The story of how a tariff gets implemented ought to be straightforward in a functioning government. You announce a policy, you execute that policy, and trading partners around the world know where they stand. But what unfolded this week suggests something quite different is happening inside this administration.
President Trump’s revised global tariff scheme took effect Tuesday morning at a rate of 10%, despite the president himself announcing over the weekend that the rate would be 15%. This is not a minor clerical error. This is a fundamental disconnect between what the Commander in Chief says will happen and what actually happens.
Let us trace the timeline, because the details matter here. Last Friday, after the Supreme Court struck down the bulk of Trump’s original tariff agenda, the president pivoted quickly. He announced plans to implement a flat 10% tariff on all trading partners using a different legal mechanism. Fair enough. The high court had spoken, and the administration needed a new approach.
But then, just one day later, Trump took to social media declaring that “effective immediately” he would raise that worldwide tariff to 15%. The president cited Section 122 of trade law, which does indeed allow tariffs up to 15% to be applied rapidly, though only for a maximum of 150 days.
Here is where things get troublesome. Hours before the tariff was set to take effect at one minute past midnight Tuesday, U.S. Customs and Border Protection sent a memo to importers. The rate, they said, would be 10% initially, applying to every country for 150 days unless specifically exempted. A White House official confirmed this message was accurate. The tariff would start at 10%, they explained, with the administration working on a separate order to raise it to 15% that Trump would need to sign at some unspecified future date.
This is not how serious countries conduct trade policy. Companies making billion-dollar decisions about supply chains and investments need clarity. They need to know the rules of the road. What we are seeing instead is improvisation masquerading as policy.
The international response has been swift and pointed. A senior European Union lawmaker from Germany captured the mood succinctly, calling it “pure tariff chaos” and noting that “no one can make sense of it anymore.” These are not the words of adversaries looking to score political points. These are the observations of allies trying to navigate an increasingly unpredictable landscape.
The consequences are already materializing. The European Union on Monday froze implementation of what was described as a massive trade deal reached with the Trump administration last summer. Other major trading partners including India, China, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom are reconsidering their positions as well.
The irony here is thick enough to cut with a knife. This administration came to office promising to restore American strength and predictability on the world stage. The argument was that our trading partners had taken advantage of us for too long, and that a businessman president would negotiate better deals and command respect.
But respect in international relations is built on consistency and follow-through. When a president announces a policy on Saturday that contradicts what his own government implements on Tuesday, that does not project strength. That projects confusion.
The legal mechanism the administration is now employing, Section 122, was designed for temporary emergency measures, not as the foundation for a comprehensive trade strategy. The 150-day limit is not arbitrary. It exists because Congress understood that sweeping tariff authority should not rest indefinitely with the executive branch without legislative input.
What we are witnessing is governance by announcement rather than governance by process. The distinction matters enormously, particularly when the stakes involve the global economy and America’s standing among nations that are watching very carefully indeed.
Related: Robert De Niro Claims Trump Will Refuse to Leave Office, Calls for Mass Protests
