Key Takeaways

• The appeals court struck down most of President Trump’s tariffs as unconstitutional.
• Trump slammed the judges on his social media, calling them “highly partisan.”
• Several conservative and libertarian voices mocked his response.
• Experts reminded everyone that only Congress can set tariff policy.

On Friday, the U.S. Court of Appeals said most of President Trump’s import duties were unlawful. As a result, the president fired off a long rant on his own social site. He blasted the judges, warning their decision would “literally destroy the United States of America.” This article breaks down what happened, why it matters, and how experts reacted.

What Did the Court Decide?

A three-judge panel on the Federal Circuit court reviewed Trump’s April “Liberation Day” tariffs. In a 7-4 ruling, they agreed with a lower court that those duties violated the Constitution. The judges said the president overstepped. They stressed that only Congress can set import taxes. Consequently, the bulk of those Trump tariffs were tossed out.

Moreover, the court noted that the president failed to follow the proper lawmaking steps. In fact, the Constitution clearly gives Congress the power to impose tariffs. Therefore, any move by the president alone could not stand.

Why Trump tariffs Sparked Outrage

Immediately after the ruling went public, President Trump posted a lengthy message. He blasted the “highly partisan” judges who blocked his plan. He insisted his tariffs were both lawful and vital for national safety. He also repeated his usual gripe about “enormous trade deficits.” He argued that without his import duties, America would collapse under foreign competition.

However, his claim that stopping the tariffs would “literally destroy” the country drew sharp mockery. Many saw it as an over-the-top reaction. Some critics called it “lunatic stuff.” Others joked that Trump was acting like a king who ignores democratic rules.

Voices from Conservative and Libertarian Commentators

Several well-known writers and analysts joined the conversation. Here are some of their reactions:

• Ramesh Ponnuru of the National Review labeled Trump’s description as “lunatic stuff.” He pointed out that letting courts block unconstitutional moves protects the nation.
• Investor Mayank Seksaria of Liberty Mutual Investments said he “couldn’t stop laughing at this insane statement.”
• Roger Hunt, a doctoral student, wrote: “I’m MAGA, but this isn’t how tariffs work.” He reminded followers that trade measures are complex and not set by fiat.
• Nick Gillespie at Reason magazine compared Trump to King George III. He celebrated the court’s stance with a shout: “No taxation without representation!”
• Patrick Jaicomo of the Institute for Justice posted Article I, Section 8 from the Constitution. It states clearly that only Congress can impose tariffs.
• Ethan Blevins from the Pacific Legal Foundation joked about his own “huge trade deficit” with a local game store. He quipped that he’d demand legal fees in return for his cards.

These comments show that even many on Trump’s side believe his trade policy went too far. They stressed the importance of following constitutional rules. Otherwise, any president might claim extreme power.

How the Ruling Affects Trump Tariffs

First, this decision puts most of Trump’s April tariffs on hold. Importers will not pay those duties while the case proceeds. Second, the administration may try to appeal. However, a higher court might reach the same conclusion. That would deal another blow to the president’s trade agenda.

Meanwhile, Congress could decide to pass new tariff laws. If lawmakers move quickly, they could endorse some form of those duties. But that would require a majority vote, debate, and compromise. In fact, getting buy-in from both parties is hard. Lawmakers often disagree on which goods to tax and by how much.

Furthermore, if Congress fails to act, the president’s hands stay tied. He cannot renew the same tariff plan on his own. Hence, his promise to protect American jobs through these import duties would face a major obstacle.

What This Means for American Trade Policy

This case highlights the balance of power in the U.S. government. Presidents cannot rewrite trade rules alone. Only Congress holds the constitutional power to “lay and collect duties.” The appeals court decision reinforces that safeguard.

Additionally, it raises questions about the future of unilateral tariffs. If courts consistently block them, presidents may avoid such measures. Instead, they might push Congress to pass laws for each new tariff. That change could slow down trade actions but ensure they follow proper legal steps.

Finally, the debate underscores growing concerns about trade deficits. Presidents often view those deficits as harmful. Yet experts argue that simple duty hikes do not always fix complex trade imbalances. They point to currency values, consumer demand, and global supply chains as bigger factors.

Key Points to Remember

• The court ruled most of Trump’s April tariffs unconstitutional.
• Trump responded with a strong social media attack.
• Commentators from the right and left laughed at his extreme claims.
• The ruling stresses that only Congress can set U.S. tariff policy.

FAQs

What exactly were the Trump tariffs announced in April?

Those tariffs sought to tax imports on several goods, with the goal of narrowing America’s trade deficit. However, the appeals court said the president lacked the authority to impose them alone.

Why did the court call the tariffs unconstitutional?

The judges pointed to Article I of the Constitution. It grants Congress, not the president, the power to lay and collect duties on imports.

Can President Trump still enforce his tariffs?

Not unless Congress passes a new law authorizing them. The administration could appeal the ruling, but higher courts may agree with the panel’s view.

What does this mean for future U.S. trade policy?

Going forward, presidents will likely need broader congressional support for major tariff changes. This case highlights the importance of checks and balances in setting trade rules.