**Introduction** If the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) were removed as a legal basis for tariffs, the United States would still retain several established statutory authorities to impose tariffs or tariff-like import restrictions. These mechanisms are generally more limited in scope, slower to deploy, and more procedurally constrained than IEEPA, but they remain legally robust and well embedded in US trade law. Together, they form a fallback tariff toolkit grounded in enforcement statutes, national security authorities, injury-based trade remedies, and congressional action. **Contextual background** In April 2025, IEEPA was used as the legal basis for broad import tariffs following a presidential declaration of a national emergency linked to persistent US goods trade deficits and non-reciprocal trade practices. The declaration characterized these trade conditions as an external threat and relied on emergency economic powers to regulate imports[1][2]. This use of IEEPA represented a departure from prior tariff practice, as emergency economic powers had not previously served as the primary statutory foundation for general tariff policy[3]. Legal challenges initiated in 2025 questioned whether IEEPA authorizes tariff imposition outside a sanctions or asset-blocking context. The litigation raised the prospect that judicial review could clarify the limits of emergency economic powers in trade policy and re-define how tariff authority is allocated between the executive and Congress[4]. **Statutory alternatives to IEEPA-based tariffs** **1.** **Enforcement-based tariffs under Section 301 (Trade Act of 1974)** Section 301 authorizes tariffs and other import restrictions following an investigation into foreign acts, policies, or practices that burden or restrict US commerce. It supports country-specific or practice-specific tariff measures but requires formal investigation, consultation, and findings, limiting speed and breadth relative to emergency action[5]. **2.** **National security tariffs under Section 232 (Trade Expansion Act of 1962)** Section 232 permits tariffs after a determination that imports threaten to impair national security. The authority is sector-specific and process-driven, requiring an investigation and report by the Department of Commerce. It remains the most direct statutory substitute for security-justified tariff action if IEEPA authority is unavailable[6]. **3.** **Antidumping and countervailing duties** Antidumping and countervailing duty laws impose additional duties on specific products where dumping or subsidization causes or threatens material injury to a domestic industry. These measures are product-specific and require detailed findings of dumping or subsidization and injury, but they are among the most legally durable tariff instruments because they rest on long-established statutory procedures[7]. **4.** **Temporary safeguard measures under Section 201 (Trade Act of 1974)** Section 201 authorizes temporary tariffs or quotas when increased imports are a substantial cause of serious injury or threat to a domestic industry, regardless of unfair trade. Safeguards are adjustment-oriented and time-limited, making them suitable for temporary relief rather than sustained tariff regimes[8]. **5.** **Temporary import surcharges under Section 122 (Trade Act of 1974)** Section 122 authorizes a temporary, broad-based import surcharge in response to certain balance-of-payments or international payments conditions. The authority is strictly time-limited and narrowly circumscribed, but it remains one of the few statute-based options for economy-wide tariff action in the absence of IEEPA[9]. **6.** **Tariffs enacted directly by Congress** Congress retains constitutional authority to enact tariffs through legislation. Although slower to implement, legislated tariffs provide the strongest legal foundation and avoid the delegation disputes that arise with emergency-based tariff authority[4]. **Conclusion** If IEEPA were unavailable, US tariff action would rely more heavily on specific statutory authorities rather than emergency powers. Section 301 and Section 232 would remain the primary bases for discretionary tariffs, while antidumping, countervailing duties, and safeguards would continue to be used for product-specific relief. Broader tariff measures would require use of Section 122 or enactment through legislation.
