The Trump administration is poised to impose a new wave of tariffs on consumers, adding to the financial strain on millions of Americans already grappling with elevated living costs. According to a report, the White House is acting swiftly to implement more durable import taxes following the Supreme Court's rejection of previous levies, aiming to sustain revenue and reinforce the president's protectionist agenda.
Upcoming Hearings and Investigations
Starting this week, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative will conduct hearings in two separate investigations. The first, scheduled for Tuesday and Wednesday, will examine whether 60 economies—including Nigeria and Norway, which collectively account for 99% of U.S. imports—are adequately prohibiting goods made with forced labor. U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer stated in March that American workers and firms have long been forced to compete against foreign producers benefiting from artificial cost advantages derived from forced labor. The administration could respond with new tariffs on offending nations.
Next week, hearings will focus on 16 U.S. trading partners, including China, the European Union, and Japan, accused of overproducing goods and driving down prices, thereby disadvantaging U.S. manufacturers. These economies represent 70% of U.S. imports, according to the Tax Foundation's Erica York. This probe could also result in additional tariffs. Notably, most major economies appear on both lists.
Legal Basis and Skepticism
The investigations are being conducted under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, which permits tariffs and sanctions against countries engaging in unfair trade practices. Greer has insisted he will not prejudge the outcomes, but importers and foreign governments remain skeptical. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has already indicated that new import taxes, including those under Section 301, will replace previous tariff revenues, while President Trump has stated that new tariffs will generate more money. Scott Lincicome of the Cato Institute's Center for Trade Policy Studies remarked, "If you believe the Treasury secretary and the president, then the cake is already baked. These investigations will result in tariffs that approximate what the Supreme Court overruled in February."
Background: Supreme Court Ruling
On February 20, the Supreme Court ruled that Trump exceeded his authority by using the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose double-digit tariffs on nearly all countries. Trump had used IEEPA aggressively, including threatening tariffs on Canada over a television advertisement. The levies generated $166 billion in revenue before being struck down, and the government must now refund those payments. To recoup lost revenue, the administration quickly imposed 10% tariffs under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which allows global tariffs of up to 15% for 150 days. Trump has threatened to raise them to the maximum but has not yet done so. These tariffs expire on July 24, and Congress is unlikely to extend them ahead of the midterm elections, given public anger over high prices.
Section 301 as a Replacement
Section 301 offers a more durable alternative, with no limits on tariff size and a four-year term that can be extended. These tariffs withstood legal challenges during Trump's first term against China. While new 301 tariffs will likely face court challenges, they may prove more resilient. Trade lawyer Joyce Adetutu noted, "Even if it is a veiled attempt to reinitiate the IEEPA tariffs, he still has the cover of the process itself." Critics point to the accelerated timeline: the first-term China tariffs took nearly a year, while the current investigations aim to produce tariffs before the Section 122 levies expire, cutting the process in half. Kenya Davis, a partner at Boies Schiller Flexner, commented, "It's such a short timeframe. It's so condensed that it doesn't make a lot of sense that they can do it that quickly."
Importers may find some relief in the procedural constraints of Section 301, which prevent the erratic application seen with IEEPA. As Lincicome explained, "One of the reasons Trump used IEEPA is because it was just a complete blank slate—a little tariff switch in the Oval Office that Trump could flip on and off anytime he wants. You really can't do that with 301."
