The Trump administration is drafting contingency plans in case the Supreme Court strikes down the legal basis for the current round of targeted tariffs—though officials say they still expect to win.
“There are a lot of other legal authorities that can reproduce the deals that we’ve made with other countries, and can do so basically immediately,” National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett said Friday in an interview on CNBC.
Why This Matters
The Supreme Court is reviewing whether President Donald Trump correctly used the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose tariffs on countries including China, Canada, and Mexico. Opponents argue the statute limits tariff authority to situations tied to a true “national emergency,” and that the president cannot impose such measures without Congress under the circumstances cited.
The justices heard oral arguments in November, but have not yet issued a ruling.
Trump has warned that an adverse decision could create “a complete mess” for the government and could trigger pressure to refund billions of dollars in tariff revenue already collected.
What We Know
Hassett raised the prospect of a negative ruling during multiple media appearances Friday, including on CNBC’s Squawk on the Street and FOX Business’ Mornings with Maria, where he discussed tariffs and broader economic issues.
“There was a big call last night with all the principals to talk about if the Supreme Court were to rule against this IEEPA tariff, what would the next step be?” Hassett told CNBC.
He said the administration’s “expectation is that we’re going to win,” but added that officials are preparing alternative paths if they don’t.
“If we don’t win, then we know that we’ve got other tools that we could use that get us to the same place,” Hassett said, noting that U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer has been closely involved in mapping out options.
On FOX Business, Hassett pointed to one possible fallback: Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, which can allow tariffs—up to 15 percent for 150 days—aimed at addressing trade imbalances. The Wall Street Journal reported in May 2025 that this approach had been considered previously, though the administration has not used it so far.
Trump has signaled he intends to keep using tariff threats if the courts affirm his authority. On Friday, he also warned he could impose tariffs on countries that do not support his push to acquire Greenland.
What People Are Saying
President Donald Trump wrote on Truth Social earlier this week: “It may not be possible but, if it were, it would be Dollars that would be so large that it would take many years to figure out what number we are talking about and even, who, when, and where, to pay.”
U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said Thursday: “What is not in doubt is our ability to continue collecting tariffs at roughly the same level, in terms of overall revenues. What is in doubt, and it’s a real shame for the American people, was the president loses flexibility to use tariffs both for national security, for negotiating leverage.”
Sen. Lisa Murkowski, an Alaska Republican, said Friday: “I think it is important to underscore that when you ask the American people whether or not they think it is a good idea for the United States to acquire Greenland, the vast majority, some 75%, will say, we do not think that that is a good idea.”
