Trump tariff reprieve shakes trade policy

[UNITED STATES] A U.S. appeals court temporarily reinstated President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariffs on May 29, pausing a lower court’s ruling that had blocked the levies a day earlier. The Court of International Trade initially invalidated most tariffs imposed since January 2025, arguing Trump overstepped his authority by invoking emergency powers meant for national crises, not trade deficits. The administration swiftly appealed, calling the decision a “blatant abuse of judicial power” and vowing to defend its trade agenda.

The tariffs—including a 10% baseline on most imports and higher rates for China, the EU, Canada, and Mexico—were designed to pressure trading partners into renegotiating deals. While the appeals court’s stay allows tariffs to remain during litigation, the legal back-and-forth has injected uncertainty into global markets and supply chains. Asian markets rallied on the news, but European indices dipped slightly, reflecting mixed investor sentiment.

China condemned the tariffs, urging the U.S. to “cancel wrongful unilateral measures,” while EU officials avoided direct commentary, citing ongoing negotiations. The administration claims three trade deals are nearing completion, though experts warn the rulings could weaken U.S. leverage.

Implications

For Businesses: The stop-start nature of tariff enforcement complicates long-term planning. Companies like Wildfang, a clothing importer, face disrupted production timelines and supplier negotiations, with orders caught between shifting policies. Small businesses, including wine importers and educational kit manufacturers, argue tariffs strain cash flow and force costly pivots to alternative suppliers.

For Consumers: Price volatility remains a risk. While the 10% baseline tariff’s suspension could temporarily ease inflation, sector-specific duties on steel, autos, and aluminum (unaffected by the ruling) continue inflating costs for goods like vehicles and appliances.

For Policy: The rulings challenge presidential authority to unilaterally reshape trade policy. By rejecting Trump’s use of the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), courts reaffirm Congress’s constitutional role in regulating commerce. If upheld, the decision could push future administrations toward narrower tools like Section 301 (retaliatory tariffs) or Section 232 (national security tariffs).

What We Think

The legal battles underscore the fragility of executive-driven trade policy. While Trump’s tariffs aimed to reset global trade dynamics, their reliance on emergency powers left them vulnerable to judicial pushback—a reckoning long predicted by constitutional scholars.

Markets’ muted reaction suggests investors anticipate further volatility. The administration’s threat to deploy alternative statutes, like Section 301, could prolong uncertainty, delaying corporate investment and supply chain reshoring.

For trading partners, the rulings offer a reprieve but little reassurance. The EU and China may stall negotiations, betting on legal or electoral outcomes to weaken U.S. demands. Domestically, small businesses—the lawsuit’s plaintiffs—emerge as unlikely checks on presidential overreach, signaling a shift in grassroots trade advocacy.

Ultimately, the tariff saga highlights a systemic tension: Can modern trade wars be waged without congressional buy-in? As the case likely heads to the Supreme Court, its resolution could redefine presidential power for decades.