The United States Trade Representative Jamieson Greer stated on Sunday, February 22, 2026, that the Trump administration will continue pursuing its core tariff agenda and fully honor existing trade agreements, even after a recent Supreme Court decision curtailed the president's ability to impose unilateral tariffs under emergency authority. The comments came during an appearance on CBS's "Face the Nation," where Greer addressed the ruling's implications for US trade policy amid ongoing tensions with major partners, particularly the European Union.
In the interview with host Margaret Brennan, Greer emphasized continuity over disruption. He noted that trading partners have given no indication of withdrawing from negotiated deals, providing reassurance that the broader framework of bilateral and multilateral agreements remains intact. "Although one legal pathway for imposing tariffs was blocked," Greer explained, "the president retains authority under other existing laws, particularly those addressing unfair trade practices and national security concerns." He specifically pointed to congressional delegations of power already in place, saying, "We’ll just use the congressional authorities they’ve extended already for now." This approach, he underscored, will allow the administration to advance President Donald Trump's tariff program through established statutory channels without relying on the invalidated emergency provisions.
The Supreme Court's 6-3 ruling, issued on February 20, 2026, struck down tariffs that had been imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The decision found that the broad invocation of "national emergency" to justify widespread duties exceeded the executive branch's authority under the statute, marking a significant judicial check on presidential unilateralism in trade matters. The invalidated tariffs had targeted a range of imports, including those from the European Union, and were part of a broader strategy to address perceived imbalances, subsidies, and unfair practices.
European Central Bank President Christine Lagarde responded to the ruling earlier in the week, describing it as a "significant check" on executive overreach. In remarks to reporters, she cautioned that persistent trade uncertainty could undermine global economic growth and erode business confidence. "Businesses need greater predictability to preserve recent stability in US-EU trade relations," Lagarde said, highlighting the risks of prolonged volatility in an already fragile post-pandemic recovery environment.
Trade frictions between the United States and the European Union have remained a defining feature of Trump's second term. In early 2025, the administration reinstated elevated tariffs on steel (25%), aluminum (10%), and automobiles (up to 25% on certain models), actions that echoed measures from Trump's first presidency. The White House also threatened reciprocal duties on European goods in response to EU subsidies for Airbus and other sectors. After months of negotiations, a partial agreement was reached in July 2025 that capped many EU exports to the US at 15% below 2024 levels in key categories, while providing tariff relief on select products in exchange for EU commitments on digital services taxes and agricultural market access.
Implementation of that July deal has encountered repeated delays, however, due to renewed tariff escalations, domestic political pressures in both regions, and legal challenges—including the IEEPA case that reached the Supreme Court. European officials have expressed frustration over what they describe as inconsistent application of the agreement, while US negotiators have maintained that enforcement remains necessary to protect American industries from subsidized competition.
Greer's remarks signal that the administration intends to pivot to alternative legal tools rather than abandon its protectionist stance. Key among these are Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (national security tariffs, already used for steel and aluminum), Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (targeting unfair practices such as intellectual property theft and forced technology transfers), and Section 201 safeguards for domestic industries facing import surges. These authorities, which involve more procedural steps and congressional oversight than IEEPA, have been central to Trump's trade strategy since 2017 and are expected to see increased reliance moving forward.
The ruling and subsequent statements arrive at a time of heightened global economic scrutiny. The International Monetary Fund and World Bank have repeatedly warned that escalating trade barriers could shave 0.5–1% off global GDP growth in the coming years, with particular impacts on export-dependent economies in Europe and Asia. Within the US, the tariffs have drawn mixed reactions: supporters credit them with revitalizing domestic manufacturing and reducing reliance on foreign supply chains, while critics point to higher consumer prices, retaliatory measures from trading partners, and disruptions to integrated North American production networks under the USMCA.
No immediate retaliatory actions were announced by the EU or other partners following Greer's comments, though officials in Brussels indicated they would closely monitor how the administration deploys its remaining authorities. The focus now shifts to upcoming bilateral consultations and potential new Section 301 investigations, which could target additional sectors such as semiconductors, pharmaceuticals, and green energy technologies.
The Supreme Court's decision represents a rare instance of judicial intervention in executive trade powers, reinforcing the principle that emergency declarations cannot serve as open-ended vehicles for broad economic policy. For the Trump administration, it narrows one avenue but leaves others intact, ensuring that tariffs will remain a cornerstone of US trade policy in the months and years ahead. As Greer summarized, the goal is steadfast advancement of the president's agenda within the bounds of established law, preserving leverage in negotiations while maintaining commitments to existing pacts.
