A federal appeals court on Thursday temporarily reinstated President Donald Trump’s comprehensive “Liberation Day” tariffs—just one day after a trade court attempted to derail the policy by claiming he exceeded his executive authority.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington issued an emergency stay against the U.S. Court of International Trade’s ruling, giving the Trump administration a crucial lifeline to continue implementing its America First trade strategy.
The appeals court gave the plaintiffs until June 5 to respond and gave the administration until June 9 to present its case—keeping the tariffs in place in the meantime.
Trump’s tariffs target imports from numerous foreign countries, including China, Mexico, and Canada—nations he has rightfully accused of facilitating the flow of fentanyl and undermining American workers through unfair trade practices.
Wednesday’s ruling from the lower court was seen by many conservatives as a politically motivated effort to strip the president of his rightful constitutional powers. The court claimed that only Congress can impose tariffs, ignoring decades of precedent where presidents have used executive authority—particularly during times of crisis—to defend national interests.
JUST IN: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has temporarily reinstated Trump’s tariffs, pausing a lower court ruling that had blocked them pic.twitter.com/ajMweLue9s
— MeidasTouch (@MeidasTouch) May 29, 2025
The panel specifically challenged Trump’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a law passed to confront national security threats, arguing that the situation didn’t qualify. The Trump administration has flatly rejected that premise, noting that the infiltration of deadly fentanyl and the hollowing out of the U.S. manufacturing base are threats of the highest order.
Senior White House officials remain undeterred, saying they are confident the appeals court will uphold Trump’s authority—or that the president can draw from other constitutional powers to reassert control over the nation’s economic future.
Trump addressed the issue head-on in a fiery statement posted to Truth Social Thursday evening, vowing to defend presidential authority and blasting the judiciary for attempting to cripple the White House’s ability to act independently during national emergencies.
“The horrific decision stated that I would have to get the approval of Congress for these tariffs,” Trump wrote. “If allowed to stand, this would completely destroy Presidential Power — The Presidency would never be the same! This decision is being hailed all over the world by every country, other than the United States of America.”
Foreign governments, used to decades of submissive American trade policies, have offered cautious reactions. The UK government called the matter a domestic U.S. legal issue, while EU bureaucrats refused to comment. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney predictably sided against the United States, calling Trump’s tariffs “unlawful”—parroting globalist rhetoric that puts international opinion above national interest.
Global markets responded with minor gains, although uncertainty remains as the appeals process continues. Wall Street—which has long favored cheap overseas labor and mass outsourcing—has reacted nervously to Trump’s push to reinstate higher tariffs, but Main Street and domestic producers are voicing support for a return to fair and reciprocal trade.
One of the lawsuits challenging the tariffs was brought by five small businesses with ties to international supply chains. The left-leaning Liberty Justice Center, representing the plaintiffs, claimed the tariffs were a threat to their survival.
Jeffrey Schwab, an attorney for the group, acknowledged that the appeals court’s stay was procedural, but insisted the court would ultimately side with businesses reliant on the globalist economic model.
The trade court’s ruling would have immediately slashed the effective U.S. tariff rate from Trump’s current 15% average back down to 6%—a level last seen during the Obama and Bush administrations, when the U.S. was hemorrhaging jobs and factories. By comparison, America’s pre-2025 average tariff rate under Trump had ranged between 2% and 3% before he resumed office in January and launched his revitalized trade war.
It’s worth noting that several sector-specific tariffs on imports like steel, aluminum, and automobiles remain unaffected by the court’s ruling. These measures—justified on national security grounds—have already begun rebuilding America’s industrial base and creating high-paying jobs.
President Trump has repeatedly explained that these tariffs are not meant as punishment but as strategic leverage to force fair trade terms, particularly with countries that have manipulated markets and dumped low-quality or dangerous products into the U.S. market. The tariffs also aim to combat the deadly fentanyl epidemic, which Trump says is being aided and abetted by weak border policies and complicit foreign governments.
Though the president temporarily paused some import duties following a market pullback in early April, he made clear that the time was being used to negotiate bilateral deals. The White House recently signed a breakthrough trade agreement with the UK, and more are expected, though Japan and others may be holding back until the appeals process concludes.