Name: US President Donald Trump's new global tariff comes into effect at 10% | BBC News
Uploaded: 2026-02-24T23:02:05.000Z
Duration: 4 min 46 s
Description: Thousands of YouTube videos with English-Chinese subtitles! Now you can learn to understand native speakers, expand your vocabulary, and improve your pronunciation...

We start with the ongoing trade war and the latest US tariffs that have come into effect in recent hours.

Right now those duties stand at a 10% global levy announced by President Trump after the Supreme Court struck down the complex array of unilateral tariffs imposed on imported goods into the US last year.

A proposed higher 15% tariff announced on Saturday has not yet been formalized.

Today's new rate brought in under a different law to apply for about 150 days or up to 150 days.

And after that Congress has to then authorize an extension.

Now on Monday, President Trump warned on Truth Social that any country that wants to play games with what he called the ridiculous Supreme Court decision will be met with a much higher tariff.

Is there relief or confusion at having avoided a higher 15% tariff for now?

Marco Forgioni is Director General of the Chartered Institute of Export and International Trade in the uk.

The notice issued by the US Customs and Border Protection last night has clearly said that the tariff rate is at 10%.

And look, I think where most businesses fail, not just in the uk, is that we're in some form of Trump trade discombobulator because there are announcements, counter announcements, changes, certainty, lack of clarity, and

So this has been a really even by the standards of international trade over the last few years, the last few days have genuinely been exceptional.

Well, let's discuss this all with Kalyn Burch, global economist at the Economic Economist Intelligence Unit.

Caitlin, really the big question is why the 10% tariffs, not the 15%?

Is it this TT, TTD, the Trump trade discombobulator?

Is this part of a cunning plan or is this because of pressure from trade partners?

We're all shaking around in that discombobulator trying to figure out why it came on this way.

Because as we've been saying, the section 1 to 2 tariffs do allow for a maximum 15%.

So why they didn't come on at the max to me suggests that the Trump administration wants to keep that variability, kind of keep the leverage that it has.

We have to remember that the baseline tariff applied by the US now to countries that have a already a trade deficit with the us, the UK applies in that case, or countries with whom it does not trade very much.

That is effectively the baseline for areas where the US has no trade gripes.

Higher rates even in some cases under IPA ranging up to 50% had been place that have now been struck down.

So I wouldn't be terribly surprised if the Trump administration uses this to apply more pressure selectively to other trade partners, including eu, to get more concessions or indeed ratification of the deals that it already has.

Because it can override trade agreements, because this one has to be applied across the board.

So there's problems, isn't there, with the eu, with Japan?

I mean, are we likely to see horse trading on trade deals or framework agreements for months?

I mean, we are right back to where we were last summer.

And frankly, even though there are still a lot of new restrictions in place, the final quarter of 2025, at least we kind of knew the lay of the land and importers and exporters knew what they were dealing with.

The US Blanket tariff rates were largely settled and there was a bit more stability.

And we're right back in the summer where everyone was negotiating those trade deals.

So for stability, for clarity, for visibility, for investors in particular, this is just incredibly unwelcome.

And you're right, Section one, too, is meant to be applied in the letter of the law as a standard global rate.

So to all trade partners and all goods imported.

And obviously, we've heard from Jameson Greer, the US Trade rep, that the US Intends to stand by its agreements with variable rates, some exemptions applied to certain goods.

That all clashes with Section one to two.

So I'd worry we'd see more legal challenges coming in the future.

just briefly, the import of FedEx suing for what could potentially be, amongst other cases, billions of dollars.

Are we likely to see more companies following suit for refunds?

The Supreme Court didn't include any real mention of repayment in their decision, which was also a bit of a surprise.

I think they're leaving the door open for companies to push that, and they will.

All right, Kaylin Birch, global economist at the Economist Intelligence Unit, thank you.