Trump says overturning tariffs would ‘completely destroy presidential power’

U.S. President Donald Trump responded Thursday on Truth Social — his own social media platform — to the U.S. Court of International Trade’s decision to strike down his so-called reciprocal tariffs and import taxes on goods from China, Mexico, and Canada, which had been imposed under the pretext of combating fentanyl and illegal immigration. After more than 24 hours of silence, Trump posted a lengthy message in which he criticized the judges, including one he had appointed, and defended the primacy of presidential power over Congress. He praised the suspension of the ruling’s enforcement and called for it to be overturned.

“If allowed to stand, this would completely destroy Presidential Power — The Presidency would never be the same!” he posted.

Meanwhile, his team is preparing a Plan B to implement the tariffs by other means if required.

“The U.S. Court of International Trade incredibly ruled against the United States of America on desperately needed Tariffs but, fortunately, the full 11 Judge Panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Court has just stayed the order,” Trump said.

Trump’s global trade war tariffs were struck down as illegal by the International Trade Court.

“The challenged Tariff Orders will be vacated and their operation permanently enjoined,” the three judges unanimously concluded. One of them, Timothy Reif, was appointed by Trump himself; another, Jane Restani, by Ronald Reagan; and the third, Gary Kazman, by Democrat Barack Obama.

Trump, echoing comments made by his team, criticized the judges, even though one of them was appointed by him.

“Where do these initial three Judges come from?” he asked in the post. “How is it possible for them to have potentially done such damage to the United States of America? Is it purely a hatred of ‘TRUMP?’ What other reason could it be?”

The judges, in their ruling, sided against Trump. They found that he had violated the U.S. Constitution and the law with his tariffs, overstepping his authority — something he has done repeatedly during the increasingly authoritarian drift of his second term.

While he did not say so explicitly, the president attempted to justify his appointment of one of the judges.

“I was new to Washington, and it was suggested that I use The Federalist Society as a recommending source on Judges. I did so, openly and freely, but then realized that they were under the thumb of a real ‘sleazebag’ named Leonard Leo,” said Trump, adding that he was “disappointed” with the advice he was given. In his second term, Trump unapologetically nominated Emil Bove — his former personal attorney — as a judge on a court of appeals

Trump then addressed the ruling itself. “The ruling by the U.S. Court of International Trade is so wrong, and so political!” he said, without offering any arguments to support this claim. “Hopefully, the Supreme Court will reverse this horrible, Country threatening decision, QUICKLY and DECISIVELY.” Three of the nine Supreme Court justices were appointed by Trump during his first term. The court has a majority of six conservative justices versus three progressive justices.

“The horrific decision stated that I would have to get the approval of Congress for these Tariffs,” Trump protested — highlighting, yet again, his pattern of overstepping legislative boundaries. “In other words, hundreds of politicians would sit around D.C. for weeks, and even months, trying to come to a conclusion as to what to charge other Countries that are treating us unfairly. If allowed to stand, this would completely destroy Presidential Power — The Presidency would never be the same!”

Trump’s post ended this message: “This decision is being hailed all over the World by every Country, other than the United States of America. Radical Left Judges, together with some very bad people, are destroying America. Under this decision, Trillions of Dollars would be lost by our Country, money that will, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN. It would be the harshest financial ruling ever leveled on us as a Sovereign Nation. The President of the United States must be allowed to protect America against those that are doing it Economic and Financial harm.”

In reality, Trump’s tariffs have slowed the economy, generated uncertainty, and caused significant tensions in the financial markets, which have welcomed each backtrack by the president — and also greeted the ruling by the U.S. Court of International Trade on Thursday.

The New York–based court’s decision declares illegal and annuls the 25% import taxes on goods from Canada and Mexico, and the 20% tariffs on imports from China, which had been imposed under the pretext of combating fentanyl trafficking and illegal immigration. It also invalidates the so-called “reciprocal tariffs” on all other countries, announced on the misnamed “Liberation Day,” which were broadly reduced by 10% after the president backtracked and granted a partial 90-day pause in response to market pressure.

However, an appeals court on Thursday granted a temporary administrative stay on the ruling, keeping the tariffs in place while it reviews the case over the coming weeks and decides whether to uphold the Court of International Trade’s decision. If the stay is lifted, the Trump administration could still appeal to the Supreme Court.

Plan B

The ruling does not address the 25% tariffs on imports of steel, aluminum, vehicles, and parts, which were imposed under different legal provisions. Hypothetically, Trump could attempt to impose new tariffs on other products or use alternative delegations of authority.

In fact, Trump’s team is already actively exploring a Plan B in case the ruling is not overturned. The judges’ own decision noted that the Trade Act of 1974 grants the president the authority to impose tariffs for a limited period of 150 days and up to a 15% rate in response to trade deficit imbalances.

According to a report in The Wall Street Journal on Thursday, this is the first path Trump’s aides are considering. It would allow him to maintain most of the current tariffs while launching specific country-by-country investigations to impose tariffs in response to unfair trade practices, as permitted by another provision. Although this process is lengthy and complicated, it has a stronger legal foundation. It’s the approach Trump used during his first term to impose tariffs on China.

Sign up for our weekly newsletter to get more English-language news coverage from EL PAÍS USA Edition