Friday’s landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling striking down President Trump’s preferred method of imposing tariffs upended a cornerstone of the administration’s trade policy and added further uncertainty for trading partners and businesses around the world.
How this latest shock will affect international trade and impact prices, jobs and growth in countries around the world remains a big question mark. So far, the global economy has proven resilient in the face of the political and economic turmoil caused by Mr. Trump’s unpredictable trade actions since he took office last year.
Currently, most economists believe that U.S. economic policy will not change significantly, regardless of the legal consequences. Foreign leaders largely expect the tariffs to remain in place in one form or another as long as Mr. Trump is in office.
On Friday, Mr. Trump said in a news conference after the Supreme Court ruling that he would invoke a part of the law called Section 122, which no president has ever used, to impose a blanket 10 percent tariff in just a few days.
“The Supreme Court ruled on constitutional boundaries, not trade policy,” Carsten Brzeski, global head of macro at ING Research, wrote in a note. “Trump’s tariff agenda survives with new legal foundations and a chaotic transition period.”
Mr. Brzeski and several other analysts said they did not expect to immediately change their forecasts for global growth and trade because of the Supreme Court decision.
Trump may not be able to impose tariffs as quickly and broadly as he has done so far, relying on a 1977 law that gives the president emergency powers. There are other provisions he can use to enact more targeted tariffs, either alone or in consultation with the Republican-controlled Congress.
So far, foreign governments have been cautious in their public comments, saying they are reviewing the decision and its potential impact.
But as tempting as it may be for U.S. trading partners to consider resuming tariff negotiations, political analysts said most were unlikely to take that route. For starters, the chances of negotiating a better deal are slim, and simply asking for a renegotiation could anger a president who has already admitted that his policy decisions are sometimes made out of resentment.
Mr. Trump, for example, admitted that he increased tariffs on Switzerland from 31 percent to 39 percent because the Swiss president “misled me.”
As troubling and unwelcome as the U.S. tariffs have been, the current tariffs at least have the advantage of removing some of the uncertainty that plagued businesses and governments last year, when Mr. Trump’s tariff policy sometimes changed between breakfast and dinner.
Nevertheless, the uncertainty is likely to continue. As William Bain, head of trade policy at the British Chambers of Commerce, said the ruling “does little to clear the murky waters for the economy.”
Other geopolitical concerns sometimes overshadowed tariffs in relations with the United States. In Europe, national security, the Atlantic Alliance and defense cooperation are top priorities given the war in Ukraine, Russia’s aggressive stance toward Europe and Mr. Trump’s attempts to acquire Greenland.
Japan and South Korea, which also rely on U.S. security guarantees, are keen to maintain their ties with Washington at a time of rising tensions with China.
With the fate of many previously agreed trade deals now uncertain, the court’s decision will also play a role in upcoming trade negotiations. The United States-Mexico-Canada agreement that Mr. Trump signed during his first term is up for review this summer.
Analysts and traders are also weighing the impact of the ruling on the large debts the United States has accumulated. Since April, tariffs have generated more than $200 billion in revenue.
Raphael Bostic, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, said Friday that the economic impact of the ruling would depend on whether companies received tariff refunds. He also said it would depend on how companies would change their operations in light of the decision.
“Is there an obligation to pay back the companies that paid the tariffs? If so, that’s a big disruption,” Bostic said.
Many companies in the US and elsewhere have already pushed for refunds. Research firm Capital Economics estimated that if the U.S. Treasury were forced to make repayments, the cost would be $120 billion, or 0.5 percent of the United States’ gross domestic product.
Juan Pellerano-Rendón, logistics expert and chief marketing officer at Swap, a software company, said companies shouldn’t count on a windfall. If a refund is issued, it could take months or years.
“No reputable operator builds their year on a possible duty refund,” said Pellerano-Rendón. Most companies have already anticipated higher costs for shipping, compliance and supply chain operations. “There is no hidden 30 percent margin waiting to be unlocked when tariffs disappear tomorrow,” he said.
Matthew Ryan, head of market strategy at global financial services firm Ebury, noted that there was a sell-off in the dollar immediately following the Supreme Court ruling.
“The move likely reflects heightened fiscal concerns,” he said, “as markets fear the massive tariff drawbacks could lead to a significant U.S. budget deficit, a higher deficit and an increase in debt issuance.”
However, the Treasury bond market, where investors buy and sell the U.S. federal government’s debt, reacted relatively calmly to the news. Treasury yields, a measure of borrowing costs, have barely changed.
Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh warned in a dissent that the refund process would be a “mess.”
Mr. Trump’s sweeping tariffs have already begun to reshape trade patterns. Agathe Demarais, a senior political scientist at the European Council on Foreign Relations, noted that American allies and adversaries have turned away from the United States.
“China recorded a global trade surplus of $1.2 trillion in 2025, the largest surplus by any country on record – showing how Chinese companies have successfully redirected their exports to other markets,” she said.
Over the past year, countries around the world have increased their efforts to sign trade deals that do not involve the United States, such as the European Union’s recent deals with four South American countries and with India.
Despite all the drama surrounding Mr. Trump’s tariffs, global trade still grew by 4 percent overall last year. And the U.S. goods trade deficit hit a record high last year.
“The point is that trade has not collapsed,” said Neil Shearing, chief group economist at Capital Economics.
“The global economy has proven relatively resilient to tariff uncertainty and rising trade barriers,” said Eswar Prasad, a professor of trade policy and economics at Cornell University, “so the impact on global growth is likely to be muted in any case.”
Colby Smith and Joe Rennison contributed reporting from New York.