The global trading system is waiting for the Supreme Court’s decision in the tariff case. This has been more than one year since Trump started his tariff campaign which has become central to his foreign policy and geopolitics. Amazingly, the tariffs actually haven’t impacted prices all that much and to only some extent trade flows. The domestic politics of tariffs demonstrate the strength of large corporations (their use of lawyers and lobbyists) at the expense of small firms and consumers Trump’s tariff policies are primarily governed by his geopolitics and by his contempt of both U.S. law and international trade law (WTO law). 90% of Trump’s tariffs are paid by U.S. firms and consumers. This link between geopolitics and tariffs is a newer development in the history of U.S. tariffs and American foreign policy. This Supreme Court case focusing on ‘national emergency’ powers (under IEEPA) is not the only case that needs to be judicially reviewed. Trump’s reliance un ‘national security’ (Section 232 of the 1974 Trade Act), since his first term, has been immense and also needs to be judicially and congressionally reviewed.
………………………………………….
“A new lawsuit reveals how businesses are forced to navigate an opaque and arbitrary system …. Trump’s “emergency” tariffs — which imposed taxes on nearly all imports from almost every country in the world — have made headlines, but he continues to deploy his first-term tariff sweetheart: Section 232 of the 1962 Trade Expansion Act. The law, which authorizes the president to “adjust” imports that threaten to impair national security, was rarely invoked before Trump — just 26 times in 54 years. By contrast, Trump initiated eight investigations during his first term and applied broad tariffs on steel and aluminum. Last year, he launched 12 more investigations and imposed new tariffs on automotive goods, trucks, copper and wood products. In just five years, Trump has been responsible for 43 percent of all Section 232 investigations and almost all Section 232 tariffs. The president’s Section 232 adventurism hasn’t stopped there. In 2025, Trump increased his first-term steel and aluminum tariffs to 50 percent and eliminated various exemptions. He also invoked the law’s ambiguous mention of “derivative[s]” products to apply the metals tariffs to downstream items and created a process for U.S. companies to petition the government to expand protection. As a result, hundreds of new metal products — such as utensils, canned foods, exercise equipment and appliances — are now subject to tariffs. Today, steel derivatives account for most of the imports affected by the Section 232 taxes. The president’s Section 232 adventurism hasn’t stopped there. In 2025, Trump increased his first-term steel and aluminum tariffs to 50 percent and eliminated various exemptions. He also invoked the law’s ambiguous mention of “derivative[s]” products to apply the metals tariffs to downstream items and created a process for U.S. companies to petition the government to expand protection. As a result, hundreds of new metal products — such as utensils, canned foods, exercise equipment and appliances — are now subject to tariffs. Today, steel derivatives account for most of the imports affected by the Section 232 taxes. The court’s ruling (in the pending Section 232 case) will matter for many other American firms that have seen increased costs due to Trump’s complicated Section 232 tariffs. The bigger issue, however, is not the agency’s guidance, the administration’s manipulation of the regulatory process, or even Trump’s deep and abiding love of tariffs; it’s in Section 232 itself …. Section 232 lacks clear limits on the president’s tariff authority and contains numerous provisions, such as those for derivatives, that are so vague and discretionary as to invite blatant manipulation. With Section 232 investigations expanding rapidly in Trump’s second term, the abuse will surely grow. That problem can’t be fixed by the courts, in this case or any other. Section 232 must be amended, at least to require legislative sign-off on any new or expanded tariffs implemented under the law. In a divided Congress, changing the law has found advocates on both sides of the aisle. But until any revisions become law, thousands of American companies like Express Fasteners will be subject not only to new tariffs but to endless and ever-changing rules on how they apply.” “Trump’s Use of National Security (Section 232) Should Also be Rejected by the Courts and Congress.” Washington Post (2.15.26)
“But more than 12 weeks have already passed since the Nov. 5, 2025 arguments in the tariffs case. Now the court is on break, meaning a decision is unlikely for at least a few more weeks. Judging by the oral argument, Trump is the underdog in Learning Resources Inc. v. Trump. But the longer the case drags on without resolution, the less likely it is that the president got licked …. The lengthy deliberations are a puzzle because the case is not particularly complex. The 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act allows the president to “regulate” imports in an emergency. Trump says this IEEPA language means he can impose unlimited tariffs on any country at will, even though the Constitution gives the tariff power to Congress …. Then there’s Trump’s tariff-centered diplomacy. The president’s tariff threats against European countries over Greenland last month might have hurt his cause at the Supreme Court if they made him appear to be abusing power. On the other hand, they emphasized that Trump views tariffs as his primary foreign-policy tool — and the Supreme Court has historically been reluctant to intervene in a president’s foreign policy …. It’s always perilous to make predictions about a case based on the deciders’ timeline, but some are possible. Criminal defense lawyers tend to be happy when the jury is out for a long time without convicting their client. And the longer a status quo stays in place, all else being equal, the less likely the Supreme Court is to disturb it. …. It’s still hard to see how Trump wins this case, given the three liberal justices inclined against him, Justice Neil M. Gorsuch’s strict view of the separation of powers and the chief justice’s concern with the court’s nonpartisan reputation. But the odds of a clean and decisive defeat for the president are going down, and the odds of some sort of negotiated settlement are going up. Perhaps the justices are trying to engineer a way to block the tariffs only prospectively, without inviting an avalanche of lawsuits over refunds. That could be a worthy goal, but the damage from judicial delay is growing.” “Delay in Tariff Case.” Washington Post (Feb. 2, 2026).
“Americans pay one way or the other—via higher prices or less choice. Trump admitted as much when he said last year that tariffs mean Americans might have to buy fewer dolls for their children at Christmas. Mr. Trump also ignores that the tariffs he’s imposing are a far cry from what he proposed. The rates he declared on “Liberation Day” created a market swoon that quickly caused him to back down and promise to negotiate 90 trade deals in 90 days. Some of those have been announced, and most of those are far below his “liberation” rates …. All of this for what benefit? Trump points to the rising stock market, which is true—but it tends to rise when Mr. Trump dials back a tariff threat and fall when he issues a new one. The S&P 500 index nearly tumbled into a bear market in the days after Trump’s April “Liberation Day” announcement of across-the-board tariffs. Stocks saw some of their biggest gains of the year on the days when he announced a pause on the China tariffs, and then a “deal” with Beijing. Tariffs are a market loser.” “Trump’s Tariffs.” Wall Street Journal (Feb. 5, 2026)..
“Over the past year, Trump raised average U.S. tariffs to about 17 percent, the highest level since 1932, in the wake of the 1930 Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act. Trump’s stated aim was to reinvigorate American industry and bring jobs back to the United States …. One of the most tangible effects of Trump’s trade policy has been a drastic increase in the revenue the government takes in from tariffs. The United States collected an estimated $287 billion in customs duties, taxes and fees last year, nearly triple the amount in 2024 …. And while spending on the construction of new factories is much higher than before the pandemic, it’s down from the end of the Biden administration, when grants to semiconductor and battery factories were encouraging construction.” “Trump’s Tariffs – One Year Assessment.” New York Times (Feb. 7, 2026).
“The United States collected some $288.5 billion in tariff revenue last year, up from $98.3 billion in 2024, thanks to a barrage of new levies imposed by the Trump administration. These tariffs, designed by elite lawyers in D.C. and implemented with highly technical and specialized language, presented a unique opportunity for lobbyists to charge large corporations exorbitant rates to seek relief and other carveouts. And they did very well for themselves. The 20 largest lobbying firms reported $824 million in revenue last year, up from $595 million during the final year of the Biden administration …. No wonder the plaintiffs in the Supreme Court case challenging President Donald Trump’s tariffs are small businesses, not large ones. Big companies can afford to hire attorneys to understand the complex rules and lobbyists to try to minimize the pain. Small businesses get stuck with enormous tax bills …. All this is why 6 in 10 Americans oppose Trump’s tariffs, according to the latest polling, and approval for them has consistently lagged other parts of his agenda, even among Republican voters. The people’s elected representatives in Congress wouldn’t pass new tariffs, which is why the president is imposing them by executive order and claiming a nonexistent emergency. Draining the swamp is hard, but tariffs are an unforced error that make an already difficult task impossible.” “Tariffs and the D.C. Swamp (Lawyers, Lobbyists and Big Corporations).” Washington Post (Feb. 8, 2026).
“Trade tensions arising from security issues have become a major threat to businesses’ balance sheets in a way no one can remember before …. How do you plan for geopolitical risk, especially given the unpredictable and illogical antics of someone like Trump? It’s a difficult thing to get hard numbers on, but one attempt to do structured qualitative analysis concludes that companies’ efforts to adapt themselves to a geopolitical tariff-ridden world are actually quite undeveloped …. Most have not fully institutionalized geopolitical risk into decision-making. Companies are still struggling with ‘deep uncertainty.’ “Trump’s Geopolitics Over Trade.” Financial Times 2.9.26).
“Several large American manufacturers are thriving despite the threat of higher costs. Smaller ones are struggling …. Some of the largest U.S. manufacturers are avoiding the financial pain of Trump’s tariffs through a series of business maneuvers and personal appeals to the president himself …. Large companies are all talking about how they are mitigating tariffs and small companies are all talking about how tariffs are impacting their bottom line …. Businesses with easy access to capital and a large number of international suppliers have shifted to lower-tariff jurisdictions and hired lobbyists, lawyers and consultants to try to carve out exemptions with Trump administration officials …. Aerospace companies like Boeing have largely enjoyed zero tariffs on aircraft parts for decades.” “Trade / Tariffs – Big Companies & Personal Contacts.” New York Times (2.9.26).
“Trump’s contempt for the rule of law in America — and the judges who enforce it — is by now well-established …. Then there are Trump’s signature tariffs. They are often levied on a whim, in likely defiance not only of U.S. law but also of international trade agreements signed by previous presidents, and even (in the case of the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement) by Trump himself …. Now Trump has gone further by attacking a core WTO principle known as “reciprocity.” This means that a country should levy the same tariff rates on all trade partners that enjoy “most favored nation” status. Trump, by contrast, insists on setting rates country by country, and changing them regularly, making it impossible to have binding rules for the international trade system.” “International Law and Tariffs — Trump’s Main Export – Contempt.” Washington Post (2.10.26).
“Central bank’s research undercuts Trump’s claims that foreign companies will pay for levies …. US businesses and consumers paid nearly 90 per cent of the cost of Donald Trump’s tariffs last year, according to new Federal Reserve research …. On Wednesday several Republican congressmen broke with the party to back legislation that would reverse Trump’s tariffs on Canada …. Several Republican congressmen broke with the party to back legislation that would reverse Trump’s tariffs on Canada …. The New York Fed study suggested that in the first eight months of the year, 94 per cent of the cost had been passed through to US businesses and consumers …. The impact from tariffs on consumer inflation has been more muted than many economists had feared.” “Business and Consumers Pay 90% of Trump’s Taxes.” Financial Times (Feb. 12, 2026).
Stuart Malawer
U.S. LAW & GLOBAL TRADE RELATIONS. 
You must be logged in to post a comment.