• President Donald Trump may have other routes to impose tariffs if the court strikes down his current duties.
• A pause on Trump's use of the IEEPA to impose tariffs has been halted by an appeals court.
• International trade experts say other ways to hike tariffs may be limiting and time-consuming.

President Donald Trump has four more swings at implementing his tariffs — even if courts strike down his use of the IEEPA.

Experts in international trade told Business Insider that Trump could take four different routes to imposing trade barriers without Congress. All four are doable, though significantly more complicated, and are unlikely policies he could change at will overnight.

"Now we're over a hundred days into the tariffs, and tariffs are a very top-of-the-agenda item," Drew DeLong, lead in geopolitical dynamics practice at Kearney, a global strategy and management consulting firm, told BI.

"There are a number of motivations underneath tariffs, and whether his current tariffs stay, he will find ways to continue to amplify pressure on trading partners," DeLong added.

After small businesses sued Trump and his various trade officials over tariffs, the US Court of International Trade ruled unanimously on May 28 that he doesn't have the authority to levy sweeping tariffs using the IEEPA — a 1970s law typically used for economic sanctions during national emergencies.

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit resumed the tariffs a day later, but their fate remains uncertain.

"That decision, if it is favorable to Trump, would still go to the Supreme Court for review," said Kent Jones, Professor Emeritus of international economics at Babson College. "Many conservative judges, even Trump appointees, have tended to view Trump's use of IEEAP as overstepping the limits of delegating tariff-making power from Congress to the President."

Here are four things the Trump administration could do next to keep trade barriers up without Congress.

Section 122

DeLong said Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, also known as the Balance of Payments Act, could be the White House's first choice if it wants to "continue the pressure immediately" on trading partners.

The act's official language allows it to be applied only if there are "large and serious United States balance-of-payments deficits," otherwise known as trade deficits.

"Section 122 is probably going to be a top pick," Robert Shapiro, an attorney of international trade at Thompson Coburn LLP, told BI. "That gives Trump some vehicle, but it's a limited 15% for 150 days, and then he has to go to Congress."

"That would open the door for Congress to pass a whole bunch of trade actions, but the administration obviously didn't want to go through that first," Shapiro added.

Section 232

Section 232 under the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 allows the White House to raise duties on imports it deems a threat to national security.

A recent probe into critical mineral imports, for example, argued that the US is overly dependent on foreign sources for materials essential to defense, infrastructure, and innovation.

DeLong said that at the moment, there are at least eight ongoing Section 232 investigations, including those involving copper, timber, and semiconductors. He said the recent June 3 tariff hike on steel and aluminum from 25% to 50% is also being done under section 232.

Jones said, however, that each section 232 tariff requires a formal investigation, and the sectors it could be applied to are limited.

"The problem with section 232 is that it requires a separate action for each industrial category of goods against which tariffs can be imposed," said Jones. "The perceived advantage of the IEEPA was that it allowed broad tariff coverage across the board to all industries."

Section 301

Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 gives the US Trade Representative — now Jamieson Greer — broad authority to investigate whether other countries are violating existing trade agreements or hurting American businesses.

DeLong said that the first Trump administration leaned heavily on the provision to impose tariffs on hundreds of billions of dollars worth of Chinese goods and aircraft from the European Union.

But section 301 would require a formal investigation and even a public comment period.

"The problem with sec. 301, however, is that it requires a separate determination of specific foreign unfair or discriminatory trade practices, country by country," said Jones.

"The IEEPA, again, seemed to give the President more flexibility in declaring an emergency against all global imports into the US without the need to document specific foreign practices," Jones added.

Section 338

DeLong said Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930 could theoretically allow any US president to impose up to a 50% tariff on countries that discriminate against the US. However, he said this would be a very uncommon approach that could again bring the tariff argument into uncharted territories.

"That has not been used — and I don't think I'm understating this —in decades, or ever," said DeLong of section 338. "That would be relatively new."

• Elon Musk predicted Trump's tariffs will trigger a recession later this year.
• Musk's comment comes amid a growing public fallout with the president.
• Wall Street has expressed similar concerns over Trump's tariffs.

Elon Musk predicted Donald Trump's tariffs will send the economy into recession, one of many verbal barbs the tech billionaire threw at the president on Thursday as their relationship collapsed into acrimony.

"The Trump tariffs will cause a recession in the second half of this year," Musk wrote on X while reposting another tweet that called Trump's tariffs "super stupid."

The morning began with Trump saying he was disappointed by Musk's opposition to his "One Big Beautiful Bill" during a press appearance to welcome the German Chancellor to the White House.

The feud intensified when Musk called out Trump's "ingratitude," and suggested establishing a new political party. The SpaceX cofounder also proposed decommissioning the company's Dragon spacecraft after Trump threatened to cut his government contracts, although Musk backed off that idea pretty quickly on X.

Fractures between the two emerged after Musk left his role recently at the White House. On Tuesday, Musk blasted the Republicans' tax-and-spending-cut bill, which Trump helped to shepherd through the House, calling it "pork-filled'" and a "disgusting abomination."

Musk isn't alone in criticizing the potential fiscal impact of this legislation. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated it could increase deficits by $2.4 trillion over a decade.

Other experts also agree with Musk that Trump's tariffs could have a negative impact on the US economy.

JPMorgan predicted a 60% chance of a US recession after Trump imposed sweeping tariffs on April 2. The bank adjusted the possibility down to below 50% recently after Trump paused most of his highest tariffs.

In a March interview with Fox News, Trump had also declined to rule out the possibility of a recession.

"I hate to predict things like that," said Trump.

"There is a period of transition," he added, "because what we're doing is very big. We're bringing back wealth to America. That's a big thing, and there are always periods of, it takes a little time, it takes a little time."

• Elon Musk and Donald Trump's friendship unraveled publicly over a tax bill dispute.
• Musk criticized Trump's tax bill, calling it the 'Big Ugly Spending Bill.'
• Here's how their recently fragile friendship fractured on Thursday, minute-by-minute.

Twenty-five minutes of live TV, more than a dozen posts on X, and three posts on Truth Social over the period of five hours (and counting) — that's how the already fractured friendship of Elon Musk and President Donald Trump publicly unraveled on Thursday.

The first signs of trouble began when Musk showed opposition to Trump's spending bill, the "One Big Beautiful Bill," though he never explicitly targeted Trump.

"Shame on those who voted for it," Musk tweeted on Tuesday, referring to Congress members who voted for Trump's tax cut bill.

Trump, for his part, had stayed uncharacteristically mum about Musk's criticism of the bill.

But that all changed on Thursday morning.

Here is a minute-by-minute breakdown of how the relationship between two of the most powerful men on the planet devolved.

11:20 a.m. ET

Musk began digging up Trump's old posts on what was then Twitter about the deficit, including one from January of 2013.

11:46 a.m. ET

Musk unearthed another old X post by Trump from back in July 2012, presumably as a swipe at the new Republican tax bill that many economists and the congressional Budget Office said would increase the country's deficits.

12 p.m. ET

Trump responded to Musk's attacks for the first time when answering press questions during a White House event to welcome German Chancellor Friedrich Merz.

"And you know Elon's upset because we took the EV mandate, which was a lot of money for electric vehicles," said Trump. "And they're having a hard time, the electric vehicles. And they want us to pay billions of dollars in subsidy. Elon knew this from the beginning; he knew it from a long time ago."

12:07 p.m. ET

Trump's comments about Musk continued at the press appearance.

"He knew every aspect of this bill — better than almost anybody —and he never had a problem until right after he left," said Trump. "He said the most beautiful things about me. He hasn't said bad things about me personally, but I'm sure that'll be next. But I'm very disappointed in Elon. I've helped Elon a lot."

"People leave my administration, and they love us, and then at some point they miss it so badly, and some of them embrace it, and some of them actually become hostile," Trump continued.

"I don't know what it is. It's sort of Trump derangement syndrome, I guess they call it, but we have it with others, too. They leave and they wake up in the morning, and the glamour's gone. The whole world is different, and they become hostile," he added.

12:25 p.m. ET

Musk began a whirlwind of tweets soon after, responding in near real time to what Trump said during the press appearance.

"False, this bill was never shown to me even once and was passed in the dead of night so fast that almost no one in Congress could even read it!" Musk posed on X.

12:46 p.m. ET

Musk then began a series of tweets directed at the president beyond the bill, including saying that without him, Republicans would have lost.

1:57 p.m. ET

Musk polls his X followers about creating a new political party "that actually represents the 80% in the middle." Mark Cuban quoted the post with three checkmarks.

2:23 p.m. ET

Musk gives Trump's bill — known on paper as the "One Big Beautiful Bill" — a new name: "Big Ugly Spending Bill."

2:37 p.m. ET

Trump responds to Musk with two consecutive posts on his own social media platform, Truth Social.

"Elon was 'wearing thin,' I asked him to leave, I took away his EV Mandate that forced everyone to buy Electric Cars that nobody else wanted (that he knew for months I was going to do!), and he just went CRAZY!" Trump wrote.

"The easiest way to save money in our Budget, Billions and Billions of Dollars, is to terminate Elon's Governmental Subsidies and Contracts. I was always surprised that Biden didn't do it!" the president continued.

2:48 p.m. ET

Musk responds to Trump's posts on Truth Social, calling them "such an obvious lie."

2:49 p.m. ET

A minute later, Musk appeared to dare Trump to cancel government contracts with his companies.

3:10 p.m. ET

Musk makes another accusation.

4:06 p.m. ET

Trump posts on Truth Social again to defend his tax bill.

"I don't mind Elon turning against me, but he should have done so months ago. This is one of the Greatest Bills ever presented to Congress," Trump wrote.

"It's a Record Cut in Expenses, $1.6 Trillion Dollars, and the Biggest Tax Cut ever given. If this Bill doesn't pass, there will be a 68% Tax Increase, and things far worse than that. I didn't create this mess, I'm just here to FIX IT," Trump added.

4:09 p.m. ET

Musk says SpaceX will decommission its Dragon spacecraft "immediately."

SpaceX's Dragon spaceships transport NASA astronauts and supplies to and from the International Space Station. Prior to partnering with SpaceX, the agency depended on Russian Soyuz spacecraft for crewed missions.

4:26 p.m. ET

Musk says that Trump's tariffs will "cause a recession in the second half of this year."

Some economists have also predicted that Trump's tariffs would hurt the economy, and Trump himself declined to rule out the chances of a recession back in March.

JPMorgan had predicted a 60% chance of a US recession after Trump imposed sweeping tariffs on April 2. The bank adjusted the possibility down to below 50% recently after Trump paused most of his highest tariffs.

4:43 p.m. ET

Musk retweeted what appears to be a video of Trump partying with Epstein from the 1990s, doubling down on his earlier statement about the Epstein files.

"This is an unfortunate episode from Elon, who is unhappy with the One Big Beautiful Bill because it does not include the policies he wanted," White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told Business Insider in a statement. "The President is focused on passing this historic piece of legislation and making our country great again."

Representatives for Tesla did not immediately respond to requests for comments.

A walkback

Musk took a softer tone later on Thursday night.

Some five hours after his post about decommissioning the Dragon spacecraft, he walked back the decision in a response to an X user.

"This is a shame this back and forth. You are both better than this. Cool off and take a step back for a couple days," X user Fab25june wrote on the platform.

"Good advice. Ok, we won't decommission Dragon," Musk wrote at 9:20 p.m.

In a separate exchange on X, billionaire investor Bill Ackman encouraged Musk and Trump to make up.

"I support @realDonaldTrump and @elonmusk and they should make peace for the benefit of our great country. We are much stronger together than apart," Ackman wrote.

"You're not wrong," Musk responded at 9:27 p.m.

• Wells Fargo said in a report that President Donald Trump's tariffs won't bring manufacturing back.
• High labor costs and a lack of workers would make building more factories an "uphill battle."
• US manufacturing needs $2.9 trillion in investment to reach 1979 employment levels.

President Donald Trump's push to revive American manufacturing through tariffs may face some hurdles.

Despite some high-profile commitments, including Nvidia's plans for a US-based supercomputer plant and Apple's pledge to invest $500 billion domestically, a new report from Wells Fargo economists predicts that bringing back offshored manufacturing jobs will be an "uphill battle."

"An aim of tariffs is to spur a durable rebound in US manufacturing employment," Wells Fargo analysts wrote in the report. "However, a meaningful increase in factory jobs does not appear likely in the foreseeable future, in our view."

The report attributes the potentially low factory job growth to high labor costs, a lack of suitable workers to fill vacant positions, and a subdued population growth from lower fertility rates and slower immigration.

"Higher prices and policy uncertainty may weigh on firms' ability and willingness to expand payrolls," the analysts added.

The tariffs are part of Trump's broader economic agenda to revive American manufacturing as a pathway toward middle-class prosperity. The tariffs are meant to hike the costs of imports to incentivize companies to make goods domestically.

"Jobs and factories will come roaring back into our country," Trump said while announcing tariffs on April 2. "And ultimately, more production at home will mean stronger competition and lower prices for consumers."

Some tariffs imposed on April 2 have been temporarily paused or greatly reduced, including tariffs on China. The 10% across-the-board tariff remains, as do some specific tariffs on Mexico and Canada, plus 30% in duties on China. Duties at their current level are still the highest they have been since the 1940s.

"In order for manufacturing employment to return to its historic peak, we estimate at a minimum $2.9 trillion in net new capital investment is required," Wells Fargo analysts wrote. "Assuming businesses are willing and able to invest such ample sums, questions over staffing remain."

The Wall Street bank says that US manufacturing employment currently stands at 12.8 million, down from its 1979 peak of 19.5 million. To get back to that mark, the US would need to add roughly 6.7 million jobs. Wells Fargo added that the figure is nearly the same as the entire pool of unemployed Americans, which in April was 7.2 million, according to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics.

"Population aging, negative perceptions, and skill mismatches also underpin workforce concerns," Wells Fargo analysts wrote. "New jobs will require different skills than those previously lost."

In 2024, Taiwanese chipmaker TSMC said it delayed the opening of its Arizona chip factory due to a shortage of skilled workers. A report released in April 2024 by Deloitte and the Manufacturing Institute also found that nearly half of the 3.8 million new manufacturing jobs anticipated by 2033 could remain unfilled due to skill gaps and other population factors.

"Tariffs must be high enough to make the cost of domestic production competitive in the US market, and they also must be kept in place long enough for producers to bring on additional workers and expand capacity," the report concluded. "If the economic or political costs are deemed too high, the current administration could quickly dial-back prevailing duties further."

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comments.

• A business owner is labeling tariff costs as a separate line on the price tag of his electric bikes.
• Businesses, large and small, are hoping to retain consumer trust by showing how much tariffs increase prices.
• Business experts say consumer awareness of tariffs could spell trouble for Trump's polling rates.

When Jared Fisher found out his major supplier of electric bikes was raising its prices by 10%, he had a choice to make: eat the cost or pass it along to his customers.

"If you cut 10% into a bicycle margin, then you might as well get ready to have your exit strategy for your business because you're not going to be able to operate," Fisher, who owns several bike shops in Nevada and Utah, told Business Insider. "There's no way."

Instead, Fisher decided to be transparent with his customers about why prices were rising on some of his products. He added a new line item directly to the price tags on bikes hanging in his shops. On one bike he sells for $7,999, the price tag now shows an additional $300 "Government Tariff Charge."

"I have no problem labeling where this tax is coming from on my products," he said. "People need to know that so I have a fighting chance on my end."

On April 2, President Donald Trump imposed a 10% baseline tariff on all imports into the US, as well as additional tariffs on dozens of trading partners. Though some of the higher tariffs — with the exception of those on China and some on Mexico and Canada — are on pause, the sweeping 10% tariffs are still in place. And prices are starting to go up.

From brick-and-mortar retailers to online small businesses, many have told Business Insider that the tariffs are forcing them to pass the cost to consumers, and it's not because they want to.

To make matters worse for smaller operations, they do not have the same bargaining power with suppliers or cash flow as larger retailers like Walmart. Suppliers in some manufacturing hubs like China are also seeing ever-shrinking margins to help absorb the tariff shock.

"Small businesses are basically in danger of going out of business because of these high tariffs," Peter Cohan, associate professor of management at Babson College and a venture capitalist, told BI, "And they're trying to preserve the trust of their customers by being very transparent about why they're raising the prices."

"Maybe they're going to lose customers because of the higher rates, but at least being transparent will help reduce the damage," Cohan added.

Larger businesses may also have considered such transparency measures. After reports that Amazon is going to start displaying how much tariffs are contributing to the price of goods on its platform, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt called the idea a "hostile and political act." The e-commerce giant denied that it planned to display the cost of tariffs, saying its low-price section, Haul, had considered it for some items but then jettisoned the idea.

Chinese fast-fashion giants Shein and Temu — most affected by the 145% tariffs on China and the canceled de minimus exemptions — posted identical customer notices on their websites, saying that that there will be "price adjustments" because their "operating expenses have gone up" under "recent changes in global trade rules and tariffs."

At the end of April, Temu started adding "import charges" at checkout, which can double the price of the item. By May, Temu's main website appeared to have blocked US customers from seeing products shipped from China, and the site is filled with products marked "local" to signify they are at a warehouse in the US.

"Displaying tariff costs directly on product pages can offer strategic advantages for platforms like Temu and Shein," Nasim Mousavi, assistant professor at Georgia State University Robinson College of Business, told BI. "By itemizing tariffs, these platforms frame price increases as the result of external policy rather than their own pricing decisions."

"This transparency can enhance customer trust, reinforce a value-oriented brand image, and foster the perception that the platform is advocating on behalf of the consumer," Mousavi added.

According to a survey of 1,850 US adult citizens conducted between May 2 and 5 by the Economist and YouGov, 75% of those surveyed think that Trump's tariffs will increase their prices, and 61% would like businesses to display how much of a purchase price goes toward paying tariffs.

"The obvious reason why the White House wouldn't want businesses to show tariff costs is because it makes it obvious how much their policy is costing consumers," said Cohan. "It's going to drive down the poll ratings because consumers will be extremely aware of how much more they're paying and who's causing them to pay it."