According to CNBC, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent revealed the administration has “lots” of other authorities to use if the Supreme Court strikes down President Trump’s tariff powers under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The high court is hearing arguments Wednesday in a landmark case challenging whether Trump exceeded his authority with sweeping duties on trading partners. Bessent specifically mentioned Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 for national security justifications and Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 for unfair trading practices as potential alternatives. He called IEEPA “by far the cleanest” approach but acknowledged the others could be effective despite being more cumbersome. The secretary also discussed recent progress with China, noting two state visits planned for 2026 following last week’s Trump-Xi meeting that rolled back some tariffs.
Sponsored content — provided for informational and promotional purposes.
What’s Really at Stake Here
This isn’t just about some legal technicality. We’re talking about the fundamental question of how much power presidents should have over trade policy without congressional approval. And honestly, it’s kind of amazing this hasn’t been tested at this level before now.
Here’s the thing: if SCOTUS rules against the administration, it could completely change how future presidents approach trade negotiations. The emergency powers route gives them maximum flexibility and leverage. The alternatives Bessent mentioned? They’re much more limited in scope and require specific justifications. Basically, it’s the difference between having a master key and needing to ask for permission every time you want to open a door.
<h2 id="business-impact”>Why Businesses Should Care
For companies that rely on international supply chains, this uncertainty is a nightmare. They’re trying to make long-term investment decisions while the rules of the game might change based on a court ruling. And let’s be real – tariffs get passed along to consumers eventually anyway.
The Section 232 national security argument has already been controversial when applied to things like steel and aluminum. Imagine if that becomes the go-to justification for all sorts of tariffs. Suddenly everything becomes a national security issue. Where does that end?
The China Angle
Bessent’s comments about the improved relationship with China are interesting timing. Just last week we saw some tariff rollbacks after the Trump-Xi meeting. Now he’s talking about state visits in 2026? That feels like they’re trying to project stability regardless of what happens with this court case.
But here’s my question: if the administration loses its primary tariff authority, does that weaken their hand in future negotiations with China? Probably. The threat of immediate, sweeping tariffs under emergency powers is a much bigger stick than having to go through more bureaucratic processes.
At the end of the day, this Supreme Court decision could reshape U.S. trade policy for decades. And regardless of which side you’re on, that’s a pretty big deal for everyone from manufacturers to consumers.
