The US Supreme Court’s ruling that most of President Donald Trump’s tariffs were unlawful has sent trading partners and European officials into rapid damage assessment mode. While the administration says it will pursue other authorities to defend its trade policy, the decision removes the legal foundation for many of the broad, reciprocal levies and gives affected industries a potential breathing space.
European reaction was cautious but generally welcoming. French President Emmanuel Macron, speaking at an agricultural fair in Paris, said the verdict underscored the importance of checks and balances in democracies and that France would evaluate the implications of a new global tariff the US president had announced. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said he hoped exporters would see relief, arguing that tariffs are harmful to all sides and that the decision showed US institutional separations still function.
Brussels pushed for stability. The European Commission repeated that last July’s EU‑US deal must be respected — “a deal is a deal” — and warned that companies need predictability and legal certainty to sustain transatlantic trade and investment. The commission said ongoing uncertainty undermines efforts to preserve a fair, balanced trading relationship.
Uncertainty clouds EU‑US trade pact
The verdict has put the EU‑US tariff agreement in doubt and prompted the EU to postpone ratification. The European Parliament’s trade committee convened to consider next steps. Bernd Lange, chair of the committee, said ratification cannot proceed until there is clarity from Washington that commitments will be respected and stability returned.
Under the deal negotiated after the first round of US tariffs, most EU goods would enter the United States at a fixed 15% rate while the EU agreed to remove tariffs on many US industrial imports. Ratification had been expected in the spring but is now uncertain; some lawmakers who had already delayed approval over other concerns may feel reinforced to keep their hold. Analysts caution, however, that other US trade tools and shifting geopolitics mean partners remain wary.
US officials and the UK
US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said the administration intends to honor agreements it has made and expects partners to do likewise, adding it would implement tariffs at agreed levels irrespective of ongoing litigation. The UK — which reached the first post‑initial‑tariff deal with Washington — said it expects its preferential access to continue and is working with US counterparts to interpret the ruling’s implications.
Industry response and calls for clarity
German industry groups welcomed the decision as a nod toward rules‑based trade but warned that legal uncertainty complicates business planning. The Federation of German Industries (BDI) urged the EU, with German backing, to quickly clarify the ruling’s impact on the EU‑US agreement so firms can plan. The German Chamber of Industry and Commerce (DIHK) said uncertainty remains high because the US can resort to other instruments; it called on the EU to press for the removal or reduction of extra levies such as the steep duties on steel and aluminium.
Which tariffs remain, and which are affected
The court specifically undermined the use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) as the basis for most of the administration’s reciprocal tariffs. But sector‑specific measures enacted under national security rules (Section 232) — including some steel, aluminium and car‑related levies — were not addressed by the ruling, nor were tariffs imposed under Section 301 on Chinese imports from the previous administration.
After the decision, President Trump announced new global 15% levies under Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act and warned of fresh investigations that could produce additional duties. Those measures would sit alongside any remaining sectoral tariffs enacted under other authorities.
Sectoral risks and the limits of reprieve
The practical effects vary by industry. Automakers may see renewed risk: if the EU‑US deal falters, cars and parts that were to face 15% could revert to a broader US rate of roughly 25% on many vehicle imports. Pharmaceuticals and chemicals are also vulnerable; proposed levies in these areas have not taken effect but could be pursued under Section 232 or other authorities. Analysts caution that targeted measures under Section 301 or 232 can be more precise and potentially more damaging to specific sectors than the broader IEEPA approach.
In short, the court decision reduces the legal basis for many of the president’s tariff measures and offers a temporary reprieve for some trading partners, but significant uncertainty remains because other legal tools are available to the administration and new investigations or tariffs could follow.