The Supreme Court ruling did not "strike down" tariffs; an article clarifies Trump's various available tools and their pros and cons.

```

The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling does not mean that the tariff barriers painstakingly constructed by President Trump have been "knocked down." He could still use multiple tools at his disposal to bring back large-scale tariffs.

According to CCTV News, on the 20th local time, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Trump administration’s large-scale tariff measures implemented under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) lacked clear legal authorization. This decision overturned most of the tariffs imposed during Trump's second presidential term, but it did not end tariff policies themselves.

Although this ruling shakes Trump's core economic policies, Trump can re-activate the tariff powers he used during his first term and employ other authorities, including a legal empowerment act from the Great Depression era in the 1930s.

Wallstreetcn’s comprehensive analysis notes that Trump has at least five alternative legal tools to IEEPA for reconstructing the tariff system. However, these tools all carry more restrictions compared to IEEPA.

Kathleen Claussen, a trade law professor at Georgetown University, told the media: "It's hard to see an end path for tariffs. I believe he can use other authorizations to rebuild the existing tariff landscape." Last September, U.S. Treasury Secretary Bessent told the media that the government was considering alternative options as backups.

National Security Clauses: The Most Relied-Upon Tool

Analysis indicates that Section 232 of the 1962 Trade Expansion Act is Trump’s most relied-upon tariff tool in both presidential terms. This clause authorizes the president to impose tariffs on imports for national security reasons, with no cap on rates or duration.

During his first term in 2018, Trump used Section 232 to levy tariffs on steel and aluminum. Last year, after returning to the White House, he continued to impose tariffs in these sectors and also imposed tariffs on automobiles, automotive parts, copper products, and timber under the same reasoning. In September last year, he also imposed Section 232-authorized tariffs on cabinets, bathroom furniture, and upholstered furniture.

The advantage of this tool is that tariff scope is not restricted by law, and investigations are overseen by the U.S. Department of Commerce, giving the government substantial control over outcomes.

The limitation is that it cannot be implemented immediately. The Department of Commerce must first complete an investigation and submit a report to the president within 270 days. Furthermore, Section 232 targets specific industries rather than entire countries, so its coverage is narrower than IEEPA. The Department currently has several ongoing Section 232 investigations, and more industries may face these tariffs in the future.

Countering Unfair Trade: China-Focused During First Term

Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 authorizes the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR), at the president’s direction, to impose tariffs on countries believed to discriminate against U.S. businesses or to violate international trade agreements, with no cap on rates.

Section 301 was used by Trump in his first term and served as the legal basis for initiating U.S.-China trade tensions.

According to Xinhua News, in March 2018, Trump signed a presidential memorandum, based on the findings of the "301 investigation," planning to impose large-scale tariffs on Chinese imports and restrict Chinese business investment and acquisitions in the U.S. In July and August of the same year, the U.S. imposed 25% tariffs on $50 billion of Chinese imports in two batches. China responded equally in kind and scale. In September, the U.S. levied a 10% tariff on $200 billion of Chinese exports to the U.S., and China countered with tariffs on $60 billion worth of U.S. goods. The U.S. continued with flip-flopping and extreme pressure, escalating the trade war and ultimately imposing tariffs on about $370 billion of Chinese exports to the U.S.

Section 301 stipulates that such tariffs automatically end after four years but can be extended upon application. Its drawback is that the process is complex. USTR must conduct investigations, typically negotiate with foreign governments, seek public input, and may hold public hearings.

Experts note that Section 301 is useful when targeting major countries, but it’s flawed when used for retaliatory tariffs against numerous smaller nations, because conducting dozens of Section 301 investigations on smaller nations is cumbersome.

Addressing Trade Deficits: Never Used, Short-Term Option

Also from the Trade Act of 1974, Section 122 allows the president, in cases of “large-scale and severe” international balance of payments deficit, imbalance, or imminent major dollar depreciation risk, to impose tariffs up to 15% for a maximum of 150 days. This clause does not require a prior investigation.

In May last year, the U.S. Court of International Trade ruled that Trump’s use of IEEPA for retaliatory tariffs was illegal, and stated that Section 122 should be used to address trade deficits instead.

However, Section 122 has never been used for tariffs, and its practical operation is uncertain. Its main limit is the tariff cap of 15% and the 150-day duration—extension requires Congressional approval. Therefore, it can only be a short-term option and cannot support the long-term, large-scale tariff system that Trump seeks.

Protecting Domestic Industries: Investigation Process With Time Limits

Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974 authorizes the president to impose tariffs if increased imports cause or threaten serious harm to U.S. manufacturers.

This clause also cannot be implemented immediately. The U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) must first conduct an investigation and submit a report within 180 days of receiving an application. Unlike Section 232, ITC must hold public hearings and seek public input. Section 201 is also applied at the industry level rather than to entire trade partners.

The tariff cap is 50% above existing rates, with an initial term of four years, extendable to eight years. If tariffs last more than a year, they must be gradually reduced over time. Trump used Section 201 in 2018 to impose tariffs on solar cells and residential washing machines—the former was extended and modified by Biden, while the latter expired in 2023.

Great Depression-Era Legacy: Most Controversial Backup Option

Section 338 of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 authorizes the president to impose tariffs up to 50% on countries deemed to be imposing unreasonable charges, restrictions, or discriminatory actions, with no requirement for prior investigation and no time limits.

This Great Depression-era clause has never been used to impose tariffs. Historians and economists generally believe that this tariff act restricted world trade and worsened the Great Depression. Treasury Secretary Bessent told the media in September last year that the government was considering Section 338 as a backup plan.

However, invoking this nearly century-old provision could trigger legal challenges.

Five Democratic House Representatives proposed a resolution last March to repeal Section 338, suggesting that using this option would raise political concerns. Commentators say U.S. trade negotiators have traditionally preferred sanctions under Section 301 rather than this controversial tool.

Risk DisclaimerMarkets carry risk; investment requires caution. This article does not constitute personal investment advice, nor does it consider individual users’ unique investment goals, financial situations, or needs. Users should consider whether any opinions, views, or conclusions herein suit their specific circumstances. Invest accordingly, at your own risk. ```