Trump Tariffs a Needed National Defense Mechanism

Tariff's Aren't Ideology, They're a National Defense Mechanism  

With the nation abuzz on the U.S. Supreme Court's notion to review challenges to President Donald Trump's authority to issue "emergency" tariffs — challenges previously upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals — the administration faces two crucial battles: one in law, the other in public opinion.

International arbitrator and Washington University law professor Milos Ivkovic argues that President Trump must prevail in both arenas.

He believes the tariffs, nearly all of which have led to new trade deals, were “necessary and vital” to rebalance trade, secure critical supply chains, and defend U.S. national interests.

Trump's trade policy, Ivkovic says, has "flipped the rules of global trade."

Instead of accepting persistent trade deficits, Trump used tariffs as leverage to force new agreements, secure market access, and reconfigure supply chains away from adversarial nations.

By early September, the U.S. had collected around $150 billion in tariff revenue, with multiple new trade pacts finalized. Among them:

• European Union: All EU tariffs on U.S. industrial exports eliminated, while most EU exports to the U.S. face a 15% tariff. EU nations committed to $750 billion in U.S. energy purchases and $600 billion in U.S. industrial investment.
• Japan: A 15% reciprocal tariff structure and expanded U.S. access to Japanese markets for autos, agriculture, and semiconductors, plus $550 billion in investment — 90% of profits retained in the U.S.
• United Kingdom: A 10% baseline U.S. tariff on British goods and the elimination of UK tariffs on U.S. beef, dairy, ethanol, and industrial exports.
• Southeast Asia: Agreements with Vietnam, Indonesia, and the Philippines were nearing completion by late July, alongside talks with other trading partners.

According to Ivkovic, each deal strengthens U.S. negotiating power.

"Every nation that wants access to the U.S. market must now deal on America’s terms," he said.

Yet, the legal foundation of these tariffs is under intense scrutiny.

In August, the D.C. Court of Appeals ruled that Trump had overstepped his authority under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), following lawsuits from small businesses and several Democratic-led states. Earlier, the U.S. Court of International Trade also ruled against Trump's tariff policy.

Liberty Justice Center attorney Jeffrey Schwab argues that Congress, not the president, must approve all tariffs.

The administration counters that multiple federal statutes grant the president emergency powers to protect U.S. national security and economic stability.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that Trump’s tariffs could reduce the national deficit by $4 trillion, but the Appeals Court concluded that the IEEPA does not provide "unlimited" authority, invoking the Supreme Court’s “major questions” doctrine.

The Supreme Court is expected to decide in early 2026, with oral arguments scheduled for November. If the high court rules against the administration, Ivkovic warns, "the decision could unleash economic havoc across U.S. and world markets."

He cites several legal precedents supporting Trump's authority:

• Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962: Authorizes import restrictions when national security is at risk.
• Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974: Permits temporary tariffs on imports that threaten domestic industries, consistent with GATT Article XIX.
• Trade Act of 1974, Section 301: Allows tariffs against "unjustifiable or discriminatory" practices by foreign nations.
• IEEPA (1977): Empowers the President to regulate international commerce in response to extraordinary foreign threats after declaring a national emergency.

Ivkovic contends these laws together give the President broad latitude to act without further congressional approval.

"Congress already enacted laws authorizing the President’s authority to act," he noted. "The urgency of defending U.S. supply chains, industry, and economic sovereignty cannot wait for more deliberation."

Critics liken Trump’s policies to the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930, which worsened the Great Depression.

Ivkovic rejects the comparison, arguing Trump's actions more closely mirror the Trade Act of 1974, designed to counter unfair trade practices rather than erect blanket protectionism. "These tariffs are targeted, not punitive," he said, "and aimed at restoring balance, not isolation."

The administration's goal, he adds, is to build domestic capacity and establish alternative supply chains to reduce dependence on adversaries.

"This is emergency surgery for the U.S. economy,” Ivkovic asserts, "not reckless experimentation."

The tariffs, he believes, will ultimately benefit both the U.S. and its allies. European nations struggling with stagnation stand to gain from deeper integration into U.S. industrial and energy markets. Meanwhile, reshoring production strengthens American resilience against geopolitical threats.

Ivkovic cautions against "media-fueled panic" claiming that tariffs will spark recession or disproportionately aid the wealthy.

"There will be short-term stresses," he acknowledges, "but no major foreign firm has raised prices to offset tariffs — they understand the stakes and want to keep trading with the U.S."

The high court's decision will determine whether the president can continue reshaping global trade through executive action.

A ruling in favor of Trump would affirm sweeping presidential authority to defend national interests via economic tools; a ruling against him could unravel dozens of new trade agreements and destabilize global markets.

For Ivkovic, the issue transcends politics. "These tariffs are not about ideology," he concludes. "They are a vital national defense mechanism — protecting American manufacturing, ensuring secure supply chains, and reestablishing the United States as a true exporting power."

Duggan Flanakin is a senior policy analyst at the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow who writes on a wide variety of public policy issues. Read Duggan Flanakin's reports — More Here.