The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on the 20th (local time) that the reciprocal tariff imposed on trading partners under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) after U.S. President Donald Trump declared a national emergency was unlawful. The Trump administration is expected to look for ways to keep the reciprocal tariff in place based on other laws.
U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said in a recent speech, "There is no doubt about our ability to continue collecting tariffs at roughly the same level in terms of total revenue." This suggested a plan to maintain the policy of imposing a reciprocal tariff regardless of the Supreme Court ruling.
Minister Bessent noted that even if the Supreme Court finds the reciprocal tariff under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act unlawful, the same tariff structure could be rebuilt under three provisions—Sections 301 and 122 of the Trade Act and Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act.
Section 301 of the Trade Act allows broad retaliatory measures such as tariffs, after a period of notice and public comment, against trading partners that engage in unfair and discriminatory trade practices toward the United States. Under Section 122 of the same law, the U.S. government may impose tariffs of up to 15% for 150 days to address a severe trade deficit.
Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act authorizes the president to restrict imports through appropriate measures such as tariffs if, after a review by the relevant departments, imports of specific items are determined to threaten national security.
However, these alternatives take months to complete the investigation and reporting procedures. There is also analysis that the Trump administration will first use Section 122 of the Trade Act, which allows a 15% tariff for 150 days when the trade deficit worsens, and then complete the procedures to keep the tariffs in place.
Section 338 of the Customs Act is also mentioned as a substitute measure. Under this provision, in trade with the United States, the U.S. president may impose tariffs of up to 50% on countries that unfairly discriminate against the United States without the results of a federal agency investigation.
There is also a view that even if the Trump administration imposes new tariffs based on such provisions, it will not be able to avoid controversy over illegality. In addition, uncertainty is expected to grow for the U.S. and global economies during the period of discussing substitute measures.