The Tariff Toolkit: Why an IEEPA Overrule Won't End the Trade War
The Supreme Court is currently reviewing the legality of tariffs imposed by the US administration under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The government's decision to prepare extensive contingency plans and fallback options has fueled expectations—even in betting markets—that the Court will rule against the expansive use of IEEPA authority by the executive branch.
However, exporters and global investors should not mistake a legal loss for a policy retreat. The preparation of alternative tariff options confirms that the US trade agenda will continue aggressively, regardless of the judicial outcome. Tariffs are here to stay.
The Fallback: Utilizing Established Authorities
The administration's primary strategy will be to lean heavily on existing, legally sound statutes that are unaffected by the IEEPA ruling. These include:
Section 301 (Trade Act of 1974): Already in use for the largest tranche of duties, including those against Chinese products, Section 301 targets countries engaging in unfair trade practices. The drawback is that new tariffs under this section require a lengthy investigation—a process that can take up to nine months—as is currently underway against Brazil.
Section 232 (Trade Expansion Act of 1962): Used to impose tariffs on imports deemed a threat to national security, such as those currently placed on steel, aluminum, and copper. Like Section 301, imposing new Section 232 tariffs requires a lengthy investigation, creating a challenge for the administration seeking to avoid a "tariff gap" if the IEEPA duties are suddenly overturned.
While these sections are legally robust, they lack the speed and flexibility that made IEEPA so attractive. The administrative burden of these investigations could weaken the administration's ability to impose duties quickly and, thus, reduce its negotiating leverage.
The Untested Weapons: Sections 122 and 338
To mitigate the time-consuming investigations of Sections 232 and 301, the administration is dusting off two rarely or never-used legal instruments:
Section 122 (Trade Act of 1974): This is the transitional tool. It allows the President to impose a temporary import surcharge of up to 15% for a period of 150 days (extendable by Congress) if the U.S. faces a large balance of payments deficit. It has the distinct advantage of having fewer procedural requirements, meaning it could be implemented almost instantaneously as a stop-gap measure while longer Section 301 or 232 investigations are completed.
Section 338 (Tariff Act of 1930): This is the nuclear option. It allows for retaliatory tariffs of up to 50% against a foreign country found to be discriminating against U.S. commerce. Dating back to the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of the Great Depression, this law is untested in modern trade law and lacks modern procedural safeguards, which makes it fast but highly susceptible to immediate legal challenges.
The Forex Implication: Volatility is the New Constant
For traders in the Global Markets Eruditio community, the message is clear: US trade policy will continue to be a primary source of volatility.
USD and Risk: Tariffs increase the cost of imports, which puts upward pressure on inflation and disrupts global supply chains. A persistent tariff agenda fuels trade uncertainty, which often leads to "risk-off" sentiment. However, the USD often acts as a global safe haven during trade wars, meaning the US Dollar could strengthen against riskier currencies like the CAD (due to trade dependency on the U.S.) or the Australian Dollar (AUD), resulting in potential upside for pairs like USD/CAD.
EUR/USD and Global Growth: The continuation of tariffs, especially through fast-tracked measures like Section 122 or the threat of Section 338, creates headwinds for global trade growth. This uncertainty dampens economic activity, which tends to weigh on export-dependent economies like the Eurozone, potentially strengthening the USD against the EUR in the EUR/USD pair.
Credibility vs. Policy: While the eventual ruling against IEEPA (expected in early 2026) will strip the administration of some speed and legal credibility, the existence of these potent fallback options ensures that tariffs—and the associated market uncertainty—will not disappear. For Forex Trading for Beginners, this means monitoring not just the Supreme Court ruling, but the administration's choice of alternative tariff authority, as each carries different time limits, caps, and legal risk profiles.
The administration’s proactiveness confirms that the aggressive trade agenda is a long-term strategy, ensuring that trade policy remains a critical factor in global economic and Forex analysis for the foreseeable future.
Are You Prepared to Trade the Next Wave of US Tariffs?
The looming Supreme Court ruling and the White House's prepared tariff toolkit guarantee continued volatility in the USD and its major currency pairs. You need a clear strategy to navigate this high-stakes environment.
Don't let policy shifts derail your trading plan. Master the geopolitical and legal fundamentals that drive global trade and Forex Trading.
Join the GME Academy community today and sign up for our FREE Forex Workshop to learn how to translate political risk into profitable trading opportunities.
