Initially, it was the markets that restrained him. This week, it was the judiciary.
Donald Trump’s ambitious scheme to transform global trade and assert “economic independence” from the rest of the world has been significantly curtailed, less than two months after imposing extensive tariffs on nearly all of America’s trading partners.
The legal setback was a humbling experience for the US president: the Court of International Trade ruled on Wednesday that the entire legal foundation of his tariffs using emergency economic powers was flawed, rendering them invalid just as America was entering into negotiations with the EU, Japan, India, and others to compel them to revise their trade practices. Although a federal appeals court on Thursday allowed the tariffs to remain in effect for now pending further judicial proceedings, their legality is now in doubt.
“This is a major blow to the ongoing negotiations,” said Clark Packard, a trade policy analyst at the Cato Institute in Washington. “Trading partners will now reassess the likely outcome. If Trump’s authority has been restricted and he no longer has free rein, they may think, ‘We can stall’.”
Financial and economic pressures, such as a declining stock market and a sell-off in US government bonds, had already thwarted Trump’s lofty ambitions. To reassure investors, he quickly paused most of his “liberation day” tariffs within a week and reached an agreement to rollback retaliatory tariffs on Chinese imports earlier this month.
Despite being able to maintain pressure on foreign governments by warning them of potentially high tariffs on their exports to the US if they did not engage in talks by early July, the recent court rulings have cast doubt on the effectiveness of this threat. In addition to the Court of International Trade, a district court judge in Washington also declared Trump’s tariffs as “unlawful.”
The White House responded defiantly to the rulings. Stephen Miller, a senior adviser to Trump, criticized the situation as “judicial tyranny.” Administration officials pledged to challenge the court decisions up to the Supreme Court, if necessary, and emphasized that they have alternative legal avenues to impose tariffs on imported goods from various countries.
While some analysts believe Trump will find ways to maneuver around the court rulings, the business community’s response remains cautious. The decision by the Court of International Trade is seen as a positive development for American businesses and consumers, but ongoing uncertainty is expected due to the appeals process and the administration’s potential use of other legal authorities to impose tariffs.
Alan Wolff, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, noted that the court’s ruling unequivocally rejected Trump’s tariffs. Unless the appeals courts or the Supreme Court intervene to overturn the ruling, any future tariffs imposed by the Trump administration are likely to be more targeted and take longer to implement.
Even before the recent court rulings, Trump displayed signs of frustration over having to retreat from his aggressive trade policies. Despite pushback from critics, Trump’s approval ratings have rebounded alongside the markets since he scaled back his tariff plans, suggesting that a more restrained approach to tariffs may benefit the White House politically.
“If the administration were savvy, they would blame their inability to implement tariffs on ‘globalist elite judges’ or some similar narrative. Ultimately, this situation has provided them with a significant way out,” remarked Packard.
Additional reporting by Lauren Fedor
The sentence is not provided. Please provide the sentence you would like me to rewrite.