Trump rewrites tariffs again after courts strike down earlier versions
Left says
- •The rapid succession of tariff regimes shows an administration cycling through obscure legal authorities to preserve a policy the courts keep rejecting, rather than seeking congressional approval as the Constitution intends.
- •Small businesses like Learning Resources and Collective Horology have already paid tens of thousands of dollars in tariffs from earlier invalidated programs and still await refunds, showing the real financial harm of legally shaky policy.
- •Using forced-labor findings as a pretext for near-uniform global tariffs, rather than country-specific evidence, suggests the administration decided on rates first and manufactured justifications afterward, according to the plaintiffs' complaint.
- •New tariffs risk compounding inflation from the Iran war just as households are already straining under higher costs, threatening budgets at a particularly sensitive economic moment.
Right says
- •The administration is using lawful, established trade statutes like Section 301 and Section 338 to address legitimate concerns, including forced labor practices abroad and Canada's discriminatory trade policies against U.S. autos, dairy and alcohol.
- •Countries can earn lower tariff rates by reforming their policies, as India did by adopting anti-forced-labor measures, demonstrating the tariffs are designed to change behavior rather than simply punish.
- •The new approach carves out exemptions for energy, food, fertilizer and other sensitive goods specifically to limit inflationary impact and economic disruption on American consumers.
- •Trade officials followed required procedural steps, including a formal investigation and public comment period, before imposing the new duties, distinguishing this from the emergency powers courts previously struck down.
Common Take
High Consensus- The Supreme Court invalidated Trump's original tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act earlier this year.
- The new tariffs impose rates of 10% to 12.5% on imports from dozens of trading partners and took effect as the temporary Section 122 global tariff expired.
- Multiple small businesses, including Learning Resources, Burlap & Barrel and Collective Horology, have filed lawsuits challenging the newest tariffs in the Court of International Trade.
- The tariffs include exemptions for goods like certain food products, energy and fertilizers to reduce economic disruption.
The Arguments
Left argues
The administration has cycled through three distinct legal authorities in under a year — IEEPA, Section 122, and now Section 301/Section 338 — after courts rejected or cast doubt on earlier versions, suggesting the goal is preserving a predetermined policy rather than following the law wherever it leads.
Right counters
Trying multiple lawful statutes after courts narrow one authority is not evidence of lawlessness; it shows the administration adapting to judicial rulings while still pursuing legitimate trade objectives through different, valid channels Congress already authorized.
Right argues
Unlike the emergency IEEPA tariffs, the new Section 301 tariffs followed the statute's required process — a formal investigation, public comment period, and country-specific findings — before taking effect, distinguishing this action from the abrupt executive maneuvers courts have struck down.
Left counters
Plaintiffs allege USTR set the tariff rates first and manufactured the forced-labor justifications afterward, applying nearly identical rates across more than 60 disparate economies rather than the individualized findings Section 301 actually requires.
Left argues
Small businesses like Collective Horology have already absorbed over $160,000 in tariff costs from earlier invalidated regimes with refunds still outstanding, showing that legally shaky policy imposes real, immediate financial harm on Main Street while litigation drags on.
Right counters
The new tariff structure specifically carves out exemptions for energy, food, fertilizer, and other sensitive goods precisely to limit the kind of economic disruption critics point to, and businesses harmed by invalidated tariffs retain a legal path to refunds.
Right argues
The tariffs are designed to change behavior, not simply punish — India secured the lower 10% rate by adopting anti-forced-labor measures after the investigation began, demonstrating the policy creates real incentives for reform rather than serving as a blanket revenue grab.
Left counters
One country adjusting its policy doesn't refute the core allegation that near-uniform rates were applied to over 60 economies without the individualized burden-on-commerce findings Section 301 requires, suggesting rate-setting preceded any genuine country-specific analysis.
Left argues
Layering new tariffs, including a 50% duty on Canadian goods, onto an economy already absorbing inflationary pressure from the Iran war risks compounding costs for households at a particularly vulnerable moment, regardless of the tariffs' legal footing.
Right counters
The administration exempted autos, lumber, semiconductors, pharmaceuticals, and aircraft from the Canada tariffs and excluded energy and food from the broader Section 301 action specifically to blunt inflationary impact while still addressing genuine trade grievances like Canadian discrimination against U.S. dairy and alcohol.
Challenge Questions
These questions target genuine internal contradictions — meant to provoke honest reflection.
Right asks Left
“If the left's objection is fundamentally about process and constitutional propriety, does invoking Section 301 — a statute Congress passed and which requires investigation and public comment — actually satisfy that concern, or is the real objection to tariffs as a policy regardless of the legal vehicle used?”
Left asks Right
“If Section 301 requires country-specific findings of how each nation's practices burden U.S. commerce, how does applying nearly identical 10-12.5% rates across more than 60 economically diverse economies satisfy that individualized statutory standard rather than looking like a predetermined global rate applied after the fact?”
Outlier Report
Left Fringe
Progressive free-trade skeptics and some labor-aligned Democrats (e.g., voices sympathetic to Bernie Sanders' past tariff positions) who actually support forced-labor tariffs on principle, diverging from the mainstream left critique of Trump's tariff process; likely under 10% of the left.
Right Fringe
Libertarian/free-market conservatives like those at the Cato Institute, Reason magazine's Ilya Somin, and the Liberty Justice Center who oppose Trump's tariffs on constitutional and free-trade grounds, breaking sharply from mainstream Republican support; roughly 15-20% of the right.
Noise Assessment
High noise from trade lawyers, policy wonks, and X/Twitter legal commentary (e.g., Peter Harrell, Ilya Somin) debating statutory technicalities that most ordinary Americans are not tracking closely; public sentiment is driven more by simple price and inflation concerns than by the legal mechanism debates dominating media coverage.
Sources (7)
Trump's levies on more than 80 countries took effect on Friday.
<p>The small businesses that brought two high-profile<a href="https://www.axios.com/2025/04/16/trump-tariffs-main-street-lawsuit" target="_blank"> legal challenges</a> to President Trump's trade agenda are suing to block the latest round of tariffs.</p><p><strong>Why it matters</strong>: The lawsuits set up another legal test of Trump's <a href="https://www.axios.com/economy/tariffs" target="_blank">tariff</a> agenda after courts this year rejected one tariff regime and cast doubt on another.</p><hr /><p><strong>What's new: </strong>One lawsuit was filed on behalf of Burlap & Barrel, which previously challenged <a href="https://www.axios.com/politics-policy/donald-trump" target="_blank">Trump's</a> temporary <a href="https://www.axios.com/2026/02/24/trump-tariffs-supreme-court-section-122" target="_blank">Section 122 tariffs</a>, and watch retailer Collective Horology. </p><ul><li>The other was brought by toymaker Learning Resources — which won a Supreme Court case <a href="https://www.axios.com/2026/02/20/trump-tariffs-supreme-court-illegal" target="_blank">overturning Trump's tariffs</a> under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act— along with a flooring manufacturer and affiliated firms.</li></ul><p><strong>Catch up quick: </strong>The lawsuits challenge <a href="https://www.axios.com/2026/07/23/trump-tariffs-trade-labor" target="_blank">the administration's new tariffs</a> imposed under Section 301 of the Trade Act, which took effect last week as the White House's temporary Section 122 levies expired. </p><ul><li>The action generally imposes tariffs of 10% or 12.5% on imports from more than 60 economies that the Trump administration says failed to adequately block goods made with forced labor.</li></ul><p><strong>What they're saying:</strong> The Liberty Justice Center, representing Burlap & Barrel and Collective Horology, argues that the administration stretched what Congress intended as a targeted trade remedy into a sweeping global tariff regime.</p><ul><li>U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer "determined the tariff rates first ... and assembled economy-specific findings afterward to justify them," the public interest law firm, which previously represented businesses challenging Trump's tariffs, alleges in a complaint.</li></ul><p><strong>The suit filed on behalf </strong>of Learning Resources says Trump officials relied on generalized findings rather than demonstrating how each country's practices burdened U.S. commerce, as the statute requires.</p><ul><li>The complaint alleges that the administration imposed the same set of sweeping global tariffs after earlier legal defeats: "The third time's not the charm," the complaint says.</li></ul><p><strong>What they're saying:</strong> Collective Horology co-founder Asher Rapkin tells Axios that the earlier tariff regimes cost the watch retailer more than $160,000, with refunds from the earlier invalidated tariffs still outstanding.</p><ul><li>"Section 301 tariffs are most definitely going to hamstring my business in the exact same way that the previous two phases of tariffs have," Rapkin says.</li><li>The company imports watches from Switzerland, where Rapkin says there is virtually no U.S. manufacturing alternative.</li></ul><p><strong>Flashback:</strong> Courts have already rejected Trump's first attempt to impose sweeping tariffs under emergency powers, while a separate challenge to his temporary replacement tariffs under Section 122 remains on appeal. </p><ul><li><strong>Now:</strong> The challenge has shifted from whether the administration has tariff authority to how officials are exercising their trade power.</li></ul><p><strong>The other side: </strong>The White House did not respond to a request for comment.</p><ul><li>A senior administration official last week defended the tariffs as a legitimate use of Section 301, saying they are designed to eliminate unfair trading practices rather than replace the administration's earlier tariff programs.</li></ul><p><strong>The bottom line: </strong>Small businesses have been consequential players in the fight over Trump's tariff power, repeatedly forcing the administration back into court as it pivots from one legal authority to the next.</p>
The suits were filed Friday: One by Learning Resources, an educational toy company, and the other by New York-based spice retailer Burlap & Barrel and California watch seller Collective Horology.
<p>The White House<strong> </strong>has found new legal ways to <a href="https://www.axios.com/2026/07/23/trump-tariffs-trade-labor" target="_blank">keep tariffs flowing</a>. But it's not enough to fully replace the revenue from the import taxes the Supreme Court struck down.</p><p><strong>The intrigue:</strong> The administration's replacement tariffs would raise about $105 billion a year — replacing about 60% of the revenue lost when the Supreme Court invalidated the administration's emergency tariff regime, according to the <a href="https://www.crfb.org/blogs/section-301-and-338-tariffs-replace-less-60-lost-ieepa-revenue" target="_blank">Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget</a>.</p><hr /><p><strong>Why it matters: </strong>The administration's new tariffs are narrower and include more carveouts than the emergency duties they replaced, reducing both the potential economic fallout and the revenue they generate.</p><p><strong>By the numbers: </strong>CRFB estimates that Trump's latest tariff actions — including the new duties on dozens of trading partners that took effect overnight, those on <a href="https://www.axios.com/2026/07/16/trump-tariffs-brazil" target="_blank">Brazil</a> and the proposed tariffs on <a href="https://www.axios.com/2026/07/20/trump-tariffs-canada-trade-war" target="_blank">Canada</a> — would raise about $950 billion through 2036, compared with $1.7 trillion from the broader emergency tariffs, a gap of roughly $825 billion.</p><ul><li>The projections assume the new tariffs survive legal challenges and remain in place. They also don't account for any additional trade actions the administration could announce in the months ahead.</li></ul><p><strong>The big picture:</strong> The new tariffs generally carry lower rates than the regime enacted under IEEPA, generating substantially less revenue, and are imposed under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. </p><ul><li>That process allows U.S. trade officials to tailor product coverage — and exclude a range of goods they believe would cause unnecessary economic disruption — after a formal investigation and public comment.</li><li>Notably, the exclusions include energy products, limiting the risk that new tariffs amplify the inflationary effects of the Iran-related oil shock.</li></ul><p><strong>The other side: </strong>The White House rejects the idea that the new tariffs were aimed at replacing the illegal duties.</p><ul><li>A senior official said synchronizing them with the expiration of temporary tariffs was intended to provide continuity and predictability for businesses, not necessarily to recreate the earlier regime.</li></ul><p><strong>What to watch:</strong> The Treasury Department is still unwinding the old tariffs. In June, net customs receipts fell to negative $25.6 billion as refund checks to importers outpaced new tariff collections.</p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.axios.com/politics-policy/donald-trump" target="_blank">Trump</a> administration <a href="https://ustr.gov/about/policy-offices/press-office/fact-sheets/2026/july/fact-sheet-ustr-section-301-action-response-failure-60-economies-ban-imports-produced-forced-labor" target="_blank">announced</a> a new round of tariffs up to 12.5% on 60 trading partners on Thursday, preventing a lapse in import taxes as a temporary tariff program nears expiration.</p><p><strong>Why it matters: </strong>It shows the White House's determination to preserve its <a href="https://www.axios.com/economy/tariffs" target="_blank">tariff</a> agenda by turning to new trade laws as earlier authorities expire or face legal challenges. </p><hr /><ul><li>The new tariffs take effect at 12:01am ET on Friday,<strong> </strong>precisely when the <a href="https://www.axios.com/2026/07/21/trump-smoot-hawley-tariffs-canada" target="_blank">temporary duties</a> end.</li><li>It's been one of the busiest weeks for President Trump's trade agenda in months, from new tariffs on Brazil to fresh threats <a href="https://www.axios.com/2026/07/20/trump-tariffs-canada-trade-war" target="_blank">against Canada</a> and now a broader new tariff authority.</li></ul><p><strong>Zoom out:</strong> The tariffs stem from an <a href="https://www.axios.com/2026/03/11/trump-tariffs-trade-301" target="_blank">investigation launched</a> by U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer in March under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 into whether trading partners had failed to effectively block goods made with forced labor.</p><ul><li>USTR concluded in June that those practices unfairly burden U.S. commerce, clearing the way for the U.S. to impose tariffs.</li><li>Countries that have banned forced labor but are not effectively enforcing it, in the U.S. government's judgment, will face a 10% tariff. Other nations' goods will be subject to a rate of 12.5%.</li><li>A senior administration official said India had adopted measures prohibiting trade in forced-labor goods since USTR proposed the tariffs in June, qualifying it for the lower rate. The administration says that shows countries can earn more favorable treatment by changing their policies.</li></ul><p><strong>Between the lines: </strong><a href="https://www.axios.com/energy-climate/oil-companies" target="_blank">Oil</a> and gas, certain fertilizers and some food products are among the goods exempted, reflecting concerns about economic disruption.</p><p><strong>The big picture:</strong> The administration has been searching for more durable legal footing to impose its tariffs since the Supreme Court <a href="https://www.axios.com/2026/02/20/supreme-court-tariff-ruling-trump-ieepa" target="_blank">ruled earlier this year</a> that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act doesn't authorize the president to impose import duties.</p><ul><li>IEEPA had effectively functioned as an "on-off switch," allowing the White House to announce, suspend or modify tariffs almost overnight. </li><li>Section 301, by contrast, is slower and more procedural, requiring a formal investigation, public comment and an official finding before tariffs can be imposed.</li></ul><p><strong>The intrigue:</strong> Immediately after the Supreme Court's ruling, the White House <a href="https://www.axios.com/2026/02/24/trump-tariffs-supreme-court-section-122" target="_blank">pivoted to Section 122</a> of the Trade Act of 1974, a never-before-used provision that allows an across-the-board tariff up to 15% for no more than 150 days to address balance-of-payments problems.</p><ul><li>Those 10% tariffs were set to expire on Friday, with no way to renew them without congressional approval, creating pressure on the administration to find another legal basis to keep import duties in place.</li></ul><p><strong>The bottom line: </strong>In the span of a week, the administration has reshuffled the legal foundation of its tariff regime yet again — a sign that Trump's trade agenda is now just as defined by legal maneuvering as it is economics.</p><p><strong>What to watch:</strong> Higher tariffs might be ahead. The Trump administration is still investigating whether to impose tariffs over excess manufacturing issues.</p>
<p>The Trump administration keeps finding new ways to wage trade wars. As one novel tariff authority nears its expiration, it's testing another — <a href="https://www.axios.com/2026/07/20/trump-tariffs-canada-trade-war" target="_blank">threatening huge duties on Canadian goods</a> under a never-before-used law.</p><p><strong>Why it matters: </strong>The administration's willingness to test new trade authorities makes tariff policy harder for businesses, investors and foreign governments to handicap.</p><hr /><ul><li>It's hard to know which will survive challenges in the courts, and over what time horizon there may be any resolution.</li><li>Even if individual tariffs are delayed or struck down, the administration can still use the threat of them to gain negotiating leverage while forcing companies to plan for higher costs.</li><li>It's unfolding even as renewed conflict in the Middle East pushes up energy costs and inflation risks — a backdrop that many economists thought would discourage the White House from opening new trade war fronts.</li></ul><p><strong>Driving the news: </strong>The White House says the tariffs respond to what it considers Canadian discrimination against U.S. autos, dairy and alcohol. </p><ul><li>The administration invoked the never-before-used Section 338 of the 1930 Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act and chose the maximum penalty allowed by the law: 50% duties, applied to roughly $20 billion of Canadian imports starting in August.</li><li>The duties would raise the average tariff rate on Canadian goods by roughly 2.3 percentage points, according to Karl Schamotta, Corpay's chief market strategist.</li></ul><p><strong>Between the lines:</strong> Section 338 is the latest legal authority the administration has reached for after courts earlier this year <a href="https://www.axios.com/2026/02/20/trump-tariffs-supreme-court-illegal" target="_blank">narrowed its emergency tariff powers</a>.</p><ul><li>The White House quickly replaced many of those invalidated tariffs with a 10% global levy under Section 122 — another never-before-used authority that happens to expire on Friday.</li><li>A federal trade court later struck down the <a href="https://www.axios.com/2026/02/20/trump-tariff-plan-section-122-trade-act" target="_blank">Section 122 tariffs</a>, though an appeals court allowed them to remain in effect pending appeal.</li><li>As that authority fades, the administration is replenishing its arsenal with more traditional trade laws. Top Trump trade official Jamieson Greer told CNBC on Tuesday morning to "expect to see some action soon" from a <a href="https://www.axios.com/2026/03/11/trump-tariffs-trade-301" target="_blank">forced-labor investigation</a> expected to produce tariffs on dozens of countries.</li></ul><p><strong>What to watch: </strong>Trade lawyers suggest the latest Canadian tariffs are also likely to face legal scrutiny — that is, if they take effect.</p><ul><li>Peter Harrell, a visiting scholar at Georgetown Law's Institute of International Economic Law, <a href="https://x.com/petereharrell/status/2079326559958356085" target="_blank">wrote on X on Monday night</a> that a potential challenger could argue that the administration bypassed the required procedures to impose the tariffs.</li><li>Ilya Somin — who helped successfully challenge President Trump's International Emergency Economic Powers Act tariffs — wrote that Congress <a href="https://reason.com/volokh/2026/07/20/trump-imposes-new-illegal-tariffs-on-canada/" target="_blank">"superseded" Section 338</a> through later trade legislation, leaving it without independent authority to impose new tariffs.</li></ul><p><strong>The other side:</strong> A senior administration official argued Section 338's "terms are clear" and said Canada's retaliation and preferential treatment of third countries "fits squarely" within the statute.</p><p><strong>The bottom line: </strong>"The toothpaste is out of the tube. ... We would not be surprised to see [Section] 338 wielded against others," TD Cowen's Chris Krueger wrote in a client note Monday night, adding that "338 is the new IEEPA." </p><ul><li>"Litigation [is] likely a question of when, not if, but that is likely a 2027 — or even 2028 — story. In the near term, elbows up across the board," Krueger added.</li></ul><p><strong>Trump stopped short</strong> of targeting some of Canada's most strategically important exports, exempting autos, lumber, semiconductors, pharmaceuticals and aircraft products from the new duties.</p><p><strong>The intrigue: </strong>That's consistent with an administration trying to maximize negotiating leverage while limiting economic blowback, at a time when American voters are angry about inflation and the Iran war is keeping energy prices elevated.</p><ul><li>The administration took the same tack last week, when it <a href="https://www.axios.com/2026/07/16/trump-tariffs-brazil" target="_blank">targeted Brazil</a>, but left out key consumer goods like coffee and beef.</li><li>Still, the tariffs will apply to goods that qualify for duty-free treatment under the <a href="https://www.axios.com/2018/11/30/trump-trudeau-usmca-trade-deal-signing-g20" target="_self">U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement</a>, a departure from several earlier Trump tariff programs. Economists have argued that this carveout has shielded the U.S. from the worst of the Trump tariffs' potential inflationary effects.</li></ul><p><strong>The 30-day delay </strong>before the tariffs take effect leaves room for an off-ramp. A senior White House official stressed they remain open to negotiations, while Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney condemned the tariffs but likewise pledged to intensify talks before August.</p><ul><li>A senior administration official said the measures are separate from Trump's previously threatened "wildfire tariffs," though the official said the White House is considering options on that front.</li><li>It's unclear which legal authority such tariffs would be imposed under.</li></ul>
<p>President <a href="https://www.axios.com/politics-policy/donald-trump" target="_blank">Trump</a> is invoking <a href="https://www.axios.com/2026/07/21/trump-tariffs-imports-canada" target="_blank">an unused provision</a> of the 1930 Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act to impose additional tariffs on Canada over alleged discrimination against U.S. exports.</p><p><strong>Why it matters: </strong>As the <a href="https://www.axios.com/2026/02/20/trump-tariffs-supreme-court-illegal" target="_blank">Supreme Court limits</a> Trump's ability to wield tariffs and a temporary tariff stopgap expires, the president is turning to a rarely used tariff authority. </p><hr /><ul><li>While the Smoot-Hawley Act is often blamed for <a href="https://history.state.gov/milestones/1921-1936/protectionism" target="_blank">worsening</a> the Great Depression, this provision went unused — until now.</li></ul><p><strong>Driving the news: </strong>Trump on Monday announced an additional 50% tariff on select Canadian imports that would take effect in August under <a href="https://www.cov.com/-/media/files/corporate/publications/2016/12/law360_the_presidents_long_forgotten_power_to_raise_tariffs.pdf" target="_blank">Section 338</a> of the Tariff Act of 1930, better known as the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act after its congressional sponsors.</p><ul><li>The administration says the measure responds in part to Canada's retaliation against earlier U.S. tariffs and will affect about $20 billion in Canadian goods.</li><li>It is another setback for Canada after the administration declined to immediately renew the current protections and framework of the <a href="https://www.axios.com/2018/11/30/trump-trudeau-usmca-trade-deal-signing-g20" target="_blank">U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement</a>.</li></ul><p><strong>What they're saying: </strong>"Trump's use of Section 338 tariffs on Canadian imports were narrow, targeted, and in response to unfair Canadian trade practices," White House spokesperson Kush Desai tells Axios in an emailed statement.</p><ul><li>"Comparing the President's recent executive action with the full gambit of tariffs enacted in 1930 during the Great Depression is a moronic exercise."</li></ul><p><strong>Fun fact: </strong>Many Americans know the law from the economics classroom <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuOHbyuanbY&t=1s" target="_blank">scene</a> in "Ferris Bueller's Day Off," where actor Ben Stein lectures on Smoot-Hawley's role in the Great Depression.</p><p><em>Here's how the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act worked:</em></p><h2>Where did they come from?</h2><p><strong>As the economy deteriorated </strong>in 1929, lawmakers moved to protect U.S. industries from foreign competition.</p><ul><li>Congress <a href="https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Senate_Passes_Smoot_Hawley_Tariff.htm" target="_blank">passed</a> the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930, named for Sen. Reed Smoot (R-Utah) and Rep. Willis Hawley (R-Ore.), to protect American farmers from lower-priced imports.</li><li>Lawmakers later expanded it to cover a broad range of manufactured goods.</li><li>President Hoover signed the bill into law on June 17, 1930.</li></ul><h2>What did it do?</h2><p><strong>Smoot-Hawley increased</strong> the average tariff rate by about 20% and signaled a major expansion of U.S. <a href="https://www.axios.com/2026/06/24/bessent-trump-economic-globalization" target="_blank">protectionism</a>.</p><ul><li>Within two years, roughly two dozen countries had protested or retaliated with tariffs of their own, helping reduce global trade.</li><li>One of the hardest-hit industries was U.S. auto manufacturing. Countries cut imports of American-made cars by roughly 46%, according to a National Bureau of Economic Research <a href="https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w28616/w28616.pdf" target="_blank">report</a>.</li><li>The act became politically unpopular, and voters shifted control of Congress to Democrats in 1932. Voters booted Smoot and Hawley out of office.</li></ul><h2>What modern options have presidents used?</h2><p><strong>President Franklin Delano Roosevelt</strong> signed the <a href="https://history.state.gov/milestones/1921-1936/export-import-bank" target="_blank">Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act</a> in 1934 to reduce tariffs and expand international trade.</p><ul><li>The law allowed presidents to negotiate reciprocal tariff reductions with other countries through authority delegated by Congress for three-year periods.</li><li>Roosevelt negotiated trade agreements with 19 countries under the RTAA between 1934 and 1939.</li><li>The RTAA later became the framework for post-World War II trade liberalization.</li></ul><h2>What was the impact on the Great Depression?</h2><p><strong>Reality check:</strong> The tariffs had a "relatively minor" effect on overall U.S. GDP and the Great Depression because international trade accounted for less than 10% of the U.S. economy, according to the NBER report.</p><p><strong>Yes, but: </strong>The resulting slowdown in global trade deepened the U.S. economic downturn.</p><p><strong>The bottom line: </strong>Smoot-Hawley did not cause the Great Depression, but its effect on global trade worsened an economic collapse already underway.</p><p><strong>Go deeper:</strong> <a href="https://www.axios.com/2026/07/20/trump-tariffs-canada-trade-war" target="_blank">U.S. to slap 50% tariffs on Canadian goods, deepening North America trade war</a></p>