What to Know About Trump’s Tariff Authority, Its Cost, and What Comes Next

On April 2, U.S. President Donald Trump announced the most sweeping new tariffs on all imports to the United States in decades. He ordered a baseline 10 percent tariff on all countries and even higher rates on dozens of trading partners, including China and Vietnam, and the European Union. The president also declared a national emergency, granting him special powers to enact the tariffs to “strengthen the international economic position of the United States and protect American workers.” The move spurred reactions from both markets and U.S. trading partners. This resource guide from CFR experts assesses the major issues under debate.

Can Trump Do This? Presidential Authority and the Role of Congress

“The Constitution could not be clearer that regulating foreign commerce rests in the hands of Congress; Trump’s use of emergency authorities to set punishing tariffs is an egregious violation of the constitutional separation of powers,” CFR expert Edward Alden wrote for Foreign Policy. “If the United States remains a functioning democracy—an increasingly big if—then Trump’s actions will not stand. The courts may strike some or all of it down, although the weeks and months these court cases could take would wreak economic havoc in much of the world.”

“Congress, too, can set tariffs if they want to, or sanctions or other kinds of punitive measures, sticks to hit others who are trading with us. Congress also has the carrot of creating free trade agreements. The president negotiates them, but Congress has to approve them. The question here is really who’s guiding the trade policy? And here, so far it has been President Trump,” CFR expert Shannon K. O’Neil said on the Why It Matters podcast.

“The president’s authority on trade stems in part from ambiguous statutory language. Some claim that the president can take trade actions under his Article II foreign affairs powers. Furthermore, the growing securitization of trade, where many economic issues are framed as essential for national security, has strengthened arguments for the president’s trade powers and weakened Congress’ authority,” CFR’s Inu Manak and Helena Kopans-Johnson write in this report. “Thus, while Congress remains central to checking presidential overreach, the president enjoys broad discretion to take trade action.”

“Congress is at a crossroads: completely cede its constitutional authority to set tariffs, or reestablish it; invite the law of the jungle, or respect the international agreements it approved to regulate foreign trade; allow chaos to reign, or promote certainty in international trade. If it chooses the latter, business can get back to planning and investing for the future,” James Wallar wrote for the RealEcon Initiative.

National Security Justification

“I think this shift towards the national-security linkage with trade has been ongoing for quite a long period of time now. If you go back to 2019, for example, when the [World Trade Organization (WTO)] dispute-settlement mechanism basically came to a standstill because President Trump stopped appointing and reappointing judges for the appellate body, we’ve seen that the WTO has been effectively on hold,” CFR expert Benn Steil said at this media briefing. “We’ve seen a massive escalation since 2019 in national-security notifications at the WTO… So this is a widespread phenomenon now, using national security as a pretext for protectionism.”

“Above and beyond the economic costs of retaliation, tariff disputes threaten to dominate the attention of governments, from top to bottom, that could otherwise be applied to managing common challenges. Difficult trade issues should, of course, be discussed. But as economics and security issues increasingly collide, compartmentalizing disputes becomes all the more difficult. Greater discord is a gift to Beijing and Moscow,” CFR expert Jonathan E. Hillman wrote in this article.

The Cost to Consumers

“The price of an avocado after tariffs would also depend on decisions made by shipping companies, wholesalers and other intermediaries, and the Mexican supplier,” CFR’s Andrew Huang and Will Merrow wrote in this graphic explainer. “Blanket tariffs on Canada, China, and Mexico would also result in higher prices for many different products, not just groceries. Everything from cars and crude oil to smartphones and computers could be significantly affected.”

“Certain sectors of the U.S. economy will be hit particularly hard, including the automotive, energy, and food sectors… Also at risk are cars and other vehicles, as the United States imports nearly half its auto parts from its northern and southern neighbors,” CFR’s Shannon K. O’Neil and Julia Huesa explained in this article. “Grocery costs could rise, too, as Mexico is the United States’ biggest source of fresh produce.”

Reciprocal Tariffs

“There’s [also] discussion of introducing reciprocal tariffs, which is the new Trump concept. Reciprocal tariffs could just be if someone else has a tariff on our exports, we will put an equal tariff on imports of the same product,” CFR expert Brad W. Setser said at this webinar. “But it would be an enormous change. Just doing that alone would be an enormous change, because current trade law is based on the broad principle that we have one tariff for most countries for a given product… with the exception of those countries for which we have a negotiated free trade agreement, where the tariff comes down to zero.”

“Reciprocity, to be clear, is a powerful idea. The American people would never have supported the gradual removal of tariffs and other barriers to freer trade without a belief that other countries were doing the same. The growing sense that others—especially big developing nations such as China and India—are not making similar commitments has certainly weakened U.S. public support for the global trading system,” CFR experts Edward Alden and Jennifer Hillman write in this article. “In the best possible outcome, Trump’s reciprocity initiative could open the door to negotiating long-overdue corrections to those discrepancies. But poorly enacted, it would blow up what remains of global trade rules and leave American companies crippled in their ability to compete in international markets.”

“This administration has shown time and again that it is willing to cherry-pick numbers to justify any trade action it may want to take,” CFR’s Manak writes. “Not surprisingly, with all this talk about rebalancing U.S. trade partnerships to make them more ‘reciprocal,’ no one in the administration seems to mention the high tariffs the United States imposes on peanuts (131.8 percent), tuna (35 percent), many dairy products (20 percent), light trucks (25 percent), and wool sweaters (16 percent). This does not even include the highly protectionist U.S. sugar industry, and the countless tariffs that the United States imposes through trade remedies.” 

Retaliatory Tariffs

“Tariffs tend to beget retaliatory tariffs, further shrinking markets for aspiring U.S.-based exporters. China has levied taxes on U.S. energy, autos, tractors, and many agricultural products. Europe has threatened mid-April retaliatory tariffs on steel, aluminum, whiskey, motorcycles, and more. Canada and Mexico have largely held off so far, but they too will tax U.S. goods if delayed tariffs go into effect,” CFR’s O’Neil writes in this article.

“U.S. exports, specifically from the agriculture and livestock sectors, will decline in the short term as trade partners reduce their imports. U.S. producers will suffer from decreased revenue—as U.S. soybean farmers did during the 2018–19 trade war—while other countries will seek to fill the gap left by the United States,” Christopher Shim and CFR’s Will Merrow laid out in this article. “Retaliatory tariffs could also result in an escalation of existing U.S. tariffs, hurting consumers as businesses pass on the costs of tariffs in the form of higher prices.”

Additional Recommended Resources

This Backgrounder unpacks what tariffs are and how they have been used historically.

CFR’s trade calendar tracks the occurrence of significant trade-related events.

On The President’s Inbox podcast, Columbia University’s Edward Fishman talks about how the United States’ expanded use of financial and trade sanctions in recent years has resulted in a new era of economic warfare.

This Backgrounder explores what causes the U.S. trade deficit and why it matters for the U.S. economy.

CFR expert Edward Alden discusses how trade has become a powerful tool to rewrite the rules of foreign policy on the Why It Matters podcast.

Will Merrow made the graphics for this article.