In a significant escalation of his ongoing trade policies, former US President Donald Trump has raised global tariffs from 10% to 15%, citing Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 as the legal basis for this move. This decision comes shortly after the US Supreme Court struck down crucial parts of his prior tariff regime, particularly those imposed under emergency powers. Trump announced the tariff increase via a post on his social media platform, Truth Social, criticizing the Supreme Court’s ruling as “ridiculous, poorly written, and extraordinarily anti-American.” He stated that the tariff hike is effective immediately and targets countries that, in his view, have been “ripping off” the United States for decades without facing any consequences until his administration intervened.
### Background and Legal Framework: Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974
Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 is a rarely used provision that authorizes the US President to impose tariffs of up to 15% on imports from countries that contribute to a “large and serious United States balance-of-payments deficit.” The purpose of such tariffs is to protect the US economy from adverse effects caused by trade imbalances. However, these tariffs can only be applied for a maximum of 150 days unless Congress grants an extension. Additionally, the President is required to consult with Congress during both the implementation and continuation phases of such tariffs.
Despite being part of US trade law since 1974, Section 122 has never been invoked before Trump’s recent actions. On February 20, 2026, Trump announced his intention to use Section 122 to initiate a 10% global tariff on imports from multiple countries. The very next day, he increased this tariff rate to the maximum allowed 15%, demonstrating a rapid escalation of trade tensions and a strong assertion of presidential authority in trade matters.
### Trump’s Use of Various Trade Sections and Supreme Court Ruling
During a press conference following the Supreme Court’s ruling, Trump referenced three sections of US trade law that his administration had relied upon for imposing tariffs: Sections 301, 232, and 122. The Court’s 6-3 decision declared that the administration had unlawfully used emergency powers under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose broad tariffs, effectively invalidating much of the previous tariff regime.
- **Section 301** permits the imposition of tariffs if the US Trade Representative (USTR) determines that a trading partner has engaged in “unfair” trade practices. Historically, this mechanism has been applied to several countries, including India, which was subject to a Section 301 investigation in 2020 over its digital services tax.
- **Section 232** of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 authorizes tariffs on specific sectors, not broad categories, when the Secretary of Commerce finds such measures necessary for national security reasons. This section has been used to justify tariffs on steel, aluminum, automobiles, copper, and other products from various countries, including India. While often politically sensitive, exemptions can be granted to ease the impact of these tariffs.
- **Section 122**, as noted, addresses balance-of-payments deficits and allows for tariffs of up to 15% for a limited period.
The Supreme Court’s ruling specifically rejected the Trump administration’s argument that the sweeping tariffs were authorized under the IEEPA. This decision challenges the legal foundation of many of the tariffs imposed during Trump’s presidency.
### Use of IEEPA Tariffs and Related Actions
Before invoking Section 122, Trump had used the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose “reciprocal tariffs” on countries like Mexico, China, and Canada. These tariffs, announced in April 2025, were justified by claims that these countries failed to adequately control the flow of migrants and fentanyl into the United States. The IEEPA-based tariffs were part of Trump’s broader strategy to use emergency powers to address what he perceived as unfair trade and security threats.
However, the Supreme Court ruling has invalidated much of the IEEPA-based tariffs, putting Trump’s tariff strategy under legal scrutiny. In response, Trump has indicated that he is exploring “other alternatives” to circumvent the Court’s decision and maintain his trade measures.
### Exemptions and Future Outlook
Reports suggest that certain goods, especially those already subjected to national security tariffs under Section 232—such as steel and automobiles—may be exempt from the newly increased 15