Trump's new trade strategy: 10% tariffs and a reorganization of global trade

In mid-February 2026, President Donald Trump executed a trade move that goes far beyond simple tariff numbers. After imposing a 10% surcharge on most U.S. imports on February 20, effective from February 24, it became clear that this policy represents a fundamental shift in how the White House conducts its trade strategy. It’s not just about raising prices at the border but about redefining economic leverage within constitutional limits and repositioning the United States on the global trade board.

A Forced Turnaround by the Courts

The story of these tariffs begins in a courtroom, not at a trade negotiation table. For years, the previous administration had used the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to justify broad tariff measures. However, the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated that legal strategy, ruling that the IEEPA does not permit the president to impose general tariffs as an economic policy tool.

That judicial defeat did not stop Trump’s ambitions but forced a legal reconfiguration of his trade strategy. Instead, the administration turned to Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act, a narrower but more legally solid provision that allows temporary import surcharges in situations affecting the international balance of payments. This legal maneuver illustrates how modern trade policy must evolve under judicial pressure, not just political preference.

The 10 Percentage Points That Shook Imports

The tariff surcharge announced on February 20 is structurally simple but economically broad: a 10% ad valorem duty on most goods entering the United States. Unlike targeted measures aimed at specific countries or sectors, this policy applies almost universally, creating a widespread adjustment in border costs.

The measure took effect on February 24 and is designed to last 150 days unless extended by Congress. The official justification centers on what Washington describes as structural distortions in international payments and long-standing imbalances that require correction. Regardless of rhetoric, the practical effect is direct and almost immediate: importers, manufacturers, and retailers face an additional 10% in their costs of bringing goods in.

Who Benefits and Who Suffers Under This Strategy

The winners under this trade strategy are relatively clear: U.S. producers competing against imports, domestic manufacturing sectors seeking to regain market share, and workers in domestic industries who could benefit from import substitution.

Losers include retailers importing finished goods who must absorb the 10% or pass it on to consumers, manufacturers dependent on global supply chains facing immediate cost increases, and end consumers who will likely see higher prices in categories reliant on imports. In the short term, e-commerce and small imports also feel the pressure due to changes in de minimis rules.

The Exclusions That Reveal True Priorities

Although broad, the tariff is not indiscriminate. The administration excluded strategic categories: critical minerals, energy products, passenger vehicles, aerospace components, and certain informational materials. Goods already subject to Section 232 tariffs were also excluded to avoid double taxation.

These exclusions are not accidental. They reveal political and industrial sensitivities in U.S. trade strategy. Protecting the automotive and aerospace industries reduces domestic disruptions. Excluding energy and critical minerals reflects national security concerns. The final structure shows that even broad trade measures are carefully calibrated around specific political and economic realities.

How Supply Chains React

The impact does not stop at customs documentation. Tariffs propagate through complex supply chains. Retailers face immediate decisions: absorb costs or raise prices. Manufacturers relying on foreign components experience margin compression or accelerate the search for alternative suppliers, decisions that require capital investment and time.

Some companies may attempt to speed up repatriation of production or diversify sourcing bases, but these transitions are not instant. In the short term, consumers will see higher prices in electronics, textiles, chemicals, and other import-intensive sectors. The key question is whether the temporary nature of the surcharge (150 days) will limit permanent changes or if companies will interpret this measure as a signal of a longer-term trade reconfiguration.

E-commerce Comes Under Scrutiny

A less visible but significant adjustment accompanies the tariff: the restriction of de minimis exemptions. Historically, small packages below a certain value threshold entered the U.S. duty-free—a loophole that allowed e-commerce platforms and small importers to operate with cost advantages.

By closing this channel, the administration extends the tariff burden to retail and digital trade, not just industrial commerce. This change ensures that the 10% surcharge is felt across multiple channels, from large importers to small electronic deliveries, marking a comprehensive approach to implementing the new trade strategy.

Brussels, Beijing, and Other Partners Say ‘No’ Silently

Global trade does not operate in isolation. Major U.S. trading partners—European Union, China, Canada, Mexico—are evaluating responses. Under World Trade Organization (WTO) rules, many can implement targeted retaliatory tariffs. Others seek specific exemptions, emergency bilateral agreements, or their own protectionist measures.

The dynamic is predictable: as Washington adjusts its tariff base, global price mechanisms recalibrate, and geopolitical dynamics inevitably follow. Intense negotiations will begin quickly, with governments requesting sector- or country-specific exceptions—a process that could prolong trade uncertainty beyond the initial 150 days.

150 Days That Could Change Everything

Time is ticking. Since Section 122 limits the surcharge to 150 days unless Congress acts, an expiration point is built in. Lawmakers now face complex political decisions: extend the measure? Modify it? Let it expire?

Meanwhile, legal scrutiny is likely to increase. Trade advocates may argue that the payment balance justification does not strictly meet the legal requirements of Section 122. The Supreme Court has already demonstrated in previous rulings that executive authority in trade policy has constitutional limits. Future legal challenges could test the durability of this regulatory approach.

Beyond Numbers: A New Era of Trade Diplomacy

Trump’s new tariffs should not be seen solely as a tax increase on imports. They represent a recalibrated assertion of executive trade power within judicial limits, combined with a deliberate attempt to influence supply chains and global economic behavior.

Whether this policy evolves into a temporary adjustment or becomes the basis for a long-term trade reconfiguration will depend on Congress, courts, and global responses. What is clear is that the era of predictable trade policy has given way to a more assertive and legally contested phase. Companies, investors, and governments are now repositioning themselves in this new reality, where U.S. trade strategy seeks to redefine itself through both economic pressure and the evolving balance between legal authority and executive ambition.