In addition to IEEPA, Trump’s has multiple legal tools he can utilize in his international economic warfare. Which may, in fact, withstand court challenges. Namely, Section 232 (national security) of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 and Section 122 (balance-of- payments) of the Trade Act of 1974. Because Section 232 deals specifically with national security, where presidents have great constitutional authority and because Section 122 provides specific legislative delegation. Of course, the President can use export controls, other financial measures, authority to review foreign direct investment under CFIUS and perhaps new legislation to tax foreign direct investment.

     It is clear to me the issues of geopolitics are at the heart of Trump’s trade actions — involving much more than trade and economics. And foreign policy is a great executive constitutional power. However, Congress has a great say also.

     Nevertheless, it will be up to the federal courts to decide if Trump’s actions are lawful. Many conservative legal scholars have opposed Trump’s tariffs and actions. If Trump stays true to form and exaggerates his actions and authority, once again. the courts will have an easier time of ruling against him. We’ll see ………..

……………………………………………

“In fact, “Taco” is not just a useful heuristic for investors. It also turns out to be a key to analyzing Trump’s foreign policy …. Looking at Trump’s two periods in office, Shapiro finds 22 occasions so far in which he has threatened the use of force — but only two in which he has actually followed through. There have been 25 actual uses of force — mainly limited strikes against terrorist groups such as Isis or al-Qaeda. But only on two occasions were they preceded by a presidential threat …. What sets Trump apart is not his reluctance to go to war — but the striking contrast between his tough-guy rhetoric and his real-world caution. The current president seems to have inverted Teddy Roosevelt’s famous maxim about speaking softly and carrying a big stick. Trump prefers to shout loudly, while brandishing a pencil.” “Trump Always Chickens Out Also on Foreign Policy.” Financial Times (6.3.25).

“Trump loves tariffs, but I’ve long suspected that if that weapon turns out to be ineffectual or gets blocked, he will quite quickly turn to other tools of international economic warfare. In fact, he already has. The nasties in his budget bill that will allow reprisals against foreign companies invested in the US were, of course, there before last week’s ruling. But they’re a warning of what happens when Trump widens the field of fire …. How the US weaponized various aspects of the networks connecting the global economy, including finance, data, semiconductors and data centres. “Trump and Other Legal Tools of International Economic Warfare..” Financial Times (June 3, 2025).

“Now that courts have ruled against the Trump administration on IEEPA, its use of Section 232 is even more likely. If IEEPA is not to be used for tariffs against trade partners, the White House will resort to alternative methods. The courts and Congress tend to be highly deferential to executive claims of national security …. There are at least seven additional Section 232 investigations pending, including against pharmaceuticals, semiconductors, copper, lumber, heavy vehicles, critical minerals, and space products. These cases could be concluded at any time, with tariffs likely as a remedy. Now that courts have ruled against the administration on IEEPA, the use of Section 232 is even more likely …. Trump also has recourse to other trade tools. The CIT judges, for instance, suggested the possible use of Section 122 as a replacement. Section 122 deals with balance of payments issues and allows the immediate imposition of tariffs of up to 15% for 150 days⁷ The original policy document issued by Trump at the start of his term already asked his government agencies to identify all existing legal pathways to manage trade tensions.” “Trump’s Legal Options in the Tariff War – Section 232 (National Security).” Hinrich (June 3, 2025).

”A powerful sign that President Trump’s tariff-driven trade war is at risk came in a friend-of-the-court brief filed by a coalition that included many prominent conservative and libertarian lawyers, scholars and former officials. The brief was also a signal of a deepening rift between Mr. Trump and the conservative legal movement ….  The coalition filed a very similar brief in a second case, too, in the Federal District Court in Washington The trade court ruled for the challengers. On Thursday, the district court judge followed suit, citing the supporting brief eight times …. When it does, the justices will have to grapple with two doctrines dear to the conservative legal movement, both of which would seem to cut against Mr. Trump’s understanding of his powers. One, the nondelegation doctrine, says that Congress may not transfer unbounded legislative powers to the executive branch. The other, the major questions doctrine, says Congress must authorize in plain and direct language any sweeping executive actions that could transform the economy. “Conservatives on Trade Briefs.” New York Times (6.5.25).