The United States Supreme Court on Friday struck down Trump’s tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) — and Brazil emerged as the ruling’s biggest global beneficiary. Analysis by Global Trade Alert (GTA), published by the Financial Times (FT), points to an average drop of 13.6 percentage points in tariffs on exports from Brazil.
The context: the limit of unilateral action by the Executive
The Supreme Court found that Trump exceeded his prerogatives by using emergency instruments — IEEPA — to impose tariffs without prior consultation with Congress.
Tax lawyer Mary Elbe Queiroz highlights that the verdict reinforces the principles of legality and separation of powers — a warning that tax measures adopted outside institutional limits generate insecurity and billion-dollar losses.
In the financial market, the reading converges. Political analyst Sol Azcune, from XP Investimentos, assesses that the US Supreme Court’s decision increases legal predictability in the long term, beyond the current government. For the production sector, Edgar Araújo, executive director of Azumi Investimentos, summarizes the benefit: the main gain is the reduction in the risk of unexpected ruptures in contracts and supply chains.
The victory, however, was quickly nuanced. Hours after the verdict, Trump activated Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act, setting an emergency surcharge of 10% — raised to 15% on Saturday (21). The measure is temporary: after 150 days, its continuity depends on Congressional approval — which represents an institutional brake on unilateral action by the Executive.
The winners: Brazil and China lead relief
The biggest beneficiaries of the lifting of the original tariffs are, ironically, the countries that were the main targets of Trump’s protectionist rhetoric.
Brazil: the biggest global beneficiary
According to an analysis of the GTA published by the Financial Times, Brazil will record the largest reduction in its average tariff rates: a drop of 13.6 percentage points. The end of surcharges of up to 40% immediately reduces the cost of entry of Brazilian products into the American market — especially furniture, ceramics and industrial components.
In the capital market, the impact was immediate. Ibovespa renewed historic highs, exceeding 190 thousand points. Embraer and Taurus Armas — the latter previously subject to 50% taxation — led the rises with the prospect of preserved margins on Brazilian exports.
China and emerging
China appears close behind, with a projected reduction of 7.1 percentage points in its average rates, according to the Financial Times. Mexico and Canada also benefited from the nullification of IEEPA-based executive orders.
Manufacturers from Vietnam, Thailand and Malaysia — especially in the clothing, furniture and plastics sectors — are also strengthened. The fixed rate of 15% represents a significant improvement compared to the previous regime.
The losers: historic allies under pressure
The relief was not universal. While Washington’s historic adversaries celebrated, traditional allies were faced with a mathematical side effect of the new regime: many had negotiated lower tariffs, around 10%, which have now been replaced by the universal rate of 15%.
The United Kingdom is the biggest loser. According to the GTA, it will see an average increase of 2.1 percentage points in its tariff burden. The British Chamber of Commerce expressed “disappointment” on behalf of 40,000 exporting companies, according to the Financial Times.
The European reaction was more incisive. The European Commission declared that it will not accept the increase in tariffs and demanded “complete clarity” from Washington on the next steps. The bloc faces an increase of 0.8 percentage points in its average tariff rate — with Italy and France among those most affected by the impact of the new rate on around 1,100 categories of products that were previously exempt, according to the Financial Times.
For Allie Renison, a former British trade department official and SEC consultant Newgate, European exporters face a dilemma: “push for a better deal or wait to see if they are overcome by alternative measures,” she told the Financial Times. She warns that any return to lower rates would come “at the cost of new concessions” — not as a gesture of good faith from Washington.
The paradox is clear: historical allies were more penalized than adversaries like Brazil and China.
US Treasury and billionaire litigation
The American government faces a double-dimensional fiscal challenge. The dropped tariffs had a clear function: to finance deficit reduction. According to government data, they generated US$118 billion in revenue in 2026 until January — compared to US$28 billion in the same period the previous year. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that, maintained until 2035, they would reduce the deficit by about $3 trillion.
“The reduction of these tariffs removes a potential source of fiscal consolidation in the long term and could affect interest rates”, assesses Paula Zogbi, chief strategist at Nomad. She considers, however, that “the main risk factor continues to be the structural trajectory of spending and growth, not tariffs.”
The decision also opens up a billion-dollar dispute: market estimates indicate that the Treasury may have to reimburse up to US$175 billion to importers who paid tariffs now considered illegal. Secretary Scott Bessent downplayed the impact, saying the new 15% tariff will offset tax losses.
But if the fiscal impact is a concern, the political strategy already points to a new front.
The new “Section 301” and the risk of new barriers
Removing the “tariff” does not close the protectionist chapter — it just changes the instrument. “The game starts again from scratch”, defined Johannes Fritz, economist and executive director of the GTA, in an interview with the Financial Times. The focus now turns to Section 301 of the Commerce Act, which allows investigations into “unfair or discriminatory” business practices.
The Office of the US Trade Representative (USTR) confirmed that investigations against Brazil continue at an accelerated pace. Friction points include:
- Digital commerce, including Pix — questioned by Washington for allegedly favoring national companies to the detriment of Visa and Mastercard
- Access to the ethanol market and environmental policy
- Intellectual property protection
- Agricultural subsidies and excess industrial capacity
Unlike IEEPA, Section 301 requires public consultations and a more transparent process — but slower, with the risk of new sectoral tariffs that would add to the current 15%.
Practical implications: what to expect in March
For Brazil, the uniform rate of 15% is more favorable than the previous regime, in which specific sectors faced surcharges of up to 40%. The Parliamentary Front for the Machinery and Equipment Industry assesses that, despite the setback towards free trade, the new model places the country on an equal footing with other competitors.
The focus now is diplomatic. Lula arrives in Washington in March with a clear objective: to negotiate the removal of remaining tariffs on steel and aluminum — maintained because they are supported by legislation other than IEEPA.
Lula intends to signal that Brazil will not accept the role of mere supplier of raw materials, seeking to attract American investment for the processing of rare earths in the national territory.
