USTR Greer Affirms Trade Deal Stability Following Supreme Court Tariff Defeat

The declaration by US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer that bilateral trade deals remain intact marks a critical moment of legal decoupling for the Trump administration’s trade agenda. By asserting that individual agreements stand independent of the Supreme Court’s recent ruling against broad tariff-imposing powers, the USTR is attempting to ring-fence existing diplomatic successes from judicial setbacks. This move is essential for maintaining the 'rules-based' perception of US trade policy, even as the executive branch’s primary tool for enforcement—unilateral tariffs—faces unprecedented constitutional scrutiny. For legal and compliance professionals, this signals a shift from monitoring executive orders to a deeper analysis of the underlying treaty law and bilateral frameworks that support these deals.

The industry context for this development is rooted in the administration's aggressive use of Section 232 and Section 301 authorities, which the Supreme Court has now signaled may have exceeded delegated legislative powers. This judicial pivot creates a potential vacuum in trade enforcement. If the administration cannot legally sustain the tariffs that were used as leverage to secure these bilateral deals, the 'quid pro quo' of the agreements themselves could be called into question by international partners. Greer’s comments serve as a preemptive strike against such arguments, suggesting that the contractual obligations of the deals are severed from the specific legal mechanism used to implement the associated tariffs.

“

The declaration by US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer that bilateral trade deals remain intact marks a critical moment of legal decoupling for the Trump administration’s trade agenda.

From a RegTech and trade compliance perspective, the implications are significant. Companies must now navigate a dual-track regulatory environment where the executive branch maintains the validity of trade deals while the judiciary restricts the enforcement mechanisms. This creates a 'gray zone' for import-export compliance. RegTech platforms will need to update their logic engines to distinguish between tariffs struck down by the court and those that may still be enforceable under alternative legal theories or specific bilateral treaty provisions. The risk of sudden 'snap-back' provisions or retaliatory measures from trading partners who perceive the US as unable to fulfill its end of the bargain remains a high-priority monitoring item.

Looking ahead, the legal community should watch for a flurry of 're-authorizing' actions from the USTR. If the Supreme Court ruling stands as a hard limit on executive discretion, the administration may be forced to seek specific congressional approval for each bilateral deal to ensure they are on firm legal footing. This would return the US to a more traditional trade policy model, albeit one born out of judicial necessity rather than political choice. For now, Greer’s stance provides a temporary floor for market expectations, but the long-term stability of these deals will depend on whether the administration can find a new legal anchor for its trade enforcement strategy that satisfies both the high court and international stakeholders.

Ultimately, this development highlights the growing tension between executive-led trade diplomacy and the constitutional limits of delegated authority. As the administration attempts to navigate this legal labyrinth, the focus will shift toward the fine print of bilateral agreements. Legal departments should prioritize auditing their supply chains against these specific deals rather than relying on broad administration policy statements, as the judicial branch has clearly demonstrated its willingness to intervene in matters of economic statecraft.