Kathmandu— President Donald Trump’s imposition of import taxes continues to affect the American economy, even though they no longer cause significant market fluctuations like they did in 2025. While many anticipated these tariffs would end after a Supreme Court ruling in February overturned emergency levies, Trump announced new taxes covering nearly all U.S. imports five months later. These newer tariffs are designed to be permanent and are being layered on top of existing ones, increasing the financial burden on consumers as economic sentiment declines ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.

A Shift in Tariff Strategy

Business groups initially expected an end to the tariff wars following the Supreme Court’s February decision. However, Trump responded with a new wave of import taxes intended to be more legally sound and less susceptible to judicial review. Unlike the temporary “Liberation Day” tariffs struck down by the court, these levies are designed for longevity, meaning consumers will likely bear an increasing cost burden even if rates remain constant due to the stacking of multiple tariffs.

The Consumer Cost Squeeze

Despite low approval ratings and a softening economy, Trump has doubled down on tariffs, viewing them as tools for negotiation and personal power. He has repeatedly claimed foreigners pay these taxes, but U.S. businesses importing goods receive the invoices from the Treasury Department and ultimately pass those costs onto consumers. Recent research by the Dallas Federal Reserve estimates that inflation would have been lower without the tariffs, while a Yale Budget Lab analysis suggests consumers are paying between half and all of the tariff cost through higher prices.

Layering Tariffs on Existing Levies

Trump’s new tariffs are based on three legal justifications: unfair trade practices (Section 301), national security concerns (Section 232), and discrimination against U.S. imports (Section 338). These are being applied in addition to existing tariffs stemming from World Trade Organization rules, creating a cumulative effect. For example, a product facing a 10% tariff for forced labor violations and another 10% for excess capacity, on top of a 3% baseline rate, would be subject to a total levy of 23%, all paid by U.S. consumers.

State-Level Legal Challenge

Twenty-five U.S. states have challenged the new Section 301 tariffs in the U.S. Court of International Trade, arguing they constitute an unconstitutional tax on consumers – mirroring the reasoning behind the Supreme Court’s earlier decision. The lawsuit also claims the administration has not provided a clear rationale for how these tariffs are calculated or when they might be lifted, alleging they deviate from the original intent of Section 301, which was to negotiate market access reforms.

Reliance on Presidential Discretion

The success of this legal challenge hinges on whether judges will continue to defer to the president’s authority in implementing these tariffs. Kent Jones, Professor Emeritus of Economics at Babson College, believes Trump is counting on such deference. The administration has argued that it is uniquely positioned to address forced labor imports and has imposed tariffs accordingly, setting rates at 12.5% for countries without formal prohibitions and 10% for those with them.

The lawsuit brought by the states remains ongoing, and its outcome will likely determine whether these ‘forever’ tariffs remain in place, continuing to impact American consumers.

(With inputs from CounterPunch)

Originally published on abcnews.com.np.