|
The Trump administration has been working to hash out deals with several major trading partners in recent months, as other trading partners are taking steps to implement their concluded U.S. pacts. But if the Supreme Court determines that the president’s emergency tariffs are illegal, as many expect it will, a period of tariff turmoil could follow, injecting renewed uncertainty and potential delays into ongoing discussions.
Discussions with trading partners have continued even as officials await a Supreme Court decision on the legality of President Donald Trump's emergency tariffs. U.S. and Indian negotiators held the latest round of talks on Tuesday, according to Reuters. Meanwhile, Chief Agricultural Trade Negotiator Julie Callahan was in Indonesia last week for talks; a Taiwan deal could also be nearing completion, according to reporting by the New York Times.
An adverse ruling for the administration could lead to delays for negotiations with some of the largest Asian economies, including Indonesia, India, Taiwan and Vietnam
“If the IEEPA decision by the Supreme Court rules down the reciprocal tariffs, then I think the prospects of reaching these quick deals with these four economies … become weaker,” former trade negotiator Wendy Cutler told Agri-Pulse, referring to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act that Trump has used to impose duties on dozens of U.S. trade partners. Cutler is now the senior vice president at the Asia Society Policy Institute.
Trump unveiled sweeping tariffs on almost every U.S. trading partner on April 2 – which he dubbed “Liberation Day.” In the weeks and months that followed, countries came to the negotiating table to secure tariff reductions in exchange for concessions.
The Supreme Court is weighing whether the president overreached when he imposed those tariffs, as well as separate duties imposed on Mexico, Canada and China over their role in the U.S. fentanyl crisis and on Brazil and India.
Administration officials have long indicated that the president stands ready to wield other tariff authorities to replace any tariffs impacted by a Supreme Court decision and preserve the U.S.’ negotiating leverage.
The Agriculture Department’s undersecretary of trade and foreign agricultural affairs, Luke Lindberg, reiterated to Agri-Pulse last week that the “America First trade agenda is not beholden to just one mechanism.” He argued that the president has demonstrated he is willing to use all the tools at his disposal to generate leverage in trade discussions.
But Cutler pointed out that some of the other tariff authorities can require lengthy investigations before tariffs can be imposed or come with limits in tariff size and duration. Section 122, for example, can be imposed to address balance-of-payments crises or to protect the stability of the dollar, but is limited to 15% duties for a maximum of 150 days.
Section 301 tariffs used to address unfair trade practices, national security tariffs under Section 232, and Section 338 authorities for retaliating against foreign countries’ discriminatory practices all require investigations before duties can be adopted.
John Clarke (LinkedIn photo).
“I fully believe the administration has a plan; tariffs will remain,” Cutler said. But she said a period of “turbulence” is likely as tariff rates adjust and alternative arrangements are put into place, which countries may want to ride out before finalizing any new deal.
In the case of India, there is also added uncertainty as Congress considers a sanctions package on Russia that includes steep tariffs of 500% on countries buying Russian oil – as India does.
The fallout may not be limited to ongoing negotiations either. The European Union has already drawn ire from the administration over the pace of its implementation of a deal reached with the U.S. in July. Former EU chief agricultural negotiator John Clarke says the EU Parliament, which still needs to approve the deal, may hold off until there is clarity on how the administration will implement the decision, among other factors.
“With the Ukraine situation, with Greenland, etcetera, the Parliament is now looking very carefully,” Clarke said. “It doesn't want to rush things.”
Clarke said he doesn’t expect Parliament to vote on the deal until the second quarter of 2026.
“That will be determined in part by what's going on in the U.S.,” he said.
Risky business
However, countries should be cautious when it comes to slow rolling the administration, using an adverse ruling at the Supreme Court as an opportunity to gain an upper hand in negotiations or reopening any completed deals, analysts say.
The administration has already shown it is willing to hike tariffs over negotiating frustrations. In May, the president threatened the EU with a 50% tariff over what he saw as a lack of progress in negotiations.
Clark Packard, a research fellow at the Cato Institute’s center for trade policy studies, noted that if the White House senses countries are trying to capitalize on any 
Clark Packard (Cato Institute photo).tariff confusion in the wake of the Supreme Court’s ruling, it could find ways to extract retribution.
The administration could announce a Section 301 investigation on any country it perceives as dragging its heels or trying to move the goalposts of an agreement, Packard said. Such a probe would take some time to carry out, but after the initial investigation Section 301 gives the administration sweeping tariffing powers.
There’s “a requirement to do a little more due diligence and reporting and investigation on the front end, but once that report is in [the U.S. trade representative] and the president have virtual carte blanche authority,” he said.
The administration could also use authorities like Section 122 in novel ways. The statute limits the president to 15% tariffs for 150 days unless Congress codifies the duties. But Packard said there would be nothing in the statute to prevent the president repeatedly reimposing them once they expire, even it violates the spirit of the law.
With so many tools at the president’s disposal, Packard argued that many countries, particularly smaller economies, will likely be wary of overplaying their hand.
An adverse Supreme Court ruling “might shift countries' calculus a little bit,” Packard said, but he doesn’t foresee a major shift in countries’ approaches.
Cutler agrees that for countries that have already completed negotiations, the risks of trying to secure more favorable terms are simply too great.
“I'm not saying countries won't ask for that, but I don't think they have a lot of leverage,” Cutler said. “If they try to do that, they may end up with a 301 against their economy – with 100% tariffs on everything.”
“There are a lot of risks in terms of going back to the administration and taking things off the table that they already promised to the White House.”
