Some U.S. allies see higher duties under new tariffs, rivals see relief, trade body says

The U.K., the European Union and Singapore face higher trade-weighted tariffs, while countries such as Brazil, China and India will see such levies go down after U.S. President Donald Trump said he would raise global duties to 15%.

This comes after the U.S. Supreme Court decided in a 6-3 tariff ruling that the president wrongfully invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to implement his levies.

Trump later responded by imposing a global 10% duty under Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act, which was then raised to 15%.

On a trade-weighted basis, the U.K. faces a 2.1 percentage point increase in its average tariff rate, while the EU sees a 0.8 point rise, according to analysis from Swiss-based trade watchdog Global Trade Alert. In contrast, Brazil’s rate plunges 13.6 points, and China’s drops 7.1 points.

The EU Commission said it would request “full clarity” on the ruling, noting that “a deal was a deal,” with no increases in tariffs beyond the 15% ceiling previously agreed. The 27-member bloc had agreed a trade deal with the U.S. back in August last year that would see exports to Washington capped at a 15% tariff.

Asian allies Japan and South Korea face an increase in their trade-weighted average tariff rate of 0.4 percentage points and 0.6 percentage points, respectively. Both countries had agreed to a 15% tariff on their exports to the U.S. last year.

While some experts said the Supreme Court’s decision delivers the greatest relief to countries previously hit hardest by IEEPA-linked tariffs, others told CNBC it disadvantages nations that first negotiated trade deals with the U.S.

Johannes Fritz, CEO of the St.Gallen Endowment for Prosperity through Trade and author of the GTA report, said countries like China, Mexico and Canada faced dedicated tariff orders tied to opioids and border security, on top of the reciprocal rates from April 2025. Brazil and India also faced their own separate IEEPA orders.

“The Supreme Court struck down all of these, not just the reciprocal tariffs. So the countries that had the heaviest IEEPA exposure received the greatest relief,” he explained to CNBC.

Fritz noted that the EU and other allies, whose IEEPA burden was largely limited to the reciprocal rates, saw a smaller reduction.

Countries that had negotiated a 10% “reciprocal rate,” like the U.K., as well as countries receiving the baseline 10% rate like Singapore, Australia and Saudi Arabia, will then see their trade-weighted tariff rate rise, as the IEEPA tariffs are now replaced by Section 122 duties.

However, Sarang Shidore, director of the Global South Program at the Quincy Institute, had a different view, telling CNBC “Inside India” that “those countries that were early in striking deals with the United States after the Liberation Day tariffs of last year have been sort of left holding the bag.”

“Whereas those other countries that resisted, like Brazil and others in agreeing to any demands from the United States may be feeling a little more vindicated,” he added.

Shidore’s view was echoed by Alicia Garcia Herrero, chief economist for Asia Pacific at Natixis. “Countries which were suffering from higher tariffs and had not negotiated a major reduction will benefit more,” she told CNBC.

She pointed out Japan, which saw its “reciprocal tariffs” lowered to 15% in exchange for a $550 billion investment pledge into the U.S. last year.

“The government has confirmed they will keep their investment in the U.S. notwithstanding the Supreme Court decision. In other words, they are paying to receive the same treatment as others,” Herrero said.

In Asia, countries have mostly taken a wait-and-see approach to the Supreme Court ruling and Section 122 tariffs.

China’s ministry of commerce said in a statement Monday that it is conducting a “comprehensive assessment” of the Supreme Court ruling, and also urged the U.S. to “cancel its unilateral tariffs on its trading partners.”

India’s trade negotiators had planned to visit Washington, D.C. to firm up an interim trade deal that would see levies cut to 18% on New Delhi’s exports, but have now postponed that trip, a source told CNBC.

Over in South Korea, Kim Jung-kwan, the country’s minister of trade, industry and resources, said Seoul will pursue amicable consultations “to ensure that the balance of benefits and favorable export conditions secured through the Korea-U.S. tariff agreement are not undermined.”

While Japan has not issued an official response, officials told Nikkei Asia that the ruling would not affect Japan’s first round of investment projects in the U.S., with other officials also saying that Tokyo was keen to preserve its trade deal with Washington.

The 15% tariff also appears to apply to countries like Singapore, which runs a trade deficit with the U.S.

Singapore will see its effective tariff rate climb 1.1 percentage points, according to GTA. The city state had been hit with the global 10% “reciprocal tariff,” despite its trade deficit.

A spokesperson from the country’s trade and industry ministry said Singapore is monitoring the situation closely, and will engage with its “U.S. counterparts to seek clarity on the implementation of the new Section 122 tariffs and processes for tariff refunds.”

Overall, one word seems to characterise the trade landscape after the Supreme Court ruling: confusion.

While Trump had announced the 15% levy via Truth Social, the White House’s fact sheet still puts the Section 122 tariffs at 10%. Quincy Institute’s Shidore puts it plainly: “I think right now, there’s just a lot of confusion.”

His comments were echoed by Claudio Galimberti, chief economist at Rystad Energy, who wrote that the actual impact on trade remains “uncertain.”

Galimberti also cast doubt on the bilateral trade agreements between the U.S. and its trading partners, saying that those negotiated deals were structured around IEEPA tariff rates as the baseline.

“At present, it appears the U.S. has lost the ability to enforce those rates, and any prior renegotiated rates stemming from IEEPA tariffs are now replaced by the uniform 10% rate under Section 122,” he said, adding that the components under Section 232 remain legally intact.

GTA’s Fritz also highlighted the same issue, saying it is not clear how product-level carve-outs for individual countries can be legally implemented.

The EU deal, for example, contained provisions for Portuguese cork exports, but Section 122 requires non-discriminatory application across all trading partners.

“[Trading partners] made concessions in exchange for specific tariff treatment that was grounded in IEEPA. That legal basis no longer exists. Whether the administration can reconstruct those deals under Section 301 or other authorities remains to be seen, but that will take time and new legal processes,” Fritz said.

— CNBC’s Amitoj Singh helped contribute to this report.