Trump's New 10% Tariff Strategy After Supreme Court Ruling [2025]

When the Supreme Court struck down most of President Trump's signature trade policies in early 2025, many thought his ambitious tariff agenda was finished. They were wrong. Within days, Trump signed a new executive order imposing a blanket 10 percent tariff on nearly all imports to the United States, effectively sidestepping the court's ruling through a different legal framework. The move showcases how a determined executive can work around judicial constraints when it has the right statutory authority.

This isn't your typical tariff story about trade wars or retaliatory measures. Instead, it reveals something more fundamental about presidential power, the limits of court decisions, and how policy can survive even when the courts say no. Trump's approach demonstrates that losing a Supreme Court case doesn't necessarily mean losing the policy fight.

The implications ripple far beyond trade policy. For businesses, consumers, supply chains, and the broader economy, this shift matters enormously. For legal scholars, it raises questions about whether courts can effectively constrain executive action when Congress has granted broad statutory authority. For political observers, it shows a president unwilling to accept judicial setbacks.

Here's what actually happened, why it works legally, what comes next, and why this matters for everyone from your local retailer to Fortune 500 companies.

TL; DR

• Supreme Court struck down tariffs: The Court ruled that Trump's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) for tariffs exceeded presidential authority, but the decision didn't ban all tariffs.
• New legal hook: Trump pivoted to Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which lets presidents impose tariffs up to 15% for 150 days without needing emergency declarations.
• 10% global tariffs: New tariffs take effect February 24, 2026, with exceptions for critical minerals, beef, fruits, cars, pharmaceuticals, and imports from Canada/Mexico.
• Limited time authority: Section 122 tariffs expire after 150 days unless Congress extends them, but Trump can keep reissuing new tariffs under different legal justifications.
• Refund mess ahead: Companies may wait months or years to see refunds on tariff payments made under the struck-down IEEPA authority, with the legal process still unfolding.

What the Supreme Court Actually Decided

The Supreme Court's decision wasn't as definitive as headlines suggested. The justices didn't say Trump can't impose tariffs. They said Trump can't use the IEEPA to do it.

This distinction matters enormously. The International Emergency Economic Powers Act was designed for national security emergencies. It lets the president freeze assets, restrict transactions, and regulate commerce when the nation faces an unusual and extraordinary threat. Trump used it to impose tariffs on imports, arguing that trade deficits constituted a national emergency.

The Court disagreed. Six justices voted to overturn the IEEPA tariffs, with even two Trump-appointed judges (Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett) voting against him. The ruling emphasized that IEEPA's emergency powers don't extend to general taxation, which is traditionally Congress's domain.

But here's the catch: the Court wasn't saying tariffs are off the table entirely. It was saying this particular legal hook won't work. And that's exactly why Trump's response was so quick and effective.

The decision left massive wiggle room. Congress had passed other laws giving presidents various tariff authorities. Trump just needed to pick a different one. Within hours, his legal team identified Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which had never been used for this purpose before but fit perfectly.

Trump's press conference after the ruling showed his frustration. He called the six justices "a disgrace to our nation" and described Gorsuch and Barrett as "an embarrassment to their families." But his legal team wasn't discouraged—they were already drafting the workaround.

Understanding Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974

Section 122 is obscure. Few people outside trade law circles had heard of it before February 2025. But it's potentially more powerful for tariff purposes than the IEEPA, precisely because it's so narrow and specific.

Here's how it works: if the president determines that the United States faces "large and serious" trade deficits with other countries, Section 122 grants him unilateral authority to impose tariffs of up to 15 percent for a period of up to 150 days. That's it. No emergency declaration needed. No IEEPA invocation required. Just a presidential determination and a signature.

The statute is remarkably permissive. It doesn't require Congress to approve. It doesn't demand detailed impact analysis. It doesn't require negotiation or warning periods. The president can act immediately and unilaterally.

Trump's executive order leveraged this authority perfectly. He determined that the U. S. faces "large and serious" trade deficits, and he imposed a 10 percent tariff on nearly all imports effective February 24, 2026. The tariff excludes critical minerals, beef, fruits, cars, pharmaceuticals, and products from Canada and Mexico—carved-out exceptions Trump deemed important for various reasons.

Why February 24? That gives traders about a month to adjust before the tariffs hit. It's a courtesy period that also gives Trump time to manage the political and economic fallout.

The beauty of Section 122, from an executive power perspective, is that it bypasses everything that limited the IEEPA approach. The Court can't easily overturn this on the same reasoning because Section 122 isn't claiming emergency powers. It's just a normal tariff statute. Courts grant enormous deference to presidential tariff decisions under existing statutory authorities.

But Section 122 has a built-in limitation: it expires after 150 days. That's roughly five months. Once the deadline hits, the tariffs can't continue under that authority unless Congress votes to extend them.

The 150-Day Bridge Strategy

Greg Husisian, a partner at Foley & Lardner who specializes in trade law and has helped over 100 companies seek tariff refunds, explained the likely strategy to trade reporters.

Section 122 tariffs are temporary. They're meant as a bridge, not a permanent solution. But they're a bridge to something else.

While the Section 122 tariffs are in place for those 150 days, Trump's administration will almost certainly be conducting other trade investigations. Specifically, they'll investigate whether other countries are engaging in unfair trade practices (grounds for Section 301 tariffs) or whether imports threaten national security (grounds for Section 232 tariffs).

Both Section 301 and Section 232 investigations take time. Usually several months. But once they conclude, they can justify permanent or semi-permanent tariffs. Trump already announced at his press conference that his administration is "initiating several Section 301 and other investigations."

Here's the mechanical process:

1. Section 122 tariffs take effect for 150 days (February 24 through approximately August 2026)
2. During those 150 days, Trump launches Section 301 investigations into unfair trade practices
3. Those investigations take 3-6 months
4. Just as Section 122 tariffs expire, Section 301 findings conclude
5. New tariffs under Section 301 authority take effect, potentially with higher percentages
6. The cycle continues

It's legally clever because each tariff authority has different requirements and different durations. By layering them, Trump's team can maintain continuous tariff pressure while staying within the bounds of what Congress authorized.

This approach doesn't violate any court ruling because each step relies on valid statutory authority. The Court said Trump can't use IEEPA for tariffs. It didn't say he can't use the Trade Act. In fact, courts traditionally give presidents enormous deference on trade decisions made under explicit Congressional authorization.

But this creates a legal and political problem that nobody's really solved: what about the companies that paid tariffs under the IEEPA authority before it was struck down?

The Refund Problem Nobody's Solving

When Trump first imposed IEEPA tariffs in 2024, companies had to pay them or face penalties. Billions of dollars flowed into the government's coffers. Many companies paid under protest, tracking their expenses and preparing to seek refunds once they had legal grounds.

Now they have those grounds. The Supreme Court said the IEEPA tariffs were illegal. Logically, that means companies deserve refunds.

But refunds are complicated, and Trump's administration hasn't clarified how they'll work.

The Supreme Court decision didn't specify whether or when refunds should occur. Trump was asked about it at his press conference and basically said he expects it'll get litigated in court. In other words, companies will probably have to sue for their money back.

That's a mess for everyone involved. Here's why:

First, a company has to calculate exactly how much it paid in illegal tariffs. That requires going through import records, identifying which products faced tariffs, calculating the tariff amount for each shipment, and documenting everything. For a large importer, that could mean hundreds or thousands of transactions to audit.

Second, the company has to decide whether to pursue a refund claim. If the amount is small (a few thousand dollars), litigation costs might exceed the refund. If it's large (hundreds of thousands or millions), it's worth fighting for.

Third, the company files a claim with the government requesting a refund. The government then has to review the claim, verify the calculations, and decide whether to approve it.

Fourth, and here's the contentious part: the government might dispute the amount. It might argue that the company calculated wrong, or that certain shipments don't qualify, or any number of other objections. That triggers another round of negotiation and potentially litigation.

Trade lawyers interviewed by major outlets estimate this process could take anywhere from six months to more than two years. Some companies might never pursue claims because the effort isn't worth it. Others will hire lawyers and press the issue.

Additionally, Trump's administration has signaled it might take a hardline on refunds. The president called the Court's decision "crazy" and criticized the justices. That political hostility might translate into an administration that doesn't enthusiastically process refund claims.

Companies are already bracing for a long fight. Some are consulting with law firms specializing in trade litigation. Trade industry groups are preparing coordinated strategies. The refund issue could occupy courts and administrative bodies for years.

The De Minimis Suspension and Border Backlogs

In a separate but related move, Trump's administration confirmed that the de minimis exemption remains suspended.

De minimis sounds technical, but it had massive practical effects. The exemption allowed packages valued under

When Trump suspended de minimis in 2024, it created chaos at the border. Suddenly, millions of small packages needed tariff processing. U. S. Customs and Border Protection didn't have the infrastructure. Processing backlogs exploded. Packages that normally arrived in two weeks took two months. Prices on budget shopping platforms spiked as retailers passed along tariff costs.

Even though the IEEPA tariffs were struck down, the de minimis suspension is staying. Trump's new executive order explicitly confirmed that. This means the border backlogs and price increases will persist and likely intensify when the new Section 122 tariffs take effect.

For small businesses relying on imported goods, this is a double hit. First, they face the new 10 percent tariffs. Second, they continue facing the administrative nightmare of de minimis suspension.

Retailers, especially those selling affordable goods, are already planning inventory adjustments, supplier diversification, and price increases to absorb the costs.

How Trump Distorted the Court's Ruling

At his press conference, Trump repeatedly misrepresented what the Supreme Court actually held.

Trump said: "But now the court has given me the unquestioned right to ban all sorts of things from coming into our country, to destroy foreign countries... but not the right to charge a fee. How crazy is that?"

That's not what the Court said. The Court said IEEPA's emergency powers don't extend to taxation. That's about the scope of a specific statute, not about what the president can or cannot do generally.

Trump conflated the Court's narrow holding with a broader interpretation that doesn't exist. He acted as though the Court had given him a vast power to restrict imports but weirdly denied him tariff authority. That's not the ruling.

The actual ruling is narrower and more specific: the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, designed for freezing assets and restricting transactions in emergencies, doesn't authorize general tariffs on imports.

But other statutes do. And that's why the ruling, while a technical victory for Trump's opponents, doesn't actually constrain Trump's tariff power in any meaningful way.

Trump also started bragging about his reading comprehension, saying "I read the paragraphs. I read very well. Great comprehension." It was an odd moment, but it revealed something: Trump felt the need to justify his interpretation of the decision, suggesting he understood the ruling was actually narrower than his public comments suggested.

What This Means for Importers and Retailers

For businesses that import goods, the calculus changed dramatically once Section 122 tariffs were announced.

First, the uncertainty window. Companies had been hoping the Supreme Court's IEEPA ruling would block tariffs entirely. Now they know that's not happening. New tariffs are coming. The date is fixed: February 24, 2026. That's not much time to adjust supply chains or renegotiate contracts.

Second, the scope. The new tariffs are 10 percent across nearly all imports. That's comprehensive. Unlike the IEEPA tariffs, which had various rates (sometimes 20-25% on specific countries or products), these are broad and uniform.

Third, the carve-outs are limited. Critical minerals, beef, fruits, cars, and pharmaceuticals are exempt. That helps certain sectors, but most manufactured goods are hit. If you import clothing, electronics, furniture, toys, machinery, or thousands of other products, you're paying 10 percent more.

Fourth, the timeline is aggressive. A month to adjust before February 24 isn't much. Supply chains take months to change. Some companies might have goods in transit that arrive after the tariffs take effect, meaning they pay the new rates on inventory they ordered weeks earlier.

Retailers are looking at several options:

Option 1: Absorb the costs. Some large retailers with high margins can eat the 10 percent tariff and maintain prices. This hurts profit margins but keeps prices stable for consumers.

Option 2: Raise prices. Most retailers will pass the costs along. A

Option 3: Substitute suppliers. Find alternative suppliers in countries not hit by tariffs. But this takes time and quality varies. Additionally, Trump's plan for future investigations might expand tariffs to other countries anyway.

Option 4: Shift to domestic sourcing. This is the long-term solution Trump wants. But domestic manufacturing costs are higher, production capacity is limited, and the transition takes years.

Most companies will use some combination of all four strategies.

The Political Reaction and Congressional Dynamics

The Supreme Court ruling put Congress in an awkward position, and Trump's pivot made it worse.

Some Congressional Republicans actually sided with the courts against Trump, arguing that tariffs are a tax and therefore require Congressional approval. They were right on constitutional grounds. The Constitution gives Congress the power to levy taxes. If tariffs are taxes (which they are), then Congress should approve them.

But Congress has delegated tariff authority to the president in numerous statutes. Once Congress does that, courts grant the president very broad discretion. So the question isn't whether tariffs are constitutional, but whether the specific statute Trump is relying on actually grants the authority he's claiming.

With Section 122, Congress clearly did grant authority. The statute explicitly allows presidential tariffs up to 15 percent for up to 150 days. Congress knew what it was doing when it passed that language.

So Congress can't really blame Trump for using a tool Congress gave him. If Congress didn't want him to have this power, Congress should have written the statute differently.

But here's where it gets interesting: Congress can extend the Section 122 tariffs beyond 150 days, or it can deny extension and force Trump to use different authorities. This gives Congress leverage.

Some Democrats want to use that leverage. They might vote to deny extension as a way to limit Trump's tariff power. But Republicans generally support Trump's tariff agenda, so extension is likely if Trump asks for it.

The bigger fight will be over trade investigations and the other tariff authorities Trump launches. Those have different Congressional requirements and different opportunities for opposition.

Trade Investigation Strategies and What They Mean

Trump's team is already launching Section 301 and Section 232 investigations. Understanding these is crucial for predicting what happens after Section 122 tariffs expire.

Section 301 investigations look into whether other countries engage in unfair trade practices. These include intellectual property theft, forced technology transfer, discriminatory tariffs, or subsidies. If an investigation finds unfair practices, the president can impose retaliatory tariffs.

Section 301 is powerful because it's somewhat subjective. What constitutes "unfair" is debatable. Trump's team can define unfairness broadly and justify high tariffs.

Section 232 investigations concern national security. The statute says if imports threaten U. S. national security, the president can restrict or tariff them. This has been stretched to include things like automobiles, steel, and aluminum based on the theory that a strong domestic industrial base is essential for national security.

Section 232 has been particularly controversial because it allows the president to unilaterally expand the definition of "national security." Normally, national security means military threats. But Trump's administration has interpreted it to include economic resilience, supply chain security, and domestic industry preservation.

Both investigations take time, but they give Trump legal cover for permanent or quasi-permanent tariffs. Once investigations conclude, tariffs can stay in place indefinitely (unlike Section 122's 150-day limit).

Trade experts expect Trump to launch investigations broadly. Maybe China gets hit with Section 301 tariffs for IP theft and forced tech transfer. Europe gets Section 232 tariffs on autos for national security. Vietnam gets tariffs for transshipping goods that should be subject to higher China tariffs. And so on.

Each investigation is tailored to the target. Each uses slightly different legal justification. Together, they create a comprehensive tariff regime that the Supreme Court's IEEPA ruling didn't touch.

The Broader Legal Doctrine: Presidential Power in Trade

This situation reveals something fundamental about how courts approach executive power over trade.

Courts give presidents enormous deference on trade decisions. This isn't unique to Trump. It's the doctrine courts have applied for decades.

The basic principle: when Congress explicitly grants the president tariff authority, courts won't second-guess how the president exercises it. The president gets to decide whether trade deficits are "large and serious" (Section 122), whether practices are "unfair" (Section 301), or whether imports threaten "national security" (Section 232).

Congress could have written these statutes differently. Congress could have required a second vote before tariffs take effect. Congress could have set specific numerical thresholds. Congress could have required independent agency review. But Congress didn't. Congress gave the president discretion, and courts respect that.

The Supreme Court's IEEPA ruling doesn't change this. The Court specifically said it was addressing whether IEEPA (an emergency powers statute) grants tariff authority. It wasn't broadly stating that presidents can't impose tariffs or that presidential tariff power is limited.

In fact, the Court's ruling might have opened the door wider for Section 122. By rejecting IEEPA, the Court directed attention to other statutes. Section 122, which was already law, became the obvious alternative. The Court's decision ironically strengthened Trump's position for future tariffs.

Economic Impacts and Inflation Concerns

Economists across the political spectrum have concerns about broad tariffs.

A 10 percent tariff on most imports adds costs throughout the economy. Manufacturers that buy imported inputs face higher costs. Retailers that sell imported goods face higher costs. Consumers who buy imported goods face higher prices.

The precise impact depends on which sectors are hit hardest. Electronics, clothing, and manufactured goods are heavily imported and widely consumed. A 10 percent tariff on these items could add 0.2-0.4 percentage points to inflation, depending on the assumptions.

That might not sound like much, but inflation was a major issue in 2021-2024. Any increase in inflation concerns the Federal Reserve, which might respond by keeping interest rates higher longer. Higher interest rates slow the economy, increase borrowing costs, and reduce consumer spending.

On the other hand, Trump's supporters argue that tariffs benefit American workers and domestic producers. If consumers buy more American-made goods, U. S. factories expand, employment increases, and wages rise.

The empirical evidence is mixed. Some workers in protected industries do benefit from tariffs. But consumers as a whole typically pay more, and overall economic growth sometimes slows.

What actually happens depends on how businesses respond. If they shift to domestic suppliers quickly, the disruption is limited. If they maintain imports and raise prices, consumers bear the cost. If they source from other countries, tariffs don't achieve their intended effect.

Most likely, there's a mix. Some domestic investment, some higher prices for consumers, some supply chain shifting. The net effect is probably modestly negative for overall economic growth but positive for certain protected sectors.

Timeline: What Actually Happens When

For businesses and consumers trying to plan, here's the timeline:

February 24, 2026: New Section 122 tariffs take effect. 10 percent on most imports, with carve-outs for critical minerals, beef, fruits, cars, pharmaceuticals, and Canada/Mexico imports.

February 24 - August 24, 2026: The 150-day period when Section 122 tariffs are in effect. During this time, Trump administration launches Section 301 and Section 232 investigations.

March - June 2026: Investigation reports start arriving. Section 232 investigations on autos, Section 301 investigations on specific countries, etc.

July - August 2026: Investigations conclude. Trump announces findings and new tariffs under Section 301 and Section 232 authorities.

August 24, 2026: Section 122 tariffs are set to expire unless Congress extends them.

August 25, 2026 onward: New tariffs under Section 301/232 authorities take effect, possibly before Section 122 tariffs officially expire. Tariffs remain in place with minimal gaps.

September 2026 onward: Companies seeking refunds on IEEPA tariffs from 2024 continue filing claims. Government processes claims. Disputes arise. Some litigation begins.

2027 onward: Refund litigation continues. Possibly multiple court decisions on what constitutes valid refund claims. Companies gradually receive refunds or litigation concludes.

This timeline assumes things go smoothly. In reality, there might be Congressional delays, legal challenges, business pushback, or other complications.

Lessons for International Trade Policy

The tariff situation reveals several lessons about how trade policy actually works in the modern U. S. government.

First, courts are limited in what they can control. Even when courts rule against the president, if Congress has granted statutory authority elsewhere, the president can find a different legal hook. Courts can't eliminate executive power; they can only constrain specific statutes.

Second, statutory language matters enormously. Congress accidentally gave Trump broad tariff powers by writing statutes like Section 122 in vague, permissive language. If Congress wants to constrain presidential power, it needs to write statutes with specific limitations.

Third, time is an advantage for the executive. Trump's team moved quickly after the Supreme Court ruling. A slower response might have given Congress time to act or courts time to get involved again. Speed matters in executive power dynamics.

Fourth, trade is politicized in new ways. Traditional trade disputes were about specific industries or countries. Modern tariff strategy is about using the structure of trade law to achieve broad policy goals. It's less about commerce and more about industrial policy and reshaping the economy.

Fifth, business uncertainty is costly. Companies facing possible tariffs try to plan, but they can't if policy keeps changing. The tariff uncertainty from late 2024 through early 2025 disrupted supply chains, delayed investments, and created costly inefficiencies.

What Happens to Trade Negotiations?

Side question: does this tariff strategy leave room for negotiations?

Yes, actually. The tariffs are tools, not necessarily endpoints. Trump might threaten tariffs and then offer to reduce or eliminate them in exchange for concessions from other countries.

For example, if Canada agrees to import more U. S. manufactured goods, Trump might reduce tariffs on Canadian imports. If the EU agrees to lower tariffs on American agricultural products, Trump might grant the EU exemptions. If Mexico agrees to tougher immigration enforcement at the border, Trump might maintain the Mexico carve-out.

Tariffs as negotiating tools are actually quite common. They create leverage. "Do what I want, or you face these tariffs." Once you've achieved your goal through negotiation, you can lift the tariffs and declare victory.

This might be Trump's actual plan. The 150-day timeline gives him a window to negotiate. If countries agree to his demands, he can reduce tariffs before the deadline. If they don't, he can let the tariffs stay and transition to different authorities.

From this perspective, the Section 122 tariffs are temporary leverage, not permanent policy. They're meant to scare trading partners into negotiating.

What Comes Next: Watching the Unfolding Drama

The tariff situation will evolve unpredictably. Watch these signals:

Congressional action: Does Congress move to extend or limit Section 122 tariffs? This signals how much political support tariffs have.

Investigation pace: How quickly does Trump's team conclude Section 301 and Section 232 investigations? Fast conclusions signal commitment to permanent tariffs. Slow conclusions signal negotiations are ongoing.

Trade negotiations: Does Trump negotiate deals with specific countries? This suggests tariffs are leverage, not ideology.

Refund litigation: How aggressively does the government contest refund claims? Aggressive stance suggests Trump administration won't easily reverse course.

Economic data: How much does inflation increase? How much does business investment change? Economic data informs political pressure on tariff policy.

Court challenges: Do legal challenges to Section 122 or other tariff authorities succeed? Future court involvement could reshape the landscape.

The tariff story is far from over. It's evolved from the Supreme Court striking down IEEPA tariffs to Trump pivoting to Section 122 to using the 150-day window to launch broader investigations. The endgame is still uncertain.

FAQ

What is Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974?

Section 122 is a federal statute that grants the president authority to unilaterally impose tariffs of up to 15 percent on imports if the president determines the U. S. faces "large and serious" trade deficits. The tariffs can remain in effect for up to 150 days and can only be extended by Congressional action. Unlike the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), Section 122 doesn't require an emergency declaration, giving presidents broader and faster authority to impose tariffs.

How did Trump use Section 122 to bypass the Supreme Court ruling?

When the Supreme Court struck down Trump's IEEPA tariffs, it didn't eliminate all presidential tariff authority. Trump's legal team identified Section 122, a different statute that Congress had already passed, which granted similar tariff authority without requiring emergency declarations. By pivoting to Section 122, Trump maintained his tariff agenda under a different legal framework that the Court's ruling didn't address. This demonstrates how a president can work around court decisions by using alternative statutory authorities.

What are the exceptions to the new 10 percent tariffs?

The new tariffs exempt critical minerals, beef, fruits, automobiles, pharmaceuticals, and products from Canada or Mexico. Trump chose these exceptions for various political and strategic reasons: critical minerals are needed for defense and technology, agricultural products are politically important, automobiles are a key industry, pharmaceuticals reflect public health concerns, and Canada/Mexico are USMCA partners. Other imports face the full 10 percent tariff starting February 24, 2026.

How long will the Section 122 tariffs remain in effect?

Section 122 tariffs can last up to 150 days (approximately five months) unless Congress votes to extend them. Trump's tariffs take effect February 24, 2026, meaning they would expire around August 24, 2026, unless Congressional action extends them. However, Trump's administration plans to conclude Section 301 and Section 232 investigations during this 150-day window, potentially transitioning to new tariffs under different legal authorities as Section 122 tariffs expire, creating continuity of tariff policy.

Will companies get refunds for tariffs paid under the struck-down IEEPA authority?

Companies likely have a legal right to refunds for IEEPA tariffs since the Supreme Court ruled they were imposed unlawfully. However, the refund process is complicated. Companies must calculate their tariff exposure, file claims with the government, and potentially litigate if the government disputes the amounts. Trade lawyers expect the refund process to take six months to two years or more, with significant legal costs and uncertainty. The Trump administration hasn't clarified its refund policy, and companies will probably need to pursue claims aggressively.

What are Section 301 and Section 232 investigations?

Section 301 investigations examine whether other countries engage in unfair trade practices like intellectual property theft, forced technology transfer, or discriminatory tariffs. If an investigation finds violations, the president can impose retaliatory tariffs. Section 232 investigations concern national security, allowing the president to restrict imports if they threaten U. S. industrial capacity or military readiness. Both investigations take several months to complete, but once concluded, they justify permanent or semi-permanent tariffs, giving them advantages over time-limited Section 122 authority. Trump's administration has already initiated multiple investigations under both authorities.

Why did courts give presidents broad tariff authority despite checks and balances concerns?

U. S. courts traditionally defer to presidential trade decisions when Congress has explicitly granted tariff authority by statute. The constitutional rationale is that Congress delegated the authority, so the delegation was valid. Once Congress grants authority, courts view presidential discretion in exercising that authority as essentially unreviewable as long as the president acts within the statutory bounds. This reflects the judiciary's reluctance to interfere in trade policy, which is seen as a core executive function. The Supreme Court's IEEPA ruling didn't change this broad deference doctrine; it only addressed whether a specific statute (IEEPA) granted tariff authority.

How will the tariffs affect consumer prices and inflation?

A 10 percent tariff on most imports will likely increase costs for imported goods, which comprise a significant portion of U. S. consumption. Retailers can absorb some costs through lower margins, but most will pass costs to consumers through higher prices. For electronics, clothing, and manufactured goods, the tariffs could add 0.2-0.4 percentage points to inflation. However, impacts vary by sector and company strategy. Some businesses might substitute domestic suppliers, reducing tariff impacts over time. Others might shift production to non-tariffed countries or reduce imports, limiting consumer price increases but potentially reducing supply and variety.

Can Congress override or limit Trump's tariff authority?

Congress has limited direct override power since Congress already granted the tariff authority in statutes like Section 122. Congress could pass new legislation narrowing presidential tariff power, but that would require legislative votes and likely presidential signature or veto override. More practically, Congress could refuse to extend Section 122 tariffs beyond 150 days, forcing Trump to rely on other authorities. Congress could also attach conditions to government spending bills or pass targeted legislation affecting specific investigations. However, with Republicans controlling Congress and supporting Trump's tariff agenda, major Congressional restraint seems unlikely in 2025-2026.

What happens if countries retaliate against U. S. tariffs?

If trading partners impose retaliatory tariffs on U. S. exports (especially agricultural goods and manufactured items), American exporters face higher costs and reduced market access. This could prompt business pressure on Congress and the White House to negotiate deals. Retaliation also makes negotiations more likely since both sides want to reduce tariffs. Trump's administration might offer tariff reductions in exchange for foreign concessions, using the 150-day Section 122 window as leverage for negotiation. Historically, tariff disputes sometimes escalate but often conclude with negotiated settlements.

Conclusion

The Trump tariff saga didn't end when the Supreme Court struck down the IEEPA tariffs. It evolved. Within days, Trump pivoted to Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, a statute Congress passed decades earlier that grants even more direct presidential authority to impose broad tariffs.

This pivot reveals something crucial about U. S. governance: court decisions don't eliminate policy outcomes if the executive has alternative legal hooks. The Supreme Court can say no to one approach, but if Congress has authorized multiple approaches, the executive can just switch.

Section 122 gives Trump something IEEPA didn't: clean, straightforward authority without emergency declarations. The statute explicitly lets the president impose tariffs up to 15 percent for up to 150 days if he determines the U. S. faces "large and serious" trade deficits. No court has ever second-guessed a presidential determination under Section 122.

For the next 150 days, Trump will use Section 122 tariffs while launching Section 301 and Section 232 investigations. Those investigations will take the same 150 days. Just as Section 122 authority expires, new authorities mature. The result is continuous tariff pressure, maintained through legal gymnastics that courts are reluctant to challenge.

This doesn't mean tariffs will definitely stay high forever. Trump's team might use the tariffs as negotiating leverage, offering reductions in exchange for concessions from trading partners. That's classic tariff strategy.

But it does mean the Supreme Court's decision, while a technical victory for critics of executive power, didn't actually limit Trump's ability to impose broad tariffs. It just required him to find a different legal path. And he did, remarkably quickly.

For companies, the situation is complicated. The tariffs are coming. February 24, 2026, is the deadline. Businesses need to plan for 10 percent cost increases on most imports, figure out whether their products fall into carve-outs, and decide whether to absorb costs, raise prices, substitute suppliers, or shift to domestic sourcing.

For consumers, the tariffs mean higher prices on imported goods, probably adding modest inflation in the short term. Whether this leads to long-term economic benefits (through domestic manufacturing resurgence) or long-term costs (through reduced growth and efficiency) depends on how businesses respond and how global trading partners react.

For legal scholars and constitutional watchers, the situation is fascinating. It shows the limits of judicial power when the executive has statutory authority. Courts can read statutes narrowly, but they can't eliminate the alternatives Congress provided. As long as Congress grants power somewhere, the executive can find it and use it.

The tariff story is ongoing. Watch for Congressional action, negotiation signals, investigation timelines, and economic data. The unfolding drama will shape trade policy for years to come.