The Supreme Court could deliver a pivotal decision as early as January 9 regarding Trump's controversial use of emergency powers to impose tariffs. The court is reviewing whether the president can legally invoke emergency legislation that had never been used for import taxes, with the decision potentially included in an upcoming opinions release.

Lower courts have already determined that Trump exceeded his presidential authority by using the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to justify his comprehensive "reciprocal" duties targeting America's trading partners, along with separate levies on China, Canada, and Mexico. The IEEPA tariffs remain active during ongoing legal proceedings, but an adverse Supreme Court ruling could unravel large portions of Trump's tariff program and expose the government to tens of billions of dollars in refunds.

Five Alternative Tariff Mechanisms

Despite potential legal setbacks, Trump retains access to five alternative statutory authorities for implementing tariffs, each with distinct procedural requirements and limitations.

Section 232: National Security Tariffs

The Trade Expansion Act of 1962 grants the president authority to impose unlimited tariffs on national security grounds. However, this mechanism requires a Commerce Department investigation concluding that imports threaten national security, with the Commerce Secretary having 270 days to report findings.

Section 201: Industry Protection Measures

This 1974 provision allows tariffs when import increases cause or threaten serious injury to American manufacturers. The US International Trade Commission must conduct a 180-day investigation with public hearings and comment periods.

Key limitations include:

• Tariffs capped at 50% above existing duty rates
• Maximum eight-year duration with mandatory phase-down after one year
• Industry-specific rather than country-wide application

Trump previously used Section 201 for solar cells, modules, and residential washing machines in 2018.

Section 301: Trade Violation Response

The Office of the US Trade Representative can impose unlimited tariffs responding to discriminatory foreign trade practices or violations of international agreements. This mechanism requires USTR investigations with foreign government consultations and public comment periods.

Section 122: Balance of Payments Tool

This provision addresses "fundamental international payments problems" without requiring agency investigations. However, it imposes strict limitations:

• 15% tariff cap
• 150-day maximum duration
• Congressional approval required for extensions
• Must address "large and serious" US balance-of-payments deficits

Section 122 has never been utilized, though courts have suggested it would be more appropriate than IEEPA for trade deficit remedies.

Section 338: Anti-Discrimination Authority

The 1930 Smoot-Hawley provision enables tariffs against countries imposing unreasonable charges or discriminatory behavior against US commerce. While requiring no preliminary investigation, tariffs are capped at 50%.

This Depression-era mechanism has never been used for tariffs, and its unprecedented application could invite legal challenges. Five House Democrats introduced a resolution in March to repeal this section.

Strategic Implications

These alternative mechanisms generally provide less flexibility than IEEPA, requiring longer implementation timelines and imposing procedural restrictions. Unlike the immediate, unlimited tariffs possible under emergency powers, each alternative involves specific caps, investigation requirements, or duration limits that constrain presidential discretion in tariff policy implementation.

Trump has signed an executive order directing the United States to withdraw from 66 international organizations, calling them "anti-American" and contrary to US interests. The comprehensive directive represents a significant retreat from global cooperation, with the administration characterizing the targeted institutions as serving globalist agendas rather than American priorities.

Scope of Withdrawal

The executive order encompasses a broad range of international entities across different organizational structures:

Trump directed all executive departments and agencies to take immediate steps to withdraw from these organizations "as soon as possible," ceasing both participation and funding to the extent permitted by law.

Key Organizations Targeted

Among the most significant withdrawals is the US exit from the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the underlying treaty for the Paris climate agreement. The list also includes the International Solar Alliance, a collaborative initiative between India and France on climate change with over 100 signatory countries.

Administration's Rationale

Secretary of State Marco Rubio characterized the targeted institutions as "redundant in their scope, mismanaged, unnecessary, wasteful, poorly run, captured by the interests of actors advancing their own agendas contrary to our own, or a threat to our nation's sovereignty, freedoms, and general prosperity." Rubio stated that what began as a framework for international cooperation has "morphed into a sprawling architecture of global governance, often dominated by progressive ideology."

US Ambassador to the UN Mike Waltz emphasized that the US will no longer fund organizations that "do not serve, or in many cases work counter to, American interests." The administration has specifically criticized institutions for promoting what they term "DEI mandates," "gender equity campaigns," and "climate orthodoxy."

Implementation and Global Response

All US government agencies have been ordered to cease both participation in and funding for the designated organizations. A UN spokesperson indicated they have reviewed the full list and will provide official comment. The withdrawal affects organizations spanning climate action, human rights, gender equality, and international development.

Rubio emphasized that "the days of billions of dollars in taxpayer money flowing to foreign interests at the expense of our people are over," signaling the administration's broader shift away from multilateral engagement. The State Department confirmed that additional reviews of international organizational participation remain ongoing.