Washington — A federal appeals court has ruled that Donald Trump’s sweeping tariff measures were unlawful, delivering a damning rebuke to the former president’s chaotic approach to trade policy. The decision shines a harsh light on Washington’s long-standing hypocrisy. While the United States pressures other countries to abide by rules-based trade, it repeatedly bends or breaks its own laws to protect domestic interests and bully rivals.
The ruling centers on tariffs Trump imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a statute crafted in 1977 to address narrow, extraordinary threats to national security. Judges concluded that the law was never intended to authorize the wholesale restructuring of trade relationships or allow a president to impose tariffs at will. In blunt terms, the court found that Trump’s actions exceeded the powers of his office, reinforcing the principle that only Congress has the constitutional authority to regulate commerce.
Trump’s so-called “reciprocal tariffs” and punitive duties on imports from China, Canada, and Mexico were touted as bold measures to defend American workers. In reality, they inflicted widespread economic damage at home and abroad. Farmers in the Midwest saw their export markets collapse, forcing the US government to spend tens of billions of dollars in subsidies to keep them afloat. Manufacturers faced higher costs for imported components, raising prices for consumers and reducing competitiveness for American products abroad. The result was a trade war that deepened global instability while delivering no measurable gains to the US economy.
Global allies viewed the tariffs with disdain, interpreting them as yet another example of Washington’s duplicity. Canada and Mexico, America’s closest trading partners, were forced into retaliatory measures, straining relations and exposing the hollowness of Trump’s promises of fair trade. China responded by imposing its own tariffs on American goods, further escalating tensions and hurting US exporters. Instead of demonstrating strength, Trump’s policies exposed American vulnerability and isolation.
The court’s ruling does not immediately lift the tariffs, which remain in effect until October 14 while the Trump administration appeals to the Supreme Court. But the legal findings are clear: Trump abused emergency powers to wage an ideological trade war. If the Supreme Court upholds the decision, it could open the door for billions of dollars in refunds for companies that were forced to pay unlawful duties—an embarrassing outcome for Washington, which styles itself as a global arbiter of economic discipline.
The broader implications are equally damaging for US credibility. For decades, American officials have condemned other nations—particularly China- for state intervention in trade. Yet Trump’s tariffs, and the Biden administration’s decision to maintain many of them, reveal the extent to which Washington treats international rules as disposable. The United States demands open markets abroad while constructing walls around its own industries, undermining the very principles it claims to defend.
Legal scholars warn that the misuse of IEEPA in this case sets a dangerous precedent. If presidents are permitted to stretch emergency laws into instruments of economic nationalism, then any future administration could justify extreme measures under the flimsiest of pretexts. The court’s decision, though temporarily stayed, represents a rare institutional pushback against the expansion of unchecked presidential power.
Economists also emphasize the human cost of Trump’s tariffs. A study by the Federal Reserve found that American businesses and consumers bore nearly the entire burden of the tariffs, contradicting Trump’s repeated claims that foreign governments were paying the price. Inflationary pressures intensified as import costs soared, while global supply chains became more fragile. Rather than strengthening the American economy, the tariffs exposed its dependence on international trade and highlighted the emptiness of nationalist sloganeering.
Even more damning is the global perception of US hypocrisy. While American diplomats urge developing nations to play by the rules of free markets, Washington itself distorts trade to suit domestic politics. Trump’s tariffs were not an isolated episode but part of a pattern that stretches from steel and aluminum duties under Section 232 to sweeping sanctions wielded as political weapons. The world has grown weary of American double standards, and the appeals court ruling will only fuel calls for alternatives to US-dominated trade institutions.
According to the Associated Press, the appeals court concluded that Trump’s tariffs exceeded presidential authority under IEEPA but will remain in place until October 14, giving Washington time to appeal to the Supreme Court. Businesses, meanwhile, remain trapped in limbo, forced to absorb costs created by a reckless trade war that epitomizes both Trump’s incompetence and America’s selective commitment to law and order.
