U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer announced on Friday that his office will launch multiple new investigations under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, covering most major U.S. trading partners.
It also spans a wide range of practices from pharmaceutical pricing to industrial overcapacity, forced labor, digital services taxes, and discrimination against U.S. technology companies.
The announcement came hours after the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, invalidated President Donald Trump’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) as the legal basis for broad “reciprocal” tariffs and fentanyl-related duties imposed since February 2025. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, ruled that IEEPA does not grant the president unilateral authority to impose import taxes absent a direct, imminent foreign threat, effectively dismantling the foundation for tariffs ranging from 10% to 50% on goods from dozens of countries.
Greer sought to reassure trading partners and markets that the ruling would not derail ongoing trade agreements.
“The administration is confident that all trade deals negotiated by President Trump will stay in effect,” he said. “Our partners have been responsive and engaged in good-faith negotiations and agreements despite the pending litigation.”
He clarified that the Supreme Court decision affects only the IEEPA-based tariffs, leaving intact extensive duties imposed under other statutes, including Section 232 (national security) and Section 301 (unfair trade practices). The administration has cautioned foreign governments and businesses for months that it would pivot to alternative tools if IEEPA tariffs were struck down.
Greer confirmed that the strategy is now in motion: “We will continue with Section 301 investigations, involving Brazil and China among others, that could also lead to tariffs if unfair trading practices are found.”
New Section 301 Probes and Scope
The new investigations will target:
- Pharmaceutical product pricing and access barriers
- Industrial excess capacity (steel, aluminum, chemicals, solar panels, semiconductors)
- Forced labor and supply-chain transparency
- Digital services taxes and discrimination against U.S. tech firms and digital goods
- Ocean pollution and trade practices related to seafood, rice, and other agricultural products
Greer emphasized an “accelerated timeframe” for the probes, signaling that findings could lead to new tariffs relatively quickly. Section 301 allows the USTR to impose duties after determining that foreign practices are unreasonable, unjustifiable, or discriminatory and burden U.S. commerce.
Immediate Post-Ruling Actions
President Trump imposed a temporary global import duty of 10% for 150 days on Friday, citing national security and economic fairness concerns. The move serves as a bridge while USTR prepares new Section 301 cases. Greer said the temporary tariff is a “time-limited measure” to maintain leverage during the transition.
The administration has reached framework trade deals with a dozen countries and signed formal agreements with seven others, according to the Council on Foreign Relations. Greer reiterated confidence that these pacts will remain intact, noting that partners have continued good-faith negotiations despite the litigation.
India’s Trade Minister Piyush Goyal confirmed Friday that the U.S. is expected to issue a formal notification this month implementing an 18% tariff rate on most Indian goods under an interim deal, effective April 2026. Similar notifications are anticipated for other partners.
The Supreme Court ruling removes a major source of tariff revenue—estimated by the Penn-Wharton Budget Model at $175–$179 billion collected under IEEPA since February 2025—potentially triggering large-scale refund claims to importers. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has stated the Treasury can cover refunds through planned cash balances ($850 billion end-March 2026, $900 billion end-June).
The decision significantly curtails executive authority to impose broad tariffs under emergency powers, reinforcing congressional primacy over trade policy. It may force the administration to rely more heavily on Section 232, Section 301, and antidumping/countervailing duty mechanisms—processes that require more procedural steps and evidentiary findings.
The ruling also reshapes U.S. trade strategy. With IEEPA tariffs invalidated, the administration must now build cases under alternative authorities, potentially slowing the pace of new duties but increasing their legal durability. For trading partners, the decision offers temporary relief from broad emergency tariffs while signaling that targeted, evidence-based actions under other laws remain likely.
The coming months will test the administration’s ability to pivot effectively. If new Section 301 probes lead to tariffs on pharmaceuticals, steel, digital services, or other sectors, retaliatory measures from affected countries could escalate. Conversely, successful trade deals negotiated under the interim framework could stabilize bilateral relationships and reduce uncertainty for businesses.
