(UNITED STATES) — President Donald Trump signed an executive order on February 20, 2026, imposing a temporary 10% global tariff on imports under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, effective February 24, 2026, at 12:01 a.m., after a 6-3 Supreme Court ruling that day invalidated his prior tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).
The White House move set a new legal foundation for broad-based tariffs within hours of the Supreme Court decision, shifting from emergency economic powers to a statute that allows temporary import surcharges to address serious balance-of-payments concerns when imports significantly exceed exports.
The Supreme Court ruling found the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not authorize a president to impose broad tariffs without clear congressional approval. The decision removed the legal basis for sweeping country-specific tariffs previously introduced under emergency authority.
Legal experts described the ruling as a significant clarification of executive power over international trade, reinforcing Congress’s central role in tariff policy.
Trump’s new order established a nondiscriminatory tariff capped at 15% and lasting up to 150 days unless renewed by Congress. The temporary duration, and the compressed timeline to implementation beginning February 24, 2026, put pressure on companies, trading partners, and lawmakers to assess whether Congress will act before the tariff expires.
The administration framed the Section 122 action as a way to keep tariff policy in place after the Supreme Court setback, while preserving room for new negotiations and investigations that could produce targeted duties later.
Under the new framework, the 10% tariff applies to imported goods worldwide, including imports from India and other major trading partners. The approach differs from earlier tariff arrangements negotiated country-by-country, applying broadly across global trade.
At the same time, the order sits on top of existing duties. The tariff applies over existing duties like Section 232 national security tariffs on steel, aluminum, autos, and Section 301 tariffs.
The order exempted USMCA-compliant goods from Canada and Mexico. It also carved out select pharmaceuticals, energy products, beef, cars, and electronics, describing the exemptions as part of the administration’s effort to shield some categories while maintaining the overall surcharge.
The temporary measure also reset the U.S. tariff treatment for India in a way that lowers the headline rate while reopening questions about longer-term country-specific arrangements. India’s tariff rate drops from 18% to 10% under the new global framework.
Before the Supreme Court ruling, Indian exports faced higher reciprocal tariff levels under ongoing U.S.–India trade negotiations. The new uniform 10% rate reduces tariffs compared with earlier proposals, while also resetting previously negotiated trade terms.
U.S. officials indicated that longer-term country-specific tariff arrangements could still be revisited once the temporary measure expires. The United States and India have signaled that bilateral trade discussions will continue despite the legal shift.
Business groups broadly welcomed clearer limits on emergency tariff authority, arguing that predictable trade rules help companies plan investments and hiring strategies. Financial markets reacted positively following the decision, reflecting expectations of reduced policy uncertainty.
Legal questions remain, including whether companies could seek refunds for tariffs collected under policies now lacking judicial support. Analysts expected prolonged litigation on that issue.
The administration’s tariff response also highlighted how tariff policy can shape decisions that later feed into U.S. immigration demand, even when visa rules do not change. Trade policy and immigration are increasingly interconnected, pointing to corporate investment decisions, supply chain restructuring, outsourcing strategies, and hiring demand in high-skill industries.
Industries most sensitive to tariff changes — technology consulting, manufacturing, logistics, engineering, and pharmaceuticals — also rank among the largest sponsors of H-1B visas and employment-based Green Cards. When trade stability improves, employers often expand hiring and sponsorship programs.
For Indian workers, the order does not directly change U.S. immigration policies or visa programs because it targets goods imports rather than labor mobility. Indirect effects could still emerge through higher costs and shifts in contracting decisions.
One area of focus is Indian IT and services work tied to U.S. corporate demand. India faces the 10% tariff atop prior rates, describing the change as moving from “previously 18% under invalidated reciprocal deals,” which would raise expenses for U.S. clients of firms like Infosys, TCS, and Wipro.
Those firms employ over 500,000 Indian H-1B holders. The cost effects could pressure U.S. firms to cut outsourcing or H-1B sponsorships as they reassess budgets under the new tariff regime.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent linked the new tariff structure to revenue goals, saying the tariffs, combined with Sections 232/301, maintain “virtually unchanged tariff revenue in 2026.” That revenue emphasis sits alongside estimates of consumer price effects cited by Yale Budget Lab.
Yale Budget Lab estimates pointed to 0.6% short-run U.S. price hikes on electronics and metals. It presented that estimate as part of a broader set of calculations that companies could weigh when deciding whether to expand U.S. hiring, keep work abroad, or adjust supply chains.
The order’s interaction with existing Section 232 and Section 301 tariffs also matters for trade-exposed industries that employ foreign workers. Existing Section 232/301 tariffs on Indian steel/aluminum (25%) and autos persist and are exempt from the new 10% levy.
Beyond the immediate tariff, the administration signaled additional trade pressure through potential investigations. Trump launched Section 301 probes into unspecified countries’ practices, which could add targeted tariffs in months and strain bilateral IT deals and L-1 intracompany transfers.
U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer pointed to continuity in trade enforcement tools, saying “a lot of tools.” It described that posture as economic leverage that could affect high-skill immigration indirectly via hiring and cross-border assignments rather than changes to visa caps.
The administration’s approach leaves the formal immigration system unchanged while potentially changing the economic conditions that influence who gets sponsored. No announced ties link the tariff order to H-1B reforms, green cards, or border policies, with the focus remaining on trade revenue and probes for higher duties.
For international students, the tariff order does not alter student visas, OPT, or academic programs, because it focuses solely on goods imports. It laid out potential ripple effects through consumer costs and job-market conditions rather than direct visa rulemaking.
One channel involves purchases students commonly make while studying in the United States. The exemptions exclude most consumer electronics, but Yale analysis flags short-run price rises in these categories, which could indirectly increase laptop and textbook expenses.
Those pressures could touch “~300,000 Indian F-1 students,” describing them as the top nationality per prior data. It also said de minimis suspension now applies 10% to low-value shipments, citing examples “e.g., from Shein/Temu,” affecting personal imports but not tuition.
Job prospects after graduation could also shift if tariff-driven costs alter hiring in industries that employ recent graduates. Tariffs may slow U.S. tech and auto hiring, describing those as sectors employing 40% of Indian OPT holders.
Yale Budget Lab’s dynamic scoring included $1.2 trillion projected revenue offset by growth drags, along with a $200 billion net over 10 years post-growth effects. Those estimates were tied to the broader debate over whether higher duties generate durable revenue without cutting into growth.
Trump reacted sharply to the Supreme Court ruling that blocked his prior approach, calling it “deeply disappointing.” It suggested that response could signal a willingness to pursue broader economic retaliation even as the new order relies on a different statutory authority.
Section 122’s built-in time limit makes the new 10% Global Tariff a transitional phase rather than a permanent settlement. Section 122 tariffs automatically expire after 150 days unless Congress acts, setting up a decision point that could arrive quickly for companies negotiating contracts that run beyond the expiration window.
Possible next steps include congressional legislation on tariffs, new trade negotiations with major partners, sector-specific investigations leading to targeted duties, and revised global trade frameworks. It added that each outcome could influence international hiring patterns and immigration demand in different ways.
The broader context remains that existing tariff regimes continue alongside the new global surcharge. The action preserves Trump-era trade barriers without touching immigration enforcement, while leaving room for new duties under Section 301 and maintaining Section 232 national security tariffs.
The result is a policy mix that can change the economic environment around immigration without changing the immigration rules themselves. For immigrants and international students, tariffs shape the economic environment that determines which industries expand, where companies invest, and how many foreign workers receive sponsorship opportunities.
The Supreme Court ruling and Trump administration’s rapid policy response illustrated how closely economic governance and global mobility now intersect. It also framed the bottom line as economic: a temporary 10% tariff may appear technical, but its ripple effects could influence U.S. job markets and visa sponsorship trends connected to the American economy.
Trump Uses Supreme Court Ruling to Launch 10% Global Tariff
Following a Supreme Court setback, the Trump administration implemented a 10% global tariff using Section 122 authority. The measure, capped at 15% and lasting 150 days, targets broad imports to address trade imbalances. While excluding USMCA members and select goods, the policy impacts major partners like India. Though not a direct immigration change, it may shift corporate hiring and H-1B sponsorship trends due to rising costs.
