President Donald Trump is advancing a new wave of tariffs, even as he faces renewed legal battles over their legitimacy, and consumers worry about higher prices.
Trump is expected to announce new tariff investigations that could lead to higher import duties worldwide. These actions follow the Supreme Court’s decision last month to overturn his previous reciprocal tariffs, prompting the president to explore alternative legal avenues.
The investigations will proceed under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, which gives the president authority to impose tariffs on countries that discriminate against U.S. businesses or trade. Overseen by the U.S. Trade Representative’s office, the probes require consultations with foreign governments and opportunities for public hearings and comment before any tariffs are implemented.
The Section 301 tariffs are intended to replace the temporary 10% global duties Trump imposed last month, after the Supreme Court ruled his use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act for tariffs was unlawful.
After the Supreme Court’s decision, Trump reinstated protectionist measures by turning to other legal authorities.
Trump invoked Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 to impose a 10% global import duty. According to the administration, this provision allows the president to levy tariffs of up to 15% for up to 150 days to address significant international payments issues.
A coalition of Democratic-led states and the Texas-based Liberty Justice Center has filed lawsuits challenging Trump’s global tariffs.
“No president has ever used Section 122 to impose balance-of-payments tariffs. That’s because the conditions it contemplates – a balance-of-payments deficit akin to that Nixon faced in the early 1970s – has not occurred since before Section 122 was passed,” attorneys for the Liberty Justice Center wrote on behalf of small businesses that sued.
The lawsuit accuses Trump of misapplying the law: “The President is claiming the balance is off by looking at only one side of the scale.”
Liberty Justice Center attorneys noted that Trump’s solicitor general had already conceded this point when defending the initial reciprocal tariffs.
“When the Supreme Court held that the President lacked authority under IEEPA to impose tariffs, he responded by doing the exact thing he told the federal courts he could not do: use Section 122 as a replacement to IEEPA to impose worldwide tariffs due to the United States trade deficit,” they wrote in a lawsuit filed this week in the Court of International Trade based in New York.
The state lawsuit similarly argues that Section 122 was designed for a fixed-rate currency system, which ended in 1976.
“The President has no authority to impose tariffs under Section 122 as he has done here,” according to the state lawsuit. “The text and history of Section 122 confirm that the President has not met the statutory prerequisites for its use.”
The White House previously said the Trump administration “will vigorously defend the President’s action in court.”
Trump has shown no signs of changing course on tariffs.
“TARIFFS, which charge other Countries for access to our Markets while protecting our important Industries, and strengthening our Supply Chains,” the president wrote Wednesday in a social media post.
Recent research shows that Americans are bearing the cost of Trump’s tariffs. In 2025, Trump raised import duties to their highest level in more than a century, imposing at least a 10% tariff on all U.S. trading partners. While Trump claimed foreign countries and companies would pay the tariffs, studies indicate otherwise.
Multiple studies have found the opposite: U.S. businesses and consumers are bearing the brunt of Trump’s tariffs. The Yale Budget Lab estimates that Section 122 tariffs could cost the average U.S. household between $600 and $800 per year.
Since returning to the White House in 2025, Trump has used tariffs to advance key campaign promises, including proposing a $2,000 tariff rebate for most Americans. He has claimed that tariff revenues could fund higher military spending, replace income taxes, and help pay down the federal government’s $38 trillion debt. However, experts warn that tariff revenue is unlikely to cover the costs of these initiatives.
