|

White House prepares for overruling of IEEPA tariffs

Despite the possibility of a Supreme Court ruling against some of Trump's announced tariffs, exporters should not be mistaken: tariffs are here to stay. The White House is currently preparing alternative policy options.

Plans to find alternative tariff options are already in motion

Following the Supreme Court hearings on the legality of tariffs enacted by the US administration under the International Economic Emergency Powers Act (IEEPA), the government has started preparing fallback options to ensure the continuation of the tariff agenda. Although no comment was made on the specifics of these preparations, this has fuelled expectations that the court might overrule President Trump's use of the authorities granted under IEEPA. Betting markets already think President Trump will lose his tariff court battle.

The main strategies will probably involve making more prominent use of sections 301 and 232, which are already used to impose sectoral tariffs in response to unfair trade practices and national security threats. Currently in place and unaffected by the ruling are Section 301 tariffs on Chinese products and Section 232 tariffs on steel, aluminium and copper, as well as cars and car parts.

To implement further tariffs under Section 301, an investigation into the trade and economic policies of foreign countries is required, a process that can take up to nine months. This has led Trump to launch a Section 301 investigation against Brazil. Because Section 232 also requires a lengthy investigation before new duties can be imposed, the administration must plan for interim measures to avoid a tariff gap and mitigate potential retaliation payments if existing tariffs are overturned.

Trump won't hesitate to adopt new approaches

Given the extensive legal framework offered by the United States, Trump’s tariff toolkit also includes measures that have not yet been implemented. The two main options not yet invoked are the following:

Section 122, for instance, has far fewer procedures and could be implemented almost instantaneously. However, drawbacks include a 15% cap and a 150-day time limit, which could be extended with Congressional approval. Section 122 has never been invoked, but its requirement of a large balance of payment issues applies to many major trading partners, such as China or Mexico. Therefore, it is likely to be a measure of last resort or useful for a transitional period, but would not help to sustain a long-term tariff strategy.

Another possible tool is Section 338, which would allow tariffs of up to 50% to be imposed at a country level, based on discrimination against US commerce. Implemented during the Great Depression with the 1930 Tariff Act, it is untested in modern trade law. Moreover, it lacks procedural safeguards like mandated investigations, timelines or disclosure requirements. This provides scope for potential legal challenges.

A ruling is expected in early 2026

Regardless of the Supreme Court's decision, tariffs will remain a core part of Trump's trade agenda. However, without IEEPA, the administration would lose both speed and credibility, weakening its negotiating leverage. Due to the complexity of the issue and the Supreme Court's typical annual term, a ruling within the next month is unlikely.

Normally, big Supreme Court decisions are announced before the summer. However, given the importance of the issue, a decision could already be released in early 2026. No matter what the final verdict will be, the US government clearly intends to keep tariffs.

Read the original analysis: White House prepares for overruling of IEEPA tariffs

Author

ING Global Economics Team

ING Global Economics Team

ING Economic and Financial Analysis

From Trump to trade, FX to Brexit, ING’s global economists have it covered. Go to ING.com/THINK to stay a step ahead.

More from ING Global Economics Team
Share:

Editor's Picks

AUD/USD remains depressed near 0.6950 after RBA minutes

AUD/USD attracts follow-through selling during Tuesday’s Asian session, looking to extend the overnight rejection slide from 0.7000, or a two-week top, following the release of RBA meeting Minutes. The US Dollar retains a bullish undertone near its highest level since April 2025 as energy-driven inflation risks keep December Fed rate hike bets firmly on the table. Adding to this, geopolitical risks further underpin the safe-haven USD.

USD/JPY extends retreat below 158.50 as intervention risks loom

USD/JPY is dropping below 158.50 in the Asian session on Tuesday, snapping a two-day winning streak and pulling back from an over two-week top touched the previous day, despite Japan's soft PPI inflation print. Bulls turn cautious amid speculation that authorities will step in to prop up the Japanese Yen, which, in turn, weighs on the pair.

Gold advances to $4,200 amid retreating USD; Fed hike bets to cap further gains

Gold builds on its modest intraday move up and hits a fresh daily high around the $4,200 neighborhood during the Asian session. The US Dollar retreats from its highest level since April 2025 amid some profit-taking, offering support to the commodity. However, the US Federal Reserve's hawkish stance and escalating Middle East conflicts could limit deeper losses for the safe-haven buck.

Cardano: Retail support wanes as ADA tests a make-or-break level

Cardano price is up nearly 2% at press time on Tuesday, holding above its 50-day Exponential Moving Average (EMA) at $0.2302 and a near-term rising support trendline at $0.2264. ADA is losing retail demand in the derivatives market as its futures Open Interest declines and funding rates flip negative.

Indian Rupee gains further on RBI’s fresh measures to lower US Dollar’s demand

The Indian Rupee extends the Monday’s advance against the US Dollar on Tuesday, driven by the announcement of fresh Reserve Bank of India’s US Dollar-related measures to shore up the domestic currency. In the opening session, the USD/INR pair tumbles 0.6% to near 95.00, the lowest level seen in over a month.

Has Bitcoin really escaped the macro forces it was built to fight?
Over 17 years ago, Satoshi Nakamoto designed Bitcoin (BTC) on the back of a global financial crisis as an alternative to the global monetary system outside the control of central banks, governments and traditional intermediaries. This raises a key question: has Bitcoin really become independent of the macroeconomic forces it was built to challenge?