• Trump’s replacement 10% tariff under Section 122 expires in 150 days unless Congress votes to extend it
• House Republicans lost multiple tariff votes this month, with six GOP members breaking ranks against the president
• The EU called an emergency meeting Monday to reassess its U.S. trade deal as major partners signal a wait-and-see posture

WASHINGTON, DC (TDR) — Hours after the Supreme Court struck down his sweeping IEEPA tariffs in a 6-3 ruling Friday, President Donald Trump announced a replacement: a 10% global tariff under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. The statute had never been used before, and it comes with a critical constraint that could reshape global trade negotiations overnight. The tariff clock expires in exactly 150 days — roughly mid-July — unless Congress votes to extend it.

For America’s trading partners, the math is straightforward. The same House Republicans who couldn’t hold their caucus together on tariff procedural votes 10 days ago now need near-unanimous agreement to make these duties permanent. With a one-seat majority, approaching midterm elections, and several members openly opposing the president’s trade agenda — why would any country rush to negotiate?

What the Supreme Court Actually Struck Down

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority that Trump had claimed extraordinary power to impose tariffs of unlimited amount, duration and scope under IEEPA — a 1977 law designed for sanctions and asset freezes that never mentions the word “tariffs.”

“We claim no special competence in matters of economics or foreign affairs. We claim only, as we must, the limited role assigned to us by Article III of the Constitution. Fulfilling that role, we hold that IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs.”

Freedom-Loving Beachwear by Red Beach Nation - Save 10% With Code RVM10

The ruling invalidates the centerpiece of Trump’s trade strategy — the “Liberation Day” reciprocal tariffs, the fentanyl-related duties on Canada, Mexico and China, and the blanket levies on nearly every trading partner. As of December, the government had collected roughly $133 billion under the now-illegal authority.

Sector-specific tariffs under Section 232 and Section 301 — covering steel, aluminum, copper, cars, lumber and furniture — remain in effect. So do the existing China tariffs from Trump’s first term. The ruling targets the broadest, most sweeping duties.

The 150-Day Tariff Constraint: Why It Matters

Section 122 was enacted after President Richard Nixon used the Trading with the Enemy Act to impose a temporary import surcharge in 1971. Congress designed it as a narrow tool for balance-of-payments emergencies — with explicit guardrails that IEEPA lacked.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE THE DUPREE REPORT

The constraints are significant. The tariff cannot exceed 15%. It cannot last longer than 150 days. And extension requires an Act of Congress — not just executive action. As trade analyst Brendon Beebe noted, the statutory design forces a fork in the road: the tariffs end automatically, or Congress must affirmatively vote to continue them.

Even Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent acknowledged the limitations before the ruling. He told reporters that alternative authorities are “not as efficient and not as powerful” as IEEPA.

The Cato Institute’s trade policy analyst raised an additional possibility: the administration could let the tariffs lapse, declare a new emergency and restart the clock — a maneuver that would raise serious separation-of-powers questions but is not explicitly prohibited by the statute. With no judicial precedent interpreting Section 122, the legal boundaries remain undefined.

Why Congress Probably Can’t Extend the Tariff Clock

Here is where the political arithmetic becomes the story. Speaker Mike Johnson currently holds a one-seat House majority — meaning he can afford to lose exactly one Republican vote on any party-line measure if all Democrats vote against it.

Just 10 days ago, three Republicans — Representatives Thomas Massie of Kentucky, Kevin Kiley of California and Don Bacon of Nebraska — joined every Democrat to defeat a procedural rule that would have shielded Trump’s tariffs from floor votes through July. The measure failed 214-217.

“Article I of the Constitution places authority over taxes and tariffs with Congress for a reason, but for too long, we have handed that authority to the executive branch. It’s time for Congress to reclaim that responsibility.”

That was Bacon, who told reporters the White House tried and failed to flip his vote with sweeteners for Nebraska — and that he responded by asking about the other 49 states.

The following day, the House passed a resolution disapproving Trump’s Canada tariffs 219-211, with six Republicans crossing the aisle — adding Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, Jeff Hurd of Colorado, and Dan Newhouse of Washington to the original three dissenters.

Johnson acknowledged the reality bluntly.

“Look, this is life with a small majority. I mean, you know, I need unanimity every day, and we didn’t get it tonight.”

The midterm calendar makes things worse, not better. All 435 House seats are up in November, and Republicans can’t afford to lose more than two seats to keep the majority. Vulnerable moderates in swing districts face a stark choice: vote to extend tariffs that polls show are deeply unpopular with voters facing higher prices, or break with a president who has threatened “consequences” for dissenters.

“I think you’re going to see some moderate Republicans try to distinguish themselves as being independent voters or independent thinkers … and this is a way to do it.”

That assessment came from John Feehery of EFB Advocacy, a veteran GOP strategist who served as press secretary to former House Speaker Dennis Hastert. He added that while most Republicans privately oppose the tariffs, they “don’t want to undermine the president as he’s negotiating.”

A Federal Reserve Bank of New York analysis released earlier this month found that nearly 90% of the tariff burden fell on U.S. companies and consumers in 2025, with the average levy on imports jumping from under 3% to 13%.

How Trading Partners Are Positioning

The signals from America’s major trading partners suggest exactly the patient posture the 150-day clock incentivizes.

The European Union said it is “carefully” analyzing the ruling and seeking clarity on next steps. EU spokesperson Olof Gill emphasized that “businesses on both sides of the Atlantic depend on stability and predictability in the trading relationship.” EU lawmakers called an emergency meeting for Monday to reassess the bloc’s trade deal with the U.S. — a deal now resting on legal authority the Supreme Court just invalidated.

Canada’s Trade Minister Dominic LeBlanc said the ruling “reinforces Canada’s position” that IEEPA tariffs were unjustified — while noting that Section 232 tariffs on steel, aluminum and automotive sectors remain in effect. Former Canadian diplomat Frank McKenna called on congressional Republicans to reject further tariffs against Canada.

“I think it should be obvious to every Republican who hates taxes that this emperor has no clothes, and it’s time for them to take some control of this tariff authority in Congress, which is the way it was originally intended.”

J.P. Morgan’s analysis noted that for countries hit hardest by IEEPA tariffs — including India, Brazil, China and Indonesia — the ruling brings short-term relief and could prompt renewed front-loading of imports before replacement tariffs take full effect.

The UK government said it expected its “privileged” trading position to continue. Japan, which recently struck a major investment deal with the U.S., faces uncertainty over whether IEEPA-based trade agreements survive when the underlying authority has been struck down — a concern Justice Brett Kavanaugh flagged in his dissent.

The Administration’s Backup Plan — And Its Limits

Trump trade representative Jamieson Greer framed the administration’s response as business continuity, pointing to Section 232, Section 301 and Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as alternative authorities.

“We’re going to keep continuity … we’re going to keep addressing this so that the deficit can keep going down.”

But each alternative carries constraints IEEPA did not. Section 301 requires formal investigations by the U.S. Trade Representative that take months to complete. Section 232 requires Commerce Department national security findings. Section 338, which has never been deployed in its nearly century of existence, authorizes up to 50% tariffs on countries that “discriminate” against U.S. commerce — but its legal boundaries are untested.

NPR noted that Section 301 would not permit some of Trump’s more politically motivated tariffs — like the 50% duty on Brazil, a country with which the U.S. actually runs a trade surplus, imposed over Brazil’s prosecution of former President Jair Bolsonaro.

As the National Foreign Trade Council put it: this moment could be “an inflection point” for Congress to reclaim its constitutional authority over trade.

“This decision should be an inflection point and a reason for Congress to finally reclaim control of its Constitutional authority.”

The question is whether any country with billions in trade at stake would negotiate urgently against a tariff that expires on its own in five months — especially when the congressional math suggests extension is unlikely.

If America’s trading partners calculate that the 150-day tariff clock will expire without congressional extension — and the voting record suggests they have reason to — does the administration’s negotiating leverage survive the Supreme Court’s ruling, or has the shift from unchecked executive tariff power to time-limited, Congress-dependent authority fundamentally changed who holds the stronger hand?

Sources

This report was compiled using information from NPR’s coverage of the Supreme Court ruling, Axios reporting on Section 122 and the IEEPA ruling, Euronews coverage of Trump’s tariff announcement, CNBC’s reporting on House Republican tariff votes and the Canada tariff rebuke, CNBC’s analysis of industries still facing tariffs, Fox News reporting on the GOP’s razor-thin majority, the Cato Institute’s analysis of alternative tariff authorities, CNN’s coverage of the House floor vote, PBS News on the ruling, the Penn Wharton Budget Model’s IEEPA revenue analysis, Global News Canada’s reporting, J.P. Morgan’s tariff impact assessment, CBS News, The Hill’s reporting on Section 301 alternatives, and the Daily Signal’s coverage of House tariff votes.

Freedom-Loving Beachwear by Red Beach Nation - Save 10% With Code RVM10