Trump Vows 10% Global Tech Tariff After SCOTUS Defeat

I watched the president step up to the podium as the word from the Supreme Court landed like a second thunderclap. You could feel the room tighten — cameras pausing, reporters recalculating headlines. I counted the moments where policy became theater and policy became a promise of retaliation.

Outside the court, silence met the ruling — then a scramble.

The Supreme Court struck down the administration’s tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), and the president answered not with retreat but with reinvention. He called the decision “an embarrassment to their families” and vowed to impose a 10% global tariff under Section 122, on top of Sections 232 and 301 already in force.

A White House reading room became a campaign stage.

At the podium, he read through a prepared statement — the same lines that would appear moments later on Truth Social — and promised fresh legal routes to reach the same end. You could hear the authority cue: the president invoking national security and trade statutes to signal he will bypass the Court’s limit.

Can the president impose tariffs using Section 122 after the Supreme Court ruling?

Short answer: he says he will. Section 122 allows temporary measures for trade imbalances up to 150 days and tariffs up to 15%, while Section 232 (national security) and Section 301 (unfair trade practices) remain the administration’s existing levers. That’s the legal frame he invoked on February 20, 2026, and it’s the set of tools he intends to use to keep pressure on foreign suppliers and U.S. rivals.

At the mic, defiance and a promise to widen the toolbox.

Trump announced an immediate order to impose a 10% global tariff under Section 122 “over and above our normal tariffs already being charged.” You can read the headlines — and the math — differently depending on whether you focus on politics or pocketbooks.

The Yale Budget Lab’s figures were already the yardstick the press corps quoted: effective tariff rates rose from roughly 2% under the prior administration to about 16.9% before the ruling, and the court’s decision would leave an estimated 9.1% without new measures. Add the threatened 10% global tariff and you approach an overall rate in the mid-teens again, a level not seen since the mid-20th century. Newsrooms like The New York Times and Bloomberg have been running the calculations all morning.

In the briefing room, the language turned personal.

He attacked justices he helped install and pointed toward “foreign interests” and conservative funders who opposed his policy — naming Leonard Leo and nodding to the Federalist Society’s long shadow — and said investigations could follow. He promised more tariffs, and then moved into claims that strained credulity about wars, life-saving totals, and diplomatic influence.

How will a 10% global tariff affect tech companies?

Tech firms are watching raw percentages like a thermostat. A 10% uniform tariff would be another layer on components and finished goods that big platforms and manufacturers move across borders. Companies such as Apple, Google, Microsoft, Samsung and supply-chain firms already factor tariffs into pricing, sourcing and regional strategies; many will absorb cost, pass it to consumers, or reshuffle suppliers. Bloomberg and market analysts have described the immediate effect as uncertainty — firms pause, lawyers and customs teams sprint.

Near the camera banks, the scene felt oddly domestic.

The president’s Commerce Secretary stood at his side; Howard Lutnick’s presence injected a different headline strain — questions about his past ties and fresh calls for accountability. That contrast — tariffs as national doctrine, personnel as private controversy — made the day feel both geopolitical and intensely personal.

I’ll give you the thread you need to follow: the administration lost its case under IEEPA, then announced it would repurpose other authorities. That’s the strategic pivot. Think of the government’s trade toolkit as a Swiss Army knife — blunt but plentiful — and the White House clearly intends to twist, cut, and open whatever blade they can.

In markets and boardrooms, reactions split between annoyance and strategy.

Analysts told reporters the predictable line: companies will avoid lowering prices unless forced, and the net on consumers will likely be higher costs, slower shipments and strategic supply-chain moves. The consensus line you’ll hear from CNBC and Bloomberg is that forecasting exact outcomes is a guessing game; the only thread everyone agrees on is uncertainty. (Bloomberg’s Jordan Fitzgerald called it “the only certainty is uncertainty” during a post-press-conference discussion.)

Policy commentators also flagged the political angle: the president attacked conservative justices like Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, while Brett Kavanaugh — the sole justice in the minority appointed by him in the first term — joined Alito and Thomas in dissent. That intra-conservative split will be parsed by the Federalist Society, lawyers, and funders for months.

Here’s what I’m watching next: rulemaking under Section 122, new Section 301 investigations, and any executive orders that reassign tariffs to alternate statutory bases. You should watch filings and Federal Register notices as closely as you watch headlines — that’s where policy becomes policy.

Behind the rhetoric, a broader pattern repeated itself.

He cast tariffs as leverage — to shape foreign behavior and to pressure markets — and promised to press harder after a legal rebuke. That posture signals a willingness to court conflict in trade and the law, a posture investors and multinationals will price into decisions about factories, logistics, and contracts.

There’s an image that keeps returning: a pressure cooker with multiple vents, each opened or closed by legal moves and executive fiat. The stew inside — supply chains, corporate earnings, consumer prices, diplomatic ties — will simmer differently depending on which vents the administration opens.

For now, you should read the ruling, watch the White House orders, and track filings from Yale’s Budget Lab and coverage from The New York Times and Bloomberg. Pay attention to tech earnings calls, Commerce Department notices, and any litigation that springs up — these will be the market’s weather reports.

A few practical cues from the day’s theater.

Watch the legal filings, follow Yale Budget Lab and NYT analysis, and track Commerce Department notices for the formal steps that will convert a promise into tariffs. If you work at a tech company or manage supply chains, expect contingency memos and sourcing conversations to accelerate.

I’ll keep watching how this plays out in court, in trade notices, and in corporate boardrooms. Are we looking at a new tariff architecture designed to outflank a Court ruling — or a political gambit that will falter under legal pressure?