The nation stands at a critical constitutional crossroads as the Supreme Court prepares to rule on President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariff program. After hearing oral arguments on November 5, the justices now face one of the most consequential questions of executive authority in modern history —can a president unilaterally impose taxes worth hundreds of billions of dollars by declaring a national emergency.

At stake is far more than trade policy. The Court must determine whether Trump had authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose the tariffs, a 1977 law originally designed to freeze assets during genuine crises, not to fundamentally reshape American commerce. Lower courts have already ruled against the administration, finding that the law does not authorize such broad tariff powers.

The financial implications of the pending SCOTUS decision are significant. The government has collected over $200 billion in tariff revenue, and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent estimates the Trump administration might have to refund $750 billion to $1 trillion if the Court rules against the tariffs. 

As America waits, it is helpful to refresh ourselves on where Trump’s tariff policy currently stands, and what exceptions have already been made for various constituencies in the U.S. that have been impacted by the tariffs. 

Trump’s sweeping tariff regime has become increasingly fluid, with strategic carveouts revealing the administration’s balancing act. While the president has imposed historic import taxes, raising average U.S. tariff rates to levels not seen in over a century, recent exemptions show a selective approach to trade enforcement.

The most significant carveout came on November 14 when Trump exempted over 200 agricultural products from reciprocal tariffs, including coffee, tomatoes, beef, bananas, and spices—foods not grown in sufficient quantities in the United States. 

Although the U.S. is a major beef producer, a persistent shortage of cattle in recent years has kept beef prices high.

While Malaysia and Cambodia maintain a 19% reciprocal tariff , there are key exemptions (0% tariff) from the following goods from those countries. These include: semiconductors and electronics, including chips, computers, and smartphones, palm oil, rubber, aircraft parts, pharmaceuticals and medical devices, as well as certain metals, critical minerals, and lumber.

Trump is also bailing out American farmers who, in particular, have felt the brunt of his tariff policies. This fall China stopped buying all soybeans from U.S. farmers and purchased soybeans from Argentina instead.

Back in October, Trump met with Chinese President Xi and the U.S. and China announced a framework trade agreement that included a deal on soybeans. China agreed to purchase 12 million metric tons of soybeans in the final two months of this year and 25 million metric tons in 2026, 2027 and 2028. But so far, China has purchased about 2.2 million metric tons of soybeans from the U.S. since the end of October, USDA data shows.

On Monday of this week Trump held a roundtable event with Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins to discuss a $12 billion tariff relief for farmers. The package will include $11 billion for the Agriculture Department’s new Farmer Bridge Assistance program, created to support American crop farmers. The remaining $1 billion will go toward aid for commodities that the FBA does not cover.

Corporate America has also secured targeted relief. The administration has granted exemptions for critical minerals, certain energy products, and specific manufacturing inputs. Switzerland’s reciprocal tariff rate was slashed from 39 percent to 15 percent, while the European Union negotiated reduced rates, though the situation remains fluid.

Many organizations, like this one offer trade compliance and tariff trackers by country. 

Companies have responded by diversifying supply chains, while simultaneously filing lawsuits seeking tariff refunds, with Costco being the most recent. 

Unfortunately, US manufacturing has not increased as Trump had hoped his tariff policies would spark as Reuters News reported that U.S. manufacturing contracted for the ninth straight month in November, “with factories facing slumping orders and higher prices for inputs as the drag from import tariffs persisted.”

As litigation proceeds through federal courts and as the world waits for the Supreme Court’s decision, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent predicted that the Trump administration still will be able to implement its tariff agenda regardless of SCOTUS’ decision. 

According to reporting with CNBC, Bessent suggested that even if the court prevents the administration from using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose tariffs, “We can recreate the exact tariff structure with sections 301, with 232, with 122 of the 1962 Trade Act” and added that he “still thinks the U.S. stands a good chance of prevailing in the Supreme Court case.”

The Trade Expansion Act of 1962 provided the President of the United States of America with new authority to cut (or impose) international trade tariffs. Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 “allows the President to impose restrictions on goods imports or enter into negotiations with trading partners if the U.S. Secretary of Commerce determines, following an investigation, that the quantity or other circumstance of those imports ‘threaten to impair’ U.S. national security.”

The carveouts mentioned above expose the inherent tension in Trump’s trade strategy. While the president champions tariffs as economic tools to reduce trade deficits and protect American manufacturing, exemptions for essential imports and politically sensitive products reveal practical limits to his strategy. 

And so we continue to wait.