Kavanagh’s ‘Roadmap’ Ruling Gives Trump Tariff Wiggle Room: Expert
Getty Images
A Supreme Court ruling blocking President Donald Trump’s use of broad tariff powers under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) may still leave alternative avenues available to the administration, according to a legal analyst on Wednesday.
Elliot Williams, a CNN legal analyst and former deputy assistant attorney general in the Obama administration, discussed the decision on The Bulwark’s “Illegal News” podcast. Williams said that although the Court rejected Trump’s use of IEEPA to impose sweeping global tariffs, Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s dissent identified other statutory mechanisms that could allow the president to levy tariffs under more limited circumstances.
“Justice Kavanaugh did sort of lay out a bit of a roadmap for saying that, yes, there are avenues for the president to get some tariffs,” Williams said during the interview.
In his dissent, Kavanaugh expressed support for broader presidential tariff authority under IEEPA but noted that other statutes may provide limited authority. He referenced the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, the Trade Act of 1974 and the Tariff Act of 1930 as potential alternative legal bases for tariffs.
The laws allow a president to impose tariffs, but these tariffs are only temporary, have lower maximum rates than those previously used by Trump, and require him to provide specific findings to justify their implementation. In his dissent, Kavanaugh pointed out that “the president checked the wrong statutory box” when he issued tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).
Trump later expressed that he was “proud” of Kavanaugh’s dissent during a briefing about the decision and has moved forward with plans to implement new tariffs using Section 122 of the Trade Act. However, Williams explained that without the IEEPA, Trump’s ability to impose tariffs as quickly and broadly as he had done before is no longer feasible, comparing his situation to winning a luxury car but then being forced to drive an older, beat-up model.
“It is impossible for the president to get the kinds of tariffs, one, that he ran on, and two, that he tried to put in place on ‘Liberation Day,’ whatever it was, in April of [2025],” said Williams.
During his State of the Union address, Trump announced that his administration plans to maintain tariffs by utilizing alternative legal statutes after the Supreme Court rejected part of his tariff program last week. He reiterated his belief that tariff revenue could eventually replace federal income taxes.
Trump said the tariffs “will remain in place until fully approved and tested alternative legal statutes,” adding, “They have been tested for a long time. They’re a little more complex, but they’re actually probably better.”
Legal experts pointed out that the statute the administration is currently using, Section 122, is only a temporary measure. They highlighted that the tariffs can last only 150 days under this authority, and Congress has indicated that they are unlikely to renew the tariffs after that period. Experts noted that unless the president can independently extend the tariffs after 150 days, he will need to pursue another legal option.
Legal experts have pointed out that the statute the administration is currently using, Section 122, serves as a temporary solution. They highlight a significant issue: the tariffs imposed under this authority can only remain in effect for 150 days. Furthermore, Congress has indicated that it is unlikely to renew them after this period. Experts suggest that unless the president can independently extend the tariffs after 150 days, he will need to explore alternative legal options.
U.S. Trade Representative Jamison Greer stated that the administration intends to maintain its current trade strategy by utilizing alternative authorities. “The trade policy we’ve had for the past year is going to remain the same,” Greer said.
“The Supreme Court came down and they said that there’s one element of the president’s tariff program where he couldn’t use that particular legal authority. Congress has given several other legal authorities. And so we’re just going to use those instead,” he added.
U.S.–CANADA WATER TENSIONS? OTTAWA SIGNALS SOVEREIGNTY IS NON-NEGOTIABLE…
U.S.–CANADA WATER TENSIONS? OTTAWA SIGNALS SOVEREIGNTY IS NON-NEGOTIABLE…
Tensions between Washington and Ottawa have taken an extraordinary turn — not over trade, defense, or tariffs — but over water.
Amid deepening drought conditions across the American West, President Donald Trump raised the idea that Canada’s vast freshwater reserves could help alleviate shortages in states like California, Arizona, and Nevada. While he stopped short of issuing a formal demand, his remarks suggesting Canada’s water could act like a “large faucet” for the United States ignited immediate controversy.
Ottawa’s response was swift — and unequivocal.
Prime Minister Mark Carney rejected any suggestion that Canada’s freshwater resources are up for negotiation, declaring them a sovereign public trust and “not a commodity to be controlled or transferred under external pressure.”
The exchange has exposed a deeper fault line in North American relations: how nations respond to resource scarcity in an era of climate stress.
The Drought Reality in the American West
The American Southwest is facing sustained water pressure:
The Colorado River system is under historic strain.
Lake Mead and Lake Powell remain below long-term averages.
Rapid population growth continues in water-stressed regions.
Agriculture in California and Arizona is increasingly vulnerable.
Cities including Phoenix, Las Vegas, and Los Angeles are investing heavily in conservation, wastewater recycling, and desalination. But long-term projections show continued volatility as climate change alters snowpack and runoff patterns.
In that context, Trump’s comments about Canada’s freshwater abundance resonated with some U.S. observers who see continental resource sharing as pragmatic.
What Canada Actually Controls
Canada holds roughly 20% of the world’s freshwater resources — though much of that is locked in glaciers, remote watersheds, or flows northward away from population centers.
The two countries already cooperate extensively on shared water systems, most notably through:
The Great Lakes agreements
The Boundary Waters Treaty (1909)
The Columbia River Treaty
British Columbia recently confirmed that discussions regarding the modernization of the Columbia River Treaty are under review by the U.S. administration — though no formal collapse of agreements has occurred.
What has not happened is any formal U.S. demand for ownership or control of Canadian water infrastructure. The dispute remains rhetorical — but politically charged.
Why Ottawa Drew a Hard Line
Carney’s refusal reflects longstanding Canadian policy.
Canada has historically resisted:
Bulk freshwater export proposals
Cross-border water diversion megaprojects
Treating freshwater as a tradable commodity under trade agreements
The concern in Ottawa is not short-term sales — it’s legal precedent. If water were formally commodified, it could fall under international trade dispute mechanisms, potentially limiting Canada’s ability to regulate its own supply in the future.
Canadian leaders across party lines have traditionally viewed water sovereignty as non-negotiable.
Carney framed the issue in environmental and strategic terms:
Climate volatility affects Canadian watersheds too.
Glacial melt is accelerating in Western Canada.
Long-term ecological impacts of diversion are unpredictable.
The argument is not simply nationalist — it’s precautionary.
The Infrastructure Reality
Large-scale water transfers from Canada to the U.S. Southwest would require:
Thousands of miles of pipeline or canal systems
Massive pumping energy requirements
Multibillion-dollar capital investment
Complex environmental approvals
No such project is currently under construction or formally approved.
Policy think tanks have studied water diversion concepts for decades, but they remain economically and politically contentious.
The Philosophical Divide
At the heart of the controversy is a deeper debate:
Is water an economic asset that can be traded like oil or gas?
Or is it a protected public trust insulated from market forces?
In the United States, market-based allocation of water resources is more common. In Canada, water governance is more closely tied to public stewardship and provincial authority.
That philosophical difference is now colliding with climate pressure.
What This Means Geopolitically
Despite heated rhetoric, this is not a military standoff. It is a policy divergence amplified by climate stress.
Still, the symbolism matters.
For decades, U.S.–Canada relations have been defined by:
Deep integration
Predictable cooperation
Quiet dispute resolution
Public disagreement over water — a resource fundamental to survival — marks a notable escalation in tone, if not yet in formal policy.
Experts warn that as climate change intensifies:
Water diplomacy will become as important as energy diplomacy.
Resource security will increasingly shape alliances.
Infrastructure vulnerability will redefine leverage.
The Path Forward
Realistically, any future cooperation would likely take the form of:
Joint conservation initiatives
Shared basin management
Technology exchange (desalination, recycling, storage)
Climate adaptation coordination
Large-scale bulk water transfers remain politically radioactive in Canada and economically complex in the United States.
For now, Carney’s message is clear:
Canada’s water is not for sale.
And Washington has not formally moved beyond rhetoric.
The Bigger Picture
This episode highlights a larger truth:
In the 21st century, water — not oil — may become the defining strategic resource.
But unlike oil, water is immovable geography. It is tied to ecosystems, borders, and long-term sustainability.
How the United States and Canada manage water cooperation in a warming climate will signal whether resource stress leads to confrontation — or innovation.
