【By Observer Net, Xiong Chaoran】Since April last year, US President Trump's so-called "reciprocal tariffs" have caused chaos in global trade, and its "legality" has also been widely questioned. It is reported that the US Supreme Court may announce its judgment on the legality of these tariffs as early as January 20th local time.

On January 19th local time, the New York Times reported that US Trade Representative Katherine Tai said in an interview with the newspaper on January 15 that if the Supreme Court overturns Trump's tariff policy, the Trump administration plans to "immediately" start imposing other tariffs as an alternative measure. "If the Supreme Court makes an adverse ruling, the government will start re-imposing tariffs the next day to address the issues raised by the president."

Tai claimed that Trump still has "other options," such as the so-called Section 301 used during his first term to launch a trade war against China, which has withstood multiple "legal challenges." In addition, she claimed that Trump could also use the so-called Section 232, which is based on "national security regulations," the so-called Section 122 related to "international balance of payments issues," or the so-called Section 338 used to retaliate against countries that impose "special discrimination" against the United States.

"The Congress has appropriately granted the president a large number of tariff powers," Tai confidently said to herself.

On December 9, 2025, US Trade Representative Katherine Tai delivered a speech at the Senate Appropriations Committee hearing in the US Capitol in Washington, D.C., regarding the 2026 fiscal year budget of the Office of the US Trade Representative. IC Photo

Regarding the possible judgment of the US Supreme Court, Tai expressed optimism. The Supreme Court is currently reviewing the legality of Trump's use of an emergency law, which serves as the "basis" for most of the Trump administration's tariff policies.

Tai said that she and her other advisors had provided Trump with "many different options" at the beginning of the administration to achieve his trade goals, meaning that Trump can use different legal authorizations to impose similar tariffs globally.

"The reality is that tariffs will become part of the president's future trade policy," Tai claimed.

According to reports, over the past year, the US Supreme Court has been weighing the legality of Trump's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) from 1977 to impose tariffs on global trade partners. The Supreme Court may make a decision in the coming weeks, as early as January 20th local time, which could potentially revoke some or all of the relevant authorizations.

Alternatively, there is also a possibility that the Supreme Court decides to allow Trump to do so. Over the past year, Trump has declared multiple so-called international emergencies for various reasons to quickly raise or lower tariffs on trade partners, including reducing trade deficits, preventing illegal drug inflows, and responding to other international situations.

On January 17th local time, Trump again threatened to impose tariffs on eight European countries that opposed the sale of the Danish territory of Greenland to the US, unless a deal was reached, which angered the EU.

Ted Murphy, a lawyer at the Sidley Austin law firm, told the New York Times in an email that he believes Trump is likely to rely on this emergency law currently under court review—the IEEPA—to impose tariffs on these European countries.

"I don't know of any other trade regulation that could cover this situation (such as another country refusing to sell its sovereign territory to the US)," Murphy wrote.

On January 18th local time, US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, in an interview with NBC's "Meet the Press," tried to defend Trump's use of emergency powers, claiming that imposing tariffs is better than triggering a military conflict over the Greenland issue.

"Declaring a national emergency is to avoid a real national emergency," Yellen said, adding that Trump is using "the economic strength of the US to avoid a hot war."

Critics say Trump's threat to impose tariffs on Europe is an obvious abuse of this emergency regulation. Some legal experts say that Trump's bizarre way of threatening to use emergency laws has made his own legal position more difficult.

"Emergency powers are for emergencies," said Senator Rand Paul, a Republican from Kentucky, on "Meet the Press": "There is no emergency with Greenland. This is absurd."

Professor Stephen Vladeck of Georgetown Law School said that while the Trump administration is trying to persuade the Supreme Court to recognize a "novel" and textually unsupported interpretation of the IEEPA, it is also threatening to use the same law in an even "more novel" way, which does not look like a good sign.

"President Trump did not do himself any favors with his legal arguments," Vladeck added.

The New York Times noted that even if the Supreme Court rules against Trump, it remains unclear to what extent this would limit his ability to impose tariffs.

Eswar Prasad, a professor of economics at Cornell University, said that an adverse ruling might force Trump to change strategies or replace the basis for tariff authority, but he seems determined to continue using tariffs as a tool to advance his geopolitical ambitions and use them aggressively.

"Looking at this trend, even if the Supreme Court makes a ruling, it is unlikely to weaken his approach of using tariffs to strike against other countries," Prasad said.

This article is exclusive to Observer Net. Unauthorized reproduction is prohibited.

Original: toutiao.com/article/7597358927755411974/

Statement: The article represents the views of the author alone.