Has the tariff war truly ended?

A U.S. federal court ruling banning the imposition of trade tariffs under President Donald Trump’s administration has created challenges for him. However, the key question is whether this ruling can be considered synonymous with the end of the global tariff war.

The issue is that a federal court in the United States blocked Trump’s efforts to impose sweeping tariffs on imports under emergency powers legislation. This ruling deals a significant blow to one of Trump’s core economic policies, which has caused turbulence in global financial markets in recent months. While global markets have welcomed the ruling, political and economic analysts argue that Trump is unlikely to back down from his tariff policies in response to this decision.

The ruling was issued by three judges of the Court of International Trade in New York following multiple lawsuits against Trump’s so-called “Freedom Day” tariffs. The plaintiffs argued that these tariffs exceeded the president’s legal authority. Trump had repeatedly claimed that tariffs would bring industries back to the U.S. and reduce the federal budget deficit.

It appears that some U.S. senators and House representatives, mostly Democrats, played a role in shaping this judicial process and the issuance of the federal court ruling. The scope of presidential authority has long been a point of contention, but it reached a peak during Trump’s presidency.

The ruling’s consequences are what make it problematic for Trump. According to the decision, imposing such tariffs requires Congressional approval, meaning Trump can no longer unilaterally use this tool to pressure other countries in trade negotiations. In other words, Trump’s absolute power to impose tariffs has been reduced to relative power.

However, under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, the U.S. president still has the authority to impose a 15% tariff on imports from countries with significant trade deficits with the U.S. for up to 150 days. Beyond this period or percentage, further action is restricted.

Given that Republicans hold a relative majority in Congress, Trump hopes to leverage this to sustain his tariff policy. However, some Republican senators and representatives also have reservations and opposition to this approach. As a result, much of the White House’s efforts will likely focus on lobbying senators and House members.

Trump argues that the trade deficit constitutes a national emergency, and the government must use all executive tools to address this crisis. However, the federal court does not consider the widespread imposition of tariffs as one of these “executive tools.” A federal prosecutor in Oregon stated, “Trade decisions should not be made based on the personal whims of the president.”

Ultimately, with the ruling potentially being appealed and the case likely heading to the U.S. Supreme Court, the issuance of this initial ruling alone cannot be taken as evidence of the end of the tariff war in U.S. economic and foreign policy.