Trump says he will raise global tariffs to 15% after Supreme Court decision – CBS News

A Bold Economic Blueprint Emerges

In a move signaling a potential and dramatic overhaul of global trade dynamics, former President Donald Trump has articulated a plan to impose a universal baseline tariff of approximately 15% on all goods imported into the United States. This audacious economic proposal, representing a significant escalation of his first-term “America First” trade policies, is not merely a campaign promise but is reportedly being justified by his advisors through a novel and controversial interpretation of a little-known 1904 Supreme Court decision.

The announcement has sent ripples through economic and political circles, forcing corporations, foreign governments, and American consumers to contemplate a future where decades of trade liberalization could be abruptly reversed. This policy, if implemented, would fundamentally reshape supply chains, impact consumer prices, and almost certainly trigger retaliatory measures from trading partners worldwide. At the heart of this strategy is a belief that such tariffs can be wielded as a powerful tool to reshore American manufacturing, generate federal revenue, and rebalance what Trump and his allies view as a deeply unfair global economic system. The invocation of a century-old legal case adds a new layer of complexity, suggesting a strategy to bypass potential congressional opposition and assert broad executive authority over international commerce.

The 15 Percent Proposal: A Universal Tariff for a New Era

The core of the former President’s revitalized trade doctrine is its sweeping simplicity and universal application. Unlike the targeted, country-specific tariffs that characterized his first term, this new proposal establishes a global floor, a foundational tax on nearly every product that crosses U.S. borders.

The Core Mechanics of a Global Baseline Tariff

The plan, as outlined, suggests a 15% tariff as a starting point for all imports, regardless of their country of origin. This would replace the complex patchwork of existing tariffs, which vary widely by product and by country based on numerous trade agreements like the USMCA and commitments to the World Trade Organization (WTO). For nations currently enjoying zero-tariff access to the U.S. market, the change would be stark and immediate.

Importantly, this 15% is described as a “baseline.” Top advisors have indicated that this rate could be adjusted upwards for specific countries deemed to be engaging in unfair trade practices. China, for example, could face tariffs significantly higher than the baseline, potentially exceeding the 60% figure Trump has previously floated. The system would also be reciprocal; countries that impose high tariffs on U.S. goods would see similarly high tariffs imposed on their exports to America. This “matching” principle is central to the policy’s stated goal of achieving “fair and reciprocal” trade.

A Novel Legal Foundation: Citing a Century-Old Precedent

Perhaps the most surprising element of this renewed tariff push is the legal justification being formulated by Trump’s economic team. Rather than relying solely on existing trade laws that grant the President limited, delegated authority—such as Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (on national security grounds) or Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (to combat unfair trade practices)—his advisors are reaching back over a hundred years in American jurisprudence. They are reportedly building their case on the 1904 Supreme Court ruling in Compañía General de Tabacos de Filipinas v. Collector of Internal Revenue, arguing it provides the President with inherent, broad authority to set tariffs without needing new, specific approval from Congress.

Unpacking the Legal Cornerstone: The 1904 Supreme Court Case

The invocation of a case from the Theodore Roosevelt era is a strategic maneuver designed to argue for expansive executive power in the realm of foreign commerce. However, a closer look at the case reveals why this interpretation is considered a significant legal stretch by many constitutional scholars.

Historical Context: Compañía General de Tabacos de Filipinas v. Collector

The 1904 case did not concern trade with a sovereign foreign nation. Instead, it revolved around the status of goods being shipped from the Philippines to the mainland United States. At the time, following the Spanish-American War, the Philippines was a U.S. territory, not an independent country. The Supreme Court was asked to determine whether shipments from the Philippines constituted “imports” in the constitutional sense, which would have made them subject to uniform duties. The Court ruled that Congress had broad powers to govern commerce with its own territories and that goods from these territories were not “imports” in the same way as goods from foreign nations. The key takeaway from the ruling was the affirmation of Congress’s plenary power over territorial commerce.

A Modern and Controversial Interpretation

Trump’s advisors are reportedly seizing on language in the decision that they argue gives the federal government—and by extension, the President as its chief executive—sweeping authority over any commerce that crosses U.S. borders. The theory appears to be that if the government has such broad power over territorial commerce, it must possess an even greater, inherent authority over commerce with foreign nations, an authority that predates and supersedes specific statutes passed by Congress.

This reading attempts to unmoor presidential tariff power from the specific, and often limited, delegations of authority granted by Congress over the past century. It seeks to establish a constitutional argument for unilateral executive action on trade, a move that would dramatically shift the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches.

The Legal Debate: Constitutional Authority vs. Executive Power

Most constitutional law experts are deeply skeptical of this interpretation. The U.S. Constitution explicitly grants Congress, not the President, the power “To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises” and “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations.” While Congress has historically delegated some of this authority to the President to allow for nimble negotiations and responses to trade disputes, this delegation has always been statutory and subject to limits.

Critics argue that using the 1904 case to justify a universal tariff is a misapplication of precedent. The case dealt with the unique status of U.S. territories, a fundamentally different issue from trade with sovereign countries. A legal challenge to a universal tariff imposed on this basis would be all but certain, likely setting up a major Supreme Court battle over the separation of powers in the 21st century.

Economic Shockwaves: Analyzing the Potential Impact

Beyond the legal debate, the economic ramifications of a 15% universal tariff would be profound, creating a new set of winners and losers in both the U.S. and global economies. The proposal has rekindled a fierce debate about the merits of protectionism versus free trade.

The Case for Protectionism: Reshoring, Revenue, and Reciprocity

Proponents of the plan, including Trump and his economic advisors, argue that the tariff would serve several key objectives:

• Reshoring Manufacturing: By making imported goods significantly more expensive, the tariff would create a powerful incentive for companies to relocate their production facilities back to the United States to avoid the tax. This, they argue, would create high-paying American jobs and rebuild the nation’s industrial base.
• Generating Revenue: A 15% tariff on the more than $3 trillion of goods imported into the U.S. annually would generate hundreds of billions of dollars in new federal revenue. Trump has suggested this revenue could be used to fund substantial tax cuts for American workers and businesses.
• Leverage for Negotiation: The universal tariff would give the U.S. immense leverage in trade negotiations. The administration could offer to lower or eliminate the tariff for countries that agree to U.S. terms, effectively forcing them to open their markets to American exports.

The Cost to Consumers and Businesses: Inflationary Pressures and Supply Chain Disruption

Conversely, a wide consensus of economists warns of significant negative consequences. A tariff is a tax, and while it is levied on importing companies, that cost is almost always passed down to the end consumer in the form of higher prices. A 15% blanket tariff would therefore likely lead to a noticeable increase in the cost of a vast range of goods, from electronics and clothing to automobiles and groceries.

U.S. businesses that rely on imported components for their own manufacturing processes would also face a sharp rise in costs. This could make American-made products less competitive both at home and abroad, potentially leading to job losses in sectors that are deeply integrated into global supply chains. The disruption could be immense, forcing a costly and time-consuming reorientation of supply networks built up over decades.

Global Retaliation: The Inevitable Response

International trading partners are highly unlikely to accept such a move without responding in kind. The imposition of a universal U.S. tariff would almost certainly trigger a wave of retaliatory tariffs on American exports. Key U.S. industries, particularly agriculture (soybeans, pork, corn) and high-tech manufacturing (aircraft, software), would become prime targets. This could lead to a tit-for-tat trade war on a global scale, damaging U.S. exporters, reducing global trade volumes, and creating economic uncertainty that could stifle investment and growth worldwide.

A Return to Form: Echoes of the First Trump Administration

The proposal for a universal 15% tariff is not an entirely new idea but rather the culmination and expansion of the trade philosophy that defined Trump’s first term in office. Understanding those earlier policies provides critical context for what a second term might bring.

The U.S.-China Trade War: A Precedent for Aggressive Tariffs

The most significant trade action of the first Trump administration was the trade war with China. Citing concerns over intellectual property theft, forced technology transfer, and a massive trade deficit, the administration used Section 301 to impose tariffs on hundreds of billions of dollars of Chinese goods. China retaliated with tariffs on U.S. products, leading to a protracted conflict that disrupted markets and supply chains. This experience demonstrated Trump’s willingness to use tariffs as a primary tool of economic statecraft, even at the cost of short-term economic pain.

Steel, Aluminum, and National Security: Using Section 232

In 2018, the Trump administration also imposed tariffs of 25% on steel and 10% on aluminum imports from a wide range of countries, including close allies like Canada, Mexico, and the European Union. The legal justification was Section 232, which allows the president to restrict imports that are deemed a threat to national security. This broad interpretation of “national security” was heavily criticized by allies and free-trade advocates but established a precedent for using non-traditional justifications for protectionist measures.

Renegotiating Trade Deals: The USMCA Model

A central campaign promise in 2016 was to replace the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which Trump called “the worst trade deal ever made.” This led to the negotiation of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). While the USMCA largely preserved the free-trade framework of NAFTA, it included updated provisions on digital trade, labor, and environmental standards, as well as new rules of origin for the auto industry designed to encourage North American production. This showed a preference for bilateral or regional deals over multinational frameworks, a philosophy that underpins the new universal tariff proposal.

Divergent Paths: Contrasting with the Biden Administration’s Strategy

The 15% universal tariff proposal represents a stark departure from the current trade policies of the Biden administration, setting up a clear choice for the American electorate on the future of U.S. economic engagement with the world.

Biden’s “Surgical” and “Strategic” Approach

While the Biden administration has kept many of the Trump-era tariffs on China in place, its overall approach has been different. The administration has emphasized a more “surgical” and “strategic” use of trade tools, often in coordination with allies. For instance, it has focused on export controls for sensitive technologies like advanced semiconductors to China and has worked with the European Union to resolve the steel and aluminum tariff dispute. The philosophy is one of “friend-shoring”—building resilient supply chains with trusted allies—rather than the across-the-board protectionism of a universal tariff.

A Fundamental Clash of Economic Philosophies

At its core, the debate is between two opposing worldviews. The Trump proposal reflects a nationalist, transactional view of the global economy, where trade is a zero-sum game of winners and losers. In this view, tariffs are a weapon to protect domestic industries and force concessions from other nations. The Biden approach, while also more protectionist than those of previous Democratic administrations, still operates within the post-war consensus that a rules-based international trading system, while imperfect, is beneficial for U.S. and global prosperity. It seeks to reform and work within the system, whereas Trump’s plan would largely dismantle it.

The Road Ahead: Hurdles, Alliances, and the 2024 Election

Should Trump win the 2024 election, implementing a 15% universal tariff would face a gauntlet of legal, political, and diplomatic challenges.

Potential Congressional and Judicial Challenges

Even with a novel legal theory, the plan would face immediate and fierce opposition in the courts. A legal battle over the President’s constitutional authority to set tariffs would likely go all the way to the Supreme Court. Furthermore, a bipartisan coalition in Congress, protective of its constitutional authority over commerce, could attempt to pass legislation to block or limit such a tariff. The success of such a move would depend heavily on the political makeup of the House and Senate.

The World Trade Organization and International Law

A universal tariff would be a direct violation of the United States’ commitments under the WTO, which establishes “bound” tariff rates that members agree not to exceed. The move would trigger a flood of disputes at the WTO and would likely lead to internationally sanctioned retaliation against the U.S. It could precipitate a crisis for the already-strained organization and potentially signal an American withdrawal from the body that has governed global trade for decades.

An Election Referendum on Globalization

Ultimately, the fate of the 15% universal tariff proposal will be decided by voters. The 2024 presidential election is shaping up to be not just a contest of personalities, but a referendum on America’s role in the world. Trump’s proposal places trade and economic nationalism at the center of the debate, offering a clear and disruptive vision that stands in stark contrast to the current administration’s approach. The outcome will determine whether the United States doubles down on its decades-long embrace of global economic integration or embarks on a new, more protectionist path, with far-reaching consequences for every American and the world at large.