Trump’s Global Tariff Gambit Faces Immediate Legal Headwinds
President Donald Trump is once again moving to implement a sweeping tariff regime, asserting that his latest bid to impose import taxes on most nations rests on solid legal ground. However, a chorus of trade analysts and economists quickly disputes this claim, predicting protracted legal battles that could further cloud the U.S. economic outlook through 2026.
The announcement came just hours after a significant Supreme Court ruling struck down many of his previous global tariffs. Undeterred, Trump declared he would leverage alternative authorities to reinstate these levies, though such measures typically necessitate time-consuming federal investigations.
The Unprecedented Application of Section 122
Central to Trump’s new strategy is a little-known provision: Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act. Initially, he proposed a 10% across-the-board tariff, set to last six months unless extended by Congress. Within a day, this rate was escalated to the maximum 15% allowed under the provision, which Trump hailed as “new and legally permissible Tariffs.”
Yet, the application of Section 122 in such a broad manner is unprecedented. This lever was designed to address a “balance of payments” emergency – a situation where cash flows out of the U.S. at a destabilizing rate. Its use to tackle a general trade deficit, a long-standing objective for the former president, raises significant legal questions.
A Contradictory Legal Stance from the DOJ
Adding a layer of complexity and irony, the Department of Justice (DOJ) under Trump’s own administration previously undermined the very legal authority he is now invoking. During Supreme Court arguments in November, the DOJ’s brief explicitly stated that Section 122 had no “obvious application” in reducing the trade deficit.
Neal Katyal, the lead attorney representing plaintiffs at the high court, highlighted this glaring contradiction to MSNOW: “His DOJ, in our case, filed briefs to the courts that said Section 122 is inapplicable and the president can’t use it. So now he’s turned around and he’s gonna have to somehow argue against his own DOJ’s interpretation of the statute. I think that’s tough.” Essentially, Trump is now building a legal case that his own administration once dismissed.
International Repercussions and Further Threats
The international community has reacted swiftly to Trump’s renewed tariff threats. The European Union, for instance, has put a hold on a trade accord reached with the White House last year, which had never been finalized. This accord would have seen 15% tariffs on many E.U. exports to the U.S., with exceptions for sectors like aircraft and autos. E.U. lawmakers are now seeking clarity on the legality of the tariffs they had previously agreed to.
In response, Trump has threatened to escalate tariffs even further on any foreign governments perceived to be “playing games” or renegotiating existing deals, despite having already reached the 15% ceiling under current legal authority. “Any Country that wants to ‘play games’ with the ridiculous supreme court decision, especially those that have “Ripped Off” the U.S.A. for years… will be met with a much higher Tariff,” Trump declared in a recent social media post, signaling a readiness for a renewed trade war.
Uncertainty Ahead
The path forward for Trump’s tariff ambitions appears fraught with legal challenges and international friction. The internal contradiction within his own administration’s legal interpretations, coupled with the unprecedented use of Section 122, suggests that these new tariffs are indeed on shaky ground, promising a period of significant uncertainty for global trade and the U.S. economy.
📬 Sign up for the Daily Brief to stay informed on this developing story.
For more details, visit our website.
Source: Link
Leave a comment