US will not back out of its tariff deals with UK and others, says Trump trade representative

[BumRushDaShow]

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 Trump’s 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 CBS’s 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. “We’re 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]

1. A contract based on fraud, deception, or illegal acts is null and void

That's what I recall from Business Law.

[efhmc]

3. Perfect. Too bad it is not today's law instead of Orange Nazi's "law".

[SunSeeker]

2. But TACO can't use Section 122 selectively. It must be across the board.

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]

5. Oops!

Further evidence that they’re 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]

6. First thing I thought too

Second thing I thought is who is going to enforce it?

[RainCaster]

4. The Cantaloupe Caligula ignores another group of judges

Nothing to see here.

[travelingthrulife]

7. And remains out of jail.

[bluestarone]

8. Hell, who's gonna know

If TSF stops these tariffs? I mean really who knows what they are doing?