What alternatives to tariffs can the US use to address unfair trade practices?
Executive summary
The U.S. can deploy a suite of non-IEEPA options to counter unfair trade practices: Section 301 investigations and remedies, Section 232 national-security tariffs (including on derivatives), Section 122/Section 338 customs and anti-dumping tools, negotiated market-access deals and tariff exclusions, and fiscal or regulatory alternatives such as border-adjusted taxes or incentives for reshoring (sources: White House, Atlantic Council, American Bar Association, Reuters, CRFB) [1] [2] [3] [4] [5].
1. Legal workarounds: Sections 301, 232 and 122 as the short list
If emergency tariffs under IEEPA are curtailed by the courts, policymakers have already signaled obvious statutory alternatives: Section 301 (trade remedies for unfair practices), Section 232 (national-security tariffs, including on derivative products), and Section 122 (customs enforcement routes) — each comes with procedural limits but can replicate much of the current tariff footprint, according to trade experts and legal summaries [2] [3].
2. Section 301: slower, but targeted and WTO‑rooted
Section 301 permits the U.S. Trade Representative to investigate practices that violate trade agreements or unfairly disadvantage U.S. commerce; it is slower and constrained by process and possible WTO retaliation, but it can impose targeted duties tied to specific violations and thus preserve legal defensibility that IEEPA lacks, as analysts note [2].
3. Section 232: national security as a broad lever
Section 232 remains a powerful instrument to justify tariffs on national‑security grounds; the administration has already used it on vehicles and related parts and can extend it to derivative goods, enabling broad coverage without invoking emergency powers the courts are scrutinizing [6] [2].
4. Customs and trade remedies: Sections 122 and 338, anti‑dumping and AD/CVD
Customs enforcement measures and statutory remedies such as Section 338 and anti‑dumping/countervailing duty regimes can be mobilized to raise costs on specific imports, enforce country‑of‑origin rules, and penalize subsidy or dumping behavior — a patchwork approach that is less sweeping but more defensible in litigation [3].
5. Diplomacy and negotiated market access: deals, exclusions and truce mechanics
The administration has used negotiation to pare back tariffs and win concessions: recent U.S.-China truce extensions included one‑year tariff exclusions for select industrial and medical imports, and the White House has signaled reciprocal tariff modifications tied to negotiated arrangements — showing that bargains and exclusions are viable alternatives to unilateral emergency duties [4] [7] [8].
6. Revenue and macro choices: tax alternatives and fiscal tradeoffs
Observers warn that if IEEPA duties are struck down, Congress and the administration could seek revenue substitutes — from codifying tariffs into statute to proposing a border‑adjusted cash‑flow tax or spending cuts — a shift that trades rapid executive action for durable, but politically difficult, legislative fixes [5].
7. Political and legal costs: speed versus durability
The tradeoff across options is clear: IEEPA offered speed but faces major legal vulnerability; Section 301/232/122 are slower and procedurally constrained but more durable against judicial review. Analysts emphasize that relying on these statutory tools means accepting narrower scope or longer timelines even as they can be combined to cover much of trade affected today [2] [3].
8. Business response and practical workarounds
Importers and firms are already responding by seeking exclusions, alternative sourcing, and country‑of‑origin compliance strategies; trade commentators and compliance hubs document tariff mitigation through re-sourcing and self‑certification practices that blunt some intended effects of broad duties [9] [6].
9. Conflicting aims and hidden agendas
Some policy actors prioritize preserving tariff revenue or using duties to drive reshoring and bargaining leverage; others emphasize legal defensibility and minimizing consumer cost. Watch for implicit agendas: executive moves that favor quick leverage may aim to preserve revenue in the near term, while proposals for tax or legislative substitutes shift burdens and debates to Congress [5] [6].
Limitations: available sources document the specific statutes, recent administrative actions and commentary on alternatives, but they do not provide a comprehensive list of every possible administrative or legislative tactic the U.S. could pursue beyond the named statutes; those are not found in current reporting (not found in current reporting).