The United States has introduced a new 10% global tariff under President Donald Trump, despite earlier indications that the rate would be set higher.

The development follows a ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States on Friday, which blocked a range of sweeping import taxes previously imposed by the administration. In response, the president announced that a 10% universal tariff would be applied, later stating that the rate would rise to 15%. However, official documentation confirms that, from Tuesday, the levy has been implemented at 10%, with no formal directive yet issued to increase it.

The White House has been approached for comment. A senior official told Reuters that work is under way to amend the rate to 15% in line with the president’s remarks, although no timetable has been provided.‍

Business Reaction and Market Uncertainty‍

Market analysts have expressed concern about the pace and unpredictability of recent policy shifts. Carsten Brzeski, an economist at ING, described the situation as adding to an already unsettled environment for businesses.

He warned that uncertainty had returned to levels seen last year and suggested that the risk of retaliatory action by US trading partners had increased. In his assessment, the likelihood of a fully escalated tariff conflict now exceeds that of the previous year.

Legal Basis and Policy Objectives

An executive order signed on Friday sets out the administration’s rationale for the temporary 10% duty. The measure, it states, is intended to address structural imbalances in international payments and to support efforts to rebalance trade relationships in favour of American workers, farmers and manufacturers.

The tariffs are being applied under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, a provision that permits the president to impose duties for up to 150 days without congressional approval.

President Trump has consistently defended tariffs as a mechanism to narrow the US trade deficit, defined as the gap between imports and exports. Nevertheless, the deficit reached approximately $1.2 trillion, equivalent to £890bn, last year, marking a 2.1% increase compared with 2024.

Separately, the US has already raised at least $130bn through tariffs introduced under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977.

Supreme Court Ruling Raises Prospect of Refunds

In its judgment on Friday, the Supreme Court concluded that the president had exceeded his authority by using the 1977 Act to justify last year’s extensive tariff measures. The ruling has opened the possibility that affected companies could seek substantial refunds.

Among the first to act was FedEx, the global logistics and postal group, which filed a lawsuit on Monday seeking a full reimbursement of import duties paid under the earlier regime.

A campaign organisation, We Pay The Tariffs, has also called for repayments. In an open letter to the government, the group stated that it represents more than 900 US businesses demanding full, swift and automatic refunds of what it describes as unlawful tariffs.

Despite these efforts, legal experts have questioned whether repayments will materialise. President Trump has indicated that any such claims will be contested in the courts, potentially for several years. In the ruling, Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh suggested that any refund process could prove highly complex.

The president has sharply criticised the court’s decision, describing it as flawed and contrary to American interests.

International Implications and Diplomatic Strains‍

In the wake of the ruling, President Trump signalled that countries perceived to be undermining recent trade agreements could face higher tariffs. The warning has prompted governments worldwide to reassess existing arrangements with Washington.

In the United Kingdom, Business and Trade Secretary Peter Kyle expressed confidence that the core 10% tariff framework agreed between London and Washington would remain intact. Speaking to a parliamentary committee, he maintained that the fundamental terms negotiated with the US were still in place.

The bilateral arrangement includes preferential provisions for sectors such as automotive manufacturing and aerospace. Mr Kyle characterised higher tariffs as a lose, lose outcome for both British and American companies, while reiterating the UK’s ambition to secure a comprehensive trade agreement with the US.

Elsewhere, the European Union has paused ratification of a trade accord reached over the summer. Brando Benifei, chair of the European Parliament’s delegation for relations with the US, stated that any deterioration in conditions would necessitate a response. He confirmed that the EU had sought clarification from Washington and urged greater co-ordination among countries dissatisfied with the current approach.

India has also postponed previously scheduled discussions aimed at finalising a recent agreement, underscoring the broader uncertainty now facing global trade policy.

As legal challenges progress and diplomatic negotiations continue, the trajectory of US tariff policy remains unsettled, with significant implications for international commerce and corporate strategy.