Sector-specific tariffs shielded from threat of reversal in court; Trump uses national security law

President Trump is leaning heavily into tariff powers that would allow him to tax imported timber from Canada, furniture from Asia and heavy trucks from Germany without fear of a reversal from the Supreme Court.

The justices are considering whether Mr. Trump overstepped in applying a 1977 law to establish reciprocal tariffs on dozens of trading partners. The blitz of sector-specific tariffs based on other laws allows the White House to maintain taxes on a suite of imports and collect billions of dollars in revenue.

“When we finish this out, there will never be any wealth like what we have,” Mr. Trump told military generals assembled at Quantico, Virginia, on Tuesday. “Other countries were taking advantage of us for years and years. You know that better than anybody.”

Mr. Trump issued a proclamation this week imposing a 10% tariff on imported timber, effective Oct. 14. The tariff leans heavily on a national security provision known as Section 232.

He slapped a 25% tariff on upholstered furniture and threatened 25% tariffs on heavy trucks and 100% tariffs on pharmaceuticals in cases where the drugmaker hasn’t set up shop in the U.S.

He threatened 100% tariffs on foreign films, though he did not say when or how they would be implemented.

The moves are consistent with Mr. Trump’s pledge to protect homegrown industries. They also keep the tariffs out of reach of the legal threat before the justices.

The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on Nov. 5 in a case challenging Mr. Trump’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to set blanket tariffs on a long list of nations and fentanyl-based levies on Canada, Mexico and China.

Democratic-led states and small import-reliant businesses that brought the lawsuit argue that the tariffs are economically harmful and that Congress never granted Mr. Trump sweeping tariff authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.

If they win, Mr. Trump must start over to impose tariffs on trading partners such as Vietnam, Brazil and the European Union.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent estimates that the U.S. would have to refund $750 billion to $1 trillion in tariff revenue if the court decides against Mr. Trump and the opinion doesn’t arrive until June.

“The president is undoubtedly working on — or will work on — an alternative justification to implement the tariffs should the Supreme Court rule against the administration on the IEEPA case,” said Wayne Winegarden, a senior fellow in economics at the Pacific Research Institute. “The actual plan will need to respond to the ruling’s breadth, of course.”

Mr. Trump’s sector-specific tariffs aren’t involved in the Supreme Court case, making them safer options for the administration.

The president slapped levies on cars, car parts, steel, aluminum and copper earlier this year.

His timber proclamation was bundled with levies of 25% on upholstered wooden products, kitchen cabinets and bathroom vanities.

On Jan. 1, the rates will increase to 30% for upholstered wooden products and 50% for kitchen cabinets and bathroom vanities, except in countries that reach deals with the U.S. to lower their rates.

Although the proclamation mentions the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, it cites various other authorities, including Section 232 and Sections 604 and 301 of the U.S. Trade Act of 1974, which allow the president to respond to other nations’ unfair trade practices.

“There is some truth to the fact that the Trump administration is going for industry-specific tariffs,” said Kishore Kulkarni, a distinguished professor of economics at the Metropolitan State University of Denver.

However, he said, “administratively, it will be a much more complex task to impose [this kind of] tariff at this level.”

Use of Section 232 typically involves a Commerce Department investigation into whether imports threaten or impair national security. The secretary reports to the president within 270 days of initiating the investigation, and the president decides whether to adjust import levels or tariffs.

Experts say the repeated use of national security grounds could water down the intent behind the mechanism, but courts typically don’t interfere with the president’s authority in this area.

“Obviously, imported furniture is not a national security threat to the United States, but the administration knows that the courts are exceedingly deferential to national security claims by the executive branch,” said Clark Packard, a research fellow on trade at the libertarian Cato Institute.

Mr. Packard said Mr. Trump isn’t necessarily building a deliberate backup plan for the Supreme Court case. The president has used industry-specific authorities to impose tariffs in the past, and it could be a natural fallback if the court rules against the administration.

“Should the Supreme Court strike down IEEPA tariffs, I do think it’s likely that the administration pivots to Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act and Section 301 of the Trade Act, but I don’t think that’s the impetus right now,” Mr. Packard said.

The White House strongly rejected the idea of replacing reciprocal tariffs with sector-based tariffs. It noted that some nationwide tariffs had exemptions for goods that sector-based tariffs would cover.

“American workers, manufacturers, and communities have been dealing with the consequences of foreign cheating and lopsided ‘free’ trade deals for decades,” White House spokesman Kush Desai said. “President Trump pledged to put Americans and America First, and his tariff policies reflect that commitment.”

Critics say Mr. Trump’s use of tariffs, which are taxes on foreign goods brought into the U.S., could increase costs for consumers down the line. They also worry that levies on items such as imported medicines will lead to shortages or high prices.

Mr. Trump is offering carve-outs, such as tariff-free treatment of pharmaceuticals in cases where the drugmaker has built, or is about to build, a factory in the U.S.

He is working with Britain to reduce its tariffs on a quota of cars and steel in exchange for British commitments to buy farm products and other American goods.

Mr. Trump is largely ramping up the deployment of sector-by-sector tariffs. He has launched investigations into whether imports of semiconductors, critical minerals, robotics and industrial machinery undermine national security.

Douglas Irwin, an economics professor at Dartmouth College who studies trade policy, said Mr. Trump may be able to rebuild his “IEEPA tariff wall,” bit by bit, if the court rules against him.

“The IEEPA tariffs that he imposed were sweeping and comprehensive,” he said, “and it would be more difficult but not impossible to replicate with other bits of legislative authority.”