Trump Tariffs Deemed Illegal: Experts Say "India is Definitely Celebrating," Bensons Fear U.S. "Retaliation"

Trump's tariff policy has suffered another blow. On August 29, the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that most of the global tariff policies implemented by President Trump under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) were illegal. However, the court allowed the current tariff policies to remain in effect until October 14.

Trump quickly posted on social media, attacking the ruling, saying it would "completely destroy" the United States, and stating that "all tariff measures remain valid." He will appeal to the Supreme Court, which has a majority of conservative judges.

Just hours before the appellate court announced its ruling, U.S. Treasury Secretary Bensons and other cabinet officials warned that if the ruling deemed Trump's tariffs invalid, it would not only waste months of negotiation efforts but also put the U.S. at risk of retaliation from other countries.

Analysts pointed out that the trade negotiation risks that the Trump administration feared may become a reality, and India, which was hit with a 50% tariff, "is definitely celebrating."

Court Ruling: Trump Overstepped

Since taking office as president this year, Trump has cited the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose so-called "reciprocal tariffs" on almost all of America's trading partners, setting a base rate of 10%, and higher rates for dozens of economies.

In May, the U.S. International Trade Court ruled that some of Trump's tariffs were illegal, stating that they "exceeded any power granted to the president by the emergency law."

The appellate court on the 29th upheld the previous lower court's ruling with a 7-4 vote, stating that the IEEPA that Trump cited did not authorize him to impose most of the tariffs. The appellate court allowed the government to maintain the tariffs until October 14, giving the Trump administration time to file an appeal.

The International Emergency Economic Powers Act, passed in 1977, has been frequently used during Trump's two terms. It grants the president considerable power to respond to national emergencies or significant threats abroad.

The law states that the president can use various economic means "to deal with any unusual and significant threat to national security, foreign policy, or the economy that primarily comes from outside the United States."

Both Obama and Biden have cited the law to impose sanctions on Russia. Obama did so after Crimea's "secession from Ukraine" in 2014, and Biden did so when the Russia-Ukraine conflict broke out in 2022.

However, the appellate court stated in its ruling that although the IEEPA gives the president significant power to take action in response to national emergencies, these actions do not explicitly include the power to impose tariffs, taxes, or similar measures.

The ruling mentioned that the court needed to clarify whether Trump's "reciprocal tariffs" and tariffs imposed on trade activities were authorized, and concluded that "these tariffs were not authorized."

The judges said that the IEEPA "does not mention tariffs (or any synonyms) and does not contain explicit procedural safeguards limiting the president's power to impose tariffs," and therefore imposing tariffs is not within the president's authority. "The power of finance (including the power to tax) belongs to Congress."

However, this ruling did not affect the Trump administration's industry tariffs based on other laws, particularly Section 232 of the 1962 Trade Expansion Act. Therefore, the so-called industry tariffs on cars, steel, and aluminum were not included in this ruling.

Bensons' Concern: Risk of Retaliation

The lawyer representing the plaintiffs, Neil Kataria, told CNN on the 29th: "This is a victory for the U.S. Constitution. Major decisions such as taxation must be made by Congress, not by the president signing an order. I believe today's overwhelming 7-4 decision by the court stopped Trump from acting recklessly."

The White House issued a statement to urgently defend Trump on the 29th.

White House spokesperson Kush D'Sa said in the statement: "President Trump legally exercised the tariff powers granted to him by Congress to protect the United States from foreign threats to national and economic security. The president's tariffs are still valid, and we look forward to a final victory on this issue."

Attorney General Pam Bondi said on social media that the government would appeal.

However, Kataria said in a phone call with reporters that if the Trump administration really appeals, "we are ready and willing to present our arguments in the Supreme Court, explaining how illegal and dangerous this act of usurping congressional power is."

In fact, just hours before the appellate court announced its ruling, several members of the Trump cabinet had submitted additional documents to the court, pressuring it, saying that if the ruling declared that imposing tariffs on trade partners was illegal and prevented the implementation of these tariff measures, it would harm American foreign policy and national security.

U.S. Treasury Secretary Bensons warned that suspending the implementation of tariffs would put the United States in an extremely embarrassing diplomatic situation, interrupt ongoing negotiations, and bring the risk of retaliation from other countries.

U.S. Commerce Secretary Rutenberg also pointed out that this would threaten America's broader strategic interests, potentially inviting retaliation from trade partners and undermining key negotiations being conducted by the United States with its partners.

He also said that an adverse ruling on Trump's tariffs would cause "irreparable damage" to the United States and could "overturn" some of the trade agreements announced by Trump, such as the framework agreements with the EU, the UK, and Japan.

What's Next?

This year, as of July, total U.S. tariff revenue amounted to approximately $159 billion, more than doubling compared to the same period last year. The U.S. Department of Justice warned in a legal document this month that revoking these tariffs could mean "fiscal collapse" for the United States.

Even though this ruling does not affect the Trump administration's taxes based on other laws, it will make the legal basis for Trump's future attempts to impose tariffs unconvincing. Trump can indeed cite other laws to impose import tariffs, but his actions will be less swift and powerful than before.

Next, the case is likely to be submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court. Given the conservative majority on the Supreme Court, the ruling is likely to favor Trump.

Nine justices include six appointed by Republican presidents, including three nominated by Trump during his first term.

Original: www.toutiao.com/article/1841983126519817/

Statement: This article represents the views of the author.