WASHINGTON, D.C.: The Trump administration is racing to rebuild its tariff regime after the Supreme Court struck down a key legal tool earlier this year, forcing officials to find new ways to maintain import taxes and the revenue they generate.
Temporary tariffs imposed in February under emergency powers are set to expire in less than three months, leaving the White House scrambling for longer-term solutions. The administration has turned to a different legal pathway, launching new trade investigations that could justify fresh tariffs on a wide range of countries.
Starting this week, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative will hold hearings tied to two probes that together cover most U.S. imports. The outcome could determine whether new duties are imposed on dozens of trading partners.
The first investigation focuses on whether 60 economies, accounting for roughly 99 percent of U.S. imports, are doing enough to prevent goods made with forced labor from entering global supply chains.
"For too long, American workers and firms have been forced to compete against foreign producers who may have an artificial cost advantage gained from the scourge of forced labor," U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said in March.
A second probe, set for hearings next week, will examine whether 16 major trading partners, including China, the European Union, and Japan, are overproducing goods, depressing prices, and harming U.S. manufacturers. According to the Tax Foundation, these economies account for about 70 percent of U.S. imports.
The administration is using Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 to pursue these cases, a provision that allows tariffs against countries engaged in "unjustifiable," "unreasonable," or "discriminatory" trade practices. Unlike the emergency powers struck down by the court, Section 301 tariffs have survived legal scrutiny in the past.
Still, critics argue the outcome may already be decided. "If you believe the Treasury secretary and the president, then the cake is already baked," said Scott Lincicome of the libertarian Cato Institute's Center for Trade Policy Studies. "These investigations will result in tariffs that approximate what the Supreme Court overruled in February.''
On February 20, the Supreme Court ruled that Trump had exceeded his authority by using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose sweeping tariffs on imports. The decision invalidated a policy that had generated about US$166 billion in revenue and forced the government to begin refunding importers.
To plug the gap, the administration quickly imposed temporary tariffs under another provision, Section 122 of the same law, which allows global duties of up to 15 percent for 150 days. Those tariffs, currently set at 10 percent, will expire on July 24 unless extended by Congress, which appears unlikely as lawmakers face voter anger over high prices.
Section 301 offers a more durable alternative. It imposes no limits on tariff size and can be extended beyond its initial four-year term. It also provides a structured process, including investigations and hearings, which may help shield it from legal challenges.
"Even if it is a veiled or less-than-veiled attempt to reinitiate the IEEPA tariffs, he still has the cover of the process itself,'' said trade lawyer Joyce Adetutu, a partner at law firm Vinson & Elkins.
However, the speed of the current investigations has drawn skepticism. Earlier Section 301 cases, including those targeting China during Trump's first term, took nearly a year to complete. The current timeline is far shorter.
"It's such a short timeframe,'' said Kenya Davis, a partner at the law firm Boies Schiller Flexner who has done pro bono work on human trafficking and forced labor. "It's so condensed that it doesn't make a lot of sense that they can do it that quickly.''
Importers may still see some difference. Unlike the earlier emergency tariffs, Section 301 requires a formal process before duties are imposed.
"One of the reasons Trump used IEEPA is because it was just a complete blank slate'' or seemed to be before the Supreme Court ruling, Cato's Lincicome said, describing it as "a little tariff switch in the Oval Office that Trump could flip on and off anytime he wants; he wakes up in the morning and he doesn't like a Canadian television commercial, he flips the switch ... You really can't do that with 301.'
