When the Supreme Court ruled on February 20, 2026 that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act did not authorize President Donald Trump to impose tariffs, the decision appeared to limit one of the largest attempted expansions of presidential trade power in modern history. The administration, however, still had several other trade policy levers available and quickly turned to forward much of its tariff agenda.

In July, tariffs of 10% or 12.5% were imposed on imports from 60 economies by the United States Trade Representative in accordance with Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. The U.S. government contended that these nations had not been able to ban imports made through forced labor. These duties affected more than 99 percent of United States imports, indicating the widespread effects of an action made without Congressional approval. The process exposes a deeper issue with the US government. Congress has set up a situation where presidents have the ability to make big economic decisions without the consent of the legislature. Trump has been more aggressive in using these powers compared to his predecessors, but the powers will survive him.

Congress Originally Controlled Tariffs

The Constitution gives Congress the authority to impose duties, in this case, tariffs, and regulate commerce with foreign nations. A tariff is a tax placed on an imported product. The American company importing that product pays the federal government and may pass some of the additional cost to customers. Tariffs can affect prices, protect domestic industries, punish foreign governments, and reshape relationships between countries.

With such vast economic implications, Congress was charged with dictating tariffs , as to make lawmakers deliberate about the trade policy, make public votes, and then be accountable for its effects. The president was supposed to implement the policy, and Congress had the power to determine how it was done .Over time,  Congress gave away all of its implementation powers to the president.. It made sense in some way. Trade disputes could arise much faster than the Congress managed to pass laws. For example, foreign governments could suddenly prevent entry of goods from America, subsidize its own industries, or threaten access to strategic materials.

Congress therefore created several tools for different situations. Section 232  allows restrictions on imports that threaten national security. Section 301 allows action against unfair foreign trade practices. Section 122 permits temporary import restrictions during serious international payment problems. Each law was written to address a particular problem. When combined, they provide presidents with several routes to impose tariffs without receiving new approval from Congress. A president may lose access to one route in court and still continue a similar policy through another.

Trump Expanded the System Congress Created

Trump illustrated that separate tariff powers could be a wider form of executive governance. Initially, his administration used emergency powers to justify tariffs. The Supreme Court ruled against that view by determining that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act was no grounds for granting tariff power. In response, the administration used other trade laws that were granted to the executive branch, such as Sections 122, 232, and 301.

A perfect illustration of Trump’s efforts is found in Section 301. This statute enables the government to review and impose measures on foreign policies that have an adverse impact on US commerce. It has traditionally been used in focused disputes, where most of the cases in the recent past pertain to trade policies in China. The 2026 case of the administration made use of the statute in 60 economies simultaneously.

However, forced labor is still a pertinent issue worldwide. If companies that adhere to stringent labor laws in America are subjected to competitive pressure from companies that exploit workers, then there is an issue of degree and uniformity of the approach. The economic systems under scrutiny have different laws regarding labor, different industries, different enforcement processes, and even different relations with America, but they have only two tariff rates. On August 3, 25 states sued the administration, arguing that forced labor had become a justification for restoring broad tariffs the Supreme Court had rejected under a different law. The administration maintains that Section 301 directly authorizes the policy.

It will be up to the courts to rule on the legality of this specific interpretation of Section 301. Even if such an adverse judgment is made, it will not dismantle the system of delegated authority that governs tariffs. The courts are able to decide whether a president exceeded his authority under a single piece of legislation. It is for Congress to decide how much power presidents wield economically under all of them.

Congress Benefits From Giving Power Away

Presidential power is often portrayed as the result of executive ambition, but Congress has also contributed by delegating authority that later presidents can expand. This view fails to consider the political gains that Congress obtains through delegation. Delegation of the tariff power to the president gives Congress the opportunity to escape blame from tough economic decisions. A senator can hail tariff measures that will help industries in his/her state without having to worry about the higher prices faced by local farmers, merchants or industrialists.

A vote by Congress would strip away most of this insulation. Each representative would have to publicly evaluate whether any particular tariff was worth the price paid for it, and present the case to the electorate. With delegation, any legislator can exercise influence on policy decisions without taking full responsibility for them. The outcome has been a cycle where Congress enacts sweeping legislation, presidents interpret it expansively, lawsuits are brought up against them, and courts continually redefine the extent of presidential powers. Changes in policy will then happen whenever there is a change of president or a court ruling. This is the reason why there is a continuous expansion of presidential power in part because Congress finds political gain in it.

Future Presidents Will Inherit the Same Power

The legacy of executive tariffs will be one that lasts beyond the Trump administration since such powers tend to endure past the administrations which expand them. The next Democratic president can use executive powers in trade to exert influence on other nations regarding environmental, labor, or human rights issues. Similarly, the next Republican president can do the same in terms of immigration, manufacturing policies, or national security issues. This creates instability for companies deciding where to build factories, hire workers, purchase materials, and organize supply chains. Trade rules may change through a presidential announcement, continue through another statute, face years of litigation, and then be reversed by the next administration. Reuters has reported that the growing use of tariff, sanction, and export control powers is already forcing businesses to reconsider supply chains, investments, and long term compliance strategies. It also weakens the reliability of international agreements. Foreign governments may hesitate to enter long term arrangements when American trade policy can change substantially depending on who occupies the White House.

As this system expands, American economic policy becomes more dependent on presidential discretion and less dependent on legislation that can survive changes in administration.

Congress Must Take Responsibility Again

The president would nevertheless require flexibility in case of a real emergency situation regarding international trade relations. Immediate steps would be needed in case of a national security issue or foreign trade violation. This power must have its limit. Broad tariffs must cease after some time period if not extended by Congress. In this case, the president could act promptly while Congress would bear the responsibility of creating policies that change the economic situation.

The proposed Congressional Trade Powers Reform Act of 2026 would eliminate or reform several tariff authorities delegated to the president. It would also require congressional approval for presidential tariff proposals and create a joint congressional committee focused on tariffs and trade.

While Trump made further use of presidential powers over tariffs, the legal framework for such an increase in executive power was established by Congress. Should Congress fail to take back its power that it gave away, future presidents will be handed another tool to govern without congressional consent.

Acknowledgement

The Institute for Youth in Policy wishes to acknowledge Sarah Hutchison for editing this op-ed.

Image Credit

Żerdzicki, Jakub. “A Person Sitting at a Desk with a Calculator and a Notebook.” Photograph. February 14, 2024. Unsplash. https://unsplash.com/photos/a-person-sitting-at-a-desk-with-a-calculator-and-a-notebook-LNnmSumlwO4.