Related videos:
In a judicial ruling that has put the economic policy of President Donald Trump in suspense, a Washington appellate court has declared the majority of the tariffs that the president imposed through executive orders to be illegal, a key pillar of his economic strategy.
The ruling, issued on Friday, questions the constitutionality of the tariffs, arguing that Trump acted beyond legal boundaries by invoking emergency powers to impose taxes on imports.
The court concluded that it did not have the authority to impose such tariffs, as the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which grants it the power to act in response to national security threats, does not explicitly authorize the imposition of taxes or tariffs.
This law has historically been used to sanction nations deemed enemies of the United States, but it has never been used to impose trade barriers on a global level.
The court ruling does not affect all the tariffs imposed by Trump, as some, such as the levies on steel and aluminum, were applied under a different regulation.
However, most of the tariffs, such as those imposed on China, the European Union, Canada, and Mexico, are facing a repeal that could have serious repercussions for the U.S. economy and its international trade relationships.
Despite this ruling, the tariffs will remain in effect until October 14, allowing the White House time to file an appeal with the Supreme Court.
Trump has already expressed his intention to appeal the ruling, labeling the appeals court as "highly politicized" and trusting that the conservative-majority Supreme Court will overturn the decision.
According to what he stated on his social media Truth Social, tariffs are a fundamental tool for reducing the budget deficit and protecting the U.S. economy.
"If these tariffs were to disappear, it would be a total disaster for the country. It would weaken us financially, and we have to be strong," emphasized Trump, adding that if the Washington court's decision remains in effect, it would "literally destroy the United States of America."
For his part, White House spokesperson Kush Desai stated that Trump legitimately exercised the tariff powers granted to him by Congress to protect the nation's national and economic security from foreign threats.
"The president's tariffs remain in effect, and we expect a definitive victory on this issue," he emphasized.
District Attorney Pamela Bondi also stated that the judges of the Federal Circuit are interfering with the vital and constitutionally central role of the president in foreign policy.
"This decision iswrong and undermines the United States on the global stage. The Department of Justice will appeal this decision and will continue to fight to restore the president's legitimate authority," he expressed on X.
The impact of these tariffs has been significant.
On one hand, the administration has presented them as a means to reduce the trade deficit of the United States and compel other countries to make economic concessions.
However, its implementation has generated instability in global markets, increased the prices of imported goods, and strained relations with key trading partners.
The measures have had negative effects on sectors such as automotive and agriculture, which have been hit by additional import taxes.
The judicial decision also reflects the broader debate about the extent of presidential powers in economic matters.
The Constitution of the United States grants Congress the exclusive authority to impose taxes, and the court noted that any delegation of this authority to the president must be explicit and limited.
In this context, the plaintiffs, including small businesses and state governments, argued that Trump had overstepped his authority by implementing such broad measures without the proper legislative approval.
This ruling comes at a crucial moment for the current administration, which is already facing other legal challenges related to its social policies.
The White House has reiterated that Trump's tariff strategy is a legitimate response to what it considers "foreign threats," and it claims it will defend its policies at all possible judicial levels.
In any case, this ruling underscores the tensions that exist between the executive and legislative branches in the United States, especially in a context where the president's protectionist policies have transformed the global economic landscape.
The upcoming legal battle will take place in the Supreme Court, where it will be determined whether Trump has the authority to proceed with these measures, which have become one of the most controversial policies of his administration.
Frequently Asked Questions About the Court Ruling Against Trump's Tariffs
Why did the appeals court declare Trump's tariffs illegal?
The court found that Trump acted beyond legal boundaries by using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose tariffs, as this law does not explicitly authorize the imposition of taxes or tariffs. The decision is based on the fact that Congress has the exclusive authority to impose taxes, and any delegation of this authority to the president must be explicit and limited.
Which Trump tariffs are affected by this court ruling?
Most of the tariffs imposed by Trump, including those applied to China, the European Union, Canada, and Mexico, are facing cancellation due to this ruling. The tariffs on steel and aluminum are not affected because they were imposed under a different regulation.
What economic implications could the elimination of these tariffs have?
The elimination of these tariffs could have serious repercussions for the U.S. economy and its international trade relations. It could create instability in global markets, raise prices for imported goods, and strain relationships with key trade allies. Furthermore, sectors such as automotive and agriculture could be particularly impacted.
What has been Trump's reaction to the court ruling?
Trump has expressed his intention to appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court, describing the appellate court as "highly politicized." He is confident that the high court, which has a conservative majority, will reverse the decision, and has argued that the elimination of these tariffs would be a "total disaster" for the country.
Filed under: