US Tariff Ruling and New 10% Global Levy Shake S. Korean Trade Outlook

The landscape of international trade has been thrust into a state of flux following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to strike down President Donald Trump’s emergency reciprocal tariffs. The ruling specifically invalidated the administration's use of the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) as a legal basis for imposing these duties. For South Korean manufacturers and the global e-commerce sectors that rely on them, this development removes a year-old regulatory framework, only to replace it with a new, broader 10 percent global tariff under Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act. This rapid shift in legal mechanisms underscores a period of high policy volatility that could redefine trans-Pacific trade dynamics.

Industry experts in Seoul are signaling that while the 10 percent global tariff is a direct response to the court's ruling, the transition period will be marked by significant disruption. Yoon Sang-ha, head of the international macroeconomics team at the Korea Institute for International Economic Policy (KIEP), notes that for the past year, South Korean firms have calibrated their pricing, logistics, and investment strategies around the reciprocal tariff structure. With that legal foundation now dissolved, companies are left in a defensive posture, forced to re-evaluate their export standards and compliance protocols. The concern is not merely the cost of the tariff itself, but the unpredictability of the regulatory environment, which often leads to a 'wait-and-see' approach that can stifle economic activity.

“

Supreme Court’s decision to strike down President Donald Trump’s emergency reciprocal tariffs.

The implications for the retail and e-commerce sectors are particularly acute. South Korea is a primary source for high-tech consumer electronics, automotive components, and beauty products—all staples of the modern digital storefront. A flat 10 percent global tariff represents a significant landed-cost increase that will likely be passed on to U.S. consumers. Furthermore, the use of Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act—a provision designed to address balance-of-payments deficits—suggests a more blunt instrument than the targeted reciprocal tariffs previously in place. This could lead to a wider range of affected products, complicating inventory management for retailers who must now account for these costs across their entire South Korean sourcing portfolio.

Despite the immediate friction, major South Korean conglomerates appear to be holding the line on their long-term U.S. investment strategies. Analysts suggest that firms like Samsung, LG, and Hyundai have already committed billions to U.S.-based manufacturing facilities as a hedge against trade protectionism. These long-term capital expenditures are difficult to unwind and often serve as a diplomatic buffer. However, the 'policy volatility' highlighted by Chung Ji-young of Jeonbuk National University remains the primary risk factor. If the legal basis for U.S. trade policy continues to shift between different executive authorities and judicial challenges, the incentive for new 'greenfield' investments may diminish.

Looking forward, the focus will shift to how the South Korean government and its trade bodies negotiate within this new 'Section 122' reality. The previous reciprocal duties were often used as leverage in bilateral trade deals; with those duties gone, the leverage has changed but not disappeared. Retailers and supply chain managers should prepare for a period of price adjustments and potential sourcing shifts as the market absorbs the impact of the 10 percent global levy. The ability of Korean firms to remain flexible will be tested as they navigate a U.S. trade policy that is increasingly defined by rapid executive action and subsequent judicial oversight.