How a Trump tariff win can become a victory for climate change
All eyes are on the Supreme Court as it hears arguments on President Trump’s global tariffs. The case will not only decide the fate of one of the president’s signature policies but will also carry far broader implications for presidential power over international trade and even climate policy.
If the Supreme Court rules for Trump, it will enable a future president to use tariffs to advance a wide range of domestic policy goals. Among other things, such a power would likely enable a president to unilaterally adopt a longstanding policy priority of the climate movement: a tariff on imported carbon-intensive products known as a carbon border adjustment.
The case Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump asks whether the his tariffs are legal under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Congress passed the act in the late 1970s to empower presidents to use economic sanctions to address “unusual and extraordinary” national emergencies.
For nearly half a century, this power was used sparingly to impose targeted economic sanctions in response to discrete foreign threats, like prohibiting transactions with the Taliban and restricting enriched uranium.
That all changed after Trump returned to office this year. In April, Trump declared that “large and persistent annual U.S. good trade deficits” constitute “an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and economy.”
This declaration provided the legal justification under the act for Trump to impose tariffs on virtually all imports. According to the Tax Foundation, the president’s tariffs will increase federal taxes this year by nearly $175 billion and reduce gross domestic product by 0.8 percent.
Trump’s use of the is unprecedented in multiple ways, as my colleagues and I explain in a brief filed with the Supreme Court.
For one, no president had used the statute to enact a wide-ranging program covering nearly all imports. For another, no president had used the statute to impose tariffs, as the statute authorizes the president to “regulate” foreign transactions but does not reference taxation. Our brief argues that this lack of historical antecedent counsels against the president’s claim of such sweeping authority.
The case presents an early test of the Supreme Court’s approach to actions of the Trump administration that conflict with such longstanding conservative principles as limited government. But the case’s stakes extend well beyond the current White House occupant.
If the Supreme Court greenlights the president’s expansive use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, future administrations could use the statute to pursue other ambitious policy goals. A carbon border adjustment is a likely candidate.
Carbon border adjustments impose tariffs on imports based on their greenhouse gas emissions. This policy has multiple advantages, including reducing emissions from imported products and putting domestic producers on equal footing with foreign producers that do not invest in green practices.
The European Union enacted carbon border adjustments in 2023, and the idea is now catching on with Democrats and some Republicans in Congress seeing it as an opportunity to address climate change and boost domestic manufacturing.
But new legislation would be unnecessary if the Supreme Court sanctions the president’s broad tariff authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Under such a ruling, a president could declare that climate change generally — and the import of goods not subject to rigorous climate standards specifically — constitutes “an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and economy” that triggers the law's broad powers.
After all, the Defense Department has recognized that climate change has significant implications for U.S. national security, “increasing the risk that crises cascade beyond any one country or region.” Then, the president could “regulate” under the statute by imposing tariffs based on a product’s carbon footprint.
This may not be the optimal way to impose carbon border adjustments — if imposed by statute, rather than by presidential declaration, the policy would be more durable and democratic.
Nonetheless, the use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act for carbon border adjustments could have many benefits. The U.S. could negotiate reciprocal arrangements with allies to harmonize climate policies and embed climate considerations into the global trading system. Other countries may even adopt or strengthen climate-pollution standards.
But just because carbon adjustments are good policy does not mean they are authorized under a 50-year-old law aimed at international emergencies. In fact, as our brief explains, Trump’s claim to newfound and broad authority merits skepticism.
The Supreme Court will effectively decide in Learning Resources whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act confers such broad authority, and a win for Trump in that case could open up a new playbook for bold climate action.
Proponents of Trump’s expansive use of executive authority should learn from this example: Power once expanded is difficult to later confine. If the court blesses these new powers today, a future president could wield them for different very ends.
Max Sarinsky is the regulatory policy director of the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University School of Law, which filed an amicus curiae brief in the tariffs litigation.