Donald Trump’s plan to double tariffs on steel and aluminum has ignited a constitutional battle, with federal courts threatening to curtail presidential trade authority.
At a Glance
- Trump plans to raise tariffs on steel and aluminum to 50% this week
- A lower court ruled the move unconstitutional, citing overreach of executive power
- A federal appeals court has stayed the decision while legal battles continue
- Trump warns of “economic ruination” if courts permanently strike down his authority
- The ruling would shift tariff power back to Congress, altering decades of precedent
Trade Policy on Trial
A federal court ruling last week declared that former President Donald Trump’s use of emergency powers to impose tariffs on steel and aluminum violated constitutional limits on executive authority. The Court of International Trade argued that Trump misused the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to address trade deficits, not urgent national threats.
While the court claimed this interpretation preserved constitutional balance, critics argue it would cripple the executive branch’s ability to act swiftly in global economic disputes.
Watch a report: Trump battles court over steel tariffs.
The appeals court has since granted a temporary stay, allowing Trump’s tariffs to remain in effect as the government prepares to challenge the decision. This week, tariffs are set to double to 50%—a move Trump says is essential to defending U.S. industry against subsidized foreign competitors.
Trump’s Warning: “Economic Ruination”
Reacting to the court decision, Trump issued a dire statement: “If the Courts somehow rule against us on Tariffs… this would mean the Economic ruination of the United States of America!”
Trump emphasized that unilateral tariff power is crucial to protect American workers from countries like China and Mexico, which continue to enforce their own trade barriers while flooding U.S. markets with underpriced goods. “Without tariff authority, we are disarmed economically,” he said during a Pennsylvania steel plant visit last Friday.
His administration argues that requiring congressional approval for each tariff decision would paralyze the presidency’s capacity to negotiate, retaliate, or defend American economic interests.
Constitutional Stakes
Beyond trade, the dispute raises broader constitutional questions about the separation of powers. Trump called the court’s ruling “horrific,” asserting it “would completely destroy Presidential Power — The Presidency would never be the same!”
This case may set a landmark precedent on how much economic authority the executive can wield without Congress. Legal scholars are divided, but industry groups warn that if courts uphold the lower ruling, it could open the floodgates for foreign competitors to exploit weakened U.S. defenses.
International reactions have been muted, but Trump claims foreign governments are celebrating the decision—an outcome he says will tip global trade power away from the United States.
With at least seven additional lawsuits pending, the coming months may redefine the role of the presidency in shaping economic policy. For now, the 50% tariffs remain in place—but so does the uncertainty.
