Court Rules Trump’s Tariff Strategy Was Built on an Illegal Premise

A U.S. federal appeals court has ruled that the central premise of Donald Trump’s global tariff strategy—that he could use emergency powers to tax nearly all imports—was illegal. The decision strikes at the very heart of his administration’s approach to trade and international relations.
The 7-4 ruling found that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not give the president the authority to impose tariffs. The court concluded that Trump’s declaration of a national emergency over the U.S. trade deficit was an improper use of a law designed for sanctioning foreign adversaries, not for overhauling trade policy with allies.
The verdict creates a cascade of uncertainty. The informal trade deals negotiated to mitigate these tariffs are now on shaky legal ground. Countries that agreed to import quotas or investment promises may now seek to renegotiate, arguing they were coerced by an illegal threat. This could reset numerous global trade relationships.
The case is expected to be appealed to the Supreme Court, ensuring the legal and economic limbo continues. However, the ruling is a significant victory for those who argued for a stricter interpretation of presidential power. It also triggers a complex legal process to determine if billions in tariffs should be refunded to the businesses that paid them.