02/21/2026, 06:4302/21/2026, 07:05
US President Donald Trump was clearly trying not to let his devastating defeat on the tariff issue show. But this could not hide the extent of the impact: in a historic decision, the US Supreme Court declared a large part of its tariffs to be illegal. Citing an emergency law from 1977, the US President had, since the beginning of his second term in office, imposed tariffs on dozens of trading partners bypassing Congress – thereby plunging the global economy into chaos.
A Donald Trump banner hangs on the facade of the Department of Justice in Washington, DC, February 20, 2026.Image: keystone
Now it is clear: he exceeded his authority. According to the Supreme Court, the emergency law does not give him the authority to impose tariffs independently. This means that Trump no longer has a legal basis that he also used to assert his foreign policy interests outside of his economic policy. On Friday evening, the White House officially announced that it would end these tariffs, which are based on the emergency law IEEPA, and would no longer raise them.
What remains are numerous open questions that once again illustrate how much uncertainty Trump’s policies are causing in his own country and beyond. This is also fueled by the fact that Trump, in his first reaction hours after his defeat, announced tariffs again – citing a different legal basis.
Three central questions that now arise:
What happens to trade agreements like the one with Switzerland and the EU?
After Trump’s tariff setback, it was initially unclear which trade agreements would remain in place and which would not. Trump was also tight-lipped – with some countries they wanted to stick to the previous agreements, while others were likely to prepare for new tariffs, he said.
It initially remained unclear which of the two categories Switzerland and the European Union would fall into. In an initial reaction, the EU Commission pointed out that companies on both sides of the Atlantic depend on “stability and predictability in trade relations”.
In December 2025, the USA limited the flat-rate additional tariff on imports from Switzerland to a maximum of 15 percent. This was retroactive to November 14th and has been in effect ever since. The Federal Council then approved the mandate for negotiations on a legally binding trade agreement with the USA. The customs agreement between Switzerland and the USA is to be negotiated in a legally binding manner by March 31st. Following Friday’s ruling by the US Supreme Court, there have been calls from left-wing parties to suspend negotiations with Trump.
What kind of tariffs will Trump impose based on other bases?
On Friday evening (local time), according to the White House, Trump signed an order for a temporary tariff of ten percent on imports into the USA – citing a trade law from 1974. This allows, under certain conditions, tariffs to be levied on imports for up to 150 days. Experts already doubt that these have been met. In order to impose tariffs for a longer period of time, Trump would definitely need the approval of the US Parliament.
However, in his first reaction, Trump emphasized that he did not want to continue to work with Congress on the issue of tariffs:
“I don’t have to do that (…) We (presidents) have the right to do pretty much anything we want.”
In its decision, which was also supported by conservative judges, the Supreme Court limited the powers of the US President in this regard. Judge Neil Gorsuch, nominated by Trump, was particularly clear: It can be tempting to bypass Congress when a pressing problem requires quick solutions. But the legislative process anchored in the constitution is a “bulwark of freedom” that also protects those for whom this is not so obvious. Laws arise from compromise and consultation with the elected representatives of a people, not from the daily impulses or views of “one man”.
What happens to customs revenue?
The Supreme Court has not ruled on whether the government must pay customs revenue back to importers – although it has not ruled this out either. Judge Brett Kavanaugh pointed out that the United States could be required to reimburse billions of dollars – even though some importers may have already passed on the costs to consumers or third parties. A reimbursement process could become “chaos”.
According to the University of Pennsylvania’s Penn Wharton Budget Model, the U.S. government could now owe importers up to $175 billion in refunds. “Unless an alternative source of income is found, future customs revenue will fall by half,” it said.
Trump was irritated that the Supreme Court had not issued an order regarding possible reimbursement obligations. “You would think they would have at least written down a sentence about whether you can keep the money or not, right? “I guess this will have to be played out in court for the next two years,” he said. Trump initially wants to keep the income and continue to spend it. (sda/dpa)