The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday invalidated a large portion of President Donald Trump’s tariffs, prompting widespread international reactions, with political analysts, economists and media welcoming the ruling while cautioning that trade uncertainty remains.
In a 6-3 decision, the court ruled that the executive branch exceeded its authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, finding that the law does not grant the president the power to impose broad, across-the-board tariffs without explicit authorization from Congress.
Observers broadly agree that while the court’s decision restrains the recent tariff approach, the longer-term direction of U.S. trade policy remains unclear, leaving global markets and trading partners watching closely
In Africa, economists said the ruling could offer partial relief to exporters, though benefits may vary. Andre Thomashausen, professor emeritus of international law at the University of South Africa, said the ruling could pave the way for companies to claim refunds and help restore fairer competition. South African economist Chris Harmse noted that sectors such as automotive and agriculture could see gains if tariff barriers were removed.
Rwandan economist Teddy Kaberuka said that the tariffs rattled economies worldwide by triggering a global trade war and alienating trading partners, which also impacted financial markets.
He underlined that global economic uncertainty could disrupt growth, especially in Africa, where economies are particularly vulnerable.
South African political analyst Sandile Swana said the tariffs were imposed “without proper authority,” stressing that taxation powers rest with Congress rather than the executive. He noted that the economic burden of the tariffs fell largely on American companies and consumers rather than foreign exporters.
Croatian economist Ljubo Jurcic described the ruling as a major setback for what he called a flawed economic model, arguing that the tariffs had primarily harmed the U.S. economy. He warned that affected firms could seek to reclaim billions of dollars in duties already paid and said the Trump administration’s trade agenda and unilateral measures would further damage Americans without achieving meaningful results.
European media reported positive market reactions. French economic daily Les Echos said the ruling “propelled European markets,” noting that France’s CAC 40 index briefly crossed the 8,500-point threshold for the first time. Greek financial outlet OT also reported gains, citing investor optimism over easing trade tensions.
Portuguese commentator Rui Cardoso called the decision a “complete defeat” for Trump, noting that economies that had accepted “clearly unfair and unequal” agreements with Washington may seek renegotiation.
Cardoso added that the EU adopted an unnecessarily weak stance against the Trump administration, and recent developments showed the EU did not need to concede as much as it did.
Analysts cautioned that uncertainty has not fully dissipated. Edward Fishman, a former U.S. State Department and Treasury official, said the decision could limit the use of tariffs as a rapid-response geoeconomic tool, though they could still be employed in trade negotiations through other legal channels.
Observers broadly agree that while the court’s decision restrains the recent tariff approach, the longer-term direction of U.S. trade policy remains unclear, leaving global markets and trading partners watching closely.
