The Supreme Court dismantled President Donald Trump's sweeping tariff authority last week, and his top trade official says the administration has no intention of slowing down.
In a 6-3 ruling, the high court struck down Trump's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose global tariffs.
U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer responded by announcing the administration will pivot to alternative legal authorities — specifically Section 301 and Section 232 — to rebuild its tariff program without waiting for congressional action.
According to Fox Business, the ruling represents a significant legal setback for the Trump administration's trade agenda. Trump himself called the decision "very unfortunate" during Tuesday's State of the Union address, where he publicly criticized the court.
The administration, however, appears to view this as a speed bump rather than a dead end.
In 2025, Trump declared the country's trade deficit a "national emergency," arguing that the IEEPA gave him broad authority to levy tariffs unilaterally.
That legal theory became the backbone of his global tariff program, which had become a signature aspect of his second administration. The president also wrote on Truth Social that he would raise the global tariff rate to 15%.
But the Supreme Court disagreed with the administration's reading of the law. The 6-3 decision effectively removed the IEEPA as a tool for imposing trade levies, forcing the White House to find alternative paths. That's exactly what Greer says is already underway.
The trade representative told FOX News Audio White House correspondent Jared Halpern that the administration is launching investigations under Section 301 and Section 232.
These existing statutes target unfair trade practices and national security threats, respectively, and have been used by prior administrations. The key difference now is the urgency.
"We are very confident that within the next few months we can reestablish through these investigations, tariffs to deal with the challenges that have been identified by the president," Greer said. That timeline is aggressive. It signals the administration sees no reason to defer to Congress on trade policy.
When asked about congressional involvement, Greer acknowledged some lawmakers have expressed interest. "I have had individual members of Congress come to me and express interest in that, and I'm happy to continue having those conversations," he said. "But I'm not [going to] wait for that to reestablish the president's tariff program," Greer added. The message is clear: executive authority remains the preferred route.
One immediate concern following the ruling was whether foreign governments might try to walk back trade deals struck under the now-invalidated IEEPA tariffs. Greer said that hasn't happened. Countries have reached out, he noted, but only to seek clarity on next steps.
"It's not really in the interest of these countries to renege on the deal because then their auto tariffs go up, all these other things. So, I'd say they've been very constructive conversations," Greer said. That framing suggests the administration believes its leverage remains intact even without the IEEPA backstop. Tariffs of 15% or higher for some countries remain the stated goal.
From a free-market perspective, the situation presents a familiar tension. Tariffs are, at their core, taxes on imports — and they are ultimately paid by domestic consumers and businesses.
Whether imposed under IEEPA, Section 301, or Section 232, the economic mechanics don't change. Prices rise, supply chains adjust, and the cost gets passed along.
Supporters contend the administration is right to act decisively. They argue that decades of trade imbalances have hollowed out American manufacturing, and that executive action is the only way to move fast enough to counter unfair practices by foreign competitors.
In this view, the Supreme Court erred by limiting a tool the president needs in a global economy that doesn't wait for congressional committee hearings.
Critics, however, see a different problem. Concentrating tariff authority in the executive branch — regardless of which statute is invoked — bypasses the deliberative process that the Constitution assigns to Congress.
The Supreme Court's 6-3 ruling, in this reading, was a necessary correction. The pivot to Section 301 and Section 232 may face its own legal challenges if courts determine the administration is stretching those statutes beyond their intended scope.
For investors and business owners watching this unfold, the practical takeaway is straightforward: tariff uncertainty isn't going away. Whether through IEEPA or alternative authorities, the administration has made clear that trade barriers are central to its economic vision.
Companies exposed to international supply chains should plan for tariff rates of 15% or higher on certain goods, and markets should expect volatility around each new investigation announcement. The legal pathway may have shifted, but the destination hasn't.