Businesses warn trade ‘win’ yet to come

U.S. trading partners offered a cautious welcome to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision Friday to strike down large parts of President Donald Trump’s flagship trade policy on global tariffs — but global trade bodies warned of lingering uncertainty surrounding import levies.

The law that undergirds the import duties “does not authorize the President to impose tariffs,” the majority ruled six to three in the long-awaited Supreme Court decision.

Trump’s tariff regime impacted a swathe of countries from the U.K. to India and the European Union. Some governments, like Vietnam and Brazil are still in negotiation.

A U.K. government spokesperson said the country would continue to work with the White House administration to understand how the ruling will affect tariffs for the U.K. and the rest of the world

“This is a matter for the U.S. to determine but we will continue to support U.K. businesses as further details are announced,” the spokesperson said.

“The U.K. enjoys the lowest reciprocal tariffs globally, and under any scenario we expect our privileged trading position with the U.S. to continue.” The U.K. agreed a wide-ranging trade deal with the U.S. in May last year, which imposed a broad 10% levy on many goods, but also included certain carve-outs on steel, aluminium, cars and pharmaceuticals.

The Supreme Court case focused mainly on reciprocal tariffs, and the ruling leaves much of the U.K.’s trade deal with the U.S. — including preferential sectoral tariffs on steel, pharmaceuticals and autos — unaffected.

However, the British Chambers of Commerce (BCC) trade body said the U.S. Supreme Court decision adds to the ongoing uncertainty around levies.

William Bain, head of trade policy at the BCC, said the move “does little to clear the murky waters” for British businesses, warning that the President still has “other options at his disposal” to retain his current regime on steel and aluminium tariffs.  

“The court’s decision also raises questions on how U.S. importers can reclaim levies already paid and whether U.K. exporters can also receive a share of any rebate depending on commercial trading terms,” Bain said in a statement. “For the U.K., the priority remains bringing tariffs down wherever possible.”

Olof Gill, European Commission spokesperson for trade and economic security, said businesses on both sides of the Atlantic depend on “stability and predictability.”

“We remain in close contact with the U.S. Administration as we seek clarity on the steps they intend to take in response to this ruling,” Gill said. “We therefore continue to advocate for low tariffs and to work towards reducing them.”

Meanwhile, Dominic LeBlanc, Canada’s minister for U.S.-Canadian trade relations, said the decision “reinforces Canada’s position that the IEEPA tariffs imposed by the United States are unjustified.”

Elsewhere, Swissmem, Switzerland’s technology industry association, welcomed the ruling — but warned that the Trump administration could invoke other laws to “legitimize tariffs,” and called on Swiss policymakers to strengthen the competitiveness of the country with new free trade agreements.

“From the perspective of the Swiss export industry, this is a good decision. The high tariffs have severely damaged the tech industry. However, today’s ruling doesn’t win anything yet,” Swissmem said.

“The high tariffs have severely damaged the tech industry,” Swissmem wrote on X. “The crucial thing now is to quickly secure relations with the U.S. through a binding trade agreement.”

The International Chamber of Commerce noted that many businesses will welcome the ruling given the “significant strain” that has been placed on balance sheets in recent months.

“But companies should not expect a simple process: the structure of U.S. import procedures means claims are likely to be administratively complex. Today’s ruling is worrying silent on this issue and clear guidance from the Court of International Trade and the relevant U.S. authorities will be essential to minimise avoidable costs and prevent litigation risks,” the ICC said.

— CNBC’s Jackson Peck and Greg Kennedy helped contribute to this story.