'Trump will no longer be able to honor many of the "deals" he has negotiated': How the Supreme Court crippled America's negotiator in chief | Fortune
Briefly

'Trump will no longer be able to honor many of the "deals" he has negotiated': How the Supreme Court crippled America's negotiator in chief | Fortune
"The ruling immediately imperils the cornerstone of the administration's economic strategy, transforming America's negotiator-in-chief into a leader stripped of his most potent leverage. This is because the majority of Trump's tariffs were deployed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which the administration used to justify a vast network of reciprocal tariffs applied to most trading partners under the pretext of a "balance of payments emergency.""
"the U.S. Treasury has accumulated an astounding $240 billion in revenue from customs duties, according to a note by Capital Economics' chief North America analyst Paul Ashworth. This figure represents a $180 billion increase compared to the same timeframe in 2024. Based on 2024 import weights, Ashworth continued, the theoretical effective tariff rate skyrocketed from a mere 2% in 2024 to approximately 14%, but nine percentage points of this dramatic hike are directly attributable to the now-illegal IEEPA tariffs."
Supreme Court issued a 6-3 decision declaring the presidential use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose tariffs unlawful, undermining executive authority over global commerce. The administration used IEEPA to justify broad reciprocal tariffs under a "balance of payments emergency" and targeted tariffs against Canada, China, and Mexico under a "drug trafficking emergency." Since April 2025 enactment, the Treasury collected about $240 billion in customs duties, a $180 billion rise versus 2024, lifting the effective tariff rate from 2% to roughly 14%, with nine percentage points tied to now-invalid IEEPA tariffs. The Treasury faces potential refund demands near $120 billion, about 0.5% of GDP, and the Court did not specify repayment procedures while a dissent warned of an administrative disaster.
Read at Fortune
Unable to calculate read time
[
|
]