
Federal court blocks Donald Trump from imposing sweeping tariffs
The ruling from a three-judge panel at the New York-based US Court of International Trade came after several lawsuits arguing Trump's 'Liberation Day' tariffs exceeded his authority and left the country's trade policy dependent on his whims.
Trump has repeatedly said the tariffs would force manufacturers to bring back factory jobs to the US and generate enough revenue to reduce federal budget deficits. He used the tariffs as a negotiating cudgel in hopes of forcing other nations to negotiate agreements that favoured the US, suggesting he would simply set the rates himself if the terms were unsatisfactory.
White House spokesperson Kush Desai said that trade deficits amount to a national emergency 'that has decimated American communities, left our workers behind, and weakened our defense industrial base — facts that the court did not dispute.'
The administration, he said, remains 'committed to using every lever of executive power to address this crisis and restore American Greatness.'
But for now, Trump might not have the threat of import taxes to exact his will on the world economy as he had intended, since doing so would require congressional approval. What remains unclear is whether the White House will respond to the ruling by pausing all of its emergency power tariffs in the interim.
Trump might still be able to temporarily launch import taxes of 15% for 150 days on nations with which the US runs a substantial trade deficit. The ruling notes that a president has this authority under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974.
The ruling amounted to a categorical rejection of the legal underpinnings of some of Trump's signature and most controversial actions of his four-month-old second term. The administration swiftly filed notice of appeal — and the Supreme Court will almost certainly be called upon to lend a final answer — but it casts a sharp blow.
The case was heard by three judges: Timothy Reif, who was appointed by Trump, Jane Restani, named to the bench by President Ronald Reagan and Gary Katzman, an appointee of President Barack Obama.
'The Worldwide and Retaliatory Tariff Orders exceed any authority granted to the President by IEEPA to regulate importation by means of tariffs,' the court wrote, referring to the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act.
The ruling left in place any tariffs that Trump put in place using his Section 232 powers from the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. He put a 25% tax on most imported autos and parts, as well as on all foreign-made steel and aluminum. Those tariffs depend on a Commerce Department investigation that reveals national security risks from imported products.
It was filed in the US Court of International Trade, a federal court that deals specifically with civil lawsuits involving international trade law.
While tariffs must typically be approved by Congress, Trump has said he has the power to act to address the trade deficits he calls a national emergency.
He is facing at least seven lawsuits challenging the levies. The plaintiffs argued that the emergency powers law does not authorize the use of tariffs, and even if it did, the trade deficit is not an emergency because the U.S. has run a trade deficit with the rest of the world for 49 consecutive years.
Trump imposed tariffs on most of the countries in the world in an effort to reverse America's massive and long-standing trade deficits. He earlier plastered levies on imports from Canada, China and Mexico to combat the illegal flow of immigrants and the synthetic opioids across the U.S. border.
His administration argues that courts approved then-President Richard Nixon's emergency use of tariffs in 1971, and that only Congress, and not the courts, can determine the 'political' question of whether the president's rationale for declaring an emergency complies with the law.
Trump's Liberation Day tariffs shook global financial markets and led many economists to downgrade the outlook for US economic growth. So far, though, the tariffs appear to have had little impact on the world's largest economy.
The lawsuit was filed by a group of small businesses, including a wine importer, V.O.S. Selections, whose owner has said the tariffs are having a major impact and his company may not survive.
A dozen states also filed suit, led by Oregon. 'This ruling reaffirms that our laws matter, and that trade decisions can't be made on the president's whim,' Attorney General Dan Rayfield said.
Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden, top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, said the tariffs had "jacked up prices on groceries and cars, threatened shortages of essential goods and wrecked supply chains for American businesses large and small.″
Hashtags

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

LeMonde
2 hours ago
- LeMonde
Hopes fade for Polish engagement on the European stage
A year and a half ago, Donald Tusk's appointment as head of the Polish government was widely welcomed across Europe. From Paris to Berlin, Madrid to Brussels, political leaders hailed the defeat of the right-wing Law and Justice (PiS) party and heralded Warsaw's big comeback to the European stage. The victory of the nationalist, eurosceptic and pro-Trump candidate Karol Nawrocki in Poland's presidential election on June 1 dealt a blow to those aspirations, not least due to the major geopolitical challenges the European Union currently faces, from the war in Ukraine to Donald Trump's return to the White House in the United States. I am skeptical. Nawrocki succeeds Andrzej Duda, another PiS member who, over the previous 18 months, used his veto and executive powers to block Tusk from delivering on pledges for progressive reforms to abortion access, LGBTQ+ rights, judicial independence and, more broadly, strengthening the rule of law. Like his predecessor, Nawrocki was expected to continue blocking such EU-favored liberal reforms. However, "His political views are much more radical than Duda's, which foreshadows a much more difficult coexistence with the Tusk government," said Piotr Buras of the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR) think tank.


France 24
2 hours ago
- France 24
Empty chair policy ? US defence secretary skips Nato Ukraine support meeting
What with daring drone raids deep in Russian territory last weekend and a new attack on the Kerch Strait bridge that links Moscow-occupied Crimea to the mainland. Spectacular shows but can outgunned and outnumbered Kyiv keep it up ? Particularly with the US defense Secretary skipping a meeting of the NATO support group on Ukraine, the US which for now is still sharing intelligence and disbursing military aid allotted to Kyiv by the previous administration. For how much longer? We asked ahead of the NATO summit later this month in the Netherlands, and ahead of Thursday's Oval Office initiation for new German chancellor Friedrich Merz. What will the likes of Germany and France do if Trump loses interest entirely in Europe's defense and Ukraine's fate? Produced by Rebecca Gnignati, Aurore Laborie and Ilayda Habip.


Euronews
2 hours ago
- Euronews
Putin threatens to respond after Ukrainian strikes on airfields
US President Donald Trump said that his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin told him "very strongly" in a phone call on Wednesday that he will respond to Ukraine's weekend drone attack on Russian airfields. "We discussed the attack on Russia's docked airplanes, by Ukraine, and also various other attacks that have been taking place by both sides," Trump wrote. "It was a good conversation, but not a conversation that will lead to immediate Peace." The call reportedly lasted for an hour and 15 minutes and was Trump's first known contact with Putin since 19 May. In a briefing with government ministers earlier on Wednesday, Putin made no mention of Ukraine's audacious operation deep inside Russia on Sunday, instead referring only to an operation carried out by Ukraine's Security Service (SBU) on Tuesday which saw the Kerch Bridge damaged. The bridge is a key piece of Russian infrastructure illegally built by Moscow after its unilateral annexation of the Ukrainian peninsula in 2014. Putin referred to that attack as "certainly a terrorist act." However, Ukraine's SBU said the first explosion was timed to take place just before 5am when there were no civilians on or near the bridge. The Russian leader also questioned the value of faltering peace talks with Ukraine, accusing Kyiv of not being interested in peace. "What is there to talk about? How can we negotiate with those who rely on terror?" he said. The second round of face-to-face talks between Ukraine and Russia took place in Istanbul on Monday, with no major breakthrough made towards a lasting ceasefire. The two sides however agreed to another prisoner of war exchange, with Ukraine's Defence Minister Rustem Umerov saying seriously ill and young soldiers would be swapped. During the talks in Istanbul, Ukraine also gave Moscow officials a list of hundreds of Ukrainian children forcefully deported by Russia. "We are talking about hundreds of children whom Russia has illegally deported, forcibly transferred or is holding in the temporarily occupied territories. We are waiting for a response. The ball is in Russia's court," the head of Ukraine's presidential office Andriy Yermak said on Telegram. Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said it took Kyiv "one year, six months, and nine days from the start of planning to effective execution" of the operation. Kyiv managed to smuggle FPV drones deep inside Russia and hide them inside trucks in mobile log cabins. The cabins' roofs were then opened remotely and the drones proceeded to launch their attack on Russian military bombers. Social media footage widely shared by Russian media appears to show the drones rising from inside containers, while the panels lie discarded on the road. On Wednesday, Zelenskyy said Kyiv would not have launched its drone strike on Russian strategic bombers if Moscow had accepted Kyiv's calls for a ceasefire. Zelenskyy said Ukraine has repeatedly urged Russia to accept the US-backed 30-day ceasefire proposal, which could be the first step to putting an end to Russia's all-out war against Ukraine. However during the second round of talks on Monday, Moscow rejected the proposal once again. "If there had been a ceasefire, would the operation have taken place? No," Zelenskyy explained, adding that roughly half of the planes will be impossible to repair, while others will require significant time to be put back into service. On Wednesday, Ukraine's security service (SBU) released new drone footage of Operation "Spiderweb," showing how exactly Kyiv struck 41 Russian heavy military bombers on Sunday. The footage shows Ukraine's first-person-view drones striking four Russian airfields: Dyagilevo in the Riazan region, Ivanovo in the Ivanovo region, Belaya air base in the Irkutsk region, located in south-eastern Siberia over 4,000km east of the frontline, and Olenya air base in Russia's Murmansk region, some 2,000km away from Ukraine's border. Kyiv said these were the airfields where Russian strategic aviation "had been based". The damaged aircraft include A-50, Tu-95, Tu-22, Tu-160, as well as An-12 and Il-78. Moscow uses these heavy bombers for daily attacks on Ukrainian cities. The SBU also revealed that it used a modern UAV control technology during this operation. It combined autonomous artificial intelligence algorithms and manual operator interventions. Ukraine's security service says some of the UAVs lost signal and would switch to an artificial intelligence-assisted mission following a pre-planned route. The warhead then automatically detonated as it approached and made contact with a specific target. Earlier, Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said that 117 drones had been used in Operation Spiderweb, each with its own pilot. The General Staff of Ukraine's Armed Forces confirmed on Tuesday that Russia lost 41 military aircraft. Left Party MP Cansin Köktürk was thrown out of a German parliament plenary chamber on Wednesday for wearing a t-shirt with the word "Palestine" printed on it, a move deemed a political statement by the parliamentary leadership. Bundestag President Julia Klöckner intervened during the session, reminding MPs that political messages on clothing are not permitted in the chamber. "We have agreed and these are the clear rules of the House," Klöckner said, "that neither stickers nor any other form of denomination on T-shirts play a role." She continued, "I have asked Ms. Köktürk to change her sweater - and we did not make that public - but you apparently refuse. I would then ask you to leave the meeting. Please do so." This is not the first time Köktürk has attracted attention in parliament. On her very first day as an MP, she appeared in the Bundestag wearing a scarf resembling a Palestinian keffiyeh, prompting members of the conservative CDU to call for an official ban on such symbols. Köktürk later took to X to respond to the incident, writing: "Germany will continue to supply weapons to Israel. Not a word about over 50,000 dead and injured children. I am being asked by Mrs. Klöckner to leave the plenary hall because my shirt says 'Palestine.' You have all failed so badly." While the Bundestag does not have a detailed dress code, its rules require MPs and visitors to dress "in keeping with the prestige" of the institution. Enforcement of this standard is left to the discretion of the session chair. Past incidents suggest the issue is not limited to any one party or political leaning. In 2017, a 13-year-old girl visiting the Bundestag on a school trip was asked at security to zip up her "Refugees Welcome" sweatshirt to conceal the slogan. And in 2009, a student was stopped for wearing a T-shirt reading "Make love, not war." More recently, MP Marcel Bauer was twice expelled from the plenary chamber for refusing to remove a black beret, which was deemed inappropriate. Both Klöckner and Bundestag Vice President Andrea Lindholz (CSU) ordered him to follow the parliament's dress norms or leave. These recurring incidents reflect an ongoing debate in German politics over how far personal expression and political symbolism should be allowed within the halls of parliament.