Tariffs being rebuilt piece by piece
After the Supreme Court struck down most of the administration’s broad tariff regime, Washington appears to be shifting from a single sweeping policy to a piecemeal rebuild through narrower legal authorities, with businesses and trade groups actively lobbying the shape of any new tariffs. That post‑ruling scramble is already creating particular headaches in agriculture, where an AEI assessment says uncertainty remains high — bilateral deals lack product‑level clarity and Chinese retaliation continues to ripple through markets. (usatoday.com, aei.org)
Washington is rebuilding its tariff wall one statute at a time after the Supreme Court knocked down the broadest version in February. (scotusblog.com) On February 20, the court ruled 6-3 that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act did not let President Donald Trump impose sweeping tariffs through emergency orders. The same day, the White House shifted to Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 and imposed a 10 percent global import surcharge for 150 days, effective February 24. (scotusblog.com, whitehouse.gov) That Section 122 tariff is now in court too. Judges on the U.S. Court of International Trade heard arguments on April 10 over whether a law written for “balance-of-payments” problems can cover today’s trade deficits, and the duties expire in July unless Congress extends them. (politico.com, pbs.org) The administration is also moving onto narrower, slower tariff tools that survive the Supreme Court ruling. Brookings said Section 301 has become the main vehicle for rebuilding tariff authority because it requires investigations, a public record, and comment periods before duties can be imposed. (brookings.edu) That process has already opened a lobbying window. The Office of the United States Trade Representative launched Section 301 investigations covering 60 economies in March, with written comments due April 15 and public hearings set to start April 28 at the U.S. International Trade Commission. (ustr.gov, federalregister.gov) Other tariffs never went away. Thomson Reuters said the Supreme Court decision only invalidated duties tied to the emergency-powers law, while tariffs under Sections 232, 301, and 122 remained available; on April 2, Trump also modified Section 232 tariffs on steel, aluminum, copper, and derivative products. (thomsonreuters.com, federalregister.gov) For agriculture, the problem is not only the tariff rate but the stop-start legal path. An American Enterprise Institute assessment said 47 percent of U.S. agricultural exports in 2024 went to countries facing reciprocal tariffs above 10 percent under the 2025 regime, leaving farmers exposed to retaliation and supply shifts. (aei.org) The same report said the longer risk is that buyers do not always come back after a trade war ends. It pointed to China’s earlier shift in soybean purchases from the United States to Brazil as evidence that temporary tariff fights can produce lasting market losses. (aei.org) Businesses are now fighting over the details instead of one giant tariff plan. USA Today reported on April 15 that importers and trade groups are pressing Washington over which goods should be hit, spared, or refunded as the administration tries to replace a single sweeping regime with a stack of narrower ones. (usatoday.com) The next deadlines are no longer one Supreme Court ruling but a series of hearings, comment periods, and court decisions. That is how tariff policy is being rebuilt now: piece by piece, product by product, and lawsuit by lawsuit. (federalregister.gov, politico.com)
