Where does court ruling leave Trump's tariff agenda?
The US Court of International Trade on Wednesday struck down President Donald Trump's tariffs imposed under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).
The court ruled IEEPA did not give the president the authority to impose certain tariffs.
This affects the "fentanyl" tariffs imposed by the White House on Canada, Mexico, China since Trump returned to the White House. These tariffs were brought in to curb smuggling of the narcotic into the US.
It also affects the so-called "Liberation Day" tariffs announced on 2 April, including the universal 10% baseline tariff on all imports to the US.
However, the ruling does not affect the Trump administration's 25% "sectoral" tariffs on steel and aluminium imports and also his 25% additional tariffs on cars and car part imports, as these were implemented under a different legal justification.
A US federal appeals court decided on Thursday night that Trump's global tariffs can temporarily stay in place while it considers the White House's appeal against the trade court's judgement - but the future of the President's tariff agenda remains in the balance.
Data from US Customs shows the amount of revenue collected in the 2025 financial year to date (ie between 1 October 2024 and 30 April) under various tariffs.
The data gives an approximate sense of the proportion of tariffs struck down and unaffected by the trade court's ruling.
It shows the tariffs imposed under IEEPA on China, Mexico and Canada in relation to the fentanyl smuggling had brought in $11.8bn (£8.7bn) since February 2025.
The 10% reciprocal tariffs - also justified under IEEPA - implemented in April had brought in $1.2bn (£890m).
On the other side of the ledger, the tariffs on metals and car parts - which are unaffected by this ruling - brought in around $3.3bn (£2.4bn), based on rounded figures.
And the biggest source of tariff revenue for the US in the period was from tariffs imposed on China dating back to Trump's first term in office, which raised $23.4bn (£17.3bn). These are also not affected by the court ruling, as they were not justified by IEEPA.
Faisal Islam: Tariff ruling completely changes the global trade war
Simon Jack: Tariff ruling doesn't really change US-UK deal
US trade court blocks Trump's sweeping tariffs. What happens now?
However, this is a backward looking picture - and the new tariffs were expected to raise considerably more revenue over a full financial year.
Analysts at the investment bank Goldman Sachs have estimated that the tariffs the trade court has struck down were likely to have raised almost $200bn (£148bn) on an annual basis.
In terms of the overall impact on Donald Trump's tariff agenda, the consultancy Capital Economics estimates the court ruling would reduce the US's average external tariff this year from 15% to 6.5%.
This would still be a considerable increase on the 2.5% level of 2024 and would be the highest since 1970.
Yet 15% would have been the highest since the late 1930s.
Trump had been using his tariffs as negotiating leverage in talks with countries hit by his 2 April tariffs.
Some analysts believe this trade court ruling will mean countries will now be less likely to rush to secure deals with the US.
The European Union (EU) intensified negotiations with the White House last weekend after Trump threatened to increase the tariff on the bloc to 50% under IEEPA.
The EU - and others, such as Japan and Australia - might now judge it would be more prudent to wait to see what happens to the White House's appeal against the trade court ruling before making any trade concessions to the US to secure a deal.
The response of stock markets around the world to the trade court ruling on Wednesday suggested it would be positive.
But it also means greater uncertainty.
Some analysts say Trump could attempt to reimpose the tariffs under different legal justifications.
For instance, Trump could attempt to re-implement the tariffs under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, which empowers the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) to address foreign practices that violate trade agreements or are deemed "discriminatory".
And Trump has also threatened other sectoral tariffs, including on pharmaceuticals and semiconductors. Those could still go into effect if they are not justified by IEEPA.
Last month the World Trade Organization (WTO) said that the outlook for global trade had "deteriorated sharply" due to Trump's tariffs.
The WTO said it expected global merchandise trade to decline by 0.2% in 2025 as a result, having previously projected it would grow by 2.7 per cent this year.
The trade court ruling - if it holds - might help global trade perform somewhat better than this.
But the dampening impact of uncertainty regarding whether US tariffs will materialise or not remains.
The bottom line is that many economists think trade will still be very badly affected this year.
"Trump's trade war is not over – not by a long shot," is the verdict of Grace Fan of the consultancy TS Lombard.
What do you want BBC Verify to investigate?
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Los Angeles Times
24 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Judge: Trump administration can dismantle Institute of Museum and Library Services
WASHINGTON — A federal judge on Friday denied a request by the American Library Assn. to halt the Trump administration's further dismantling of an agency that funds and promotes libraries across the country, saying that recent court decisions suggested his court lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter. U.S. District Judge Richard Leon had previously agreed to temporarily block the Republican administration, saying that plaintiffs were likely to show that Trump doesn't have the legal authority to unilaterally shutter the Institute of Museum and Library Services, which was created by Congress. But in Friday's ruling, Leon wrote that as much as the 'Court laments the Executive Branch's efforts to cut off this lifeline for libraries and museums,' recent court decisions suggested that the case should be heard in a separate court dedicated to contractual claims. He cited the Supreme Court's decision allowing the administration to cut hundreds of millions of dollars in teacher-training money despite a lower court order barring the cuts, saying that cases seeking reinstatement of federal grants should be heard in the Court of Federal Claims. The American Library Assn. and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees filed a lawsuit to stop the administration from gutting the institute after President Trump signed a March 14 executive order that refers to it and several other federal agencies as 'unnecessary.' The agency's appointed acting director then placed many staff members on administrative leave, sent termination notices to most of them, began canceling grants and contracts and fired all members of the National Museum and Library Services Board. The institute has roughly 75 employees and issued more than $266 million in grants last year. However, a Rhode Island judge's order prohibiting the government from shutting down the institute in a separate case brought by several states remains in place. The administration is appealing that order as well.


New York Post
25 minutes ago
- New York Post
Trump says Elon Musk will face ‘very serious consequences' if he funds Dems in future elections
WASHINGTON — President Trump warned Saturday that his former ally Elon Musk will face 'very serious consequences' if he starts bankrolling Democratic candidates for office after their nasty public split over a Republican spending bill working its way through Congress. 'If he does, he'll have to pay the consequences for that,' Trump told NBC News' Kristin Welker in an interview. 'He'll have to pay very serious consequences if he does that,' the president added. Advertisement 3 Musk and Trump have been feuding after the Tesla CEO spoke out on the president's 'big beautiful' bill. AP 'Is there anything else you just want people to know about the status,' Welker asked. 'No, not at all. We're doing great,' Trump replied. 'The bill is great. It looks like we're going to get it passed. Looks strongly like we're going to get it passed.' Advertisement 3 Musk was part of cabinet meetings during the first few months of Trump's second term. Molly Riley/White House / SWNS Musk knocked Trump during a multi-day X tirade over the debt increases contained in the 'big beautiful bill' earlier this week and said without his hundreds of millions of dollars in contributions, the president would never have been re-elected in 2024. Here is the latest on Donald Trump and Elon Musk's feud He also claimed credit for delivering the GOP a 53-47 majority in the Senate — and holding onto its majority in the House. Advertisement 3 Trump has hit back at Musk's comments in the ongoing feud. The Tesla and SpaceX billionaire contributed more than a quarter of a billion dollars to Republican candidates in the 2024 cycle, federal campaign filings show.


Gizmodo
25 minutes ago
- Gizmodo
Musk Deletes His ‘Really Big Bomb' Claiming Trump Appears in Epstein Files
In the middle of their very public breakup, a scorned Elon Musk decided to drop a 'really big bomb' on Donald Trump, accusing the president of appearing in the Epstein files. Sometime Saturday, it seems the billionaire decided he wanted to try to disarm that bomb, as he deleted his posts claiming that Trump has links to the famous child sex trafficker. Musk and Trump had been acting catty for a couple of days by the time Musk went nuclear, going back and forth over Musk's opposition to Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill'—a proposal that includes the largest cuts to Medicaid and food assistance programs in history. Musk objected to the bill, but not because it would be devastating to low- and middle-income households, but seemingly rather because it was going to hurt his own bottom line by ending electric vehicle tax credits that Tesla benefits from. Musk tried to kill the bill by posting incessantly about it, creating a rift among Republicans who will essentially need everyone in the party to be on board in order to get the thing passed. Trump, annoyed, took some shots at Musk for his dissent, which led to Musk just blowing the whole thing up. He said Trump appeared in the Epstein files and 'That is the real reason they have not been made public.' Funnily, he also doubled down by saying, 'Mark this post for the future. The truth will come out.' Those posts are now deleted—though have, of course, been archived, screenshotted, and quoted many times over. So, too, has a post in which Musk supported the idea that Trump should be impeached. He hasn't gotten around to taking down his post claiming that Trump's tariffs will cause a recession, so, it's clear the two aren't fully ready to make up, even if there is a de-escalation. We're also starting to get more of a picture of what has been happening behind the scenes while these two air out each other in public. A report published Saturday by the Washington Post claims that Trump was 'dejected' during Musk's crash out, and tried to rationalize Musk's behavior by calling him 'a big-time drug addict.' Musk had apparently been acting erratically for quite some time (not exactly a shock if you've scrolled through his posts on Twitter for like, 30 seconds), and a reported physical conflict with Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent that saw Musk supposedly throw his shoulder into Bessent was the breaking point where the billionaire started to get pushed out, per the Post. Trump opted not to pour gasoline on the situation—a shocking decision from a guy not exactly known for his restraint—but also is apparently not interested in reconciling with Musk. An official within the administration told the Post that even if they do make up, 'It'll never be the same.'