Businesses warn trade ‘win’ yet to come
World leaders during the G7 Leaders Summit in Kananaskis, Alberta, Canada, on June 17, 2025.
Amber Bracken |Reuters
U.S. trading partners offered a cautious welcome Friday to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to strike down much of President Donald Trump’s flagship trade policy on global tariffs; However, global trade bodies have warned that uncertainty around import duties remains.
The majority ruled three to six that the law supporting import duties “does not give the President the authority to impose customs duties.” In the long-awaited Supreme Court decision.
Trump’s tariff regime has affected countries from the UK to India to the European Union. Some governments, such as Vietnam and Brazil, are still in the negotiation phase.
A UK government spokesman said the country would continue to work with the White House administration to understand how the decision would affect tariffs on the UK and the rest of the world.
“This is for the US to determine, but we will continue to support UK businesses as more details are revealed,” the spokesman said.
“The UK has the lowest reciprocal tariffs globally and we expect it to maintain our privileged trading position with the US in any scenario.” Britain signed a sweeping trade deal with the US in May last year that imposed a broad 10 per cent tariff on many goods but also included some cuts in steel, aluminium, cars and pharmaceuticals.
The Supreme Court case focused mainly on reciprocal tariffs, and the ruling leaves most of the UK’s trade agreement with the US (including preferential sectoral tariffs on steel, pharmaceuticals and cars) unaffected.
But trade body the British Chambers of Commerce (BCC) said the US Supreme Court decision added to ongoing uncertainty around taxes.
The BCC’s head of trade policy, William Bain, said the move “does little to clear dark waters” for British businesses, warning that the President still has “other options” to maintain his current regime on steel and aluminum tariffs.
“The court’s decision also raises questions about how U.S. importers will be able to recover duties already paid and whether British exporters will also receive a share of any reductions depending on commercial trading terms,” Bain said in a statement. he said. “The priority for the UK remains to reduce tariffs wherever possible.”
Olof Gill, the European Commission’s spokesman for trade and economic security, said businesses on both sides of the Atlantic were committed to “stability and predictability”.
“We are in close contact with the US Administration as we seek clarity on the steps they plan to take in response to this decision,” Gill said. “That’s why we continue to advocate for low tariffs and work to reduce them.”
Meanwhile, Canada’s minister for U.S.-Canada trade relations, Dominic LeBlanc, said the decision “reinforces Canada’s position that IEEPA tariffs imposed by the United States are unfair.”
No trading ‘gains’ yet
Switzerland’s technology industry association, Swissmem, welcomed the decision but warned that the Trump administration could resort to other laws to “legitimize tariffs” and called on Swiss policymakers to strengthen the country’s competitiveness with new free trade agreements.
Swissmem said, “From the perspective of the Swiss export industry, this is a good decision. High tariffs have seriously damaged the technology industry. But today’s decision has not achieved anything yet.” he said.
“High tariffs have seriously damaged the technology industry,” Swissmem wrote to X. “The important thing now is to quickly secure relations with the United States through a binding trade agreement.”
The International Chamber of Commerce said many businesses would welcome the decision given the “significant pressure” on balance sheets in recent months.
“But companies should not expect a simple process: the nature of US import procedures means that claims are likely to be administratively complex. Today’s decision is alarmingly silent on this issue, and clear guidance from relevant US authorities at the International Trade Court will be essential to minimize avoidable costs and avoid litigation risks,” the ICC said. he said.
— CNBC’s Jackson Peck and Greg Kennedy contributed to this story.
