USTR Greer vows to overturn court ruling on Trump’s 10% tariffs

Tariffs are back in court again — and this time the fight is over Trump’s backup plan. After the Supreme Court knocked out his broader emergency tariffs, the White House switched to a temporary 10% tariff on most imports using a different law. Now that fallback has been ruled illegal too, and U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer is saying the administration will win on appeal. The stakes are bigger than one tariff line — this is about whether Trump still has a fast, unilateral way to threaten trading partners before high-stakes talks with China. ### What actually got struck down? The tariff at issue is the 10% global levy Trump imposed in late February 2026 on most imports. He put it in place just days after the Supreme Court threw out his earlier “Liberation Day” tariffs, which had relied on emergency powers. This newer version used Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 instead — a statute that lets a president respond temporarily to balance-of-payments problems. (money.usnews.com) ### Why did the court say no? A divided three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of International Trade said Section 122 was the wrong tool. In a 2-1 ruling, the court said the law was not meant to address the kind of long-running trade deficits Trump pointed to. So the judges concluded the proclamation was invalid and the tariffs were unauthorized. That is the core problem for the administration on appeal — not procedure, but legal fit. (cnbc.com) ### Did the ruling kill the tariff immediately? Not quite. The decision was narrower than the headline suggests. The court blocked the tariff for Washington state and two private importers that were part of the case, while leaving the levy in place for everyone else during the appeal. So businesses did not wake up Friday to a clean national reset — they got more uncertainty instead. (usnews.com) ### What did Greer say? Greer’s message was simple: the administration thinks the court got it wrong and expects to prevail. He framed the ruling as flawed and signaled that the White House is not backing away from the tariff strategy just because another court has pushed back. In practical terms, that matters because negotiators can still argue that the tariff threat is alive while the appeal moves forward. (usnews.com) ### Why do China talks matter here? Because tariffs are not just taxes — they are bargaining chips. The New York Times piece makes the key point: a legal defeat right before talks can weaken the White House’s leverage, since Beijing can see that Trump’s favorite tariff tools keep failing in court. But the catch is that this does not leave Washington empty-handed. Older China-specific tariffs under Section 301 are still on the books, and those are the more durable pressure point. (money.usnews.com) ### So is Trump out of tariff options? No, but the menu is shrinking. The administration can appeal this ruling, try to lean harder on existing Section 301 tariffs, or look for other statutory routes that are narrower and slower. Basically, the courts are forcing Trump’s team away from broad, improvisational tariff moves and toward tools that fit more cleanly inside existing trade law. That makes policy less flexible — and diplomacy a little less theatrical. (nytimes.com) ### Why should anyone outside trade law care? Because this fight decides who gets to move first in a trade war. If presidents can slap broad tariffs on imports with thin legal justification, markets and supply chains have to price in sudden shocks. If courts keep blocking those moves, Congress and slower trade processes matter more again. That is the real contest underneath Greer’s appeal. (money.usnews.com) ### Bottom line Greer is trying to project confidence, but the bigger story is that Trump’s fast-twitch tariff machine has taken another legal hit. The tariffs are not fully gone yet. The leverage is not fully gone either. But the administration now has to negotiate with one eye on China and the other on the judges. (money.usnews.com) (usnews.com)