{"id":359647,"date":"2025-11-06T11:19:09","date_gmt":"2025-11-06T11:19:09","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/359647\/"},"modified":"2025-11-06T11:19:09","modified_gmt":"2025-11-06T11:19:09","slug":"trump-has-other-tariff-options-if-the-supreme-court-strikes-down-his-worldwide-import-taxes","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/359647\/","title":{"rendered":"Trump has other tariff options if the Supreme Court strikes down his worldwide import taxes"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>WASHINGTON (AP) \u2014 President Donald Trump has warned that the United States will be rendered \u201cdefenseless\u2019\u2019 and possibly \u201creduced to almost Third World status\u201d if the Supreme Court strikes down the tariffs he imposed this year on nearly every country on earth.<\/p>\n<p>The justices sounded skeptical during <a class=\"Link AnClick-LinkEnhancement\" data-gtm-enhancement-style=\"LinkEnhancementA\" href=\"https:\/\/apnews.com\/article\/trump-tariffs-supreme-court-bc89f3a1f5fd66e5b59f6e5330a5c0ca\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">oral arguments Wednesday<\/a> of his sweeping claims of authority to impose tariffs as he sees fit. <\/p>\n<p>The truth, though, is that Trump will still have plenty of options to keep taxing imports aggressively even if the court rules against him. He can re-use tariff powers he deployed in his first term and can reach for others, including one that dates back to the Great Depression.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cIt\u2019s hard to see any pathway here where tariffs end,\u201d said Georgetown trade law professor Kathleen Claussen. \u201cI am pretty convinced he could rebuild the tariff landscape he has now using other authorities.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>At Wednesday\u2019s hearing, in fact, lawyer Neal Katyal, representing small businesses suing to get the tariffs struck down, argued that Trump didn\u2019t need the boundless authority he\u2019s claimed to impose tariffs under 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). That is because Congress delegated tariff power to the White House in several other statutes \u2014 though it carefully limited the ways the president could use the authority. <\/p>\n<p>\u201cCongress knows exactly how to delegate its tariff powers,\u201d Katyal said. <\/p>\n<p>Tariffs have become a cornerstone of Trump\u2019s foreign policy in his second term, with double-digit \u201creciprocal\u201d tariffs imposed on most countries, which he has justified by declaring America\u2019s longstanding trade deficits a national emergency. <\/p>\n<p>The average U.S. tariff has gone from 2.5% when Trump returned to the White House in January to 17.9%, the highest since 1934, according to calculations by Yale University\u2019s Budget Lab.<\/p>\n<p>The president acted alone even though the U.S. Constitution specifically gives <a class=\"Link AnClick-LinkEnhancement\" data-gtm-enhancement-style=\"LinkEnhancementA\" href=\"https:\/\/constitution.congress.gov\/browse\/article-1\/section-8\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">the power to tax \u2013 and impose tariffs \u2013 to Congress.<\/a><\/p>\n<p>Still, Trump \u201cwill have other tools that can cause pain,\u2019\u2019 said Stratos Pahis of Brooklyn Law School. Here\u2019s a look at some of his options:<\/p>\n<p>Countering unfair trade practices<\/p>\n<p>The United States has long had a handy cudgel to wallop countries it accuses of engaging in \u201cunjustifiable,\u201d \u201cunreasonable\u201d or \u201cdiscriminatory\u201d trade practices. That is Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974.<\/p>\n<p>And Trump has made aggressive use of it himself \u2014 especially against China. In his first term, he cited Section 301 to impose sweeping tariffs on Chinese imports in a dispute over the sharp-elbowed tactics that Beijing was using to challenge America\u2019s technological dominance. The U.S. is also using 301 powers to counter what it calls unfair Chinese practices in the shipbuilding industry.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cYou\u2019ve had Section 301 tariffs in place against China for years,\u201d said Ryan Majerus, a partner at King &amp; Spalding and a trade official in Trump\u2019s first administration and in Biden\u2019s. <\/p>\n<p>There are no limits on the size of Section 301 tariffs. They expire after four years but can be extended.<\/p>\n<p>But the administration\u2019s trade representative must conduct an investigation and typically hold a public hearing before imposing 301 tariffs.<\/p>\n<p>John Veroneau, general counsel for the U.S. trade representative in the George W. Bush administration, said Section 301 is useful in taking on China. But it has drawbacks when it comes to dealing with the smaller countries that Trump has hammered with reciprocal tariffs. <\/p>\n<p>\u201cUndertaking dozens and dozens of 301 investigations of all of those countries is a laborious process,\u201d Veroneau said.<\/p>\n<p>Targeting trade deficits<\/p>\n<p>In striking down Trump\u2019s reciprocal tariffs in May, the U.S. Court of International Trade ruled that the president couldn\u2019t use emergency powers to combat trade deficits.<\/p>\n<p>That is partly because Congress had specifically given the White House limited authority to address the problem in another statute: Section 122, also of the Trade Act of 1974. That allows the president to impose tariffs of up to 15% for up to 150 days in response to unbalanced trade. The administration doesn\u2019t even have to conduct an investigation beforehand.<\/p>\n<p>But Section 122 authority has never been used to apply tariffs, and there is some uncertainty about how it would work.<\/p>\n<p>Protecting national security<\/p>\n<p>In both of his terms, Trump has made aggressive use of his power \u2014 under Section 232 of Trade Expansion Act of 1962 \u2014 to impose tariffs on imports that he deems a threat to national security.<\/p>\n<p>In 2018, he slapped tariffs on foreign steel and aluminum, levies he\u2019s expanded since returning to the White House. He also plastered Section 232 tariffs on autos, auto parts, copper, lumber. <\/p>\n<p>In September, the president even levied Section 232 tariffs on kitchen cabinets, bathroom vanities and upholstered furniture. \u201cEven though people might roll their eyes\u201d at the notion that imported furniture poses a threat to national security, Veroneau said, \u201cit\u2019s difficult to get courts to second-guess a determination by a president on a national security matter.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Section 232 tariffs are not limited by law but do require an investigation by the U.S. Commerce Department. It\u2019s the administration itself that does the investigating \u2013 also true for Section 301 cases \u2014 \u201cso they have a lot of control over the outcome,\u201d Veroneau said.<\/p>\n<p>Reviving Depression-era tariffs<\/p>\n<p>Nearly a century ago, with the U.S. and world economies in collapse, Congress passed the Tariff Act of 1930, imposing hefty taxes on imports. Known as the Smoot-Hawley tariffs (for their congressional sponsors), these levies have been widely condemned by economists and historians for limiting world commerce and making the Great Depression worse. They also got a <a class=\"Link AnClick-LinkEnhancement\" data-gtm-enhancement-style=\"LinkEnhancementA\" href=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=yuOHbyuanbY\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">memorable pop culture shoutout<\/a> in the 1986 movie \u201cFerris Bueller\u2019s Day Off.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Section 338 of the law authorizes the president to impose tariffs of up to 50% on imports from countries that have discriminated against U.S. businesses. No investigation is required, and there\u2019s no limit on how long the tariffs can stay in place.<\/p>\n<p>Those tariffs have never been imposed \u2014 U.S. trade negotiators traditionally have favored Section 301 sanctions instead \u2014 though the United States used the threat of them as a bargaining chip in trade talks in the 1930s.<\/p>\n<p>In September, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told Reuters that the administration was considering Section 338 as a Plan B if the Supreme Court ruled against Trump\u2019s use of emergency powers tariffs.<\/p>\n<p>The Smoot-Hawley legislation has a bad reputation, Veroneau said, but Trump might find it appealing. \u201cTo be the first president to ever use it could have some cache.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>____<\/p>\n<p>Associated Press Staff Writer Lindsay Whitehurst contributed to this story. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"WASHINGTON (AP) \u2014 President Donald Trump has warned that the United States will be rendered \u201cdefenseless\u2019\u2019 and possibly&hellip;\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":359648,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[4,3],"tags":[64,74,356,84,69,57,3755,13790,174919,174920,174918,50,80,174921,18244,369,16618,61,67,132,68],"class_list":{"0":"post-359647","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-united-states","8":"category-us","9":"tag-business","10":"tag-china","11":"tag-courts","12":"tag-district-of-columbia","13":"tag-donald-trump","14":"tag-general-news","15":"tag-george-w-bush","16":"tag-international-trade","17":"tag-john-veroneau","18":"tag-kathleen-claussen","19":"tag-neal-katyal","20":"tag-news","21":"tag-politics","22":"tag-ryan-majerus","23":"tag-scott-bessent","24":"tag-supreme-court-of-the-united-states","25":"tag-tariffs-and-global-trade","26":"tag-u-s-news","27":"tag-united-states","28":"tag-unitedstates","29":"tag-us"},"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"https:\/\/pubeurope.com\/@us\/115502486127115341","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/359647","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=359647"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/359647\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/359648"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=359647"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=359647"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=359647"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}