US will not back out of its tariff deals with UK and others, says Trump trade representative
Source: The Guardian
Sun 22 Feb 2026 12.18 EST
First published on Sun 22 Feb 2026 09.15 EST
The US will not back out of tariff deals it has already sealed with countries around the world, including the UK, the EU, Japan, Switzerland and others, Donald Trumps trade representative Jamieson Greer said on Sunday.
The US supreme court ruled on Friday that many of the tariffs imposed by the US president were illegal, leading Trump to announce a new 15% global tariff on all imports the next day.
But Greer told CBSs Face the Nation that the new levy was separate from agreements struck in the last nine months with about 20 countries around the world. We want them to understand these deals are going to be good deals, Greer said. Were going to stand by them. We expect our partners to stand by them.
The UK education secretary, Bridget Phillipson, admitted on Sunday that UK businesses faced uncertainty after the latest developments, but told Sky News that the UK expected its preferential trade arrangements with the US to continue. Business leaders also said they expected the UK to double down on the existing deal announced by Trump and the UK prime minister, Keir Starmer, in May last year, rather than walk away.
Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/feb/22/uk-in-talks-with-us-over-best-possible-deal-for-british-firms-amid-higher-tariffs-threat-trump
Until they do.
REFERENCE - https://www.democraticunderground.com/10143620561
bucolic_frolic
(54,703 posts)That's what I recall from Business Law.
efhmc
(16,378 posts)SunSeeker
(58,045 posts)Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. § 2132) empowers the U.S. President to impose temporary import surcharges of up to 15% or quotas for up to 150 days to address "large and serious" balance-of-payments deficits. Unlike other trade actions, this typically requires uniform, non-selective application across all countries rather than targeting specific nations.
So not only do we NOT have a "large and serious balance-of-payments deficit" (we don't have one at all, this is not the same as a trade deficit), but even if we did, he can't apply Section 122 selectively.
WestMichRad
(3,115 posts)Further evidence that theyre just making up stuff as they go.
I'd put my $1 bet on - no one in the administration has read any of the Trade Act of 1974.
EuterpeThelo
(284 posts)Second thing I thought is who is going to enforce it?
RainCaster
(13,548 posts)Nothing to see here.