• Trump administration considers alternative legal authorities for across-the-board tariffs after Supreme Court strikes down IEEPA-based approach.
  • Potential use of Sections 301, 232, 122, and 338 could sustain high average U.S. tariffs, currently near 17%—the highest since 1934.
  • Legal and trade experts warn of retaliation risks and prolonged litigation, with implications for consumers, exporters, and global trade stability.

Following a decisive 6-3 Supreme Court ruling that invalidated President Trump's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose sweeping "reciprocal" tariffs, the administration is swiftly pivoting to other statutory tools. The court deemed IEEPA an improper basis for addressing trade deficits, upholding earlier blocks by the U.S. Court of International Trade and Federal Circuit. This setback has not deterred Trump's trade agenda; instead, it has accelerated efforts to leverage authorities from his first term, according to people familiar with the matter.

In recent weeks, Treasury officials have been reviewing Sections 301, 232, 122, and 338 of existing trade laws as potential avenues for new across-the-board tariffs. Section 301, which allows unlimited tariffs after an investigation and was previously used against China, is seen as a likely candidate for broad application. Meanwhile, Section 232—invoked for national security tariffs on steel and autos—could be expanded to other sectors like furniture and cabinets, sources indicate. The administration is also eyeing Section 122, which permits up to 15% tariffs for 150 days to address trade deficits without a lengthy probe, and Section 338, a rarely used provision allowing tariffs up to 50% on countries deemed discriminatory.

"Without these tools, we'd be forced into a trade policy retreat," one administration insider said, speaking on condition of anonymity. "The president views tariffs as life or death for the economy, and we're not backing down." Efforts to restructure the tariff regime have hit a snag with the court's decision, but officials are confident they can rebuild it using alternative authorities. Trade experts like Kathleen Claussen predict a persistent high-tariff environment, noting that "it's hard to see any pathway where tariffs end" given the administration's focus on reciprocity.

Market reactions have been muted so far, with the S&P 500 showing little movement in early trading today, but analysts caution that prolonged uncertainty could weigh on importers and retailers. The U.S. trade deficit, a central focus of Trump's policies, remains a flashpoint, with recent executive orders from April to November 2025 detailing tariff modifications and exemptions—including deals with Indonesia, Brazil, and China on opioids and agriculture. A finalized agreement with Indonesia in February 2026 underscores the administration's piecemeal approach amid broader legal challenges.

Retaliation risks loom large, particularly from China, which has historically responded to Section 301 tariffs with countermeasures affecting U.S. tech and agricultural exports. Justice Department warnings about vulnerability without IEEPA highlight the delicate balance the administration must strike. "We're in uncharted waters here," a trade lawyer involved in the cases remarked. "The courts have drawn a line, but the executive branch has plenty of other ropes to pull."

Short-term, look for quick moves via Section 122 or accelerated 232/301 investigations, with Treasury reportedly treating Section 338 as a "Plan B." Long-term, the outlook suggests sustained high tariffs could reshape global trade flows, inviting further lawsuits and WTO challenges. As one industry lobbyist put it, "This isn't over—it's just moving to a different battlefield." Attempts to reach the White House for additional comment were not immediately successful.

Correction: An earlier version of this article misstated the timeline of the Indonesia trade deal; it was finalized in February 2026, not 2025.