The Illegality of Trump’s Tariffs—and the Trade Truths They Exposed

A federal court just struck down Trump’s ‘Liberation Day’ tariffs. The Constitution demands it—but the conversation he started must continue.

The U.S. Court of International Trade's recent decision in V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. United States struck down President Trump’s 2025 “Liberation Day” tariffs, ruling that they exceeded the statutory limits of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The court was right. The legal authority granted under IEEPA is not a blank check. It requires a genuine national emergency and a tailored response. The administration’s invocation of emergency powers to unilaterally impose sweeping trade penalties, without congressional authorization, was legally dubious and constitutionally suspect.

But while the tariffs failed the legal test, the instinct that gave rise to them was not without merit. For decades, the U.S. has tolerated an uneven trade landscape in which American goods face punishing tariffs abroad while imports flow freely into our markets. Domestic workers, manufacturers, and entire industries have long suffered under the weight of lopsided trade arrangements that favor multinational efficiency over national resilience. Trump’s move, while legally flawed, forced a conversation that America has long avoided.

From a constitutional perspective, this case reaffirms the structural importance of the separation of powers. Congress, not the President, is vested with the authority to regulate commerce with foreign nations. Emergency statutes like IEEPA are meant to be exceptions, not gateways to unchecked executive action. Courts have long been reluctant to police the line between politics and policy in matters of trade. But when statutory limits are clear, they must be enforced. Otherwise, we risk transforming emergency powers into a permanent workaround for legislative gridlock.

That said, the backlash to these tariffs must not obscure the real issue: American trade policy has grown complacent. China imposes tariffs of 25 percent or higher on key American goods. European and developing markets often weaponize regulatory regimes to shut out U.S. products. Meanwhile, calls for "free trade" in Washington too often ignore the actual asymmetry in global markets. There is nothing free about a system that enables our competitors to wall off their markets while we keep ours wide open.

President Trump’s approach—unilateral, sweeping, and grounded in emergency law—was the wrong way to address this imbalance. But doing nothing is not a viable alternative. The United States needs a comprehensive, forward-looking trade strategy that levels the playing field, protects American industry, and reflects the interests of our workers, not just the preferences of multinational firms.

The court's ruling should serve not only as a constitutional check on presidential overreach but as an invitation for Congress to reassert its rightful role in crafting trade policy. It’s time for lawmakers to confront the hard truth: the global trade system, as currently structured, is not working for the American people. If Congress won’t act, presidents will keep pushing the limits of executive power to fill the void.

And when that happens, courts will be forced to clean up the mess.