Donald Trump displays reciprocal tariffs chart during announcement eventTrump Uses New Legal Workarounds to Impose Tariffs on 60 Nations
Left says
- •The administration is repeatedly reaching for obscure, never-before-used legal authorities like Section 338 and Section 301 after the Supreme Court struck down its IEEPA tariffs, suggesting an effort to circumvent judicial and congressional limits on presidential power.
- •The forced-labor justification is viewed with skepticism given it conveniently arrives just as the previous tariff authority was expiring, raising questions about whether trade policy is being driven by legal necessity rather than genuine human rights concerns.
- •Allies like Canada, the EU, and the UK are being swept into punitive tariffs alongside adversaries, straining relationships with America's closest trading partners and provoking accusations that the actions are 'completely unjustified.'
- •Constant legal reshuffling creates uncertainty for businesses and investors, making it harder to plan while inflation risks are already elevated due to Middle East conflict.
Right says
- •The administration is using legitimate, longstanding statutory authority, including Section 301 (previously upheld in court against China) and Section 338, to enforce fair trade practices after the Supreme Court narrowed emergency powers.
- •Enforcing bans on forced-labor goods is framed as a moral and economic imperative, with officials calling it the most sweeping international labor rights action any country has undertaken.
- •Countries that improve their policies, like India banning forced-labor imports, can qualify for lower tariff rates, showing the strategy incentivizes real reform rather than blanket punishment.
- •Targeted carve-outs for oil, gas, autos, and other key goods show the administration is trying to limit consumer and economic harm while still applying pressure on trading partners it views as acting unfairly.
Common Take
High Consensus- The new tariffs of 10% to 12.5% apply to 60 trading partners covering about 99.4% of U.S. imports.
- The tariffs replace expiring Section 122 levies and were announced Thursday, taking effect at 12:01 a.m. Friday.
- The Supreme Court's February ruling striking down IEEPA tariffs prompted the administration to seek alternative legal authorities.
- Legal challenges to these new tariff authorities, including Section 338 and Section 301, are considered likely and could take years to resolve.
The Arguments
Left argues
The rapid succession of never-before-used legal authorities—IEEPA to Section 122 to Section 301 to Section 338—suggests the administration is legal-authority shopping to preserve tariff power regardless of which statute the courts or Congress intended for that purpose, undermining separation of powers.
Right counters
Section 301 was explicitly upheld by courts during Trump's first term against China, and Section 338 remains on the books as valid law Congress never repealed; using existing statutes as written after a court narrows one authority is ordinary legal adaptation, not evasion.
Right argues
Banning imports made with forced labor is a legitimate and long-overdue enforcement priority, and officials describe it as the most sweeping international labor rights action any country has undertaken, with countries like India already improving policy to earn lower rates.
Left counters
The forced-labor rationale conveniently materializes at the exact moment the prior tariff authority expires, and sweeping in staunch allies like Canada, the UK, Australia, and Japan—hardly notorious for forced-labor supply chains—suggests the justification is a legal vehicle rather than a genuine human rights campaign.
Left argues
Treating allies like Canada, the EU, and the UK the same as authoritarian adversaries under a forced-labor pretext strains critical alliances and has already drawn accusations from trading partners, including Japan and Australia, that the tariffs are 'completely unjustified.'
Right counters
The tariff structure isn't uniform punishment—countries that enforce forced-labor bans get the lower 10% rate versus 12.5% for non-compliant nations, and carve-outs for autos, energy, and other key goods show the administration is calibrating impact rather than blanket-targeting allies.
Right argues
The administration has built in targeted exemptions—oil, gas, fertilizers, autos, lumber, semiconductors, aircraft parts—showing a deliberate effort to shield consumers and critical industries from inflationary harm while still applying trade pressure.
Left counters
Carve-outs don't change the fact that constant legal reshuffling across four different statutes in under a year makes it nearly impossible for businesses and foreign governments to plan investments, and that uncertainty itself carries economic costs regardless of which goods are exempted.
Left argues
Legal scholars, including one who successfully challenged the IEEPA tariffs, argue Section 338 may have been effectively superseded by later trade legislation, meaning the administration is knowingly building its trade policy on shaky legal ground it expects to litigate for years.
Right counters
The administration maintains Section 338's statutory terms are clear and that its application to Canada's retaliatory measures fits squarely within the law; litigation risk exists with virtually any assertive executive action and doesn't itself prove the authority is illegitimate.
Challenge Questions
These questions target genuine internal contradictions — meant to provoke honest reflection.
Right asks Left
“If Section 301 tariffs against China were accepted as legitimate during Trump's first term, what specific legal or factual distinction makes the same statute's use against forced-labor enforcement illegitimate now, rather than simply an outcome the critics dislike?”
Left asks Right
“If forced-labor enforcement is the genuine driver of these tariffs, why does the schedule impose them uniformly on all 60 countries covering 99.4% of imports—including close allies with robust labor enforcement records—rather than scaling tariffs strictly to documented forced-labor risk in each country's supply chains?”
Outlier Report
Left Fringe
Progressive free-trade skeptics like Bernie Sanders have historically supported some tariff/trade enforcement tools, complicating a purely anti-tariff left narrative; this group is roughly 10-15% of the left.
Right Fringe
Libertarian-leaning conservatives and free-market think tanks like the Cato Institute and figures such as Sen. Rand Paul strongly oppose these tariffs on constitutional and economic grounds, representing perhaps 15-20% of the right.
Noise Assessment
High noise ratio: much of the vocal debate is driven by trade lawyers, economists, and partisan media framing legal technicalities, while most ordinary Americans respond mainly to perceived price impacts rather than the legal mechanism used.
Sources (9)
Dozens of America's trading partners, from Europe to China to India, now face new tariffs of 10% to 12.5% on goods shipped to the United States, according to the office of the US Trade Representative. The tariffs, announced Thursday, went into effect Friday morning. Goods from the 60 affected trading partners make up 99.4% of US imports...
<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>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>
<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>
President Trump announced new tariffs of up to 12.5% to replace expiring Section 122 levies. Here are the rates for each country.
The United States will slap taxes of 10% to 12.5% on imports from 60 countries accounting for 99% of U.S. imports.
The latest set of tariffs from President Trump took effect on Friday for more than 80 countries, covering virtually all U.S. imports. They replace another set of tariffs, launched on what Trump called "liberation day," that the Supreme Court struck down earlier this year. Liz Landers reports.
<p>While overall levy for UK is unchanged, sectors not covered by Turnberry deal face tougher competition</p><p></p><p>Donald Trump’s latest round of tariffs has put UK businesses at a disadvantage against the EU even though the overall tariff for British goods has not changed, experts have said.</p><p>In the levies, announced late on Thursday and said to be aimed against countries that engage in forced labour, the EU’s previous 15% near blanket tariff is reduced to 10%, the same level as the tariff deal struck by Keir Starmer and Peter Mandelson last year.</p> <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/business/2026/jul/24/trump-tariffs-uk-disadvantage-eu-turnberry-competition">Continue reading...</a>
U.S. trading partners including China, Japan and Australia on Friday pushed back against President Trump’s latest round of tariffs, arguing the levies are “completely unjustified.” The new import taxes, ranging from 10 percent to 12.5 percent for 60 countries, took effect just after midnight on Friday and cover 99.4 percent of goods coming into the…