Donald Trump’s fondness for tariffs has long defined his approach to global trade. Since reclaiming the US presidency, he has used import duties—both the imposition and mere threat of them—as his primary economic lever, targeting foes and friends alike. But this week, a major legal setback has cast serious doubt on the president’s ability to continue doing so unchecked.
On Wednesday evening, the US Court of International Trade ruled that many of Trump’s tariffs were imposed unlawfully, asserting that he had exceeded the scope of emergency powers intended for genuine national threats. The court gave the White House ten days to rescind nearly all tariffs that had been imposed under this justification.
The administration swiftly appealed. A federal appeals court granted a temporary stay, allowing the tariffs to remain in place—for now. In its appeal, the White House argued that any curtailment of this power “would kneecap the president on the world stage” and severely compromise the government’s ability to negotiate international trade deals or respond to future crises.
Late Thursday night, Trump fired back via his preferred social media platform, Truth Social. He denounced the ruling as “wrong” and “horrible”, and lambasted the lower court judges in characteristic style.
For years, Trump has claimed sole authority to impose tariffs, bypassing Congress by citing national economic emergencies. That strategy has allowed him to wield tariffs like a cudgel, threatening punitive charges on a whim. In one week alone, he hiked tariffs on Chinese imports to 145%, only to lower them to 30% days later. He warned the EU of 50% tariffs, then quietly walked it back.
Such unpredictability has become a hallmark of his approach, one that’s left financial markets skittish and world leaders scrambling to interpret his intentions. American retailers have warned of higher prices and dwindling shelves, while trade partners complain of an uneven playing field.
Yet, as his former ambassador to the EU, Gordon Sondland, explained, the unpredictability is deliberate. “It’s exactly what Trump did in business,” he said. “Find a pressure point and use it now. Not later—today.”
Sondland added, “How do you get something as slow-moving as the EU to act? You slap a 50% tariff on them, and suddenly the phone starts ringing.”
But legal resistance may finally catch up with Trump’s approach. Should the courts ultimately rule against him, one route would be to seek Congressional backing for tariffs—though that would eliminate one of his favourite tactics: surprise.
Economists remain divided. Trump insists his tariff policies are responsible for billions in additional government revenue and a revival in US manufacturing. He argues tariffs deter outsourcing by pushing companies to relocate production to the US, in line with his promise to “Make America Great Again”.
More Read
Yet critics argue that the reality is less favourable. Justin Wolfers, a professor of economics at the University of Michigan, described Trump’s strategy as “madness.”
“If you want businesses to invest in America, you need stable tariffs. Not tweets that upend policy every fortnight,” he said. He also pointed out that while Trump sometimes reverses course—earning Wall Street’s nickname for him, “TACO” (Trump Always Chickens Out)—he has still left a lasting impact.
“Even the tariffs he didn’t walk back mean the US had the highest average tariff rate yesterday since 1934,” Wolfers noted.
Despite the legal turbulence, Trump’s team shows no signs of retreat. Peter Navarro, Trump’s trade adviser, told reporters, “Even if we lose, we will do it another way.”
For now, the tariffs remain. But America’s trading partners are left in limbo, unsure what next week—or Trump’s next post—might bring. And that, it seems, is exactly how he wants it.
