The U.S. Supreme Court deemed President Trump's hallmark tariff policy, commonly referred to as 'reciprocal tariffs', unconstitutional, asserting that the power to impose tariffs lies solely with Congress and not with the President. This decision is significant in that it puts a halt to Trump's arbitrary imposition of tariffs under the guise of national security. Despite this ruling, Trump swiftly announced a new 'global tariff' of 15%, heightening uncertainty surrounding tariffs once again, as it suggests that his unpredictable tariff policies will persist even in the face of judicial limitations.

In light of the Supreme Court's recent verdict, there is an argument for reconsidering the tariff agreement established last year between South Korea and the U.S., which included South Korea's commitment to a $350 billion investment contingent upon tariff reductions on certain items, including reciprocal tariffs and automobiles. The nullification of reciprocal tariffs—which were a fundamental aspect of this agreement—could logically lead to a renegotiation of the terms. However, with Trump's aggressive attitude intact, an ill-considered response could provoke retaliatory actions from the U.S., highlighting the complexities and risks involved in navigating this new landscape.

Given these dynamics, it seems that the South Korean government feels compelled to adhere to the current U.S.-Korea agreement. Yet, with the possibility of the European Union adopting a tougher stance against the U.S. following its experience with Trump's Greenland annexation attempts last year, the situation continues to evolve and raises questions about future trade relations and the balance of power in international negotiations.