After the Supreme Court overturned most global tariffs last year, U.S. President Trump quickly resorted to alternative legal tools in an attempt to rebuild long-standing tariff barriers, but Democrats may not allow him to succeed.
On Monday, the 23rd, Eastern Time, Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer announced that Democrats would block any efforts to extend the tariff measures implemented by Trump under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. This move puts the tariff system established during Trump's second presidential term at risk of collapse, as the tariffs implemented under Section 122 are set to expire this summer.
According to Xinhua News Agency, the U.S. Supreme Court recently issued a ruling stating that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not authorize the president to impose tariffs on a large scale. On the same day the ruling was announced last Friday, Trump declared that he would invoke Section 122 to impose a 10% global tariff, and on Saturday, he stated that the tariff rate would be increased to 15%. However, this provision has a 150-day limit, and any extension requires Congressional approval.
In a statement, Schumer indicated that Trump's new 15% global tariff would continue to drive up prices, making life unaffordable for millions of Americans. &#34;Senate Democrats will continue to push back against Trump's tariffs and will block any attempts to extend these harmful tariffs when they expire this summer. Democrats will not condone Trump's destruction of the economy.&#34;
This anticipated statement will escalate the confrontation between Trump and Congress and bring new uncertainty to the global trade landscape. Wall Street Insight previously mentioned that tariffs imposed under Section 122 have a cap on the rate and a time limit, making it difficult to support the long-term large-scale tariff system Trump seeks.
<h2>Section 122: Limitations of a Short-Term Alternative</h2>
Last Friday, Trump announced a 10% global tariff, becoming the first U.S. president to impose tariffs under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. This provision allows the president to impose tariffs of up to 15% when there is a &#34;large and serious&#34; international balance of payments deficit, lasting a maximum of 150 days.
The main advantage of this tool is that it can be implemented without prior investigation. The U.S. International Trade Court pointed out last May that if the president intends to address trade deficits through tariffs, he should use Section 122 rather than IEEPA.
However, this provision has a fatal flaw. The 15% tariff cap and the 150-day time limit mean that the relevant tariffs can only serve as a short-term option.
More critically, extending the time limit requires Congressional approval, and Democrats have clearly stated they will block any extension. Trump posted on social media on Monday reiterating that he has Congressional authorization for the tariffs, stating, &#34;As president, I do not need to seek Congressional approval for tariffs,&#34; but if he wishes to implement the tariffs under Section 122 long-term, this claim contradicts the relevant legal provisions.
<h2>The 15% Tariff Aims to Maintain Existing Trade Agreements</h2>
CCTV News pointed out that Trump's imposition of a 15% tariff is actually intended to maintain the original tariff levels. In trade agreements signed with the European Union, Japan, South Korea, and countries in the Middle East, the tariff level is precisely 15%
The aforementioned countries and regions were originally threatened by Trump's high tariffs, which would lead to hundreds of billions or even trillions of dollars in investments in the U.S. If the tariff level of 15% cannot be maintained, their promised investments may be jeopardized by the cancellation of tariffs.
CCTV mentioned that on the 22nd, U.S. Trade Representative Katherine Tai emphasized in an interview with U.S. media that the government has found a way to &#34;rebuild&#34; punitive reciprocal tariffs, stating that agreements with trade partners such as the European Union, the United Kingdom, and Japan are still valid. This means that the Trump administration is attempting to maintain the terms of previously reached trade agreements through new legal tools.
CCTV believes that in order to uphold the so-called &#34;America First&#34; interests and also for the so-called &#34;political legacy of the tariff war,&#34; Trump will use various means and tools to maintain the original high tariff levels. It is not ruled out that Trump will rely on more provisions like &#34;Section 301&#34; and &#34;Section 232&#34; to continue pushing for a tough trade policy to maintain higher tariff levels.
<h2>Limitations of Other Legal Tools</h2>
In addition to Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, Trump has at least four alternative legal tools to the IEEPA, but all come with more restrictions.
Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 is the tool Trump relied on most during his two terms. This section authorizes the president to impose tariffs on imported goods based on national security reasons, with no limits on rates or duration. However, its limitation is that it cannot be implemented immediately; the Department of Commerce must first complete an investigation and submit a report to the president within 270 days. Additionally, this section targets specific industries rather than entire countries, making its coverage less extensive than the IEEPA.
Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 is the legal basis for Trump initiating trade frictions between the U.S. and China during his first term. This section authorizes the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative to impose tariffs on trade measures deemed discriminatory against U.S. businesses, with no limits on rates. However, its complexity is a drawback, as it requires investigations, consultations with foreign governments, and public input, with tariffs automatically terminating four years after they take effect.
Section 201 of the same act authorizes the president to impose tariffs when increased imports threaten U.S. manufacturers, but the tariff cap is 50% of the existing rate, with an initial duration of four years, and if implemented for more than a year, it must be gradually reduced.
The most controversial is Section 338 of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930, a provision from the Great Depression era that has never been used to impose tariffs. Historians and economists generally believe that this tariff law restricted world trade and exacerbated the Great Depression. Five Democratic congressmen proposed a resolution last March to abolish this provision.
<h2>Long-term Uncertainty in Global Trade</h2>
Frequent adjustments to U.S. tariff policies have created chaos in the international trade order. CCTV pointed out that after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Trump's tariffs based on the IEEPA were unconstitutional, the foundation collapsed. He immediately imposed a 10% tariff on all imported goods under Section 122, which was then quickly raised to 15% within 24 hours, leaving many countries at a loss.
CCTV believes that the frequent adjustments to tariffs have led the U.S. government into an unprecedented &#34;diplomatic deadlock,&#34; damaging trust among allies. The European Union, India, and others have announced the freezing or suspension of trade agreements and negotiations with the U.S
The so-called reciprocal tariffs imposed by the United States on other countries originally ranged from 10% to 50%. Even if the tax rates fluctuate within 24 hours, it cannot fundamentally achieve its purpose.
Once Trump continues to push forward with a tough trade policy based on more legal provisions, it will raise tariff barriers and non-tariff barriers for global trade, suppress international trade, and subsequently dampen corporate investment willingness. The uncertainty of investment makes corporate decision-makers &#34;indecisive&#34; on whether to invest or not, and whether to localize or internationalize.
The U.S. Customs and Border Protection previously stated that it would stop collecting tariffs imposed under the IEEPA starting Tuesday, February 24, Eastern Time. However, how to handle the more than $100 billion in tariffs already collected remains unknown.
Trump hinted last Friday that he would not refund tariffs based on the IEEPA, expecting that any possible refunds would be delayed by lawsuits for years. U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen refused to speculate on the possibility of issuing tariff refunds to businesses last Sunday, instead leaving the decision to lower courts

.DJI

After the Supreme Court overturned its previous year's tariffs under IEEPA, Trump invoked alternative legal tool Section 122 to implement a 15% global tariff. If Congress does not approve an extension, the new tariffs will expire this summer. The 15% rate is exactly the tariff rate established in trade agreements signed last year with regions such as the European Union. If this tariff level cannot be maintained, the investment commitments made by these regions due to the threat of tariffs may fall through

- Following a Supreme Court ruling against large-scale tariffs, President Trump attempted to restore tariffs through alternative legal measures, such as Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974.  
- Senate Democrats, led by Chuck Schumer, announced intentions to block any extension of these tariffs, risking their expiration this summer and heightening tensions with Congress.  
- The frequent adjustments to U.S. tariff policy contribute to global trade uncertainty, as allies freeze trade negotiations amid concerns over potential retaliatory measures.

Wallstreetcn

Dow Jones Industrial Average

Dow Jones Utility Average

Nasdaq

S&P 500

NASDAQ Composite Index

NASDAQ-100

First Trust NASDAQ-100 Equal Weighted

Invesco Nasdaq 100 ETF

Proshares UltraPro QQQ

Fidelity Nasdaq Composite Index ETF

Invesco QQQ Trust

Global X NASDAQ 100 Collar 95-110 ETF

Trump's efforts to rebuild tariff barriers have become difficult: Democrats will block any attempts to extend tariffs