A legal pivot in Washington is reshaping tariff exposure, raising financing risk for value-added exports and testing Africa’s trade options.
Recent changes to US tariff policy are creating fresh uncertainty for African exporters and investors, forcing businesses and policymakers to reassess market access, pricing structures, and long-term trade strategy. New import surcharges and baseline tariff measures are reshaping the economics of exporting to the United States, particularly for value-added goods, while raising questions about financing, competitiveness, and Africa’s broader trade alignment.
The US Supreme Court ruled that earlier reciprocal tariffs imposed under emergency powers were illegal, forcing the administration to adjust its legal approach to trade enforcement. The decision created immediate uncertainty about the status of specific country-level tariffs, including measures affecting South Africa, and prompted the use of Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 to introduce a temporary import surcharge instead. While the ruling provided short-term relief by invalidating certain tariffs, it also introduced ambiguity for exporters and investors as policymakers moved to implement alternative tariff mechanisms within existing legal limits.
One immediate twist is political: as Bloomberg says being the villain in Trump’s eyes has worked in South Africa’s favor because the country “has no trade deal to honor,” framing South Africa as less constrained by obligations that could be disrupted by sudden policy changes.
The 10% Surcharge and a 150-Day Clock
Regardless of what South Africa might do as a response to this, the immediate outcome is that the US has imposed a temporary 10% import surcharge on most goods entering the United States, using Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, and has introduced a 10% ad valorem duty for 150 days from 24 February.
Africa’s Exposure: Raw Materials vs Processed Goods
For Africa, the tariff reset creates a clear divide between raw resource exports and downstream industrial ambitions. The new 15% global baseline tariff applies broadly, but exemptions remain for select energy products and critical minerals, preserving market access for commodities such as oil, gas, and strategic mineral inputs that underpin global supply chains. This means African economies reliant on exporting unprocessed resources may see limited immediate disruption, reinforcing the continent’s role as a supplier of essential inputs. However, the same framework makes value-added processing less competitive, as refined or manufactured mineral products fall outside many exemptions and face higher cumulative tariff exposure. As a result, the policy risks reinforcing a structural imbalance—encouraging continued exports of raw critical minerals while complicating efforts to build domestic refining, beneficiation, and industrial capacity linked to those resources.
Investment Risk and the Push for Alternatives
The same analysis links tariff volatility to project finance, stating: “Tariff unpredictability directly affects the financing of African refining and precursor facilities,” because lenders “reassess country risk premiums, raising financing costs and weakening bankability.”
From the market brief, North West University Business School economist Prof Raymond Parsons said the ruling was “a welcome respite for many countries, including South Africa,” but also warned: “The immediate economic impact of the court’s verdict is therefore inevitably a recipe for more confusion and uncertainty, including for SA business, about future US trade policy.”
Continued tariff instability strengthens Africa’s incentive to diversify its export markets, with deeper engagement with partners such as China and the European Union becoming more likely as countries seek more predictable and structured trade relationships.
For more stories of trade from across Africa, visit our dedicated archives.