Trump: Alternatives will be used to replace rejected ariffs

Trump: Alternatives will be used to replace rejected ariffs

Trump Administration Explores Alternatives to Rejected Tariffs Amid Supreme Court Ruling

The Supreme Court's 6-3 decision striking down President Trump's broad tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) has prompted the administration to consider alternative legal pathways to maintain its trade policies. The ruling, issued on February 20, 2026, invalidated tariffs justified as emergency measures to address trade deficits, asserting that IEEPA does not explicitly authorize presidential taxing authority.

While the decision curtails Trump's use of IEEPA, the administration retains several statutory tools to impose tariffs. These include: - Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, which allows tariffs to counter "unfair" trade practices, such as China's industrial policies. This authority requires investigations and public hearings but permits unlimited tariff rates. - Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, enabling tariffs of up to 15% for 150 days to address unbalanced trade, with no prior investigation required. - Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, permitting tariffs for national security reasons (e.g., steel, aluminum, and auto imports). This authority necessitates Commerce Department investigations. - Section 338 of the 1930 Tariff Act, allowing up to 50% tariffs on countries discriminating against U.S. businesses, with no investigation or duration limits.

Georgetown University trade law professor Kathleen Claussen noted that Trump could "rebuild the tariff landscape" using these tools, though smaller countries may prove harder to target due to procedural hurdles. The administration's trade representative has already signaled plans to replace invalidated tariffs swiftly.

The ruling triggers refunds for over $175 billion in IEEPA-based tariffs collected since February 2025, a process the Treasury Department anticipates will be complex. Businesses and economists warn that reimposed tariffs, even under different statutes, could disrupt supply chains and raise costs.

The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF) emphasized the need for targeted tariffs addressing specific trade abuses, rather than broad measures. Meanwhile, the administration faces scrutiny over whether alternative statutes will achieve its goals of reducing trade deficits and boosting manufacturing without triggering further legal challenges or economic fallout.

As the administration navigates these options, the Supreme Court's decision underscores the constitutional limits of executive power while highlighting the enduring role of tariffs in U.S. trade strategy.