Court Rules Against Trump’s Tariff Policy

Shiva K Dhakal
National Press Corporation(NPC),UK
United Kingdom– A US federal appeals court has struck down large parts of former President Donald Trump’s global tariff programme, ruling that the duties imposed on China, Mexico, Canada and dozens of other nations were unlawful.

In a 7–4 decision, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said Mr Trump had exceeded his authority by invoking emergency economic powers to justify sweeping trade restrictions. Judges described the tariffs as “invalid as contrary to law”, underscoring that the power to impose or adjust tariffs rests with Congress, not the president.

The ruling, which will not take effect until 14 October, provides the Trump campaign and his legal team a narrow window to petition the Supreme Court. If upheld, the decision could dismantle a signature pillar of Trump’s foreign policy and reshape Washington’s ties with both allies and rivals.

The tariffs, described by the Trump administration as “reciprocal”, were meant to punish countries accused of exploiting the United States in trade. But they inflamed relations with key partners such as Canada and Mexico, while sparking a protracted trade war with China. Critics argue the measures harmed American farmers, disrupted supply chains, and increased consumer prices, while failing to bring about the structural changes Washington had sought from Beijing.

Canada, Mexico and the European Union had protested bitterly against the tariffs, labelling them a violation of international trade norms. China responded with retaliatory duties, escalating tensions into one of the fiercest trade confrontations in recent memory.

On Truth Social, Mr Trump denounced the court’s ruling, warning of national ruin if the tariffs were removed. “If allowed to stand, this Decision would literally destroy the United States of America,” he wrote, adding that “our Tariffs should be removed, but they know the United States will win in the end”.

Trump had justified the duties under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), legislation designed for use against “unusual and extraordinary” threats. He declared a national emergency on trade, arguing that imbalances endangered US national security. But the court ruled that tariff-setting was “a core Congressional power” and could not be exercised unilaterally by the president.

Legal scholars say the case highlights fundamental questions about the limits of executive authority. For America’s trading partners, it could signal the beginning of a reset in relations. Whether the Supreme Court decides to uphold or overturn the ruling will shape not only the future of Trump’s trade strategy but also the credibility of the US commitment to global rules-based commerce.