Tariff power debate widens

The fight over tariff power is no longer just about whether a president can impose tariffs. It is now also about who gets carved out, who pays, and how the rules are enforced. (congress.gov) Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act lets a president restrict imports after a Commerce Department investigation finds a national security threat. The law was the basis for steel and aluminum tariffs first imposed in March 2018, and the Trump administration expanded them again in 2025 and 2026. (commerce.gov) (congress.gov) Congressional Research Service said the United States has imposed 50 percent tariffs on steel, aluminum, and related derivative products from nearly all trading partners since June 2025. It also said the February 2025 changes eliminated country exemptions and ended General Approved Exclusions, while leaving some existing product exclusions in place until they expired. (congress.gov) That shift moved the argument from courtroom theory to customs practice. Once broad exemptions were cut back, importers had to focus on product codes, filing rules, and whether a shipment fit inside a remaining carveout. (cbp.gov) (congress.gov) Customs and Border Protection’s guidance shows how specific those carveouts can be. Goods entered under the Section 321 de minimis rule generally are not subject to Section 232 duties, and auto parts covered by Section 232 as of May 3, 2025 are exempt from separate reciprocal duties that took effect on April 5, 2025. (cbp.gov 1) (cbp.gov 2) The White House has defended that structure by saying earlier country exemptions created loopholes. In a February 2025 fact sheet, it said exemptions had been exploited and weakened the steel and aluminum program’s national security purpose. (whitehouse.gov) The administration has also used Section 232 beyond metals. On April 2, 2026, the White House said Trump imposed a 100 percent tariff on patented pharmaceutical products and ingredients, but set lower rates for some trade-deal partners and a 0 percent rate through January 20, 2029 for companies that sign both pricing and onshoring agreements. (whitehouse.gov) Those details have widened the debate over what “national security” means in trade law. Critics argue that a system with partner-specific rates, company-specific deals, and product-specific exclusions can look less like a uniform security measure and more like a selective industrial policy. (whitehouse.gov) (congress.gov) The legal backdrop is still active. PBS reported this week that the Court of International Trade heard a new challenge to Trump’s latest global tariffs after the Supreme Court in February struck down broader tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. (pbs.org) (law.cornell.edu) Customs and Border Protection has already signaled where the practical burden falls. Its trade-remedies page says the agency is enforcing multiple Section 232 programs, including steel, aluminum, automobiles, copper, timber, lumber, and semiconductors, and is prepared to implement new executive actions as they arrive. (cbp.gov) So the tariff power debate has split in two tracks at once: judges are still testing the outer edge of presidential authority, while importers, manufacturers, and trading partners are already living inside the exemption lists, tariff codes, and rollout dates. (pbs.org) (cbp.gov)