Trump will use other tariff authorities to get to 'same place' if Supreme Court rules against him: Hassett

Trump will use other tariff authorities to get to 'same place' if Supreme Court rules against him: Hassett

**White House Considers Contingency Plans Amid Potential Supreme Court Tariff Ruling**

Washington D.C. – The White House is reportedly exploring alternative legal avenues for implementing tariffs should the Supreme Court rule against the President’s current authority on trade matters, according to sources familiar with internal discussions. This strategic maneuvering suggests a proactive approach to maintain the administration’s ability to influence trade policy, even in the face of potential judicial setbacks.

The discussions, which involve senior economic advisors, center on identifying existing, yet less frequently utilized, tariff authorities that could be deployed to achieve similar economic objectives. While the specifics of these alternative authorities remain closely guarded, experts speculate that they could involve invoking national security clauses or leveraging existing trade agreements in novel ways.

The impetus for this contingency planning stems from ongoing legal challenges to the President’s use of tariffs, particularly those imposed under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, which allows tariffs to be levied on imports deemed a threat to national security. Critics argue that the administration has overstepped its authority by applying this provision to goods with tenuous links to national defense, and several lawsuits are currently making their way through the judicial system.

A potential Supreme Court ruling against the administration could significantly curtail the President’s ability to unilaterally impose tariffs, a tool he has frequently employed to pressure trading partners and reshape international trade agreements. Such a decision would not only impact existing trade relationships but also set a precedent for future administrations, limiting their flexibility in using tariffs as a negotiating tactic.

The White House’s consideration of alternative tariff authorities underscores the administration’s unwavering commitment to its trade agenda. Despite facing legal challenges and international criticism, the administration appears determined to maintain its leverage in trade negotiations and protect domestic industries from perceived unfair competition.

However, legal scholars caution that any attempt to circumvent a Supreme Court ruling through alternative legal interpretations could face further legal challenges. The courts are likely to scrutinize any such efforts closely, ensuring that they adhere to the letter and spirit of the law. A protracted legal battle could create uncertainty for businesses and disrupt international trade flows, potentially undermining the very economic goals the administration seeks to achieve.

Furthermore, the use of alternative tariff authorities could strain relationships with key trading partners, who may view such actions as a deliberate attempt to circumvent international trade rules. This could lead to retaliatory measures and further escalate trade tensions, creating a less stable and predictable global trading environment.

As the legal challenges to the President’s tariff policies continue to unfold, the White House’s contingency planning highlights the high stakes involved. The outcome of these legal battles will not only determine the future of the administration’s trade agenda but also shape the broader landscape of international trade law and policy for years to come. The administration’s next move will be crucial in determining whether it can maintain its grip on trade policy or be forced to recalibrate its approach in the face of judicial constraints.

This article was created based on information from various sources and rewritten for clarity and originality.