The author is a senior economic reporter at the JoongAng Ilbo.
"No taxation without representation."
The slogan, seen on license plates across Washington, D.C., still resonates in the U.S. capital today. It originated during the 18th-century American Revolution, when colonists argued that it was unjust to impose taxes on citizens without giving them a voice in government. D.C. residents continue to display it as a silent protest: Unlike the 50 states, the district pays federal taxes but has no voting representatives in Congress.
Taxes ignited the American Revolution. When Britain tried to fund its empire by taxing its colonies, American settlers resisted, arguing that any taxation by a legislature where they had no representation was illegitimate. The Boston Tea Party in 1773 symbolized that defiance.

The founding generation remembered this when establishing the United States. The Constitution explicitly vested taxing and tariff powers in Congress, not the president. Article I states that all bills to raise revenue must originate in the House of Representatives, and that Congress alone has the authority to levy and collect taxes and duties. The framers ensured that even the commander in chief could not unilaterally impose them.
That principle is now being tested. During his second term, President Donald Trump imposed tariffs on more than 100 countries, citing the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) rather than seeking congressional approval. How such sweeping tariffs could stand without legislative backing quickly became a matter of legal challenge. The case has now reached the U.S. Supreme Court, which is reviewing whether Trump's use of emergency powers to impose global tariffs was lawful.

During oral arguments on Nov. 5, several justices signaled skepticism. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, one of Trump's own appointees, pressed the administration's lawyer: "Are you saying the president can impose tariffs on every country - Spain, France - simply because they might threaten our defense or industrial base?"
The IEEPA authorizes the president to "investigate," "block," "regulate" or "nullify" certain actions in national emergencies - but it never mentions tariffs. Trump's team argues that "regulate" implicitly includes tariff authority, yet justices questioned that logic, noting that the law's text does not explicitly permit taxation. Given the court's emphasis on textual interpretation, the odds may not favor Trump.
After the hearing, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent insisted he remained "very optimistic," predicting a government victory. But based on the tone of questioning, the possibility that the court could strike down Trump's tariffs cannot be ruled out.
If that happens, economic and political repercussions would be immediate. Companies might sue to recover duties already paid - roughly 280 trillion won ($200 billion) in tariffs collected by September this year. Removing one of the pillars of Trump's trade agenda would also shake his broader economic strategy. More significantly, a ruling restricting presidential power over trade would mark the first major legal limit on Trump's sweeping executive authority.
The administration is reportedly preparing a fallback plan. Experts note that several statutes still allow the president to impose tariffs, albeit within narrower bounds. Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act authorizes up to a 15 percent tariff for 150 days to address trade imbalances or unfair practices. Section 301, which Trump used against China during his first term, remains valid, as does Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act, which permits tariffs for national security reasons.
These alternatives require formal investigations and bureaucratic steps, but they remain potent tools. Another long-dormant law, Section 338 of the 1930 Tariff Act, lets the president impose tariffs of up to 50 percent on countries that discriminate against U.S. exports.
Still, if the Supreme Court overturns Trump's exist...

Ver todos los episodios