President Trump’s ambitious tariff policy faces an existential threat as the U.S. Court of International Trade unanimously rules his trade actions exceed executive authority, even as a federal appeals court grants temporary relief.

At a Glance

• President Trump plans to raise steel and aluminum tariffs to 50% this week despite ongoing legal challenges
• The U.S. Court of International Trade, including Trump-appointed judges, ruled the president unlawfully used emergency powers for trade issues
• A federal appeals court has temporarily stayed the lower court’s ruling, keeping tariffs in place until at least June 9
• Trump warns that striking down his tariff authority would lead to “economic ruination” of the United States
• The legal battle centers on whether the president can impose tariffs without congressional approval

Court Ruling Challenges Presidential Trade Authority

The U.S. Court of International Trade delivered a significant blow to President Trump’s trade strategy by ruling that using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose tariffs constitutes an overreach of executive authority. The unanimous decision came from a panel of judges appointed by Presidents Trump, Obama, and Reagan, emphasizing the bipartisan nature of the judicial concern. The court determined that the IEEPA was designed for urgent national security threats, not addressing trade imbalances, effectively declaring Trump’s sweeping tariff plan unlawful.

This legal challenge stems from at least seven cases brought against the administration’s tariff policies, involving small businesses and a coalition of U.S. states. The ruling specifically targets Trump’s April announcement of a 10% baseline tariff on all imports, with higher rates for countries like China that maintain large trade surpluses with the United States. The court’s decision potentially undermines a cornerstone of Trump’s economic strategy, which he has consistently promoted as essential for American manufacturing and job protection.

The New York-based Court of International Trade’s ruled that the president overstepped his authority in invoking powers granted to the executive in an economic emergency to impose sweeping tariffs on all U.S. trade partners April 2.

The judgment undermines the legal basis for… pic.twitter.com/7ng5EB1rPA

— US Ship of State (@US_ShipOfState) May 29, 2025

Temporary Reprieve and Administration Response

Despite the setback, the Trump administration secured a temporary victory when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a stay on the lower court’s decision. This judicial pause maintains the current tariff structure while government lawyers prepare their appeal. The administration faces a tight deadline, with a response due by 5 p.m. Monday. This temporary reinstatement allows the government to continue enforcing the 10% baseline tariff and employ “reciprocal tariffs” as negotiating tools with global trading partners.

The White House had already demonstrated some flexibility in its tariff strategy before the court disputes, scaling back the harshest measures against China and agreeing to a temporary 90-day reduction. This pragmatic adjustment suggests the administration recognizes the economic and diplomatic complexities of implementing such broad trade measures. Nevertheless, Trump maintains that the judicial intervention threatens presidential authority and would be celebrated by America’s global competitors.

Donald Trump will win his appeal against the court ruling that blocked his “liberation day” tariffs, according to National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett, who criticised the judges involved as “activists.”

Speaking to Fox Business, Hassett said the administration… https://t.co/wGeekBS8nQ pic.twitter.com/mQDH5Olzla

— Share_Talk ™ (@Share_Talk) May 29, 2025

Steel and Aluminum Tariffs Set to Increase

Despite the legal turmoil, President Trump is proceeding with plans to double steel and aluminum tariffs to 50% effective June 4. During a visit to a U.S. Steel plant in Pennsylvania, Trump announced this significant increase, framing it as essential protection for domestic metal manufacturers. The administration appears determined to forge ahead with its trade agenda while the legal questions remain unresolved, creating uncertainty for businesses and trading partners alike.

The planned tariff increase affects not only traditional economic competitors but also allies like Canada and Mexico. Trump has linked some tariffs to issues beyond trade, including efforts to combat fentanyl trafficking from China. This strategic expansion of tariff justifications highlights the administration’s attempt to frame trade policy as addressing national security concerns, potentially strengthening its legal position that the IEEPA provides appropriate authority for such measures.

Constitutional Questions and Future Implications

At the heart of this dispute lies a fundamental constitutional question about the separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches. Trump has forcefully argued that requiring congressional approval for tariffs would “completely destroy Presidential Power,” fundamentally changing the presidency itself. This position contrasts with the court’s view that Congress, not the president, holds primary authority over trade policy under the Constitution.

The case appears destined for the Supreme Court, where justices will ultimately determine the boundaries of presidential authority in trade matters. Their decision will have far-reaching implications not only for Trump’s economic agenda but also for the power balance between future presidents and Congress in shaping America’s trade policy. For American businesses, consumers, and international trading partners, the outcome of this legal battle will determine the predictability and stability of U.S. trade relations for years to come.