Although the U.S. Supreme Court on the 20th (local time) ruled that imposing reciprocal tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) is unlawful, the Donald Trump administration appears likely to continue its tariff policy by using other legal tools. The Trump administration had previously mentioned alternative measures multiple times.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, in a public speech ahead of the Court’s decision, signaled an intention to maintain tariffs, stating, “There is no doubt about our ability to continue collecting tariffs at roughly the same level in terms of total revenue.” The administration’s basic plan is that, even if tariffs based on the IEEPA are blocked, it can reconstitute a similar tariff regime through workarounds.

Bessent cited Sections 301 and 122 of the Trade Act and Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act as alternatives. Section 301 allows, after certain procedures, the imposition of broad retaliatory tariffs on countries that engage in unfair or discriminatory trade practices against the United States. Section 122 permits tariffs of up to 15% for 150 days to address a severe trade deficit. Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act grants the president authority to restrict imports, including through tariffs, if imports of certain items are deemed to threaten national security.

However, because these provisions require months for legal procedures such as investigations and reports, there is speculation that the administration may first devise temporary stopgap measures. Some observers suggest it could buy time by using Section 122 of the Trade Act, which allows a 15% tariff for 150 days when the trade deficit worsens, and later establish a more structural tariff framework.

Section 338 of the Tariff Act is also being discussed as an alternative. This provision grants the president authority to impose tariffs of up to 50% on countries that have unfairly discriminated against the United States, even without a separate federal agency investigation. However, critics note that, because the provision has almost never been used by past administrations, applying it could trigger new legal disputes.