president Donald Trump See tariff — or the threat of them — as a powerful tool for bending nations to his will.
He used them in unprecedented ways, not only as his economic agendaalso as the cornerstone of his foreign policy during his second term.
He used import taxes as a threat secure ceasefirefrom war country. He uses these tactics to coerce countries into committing to more action Stop people and drugs Prevent their cross-border movement. He has used them, Take Brazil as an example, As political pressure comes as its justice system indicts former leaders of Trump allies, and recent outbreak together with Canada, as a TV commercial.
This week, Supreme Court hears arguments and whether many of the Republican president’s tariffs violate federal law. ruling against him could limit or even eliminate the quick and blunt influence on which his foreign policy depends.
Trump has increasingly expressed unease and anxiety over the impending decision, which he calls one of the most important cases in U.S. history.
He said it would be a “disaster” for the United States if a judge fails to overturn lower court rulings that he went too far in using emergency powers laws to impose tariffs.
Trump has said he would like to take the highly unusual step of attending the debate in person, but said Sunday he had ruled that out, saying he did not want to distract from the debate. “I would very much like to go – I just don’t want to do anything to take away from the importance of this decision,” he told reporters aboard Air Force One.
In defending the tariffs, the Justice Department highlighted the broad ways in which Trump has used them, arguing that trade penalties are part of his foreign affairs authority and that courts should not second-guess the president in this area.
Earlier this year, two lower courts and a majority of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that Trump lacked authority International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, to set tariffs—a power given to Congress by the Constitution. However, some dissenting justices on the court said the 1977 law allows the president to regulate imports during emergencies without specific limitations.
When the Supreme Court considered the issue, the court left the tariffs unchanged. At the same time, Trump continues to use these tactics to try to pressure or punish other countries on both trade-related and non-trade related issues.
“The fact is that President Trump has lawfully used the tariff authority Congress gave him in IEEPA to respond to a national emergency and safeguard our national security and economy,” White House spokesman Khush Desai said in a statement. “We look forward to a final victory by the Supreme Court on this matter.”
Still, White House press secretary Carolyn Leavitt said the Trump trade team is making contingency plans if the high court rules against the Republican administration.
“We do have a backup plan,” Levitt said. fox News’ “Sunday Morning Futures.” “But ultimately … we hope the Supreme Court will rule correctly and do the right thing for our country. The importance of this case cannot be overstated. The president must have emergency powers to use tariffs.”
Most presidents have not used tariffs as a foreign policy tool
Josh Lipsky, a former Obama administration and State Department staffer and current chairman of international economics at the Atlantic Council, said modern presidents use financial sanctions, such as freezing assets or blocking trade, rather than tariffs for foreign policy and national security goals.
There are other laws the president can use to impose tariffs. But they would need a months-long process to justify the rates.
Trump acted faster and more dramatically by invoking the International Economic and Economic Policy Act. He signed executive orders imposing new rates and posted on social media threatening additional import taxes, as he did in late October when he was outraged by anti-tariff TV ads aired in Ontario.
“The president often views tariffs as a scalpel, not a sledgehammer,” Lipsky said.
Lipsky said Trump, by contrast, has made tariffs a pillar of his national security and foreign policy agenda. “All of these are interconnected and tariffs are at the heart of it,” he said.
For example, earlier this year, Trump threatened to impose a 30% tariff on European imports, a significant increase from the 1.2% before taking office. Seeks to secure Trump’s support for NATO military alliance and security guarantees for Ukraine amid war with Russia, EU reach agreement Reached a settlement on 15% tariff.
European Commission Criticized by businesses and member states Because I gave up too much. but Trade Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič Arguing that the settlement agreement “is not just about trade. It’s about security. It’s also about Ukraine.”
Lipsky said Trump was able to “use it in certain circumstances to get a better deal — not just a trade deal — but overall a better deal than he could have gotten.” “On the other hand, you might say there might be some backlash.”
Supreme Court ruling could roil geopolitics and wallets
Trump’s tough tariff policy has roiled U.S. relations with friends and foes alike. Some countries have responded by becoming more protectionist or seeking to develop relations with China, which Trying to be seen as a promoter of free trade.
It also has an impact on the wallet. Some companies have changed careers some fees Benefits are provided to consumers by raising prices, while others wait to see the final outcome of tariff rates.
Traditionally, tariffs have been used solely as a tool to address trade practices.
“The way President Trump is using them is really without precedent,” said Emily Kilcrease, deputy assistant to the U.S. Trade Representative, who worked on trade issues at the National Security Council as a career civil servant during the Obama, Trump and Biden administrations.
“The way President Trump is using tariffs is like launching a massive attack on the economy to incentivize foreign governments to change their stance,” said Kilkris, now director of the Center for a New American Security think tank.
But she said the case was unclear. Kilcrease said she thinks there’s a “good chance” the Supreme Court will side with Trump because IEEPA gives the president “broad, flexible emergency powers.”
The case is also before the Supreme Court, which so far has been reluctant to examine Trump’s broad use of executive power.
Experts say if the court restrains Trump, it could make foreign governments question whether to try to renegotiate recent trade deals with the Trump administration. But there are also political realities at play, as breaching the agreement could affect other foreign policy or economic priorities.
Kilcrease said the government may turn to trying to use other laws to justify the tariffs, although that could mean a more complex and bureaucratic process.
“This certainly won’t remove tariffs,” she said. “It just slows them down a little bit.”
___
Associated Press writer Lindsay Whitehurst contributed to this report.