Story Highlights
- Section 122 tariff authority, imposing a 10 percent global import surcharge, expires July 24
- The Supreme Court ruled in February that IEEPA does not authorize presidential tariff powers
- The administration is expanding Section 301 investigations covering more than 75 percent of U.S. imports
What Happened
On February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not grant the president authority to impose tariffs, invalidating the April 2025 “Liberation Day” reciprocal tariffs along with related fentanyl-tied tariffs on China, Mexico, and Canada. The ruling forced U.S. Customs and Border Protection to begin processing refunds on an estimated $166 billion in tariffs collected from more than 330,000 businesses under the now-defunct authority.
In response, the administration pivoted to Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, a statute permitting the president to impose temporary import surcharges of up to 15 percent for a maximum of 150 days to address balance-of-payments emergencies. Using this authority, the administration reimposed a 10 percent across-the-board tariff on imports from nearly all countries. However, on May 7, 2026, the Court of International Trade ruled that even this approach exceeded statutory limits, though the decision remains under appeal and the tariffs have continued to be collected pending resolution.
Absent congressional action extending Section 122 authority, the 150-day window expires on July 24, 2026, raising the prospect of another abrupt disruption to the administration’s tariff structure. United States Trade Representative Jamieson Greer’s office has signaled the administration is preparing alternative legal pathways, including an expanded use of Section 301 and Section 232 authorities, both of which carry different procedural requirements but offer more durable legal footing than IEEPA.
Two major Section 301 investigations are currently underway: one examining structural manufacturing overcapacity across sixteen countries representing more than 75 percent of U.S. imports, and another addressing forced-labor enforcement practices spanning sixty economies covering nearly all U.S. trade. Officials have described the goal as maintaining “virtually unchanged tariff revenue” in 2026 even as the legal architecture underlying the tariffs shifts.
Despite the legal turbulence, the administration has continued finalizing bilateral trade agreements throughout 2026, including reciprocal trade deals with Guatemala, El Salvador, Bangladesh, Taiwan, and North Macedonia, alongside a broader framework agreement with the European Union on critical minerals supply chains.
Why It Matters
The looming expiration of Section 122 authority represents more than a bureaucratic technicality. It strikes at the heart of how the administration has financed and structured its broader trade agenda, and a lapse without a replacement mechanism could trigger significant volatility in import costs for American businesses and consumers within weeks.
For American households, the stakes are tangible. According to the Tax Foundation, the cumulative 2026 tariff regime amounts to the largest tax increase as a share of GDP since 1993, translating to an estimated $1,500 average tax increase per household this year. Any disruption in how these tariffs are legally implemented could create further uncertainty for retailers, manufacturers, and importers attempting to plan inventory and pricing months in advance.
For Congress, the deadline creates pressure either to extend Section 122 authority legislatively or to allow the administration’s pivot toward Section 301 and Section 232 tariffs to become the new long-term foundation of U.S. trade policy. Either path carries significant implications for the separation of powers, given that the Constitution assigns tariff authority to Congress, not the executive branch, a point underscored repeatedly by federal courts this year.
For American manufacturers, particularly in steel, aluminum, and copper, the tariff structure has been credited with spurring new domestic investment, including more than 4 million tons of new steelmaking capacity expected to come online in the next two years across states including West Virginia, Arkansas, and South Carolina.
Economic and Global Context
The overall average effective U.S. tariff rate, which spiked to roughly 27 percent in early 2025 amid the initial wave of IEEPA-based tariffs, had fallen to approximately 11.8 percent by April 2026 following negotiated agreements and court rulings. That rate remains historically elevated and continues to shape global trade flows, with metals, metal-containing products, and vehicles experiencing the most significant cost increases.
China remains the most closely watched relationship. Following a series of negotiated truces throughout 2025 and a trade agreement reached at a meeting between President Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping in Busan, South Korea, current tariffs on Chinese goods sit at roughly 20 percent on fentanyl-related items and 10 percent on reciprocal categories, with both sides extending the arrangement through November 2026.
Globally, trading partners have responded unevenly to the shifting legal landscape, with some governments expediting bilateral negotiations to lock in preferential terms before further changes occur, while others have adopted a wait-and-see posture given the unresolved litigation. The European Union’s framework agreement with the United States, finalized in 2025, has continued to be implemented in phases throughout 2026 despite the broader legal uncertainty surrounding IEEPA-based actions.
Domestic industrial investment tied to tariff protection has continued nonetheless, with new aluminum smelting capacity under development in Oklahoma through a joint venture between Century Aluminum and Emirates Global Aluminum, alongside expansion projects from companies including Rio Tinto and Ivanhoe Electric.
Implications
If Congress does not act before July 24, the administration will likely lean further into Section 301 and Section 232 authorities to preserve tariff revenue and leverage, a shift that legal experts say offers more durable footing but requires lengthier investigative processes than the emergency powers previously relied upon.
For businesses, the coming weeks will require close monitoring of Customs and Border Protection guidance, as the legal basis for specific tariff lines could shift with little advance notice, complicating supply chain and pricing decisions heading into the fall shopping season.
For lawmakers, the expiration represents a rare moment of leverage to reassert congressional authority over tariff policy, though partisan dynamics and differing views within the Republican caucus make legislative action far from certain.
For trading partners and allies, continued uncertainty over the legal durability of U.S. tariffs may further incentivize diversification of trade relationships away from reliance on the American market, a trend some economists have already identified as a long-term consequence of the administration’s approach to trade policy.
Sources
