Article Summary –
President Trump has various options to continue imposing tariffs even after the Supreme Court invalidated his prior broad tariffs, leveraging existing powers like the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, and potentially Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930. The court’s decision highlights that Trump’s claims under IEEPA were excessive, yet he can still re-implement tariffs through other statutes, though each comes with specific requirements and limitations. Section 301, often used against China, allows for significant tariffs but requires investigations, while Section 122 provides limited tariff power; Section 232, used on national security grounds, gives considerable latitude with required investigations by the Commerce Department, and Section 338, never used, permits tariffs up to 50% without investigative prerequisites.
WASHINGTON (AP) — Despite the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn his global tariffs, President Donald Trump retains several strategies for imposing aggressive import taxes.
Although the Justices dismissed Trump’s extensive claims to impose tariffs at will, he still has access to tariff powers from his first term and can utilize other methods, including some from the Great Depression era.
Georgetown’s trade law expert Kathleen Claussen remarked, “It’s challenging to envision tariffs ending; Trump could easily re-establish the current tariff landscape using alternative authorities.”
Relying on the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), Trump asserted nearly unlimited power to levy tariffs. However, opponents contended before the Supreme Court that Congress had already granted tariff authority to the presidency through various statutes, with strict limitations.
Tariffs have been pivotal to Trump’s foreign and economic strategies, with substantial “reciprocal” tariffs enacted due to the U.S.’s trade deficit, which he claims is a national crisis.
Under Trump, average U.S. tariffs rose from 2.5% to nearly 17% within a year, marking the highest since 1934, according to Yale University’s Budget Lab.
Despite acting unilaterally, the U.S. Constitution entrusts Congress with the power to tax and impose tariffs.
Countering Unfair Trade Practices
Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 enables the U.S. to combat countries with “unjustifiable” trade actions. Trump has wielded this against China, imposing extensive tariffs over unfair trade tactics. Section 301 has no tariff size limits, and while tariffs expire after four years, they can be renewed.
Before imposing Section 301 tariffs, the administration’s trade representative must investigate and usually conduct a public hearing. The policy is effective against China but less so for smaller nations targeting reciprocal tariffs.
“Conducting numerous 301 investigations for many countries is labor-intensive,” noted Veroneau.
Targeting Trade Deficits
In May, the U.S. Court of International Trade blocked Trump’s reciprocal tariffs, ruling against using emergency powers for trade deficits. Congress had given the White House limited authority under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, allowing tariffs up to 15% for 150 days in response to trade imbalances, without investigations. Yet, Section 122 has never been employed for tariffs.
Protecting National Security
In both terms, Trump used Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 to target imports threatening national security. In 2018, he implemented tariffs on steel and aluminum, which expanded to include autos, auto parts, and furniture. Section 232 tariffs are unlimited but require a Commerce Department investigation, where administration control influences outcomes.
Reviving Depression-Era Tariffs
The Tariff Act of 1930 authorized the president to impose tariffs up to 50% on imports from discriminating countries, without investigation or time limits. Although unused, the U.S. employed the threat in 1930s trade talks. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent mentioned considering Section 338 as a fallback if the Supreme Court opposed Trump’s emergency tariffs.
—
Read More Wisconsin News
