USTR Statement on Supreme Court IEEPA Decision

USTR Press Releases

Published February 1st, 2026

Detected March 1st, 2026

Summary

Ambassador Greer of the USTR has issued a statement regarding a Supreme Court decision concerning the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The statement was released in February 2026 as part of the USTR's press releases.

View original document View source feed page

What changed

Ambassador Greer of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) has issued a statement following a Supreme Court decision related to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The specific details of the decision and its implications are not provided in the document, but the statement indicates a USTR perspective on the matter.

This document is a press release and does not impose new regulatory requirements or deadlines. Compliance officers should note the USTR's official position on this legal development, which may inform future trade and export control policies. No immediate actions are required based on this statement.

Source document (simplified)

Ambassador Greer Issues Statement on Supreme Court IEEPA Decision

February

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court’s decision today affects one element of the Administration’s successful work to reorient the global trading system to benefit American workers and businesses. President Trump’s use of the International Economic Emergency Powers Act (“IEEPA”) was a necessary and appropriate tool to quickly and flexibly address major challenges originating from outside the United States, including the fentanyl, immigration, and trade deficit crises.

Fentanyl is a scourge that has killed hundreds of thousands of Americans, particularly young Americans, and President Trump’s use of IEEPA forced China, Mexico, and Canada to curb the importation of fentanyl and its precursors into the United States. Mexico also took measures to improve border security as a result of President Trump’s IEEPA tariffs. President Trump also used IEEPA to effectively address the trade deficit that skyrocketed by 40% during the Biden Administration and furthered the offshoring of American manufacturing and agricultural production while lining the pockets of foreign countries, companies, and workers. During the latter half of 2025, the trade deficit was clearly trending downward, particularly as other countries agreed to trade deals that retained a protective U.S. tariff while opening their markets to U.S. exports. Between April 1, 2025 and December 31, 2025, the trade deficit in goods has declined 17%. Regardless of the Court’s decision today, these challenges—and the enormous progress we’ve made—remain.

The Trump Administration is committed to continue implementing the President’s trade policy, which was at the core of his campaign and agenda. For many months, the Trump Administration has cautioned foreign trading partners and the business community that if the Supreme Court were to limit the President’s authority to impose tariffs under IEEPA, alternative tools would be implemented to address many of the issues at the heart of the President’s reciprocal tariff program. These objectives include reducing the U.S. global trade deficit in goods, reversing the lack of reciprocity by our foreign trading partners, and incentivizing the reshoring of production to the United States. Our partners have been responsive and engaged in good-faith negotiations and agreements despite the pending litigation, and we are confident that all trade agreements negotiated by President Trump will remain in effect.

The Trump Administration will take the following actions in short order to ensure continuity in reaching these goals and as part of our negotiated agreements with numerous trading partners:

Immediately impose a temporary 10 percent surcharge on articles imported into the United States, pursuant to Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974.
Initiate several investigations under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (“Section 301”) to deal with unjustifiable, unreasonable, discriminatory, and burdensome acts, policies, and practices by many trading partners. We expect these investigations to cover most major trading partners and to address areas of concern such as industrial excess capacity, forced labor, pharmaceutical pricing practices, discrimination against U.S. technology companies and digital goods and services, digital services taxes, ocean pollution, and practices related to the trade in seafood, rice, and other products. We intend to conduct these investigations on an accelerated timeframe, in keeping with the Section 301 statute’s substantive and procedural requirements. If these investigations conclude that there are unfair trading practices and that responsive action is warranted, tariffs are one tool that may be imposed.
Continue ongoing Section 301 investigations, including those involving Brazil and China. If these investigations conclude that there are unfair trading practices and that responsive action is warranted, tariffs are one tool that may be imposed.
Maintain tariffs currently imposed under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, and conclude ongoing investigations. The Supreme Court’s decision today addresses the constitutionality of only President Trump’s Reciprocal and Fentanyl Tariffs. Extensive tariffs that President Trump has imposed pursuant to other statutory authorities will remain in place. For example, existing Section 301 tariffs on China range from 7.5 percent to 100 percent, depending on the product, and existing sectoral Section 232 tariffs range from 10 percent to 50 percent, depending on the product. These measures cover 30 percent of existing U.S. imports.

Stay in the Know
Get direct updates from USTR in your inbox. SUBSCRIBE
- 600 17th Street NW
- Washington, DC 20508
-