Last Friday, February 20, the United States Supreme Court ruled that most of the tariffs announced by President Donald Trump were illegal, determining that the president exceeded his authority by invoking the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA)—a law designed to address extraordinary threats to national security—as the legal basis for imposing them.

The nation’s highest court struck down the so-called “reciprocal” tariffs imposed on various countries, stating that the IEEPA does not grant the president the authority to impose trade tariffs. In its ruling, the Court held that the use of this statute does not authorize broad, general tariff measures.

White House Response

Following the ruling, Trump announced that he would immediately raise the global tariff from 10% to 15%, and described the court’s decision as “ridiculous, poorly written, and extraordinarily anti-American.”

However, the announcement raised new questions regarding the legal framework the administration would use to implement the increase, given the limitations established by the Supreme Court. The episode has been regarded as the president’s biggest legal setback of his second term and has created a new scenario of regulatory uncertainty for the United States’ trading partners.

In that context, the European Parliament announced the suspension of the trade agreement with the United States as a pressure measure, seeking clarity on whether the administration will uphold its international commitments or move forward with a global tariff policy.

Chile and Peru React to the New Scenario

Chile’s fruit sector expressed “deep concern” through a statement issued by Frutas de Chile.

“This is a significant increase that directly affects the competitiveness of the Chilean industry in one of its main markets, considering that the sector exports around US$2 billion annually to the United States and was already facing a 10% tariff,” they stated.

Víctor Catán, president of Fedefruta, told Blueberries News that the implementation of new tariffs “greatly harms the trust and the good relations we have maintained for more than 60 years with the U.S. market.”

Catán also added that the entry of Chilean fruit into the U.S. market during the counter-season “provides unique benefits to the American consumer.”

The industry leader recalled that the United States already has mechanisms in place to protect its producers, such as the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, which authorizes the Department of Agriculture (USDA) to establish “marketing orders” for specific agricultural products. These instruments regulate quality standards, marketing, and market organization, but do not in themselves constitute tariff measures.

In the case of Chilean blueberries, he noted that there had been a non-application of the 10% tariff, but currently “no one knows how they will be applied or what the final rules will be.” He added that the sector is pursuing the diplomatic route: “We are appealing to the good relations, providing background information to the U.S. government—work that has been carried out together with the U.S. ambassador to Chile. We will continue along that path and hope it will be successful.”

From Peru, the position is similar. Miguel Bentin, president of Proarándanos, stated that the measure affects competitiveness and could also impact the American consumer.

“At this time, we must wait, as there is uncertainty regarding how it will be implemented, how long it will last, and whether this measure will be permanent or not. However, we are addressing it in a unified manner at the AGAP level,” he stated.

Bentin added that the United States could lose competitiveness as a destination and that this situation will drive the Peruvian industry to diversify its markets. “It will push us to rely less on a country that is affecting its own competitiveness,” he stated.

Current season

In the specific case of blueberries, the potential impact goes beyond the tariff percentage. It is a product that is highly sensitive to trading windows, tight margins, and rising logistical costs. A five-percentage-point increase can affect destination decisions, pricing strategies, and shipment planning in the middle of the season.

It is worth noting that the 10% tariff was in effect during the 2025/26 season. Nevertheless, the volume of blueberries was traded dynamically in the U.S. market, so the industry will now need to assess the real impact of a potential increase to 15% and how the new measure will be legally implemented.