The United States is expected to raise its global tariff rate to 15 percent in the coming days as the Trump administration looks to resume its controversial trade policies following a Supreme Court ruling that struck down last year’s sweeping import tariffs.
U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said the higher tariffs would “likely” be implemented this week, indicating that the White House intended to push forward a tougher global trade regime despite legal challenges that forced officials to rethink their approach.
The new tariff would replace the blanket import tariffs announced by Donald Trump last year, which imposed levies on goods from dozens of countries. These measures were overturned by the United States Supreme Court after justices ruled that the government had overstepped its authority by using emergency powers to justify the tariffs.
The decision prompted a swift response from the White House, which used a different legal mechanism to impose a new global levy of 10 percent. But confusion quickly arose after Trump said on social media that the rate would instead be set at 15 percent.
In practice, the tariff took effect at the lower level, leaving companies and governments around the world in the dark about the direction of U.S. trade policy.
Bessent’s recent comments indicate that the administration now intends to align its policy with Trump’s previous statements by raising the tariff to the maximum level permitted under the temporary legal powers invoked.
Speaking to CNBC, Bessent said he believes tariffs will eventually return to their previous levels within a few months. He argued that the court ruling would not undermine the administration’s broader trade strategy or the revenue the U.S. seeks to generate from import tariffs.
“I firmly believe that the tariff rates will be restored to their old rate within five months,” he said.
The White House has repeatedly dismissed the significance of the court decision and insisted that it had several alternative legal tools at its disposal to maintain the tariff system.
Officials say the policy is central to the administration’s economic strategy, which aims to reduce the U.S. trade deficit, boost domestic manufacturing and generate revenue to help tackle the country’s growing national debt.
To implement the current tariff, the administration invoked Section 122 of the U.S. Trade Code, a rarely used provision that allows the president to impose tariffs of up to 15 percent for a period of up to 150 days without congressional approval.
The authority is intended to deal with sudden balance of payments crises or large trade imbalances. Because it is rarely used in modern trade disputes, many legal experts believe the White House’s interpretation of the law is largely untested.
Section 122 provides the administration with a temporary mechanism to maintain tariffs while it develops a longer-term legal framework for its trade policies.
The White House has indicated that after the 150-day window expires, it intends to rely on other legislation to impose more permanent tariffs.
These include Section 301 of the Trade Act, which allows the U.S. government to impose tariffs on countries accused of unfair trade practices, and Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act, which allows tariffs on imports that threaten national security.
Both provisions have been used by Trump before. During his first term, the administration imposed tariffs on steel and aluminum imports under Section 232 and used Section 301 to impose tariffs on hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of goods from China.
Officials have also examined applying these powers to a broader range of sectors, including taxes on digital services, drug imports and car manufacturing.
Unlike the emergency powers imposed by the Supreme Court, these legal tools require the government to follow formal procedures before imposing tariffs.
This typically involves conducting research into the affected sectors, providing evidence to justify the tariffs and giving companies a consultation period to provide feedback before imposing new duties.
Many companies say this more structured process would be preferable to the abrupt policy shifts that characterized recent trading decisions.
Companies involved in international supply chains have repeatedly called for greater clarity and predictability, arguing that sudden tariff announcements make it difficult to plan investments, adjust pricing strategies or secure long-term contracts.
The tariff dispute has also created significant financial uncertainty for the U.S. government.
Companies that had paid the original tariffs before the repeal have begun filing claims for refunds. Analysts estimate the government faces reimbursement demands of up to $130 billion.
A study by the Cato Institute calculated that the government could also incur significant interest costs if these refunds are delayed.
The institute estimates that U.S. taxpayers could pay about $23 million in interest for each day refunds are missed, potentially amounting to about $700 million per month.
The dispute stems from the tariff system introduced to mark what Trump called “Liberation Day” in April last year.
At that time, the government imposed tariffs of between 10 and 50 percent on imports from dozens of countries. The move set off a wave of diplomatic negotiations as governments tried to secure exemptions or lower tariff rates by offering investment commitments and other concessions.
The far-reaching nature of the tariffs sparked a legal challenge that eventually reached the Supreme Court, which ruled that the president’s use of emergency powers to justify the tariffs during peacetime was unconstitutional.
This ruling forced the government to reshape its trade policy using alternative legal remedies.
The move to a universal 10 percent tariff temporarily placed imports from all countries on an equal footing, eliminating the benefits that some trading partners had negotiated after the original “Liberation Day” tariffs were announced.
Countries such as the UK had previously secured lower tariff rates through bilateral negotiations, and the imposition of a global flat tariff effectively wiped out these concessions.
The possible increase to 15 percent would represent a further escalation of the government’s trade policy, potentially affecting thousands of exporters and supply chains worldwide.
Economists say the move could have far-reaching consequences for global trade flows, particularly if tariffs are extended or made permanent under other legal provisions.
Currently, businesses and foreign governments are watching closely as Washington prepares its next steps to reshape the U.S. customs regime and redefine its approach to international trade.
