As you’ve undoubtedly heard by now, the U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled against President Trump’s use of tariffs through a series of executive orders. The Court issued a vote of 6-3, bringing a temporary end to many higher percentage tariffs. For now, anyway.

Even before this decision, tariffs were still a hot topic of discussion. In this very issue (and submitted prior to the Court’s decision), MedWorld Advisors shared insights gained from a panel discussion that they were involved in at the MD&M West show in February (shared in this issue’s C-Suite Reflections column). The MedWorld team brings up a number of concerns and questions that will still be relevant for device manufacturers once the President determines how to legally reintroduce tariffs on goods from certain countries. 

With this in mind, it’s still a good idea for manufacturers to determine how they will best address policies that will create new costs. The President’s tariffs disrupted decades-long established business practices. And as we well know, for the medical device industry, it’s not a simple matter of switching suppliers to a U.S.-based one. There’s much more involved. 

Further, another interesting item brought up by Team MedWorld involves the sourcing of raw materials. Even if companies move to a local supplier, they cite sources that state “50% to 80% of components used in U.S.-made devices are imported, meaning that even domestic production is now vulnerable to tariff-driven cost inflation.” 

Given this dynamic, I sought insights from others to see what they had to say regarding the Supreme Court’s decision and how it might affect the medical device manufacturing industry. 

Lynlee Brown, partner, Global Trade at Ernst & Young LLP | EY – US, shared the following comments: “With the tariff situation fluctuating, there are a few considerations for medtech companies to consider. First is the potential decrease from 15% to 10% when products are of European origin, with the 10% tariff stacking on top of any Most Favored Nation duty rates. The second is for medtech companies to remember that the USMCA is still in play, and it is important for them to watch the renegotiation process closely. Last, but certainly not least, medtech companies should keep an eye on the 232 report investigating medical devices and any resulting judgments and rulings.” 

While the public comment period is over for the 232 investigation, you can review them online at www.bis.gov. Beyond that, however, we’ll have to wait for the conclusion to see what the findings are, what action will be taken as a result, and what it will mean for device manufacturers. 

AdvaMed’s president and CEO also weighed in on the ruling. “Today’s ruling by the Supreme Court makes clear that IEEPA cannot be used to levy broad tariffs on markets around the world,” stated Scott Whitaker. “With that said, we expect the administration will now pursue tariffs through other authorities to meet the President’s goal of eliminating trade imbalances and incentivizing U.S. manufacturing.”

So Whitaker doesn’t expect the tariff issue to go away as a result of this decision. And he’s almost certainly correct. 

Whitaker went on to say, “As an industry that is primarily U.S.-based, with trade surpluses in most major markets worldwide, we look forward to working with the President and his administration to find a way to help reach his goals of leveling the playing field, addressing foreign trade barriers, and ensuring that the U.S. continues to lead the world in medical innovation and patient care.”

“As we move forward, it is essential that America’s medtech companies have the certainty and stability we need to invest, innovate, and supply U.S. patients with the timely, cost-effective medical technologies they need,” he concluded. 

Addressing the topic at a broader level was the Coalition for a Prosperous America’s (CPA) president. “Today’s ruling makes two things clear: Congress may lawfully delegate tariff power to the President to defend home market production, as it did with Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, and that for major revenue tariffs, Congress should step in to legislate,” said Jon Toomey. “CPA strongly supports the 10% universal tariff as a revenue-generating measure and supports the administration’s Section 232 investigations as the primary vehicle for reshoring domestic production in critical sectors.”

“Tariffs are not a temporary negotiating tactic—they are a core component of a durable America First trade and industrial policy. Congress must act accordingly,” continued Toomey. “Codifying the President’s 10% universal tariff and supplemental tariffs for China would prevent further disruption and enable the President to focus on rebuilding our industrial base.”

Sean Fenske, Editor-in-Chief
sfenske@rodmanmedia.com