The US Supreme Court’s dramatic decision on Friday to rule most of President Donald Trump’s tariffs illegal has left trade partners scrambling to assess the consequences. Although Trump says he will press on using other legal authorities, the ruling could halt his flagship tariff policy and give affected countries and sectors an unexpected reprieve.
European leaders cautiously welcomed the decision. French President Emmanuel Macron, speaking at an agricultural fair in Paris, said it was “good to have power and counterweights to power in democracies” and that France would consider the consequences of a new global tariff Trump announced. Trump initially announced a global 10% levy and later said he would raise it to 15%. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz expressed hope the ruling would ease tariffs for German exporters, adding that “tariffs harm everyone” and noting the decision suggested the separation of powers in the US still functions.
The European Commission urged that the EU-US agreement struck last July be upheld, saying “A deal is a deal” and stressing that EU companies need fair treatment, predictability and legal certainty. The commission warned the current uncertainty is not conducive to delivering “fair, balanced, and mutually beneficial” transatlantic trade and investment.
Uncertainty over EU-US trade deal
The verdict has thrown into doubt the EU-US trade agreement. The EU confirmed it is delaying ratification; the European Parliament’s trade committee met to discuss next steps. Bernd Lange, chair of the committee, said there was no option but to delay ratification until there is clarity from the US that it will respect the deal and provide stability.
The deal, agreed after Trump’s initial tariffs, fixed tariffs on most EU goods entering the US at 15% while the EU agreed to eliminate tariffs on US industrial goods entering the EU. Ratification, previously expected in March or April, is now uncertain. Some EU lawmakers who had already delayed ratification over other disputes may feel encouraged to continue the pause, analysts note, though other US tools and geopolitical shifts mean US trading partners remain cautious.
US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said the US government would “honour” deals it has struck and expected partners to do the same, noting the administration would impose tariffs at agreed levels regardless of litigation outcomes. The UK, which struck the first post-blitz tariff deal with the US, said it expected its privileged trading position with the US to continue and was working with Washington to understand the ruling’s implications.
Cautious reaction from German industry
Industry groups welcomed the signal for a rules-based trade order but warned that uncertainty complicates planning. The Federation of German Industries (BDI) called on the EU, supported by the German government, to quickly clarify the ruling’s consequences for the EU-US deal, saying businesses urgently need planning certainty. The German Chamber of Industry and Commerce (DIHK) said uncertainty remains high because the US administration can use other instruments for restrictive trade measures. DIHK urged the EU to press for removal or reduction of tariffs outside the 15% rate, such as the 50% levies on European steel and aluminium.
How different sectors could be hit
The Supreme Court specifically targeted tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), used for most of Trump’s reciprocal tariffs. But industry-specific tariffs enacted on national security grounds (Section 232) — including some steel, aluminium and automotive levies — were not affected. Tariffs on Chinese goods imposed under Section 301 during Trump’s first term also remain in force.
After the ruling, Trump ordered new global 15% levies under Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act; these are in addition to sectoral tariffs levied under other authorities. He has also threatened new trade investigations that could spawn further tariffs.
The future for European car exports is unclear: under the July deal, car and parts faced a 15% US tariff, but with the agreement in doubt they could face the administration’s broad 25% rate on most car imports. Pharmaceuticals are another concern: though proposed tariffs in that sector have yet to take effect, Trump has threatened large levies that would likely use Section 232, which permits tariffs on national security grounds.
Analysts warn the ruling may not bring relief. Sector-specific measures under Sections 301 or 232 can target industries more precisely than IEEPA’s broad approach. Pharmaceuticals, chemicals and automotive components are plausible targets for further action; different legal authorities may produce similar or worse economic impacts for affected sectors.
Edited by: Ashutosh Pandey