Trump Has Options After the Court’s Ruling

In a landmark decision on February 20, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down President Donald Trump’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose broad tariffs on global imports, ruling 6-3 that it exceeded presidential authority.

This ruling dismantled a key pillar of Trump’s trade agenda, which had aimed to address trade imbalances and boost domestic manufacturing. However, the president quickly pivoted, announcing alternative measures to maintain tariff pressures. For the energy sector, this development introduces both uncertainty and opportunity, particularly around steel costs, trade stability, and investment strategies. Below, we explore Trump’s post-ruling options, tariff revenues collected, the status of international trade deals, the short-term impacts on oil and gas from steel tariffs, and key signals for energy investors.

Trump’s Post-Ruling Tariff Options

Despite the Supreme Court’s blow, Trump retains several legal pathways to impose tariffs, drawing from statutes that Congress has delegated to the executive branch over decades.

These alternatives often include procedural hurdles like investigations and time limits, but they provide flexibility to target unfair trade practices or national security threats.

Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974: Immediately after the ruling, Trump imposed a temporary 10% global tariff on imports (later raised to 15%), effective for 150 days unless extended by Congress.

This targets fundamental international payment issues but excludes certain goods like those under the USMCA (with Canada and Mexico) and specific steel/aluminum products already covered by other tariffs.
Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974: Allows tariffs on countries engaging in “unjustifiable” or “discriminatory” practices after an investigation by the U.S. Trade Representative. These can be indefinite (up to four years, renewable) and have no upper rate limit, making them “sticky” once implemented.

Trump previously used this against China in 2018.

Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962: Focuses on imports threatening national security, requiring a Commerce Department probe. Trump has expanded this for steel (25%), aluminum (10%), and items like cars and semiconductors.

No rate caps, but procedural steps slow implementation.

Other tools, like countermeasures against subsidies or dumping, could also be deployed. Trump has signaled that these will rebuild his “tariff wall,” though refunds for past IEEPA tariffs (potentially 12-18 months away) remain undecided.

Analysts note that without IEEPA exemptions, effective rates could rise to 24.1% under a maxed-out Section 122—higher than the invalidated structure.

Tariff Revenues CollectedTrump’s tariffs have generated substantial revenue, far exceeding pre-administration levels. In Fiscal Year 2025, customs duties reached $195 billion, a 150% increase from FY 2024, with monthly collections spiking from $7 billion in January to $30 billion by September.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection reported over $200 billion collected from January 20 to December 15, 2025, attributed to more than 40 executive orders.

Overall, 2025 tariff revenue hit $287 billion, up 192% from 2024, with the average effective rate at 16.8% by November.

Projections for 2026-2035 estimate $904 billion in total, or about $101 billion in 2026 alone, even post-ruling.

These funds support government initiatives, but net figures (after refunds) are lower and lag in reporting.

Status of Trade Deals: Most Holding, But Uncertainty Looms

The ruling has prompted reviews among U.S. trading partners, but most reciprocal agreements appear intact, covering over half of global GDP.

The White House insists partners honor commitments, with exemptions for deals like the USMCA (exempting compliant goods from Canada and Mexico) and CAFTA-DR textiles.

Key pacts include: