By MICHELLE L. PRICE
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump views tariffs—or the threat of them—as a powerful tool to bend nations to his will. He has used them in an unprecedented way, not only as the foundation of his economic agenda but also as the cornerstone of his foreign policy during his second term.
Trump has wielded import taxes as a threat to secure ceasefires from countries at war. He has used them to pressure nations into promising to do more to stop the flow of people and drugs across their borders. In Brazil’s case, he applied tariffs as political pressure because its judicial system prosecuted a former leader who was an ally of Trump. In a recent dispute with Canada, tariffs were used as punishment over a television advertisement.
This week, the Supreme Court is set to hear arguments on whether the Republican president overstepped federal law with many of his tariffs. A ruling against him could limit—or even take away—the swift and blunt leverage that much of his foreign policy has relied upon.
Trump has increasingly expressed agitation and anxiety about the looming decision in a case he calls one of the most important in U.S. history. He has said it would be a “disaster” for the United States if the justices fail to overturn lower court rulings that found he went too far in using an emergency powers law to impose tariffs. Trump has even suggested he might take the highly unusual step of attending the arguments in person.
The Justice Department, defending the tariffs, has highlighted the expansive way Trump has used them, arguing that the trade penalties fall within his power over foreign affairs—an area where courts traditionally should not second-guess the president.
Earlier this year, two lower courts and most judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that Trump did not have authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to set tariffs—a power that the Constitution assigns to Congress. Some dissenting judges, however, argued that the 1977 law allows the president to regulate imports during emergencies without specific limitations.
While the courts consider the issue, the tariffs remain in place. Meanwhile, Trump continues to use them to pressure or punish other countries on matters both related and unrelated to trade.
White House spokesman Kush Desai stated, “The fact of the matter is that President Trump has acted lawfully by using the tariff powers granted to him by Congress in IEEPA to deal with national emergencies and to safeguard our national security and economy. We look forward to ultimate victory on this matter with the Supreme Court.”
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt added that the Trump trade team is preparing contingency plans should the Supreme Court rule against the administration. “We do have backup plans,” Leavitt said. “But ultimately, we are hopeful that the Supreme Court will rule on the right side of the law and do what’s right for our country. The importance of this case cannot be overstated. The president must have the emergency authority to utilize tariffs.”
**Most Presidents Haven’t Used Tariffs as a Foreign Policy Tool**
Modern presidents have typically used financial sanctions such as freezing assets or blocking trade to achieve foreign policy and national security goals, rather than tariffs, said Josh Lipsky, a former Obama administration official and now the international economics chair at the Atlantic Council.
Other laws allow presidents to impose tariffs, but those involve a months-long process to justify the rates. By citing IEEPA, Trump is able to act faster and more dramatically—signing executive orders to impose new rates and immediately announcing additional import tax threats via social media. He notably did this in late October after being angered by an anti-tariff television ad from Ontario.
“Presidents have typically treated tariffs as a scalpel, not a sledgehammer,” Lipsky said. In contrast, Trump has made tariffs the backbone of his national security and foreign policy agenda.
“All of it is interconnected and tariffs are at the heart of it,” Lipsky explained.
For example, earlier this year, Trump threatened a 30% tariff on European imports—up from 1.2% before he took office. To secure Trump’s support for NATO and U.S. security guarantees for Ukraine amid its war with Russia, the European Union agreed to a 15% tariff settlement. This deal drew criticism from businesses and some member states, but EU Trade Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič emphasized, “It’s not only about trade. It’s about security. It’s about Ukraine.”
Trump’s use of tariffs has enabled him “to get better deals—not just trade deals but better deals overall than he might otherwise,” Lipsky said. “On the other hand, you would say there’s probably some backlash.”
**Supreme Court Decision Could Rattle Geopolitics and Wallets**
Trump’s tariff tactics have unsettled relationships with both America’s allies and adversaries. Some have responded by adopting more protectionist measures or by strengthening ties with China, which positions itself as a promoter of free trade.
There is also the economic impact. Some businesses have passed tariff-related costs to consumers through higher prices, while others have held off investments, waiting to see how the tariff rates develop.
Traditionally, tariffs have been used solely as a tool to address trade practices.
“There’s literally no precedent for the manner that President Trump is using them,” said Emily Kilcrease, former deputy assistant U.S. trade representative who also worked on trade issues at the National Security Council during the Obama, Trump, and Biden administrations.
Kilcrease, now a director at the Center for a New American Security think tank, described Trump’s use of tariffs as a “broadscale attack on an economy as a way to incentivize a foreign government to change their posture.”
That said, she acknowledged the case is not clear-cut. Kilcrease believes there is a “decent chance” the Supreme Court could side with Trump, given that IEEPA grants the president “broad, flexible emergency powers.” She also noted that the current court has been hesitant to limit Trump’s expansive use of executive authority.
If the Supreme Court constrains Trump, foreign governments might reconsider renegotiating recently struck trade agreements with his administration. But political realities remain: reneging on deals could affect other foreign policy or economic priorities.
In response, the administration could turn to other laws to justify tariffs, though this would likely entail a more complex and bureaucratic process.
“It certainly doesn’t take tariffs off the table,” Kilcrease said. “It just makes them a little bit slower.”
—
Associated Press writer Lindsay Whitehurst contributed to this report.
https://www.dailynews.com/2025/11/02/tariffs-are-trumps-favorite-foreign-policy-tool-the-supreme-court-could-change-how-he-uses-them/