What are Trump’s backup options to rebuild the tariff wall?

Open the newsletter to watch the White House for free

Your guide to what the second period of Trump means to Washington, business and the world

Donald Trump has limited legal options to impose a comprehensive global tariff after the court’s ruling on Wednesday that nullified the duties of “Liberation Day”, according to international legal experts.

The United States Court of International Trade Referee decided that Trump had offended the use of Economic Forces Legislation when announcing comprehensive definitions last month, which was designed to reduce the trade deficit with countries worldwide.

Legal experts said that the court decided that the IEEPA Economic Forces Law was not explicitly designed to address the balance of payments.

The administration said it would resume. If the ruling stands, Trump will have to return to alternative legal methods.

Laurend Partlets, professor of international trade law at Cambridge University, said the ruling has defined a strong historical issue that IEPA – legislation approved in the Cold War to deal with national security issues – cannot be used to address the balance of commercial issues.

Instead, the court referred to other legislation-Article 122 of the 1974 Trade Law-which was designed to enable the president to impose a temporary tariff to address a “major deficit in the United States in the United States.”

However, Article 122 only provided very limited powers, as Parlets added, which enabled the president to impose a tariff of up to 15 percent for only 150 days before obtaining more authorization from the American Congress.

“The ruling is very clear that the way to address the balance of commercial issues is section 122, but the challenge facing Trump is that these powers are limited. Legally, the best bet on it will be to change the law to remove the restrictions imposed on the S122.”

The court ruling did not nullify the so -called definitions 232, which currently covers steel, aluminum and cars, which were successfully used by Trump and Biden departments to protect the strategic biological sectors on the basis of national security.

The Trump administration holds investigations in Article 232 in other sectors, including medicines and space. This can lead to another large tariff but not of the wide type that Trump has imposed on all countries in April, with a 10 percent foundation.

Other ways of this approach can include Article 338 of the 1930s Customs tariff law, according to Mona Polsen, Assistant Professor of International Economic Law at the London College of Economics.

The law, which has never been used, enables the president to impose a customs tariff if American companies suffer from unfair discrimination – which are defined as “any unreasonable charge, organization, or restrictions” – at the hands of foreign authority.

The tariffs were crowned by 50 percent, the same number that Trump has briefly threatened to impose on the European Union last Friday before agreeing to delay the imposition of duties after two days.

Polsen said that Trump’s choice of 50 percent is of possible importance. “For me and other commercial law monitors, when Trump imposed a 50 percent tariff on the European Union, we asked whether he was residing within the limits of Article 338,” Polsen said. “Did the president show his hand there?”

The third option is to take advantage of the 1974 Trade Law for the year 1974, which interferes with Article 338. This allows the American Trade Representative to impose a tariff on countries that violate international commercial agreements existing in “discriminatory” ways.

This was used by the first Trump administration in 2018 to impose a tariff on a group of Chinese imports of the United States on the basis that China was using forced technology transfers and other violations of intellectual property rules.

The court’s decision prompted Trump invitations to return to Congress to the age of definitions as part of the drawing tax bill. It was approved by the US House of Representatives with one vote last week, but it should still be voted by the Senate.

Charles Benoa, the coalition’s commercial lawyer for the prosperous America, a group of two parties representing American producers and workers, was among those who argue that Trump’s tariff would benefit from its equality.

He said in a video posted on X.