Trump defends tariffs, claiming they will make America rich, even as a US court rules them illegal. Here’s the full story.
In a dramatic turn of events, a federal appeals court has ruled that most of former President Donald Trump’s sweeping global tariffs, enacted under emergency powers, are illegal. Yet Trump, ever undaunted, doubled down—emphasizing that “tariffs will make us rich” and declaring the ruling a threat to America. This clash between judicial authority and executive ambition spotlights a volatile moment in U.S. governance, trade policy, and economic strategy.
This article delves into the ruling, Trump’s response, the legal framework, economic implications, historical precedents, and what lies ahead. For broader coverage of political tensions in a different context, check our analysis: If No Peace Talks by Monday, Putin Has Played Trump: Macron.
Legal Rupture: What the Court Ruled
The Ruling’s Details
On August 30, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a 7–4 decision declaring that Trump’s broad tariff program exceeded his authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) Investors.comThe GuardianReuters. The court emphasized that IEEPA grants broad powers, but not unlimited ability to impose tariffs—a power Congress retains The GuardianReuters.
The tariffs targeted included the so-called “Liberation Day” tariffs (a baseline 10% on nearly all imports plus punitive levies on specific nations) and “trafficking” tariffs aimed at Canada, China, and Mexico The GuardianAP NewsWikipedia.
Why It Matters
This isn’t a minor legal correction—it’s a fundamental challenge to executive power limits. Tariffs have traditionally been a Congressional domain, seldom wielded via emergency authority. The court’s decision draws clear constitutional lines AP NewsThe Economic TimesReuters.
The ruling allows the tariffs to remain operative until October 14, giving the Trump administration time to appeal to the Supreme Court Investors.comThe GuardianAP News.
Trump’s Reaction: Defiant and Defiant
Trump swiftly took to Truth Social: calling the court “highly partisan,” warning the ruling “would literally destroy the United States,” and reaffirming his belief that tariffs—if upheld—would enrich American workers and companies Investors.comThe Guardian+1.
He further claimed that with help from the Supreme Court, he would use tariffs to “Make America Rich, Strong, and Powerful Again” TIME. The White House continued defending the policy as essential for national security and economic strength New York PostThe Economic Times.
Underpinning Law: What Is IEEPA?
IEEPA—a Cold War-era law—grants the president emergency economic powers, primarily sanctions. But its language is specific and doesn’t explicitly authorize tariffs. Courts have historically limited such authority to cases like asset freezes—not sweeping trade taxes Wikipedia+2Wikipedia+2.
The lower Court of International Trade had already ruled Trump exceeded his authority when it struck down these tariffs in May 2025 The Wall Street JournalAP News.
This confirms the judiciary’s stand: unchecked executive power, particularly on core economic policy like tariffs, is not constitutionally acceptable Wikipedia+1The Wall Street Journal.
Economic Fallout: Supply Chains, Consumers, and Businesses
Short-Term Effects
Importers face massive uncertainty—they could be eligible for billions in refunds if tariffs are undone. Businesses that relied on tariff data to adjust pricing and supply chains now find themselves navigating a legal gray zone The Times of IndiaAP News.
Consumers may breathe easier if tariffs are rolled back. The bulk of the revenue—estimated at $159 billion by July—would vanish, relieving sticker shock at retail and wholesale levels The Times of IndiaAP News.
Markets React
Stock markets wavered but stabilized knowing the tariffs remain for now. Yet clarity is fleeting. A final court decision may trigger spikes in sectors like defense, energy, or industrial manufacturing, depending on the outcome Investors.comThe Economic Times.
Lessons from Economic History
Smoot–Hawley (1930)
Imposed during the Great Depression, the Smoot–Hawley Act raised tariffs on 20,000+ goods. It backfired—sparking global retaliation and deepening economic collapse Wikipedia.
2002 Steel Tariffs
President Bush’s temporary tariffs (8–30%) on steel had mixed results—some short-term job gains but overall negative GDP impacts Wikipedia.
These historical cases highlight that protectionist tariffs often do more economic harm than good—especially without global cooperation.
Trade Strategy: A Cycle of Retaliation
Trump’s approach—tariffs as negotiation leverage—spiraled into tit-for-tat retaliation. China, the EU, Canada, and Mexico responded in kind. Global trade relationships frayed, raising prices and undermining American export markets arXiv.
Though proponents argue that tariffs could spark domestic job growth, retaliatory actions tend to neutralize benefits while increasing costs.
Political Implications: Checks and Balances Expand
Executive vs Congress
The judicial rebuke revives a crucial constitutional debate: power over trade is a Congressional function—not a unilateral executive tool. This reasserts the separation of powers doctrine Wikipedia+1The Wall Street Journal.
Campaign Strategy
Trump leverages the narrative: dilute economic hurt, strongman leader, championing American jobs. The rhetoric may galvanize voters even as court decisions mount.
Institutions Under Pressure
The White House equates judicial checks with partisan attacks. Meanwhile, legislative leaders and judicial analysts call for clarity on executive authority in emergency economics.
What Lies Ahead: Supreme Court and Global Consequences
Legal Roadmap
— October 14: tariffs stay for now.
— Supreme Court: eventual arbiter. The stakes: executive scope, judicial oversight, trade policy precedent.
Global Trade Fallout
Foreign partners await certainty; policymakers lobbying to remove tariffs as threats to recovery and supply chain stability mount.
Conclusion
A sweeping judicial ruling has cast doubt on a cornerstone of Trump’s economic policy—emergency tariffs via executive decree. Yet Trump’s defiance—asserting that “tariffs will make us rich”—raises a critical tension: constitutional limits vs populist politics.
What are nations to do when political showmanship clashes with institutional limits? This battle goes beyond legalese—it is about the future of how trade policy is made, who makes it, and whether strongman moves can withstand constitutional scrutiny.
