Supreme shock: Ruling amplifies risk and uncertainty for Asian exporters as tariffs shift

What matters now is risk: the supreme legal reversal has turned a policy intended to reduce dependence on China into a source of fresh confusion for exporters across Asia. Companies that had planned US market entries, manufacturers embedded in regional supply chains and logistics operators are weighing costly choices without clear rules — and some businesses have already paused expansion plans as a result.

Risk and uncertainty intensify after the Supreme decision

The US Supreme Court struck down a central pillar of the president’s tariff regime last week, leaving exporters, manufacturers and logistics companies to grapple with a patchwork of responses. No-one likes uncertainty, said Push Sharma, founder of the Singapore-based wellness brand Haldy, which had spent years preparing to enter the American market before abruptly shelving its plans last year. Haldy had completed trademark registrations, groundwork and distributor discussions, but then deferred those plans.

What changed on the ground: executive action, duties and mixed signals

On Friday the court found that the emergency powers law used to impose the earlier levies did not authorise the president’s policy regime, effectively invalidating billions of dollars in levies. Within hours, the president signed an executive order imposing a new 10% global tariff under legislation that permits import taxes for 150 days without congressional approval; the next day he threatened to raise it to 15%. When the duty came into effect on Tuesday, official documents showed the rate at 10% because no new directive had been issued to increase it.

Anyone hoping for clarity in the State of the Union would have been disappointed. The president repeated criticism of the ruling and said levies "will remain in place under fully approved and tested alternative legal statuses, " but offered little detail. On Wednesday, US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said the president will raise the global tariff to 15% in the coming days "where appropriate" but did not name which countries would be effected.

Who is feeling the shock and how they are reacting

Here’s the part that matters: exporters, manufacturers and logistics firms in Asia are the immediate touchpoints for this uncertainty. Examples drawn from recent coverage show how varied the impact is:

• Small exporters and brand founders — Push Sharma’s Haldy paused US entry plans after years of preparation and now manufactures turmeric mints in China.
• Manufacturers — they have faced higher costs since the initial tariff announcements in April, and now face shifting rules that complicate investment and relocation choices.
• Logistics and distribution networks — firms embedded in Asian production chains must decide whether to reroute supply lines or wait for clearer guidance.

Monica Gorman, a former White House trade official, described the new tariffs as a "stop-gap" while Washington prepares fresh measures. Dan Ives of Wedbush Securities captured the corporate mood bluntly: "Should we move supply chains from one country to another without knowing the rules of the game? Welcome to navigating tariffs in 2026. "

Timeline of the recent sequence (compact)

• Last year: Haldy shelved US entry plans after groundwork and trademark work were already done.
• April: initial tariff announcements led manufacturers to face higher costs.
• Last week–Friday: the Supreme Court struck down the emergency powers law used for the tariff regime, invalidating billions in levies; within hours an executive order imposed a 10% global tariff.
• Next day: a public threat to raise the tariff to 15%.
• Tuesday: duty took effect at 10% in official paperwork; Wednesday: the trade representative said a 15% raise is possible in coming days but gave no country list.

Forward signals and what would confirm the next turn

The immediate signals to watch for are procedural rather than political: issuance of a new directive to raise the duty above 10%, a listing of which countries would be targeted for higher rates, or formal implementation of the alternative legal bases alluded to in the State of the Union. The real question now is whether Washington provides the rules companies need to make investment decisions, or whether uncertainty becomes the default environment for at least several quarters.

It’s easy to overlook, but the broader risk is strategic: a policy designed to reduce dependence on China could, if unstable, reinforce Beijing’s manufacturing dominance by deterring relocation investment. Recent comments and executive actions have left that possibility on the table rather than off it.

A brief aside from the editor: the pace of legal and executive moves here is fast and, for businesses, costly. Expect practical decisions to lag public pronouncements until paperwork and country lists appear.