This seems unfair.
President Donald Trump’s push to crack down on foreign imports and protect American industries suffered another major setback Thursday after a federal trade court blocked his latest nationwide tariff plan.
In a ruling that immediately sparked debate across Washington, the U.S. Court of International Trade struck down the Trump administration’s 10% tariff on nearly all imported goods, saying the White House exceeded its authority under federal trade law.
The decision marks the latest legal roadblock for Trump’s aggressive America First economic agenda, which supporters say is aimed at rebuilding U.S. manufacturing, protecting American workers, and reducing dependence on foreign countries.
A three-judge panel ruled 2-1 against the administration, with Judges Mark A. Barnett and Claire R. Kelly concluding that the White House improperly used Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 to justify the sweeping tariffs. Judge Timothy C. Stanceu dissented.
The Trump administration had imposed the tariffs earlier this year after the Supreme Court blocked the president’s original “Liberation Day” tariff package targeting dozens of foreign trading partners.
Rather than backing down, the administration unveiled a replacement plan using a different legal strategy. Officials argued that America’s massive trade deficits and the continued flow of U.S. wealth overseas created an economic emergency serious enough to warrant temporary import taxes.
Trump allies have long argued that unfair trade deals and weak economic policies hollowed out American manufacturing towns while enriching foreign competitors at the expense of U.S. workers.
The administration claimed Section 122 gave the president authority to act quickly in response to dangerous trade imbalances harming the nation’s long-term economic stability.
But the court’s majority disagreed, saying the White House failed to prove the specific economic conditions required under the law.
“This case turns on the meaning of Section 122 and whether the President asserted the existence of the conditions required by the statute,” the court wrote in its opinion.
The judges ultimately concluded that the administration did not sufficiently demonstrate the existence of a true “balance of payments deficit” required to legally impose the tariffs.
Supporters of Trump’s trade policies blasted the ruling, arguing that unelected judges are once again standing in the way of efforts to revive American industry and confront foreign economic competition.
Critics of the tariffs, meanwhile, argued the import taxes would have increased costs for businesses and consumers already struggling with inflation and economic uncertainty.
The legal battle now adds even more uncertainty to the future of U.S. trade policy heading into a critical election season, where the economy, manufacturing jobs, and foreign competition remain top concerns for many voters.
With courts continuing to scrutinize presidential trade powers, the fight over tariffs and America’s economic future appears far from over.