Despite legal challenges, the White House signals
that new tariff powers will remain central to U.S. economic policy.
Washington, D.C. | As the U.S. Supreme Court weighs the legality of President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariffs, administration officials and trade experts agree: even a ruling against Trump’s use of emergency powers will not end America’s new tariff era. Businesses and global partners, they say, should “deal with it.”
The
Legal Context
The
high court heard arguments this week over whether Trump overstepped his
authority by invoking the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act
(IEEPA) to impose broad global tariffs. Lower courts previously ruled against
him, but with the Supreme Court’s 6–3 conservative majority, the administration
is confident of a favorable outcome.
Even
so, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said that if the justices strike down the
IEEPA tariffs, the administration could immediately rely on other legal
frameworks, including:
- Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 (temporary 15% tariffs for 150 days), and
- Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930, allowing duties up to 50% on nations that discriminate against U.S. commerce.
“You
should assume that they’re here to stay,” Bessent said. “Those of you who got a
good deal should stick with it.”
Corporate
and Market Fallout
For
U.S. manufacturers, the uncertainty has become a new normal.
Bill
Canady, CEO of Ohio-based OTC Industrial Technologies, said that shifting
supply chains from China to India and Southeast Asia has proven futile:
“We
moved things out of China and went to some of those other countries, and now
the tariffs on those are as bad or worse.”
Oxford
Economics estimates that tariffs added 0.4 percentage points to September’s
annual inflation rate of 3.0%, keeping prices above the Federal Reserve’s
target.
Meanwhile, global companies have reported over $35 billion in tariff-related costs heading into the third-quarter earnings season.
A
Tariff Economy
Since
early 2025, Trump has levied tariffs using multiple legal authorities — from
national security measures under Section 232 to penalties for unfair trade
practices under Section 301. His administration argues that tariffs protect
critical industries such as semiconductors, autos, and pharmaceuticals.
Trade
lawyer Tim Brightbill noted:
“This
administration is committed to tariffs as a cornerstone of economic policy, and
companies and industries should plan accordingly.”
Diplomatic
Negotiations
In
parallel, the administration has finalized tariff-lowering trade frameworks
with Vietnam, Malaysia, Thailand, and Cambodia (locking rates around 19–20%),
and a $350 billion investment deal with South Korea, which secured a 15% tariff
on key goods.
Talks
with China, however, remain tense. During recent negotiations in Seoul, Trump
and President Xi Jinping agreed to:
- Halve tariffs on fentanyl-related Chinese goods to 10%,
- Delay technology export controls for one year,
- Resume Chinese purchases of U.S. soybeans, and
- Suspend new U.S. port fees on China-linked ships.
Economic
and Fiscal Implications
IEEPA
tariffs have generated a significant portion of the $118 billion increase in
U.S. customs receipts during fiscal year 2025, helping to slightly reduce the
national deficit to $1.715 trillion.
Experts
warn that striking down these tariffs could trigger refund obligations
exceeding $100 billion and destabilize Treasury markets.
“It’s
a significant political economy risk that we get addicted to tariff revenue,”
said Ernie Tedeschi of Yale University.
“It
makes it harder for any future administration to roll them back.”
The
Inflation Dilemma
So
far, many importers have absorbed tariff costs rather than pass them on to
consumers. Yet economists warn that cost pass-throughs are expanding into
clothing and household goods, risking renewed inflation in 2026.
Smaller
firms face bureaucratic challenges reclaiming tariff refunds, potentially
incurring daily compounded interest costs of 6%.
Canady
summarized the private-sector mood:
“I
think the new normal is going to be 15%. They’ll call it whatever they need to
call it so that it’s not challengeable.”
Regardless
of how the Supreme Court rules, analysts agree that tariffs have become
embedded in U.S. trade and fiscal policy, redefining how America manages its
global economic leverage.
In
Washington and abroad, the message is clear: the tariff era is here to stay.
By:
Maria Perez | Editor-in-Chief, CRNTimes
Edited
by: Maria Perez
Publication
date: November 3, 2025 | Last updated: 4:00 PM CST
This
article was produced using verified institutional sources including Reuters,
the U.S. Treasury, Oxford Economics, and the Yale University Budget Lab. It
adheres to CRNTimes’.