Tariffs by Stealth: Trump’s Enduring Trade War

The latest salvo in Trump’s trade wars has reached a court, courtesy of a handful of small businesses taking on the administration’s sweeping new tariffs. The plaintiffs include Learning Resources, Burlap and Barrel, and Collective Horology, which argue that the government hasn’t met its obligations under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974.

At first glance, this lawsuit seems like more of the same – another chapter in the ongoing saga of Trump’s trade policies. However, a closer examination reveals a pattern that is both familiar and sinister: the administration is using tariffs as a stealthy means to reshape global trade, sidestepping constitutional checks and balances along the way.

The new tariffs, imposed under Section 301, are ostensibly designed to prevent imports produced by forced labor. Critics argue, however, that this is merely a Trojan horse for replacing the worldwide tariffs that Trump’s predecessor, the Supreme Court, struck down in February. These tariffs were not only illegal but also served as a blunt instrument, imposing double-digit levies on nearly all U.S. imports.

One might wonder why the administration didn’t simply repeal these tariffs and try again under new legislation. Instead, it chose to substitute one global tariff regime with another, effectively turning Section 301 into an evergreen authority for tariffs. The administration’s argument is that this time around, it has more specific targets in its sights – but critics see this as a flimsy excuse to bypass due process.

The lawsuit itself is not unprecedented. Learning Resources was part of the tariff lawsuit that won in the Supreme Court last year. Now, the company is joining forces with other small businesses to challenge the current round of tariffs. These lawsuits argue that the government hasn’t adequately established its case against each specific economy or spelled out how these tariffs will eliminate forced labor – a requirement under Section 301.

Sara Albrecht, chairman and CEO of the Liberty Justice Center, says, “Forced labor is morally indefensible, but an important objective does not give the government permission to ignore the law.” This isn’t just about the substance of Trump’s trade policies; it’s also about process. The administration has allowed one global tariff regime to expire and immediately replaced it with another under a different statute – a clever way to circumvent constitutional hurdles.

The White House hasn’t commented on these lawsuits, but experts say that this round might be harder to challenge than previous rounds. Trump’s use of Section 301 to impose big tariffs on China survived court challenges, and the new tariffs are likely to prove more resilient still. As lawyer Patrick Childress notes, “these tariffs will be with us for the long haul.” Even if countries comply with U.S. demands, they’ll need to prove that they’re enforcing these policies to Washington’s satisfaction before the tariffs can be lifted – a tall order indeed.

In this ongoing trade war, it’s not just about winning or losing; it’s also about who gets to set the rules. By using tariffs as a stealthy means to reshape global trade, Trump is effectively rewriting the terms of international commerce. This might look like business as usual in Washington, but for those on the receiving end – countries and companies alike – this is no ordinary trade war. It’s a battle for control over the very fabric of global trade, with Trump pulling the strings from behind the scenes.

The verdict on these lawsuits will be closely watched, not just by small businesses but also by countries around the world. If the U.S. courts uphold these tariffs, it’ll be a green light for future administrations to pursue their own brand of protectionism – an alarming prospect indeed.