Trump's Global Tariff Changes Again: Why the Increase from 10% to 15% Is Critical in the Next 150 Days

Just in the past day, U.S. President Trump announced an increase in the “Global Import Tariffs” on goods imported into the U.S. from 10% to 15%.

According to CCTV News, on February 20 local time, President Trump stated that he would sign an order, based on Section 122 of the U.S. Trade Act of 1974, to impose an additional 10% tariff on global goods on top of the existing regular tariffs.

Section 122 allows the President to set import restrictions for up to 150 days. Previously, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the Trump administration’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose tariffs was unconstitutional.

On February 21, local time, Trump posted on social media that he would “immediately raise the 10% global tariffs imposed on many countries to 15%.” He also added, “In the coming months, the Trump administration will determine and announce new, lawful tariffs.”

Several lawyers and experts interviewed by Yicai said that the increased level is close to the tariff levels already agreed upon in trade agreements between the U.S. and other economies. However, the exact effective date has not been further clarified by the White House, and current details remain unclear, pending notifications from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP).

Why raise to 15%

According to CCTV, Trump stated in the social media post that “based on a comprehensive, detailed, and complete review of the Supreme Court’s decision on tariffs made on the 20th—an absurd, poorly worded, and extremely anti-American ruling”—“from now on, the current 10% tariffs on countries worldwide will be raised to the fully authorized and legally tested level of 15%.”

Trump said that in the coming months, the U.S. government will determine and publish new, legally permissible tariff measures.

Simon Evenett, Professor of International Political Economy and Strategy at IMD in Lausanne, Switzerland, suggested that this move by the White House might be aimed at reducing the enthusiasm of various economies to increase exports to the U.S. under the 10% tariff policy announced on Friday.

Yicai’s review shows that among economies with trade agreements with the U.S., traditional allies like the UK and Australia previously had “reciprocal tariffs” of 10%, while the EU, Japan, and South Korea had 15%. Other economies’ rates range from 19% to 40%.

Partner Guanjian of Beijing Guangwen Law Firm told Yicai that the U.S. aims to replace the so-called “reciprocal tariffs” and fentanyl tariffs, which were abolished by the Supreme Court, with Section 112. However, if the rate remains at 10%, it may not achieve the same effect.

He explained that before the abolition, tariffs against major trading partners were above 10%, with the EU, Japan, and South Korea at 15%, and many Southeast Asian economies even higher. After raising to 15%, the tariffs the U.S. applies to several key trading partners are now not much different from the previous “reciprocal tariffs.”

However, for the UK, this increase to 15% is undoubtedly a blow, as the previous “reciprocal tariff” agreement with Washington guaranteed a uniform 10% tariff.

William Bain, Head of Trade Policy at the British Chamber of Commerce, said that UK exports to the U.S. will face an additional 5 percentage point increase.

Bain stated, “The four million UK companies exporting to the U.S. will be disappointed by the latest developments. We were already concerned that President Trump’s ‘Plan B’ measures might cause more severe damage to UK businesses, and this has proven to be the case.”

For India and other countries, the situation remains uncertain. Before the Supreme Court’s ruling, India had reached a trade agreement with the U.S., reducing tariffs on Indian goods from 50% to 18%. India thus benefits from an unexpected tariff reduction.

The Indian Ministry of Commerce issued a non-committal statement after the ruling, saying it was “studying all these developments.” On the 20th, when asked about the India-U.S. agreement, Trump replied, “Everything remains the same.”

A person with long experience in international trade and logistics told reporters that the White House previously announced that the 10% tariff would take effect at 12:01 a.m. Eastern Time on the 24th, but there has been no statement regarding whether the 15% tariff will also take effect on the 24th. This news was announced by Trump on social media, and traders are now waiting for further clarification from the White House on the 23rd, followed by the CBP’s statements and details on the 24th.

Duming, Associate Dean of Durham University Law School, Professor of Transnational Law, and Co-Director of the Global Policy Institute, told Yicai that raising tariffs to 15% has the least impact on existing U.S. trade agreements. The U.S. has already signed more than 20 so-called trade agreements globally and will continue to seek other legal tools to maintain this status quo. “It’s a dilemma; they have to persist.”

How long will the new tariffs last?

Guanjian said that Section 122 allows the U.S. government to impose tariffs up to 15% on trading partners within 150 days, but this clause has time and maximum rate limits. Congress could authorize extensions, and the Trump administration might repeatedly use this clause.

Duming explained that he reviewed the relevant laws and found no explicit prohibition on “repeated use” of this clause. He clarified that just because it’s not forbidden to use it repeatedly doesn’t mean it’s straightforward—using it twice approaches a year, which aligns with the typical duration of a Section 301 investigation.

He noted that the uncertainty about whether Section 122 can be extended or reused stems from the fact that these provisions are in a legal gray area, as neither Section 122 nor Section 338, originating from the 1930 Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, have been used before. Although these laws grant the President significant unilateral tariff powers—up to 50% without investigation—no President in nearly 100 years has actually invoked them to impose tariffs.

“People are unsure where the boundaries are,” Duming told reporters. Beyond technical doubts, the current U.S. Congress faces midterm elections, and the Supreme Court’s ruling, along with some Republican lawmakers’ opposition on trade issues, makes it difficult to extend or repeatedly use these measures in practice.

He added, “The next 150 days are critical for the Trump administration. They need to use this ‘fear balance’ to push forward new agreements, negotiate with more countries, and also find more suitable legal grounds within domestic law to maintain external pressure.”

Currently, Trump has ordered further investigations into “unfair trade practices” under Section 301 of the 1974 Trade Act. He also stated that he would impose more tariffs under Section 232 of the 1962 Trade Expansion Act, which allows sanctions on “threatened industries” for reasons of national security.

Guanjian pointed out that based on the issuance of the administrative order related to Section 122, the U.S. government is likely playing a “cat and mouse” game, constantly changing legal justifications to counter judicial review until such review can no longer interfere.

He warned that Section 232 is another tool frequently used by the Trump administration besides the so-called “reciprocal tariffs,” and its scope is very broad.

(Article source: Yicai)