IEEPA Tariffs
If you’d prefer to view this newsletter in one pass on my website, click here.
SCOTUS just ruled against President Trump’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose tariffs but left all other tariffs intact and gave him options to expand tariffs if he wishes. I predicted this result last May and November - so it was expected. Trump has been planning a workaround since then, so don’t worry.
The ruling will actually give Trump MORE options to impose tariffs while limiting the Democrats from WRONGLY using the IEEPA Act in the future to declare some bogus national emergency and use it against us. So, IMHO, in the end, the SCOTUS ruling will bring a net better result.
This newsletter will attempt to explain why. I haven’t been able to polish it yet - but I wanted to get it out now before the weekend and the fake news starts embedding lies in your brain!
Secretary Bessent on SCOTUS decision: “The Court did not rule against Trump’s tariffs. 6 justices ruled that IEEPA cannot be used to raise $1 of revenue. This administration will invoke alternative legal authorities to replace the tariffs.”
The Court held that IEEPA—originally a 1977 law meant for addressing foreign threats through measures like asset freezes and transaction restrictions—can not be used to impose tariffs and Presidents must use other laws.
JOHN YOO: "Actually, President Trump could turn around tomorrow and start the process of reimposing tariffs. He doesn't need new legislation from Congress. There are a bunch of federal statutes. They go by fancy terms like Super 301 and Section 232. There are a bunch of existing trade laws. In fact, President Trump can use IEEPA itself again. The thing that the Court is saying is that you have to do it in a certain way. You have to use the trade laws to be specific as to a country and what that country is doing. Is that country a national security threat?"
After the SCOTUS ruling, President Trump went into the press briefing room and started slapping separate tariffs on countries throughout the world using a 1974 statute never invoked before. Foreign nations are now realizing that the SCOTUS ruling just enabled President Trump to charge them EVEN MORE tariffs than before.
TRUMP: “The top person in Vietnam, who just left my office, said you can now charge us more than before!”
President Trump told the media he’s now going to have to go in a different direction on tariffs — “the direction that I should have gone the first time.”
He then read aloud Justice Kavanaugh’s dissent for all of the press to hear:
KAVANAUGH: “Although I firmly disagree with the court’s holding today, the decision might not substantially constrain a president’s ability to order tariffs going forward.”
He’s right. In fact, I can charge much more than I was charging.
KAVANAUGH: “That’s because numerous other federal statutes, which is so true, authorize the president to impose tariffs and might justify most, if not all, of the tariffs issued in this case — even more tariffs. Those statutes include, for example, the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, section 232. The Trade Act of 1974, sections 122, 201, 301, and the Tariff Act of 1930, section 338.”
Kavanaugh’s dissent spells out how this ruling doesn’t actually stop Trump from imposing tariffs. Trump has a variety of different statutes to order tariffs other than the IEEPA.
TRUMP: “But now I’m going to go in a different direction, probably the direction that I should have gone the first time. But now I’ll go the way I could have gone originally, which is even stronger than our original choice, as Justice Kavanaugh, I’m so proud of him.”
President Trump originally invoked several laws to justify his authority over trade policies, including the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), Section 232, Section 301, and Section 122 Balance of Payments Authority.
The IEEPA of 1977, which had never been used to impose tariffs before, was invoked to declare a national emergency and impose tariffs on imports from Canada, Mexico, and China, citing national security concerns.
Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 allows the president to impose tariffs if imports threaten national security.
Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 grants the president authority to take action against foreign countries that violate U.S. trade laws.
Section 122 Balance of Payments Authority provides the president with the power to impose tariffs to address balance of payments issues. Section 122 allows the president to impose up to 15 percent tariffs for 150 days.
Most people don’t realize that the ORIGINAL lawsuit against ALL of Trump’s tariffs was brought by five small businesses who challenged Trump’s tariffs before he even announced them. They were represented by a group of progressive and Koch Libertarian lawyers from the Liberty Justice Center! That’s why I say that the Koch Libertarians and their lackeys like Thomas Massie, MTG, Justin Amash & Rand Paul are a bigger threat to MAGA than the Democrats! They pretend to be conservatives but they work behind the scenes to block MAGA at every turn!
The SCOTUS ruling against IEEPA tariffs will push Trump to use “Plan B” which has been in the works for months.
Childers said before that he thinks Trump’s recent push to end the filibuster is also part of his “Plan B” for tariffs. I think what Trump really wants is for the Republicans in Congress to nuke the filibuster and to pass a law with 51 votes explicitly authorizing ALL his tariffs AND the Save Act - which would be a start in codifying ALL of MAGA’s agenda into law.
If you still don’t understand what the “terminating the filibuster” means - read this:
Remember, the tariffs that actually matter — Section 232 steel and aluminum, Section 301 China-specific — are still untouched. Still standing. Still working. The White House isn’t rolling anything back. They’re already pivoting to the Trade Act, national security authority, and Congress if needed. The left is celebrating like American manufacturing just got handed back to China. It didn’t.
Goldman: "Using Sec. 122 to quickly replace the 10-15% tariff most countries face while Sec. 301 investigations are under way would allow the administration to replicate most of the IEEPA tariffs using more legally solid authority. However, Sec. 301 investigations are time-consuming and it is unclear whether the administration would pursue these for smaller trading partners."
Goldman: "This won’t be the end of tariffs… the administration will almost certainly roll out alternative legal frameworks. Net result is probably slightly fewer tariffs, materially more trade uncertainty, and some incremental deficit concerns. Net-net, that’s mildly supportive for equities and mildly negative for bonds… but largely priced for both."
The administration is not bluffing about a Plan B. They can instantly trigger Section 122 of the Trade Act to slap a temporary 15% tariff on imports for 150 days. That buys them the exact window needed to launch permanent Section 301 tariffs. The legal justification changed, but the trade taxes are staying.
• Expanded use of Section 232 national security tariffs (no rate caps; already proven effective on steel and aluminum)
• Section 301 actions against unfair trade practices (the foundation of the current China tariffs)
• Section 201 safeguards & additional tools
These options allow the administration to maintain or replace virtually all existing tariff protections.
Treasury Secretary Bessent’s stance is correct—tariffs are strategic leverage, not surrender. The Supreme Court’s ruling on IEEPA doesn’t derail the strategy; it forces a pivot to validated authorities like Section 232 and 301. The overall revenue will NOT change.
The administration’s tariff framework has already delivered ONE TRILLION in annual revenue, funded deficit reduction, and forced China to slash their tariffs from 125% to 10%.
The Supreme Court’s ruling against IEEPA tariffs may turn out to be a net positive: imagine if Democrats get into power and claim a "climate emergency?"
Allegedly, about 15% of the tariff revenue collected under the IEEPA so far might need to be refunded, but SCOTUS didn’t address that issue AT ALL and ANY repayment will be tied up in court for at least 2 years - and by then Trump will be out of office!
TRUMP: “I guess it has to get litigated for the next two years. So, they write this terrible, defective decision, totally defective. That was the first question I asked also to make you feel good. I said, what about all the money that we’ve taken in so far? Sir, they don’t discuss that. How crazy is that?”
So what is the net result of the Supreme Court’s ruling?
Trump gets to keep important tariffs in place and in full effect, just under a different statute, and he has already slapped an extra 15% global tariff on all imports, bringing in even more money. Refunds will likely NEVER happen - they will be tied up in court for years. The tariff ruling actually made him stronger and also eliminated the future possibility that the Democrats could use the same ruling to hurt America!
SCOTUS’s ruling basically said Trump was using the wrong law for his tariffs, so Trump just issued the same tariffs under different laws and increased them by 15%.
He also exposed the RINOs on the court in his statement:
President Trump says SCOTUS Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gorsuch "EMBARRASSED" their families by ruling against his tariffs.
"Their decision was terrible. I think it's an EMBARRASSMENT to their families, you wanna know the truth. The 2 of them."
PRESIDENT TRUMP: “The Supreme Court’s Ruling on TARIFFS is deeply disappointing! I am ashamed of certain Members of the Court for not having the Courage to do what is right for our Country.
I would like to thank and congratulate Justices Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh for your Strength, Wisdom, and Love of our Country, which is right now very proud of you. When you read the dissenting opinions, there is no way that anyone can argue against them. Foreign Countries that have been ripping us off for years are ecstatic, and dancing in the streets — But they won’t be dancing for long!
The Democrats on the Court are thrilled, but they will automatically vote “NO” against ANYTHING that makes America Strong and Healthy Again. They, also, are a Disgrace to our Nation. Others think they’re being “politically correct,” which has happened before, far too often, with certain Members of this Court when, in fact, they’re just FOOLS and “LAPDOGS” for the RINOS and Radical Left Democrats and, not that this should have anything to do with it, very unpatriotic, and disloyal to the Constitution. It is my opinion that the Court has been swayed by Foreign Interests, and a Political Movement that is far smaller than people would think — But obnoxious, ignorant, and loud!
This was an important case to me, more as a symbol of Economic and National Security, than anything else. The Good News is that there are methods, practices, Statutes, and other Authorities, as recognized by the entire Court and Congress, that are even stronger than the IEEPA TARIFFS, available to me as President of the United States of America and, in actuality, I was very modest in my “ask” of other Countries and Businesses because I wanted to do nothing that could sway the decision that has been rendered by the Court.
I have very effectively utilized TARIFFS over the past year to, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN. Our Stock Market has just recently broken the 50,000 mark on the DOW and, simultaneously, 7,000 on the S&P, two numbers that everybody thought, upon our Landslide Election Victory, could not be attained until the very end of my Administration — Four years! TARIFFS have, likewise, been used to end five of the eight Wars that I settled, have given us Great National Security and, together with our Strong Border, reduced Fentanyl coming into our Country by 30%, when I use them as a penalty against Countries illegally sending this poison to us. All of those TARIFFS remain, but other alternatives will now be used to replace the ones that the Court incorrectly rejected.
To show you how ridiculous the opinion is, the Court said that I’m not allowed to charge even $1 DOLLAR to any Country under IEEPA, I assume to protect other Countries, not the United States which they should be interested in protecting — But I am allowed to cut off any and all Trade or Business with that same Country, even imposing a Foreign Country destroying embargo, and do anything else I want to do to them — How nonsensical is that?
They are saying that I have the absolute right to license, but not the right to charge a license fee. What license has ever been issued without the right to charge a fee? But now the Court has given me the unquestioned right to ban all sorts of things from coming into our Country, a much more powerful Right than many people thought we had.
Our Country is the “HOTTEST” anywhere in the World, but now, I am going in a different direction, which is even stronger than our original choice. As Justice Kavanaugh wrote in his Dissent:
“Although I firmly disagree with the Court's holding today, the decision might not substantially constrain a President's ability to order tariffs going forward. That is because numerous other federal statutes authorize the President to impose tariffs and might justify most (if not all) of the tariffs issued in this case...Those statutes include, for example, the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (Section 232); the Trade Act of 1974 (Sections 122, 201, and 301); and the Tariff Act of 1930 (Section 338).”
Thank you Justice Kavanaugh!
In actuality, while I am sure they did not mean to do so, the Supreme Court’s decision today made a President’s ability to both regulate Trade, and impose TARIFFS, more powerful and crystal clear, rather than less. There will no longer be any doubt, and the Income coming in, and the protection of our Companies and Country, will actually increase because of this decision. Based on longstanding Law and Hundreds of Victories to the contrary, the Supreme Court did not overrule TARIFFS, they merely overruled a particular use of IEEPA TARIFFS. The ability to block, embargo, restrict, license, or impose any other condition on a Foreign Country’s ability to conduct Trade with the United States under IEEPA, has been fully confirmed by this decision. In order to protect our Country, a President can actually charge more TARIFFS than I was charging in the past under the various other TARIFF authorities, which have also been confirmed, and fully allowed.
Therefore, effective immediately, all National Security TARIFFS, Section 232 and existing Section 301 TARIFFS, remain in place, and in full force and effect. Today I will sign an Order to impose a 10% GLOBAL TARIFF, under Section 122, over and above our normal TARIFFS already being charged, and we are also initiating several Section 301 and other Investigations to protect our Country from unfair Trading practices. Thank you for your attention to this matter. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!”
O’CONNOR: "Chief Justice Roberts somehow found language in the Constitution that allowed Obamacare to go through - forcing you to buy health insurance under penalty of law......but couldn't find language having to do with the tariffs?!"
In retrospect, I believe that President Trump decided to use the IEEPA Act for tariffs in April 2025 because it was the FASTEST WAY to implement them - even though he knew that particular act could be struck down later by SCOTUS.
He knew there were other legal ways to invoke tariffs - but they all would take too long - and he didn't have the time to wait.
So, he used the IEEPA to jump start them quickly - and knew that if SCOTUS ruled against using the IEEPA Act - he could shift to other means later, which is exactly what he is doing.
That's called: IT'S EASIER TO ASK FOR FORGIVENESS THAN PERMISSION when you need to get stuff done and you only have so much time.
PS: Gorsuch wrote a lengthy analysis of the major questions doctrine (MQD) as it related to his decision on Trump’s IEEPA tariff case. That has implications going forward. It’s complicated but I am trying to understand it so I can explain it to others.
The major questions doctrine (MQD) is a straightforward rule that U.S. courts (especially the Supreme Court) use to limit how much power federal agencies or the executive branch can claim.
In simple terms: If an action involves a major political, economic, or social issue—with huge nationwide impacts like massive costs, broad changes to industries, or deep effects on people’s lives—then the agency or president can’t do it unless Congress has given very clear, EXPLICIT permission in the law’s EXACT words.
Vague, general, or implied authority isn’t enough. The major questions doctrine (MQD) is a simple court rule to check federal agencies and presidents. It says they can’t take huge actions on big issues unless Congress spells out clear permission in the exact law.
Vague words like “regulate” or “necessary” don’t cut it. The Supreme Court won’t assume Congress handed over such big decisions without saying so plainly.
Courts first check if the issue is truly “major” (e.g., affects billions of dollars, shifts entire industries, or has sweeping national effects).
If yes, they demand clear congressional authorization—no relying on fuzzy phrases like “regulate” or “necessary.”
Without that clear green light, courts block or strike down the action.
Key Supreme Court Examples From The Past
FDA v. Brown & Williamson (2000): The Court stopped the FDA from regulating tobacco because Congress hadn’t clearly given the agency power over such a huge economic and political topic.
Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA (2014): Limited EPA’s greenhouse gas rules under the Clean Air Act for lacking explicit authority.
King v. Burwell (2015): Refused to defer to the IRS on major Affordable Care Act subsidies due to the issue’s importance.
West Virginia v. EPA (2022): The first case to openly name and apply MQD—struck down broad EPA climate rules for power plants without clear congressional okay.
Biden v. Nebraska (2023): Blocked widespread student loan forgiveness as a massive economic move without explicit statutory power.
A more recent example from 2026: In Learning Resources v. Trump, the Supreme Court (6-3) struck down broad tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), relying partly on MQD. Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Gorsuch emphasized that such sweeping economic actions needed clear congressional authorization, not vague emergency powers.
Over the next few months, the Supreme Court will make several important decisions which could impact MAGA and the Trump agenda:
Birthright citizenship— which could forever end birth tourism.
Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act— which could add up to 27 additional Republican House seats.
Fed Independence and Firing of Agency Heads— which could give President Trump de facto control of the Federal Reserve.
SCOTUS could use MQD to decide these - like the tariff ruling - but in these cases, MQD would favor Trump.
On birthright citizenship:
Agencies have long read 14th Amendment’s “subject to the jurisdiction” broadly—giving citizenship to kids of illegals (except diplomats), fueling birth tourism. MQD could strike agency rules enforcing the old view without Congress’s explicit say, ending automatic citizenship for non-citizen parents’ kids.
SCOTUS would likely assess a Trump executive order under MQD if agencies like DHS or State Department issue implementing rules, arguing the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction” excludes birth tourists or illegals parents’ kids.
Agencies have historically interpreted the words “subject to the jurisdiction” expansively to grant near-universal birthright citizenship - creating millions of citizens annually.
On Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act:
DOJ has pushed proportional minority districts, diluting some votes. MQD views nationwide redistricting mandates as “major” electoral shifts without clear statutory backing. This could add 27 GOP House seats by letting Trump’s DOJ narrow enforcement.
Agencies have interpreted Section 2 to require proportional representation, but SCOTUS might deem such nationwide electoral reshaping “major” without Congress specifying it. This would empower Trump’s DOJ and boost Republican gains without new legislation.
On Firing of Federal Reserve Chair:
MQD bolsters Trump’s push for Presidential control of the Federal Reserve Chair by voiding agency claims of “for cause” removal protections if statutes like the Federal Reserve Act are too vague for insulating monetary policy from presidents on trillion-dollar scales. This hands Trump reins over rates and inflation without “major” bureaucratic resistance and lets Trump fire the chair at will.
In other words, all three pending cases before SCOTUS could be ruled in favor of Trump due to SCOTUS applying a MQD doctrine review like Gorsuch and Barrett and Roberts just did in the IEEPA tariff case. That’s the good news.
I hope that helps you understand what’s going on - and if I missed anything important I’ll update this newsletter next week. Have a good weekend. Hugs! God Bless!
If you enjoy my articles, please consider making a donation. This is what one of my readers had to say about my work. Thank you!
My work is free for all but supported by donations from many generous readers like Sparky. Thank you to all who have donated in the past. I truly appreciate you!
How can you donate? In many ways: You can fund me by becoming a paid subscriber on Substack, donate by credit or debit card here or by Cash App at $TierneyRealNews, send me a check to Peggy Tierney, PO Box 242, Spooner, Wisconsin 54801- or just send me a note or a card! I love hearing from you.
If you use the Substack app to read my newsletters - please make sure you check your settings so that you receive it BOTH by email and in the app. I don’t want you to miss a newsletter!
You can always email me at peggy@TierneyRealNewsNetwork.com. Please follow me on Telegram at t.me/TierneyRealNews. Follow me on Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100079025148615. Or you can find me on Truth Social @MaggiePeggy123.