Trump signed executive orders invoking Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 to apply the new duties starting Tuesday. The move partly replaces tariffs ranging from 10% to 50% that had been imposed under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which the Supreme Court ruled unlawful. Collection of the invalidated tariffs has been halted.

The temporary order maintains existing exemptions for aerospace products, passenger vehicles and certain light trucks, goods from Mexico and Canada that comply with the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement, as well as pharmaceuticals and selected critical minerals and agricultural products.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said the revised structure—combining the 10% global tariff with potential additional measures under Section 301 (unfair trade practices) and Section 232 (national security)—would generate tariff revenue in 2026 comparable to prior projections.

“We will get back to the same tariff level for the countries. It will just be in a less direct and slightly more convoluted manner,” Bessent told Fox News, arguing that the Supreme Court decision had reduced Washington’s leverage in trade negotiations.

Section 122, a rarely used authority, allows the president to impose duties of up to 15% for 150 days to address “large and serious” balance-of-payments deficits without formal investigative procedures. Any extension beyond that period would require congressional approval.

Trump justified the action by citing what he described as a worsening US balance-of-payments deficit. He also announced new country-specific investigations under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, directing the Office of the US Trade Representative to examine “unreasonable and discriminatory” practices that restrict US commerce. No specific countries were named, though existing probes into China and Brazil are already under way.

The administration’s pivot to alternative statutory authorities had been widely anticipated. However, Section 301 investigations typically require detailed findings, public comment periods and extended timelines, often taking up to a year to conclude. Trump said the five-month window provided by Section 122 would allow time to complete those inquiries and potentially impose higher, more targeted tariffs.

“Potentially higher. It depends. Whatever we want them to be,” Trump said when asked whether final rates could exceed current levels.

The Supreme Court ruling has placed an estimated $175 billion in tariff revenue collected over the past year under potential refund claims, according to outside economic estimates. Trump signalled that any refund process would likely be contested in court and could take years to resolve. Bessent echoed that view, saying the absence of specific refund guidance from the Court leaves the issue “in dispute.”

Trade lawyers note that although the new approach may extend policy uncertainty, it reintroduces structured legal procedures, investigative standards and public comment requirements absent under IEEPA. Former US Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer said he hoped Congress would update trade statutes to expand presidential tariff authority, describing the ruling as an opportunity for legislative reform.

Despite the legal setback, Trump indicated that ongoing trade negotiations would continue and that any abandoned agreements would be replaced by alternative tariff mechanisms.