If international trade law were a Hollywood script, the current US administration would have already won the Oscar for best science fiction film.

Not content with seeing the Supreme Court pulverise duties based on theInternational Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), Donald Trump and his faithful squire at Treasury, Scott Bessent, decided to exhume an excellent corpse: Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974.

Welcome to the era of ‘vintage’ protectionism , where we treat the ills of 2026 with medicines that expired in 1971, hoping that no one will notice that the patient does not actually have a fever.

Section 122: a defective time machine

Section 122 is a legislative archaeological find.

It was written to deal with the debris of the‘Nixon Shock‘, that cathartic moment when Richard Nixon admitted to the world that the US no longer had enough gold to honour the value of the dollar. It was the era of Bretton Woods, of fixed rates and a real balance of payments crisis.

Today, Scott Bessent looks at us with the seriousness of a doctor prescribing bloodletting to cure 5G and tells us that the US is in a ‘payment crisis’.

Too bad that, according to almost all economists (those without party cards in their pockets), the crisis simply does not exist.
The US trade deficit is as immobile as a marble statue, the dollar is the most desired currency on the planet, and gold reserves have not been the benchmark for half a century.

Invoking Section 122 today is like declaring a state of siege because there is no milk in the supermarket: a legal hyperbole that borders on the ridiculous.

The Bessent Bridge: 150 days of pure creativity

The strategy is of an almost admirable cynicism. Section 122 allows temporary duties of up to 15 per cent for a maximum of 150 days.
It is a ‘bridge measure’, they say.
The idea is to use these five months to institute Sections 232 (national security) and 301 (unfair practices) filings, somewhat more robust tools for those who want to bully their way into the global trade yard without being immediately ejected from the Supreme Court bench.

The sarcastic twist?
Initially the duties were at 10%. Then, in less than 24 hours – perhaps after a particularly good coffee – they were raised to 15%, the maximum allowed. It is proof that this is not a technical measure based on economic data, but a political magic trick: you shoot the maximum to see who blinks first.

The stolen loot: 180 billion reasons not to apologise

While the White House plans for the future, the past is knocking at the door with a bill in hand.
The ‘first version’ duties (those rejected by the Court) earned the federal coffers about 180 billion dollars. Now that those duties have been declared illegitimate, logic would dictate that the state should return the ill-gotten gains.

But ethics, in Washington, is an optional extra that has not been included in the basic package. The administration has already let it be known, with a nerve that would make a bogus car dealer envious, that it will not return a penny.
This is not only a slap in the face to businesses; it is a resounding crisis of credibility of the rule of law. If a banana republic did it, IMF sanctions would be triggered; if the US did it, it’s called ‘America First’.

However, the business giants are not buying it.
FedEx and Costco lead a charge of over 1,500 companies that have already filed lawsuits.

Imagine the paradox: the administration seeks to cash in on new duties while the courts threaten to order it to repay 180 billion plus interest. A masterpiece of financial engineering in reverse that could leave the federal budget more potholed than a form of Swiss cheese.

Logistical sabotage: whoever comes last wins

Let us turn to logistics, where bureaucratic genius is at its best. If you, the importer, know that a 15% duty will expire in 150 days, what do you do?
Simple: you wait.
We will witness a parade of cargo ships slowing down shipping, warehouses remaining empty for months and then, on the stroke of 151st day, an assault on ports worthy of the Normandy landings.

This forced ‘stop-and-go’ will destroy value chains, create systemic delays and, ironically, fuel the very domestic inflation that Trump swears he wants to fight.
Uncertainty is the cancer of trade, and Section 122 is a metastasis nurtured in a test tube.

Geopolitics in reverse: caresses to Beijing, slaps to Rome

Finally, we come to the geopolitical masterpiece. If the aim was to hit China, the means is a resounding own goal.
By imposing a 15% ceiling through Section 122, in fact, Trump is unwittingly giving a gift to those who were hit by much heavier tariffs.

• China and Brazil give thanks: for them, 15 per cent is almost a sale period compared to the past. They will be able to flood the US market with lower relative costs.
  
  
• Italy weeps: For us, the fun is over. Gone are the ‘zero duty’ sectors, those where our medium-sized companies dominated thanks to quality and favourable customs regimes. From fashion to precision mechanics, Made in Italy finds itself footing the bill for a party to which it was not even invited.

While Beijing toasts, Italian industrial districts have to figure out how to explain to their American customers that the price of their machine tools has risen by 15% overnight because someone in Washington has decided to play ‘Back to the Future’ with trade treaties.

The shipwreck of reason

In conclusion, the Section 122 manoeuvre is not a trade policy; it is an act of legal desperation masquerading as muscular sovereignism.
It is an attempt by an administration that, having lost the compass of law, seeks to navigate by sight using a map from the time of Columbus.

Between billionaire refunds denied, crippled ports and historical allies sacrificed on the altar of a competitive advantage (moreover given to enemies), Scott Bessent’s ‘bridge’ seems destined to collapse long before 150 days.
It remains to be seen how many companies, and how much international credibility, will end up in the river below.