US Trading Partners ‘Dazed and Confused’ After Tariff Court Loss

A sharply divided federal appeals court just struck a blow against President Trump’s America-first trade agenda, ruling that most of his tariffs are “illegal.” The decision, 7-4, was driven largely by judges appointed by Democratic presidents, underscoring once again how partisan the judiciary has become.

For years, tariffs have been one of Trump’s most effective tools to pressure foreign governments, protect American manufacturers, and force trading partners to the table. They’ve been used not just to rebalance decades of lopsided trade deals but also to hold countries accountable for fueling the flow of deadly fentanyl and for exploiting America’s open market while refusing to play fair.

The court’s ruling doesn’t take effect immediately. Tariffs will stay in place until October 14 while the administration appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court. Trump was blunt in his response, writing on Truth Social: “If these Tariffs ever went away, it would be a total disaster for the Country.” He expressed confidence that the Supreme Court will restore the authority needed to keep American workers protected.

At the center of this legal fight is the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a 1977 law traditionally used for sanctions. Trump broke new ground by invoking it to impose tariffs, arguing that America’s chronic trade deficit, erosion of manufacturing, and cross-border drug crisis rise to the level of a national emergency. The Justice Department has stood by that interpretation, pointing out that the law empowers the president to regulate or even block imports entirely during emergencies.

The court, however, claimed Congress never intended to let presidents use IEEPA to impose tariffs, writing: “It seems unlikely that Congress intended, in enacting IEEPA, to depart from its past practice and grant the President unlimited authority to impose tariffs.” Yet this narrow reading ignores the broader reality: Washington has spent decades passing laws that surrender American sovereignty to global institutions, and the courts now risk locking the U.S. into weak trade policies that disadvantage American workers.

Trump has repeatedly tied his February tariffs on China, Canada, and Mexico to their failure to stem the flood of fentanyl into the U.S. These measures were meant to pressure governments that benefit from trade with America while turning a blind eye to the crisis killing thousands of Americans. By undermining those tariffs, the court has effectively rewarded countries that refuse to do their part to stop the poison pouring across our borders.

Even some Wall Street voices admitted the ruling could create serious instability. “The last thing the market or corporate America needs is more uncertainty on trade,” warned Art Hogan, a market strategist. That uncertainty only grows as Trump’s broader economic policy—built around tariffs, energy dominance, and reining in the Federal Reserve—now heads toward an inevitable showdown at the Supreme Court.

The stakes are enormous. The Constitution gives Congress the power over tariffs, but Congress has repeatedly delegated authority to the president to act in emergencies. Trump is using that authority to protect U.S. sovereignty and manufacturing strength. If courts strip him of that tool, it leaves America weakened in the face of foreign competitors and globalist institutions eager to keep the playing field rigged against us.

Trump himself put it plainly: America cannot afford to surrender its economic leverage. Without tariffs, U.S. negotiators lose their strongest bargaining chip. And without a president willing to use them, American workers, farmers, and manufacturers are once again at the mercy of global elites and foreign governments who’ve taken advantage of us for decades.

This fight is no longer just about tariffs—it’s about whether America still has the right to defend its own economic future.