World leaders attended the G7 Leaders’ Summit held in the Kananaskis Islands, Alberta, Canada, on June 17, 2025.
Amber Bracken | Reuters
U.S. trading partners on Friday cautiously welcomed a U.S. Supreme Court decision striking down much of President Donald Trump’s flagship trade policy on global tariffs, but the World Trade Organization warned of lingering uncertainty over import tariffs.
In a long-awaited Supreme Court ruling, a 6-3 majority ruled that the law that underpins import tariffs “does not authorize the President to impose tariffs.”
President Trump’s tariffs affected a wide range of countries, from the United Kingdom to India to the European Union. Some governments, such as Vietnam and Brazil, are still negotiating.
A British government spokesperson said it would continue to work with the White House administration to understand how the ruling would affect tariffs in the UK and other countries.
“This is a matter for the United States to decide, but we will continue to support British companies as soon as further details are released,” the spokesperson said.
“The UK enjoys some of the lowest reciprocal tariffs in the world and we expect our privileged trading position with the US to continue under any scenario.” Britain agreed a wide-ranging trade deal with the US in May last year, imposing broad 10% tariffs on a number of goods, but also included certain carve-outs on steel, aluminum, cars and pharmaceuticals.
The Supreme Court’s case focused primarily on reciprocal tariffs, and the ruling left many of Britain’s trade deals with the United States unaffected, including sectoral preferential tariffs for steel, pharmaceuticals and cars.
But the British Chambers of Commerce (BCC) trade body said the US Supreme Court’s decision added to the ongoing uncertainty surrounding the levy.
William Bain, head of trade policy at the BCC, said the measures would “do little to clear the waters” for British businesses and warned the president still had “other options at his disposal” to maintain the current regime of steel and aluminum tariffs.
“The court’s decision raises questions about how US importers can recover the levy they have already paid, and whether UK exporters can also receive a share of the rebate, subject to commercial terms,” Mr Bain said in a statement. “It remains a priority for the UK to reduce tariffs wherever possible.”
Olof Gil, the European Commission’s spokesperson for trade and economic security, said businesses on both sides of the Atlantic depend on “stability and predictability”.
“We are in close contact with the U.S. government to clarify what actions they intend to take in response to this ruling,” Gill said. “Therefore, we will continue to advocate for low tariffs and work towards lowering them.”
Meanwhile, Canada’s U.S.-Canada Trade Relations Minister Dominic LeBlanc said the decision “reinforces Canada’s position that the IEEPA tariffs imposed by the United States are unjustified.”
No trade “wins” yet
Swiss technology industry group Swissmem welcomed the ruling, but warned that the Trump administration could invoke other laws to “legalize tariffs” and called on Swiss policymakers to strengthen the country’s competitiveness with new free trade agreements.
“From the point of view of Switzerland’s export industry, this is a good decision. High tariffs are seriously damaging high-tech industries,” Swissmem said. “However, today’s ruling does not mean we have won anything yet.”
“High tariffs have seriously damaged high-tech industries,” Swissmem wrote on X. “What is important now is to quickly secure relations with the United States through a binding trade agreement.”
The International Chamber of Commerce said many companies would welcome the ruling, given the “significant strain” on their balance sheets in recent months.
“However, businesses should not expect a simple process. The structure of US import procedures means that claims are likely to be administratively complex. Today’s judgment is worryingly silent on this issue, and clear guidance from the International Trade Court and relevant US authorities is essential to minimize avoidable costs and prevent litigation risks,” the ICC said.
—CNBC’s Jackson Peck and Greg Kennedy contributed to this article.
