The US Court of International Trade on Wednesday struck down President Donald Trump's tariffs imposed under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The court ruled IEEPA did not give the president the authority to impose certain tariffs. This affects the "fentanyl" tariffs imposed by the White House on Canada, Mexico, China since Trump returned to the White House. These tariffs were brought in to curb smuggling of the narcotic into the US. It also affects the so-called "Liberation Day" tariffs announced on 2 April, including the universal 10% baseline tariff on all imports to the US. However, the ruling does not affect the Trump administration's 25% "sectoral" tariffs on steel and aluminium imports and also his 25% additional tariffs on cars and car part imports, as these were implemented under a different legal justification. A US federal appeals court decided on Thursday night that Trump's global tariffs can temporarily stay in place while it considers the White House's appeal against the trade court's judgement - but the future of the President's tariff agenda remains in the balance. Data from US Customsshowsthe amount of revenue collected in the 2025 financial year to date (ie between 1 October 2024 and 30 April) under various tariffs. The data gives an approximate sense of the proportion of tariffs struck down and unaffected by the trade court's ruling. It shows the tariffs imposed under IEEPA on China, Mexico and Canada in relation to the fentanyl smuggling had brought in $11.8bn (£8.7bn) since February 2025. The 10% reciprocal tariffs - also justified under IEEPA - implemented in April had brought in $1.2bn (£890m). On the other side of the ledger, the tariffs on metals and car parts - which are unaffected by this ruling - brought in around $3.3bn (£2.4bn), based on rounded figures. And the biggest source of tariff revenue for the US in the period was from tariffs imposed on China dating back to Trump's first term in office, which raised $23.4bn (£17.3bn). These are also not affected by the court ruling, as they were not justified by IEEPA. However, this is a backward looking picture - and the new tariffs were expected to raise considerably more revenue over a full financial year. Analysts at the investment bank Goldman Sachs have estimated that the tariffs the trade court has struck down were likely to have raisedalmost $200bn (£148bn) on an annual basis. In terms of the overall impact on Donald Trump's tariff agenda, the consultancy Capital Economics estimates the court ruling would reduce the US's average external tariff this year from 15% to 6.5%. This would still be a considerable increase on the 2.5% level of 2024 and would be the highest since 1970. Yet 15% would have been the highest since the late 1930s. Trump had been using his tariffs as negotiating leverage in talks with countries hit by his 2 April tariffs. Some analysts believe this trade court ruling will mean countries will now be less likely to rush to secure deals with the US. The European Union (EU)intensified negotiationswith the White House last weekend after Trump threatened to increase the tariff on the bloc to 50% under IEEPA. The EU - and others, such as Japan and Australia - might now judge it would be more prudent to wait to see what happens to the White House's appeal against the trade court ruling before making any trade concessions to the US to secure a deal. The response of stock markets around the world to the trade court ruling on Wednesday suggested it would be positive. But it also means greater uncertainty. Someanalystssay Trump could attempt to reimpose the tariffs under different legal justifications. For instance, Trump could attempt to re-implement the tariffs under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, which empowers the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) to address foreign practices that violate trade agreements or are deemed "discriminatory". And Trump has also threatened other sectoral tariffs, including on pharmaceuticals and semiconductors. Those could still go into effect if they are not justified by IEEPA. Last month the World Trade Organization (WTO) said that the outlook for global trade had "deteriorated sharply" due to Trump's tariffs. The WTO said it expected global merchandise trade to decline by 0.2% in 2025 as a result, having previously projected it would grow by 2.7 per cent this year. The trade court ruling - if it holds - might help global trade perform somewhat better than this. But the dampening impact of uncertainty regarding whether US tariffs will materialise or not remains. The bottom line is that many economists think trade will still be very badly affected this year. "Trump's trade war is not over – not by a long shot," is the verdict of Grace Fan of the consultancy TS Lombard. What do you want BBC Verify to investigate?
Where does court ruling leave Trump's tariff agenda?
TruthLens AI Suggested Headline:
"US Court Ruling Challenges Legality of Trump's Tariff Policies"
Bbc News
7.2
TruthLens AI Summary
The US Court of International Trade made a significant ruling on Wednesday by striking down tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The court concluded that the IEEPA did not grant the president the authority to impose certain tariffs, particularly those targeting fentanyl smuggling from Canada, Mexico, and China. This ruling also impacts the newly introduced 'Liberation Day' tariffs that included a universal 10% baseline tariff on all imports to the United States. However, the court's decision does not affect the existing 25% tariffs on steel, aluminum imports, or on cars and car parts, as these were implemented under different legal justifications. Following the ruling, a US federal appeals court decided to allow Trump's global tariffs to remain temporarily while it reviews the appeal against the trade court's judgment, leaving the future of the President's tariff agenda uncertain.
Data from US Customs reveals the financial implications of the tariffs, indicating that the tariffs struck down by the court had generated approximately $11.8 billion in revenue since February 2025. The additional 10% tariffs had brought in around $1.2 billion. In contrast, the unaffected tariffs on metals and car parts contributed about $3.3 billion, while tariffs on China from Trump's first term raised $23.4 billion. Analysts from Goldman Sachs estimate that the tariffs invalidated by the ruling could have raised nearly $200 billion annually. The ruling is expected to reduce the US's average external tariff from 15% to 6.5% this year, still representing a significant increase from previous years. This uncertainty may lead countries like the European Union to delay trade negotiations with the US, as they await the outcome of the appeal. Despite the potential for Trump's administration to reimpose tariffs under different legal grounds, the World Trade Organization has warned that the overall outlook for global trade remains bleak, projecting a decline due to Trump's tariffs. Economists suggest that the trade conflict initiated by Trump is far from over, indicating ongoing challenges for international trade relations.
TruthLens AI Analysis
The recent ruling by the US Court of International Trade has significant implications for President Trump's tariff agenda, specifically targeting his use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). This analysis will explore the potential motivations behind the publication of this news, the public perception it aims to shape, and any broader implications for various stakeholders.
Intent Behind the Article
The article appears to serve the purpose of informing the public and stakeholders about a critical legal development that may undermine the Trump administration's tariff policies. By highlighting the court's decision, the piece may aim to foster skepticism about the legitimacy of Trump's tariffs, particularly those implemented under the IEEPA. This legal ruling could be interpreted as a setback for the administration, potentially influencing public opinion against the effectiveness of its trade policies.
Public Perception
The ruling could generate a perception that Trump's administration is operating outside the bounds of legal authority regarding tariffs. This narrative could resonate particularly with those who oppose Trump's economic policies. The article emphasizes the financial ramifications of the tariffs, which might evoke concerns about the impact on consumers and businesses alike, thus shaping a narrative that questions the administration's economic management.
Hidden Agendas
While the article details a significant legal ruling, it may obscure other ongoing discussions in the political and economic landscape. For instance, the mention of unaffected tariffs on steel, aluminum, and vehicles may downplay the complexity of the overall tariff situation, potentially diverting attention from other pressing issues in trade relations or economic policy.
Analysis of Manipulation
The article's framing could suggest a degree of manipulation, as it focuses on the negative aspects of Trump's tariff agenda while downplaying any potential positive outcomes. This could be perceived as an attempt to rally public sentiment against the administration. The language used may also invoke a sense of urgency regarding the economic implications of the tariffs, which could be seen as a tactic to influence political discourse.
Comparative Context
In comparison to other reports on the Trump administration's policies, this article stands out for its legal focus, which may indicate a shift in how the media is approaching the administration's trade policies. If similar articles begin to emerge, it could signal a broader trend in media coverage that emphasizes legal accountability over economic rhetoric.
Potential Impacts on Society and Economy
The ruling could lead to significant shifts in trade policy, especially if the appeals court ultimately sides with the trade court's decision. This might trigger changes in how tariffs are applied, potentially affecting the US economy, consumer prices, and international trade relations. The uncertainty surrounding the future of tariffs could also influence market behavior, particularly in sectors reliant on imports.
Support from Specific Communities
This news may resonate more with communities critical of Trump's policies, such as progressive groups or those advocating for free trade. Conversely, it may face pushback from Trump's base, who tend to support his trade agenda as a means of protecting American jobs and industries.
Market Implications
The article is likely to have immediate ramifications in stock markets, particularly for companies involved in industries affected by tariffs. Stocks related to steel, aluminum, and automotive sectors may experience volatility as investors react to the uncertainty surrounding tariff enforcement. Additionally, companies reliant on imports from China, Canada, and Mexico could see fluctuations in their stock values based on investor sentiment regarding the potential changes in tariff policy.
Global Power Dynamics
In the context of global power dynamics, this ruling could signal shifts in trade relationships, particularly with China and neighboring countries. The ongoing debate over tariffs aligns with broader geopolitical tensions, as countries reassess their economic strategies in light of legal and political developments in the US.
AI Influence in Reporting
There is a possibility that AI tools were utilized in drafting this article, particularly in data analysis and structuring the report. AI models could have helped in synthesizing complex financial data and legal interpretations, presenting them in an accessible format for readers, thereby shaping the narrative by emphasizing certain aspects over others.
The article presents a significant legal development regarding tariffs that could reshape public perception of the Trump administration's economic policies. While it provides essential information, the framing suggests that it may also serve a broader agenda of questioning the administration's authority.