Presidential Tariff Powers Under Scrutiny 148

 in News  tagged Presidential Tariff Powers Under Scrutiny by

The question of who has the authority to impose tariffs in the United States is about to be tested. On November 5, the US Supreme Court is set to hear arguments on whether the President’s emergency powers under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) include the ability to levy tariffs.

A ruling against the President on the IEEPA could temporarily relieve many US consumers and businesses by rendering most of President Trump’s IEEPA-based tariffs illegal. However, even without the IEEPA, many goods would still face tariffs. Specifically, the Trump administration’s Section 232 tariffs would remain in effect, and the scope of these tariffs could even expand if the President uses other discretionary trade powers.

The Role of Section 232 and National Security

The President’s most significant unilateral tariff power comes from Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. This law allows the President to impose tariffs or set quotas if an imported article is found to “threaten or impair the national security.”

As of 2025, Section 232 tariffs, ranging from 25 percent to 50 percent, have been applied to steel, aluminum articles and derivative products, autos and auto parts, and certain copper products.

The Section 232 Process

Before any Section 232 tariffs can be imposed, a specific process must be followed:

  1. Investigation: The President must direct the US Department of Commerce to open an investigation into the article in question. Commerce has 270 days to complete the investigation and submit a report to the President.
  2. Public Comment: During this 270-day window, Commerce opens a public comment period to gather input from businesses and stakeholders.
  3. Remedy Determination: Once the final report is submitted, the President has 90 days to determine the appropriate “trade remedy,” which could include tariffs or quotas. The President then issues a proclamation targeting specific product lines. The President also has broad discretion to alter this remedy at any time.
  4. Exclusion/Inclusion: Commerce establishes an exclusion process to consider excluding specific products from the tariffs. Notably, an “inclusion” process has recently been instituted, allowing businesses to request that certain derivative products be added to the list of goods facing Section 232 tariffs. This is why the list of goods subject to steel and aluminum derivative tariffs—including furniture and other consumer items—continues to grow.

Ongoing Section 232 Activity

Currently, there are 12 ongoing Section 232 investigations. While investigations into steel, aluminum, and autos are complete, the copper investigation led to a significant action: the President imposed 50 percent tariffs on copper on August 1, 2025, before the final report was submitted. This is permissible because there is no statutory prohibition on implementing tariffs within the 270-day investigation window.

Below is a summary of current investigations:

Investigation Date Initiated Report Due to President
Copper and Copper Derivatives March 10, 2025 December 5, 2025
Timber and Lumber March 10, 2025 December 5, 2025
Pharmaceuticals and Ingredients April 1, 2025 December 27, 2025
Semiconductors and Equipment April 1, 2025 December 27, 2025
Processed Critical Minerals April 22, 2025 January 17, 2026
Medium and Heavy-Duty Trucks and Parts April 22, 2025 January 17, 2026
Commercial Aircraft and Jet Engines May 1, 2025 January 26, 2026
Polysilicon and Derivatives July 1, 2025 March 28, 2026
Unmanned Aircraft Systems July 1, 2025 March 28, 2026
Wind Turbines August 13, 2025 May 10, 2026
Personal Protective Equipment September 2, 2025 May 30, 2026
Robotics and Industrial Machinery September 2, 2025 May 30, 2026

Other Presidential Tariff Authorities

Even if the IEEPA tariffs are struck down, the President retains significant power to regulate trade, thanks to authority delegated by Congress since World War II.

Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974

  • This power allows the President to impose universal tariffs up to 15 percent to address a “large and serious United States balance-of-payments deficits.”
  • While this could be used to resurrect IEEPA-like tariffs, the tariffs would expire after 150 days unless approved by Congress.
  • This power has been rarely invoked, with the only prior use being by President Carter in 1977 to reduce oil imports.

Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974

  • These safeguard tariffs can be imposed if the US International Trade Commission finds that a domestic industry is being “seriously injured” or threatened by imports.
  • President Trump used this in 2018 to impose tariffs on washers and solar panels.
  • These tariffs typically have a sunset clause of four years, extendable up to eight. While President Biden did not renew the washing machine tariffs, the solar panel tariffs remain until 2026.

Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974

  • This authority allows the President to target a specific country’s imports if that country’s trade practices are deemed “unjustifiable, unreasonable, and discriminatory.”
  • President Trump famously used this in 2018 to impose tariffs on a variety of Chinese imports, which would remain in place even if the IEEPA tariffs are overturned.
  • Unlike Sections 122 and 201, these tariffs do not carry a sunset clause.

Tariff Revenue Breakdown

The revenue generated from tariffs is substantial. US Customs and Border Protection estimates that for fiscal year 2025 (through September 7), $145 billion has been collected. Crucially, 55 percent of that revenue was generated through the IEEPA tariffs currently under review by the Supreme Court.

Tariff Source Percentage of FY 2025 Revenue
IEEPA 55%
Section 301 23%
Section 232 22%

The Call for Congressional Oversight

A Supreme Court decision overturning the IEEPA tariffs would immediately benefit businesses and consumers and would limit the President’s ability to impose tariffs of such broad scope in the future.

However, the core issue remains: Congress has delegated too much unilateral authority to the President on trade. The underlying statutes themselves suffer from a lack of clarity, as key terms like “national security threat” or “serious injury” to industry are poorly defined. Ultimately, Congress, as outlined in Article I of the Constitution, should reclaim its role in levying taxes, including tariffs, to ensure greater accountability and clearer trade policy.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

148 thoughts on “Presidential Tariff Powers Under Scrutiny”