The United States implements a 10% global tariff. Trump has not yet fulfilled the threat to raise it to 15%.

CNBC Finance APP has learned that after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled last week that some tariffs were illegal, the U.S. government quickly restructured the tariff system. On Tuesday, importers began applying a 10% global uniform tariff rate, which is lower than the 15% threatened by President Trump over the weekend.

Last Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Trump administration could not impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), declaring that about 60% of last year’s tariffs were unlawful, dealing a blow to a key part of Trump’s economic agenda. In response, White House officials emphasized that “alternative plans” had already been prepared. Hours after the ruling was announced, Trump announced he would impose a 10% tariff under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 and signed an executive order to implement it. He then stated on social media on Saturday that he would raise the rate to 15%.

It is important to note that tariffs under Section 122 can only be maintained for a maximum of 150 days. The government has indicated it is preparing to adopt more permanent tariff measures under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 after completing investigations and public consultations. This arrangement has introduced new uncertainties, especially for countries that have already reached trade agreements with the U.S. Since Section 122 requires a uniform tariff rate on all imports, raising the rate to 15% would violate existing commitments made with the EU, UK, South Korea, Japan, and others.

On Tuesday, U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s notice to importers still showed a 10% tariff rate, inconsistent with Trump’s earlier statement of raising it to 15%. The White House and the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative have not yet responded on whether the 15% plan is still in effect. Policy experts note that raising the rate would require another executive order and publication in the Federal Register. However, Henrietta Treyz, head of economic policy research at Veda Partners, believes that, given the potential to jeopardize existing agreements and the fact that Section 122 tariffs must be “generally applicable,” the government is unlikely to increase this temporary rate.

In the short term, most trading partners are expected to hold steady. Industry insiders believe that what truly motivates countries to enter negotiations is not the tariffs already in place but the threat of significant future increases. Patrick Childress, a partner at Holland & Knight and former assistant general counsel at the U.S. Trade Representative’s Office, said the threat remains, “Even if bilateral agreements are not yet reached, the overall strategic game does not change much.”

At the American Business Economics Policy Conference, Strategas policy research director Daniel Clifton estimated that if tariffs stay at 10%, U.S. annual tariff revenue would decrease by about $140 billion; if raised to 15%, revenue would drop by approximately $70 billion. He noted that at a 10% rate, several countries including Brazil and India would receive short-term tariff relief. Clifton views Section 122 more as a way to buy time for future tariffs under Section 301; meanwhile, the government might supplement with sector-specific tariffs under Section 232 to offset the tariff revenue originally generated by IEEPA. However, he emphasized that he has never seen the Section 301 process completed within five months, which could mean the government maintains a “transitional bridge” of tariffs for several months before the midterm elections, at which point living costs will become a key voter concern.

Even if the tariff rate remains temporarily low, the signal to businesses is clear: the government will continue to use tariffs as a tool. This could lead companies that initially absorbed the tariff costs to pass them on to consumers. Emily Blanchard, associate professor at Dartmouth College’s Tuck School of Business and former U.S. Department of State economist, pointed out that companies might intensify negotiations with overseas suppliers and more actively adjust supply chain strategies.

Market expectations generally foresee a decline in tariff levels this year. U.S. Global Wealth Management’s head of global equities, Ulrike Hoffmann-Burchardi, stated in a report that with Trump’s tariff authority limited, the overall effective tariff rate could fall to between 10% and 15%, which would marginally improve American household spending capacity and ease inflation concerns. Previously, Yale’s Budget Experiment estimated that before the Supreme Court ruling, the average effective U.S. tariff rate was about 16%.