By Isabelle Wilson-
The United States will not abandon the tariff agreements it has already negotiated with allies including the United Kingdom and other major trading partners, the U.S. Trade Representative said on Sunday.
In interviews following a dramatic decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, Jamieson Greer the top trade official under President Donald Trump stressed that existing deals will be honoured even as Washington moves forward with new global levies that have triggered economic uncertainty around the world.
AD: Capeesh Restaurant
Greer’s comments come amid fallout from a landmark ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court that struck down portions of Mr Trump’s sweeping tariff programme on constitutional grounds.
The court ruled that the president lacked authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose broad tariffs, a decision that upended Washington’s signature trade policy. In response, the White House swiftly re‑tooled its approach, introducing a new 15 per cent global tariff using alternative statutory authority.
Despite the legal setback, Greer reassured trading partners that the United States remains committed to its existing tariff arrangements. “I haven’t heard anyone yet come to me and say the deal is off,” Greer told CBS’s Face the Nationprogramme, referring to discussions with European and other counterparts following the Supreme Court decision.
AD: Oysterian Sea Food Restaurant And Bar
The policy declaration is significant for the UK, which has been grappling with the implications of sudden U.S. tariff shifts. British businesses have expressed anxiety that new global levies could hit exports or disrupt supply chains, but ministers have repeatedly emphasised that preferential trade arrangements with the United States remain a priority.
Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson said London expects its tariff arrangements with the U.S. to continue even as negotiations to refine and expand them proceed.
Brussels to Tokyo, global leaders are seeking clarity. The European Union has publicly urged the United States to honour its commitments after the Supreme Court ruling, warning that unpredictable tariff policy could hamper business confidence and economic growth.
The European Commission stated bluntly that “a deal is a deal” and demanded clarity over how Washington intends to proceed with trade obligations.
Business leaders in allied countries have welcomed Greer’s assurances, but many caution that uncertainty still looms large. Even if existing agreements remain formally intact, the threat of future protectionist measures or unilateral tariff hikes could dampen investment and international cooperation.
Some economists worry that a lack of legislative oversight over tariff policy has created a climate of unpredictability that could ripple through the global economy in the coming months.
Turning Legal Defeat into Diplomatic Manoeuvring
The Supreme Court decision has been a watershed moment in U.S. trade politics. On Friday, justices ruled that the executive branch had overstepped its constitutional powers by imposing broad tariffs via emergency authority, a finding that has seismic implications for Washington’s ability to set trade policy without congressional backing.
The ruling was seen as a victory for constitutional norms but a blow to Mr Trump’s trademark economic agenda.
In the wake of the court’s decision, the White House moved faster than many in Washington expected. On Saturday and Sunday, it re‑introduced a new tariff structure, initially at 10 per cent and later raised to 15 per cent, under a different statutory regime. This rapid pivot was intended to blunt the impact of the legal defeat and maintain pressure on imports.
The mechanics of the new tariff framework are complicated, and its legal underpinnings are still being analysed by scholars, lawmakers, and foreign governments. Critics argue that the uncertainty sown by rapid policy shifts undermines both domestic and international confidence.
Others contend that the very existence of a temporary tariff construct limited to 150 days unless extended by Congress highlights the lack of durable strategy in U.S. trade policy.
With the UK, the implications are particularly nuanced. Trade authorities in London have reiterated that the preferential tariff deal negotiated with Washington is separate from the emergency tariffs at the heart of the court case, and that Britain expects such agreements to survive.
This deal, crafted over a series of high‑level talks culminating in 2025, was designed to lower barriers in key sectors such as pharmaceuticals, automobiles, and steel.
Yet not all European partners are as confident. Some lawmakers in the European Parliament urged a delay in voting on the EU‑U.S. trade agreement, citing the sudden shifts in U.S. tariff policy as evidence of an unstable negotiating environment. The call for a pause reflects broader unease among allied nations about how enforceable and predictable America’s trade commitments actually are.
Across Asia and Latin America, similar concerns are reverberating. Even trading partners who have not formally signalled a desire to withdraw from tariff agreements are seeking detailed consultations with U.S. officials to understand how the new tariff regime will intersect with existing commitments.
Greer’s efforts to reassure these partners reflect a tense diplomatic balancing act: protecting American economic interests while maintaining critical alliances.
The United States’ pivot also comes as businesses weigh the immediate impact of tariff changes. British manufacturers, exporters, and agricultural producers have all registered increasing levels of concern about the broader economic fallout from unpredictable trade policy.
Many firms say that even the perception of instability can have a chilling effect on investment, particularly in industries reliant on complex supply chains that span multiple borders.
U.S. policymakers are likewise split. Some Republican lawmakers argue that expansive presidential tariff powers undermine the constitutional role of Congress and could lead to tit‑for‑tat escalations that ultimately hurt American workers and consumers. Others see tariffs as essential tools for protecting domestic industries and correcting longstanding trade imbalances.
The Supreme Court’s ruling has intensified this debate, forcing both camps to reassess how trade policy should be shaped in the 21st century.
Despite the turbulence, there is a growing sense among international trade negotiators that the current crisis could catalyse more robust legislative engagement. If Congress eventually reasserts its authority over tariff policy, it could create a more stable foundation for future agreements.
Until then, the world will be watching closely as the United States attempts to uphold existing deals while navigating the legal and economic fallout of recent court proceedings.
While the afternoon unfolded in Washington and capitals across the globe, the message from the White House remained consistent: existing tariff deals with key partners like the UK, EU, Japan, and Switzerland are not in jeopardy.
Whether that assurance is enough to quell uncertainty in markets and diplomatic circles remains an open question, one that could shape global trade dynamics well into 2026 and beyond.
AD: Heritage And Restaurant Lounge Bar