Trump’s New 10 Percent Global Tariff Faces Legal Showdown Over Questionable Authority

The Trump administration’s latest attempt to wield tariffs as a blunt economic weapon is under fire in a U.S. trade court. On April 10, a three-judge panel of the Court of International Trade heard arguments on whether Trump’s 10 percent global import tax, rolled out in February, violates the law by stretching decades-old tariff authority beyond its intended purpose.

The tariff was imposed under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, a provision originally designed to address urgent monetary crises tied to “balance-of-payments deficits” — a term referring to short-term problems in currency stability. Oregon’s attorney Brian Marshall, representing a coalition of 24 mostly Democratic-led states and two small businesses, argued that Trump is misusing this authority to tackle routine trade deficits, which are a normal feature of international commerce, not emergency economic conditions.

Marshall told the court that the statute was created during the 1970s to protect the U.S. dollar from sudden depreciation when it was still tied to gold reserves in Fort Knox. He emphasized that the law’s language and historical context do not support using tariffs as a tool for addressing ongoing trade imbalances, which Trump claims justify these sweeping duties.

This legal challenge follows a significant Supreme Court rebuke in February, when the court struck down many of Trump’s previous tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), ruling that the president had overstepped his authority. In response, Trump pivoted to Section 122, attempting to revive his tariff agenda under a different legal justification.

The states and businesses suing argue that this move is another example of the administration’s disregard for legal limits and congressional oversight. They maintain that the Trade Act’s tariff powers are meant for short-term monetary emergencies, not for the kind of broad, ongoing trade policy Trump is pursuing unilaterally.

Notably, the lawsuits do not challenge tariffs imposed under more traditional authorities, such as those on steel, aluminum, and copper imports. Instead, they focus on whether this particular 10 percent global tariff is lawful at all.

Trump’s tariff strategy has sparked economic chaos, driving up consumer prices and provoking retaliatory tariffs from allies and trading partners. This court case is the latest battleground in the fight over the administration’s aggressive and legally dubious trade policies, with significant implications for American businesses and consumers caught in the crossfire.

As the court weighs the arguments, one thing is clear: Trump’s trade war tactics continue to push the boundaries of presidential power, risking legal defeat and further economic damage. We will be watching closely as this case unfolds, holding the administration accountable for its reckless disregard of law and economic reality.