The White House is preparing alternative legal avenues to preserve President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariff regime if the Supreme Court ultimately rules against the administration’s use of emergency powers, according to National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett.

Speaking Friday on CNBC’s Squawk on the Street, Hassett said senior administration officials have already convened to plan for a potential adverse ruling on the president’s reliance on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose tariffs.

“There was a big call last night with all the principals to talk about if the Supreme Court were to rule against this IEEPA tariff, what would the next step be?” Hassett said.

The IEEPA, traditionally used to impose sanctions during national emergencies, has become the legal foundation for Trump’s tariff actions, allowing the White House to move rapidly without congressional approval. That aggressive interpretation has drawn legal challenges from businesses, trade groups, and importers, who argue the statute was never intended to authorize broad trade levies.

Hassett said the administration remains confident it will prevail but made clear that a loss would not derail its trade agenda.

“There are a lot of other legal authorities that can reproduce the deals that we’ve made with other countries, and can do so basically immediately,” he said. “And so our expectation is that we’re going to win, and if we don’t win, then we know that we’ve got other tools that we could use that get us to the same place.”

His remarks suggest the White House views the tariffs less as a single legal mechanism and more as a strategic outcome that can be achieved through multiple statutes. Trade lawyers say those alternatives could include existing trade laws that allow duties in response to unfair practices or threats to national security, though such routes often involve longer investigations and more procedural hurdles.

Hassett said U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer has been deeply involved in preparing contingency plans, highlighting the degree of coordination across the administration’s economic and trade teams.

The Supreme Court’s first decision day of 2026 passed on Friday without a ruling on the tariff case, prolonging uncertainty for markets, companies, and U.S. trading partners. The case is closely watched because it could set lasting limits on presidential authority over trade, especially the use of emergency powers to bypass Congress.

Trump’s tariff policy has already reshaped global trade flows, triggering renegotiations with multiple countries and influencing corporate investment decisions. Supporters within the administration argue the approach has strengthened U.S. leverage and helped secure more favorable terms, while critics warn it raises costs for consumers and exposes the economy to retaliation.

The legal fight comes as Trump continues to frame economic policy through a national security lens, tying trade enforcement to domestic manufacturing, supply chain resilience, and geopolitical competition. A Supreme Court ruling against the IEEPA tariffs would represent one of the most significant judicial checks on that approach to date.

Hassett’s comments also arrive amid growing attention on his own political trajectory. He is widely viewed as one of the leading contenders to succeed Jerome Powell as Federal Reserve chair, with Powell’s term set to expire in May. Asked about the prospect, Hassett struck a cautious note.

“I’m really happy with the job I have here,” he said. “We’ll see what the president thinks about where I should be.”

The White House is signaling that, regardless of how the Supreme Court rules, Trump’s tariff strategy is unlikely to be abandoned. Instead, officials are positioning the administration to pivot quickly, ensuring that trade pressure remains a central tool of U.S. economic policy amid legal and political battles.

China’s Wingtech Technology is preparing to escalate its long-running dispute with the Dutch government to international arbitration, seeking damages of up to $8 billion over the Netherlands’ seizure of semiconductor maker Nexperia.

The case, now moving beyond Dutch courts, is shaping up as one of the most consequential investor-state disputes to emerge from Europe’s tightening grip on strategically sensitive industries.

At its core, the fight is not only about ownership of a profitable chipmaker, but about how far governments can go in the name of national security without triggering massive compensation claims under international investment treaties.

How Nexperia Became a Flashpoint

Nexperia traces its roots to the former standard products division of NXP Semiconductors. It was acquired in stages by Wingtech, a Chinese electronics manufacturer best known for producing smartphones and consumer devices, completing full ownership in 2021. Although headquartered in the Netherlands, Nexperia operates a global manufacturing footprint, with major wafer fabrication plants in Europe and backend packaging and testing operations closely linked to China.

The company occupies a critical niche in the semiconductor ecosystem. It specializes in so-called “legacy” chips — power semiconductors, diodes, and logic components — that are indispensable to automotive manufacturers, industrial equipment makers, and consumer electronics firms. Unlike cutting-edge AI processors, these chips are produced on mature nodes, but shortages during the pandemic demonstrated how essential they are to modern supply chains.

By 2024, Nexperia reported profits of $331 million on revenues of $2.06 billion, underscoring its commercial value and strategic relevance.

The Dutch government’s intervention did not come out of nowhere. Over the past several years, the Netherlands has moved to strengthen its foreign investment screening regime, aligning with broader European Union efforts to curb perceived security risks linked to Chinese ownership of critical technology.

Those concerns intensified after the Netherlands became a central player in U.S.-led efforts to restrict China’s access to advanced semiconductor equipment. Dutch firm ASML, the world’s sole supplier of extreme ultraviolet lithography machines, has been barred from shipping its most advanced tools to China under export control agreements with Washington.

Against that backdrop, Chinese ownership of a major chipmaker operating on Dutch soil increasingly attracted political and security scrutiny.

On September 30, 2025, the Dutch state announced it was seizing control of Nexperia, citing fears that the company’s Chinese chief executive could relocate sensitive operations or intellectual property to China. Officials framed the move as necessary to safeguard national security and technological sovereignty.

The seizure marked one of the most aggressive state interventions against a foreign-owned company in the Netherlands in decades.

Although the Dutch government suspended the seizure in November, the damage was already done. According to people familiar with the matter, the intervention triggered a breakdown in relations between Nexperia’s European manufacturing operations and its Chinese packaging and distribution units.

That rupture disrupted internal coordination across the company’s supply chain, complicating production planning and customer deliveries at a time when automakers globally are still sensitive to chip supply shocks. For Wingtech, the episode raised fundamental questions about whether it could continue to operate, expand, or eventually divest its investment under the cloud of state interference.

Turning to International Arbitration

On October 15, Wingtech served formal notice to the Dutch ministries of foreign affairs and economic affairs, invoking the dispute resolution mechanism under the Netherlands-China bilateral investment treaty. That step initiated six months for negotiations, after which the company can formally file for arbitration.

Wingtech’s claim is expected to rely heavily on Article 10 of the treaty, which guarantees fair and equal treatment of investors and requires compensation for state actions that effectively expropriate or damage investments. Arbitration would be heard at the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), a World Bank-affiliated tribunal that has handled some of the world’s largest investor-state cases.

Legal experts say the Dutch intervention, even if later suspended, strengthens Wingtech’s case. Steffen Hindelang, a trade law professor at Uppsala University, noted that any direct state action against a company inevitably affects valuation and undermines an investor’s ability to manage or exit the business.

While the Netherlands is likely to argue that its actions were lawful, proportionate, and justified on national security grounds, such defenses are not automatic shields in investment arbitration. Tribunals typically scrutinize whether measures were necessary, non-discriminatory, and accompanied by adequate compensation.

A Broader Clash Over Industrial Policy

The dispute lands at a sensitive moment for Europe. Governments across the continent are asserting greater control over strategic sectors, from semiconductors and energy to telecommunications and defense. Yet many of these sectors rely heavily on foreign capital, including Chinese investment accumulated during a period when security concerns were less pronounced.

If Wingtech succeeds in its claim, the financial implications could be severe. An $8 billion damages award would dwarf Nexperia’s annual profits and send a warning signal to European governments weighing similar interventions.

Even if the Netherlands ultimately prevails, the case has highlighted the legal and economic risks embedded in a more interventionist industrial policy. It also raises questions about whether existing investment treaties are compatible with today’s security-driven approach to economic governance.

A key hearing remains scheduled in Dutch courts on January 14, but the arbitration track now looms larger. If negotiations fail during the six-month window, the dispute will shift to ICSID, where proceedings could stretch over several years.