President Donald Trump’s “global tariff war” against virtually all nations has once again been thrust into turmoil. On May 28, the U.S. Court of International Trade ruled Trump’s reciprocal tariffs invalid and halted their enforcement. However, the White House promptly appealed, and on May 29, a federal appeals court granted a temporary restoration of the tariffs during the appeal process.

The federal court delayed the ruling’s effect for two weeks to allow the government time to appeal. However, the Trump administration, along with U.S. companies and 12 states that filed the lawsuit, expect the matter to ultimately be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. While the Trump administration can continue imposing tariffs pending the appeals court’s decision, the controversy and uncertainty surrounding “Trump tariffs” are expected to intensify. Countries like South Korea, engaged in trade negotiations with the U.S., are inevitably facing confusion.

The previous day, the Court of International Trade sided with plaintiffs, invalidating and blocking tariffs of 10-25% imposed on Canada, Mexico, and China in response to the fentanyl crisis, as well as reciprocal tariffs announced on May 2 targeting nearly all countries. These tariffs were based on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).

The lower court ruled that the IEEPA does not grant the president unlimited authority to impose tariffs on goods from all countries, noting that the U.S. trade deficit, a chronic issue for decades without recent drastic worsening, does not justify a national emergency declaration.

Tariffs on specific items like steel, aluminum, and automobiles, imposed under the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, remain unaffected by this lawsuit and continue to be enforced.
The White House emphasized that even if courts uphold the tariff ban, various legal avenues exist to impose tariffs, and ongoing trade negotiations with other countries will not be impacted.

With Republicans controlling both the House and Senate, President Trump has ample means to pursue aggressive tariff policies.
Instead of broad reciprocal tariffs, Trump could prioritize expanding item-specific tariffs.
Given the court’s finding that reciprocal tariffs exceed the authority Congress granted the president under the IEEPA, Trump might work with Congress to legislate such tariffs.
Pressuring trading partners to reduce trade deficits by leveraging non-economic issues is also a possibility.

Kevin Hassett, chair of the National Economic Council (NEC), stated on May 29, “There are three or four other ways to impose tariffs. We have different numbers and actions we can take, and we can start immediately.”
White House trade advisor Peter Navarro also noted that the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) is actively reviewing other options. Bloomberg reported Navarro citing Section 122 of the Trade Act, which allows up to 15% tariffs, saying, “We didn’t use it initially because it only applies for 150 days.”

Separately, a Washington, D.C., federal court also blocked reciprocal tariffs and so-called “fentanyl response” tariffs on China under the IEEPA, in a case brought by two educational toy companies, according to The New York Times and others.
However, the plaintiffs did not request nationwide application of the ruling, so it applies only to the suing companies, per The Wall Street Journal and other reports.
By Hwan-Dong Cho