and India reached a framework trade deal that could lower tariffs for key Indian exports to 18 percent. However, uncertainty remains as the Supreme Court ruling may influence the legal foundation of these agreements. Political economist MK Venu stated that a more cautious approach may have been prudent, given the recent legal developments.
China
China’s response to the Supreme Court ruling was subdued, coinciding with the Lunar New Year celebrations. The Chinese embassy in Washington issued a statement suggesting that trade wars benefit no one and that the ruling might be welcomed in China, which has been a frequent target of Trump’s tariffs.
Analysts estimate that overall tariffs affecting China, currently around 36 percent, could decrease to approximately 21 percent. This potential reprieve comes as China seeks to bolster trade ties with Southeast Asian nations amidst ongoing economic challenges, including the COVID-19 pandemic.
Canada
Canada has welcomed the Supreme Court’s ruling but acknowledged continuing challenges. Regional leaders view the decision as a positive step, while Minister for Canada-U.S. Trade Dominic LeBlanc emphasized that substantial work remains, particularly concerning existing tariffs on various goods.
Mexico
In Mexico, President Claudia Sheinbaum stated her administration would closely review the Supreme Court’s decision to understand its implications. Mexico benefits from a robust trading relationship with the U.S. and has managed to suspend certain punitive tariffs during ongoing negotiations.
Legal Implications
Legal experts view the Supreme Court ruling as a significant moment regarding the limitations of presidential power over tariffs. Frank Bowman, a professor at the University of Missouri School of Law, highlighted that the ruling represents a judicial response to what he termed a challenge to the rule of law.
The Supreme Court’s intervention marks its first effort to address issues tied to Trump’s broader actions against legal norms, emphasizing that the president exceeded his constitutional authority in imposing these tariffs.
