Last month, I wrote about the Trump tariffs now under review by the Supreme Court. The case was on an expedited schedule, with an opinion expected by the end of 2025. Yet it is now January 2026, and no ruling has been issued; one is not anticipated until February at the earliest.
During oral arguments, the justices expressed clear skepticism about Trump’s rationale for invoking the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose tariffs. The IEEPA does not explicitly authorize tariffs. It permits the president to regulate imports only to address an “unusual or extraordinary threat” to national security, foreign policy, or the economy.
Given the court’s apparent doubts and the real possibility that it could strike down these tariffs as an improper use of IEEPA, has the Trump administration adjusted its approach to address those concerns?
Let’s examine Trump’s recent tariff actions to assess whether they truly involve emergencies or represent a legitimate exercise of IEEPA authority.
Tariffs Against Iran
In December 2025, Iranians protested nationwide against their government amid a severe economic crisis: the rial collapsed to record lows (over 1.4 million to the U.S. dollar), inflation ran rampant (40% to 50% annually, with food prices up about 72% year-on-year), and costs for essentials like cooking oil, meat, and fuel soared. Widespread poverty, unemployment, and mismanagement — worsened by international sanctions and the 12-day war with Israel in June 2025 — fueled the unrest.
The regime responded by shutting down the internet, severely limiting outside communication and obscuring reports of casualties.
On January 12, 2026, Trump announced a 25% tariff on countries doing business with Iran, citing the crackdown on protesters. No further details have emerged on implementation or what qualifies as “doing business” with Iran.
Iran’s top trading partners include China (its largest, importing $14 billion in goods), Iraq, the United Arab Emirates, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, and Russia.
U.S.-Iran relations have been hostile for decades, marked by the 1979 hostage crisis, support for opposing proxies in regional conflicts, nuclear tensions, and mutual accusations of terrorism sponsorship.
Despite this rocky history, Iran’s current government faces internal chaos and poses no immediate external threat to the United States. These tariffs appear designed to further destabilize Iran’s economy in pursuit of regime change. Paradoxically, if tariffs drives up prices inside Iran, they could give the regime a convenient scapegoat — blaming the U.S. for the hardship — potentially rallying domestic support.
Trump’s Threat To Tariff French Wine And Champagne
On Tuesday, French President Emmanuel Macron declined Trump’s invitation to join his newly formed “Board of Peace” (a body Trump has suggested might replace the United Nations). In response, Trump threatened a 200% tariff on French wine and champagne.
To Trump’s credit, this tariff would target only Americans who know what “Château” means. Aficianados might reluctantly pay more for their Dom Pérignon, swirling their glasses an extra 45 seconds while insisting the tariff hasn’t dulled their superior palates.
Imposing tariffs over a personal snub hardly qualifies as an international emergency or a threat to U.S. interests.
Norway has also declined to join the Board of Peace, yet no tariffs have been threatened — perhaps because Trump holds Norwegians in higher regard than, say, Haitians.
Tariffs Against NATO Countries In Response To Greenland
Finally, Trump has targeted Greenland, citing national security risks from Russia and China — though the push also stems from not winning the Nobel Peace Prize.
He announced that all NATO countries in Europe would face a 10% tariff on exports to the U.S. starting February 1, rising to 25% on June 1, unless a deal is reached to sell Greenland to the United States.
European leaders from the affected nations have declared full solidarity with Denmark and Greenland’s people. The prospect of a U.S.-EU trade war has rattled markets, prompting shifts like Canada’s new trade deal with China allowing Chinese cars into its market.
Russia and China have shown no interest in buying or invading Greenland. As part of Denmark — a NATO ally — any aggression would trigger Article 5, obligating collective defense, with the U.S. (the alliance’s dominant power, right next door via Canada) leading the response. This arrangement already neutralizes any genuine security threat. To the extent a risk exists, it stems from Trump’s own aggressive rhetoric.
The Supreme Court’s skepticism toward Trump’s IEEPA tariff claims should caution reflection and restraint. Yet his actions suggest tariffs are being wielded not for national security emergencies, but to pursue regime change (which could backfire), coerce foreign leaders into joining his Board of Peace, and exact revenge for perceived slights like missing out on a Nobel Peace Prize. Until the court rules, Trump appears poised to continue using tariffs unilaterally to bend people and countries to his will.
Steven Chung is a tax attorney in Los Angeles, California. He helps people with basic tax planning and resolve tax disputes. He is also sympathetic to people with large student loans. He can be reached via email at stevenchungatl@gmail.com. Or you can connect with him on Twitter (@stevenchung) and connect with him on LinkedIn.
The post Trump’s Recent Tariff Edicts Seem To Ignore The Supreme Court’s Skepticism appeared first on Above the Law.