Even after the US Supreme Court struck down President Donald J. Trump’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose so-called reciprocal tariffs, the Trump administration appears to have several alternative tools at its disposal to raise duties on trading partners.
The administration has already moved swiftly to impose a temporary 10% import surcharge for 150 days. In a statement issued shortly after the ruling, the White House clarified that the decision applies only to tariffs imposed under IEEPA and does not limit other statutory authorities available to the President. Accordingly, it announced an immediate 10% across-the-board surcharge under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, a provision that permits temporary duties to address balance-of-payments concerns.
Beyond this short-term measure, the administration may rely on Section 301 or even Section 232 to impose higher tariffs, particularly on countries with which the US runs a large trade deficit.
The White House has indicated plans to launch fresh investigations under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, which empowers the US Trade Representative to examine and respond to “unjustifiable, unreasonable, or discriminatory” trade practices. Proposed probes are expected to cover issues such as industrial overcapacity, forced labour, digital services taxes, pharmaceutical pricing, and discrimination against US technology companies.
Ongoing Section 301 investigations involving Brazil and China will continue, and tariffs could follow if unfair practices are established. Existing Section 301 tariffs on Chinese goods—ranging from 7.5% to 100%, depending on the product—remain in force.
Meanwhile, tariffs imposed under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 on national security grounds will also remain. These sectoral duties, covering steel, aluminium, and other strategic products, currently range between 10% and 50%. Some Indian exports, including steel, aluminium, and auto parts, continue to attract tariffs of 25–50% under Section 232.
Exporters in India now face fresh uncertainty. Ashwin Chandran, Chairman of the Confederation of Indian Textile Industry, said the February 20 developments have created ambiguity. “Greater clarity from authorities, including on what happens to the interim India–US trade deal, would be most helpful,” he noted.
US media reports suggest that an 18% tariff on Indian goods may be suspended, with a temporary 10% levy (over and above most-favoured-nation rates) applying instead.
Manoj Mishra, Partner and Tax Controversy Management Leader at Grant Thornton Bharat, said that while the Supreme Court’s ruling led to the discontinuation of 25% reciprocal tariffs on India through an order dated February 20, 2026, the US administration continues to retain several statutory tools to impose tariffs on trading partners.
“Section 232 allows tariffs on national security grounds, Section 301 permits tariffs in response to unfair trade practices, and safeguard measures under Section 201 can be used to protect domestic industries from import surges. In addition, 10% tariffs imposed under Section 122 of the Trade Act, effective February 24, provide a mechanism for temporary tariff action to address balance-of-payments and trade deficit concerns,” he said, adding that together, these provisions ensure that while broad reciprocal tariffs face legal constraints, the US still has a strong and legally sustainable framework to impose targeted tariffs, particularly in strategic sectors such as automobiles, metals, pharmaceuticals, and semiconductors.