Even as the Supreme Court weighs the legality of President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariff authority, the White House is making clear that a setback in court would not slow the administration’s aggressive trade agenda.
Jamieson Greer, the United States Trade Representative and President Trump’s top trade negotiator, said the administration is prepared to move almost immediately to reimpose tariffs under different legal authorities if the court strikes down the current framework. In a January 15 interview with The New York Times, Greer said that if the ruling goes against the administration, officials would “start the next day” rebuilding tariffs to address the trade problems identified by the president.
Greer expressed confidence that the Supreme Court would ultimately side with the administration. The court is reviewing Trump’s reliance on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, a 1977 law that forms the backbone of most of his tariffs. But Greer said the president was presented with a wide range of options early in the administration, meaning there are multiple legal paths available to achieve the same trade goals.
“The reality is the president is going to have tariffs as part of his trade policy going forward,” Greer said, underscoring the administration’s commitment to using economic pressure as a central tool of foreign policy.
The Supreme Court has spent the past year considering whether Trump’s use of IEEPA to impose tariffs on trading partners around the world is lawful. A decision could come in the coming weeks, potentially as soon as Tuesday. The justices could revoke some or all of the authority, or they could uphold the president’s approach.
Over the past year, Trump has repeatedly declared international emergencies to rapidly raise or lower tariffs, citing concerns ranging from trade imbalances to illegal drug flows and other global challenges.
The issue took on new urgency over the weekend when Trump threatened tariffs on exports from seven European countries unless a deal is reached for Denmark to sell Greenland to the United States. That threat angered leaders in the European Union and drew criticism from legal analysts. Ted Murphy, an attorney at Sidley Austin, said Trump would likely rely on IEEPA for such tariffs, noting there are few other statutes that would cover a dispute over sovereign territory.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent defended the president’s approach Sunday on Meet the Press, arguing that economic pressure is preferable to military confrontation. Bessent said the goal was to use America’s economic strength to avoid armed conflict, calling it a way to prevent a larger national emergency.
Critics, including some Republicans, pushed back. Sen. Rand Paul said emergency powers should be reserved for real emergencies and dismissed the Greenland dispute as frivolous. Legal scholars also warned that such moves could complicate the administration’s case before the Supreme Court.
Stephen Vladeck of Georgetown University Law Center said threatening expansive uses of emergency powers does not help the administration’s legal arguments. Still, even critics acknowledge that a court ruling against Trump may not significantly curb his ability to impose tariffs.
Cornell economist Eswar Prasad said an adverse ruling could force the president to adjust tactics or legal justifications, but Trump appears committed to using tariffs to advance geopolitical objectives. Other trade laws, while more procedural, remain available.
Greer pointed to alternatives such as Section 301, Section 232, Section 122, and Section 338, all of which grant the president authority to impose tariffs under certain conditions. While those statutes require investigations or formal findings, Greer emphasized that Congress deliberately delegated broad tariff authority to the presidency.
“Congress appropriately has delegated a lot of tariff authority to the President of the United States,” Greer said, signaling that regardless of the Supreme Court’s decision, tariffs will remain a core pillar of Trump’s trade policy.
