On 20 February, the Supreme Court of the United States delivered a major blow to President Donald Trump’s trade strategy, ruling by six votes to three that he lacked the authority to impose sweeping “reciprocal” tariffs without the approval of Congress. President Trump’s immediate moves to bypass the ruling with new executive orders have sent political shockwaves to Europe. In the continent, EU institutions and Member States are now reassessing their approach to a fragile transatlantic trade deal reached last year.
The SCOTUS ruling
The Supreme Court’s ruling centred on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a 1977 law that allows the US President to regulate economic transactions during national emergencies. The justices concluded that IEEPA does not authorise the unilateral imposition of tariffs, drawing a clear distinction between “regulating” imports and “taxing” them, a power reserved to Congress under the US Constitution.
This ruling effectively invalidated the “reciprocal” 10% global baseline tariffs. However, any sense of relief in Europe was short-lived. President Trump reacted furiously, calling the ruling “deeply disappointing”. Within hours, he signed a fresh executive order invoking Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act, first setting a 10 per cent global tariff and then raising it to the 15 per cent legal maximum. This measure requires the approval of Congress after 150 days.
Reactions from the EU
The European Commission issued a formal statement on Sunday calling for “full clarity” from the United States on its next steps. The Commission warned that the situation was “not conducive” to delivering the “fair, balanced and mutually beneficial” trade relationship envisaged in last summer’s EU–US joint statement reached at Turnberry in Scotland. Notably, there was no personal intervention from Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, signalling an institutional rather than political response.
The European Parliament reacted more forcefully. On Monday (23 February), Parliament’s International Trade Committee (INTA) froze ratification of the so-called Turnberry accord. MEPs argued that President Trump’s new 15 per cent tariff could breach the spirit, if not the letter, of the agreement. Bernd Lange, the committee chair, declared that “business as usual is not an option”.
However, on Tuesday (24 February), Trade Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič urged INTA MEPs not to derail the process. Mr. Šefčovič said he had received assurances from US counterparts that Washington intended to respect the deal if the EU did the same. His message was clear: Europe must remain a reliable partner, even when the political winds shift across the Atlantic.
The European Parliament’s INTA Committee will reconvene on 4 March to decide to unfreeze the trade deal.
Reactions from Member States
National capitals have struck a cautious but coordinated tone. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz described the ruling as “interesting” and “reassuring”, arguing that it demonstrated the resilience of US checks and balances. Moreover, Mr Merz pledged to approach his upcoming visit to the White House with a “coordinated European position”.
French President Emmanuel Macron welcomed the Court’s decision but warned against premature celebration. The swift introduction of new temporary tariffs, he noted, underlined how fluid the situation remains. Paris, like Berlin, has stressed reciprocity and fairness as guiding principles.
Conclusions
The Supreme Court’s judgment narrows presidential authority but does not end the era of tariffs. Several alternative US legal pathways remain available, and Congress could yet intervene. For the European Union, however, the immediate challenge is political: whether to press ahead with implementing the Turnberry deal or to wait for clearer signals from Washington.
