Trump-Era Tariffs: Legal Risks, WTO Challenges
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/05/12
Christine Abely, Assistant Professor at New England Law | Boston and licensed customs broker, explains that Trump-era tariffs, especially those implemented during his second term, introduced significant uncertainty into global trade. U.S. companies faced unpredictable tariff changes, particularly with China, complicating import planning and compliance. Legal challenges have arisen over the use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to justify tariffs, raising questions under domestic and WTO law. Abely notes multilateral negotiations could have been more effective, and warns importers against illegal tariff avoidance. The 90-day tariff pause spurred import surges, though port activity is expected to decline soon.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: How have Trump-era tariffs reshaped U.S. import and export dynamics?
Christine Abely: The tariffs of the second Trump administration have injected an unparalleled level of uncertainty into global trading relations. There has also been an extreme amount of change since the beginning of April.
Jacobsen: What legal or regulatory challenges have American companies faced because of the fluctuating tariffs?
Abely: American companies importing products or components from outside of the United States have had to deal with this uncertainty and try to predict what might be coming next in terms of trade. The reciprocal tariffs were announced at the beginning of April for imports from all nations except Canada and Mexico. (Some imports from Canada and Mexico were made subject to additional tariffs earlier in President Trump’s second term.) Since that time, the reciprocal tariff on imports from China have skyrocketed, due to rounds of retaliatory tariffs imposed on both sides. Imports of products from China now face a staggering duty rate.
The reciprocal tariff rate consists of two components: a blanket 10% tariff, plus a rate which varies between countries. President Trump suspended the rate which varied between countries for 90 days as of April 10, but left in place the blanket 10% tariff. This is in addition to the tariffs which are regularly imposed as set forth in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). American companies have had to try to guess whether the 90-day pause will end in a trade deal or trade deals with the country/countries they import from that will eliminate the blanket 10% tariff, or whether they will face increased tariffs at the end of the 90 days if no trade deal is reached and the higher rates go back into effect. It’s therefore hard for American companies to be able to plan to reduce their import bill to the greatest extent possible.
Jacobsen: Are the tariffs effective as a tool for economic leverage?
Abely: Generally speaking, the imposition of tariffs by the United States is governed by the United States’ obligations towards the World Trade Organization (WTO) and so tariffs are not meant to be used unchecked as tools of economic leverage against other nations in a departure from already-negotiated tariff rates. There are specific exceptions for tariffs which can be allowed to offset dumping (selling in a foreign market for a lower price than domestically) and government subsidies. So too do WTO obligations have a national security exception. However, President Trump is justifying as based on national security reasons tariffs which are being imposed with respect to all foreign countries, for all sorts of products. The national security exemption was clearly not intended to be used in ways that would subsume the WTO’s international trade framework as a whole.
With respect to domestic law, lawsuits have been filed which argue that the reciprocal tariffs imposed by President Trump are unlawful. President Trump justified the reciprocal tariffs based on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). However, that statute does not explicitly authorize the president to impose tariffs, nor has the statute been used to do so in the past. Instead, there are trade statutes with specific procedures which the lawsuits argue should have been followed instead in order to impose tariffs. Those lawsuits are currently pending.
Jacobsen: Even if agreeing with American policy, could other maneuvers have been more effective? How do tariff policies intersect with broader geopolitical strategies?
Abely: Multilateral negotiation was another strategy that could have been used to a greater extent to deal with issues of Chinese overproduction.
Jacobsen: What should importers and multinational companies prioritize when navigating U.S. measures?
Abely: Importers should be careful not to violate international trade laws in an attempt to reduce their tariff bill. Importers should be mindful of rules prohibiting circumvention, and not attempt to illegally avoid tariffs through transshipping products through third countries. Nor should importers improperly reduce the valuation of their imports in an attempt to reduce the amount of tariffs they pay to the government.
Jacobsen: Are there any WTO implications from the use of national security justifications for tariffs (as invoked under Section 232 during the Trump administration)?
Abely: China has requested WTO dispute consultations and claims that the United States has violated its WTO obligations.
Jacobsen: As a licensed customs broker, what practical changes have U.S. businesses made to supply chains?
Abely: There was a large surge in imports as companies sought to avoid the highest tariffs during the 90-day tariff pause. Port traffic appears set to decline in the near future.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Christine.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
In-Sight Publishing 