Goldman Sachs: After the U.S. Trade Court rejected large-scale tariffs, Trump can still restart through four legal avenues
Goldman Sachs analysis pointed out that although the U.S. trade court rejected the Trump administration's large-scale tariff measures, the White House still has four legal avenues to restart tariffs. First, the government can replace the current 10% tariff with a maximum of 15% tariff under Section 122. Second, the trade representative can initiate a Section 301 investigation to impose additional tariffs. Third, Trump could expand Section 232 tariffs to other industries based on national security reasons. Finally, under Section 338 of the Trade Act of 1930, Trump could impose tariffs of up to 50% on countries that discriminate against the United States
According to Goldman Sachs analysis, despite the U.S. trade court rejecting the Trump administration's large-scale tariff measures, the White House still has other legal avenues to impose tariffs on trade partners.
The bank's Chief Political Economist, Alec Phillips, pointed out that the Trump administration has four ways to implement tariff measures similar to those rejected by the court.
First, "the government can quickly replace the current 10% comprehensive tariff with a similar tariff of up to 15% under Section 122. These tariffs can only last for a maximum of 150 days, after which Congress must take action to extend them according to legal provisions."
Phillips stated that the law does not clearly specify whether these tariffs can be paused and then restarted, but the law authorizes the president to "address international balance of payments deficits or prevent a significant devaluation of the dollar without any formal investigation or procedure. Therefore, theoretically, if necessary, the government could replace the current 10% tariff with a Section 122-based tariff within a few days."
Second, "the U.S. Trade Representative can quickly initiate a Section 301 investigation against major trading partners for 'unfair trade practices,' laying the procedural groundwork for imposing tariffs after the investigation concludes." He noted that while there is no clear duration for the tariffs, the investigation may take several weeks.
Third, "President Trump has imposed tariffs on steel, aluminum, and automobiles based on national security reasons under Section 232, and this approach could be further expanded to other industries. We expect more industries to face tariffs (such as pharmaceuticals, semiconductors/electronics, etc.), and tariffs based on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) carry uncertainty, which may lead the White House to rely more on industry tariffs, as the legal uncertainties are much smaller."
Fourth, "Section 338 of the Trade Act of 1930 allows the president to impose tariffs of up to 50% on imported goods from countries that discriminate against the U.S. This power has never been used and is similar to the authorization under Section 301, except it has limits on tariff amounts and does not require a formal investigation."
Phillips stated that the White House is likely to first implement similar comprehensive tariffs under Section 122, and then use Section 301 to investigate major trading partners.
He said, "However, in the coming months, the government seems unlikely to complete Section 301 investigations for all U.S. trading partners. If the court's ruling on tariffs based on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) remains effective, this means that when the tariffs specified under Section 122 expire after 150 days (assuming the Trump administration cannot find a legal way to extend these tariffs), smaller trading partners and/or countries with smaller trade surpluses with the U.S. may not face the benchmark tariffs."
