Tariffs Remain an Important Trade Policy Tool, Despite Supreme Court’s IEEPA Ruling

But they’re not the only one. Congress should modernize our other trade enforcement mechanisms.

The U.S. Supreme Court last week curtailed the Trump administration’s capacity to issue tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). It was the kind of ruling that touched off dozens of editorials, hundreds of cable news segments, and probably a million social media hot takes.

It’s worth remembering, though, that the court’s ruling was not a verdict on trade policy outcomes nor did it pass any judgment on tariffs as a tool. It was about statutory authority. The Court determined that a specific use of emergency authority to impose sweeping tariffs was not authorized under existing law. That specifically affects the reciprocal tariffs President Trump announced last spring on virtually all imports.

There are, however, very important tariffs that were unaffected by this ruling. For instance, Section 232 tariffs on steel and aluminum are still in force and continue to address national security risks tied to industrial capacity maintenance and supply chain dependence. And Section 301 tariffs on China remain too; they’re one of the government’s strongest tools to confront unfair trade practices, especially from non‑market economies. These authorities were enacted by Congress, remain lawful and are actively being used.

They’re still being used because America’s underlying trade problems haven’t changed. We still maintain massive and persistent trade deficits. Global overcapacity continues to threaten crucial U.S. industries. And many countries – including China, the world’s manufacturing powerhouse and second largest economy – still pursue state-driven, beggar-thy-neighbor industrial strategies.

If anything, the IEEPA ruling highlights the bipartisan failure of federal lawmakers to address these challenges. U.S. trade enforcement laws were written before China’s rise as a state‑capitalist power, before chronic global overcapacity and before supply chain integrity became a national security issue. In the absence of Congressional action, tariffs remain one of the few tools capable of countering these distortions in real time.  

There are some members of Congress who want the legislative branch to be proactive about this. Rep. John Moolenaar (R-Mich.) has introduced legislation to repeal permanent normal trade relations for China. Rep. Jared Golden (D-Maine) wants to codify a 10% tariff. The Supreme Court ruling “reaffirms that the most durable way to rebalance trade in favor of American workers isn’t tariffs by executive action,” Golden said last week. “It’s Congress reasserting its power and passing them into law.” Sen. Bernie Moreno (R-Ohio) has expressed similar sentiments.

Congress should consider proposals like these. It should also strengthen and modernize other trade tools so the federal government can more effectively respond to trade cheating. What’s more, it should reinstate important programs that have been allowed to lapse like Trade Adjustment Assistance, which supports U.S. workers displaced by unfair import competition.

In the meantime? The administration has plenty of other Section 301 and Section 232 investigations underway. And while the IEEPA tariffs are officially ending, President Trump has already announced new ones – a global tariff raised under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 presently at 10% – that took effect Tuesday. There are lots of exceptions to these new tariffs, though, like goods that are USMCA-compliant, and by rule they only last for 150 days.

All the more reason for Congress to act to strengthen American trade policy. Tariffs are a legitimate and necessary part of that policy. Our lawmakers should pick up and improve the other trade enforcement tools it has allowed to grow outdated.