Trump Pulls New Tariff Card Hours After Supreme Court Defeat

Within hours of the Supreme Court striking down his global tariffs, President Trump announced he's imposing the same 10% levy using a different legal authority. This time, he's invoking Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974.

The speed of the pivot reveals something telling about Trump's approach to trade policy: when one legal door closes, find another.

From Courtroom Loss to Trade Floor Win

Trump called himself "deeply disappointed" by the Supreme Court's rejection of his International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) tariffs during a White House briefing on February 20. But disappointment quickly turned to defiance.

Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act gives the president broad authority to impose tariffs for "national security" reasons. Legal experts note this provision offers wider presidential discretion than IEEPA, potentially making it harder for courts to challenge.

The markets seemed to agree. While export-heavy stocks initially dropped on the announcement, the dollar strengthened as traders bet on sustained trade tensions.

Winners and Losers in the Tariff Shuffle

Sponsored

Advertise with Us

[email protected]

Sponsored

For American importers who briefly celebrated the Supreme Court ruling, the relief was short-lived. Companies that had paused price increases are now back to calculating how to absorb or pass on the 10% cost.

Apple, Walmart, and other major importers face the same dilemma they thought they'd escaped: eat the costs and hurt margins, or raise prices and potentially lose customers. A $1,000 iPhone could soon cost $1,100.

Meanwhile, domestic manufacturers in protected industries are breathing easier. Steel and aluminum producers, in particular, see continued protection from foreign competition.

The Legal Chess Game Continues

Trump's quick pivot highlights a broader strategy: use presidential powers to maximum effect, regardless of legal challenges. Trade lawyers expect this new tariff to face court challenges too, but the 1974 Trade Act's national security provisions might prove more durable.

"It's whack-a-mole tariff policy," says one Washington trade attorney. "Strike down one legal justification, and another pops up."

This approach creates ongoing uncertainty for businesses trying to plan supply chains and pricing strategies. How do you hedge against policy changes that can happen in hours?