Washington DC [US], January 20 : As US President Donald Trump tries to arm-twist the world into succumbing to his whims, questions have arisen about the legality of his tariffs.
What if the tariffs are deemed illegal by the US Supreme Court, which is currently reviewing his use of an emergency law that is the basis of most of his tariffs? Jamieson Greer, the United States Trade Representative, told The New York Times that in case the tariffs are struck down, Trump would replace them with other tariffs.
Greer told The New York Times on January 15, in an interview published on Monday (local time), that if the court doesn't rule in their favour, the administration would "start the next day" to reestablish tariffs "to respond to the problems the president has identified."
Greer also said that Trump was given "a lot of different options" at the onset of his tenure, and he could roll over to other legal options.
"The reality is the president is going to have tariffs as part of his trade policy going forward," Greer told The New York Times.
Over the past year, the Supreme Court has been considering whether the president's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, a 1977 law, to impose tariffs on trading partners abroad is lawful.
Taking over reins of trade deficits, plugging inflows of illegal drugs and tackling other global issues tied to US interests are some of the reasons, president has cited as he carries out his ambition to execute tariff on such countries in full force.
Trump can draw on other powerful tariff laws that allow him to impose import taxes on various products or on exports from certain countries. But those laws typically require either an investigation, a report to be prepared, or an economic or national security rationale, meaning Trump would have less flexibility to threaten tariffs at a whim, as per the The New York Times.
For example, the president has also threatened tariffs on Canada for running TV ads critical of his trade approach and has imposed tariffs on Brazilian exports for its prosecution of former leader Jair Bolsonaro, a political ally of Trump, as per The New York Times.
Greer said that Trump had other options available, including Section 301, which he used during his first term to levy tariffs on Chinese exports and which withstood numerous legal challenges.
The president could also impose tariffs under Section 232, a national security statute; Section 122, a legal authority related to balance of payments issues; or Section 338, which allows the United States to respond when another country uniquely discriminates against it, Greer told The New York Times.
Meanwhile, United Kingdom Prime Minister Keir Starmer has strongly condemned US President Donald Trump's threats to impose tariffs on European nations over Greenland, calling the move "completely wrong."
In a statement posted on X on Sunday, the UK PM reiterated Britain's stance on Greenland, noting that the Arctic island is "part of the Kingdom of Denmark, and its future is a matter for the Greenlanders and the Danes."
He added that Arctic security is a concern for the entire NATO alliance and that all member states should work together to address threats posed by Russia across the region.