Trump has other tariff options after Supreme Court strikes down his
worldwide import taxes
[February 21, 2026]
By PAUL WISEMAN
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump still has options to keep
taxing imports aggressively even after the Supreme Court struck down the
tariffs he imposed last year on nearly every country on earth.
The Justices didn't buy the president's sweeping claims of authority to
impose tariffs as he sees fit. But Trump 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.
“Their decision is incorrect,” Trump said Friday, calling the Supreme
Court justices who ruled against his tariffs “fools and lapdogs” during
a press conference. “But it doesn’t matter because we have very powerful
alternatives.”
Indeed, the president has already said he will impose a 10% global
tariff under a trade law that allows such duties for 150 days. After
that, they can only be extended by Congress.
Trump also said he would use a range of other laws and regulations to
impose new tariffs, though most of those statutes would require a legal
process before duties could be imposed. And he pointed to his ability to
use licenses to restrain imports, but offered few details.
Trump had claimed nearly boundless authority to impose tariffs under
1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). But opponents
argued before the Supreme Court that that power wasn't necessary because
Congress delegated tariff power to the White House in several other
statutes — though it carefully limited the ways the president could use
the authority.
Tariffs have been a cornerstone of Trump's foreign and economic policy
in his second term, with double-digit “reciprocal" tariffs imposed on
most countries, which he has justified by declaring America’s
longstanding trade deficits a national emergency.
The average U.S. tariff has gone from 2.5% when Trump returned to the
White House in January to nearly 17% a year later, the highest since
1934, according to calculations by Yale University's Budget Lab.
The president acted alone even though the U.S. Constitution specifically
gives the power to tax – and impose tariffs – to Congress.
“The Good News is that there are methods, practices, Statutes, and other
Authorities, as recognized by the entire Court and Congress, that are
even stronger than the IEEPA TARIFFS, available to me as President of
the United States of America,” Trump posted on his social media site.
Countering unfair trade practices
The United States has long had a handy cudgel to wallop countries it
accuses of engaging in “unjustifiable," “unreasonable" or
“discriminatory" trade practices. That is Section 301 of the Trade Act
of 1974.
And Trump has made aggressive use of it himself — 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’s technological dominance.
The U.S. is also using 301 powers to counter what it calls unfair
Chinese practices in the shipbuilding industry.
There are no limits on the size of Section 301 tariffs. They expire
after four years but can be extended.
But the administration’s trade representative must conduct an
investigation and typically hold a public hearing before imposing 301
tariffs. On Friday, Trump also said the administration would initiate
several more Section 301 investigations.
Experts have 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.
“Undertaking dozens and dozens of 301 investigations of all of those
countries is a laborious process," Veroneau said.
[to top of second column]
|
The Supreme Court is photographed, Feb. 6, 2026, in Washington. (AP
Photo/Rahmat Gul, File)
Targeting trade deficits
In striking down Trump’s reciprocal tariffs in May, the U.S. Court
of International Trade ruled that the president couldn’t use
emergency powers to combat trade deficits.
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’t even have
to conduct an investigation beforehand.
But Section 122 authority has never been used to apply tariffs, and
there is some uncertainty about how it would work.
Protecting national security
In both of his terms, Trump has made aggressive use of his power —
under Section 232 of Trade Expansion Act of 1962 — to impose tariffs
on imports that he deems a threat to national security.
In 2018, he slapped tariffs on foreign steel and aluminum, levies
he’s expanded since returning to the White House. He also plastered
Section 232 tariffs on autos, auto parts, copper, lumber.
In September, the president even levied Section 232 tariffs on
kitchen cabinets, bathroom vanities and upholstered furniture.
Section 232 tariffs are not limited by law but do require an
investigation by the U.S. Commerce Department. It’s the
administration itself that does the investigating – also true for
Section 301 cases — “so they have a lot of control over the
outcome," Veroneau said.
Reviving Depression-era tariffs
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 memorable pop culture shoutout in
the 1986 movie “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off."
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’s no limit
on how long the tariffs can stay in place.
Those tariffs have never been imposed — U.S. trade negotiators
traditionally have favored Section 301 sanctions instead — though
the United States used the threat of them as a bargaining chip in
trade talks in the 1930s.
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’s use of emergency powers tariffs.
____
Associated Press Staff Writer Lindsay Whitehurst contributed to this
story.
All contents © copyright 2026 Associated Press. All rights reserved |
