The US Supreme Court just struck down most of President Trump's sweeping tariffs in a 6-3 decision, ruling that IEEPA, the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act, was never designed to give any president unilateral authority to reshape global trade. Chief Justice John Roberts was blunt: those two words, "regulate" and "importation," simply cannot bear the weight the administration placed on them.
Business owners exhaled. Markets shrugged. And Team Trump immediately began plotting its next move.
Here's what every Fortune 1,000 CEO needs to understand: this ruling is not a resolution. It is a reset—and the chaos that follows may prove more complex than what preceded it.
The ruling is clear. The road ahead is not.
The Court's decision lowered the effective tariff rate from roughly 12.8% to 8.3%. That sounds like relief, but the administration's trade representatives were signaling their workaround strategy before the ink dried. Sections 232, 301, 122, and 338 of existing trade law each offer the White House alternative pathways to reimpose duties—some targeted, some sweeping, and most considerably harder to challenge in Court.
Tariffs on steel, aluminum, automobiles, and Chinese imports under Section 301 remain intact. The administration's Section 301 investigation into China's Phase One compliance is still active. And USTR Jamieson Greer made clear he would begin constructing replacements "the next day" if the Court ruled against the White House. He has.
Meanwhile, America's trading partners are watching carefully. Canada, the EU, India, and others who negotiated deals under IEEPA now face an awkward question: Were those agreements built on legally sound authority? Most will hold, not because the legal foundation is firm, but because walking away risks a worse outcome with a White House eager to retaliate.
The refund question also looms large. Based on data through early 2026, the US has collected roughly $200 billion to over $280 billion in total tariff revenue since the start of Trump's second term and the "Liberation Day" actions in early 2025. The US Treasury Department reported a massive surge in customs duties following the imposition of new, broad tariffs. Justice Kavanaugh, in dissent, warned that any refund process would be an administrative "mess" with significant consequences for the US Treasury. For importers who absorbed rather than passed these costs, that potential windfall is real—but so is the litigation required to access it.
Today's ruling is not the end of the tariff volatility. It is the next act.
If previous Ross Rants have established one consistent theme, it is this: treat the geopolitical and policy environment as a permanent operating condition, not a passing storm. The US Supreme Court ruling does not return us to a pre-2025 trade regime. It introduces a new phase—one characterized by fragmented tariff authorities, accelerated congressional debates over trade power, and an administration committed to protectionist outcomes through every available legal channel.
For manufacturing firms reshaping North American supply chains, this means nearshoring decisions must now account for multiple tariff scenarios simultaneously. For technology companies navigating export controls and China competition, the legal volatility compounds existing strategic complexity. For energy companies exposed to Middle East and Arctic dynamics, and multinationals managing USMCA renegotiation uncertainty, the calculus has not simplified—it has multiplied.
Oxford Economics estimates that even with the ruling, sustained uncertainty "could ding, rather than derail" US GDP growth in 2026. Business Roundtable was measured in its response, encouraging the administration to "recalibrate its approach" and coordinate with allies on targeted trade enforcement. That is sensible counsel. The administration's track record on measured restraint, however, is limited.
The structural reality facing corporate America is that tariff volatility, supply chain disruption, elevated interest rates, and heightened government stakeholder engagement requirements are not temporary inconveniences. They are the operating environment. Capital allocation, competitive positioning, and boardroom preparedness must reflect this.
Your competitors who recognized this first are already operating with a geopolitical framework embedded in their strategic planning process. Those who treated these developments as a communications problem rather than a strategic one are now scrambling.
What must change in your boardroom?
First, scenario planning must assume sustained tariff instability through at least 2027. The administration has the tools, political will, and congressional allies to eventually secure statutory authority for expanded trade enforcement. The legal mechanism will change; the directional pressure will not.
Second, supply chain resilience is now a board-level competency, not a procurement function. The automotive sector's projected $7 billion in combined tariff-related losses for 2025 illustrates how quickly exposure compounds. Stress-testing supply chain architecture against multiple tariff regimes is no longer optional.
Third, government stakeholder engagement requires dedicated resources and ongoing intelligence. The gap between companies with sophisticated Washington and international engagement strategies and those without one is widening rapidly.
Fourth, refund eligibility deserves immediate legal review. If your organization paid IEEPA tariffs and did not pass those costs downstream, the recovery path may be shorter than the administration would prefer.
Tariff volatility. NATO credibility erosion. Supply chain disruption. Chinese competition. AI and tech sovereignty. Export control tightening. Interest rate uncertainty.
These are not background noise. These geopolitical issues are reshaping capital allocation, supply chain strategy, and competitive positioning right now. A Chief Geopolitical Officer doesn't wait for breaking news. They monitor signals daily, translate them into business implications, and prepare board members to decide—not scramble.
Most Fortune 1,000 companies and private equity portfolio companies don't have one.
Caracal Global is your fractional Chief Geopolitical Officer.
Led by a Michigan-born, DC-based global business advocate with experience in US and UK national political campaigns, US-China commercial relations, NATO affairs, and media engagement, Caracal Global is a communications firm that lives and breathes at the intersection of globalization, disruption, and politics. We provide intelligence, strategy, and communications services to senior executives, board members, and corporate affairs leaders who cannot afford to be reactive in an environment that rewards preparation.
Our clients include Fortune 1000 companies navigating tariff exposure, technology firms managing export controls and China competition, energy companies exposed to geopolitical volatility, and private equity portfolio companies where geopolitical risk directly affects exit multiples.
The Supreme Court ruled. The administration is already working around it.
The question for your organization is not whether the rules will change again; pro tip: they will.
The question is whether your organization is really positioned to thrive in this chaos and be better positioned than your competitors.
Enjoy the ride + plan accordingly.
-Marc
*****
Marc A. Ross is a geopolitical strategist and the founder of Caracal Global, a fractional Chief Geopolitical Officer service for Fortune 1000 companies and private equity firms. He publishes the Caracal Global Daily — what a Chief Geopolitical Officer monitors every morning. Subscribe at caracal.global/contact.
